# South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion



## shah1398

*101 Friends of China, Intellectuals support China on South China Sea *
Posted By: News Deskon: July 11, 2016
Email






ISLAMABAD: (APP) *The top 40 intellectuals under the umbrella of 101 Friends of China Assembly supported China’s stand on South China Sea by adopting a Resolution in this regard.*

The resolution expressed serious concern over the escalation of tension in the South China and alarm over the military build-up in the recent weeks in the region, which was adopted unanimously.

*Expressing solidarity with China, the resolution stressed that the Permanent Court of Arbitration should conduct business strictly within its jurisdiction and that its rulings should not be used as an instrument to fuel tensions and disputes.*

The resolution was presented in a meeting of the Islamabad-based senior members of the Supreme Central Committee of the Friends of Pakistan here on Monday, which was adopted unanimously.

*It underlined that international arbitral institutions should not be used for political purposes.*

Moreover it also urged all parties concerned to avoid provocative pronouncements and actions, exercise utmost restraint and seek peaceful settlement through negotiations.

The resolution also emphasized that a peaceful resolution of disputes through bilateral channels would reinforce the rule of law.

It also appreciated China’s historic and transformative One Belt One Road initiative that is building confidence, fostering peace and prosperity in the region and connecting Asia with Africa and Europe.

It underscored that for the CPEC, the flagship project of One Belt One Road, peace and stability in the region were imperative Underlying the deep-rooted historical and strategic ties between Pakistan and China, the resolution fully endorsed the position taken by China on the South China Sea in regard to its sovereignty over Nansha Islands and the surroundings waters.

It also took note of China’s declaration that it would continue to fulfill regional and international responsibilities, upheld the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS and other international law and safeguard the rule of law.

It expressed hope that no steps would be taken to hurt China’s sovereignty and security interests.

The resolution also called on all nations to work for building common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security for all and urged all powers in the region to take steps to de-escalate the situation, demilitarize the region and in doing so avoid misjudgments that could lead to accidents or unintended conflagration or World War III.

*Deputy Head Mission, Embassy of China in Pakistan, Zhou Lijian thanked the 101 Friends of China for supporting the genuine case of China saying that this resolution was very much in time which showed strong support from people of Pakistan to the people of China.*

He said, China wanted to resolve the issue of South China Sea peacefully through negotiation with its neighboring countries including Vietnam and Philippines.

https://timesofislamabad.com/101-fr...-support-china-on-south-china-sea/2016/07/11/

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Perpendicular

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752794259917504512

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## oprih

Now China needs to speed up all their constructions in the SCS islands and maybe put some civilian populations and military assets there, that's the best reply to such useless ruling.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Stephen Cohen

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/verd...th-china-sea-1430542?pfrom=home-lateststories

*China Loses Claim On South China Sea At UN-Backed Tribunal*

Reactions: Like Like:
39


----------



## Perpendicular

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752791721579130880


----------



## NirmalKrish

Stephen Cohen said:


> http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/verd...th-china-sea-1430542?pfrom=home-lateststories
> 
> *China Loses Claim On South China Sea At UN-Backed Tribunal*



Why should we be surprised in this? But on the Contrary   

Brilliant way to end the day!

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Stephen Cohen

A court in The Hague has said China has "no historic rights" in South China Sea. (File photo)

THE HAGUE: A UN-backed tribunal is on Tuesday is delivering its verdict on a Philippine challenge over Chinese-occupied territory in the South China Sea.

The arbitration court in The Hague has said China has "no historic rights" or title to over the waters of the South China Sea.

Beijing views the South China Sea as its own backyard, a place where it is entitled to free, uninterrupted rein and where its growing navy should be able to operate unhampered.|


The five-member tribunal has the power to make a decision that cannot be appealed. However, it has no means to enforce the verdict, with compliance left to the parties concerned.

Beijing has said from the start that the tribunal is invalid and has boycotted its proceedings.

President Xi Jinping said China will never compromise on sovereignty and warned it was "not afraid of trouble".

But it is unclear how aggressively China will react.

Commentators say the 1.2 million square miles of water are a potential flashpoint for regional conflict.

That's because scientists believe that the seabed could contain unexploited oil, gas and minerals. But the sea's key value is strategic.

Shipping lanes vital to world trade pass through it, carrying everything from raw materials to finished products, as well as enormous quantities of oil.

China's land-reclamation programme has been particularly aggressive. Satellite pictures now show inhabited islands where there was once only submerged coral and many have multiple facilities, including some with runways long enough for huge planes.

Beijing insists its intent is peaceful but the US and others suspect China is trying to assert its sovereignty claims and say that it could pose threats to the free passage of ships.

Washington says the waters are international and regularly sends its warships there on so-called "Freedom of Navigation" missions.

China says these missions are provocations and warns the US not to interfere. It regularly stages its own exercises in the area as a show of force.
The Philippines hopes that today's favourable ruling will help to build international pressure on China to make concessions and reverse or stall its expansionist efforts in the sea.

Manila also hopes a win will give it much-needed leverage in any negotiations with China, including on signing a code of conduct for the sea.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Beijing South China Sea claims rejected by court*

8 minutes ago

From the sectionChina




Image copyrightREUTERS
Image captionChina has accelerated construction on some disputed reefs
An international tribunal has ruled against Chinese claims to rights in South China Sea, backing a case brought by the Philippines.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration said there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources.

China described the ruling as "ill-founded".

China claims almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands also claimed by others.

The tribunal in The Hague said China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights. It also said China had caused "severe harm to the coral reef environment" by building artificial islands.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-...ng&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cloud_9

I think they will not be happy to follow the law this time?
The next NSG meeting should be interesting!

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## oprih

China will not leave the SCS area anytime soon, such ruling is meaningless.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## third eye

A look at this map would indicate how hollow the Chinese claim is.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Huan

So now China may pull out of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea? Yes?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Jackdaws

Is the ruling binding? Or is it advisory?


----------



## NirmalKrish

Waiting for the Chinese and their bandwagon of all weather trolls to run a muck! none the less it's a moral Victory for the ASEAN countries who all stake a claim in the SCS, its a good SLAP on the face for china.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## sweetgrape

Hehe, good news.
Question, China care? who will excute the decision?
Time to reclaim Huangyan island.

they successfully provocate 1.4 billion Chinese, more support to CCP from Chinese, go accelerate the construction on SCS island, or go to war with any countries there, including USA.



NirmalKrish said:


> Waiting for the Chinese and their bandwagon of all weather trolls to run a muck! none the less it's a moral Victory for the countries who all stake a claim on the SCS, its a good SLAP on the face for china.


We can tear the judgement like USAhad done, or We do even not receive it, get you so called moral victory, that is only you can get?

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

It was a predicted case but now comes the real time will they leave or will say F of


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

40-8 in Philippines Favor. 

Mwa, ha, ha, ha. Kitty is pleased with this news.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Reashot Xigwin said:


> 40-8 in Philippines Favor.
> 
> Mwa, ha, ha, ha. Kitty is pleased with this news.


So who all voted in China's favor?


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

China was not present at the PCA hearing, delaring from beginning it to be meaningless. The hearing and the result was on request of Philppines. The findings are non binding. At the end of the day nothing changes on the ground or sea in this case. Just some more noise will be raised and nothing further will come out of it. Philppines is going to change its tune soon. They already have. So, storm in a tea cup will settle soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Srinivas

If china rejects Hague court verdict, why stay in UN?

Get out of UN and do as you like !

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## CorporateAffairs

Syama Ayas said:


> So who all voted in China's favor?


Pakistan?


----------



## NirmalKrish

Srinivas said:


> If china rejects Hague court verdict, why stay in UN?
> 
> Get out of UN and do as you like !



#doublestandards what else can you expect from the Chinese, they have no moral standing, and they have VETO power in the security council. This is just wrong. Its a rouge country, its does whatever it like's without taking into consideration the consequences. Look at the map how can you justify their territorial claim boundary.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## 帅的一匹

Who cares? A bunch of Idiots. what is ours is ours, a court organized by Yankees and played by a Japanese old man can't decide anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## oprih

Srinivas said:


> If china rejects Hague court verdict, why stay in UN?
> 
> Get out of UN and do as you like !


China doesn't give a shit about such a verdict and at the same time remain a UN member with veto power. Only strong and powerful country can do that. Meanwhile india remains begging for nsg membership and being a permanent security council membership, too bad all those things will remain a dream. 



NirmalKrish said:


> #doublestandards what else can you expect from the Chinese, they have no moral standing, and they have VETO power in the security council. This is just wrong. Its a rouge country, its does whatever it like's without taking into consideration the consequences. Look at the map how can you justify their territorial claim boundary.


Your country will continue crying while China remains a veto power and continues building their islands in South China Sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Srinivas

oprih said:


> China doesn't give a shit about such a verdict and at the same time remain a UN member with veto power. Only strong and powerful country can do that. Meanwhile india remains begging for nsg membership and being a permanent security council membership, too bad all those things will remain a dream.



No India will get all those memberships and we don't give a damn what china thinks.

After the verdict if china do not obey the court I think it will be a massive blow to the china's campaign of "peaceful rise" and the recognition as responsible country.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

Syama Ayas said:


> So who all voted in China's favor?



Afghanistan, 
Gambia, 
Kenya, 
Lesotho, 
Niger, 
Sudan, 
Togo 
and Vanuatu.

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140627/think-tank-scores-it-40-8-in-ph-favor#ixzz4EBdHBtjI 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook


China even resorts to using the Victim's card after losing.
*China: We are the victims in dispute; won’t heed UN decision*

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/12...n-dispute-wont-heed-un-decision#ixzz4EBe3apJg 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## cochine

China's claim in SCS is illegal.

Reactions: Like Like:
22


----------



## Indika

third eye said:


> A look at this map would indicate how hollow the Chinese claim is.


As good as UK's claim over hong kong. Its surprising that there has been no war. Malaysia & Phillipines must be canoodling with chinese . A country which is not even in the frame claiming sovereignty is ridiculous. Given they are claiming so near malaysian waters, it wont take much time to claim malaysian/phillipines territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## oprih

Srinivas said:


> No India will get all those memberships and we don't give a damn what china thinks.
> 
> After the verdict if china do not obey the court I think it will be a massive blow to the china's campaign of "peaceful rise" and the recognition as responsible country.


Indians give a damn about everything that China thinks, just look at this thread and see the numerous indians posting here.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## TaiShang

_Why in the hell is China still so reactive? Should China not be a little proactive? China needs to get something concrete from this crisis, which equals to opportunity.

This award might "literally" be turned into an award by China.
_
@AndrewJin , @Jlaw , @Chinese-Dragon , @ChineseTiger1986 , @Daniel808 , @xunzi , @CAPRICORN-88 , @Dungeness , @yusheng , @cirr , @cnleio _et al_. Let's pool our comments under this thread.
_
***
_
*Law-abusing tribunal issues ill-founded award on South China Sea arbitration *
Source: Xinhua Published: 2016-7-12 16:59:36

The tribunal handling the South China Sea arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government issued its final award on Tuesday, amid a global chorus that as the panel has no jurisdiction, its decision is naturally null and void.

A source with the Philippine Foreign Ministry told Xinhua that the ministry has received the award.

***

*China's reaction to arbitration depends on provocation *
Source: Global Times Published: 2016-7-12 0:18:01

The award of the South China Sea arbitration will be issued at 5 pm Beijing time Tuesday. The US and Japan have claimed that relevant countries, including China, should comply with the arbitration result. They stand in sharp confrontation with China, which has announced that the award would be "nothing but a piece of paper." Whether the arbitration will lead to a severe geopolitical crisis has come under the global spotlight.

The Western media is analyzing how China will respond to the award. Bloomberg posited three scenarios from Beijing, from benign to moderately aggressive or aggressive. It considers that China establishing an South China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) would be moderately aggressive and towing away the Philippine warship grounded at Ren'ai Reef and construction on Huangyan Island as aggressive.

We believe the Chinese government must have made a series of contingency plans to deal with subsequent actions. What actions China may take on Huangyan and Ren'ai, and whether China will announce a South China Sea ADIZ depends on the reactions of the Philippines to the arbitration result and the degree of US and Japanese provocations.

So far, none of the concerned parties want military confrontation. But all are ratcheting up military preparations. The South China Sea has been clouded by unprecedented tensions. It's uncertain where the situation will head to.

Chinese society pays close attention to the South China Sea situation. After the the post-arbitration wrestling begins, the most important thing for China is to show the outside world the solidarity of its society. For one thing, Chinese society has full confidence in the country's diplomatic and maritime strength; for another, no matter what price China has to pay for the wrangling, all the Chinese will squarely accept it.

The Chinese people and government share the same interests and responsibilities. We should not only safeguard territorial sovereignty, but also make the utmost efforts to maintain peace in China's periphery, prolonging China's strategic opportunities for China's rise.

The South China Sea is a big arena. China will devote its varied resources there. China in the past was weak. It could only express determinations through demonstrations or a few activists visiting its own islands in the South China Sea. But now it has multiple means at its disposal. It has become a formidable competitor that deserves respect. No power in the world could split a united China. As long as we stick together, provocateurs are doomed to fail.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## NirmalKrish

oprih said:


> China doesn't give a shit about such a verdict and at the same time remain a UN member with veto power. Only strong and powerful country can do that. Meanwhile india remains begging for nsg membership and being a permanent security council membership, too bad all those things will remain a dream.
> 
> 
> Your country will continue crying while China remains a veto power and continues building their islands in South China Sea.



Change your flag while your at it, you Chinese Muppet! Rightly said... This is a fundamental reason as to why the UN as an organisation is a complete joke!! All the Clown's are in power, The fact that china is a Communist country in itself should null and void its right to be part of the UN. If they don't give a damn shit, just leave the UN, as if anyone in the world is going to give 2 hoots about it!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Stephen Cohen

oprih said:


> China doesn't give a shit about such a verdict and at the same time remain a UN member with veto power. Only strong and powerful country can do that. Meanwhile india remains begging for nsg membership and being a permanent security council membership, too bad all those things will remain a dream.
> 
> 
> Your country will continue crying while China remains a veto power and continues building their islands in South China Sea.




THIS VERDICT is in FAVOUR of Phillipines

AT least NOW put on your REAL FLAGS 

You have got Philipines flag ; SO Are you a AGAINST your own country

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## SmilingBuddha

oprih said:


> China doesn't give a shit about such a verdict and at the same time remain a UN member with veto power. Only strong and powerful country can do that. Meanwhile india remains begging for nsg membership and being a permanent security council membership, too bad all those things will remain a dream.
> 
> This is actually good for India, it improves our image as a responsible power in asia while china does what it usually does.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Reashot Xigwin said:


> China even resorts to using the Victim's card after losing.
> *China: We are the victims in dispute; won’t heed UN decision*
> 
> Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/12...n-dispute-wont-heed-un-decision#ixzz4EBe3apJg
> Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook



WTF? seriously 

This looks so embarrassing

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

kecho said:


> China's claim in SCS is illegal.


I will print out this and use it a toilet paper. What?

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## DesiGuy1403

oprih said:


> China doesn't give a shit about such a verdict and at the same time remain a UN member with veto power. Only strong and powerful country can do that. Meanwhile india remains begging for nsg membership and being a permanent security council membership, too bad all those things will remain a dream.
> 
> 
> Your country will continue crying while China remains a veto power and continues building their islands in South China Sea.



Err..Strange that your country is in trouble with China and you are abusing a country people who are supporting your claims!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gayMo

Tee hee


----------



## kankan326

Srinivas said:


> If china rejects Hague court verdict, why stay in UN?
> 
> Get out of UN and do as you like !


China got the permanent sea in UN because China made big contribution and sacrificed lives in the WW2(Also part of reason for owning the SCS). Do you think a cheap court can deny our right? What a joke

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DesiGuy1403

China will be utterly isolated.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## oprih

Sure, because of this stupid ruling China might become more aggressive to the Philippines. That's never a good thing for the future of my country so to the stupid indians out there, worry more about your country.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Viet

Jackdaws said:


> Is the ruling binding? Or is it advisory?


The rule is binding and backed by the UN.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kankan326

DesiGuy1403 said:


> Err..Strange that your country is in trouble with China and you are abusing a country people who are supporting your claims!


No. We are not in trouble. It's nothing for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indika

Arbitration is a two way street, next time if there is an issue where chinese assets are confiscated or interests violated like investments they cannot have an arbitration. Arbitration is not about enforcement but about finding valid soln wrt to law. Chinese cannot brow beat the world but only those in SCS area.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## NirmalKrish

sweetgrape said:


> Hehe, good news.
> Question, China care? who will excute the decision?
> Time to reclaim Huangyan island.
> 
> 
> We can tear the judgement like USAhad done, or We do even not receive it, get you so called moral victory, that is only you can get?



Not recognizing the ruling is the same as Ostrich with its head in the sand! or trying to stop an suicide bomber not to denoted his device... you are just going to do it anyway! hence what is the point. every action you engage in, will have an equal opposite reaction! Do all the chest thumping you want, it ain't going to change anything...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Always Neutral

wanglaokan said:


> Who cares? A bunch of Idiots. what is ours is ours, a court organized by Yankees and played by a Japanese old man can't decide anything.



Chinese are such poor loosers when it comes to getting their backsides slapped in an International court. So I guess now China cannot claim that UN Resolutions on Pakistan & Indian Admn Kashmir are valid? Btw what is yours every body is happily drilling there. US routinely flies its planes over the Islands and the only thing you can do is follow them. A big loss of face for China the super power

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## naveen mishra



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ito

Tripoli said:


> Let the Indians celebrate. These guys were mentally shocked and broken after losing their NSG bid. They deserve something to sleep well at night.



You ask India to respect UN resolutions, but support if the same UN says China cannot claim South China.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Indika

Tripoli said:


> Let the Indians celebrate. These guys were mentally shocked and broken after losing their NSG bid. They deserve something to sleep well at night.


https://www.asil.org/blogs/hague-co...enganga-arbitration-pakistan-v-india-december
Hague Court of Arbitration Rules in Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration

Correct then why did pakistan agree to the arbitration.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Kambojaric

Viet said:


> The rule is binding and backed by the UN.



And any act on enforcing this verdict will have to pass the SC which China will veto. So the verdict really is meaningless other than for propaganda purposes.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cochine

*South China Sea Dispute: US Calls Nations To Support Philippines*





Obama Clean Steve Jurvetson / Flickr CC BY 2.0


While the whole world awaits the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that hears the territorial dispute in the South China Sea, which the Philippines has lodged against China, the U.S meanwhile, has urged ASEAN member countries for unity on the court ruling.


Advertisement
On October 29, last year, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines after it ruled that the court has jurisdiction over the case. The international tribunal hears cases concerning disputes in the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Philippines and the world is expecting that the court would dispense its decision by the end of next month or late June. But China has already said it has no intention of participating with proceedings nor it would honor the decision of the court, as previously reported by Morning News USA.

Meanwhile, the U.S, the Philippines’ strongest ally in its territorial dispute with China, has urged countries in the ASEAN region to honor and uphold the decision of the tribunal, Reuters reported.


U.S Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken addressed members of the Congress on Thursday. In his speech he said that China, with its continued defiance of the pending decision from the Permanent Court of Arbitration, is just isolating itself more from fellow Asian countries.

“China has a decision to make. [If] it ignores the decision … it risks doing terrible damage to its reputation, further alienating countries in the region and pushing them even closer to the United States,” Blinken was quoted as saying by the Reuters.

Although the ruling of the court is not binding and it has been ignored in the past, the U.S has been trumpeting that countries, especially the signatory to the convention, to must abide by the ruling of the tribunal.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## JanjaWeed

Reashot Xigwin said:


> China even resorts to using the Victim's card after losing.
> *China: We are the victims in dispute; won’t heed UN decision*
> 
> Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/12...n-dispute-wont-heed-un-decision#ixzz4EBe3apJg
> Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook


Being one of the P5s China is morally bound to follow this UN mandated tribunal decision! Discarding this ruling will only undermine the authority of UN.. & will make it look like a joke.. while less fortunate countries gets bossed around & powerful ones get away!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Huan said:


> So now China may pull out of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea? Yes?


I hope China will pull out of UNCLOS.

What the PDF Chinese and their clueless supporters do not realize is that China being out of treaties actually give US and the rest of the world more latitudes on how to deal with China on various issues.

Simple example: If I do not respect your property rights, why should you respect mine ?

In our respective countries with our respective laws, law enforcement, and judicial systems, we can appeal to a higher authority to enforce property rights laws. But the example has its limit on the anarchic global system. Since there is no higher authority to hear appeals, the UN does not have enforcement ability, members of the global system are free to act in their own interests to exact justice.

Regarding the SCS, China will be alone. China's withdrawal from UNCLOS will be the proverbial 'blessing' for other Asian countries who need passage thru the SCS for their economic health.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Tripoli

ito said:


> You ask India to respect UN resolutions, but support if the same UN says China cannot claim South China.


Do you see me supporting anyone? Stop making baseless conclusions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indika

gambit said:


> I hope China will pull out of UNCLOS.
> 
> What the PDF Chinese and their clueless supporters do not realize is that China being out of treaties actually give US and the rest of the world more latitudes on how to deal with China on various issues.
> 
> Simple example: If I do not respect your property rights, why should you respect mine ?
> 
> In our respective countries with our respective laws, law enforcement, and judicial systems, we can appeal to a higher authority to enforce property rights laws. But the example has its limit on the anarchic global system. Since there is no higher authority to hear appeals, the UN does not have enforcement ability, members of the global system are free to act in their own interests to exact justice.
> 
> Regarding the SCS, China will be alone. China's withdrawal from UNCLOS will be the proverbial 'blessing' for other Asian countries who need passage thru the SCS for their economic health.


Exactly, well said. Its like morality, you can break it now and pay for it later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Max

China will stand firm..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

ito said:


> You ask India to respect UN resolutions, but support if the same UN says China cannot claim South China.


It is ours, that's it. Who will execute the wrongly verdict ? Some keyboard warriors?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## oprih

So did China pull out of SCS islands already, I don't think so. Cheerleaders can continue cheering, too bad China will stay in SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## boxer_B

LOL.

Look at list of Countries that supported China. And i read here China is HYPER power.

