Every time I see discussion about the nine dash line, I can't help but wonder how it can seem sane to anybody that China should have the water rights to an area ~600 km south of what is blatantly Vietnam's coastal waters (and the southern tip of their land) and just barely north of Malaysia's physical territory.
I know the correct answer is: China doesn't care, and isn't concerned with reason when it comes to the nine dash line. It still boggles my mind.
There is no valid Chinese claim on those waters, there is only who has the military power to dictate terms.
I was very surprised when I found this out. It makes sense though - just like in any negotiation, you don't start with what you're willing to settle for, you start with what you want.
In general, there are always two sides to the coin. Where from an American perspective you see Chinese aggression outwards, if you flip the arrows on the map around, you might notice that from a Chinese perspective, the US is aggressively boxing China in.
> In general, there are always two sides to the coin
This exactly. Media blames China for everything that went wrong on this planet, and people believe it without thinking twice. It's funny because as a Chinese, I thought we were supposed to be the only one that got brainwashed.
You nailed the point.
The continuous expansion of the Japan-US ADIZ(Air Defense Identification Zone) in east China sea in past decades could reflect a lot of things never will be mentioned in English media.
South China sea had been the traditional 'naval silk road' of ancient Imperial China for hundreds years while both China and the neighboring tribes/countries under tributary system hadn't learned the concept 'nation' from the western colonists.
Since 17th century, a few islands had been controlled by various western countries and more had been marked or renamed.But the pirates, armed merchants and provincial navy of imperial China were still the dominant power in the area for a long time.
The nine-dash line stems from the eleven-dash line when ROC was the ally of the US after WWII and was accepted as the transferee of those islands from Japanese army who had acquired them from France/Great Britain.
But the ROC were too eager to fight back to the mainland instead of sending naval troops to guard those islands.It just chose one island Taiping as a strong point.
The unattended reefs and islands have been occupied by various countries in all kinds of sneaky/funny ways merely in past 30 years after the US-Vietnam war.
The validity argument makes no sense in this 'occupy and claim to own' game. Every country is a thief and the biggest is Vietnam whose navy had been more powerful than China's with the support from the former USSR during the PRC-USSR conflict.
Maybe the ROC in Taiwan should be the rightful owner according to the arrangement after WWII. But it is too weak to say anything now.
The whole history of the area is a vivid example of military power dictates terms.
So, what you are saying is that every time we buy something that's "Made in China", we are fueling the next major military power, which in turn will lead to a major conflict in the area?
I meant it more as a summary of China's strategic philosophy, which seems to be that the weak must inevitably give way to the strong. I don't know about a major military conflict, but China certainly seems to to be adopting a more...experimental posture.
Other countries in the South China sea are mostly weak too, other than Japan. The big factor is the United States, due to its treaty relations with other countries in the area like Philippines, Japan and Taiwan. But you know that.
I'm calling it experimental because they seem to be exploring their options rather than seeking head-on confrontation in the manner of Putin - I get the sense that China is not sure of its strategic position and is probing to see whether it could establish a 'new normal' without actual conflict. But that's just a hunch on my part, I have no special insight.
Or... you could say that every time you buy something "Made in China" you're solidifying the co-dependent relationship between the US and China, thereby reducing the chance of conflict in the future.
> there is only who has the military power to dictate terms.
Yeah, just like the American invasion of Iraq in 2004. Just because they could, despite it being unlawful at all international levels. But hey, Russia also does it, so there's not really any good example out there of a country that does not seize opportunities.
This is just a friendly reminder that "international law" is a convenient fiction (even more so than other human institutions, even) and only exists as a voluntary framework. Law has no meaning without a body that can enforce it.
When you come with a large army, invade the country, remove the local government, and replace it with puppets working for your country's interests, "territorial claim" is just a twist of words.
Sorry, but that's stupid on a number of levels. First, territorial claims can be made with or without war, the later of which is (thankfully!) what we're actually talking about with China and the islands. Second, anyone who thinks that the government in Iraq has been a puppet of the United States just isn't paying attention.
