Hot answers tagged

7

Prior to 1930 (1946), actually, the U.S. had claims in this area, through its possession of the Philippines. This is because the Philippines are one of 10 so-called ASEAN (Southeast Asian) nations. Even to this day, the U.S. has certain treaty rights in the Philippines. That is to say that the U.S. retains a defensive interest in Philippine affairs, even ...


5

Before railways the most efficient mode of land transportation was by river - and the Ganges River system runs nearly three quarters of the way from the opium fields (in what is modern Pakistan and Afghanistan) to Calcutta. The only comparable port facility would likely have been Bombay (modern Mumbai), but without the advantage either of large scale river ...


5

Calcutta had two functions. One, it was an assembly point for opium gathered from other parts of India because many rivers flowed in that direction from near the opium fields as Pieter mentioned. Second, it was a port in the part of India (east) "nearest" to China and under British control. Third, as of 1772, Calcutta was the headquarters of the British ...


5

The ban is believable, if you consider it a ban on the man, rather than the book. It was lifted in 1991 when Seuss died. It was imposed in 1965 on the eve of the Cultural Revolution, when China sought to root out "outdated" views and influences. And it fits the pattern of China. Throughout Seuss' work, there is a mocking, anti-authoritarian tone. It is this,...


4

During Mao's reign, the predominant strategic doctrine was People's war. That is, when suffering a large scale invasion, the defenders would avoid direct engagements and allow the invaders to enter deep into home territory, harass them while mobilising the people, then counterattacking only when an overwhelming numerical advantage is available. Under such a ...


2

In theory, history should not enter into this. China signed the UNCLOS, which specifies exactly what their territorial rights are in that area. They clearly did so with enthusiasm, as they were one of the charter signers way back in 1982. If they didn't want to abide by that agreement, they shouldn't have promised to do so. The US (or history prior to 16 ...


2

Tom Au has offered a solid answer about the narrow view regarding colonial claims, but those are in 2016 mostly irrelevant. What is more relevant are claims, current and future, made under the current protocols for territorial waters of UN members and exclusive economic zones. This informs the rights to resources in seas and continental shelves. (ILOS is ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible