All: recent threads on Chinese topics have descended into nationalistic flamewar. That's about the worst thing you can do on Hacker News, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it or anything like it, regardless of which view you favor.
Hacker News is a large community with people on all sides of all issues in all regions. Assume good faith, and check your matches, lighters, and brass knuckles at the door.
He takes a wonderfully naive approach for someone who's historically knowledgeable. I'm sure he knows why and how territorial claims are made and how countries use and abuse historical data, archives, archeology, myths, narratives and make inflated claims from otherwise trivial facts (e.g. this document which has a stamp of a representative of the King on this trade document exchanging camels for figs shows the kingdom had economic representation in the region which under the cultural norms at the time was viewed as de facto political rule, traced all the way to now means the republic that succeeded the kingdom still has sovereignty here.)
None of these are mistakes, they're political claims.
The Aegean dispute is quite an interesting case study for anyone who wants to dive into how this all works. Due to the many islands in combination with international law (UNCLOS) it ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed. In the south china sea this isn't as big a deal, but still important due to shipping, rare minerals, fishing rights etc.
Turkey owns 4 islands in the Aegean. Greece has over 6,000 in total. I don't see where you get the "screwing over" part. Is it because you think Turkey should have more territories than it does today?
Turkey should have signed UNCLOS a long time ago. 168 countries have. The only reason they postpone it is to maintain claims over Greece. Signing UNCLOS would also mean that their warships can no longer venture near Athens while claiming to be on international waters. And of course they'd finally have to stop pretending that the Greek-Cypriot EEZ connection doesn't exist.
I can see why Turkey and China are abusing historical data, archives, archeology, myths etc, just like you said, but I can't help but notice that they don't have any valid claims, and the moral thing to do (if there is one) would most likely be to drop those claims.
When I say screwing over, I don't mean that as a value judgement on Greece's position. Greece's position makes sense, international law is on their side as is history. I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that.
i.e. if anything north of Antalya has no more connection to the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean (i.e. access to the sea) without going through Greek waters, that's an issue for Turkey. Greece already 'owns' about 50% of the Aegean, 12nm would extend that past 70%.
International law is the area of law least concerned with morality. Everyone disagrees but that's how it works because there's no such thing as a world court, world government, world police force. Just some semblance of it in our institutions that make a good effort but where political power is still key. Greece doesn't come close to Turkey's geopolitical power and has no explicit support from any major powers on this issue. That's why it hasn't changed from 6nm despite the law.
I would disagree by the way that they don't have valid claims. Perhaps under strict application of international law (which doesn't really exist) they'd lose. But they also make non-legal claims to equity and make claims about genuine concerns of the so called greek lake, which make quite a lot of sense.
I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that.
Let's just assume that it is.
But you'd have to agree also that's hard to have much sympathy for Turkey as the victimized party in the region. Or to repurpose a quote from Apocalypse Now:
"What do you call it when the bully accuses the bully?"
Of course they play a role (like a thousand other things), but if Cyprus didn't exist did you really think the Aegean dispute would be much different? No. Greece didn't draft the 12 nautical miles portion of UNCLOS which is at the heart of the issue, this isn't a Greek law, it's international law. And it's not workable for Turkey, regardless of the Cyprus question.
Either way Greek/Turkish relations are far too complex to link it to 1974 as a causal factor. They have territorial claims that are centuries old. e.g. take Lesbos, quite clearly Greek if you ask me, but also insignificantly, was in the hands of the Ottoman empire for 400-500 years. Compare that to a US history timeframe and it's pretty clear there's some basis for both positions. All of it is political, relatively recent events in Cyprus are but one facet of Greek/Turkish relations and to be precise it wasn't so much 1974 really... The Turkish intervention against the coup that year tends to be viewed as a legitimate action. It's what happened since in 1975 and beyond, the occupation of Cyprus, which is viewed as illegal.
China's claims are weak, but the United States Government's complete inability to prioritize has hurt their ability to confront China. That being said, China is alienating it's neighbors and they will depend on the USG to guarantee freedom of navigation.
Most areas in the world would be improved by a reduction in USA interference, just as you describe having happened in the South China Sea. Our omnipresent bullying makes it too easy for potential rivals as well as potential allies. Without us as a foil they take more care in finding their own way. [EDIT: or, to say it less self-centered fashion, possibilities emerge when they can devote fewer resources to handling interference from afar].
There's been a lot of chaos, but it started before the U.S. intervened, as I remember. The U.S. and European footprint has been very light - maybe, as in Syria, way too light to create order.
