South China Sea oil and gas exploration - Vietnam vs. China, S. China Sea
South China Sea oil and gas exploration - Vietnam vs. China, S. China Sea
Sep 19 2011, 08:57 AM
Joined: 7-August 11
India makes waves with South China Sea oil and gas exploration
(Global Times)09:49, September 18, 2011
India's External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna began a 3-day visit to Vietnam on Friday as reports claimed that an Indian state-owned oil producer is set to undertake joint exploration of gas resources in the South China Sea with Vietnam, in spite of protests from Beijing.
The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) was reported on Thursday to have cemented a deal with Vietnamese firms to exploit oil and gas in two offshore South China Sea oil blocks with Krishna expected to discuss the issue in Vietnam.
The Indian External Affairs Ministry also reportedly claimed on Thursday that the project has been approved by Vietnam, which claims sovereignty over the two blocks, according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Responding to a question concerning these plans, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded Thursday that the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories. Jiang also warned countries outside the region to support the resolution of this dispute through bilateral channels.
This is the first time I’ve seen the Chinese government responding with a legal counterpoint based on UNCLOS to refute the baseless claims by other countries that UNCLOS’s provisions gave them the right to invade Chinese sovereign territories. As Jiang Yu rightly pointed out, UNCLOS does not give any country the right to unilaterally extend its EEZ and continental shelf into other countries’ EEZ, continental shelf, territorial seas, internal seas and sovereign territories. Any island that qualifies under UNCLOS’ Article 121 has its own EEZ and continental shelf. This means that every Chinese sovereign island in the S. China Sea has its own 200 nm of EEZ and 350 nm of continental shelf. And where the EEZ of two countries overlap, the right of EEZ of each area belongs to the country that is closest to it. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation for Vietnam and other invading countries to argue that UNCLOS allow them to claim 200 nm of EEZ that includes China’s sovereign islands. Furthermore, China has demarcated its sea boundary by the 9-Dotted Line Map that predates the UNCLOS by many decades and cannot be superseded by any ex post facto laws of UNCLOS. Therefore, Vietnam and other invading countries cannot justify their invasion of Chinese sovereign territories by referring to the UNCLOS. And China has the right to evict any invaders from its sovereign territories with force. Specifically, India’s oil agreement with Vietnam is null and void and subject to seizure by the Chinese government according to China's laws. I'm glad to see the Chinese government responding skillfully with refutations based on international laws. I hope it will follow up with military actions justified by international laws.
It should be quite obvious by now that war in S. China Sea is inevitable. If the Chinese government persists in deluding itself that by presenting an image of benevolence it will ultimately wear down its enemies with loving kindness then it will be taking China down the path of destruction. China's policy has not yielded good results as everyone can see. The reality is China is actually losing long time allies. Even N. Korea is now inching closer to Russia and Russia itself is becoming more inattentive to China's interests. The fact that Russia is increasing its arms sales to India and Vietnam is a slap in China's face that signals the serious failure of China's diplomacy. It is time for the Chinese leaders to stop their self-delusion and show the world that China can and will fight to safeguard its sovereign territories and that the international community has better respect China's sovereignty or face the consequences.
At the same time, the Chinese people should learn a few simple facts such as a war against Vietnam will not collapse China's economy if China confines the fighting to the S. China Sea and not attack Vietnam mainland itself. The Chinese people should also know that combat radius of China's fighters such as J-10 and J-11 can all reach the farthest areas of Nansha A. and therefore China does not need aircraft carriers to begin fighting. The Chinese people should also know that fighting Vietnam and Philippines will not cause world war or turn all the world against China. The world needs China more than China needs the world. At least for now. It has been suggested that EU is facing collapse and only China has the money to bail it out. Specifically, Italy has a debt of some $2 trillion. It is suggested that a consortium be formed to provide $750 billion to the IMF to be distributed to Italy to bail it out. China is expected to contribute half of the money. The importing countries need China's cheap exports while China can expand its economy much more sustainably by phasing out exports. Therefore, China is in a very good position to go to war now to regain its lost sovereign territories while at the same time create a new image of a powerful nation willing to defend itself. Such a powerful image will go a long way toward discouraging further aggressions from puny countries.
The cost of war is minimal and the international community needs China's money and exports. Everything is now favorable to China going to war. Such an opportunity may not come again. China must "take the tide while it serves."
Those who are interested in reading more about China's evidence for claiming sovereignty in S. China Sea can go to the following link:
"S. China Sea - possession is nine-tenth of the law."
This post has been edited by Liang1a: Sep 19 2011, 03:44 PM
Sep 27 2011, 12:21 PM
Joined: 10-March 05
i gave ample warning in post 6. i was more then generous as well. several times i 'pretend' ivy was right and argue based on that. i even pretend all my supposition (which i dont think it really was) were ALL WRONG, only relying on PURE QUOTES from Soviet Foreign Minister sourced from JAPANESE Ministry of Affairs and i STILL have a far better example of someone recognizing Chinese claim.
let me post the entire Soviet Statement.
2. Statement of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko, at the Conference in San Francisco (1951)
... The peace treaty with Japan should, naturally, resolve a number of territorial questions connected with the peace settlement with Japan. It is known that in this respect as well the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union undertook specific obligations. These obligations are outlined in the Cairo Declaration, in the Potsdam Declaration, and in the Yalta Agreement.
