Nope.
The point I was making is that across US broadcasting, there has been an attempt to associate the geography "South China Sea" with the term "International Waters."
The point I was making is that across US broadcasting, there has been an attempt to associate the geography "South China Sea" with the term "International Waters."
Thus, international waters.
The long and short? The Qing Dynasty had territory over these islands before WWII. It was never a powerful naval power. The Japanese took them and more during WWII. The US (San Fran Conference, Cairo Conference, Potsdam Conference) demanded the Japanese remove themselves from these islands (including Spratlys, Paracels), and give islands back to China (including, notably, Taiwan). China, during the Cold War, traded some ownership back and forth with Vietnam of Pacific islands in SCS in order to avoid their being involved in Cold War disputes.
Now China is seeking, for National Security purposes, to build infrastructure (including civilian, rescue, emergency response, shipping and military) on these islands. The United States sees this as area access/area denial - it could be denied the ability to project naval power into this area. The Chinese want to be able to protect naval trade, and protect themselves from their historical vulnerability (embargo).
US has tried multiple ways to prevent or slow this project. A recent effort to get the Philippines to contest the waters failed when the Philippines backed off of their claim.
Western reporting likes to present the South China Sea as a consensus, but it's not. It's been very difficult for the United States to get Asian Countries - those involved in the area - to side with the United States about the waters and their future.
UNCLOS ruled in favour of the Philippines. The Philippines are not willing to enforce their claim against an emerging regional hegemony. That's different from backing off.
> The Chinese want to be able to protect naval trade, and protect themselves from their historical vulnerability (embargo)
This is a fair thing to want, but it conflicts with neighbouring states' claimed rights to freedom of navigation. It is in the United States' and China's neighbors' interests to prevent China from achieving regional naval hegemony. Presenting this morally just serves to confuse the issue.
> It's been very difficult for the United States to get Asian Countries - those involved in the area - to side with the United States
India and Indonesia, amongst others, have supported the ruling [1].
[1][ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-and-Indonesia...
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/uncl...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13203195
[2] http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506 §§ 397 - 412
There's also an attempt by China to associate the geography "Taiwan" with "China", when it's obviously a separate country.
We're back to pretending opinions are facts, are we?
> There's also an attempt by China to associate the geography "Taiwan" with "China", when it's obviously a separate country.
Interestingly here, Taiwan's constitution and official policy does not claim there are two Chinese states. The United States and world consensus also recognizes the People's Republic of China as a government, but not Taiwan.
Do you explicitly disagree with ROC, PRC and the US about the status of Taiwan as a separate country?
Technically Crimea belongs to Ukraine and most of the world acknowledges this.
But in all practical realty--de facto--Crimea is now Russian territory. It's not foolish to acknowledge this.
It was Iraqi opinion that they were winning the war. It was US opinion that the US was winning the war. One of those was a fact and the other wasn't.
Yes, for the same reasons the "Indian Ocean" isn't India's territory.