I can tell if you’re joking or if I’m misunderstanding (there is a typo in there I assume?). You can’t name any other country that would be better off if the US hadn’t meddled? I can name more than that which my country meddled in and made a mess, and I’m from New Zealand.
I'm from Canada, and we suffer from U.S. nonsense and exploitation (which cost me a brother, actually), but you have to be next to somebody, and they're above average as neighbors, in this world.
The research is interesting, and shows that a surprising amount of complexity around the claims was present for more than a hundred years. Legally, the 2016 arbitration was final and non-appealable, so absent some large shift in international jurisprudence, the letter of the law says one thing, yet the situation of the ground is different.
There's little reason the two will drift into alignment in the future, because of the reasons the Spratlys are sought in the first place: a prime spot for force projection, proximity to global shipping lanes, and credible rumours of hydrocarbon reserves, in descending order.
This is a fascinating and illuminating piece of history, but I have a hard time believing that these cartographic mistakes are the reason for China's posture in the South China Sea.
The first part of the article mentions the strategic and economic resources in the region. Do we think that China would be minding its own business if these mistakes had not been made? It seems more likely that we would simply be left with the "ancient and historical claim[s] to the reefs and rocks in the South China Sea" without the attendant maps from the early 20th century.
> I have a hard time believing that these cartographic mistakes are the reason for China's posture in the South China Sea.
Sure, these aren't China's motivation, but they are China's argument for the legitimacy of their claims. To the extent this research can be said to argue for a political outcome, it is less about dissuading China from its claims and more about reducing those claims from "legitimate" to simply "effective". (Which is more than enough for the Chinese, even if they accepted the research at face value -- which they won't.)
Needless to say, they will find a reason for what they want to do. I'd guess they can find an historical reason because they are not the first Chinese regime to desire to control the territories around them.
No doubt, nearly every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled by multiple governmental parties at some point in history, and can thus be contested. Perhaps Mexico will want Texas back? But what about the Native Americans in the area? Maybe the French will contest that the Louisiana Purchase was illegitimate on a technicality? How about identifying all the potential claimants to the land in Israel - we can add religious claims to the standard legal and geopolitical claims. Claims are noise, omnipresent for everything, not signal of much significance.
On the other hand, we want the debate to stay in the legal realm. I was just reading that rule of law for international disputes dates back only to the early to mid-twentieth century (depending on how you date it). Before then, war was the 'legal' way to resolve it; it wasn't outlawed effectively until the UN was formed right after WWII.
Crazy as it sounds, Western nations colonized the island of Taiwan, which had a native population, China didn't - it wasn't interested. But should China's lack of appetite for colonization back then be penalized?
Rather than rewriting history now, I think China would do far better to blatantly object to any rules defining sea territories based on what small islands the nations who were eager to colonize managed to seize, back when; and instead argue that taking the population densities in the area is reasonable when divying up the sea. That's their real point, and it's a pretty good one.
The trouble with inventing claims and shoving military forces into places you'd like to have now, is that there's no end to it. It's a promise of eternal war. Eternal irredentism and revanchism. Bound to make 'em unpopular. China could make a legitimate argument, in my view, but even now they aren't bothering to do that. Pity.
I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from colonial times.
It's not their stated point, but if there's another rationalization, I can't imagine it. They feel their large population entitles them to more - I don't think they're wrong about that.
Well, they think they should have more than their neighbors if the nine dashed line is any indication (we don't believe in 100 km, except for other countries so...). Note that those countries in the SCS are much more densely populated than China, and double especially where the conflicts occur (they have millions and millions of people living on the line, china has like a garrison on small artificially buffed islands).
If they do claim that as a rationalization, the cognitive dissonance to dismiss the hypocrisy must be amazing. However, I've never heard them make such a rationalization before, and I don't think they have.
Philippines has 100 million people. Vietnam has 90 million people. Malaysia has 30 millions. None of these are big countries area wise, they are all located very close to the SCS, much closer than Hainan’s 8 million.
The population of all these countries is pretty much in the vicinity of seas disputed. The population of China is pretty much not (Hainan is one of the least populated provinces).
Which is consistent both with my proposal, (considering population), and would allow create boundaries very different from the little islands rules - so you seem to be "agreeing with vehemence" here, not disagreeing.
> They feel their large population entitles them to more
What do you base that on?
> I don't think they're wrong about that.
Should international law depend on what people think? In every situation, we can find people who think all sorts of things. I think law works better when it's based on fair rules.
I don't think a large population gives anyone the right seize territory from others. I think that's an awful idea, and i can't think of one legal principle that agrees. Should the US get to seize parts of Canada? China parts of Russia?
Circling - as said above I base that on not knowing any alternative.