Tough times ahead for Chinese ministry of warnings.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Max said:


> China will stand firm..


And withdraw from UNCLOS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

eyeswideshut said:


> Arbitration is a two way street, next time if there is an issue where chinese assets are confiscated or interests violated like investments they cannot have an arbitration. Arbitration is not about enforcement but about finding valid soln wrt to law. Chinese cannot brow beat the world but only those in SCS area.


China doesn't think the court has the right to judge on the territory sovereign. Not else

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Max

China is not some poor small country, who gonna implement this decision if China oppose?



gambit said:


> And withdraw from UNCLOS.



China is not some poor small country, who gonna implement this decision if China oppose?

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/breaking...n-backed-tribunal.438910/page-5#ixzz4EBiSliQl

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Srinivas

gambit said:


> I did not know China's economy is that bad. Sorry to hear you are out of toilet paper.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 70U63

I am more interested to see how the new PH president will use this opportunity to negotiate with China.


----------



## Tripoli

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Why so many Indians here?
> 
> I understand that India is willing to let her sovereign territory be delineated by Europeans but China will not work that way.


The *Indians* are here because of their *insecurities*. Their *pride was destroyed *when China, Turkey , Ireland and many more countries blocked their NSG membership.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## T-Rex

Doordie said:


> It was a predicted case but now comes the real time will they leave or will say F of


*
It may be too difficult for the US minions to comprehend but actually it's quite obvious what's going to happen. Nothing will happen, China will keep showing the middle finger to Hague, have I spelled it correctly because sometimes it sounds like an old hag?*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Max said:


> China is not some poor small country, who gonna implement this decision if China oppose?


We will simply ignore China's claim to the SCS. We will travel thru the area as normal. We are obligated to obey any Chinese absurd 'rules' regarding the area.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

Don't worry China let the street dogs brake you keep on doing your work in SCS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

According to China Xinhua News, China does not accept and recognise Hague Tribunal ruling because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction on this matter.
http://news.21cn.com/hot/int/a/2016/0712/17/31278163.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Max

oprih said:


> No one, and indians will have to deal it.



Thats reality my friend, let them have their two minute fame, nothing gonna change if China is against it..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## sweetgrape

NirmalKrish said:


> .


Talk to USA first, who is ostrich? hehe, who know?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> I hope China will pull out of UNCLOS.
> 
> What the PDF Chinese and their clueless supporters do not realize is that China being out of treaties actually give US and the rest of the world more latitudes on how to deal with China on various issues.
> 
> Simple example: If I do not respect your property rights, why should you respect mine ?
> 
> In our respective countries with our respective laws, law enforcement, and judicial systems, we can appeal to a higher authority to enforce property rights laws. But the example has its limit on the anarchic global system. Since there is no higher authority to hear appeals, the UN does not have enforcement ability, members of the global system are free to act in their own interests to exact justice.
> 
> Regarding the SCS, China will be alone. China's withdrawal from UNCLOS will be the proverbial 'blessing' for other Asian countries who need passage thru the SCS for their economic health.


Your officer ripped the judgment paper off when you losed the case with Nicaragua under Hague court. What a funny guy you are Gambit.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Max

gambit said:


> We will simply ignore China's claim to the SCS. We will travel thru the area as normal. We are obligated to obey any Chinese absurd 'rules' regarding the area.



This means confrontation.. will US confront China for sake of Philippine ? i dont think so..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Viet

Kambojaric said:


> And any act on enforcing this verdict will have to pass the SC which China will veto. So the verdict really is meaningless other than for propaganda purposes.


If a resolution is brought to UNSC, China can veto it. But America, Japan, Germany, UK and France can lead a international coalition impose economic or other means, enforcing the Chinese to withdraw from the SC sea.

It is not just for propaganda.

@Carlosa

Best News of the year!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ranjeet

Take that UN backed Whatever 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752793517399810048

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## T-Rex

CorporateAffairs said:


> No, they have backing of nuke pavvar pakistan.



*China also has the backing of another power, must I mention the name? It might hurt your feelings. You see, that power also needs China's backing more than ever. It's a question of give and take.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## NirmalKrish

boxer_B said:


> LOL.
> 
> Look at list of Countries that supported China. And i read here China is HYPER power.
> 
> Tough times ahead for Chinese ministry of warnings.



LOL Vanuatu, Ok they might lend the Chinese spears and arrows, Sudan - again questionable and laughable so on so forth!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Srinivas

Tripoli said:


> The *Indians* are here because of their *insecurities*. Their *pride was destroyed *when China, Turkey , Ireland and many more countries blocked their NSG membership.



No your pride got destroyed when Turkey voted in favor of non npt members !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anant_s

AMSTERDAM: Judges at an arbitration tribunal in The Hague on Tuesday rejected China's claims to economic rights across large swathes of the South China Sea in a ruling that will be claimed as a victory by the Philippines. 


> *Highlights*
> 
> The tribunal said China has no "historical rights" over South China Sea.
> Tribunal said "none of the Spratly islands grant China an exclusive economic zone".
> China has said it will not be bound by any ruling.


"There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'," the court said, referring to a demarcation line on a 1947 map of the sea, which is rich in energy, mineral and fishing resources. 

In the 497-page ruling, judges also found that Chinese law enforcement patrols had risked colliding with Philippine fishing vessels in parts of the sea and caused irreparable damage to coral reefs with construction work. 

"None of the Spratly islands grant China an exclusive economic zone," the Hague tribunal said. 

China, which boycotted the case brought by the Philippines, has said it will not be bound by any ruling. 

China's state-run Xinhua news agency said on Tuesday that the "law-abusing tribunal" hearing a case about the disputed South China Sea had issued an "ill-founded award". 

It gave no other details. 

*Philippines urges "restraint and sobriety"* 

The Philippines' foreign minister called for "restraint and sobriety" in the South China Sea on Tuesday after an international arbitration court issued a decision favourable to Manila and condemned by Beijing. 

"Our experts are studying this award with the care and thoroughness that this significant arbitral outcome deserves," Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay told a news conference. 

"We call on all those concerned to exercise restraint and sobriety. The Philippines strongly affirms its respect for this milestone decision."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...a-UN-backed-tribunal/articleshow/53172399.cms

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## gayMo

Doordie said:


> Don't worry China let the street dogs brake you keep on doing your work in SCS


Happy you will remember this when your compatriots harp on un resolution on kashmir


----------



## TaiShang

Tiqiu said:


> According to China Xinhua News, China does not accept and recognise Hague Tribunal ruling because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction on this matter.
> http://news.21cn.com/hot/int/a/2016/0712/17/31278163.shtml
> 
> View attachment 317047



Now China needs to turn this crisis into opportunity by taking at least one reasonably aggressive step. China can consider to entirely nationalize Ren'ai Reef and start constructions there of a military facility for future contingencies.

Beijing should make use of this opportunity.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> Your officer ripped the judgment paper off when you losed the case with Nicaragua under Hague court. What a funny guy you are Gambit.


Yeah...Go tell that to the Asian countries who depends on the seas for their livelihood. You think what happened between US and Guatemala matters to them ? Am not trying to be funny but it ended up with *YOU* with eggs on your face. That is hilarious.



Max said:


> This means confrontation.. will US confront China for sake of Philippine ? i dont think so..


Start shooting at ships and see...

I do hope China starts shooting...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## oprih

gambit said:


> We will simply ignore China's claim to the SCS. We will travel thru the area as normal. We are obligated to obey any Chinese absurd 'rules' regarding the area.


Yes your american sailors are just going to travel in the area and watch as China continues their construction. Your country won't stop it because it can't.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

We all know china won't leave SCS, now the only way force chinese leave it's the WAR ... lucky China has a strong military force in the region to protect our interests. I believe Beijing soon will send jets & missiles into these islands also will claim ADIZ of SCS ... it just speed up China armed these islands in SCS, maybe U.S Navy can kick China out from SCS, War with China for rocks. Should U.S go for it ?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

oprih said:


> Yes your american sailors are just going to travel in the area and watch as China continues their construction. Your country won't stop it because it can't.


It will be a waste of time and resources.


----------



## T-Rex

Srinivas said:


> If china rejects Hague court verdict, why stay in UN?
> 
> Get out of UN and do as you like !



*
Not so fast, not so fast! Why is China going to fulfill your deepest desire? China is going to stay as a P-5 member and ensure that states like india does not cross the limit.*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Srinivas

T-Rex said:


> *Not so fast, not so fast! Why is China going to fulfill your deepest desire? China is going to stay as a P-5 member and ensure that states like india does not cross the limit.*



we will see .....


----------



## NirmalKrish

Max said:


> This means confrontation.. will US confront China for sake of Philippine ? i dont think so..



What Crystal ball did you look into mate, It won't be just for Philippines, its for the entire ASEAN countries... I guess your fuse ran short!


----------



## T-Rex

NirmalKrish said:


> #doublestandards what else can you expect from the Chinese, they have no moral standing, and they have VETO power in the security council. This is just wrong. Its a rouge country, its does whatever it like's without taking into consideration the consequences. Look at the map how can you justify their territorial claim boundary.



*
Look who's talking! Masters of hypocrisy!*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JanjaWeed

ranjeet said:


> Take that UN backed Whatever
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752793517399810048


wow.. that is too civil & too soft for a response!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## XiaoYaoZi

Viet said:


> If a resolution is brought to UNSC, China can veto it. But America, Japan, Germany, UK and France can lead a international coalition impose economic or other means, enforcing the Chinese to withdraw from the SC sea.
> 
> It is not just for propaganda.
> 
> @Carlosa
> 
> Best News of the year!


Best news? trust me, the nightmare of vietnam will just come to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kankan326

70U63 said:


> I am more interested to see how the new PH president will use this opportunity to negotiate with China.


It's not an opportunity for PH. It's a crisis for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

cnleio said:


> We all know china won't leave SCS, now the only way force chinese leave it's the WAR ... lucky China has a strong military force in the region to protect our interests. I believe Beijing soon will send jets & missiles into these islands also will claim ADIZ of SCS ... it just speed up China armed these islands in SCS, maybe U.S Navy can kick China out from SCS, War with China for rocks. Should U.S go for it ?


No one is 'kicking' China out of the SCS. We are just saying the SCS is not yours.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

oprih said:


> Yes your american sailors are just going to travel in the area and watch as China continues their construction. Your country won't stop it because it can't.


They can't win in 1950, not to mention now. It is not me looking down on Yankees, they can't play serious. DF21D been deployed in Hai nan province according to latest Video clips. It's time for something real.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## NirmalKrish

T-Rex said:


> *Look who's talking! Masters of hypocrisy!*



Your point being? state some facts or stop with the one liners! its pretty cheap tacit to increase your post count...


----------



## Max

gambit said:


> Start shooting at ships and see...
> 
> I do hope China starts shooting...



let us see if US send ships at first place..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> They can't win in 1950, not to mention now. It is not me looking down on Yankees, they can't play serious. DF21D been deployed in Hai nan province according to latest Video clips. It's time for something real.


Our sailors are going to swim in open waters and within sight of those islands. And there is not going to be a damn thing China can do about it.



Max said:


> let us see if US send ships at first place..


We have been sailing thru the SCS. You keep up with the news ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -xXx-

That's hegemonic. Not agreeing to an institution you are a signatory of doesn't left you with much substance.

I wonder how come going forward China can throw rule books on other nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

After this the image US will go down because China will not bow

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## TaiShang

*Full text of statement of China's Foreign Ministry on award of South China Sea arbitration initiated by Philippines*

Following is the full text of the Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines issued on Tuesday.

Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines.

With regard to the award rendered on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the unilateral request of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal"), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it.

1. On 22 January 2013, the then government of the Republic of the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration on the relevant disputes in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines. On 19 February 2013, the Chinese government solemnly declared that it neither accepts nor participates in that arbitration and has since repeatedly reiterated that position. On 7 December 2014, the Chinese government released the Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, pointing out that the Philippines' initiation of arbitration breaches the agreement between the two states, violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and goes against the general practice of international arbitration, and that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction. On 29 October 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered an award on jurisdiction and admissibility. The Chinese government immediately stated that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China's positions are clear and consistent.

2. The unilateral initiation of arbitration by the Philippines is out of bad faith. It aims not to resolve the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines, or to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, but to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The initiation of this arbitration violates international law. First, the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is in essence an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao (the Nansha Islands), and inevitably concerns and cannot be separated from maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. Fully aware that territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS, and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines deliberately packaged the relevant disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Second, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration infringes upon China's right as a state party to UNCLOS to choose on its own will the procedures and means for dispute settlement. As early as in 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. Third, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the bilateral agreement reached between China and the Philippines, and repeatedly reaffirmed over the years, to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. Fourth, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the commitment made by China and ASEAN Member States, including the Philippines, in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevant disputes through negotiations by states directly concerned. By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines violates UNCLOS and its provisions on the application of dispute settlement procedures, the principle of "pacta sunt servanda" and other rules and principles of international law.

3. The Arbitral Tribunal disregards the fact that the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, erroneously interprets the common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by China and the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevant commitment in the DOC, deliberately circumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China under Article 298 of UNCLOS, selectively takes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands), subjectively and speculatively interprets and applies UNCLOS, and obviously errs in ascertaining fact and applying the law. The conduct of the Arbitral Tribunal and its awards seriously contravene the general practice of international arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China's legitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful.

*4. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards.*

5. The Chinese government reiterates that, regarding territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, *China does not accept any means of third party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on China. The Chinese government will continue to abide by international law and basic norms governing international relations as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the principles of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity and peaceful settlement of disputes, and continue to work with states directly concerned to resolve the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, so as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.*

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> Yeah...Go tell that to the Asian countries who depends on the seas for their livelihood. You think what happened between US and Guatemala matters to them ? Am not trying to be funny but it ended up with *YOU* with eggs on your face. That is hilarious.
> 
> 
> Start shooting at ships and see...
> 
> I do hope China starts shooting...


Shooting ships? Why? Are you ok? That shows you are a war monger, actually you are a coward. Bully Iraq,Lybia, Yugoslavia. Sorry you can't do shit about China. Why you still type here if you are such a war monger, go back join the US marine.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## anant_s

*South China Sea ruling will affect India's economic interests*



> *Highlights*
> 
> Case is first legal challenge in South China Sea dispute
> Region is rich in oil, gas and an important fishing ground
> China has boycotted Philippines' case. Five countries have territorial claims in region


It's rare that a judicial technical ruling on esoteric maritime claims holds such global geo-political significance. The International Court of Arbitration "award" (verdict) on Philippines' case against China's claims in the South China Sea could have consequences far beyond the two countries.

India will be watching the ruling carefully, because it would have implications for India's security and economic interests. Vice Admiral Pradeep Chauhan said India has a range of interests in this region like "creation of a 'blue' ocean economy including protection of offshore infrastructure and maritime resources, safety of trade and sea lanes of communication and a regionally favourable geostrategic maritime-position." 

The reason for the bated breath anticipation is this: if the ruling goes against China, as many have speculated, what will China do ? How will India and US respond? What does it mean for the balance of power in Asia and the world?

*The case: *

Tiny Philippines in 2013 challenged China's claims on 15 counts, saying China's actions were against international law. This came after China became increasingly belligerent over Scarborough Shoal, which Philippines claims . If the court rules even partially in Philippines' favour, it would be a blow to China's massive reclamation activities in the South China Sea.

Philippines has questioned the validity of China's '9-DashLine' through which China claims almost 90% of the South China Sea. It has also challenged China's constructions on so me of the rocks and land features in the sea, asking the court to define them as "low tide elevations", "rocks" or "islands" each of which have different implications in terms of EEZ.

China has flailed about, first refusing to accept the jurisdiction, then threatening other countries, invoking an opt-out clause. In recent weeks, China has been on a PR binge securing thumbs up votes from countries like Serbia and Lesotho. It has also warned US from "meddling" blaming it for the tensions. In a Peoples Daily commentary last week, China drew a "bottom line". "The South China Sea was not an issue between China and the US to begin with. However, ... US, as an outsider, uses the South China Sea as a lever to realise its own strategic objectives. The US will have to assume full responsibility for the further ten sions in the South China Sea that may arise. ... for China, safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity is unshakable."

Philippines' new President, Rodrigo Duterte has been more conciliatory, offering to "share" South China Sea.

*What happens after:* 

It is likely the ruling will be a mixed one filled with technical jargon, so everybody can go back with some victories and potential conflict will be averted. But if it goes against China, It could declare an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) on South China Sea which would be provocative. It could forcefully occupy Scarborough Shoal, which might invite US involvement. Or it could accept the verdict, as India did vis-a-vis Bangladesh, but that seems unlikely if its unfavourable.

Then the bets would be off.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...s-economic-interests/articleshow/53166108.cms

Its good to see, that most nations are urging restraint after the ruling and there is no chest thumping.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SmilingBuddha

wanglaokan said:


> They can't win in 1950, not to mention now. It is not me looking down on Yankees, they can't play serious. DF21D been deployed in Hai nan province according





oprih said:


> In every single war or skirmish between China and india, China always emerged as the winner and india as the humiliated loser.



And you were the cheerleader with the pink top and pompoms...dancing in the sewer

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cerberus

Tripoli said:


> http://www.news18.com/news/politics/after-india-fails-nsg-bid-opposition-calls-it-failed-modi-diplomacy-1261858.html
> (indian source)
> 
> Are you living in la la land?
> 
> Quoted from the article:
> *After India Fails NSG Bid, Opposition Calls it 'Failed Modi Diplomacy'*
> 
> In a clear setback to India's efforts to join the 48-nation grouping, a two-day NSG plenary ended in Seoul after deciding against accepting India's membership application.
> 
> China, which had made no secret of its opposition, succeeded in scuttling India's bid despite a significant majority backing the Indian case. Thirty-eight countries supported India, according to Indian officials.
> 
> Beijing was unrelenting in thwarting India despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting in Tashkent on Thursday to support India's case on its merits.
> 
> An upset India later accused "one country", a clear reference to China, of persistently creating procedural hurdles during the discussions on its application.
> 
> "We understand that despite procedural hurdles persistently raised by one country, a three-hour-long discussion took place on the issue of future participation in the NSG," External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said.
> 
> "The NSG plenary in Seoul earlier in the day decided against granting India membership of the grouping immediately and said it will continue to have discussions on participation of countries which have not signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
> 
> "An overwhelming number of those who took the floor supported India's membership and appraised India's application positively. We thank each and every one of them. It is also our understanding that the broad sentiment was to take this matter forward," he said.
> 
> Besides China, countries like Brazil, Switzerland, Turkey, Austria, Ireland, New Zealand were also opposed to India's entry because it is not a signatory to Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
> 
> In its statement, at the conclusion of the plenary, NSG declared its "firm support" for the "full, complete and effective" implementation of the NPT as the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime.
> 
> However, it said it had discussions on the issue of 'Technical, Legal and Political Aspects of the Participation of non-NPT States in the NSG' and decided to continue its discussion.


Well they Rejected this time It will be Considered in future 
We go support of 38 countries including both Russia and US 

Pakistan Appeal is not Even considered to be for discussions that's the difference

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cloud_9

Jackdaws said:


> Is the ruling binding? Or is it advisory?


It's isn't binding but it set's a precedent!

Wait for the 50-cent army to flood the internet with "How they don't care and the court is illegal". Interesting times fosho!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## oprih

gambit said:


> Our sailors are going to swim in open waters and within sight of those islands. And there is not going to be a damn thing China can do about it.
> 
> 
> We have been sailing thru the SCS. You keep up with the news ?


And that swimming or sailing won't stop China's constructions in the area.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> Shooting ships? Why? Are you ok? That shows you are a war monger, actually you are a coward. Bully Iraq,Lybia, Yugoslavia. Sorry you can't do shit about China. Why you still type here if you are such a war monger, go back join the US marine.


At least I once served and that give me the freedom to talk. What about you ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## -xXx-

wanglaokan said:


> Shooting ships? Why? Are you ok? That shows you are a war monger, actually you are a coward. Bully Iraq,Lybia, Yugoslavia. Sorry you can't do shit about China. Why you still type here if you are such a war monger, go back join the US marine.



China should accept the UN tribunal verdict and show that its not the war monger but a law abiding nation.

As for now the impression is actually otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Max

gambit said:


> We have been sailing thru the SCS. You keep up with the news ?



i am talking about future.. if US is sailing , it will keep doing it, nothing gonna change if China oppose..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Devil Soul

Wont make any difference to Chinese stance on this claim & no one can do a jack about it... thats the reality for now ....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tripoli

Srinivas said:


> Turkey voted in favor of Non NPT members that includes India!


http://www.news18.com/news/politics...n-calls-it-failed-modi-diplomacy-1261858.html
(indian source)

Read it again! Turkey opposed India's nsg bid. You cannot change that fact.
*After India Fails NSG Bid, Opposition Calls it 'Failed Modi Diplomacy'*

In a clear setback to India's efforts to join the 48-nation grouping, a two-day NSG plenary ended in Seoul after deciding against accepting India's membership application.

China, which had made no secret of its opposition, succeeded in scuttling India's bid despite a significant majority backing the Indian case. Thirty-eight countries supported India, according to Indian officials.

Beijing was unrelenting in thwarting India despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting in Tashkent on Thursday to support India's case on its merits.

An upset India later accused "one country", a clear reference to China, of persistently creating procedural hurdles during the discussions on its application.

"We understand that despite procedural hurdles persistently raised by one country, a three-hour-long discussion took place on the issue of future participation in the NSG," External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said.

"The NSG plenary in Seoul earlier in the day decided against granting India membership of the grouping immediately and said it will continue to have discussions on participation of countries which have not signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"An overwhelming number of those who took the floor supported India's membership and appraised India's application positively. We thank each and every one of them. It is also our understanding that the broad sentiment was to take this matter forward," he said.

Besides China, countries like Brazil, Switzerland, Turkey, Austria, Ireland, New Zealand were also opposed to India's entry because it is not a signatory to Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In its statement, at the conclusion of the plenary, NSG declared its "firm support" for the "full, complete and effective" implementation of the NPT as the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime.

However, it said it had discussions on the issue of 'Technical, Legal and Political Aspects of the Participation of non-NPT States in the NSG' and decided to continue its discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## T-Rex

Srinivas said:


> we will see .....


