Asia wary as China asserts territorial ambitions

reply to post by Returners


Yep, and your EX does not counter the one I posted from the link.

By China's claim to control of Tibet, through the Mongolian empire, then the U.S. has an equal claim to the areas of China formerly controlled by Japan, after the U.S. conquered Japan.

Who do you think you are fooling? :

China has a number of territorial disputes, including areas along the border with India, Bhutan and Nepal, not to mention seawards such as the South China Sea as is the root of this current discussion. They will continue to press these disputes because it is in their interest to do so.

The Spratly Islands et al in the South China Sea is an interesting dispute due to the numbers of countries involved. Whilst China claims practically the entire Sea various other nations claim parts more in keeping with their geographical position. Regardless, in 1996 some of the islands were inhabited by China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan in furtherance of their various claims.

What is at stake is control of the lucrative fisheries, the sea lanes – of which there are two important primary sea routes through the South China Sea and the associated geographical control – and of course the potential oil and gas exploitation rights.

Wikipedia is the scourge of research and often only provides a superficial assessment. Go a step further! Try the United Nations who are involved in processing and mediating the various claims which have been lodged with them.

To basic question is whether China has rights over the South China Sea which may have “China” in the name but is somewhat geographically removed. Personally, I think Taiwan has a greater claim, but that's another story!

The case of the South China Sea dispute (opens as PDF)

South China Sea UN brief with fisheries bias (opne as PDF)

Regards

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Returners

 

Wrong, the U.S. defeated Japan which controlled Korea. The Soviets moved troops into the North, and the U.S. took temporary control of the South with the intent of creating an independent and United Korea. This is very well explained in the link that I provided by a S Korean Academic. The Soviets intentions from the beginning was a communist take over.

Considering S Korea's high standard of living, and far more open and democratic government, you attacks at the credibility of S Korea clearly demonstrate a profound bias. As if China and N Korea were open societies.

If you have any links to "professors of Princeton University and lewis and Clark college" please provide them. Some wiki interpretation does not count. I would trust the work of this Korean scholar first.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can look at the sources yourself

# ^ Hart-Landsberg, Martin (1998). Korea: Division, Reunification, & U.S. Foreign Policy. Monthly Review Press. p. 65.
# ^ Hart-Landsberg, Martin (1998). Korea: Division, Reunification, & U.S. Foreign Policy. Monthly Review Press. pp. 65–66.
# ^ Cumings, Bruce (1981). The Origins of the Korean War, Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945-1947. Princeton University Press. p. 88.
# ^ Hart-Landsberg, Martin (1998). Korea: Division, Reunification, & U.S. Foreign Policy. Monthly Review Press. p. 75.

Hart-Landsberg is a historian from Lewis and Clark and Cumings Bruce is a historian from Princeton

After Japan left Korea was UNIFIED and under self government

en.wikipedia.org...

Korea was under Japanese rule as part of Japan's 35-year imperialist expansion (22 August 1910 to 15 August 1945). Japanese rule formally ended on 2 September 1945 upon the Japanese defeat in World War II that year.

en.wikipedia.org...

The People's Republic of Korea (PRK) was a short-lived provisional government organized to take over control of the country after the Surrender of Japan at the end of the Pacific War. It operated as the government in late August and early September of 1945 until the United States Army Military Government in Korea was established by the United States. After that it operated unofficially, and in opposition to the United States Military Government, until it was forcibly dissolved in January 1946.

Considering S Korea's high standard of living, and far more open and democratic government, you attacks at the credibility of S Korea clearly demonstrate a profound bias. As if China and N Korea were open societies.

Because a open and democratic government is one that automatically jails somebody for saying the line "I think Korean separation is not North Korean but American fault" and automatically jails anyone in possession of communist literature

en.wikipedia.org...

In 2002, Mr. Lee, a new recruit in the South Korean army, was sentenced to 2 years in prison for having said "I think Korean separation is not North Korean but American fault" to fellow soldiers. The Military Prosecutor's Office could not charge him for what he had said, but it searched Mr. Lee's civilian house and found various books, and charged him in violation of the NSA Article 7 Clauses 1 and 5.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Returners

 

Yep, and your EX does not counter the one I posted from the link.

By China's claim to control of Tibet, through the Mongolian empire, then the U.S. has an equal claim to the areas of China formerly controlled by Japan, after the U.S. conquered Japan.

Who do you think you are fooling?

:

Did the USA ever have Sovereignty over China?

The definition of Sovereignty

An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory. This means that it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or behavior are reserved as being outside its control. For example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their children independently of the sovereign power, municipalities are not guaranteed freedom from its interference in some local matters, etc. Theorists have diverged over the necessity or desirability of absoluteness. Historically, it is doubtful whether a sovereign power has ever claimed complete absoluteness, let alone had the power to actually enforce it.

Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a political body (or individual) exercise authority over its subjects? Possible answers include: by the divine right of kings or by social contract (popular sovereignty).

Under the mongolian empire and onwards, Tibet had to follow the laws made by Beijing.

Never was there a point in time where any part of China was subject to the laws made in Washington.

Originally posted by Returners

The facts are is as stands, Korea was united initially and was COMMUNIST

And this man was their leader

en.wikipedia.org...

In September 1945, Yuh proclaimed the establishment of the Korean People's Republic and became its vice-premier. In October, he stepped down under pressure from the United States military government, and organized the People's Party of Korea, becoming its chairman. For the following months of the anti-trusteeship movement and other political changes, Yuh took a line of action in concert with the communists.

Before Stalin and the USA Korea was known as the People's Republic of Korea and they were communist

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Shortly after the American landing in September 1945, the new United States Army Military Government in Korea, which controlled the peninsula south of the 38th parallel, abolished the PRK government by military decree, primarily because of suspicions that it was Communist.

Korea was originally communist and called the Korean People's Republic.

So, what you say here, komrade, is that we are to ignore over two millenia of Korean history, in favor of the view that there was no Korea until the kommunists established Korea - and THAT "government" (actually more of a coalition of activists) lasted all of 2 months, and so is somehow more legitimate than any others? How konvenient that history only begins at a point favorable to the false claims of the north...

The Soviet union invaded the North and created the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The United States invaded the South and created the Republic of Korea

What you say here de-legitimizes the claims of the north every bit as much as you deny the claims of the south. After all, a puppet is a puppet, whether an American Puppet or a Soviet puppet. Since the DPRK government was set up by the Soviets, per your claim, it's no more legitimate as the PRK than the South Korean government.

Thank you, komrade.