China fires back at U.S. for criticism on fishing curbs

Comments (20)
libertadormg wrote:

A storm is brewing on the horizon.

Jan 09, 2014 8:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Another attempt to grab territory from neighbours. China is a threat to peace in Asia, proven by their track record of provocation and invasion.

Jan 09, 2014 10:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueCannon wrote:

Exactly, the inevitable conflict comes sooner than Diaoyu/Senkaku with Japan in E.China sea. Now the Philippines occupies the most strategic islands that China claims sovereignty in S.China sea and patroling around those Filipino-contolled islands with Chinese warships everyday.

As with Vietnam which China accused to have “looted” most small islands, they have a pact to withhold hostility for now but not looked promising with recent bump-ups.

China seems prepared to fight 3 wars simultaneously.

Jan 09, 2014 10:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

The US could learn a few lessons from the Chinese about protecting our own natural resources from foreign exploitation and destruction.
We let others, and ourselves as well, rape and pillage at will; let each country control its own destiny without foreign interference.
We should tend to our own business at home, and leave others alone.
Globalization will lead to the destruction of capitalism quicker than all the terrorists in the world combined. It’s an evil concept
because it leads to equalization, which leads directly to socialism.

Jan 10, 2014 12:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Boatmik wrote:

You have to see the map that China put out to get a clear picture of their claim.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/South-China-Sea-Map.png

Jan 10, 2014 12:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
PapaDisco wrote:

Reuters, you should publish a map of the Chinese claims. They are visibly laughable and obviously extreme when viewed on a map of the South China Sea (Eastern Sea according to Vietnam!).

Jan 10, 2014 8:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
apollo1981 wrote:

Might makes right, eh, China? This is a peaceful rise?

Jan 10, 2014 9:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
Kailim wrote:

Chinese call the Paracel Islands the Xisha Qundao, and the Spratly Islands the Nansha Qundao nowadays.

First know Chinese texts mentioned about islands in the South China Sea dated back to 4th century BCE, about 2400 years ago during the Zhou Dynasty.

First record of China’s government administrating these islands was found in 1044 during the Song Dynasty from 618 to 1279. The record says that the Song government included the islands in South China Sea in the patrol area of the Navy of the Court. No dispute from any other countries at that time.

During 1279 to 1368 the Yuan Dynasty, which inherited all sovereign territories of the Song Dynasty, sent its official Guo Shoujing to surveyed and measured all islands in the South China Sea and included the Paracel and the Spratly islands in its domain. Again no dispute or protest from any other countries.

From 1368 to 1911 the Ming and Qing Dynasties inherited sovereign territories from the Yuan Dynasty including the islands in the South China Sea. The Paracel and Spratly islands were put under the jurisdiction of the Qiongzhou Prefecture during that period. Again no dispute.

In 1835 the King of Vietnam sent his officials together with workers to an island in the Pracels and erected a temple and steles there.

In 1885 the Qing Dynasty lost the Sino-French War and gave up its long-time vassal state, Vietnam, to France.

France claimed the Paracel Islands in 1931, and the Republic of China, which inherited all the sovereign territories of the Qing Dynasty, protested and denied France’s claim in 1932.

France invaded and occupied the Paracel Islands in 1938. Three days later the Japanese Foreign Ministry issued a declaration in protest of the French occupation: “The statements of Great Britain and France made respectively in 1900 and 1921 already declared that the Xisha Islands were part of the administrative prefecture of Hainan Island. Therefore, the current claims made by An’nan and France to the Xisha Islands are totally unjustifiable.”

After the WWII, the Republic of China sent four warships to recover from Japan and to assert sovereignty of all islands in the South China Sea in 1946. It has since maintained a garrison in the biggest island, the Taiping Island, of the Spratly Islands. Again no dispute at that time in 1946.

In 1956 South Vietnam claimed to inherit French territories including the Paracel Islands, but rejected by both the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China.

In 1958 the Prime Minister Pham Van Dong of North Vietnam sent a letter to his Chinese counterpart Zhou Enlai says that his government had recognized the declaration of the Chinese government having proclaimed the Paracel and the Spratly Islands as Chinese sovereign territories.

In 1971 Philippines’ government began claiming the Spratly islands.

