Via Sun Bin comes this map (modified by yours truly).
All country’s have “generous” claims, but China’s got them all beat with its expansive claims that even include Indonesia’s Natuna Island (in brown). Not an expansionist power? They make it hard to think they ain’t.
About Curzon
Lord George Nathaniel Curzon (1859 - 1925) entered the British House of Commons as a Conservative MP in 1886, where he served as undersecretary of India and Foreign Affairs. He was appointed Viceroy of India at the turn of the 20th century where he delineated the North West Frontier Province,
ordered a military expedition to Tibet, and unsuccessfully tried to partition the province of Bengal during his six-year tenure. Curzon served as Leader of the House of Lords in Prime Minister Lloyd George's War Cabinet and became Foreign Secretary in January 1919, where his most famous act was
the drawing of the Curzon Line between a new Polish state and Russia. His publications include
Russia in Central Asia (1889) and
Persia and the Persian Question (1892).
In real life, "Curzon" is a US citizen from the East Coast who has been a financial analyst, freelance translator, and university professor; he is currently on assignment in Tokyo.
I wouldn’t say that Curzon. It’s just like any negotiations, start with an outrageously high price and work your way down so you still end up on top.
Then why is just China starting with the “outrageously high price”? What stops all of the surrounding nations making claims on the entire seabed plus Hainan island?
nobody except china and vietnam really cared about these reefs until mid 1970s (i.e. only china claimed them in 1946, right after WWII, then vietnam in the 1960s — proof, taiwan still has the largest island, the size of vatican which I was able to walk around slowly in 40 min).
– in the 19th century nobody wants these useless reefs, the Brits, owning Malaysia, said it was Qing empire’s responsibility to pay for and build light houses there. :) French Indochina started to claim a few of them in the 1930s. South Vietnam forgot about them after independence, but started claiming them in 1970s (and perhaps late 1960s). North Vietnam (the one who unified South) recognized China’s sovereignty while they China was helping them fight the South and US. America, which owned Phillipines, sunk a few Japanese boats and left, then agreed to Chiang Kai-Shek to take over it. Phillipine entered the game in late 1970s.
btw, the chart missed Indonesia’s claim. it also has a 200 nautical mile claim like Brunei’s, though it never really sent any person to the reefs.
yes, as Chirol said, it is just a negotiation ploy. (same for the phillipines)
Curzon,
i guess the brief history above answered your question. in theory they could, if their fishermen settled in Hainan before the Chinese did, or went to islands nearby to fish and take shelter.
it also has something to do with the weather, typhoon do not visit the spratly (they move away from equator quickly — notice hurrican always move northward int he carribean?). so it was a lot safer for chinese fishermen to go south then malaysian/phillipino fishmen to go north. — plus seas near China is more crowded and more competitive due to population pressure.
Does historical disinterest negate the validity of other nation’s claims? Because if it does, China should give up claiming Taiwan, the claim to which it didn’t reassert until the early 1970s.
In the case of the Spratly Islands, China bases its claim on the discovery of Han dynasty artifcats and ancient Chinese maps that included the islands in Chinese territory. When they state the islands have been an “integral part of Chinese territory for 2000 years,” it follows that even earlier, they weren’t an integral part of Chinese territory.
Ad absurdum, does the fact that the Mongol Yuan dynasty once controlled China give Mongolia any claim to rule over Chinese territory today? Of course not.
Historical claims, while interesting, never accomplish much in the way of resolving this kind of disagreement, because the argument usually degenerates into “we have it now,” “well we had it first,” “but we had it before that,” etc.
Eventually it comes down to national interest, who has the power to do something about it, and possession being 9/10 of the law – old fashioned realpolitik at its best (or worst).
It looks like China only started claiming Indonesia’s Natuna Islands in 1993 – does anyone know what they’re basing that on??
Sun Bin, your maps are great…so is your blog, I’m making you a regular read…on topic, I think that there is a mixture of irrendentism and fear in the Chinese psyche regarding territorial claims, including Taiwan. The irrendentism is what Hunter talked about, not really anything with a solid base, I’d say Germany would have a better claim (but a harder time) making a claim to the territory it lost to Poland post-WW2 than China to these islands. The fear though is that little bits of their possessions will start splintering away and start another cascade of lost territory and lost face for China, which after a ‘century of humilation’ they cannot abide. The colonial era’s indignities are the reason why China cannot afford to ‘lose’ Taiwan. The injured pride could potentially delegitimize the CCP once and for all. These claims, while less important, are probably a combination of that psyche and economic opportunism.
