Comments by "D W" (@DW-op7ly) on "South China Morning Post"
channel.
-
1
-
* About South China Morning Post's Bias Rating
South China Morning Post is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Center.
What a "Center" Rating Means
Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Center either do not show much predictable media bias, display a balance of articles with left and right biases, or equally balance left and right perspectives.
Center doesn't mean better! A Center media bias rating does not necessarily mean a source is totally unbiased, neutral, perfectly reasonable, or credible, just as Left and Right don't necessarily mean extreme, wrong, unreasonable, or not credible. AllSides encourages people to read outlets across the political spectrum.
Learn more about Center ratings
Details
* Community Feedback
Feedback does not determine ratings, but may trigger deeper review.
As of November 2023, 447 people have voted on the AllSides Media Bias Rating for South China Morning Post. On average, those who disagree with our rating think this source has a Lean Left bias.
AllSidesMedia
1
-
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AceSM18
Have you even bothered to look at a map between Philippines and Malaysia?
Putting aside your claim to Sabah
There are still Filipino claimed/controlled islands that are way closer to Malaysia
Malaysia should take the Philippines to court and make a Proximity claim
As for UNCLOS
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
1
-
1
-
@AceSM18
You Filipinos invaded Sabah and caused the demise of 71 people in 2013
And you don’t even understand the history of your own country and the historical claim you have on Sabah
The money the Malaysians pay you every year, they say it’s for the “sale” of Sabah
You Filipinos call the money they pay you every year, money for the “rental” of Sabah
Which In my opinion I agree it’s a rental and you Filipinos are the actual owners of Sabah, not Malaysia
BUT
arguing “sale” or “rental” it does not matter
The Malays have the right to pay you 5000 Malaysian Ringgit every year in perpetuity
Meaning they can pay you for ever and ever and ever for the “sale”or “rental” of Sabah 👈whatever you want to call it
Time to learn the historical facts about your own country
Also there is that issue of you Filipinos unilaterally bringing forth a proximity claim on those disputed islands you have with China
Where you went to that ICJ tribunal in 2016 dismissing “historical claim.” Where a proximity claim trumps all
The Philippines only making an official proximity claim for the first time in 1971 proximity claim on those disputed islands you have with China
So with tour very own proximity claim logic
Sabah belongs to Malaysia, along with a few islands you Filipinos now control, that are closer to Malaysia, that you no doubt bullied from Malaysia in the past
It’s really not that hard to understand unless you are a Filipino
👇
The two main sultanates in the region at the time were Sulu and Brunei. In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei gave Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu - either as a dowry or because troops from Sulu had helped him quell a rebellion.
More than 350 years later, the sultan's heirs have come to remind Malaysians that they still consider Sabah to be part of Sulu and, by extension, part of the Philippines.
"Sabah is our home," they said simply when asked why they had come.
But history is not that simple and of course Malaysia has no intention of giving up Sabah to this little band of Filipinos.
The crux of their disagreement lies in a contract made in 1878, between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company.
Under this contract known as pajak, the company could occupy Sabah in perpetuity as long as it paid a regular sum of money.
Even today, Malaysia pays about 5,000 Malaysian ringgit (£1,000, $1,500) a year to the Sultanate of Sulu.
But the British and, after that an independent Malaysia, interpreted pajak to mean sale, while the Sulu Sultanate has always maintained it means lease.
"In my opinion, this is more consistent with a lease rather than a sale, because you can't have a purchase price which is not fixed and which is payable until kingdom come," said Harry Roque, a law professor at the University of the Philippines.
BBC
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cooleyfc
Disillusioned about China’, more Chinese aim for US via risky Darien Gap
In 2023, Chinese migrants become the largest group outside the Americas to cross the treacherous region to reach the US.
* Behind her, signs explaining the hotel prices and policies are written in Mandarin. Pots of spicy instant noodles imported from China are for sale next to bottles of water. Payments via the Chinese social media app WeChat are accepted.
* “They move along in their own separate world,” Fernandez said.
The group of middle-aged travellers, wearing hats and carrying tents and walking poles, are dressed for a trek. But not everything quite adds up. Many are wearing lightweight Crocs footwear, and their small backpacks are wrapped in plastic bags.
