PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)


tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
ZetageistPalawan 338012 said:
Fiery Cross Reef is outside of Philippines' 200 nautical mile EEZ and the Spratly Island (occupied by Vietnam) is even further westward of Fiery Cross Reef.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Philippines uses palawan as the base and has to add the 200 miles EEZ. Half moon shoal is about 60 miles away from palawan. If you add another 40miles you can see from the map alot of vietam holdings fall inside of that. Spratley island is just a general term for that large island chain. philippines court case make no mention of vietnams holdings fall inside its 200 miles EEZ measured from palawan
 

Zetageist

Junior Member
Philippines uses palawan as the base and has to add the 200 miles EEZ. Half moon shoal is about 60 miles away from palawan. If you add another 40miles you can see from the map alot of vietam holdings fall inside of that. Spratley island is just a general term for that large island chain. philippines court case make no mention of vietnams holdings fall inside its 200 miles EEZ measured from palawan

There are Spratly islands and There is Spratly Island!

There is an actual 'Spratly Island' within the Spratly island chains. It is the 4th largest island in the Spratly islands. From Wikipedia:

Spratly Island, also known as Storm Island,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: đảo Trường Sa,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: 南威島;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: Nánwēi dǎo
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: Lagos, and other names, with an area of 15 hectares,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the naturally occurring
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and the largest of the Vietnamese-occupied/claimed Spratly islands.

None of Vietnamese holdings in the Spratly island chains are inside of Vietnam EEZ.

The distances we generally talk about are measured from Palawan.

1. Itu Aba Island (controlled by Taiwan)
2. Thitu Island (controlled by Philippines)
3. West York Island (controlled by Philippines)
4. Spratly Island (controlled by Vietnam)

Of 4 largest natural islands in Spratly islands (Chain), only West York Island is inside of Philippines' 200 nautical miles EEZ, measured from Palawan. Even Philippines' own largest Thitu Island is outside of 200 nm measured from Palawan. If I remembered correctly, Filipino media stated that Itu Aba Island is about 230 nm from Palawan.
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
There are Spratly islands and There is Spratly Island!

There is an actual 'Spratly Island' within the Spratly island chains. It is the 4th largest island in the Spratly islands. From Wikipedia:



None of Vietnamese holdings in the Spratly island chains are inside of Vietnam EEZ.

The distances we generally talk about are measured from Palawan.

1. Itu Aba Island (controlled by Taiwan)
2. Thitu Island (controlled by Philippines)
3. West York Island (controlled by Philippines)
4. Spratly Island (controlled by Vietnam)

Of 4 largest natural islands in Spratly islands (Chain), only West York Island is inside of Philippines' 200 nautical miles EEZ, measured from Palawan. Even Philippines' own largest Thitu Island is outside of 200 nm measured from Palawan. If I remembered correctly, Filipino media stated that Itu Aba Island is about 230 nm from Palawan.
pigeon reef? I see 4 to 5 fall inside
 

Zetageist

Junior Member
philippines court case make no mention of vietnams holdings fall inside its 200 miles EEZ measured from palawan

The UNCLOS & EEZ laws did not formalized until 1982. So if all Vietnamese holdings in Spratly Islands occupied prior to 1982, then they are not affected by UNCLOS.

People also confuse about sovereignty of Spratly Islands and EEZ. If I interpreted the case which Philippines brought against China correctly, it is about China's Nine-Dashed-Line (claimed of sea and its natural resources) overlapped with Philippines' EEZ.

As for sovereignty issue of Spratly Islands, I think France made the earliest claim to the Spratly Islands chain. Since Vietnam being the successor state of French colony, it is most likely to be considered to have the earliest claim. At the end of WWII with new world order, ROC made the claim to Spratly Islands, most likely with consents from winning Allied powers since both US and France didn't object when ROC made the claim nor when Japan renounced the Spratly Islands to ROC in the 1952 Treaty of Taipei. Last came Philippines. When Philippines was still American or Spanish colony, they didn't make the claim to Spratly Islands. Also, since Philippines occupied Thitu Island is both outside of Palawan's EEZ and predated 1982 UNCLOS, that would be contradictory to Philippines' case if they forced the issue about occupation prior to 1982 UNCLOS.
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
The UNCLOS & EEZ laws did not formalized until 1982. So if all Vietnamese holdings in Spratly Islands occupied prior to 1982, then they are not affected by UNCLOS.