*
We have already seen your meows like a kitten, haven't we?*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

oprih said:


> And that swimming or sailing won't stop China's constructions in the area.


China can build anything she want. She just cannot claim the seas around those islands. Without even the facade of legitimacy of that claim, China will be wasting her money.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Srinivas

ranjeet said:


> Take that UN backed Whatever
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752793517399810048



This sums up pretty well and explains why chinese are behaving like this here


----------



## gambit

Max said:


> i am talking about future.. if US is sailing , it will keep doing it, nothing gonna chance if China oppose..


To nominally 'enforce' this decision, the US will continue to have a military presence in the SCS. Nothing China can do about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SmilingBuddha

This is good, hope they extend the dash lines to encircle all the countries claiming SCO, that way there won't be anyone to oppose this mind boggling territorial claims of soup pawa china and we don't have to deal with the chump change 50cent brigade.


----------



## baajey

its nice to see China's real obligation to international norms/guidelines with Spartlys and vis a vis NSG membership for India.
its clear that all the chinese claims of righteousness are as hollow as its historical claims on the whole wide world.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## XiaoYaoZi

gambit said:


> It will be a waste of time and resources.


The decline of US will become more and more quickly as you see when this illegal arbitration is issued

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kankan326

Filipinos must pay a price for what they did. Otherwise other countries will follow PH.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## 帅的一匹

By the way the newly elected president of Philippine said he will choose to talk with China no matter what the result of verdict is. Hahahhaha. He said the turmoil in the Middle East was caused by USA interference. Look at the Indian and Yankees jump and down, the initiator of the sue had changed his mind. Why you here?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Am going to sacrifice a bull to the gods in the hope that China will pull out of UNCLOS and starts being aggressive in the SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oprih

Such rulings are only meant to create chaos and trouble in the area. I'm sure western powers are behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## TaiShang

*US Iraq tricks reused in tribunal award *
By Zhang Junshe

The award of the international arbitration filed by the Philippines on the South China Sea dispute was announced Tuesday, and will cause a surge of tensions in the region, especially between China and the US. Washington, under the disguise of protecting international law and order, has ratcheted up its efforts to pressure China by instigating denunciations in global public discourse and deploying more military forces in and around the South China Sea. Beijing, suspicious of the nature of the arbitral tribunal, has elaborated on its stance, which is non-participation in and non-acceptance of the case, and is determined to safeguard its national interests by employing countermeasures.

*From China's perspective, the arbitration is nothing but a farce, engineered and supported by the US for the purpose of containing China. The arbitration, though self-claiming to focus on dispute over maritime rights, cannot avoid concerning territorial ownership and sovereignty issues, which are not included in the jurisdiction of any international arbitral tribunal. *

Besides, the proceeding of the arbitration without China's attendance has resulted in a forced and unilateral award. China is being deprived by the US and the Philippines of the right to choose its own way of dealing with international disputes.

The dramatic arbitration is a recurrence of the same trick the US played before it invaded Iraq. The US vilified Iraq for possessing large volumes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and connections with Al Qaeda. 

However, after 13 years, the US has found no sign of WMD on Iraqi soil. In a recent published report by the UK government, the war has been confirmed to be a terrible mistake. Both warmongers of the invasion, former US president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair, should be charged with war crimes.

This time, the US targets China by painting the country as a challenger of the global order and a rule-breaker of international law and practice. But compared with Iraq, China is a heavyweight and a powerhouse. Besides, it is no longer the collapsing and corrupt country like the lamb to the slaughter it was 150 years ago, and the US should understand China will by no means accept unjust and unequal treaties forced upon it. This is a red line set up by its bitter history.

It is ironic that the biggest rogue disregarding international law is pretending to be a flag bearer in this term. Washington has a blemished record of contempt of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its decision in the 1986 Nicaragua vs US case. The ICJ ruled that the US had violated international law by supporting rebels in Nicaragua and mining Nicaragua's harbors. The US refused to participate in the case and blocked the enforcement of the judgment by the UN Security Council. Despite the veneer of international law, the US actually believes in nothing but "might makes right."

As a non-signatory of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the US groundlessly demands China comply with the Convention. Although vowing to protect freedom of navigation from China, the US cannot find one example of China blocking international waterways in the South China Sea. Without a proper capacity and a convincing cause, the US' interference in the arbitration simply serves its rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific strategy.

As a pawn and puppet in this farce, the Philippines needs to realize that it might be the biggest victim of the Sino-US power game. The country's new President Rodrigo Duterte has intention to draw back, stating that the Philippines is willing to negotiate with China even if the award is in its favor. 

It is a good sign that Manila is re-calibrating its former dangerous approach. But it should understand that China won't engage in any talks with the Philippines on the basis of the award. 

Bilateral negotiations are a commonly agreed method of dealing with territorial disputes in the South China Sea. If there are any talks, China and the Philippines need to go back to square one and rearrange the structure of negotiation.

Even though tensions might escalate after the arbitration, only maniacs would start a war between China and the US because of the South China Sea. However, all parties must exercise more restraint in the current circumstance, especially the US, which is increasingly upping the ante.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> By the way the newly elected president of Philippine said he will choose to talk with China no matter what the result of verdict is. Hahahhaha. He said the turmoil in the Middle East was caused by USA interference. Look at the Indian and Yankees jump and down, the initiator of the sue had changed his mind. Why you here?


Yeah...And the Philippines will give the PLAN access to Subic Bay.


----------



## XiaoYaoZi

"There are only two tragedies in life, one is not getting what you want, the other is getting it. " it is the real meaning of the so-called arbitration for Philippines, Vietnam, America and lapdog Japan etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## T-Rex

gambit said:


> Am going to sacrifice a bull to the gods in the hope that China will pull out of UNCLOS and starts being aggressive in the SCS.



*Well, it looks like China owns your god, so don't waste a bull.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> Am going to sacrifice a bull to the gods in the hope that China will pull out of UNCLOS and starts being aggressive in the SCS.



Religious nut job. Hope and pray what you will, but spare the bull please.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Aarush

once upon a time in history .. hsuan tsung also travelled to india..be cautious........just saying..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SmilingBuddha

wanglaokan said:


> By the way the newly elected president of Philippine said he will choose to talk with China no matter what the result of verdict is. Hahahhaha. He said the turmoil in the Middle East was caused by USA interference. Look at the Indian and Yankees jump and down, the initiator of the sue had changed his mind. Why you here?


 We are here to see how chinese respond to international law, frankly we are not surprised. Hope we can leaverage this attitude of china against it when it offers sermons about following rules next time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Always Neutral

oprih said:


> Your country is poor loser, so much crying when China decline to accept you as member of NSG.



Last I checked we were members of NSG Mr looser who got his bottom spanked by a small country like phillipines. USN has issued a statement that they will continue to sail freely in SCS so there. Poor Chinese only 8 countries like Sudan supported them. Shows what a super power you are in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Religious nut job. Hope and pray what you will, but spare the bull please.


I just had a vision from the gods. They do not need any sacrifice. They said that if China decide to do anything stupid, such as pulling out of UNCLOS, we have their blessings to do anything we want.


----------



## 帅的一匹

gambit said:


> Yeah...And the Philippines will give the PLAN access to Subic Bay.


Aquino gave it. The new president definitely don't like USA. We are waiting for you in the SCS, anytime.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-Rex

SmilingBuddha said:


> We are here to see how chinese respond to international law, frankly we are not surprised. Hope we can leaverage this attitude of china against it when it offers sermons about following rules next time.



*
And we're also interested to see how the US minions respond to international laws in Kashmir and Palestine.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

It is Western design misleading title:
 China did not lose as they have proclaimed right from the begining that they will not respected any ruling from a biased tribunal set up by Shunji Yanai and UNCLOS has NO JURISDICTION in dealing with historical land claim.

The rest of the claimants including Vietnam, Brunei, etc all ended up as losers as their EEZ claim have now been reduced from 200NM to 12NM under this biased ruling that claimed that China damaged the eco-system as well (Based on what?).

So who wins? 

In my opinion - USA 

USA is not even a signatory to the UNCLOS but encourage its lackey Philippines BS Aquino to file this case in order for Philippines - a POLITICAL ONE which to me is HOLLOW as its is not enforceable.

Meanwhile USA will exploit the water as much as they want.

UNCLOS is all about water and not land!

Did China loses? Certainly not - as China has declared right from the beggining that they will NOT recognized the tribunal as well as ruling. Over the next few days many international legal maritime experts will challenged and ridiculed the judges (selected by Yanai and approved by Philippines Ministry of Foereign Affair) ruling as it will affected Australia, Britain, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia as all these islands are now declared as ROCKS.

Interesting revelation but NOT entirely UNEXPECTED.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Nilgiri

Excellent news @Viet 

Though not unexpected.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

wanglaokan said:


> Aquino gave it. The new president definitely don't like USA. We are waiting for you in the SCS, anytime.


The Philippines is small fry, buddy. Duterte is going to lead his country in the path of Venezuela. So often, any country that starts blaming US for their troubles, their leaders ended up doing stupid shit that harms their countries more than US.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SmilingBuddha

gambit said:


> Am going to sacrifice a bull to the gods in the hope that China will pull out of UNCLOS and starts being aggressive in the SCS.


Why a bull, why not a tiger or a


T-Rex said:


> *And we're also interested to see how the US minions respond to international laws in Kashmir and Palestine.*


Address it to Pakistan and palestine...want kashmir then get a tourist visa.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Always Neutral

wanglaokan said:


> By the way the newly elected president of Philippine said he will choose to talk with China no matter what the result of verdict is. Hahahhaha. He said the turmoil in the Middle East was caused by USA interference. Look at the Indian and Yankees jump and down, the initiator of the sue had changed his mind. Why you here?



Well if he wanted to talk to you he would have withdrawn the case as you begged and tried to bribe him. face it a small proud country like Philippines put you in your place Mr Bully with no muscle. Last I checked is that in the coming months Philippines and US will hold joint exercises in SCS while China will have to go to Sudan to do the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-Rex

gambit said:


> China can build anything she want. She just cannot claim the seas around those islands. Without even the facade of legitimacy of that claim, China will be wasting her money.



*We know how much the US cares about legitimacy, it's a commodity that can be purchased any day of the year.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> In my opinion - USA
> 
> USA is not even a signatory to the UNCLOS but encourage its lackey Philippines BS Aquino to file this case in order for Philippines - a POLITICAL ONE which to me is HOLLOW as its is not enforceable.
> 
> Meanwhile USA will exploit the water as much as they want.


The US have not been 'exploiting' the SCS. We have been making sure no one can claim it to himself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

gambit said:


> No one is 'kicking' China out of the SCS. We are just saying the SCS is not yours.


Not ours ? but i see Chinese still building those islands in SCS, and more ships & workers sending to there. The SCS controlled by many countries including China, if not ours why China still stay there for a long time ?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## gambit

T-Rex said:


> *We know how much the US cares about legitimacy, it's a commodity that can be purchased any day of the year.*


When you got the money...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cerberus

Tripoli said:


> At least you accepted the contents of the article unlike @Srinivas who keeps rejecting facts.


So What, Italy Rejected are MTCR Bid in 2015 we Got it in the End this year

Indian Rejection Was on Pure Technical ground for Doubt on Non NPT members Joining in NSG Some people is Projecting it as China Influence Which Incorrect .Our NSG move was More of what Political To test our Diplomatic power in International Forums. 38 countries Favoured us including 4 Veto power UNSC members US,Russia,UK,France that Major Achievement For our Diplomacy 

For that matter We have wavier for Now from NSG for business in Nuclear materials That major achievement of our Diplomacy

We will target Another Major Groups in the world Like Australian group and Wassenaar Arrangement who not bound to such compulsions Which will get Since we are in MTCR Now

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

SmilingBuddha said:


> Why a bull, why not a tiger or a
> 
> Address it to Pakistan and palestine...want kashmir then get a tourist visa.



*And if you want to visit the SCS get a tourist visa from Beijing! I say indians should be denied tourist visa, they might try to implant IED explosives the way they supply them to the Daesh terrorists.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## NirmalKrish

If you pay attention to the SCS map and look at the claim line, it resembles a certain biological organ of the male genitalia, that the Chinese are trying to save with all determination and might, hence all the chest thumping!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-Rex

gambit said:


> When you got the money...



*Do you think China doesn't have the money? China owns your economy if you didn't know it.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## X-2.

It's belngs to China and what ever USA try to use the card through Philippines etc they can't get it back from China
Chinese ppl where first ppl to discover it and rehabilitate it
Even Philippines Japan vietnam etc had occupied earlier many other Islands 
USA IS WHORE WHO WANT TO SEXSLAVE OF ALL OVER WORLD NOW SHE WANTS TO BE CHINSE 
WE SUPPORT CHINESE RIGHT OVER SCS

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

T-Rex said:


> *Do you think China doesn't have the money? China owns your economy if you didn't know it.*


Will you please cut that shit out. No one believes that nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## baajey

boxer_B said:


> Even after backing Hafeez Saeed, you think there is some righteousness ?


there is a small *"claim of"* added before the word *"righteousness".*


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *Do you think China doesn't have the money? China owns your economy if you didn't know it.*



China doesn't own the US economy .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Always Neutral

T-Rex said:


> *And if you want to visit the SCS get a tourist visa from Beijing! I say indians should be denied tourist visa, they might try to implant IED explosives the way they supply them to the Daesh terrorists.*



You must be smoking something really good? USN just sailed past the artificial Island created by China and China could do nothing so what visa are you talking about? many foreign companies are happily drilling for oil there without asking China's permission so what are you talking?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

NirmalKrish said:


> If you pay attention to the SCS map and look at the claim line, it resembles a certain biological organ of the male genitalia, that the Chinese are trying to save with all determination and might, hence all the chest thumping!


Go back read some books and type here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

gambit said:


> The Philippines is small fry, buddy. Duterte is going to lead his country in the path of Venezuela. So often, any country that starts blaming US for their troubles, their leaders ended up doing stupid shit that harms their countries more than US.



In fact Duterte is very SMART. Smarter than OBAMA and the rest. 

China was on the verge of building a MRT system under a BOT agreement (all financed by China) until Aquino torpedoes the whole deal with his nonsense. That is why former President takes a very serious and negative view of this US returnee who was back to Philippines with a mission.

He is quite practical guy as I see it. 

What is the use of claiming a few rock in the sea when youcan do anything about it?

Let us negotiate and have a joint or WIN-WIN solution. But better watch out as that may earn him a bullet from an assassin send from across the Pacific Ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Always Neutral

T-Rex said:


> *Do you think China doesn't have the money? China owns your economy if you didn't know it.*



So if the US Govt seizes all the Chinese money whom will China go to UN? Sudan?


----------



## phancong

Of course the ruling against China when China totally reject and not even participate in the case because the ruling is not enforceable by the court.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Always Neutral

wanglaokan said:


> Aquino gave it. The new president definitely don't like USA. We are waiting for you in the SCS, anytime.



Yet they made you eat crow worldwide by not withdrawing their claim and only Sudan backed you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## phancong

Footless arbitration trail just for a moral victory not much to show for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oprih

Always Neutral said:


> You must be smoking something really good? USN just sailed past the artificial Island created by China and China could do nothing so what visa are you talking about? many foreign companies are happily drilling for oil there without asking China's permission so what are you talking?


Yep the only thing US can do is sail past the islands, they can't stop China's construction in the area. American ships are just wasting their fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *Whatever you think my friend, once you uttered a truth and still I salute you for that. I know you love your country, so do whatever you have to do. *



Anyways we should all really just sit back and watch now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> It is Western design misleading title:
> China did not lose as they have proclaimed right from the begining that they will not respected any ruling from a biased tribunal set up by Shunji Yanai and UNCLOS has NO JURISDICTION in dealing with historical land claim.
> 
> The rest of the claimants including Vietnam, Brunei, etc all ended up as losers as their EEZ claim have now been reduced from 200NM to 12NM under this biased ruling that claimed that China damaged the eco-system as well (Based on what?).
> 
> So who wins?
> 
> In my opinion - USA
> 
> USA is not even a signatory to the UNCLOS but encourage its lackey Philippines BS Aquino to file this case in order for Philippines - a POLITICAL ONE which to me is HOLLOW as its is not enforceable.
> 
> Meanwhile USA will exploit the water as much as they want.
> 
> UNCLOS is all about water and not land!
> 
> Did China loses? Certainly not - as China has declared right from the beggining that they will NOT recognized the tribunal as well as ruling. Over the next few days many international legal maritime experts will challenged and ridiculed the judges (selected by Yanai and approved by Philippines Ministry of Foereign Affair) ruling as it will affected Australia, Britain, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia as all these islands are now declared as ROCKS.
> 
> Interesting revelation but NOT entirely UNEXPECTED.


Dude. You should create a new thread for this comment.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-Rex

Always Neutral said:


> So if the US Govt seizes all the Chinese money whom will China go to UN? Sudan?



*Let the US do it, till then keep dreaming.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

oprih said:


> China doesn't give a shit about such a verdict and at the same time remain a UN member with veto power. Only strong and powerful country can do that. Meanwhile india remains begging for nsg membership and being a permanent security council membership, too bad all those things will remain a dream.
> 
> 
> Your country will continue crying while China remains a veto power and continues building their islands in South China Sea.


If this comment is not proof of False Flagging, what is?
@Oscar

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## phancong

China ready to start a war over those island that what it all count

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Viet

Nilgiri said:


> Excellent news @Viet
> 
> Though not unexpected.


best news of the year, if not of the century!

the Chinese can say whatever they like not accepting the verdict. but the verdict stands and all nations must abide. Chinese claim is lawless, baseless and ridiculous. they can throw it to the next trash bin.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cloud_9

We were told Chinese didn't care about this ruling?

Guys follow People's Daily and Xinhua on twitter.You can literally feel their frustration with all the tweets being edited and deleted.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Nilgiri

oprih said:


> Yep the only thing US can do is sail past the islands, they can't stop China's construction in the area. American ships are just wasting their fuel.



The point is they sail through waters China claims are territorial waters....after China specifically tells them not to.

Thats a pretty rude slap on the face I have to say.....each time they call your bluff and show it as a bluff to everyone.

Middle kingdom ego is so fun to watch deflate and puff up again in cycles throughout the year.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Always Neutral said:


> You must be smoking something really good? USN just sailed past the artificial Island created by China and China could do nothing so what visa are you talking about? many foreign companies are happily drilling for oil there without asking China's permission so what are you talking?



That is called *LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE.*

USA is trying to bait China to a small skirmish recklessly so that she can use the excuse for various economic mischieves and the China knew Obama and his hawkish team plan too well. So why bother even to respond when in just a couple more years USA will fall into the big, big she is digging for herself. USA is self destructive if she continue this way. How can she sustain herself with such huge MILITARY BUDGET in maintaining so many bases overseas.

*The PETRODOLLAR may be the currency of the past.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## egodoc222

CorporateAffairs said:


> *NSG - favoring India - 38
> UN Tribunal - favoring China - 8
> *


But the 8 countries that supported China are very big 
Vanuatu

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## oprih

A.P. Richelieu said:


> If this comment is not proof of False Flagging, what is?
> @Oscar


I'm a Filipino and I live in the Philippines. Mods can check anyway they want. I remain firm in my opinion that cooperating with China will be the better thing to do for my country's future rather than claiming the SCS islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nik141993

X-2. said:


> It's belngs to China and what ever USA try to use the card through Philippines etc they can't get it back from China
> Chinese ppl where first ppl to discover it and rehabilitate it
> Even Philippines Japan vietnam etc had occupied earlier many other Islands
> USA IS WHORE WHO WANT TO SEXSLAVE OF ALL OVER WORLD NOW SHE WANTS TO BE CHINSE
> WE SUPPORT CHINESE RIGHT OVER SCS


Hope mighty pakistan come open in support of daddy just like it come in support of a terrorist in kashmir few days ago

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

Always Neutral said:


> Yet they made you eat crow worldwide by not withdrawing their claim and only Sudan backed you?


66 countries back China stand in SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Always Neutral

phancong said:


> Of course the ruling against China when China totally reject and not even participate in the case because the ruling is not enforceable by the court.



China ran away with its tail between its legs when faced by a small country like Philippines challenging them. Now the world can make merry in SCS like the USN. If China acts tough, individually affected countries can seize Chinese assets and China can do nothing as no international court will interfere with a bully nation who does not respect their decision. USN has issued a statement that it will be conducting exercises with Philippines in the near future and sail with impunity in SCS. Look at the countries who support you. I would be ashamed to be called a superpower.

*"Angola, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, among others, have expressed their support for China's stance since early July, according to Lu. Other African countries that support China include Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Mauritania, Cameroon, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe"*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Always Neutral

wanglaokan said:


> 66 countries back China stand in SCS.



Please name them. Are they the below?

*Angola, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, among others, have expressed their support for China's stance since early July, according to Lu. Other African countries that support China include Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Mauritania, Cameroon, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

gambit said:


> The US have not been 'exploiting' the SCS. We have been making sure no one can claim it to himself.


  You won't be singing this tune when China or Russia Naval expeditional force started sailing into the Caribbean Sea for instances.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-Rex

Viet said:


> best news of the year, if not of the century!
> 
> the Chinese can say whatever they like not accepting the verdict. but the verdict stands and all nations must abide. Chinese claim is lawless, baseless and ridiculous. they can throw it to the next trash bin.