* Just over 25,000 of those migrants were Chinese, making them the fourth largest overall nationality and the largest outside of the Americas to making the crossing.
* Chinese migrants – unlike many of the other most common nationalities in the Darien, such as Venezuelans and Haitians – often take special “VIP” routes across the jungle that are led by guides working for the Gulf Clan, Colombia’s largest drug cartel, and are quicker and less strenuous for higher prices than the most basic routes.
Why we want to go to the United States’
* “Our requirements are very simple: We can afford medical treatment, have a place to live, our children can afford to go to school and our family can be safe.”
* Some migrants interviewed by Zhou were misled to believe they could easily get a job for $10,000 in cash a month. However, the reality is that many are struggling to get jobs because employers are fearful of hiring undocumented workers.
* “I was forced to do this,” Sheng said while sipping a cup of tea at his hotel in Necocli. “It’s really difficult for most Chinese people to apply for a visa to America. But I feel disillusioned about China. That’s why we’re here in the jungle.”
Aljazeera
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most people don’t get?
Is it is US multinationals making the lion share of those profits inflating the trade deficit between China to the USA
Where Chinese companies mostly trade with their Belt and Road country partners these days
These US multinationals are the ones sending you that junk
These US multinationals are still using the same highly polluting labour intensive factories formula.
As they were using more and more illegal labour smuggled in from South East Asia.
Or more and more automation in their wholly owned factories in China these days
These are the same companies who got those trump Corporate tax cuts you for sure cheered about
Same companies based in China who derived 392 billion in sales into the Chinese domestic markets in 2018 when trump started his trade war
Same companies averaging 20 to 40% of their earnings from China whose high flying stocks are in your 401k/Pensions
Same companies who the American farmer and consumer were sacrificed. So the USA could try and get “more” or “better” access for the US multinationals, into those Chinese Domestic markets during the trade war
Same companies whose HQ is in a North American city you can easily go stand outside and protest at….
Why didn’t China pull the nuclear trade option and boot these US companies you might ask?
They don’t believe in a zero sum game type of thinking
As I can show you during the trade war.
China didn’t pull out their big trade weapons, in fact they were lowering tariffs to most countries not raising them
👇
Trump’s ‘trade war’ with China won’t be so easy to win
Having learned these value chain lessons, Beijing has worked hard to bring more of the high-value-adding parts of value chains into China, and to build hi-tech industries in which it can establish a globally competitive position.
China has successfully done this in areas like high-speed trains (CRRC), digital telecoms networks (Huawei), drones (DJI) and hi-tech batteries (BYD).
Trump’s team is not wrong to be worried about China’s competitive emergence here, and to target these new-tech sectors in the latest trade war sortie.
But here’s the problem: China exports almost none of these new-tech products to the US, making US tariff threats meaningless. Rather, they go to developing economy markets – many embraced by the Belt and Road initiative – where China has succeeded in building a hi-tech, high-value brand reputation.
As Trump’s team will quickly learn, the challenge of finding China’s pain points is bigger than expected: for a decade China’s priority has been to base growth on the domestic consumer economy and reduce reliance on the low-value-adding export processing industries (many of which are US- or Hong Kong-owned and concentrated in the Pearl River Delta)
SCMP
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankjames7272
In China in 2008 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 1st homes in their cities
By 2018 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 2nd and 3rd homes in their cities
That’s why you are hearing about problems with their property developers these days. Because back in 2010? Their Central Government started cutting of money flow to these developers.
Thus why you heard about Shadow Banks and Underground Economy back then, that their Government had to come into to shutdown or regulate.
Even then, It took them almost 14 years to get their overheated real estate under control
Heck they were about to introduce a nation wide property tax, but then trump started the trade war in 2018
Why is their Central Government doing this?
Because there are still a few hundred million poorer rural folk they still expect to move to the cities to join their more well off urban city folk countrymen.
