• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Red China, the world's largest dictatorship have the right to claim the West Philippines Sea?

Does Red China, the world's largest dictatorship have the right to claim the West Philippines Sea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • No

    Votes: 10 83.3%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12
Just like the poll states.

Or better stated, Does Red China, the world's largest dictatorship, and run by a regime that harvests the organs of dissidents, persecutes peaceful Tibetan Buddhists and Christians, and is known the world over for making toxic and dangerous products, have the right to invade the sovereignty of the West Philippine Sea, which belongs to the Filipino people?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Would the answer change if the human rights record of the PRC was different? Does that actually factor in to the validity of its claims to the area you refer to (AKA South China Sea)?

This image suggests it's essentially the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal which are in dispute, as well as surrounding waters.

South_China_Sea_claims_map.jpg
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Just like the poll states.

Or better stated, Does Red China, the world's largest dictatorship, and run by a regime that harvests the organs of dissidents, persecutes peaceful Tibetan Buddhists and Christians, and is known the world over for making toxic and dangerous products, have the right to invade the sovereignty of the West Philippine Sea, which belongs to the Filipino people?
Whatever historical claim they make is ridiculous, but if they take the territory and develop it then they begin to develop a right over time. It is becoming a matter of military power.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Voted undecided. The video below may be useful if people want to know more.

 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
They absolutely do not. Their policy is "might makes right". Look what they did to peaceful Tibet. How many did they murder there nearly erasing their culture? FREE TIBET!! They will push as far as they can till enough countries say enough.
 
They absolutely do not. Their policy is "might makes right". Look what they did to peaceful Tibet. How many did they murder there nearly erasing their culture? FREE TIBET!! They will push as far as they can till enough countries say enough.
China murdered 7 million Tibetans, killed the entire monastic population and banned the use of the Tibetan language. Even today there are public executions all over Tibet and that death toll is growing exponentially.

If we don't stop China now they will be claiming Hawaii in the near future: China’s New World Map Claims Hawaii And Most of Micronesia
 

0x0005D0

Member
Actually, their claim is supported historically, and legally. They might be going by technicalities, but so are other countries in the region, and so does the US, for example in claiming Navassa Island (Haiti disputes the claim) and Baja Nuevo Bank (claimed by Jamaica, Nicaragua and Columbia). It's not like China is alone in having disputed territories. The US even has unsettled border disputes with Canada and waters off the Mexican coast.

The source of the claim is that in 1884, France and China went to war over control of Tonkin and Annam (today Vietnam). China lost the war, and the region fell into the French Sphere of influence. In 1887, the Sino-French Treaty formally forced China to relinquish their sphere of influence in those regions, in exchange for the Spratlys and Paracels, which states:

The isles which are to the east of the meridian of 105° 43' longitude east of Paris, which is to say of the north-south line passing through the eastern point of the island of Chagu [Tch’a-Kou or Ouan-chan (Tra-co)] and forming the border, are similarly assigned to China.

Translation of the treaty can be found here: 1887, Tonkin Border - France | china's external relations - a history

Paris is located at 2°21' longitude, so this corresponds to 108° 4' E of the Prime Meridian:

v4B20Gs.jpg


In any case, no nation laid claim to the Spratlys before then. However, in 1883, when Germany sent explorers to the Xisha and Nansha Islands, they were stopped after a request by the Qing Government (source). Later on, successive Chinese governments developed the largest islands in each of the island chains, namely Woody Island (currently administered by the PRC) and Taiping Island (currently administered by the Republic of China). The claim here is that since both of these islands are clearly not fully submerged at high tide, and capable of supporting a permanent human presence, they are entitled to a 200 nautical mile EEZ. Woody Island has a population of about 1400 military and civilians, while Taiping has a population of about 600. As they are capable of supporting life, the contention is more about how these would overlap with other competing claims in the area. If you draw the 200-mile radius around each of these islands, it comes very close to approximating the nine-dash line.

The situation is made more complicated by the fact that Taiwan (formally called the Republic of China) also claims them, and that China claims to be the successor state to the ROC. In fact, Taiwan claims Woody Island and China claims Taiping, the islands being occupied by the "other China". This is similar more or less to how some territories claimed by the Confederacy were later re-incorporated into the Union after the Confederacy lost.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
China isn't even entitled to China.
The government in exile (ROC) is.
So the PRC, by its own reasoning, has empty claims.
 

Wu Wei

ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
China isn't even entitled to China.
The government in exile (ROC) is.
So the PRC, by its own reasoning, has empty claims.

So based on this theory the only people that have any claim to China would be the Xia (2070BC -1600BC), but an argument could be made that it should be the Qin (221BC - 206BC) since they were the ones that unified China under their rule and it is also where the name China comes from..... since apparently Dynastic change does not seem to matter here.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So based on this theory the only people that have any claim to China would be the Xia (2070BC -1600BC), but an argument could be made that it should be the Qin (221BC - 206BC) since they were the ones that unified China under their rule and it is also where the name China comes from..... since apparently Dynastic change does not seem to matter here.
It turtles all the way down.
 
Top