*
And who's going to implement the fvcking verdict, you? We really want to see you trying but I have a feeling that in the end you'll be the first to chicken out followed by your newfound American master. Have you read Gambit's post? He has already echoed what might happen next. A few sail around by the US vessels and that's it, the ground will remain in China's control.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Always Neutral

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> That is called *LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE.*
> 
> USA is trying to bait China to a small skirmish recklessly so that she can use the excuse for various economic mischieves and the China knew Obama and his hawkish team plan too well. So why bother even to respond when in just a couple more years USA will fall into the big, big she is digging for herself. USA is self destructive if she continue this way. How can she sustain herself with such huge MILITARY BUDGET in maintaining so many bases overseas.
> 
> *The PETRODOLLAR may be the currency of the past.*



And China is the largest investor in the USA. Its like cutting your nose to spite your face. Your post shows that China is a poor looser.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## oprih

Always Neutral said:


> China ran away with its tail between its legs when faced by a small country like Philippines challenging them. Now the world can make merry in SCS like the USN. If China acts tough, individually affected countries can seize Chinese assets and China can do nothing as no international court will interfere with a bully nation who does not respect their decision. USN has issued a statement that it will be conducting exercises with Philippines in the near future and sail with impunity in SCS. Look at the countries who support you. I would be ashamed to be called a superpower.
> 
> *"Angola, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, among others, have expressed their support for China's stance since early July, according to Lu. Other African countries that support China include Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Mauritania, Cameroon, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe"*


There's so much potential for huge growth in African continent, backing of the whole continent is definitely a huge boost for China in the international stage. By the way stop acting as if only african countries supports China, powerful countries like Russia surely backs China too.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## danger007

CorporateAffairs said:


> Suppa pawwa China gives a Damm to such rulings.




21st century bullying... I love the part no historic nonsense.. Chinese expansionism growing with economy..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

egodoc222 said:


> But the 8 countries that supported China are very big
> Vanuatu


Although they are small, they are brave to side with the justice.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## X-2.

Kid I believe u do not know single page of history ... it was India who invaded Kashmir not Pakistan 
China never use force over this dispute ? Remember!but it's usa who fooling viets. Philip. And Japan's gov and sitting on Malaysian bay to gtfo of the is region now... even now India will s there forfather usa will do...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> the ground will remain in China's control.



and the other ground will remain in PH and vietnams control (ground that china claims).

So everyone will just continue the status quo it seems.....but the international community has basically said they do not recognise china's 9 dash line as having any historical validity.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

gambit said:


> The gods also said that China's claim to be the Middle Kondom was a hoot all this time.



*China as the Middle Kingdom was undisputable part of ancient Chinese history but for USA claimed her role as a World Policeman is both ludricious and egocentric. *

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## egodoc222

AMSTERDAM: Judges at an arbitration tribunal in The Hague on Tuesday rejected China's claims to economic rights across large swathes of the South China Sea in a ruling that will be claimed as a victory by the Philippines.

"There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'," the court said, referring to a demarcation line on a 1947 map of the sea, which is rich in energy, mineral and fishing resources.

In the 497-page ruling, judges also found that Chinese law enforcement patrols had risked colliding with Philippine fishing vessels in parts of the sea and caused irreparable damage to coral reefs with construction work.

Get doctors & more. Heal at home with HaptikAd Haptik 

Install now
"None of the Spratly islands grant China an exclusive economic zone," the Hague tribunal said.

China, which boycotted the case brought by the Philippines, has said it will not be bound by any ruling.

China's state-run Xinhua news agency said on Tuesday that the "law-abusing tribunal" hearing a case about the disputed South China Sea had issued an "ill-founded award".

It gave no other details.

*Philippines urges "restraint and sobriety"*

The Philippines' foreign minister called for "restraint and sobriety" in the South China Sea on Tuesday after an international arbitration court issued a decision favourable to Manila and condemned by Beijing.

"Our experts are studying this award with the care and thoroughness that this significant arbitral outcome deserves," Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay told a news conference.

"We call on all those concerned to exercise restraint and sobriety. The Philippines strongly affirms its respect for this milestone decision."http://m.timesofindia.com/world/chi...a-Sea-UN-backed-tribunal/articleshow/53172399o

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Always Neutral

Can you give me a source that Russia backed you?

Russia only said that it would like the dispute to be settled by bilateral talks but never endorsed China's historical claim. Stop spouting half truths.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

wanglaokan said:


> Although they are small, they are brave to side with the justice.



You mean Chinese moolah. 

But seems Chinese pockets weren't so deep or effective this time overall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Nilgiri said:


> and the other ground will remain in PH and vietnams control (ground that china claims).
> 
> So everyone will just continue the status quo it seems.....but the international community has basically said they do not recognise china's 9 dash line as having any historical validity.



*Yes. But the world is divided and so are their opinions.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## X-2.

Every one know who fukd whom who is still the bitch
Start from afgan Soviet war....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## egodoc222

wanglaokan said:


> Although they are small, they are brave to side with the justice.


Yeah! you guys are well known for 'beating' the 'justice' out of the weak!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Always Neutral

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> *Yes. But the world is divided and so are their opinions.*



Not the world only China and some dictators in Africa who have been bribed by the Chinese Govt.

A*ngola, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, among others, have expressed their support for China's stance since early July, according to Lu. Other African countries that support China include Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Mauritania, Cameroon, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe.*


----------



## 帅的一匹

cloud_9 said:


> We were told Chinese didn't care about this ruling?
> 
> Guys follow People's Daily and Xinhua on twitter.You can literally feel their frustration with all the tweets being edited and deleted.


You are not Chinese, how do you know we feel frustrated. I'm pretty happy with it cause it urge the central government to invest more in defense. Only power speaks or the truth will be lie if you are weak. More ships, aircraft, missiles, I can't wait see it.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## phancong

The ruling is not enforceable by the court issue the virdict, tell me how the virdict will change the fact China own the newly build islands and no one can force China to leave.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> *Yes. But the world is divided and so are their opinions.*



They are mostly against the Chinese claim w.r.t 9 dash line it seems though. 40 - 8 is pretty skewed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

egodoc222 said:


> Yeah! you guys are well known for 'beating' the 'justice' out of the weak!


Why Indians so happy about the result? No entry for NSG?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SmilingBuddha

T-Rex said:


> *And who's going to implement the fvcking verdict, you? We really want to see you trying but I have a feeling that in the end you'll be the first to chicken out followed by your newfound American master. Have you read Gambit's post? He has already echoed what might happen next. A few sail around by the US vessels and that's it, the ground will remain in China's control.*


Read the issue at hand again genius, nobody is stopping china from using SCO, they are only going to treat it as international waters giving zero fvcks to chinese claims of territorial claims.Oh, I am only here because I find the hypocrisy in this thread very interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## phancong

By this virdict will force China to accelerate the military build up in the SCS to totally have full control of the SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Always Neutral

phancong said:


> The ruling is not enforceable by the court issue the virdict, tell me how the virdict will change the fact China own the newly build islands and no one can force China to leave.



With comments like the above you should refrain from posting in a defense forum? Do you know anything about Maritime law? No one is bothered about the artificial island created by China which has costs billions and now are a useless investments as you cannot declare a 200 mile EEZ around the islands. everyone will now sail past the islands and Chinese Navy can only whistle and follow them like loosers but not stop them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## egodoc222

wanglaokan said:


> Why Indians so happy about the result? No entry for NSG?


Lol...I'm loving this...Chinese members getting flustered and bringing up the nsg lol


----------



## Always Neutral

phancong said:


> By this virdict will force China to accelerate the military build up in the SCS to totally have full control of the SCS.



Only if you have the capacity to defeat the USN which you don't have.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Always Neutral said:


> That way SCS belongs to Mongolia as they subjugated China with ease and ruled over them?



It will depends on what you understand about the history about Mongolia?

I bet you do not know much as do you know in recent years there discovered that part of the Great Wall of China is found inside Mongolia which makes me wonder where is the real Mongolia? Central Asia or deep in the streppe in Siberia.

But for a citizen that come from a land which used to belongs to 32 nations, we can understand why you reason that way?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## NirmalKrish

phancong said:


> The ruling is not enforceable by the court issue the virdict, tell me how the virdict will change the fact China own the newly build islands and no one can force China to leave.



How did they let you in the US, with such shocking spelling and grammar? use the function in chrome or browser of your choice for auto-correct! On your point no one can force china to do anything other than shoot themselves in the foot. They are doing this remarkably well...


----------



## Indos

Not only fact, the result also shows which side has the most influence. I dont talk about US influence only since even US cannot help Israel in UN.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

egodoc222 said:


> Lol...I'm loving this...Chinese members getting flustered and bringing up the nsg lol



 For heaven sake stop whining and harping on an old issue and just join the NPT and become one of the responsible member of the World community. India will needs NO favour instead of attempting to enter by the backdoor as directed by that sneaky Obama.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Param

Yes great master China.Whole of East Asia are subjects and China its great dictator.Will crush all that comes into its way.So Philippines,Vietnam,Japan and others just shut up and pay heed to Chinese interests.And say loudly- Chinese products are best.


----------



## BABA AGHORI

wanglaokan said:


> A loser in 1962 shout like a dog, come and get it.


Is it hurting too bad today ?


----------



## egodoc222

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> For heaven sake stop whining and harping on an old issue and just join the NPT and become one of the responsible member of the World community. India will needs NO favour instead of attempting to enter by the backdoor as directed by that sneaky Obama.


Who the f are you? Put on your glasses and read....then you'll know who is whining? Peace


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *Go ahead, fly the Kenyan flag.*



I'm just extending the Chinese faulty logic to its natural conclusion.

I don't endorse that faulty logic myself as far as politics go.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

danger007 said:


> this is an open insult to China... power..


We don't loose nothing. We will keep building our islands. Seems You are very jealous.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng

we will see something happen in ten days, 
no need to say more, just do.







today, two Chinese planes landed on the above islands

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Always Neutral

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> For heaven sake stop whining and harping on an old issue and just join the NPT and become one of the responsible member of the World community. India will needs NO favour instead of attempting to enter by the backdoor as directed by that sneaky Obama.



You never know by china stupidly being a sore looser and UNCLOS, you just may handed Obama and India a back door entry into a NSG as why listen to country which does not respect global rules to which it was a signatory?


----------



## jaunty

Pakistani cheerleaders aside, anyone who's seen the map of SCS knows how hollow Chinese claims are. They claim islands that are next door to other countries but hundreds of miles from Chinese land. Excellent decision by The Hague, Chinese bullying should be condemned.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

danger007 said:


> this is an open insult to China... power..


What is that considering that fact all Asians were subjected to unfair and humiliation by the former Colonial Powers?

I discovered Indians have short memories maybe something to do with the vegetation of India landmass - not enough trees I supposed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Always Neutral

wanglaokan said:


> We don't loose nothing. We will keep building our islands. Seems You are very jealous.



Build as many Islands as you want but you get no EEZ of 200 miles with it. Whats the point then. USN has issued a statement SCS is open to all and China can only threathen people here on PDF but not in the SCS.


----------



## oprih

egodoc222 said:


> Lol...I'm loving this...Chinese members getting flustered and bringing up the nsg lol


Nothing's wrong with that, I mean look at indians, they have been crying for so many nights after China rejected india's pitiful attempt to join.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> As a matter of fact Kublai Khan was in fact a HAN.



Both his father (Tolui) and mother were Mongol.

Or you saying Mongols are Han? 

Or you are defining by elements of Han culture they incorporated? That doesn't make them Han ethnically.


----------



## Always Neutral

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> What is that considering that fact all Asians were subjected to unfair and humiliation by the former Colonial Powers?
> 
> I discovered Indians have short memories maybe something to do with the vegetation of India landmass - not enough trees I supposed.



So Philippines beating you in an International court is Colonial subjugation? What are you smoking?


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

*KEY FINDINGS ON SOUTH CHINA SEA | Highlights of the UN tribunal ruling*
By: *Agence France-Presse*
July 12, 2016 6:36 PM

HE HAGUE, Netherlands - A United Nations-backed tribunal on Tuesday issued a damning ruling against China on its long-running dispute with the Philippines in the South China Sea.

Here are some of the key findings in the lengthy document.







1. China's 'nine-dash-line' is invalid

The five member panel found that Chinese fishermen, amongst others, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea but "there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources.

"The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash-line'".

2. Reclaimed islands have no exclusive economic zone

The artificial islands that China has been furiously building over recent years are not capable of sustaining a population and therefore under international treaties do not have the 200 nautical mile "exclusive economic zone" (EEZ) enjoyed by inhabited land.

"The Tribunal noted that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features is dependent on outside support and not reflective of the capacity of the features... (and) ....that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.

"The Tribunal found that it could -- without delimiting a boundary -- declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China."

3. China has behaved unlawfully

Because areas at issue are within the Philippines EEZ, Chinese construction of artificial islands and its interference with Philippine fishing and mineral activities is illegal.

"China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal further held that Chinese law-enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels."

4. Beijing has damaged the environment

China's large-scale land reclamation has "caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems".

China was also remiss in failing to put a stop to the harmful "harvesting of endangered sea turtles, coral and giant clams on a substantial scale" by its fishermen.

5. Island building should have stopped during the dispute process

The panel said it had no jurisdiction over the military standoff at Second Thomas Shoal, where Chinese and Philippine military and law enforcement vessels are locked in confrontation.

However, "China's recent large-scale reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a state during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has... destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features of the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute."

http://interaksyon.com/article/1302...ina-sea--highlights-of-the-un-tribunal-ruling

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## danger007

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> What is that considering that fact all Asians were subjected to unfair and humiliation by the former Colonial Powers?
> 
> I discovered Indians have short memories maybe something to do with the vegetation of India landmass - not enough trees I supposed.



meanwhile China bullying south east Asian country .. isn't China following colonial powers...


----------



## Nilgiri

oprih said:


> Nothing's wrong with that, I mean look at indians, they have been crying for so many nights after China rejected india's pitiful attempt to join.



and we laughed after Hu Jintao gave us the NSG waiver (what really matters) after just one phone call in 2008

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

China has just finished the testing of the runway and officially opened up the two newly built airports at Meiji and Zhubi islands in the SCS for services. Look at those track marks on the runway

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## AMDR



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Always Neutral said:


> You never know by china stupidly being a sore looser and UNCLOS, you just may handed Obama and India a back door entry into a NSG as why listen to country which does not respect global rules to which it was a signatory?



Really that is how the international community works?

Then why did USA ignored a ruling against them by the ICJ not a one sided tribunal in its case against Nicaragua in the 1970s? Double standard. Look here. That is the International Court of Justice and the ruling is both enforceable and binding unlike this tribunal which is paid fully by Philippines.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Green Angel

*
UN and his Tribunal...........*

*UN (Impotent Commodity).....in a history of Mankind......
*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## phancong

US totally destroyed the whole Middle East region no nations give a damn, what make you think nations other than the US and US allies will care for this verdict.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## egodoc222

oprih said:


> Nothing's wrong with that, I mean look at indians, they have been crying for so many nights after China rejected india's pitiful attempt to join.


You are shamed in front of the whole world for being a bully!! Lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

wanglaokan said:


> We don't loose nothing. We will keep building our islands. Seems You are very jealous.




jealous of what ? follow the foot print of colonial powers ... even though received a tight slap from a court backed by UN, where China is permanent member with veto . hey that's silly.. China well aware, what they are doing is illegal.. that's why, didn't showed interest to be part of ..


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

It is mind boggeling to see such senseless hatred, envy and glee towards China from some quarters... those doing this do not realise that in any conflict between two great powers only these fools will suffer. The government, public and media open hatred coming from this quarter is nothing less than madness.

Do people not realise that such behaviour leads to self destruction. Hope good sense pervails.

Nothing is going to happen. The reality on the ground is in China's favour. China is going to sit tight and see fools jump up and down. None in ASEAN is going to give a toss to Philppines claims. If anything see the bee line from Manila to Bejijng increase. 

Why do not the Chinese here explain to hateful souls that monkey god can not jump from the hand of Buddha.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

oprih said:


> Yes, too bad you country was still humiliated after being rejected by China this time.



We were? It was China that was humiliated as again it had the support of countries you can count on one hand (and they were not even for the same reason as China).....just like in this verdict.

It shows what position China really occupies in the world after all this effort and investment

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Always Neutral

Green Angel said:


> *UN and his Tribunal...........*
> 
> *UN (Impotent Commodity).....in a history of Mankind......*



That is why China ratified the treaty in 1996? Shows what a big Looser China is to sign up for an Impotent Commodity?


----------



## danger007

oprih said:


> Jealous of China's power, be strong indian because your country will always be behind China.




that's not power.. that is arrogance... or bullying ... just like UK France..... did for centuries... but there would be a break down like in past..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cloud_9

wanglaokan said:


> *You are not Chinese, how do you know we feel frustrated*. I'm pretty happy with it cause it urge the central government to invest more in defense. Only power speaks or the truth will be lie if you are weak. More ships, aircraft, missiles, I can't wait see it.


Calm down and re-read the post!


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

kankan326 said:


> Filipinos must pay a price for what they did. Otherwise other countries will follow PH.



I agree with you. ASEAN must have acted to restrain Manila.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## oprih

Sinopakfriend said:


> It is mind boggeling to see such senseless hatred, envy and glee towards China from some quarters... those doing this do not realise that in any conflict between two great powers only these fools will suffer. The government, public and media open hatred coming from this quarter is nothing less than madness.
> 
> Do people not realise that such behaviour leads to self destruction. Hope good sense pervails.
> 
> Nothing is going to happen. The reality on the ground is in China's favour. China is going to sit tight and see fools jump up and down. None in ASEAN is going to give a toss to Philppines claims. If anything see the bee line from Manila to Bejijng increase.
> 
> Why do not the Chinese here explain to hateful souls that monkey god can not jump from the hand of Buddha.


That's expected of indians, they are always butthurt with the fact that China is always ahead and many times richer than the pitiful and sorry country of theirs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

jaunty said:


> Pakistani cheerleaders aside, anyone who's seen the map of SCS knows how hollow Chinese claims are. They claim islands that are next door to other countries but hundreds of miles from Chinese land. Excellent decision by The Hague, Chinese bullying should be condemned.


 hollow Chinese claim? China made the 11 dash line claim in 1948, today Taiwan(ROC) also rebut the wrongly verdict by Hague.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Carlosa

Viet said:


> If a resolution is brought to UNSC, China can veto it. But America, Japan, Germany, UK and France can lead a international coalition impose economic or other means, enforcing the Chinese to withdraw from the SC sea.
> 
> It is not just for propaganda.
> 
> @Carlosa
> 
> Best News of the year!



Absolutely. The UNCLOS tribunal is legally binding. The fact that there is no enforcement mechanism does not change that and it does not prevent a third party to decide to enforce the ruling. Now USA has the legal cover to take action if they so choose. I'd say that a particular party placed itself in a corner and fell into a very well calculated trap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ankit Kumar

Ancient map .... lol 
Us hisab se kaha hai hamari Akhand Bharat ka naksa...aur Hind Mahasagar?
And why aren't Mongols being granted their land going by historical maps ? 

People with modern education are expected to act and conduct more logically ....

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## danger007

Sinopakfriend said:


> It is mind boggeling to see such senseless hatred, envy and glee towards China from some quarters... those doing this do not realise that in any conflict between two great powers only these fools will suffer. The government, public and media open hatred coming from this quarter is nothing less than madness.
> 
> Do people not realise that such behaviour leads to self destruction. Hope good sense pervails.
> 
> Nothing is going to happen. The reality on the ground is in China's favour. China is going to sit tight and see fools jump up and down. None in ASEAN is going to give a toss to Philppines claims. If anything see the bee line from Manila to Bejijng increase.
> 
> Why do not the Chinese here explain to hateful souls that monkey god can not jump from the hand of Buddha.





hatred towards China? don't you know why is that... China trying to grab entire sea including EEZ and Islands from small nations ... open eyes first ..


----------



## Green Angel

egodoc222 said:


> Remember that when you guys run to UN to intervene in 'our' Kashmir issue!



*Issue is not yet solved that shows the Credibility of UN.......Simple.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Well. The Indian media lied and ordinary illierate or shall we called them literate folks were so delighted without ever understanding why they did so. So much for mass brainwashing in the third world.



Point is we buy anything we want, fuel, reactors from any country that can provide it now in the NSG that are friendly with us.

We don't care what you think China thinks it did so for. We got what we wanted...just a few weeks back another ship full of Canadian uranium arrived in India.

We wanted something, China acquiesed and left its higher than mountains ally in the lurch. The best China could do was grandfather previous deals it had signed with Pakistan and say they are outside NSG framework.....but they can't do anything else beyond that without clearly violating the NSG framework (i.e start new projects).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Green Angel

Always Neutral said:


> That is why China ratified the treaty in 1996? Shows what a big Looser China is to sign up for an Impotent Commodity?



*Now,MIGHT IS RIGHT........Who cares what has happen in past...*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Carlosa

wanglaokan said:


> why ask your daddy do it if you are so brave, you occupied some 20 reefs in SCS.



Did I ask anything? read again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maximuswarrior

cloud_9 said:


> I think they will not be happy to follow the law this time?
> The next NSG meeting should be interesting!



LOL Don't confuse NSG with this. China will go ahead and claim the island with or without anyone's approval. No one can do anything about it. Certainly not irrelevant Hague.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SmilingBuddha

oprih said:


> Nothing's wrong with that, I mean look at indians, they have been crying for so many nights after China rejected india's pitiful attempt to join.


There is no logic in your absurd statement, comparing apples to oranges.Besides, we we get into NSG one way or the other, there is only so much china can do to stop our growth.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

danger007 said:


> hatred towards China? don't you know why is that... China trying to grab entire sea including EEZ and Islands from small nations ... open eyes first ..



Hatred


Green Angel said:


> *Now,MIGHT IS RIGHT........Who cares what has happen in past...*



I think some of us are beginning to get the point.

Whether it was Britain, France, Spain or USA, nothing has changed over the century.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## faithfulguy

Carlosa said:


> Absolutely. The UNCLOS tribunal is legally binding. The fact that there is no enforcement mechanism does not change that and it does not prevent a third party to decide to enforce the ruling. Now USA has the legal cover to take action if they so choose. I'd say that a particular party placed itself in a corner and felled into a very well calculated trap.



The legal enforcement is from UNSC. Also, no one will start shooting because of this verdict. This is a one day news as the situation on the ground will not change.

The only change is that Indian members of PDF are very happy. So this is a PDF related ruling...lolol...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Paranoid Android

Wait till their slaves infiltrate

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## egodoc222

faithfulguy said:


> The legal enforcement is from UNSC. Also, no one will start shooting because of this verdict. This is a one day news as the situation on the ground will not change.
> 
> The only change is that Indian members of PDF are very happy. So this is a PDF related ruling...lolol...


You do crystal ball fortune telling too?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

SmilingBuddha said:


> There is no logic in your absurd statement, comparing apples to oranges.Besides, we we get into NSG one way or the other, there is only so much china can do to stop our growth.


There is not much logic in India claim either. First they claim 44 nations supported them and China was the sole opposition then they says it was 38 nations only supporting them at the NSG.

Pretty confusing but that is expected from people from your country.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cloud_9

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752791186868404224

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## SmilingBuddha

Sinopakfriend said:


> It is mind boggeling to see such senseless hatred, envy and glee towards China from some quarters... those doing this do not realise that in any conflict between two great powers only these fools will suffer. The government, public and media open hatred coming from this quarter is nothing less than madness.
> 
> Do people not realise that such behaviour leads to self destruction. Hope good sense pervails.
> 
> Nothing is going to happen. The reality on the ground is in China's favour. China is going to sit tight and see fools jump up and down. None in ASEAN is going to give a toss to Philppines claims. If anything see the bee line from Manila to Bejijng increase.
> 
> Why do not the Chinese here explain to hateful souls that monkey god can not jump from the hand of Buddha.


Really, that is how you see the issue as, nobody hates china. It is the chinese hatred of other's sovereignty that is appallingly clear with the double standards and blatant hypocrisy. We honestly have no skin in this game or want to waste resources here unless it is profitable, but do know that this will be a measuring scale to chinese adherence to international laws and will head to future chinese related issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maximuswarrior

cloud_9 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752791186868404224



Good thing China is doing that. China is an independent country and can decide what it can and will not censor. India did the same thing with BBC rape documentary.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SmilingBuddha

Fattyacids said:


> China ruled over Mongolia for longer. It's like Greek, Persian, Afghan, Arabs, Turks, Mongol and Muslim conquered and ruled India for 1000 years? And the British too.. By your same logic, India belong to those countries


Or vice versa


----------



## PARIKRAMA

I see only 3 big issues

Economically - The slowdown globally and the intrinsic debt aspect of Chinese economy which is well managed for the time being but deeper correction is needed. Its an export focused economy atm but the same cannot be sustained with their Yuan currency accommodating this aspect. Its a short term adjustment but long term some more solid actions are needed.

South China Sea - The Hague Tribunal has finally bought out the issues with neighbors to international arena. Much is being talked about what China has done and the reports will use choicest words to showcase that.. I expect them to ignore the Tribunal ruling but this will be an issue as morally standing for the right and following rules was displayed by China in last international forum like NSG. Now if it does nt like and adhere the Hague tribunal ruling, it will be shown in negative light by being selective and by being artificial in its so called morally correct and following rules aspect.

International relations - Its continuous issues will be further fuelled by confrontation with Japan and USA arming its neighborhood .. Inspite of what people will claim or project, China is a rising power but such confrontation and driving the neighborhood to other strategic relationship with purchase of military hardware from them will only complicate teh matter.

India also has vital interests and i expect the GOI to say respect the tribunal ruling and show restraint for all parties concerned. Officially i believe that will be our position but unofficially we may be courted to join and form an alliance which is basically ant China.Of course we wont join right away but its a bit unnecessary and over the top reactions would follow..

I expect the mainstream newspapers in multiple countries to run amok now and showcase this ruling with China bashing aspect... The funding of all that articles would be critical to understand who is playing the games from the shadows..

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## oprih

egodoc222 said:


> 45 guests? Who they must be?


Happy indians?


cloud_9 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752791186868404224


Good job by China to censor trash propaganda channels like bbc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## danger007

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> g the event would help India in her case in NSG as India has truly failed to fulfill the NSG entry requirement.
> 
> INDIA is her worst enemy NOT China!





Hague verdict a tight slap but not enough time stop bully..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maximuswarrior

oprih said:


> Happy indians?
> 
> Good job by China to censor trash propaganda channels like bbc.



BBC, CNN, Fox News and the likes will be getting lesser coverage in many parts of the world in the coming years. The writing is on the wall. These are propaganda mouth pieces.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

danger007 said:


> Hague verdict a tight slap but not enough time stop bully..



For who? Certainly NOT as I have says before. China has openly declared she will not respected any ruling that is issue by an Independent Tribunal with NO JURISDICTION.

The tight slap is for the rest of the CLAIMANT STATES who suddenly cornered themselves back into the 12NM instead of the 200NM.

*India should not be pleased because her islands in the Indian Oceans are now deemed as rock by that ruling.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Director General

German DW TV reports that this ruling is a massive defeat for Chinese foreign policy


----------



## maximuswarrior

Director General said:


> German DW TV reports that this ruling is a massive defeat for Chinese foreign policy



What are they going to do? The ruling means absolutely nothing. It has no value and is politically motivated. It has not even symbolic value. China will move on and continue to build the islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ito

oprih said:


> Happy indians?
> 
> Good job by China to censor trash propaganda channels like bbc.



Congrats on winning against China!. Good to see Philippines standing up to bully China. India should arm Philippines against China just like it is doing with Vietnam.


----------



## egodoc222

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Hello Hello I am a Singaporean. That may be what your COMMUNIST government in Kerala teaches to you but not us in Singapore. Our education is among the best in the world today.


Why are you too ashamed of Chinese flag?


----------



## ito

China blocks BBC!


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

SmilingBuddha said:


> You can put it in bold, but it still does not make any sense. It is not about china getting SCO or not but about soup pawa china getting challenged by a small country.. David Vs Goliath.. David 1- Goliath 0



That is a HOLLOW victory for the Philippines but why are you so happy?

OBAMA is pretty pleased because now her navy can sailed with 12NM of India Nicobar and Andaman Island. 

Remebrance about India own humilating defeat in 1962 or what?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-Rex

kankan326 said:


> Filipinos must pay a price for what they did. Otherwise other countries will follow PH.


*

Post deleted! I have got the answer to my question.*


----------



## egodoc222

pher said:


> From indians' perspective, it really a shame. how dare not to listen to your former colonizer. after all, once a slave, slave forever.
> 
> That is why two italian marines could walk away like nothing happened after slaughtering indian fishman, and indians still worship british as human rights beackon even though they colonized india 200 years and threat indians worse than animals. shame of humanity.


Yawn!!!
Stick to the topic at hand!!


----------



## SmilingBuddha

faithfulguy said:


> India was created by Europeans. Its borders was created by the British and its constitution was written in English. US forced Britain to grant independence to India. It's natural for India to submit to international law as it's formation and existence is a gift from English speaking countries that created UN. US is not subject to any UN rulings as we have shown that it does not apply to us under the Reagan administration. But India is subject to international court. Indians will be disappointed again as China will not subject itself to international laws as any countries with a spine will not subject to UN rulings.


That is a logical way of stating that laws apply to and when in fits chinese interests... There, you didn't have to write a whole page to tell us that, Duh.. Now, I am going to do a slow clap on your well written propoganda to justify injustice.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

*The ruling should in fact create problems for Philippines as she has awarded many exploration rights to many foreign companies* and now they are told Philippines does not have the right according to the Tribunal ruling as her sea borders is limited back to within 12NM.

*Great strategy and now many of her neighbors may be fuming in assessing the damage.
*
*Shooting oneself in the foot.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## maximuswarrior

LOL at the Indians getting happy in this thread. These scenes remind me of a spoilt child with a lollipop in her hand. Only, when the lollipop is finished the child gets back to crying asking for more.

When things have calmed down and the celebrations subdued. Everyone will realize that the verdict meant nothing. China will go about its business.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SmilingBuddha

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> That is a HOLLOW victory for the Philippines but why are you so happy?
> 
> OBAMA is pretty pleased because now her navy can sailed with 12NM of India Nicobar and Andaman Island.
> 
> Remebrance about India own humilating defeat in 1962 or what?


Look, man.. I am just here to do my days duty to impart some knowledge and gain too, it is not happiness but amusement at the hypocrisy of a china, why are you frustrated???
So, you also want a repeat of the shit you pulled in sikkim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

vtnsx said:


> I think you Chinese quit putting yourselves above everybody and treat everyone has human beings and equal. You started the game but you lose the battle. It is your fault.



Sign! Vietnam is such a big loser in this ruling and you are so happy!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vtnsx

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Are you a small child? Using entertainment as a point for serious discussion?
> 
> Then you should watch BOLLYWOOD movie!



Nope, sorry. I'm a man. This isn't a serious discussion. This is news. LOL, get your fact straight you sore loser. What's wrong with you people. Hhahaha can't handle reality? is that why you make fantasy movies to fulfill your weaknesses? hahaha

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maximuswarrior

Reaction from China:

As expected, *China* is standing firm and re-asserting its claim to the area.

"China's territorial sovereignty and marine rights in the South China Sea will not be affected by the so-called Philippines South China Sea ruling in any way," said Chinese President Xi Jinping.

He said China was "determined to maintain peace and stability" and was committed to resolving disputes "through negotiations based on respects to historical facts and according to international laws".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36771749

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## T-Rex

SmilingBuddha said:


> Look, man.. I am just here to do my days duty to impart some knowledge and gain too, it is not happiness but amusement at the hypocrisy of a china, why are you frustrated???
> So, you also want a repeat of the shit you pulled in sikkim.



*India, not China, gobbled up Sikkim.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## greenwood

Why Indians looks more happy than pinoys?

The court has no right of arbitration referring to territory, in the first place, the court's procedure has no legal base, we have repeated that many times.

When we come to reality, it's still China and USA geopolitical game. It's only about time when China and USA don't hide and directly point at each other as enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

SmilingBuddha said:


> Look, man.. I am just here to do my days duty to impart some knowledge and gain too, it is not happiness but amusement at the hypocrisy of a china, why are you frustrated???
> So, you also want a repeat of the shit you pulled in sikkim.



Temper & Tantrum!!! That is what Indians like you do whenever you are cornered.

What useful knowledge have you departed to the other today, Mr Teach from India?

*Amusement! I appeared to be more amused than all of you folks from the South!*

SCS is just my discussion and I am certainly NOT China hence what frustration are you talking about?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SmilingBuddha

T-Rex said:


> *India gobbled up Sikkim not China.*


Whoa whoa, you tell him bro.. I was just reminding my threatening Chinese friend the same thing.


----------



## Zero_wing

Chinese delaying tactics and now victory mabuhay ng pilipinas

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

vtnsx said:


> Nope, sorry. I'm a man. This isn't a serious discussion. This is news. LOL, get your fact straight you sore loser. What's wrong with you people. Hhahaha can't handle reality? is that why you make fantasy movies to fulfill your weaknesses? hahaha


Yes. You are right. That is a wrong analogy I used. 

It is merely a discussion, nothing serious but stop behaving like a child. 

But you are still in your fantasy world of movie. Better for you to continue watching a movie instead of wasting time in non productive issue like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

damage critical q the final fantasy victory music


----------



## maximuswarrior

Zero_wing said:


> Chinese delaying tactics and now victory mabuhay ng pilipinas



Delaying tactics? China was building the islands whilst the "verdict" was being read out in The Hague. I don't think the Chinese are delaying anything. The verdict may have meaning to US, India and the Philippines. It certainly has no meaning to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## empirefighter

Param said:


> Yes great master China.Whole of East Asia are subjects and China its great dictator.Will crush all that comes into its way.So Philippines,Vietnam,Japan and others just shut up and pay heed to Chinese interests.And say loudly- Chinese products are best.


We of course the BEST. All the countries you mentioned are toally notiing without USA support. But USA just shout and dare not to fight.
This so called Hague ruling is no harm to us ,how many troops do the Hague have? This incident just warn us to speed up our development in SCS,we need to control the SCS with hard methods, no need to waste time to negotiate with other tiny contries ,it is meaningless to talk, so it is GOOD for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## maximuswarrior

vtnsx said:


> A child is the one who is offended by little things. I merely state that Chinese movies aren't realistic. I guess I was right about you. You're a kid.



Don't you think you are kind of going off topic with the movie joke?

The ruling has no bearing. China's official position was clear long before the verdict.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

maximuswarrior said:


> Delaying tactics? China was building the islands whilst the "verdict" was being read out in The Hague. I don't think the Chinese are delaying anything. The verdict may have meaning to US, India and the Philippines. It certainly has no meaning to China.



Well i mean it was gonna be earlier but some chinese group from taiwan well i don't care about china is screw mabuhay ng republika


----------



## ashok321

China will start the process to blunt the impact created by UNCLOS ruling.


----------



## SmilingBuddha

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Temper & Tantrum!!! That is what Indians like you do whenever you are cornered.
> 
> What useful knowledge have you departed to the other today, Mr Teach from India?
> 
> *Amusement! I appeared to be more amused than all of you folks from the South!*
> 
> SCS is just my discussion and I am certainly NOT China hence what frustration are you talking about?


It depends on the capacity of the individual absorbing the knowledge that is scattered all across the thread which is screaming hypocrisy...  
Ofcourse you are not from china and you are totally neutral,... I am now on going to gain knowledge from your brilliant logical posts that have no iota of tantrums or double standards... ￼


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

vtnsx said:


> A child is the one who is offended by little things. I merely state that Chinese movies aren't realistic. I guess I was right about you. You're a kid.



Then says something that is constructive instead of using movie as a proof of your childishness... you rather prefer cartoon

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maximuswarrior

ashok321 said:


> China will start the process to blunt the impact created by UNCLOS ruling.



Or perhaps China is actually adhering to the UNCLOS ruling by taking what it deems as its own. There is nothing illegal by claiming something that is yours.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

maximuswarrior said:


> Don't you think you are kind of going off topic with the movie joke?



Nope, it was a reference to what he said. A metaphor. It will take an adult to understand it. Nobody here is on topic.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

SmilingBuddha said:


> It depends on the capacity of the individual absorbing the knowledge that is scattered all across the thread which is screaming hypocrisy...
> Ofcourse you are not from china and you are totally neutral,... I am now on going to gain knowledge from your brilliant logical posts that have no iota of tantrums or double standards... ￼



Time for you folks from the South to stick to the topic instead of making useless comments like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maximuswarrior

vtnsx said:


> Nope, it was a reference to what he said. A metaphor. It will take an adult to understand it. Nobody here is on topic.



You can speak for yourself because if you read your own posts you will realize how off topic you are.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SpArK

Now the next time somebody cites "rules", the joke is on them.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## vtnsx

maximuswarrior said:


> You can speak for yourself because if you read your own posts you will realize how off topic you are.



Maybe if you can learn to stop typing to me, then we can be on topic.


----------



## greenwood

ashok321 said:


> China will start the process to blunt the impact created by UNCLOS ruling.



Such as China survey and publish the background of all main lawers of this arbitration court and its chief judge.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## maximuswarrior

vtnsx said:


> Maybe if you can learn to stop typing to me, then we can be on topic.



How about you take deep breath first.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jlaw

TaiShang said:


> _Why in the hell is China still so reactive? Should China not be a little proactive? China needs to get something concrete from this crisis, which equals to opportunity.
> 
> This award might "literally" be turned into an award by China.
> _
> @AndrewJin , @Jlaw , @Chinese-Dragon , @ChineseTiger1986 , @Daniel808 , @xunzi , @CAPRICORN-88 , @Dungeness , @yusheng , @cirr , @cnleio _et al_. Let's pool our comments under this thread.
> _
> ***
> _
> *Law-abusing tribunal issues ill-founded award on South China Sea arbitration *
> Source: Xinhua Published: 2016-7-12 16:59:36
> 
> The tribunal handling the South China Sea arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government issued its final award on Tuesday, amid a global chorus that as the panel has no jurisdiction, its decision is naturally null and void.
> 
> A source with the Philippine Foreign Ministry told Xinhua that the ministry has received the award.
> 
> ***
> 
> *China's reaction to arbitration depends on provocation *
> Source: Global Times Published: 2016-7-12 0:18:01
> 
> The award of the South China Sea arbitration will be issued at 5 pm Beijing time Tuesday. The US and Japan have claimed that relevant countries, including China, should comply with the arbitration result. They stand in sharp confrontation with China, which has announced that the award would be "nothing but a piece of paper." Whether the arbitration will lead to a severe geopolitical crisis has come under the global spotlight.
> 
> The Western media is analyzing how China will respond to the award. Bloomberg posited three scenarios from Beijing, from benign to moderately aggressive or aggressive. It considers that China establishing an South China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) would be moderately aggressive and towing away the Philippine warship grounded at Ren'ai Reef and construction on Huangyan Island as aggressive.
> 
> We believe the Chinese government must have made a series of contingency plans to deal with subsequent actions. What actions China may take on Huangyan and Ren'ai, and whether China will announce a South China Sea ADIZ depends on the reactions of the Philippines to the arbitration result and the degree of US and Japanese provocations.
> 
> So far, none of the concerned parties want military confrontation. But all are ratcheting up military preparations. The South China Sea has been clouded by unprecedented tensions. It's uncertain where the situation will head to.
> 
> Chinese society pays close attention to the South China Sea situation. After the the post-arbitration wrestling begins, the most important thing for China is to show the outside world the solidarity of its society. For one thing, Chinese society has full confidence in the country's diplomatic and maritime strength; for another, no matter what price China has to pay for the wrangling, all the Chinese will squarely accept it.
> 
> The Chinese people and government share the same interests and responsibilities. We should not only safeguard territorial sovereignty, but also make the utmost efforts to maintain peace in China's periphery, prolonging China's strategic opportunities for China's rise.
> 
> The South China Sea is a big arena. China will devote its varied resources there. China in the past was weak. It could only express determinations through demonstrations or a few activists visiting its own islands in the South China Sea. But now it has multiple means at its disposal. It has become a formidable competitor that deserves respect. No power in the world could split a united China. As long as we stick together, provocateurs are doomed to fail.



really a simple solution but China always reactive and turned it into a big thing. Chinese government should have contacted PN government and "make them a deal they can't refuse" during this fiasco. Small countries only fear power. Even threaten them by stop importing bananas would have stopped them from going through.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dray

Now China can either accept the ruling of The International Court of Arbitration and come out as a responsible power, or it can reconfirm the fact that it is an irresponsible rogue nation, just like its two adopted rogue nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

maximuswarrior said:


> Or perhaps China is actually adhering to the UNCLOS ruling by taking what it deems as its own.



If one reads the ruling, we can be quite perplexed.

1. It says China has damged the ecological system of the SCS. That is taking the words out of the Philippines mouth.

2. China has NO historical title meaning what? What does it mean? 
Has Gilbratar, Falkland or Guam or Diego Garcia got historical title and who issue them in ancient times? That is also coming out word for word from the Philippines.

I will have to read the full ruuling before commenting on them as at this point it is quite confusing.



SmilingBuddha said:


> Ofcourse, bringing 1962 and NSG was totally by us and not by any chinese members here.. Read is as sarcasm.. Now practice before preaching.


Just stick to the topic and stop harping on those were in words that were used to counter your argument. They were like yours out of line.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Stephen Cohen

I DONT Believe this ; MY THREAD HAS gone VIRAL

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## vtnsx

maximuswarrior said:


> How about you take deep breath first.



You're leading an off topic again. Maybe you need to learn how to mind your own business. Obviously, it is a well known fact that China can't win this battle. You and the Capricorn aren't happy about that so I just pointed out the obvious to help you understand the REAL situation. I Pointed out to you and Capricorn the cause of your delusions.


----------



## soundwave1987

sorry but this is really a minor issue, I don't know why ppl concern so much. We have ignored so many "international opinion" and "international laws" so many times and nothing happened, as long as you are strong enough, you just you can just impose your will with pure power.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

greenwood said:


> Why Indians looks more happy than pinoys?



Nobody is happy here.

We are all just amused contradictory claims made by Chinese members here.

One hand Chinese members claim: The ruling is pointless

On the other hand the Chinese Govt proudly boasted : 



> *China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims the number of countries supporting China’s position has climbed to 60, *“but has not provided a list of the countries or, in most cases, evidence for their support.”



http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140627/think-tank-scores-it-40-8-in-ph-favor#ixzz4ECMwxJNO 

If the ruling is insignificant why should Chinese Govt bother about number of nations supporting it? 

The whole ruling is major diplomatic defeat and embarrassment for China and Chinese members losing their heads for being humiliated in the hands of Philippines

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dy1022

https://defence.pk/threads/3-naval-...strike-the-mountain-to-warn-the-tiger.438552/

3 naval fleets 100 ships drill in SCS: China "strike the mountain to warn the tiger"

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## greenwood

TaiShang said:


> _Why in the hell is China still so reactive? Should China not be a little proactive? China needs to get something concrete from this crisis, which equals to opportunity.
> 
> This award might "literally" be turned into an award by China.
> _
> @AndrewJin , @Jlaw , @Chinese-Dragon , @ChineseTiger1986 , @Daniel808 , @xunzi , @CAPRICORN-88 , @Dungeness , @yusheng , @cirr , @cnleio _et al_. Let's pool our comments under this thread.
> _
> ***
> _
> *Law-abusing tribunal issues ill-founded award on South China Sea arbitration *
> Source: Xinhua Published: 2016-7-12 16:59:36
> 
> The tribunal handling the South China Sea arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government issued its final award on Tuesday, amid a global chorus that as the panel has no jurisdiction, its decision is naturally null and void.
> 
> A source with the Philippine Foreign Ministry told Xinhua that the ministry has received the award.
> 
> ***
> 
> *China's reaction to arbitration depends on provocation *
> Source: Global Times Published: 2016-7-12 0:18:01
> 
> The award of the South China Sea arbitration will be issued at 5 pm Beijing time Tuesday. The US and Japan have claimed that relevant countries, including China, should comply with the arbitration result. They stand in sharp confrontation with China, which has announced that the award would be "nothing but a piece of paper." Whether the arbitration will lead to a severe geopolitical crisis has come under the global spotlight.
> 
> The Western media is analyzing how China will respond to the award. Bloomberg posited three scenarios from Beijing, from benign to moderately aggressive or aggressive. It considers that China establishing an South China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) would be moderately aggressive and towing away the Philippine warship grounded at Ren'ai Reef and construction on Huangyan Island as aggressive.
> 
> We believe the Chinese government must have made a series of contingency plans to deal with subsequent actions. What actions China may take on Huangyan and Ren'ai, and whether China will announce a South China Sea ADIZ depends on the reactions of the Philippines to the arbitration result and the degree of US and Japanese provocations.
> 
> So far, none of the concerned parties want military confrontation. But all are ratcheting up military preparations. The South China Sea has been clouded by unprecedented tensions. It's uncertain where the situation will head to.
> 
> Chinese society pays close attention to the South China Sea situation. After the the post-arbitration wrestling begins, the most important thing for China is to show the outside world the solidarity of its society. For one thing, Chinese society has full confidence in the country's diplomatic and maritime strength; for another, no matter what price China has to pay for the wrangling, all the Chinese will squarely accept it.
> 
> The Chinese people and government share the same interests and responsibilities. We should not only safeguard territorial sovereignty, but also make the utmost efforts to maintain peace in China's periphery, prolonging China's strategic opportunities for China's rise.
> 
> The South China Sea is a big arena. China will devote its varied resources there. China in the past was weak. It could only express determinations through demonstrations or a few activists visiting its own islands in the South China Sea. But now it has multiple means at its disposal. It has become a formidable competitor that deserves respect. No power in the world could split a united China. As long as we stick together, provocateurs are doomed to fail.



