South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Blackstone

Brigadier
First Do you even read?
(2) China's Defense Ministry official spokesperson said the Decatur violated China's Territorial Waters as defined by the BASELINE since 1996 under UNCLOS Treaty and Chinese government has filed a diplomatic protest to the US government,

Second
Your US Official is an anonymous and did not want to be quoted. How much credibility does this anonymous official has.

Third,
(5) Commander Ross confirms that the Decatur FONOP was aimed at challenging "Communist" China’s BASELINES. Meaning that Decatur was challenging the 12 mile Territorial Baseline as defined by UNCLOS,

Fourth.
You are confusing Baseline 12-mile Territorial Waters with EEZ.

This is my last post as you are obviously not reading and I am just wasting my time.
You simply have no answer to the fact the USS Decatur never ventured inside 12mi line of any island, and the baseline commonly accepted by the vast majority of nations is what US would use to measure the limit. The FON operation was to challenge excessive claims by Beijing, and it doesn't matter what CCP filed with the UN. If it's illegal, it's null and void. The FONOPS will continue until China sees the truth, and then after that, they no longer matter- until the CCP causes trouble again.
 
You simply have no answer to the fact the USS Decatur never ventured inside 12mi line of any island, and the baseline commonly accepted by the vast majority of nations is what US would use to measure the limit. The FON operation was to challenge excessive claims by Beijing, and it doesn't matter what CCP filed with the UN. If it's illegal, it's null and void. The FONOPS will continue until China sees the truth, and then after that, they no longer matter- until the CCP causes trouble again.

suit yourself
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
I already gave you an official US State Department document stating Daioyu is part of greater Taiwan, and you recently acknowledged that fact. When Japan lost the war and returned Taiwan to China, Daioyu should have been given back too. US made a mistake not doing it after WW2 and then made another one in giving Japan admin rights to Diaoyu in 1971.

Bottom line is both Washington and Beijing view Diaoyu as part of Taiwan, ergo part of China. That is the reason US takes a "neutral" position on sovereignty of the island; it knows Diaoyu rightfully belongs to China, but it doesn't want to lose Japan's support to encircle China, so it gets splinters in its arse by sitting on the fence.

1.Really do not know what you are talking about.

2. The US State department does not have the authority to move territory of one sovereign state to another.

3. As I posted previously the Senkaku isles were declared Terra Nullius by Japan in which no state opposed including the US so the US are bound by treaty that US had recognized and accepted Japan's declaration at that point in 1895.

4. Senkaku isles were not part of Treaty of Shimonoseki, therefore it was not included within any of the later declarations and treaty such as Cairo, Potsdam and/or San Francisco.

The only way the US or any other nation can make a dispute of possession is to come up with evidence that Senkaku was administered before Japan's declaration.
Since you have not shown any evidence of this like I said before your howl is empty in the winds.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
1.Really do not know what you are talking about.

2. The US State department does not have the authority to move territory of one sovereign state to another.

3. As I posted previously the Senkaku isles were declared Terra Nullius by Japan in which no state opposed including the US so the US are bound by treaty that US had recognized and accepted Japan's declaration at that point in 1895.

4. Senkaku isles were not part of Treaty of Shimonoseki, therefore it was not included within any of the later declarations and treaty such as Cairo, Potsdam and/or San Francisco.

The only way the US or any other nation can make a dispute of possession is to come up with evidence that Senkaku was administered before Japan's declaration.
Since you have not shown any evidence of this like I said before your howl is empty in the winds.
Wishing all you want don't make your fantasy true. The whole "Japan declared terra nullius" is propaganda with no basis in truth. Documented history show the Qing Dowager Princess Cixi gave the island to a court official in 1893, two years before Imperial Japan mentioned the 'terra nullis' canard. There are other historical records saying China considered Diaoyu part of its privilege, even if it's shelter for fishermen. So, the 'notion nobody owned Diaoyu' is Japanese lie for purpose of imperial expansion. I believe you seen this before, but you simply ignore facts you deem inconvenient.