Problem is these property developers were building higher end homes, and not building the affordable homes these rural migrants will need
In China
Owning a home in the city you migrate to? Affects your employment, health, education and even marriage prospects don’t have a house you don’t get married
Thus the common prosperity push and the crackdown on the overt displays of wealth in China
Their Government probably figured out you disenfranchise the people at the bottom of your society they are the ones most likely to act out in protest
👇
New documentary focuses on financial health in Black community | Watch 'Our America: In the Black'
In comparison, the median net worth of all U.S. households is about 7.6 times higher than black net worth.
Additionally, a startling statistic by the organization Prosperity Now and the Institute for Policy Studies, predicts that the median wealth of Black Americans "will fall to zero by 2053."
Feb 1, 2024
ABC
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mudshovel289
Disillusioned about China’, more Chinese aim for US via risky Darien Gap
In 2023, Chinese migrants become the largest group outside the Americas to cross the treacherous region to reach the US.
* Behind her, signs explaining the hotel prices and policies are written in Mandarin. Pots of spicy instant noodles imported from China are for sale next to bottles of water. Payments via the Chinese social media app WeChat are accepted.
* “They move along in their own separate world,” Fernandez said.
The group of middle-aged travellers, wearing hats and carrying tents and walking poles, are dressed for a trek. But not everything quite adds up. Many are wearing lightweight Crocs footwear, and their small backpacks are wrapped in plastic bags.
* Just over 25,000 of those migrants were Chinese, making them the fourth largest overall nationality and the largest outside of the Americas to making the crossing.
* Chinese migrants – unlike many of the other most common nationalities in the Darien, such as Venezuelans and Haitians – often take special “VIP” routes across the jungle that are led by guides working for the Gulf Clan, Colombia’s largest drug cartel, and are quicker and less strenuous for higher prices than the most basic routes.
Why we want to go to the United States’
* “Our requirements are very simple: We can afford medical treatment, have a place to live, our children can afford to go to school and our family can be safe.”
* Some migrants interviewed by Zhou were misled to believe they could easily get a job for $10,000 in cash a month. However, the reality is that many are struggling to get jobs because employers are fearful of hiring undocumented workers.
* “I was forced to do this,” Sheng said while sipping a cup of tea at his hotel in Necocli. “It’s really difficult for most Chinese people to apply for a visa to America. But I feel disillusioned about China. That’s why we’re here in the jungle.”
Aljazeera
1
-
1
-
@mudshovel289
China was doing this over 17 years ago
👇
Landless farmers urged to migrate to Africa
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 19 September, 2007, 12:00am
SCMP Reporter
Farmers forced off the land and unable to find urban jobs should consider moving to Africa to become landlords and practise their agricultural skills, the head of the Export-Import Bank
said this week.
Li Ruogu said Beijing would support farmers who migrated. Speaking at a meeting in Chongqing to address rural immigration, Mr Li said the city's planned experiment in rapid urbanisation would transform several million farmers into city residents, but finding them jobs would be a problem.
Chongqing embarked on fast-tracked urban development after the National Development and Reform Commission selected it in June to be an experimental zone for national urbanisation reform.
More than 12 million farmers will have to leave their land by 2020 under the city's plan.
'Construction of the 'experimental zone' will relocate several million
peasants,' Mr Li said, adding that Chongqing should consider organising migration to Africa.
'The bank will give full support to the farmers in terms of capital
investment, project development and product-selling channels,' he added.
SCMP
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Introduction:
Article 310 of the Convention allows States and entities to make declarations or statements regarding its application at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, which do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention.
Article 310 reads:
"Article 310. Declarations and statements "Article 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept.
Article 287, paragraph 1, reads:
"Article 287. Choice of procedure "When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein."
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
"Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
"1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a)
(i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded form such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."
PLEASE NOTE: Declarations and statements with respect to the Convention and to the Agreement on Part XI made before 31 December 1996 - upon signature, ratification or accession - have been analyzed and published in "The Law of the Sea: Declarations and statements with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.97.V.3).
UNCLOS
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Introduction:
Article 310 of the Convention allows States and entities to make declarations or statements regarding its application at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, which do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention.
Article 310 reads:
"Article 310. Declarations and statements "Article 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1