You are very correct. At least more and more bananas start to look clear what the USA is. Only the piggie still believe in the America's universal values. They will turn to support China.
By the way, the arbitration court deny Taiping's island identity, they judge it is shoal. What a joke, those lawers and chief justice are really blind.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## dray

Tiqiu said:


> China already said many days before that the ruling is just a peace of scrap paper.
> A peace of scrap paper even not useful in the toilet. But for many overjoyed members from a certain country, this scrap paper is commodity because they have none in their toilet - or most of them do it at open anyway





T-Rex said:


> *Man that was classic! It's true, india has a shortage of toilets. India should build toilets instead of military junks like the LCA. Their focus should be on toilets not the South China Sea.*



Both the posts have been reported, I hope @Hu Songshan will take note of it.

Btw, @T-Rex being a Bangladeshi you must be knowing that India did honour a similar verdict from The International Court of Arbitration and left some vital sea areas to Bangladesh, and you are rejoicing China's rejection to honour the verdict when Philippines, another smaller country like Bangladesh is on the receiving end of it. How should I define it, hypocrisy, or shamelessness?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fenku

china got mind set of 16th century....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

*Xi: China rejects any proposition, action based on S. China Sea arbitration award*
Xinhua, July 12, 2016

Chinese President Xi Jinping said China will not accept any proposition or action based on the decision Tuesday by the South China Sea arbitral tribunal.

Xi said the South China Sea Islands have been China's territory since ancient times. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime interests in South China Sea, in any circumstances, will not be affected by the award.

He made the remarks on Tuesday afternoon while meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Beijing.

China has always been a guardian of international rule of law and of fairness and justice, and will always adhere to the path of peaceful development, Xi said.

China is firmly committed to peace and stability in the South China Sea, and to settling the disputes with countries directly involved, through peaceful negotiations based on the recognition of historical facts and in accordance with international law, he said.

***



greenwood said:


> You are very correct. At least more and more bananas start to look clear what the USA is. Only the piggie still believe in the America's universal values. They will turn to support China.
> By the way, the arbitration court deny Taiping's island identity, they judge it is shoal. What a joke, those lawers and chief justice are really blind.



On Taiwan TVs at the moment it is all about the SCS ruling and it seems be clear even to DPP that they cannot rely neither on US nor Japan. Indignation toward Japan, Taiwan's traditional close partner, is especially big.

One DPP official on CTI just said big countries will never be on Taiwan's side and Taiwan should perhaps seek a common position with Mainland.

I also believe that, especially after the kangaroo court decided Taiping fails to be an island, Taiwan's overtures to the US and Japan will come to an end.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jamwal's

Its south Vietnam, south Philippines Sea now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CorporateAffairs

What are *HISTORIC* rights?
Doesn't HISTORY say Indian empire was from Kabul to Burma?
THEY need to stop this BS.


----------



## faithfulguy

A thread on this issue is already opened and this thread is not in the right area. Mods, please merge this thread.


----------



## Max

Daniel808 said:


> It's has been Predicted from beggining.
> 
> Now, who would DARE to enforce the decision of this clown tribunal?
> Is daddy USA, dare to sacrificing himself for Philipine interest?
> 
> 
> LOL



bro this is the real deal, as i said before let anti China Indian and other dance for their master US... they will be very disappointed when nothing going to change in SCS..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## soundwave1987

Zero_wing said:


> Well what's your problem then? We don't care about your childish tantrums you chinese members here are crying like little children over this this? you people lose you can ignore it but chinese image screwed as hell and soon scations you insulted other nations and now your downfall is starting from your stupid @ss leaders corruption to killing of millions of political prisoners to killing tibetans to your failing economy and your fake poisonous products you guys are screwed and this is the start of your karma.
> 
> So ya shut the F up Love from the Philippines and Mabuhay ng Republika!


hey man don‘t be so emotional, let's wait for the future ok? I can assure you we will continue to do what we must and nothing will happen just like always, this is only tough reality so live with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## greenwood

Syama Ayas said:


> Nobody is happy here.
> 
> We are all just amused contradictory claims made by Chinese members here.
> 
> One hand Chinese members claim: The ruling is pointless
> 
> On the other hand the Chinese Govt proudly boasted :
> 
> 
> 
> http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140627/think-tank-scores-it-40-8-in-ph-favor#ixzz4ECMwxJNO
> 
> If the ruling is insignificant why should Chinese Govt bother about number of nations supporting it?
> 
> The whole ruling is major diplomatic defeat and embarrassment for China and Chinese members losing their heads for being humiliated in the hands of Philippines



Chinese government bother about number of nations supporting it, because our counterpart is America. This attitude can avoid direct military conflict with America ( you know, on ocean we still can't beat them, if on land, nobody care one more war like Korean war. This is politik correctness, anybody know it. ) It is for peace of SCS. We can control the matter still under diplomatic and negociation routine.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## maximuswarrior

Syama Ayas said:


> How is that related to NSG membership?
> 
> China could by all means deny India's NSG waiver as well as our membership.
> 
> But on the former chose to be submissive to American demands and in process compromised both their own and Pakistani national security, by allowing India to have a larger nuclear arsenal easily.



I don't think India can abuse the civilian nuke deal to produce a larger nuke arsenal. Because if it does, it will set a terrible precedent for others to follow suit.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Lord ZeN

Daniel808 said:


> It's has been Predicted from beggining.
> 
> Now, who would DARE to enforce the decision of this clown tribunal?
> Is daddy USA, dare to sacrificing himself for Philipine interest?
> 
> 
> LOL



There is nothing to enforce. Nobody .. i mean nobody acknowledges China's ridiculous claim in SCS. Merchant ships and Naval vessels of other countries ( including that of USN) is gonna sail through the SCS as they like.

What can China do ? Will you guys fire on these Naval and Merchant ships and risk a conflict.







As you can see USN has a major presence near SCS. You can't just bully your way through.


----------



## TaiShang

Tiqiu said:


> China has just finished the testing of the runway and officially opened up the two newly built airports at Meiji and Zhubi islands in the SCS for services. Look at those track marks on the runway
> 
> View attachment 317057



This is how crisis is turned into an opportunity. Appear angry, take some further steps, make it the new normal. Amid the noise, it will not even be noticed.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## maximuswarrior

vtnsx said:


> You're leading an off topic again. Maybe you need to learn how to mind your own business. Obviously, it is a well known fact that China can't win this battle. You and the Capricorn aren't happy about that so I just pointed out the obvious to help you understand the REAL situation. I Pointed out to you and Capricorn the cause of your delusions.



You are emotional. Take a minute to think.

Like I said, China doesn't care about the ruling. The ruling means to China as much as thin air.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## anant_s

faithfulguy said:


> A thread on this issue is already opened and this thread is not in the right area. Mods, please merge this thread.


@waz @WAJsal 
Can u please do the needful?


----------



## Zero_wing

soundwave1987 said:


> hey man don‘t be so emotional, let's wait for the future ok? I can assure you we will continue to do what we must and nothing will happen just like always, this is only tough reality so live with that.



Why you don't like a counter trantum? Sorry am getting sick you arrogant countrymen in the forum


----------



## soundwave1987

M.A.R.S. said:


> There is nothing to enforce. Nobody .. i mean nobody acknowledges China's ridiculous claim in SCS. Merchant ships and Naval vessels of other countries ( including that of USN) is gonna sail through the SCS as they like.
> 
> What can China do ? Will you guys fire on these Naval and Merchant ships and risk a conflict.


why would we attack...we just want to defend our territory and use the resources, so we will just continue to build up artificial islands and oil drills and deploy missiles, why should we attack Naval and Merchant ships? Will they attack us first to start the conflict? pls notice that we have just crush a illigal boat a few days ago. we have gaint boat, so we can simple do the crushes without fire a single bullet, so this is not war right? as long as we can get what we want, why should we attack?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zero_wing

China is in deep ice

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

kankan326 said:


> Filipinos must pay a price for what they did. Otherwise other countries will follow PH.



Well threats now? you guys are the one going to pay the whole s china is not gonna come out in favor world opinion is with us


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Let's follow the rules guys....lets follow some *UN *rules as we have always been following, some technical rules of the UN 

game has just begun peeps


----------



## Daniel808

Max said:


> bro this is the real deal, as i said before let anti China Indian and other dance for their master US... they will be very disappointed when nothing going to change in SCS..



LOL 
Let them have their Wet Dream, bro.

Because one year ago,
they so Butthurt to China. because China can build Island, Naval base in SCS, but They (Pirates and Banana) can do nothing. 

So they very Butthurt today.
doesn't realise that no one Dare to Confront China to enforce Decision of that tribunal clowns.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## greenwood

TaiShang said:


> *Xi: China rejects any proposition, action based on S. China Sea arbitration award*
> Xinhua, July 12, 2016
> 
> Chinese President Xi Jinping said China will not accept any proposition or action based on the decision Tuesday by the South China Sea arbitral tribunal.
> 
> Xi said the South China Sea Islands have been China's territory since ancient times. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime interests in South China Sea, in any circumstances, will not be affected by the award.
> 
> He made the remarks on Tuesday afternoon while meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Beijing.
> 
> China has always been a guardian of international rule of law and of fairness and justice, and will always adhere to the path of peaceful development, Xi said.
> 
> China is firmly committed to peace and stability in the South China Sea, and to settling the disputes with countries directly involved, through peaceful negotiations based on the recognition of historical facts and in accordance with international law, he said.
> 
> ***
> 
> 
> 
> On Taiwan TVs at the moment it is all about the SCS ruling and it seems be clear even to DPP that they cannot rely neither on US nor Japan. Indignation toward Japan, Taiwan's traditional close partner, is especially big.
> 
> One DPP official on CTI just said big countries will never be on Taiwan's side and Taiwan should perhaps seek a common position with Mainland.
> 
> I also believe that, especially after the kangaroo court decided Taiping fails to be an island, Taiwan's overtures to the US and Japan will come to an end.



It's not late for Taiwan you know. Only the power can protect internal law and own interests. 9 dash line as internal law have to be more effective than any arbitration, China today just deploy a new 052D destoryer. When it comes to 20+ new destroyer given service, the situation could change.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vtnsx

maximuswarrior said:


> You are emotional. Take a minute to think.
> 
> Like I said, China doesn't care about the ruling. The ruling means to China as much as thin air.



Victory is won through bloodshed and sacrifices by going through battles. Without those things, there is no real victory only false hope with unrealistic goals.

If the Chinese are unwilling to die for what they want, then they are simply cowards. I don't care how many islands they build, how many walls they put up, how many planes, bombs, etc. They will remain so.


----------



## ashok321

Must read:

https://next.ft.com/content/c63264a4-47f1-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> Well threats now? you guys are the one going to pay the whole s china is not gonna come out in favor world opinion is with us



The only payment made so far has been to the lawyers by the PH. On the other hand, China spent lots of money, in the meantime, to develop islands.

World does not even care about you. You will understand within several days that your moral victory means nothing for a P5 country.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> *China as the Middle Kingdom was undisputable part of ancient Chinese history but for USA claimed her role as a World Policeman is both ludricious and egocentric. *


China's being a favor of the gods -- the Middle Kondom -- is ridiculous in its face. No one but the Chinese believed it.

As for US being the world's policeman, more countries accepted and embraced it than China's superstitious nonsense.



CAPRICORN-88 said:


> In fact Duterte is very SMART. Smarter than OBAMA and the rest.


Venezuela has oil, what does the Philippines have ? But look at Venezuela now. Looks like Duterte ain't that bright.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Daniel808

M.A.R.S. said:


> There is nothing to enforce. Nobody .. i mean nobody acknowledges China's ridiculous claim in SCS. Merchant ships and Naval vessels of other countries ( including that of USN) is gonna sail through the SCS as they like.
> 
> What can China do ? Will you guys fire on these Naval and Merchant ships and risk a conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see USN has a major presence near SCS. You can't just bully your way through.




China doesn't have intention or say to close SCS zone from Civilian Shipping.

Doesn't like Supah Powah Indian, want to close Indian Ocean Zone, but doesn't have power. LOL Pathetic 


Is that your master, USA.
can stop China to build their Naval base in SCS

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## soundwave1987

Zero_wing said:


> Why you don't like a counter trantum? Sorry am getting sick you arrogant countrymen in the forum


hey man I just simply point out what the most logical outcomes all right? If the west had the ability to saction china they would do it a long time ago. clearly today world ecomomy is very fragile so if china, the second largest ecomomy and major manufactuor and consumer in the world market get sactioned, we can simly destory the main supply chian/industrial chain and fanancial system of the world economy and made the world a disastor( very likely to cause a world war), so the question is will the west risk the fragile world order?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

maximuswarrior said:


> You are emotional. Take a minute to think.
> 
> Like I said, China doesn't care about the ruling. The ruling means to China as much as thin air.


If China does not enforce her own claim to the SCS and punish (attack) violators of said claim, that mean for all practical purposes, the ruling was effective.


----------



## Jlaw

Daniel808 said:


> It's has been Predicted from beggining.
> 
> Now, who would DARE to enforce the decision of this clown tribunal?
> Is daddy USA, dare to sacrificing himself for Philipine interest?
> 
> 
> LOL



That is what I am waiting for. Who is going to enforce it?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

greenwood said:


> It's not late for Taiwan you know. Only the power can protect internal law and own interests. 9 dash line as internal law have to be more effective than any arbitration, China today just deploy a new 052D destoryer. When it comes to 20+ new destroyer given service, the situation could change.



China will likely show defiance through action rather than being wordy about it. Hence, the repercussions will be felt over time. I am, however, expecting, some surgical action such as new island development activity. Ren'ai would be a good area for concrete strategic action.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## soundwave1987

Kesang said:


> China is no 1 enemy of Nature. Destroying whole ecosystem to grab someone else territory. Chinese lust for shark fin single handedly destroy balance of ocean ecosystem.


yes you are right and what can you do about that?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

gambit said:


> China's being a favor of the gods -- the Middle Kondom -- is ridiculous in its face. No one but the Chinese believed it.
> 
> As for US being the world's policeman, more countries accepted and embraced it than China's superstitious nonsense.
> 
> 
> Venezuela has oil, what does the Philippines have ? But look at Venezuela now. Looks like Duterte ain't that bright.



Agree duterte is downgrade he could be a good anti crime interior secretary but as President he sucks bad only the chinese and Dutertards think he's a great President screw them


----------



## Lord ZeN

soundwave1987 said:


> why would we attack...we just want to defend our territory and use the resources, so we will just continue to build up artificial islands and oil drills and deploy missiles, why should we Naval and Merchant ships? Will they attack us first to start the conflict? pls notice that we have just crush a illigal boat a few days ago. we have gaint boat, so we can simple do the crushes without fire a single bullet, so this is not war right? as long as we can get what we want, why should we attack?



If you don't provoke any conflict then it's good for all parties involved including China and other SE & E Asian countries and also for rest of the world as its an important trading route. But building all these artificial Islands on open seas don't give you any right to exploit its (SCS) resources. Other countries including Vietnam and Philippines also has the right to do so ( including fishing) . As i said before bullying weaker countries don't work (even if its their fishing boats).


----------



## Zero_wing

soundwave1987 said:


> hey man I just simply point out what the most logical outcomes all right? If the west had the ability to saction china they would do it a long time ago. clearly today world ecomomy is very fragile so if china, the second largest ecomomy and major manufactuor and consumer in the world market get sactioned, we can simly destory the main supply chian/industrial chain and fanancial system of the world economy and made the world a disastor( very likely to cause a world war), so the question is will the west risk the fragile world order?



Its just matter timing my friend but seriously the chinese economy is now a zombie economy especially the state owned factories etc sorry but your screwed in few decades or maybe less


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Victory is won through bloodshed and sacrifices by going through battles. Without those things, there is no real victory only false hope with unrealistic goals.
> 
> If the Chinese are unwilling to die for what they want, then they are simply cowards. I don't care how many islands they build, how many walls they put up, how many planes, bombs, etc. They will remain so.


tell me, if we can build up islands and stuff and get the resourses as we want, why should we fight a war?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CorporateAffairs

The suppa pavvar is unable to to take this humiliation and frustration is kicking in.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Jlaw said:


> *really a simple solution but China always reactive and turned it into a big thing. Chinese government should have contacted PN government and "make them a deal they can't refuse" during this fiasco.* Small countries only fear power. Even threaten them by stop importing bananas would have stopped them from going through.



Apparently thats what Chinese Govt had in mind



> Q: We notice that the governments of Sierra Leone and Kenya have recently joined in the chorus supporting China's South China Sea position. Nearly 60 countries have publicly endorsed China's stance, and more and more countries have shown their support to China. Is the Chinese government behind this? Is the Chinese government trying to extend its "circle of friends" on the South China Sea issue?
> 
> A: *The South China Sea issue is supposed to be an issue between China and a few littoral countries of the South China Sea. We always oppose internationalizing this issue.*




http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1372136.shtml

But sadly seems like both yours and Chinese Govts wishes failed to turn into reality with Philippines managing to get the best of China at that tribunal


----------



## cnleio

dy1022 said:


> https://defence.pk/threads/3-naval-...strike-the-mountain-to-warn-the-tiger.438552/
> 
> 3 naval fleets 100 ships drill in SCS: China "strike the mountain to warn the tiger"


If U.S Navy not attack China first, we think no war in SCS ... if other try to attack our artificial islands and PLAN & PLAAF will revenge back. As we see most countries in the region r developing states, conflict with China on sea also hurt their economy back ... China has 1.3billion ppl and 1.3billion domestic market during foreign war, even in war China still has great war potential to produce weapons and maintain economy as same as U.S and Russia, such potential is big different from some small countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

maximuswarrior said:


> What are they going to do? The ruling means absolutely nothing. It has no value and is politically motivated. It has not even symbolic value. China will move on and continue to build the islands.


The constructions *ON* the islands will be meaningless.

China's presence on those man-made islands was intended to extend China's legal reach to the entirety of the SCS. Now this UN decision rendered that claim legally null. China can build, but the most the international community will respect is some span of the sea around each island. Nothing more. That mean all ships will be able to traverse the SCS without any legal hindrance from China. That mean any ADIZ China established in the area can be ignored by any flyer.

And guess what...The US will be the enforcer of that UN decision.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

gambit said:


> If China does not enforce her own claim to the SCS and punish (attack) violators of said claim, that mean for all practical purposes, the ruling was effective.



Americans wont sit there and watch Communist rise. The Chinese are so over themselves. They feel like the SCS situation is a sport to them. When they have no idea, what deaths, pain and the lost of their love ones even mean.


----------



## gambit

oprih said:


> Good job by China to censor trash propaganda channels like bbc.


We agree. It is an excellent job on China to censor the news. Please do more.


----------



## soundwave1987

Zero_wing said:


> Its just matter timing my friend but seriously the chinese economy is now a zombie economy especially the state owned factories etc sorry but your screwed in few decades or maybe less


...if chinese economy still has "a few decades" to go then think about it's size man...it will be the largest in the world, that’s literally a vain threat ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> tell me, if we can build up islands and stuff and get the resourses as we want, why should we fight a war?



did you know stealing is a crime?


----------



## Jaanbaz

So what's USA doing all over the world? What is the business of USA in East Asia apart from plundering resources of other nations? Americans are only mad that China is doing what USA has been doing since its foundation, invading, looting and killing. Let the playground become fair, there is a second tough guy on the playground, the older bully is scared.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

*Nobody likes a sore loser*


----------



## Sanchez

The thread is more like an Indian festival celebration. Could never understand the way Indians are thinking. Maybe Indians believe that now their warships can sail freely in SCS? You could just make a try!

China loses nothing. Instead, if Pinoys make a wrong move, they are going to loose control of the few rocks they stole from China by tricks and lies.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Pandora

How is it a trial if other party is not even bothering to be present. Even US and UK dont recognise the authority of such arbitration courts yet they want China to accept its ruling . I dont think china spent billions on artificial island just to evacuate. 

I am waiting to see if Americans will try to enforce it and risk a confrontation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> The only payment made so far has been to the lawyers by the PH. On the other hand, China spent lots of money, in the meantime, to develop islands.
> 
> World does not even care about you. You will understand within several days that your moral victory means nothing for a P5 country.



Does not matter how many islands you made your broke international law take the case Nicaragua vs the US in the end US had to pay up 30million endettement after ignoring it so go ahead veto it ignore it in the end you have to comply.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Americans wont sit there and watch Communist rise. The Chinese are so over themselves. They feel like the SCS situation is a sport to them. When they have no idea, what deaths, pain and the lost of their love ones even mean.


yeah americans wont but can they? why use the future tense which means infinate possibilities including Americans can't stop china?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

soundwave1987 said:


> ...if chinese economy still has "a few decades" to go then think about it's size man...it will be the largest in the world, that’s literally a vain threat ...



In the case i wish you all the luck in the world


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> ...if chinese economy still has "a few decades" to go then think about it's size man...it will be the largest in the world, that’s literally a vain threat ...


and horses have wings right?


----------



## TaiShang

CorporateAffairs said:


> The suppa pavvar is unable to to take this humiliation and frustration is kicking in.



That title is Indian trademark since 2012. Before US had the title. Before that, UK had it. China has never had the title.

China is a developing nation. It needs to continue to build islands for economic security and enjoy trade surplus.



WuMaoCleverbot said:


> *Nobody likes a sore loser*



Exactly so.

