Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Could China soon be facing a NATO-like alliance in the Indo-Pacific? | DW News" video.
-
9
-
9
-
@delos2279 "Pay attention to context"
When it comes to map for a country, context (whether from Xi or Mao) does not matter. What matters is PRC, and PRC had made no expansion to their claims, only settled disputes which means loss of territory for them. So what I said still stands, PRCs territory decreased ever since they took over ROC.
"Like the August 2023 map expansion that expanded their imagined territory into almost all their neighbors"
Thats not an "expansion". And its not "imaginary" as it was inherited from their previous government, which was also inherited from their previous government. If youre talking about the border with India, the current claims are literally the same claims since its founding. Its more like an "updated" map to reflect their claims. Indias claims were "update" many years ago. Did you call that "Indian expansion"? Bet you didnt.
"They're even drawing their maps over parts of Russia now. And they've renamed Russian Mongolian cities back to historical Chinese names"
Same thing. Its not an "expansion". The claims are the same since its founding. There was not 1 inch of territory that they claim now that they didnt since its founding.
Moreover, any country can name countries/cities whatever they want on their map. You think China calls the US, the "United States"? No! They call them something in Chinese!
"They also claim they own the entire ocean up to the Philippines mainland which is almost 3000km from China and they regularly harass ships in international waters"
Its not an "ocean", its a "sea". But nevertheless, indeed. I dont agree with claims over water, but I do agree with their claims over islands as the were literally the first country in the region to lay claims to the islands, and was uncontested for over 30 years. Proximity to mainland has nothing to do with sovereignty over territory.
And they dont "harass" ships. Theyre defending their claims territory. If you dont venture within 12nm of any of their islands then they wont be "harassed".
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@krashme997 'I have no idea what you were trying to say with your "government" comment. We were talking about the reporter, weren't we?'
You were talking about the "Chinese market" and "countries" agreeing with China were you not? Only countries that have diplomatic relations can access the Chinese market. And only governments have that power. Its got nothing to do with the reporters opinions. Their opinions do not matter. Thats why I say you cant lump the 2 together.
"Also, you can totally pretend. For example, you can have unofficial taiwanese diplomatic missions in your country effectively working as substitute embassies"
Thats not recognising them as a "country". And the word "diplomatic mission" is not used. That word is out of bounds. They only have "cultural offices"
"But what I mean by that is that politicians will dance around the subject, and the people will look at the situation and obviously think Taiwan's independent"
As mentioned in my other comment:
'Your "Taiwan" claims to be the country called CHINA. If people all knew that then they wouldnt think like the way they think!
If people knew that ROC and PRC fought a civil war, and understand that civil war means war within the SAME country, again, they wouldnt think that!
Its ignorance thats blinding them from seeing the truth. And its in the Wests interest to keep their people ignorant of the truth!'
"On paper, it's ambiguous, in most people's heads, it's definitely not"
No, its the other way around. On paper its NOT ambiguous. Its set in stone. All world powers agree that Taiwan is part of China. To even enter into a diplomatic relation with China they MUST abide by it.
Only in peoples head is it ambiguous. Just read the comments on the topic (from all news source, not just Western reporters). The opinions are split. Thats the very definition of ambiguity.
Whereas all countries/governments (paper) say Taiwan is part of China without any misinterpretation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@simplenglaog33020 "you need to get your timeline STRAIGHT; the Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands are part of the Philippines from the year 1700"
We are talking about MODERN countries here, not ancient history. If we want to talk about ancient history, then China made their claims much earlier. But under international law, countries cant make territorial claims based on historical rights. Thats why ancient history has been ruled out.
"Aren't you aware of the Velarde map by the famous cartographer Pedro Murillo Velarde? This map which was created 1700 century shows Scarborough Shoal (Panacot Island during) and Spraty Islands (Los Bajos De Paragua) as PART of the PHILIPPINES"
Haha I always here that from Filipinos. Guess what? Borneo was also on the map. Is Borneo also part of PH? Maps are maps. Theyre there to incorporate everything within the region, regardless of politics. Just because its included in there, doesnt mean its part of the PH. Same goes for every other map that includes territory of neighbouring countries.
"So your 1940 claims are null and void by the 1700 map of the Philippine; yes?
Wrong. China has documented claims prior to 1700. But all that doesnt matter, because the law does not support historical claims from ALL parties, including PH.