US official position is Diaoyu is part of Taiwan, its State Department document say that. Since US always recognized Taiwan as part of China, it follows official US position is Diaoyu is part of China. Why is that important? Because when our Beltway overlords finally admit to themselves containing China is no longer doable, not even with war, it will realign and work out a modis vivendi with Beijing. Diaoyu would cease to be a political concern for Washington, especially when officials from both sides could pull out the State Department document and say with political conviction it belongs to China (therefore none of our business).

Like Lord Palmerston said, nations don't have permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. The long-term interests of the United States is being primus inter pares with China where US has strong presence in all areas of Asia, and China shares leadership with America as an equal. That, my fine feathered friend, is how the world really is.
 
Last edited:

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Wishing all you want don't make your fantasy true. The whole "Japan declared terra nullius" is propaganda with no basis in truth. Documented history show the Qing Dowager Princess Cixi gave the island to a court official in 1893, two years before Imperial Japan mentioned the 'terra nullis' canard. There are other historical records saying China considered Diaoyu part of its privilege, even if it's shelter for fishermen. So, the 'notion nobody owned Diaoyu' is Japanese lie for purpose of imperial expansion. I believe you seen this before, but you simply ignore facts you deem inconvenient.

US official position is Diaoyu is part of Taiwan, its State Department document say that. Since US always recognized Taiwan as part of China, it follows official US position is Diaoyu is part of China. Why is that important? Because when our Beltway overlords finally admit to themselves containing China is no longer doable, not even with war, it will realign and work out a modis vivendi with Beijing. Diaoyu would cease to be a political concern for Washington, especially when officials from both sides could pull out the State Department document and say with political conviction it belongs to China (therefore none of our business).

Like Lord Palmerston said, nations don't have permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. The long-term interests of the United States is being primus inter pares with China where US has strong presence in all areas of Asia, and China shares leadership with America as an equal. That, my fine feathered friend, is how the world really is.

Talk about fantasy.
If you want facts read this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Basically Professor
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
writes extensively about the History of Senkaku supported with documents that can be found if you have the time.

Such as;

It is an indisputable fact that the You li Riben tu jing, written by a Qing official and submitted in 1889 to the court (which approved and published it)--ahead of the Japanese cabinet decision to annex the Senkakus in 1895--recognizes the Senkakus as being Japanese territory.

In sections (a) to (d) above, I have reviewed several late Qing-era documents, which show that from the mid- to late nineteenth century, the Chinese government clearly recognized that the Senkakus were not part of its territory and that, one may surmise, it expressed tacit understanding of the fact that they formed part of the Ryukyu Islands.

Based on the arguments advanced in Part 3 of this paper, one can draw the following conclusions. One is that Qing-era documents contain no direct evidence that the Senkakus became part of China during the Qing dynasty. While these documents do contain passages that can be taken to infer such a development, there are generally vague and metaphorical and can in no way be regarded as unequivocal proof. Nor is there conclusive evidence that the Senkakus were seen as being part of Taiwan--by the government or the people of China--at any time during the Qing dynasty. China has long history as a unified empire and, by nature, was very sensitive to its boundaries and outer limits. When acquiring new territory, therefore, it unfailingly issued regional annals to support those claims (such as for the northeastern region of Taiwan inhabited by the aboriginal Kavalan tribe in 1810 and for Orchid Island off Taiwan's southeastern coast.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
But no Qing document exists for the Senkaku Islands. On the contrary, Ryukyu and Japanese literature and maps, as well as those of Western countries, dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries overwhelmingly suggest that the Senkakus were geographically regarded as part of the Ryukyu Islands.
Even when referring to only Chinese historical documents, therefore, one can definitively conclude that the Senkaku Islands were never part of China during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Nor were they seen as part of Taiwan, either by the Chinese government or the Chinese people (and they were certainly not geographically part of Taiwan).