Should we listen to what you think? I think even I get an opinion and fairness that ignores numbers needs some justification. Seizing is a different topic - I was the one who said following the seizing small islands theory of sea law was a bad idea, remember?
> I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from colonial times.
How about "Set aside dispute and pursue joint development"[0]?
I think one thing you are right about is besides "joint development", we do need a regional LAW (rather than just an agreement) to completely settle the whole South China Sea thing.
Absolutely not. Condition 2 (bottom) insists any settlement of law NOT be undertaken, but "postponed" - indefinitely one assumes. Much less any new treaty for the law of the sea undertaken.
I assume the "postponed" in condition 2 at that time actually means no body should legalize the ownership for themself one-sided, until solution is found.
Personally, I hope neighbors around the South China Sea can eventually found a way to share the area once and for all without causing new conflict. Many treasures has been turned into shitty hot potatoes because of that sea already, that needs to stop.
It means de facto ownership and ignoring the legal determination of the United Nations that's already been handed down. It's a kind of "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes." offer.
> "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes."
Maybe this is a little over-simplified? Too many histories need to be dig into before the problem can be explained and understood completely. Let's hope those politicians will figure out how to solve it.
> Western nations colonized the island of Taiwan, which had a native population, China didn't - it wasn't interested.
I don't think any Western country settled Taiwan, ever. The Netherlands controlled it for ~40 years in the 17th century, but that's as close as it comes. Taiwan was a frontier of China, with a native population, for much of history. Exiles of all sorts would set up there.
Japan (not a Western country) effective forced China to cede it at the end of the 19th century, and ruled Taiwan until losing it in WWII.
A few years later, the latest exiles, the Nationalists, fled there upon losing the civil war with the Communists. The government they created has controlled Taiwan since then.
Other Western nations came in after that. Interesting history. Then finally China and Japan got interested. I've read a book entirely devoted to the history of the island.
It was at essentially the same time and they were driven out by the Dutch, and thus didn't seem worth mentioning. Regarding the rest, I stand by what I said above.
Lets be honest here, all the countries fighting for these islands will use an origin myth but historicalities is not the real reason for the fight, these islands have likely never been populated by humans because they're too small, they're arguing for shipping and natural resources reasons and historicalities is just part of the bs added.
Exactly; it's an error (a deliberate error, now what's the word for that, again?) not a mistake.
Reminds me of a very old grammar joke, husband interrupts wife in bed with another. Wife: "You startled me." Husband: "No dear, I am startled. You were surprised."
This is a quite interesting story. Yet the piece one forgot to mention is that the government of Republic of China was founded in 1912, after the intense and long warfare. Meaning at most, the author's evidence could prove that during the times somewhat around 1912-1927. It wasn't on the government's official records, while they're trying to define its territory.
It does not affect evidence dated back before.
On the other hand, similar arguments could effectively be found for other countries who also land the claims. As their claims were only made more recently, as well as their governments, all after a long time of western colonization.
Different claims made by different countries must all be examined. Put one in the spotlight without examining others could only raise suspicions.
> the government of Republic of China was founded in 1912
The Republic of China is the official name of Taiwan; mainland China is The People's Republic of China.
The last Imperial dynasty, the Qing, usually is dated to have ended in 1911. There was a period of intermittent civil war and various claims to government until the Communists defeated the Nationalists in 1949.
1949 is usually given as the date of the founding of the current Chinese state. (The Nationalists fled to Taiwan, which became the Republic of China.)
Don’t mistake the HN comment section for a place where you need to be concerned about one narrative or another bandying about sovereign claims to the Spratly Islands.
Does it really mean anything? I'm actually a bit surprised that the claim existed as far back as 100 years ago. The US had absolutely nothing to claim about Hawaii whatsoever, yet just marched in, drove out the original king and occupied the place.
Surely any "historical facts" have no importance whatsoever in geopolitical maneuvers.
The discussion is much more civilised compared with those in chinese language.
The current power in china actually is not very consistent in maintaining its territories. If history based on Qing empire, the territorial claims would be very different.
It is all political.
For this area strangely even I studied politics even aware of it. Unlike a little island japan and china claiming sovereignty and Taiwan, it is really not much mentioned until lately.
Hence, it is more about another empire raising up, not about claims.
As regards the style of this empire, good luck you have a place where only its IT firm can do business and others including Apple has to hand over their databases.
IT people should concern, even if it is political. Too much at stack. If the chinese norm becomes the internet standard (as its communist chief tried in internet conference), you will be all affected.
Dang, Its going to be really tough to ignore China. Especially on Hacker news.