What does matter are treaties. When the Spanish handed over sovereignty to the US, it did NOT specify any transfer of ANY islands in the SCS. And when the US handed sovereignty to PH, it also did NOT specify any transfer of ANY islands in the SCS. Whats transferred to PH is documented, its set in stone. PH does NOT have sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS, whether its a rock, reef or island.
"And speaking of 12nm how far is china again from the island they claim as theirs? thousand nm?"
Since China claims sovereignty over the islands, 0nm from the island, as the islands itself is part of China.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
"when present day China under 'President' Xi claims something different from Chairman Mao, it matters IN China because Mao isn't the leader anymore, Xi is"
We are talking about MAPS here. Thats what I specifically said, context doesnt matter when it comes to MAPS, because maps are claims of the COUNTRY, not a person.
"Once again you're very confused. Look up: "Territorial changes of the People's Republic of China" In about 95% of instances they GAINED territory from the neighboring country. Not lost, gained. If you don't understand that word, gained means their national borders expanded and we can even list the exact kilometers gained"
Lol I find it funny how you call me confused when its YOU thats confused. When there is disputed territory for example, both China and Country X claims say 100% of Territory Y. And when agreement is reached, China say gets 70% of Territory Y, and Country X gets 30% of Territory Y. From Chinas POV, China did not "gain" any territory, but rather LOST territory from their INITIAL claims of what they inherited from their previous government. Replicate this scenario for all other border disputes. So my point still stands. Every single dispute settlement means lost territory from what they INITIALLY INHERITED.
Oh and wikipedia is NOT a credible source of information. Literally anyone can edit, thus can alter the language to be bias in their favour, and omitting information thats not in their favour.
"False. They literally were one of the last, not first... Philippines had claimed those islands on maps 300 years before the PRC existed"
Wrong. Time and time again people keep make that wrong assertion just because a SHOAL (not islandS) was in the Verlarde map, doesnt mean it "belonged" the the Spanish/PH. Just like Borneo was on that very same map, but was Borneo ever part of Spain/PH? No!
Maps are maps, they include everything in it, including neighbouring countries and anything in between. Im 100% certain that PH did NOT claim ANY islands in the SCS as their sovereign territory, because when the Spain transferred sovereign of PH to the US, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS. Likewise, when the US transferred sovereignty over to the PH, again, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS to the PH. Its set in stone that PH DOES NOT have sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS, whether itd be a rock, shoal, reef, island etc. Thats facts! They only started making sovereign claims in the 1970s after oil was found. Thats over 3 decades after Chinas (PRC) claims.
"Vietnam (Dai Nam) historically controlled many of these islands since the 1600s"
Dai Nam? You should only talk about things you know about. Theres no such thing as "Dai Nam". Theres only Dai Viet.
So you mean on a grand scale of Vietnams 2000 years history, where over 1000 years they were part of China, that they managed to control a couple islands for a few years?
Wow. Thats such a big point youre making! Why not mention that when they were under Chinas rule for those thousand years, the islands were under Chinas rule? Because youre biased. Thats why.
1
-
"Then British were the first to "legally" claim them, followed by France, followed by Japan, followed by Japan actually taking them. Then Japan surrendered those "French" islands to the ROC (Taiwan), which was disputed by France"
This "legally" claimed business is a Western concept. It does not apply to non-Western countries at that time when there was no global standard for making sovereign claims. So even if they were the first to "legally" claim it, doesnt mean they were actually the first to claim it.
And France didnt claim ANY of the islands till Japan invaded China, when China was at their weakest and took advantage of that. And the French was in Asia for almost a century then. That already tells you they recognise it as Chinas and was waiting for an opportunity. And right after France invaded the islands, Japan invaded those islands not long after declaring war with China, again, because they recognise it was Chinas.
"Both Vietnam and the PRC claimed those islands at the same time (8 September 1951) with the formal peace treaty with Japan"
Wrong. Vietnam was split. Only South Vietnam had those claims as they inherited their claims from the French (but it was not the Frenchs anyways as Japan already took it). But why you speaking about a losing team? How come you didnt mention North Vietnams position? You know, the Vietnam that won the Vietnam war?
In 1956, North Vietnam formally recognised the Paracel and Spratly islands were Chinese, and in 1958 they wrote a letter to China stating they acknowledge and respect Chinas claims over the islands in the SCS. That sealed the deal already.
So we had Japan that knew it was Chinas (thats why they invaded). French that knew it was Chinas (thats also why they waited for an opportunity to invade when China was occupied with Japan). And the winning Communist Vietnam formally recognised Chinas claim over the Paracel and Spratlys). Thats 3 major players that recognise the islands were Chinas.
"Then the Philippines (formally), Malaysia, and others claimed specific areas later. Many countries have much more and longer precedent than China. China was one of the last to claim them"
Wrong. China was actually the first to even document the existence of them. No other civilisation on this planet documented things (esp history) more than the Chinese. Theyre all in another language, not English, thats why you dont know about them.
Ever since the Jin Dynasty (265-420) it was recorded that they exercised jurisdiction over the islands by sending patrol boats. Same goes for various Dynasties afterwards, but we talking about "earliest" here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@delos2279 "when present day China under 'President' Xi claims something different from Chairman Mao, it matters IN China because Mao isn't the leader anymore, Xi is"
We are talking about MAPS here. Thats what I specifically said, context doesnt matter when it comes to MAPS, because maps are claims of the COUNTRY, not a person.
"Once again you're very confused. Look up: "Territorial changes of the People's Republic of China" In about 95% of instances they GAINED territory from the neighboring country. Not lost, gained. If you don't understand that word, gained means their national borders expanded and we can even list the exact kilometers gained"
Lol I find it funny how you call me confused when its YOU thats confused. When there is disputed territory for example, both China and Country X claims say 100% of Territory Y. And when agreement is reached, China say gets 70% of Territory Y, and Country X gets 30% of Territory Y. From Chinas POV, China did not "gain" any territory, but rather LOST territory from their INITIAL claims of what they inherited from their previous government. Replicate this scenario for all other border disputes. So my point still stands. Every single dispute settlement means lost territory from what they INITIALLY INHERITED.
Oh and wikipedia is NOT a credible source of information. Literally anyone can edit, thus can alter the language to be bias in their favour, and omitting information thats not in their favour.
"False. They literally were one of the last, not first... Philippines had claimed those islands on maps 300 years before the PRC existed"
Wrong. Time and time again people keep make that wrong assertion just because a SHOAL (not islandS) was in the Verlarde map, doesnt mean it "belonged" the the Spanish/PH. Just like Borneo was on that very same map, but was Borneo ever part of Spain/PH? No!
Maps are maps, they include everything in it, including neighbouring countries and anything in between. Im 100% certain that PH did NOT claim ANY islands in the SCS as their sovereign territory, because when the Spain transferred sovereign of PH to the US, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS. Likewise, when the US transferred sovereignty over to the PH, again, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS to the PH. Its set in stone that PH DOES NOT have sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS, whether itd be a rock, shoal, reef, island etc. Thats facts! They only started making sovereign claims in the 1970s after oil was found. Thats over 3 decades after Chinas (PRC) claims.
"Vietnam (Dai Nam) historically controlled many of these islands since the 1600s"
Dai Nam? You should only talk about things you know about. Theres no such thing as "Dai Nam". Theres only Dai Viet.
So you mean on a grand scale of Vietnams 2000 years history, where over 1000 years they were part of China, that they managed to control a couple islands for a few years?
Wow. Thats such a big point youre making! Why not mention that when they were under Chinas rule for those thousand years, the islands were under Chinas rule? Because youre biased. Thats why.
1
-
1
-
@delos2279 "Repeating that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous and every country in the world will disagree with you on that"
If you find myself repeating something, thats because Im addressing something that YOU repeated yourself. Ill give the same response to the same false assertions youve made.
And every country? You do realise that the world is not just the West and its allies right? Even the Wests allies might not even agree with you on that. You need to recheck your definition on what "every" means, especially when its just a fraction of the world.
"Including China… By that precedent, no present-day countries should exist"
Because I said maps are claims of the country? And not a person? Youre not making any sense.
"Additionally, when I say every country, I mean..."
Well youre wrong. But you are entitled to your opinions.
"Consequently, it is only present claims that matter, not some infinite variation of past claims by past leaders"
Wrong. Countries are bounded by their constitution, not their "leaders", even their "leaders" must follow it. And it doesnt matter what the "people" alive "think". If the the people alive truly believe in something thats different to their constitution, then they should change it! But before then, the current constitution still stands. And thats the basis of every country on this planet, not a "leader".
