The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Understanding the South China Sea standoff through the Filipino Media > Comments

Understanding the South China Sea standoff through the Filipino Media : Comments

By Wei Ling Chua, published 28/5/2012

Could the standoff between the Philippines and China be as a result of Filipino aggression?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
"Censorship may be a crime but selective reporting with the intention to mislead the public is a crime worse than censorship."

I'm sorry, but until you can prove that this occurs to a lesser extent in the Chinese media than it does elsewhere, then you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Monday, 28 May 2012 10:27:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A picture can paint a thousand words.

With all due respect, Wei Ling, the South China Sea spat can be summed up simply by presenting the audacity of the claims that China makes, in terms of which territory is China's 'core interest'.

Look at the image and how much territory China claims as its own. The oceans right on the doorstep of the Philippines, Vietnam and a score of other countries.

http://cn.bing.com/images/search?q=south+china+sea+territory+claimed&view=detail&id=464713D91592F7162E9142F2CD9A68B35AE4E618&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR

Also note that being in China, I was unable to use Google Images to do this. As another poster has pointed out, if you're going to attack western mainstream media, you best also address the far more egregious censorship by the Chinese government.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 28 May 2012 12:03:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Wei correctly points out that "Filipinos' resentment against the Americans (their former colonial master) is overwhelming." That's how it tends to be with ex-colonies and arrogant ex-colonial powers. I'm sure that there are probably still many English people who think that Ireland should not have been allowed to become independent, or India, or indeed, any of the former British Empire.

The Yuan (Mongol) and Ching (Manchu) Empires conquered all of present-day China, as well as many other regions and countries outside of its borders. Many centuries had to pass before many of those regions were able to throw off foreign control and domination (suzerainty, tribute). Some regions were instead taken over by yet another empire. Taiwan, for example, was invaded by the Japanese imperial forces when the Manchu Empire was in a terminal condition, and the Soviet Union carved off what is now Xinjiang (Turkestan) in the 1940s.

The Scarborough Scholas lie 120 miles outside Manila Bay, a plane from Hong Kong woudl be descending over it on its approach to Manala airport. The Shoals lie 800 miles from the nearest point of China, Hainan.

The Spratley Islands lie about 150 miles off the coast of Palawan, in the Philippines. The Islands are about 500 miles from the coast of Vietnam, and about 800 miles from Hainan, China.

Mr Wei's article raises an interesting question: does the present government of China intend to re-conquer all of what used to be parts of the various empires which have ruled China over the past thousand years ? This would initiate a fascinating principle of statecraft and boundary-drawing - that parts of the world 'belonged' to empires forever, once they had been conquered.

I sincerely hope that the People's Republic of China does not intend to act as if it were 'the Chinese Communist Party's Empire', or (Marx would have queried this) 'the Empire of the People's Republic of China'.

[contd]
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 28 May 2012 12:37:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[contd]

Clearly, some may suspect that China wants the entire South China Sea, to control trade through it and resource development, mainly oil and gas. To get control of that crucial waterway, it would need to stake claims on island groups, shoals, reefs, lumps of rock, around its periphery so that it can then claim 'its' 200 km of exclusion zone extending out from each outcrop and thereby bring the entire Sea under its political control. But i couldn't possibly comment on that.

Many other countries claim bits and pieces around the South China Sea, on the same rationale. Idiocy, bullying and self-interest are not confined to any one nation, it seems.

What to do about it ? War is one option. Alternatively, just as the Danube has been internationalised, (and I think the Bosphorus?) and other internationally-used waterways, would it be possible to internationalise all of the South China Sea beyond the 200 km Exclusion Zones of settled territory ?

The Paracels, for example, could easily be divided between China and Vietnam.

The Scarborough Shoals and the northern Spratlys are clearly within the territory of the Philippines, with the southern portion of the Spratleys shared between Malaysia and Brunei.

That leaves the greater proportion of the region free of any national or imperial domination, free for international trade and commerce.

The days of imperialism are over, including those of the Mongol, Manchu, British and US empires. May they remain buried in history.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 28 May 2012 12:47:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's important to realise though much of this maritime territory was once part of China (a well documented fact historically), and it's only by the action of other imperial powers that these areas were lost.