I've recently read a book The China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-American Era by the Chinese general Liu Mingfu and the country is by admission not a proponent of Human rights (but rather "Peace" and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics")
Last year China VC funding grew tremendously [1]. China will surpass the US GDP in 15-20 years [2] or so (if not less), and dealing with China is difficult in the technology industry. Google, Facebook, the YC backed Airbnb [3], Uber and many more US companies have tried to enter the market with difficulty.
I understand nationalism is a problem especially in the Trump era but this issue will be with us for the foreseeable future and the tech community has a special responsibility to ensure the universal values of Human Rights are defended.
In the board game Warhammer there is the tale of the Dwarves strongholds. They forever remembered grudges. Even over the course of time, when the nature of the grudge was forgotten, they still held on to the ill will. This article is well reasoned, researched, and makes sense to a Chinese speaker. However, this will be dismissed like the UN Tribunal simply because the result contradicts the official narrative promoted by China.
There is simply too much nationalism and national pride locked up with the whole South China Sea and Taiwan that no amount of logic and truth can change how it is perceived in China.
The South China Sea dispute has nothing to facts like these, and all about geopolitics and power within China. Like with the Austria pre-ww2, if the Chinese were to invade and conquer Taiwan and control the entire SCS, they'll magically find other "distractions" and "conflicts" to distract people away from their own misrule and corruption.
With Putin's Russia and the CCP, there must always be enemies (both internal and external). If they don't exist, you create one (think FalunGong)
"War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact." -1984
in 1984, war is strictly a distraction and an economic sinkhole to keep the masses occupied.
in China, it's likely about not setting precedent for sub states seceding, making the country less powerful because smaller, as well as making the "communist" setup look weaker/optional. Are these the same as 1984? I don't know.
A way to keep a large industry fed, providing jobs which otherwise would be outsourced to low-wage countries. The same industry provides the politicians who get to decide over how public funds are to be spent with lucrative positions, enticing them to keep said industry on their side. People often hop from the industry into politics and vice-versa, a practice known as the revolving door between politics and industry.
In many ways this can be compared to the purpose of war in the feudal middle ages where land always needed to be conquered to be given as fiefs to up-and-coming nobility so that nobility would support the current king in his strive to remain in power. Things change but the basic tenet stays the same: those in power want to remain there and will use the means at their disposition to do so.
Well it's certainly nothing to keep the masses occupied. Our latest war got practically zero coverage. And it has nothing to do with secession of the states.
Wanna maybe expand on the point you're trying to make?
Right now China doesn’t really have an outlet to the wider pacific in case of war. They are blocked by Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Russia and the whole of Southeast Asia. If they could control the whole SCS, or retake Taiwan, then their submarines would get out without assured detection.
So it’s not just national pride, there is a huge strategic element at play also.
> Right now China doesn’t really have an outlet to the wider pacific in case of war. They are blocked by Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Russia and the whole of Southeast Asia. If they could control the whole SCS, or retake Taiwan, then their submarines would get out without assured detection.
It's much more important than submarines. Their trade, and access to resources such as oil, goes through that territory controlled by others (the US especially).
I don't know why you're calling out russia and the CCP specifically for that. it seems to be an American thing too, and reasonably common everywhere to make ennemies so you can have distractions from misrule and corruption.
Good ol dang to the rescue. Never says a single word about subtle slandering of conservatives, white males, christians or Republicans; but, since Chinese are non-white, he leaps to defense of alternate points of view on HN.
Ask yourselves why each of you find disagreeable topics only acceptable in these cases.
It's not equivalent. At HN (and in the U.S. and Europe), white males and christians are strong and secure; the threat they face from discrimination is very little. They aren't going to be lynched, enslaved, deported; they won't be denied education or other public services, or be denied jobs or power (the few jobs and little power they don't already have).
Consider a room with 40 people who can't leave. 36 are blue-eyed people and 4 are green-eyed. There is a long history of many blue-eyed people enslaving, oppressing, lynching, discriminating against, and hating green-eyed people. If a green-eyed person says, 'blue-eyed people are scum and we should kill them all', they might get some looks and some people might take a few steps away, but there isn't much threat. If a blue-eyed person says it about green-eyed people ...
Or they could just say, 'don't hire green people'. Again, it's much different if the powerful or the disempowered say the same thing. Another example is if you are a woman working in SV in an entry-level job. If you say, 'we shouldn't hire men', it's just odd. If the CEO says 'we shouldn't hire women', it's a serious threat to your job.
Hacker News is a large community with people on all sides of all issues in all regions. Assume good faith, and check your matches, lighters, and brass knuckles at the door.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html