Being a winner, you need to take some solid action. Otherwise, it will be all words on paper.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## maximuswarrior

yusheng said:


> we will see something happen in ten days,
> no need to say more, just do.
> 
> View attachment 317054
> 
> 
> today, two Chinese planes landed on the above islands



China's actions speak louder than words.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CorporateAffairs

*Hague Tribunal ruling shows China as a bully that refuses to follow international standards*!

http://www.firstpost.com/world/hagu...o-follow-international-standards-2889226.html


----------



## monitor




----------



## Zero_wing

Sanchez said:


> The thread is more like an Indian festival celebration. Could never understand the way Indians are thinking. Maybe Indians believe that now their warships can sail freely in SCS? You could just make a try!
> 
> China loses nothing. Instead, if Pinoys make a wrong move, they are going to loose control of the few rocks they stole from China by tricks and lies.



Make your threats and tantrums because your screwed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Daniel808

Jlaw said:


> That is what I am waiting for. Who is going to enforce it?



Yes, I am Waiting that, too 

*Who is going to enforce it? (2) LOL*

China Military is not Iraq or Afghanistan or Philipinee Military class.
It's Ridicoluous to expect America to sacrificing hundred thousands of their soldier for Philipinee interest

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

Back in the old old days when people were taming horses, a person would one day approach a captured horse and stand near by. After a few weeks doing this a person would then walk right up to the horse and put his hand on casually. Later put hands on and leave on. Then put on a blanket. Then change to a saddle. Then ride the horse. Then the horse is his.

From fighting the person who captured it, the horse will yield in TIME.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

danger007 said:


> no I saw a date 1930 on it.. or else I will print 10000BC on it..



Learn some simple chemical, it's easy to judge the fake date.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

maximuswarrior said:


> China's actions speak louder than words.



When the excitement is over and 'business as usual' returns tomorrow morning, what will they do?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## salarsikander

So lets see who has the bloody guts to enfore this shitty ruling

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## maximuswarrior

TaiShang said:


> When the excitement is over and 'business as usual' returns tomorrow morning, what will they do?



Cry foul. I've already said it numerous times. This verdict has no meaning. Not even a symbolic one. It only serves the purpose to exert pressure on China which it honestly hasn't. I think this will make China more defiant. The architects of this circus show have underestimated China's resolve. China is darn serious about the South China Sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## pher

vtnsx said:


> Americans wont sit there and watch Communist rise. The Chinese are so over themselves. They feel like the SCS situation is a sport to them. When they have no idea,* what deaths, pain and the lost of their love ones even mean*.


That is absolutely right. You viets must have first-hand experience about that. after all, US is good at killing civilians of small country. it slaughtered millions of civilians in vietnam, iraq and afghanistan like playing vedio games. it is a champion in that aspect.

But things changed dramatically when it comes to communist country north korea, which kept humiliating US and crossed all the red lines it drawed, US couldn't do nothing execpt begging China and Russia to put jointly sanction on them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Lord ZeN

Daniel808 said:


> Is that your master, USA.
> can stop China to build their Naval base in SCS



Lolzz dude .. I'm my own master.

And all these artificial islands mean nothing to SE Asian countries , US , Japan and rest of the World. Nobody recognises these islands as Chinese territory. Even if USN or other Naval/Merchant ships dock on these artificial islands , China can't do anything about it, as they are located in Open Sea.


----------



## danger007

greenwood said:


> Learn some simple chemical, it' easy to judge the fake date.





as if the so called maps got any importance... demographics changed with time... so is the Chinese territory.. silly trying to grab weak countries land ....


----------



## gambit

Sanchez said:


> The thread is more like an Indian festival celebration. Could never understand the way Indians are thinking. Maybe Indians believe that now their warships can sail freely in SCS? You could just make a try!
> 
> China loses nothing. Instead, if Pinoys make a wrong move, they are going to loose control of the few rocks they stole from China by tricks and lies.


All the time before the UN decision, you guys have been talking tough about sinking ships, now the decision is against China and all I see so far is a lot of sputtering about building on the islands. So build all you want. The UN decision has more to do with the ownership of the SCS than it is about China's wasting of money on a few man made islands. Essentially, no one owns the SCS, no matter how many maps China can conjure up via Photoshop. The greater issue is that now with this decision, not just China but no one can claim *ANY* expanse of the seas anywhere *ANYWHERE* in the world. China made a tactical play and it blew up in Beijing's face.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> Does not matter how many islands you made your broke international law take the case Nicaragua vs the US in the end US had to pay up 30million endettement after ignoring it so go ahead veto it ignore it in the end you have to comply.



Do not be emotional.

In terms of China's course of action, it is highly likely that China will continue the build up and development activity as planned.

Hardly anything will change in terms of real policy behavior.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## anonymous2

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> That is a HOLLOW victory for the Philippines but why are you so happy?
> 
> OBAMA is pretty pleased because now her navy can sailed with 12NM of India Nicobar and Andaman Island.
> 
> Remebrance about India own humilating defeat in 1962 or what?




I have to make this account to ask a simple question. Are you stupid or acting daft??

You are peddling this canard of countries losing their EEZ due this ruling. May I know on how hard you failed in comprehension?

Chinese Island are artificial ,where no Chinese national lived before they were built upon artificially, while the Indian Island in question are natural, were populated, and undisputed part of India. 

The law is clear on this: Artificial Island does not have any EEZ, while natural and populated Islands have. There is no legal dispute on this matter, with few exceptions like when a small natural and populated island belonging to a country is just off the coast of another country.

And the matter of EEZ is not even within the ambit of this verdict. What this verdict is about is illegality of preposterous 9 dashed line on basis of which China is claiming territories of its neighbours that are just off their coast. Chinese claims have not been declared invalid on basis of EEZ technicality, but on basis of illegality of nine-dashed line.


----------



## vtnsx

pher said:


> That is absolutely right. You viets must have first-hand experience about that. after all, US is good at killing civilians of small country. it slaughtered millions of civilians in vietnam, iraq and afghanistan like playing vedio games. it is a champion in that aspect.
> 
> But things changed dramatically when it comes to communist country north korea, which kept humiliating US and crossed all the red lines it drawed, US couldn't do nothing execpt begging China and Russia to put jointly sanction on them.



I guess you must be a Vietnamese. You really don't understand the Vietnam war and how people died. Do you even know the Vietnam war? or are you just trying to fulfill your pathetic fantasy that you are better than others?


----------



## gambit

smuhs1 said:


> How is it a trial if other party is not even bothering to be present. Even US and UK dont recognise the authority of such arbitration courts yet they want China to accept its ruling . I dont think china spent billions on artificial island just to evacuate.
> 
> I am waiting to see if Americans will try to enforce it and risk a confrontation.


The problem in your post is that the UN decision did not came from a trial. It was a dispute over a claim. And China lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NALANDA

salarsikander said:


> So lets see who has the bloody guts to enfore this shitty ruling



Shirty ruling?


----------



## greenwood

TaiShang said:


> That title is Indian trademark since 2012. Before US had the title. Before that, UK had it. China has never had the title.
> 
> China is a developing nation. It needs to continue to build islands for economic security and enjoy trade surplus.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so.
> 
> Being a winner, you need to take some solid action. Otherwise, it will be all words on paper.



Tag some Indians here as well, otherwise they will feel disappointed you ignore them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glorino

China's folly in creating the 9 dash line and claiming many islands in the SOUTH CHINA SEA as its own is threat to world peace in that no country can stop China from maintaining underground shelter for nuclear missiles and weapons -just like in the James Bond movie "MOON RAKER" Readers please think...........ahead about the future in many years hence,


----------



## TaiShang

maximuswarrior said:


> Cry foul. I've already said it numerous times. This verdict has no meaning. Not even a symbolic one. It only serves the purpose to exert pressure on China which honestly it hasn't. I think this will make China more defiant. The architects of this circus show have underestimated China's resolve.



That's really a very sad affair of things. It could have been different. PH side has forever lost China's trust. I guess they have been given assurances by the US underhand, but like Taiwan has tasted many times, the US is not a reliable partner. They have a hierarchical approach and countries like PH and VN stand at the lower stratum of food chain in terms of US' regional allies.

They are not Japan or Korea.

US recently sold out Taiwan for Japan. Why would not have done so?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Back in the old old days when people were taming horses, a person would one day approach a captured horse and stand near by. After a few weeks doing this a person would then walk right up to the horse and put his hand on casually. Later put hands on and leave on. Then put on a blanket. Then change to a saddle. Then ride the horse. Then the horse is his.
> 
> From fighting the person who captured it, the horse will yield in TIME.


In the old days, you could speed up the process by 'breaking' the horse, as in getting on the horse and rode him no matter how much he may protest. China just tried to ride the international horse and got ignobly tossed off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CorporateAffairs

*Here is a 10-point guide to the South China Sea dispute:*

China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei make competing claims to territory in the South China Sea, a 3.5 million sq km area with some of the world's most promising oil and gas fields and vital fishing grounds.
China's increased military assertiveness - it has built artificial islands and conducts patrols and military exercises in the area - has had its smaller neighbours worried. It has also led to a confrontation with the United States.
The US has backed those against China and has built up military presence in the region to ensure, it says, access to critical shipping and air routes. Both the US and China have accused each other of provocations in the region as recently as last month.
China has been very active in the region in recent months installing missile launchers, radars and other military equipment, apart from pouring sand on coral reefs to build artificial islands.
The case brought by the Philippines in 2013 challenges China's so-called "nine-dash line", a boundary that is the basis for its claim to roughly 85 percent of the South China Sea.
It hinges on the legal status of reefs, rocks and artificial islands in the Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Island Group in the south China Sea, contesting China's control.
Manila argues that the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal, a scattering of rocks off the coast of the Philippines' Luzon island, are within its territory. 
Beijing says it has had rights to the territories for centuries, a claim also contested by Vietnam which says it has controlled the Spratlys and another chain of islands called the Paracel for many years. Taiwan too claims those islands. 
China has boycotted the hearings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, saying it does not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter.
The court cannot enforce its decision but its ruling could embolden Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei to file similar cases.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Glorino said:


> China's folly in creating the 9 dash line and claiming many islands in the SOUTH CHINA SEA as its own is threat to world peace in that no country can stop China from maintaining underground shelter for nuclear missiles and weapons -just like in the James Bond movie "MOON RAKER" Readers please think...........ahead about the future in many years hence,



I did not understand most of your points but I an say that the 11-syaped line was drawn in 1946 and submitted to the UN as a legal document by then KMT government of China.

When CPC government of China took KMT's seat at the UN, it also inherited the 11-dahsed line.

It is an international document and therefore cannot be annulled unless it is done by unanimous UNSC vote.



greenwood said:


> Tag some Indians here as well, otherwise they will feel disappointed you ignore them.



I do not know any of them, frankly. But I can sense the frustration emanating from the understanding that they will never be allowed into the UNSC.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> All the time before the UN decision, you guys have been talking tough about sinking ships, now the decision is against China and all I see so far is a lot of sputtering about building on the islands. So build all you want. The UN decision has more to do with the ownership of the SCS than it is about China's wasting of money on a few man made islands. Essentially, no one owns the SCS, no matter how many maps China can conjure up via Photoshop. The greater issue is that now with this decision, not just China but no one can claim *ANY* expanse of the seas anywhere *ANYWHERE* in the world. China made a tactical play and it blew up in Beijing's face.




Wait with patience and see how this unfolds.

Most likely a middle eastern adventure, a black or school shooting or a celibrity scandal will divert the Western attention to 'more pressing matters'.

This SCS issue will be thrown into the 'too hard' basket to be forgotten. The easier 'to do list' is full of middle eastern and South American countries will take precedence.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> In the old days, you could speed up the process by 'breaking' the horse, as in getting on the horse and rode him no matter how much he may protest. China just tried to ride the international horse and got ignobly tossed off.



Break the horse? No, its not the same afterwards. 

China has yet to mount the horse let alone get tossed off.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Wait with patience and see how this unfolds.


Yeah...China over time will be successful in convincing sea faring nations to give up their right to access vital sea lanes. Which universe is this ?


----------



## sword1947

let's build a new island

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Break the horse? No, its not the same afterwards.
> 
> *China has yet to mount the horse let alone get tossed off.*


Fine...Then the horse just kicked China in the face.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Back in the old old days when people were taming horses, a person would one day approach a captured horse and stand near by. After a few weeks doing this a person would then walk right up to the horse and put his hand on casually. Later put hands on and leave on. Then put on a blanket. Then change to a saddle. Then ride the horse. Then the horse is his.
> 
> From fighting the person who captured it, the horse will yield in TIME.



I think Japan was trying to do that to China in the late 1930's.


----------



## Pandora

gambit said:


> The problem in your post is that the UN decision did not came from a trial. It was a dispute over a claim. And China lost.



Decision came from a tribunal to which china never agreed. This tribunal doesn't have any legitimacy in the first place. It doesn't matter if china lost or won as i doubt anyone has got the balls to confront china. At most it was a play made by US which they will wave around for coming months without any success.

It is so funny that US itself violated internal laws several time yet you want to enforce them on china. Yankee hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> Yeah...China over time will be successful in convincing sea faring nations to give up their right to access vital sea lanes. Which universe is this ?



The same universe that the USA resides in I believe. Gotta learn from someone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

Jlaw said:


> Which recently banned Indian are you?



Wow can't answer resort to dirty name calling and escaping the question typical chinese procedure


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> Do not be emotional.
> 
> In terms of China's course of action, it is highly likely that China will continue the build up and development activity as planned.
> 
> Hardly anything will change in terms of real policy behavior.



tell that to your fellow zombies then

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

Hamartia Antidote said:


> I think Japan was trying to do that to China in the late 1930's.



A small monkey cannot tame a much larger animal.



gambit said:


> Fine...Then the horse just kicked China in the face.



Be patient. I heard that it comes with older age, even to cow boys.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

Zero_wing said:


> Does not matter how many islands you made your broke international law take the case Nicaragua vs the US in the end US had to pay up 30million endettement after ignoring it so go ahead veto it ignore it in the end you have to comply.


Nicaragua is a different case. Cause it's not about territory issue. You want China to give up our territory by a cheap arbitration? How naive is that. The only way you can gain our land and water territory is by war. Sorry. No other choice. I think this ideology works for most countries. Not just China.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

smuhs1 said:


> Decision came from a tribunal to which china never agreed. This tribunal doesn't have any legitimacy in the first place. It doesn't matter if china lost or won as i doubt anyone has got the balls to confront china. At most it was a play made by US which they will wave around for coming months without any success.
> 
> It is so funny that US themselves violated internal laws several time yet you want to enforce them on china. Yankee hypocrisy knows no bounds.


It does not matter if China agreed to it or not. In self interests, countries will seek any level of legitimacy they can. With this UN decision, they now will have reasons, regardless of China's attitude, to ignore that silly dashy line that China put forth to claim the entirety of the SCS. Are *YOU* going to put yourself in the line of fire for China ? We know -- not. You ain't that brave and are not that into China.

As for our hypocrisy, see if that will convince the Asian countries to give up their rights to the SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> The same universe that the USA resides in I believe. Gotta learn from someone.



China is not USA.


----------



## boxer_B

Daniel808 said:


> *China Military is not Iraq or Afghanistan or Philipinee Military class.
> It's Ridicoluous to expect America to sacrificing hundred thousands of their soldier for Philipinee interest *



You are contradicting your own claim.

China is not a militia, its a country. US can do unacceptable damage in sea and air without even deploying a single foot soldier.

China and US will not go to full scale war, but even a minor skirmish which doesn't threat *rightful *sovereignty can humiliate China in its own backyard.

Frankly speaking, China is at more disadvantage than Taliban or ISIS in facing the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

gambit said:


> It does not matter if China agreed to it or not. In self interests, countries will seek any level of legitimacy they can. With this UN decision, they now will have reasons, regardless of China's attitude, to ignore that silly dashy line that China put forth to claim the entirety of the SCS. Are *YOU* going to put yourself in the line of fire for China ? We know -- not. You ain't that brave and are not that into China.
> 
> As for our hypocrisy, see if that will convince the Asian countries to give up their rights to the SCS.



hahaha, exactly was my point. They think this is a sport. They don't even know how to fight a war.


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> The same universe that the USA resides in I believe. Gotta learn from someone.


We have not asked the Asian countries to cede the SCS to US. We just asked that *ALL* countries be allowed peaceful passage thru. I guess that is too difficult for a Chinese mind to grasp.



+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Be patient. I heard that it comes with older age, even to cow boys.


Be patient ? Tell that to your Chinese leadership. I guess several thousand yrs of civilization was not long enough to learn some patience.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

gambit said:


> We have not asked the Asian countries to cede the SCS to US. We just asked that *ALL* countries be allowed peaceful passage thru. I guess that is too difficult for a Chinese mind to grasp.
> 
> 
> Be patient ? Tell that to your Chinese leadership. I guess several thousand yrs of civilization was not long enough to learn some patience.


 I love their excuses.


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> We have not asked the Asian countries to cede the SCS to US. We just asked that *ALL* countries be allowed peaceful passage thru. I guess that is too difficult for a Chinese mind to grasp.



Hmmmmm.

Hundreds of miltary bases, countless wars a homeland wracked by racial strife and you talk peace? USA have no high horse to talk down from Im afraid. You can wrestle with China and drag both countries into the gutter though.

I certainly hope that your brain isnt suffering from the ravages of age.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

Glorino said:


> China's folly in creating the 9 dash line and claiming many islands in the SOUTH CHINA SEA as its own is threat to world peace in that no country can stop China from maintaining underground shelter for nuclear missiles and weapons -just like in the James Bond movie "MOON RAKER" Readers please think...........ahead about the future in many years hence,



When filippines accept the 9 dash line, it donesn't threat the world peace. Acceptance is not hard, realize the history and reality.
Just like they accept filippines once a colony of USA.

By the way, USA's exist in South East Asia never means protect peace, from Vietnam war, Combodia war, Timor war, Filippines internal conflicts, USA keeping peace of the region is a joke.



CorporateAffairs said:


> *Here is a 10-point guide to the South China Sea dispute:*
> 
> China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei make competing claims to territory in the South China Sea, a 3.5 million sq km area with some of the world's most promising oil and gas fields and vital fishing grounds.
> China's increased military assertiveness - it has built artificial islands and conducts patrols and military exercises in the area - has had its smaller neighbours worried. It has also led to a confrontation with the United States.
> The US has backed those against China and has built up military presence in the region to ensure, it says, access to critical shipping and air routes. Both the US and China have accused each other of provocations in the region as recently as last month.
> China has been very active in the region in recent months installing missile launchers, radars and other military equipment, apart from pouring sand on coral reefs to build artificial islands.
> The case brought by the Philippines in 2013 challenges China's so-called "nine-dash line", a boundary that is the basis for its claim to roughly 85 percent of the South China Sea.
> It hinges on the legal status of reefs, rocks and artificial islands in the Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Island Group in the south China Sea, contesting China's control.
> Manila argues that the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal, a scattering of rocks off the coast of the Philippines' Luzon island, are within its territory.
> Beijing says it has had rights to the territories for centuries, a claim also contested by Vietnam which says it has controlled the Spratlys and another chain of islands called the Paracel for many years. Taiwan too claims those islands.
> China has boycotted the hearings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, saying it does not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter.
> The court cannot enforce its decision but its ruling could embolden Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei to file similar cases.



They say so many terms, I have only one question: when the America itself jump directly on the stage?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

boxer_B said:


> China and US will not go to full scale war, but even a minor skirmish which doesn't threat *rightful *sovereignty can humiliate China in its own backyard.
> 
> Frankly speaking, China is at more disadvantage than Taliban or ISIS in facing the US.


This is what the clueless PDF Chinese do not understand.

They mock US about about not fighting for the Philippines, but would China go to war against the US over a few Chinese ships that was damaged or even sunk in the SCS ? No.

The Chinese government know they would not. Any shooting fight, not yet war, against the US Navy and the PLAN will lose and lose badly. This UN decision mean any country can travel thru the SCS with no consideration for whatever China claimed. Any challenge by China will be met not just by US but by an alliance led by US. Any sinking of any ship from any country will be taken by US and that alliance as permission to retaliate in kind.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> We have not asked the Asian countries to cede the SCS to US. We just asked that *ALL* countries be allowed peaceful passage thru. I guess that is too difficult for a Chinese mind to grasp.
> 
> 
> Be patient ? Tell that to your Chinese leadership. I guess several thousand yrs of civilization was not long enough to learn some patience.



Patience and doing nothing is not the same. You cant be too timid eh? Although I do agree that this move should have been planed for 10-15 years down the line. Oh well, plough ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Hmmmmm.
> 
> Hundreds of miltary bases, countless wars a homeland wracked by racial strife and you talk peace? USA have no high horse to talk down from Im afraid. You can wrestle with China and drag both countries into the gutter though.
> 
> I certainly hope that your brain isnt suffering from the ravages of age.



You talk like it is your war. lol, what do you even care. US has fought with many countries and been to many wars. Pretty sure, she can take care of China without going to war.


----------



## Pandora

gambit said:


> It does not matter if China agreed to it or not. In self interests, countries will seek any level of legitimacy they can. With this UN decision, they now will have reasons, regardless of China's attitude, to ignore that silly dashy line that China put forth to claim the entirety of the SCS. Are *YOU* going to put yourself in the line of fire for China ? We know -- not. You ain't that brave and are not that into China.
> 
> As for our hypocrisy, see if that will convince the Asian countries to give up their rights to the SCS.




Who will enforce this in your opinion . How many more Carrier group will you deploy untill you run out of the number. Unless US wants a direct confrontation between US and China right next to their shores then who are we to stop you. 

You Americans just cant get over the fact that you dont have a unipolar world anymore. Both China and Russia are openly showing you middle finger yet you people dont get the hint. Anyways you have blessing of Pakistan to interfere with china in SCS as we are eager to watch you try.

If you refering to stance of Pakistan then you should know Pakistan will support China over US any day.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

kankan326 said:


> Nicaragua is a different case. Cause it's not about territory issue. You want China to give up our territory by a cheap arbitration? How naive is that. The only way you can gain our land and water territory is by war. Sorry. No other choice. I think this ideology works for most countries. Not just China.