People also confuse about sovereignty of Spratly Islands and EEZ. If I interpreted the case which Philippines brought against China correctly, it is about China's Nine-Dashed-Line (claimed of sea and its natural resources) overlapped with Philippines' EEZ.

As for sovereignty issue of Spratly Islands, I think France made the earliest claim to the Spratly Islands chain. Since Vietnam being the successor state of French colony, it is most likely to be considered to have the earliest claim. At the end of WWII with new world order, ROC made the claim to Spratly Islands, most likely with consents from winning Allied powers since both US and France didn't object when ROC made the claim nor when Japan renounced the Spratly Islands to ROC in the 1952 Treaty of Taipei. Last came Philippines. When Philippines was still American or Spanish colony, they didn't make the claim to Spratly Islands. Also, since Philippines occupied Thitu Island is both outside of Palawan's EEZ and predated 1982 UNCLOS, that would be contradictory to Philippines' case if they forced the issue about occupation prior to 1982 UNCLOS.[/QUOTE
The UNCLOS & EEZ laws did not formalized until 1982. So if all Vietnamese holdings in Spratly Islands occupied prior to 1982, then they are not affected by UNCLOS.

People also confuse about sovereignty of Spratly Islands and EEZ. If I interpreted the case which Philippines brought against China correctly, it is about China's Nine-Dashed-Line (claimed of sea and its natural resources) overlapped with Philippines' EEZ.

As for sovereignty issue of Spratly Islands, I think France made the earliest claim to the Spratly Islands chain. Since Vietnam being the successor state of French colony, it is most likely to be considered to have the earliest claim. At the end of WWII with new world order, ROC made the claim to Spratly Islands, most likely with consents from winning Allied powers since both US and France didn't object when ROC made the claim nor when Japan renounced the Spratly Islands to ROC in the 1952 Treaty of Taipei. Last came Philippines. When Philippines was still American or Spanish colony, they didn't make the claim to Spratly Islands. Also, since Philippines occupied Thitu Island is both outside of Palawan's EEZ and predated 1982 UNCLOS, that would be contradictory to Philippines' case if they forced the issue about occupation prior to 1982 UNCLOS.​
China said it got the nine dashed line in ancient time way before 1982, and are you sure Vietnam got those overlapped ones before 1982??? Which you feel its all right then. Well, that's what China is saying.
You miss what philippines is saying. Not just the overlapped, it want the judge to rule the whole nine dashed line invalid. So much for your philippines 200 miles EEZ, before and after argument.​
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
Since you like to do research, why don't you look it up when did Vietnam got sin cowe, Alison, pigeo and eldad?
 

Zetageist

Junior Member
China said it got the nine dashed line in ancient time way before 1982, and are you sure Vietnam got those overlapped ones before 1982??? Which you feel its all right then. Well, that's what China is saying.​

China's claim of historic right from ancient time is total BS. Ancient China has always been a land power. Its rulers didn't care about tiny little uninhibited islands and reefs out in the middle of nowhere. The average ancient Chinese civilians may have used to travel through SCS for centuries, but the central Chinese governments never made the claims this far south. That is why you got substantial ethnic Chinese populations in the lands surrounding the SCS. For example Singapore has a majority of ethnic Chinese. Even Indonesian Natuna archipelago, at the edge of SCS had majority ethnic Chinese population:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Natuna archipelago has been the subject of an Indonesia-China tug-of-war before. Until the 1970s the majority of Natuna residents were ethnic Chinese. Deadly anti-Chinese riots plagued Indonesia in the 1960s, early 1980s, and again in 1998, leading to a decline of the ethnic Chinese population on Natuna from an estimated 5,000-6,000 to somewhere over 1,000 currently. Many ethnic Chinese in the broader region believe to this day that a secret meeting (never publicly confirmed) was held between Deng Xiaoping (China’s premier from 1978 to 1992) and Natuna islanders of Chinese origin, who asked that Deng either back their bid for independence from Indonesia, or bring their island under Chinese suzerainty.

Neither happened, and as part of a nationwide transmigration initiative, the Indonesian government in the 1980s started to relocate ethnically Malay Indonesians to Natuna, for the stated reasons of importing skills and relieving population pressures on the overcrowded main island of Java, and, as perceived by local Chinese Indonesians, for the unstated reason of swamping the ethnic Chinese population with “real Indonesians”; that is, people of Malay ethnicity, who now number approximately 80,000 in the Natuna Islands group.

The current China (PRC)'s Nine-dashed-Line claim is piggybacked on ROC's the U-shaped eleven-dotted line map from 1947, but I don't think ROC actually claimed the whole sea within the U-shaped. If I am not mistaken, ROC's official statements have always been claiming the ownership of Paracel (Xi Sha 'West Sand') Islands, Spratly (Nan Sha 'South Sand') Islands, Pratas (Dong Sha 'East Sand') Islands, Macclesfield Bank (Zhong Sha 'Middle Sand') and the Scarborough Shoal (counts as Zhong Sha) and their surrounding water.

China and Vietnam both claim the ownership to entire Spratly Islands ('chain'). So from Philippines' point of view, both China and Vietnam are violating Philippines' EEZ since almost all of Spratly islands and reefs are on the east side of SCS, many of which fall within Philippines' 200 nm EEZ.

As for the ownership to Spratly Islands, according to a Washington think tank, Philippines has weaker claim to those Spratly Islands compare to Vietnam and China, despite Philippines' geographic proximity to Spratlys. Philippines is third in line (Vietnam first, followed by China) according to historic rights.

You miss what philippines is saying. Not just the overlapped, it want the judge to rule the whole nine dashed line invalid. So much for your philippines 200 miles EEZ, before and after argument.

Yes, Philippines wants to make China's Nine-Dashed-Line claim illegal under UNCLOS. That is what I meant. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'overlapped'. It is sort of confusing.​
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I agree with Zetageist's point on China's "historical" claims inside the 9 or 11 dash lines is, as he elegantly put it, BS. What's more, PRC strategists and leaders know it too, hence the overwhelming white hull presence, backed up by menacing grey hulls just over the horizon, and creation of artificial islands to change facts on the water. It's great power politics 101, and Vietnam and Philippines are powerless to stop it. What's more, no one will come to their aid. Not the US, not the UN, not Japan, not ASEAN, and definitely not India. China's message is it wasn't looking for trouble, but if others upset the status quo, then China will use its power to establish a new status quo that the troublemakers (from China's perspective) would like even less. That's what we're seeing in the SCS, and there's nothing anyone could do (rationally) to save Vietnam and Philippines from problems of their own creation (again, from China's perspective). They will take it, they will like it.
 

Zetageist

Junior Member
Just a quick note, if we consider the combined holdings of PRC and ROC in SCS as 'Chinese' holdings: Paracel (PRC), Pratas (ROC), Macclesfield Bank (PRC) and Spratly's largest natural island Itu Aba (ROC), they are already come close to what originally ROC claimed in 1947 regardless of what the 9 or 11 dashed line actually represents. Because under UNCLOS, 'land before sea'. You need land to support your sea claim. Like I have briefly mentioned before, even though the importance of Itu Aba Island has diminished after China's massive reclamations, but it is still very important in the case of Philippines vs China:

Itu Aba: On this rock stands PH suit against China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


If Itu Aba is ruled as an island, then it would have its own continental shelf and its own EEZ, and possibly the entire Spratly Islands 'chain' would have its own EEZ, which would encroach on Philippines' Palawan EEZ.

If Itu Aba is ruled as a rock, then Philippines' Palawan EEZ would extend to the maximum. If Itu Aba is ruled as a rock, the biggest loser won't be Taiwan (ROC) because Taiwan is already strained on holding Itu Aba for more than five decades and it has only the ability to hold Itu Aba and its surrounding water. The biggest loser won't be China (PRC) either since China will have all these massive artificial islands done by the time of ruling. The biggest loser will be Japan. Why? I won't go into the politics but just a brief reference: Below shows a map of Japan's EEZ in Western Pacific. At center of southern most EEZ circle, there is Okinotori-shima or Okinotori Islands. From what I have gathered, it is an atoll with couple rocks above water during high tide (similar to Fierry Cross Reef) and a concrete platform. Japanese are using a natural method to accelerate the growth of corals to expand its land mass since artificial island can't be claim EEZ. Japan has filed with UNCLOS to claim the EEZ to its maximum 200 nm, while disputed by South Korea and China. So Japan is by far the mother of all reclamation: Spent the least amount of money to claim the greatest area of EEZ. If Itu Aba with its own water source can't be called a natural island to claim EEZ then I guess Japan would loose over 400,000 square km (154,500 square miles) EEZ around Okinotorishima sooner or later.

1009_2_1.jpg

okinotorishima_1.jpg


Okinotorishima.gif
 
Last edited:

Top