I'm guessing that the PRC can not afford to allow other nations (particular hostile neighbours) to claim exclusive ownership over parts of the South China Sea.

Especially given the importance of exports (and the importation of tech/foreign investment) to China.
Posted by Dave Elson, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 1:21:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dave,

When you write that " .... much of this maritime territory was once part of China .... ", do you mean the Chinese imperial domains (perhaps the Mings?), or do you mean as part of either the Mongol (Yuan) or Manchu (Ching) Empires ?

I wonder how much of Europe has NOT been part of some other empire ? The principle that territory belongs forever and a day to an imperial power which has, at one time or another, conquered it, would raise some fascinating dilemmas about current state boundaries. Which empire should Syria belong to, for example - the Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Hellenes (Greeks), Macedonians, Romans, Normans, Saracens (Arab-Kurds), Mongol, Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, or French ?

Or should the Syrian people have some choice in the matter ? That seems to be an option that has not occurred to the current Chinese leadership. Or, with respect, to you :)

So it is with most of the world. So my point was that, in the modern world, it should be up to the local inhabitants to choose for themselves - and that goes for Taiwan, Tibet and Turkestan, just as much as we would support its enactment for the Syrian people, or for the Irish people.

The Chinese may want to dig out medieval maps and, since they believe that they have the mandates of both Heaven and Marx, re-conquer whoever they please. But international law, the law pertaining to uninhabited reefs or shoals, and the law of the seas in particular, have progressed some way since the days of Kublai Khan.

My understanding is that, after Cheng Ho, around 1430-1440, the Ming Empire tore up its maps, forbad any further exploration and penalised foreign traders, and that the Chings followed their inward, land-oriented, example. So much for an impartial interest in overseas territories.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 2:26:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article was written based on the view of the Filipinos and their media. Readers can simply click on the respective links to read the full content.

Under International law, it is not the distance of those islands that determines who they belonged. If that is the case, Cocos island in Australia should belong to Indonesia as it is closer to Indonesia and the natives are Muslims and speak Indonesian.

The main objective of this article is to present the views of the parties in the dispute. Mainstream Western media is shockingly untruthful in the way they report the incident. They have totally ignored the voices of those involved in the dispute and simply asserted the personal opinion of the journalist or writer as facts.

To understand the art of media disinformation, read this: http://outcastjournalist.com/index_files/media_disinformation.htm
Posted by Wei Ling Chua, Monday, 11 June 2012 10:06:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Wei,

Of course, Filipinos are entitled to consider a shoal or reef or island barely 200 km from their capital city to be part of their country, IF the shoals are well within their territorial waters, AND there is no other country for many hundreds of km AND if they have been fishing there for more than a thousand years.

Of course, Cocos Island and Christmas Island should logically be Indonesian territory, but as it happens, they were settled and populated by British interests in the days of colonialism, and Australia inherited responsibilities for them. As well, they are much further away from Indonesia than the Scarborough Shoals are from the Philippines, outside of Indonesia's territorial waters.

Back during the Ming dynasty, the neo-colonialist assertion goes, a Chinese ship visited the Philippines - but this was in the days when there were very active trade relations between the Champa Hindu kingdom (in present-day Vietnam: does this give Vietnam the right to claim the Philippines?) and the Philippines (tablets have been excavated around Manila written in various Indian languages), between the Thai kingdom and the Philippines, and perhaps the Japanese and the Philippines, not to mention the trade activity between all of those countries and Sri Vijaya and other Malay and Indonesian kingdoms, as well as Arab traders.

Many of these traders also visited Chinese ports (there were Hindu and Muslim temples in old Canton): did this give their governments the right to claim the coasts of China ? I don't think so.

The faintly colonial notion that China has some sort of claim merely because a Chinese ship once visited there, really does hark back to the nineteenth century, but it's an interesting principle. Perhaps the visits to various Chinese cities by German, French, British, Russian and Japanese ships in the nineteenth century, give those imperialist countries some rights to claim Chinese territory - is that what you are suggesting ?

You really do need to get your history right, and to remember that - thankfully - the days of imperialism are over :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 9:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy