Comments by "David Wong" (@davidwong5197) on "Washington’s hardened position on Beijing’s claims in South China Sea heightens US-China tensions" video.

  1. US does not recognize the Hague court. China and Taiwan were not present. They disregarded all historic and legal claims. The decision was based on one assumption : there is no natural life on the islands. Basically Hague is saying it's free for all despite France, Japan had all occupied them and had treaties with China.
    4
  2.  Salvador Tubigan  US did not recognize the Hague Court ruling on war crime either. Furthermore, if the Hague ruling holds. US will have to give up a bunch of islands including Baker Islands where there is an air force base as well as the famous Midway Islands. These are all acquired with the 1854 Guano Act.. The reason why China did not participate is because China and Philippines have existing treaty to settle border dispute. And they have settled already on fishing right. But Taiwan was not invited and their legal brief was also disregarded. And they are the original claim party. Regardless, the court also did not consider the Japanese surrender treaty that returned the islands to China, at the time was ROC.
    3
  3.  @tigertiger4606  Dude. It was KMT/Taiwan's originally claim not the CCP claim. The nine dash line is still on the ROC passport.Taiwan still has troops on those islands since 1948. The islands were returned to China after WW2 by Japan under MacArthur's supervision. Last tome I check MacArthur is not a CCP member. Never mind the historical claim. Here are the treaties; 1887 Sino Franco Treaty. 1948 Japan surrender treaty. The Cairo accord with Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill and DeGaulle.
    3
  4.  Salvador Tubigan  You are ignoring all historical legal treaty. We are not talking about discovery and administration. In 1887 Sino Franco treaty, France colonized Indochina and have a border treaty that clearly defined the islands as Chinese territory. At the time Vietnam was a Chinese province. And China has troop stationed on those islands. France later annexed those islands and that's the basis of the Vietnamese claim. During WW2 Jpan occupied those islands. After WW2 the Sino Japan peace treaty returned the islands back to China under MacArthur. This is very clear. The Hague court decided none of these islands are islands because they are not self sustaining. This have nothing to do with history or legal principle. They basically ignored all historical claim because nobody can own a rock. Under the same ruling, US will have to give up ALL the islands they acquired with the Guano Act. These will include Baker Islands which has a US air force base and Midway Islands because none of them has fresh water or food grown there. Baker Islands don't even have any vegetation. UNCLOS applied to non inhabited and international water only. By declaring the islands as rocks, the rule applied. But Taiwan has stationed troops on the islands since 1948, there is a well, a farm and hospital on the island so how can they be a rock? Taiwan has invited Hague court to visit. But they refused because Taiwan is not a member of UN. France had also built two weather stations on those islands as well. Bottom line the Hague decision is bogus. It is basically saying hey it is free for all.
    3
  5.  Salvador Tubigan  Wrong. China never had any map because ancient China believed all land under heaven are Chinese land. The border map was created during the Qing Dynasty. If not why would the French had a treaty with the Qing dynasty on these island. Why would Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill and DeGualle agreed in Cairo these are Chinese Territory. Why would MacArthur agreed to return these lands back to China in the Sino Japan Peace Treaty? Check the document. During Qing Dynasty, assigned these Islands to be under the jurisdiction of the Hainan Province. Here is an analysis of the legal and historic claim by Case Western Reserve International law Department. in Ohio, https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1644&context=jil You need to do some REAL reading instead of relying on misinformation. And even if you are correct, it just prove the Hague court decision is bogus. Their decision is based on these are NOT islands but rocks so the historic claim is invalid.
    3
  6.  @Anomize23  Don't you find it strange India and China were fighting over border with just stone and stick when they all have guns? Things are not always what they appear to be. Look at the map and see what's worth fighting for. NOTHING. BTW, that border is unmarked.
    3
  7.  @tigertiger4606  You are an idiot. The Hague ruled these are NOT islands thus no one gets to claim any of them. Not the Vietnamese nor the Philippines. Therefore they can ignored any historic or legal claim. If no one can own those islands then anyone outside ASEAN countries can come in and drill. Exxon can now go in explore and make a claim. Hague just opened up the whole sea for grab. Why would US ignored and sanctioned Hague's ruling except this one? No ASEAN countries had asked US to be involved and US is not even a signatory state, yet they sent war ships to the area.
    2
  8.  Salvador Tubigan  I am Chinese American. You do not have the facts or evidence. You ignored facts. You even want to withdraw from agreement your country made. You are a perfect Trump clone. You refused even to look at the Case Western paper which is a apolitical academic study. You are pathetic.
    2
  9.  @Clee-os6pv  TRUE. US has been in war forever, non-stop.
    2
  10. Why are there anti-CCP editorial on SCMP? They are also affiliated with Politico. Is Politico owned by CCP too? Why is their editor in chief an American living in NY? Stop being an idiot because they have China in their name.
    2
  11. Not true. China has historical claim. So has the Vietnam. China has troops on Taipan Island since the Qing dynasty. The French annexed one of the islands and built a weather station. The Dutch sold some of the islands to Qing Dynasty for mining. The IAC proclamation is none of these are islands because there is no population on them. And IAC was declared illegitimate by the US.
    1
  12.  Salvador Tubigan  Dude. US has declared Hague to be illegitimate a long time ago when they investigated Israel's war crime and human right abuse. And no one in the area invited US to be there. The nine dash line is not a border, it is an economic zone based on the islands. There is NO impediment of sea and air traffic. Tons of traffic go through it. This is an American propaganda. China settled with Japan in the East China Sea. They settled with Philippines in the Scarborough shoal. . And they are in negotiation with Vietnam. What's wrong with that? Diplomacy. BTW , Philippines also built islands in the S. China Sea. So is US going to kick them out too?
    1
  13.  Salvador Tubigan  Dude Use your brain. Are these islands? No, then no one has a claim according to Hague. If it is a yes. Then by treaties, 1887, Cairo Statement, Sino China etc. Or you want to go with the control , like the Palma Island dispute. Then Taiwan has occupied the Island since 1948. So far I have not cited ANY historic claim just legal. Vietnam and Philippines were not even countries in 1887 when the border was settled between France and China. Give it a break. Cite some facts.Your only argument is Hague said so. If you say there is no island, then there is nothing to debate. Everything is moot.
    1
  14. Dude. Read the news. China and PH already settled it. Diplomact dude.
    1
  15.  Salvador Tubigan  Don't be lazy Go google and read the Case Western paper I sent you.. They listed ALL the citation and references. Tell me the part you disagreed. Don't lazy Also, 1887 Sino Franco treaty and the treaty of Taipei. You can also check out the Palma Island dispute. You know how to google and read right?
    1
  16.  @PyroMax  Not if there is no resource. Do you think US will fight in the middle East if there is no oil?
    1
  17.  @PyroMax  No, but this go to the motive. But can you answer the question? What is the US interest in this while all the countries in the area are negotiating rules in the area ? US is not even invited to the talk.
    1
  18.  @PyroMax  If US care about International law, then why did they sanction the same ICC court that investigate their war crime? Why did Rooselvett agreed that the islands were under China's jurisdiction during the Cairo accord? Why did MacArthur returned the islands back to China after WW2? What about the Sino Franco treaty in 1887? Based on what legal principle, the ICC ruled all the internal treaties invalid? BTW, China was invited by the Russia to do military exercise. US was not invited by any country to the South China Sea.
    1
  19. True. But China has ICBM.
    1
  20. I did not kn0w Trump is a Chinese man.
    1
  21. Aussie and Indians are not even close to that area.
    1
  22. There is NO dispute. SEA and China were working it out. US is only making this an issue because of election.
    1
  23. No, only until November.
    1
  24. What about the Indian Ocean?
    1
  25. KMT/Taiwan is the first to claim S. China Sea. Know your facts before you embarrass yourself.
    1
  26.  @akari3354  China and Taiwan have the SAME claim. The question is who represents China. Philippines and Vietnam are building islands too. US's position is based on the International Court (which they sanctioned because of war crime investigation). That ruling stated there is NO islands in the South China sea. They are all rocks, therefore NOBODY owns anything, not China, not Vietnam or Taiwan. Personally I think that gave US an excuse to grab the resource for their own use.
    1
  27. Actually that is not quite true. Historically, China assimilated countries that invaded her. Mongolia invaded and became Yuen dynasty. They were assimilated. Manchuria invaded China and became Qing dynasty and they were assimilated.
    1
  28. It's election time. dude.
    1
  29. You are aware Taiwan has the same claim as China based on the SAME historic claim, right?
    1
  30.  @crazyfreak6408  No dude, there is documentation. After WW2 japan turned over the Paracel Islands BACK to China. Taiwan still haS a garrison on the Island. The issue is the International Arbitration Court declared there is no Island in the area without inviting Taiwan to defend its case. BTW, US considered IAC illegitimate because it had also ruleed against the US.
    1
  31.  @crazyfreak6408  They are in Taiwan's museum. The 1887 treaty with France, the Cairo accord, the 1948 Japanese surrender. These are just international treaty. They all claimed Spratley and Paracel are under Chinese sovereignty. There are internal government papers going all the way to Tang dynasty. There is even a Chinese Temple on one of the islands.
    1
  32.  @crazyfreak6408  Only Vietnam and China have valid claims. Vietnam's claim is based on the French annexation of the Parcel islands. but the French abandoned that claim after WW2 and the islands were returned to China. Also there is a Sino Franco treaty in 1887 that France signed to include the islands under Chinese jurisdiction. The question is did Vietnam inherited ALL of the French colony? Also in the 1970s, North Vietnamese PM sent a telegraph to China to confirm Chinese ownership. Can he represent all of Vietnam? These issues are all to be resolved. The ICC (sanctioned by US) basically said all these are NOT islands so nobody can claim sovereignty. including Vietnam. I think this is a political decision to open up the territory for grabs. Taiwan invited ICC to vist the island to show it is not a rock. ICC refused the offer.
    1
  33. Who is going to loan US the money to go to war? Not china this time.
    1