These agreements recognize the absolutely indisputable rights of China, now the Chinese People's Republic, to territories severed from it. It is an indisputable fact that original Chinese territories which were severed from it, such as Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese territories, should be returned to the Chinese People's Republic.
The rights of the Soviet Union to the southern part of the Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as to the Kurile Islands, which are at present under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, are equally indisputable.
Thus, while resolving the territorial questions in connection with the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan, there should not be any lack of clarity if we are to proceed from the indisputable rights of states to territories which Japan got hold of by the force of arms.
... As regards the American-British draft peace treaty with Japan in the part pertaining to territorial questions, the Delegation of the USSR considers it necessary to state that this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands severed from it by the Japanese militarists. The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories. In reality, however, Taiwan and the said islands have been captured by the United States of America and the United States wants to legalize these aggressive actions in the draft peace treaty under discussion. Meanwhile the fate of these territories should be absolutely clear -- they must be returned to the Chinese people, the master of their land.
Similarly, by attempting to violate grossly the sovereign rights of the Soviet Union regarding Southern Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it, as well as the Kurile Islands already under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, the draft also confines itself to a mere mention of the renunciation by Japan of rights, title and claims to these territories and makes no mention of the historic appurtenance of these territories and the indisputable obligation on the part of Japan to recognize the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over these parts of the territory of the USSR.
We do not speak of the fact that by introducing such proposals on territorial questions the United States and Great Britain, who at an appropriate time, signed the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, as well as the Yalta Agreement, have taken the path of flagrant violation of obligations undertaken by them under these international agreements.
... To sum up, the following conclusions regarding the American-British draft peace treaty can be drawn:
1. The draft does not contain any guarantees against the reestablishment of Japanese militarism, the transformation of Japan into an aggressive state. The draft does not contain any guarantees ensuring the security of countries which have suffered from aggression on the part of militarist Japan. The draft creates conditions for the reestablishment of Japanese militarism, creates a danger of a new Japanese aggression.
2. The draft treaty actually does not provide for the withdrawal of foreign occupation forces. On the contrary, it ensures the presence of foreign armed forces on the territory of Japan and the maintenance of foreign military bases in Japan even after the signing of a peace treaty. Under the pretext of self-defense of Japan, the draft provides for the participation of Japan in an aggressive military alliance with the United States.
3. The draft treaty not only fails to provide for obligations that Japan should not join any coalitions directed against any of the states which participated in the war against militarist Japan, but on the contrary, is clearing the path for Japan's participation in aggressive blocs in the Far East created under the aegis of the United States.
4. The draft treaty does not contain any provisions on the democratization of Japan, on the ensurance of democratic rights to the Japanese people, which creates a direct threat to a rebirth in Japan of the prewar Fascist order.
5. The draft treaty flagrantly violates the legitimate rights of the Chinese people to an integral part of China - Taiwan, the Pescadores and Paracel Islands and other territories severed from China as a result of Japanese aggression.
6. The draft treaty is in contradiction to the obligations undertaken by the United States and Great Britain under the Yalta Agreement regarding the return of Sakhalin and the transfer of the Kurile Islands to the Soviet Union.
7. The numerous economic clauses are designed to ensure for foreign, in the first place American, monopolies the privileges which they have obtained during the period of occupation. The Japanese economy is being placed in a slave-like dependence on these foreign monopolies.
8. The draft actually ignores the legitimate claims of states that have suffered from Japanese occupation regarding compensation by Japan for the damage that they have suffered. At the same time, providing for the compensation of losses directly by the labor of the Japanese population it imposes on Japan a slave-like form of reparations.
9. The American-British draft is not a treaty of peace but a treaty for the preparation of a new war in the Far East.
can even Ivy's unique interpretation abilities change this?
....well actually.....maybe...never know. other things were just as clear and i had to repeat multiple times. im not even going to argue if she tries to reinterpret this. who fights with people that the Sun is bright.
it is times like this i really regret the Chinese Civil War. look at all the problems it cause for this issue. a united front would have been open and shut case at the negotiations for treatys. its funny how anyone even pretend Vietnam had any say during these times. looks at France/French IndoChina*
the entire chain of events China was heavily involved in the surrender of Japan since the beginning. Vietnam was never even MENTIONED in any of the treatys until MUCH later.
1. Cairo Declaration November 27, 1943
It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.
2. Potsdam Declaration July 26 1945:
PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER (The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 318, July 29, 1945)
Proclamation Defining the Terms for the Japanese Surrender, July 26,1945
(1) WE — THE PRESIDENT of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
3. OFFER OF SURRENDER FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT: (Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 320, Aug. 12, 1945)
The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.
4. JAPANESE ACCEPTANCE OF POTSDAM DECLARTION:Statement by the President: (The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. No.321, Aug. 19, 1945)
General Douglas MacArthur has been appointed the Supreme Allied Commander to receive the Japanese surrender. Great Britain, Russia, and China will be represented by high-ranking officers.
"Communication of the Japanese Government of August 14, 1945, addressed to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China:
"With reference to the Japanese Government's note of August 10 regarding their acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam declaration and the reply of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China...
5. INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER: We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
Source 2-5 http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html
6. INSTRUMENTS FOR THE SURRENDER OF JAPAN
GENERAL ORDER NO.1
17 August 1945
a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
note, in none of these is vietnam even mentioned. the allied forces specifically included China again and again. vietnam was a NON FACTOR. you dont get ANY part in ANY of these documents as a victor. understand that.
This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 27 2011, 12:39 PM
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 06:18 AM|