I get it, you don't like the United States, but you're desperately trying to draw equivalencies that do not exist. It's been a really long time since the US annexed anything. That doesn't make the loss of life that occurs in its small wars any less serious but you cannot talk about international events if you lump everything bad that happens in the world into the same ill-defined category and then use whatever labels you have at hand to refer to that category. Annexation isn't invasion. They might be associated - Russia annexed Crimea after an invasion, after all - but they're not the same thing.
If simply using terms properly doesn't move you, then there's this: you can tell a lot about a county's ambitions based on what its territorial disputes are and what it's trying to acquire. In this annexation = invasion world that you're inhabiting, you'd conclude that the United States wants to colonize the Middle East. I assure you that this is not the case. We just want to buy their oil, aside from that we don't give a damn about them. Not saying whether that's smart or ethical or not, but that's the reality.
> Second, anyone who thinks that the government in Iraq has been a puppet of the United States just isn't paying attention.
Please, educate me then.
> I get it, you don't like the United States
Never even said that. I don't like SOME of what the US does, but I think it's a great country in many other aspects. Thanks for the strawman, always appreciated in a discussion.
> It's been a really long time since the US annexed anything
There's real annexation and de facto annexation. There are several countries around the world which are tightly controlled by the US, either through diplomatic means, economic or military pressure. By the way, I did not mention the word "annexation" anywhere in my comment, so I'm not sure where it came from in the discussion.
> In this annexation = invasion world that you're inhabiting, you'd conclude that the United States wants to colonize the Middle East.
No, the US has no interest in colonizing the Middle East. They want to control it to ensure they have priority access to energetic means, and ensure than nobody else does (like China, Russia or other emerging powers). Energy is Power. It's obvious that most of the conflicts we see in the Middle East are linked with struggles to get access to large sources of Energy.
> We just want to buy their oil, aside from that we don't give a damn about them
Oh, I don't have the slight illusion that you care about locals there. Invasion is not motivated by "bringing democracy" to the world, this is just political bullshit, I don't think anyone believes in this anymore.
Whether US wanted to or intended to "colonize" the Middle East is irrelevant. For a few years US used its army so that it could hold swathes of Iraqi territory to do what it does and that is just a fact.
What exactly did the US do with vast swathes of Iraqi territory for those years?
China is the one that made out like a bandit with the new supply of Iraqi oil. The US only got a giant bill out of it all for over a trillion dollars, a lot of dead and injured soldiers, and a lot of destroyed military hardware.
What the US didn't acquire: Iraq's oil; land; tax revenue; any territorial claims; the right to station large numbers of troops in Iraqi territory; gold or other plunder.
And further, the US left when it was told to. The supposed US puppet threw the US out, and we didn't do anything to them with our military in response.
You know, colonialism and the distinction between empires and democracies is one of the preeminent topics in political science and the history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. If you don't care about any of that, what are we even talking about?
Almost exactly the tactic and politics Israel uses. If there's violent conflict, the lesser power is 'terrorist' and this justifies the use of greater militaristic power to squelch the rebellion. If there's no violent conflict the greater power continues to push into the area it wants and plays coy with the politics for recognizing the other state's legitimacy.
No. They want the islands as a means to claim the surrounding waters, which which have a lot of real and potential value in fisheries, sea lanes, and offshore oil. The islands themselves are not very valuable.
... also worth mention: they're not too happy with the US Navy operating freely within the South China Sea, even if the rest of the world calls it "international waters". The red line in the map is what they'd rather keep a powerful non-China navy out of, for both defensive and offensive reasons.
What is being unsaid here is that the whole reason China needs those islands is because their territorial waters are completely surrounded by other countries. In order for Chinese ships to reach the open Pacific, they have to go through either Russian, Japanese, Philippine, or Vietnamese waters.
Getting these islands mean they get an outlet to open seas.
I know the correct answer is: China doesn't care, and isn't concerned with reason when it comes to the nine dash line. It still boggles my mind.
There is no valid Chinese claim on those waters, there is only who has the military power to dictate terms.