I don’t think that is china’s point at all. China also defines national waters with a much larger buffer than most other countries, including the USA.
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.
re SCS, I haven't mentioned or endorsed any precise boundary.
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?
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?
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.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/36...
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.
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.
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.
Which ones and when? I'm pretty certain that isn't the case.
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.