Conclusion for “Battle for the Paracels”

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Though the on-going feud between China and Vietnam remains the most serious source of conflict in the region, it is not the only dispute that involves the status of the islands of the South China Sea. On 16 June 1976, for example, the PRC issued a stern warning to Manila that Philippines sponsored oil exploration activity in the Reed Bank area of the Spratly Islands constituted ‘an impermissible encroachment on China’s territorial integrity and sovereignty’. 64 Similarly, Hanoi and Manila have also exchanged differences of opinion as to their own respective interests in the Spratly Islands. 65 Furthermore, the continued presence of a large ROC garrison force on Itu Aba Island (T’ai-p’ing tao) complicates an already muddled legal and military situation in the Spratlys. If nothing else, the garrison provides an incentive for the PRC to move into the archipelago.

Be that as it may, there are still many outstanding questions as to the immediate and long-term interests of the PRC in the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos. To be sure, the seriousness of those interests were adequately demonstrated by the events of January 1974 in the Paracels. Yet, even then the reasons for China’s actions remained open to question. For that matter, the question has yet to be fully addressed.

Read more: http://paracels74.tripod.com/marwynsamuelsview.htm

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

One thought on “Conclusion for “Battle for the Paracels”

  1. Pingback: South China Sea / West Philippine Sea Dispute Timeline - I am Sam Galope

Comments are closed.