In 1974 Chinese navy defeated the South Vietnam’s in the Paracel Island and has controlled the entire Paracel Islands. The USA, an ally of South Vietnam at that time, said and did nothing.

The above is a brief account of history of South China Sea islands.

Jan 10, 2014 9:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:

So China wants all of the radioactive fish for itself?

Jan 10, 2014 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
freeokinawa wrote:

Again Philippines is probably the culprit in forcing China to do this enforcement. Recently Philippines put more military presence in some Spratly Islands and by extension enforcement of surrounding EEZ. China is just reacting to what Philippines do. Remember Philippines had killed a Taiwanese fisherman last year through reckless enforcement. China’s enforcement hopefully is more civilize.

Jan 10, 2014 9:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
Lemming wrote:

China continues to rob, rape and pillage the earth for all she’s worth! China will continue to try and expand their territory in hopes to deplete all resources surrounding their toxic country.

Jan 10, 2014 9:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
boreal wrote:

Didn’t the once bountiful cod fisheries of the Atlantic North East of Newfoundland collapsed because Canada was pussyfooting about protecting its fisheries, and foreign trawler vacuum cleaners equipped with modern technology like sonar/radar felt free and went after and sucked up all the stock?

Jan 10, 2014 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bob9999 wrote:

This is transparently an attempt to set the stage of an assertion of actual control over the disputed region 5 or 10 years from now. It’s just like the flight rules regarding those disputed islands.

China is getting ready to pick a fight. Make no mistake about it.

Jan 10, 2014 10:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Who the islands belonged in ancient history is irrelevant.

In recent history, the Chines claim to have ‘inherited’ the islands means nothing. just saying “they are ours” is meaningless. The Vietnamese also claimed them equally validly, but more importantly Vietnam also exercised de facto control. This backs the French claim to be taking control of Vietnamese territory.

Even more importantly still, the Treaty of San Francisco gives the Paracels to the Vietnamese.

The Chinese argument that North Vietnam sent them a letter means nothing. The islands lie south of the 17th parallel and therefore come under South Vietnam jurisdiction, and a letter is just a letter – it is not a treaty, not an agreement, and has no legal power at all.

So basically, we have historical de facto administration, 20th century international law, and an international treaty backing the Vietnamese claim; and nothing but an informal letter from a guy who didn’t have any legal claim to the islands backing the Chinese claim.

Jan 10, 2014 11:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Wry wrote:

“…. have been China’s since ancient times…”

What they all fail to mention is that “China” began it’s modern existence in 1949 — with the overthrow of the then-legitimate government.

China demands the world to revert to national “ownership” per 2500 BC boundaries? Really?

I suppose then London would be governed by Rome, the US placed in receivership to the Indian Nations, Mongolia and much of the northern Asia plains (including some territories in Russia) would revert to the heirs of Genghis Khan, and much of the world would be left with only tribal groups and feudal states since no there would be no governments with jurisdiction.

Yeah, right. Let’s do that.

Jan 10, 2014 11:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@ lemming

“Chinese Tourists Damaging Fauna and Flora On Disputed Paracel Islands Raise Ire Of Conservationists

Those on tour groups headed for the Paracel Islands, advertised locally as “China’s Maldives,” boasts of hunting for sea creatures, fishing, diving and even catching and eating endangered species like the giant clam, which is protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-tourists-damaging-fauna-flora-disputed-paracel-islands-raise-ire-conservationists-1361435

Jan 10, 2014 11:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
Pterosaur wrote:

Good job, Kalim. You seem to be much more knowledgeable than any other poster on this board.

Jan 10, 2014 7:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pterosaur wrote:

Good job, Kalim. You seem to be much more knowledgeable than any other poster on this board.

Jan 10, 2014 7:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kailim wrote:

Bakhtin,

Your statement: “…,the Treaty of San Francisco gives the Paracels to the Vietnamese.” is wrong and incorrect.

Jan 11, 2014 5:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Kailim… “The South China Sea in the Age of European Decline” says I am right. South Vietnam made their claim, and every country except Russia agreed to it.

San Francisco was not intended to solve sovereignty disputes, and the default is that territory recovered from the Japanese would revert to the last previous holder, which in the case of the Paracels would be South Vietnam.

Jan 11, 2014 10:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.