NEWS: China did not know where Spratlys were.

Posted in the China Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Cev

Dublin, CA

#1 Apr 29, 2014
In 1933, the French flexed their colonial muscles and annexed nine of the Spratly Islands. When the news spread, the fledgling and troubled Chinese republic faced a basic problem: It didn’t know where the Spratlys were.

A year earlier, the French had staked their claim to the Paracel Islands as part of their colony in Vietnam. The second French claim to part of the Spratlys befuddled the Chinese. As the scholar Francois-Xavier Bonnet of Irasec, the Research Institute on Contemporary Southeast Asia, noted:

“These two claims of the French government confused the minds … not only of the Chinese public and the media, but also the official authorities like the military and the politicians in Guangdong Province and Beijing. In fact, the Chinese believed that the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands or Xisha were exactly the same group, but that the French had just changed the name as a trick to confuse the Chinese government. To ascertain the position of the Spratly Islands, the Chinese Consul in Manila, Mr. Kwong, went, on July 26, 1933, to the US Coast and Geodetic Survey and discovered, with surprise, that the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands were different and far apart.”

I was led to Bonnet’s much-read discussion paper,“Geopolitics of Scarborough Shoal”(something on the order of 100,000 downloads of the PDF version, I understand, since it was first posted in November 2012), by BBC journalist Bill Hayton. I found his map-based lecture on the origins of China’s South China Sea claims last Friday at the University of the Philippines thought-provoking. When I asked Hayton to expand on his point, that in 1933 the Chinese government did not even know where the Spratlys were, he referred me to Bonnet, who happened to be sitting in the audience (right beside Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio).

Bonnet and Hayton have since provided me copies of and links to the essential literature.(Hayton’s “South China Sea: Dangerous Ground” is due from Yale University Press later this year; the title is a play on another name for the Spratlys.) They make for fascinating reading; to be sure, much of the information has been readily available online. Even the delicious irony of a Chinese consul consulting the offices of the US colonial administration in Manila to determine the location of the Spratlys has been knocking about in academic circles and on the Internet for at least a decade.

In 2004, Bonnet wrote “The Spratlys: A Past Revisited” for World Bulletin, a publication of the UP’s Institute of International Legal Studies. His paper already includes a section on “the Chinese confusion” about the location of the nine annexed islands in the Spratlys.

Still, this particular moment in history remains under-known. Some passages from Bonnet’s 2012 paper are perhaps worth repeating.

First, the following footnote.“The Consul submitted, on August 1, 1933, his report to the Chinese Foreign Affairs Department, which said:‘The islands [in the Spratlys which the French annexed] are collectively known as Tizard Bank and are situated at 530 miles from Hainan, 350 miles from the Paracels and 200 miles from Palawan … The reports mentioning that the 9 islands were part of Xisha [the Paracels] are incorrect’.”
Cev

Dublin, CA

#2 Apr 29, 2014
Second, this quote from a letter written by Wang Gong Da, director of the Peiping News, to the foreign affairs secretary:“Don’t make a diplomatic blunder; these islands are not part of Xisha. Triton Island [in Xisha] is the southernmost part of our territory [this was written before China’s absurd obsession with James Shoal]. South of Triton Island, there is no connection with the Chinese territory. Our so-called experts, geographers, Navy representatives, etc. are a shame to our country.”

And third, this passage from a secret report of the Military Council, dated Sept. 1, 1933:“In conclusion, we have only one piece of evidence, our fishermen from Hainan [who are present in parts of the Spratlys], and we have never done anything on these islands. We need to cool down the game with the French, but let our fishermen continue their activities to protect our fishing rights. Our Navy is weak and these nine islands are not useful for us now…”

I’ve tried to look for additional information about the 1933 annexation and the Chinese reaction. There is a news story in (of all places) the Salt Lake Tribune, highlighting what was surely the geopolitical reality of the early 1930s. Datelined Manila, the report began:“The occupation by French dispatch boats of nine islets 200 miles west of the Philippines [the report got this fact right] in the South China Sea was the signal for a race between the Japanese and Chinese consulates here to obtain authentic information about the group.”

