By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Does your Chinese friends know what year China became a party to the PCA?
It is a fun question. Because the answer is
1907... to it was before the PRC. In a sense part of the 5000 years of history that is used as reason and excuse for all good and bad things in the universe. However, if China has been part of this for so long, how can it suddenly be "void of validity" just because an arbitration is slightly inconvenient to those who desperately seek to destroy ocean wildlife ? Wouldn't an all knowing and omnipotent leadership have seen the light and said "we don't wanna play" to the PCA well before anyone asked it for arbitration ?
You've lost me. What's the PCA?
Shining_brow:
Yeah, that was going to be my question... I've been saying International blah blah... :p
Chinese people don't know anything about anything. Ask them when and who first made the claim of that entire area for China. (1947 ROC) When you look at the facts surrounding that situation anyone would see that the other 5 claimants are reasonable and China's claims are ..... . Look at the map
Hotwater:
What I learnt today was the original ROC claim was an 11-dash line. The PRC reduced it to 9-dashes to try and placate Vietnam! Now they just need to remove another 7 or 8 dashes to comply with the tribunal ruling.
That was the other China that we don't talk about anymore... so it doesn't count cos it got its arse whipped a few times (somewhat like the current China... that doesn't talk about those sorts of things....).
We only signed the PCA because we were forced to....
It's the west's fault!
I think it's pretty clear that the govt knew that on the grounds by which the court would make a decision that they were going to lose. So if they went and presented their case and acted in good faith it would only lend legitimacy to the ruling.
If they thought they would win they would have participated and be using the ruling as a way to shut down any counter claims. They chose the play of declining to participate and denying the legitimacy, probably well aware from the filing date that they could not successfully argue their position.
Englteachted:
It's tough to argue something is yours simply because you drew a line around it.
Shining_brow:
I fought this in a wechat thread... I said "China was asked to show evidence - they CHOSE not to!"
"We have maps - but you're not allowed to see the originals... only the copies, so you have to just take our word for it".
tomcatflyer:
From what I read today, Wikipedia, it seems that the Daoyu and Paracel islands were handed back to China after the second world war as part of the assets that were seized by the Japanese and then returned to the rightful ownership. there are also American produced maps in the late 1940's that clearly show these islands as Chinese territory. I know Wikipedia may not always be totally accurate so feel free to correct me, but from where I stand it looks as though China's claim is valid. Is America stirring the pot again hoping countries like Vietnam will "invite" them to open new military bases there, thereby circling China.
tomcatflyer:
The maps showing Chinese ownership are from Collier's World Atlas and Gazette, and Rand McNally. It does seem as though these islands were recognised internationally as Chinese after the second world war, did anything happen in the meantime causing China to relinquish their ownership?
Shining_brow:
@Tomcat - if this were the case, then one has to wonder why China chose not to go to the Arbitration and argue this...
(it also begs the question of the validity of "to the victor, the spoils")
expatlife26:
right, what I think happened is that China had a team of experts go over the case and figure that they were unlikely to be able to prove their claim under the UNCLOS.
So because they didn't think they could win, they decided to deny the legitimacy of the procedings.
I would wager my life that if China won or was likely to win this ruling from the get go they would be trumpeting the legitimacy of the jurisdiction of the court and saying this ruling proves once and for all that China is a law abiding citizen of the world.
Whether they have a moral high ground claim or not...which they may well have. I don't know i'm not an expert in martime affairs or what happened after WW2, they didn't think they could successfully argue that claim and invoked the Eric Cartman defense of "screw you guys!...I'm going home!"
And you know they'll just blame America for why China breached their agreements not to build on the 'islands'... (I've been getting that crap...... "well, America did, so we should too...")