I’m reading “Resource Wars” now (by Michael T. Klare) and his chapter about the South China Sea and surrounding regions describes how China’s claiming these areas, not only with fishermen trawlers and the like but the construction of small military bases on islands in rival’s territories (like the Philippines’ Mischief Reef) and the irritant/deterrant deployment of Chinese warships generally all over the place.
This kind of aggressive behavior has kicked off the biggest naval arms race in the world, as everyone from Malaysia to tiny Brunei is purchashing (and in some cases building their own) naval warships and armaments.
curzon,
1. i did not try to negate other’s claim. i was answering your question about claiming Hainan. I said, you can if we can support it
2. what is it about “China not claiming Taiwan until 1970s”? where does this come from? you mean ROC or PRC disclaimed Taiwan from 1949 to 1970?????? do you mean Diaoyu?
again, the south china sea border is stretched for China, i agree.
and yes, it is weaker than Germany’s claim to west poland or kaliningrad.
but that is just as chirol said, a starting position, and they are willing to negotiate.
China gets to negotiate with the Golden Rule. He who has the gold, rules.
Although, I agree with some of China’s arguments about ownership of the distant reefs, I don’t think this would still give China such a large area of control beyond those reefs. Also, by this logic, when does Singapore become a ‘natural’ part of China?
This place is definitely where the action is for the next 50-100 years.
btw, just checked the Chinese map,
the map above is wrong.
China does not claim Natuna Island
!http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/9-dotted%20map/map_small.gif!
!http://www.travelchinaguide.com/images/map/china/china.jpg!
Are you sure about Natuna, Sun Bin? From a DOE report circa 2003:
Maybe the Natuna map that released was a mistake. Then again, according to the same article, China “has not voiced a specific objection” to development in contested areas by the Philippines or Malaysia. I think China claims so that it can have a say in the development and sea lanes of the region. Most likely they’ll give up claims on most but use their “historical claims” to have a seat at the table, where they can a) block Japanese interests, b) look magnanimous letting countries like Malaysia have things uncontested and c) have an excuse for naval activity in the region.
From another source:
what a strange claim to make. there’s something to be said for asking for more than you expect, but claiming Natuna is a little ridiculous
hunter’s quote is more precise.
“a portion of Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the Natuna islands.”
it is because a 200 mile extension from Natuna overlap the 200 mile extension from Spratly.
from all the maps i see (published in China after 1993), natuna itself clearly has the same color with Indonesia.
from the two maps above, it is clear that china does not claim natuna itself, but it claims the sea a dozen miles off natuna.
disputed area is the NE part of the yellow portion in the SW corner of “this map”:http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/images/eez4_full.jpg
wish they hadn’t made China and Indonesia the same color on that map ;)
hehe
also in my “post”http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/11/map-settled-border-with-vietnam.html
this map is more accurate
!http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/6338/southseamap5qy.jpg!
Pingback: tdaxp
Another Chinese view, from a wall map I bought in Philly’s Chinatown:
Natuna left out on this map, too.
Sorry, here’s the photo:
!http://static.flickr.com/6/9338515_71ca82468a.jpg!
Come now Curzon, if the definition of expansionist powers included those who dickered over uninhabited islands to expand their maritime boundaries, the club would include far more than China. Perhaps you are unaware, but France has one of the world’s largest EEZ’s due to its control of numerous former islands that are legacies of it’s colonial past. Some of which are contested by France’s former colonies. I should point out that Japan’s EEZ is also being contested on four different fronts with three different countries: the Kuriles with Russia, Dokdo with South Korea, Diaoyutai and Okinotori with China. That alone doesn’t make Japan “expansionist” nor does the fact that it uses quite a number of uninhabited islands to claim a large chunk of the Pacific. Your error Curzon as I see it is that your interpretations of Chinese expansionism are too broad and include virtually any territorial dispute, no matter how minor to as parallel to the Sudetenland. None of China’s territorial ambitions are populated in this case and few are more than a few square kilometers in size. Greedy yes, expansionist no.
Pingback: Sun Bin