There is an internal memorandum of the US Department of State, which noted that “A press dispatch dated July 28, 1933 from Manila stated that Chinese Consul Kwong was instructed by his government to investigate the occupation of the islands by the French and report as the Chinese government intended to oppose French occupation. The Chinese Consul had already sent a preliminary report.”

And who was K. L. Kwong? We learn from a copy of Who’s Who in China (1934) that he was a career diplomat, who once represented China at the League of Nations in Geneva, and who served as Chinese consul-general in the Philippines from November 1930 to June 19, 1934; his next assignment was San Francisco.
Joel

Sydney, Australia

#3 Apr 29, 2014
Telling lies often enough can never make the matter into truth!

Only the truth will set one free!
It is so Amazing

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#4 Apr 29, 2014
CEV proved that she is a typical PINOY although she has Chinese ancestory and denied their existence, which is a sin according to the bible.
I dare CEV to challenge me and I prove the verse in the bible that says it all.

One of PINOY most outstanding characteristic is LYING!

And lying is what CEV does best thru' her broken teeth. Hahahahaha

China does not know where SPRATLY is, Hahahahaha

DO you want to know the historical Chinese name for it! Hahahahah
This is what Mr Lee Kuan Yew. an internationally respected statesman has to says in his article in Forbes magazine.

"A rising China will not allow its sea boundaries to be decided
by external parties and will assert its position by claiming historical rights to disputed waters in the South China Sea.

It is naive to believe that a strong China will accept the conventional definition of what parts of the sea around it are under its jurisdiction.”
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Richmond, Canada

#5 Apr 29, 2014
Filipinos like to boast and lie...

.
.
The first possible human interaction with the Spratly Islands dates back between 600 BCE to 3 BCE. This is based on the theoretical migration patterns of the people of Nanyue (southern China and northern Vietnam) and Old Champa kingdom who may have migrated from Borneo, which may have led them through the Spratly Islands.[19]

Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里& #38263;沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里& #30707;塘),[20] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries.[21][22] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[23]followed by the Ming Dynasty.[24][citation needed] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[25][citation needed] 1755,[26][citation needed]1767,[27][citation needed] 1810,[28][citation needed] and 1817.[29][citation needed]

A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as Vạn Lư Trường Sa (萬里& #38263;沙),[30] that is, a combination of the two Chinese names mentioned above (Wanli Changsha "Ten-Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"). According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Băi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[31] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa, and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to the Quảng Ngăi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[31]

Despite the fact that China and Vietnam both made a claim to these territories simultaneously, at the time, neither side was aware that its neighbor had already charted and made claims to the same stretch of islands.[31]

The islands were sporadically visited throughout the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries by mariners from different European powers (including Richard Spratly, after whom the island group derives its most recognizable English name).[32] However, these nations showed little interest in the islands.

British naval captain James George Meads in the 1870s laid claim to the islands, proclaiming a micronation called Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. Descendants of Meads have continued to claim legitimacy over the islands, and continue to attempt to claim ownership of the island's resources.[33][34][35]

In 1883, German boats surveyed the Spratly and the Paracel Islands but eventually withdrew the survey, after receiving protests from Guangdong government representing Qing Dynasty. Many European maps before the 20th century do not even mention this region
It is so Amazing

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#6 Apr 29, 2014
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:
Filipinos like to boast and lie...
Who am I to disagree? You live there once and reside among these BOASTFUL and LYING monkeys.

My experience is based on my associating with them because I employed them. But I am a fast learner as some of the new OFW lied to me on the very first day, I interviewed them.

They think we are FOOLS but many Americans are impressed by their fake credential, not the Asian employers. Hahahaha

Although in the early days I was conned by one of them but I quickly got rid of her within 3 weeks.
Cev

Lomita, CA

#7 Apr 30, 2014
I did not write that, and those facts are from chinese and us sources.

China did not know where the Spratlys were. Funny chinamen, always in denial. Lol.
AAA

UK

#8 Apr 30, 2014
Well, lying or not, it did prove that Philippines has no claim on spratly before WWII, and only China and indo China were parties to spratly in 1933.

