Nansha, Dongsha and Xisha

[Ian_Lee]

I guess most Chinese poster, lest foreign, are confused about the location of these archipelagos.

Nansha (Spratlys), Dongsha (Pratas), Xisha (Paracels) and another group of small islands -- Zhongsha – are archipelagos in the South China Sea.

The only common trait they share is that they were all occupied by Japanese Navy in WWII.

Except Dongsha, Xisha is contested by PRC and Vietnam while Nansha is contested by PRC, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia (partially) and Philippines (partially).

Dongsha – currently stationed by ROC patrols. But Dongsha is actually closer to Mainland than to Taiwan. It is about 160 km from Hong Kong but 240 km from Kaohsiung.

Xisha – stationed by South Vietnamese troops until 1974. After a sea battle, PRC has acquired control of the islands and built an airport on it. Its location is about equidistant from Hainan Island and the coast of Vietnam.

Nansha – a much larger group of islands that stretches as south as 4 degrees north of equator. Most of them are just rocks or shoals which will be submerged under water during high tide. The largest island, Taiping, was landed by ROC navy in 1946 and under Taiwan’s jurisdiction since then. It is also the only island in Nansha that edible water well is dug. In 1988, there was a battle between PRC and Vietnam which led to the control of some more islands by PRC. Since then, it has become more tranquil.

Recently some news flared up about Nansha when Beijing protested to Hanoi after the latter announced that it would organize ecotourism to the islands. On the other hand, Hanoi also protested to Taipei after the latter dispatched some personnels to do construction work in a shoal near Taiping island. Hanoi even threatened that Taipei has to be responsible for all grve consequences.

Some points that have been widely neglected by foreign media about the Spratlys dispute:

(1) The U-shape map that includes all South China Sea as China’s backwater that is printed in PRC map is actually not an invention of PRC. It was first printed in ROC map in 1948 and during the following four decades, no neighboring governments had complained.

(2) Respectively in 1956 and 1958, Hanoi had acknowledged PRC sovereignty over Xisha and Nansha. Then Premier Pham Van Dong even gave his words to respect Beijing’s claim. In 1974, Hanoi also remained dead silent when PRC acquired control of Xisha. Only after the deterioration of PRC-Vietnam relationship in 1979, did Hanoi restage its claim over both groups of islands.

[nnt]

Ian Lee:

As you said in another post, this issue is still too hot to be considered "history", isn't it?

See this link for another point of view on Hoàng Sa (Paracels) and Trường Sa (Spratlys) islands:

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/lifestyle/2004/01/21970/

and the locations:

http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn/geography.php3

Relations between neighbours (even at individual levels) are sometimes not so easy to handle

[bathrobe]

I don't know why Ian Lee is so keen on expanding Chinese territory. Is this to do with pride, ego, or some concept of Lebensraum? Why are men so small that they can only measure their worth by the amount of territory their country owns? How much does it affect your life, Ian, if China never regains these territories? And how much benefit will you get if China goes to war over all these places you want to incorporate? A couple of dead nephews or other relatives, dying for the glory of the Motherland?

It is this expansionist mentality that is so worrying to China's neighbours. I really feel that China's appetite for more territory will be one of the major destabilising factors for Asia. Perhaps Asians will only be able to pull into a community like Europe's after (heaven forbid) they've been through a catastrophic war -- if there's anything left to pull together.

[ala]

Perhaps Asians will only be able to pull into a community like Europe's after (heaven forbid) they've been through a catastrophic war -- if there's anything left to pull together.

East Asians have already been in a catastrophic war. The lack of community is mainly due to the general consensus in East Asia that Japan got off easy.

Another catastrophic war would be an incredible boon to China actually, as any future war would unite the Chinese together immediately (especially if Japan is the enemy). Even if defeated, the population would feel it had vindicated an injustice by itself as a whole, and move on as a more unified body than ever before. This is what makes China dangerous, not that it is necessarily expansionist. China will have a 30-40 million male surplus by 2020. Would the government want them as a force of revolt inside China? No. Prepare to see a more aggressive Chinese foreign policy in general over the next two decades.

[Ian_Lee]

Bathrobe:

Why did you think that I am keen on expanding Chinese territory?

Never did I mention a single word in my original post that argues these groups of islands are rightful Chinese territories nor historical Chinese territories.

Personally I think that the claim which includes shoal as far south as 4 degrees north of equator seems a little bit far-fetched.

[bathrobe]

Never did I mention a single word in my original post that argues these groups of islands are rightful Chinese territories nor historical Chinese territories.

Then I apologise. But in your postings here and elsewhere, you do seem to entertain an inordinate interest in Chinese territorial claims.

[bathrobe]

Another catastrophic war would be an incredible boon to China

For the glorious Chinese nation, perhaps. Maybe not so much for the hapless Chinese people.

This burning desire for revenge that you term a 'consensus': it is destructive and it is evil. What has China learnt from Yugoslavia? (Apart from the need to try harder if it wants to bomb other people's embassies with impunity). How many people have to die before this insane appetite for revenge is appeased?

So when the Chinese have annihilated Japan and can stand up to the Americans anywhere on the planet, then the world will be in ideal state -- nicht wahr? Is that where China's much vaunted 5,000 years of 'civilisation' are going to lead us?

I would rather die than see the planet dominated by a place with such primitive, extremist, testosterone-driven views.

(I'm sorry, after all this time I'm still revolted by this Chinese blood feud mentality -- not your mentality, ala, but the mentality you hint at in your post. I've been in China long enough to pick up these dark, dangerous undercurrents, despite Chinese protestations of being a peace-loving nation).

[Ian_Lee]

Now things are getting interesting.

Vietnam has dispatched a tourist boat from Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) with 100+ tourists (about 40% are actually officials) to visit Spratlys despite the protest from Beijing yesterday.

Taipei has also reiterated that Vietnam has intruded into ROC territory.

Just wonder what is the reaction of other ASEAN members which are also Spratlys claimants like Malaysia and Philippines since Vietnam's move has breached the general tacit understanding among them.

[Ian_Lee]

You won't believe PLA uses such means to guard Spratlys:

http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,110501+112004042200024,00.html

中國宣示主權的方法更絕，由於南沙所屬的許多小島，一漲潮即不見蹤影，或是僅微露水面，因此軍方在島上放了一塊石頭，派了一名士兵站在石頭上捍衛「國土」，每當潮水漲到頸部時，這名士兵只露出一個頭，也要堅守崗位，不能輕易撤退，形成詭異的畫面。

[nnt]

The more interesting for tourism...