"Same analogy is when the FORMER President Medvedev claims Russia will build an empire from ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok.’ Though really, even if Putin claimed it, it would still be a joke"
Its a joke that you dont get it. Like I said, a persons word is not necessarily the countrys words. Only when Russia as a country make those claims, and acts on those claims (like draw a map), then its the countrys claim. Words mean nothing if theres no action behind it.
"The next issue you’re still confusing is what territory means. Territory means it is currently under the control of a country"
No, YOURE confused. There are many piece of territories in this world that are not under the control of their respective countries. Like the Amazon rainforest of South America, Sentinel Island of India, etc.
"So in almost every case China used its claims to EXPAND its actual borders(territory), by force or treaty. They gained territory, not lost; very common tactic for expansionist countries"
Wrong. Qing China actually had control over those territories. Then when they collapse, a treaty was signed to transfer all their sovereign to ROC. Anyone thats "actually" controlling those places that ROC inherited but doesnt have control over is doing so illegally as theres no treaty signed. There was literally ZERO expansion, as the territory were legally inherited from their predecessor.
"Vietnam’s government (present-day) references maps of Dai Nam in their official justification, comparing how the Chinese maps were not showing the same islands that they claim today"
Ahh yes, let a third party decide how anothers territory is not theirs. Sounds legit. Especially when accuracy of maps werent exactly the best prior to the 20th century..
"What were China’s borders during the Jin Dynasty. Wait China didn’t exist and there were like 7 different kingdoms/countries overlapping China’s present-day borders. Uh oh! And you claim I’m biased… Try some introspection"
Why cant they be ALL part of China? These are facts. Theyre a Chinese kingdom. Its not a bias.
"So yes, I’m biased towards equality and overlapping EEZs meaning all countries in that region can use that ocean which is how it has always worked up to this day (hint: no one actually cares about the desert islands)"
Wrong. All countries in the region can sail the sea (not ocean for the 2nd time). They only cant venture within 12NM from any islands as thats considered territorial waters. Also, its actually the islands that everyone cares about, so youre wrong there as well. Islands help solidify their claims over resources in the area, and acts as a outlying military post.
"China is the one country trying to change that; you’re the one who is based. Try not being biased for a change"
Wrong. China was the first modern country in the region to lay claims to the islands in the 1940s. Thats not a bias, thats a fact. Its Vietnam, PH and the likes trying to change things by claiming the islands as theirs in the 1970s, 3 decades after China. PH as mentioned earlier, their treaty has no sovereignty over the islands whatsoever. North Vietnam recognised the islands as part of China in the 1950s, then backtracked on their recognition after winning the war in the 1970s.
And youre telling me that China is the one trying to change that when history tells us otherwise? THATS a bias right there. An unreasonable one at that.
"There’s not much I want more than for China to become a thriving democratic country. That is to say, I’m biased towards freedom and human wellbeing"
Youve been brainwashed by this "democratic" nonsense. Its an illusion. Its just an elaborate sham to vote for who screws you up instead. Havent you seen the Princeton University study on the question "does the government represent the people" aka democracy? It shows that in "democratic" countries, corruption is legalised, to the point that the government does not actually represent the people. This YT video does a good job explaining it: ( /watch?v=srfeHpQNEAI )
And "freedom" is subjective. Whats considered "freedom" to you might not be "freedom" for another. Like some might say universal health care is "freedom", and safety for women to walk down the street at 2am without needing to look over ones shoulder is "freedom". A type of "freedom" the US doesnt have.
Whats important is accountability, justice, transparency, advancement, and to be able to have your voice heard for changes. Doesnt matter what system of governance as long the above can be attained.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smithjohn7855 "Wrong. If it states specifically what types of waters a country can have, there is no "claiming" here, you can't "claim" water. It is made clear in Part VII, Article 90 and Part X, Article 137 that no one can claim sovereignty OR rights OR resources OR "such appropriation" of the waters"
Wrong. Article 137 is part of Part XI (not Part X), and Part XI is specifically about deposits of minerals within the area. You conveniently left out the first sentence of the article: "No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources". Meaning if there a known resources in the sea no country can suddenly claim it as theirs.
When China made their claims, there was no known minerals in the area. Just because they were discovered AFTERWARDS, it doesnt invalidate their claims. You could say this is a legal loophole. A grey area that needs a closure to.
And Article 90 is irrelevant. Having right to sail does not include right to sail within a countries territorial waters.