Like I said , Philippines has no historical claim on south China sea.
Cev

Lomita, CA

#9 Apr 30, 2014
AAA wrote:
Well, lying or not, it did prove that Philippines has no claim on spratly before WWII, and only China and indo China were parties to spratly in 1933.
Like I said , Philippines has no historical claim on south China sea.
Philippine claims in spratlys never relied on history, Chinaman.:)

History is WEAK as a basis for claim under international law. If it is strong them China will be part of Mongolia.

Plus, obviously not lying, and with reference to points in the article i posted, your FAKE 9 dash lie is completely negated because you do not even know where the Spratlys were. Lol.

Now you have no claim to our territory whatsoever.

Thus, the Spratlys is now an indisputable territory of the Republic of the Philippines.

Lol. Piss off low iq chinaman, lol.:D
AAA

UK

#10 Apr 30, 2014
Cev wrote:
<quoted text>
Philippine claims in spratlys never relied on history, Chinaman.:)
History is WEAK as a basis for claim under international law. If it is strong them China will be part of Mongolia.
Plus, obviously not lying, and with reference to points in the article i posted, your FAKE 9 dash lie is completely negated because you do not even know where the Spratlys were. Lol.
Now you have no claim to our territory whatsoever.
Thus, the Spratlys is now an indisputable territory of the Republic of the Philippines.
Lol. Piss off low iq chinaman, lol.:D
Oh yes, nine dash line only exists at the end of WWII, not 1933, as you correctly pointed out....no debate about that.

Thanks for confirming Philippines DO NOT have any claim on spratly based on historical ground, that is all we need from Philippines. You may carry on dispute based on distance.
McQuan

UK

#12 Apr 30, 2014
Cev wrote:
<quoted text>
Philippine claims in spratlys never relied on history, Chinaman.:)
History is WEAK as a basis for claim under international law. If it is strong them China will be part of Mongolia.
Plus, obviously not lying, and with reference to points in the article i posted, your FAKE 9 dash lie is completely negated because you do not even know where the Spratlys were. Lol.
Now you have no claim to our territory whatsoever.
Thus, the Spratlys is now an indisputable territory of the Republic of the Philippines.
Lol. Piss off low iq chinaman, lol.:D
Same attitude as chemical Ali, stupid denial even when bullets already flying over his head
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Richmond, Canada

#13 Apr 30, 2014
whats sad is these Filipino APES have a claim based on Historical basis

for Sabah..

yet brush of Malaysian claims based on proximity

no shame at all
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Richmond, Canada

#14 Apr 30, 2014
* off
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Richmond, Canada

#15 Apr 30, 2014
CEV with his APE education probably dosent know the Mongols moved their seat of power to China...

and the Chinese consider it one of their dynasties

so CEV is partly right... Mongolia technically should be part of China...

LOL
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Richmond, Canada

#16 Apr 30, 2014
^ all China has to do is take Mongolia back into the fold
Cev

Lomita, CA

#17 Apr 30, 2014
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:
CEV with his APE education probably dosent know the Mongols moved their seat of power to China...
and the Chinese consider it one of their dynasties
so CEV is partly right... Mongolia technically should be part of China...
LOL
LOL. LOL. LOL.

If Japan RAPED your ass and made Beijing his capital, does that mean you own Japan now?

Holy shet your brains are really RETARDED Chinaman! AHAHAHAHAHA
Russian Ainu

Sandy, UK

#18 Apr 30, 2014
Cev wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. LOL. LOL.
If Japan RAPED your ass and made Beijing his capital, does that mean you own Japan now?
Holy shet your brains are really RETARDED Chinaman! AHAHAHAHAHA
If Japan had successfully taken China, I guess the name will be the Yamato Dynasty of China.

Like Manchu call themselves Qing dynasty after defeating Ming dynasty, Mongol called Yuan Dynasty after defecting Song dynasty. Han Chinese, which is actually an assimilation of several ethnic groups, called Han, Song or Ming Dynasty etc. BUT crucially they were all China. The key thing is China is actually a melting pot for many ethnic groups and it is too rich in culture and history, any culture that invaded it will be assimilated into it, ending up being part of China and its history.