Finally, one can safely conclude, at the very least, that the Senkaku Islands in 1895 (or more accurately, in 1885) were terra nullius under international law. The reason I say "at the very least" is because in 1885, when Japan launched an official survey of the Senkakus, if any nation had a legal (and historical) claim on the islands, it was Japan, for it had annexed the Ryukyu Kingdom and had thus established legitimate prior occupation and effective control over the islands. This is a subject that I will deal with in a separate paper.

Like I said before the US has no authority and they have stated constantly that they will not take side with sovereignty of other nations.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Talk about fantasy.
If you want facts read this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Basically Professor
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
writes extensively about the History of Senkaku supported with documents that can be found if you have the time.

Such as;



Like I said before the US has no authority and they have stated constantly that they will not take side with sovereignty of other nations.
What a self-serving and misleading study that pretends Diaoyu's history started in 1895, when facts show the island was Chinese territory for centuries prior, and was given to a Chinese official by the Qing imperial court 1893.

I understand those facts are inconvenient, but facts are stubborn things, and they don't go away. Your embrace of so-called "international law" in 1895 is revealing, because back in that unfortunate era, "international law" was the law of the jungle and naked aggression, imperial conquest, murder, rape, and pillage were the norm. I can also make a convincing case the so-called international law is BS today, because the countries that established its modern form, after WW2, are some of the worst offenders.

We agree US doesn't have the legal and moral authority to give Chinese territory to Japan, so I hope Washington extricate itself from the issue and leave it to China and Japan to resolve the sovereignty dispute. With the election of Donald Trump as President, maybe well see just that.
 

joshuatree

Captain
3. As I posted previously the Senkaku isles were declared Terra Nullius by Japan in which no state opposed including the US so the US are bound by treaty that US had recognized and accepted Japan's declaration at that point in 1895.

4. Senkaku isles were not part of Treaty of Shimonoseki, therefore it was not included within any of the later declarations and treaty such as Cairo, Potsdam and/or San Francisco.

3. A strawman argument made by the Japanese side as invoking the so called Terra Nullius happened in the middle of the First Sino-Japanese War. No stronger evidence of opposition than being in a war. Rebutting about root cause of the war as being not about these rocks is splitting hairs as the war was clearly Japanese aggression and imperial ambition on its neighbors.

4. Nothing in the Cairo Declaration stipulates Treaty of Shimonoseki is the only basis of territory Japan has taken.

Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Here we go again with "It is so since I say so" argument.
Seriously it is getting stale. Show some evidence such as historical document stating Ming or Qing Dynasty had declared Senkaku as sovereign territory like Japan did in 1895.
You can't claim something it was no declare it was yours first you know.
It the link I provided the Ming dynasty didn't know about the island before introduced by the Ryukyuans and they respected the isles as Ryukyu territory ever since.
And before you start another fit saying that the Chinese fishermen knew about it, at that time the Ming dynasty was in a state of seclusion not allowing to travel beyond the horizon of the shores so they could not have been able to travel that far. That is why the Ming dynasty really did not have much knowledge about Taiwan and the indigenous people living there.

@Blackstone

You really disappoint me.
Where is the evidence?
Where are the supporting documents?
Calling a person's research "self-serving and misleading" without showing anything to support your side of the argument is the same as a brat having a fit.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
@Blackstone

You really disappoint me.
Where is the evidence?
Where are the supporting documents?
Calling a person's research "self-serving and misleading" without showing anything to support your side of the argument is the same as a brat having a fit.
I'll take your "disappointment" as a complement. Your private fantasy history doesn't meet historical facts. You have no facts to support Japan's "claim" of Diaoyu before its illegal claim of it in 1895, when there are plenty of historical records showing China's management.

Come back when you're less emotional and more reasonable, and we can chat again. Crying about not getting your way isn't seemly and wouldn't get you sympathies with adults. Until then, you might want to go a read a few non-Japanese history books, since the crap you read are extreme.

When you've compose yourself and wish to discuss reason, show records where Japan has any control over Diaoyu prior to 1895. I can show records where China managed it in 1893.
 
Top