"therefore it is illegal to conducts actions such as gathering resources, blocking and pushing away foreign ships, sinking foreign fishing boats, or drilling for oil inside another country's EEZ (2014 drilling incident).
There are specific nuances whereby such things you have just said are legally allowed. Gathering resources are allowed under specific nuances, like within their EEZ. Blocking and pushing away foreign ships too. Those ships that China did block, push back and/or sank are within 12NM of their claimed sovereign territory (islands). All countries have every right to use force when foreign vessels are within 12NM of their sovereign territory.
As for the 2014 drilling incident, that area was closer to the Paracel Islands than it is to Vietnam. The drill area is right off the coast of the Paracel Islands which China claims as their sovereign territory, just that Vietnam who once recognised Chinas claim over the islands backtracked their recognition in the 1970s, and have since claimed it as theirs. Thats the core of the dispute.
"So what ground is the claim based on? It doesn't change the fact that the claim is groundless and baseless"
Since when did claims before international laws existences need justification? Isnt the US/CA/AUS/NZs etc claim over their respective territory also "groundless" and "baseless"?
"Wrong. That's not how laws work. This is a treaty that is signed. Once they sign a treaty, prior claims not accordance to the treaty become invalid"
Wrong. It is. Only when theres conflicting articles does it get overrides. But there was nothing conflicting at the time of them signing UNCLOS.
"not to mention something as vague as those random lines on a ROC 1940 map was not a clear and well described claim and even if it was a claim, it was baseless and groundless even in 1940"
Where in UNCLOS does it say that claims must be clear and well described? You made that up yourself.
"If India drew some random lines on a map like that in 1940, doesn't mean India can claim Indian Ocean"
Vietnam also has such claims. When there's one or two countries doing it, its not a problem. But when a lot of countries do it, then laws need to be made to prohibit it. But as of right now, theres no such law.
"n 2014, China drilled for oil inside Vietnam's EEZ, which caused a big standoff / ramming battles between Coast Guard ships of two countries and a lot of protests in Vietnam"
Thats NOT because of the dashed lines. Its because of the oil drills thats off the coast of the Paracel Islands which they also have sovereign claims themselves. The dispute is exploiting resources within the region of their sovereign claims, not because of some dashed lines.
"The dispute of 9-dash-line is a big deal for the Filipino, Indonesian and Vietnamese, there're a lot of tensions around it, just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go read Filipino, Indonesian and Vietnamese sources before making a bad faith false statement."
Wrong. Thats not a false statement. I dont care about news from "people", I only care about news from "governments" as this is a conflict between governments. And none of the governments made a big deal out of it, only mention that they disagree at most. The core of most conflicts are due to overlapping sovereign claims over the islands/reefs/shoals etc. Go read more news on what the governments say in regards to the conflicts before telling me to go read it.
"You said it, completely copied China's narrative, but hey it is just a coincidence"
Chinas narrative? Chinas narrative is about the 9 dash line. I spoke absolutely NOTHING about the 9 dash line until YOU brought it up. I only spoke about the islands and the laws pertaining to that. Youre gaslighting at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@krashme997 "Taiwan, or the ROC, has been acting independently for almost 8 decades"
Wrong. ROC has been independent for over 110 years. Taiwan is NOT ROC. Taiwan is just a PART of ROC.
"and the PRC has no say in its internal affairs"
The PRC and ROC issue is an internal affair of China, as they BOTH claim to be China and fought a civil war called the Chinese Civil War. Civil war meaning war within the SAME country.
"To any outside observer, nobody's going to care about the technical details, they'll see the reality for what it is: Taiwan's an independent country"
Whats why people are wrong and ignorant on the issue.
Your "Taiwan" claims to be the country called CHINA. If people all knew that then they wouldnt think like the way they think!
If people knew that ROC and PRC fought a civil war, and understand that civil war means war within the SAME country, again, they wouldnt think that!
Its ignorance thats blinding them from seeing the truth. And its in the Wests interest to keep their people ignorant of the truth!
"I'm talking about people's impressions upon looking at Taiwan and how it functions, not the complicated historical and legal background mumbo jumbo that the average Joe in Asia, Arfica, or Europe doesn't care about"
And thats just proving my point. These governments DONT want their people to know so that they can keep being ignorant, and support the push for a split China. Its the divide and conquer stratagem!
1
-
1