Mongols have very weak culture, and that was precisely why they adopted the culture of the people they conquered and not imposed their culture on others.

Or for the case of Philippines, it has virtually no culture, they are barbarians and can only adopt the culture of its occupiers. I mean for F** sake, have you heard of Filipino cuisine?
lct

Beijing, China

#19 Apr 30, 2014
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:
Filipinos like to boast and lie...
.
.
The first possible human interaction with the Spratly Islands dates back between 600 BCE to 3 BCE. This is based on the theoretical migration patterns of the people of Nanyue (southern China and northern Vietnam) and Old Champa kingdom who may have migrated from Borneo, which may have led them through the Spratly Islands.[19]
Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (&#21315;&#37324;& #38263;&#27801;) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (&#33836;&#37324;& #30707;&#22616;),[20] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries.[21][22] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[23]followed by the Ming Dynasty.[24][citation needed] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[25][citation needed] 1755,[26][citation needed]1767,[27][citation needed] 1810,[28][citation needed] and 1817.[29][citation needed]
A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as V&#7841;n Lư Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa (&#33836;&#37324;& #38263;&#27801;),[30] that is, a combination of the two Chinese names mentioned above (Wanli Changsha "Ten-Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"). According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Băi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[31] In Ph&#7911; Biên T&#7841;p L&#7909;c (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa, and Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa were defined as belonging to the Qu&#7843;ng Ngăi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[31]
Despite the fact that China and Vietnam both made a claim to these territories simultaneously, at the time, neither side was aware that its neighbor had already charted and made claims to the same stretch of islands.[31]
The islands were sporadically visited throughout the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries by mariners from different European powers (including Richard Spratly, after whom the island group derives its most recognizable English name).[32] However, these nations showed little interest in the islands.
British naval captain James George Meads in the 1870s laid claim to the islands, proclaiming a micronation called Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. Descendants of Meads have continued to claim legitimacy over the islands, and continue to attempt to claim ownership of the island's resources.[33][34][35]
In 1883, German boats surveyed the Spratly and the Paracel Islands but eventually withdrew the survey, after receiving protests from Guangdong government representing Qing Dynasty. Many European maps before the 20th century do not even mention this region
In Vietnam's case, in 1950s, Vietnam's gov. and Chinese gov. has already signed agreement that Paracels and the Spratly Islands belong to China.
It is so Amazing

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#20 Apr 30, 2014
Cev wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. LOL. LOL.
If Japan RAPED your ass and made Beijing his capital, does that mean you own Japan now?
Holy shet your brains are really RETARDED Chinaman! AHAHAHAHAHA
No. They never did but in history Japan did RAPED Manila.

Check this out. The MASSACRE of MANILA, it is in the bookshelf.

So reflect on yourself, your Chinese genes have be slowly dissolved by the poisonous PINOY banana and now you have a RETARD and FLAW molecule that leave you with the inability to recognize even your own heritage. Poor Poor Chinaman CEV! She have NO SHAME!
Great Vietnam

Anonymous Proxy

#21 Apr 30, 2014
lct wrote:
<quoted text>
In Vietnam's case, in 1950s, Vietnam's gov. and Chinese gov. has already signed agreement that Paracels and the Spratly Islands belong to China.
It is not true. That is the communist and illegitimate goverment who signed the agreement. Vietnamese people can never accept it. Vietnamese people will one day destroy the communists, smash evil China hard and get them out of the Vietnamese territory: Vietnam East Sea and the land alike, just the same in the old days. China will be devided into several hundred small pieces.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

China Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Man inserts 6-cm-wide carrot into own butt that... 53 min defokus 1
Poll Is China headed for a wider anti CCP insurgency? (May '14) 15 hr Triple C 98
CCP will be overthrown by Chinese (Feb '13) 15 hr Cedrik Thibert 211
News China targets Google in crackdown on pornography (Jan '09) 21 hr ayilazy 5
Poll Why Are Chinamen So Stupid? (Jun '10) Fri jame 231
News Senators Want China Disinvited From Naval Exerc... Fri idiotsareunited 1
News Tense China-Japan relations overshadow the case... Fri Ainu 28
More from around the web