Oh please the point here is it's not the strength of arms anymore even the US has to respect international law and china is no exception you commie nationalist in the forum makes stupid arguments making you look worse you simply not proving anything with your half @$$ tantrum post and you people lack some common sense on this point simply put making threats is laughable now because in the end your country has to comply with international law


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

vtnsx said:


> You talk like it is your war. lol, what do you even care. US has fought with many countries and been to many wars. Pretty sure, she can take care of China without going to war.



Im talking to your grampa, not a little whelp.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

gambit said:


> This is what the clueless PDF Chinese do not understand.
> 
> They mock US about about not fighting for the Philippines, but would China go to war against the US over a few Chinese ships that was damaged or even sunk in the SCS ? No.
> 
> The Chinese government know they would not. Any shooting fight, not yet war, against the US Navy and the PLAN will lose and lose badly. This UN decision mean any country can travel thru the SCS with no consideration for whatever China claimed. Any challenge by China will be met not just by US but by an alliance led by US. Any sinking of any ship from any country will be taken by US and that alliance as permission to retaliate in kind.



I was hoping that Pakistan would defend China in this one.


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Patience and doing nothing is not the same.


Too bad your leadership ain't that bright to recognize the difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 1R0N_M4N_XL

i can't wait for donald trump or mrs. clinton to be the new president.


----------



## kankan326

Zero_wing said:


> Oh please the point here is it's not the strength of arms anymore even the US has to respect international law and china is no exception you commie nationalist in the forum makes stupid arguments making you look worse you simply not proving anything with your half @$$ tantrum post and you people lack some common sense on this point simply put making threats is laughable now because in the end your country has to comply with international law


No more words. Come take "your islands".

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Carlosa

gambit said:


> The problem in your post is that the UN decision did not came from a trial. It was a dispute over a claim. And China lost.



Not only they lost the actual dispute, but earlier the court also ruled that the court has jurisdiction, which has been the main chinese argument. Big loss and big loss of face.

I feel your pain China..........

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Im talking to your grampa, not a little whelp.



Aww, did I burst your little bubble? I'm talking to you, son.


----------



## gambit

smuhs1 said:


> If you refering to stance of Pakistan then you should know Pakistan will support China over US any day.


Yeah...Am sure the Pakistani government will write a very strong letter of support to Beijing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yolo2016

wanglaokan said:


> Who cares? A bunch of Idiots. what is ours is ours, a court organized by Yankees and played by a Japanese old man can't decide anything.


LOL- The UNCLOAS body was created by China, it was heavily pushed and supported by china in the UN. China was one the first members to sign on and it ratified again in 1996. 

China has gone against the very set of rules they took the lead in writing, supporting, pushed, created and ratified.


----------



## soundwave1987

Zero_wing said:


> In the case i wish you all the luck in the world


seriously man we chinese have no threatening inttention nor harm means toward philippine ppl, in this case we have our oppion and you have yours and we compete with each other fair and square.Frankly philipine used exact the same means to defend your claims just as china did, the only thing make china looks worse is that china is stronger so we can do it at a whole new scale. The best situation is that we sit down and talk about it and maybe reach a consensus to share but now there are too many variables especially the intervention of the US who is clearly to the whole world that they want to maintain monololy. They don't want us to settle, I bet the US is very happy about the current situation that they can stay in the conflict and manipulate. Think about it, if any skirmish break out, the battle will be between china and philipine, even if china win the battle then so what? we are both losers, the only winer is the US. Do you really believe that US will defend philipine for justice and law? no, they always break the law as they see fit, they pretend to defend you for their own good, and they may do the doubble face as they usually do. The greatest interest for china is to integrate SE Asia and east asia as a whole to develop a equal partnership and prosper regional market maybe a common cultural sphere, the current situation is a failure to us as well, we fail to reach our goals and that's nomal, then the only choice we have is to keep what we can get no matter what. Both you and us can not afford to yeild then it is a pure power play now, this is tough and we certainly must do whatever needed to defend our claim but it doesn't means we hate you or forget what things should be like.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

gambit said:


> Too bad your leadership ain't that bright to recognize the difference.



You mean Xi Jinping?


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> Yeah...Am sure the Pakistani government will write a very strong letter of support to Beijing.



The the USA will write a very strong series of editorials on the red commie menace.

Then life goes on, the strutting roosters going home after having barked and clucked to its hearts content.

The will be no war, no sanctions just a lot of posturing and shit slinging. Like this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jlaw

why reply to ZeroSense? That boy is borderline retardo and some Chinese member try to reason with him

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## dray

faithfulguy said:


> A thread on this issue is already opened and this thread is not in the right area. Mods, please merge this thread.



We are intending to discuss it from Indian standpoint, it is in right place.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> seriously man we chinese have no threatening inttention nor harm means toward philippine ppl, in this case we have our oppion and you have yours and we compete with each other fair and square.Frankly philipine used exact the same means to defend your claims just as china did, the only thing make china looks worse is that china is stronger so we can do it at a whole new scale. The best situation is that we sit down and talk about it and maybe reach a consensus to share but now there are too many variables especially the intervention of the US who is clearly to the whole world that they want to maintain monololy. They don't want us to settle, I bet the US is very happy about the current situation that they can stay in the conflict and manipulate. Think about it, if any skirmish break out, the battle will be between china and philipine, even if china win the battle then so what? we are both losers, the only winer is the US. Do you really believe that US will defend philipine for justice and law? no, they always break the law as they see fit, they pretend to defend you for their own good, and they may do the doubble face as they usually do. *The greatest interest for china is to integrate SE Asia and east asia as a whole to develop a equal partnership and prosper regional market maybe a common cultural sphere*, the current situation is a failure to us as well, we fail to reach our goals and that's nomal, then the only choice we have is to keep what we can get no matter what. Both you and us can not afford to yeild then it is a pure power play now, this is tough and we certainly must do whatever needed to defend our claim but it doesn't means we hate you or forget what things should be like.



Well, you're doing it wrong. You don't steal people's water and expect them to bow down to.


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> The will be no war, no sanctions...


We can hope for that. It also mean China's claim to the entirety of the SCS was for nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## salarsikander

Come on Bloody Yankess can destroy a country under the false pretext of WMD, China is reclaiming its historical claim it has every right

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## greenwood

danger007 said:


> as if the so called maps got any importance... demographics changed with time... so is the Chinese territory.. silly trying to grab weak countries land ....



Who the hell let them be weak countries? It's not our fault they are weak countries. Pakistan and BD are weak nations, India could consider contribute disputes to them. Thanks to the peaceful era, don't break the international order by illegal arbitration. You gus ever experienced colonial era, and China lost 4 million square km territory to foreign nations, you should understand China in this matter has been too benevolent.
To whom you could cry when Britain used gun to colonize India?
China has repeated times since 1980's want to negociate billaterally with them. Fillipines based on American support consider thoese proposes as shit. Until the fillipines smell America's incompetence in SCS, they won't carefully think about this matter. America will ask Duerte sht up if the new pinoy president don't follow American intention.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> did you know stealing is a crime?


oh man from your point of view we are stealling from you but from our point of view you are stealling from us, why that you are right and we are wrong? even pro-west taiwan gorverment can not accept the clearly unfair tribunal, so the only choice you and us have is to play it with sheer power, this is tough but real.


vtnsx said:


> and horses have wings right?


yeah I don't know, but we'll try, let's see if we can breed the Pegasus.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

gambit said:


> We can hope for that. It also mean China's claim to the entirety of the SCS was for nothing.



So if there is no war nothing is gained?

The 9 dash line is far to ambitious but negotiating from that starting position is very favorable.

No war please, no policeman from an opposite longitude to shoot up a foreign neighbourhood. Again.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

salarsikander said:


> Come on Bloody Yankess can destroy a country under the false pretext of WMD, China is reclaiming its historical claim it has every right



What right? under who? China is not welcome in the SCS.


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Well, you're doing it wrong. You don't steal people's water and expect them to bow down to.


again you think we are stealing your water but for us it is you stealing from us, so pls don't accuse each other again and again, that's really meaningless.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## salarsikander

vtnsx said:


> What right? under who? China is not welcome in the SCS.


Sure. There is nothing right or wrong in international politics. Its only power

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> oh man from your point of view we are stealling from you but from our point of view you are stealling from us, why that you are right and we are wrong? even pro-west taiwan gorverment can not accept the clearly unfair tribunal, so the only choice you and us have is to play it with sheer power, this is tough but real.
> 
> yeah I don't know, but we'll try, let's see if we can breed the Pegasus.



China has no power. False power with nothing to back it up. Just like how they steal SCS. Nothing to back it up. Ever heard of the word "allies"?


----------



## gambit

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> So if there is no war nothing is gained?
> 
> The 9 dash line is far to ambitious but negotiating from that starting position is very favorable.


What did China gained from that 'favorable' position ? So far, the only thing China 'gained' is a negative perception. From now on, whatever China says about Asian issues will be taken with even more suspicion.



+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> No war please, no policeman from an opposite longitude to shoot up a foreign neighbourhood. Again.


Then do not try to take what is not yours.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

This event will only further convince China to start working on building a new world order together with those countries which have the same ambition. The current one is not only broken, it is broke.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vtnsx

salarsikander said:


> Sure. There is nothing right or wrong in international politics. Its only power



What Power does China has over the USA, South East Asian countries and EU? lol



soundwave1987 said:


> again you think we are stealing your water but for us it is you stealing from us, so pls don't accuse each other again and again, that's really meaningless.



Again, you don't go steal people's water and then accuse them of stealing from you. That is double wrong. Greed is never healthy. Just ask instead of stealing, you will only pi55 people off. LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> China has no power. False power with nothing to back it up. Just like how they steal SCS. Nothing to back it up. Ever heard of the word "allies"?


you are not answering my question, but yeah let's see if china has power, let's see how thing will going on in SCS, let's see if we care about this waste paper.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> you are not answering my question, but yeah let's see if china has power, let's see how thing will going on in SCS, let's see if we care about this waste paper.



Nah, let's see if you're willing to die for it.


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> What Power does China has over the USA, South East Asian countries and EU? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't go steal people's water and then accuse them of stealing from you. That is double wrong. Greed is never healthy. Just ask instead of stealing, you will only pi55 people off. LOL


yeah you are right, you are the absolutely right of the world, ok then, that's why this ugly situation ends up with sheer power play, and you are not good at it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## danger007

greenwood said:


> Who the hell let them be weak countries? It's not our fault they are weak countries. Pakistan and BD are weak nations, India could consider contribute disputes to them. Thanks to the peaceful era, don't break the international order by illegal arbitration. You gus ever experienced colonial era, and China lost 4 million square km territory to foreign nations, you should understand China in this matter has been too benevolent.
> To whom you could cry when Britain used gun to colonize India?
> China has repeated times since 1980's want to negociate billaterally with them. Fillipines based on American support consider thoese proposes as shit. Until the fillipines smell America's incompetence in SCS, they won't carefully think about this matter. America will ask Duerte sht up if the new pinoy president don't follow American intention.





lol heights of stupidity and arrogance..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Nah, let's see if you're willing to die for it.


heh, sorry but it is your life been cost, remember we have just crushed your ship and you do nothing with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## F-22Raptor

An utterly embarrassing day for China. China has just edged closer to international pariah status.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> yeah you are right, you are the absolutely right of the world, ok then, that's why this ugly situation ends up with sheer power play, and you are not good at it.



I never said I was. I just think China's claim is outrages and outright greed with no regards to her neighbors. How do you expect your neighbors to react?


----------



## deckingraj

F-22Raptor said:


> An utterly embarrassing day for China. China has just edged closer to international pariah status.


No doubt...the way they are going and pissing off everyone it seems the newly found so called power is going to their head!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dy1022

we just crashed a Viet's ship 2 days ago in the SCS.

we are not going to talk with anyone anymore after today, the only things you have to face in future are Chinese missiles including Nuclear and Thermonuclear one!


End of discussion in here, come and stop us in the SCS if you dare !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

kankan326 said:


> No more words. Come take "your islands".



Sure in due time


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> I never said I was. I just think China's claim is outrages and outright greed with no regards to her neighbors. How do you expect your neighbors to react?


THIS IS A MASS HOLE IN SCS AND EVERYONE GET PISSED OFF BY EVERYONE‘S CLAIMS, HOW DO YOU EXECPT YOUR NERIBOURS TO REACT ABOUT YOUR CLAIM? REMERMBER VETNAM PISSED OFF AS MANY COUNTRIES AS CHINA DID, DON"T PRETEND TO BE INNOCENT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> heh, sorry but it is your life been cost, remember we have just crushed your ship and you do nothing with that.



lol, you're talking about VCP's ships. That ain't mine. You talk like I'm VCP. I wouldn't pretend that you would be alright in a situation like this. China has a lot more to lose than the US. I doubt you are putting your life in the front line. China's greed is bigger than her stomach. You cannot swallow it all. It will tear you apart. Rather than go after your own selfishness, go learn how to share with people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Param

I just watched World War documentary where Japanese Forces defeated Chinese Forces,10 times their numbers.And kept on advancing in the Chinese territory.Just a reminder,from your small neighbors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

vtnsx said:


> What Power does China has over the USA, South East Asian countries and EU? lol


Keep USA (the one who used orange agaent on your ancestors) and EU out. None of them are coming to save you lot and for what ? As for China no one can stop the peaceful rise of dragon

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dy1022

we just crashed a Viet's ship 2 days ago in the SCS.

we are not going to talk with anyone anymore after today, the only things you have to face in future are Chinese missiles including Nuclear and Thermonuclear one!


End of discussion in here, come and stop us in the SCS if you dare !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

soundwave1987 said:


> seriously man we chinese have no threatening inttention nor harm means toward philippine ppl, in this case we have our oppion and you have yours and we compete with each other fair and square.Frankly philipine used exact the same means to defend your claims just as china did, the only thing make china looks worse is that china is stronger so we can do it at a whole new scale. The best situation is that we sit down and talk about it and maybe reach a consensus to share but now there are too many variables especially the intervention of the US who is clearly to the whole world that they want to maintain monololy. They don't want us to settle, I bet the US is very happy about the current situation that they can stay in the conflict and manipulate. Think about it, if any skirmish break out, the battle will be between china and philipine, even if china win the battle then so what? we are both losers, the only winer is the US. Do you really believe that US will defend philipine for justice and law? no, they always break the law as they see fit, they pretend to defend you for their own good, and they may do the doubble face as they usually do. The greatest interest for china is to integrate SE Asia and east asia as a whole to develop a equal partnership and prosper regional market maybe a common cultural sphere, the current situation is a failure to us as well, we fail to reach our goals and that's nomal, then the only choice we have is to keep what we can get no matter what. Both you and us can not afford to yeild then it is a pure power play now, this is tough and we certainly must do whatever needed to defend our claim but it doesn't means we hate you or forget what things should be like.



Actions speak louder than words my friend and plus the other chinese forumers are already making threats which i laughable because your country is screwed either way please save your pleas and excuses and reasons for those who gives a damn. Because minus you the other chinese forumers like your government are screw heads with tantrum problem

Mabuhay ng Republika

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> lol, you're talking about VCP's ships. That ain't mine. You talk like I'm VCP. I wouldn't pretend that you would be alright in a situation like this. China has a lot more to lose than the US. I doubt you are putting your life in the front line. China's greed is bigger than her stomach. You cannot swallow it all. It will tear you apart. Rather than go after your own selfishness, go learn how to share with people.


okay it is not your ship and it is not your countrymen's life so that means SCS is not your business then, and I'm willing to wage my life to defend my country even if it means a nuclear war and doom of humanity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

dy1022 said:


> we just crashed a Viet's ship 2 days ago in the SCS.
> 
> we are not going to talk with anyone anymore after today, the only things you have to face in future are Chinese missiles including Nuclear and Thermonuclear one!
> 
> 
> End of discussion in here, come and stop us in the SCS if you dare !!!



Make all the threats you want you screwed either way


----------



## Zero_wing

Jlaw said:


> why reply to ZeroSense? That boy is borderline retardo and some Chinese member try to reason with him



Wow this coming from people with illegal claims now that's comedy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## William Hung

Tiqiu said:


> According to China Xinhua News, China does not accept and recognise Hague Tribunal ruling because* the Tribunal has no jurisdiction on this matter.*



The problem with this Chinese objection is that China had already ratified, in other words:* had agreed to*, the UNCLOS which included a very specific legal clause that fundamentally says that if there are any dispute or disagreement over whether a court/tribunal has jurisdiction or not, then the court/tribunal will be the one that has the final say about its jurisdiction. Yes, the court/tribunal will get to decide on it, not the dispute parties. It may sound unbelievable to some Chinese now, but that is what China had ratified and agreed to lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## empirefighter

Zero_wing said:


> Oh please the point here is it's not the strength of arms anymore even the US has to respect international law and china is no exception you commie nationalist in the forum makes stupid arguments making you look worse you simply not proving anything with your half @$$ tantrum post and you people lack some common sense on this point simply put making threats is laughable now because in the end your country has to comply with international law


LOL,we will wait and see. US respect international law? lol,we are in different universe.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## vtnsx

F-22Raptor said:


> An utterly embarrassing day for China. China has just edged closer to international pariah status.



soon, its economy will collapse to the level of no return.



soundwave1987 said:


> THIS IS A MASS HOLE IN SCS AND EVERYONE GET PISSED OFF BY EVERYONE‘S CLAIMS, HOW DO YOU EXECPT YOUR NERIBOURS TO REACT ABOUT YOUR CLAIM? REMERMBER VETNAM PISSED OFF AS MANY COUNTRIES AS CHINA DID, DON"T PRETEND TO BE INNOCENT.



They are innocent.



soundwave1987 said:


> okay it is not your ship and it is not your countrymen's life so that means SCS is not your business then, and I'm willing to wage my life to defend my country even if it means a nuclear war and doom of humanity.



Then you're utterly ignorant. Greed is brighter than your own life.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

soundwave1987 said:


> THIS IS A MASS HOLE IN SCS AND EVERYONE GET PISSED OFF BY EVERYONE‘S CLAIMS, HOW DO YOU EXECPT YOUR NERIBOURS TO REACT ABOUT YOUR CLAIM? REMERMBER VETNAM PISSED OFF AS MANY COUNTRIES AS CHINA DID, DON"T PRETEND TO BE INNOCENT.



Not as much as china undisputed and ancient claim that ARE now illegal and does not comply with International law


----------



## soundwave1987

Zero_wing said:


> Actions speak louder than words my friend and plus the other chinese forumers are already making threats which i laughable because your country is screwed either way please save your pleas and excuses and reasons for those who gives a damn. Because minus you the other chinese forumers like your government are screw heads with tantrum problem
> 
> Mabuhay ng Republika


internet ppl tend to be emotional, don't blame them to much, you and I get emotional sometimes, and I don't recall that chinese government made threat to philipine ppl. btw the new philipine government looks like more practical so there's great possibility things won't go worse.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

empirefighter said:


> LOL,we will wait and see. US respect international law? lol,we are in different universe.



Ya please take at look at Nicaragua vs the US if the great firewall of china would allow it


----------



## empirefighter

Param said:


> I just watched World War documentary where Japanese Forces defeated Chinese Forces,10 times their numbers.And kept on advancing in the Chinese territory.Just a reminder,from your small neighbors.


I just watched China-India border War documentary where China Forces defeated India Forces,10 times their numbers.Japan is not our qualified rival, we can defeat him easily TODAY ,thanks for your concern ,take care of yourself, none of your neibours love India. Just a reminder,from your powerful neighbor.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> A small monkey cannot tame a much larger animal.



So are you saying it was ok for the UK and Portugal to takie over Hong Kong and Macau?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vtnsx

Hamartia Antidote said:


> So are you saying it was ok for the UK and Portugal to takie over Hong Kong and Macau?



I think he just did say that. LOL! Some people can be so ignorant. Unbelievable.


----------



## Zero_wing

soundwave1987 said:


> internet ppl tend to be emotional, don't blame them to much, you and I get emotional sometimes, and I don't recall that chinese government made threat to philipine ppl. btw the new philipine government looks like more practical so there's great possibility things won't go worse.



Kind like you and the rest of the chinese forumers who can't get over the fact that their country just got rekt by the international community really how about the thousand of articles of the globe times and the foreign minister and just now Emperor Xi just told us off that china will use force if we enforce or sail in our waters of course it was very suttle but the threat of force was there so please save your back tracks to some other drone it does not help you situation you people just got rekt.



noksss said:


> And you are not a philipino



He is a chinese poster

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jha

gambit said:


> Yeah...Am sure the Pakistani government will write a very strong letter of support to Beijing.



Hehehe.. That was cruel.

OT : This new Chinese govt. has given reason to every neighboring country to build her military. Every neighboring country ( Japan, Vietnam, Philippines etc) will be induct new weapon systems. Now 10X much more potent missiles will be ponied at China. What an achievement.


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> soon, its economy will collapse to the level of no return.
> 
> 
> 
> They are innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're utterly ignorant. Greed is brighter than your own life.


blahblahblah you can accuse me as ignorant as you want, I'm tired of aguring two opposed opinions, let's just see how things will going on and each of us can do what ever we should do to defend our claims, that's fair and square.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Always Neutral

Green Angel said:


> *Now,MIGHT IS RIGHT........Who cares what has happen in past...*



What might has China got? Your might is tramped by USN everyday in SCS.


----------



## soundwave1987

Zero_wing said:


> Kind like you and the rest of the chinese forumers who can't get over the fact that their country just got rekt by the international community really how about the thousand of articles of the globe times and the foreign minister and just now Emperor Xi just told us off that china will use force if we enforce or sail in our waters of course it was very suttle but the threat of force was there so please save your back tracks to some other drone it does not help you situation you people just got rekt.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a chinese poster


hey man if philipine will enforce your claims then china has the same right to do the same, but this is clearly a bad situation that both of us should try to aviod.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## soundwave1987

Always Neutral said:


> What might has China got? Your might is tramped by USN everyday in SCS.


yeah, we have no might to stop USN cruising yet USN has no might to stop our island building either, so that's really a unsatisified situation for both of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taygibay

salarsikander said:


> As for China no one can stop the peaceful rise of dragon



LOL, you went a little overboard with your phrasing there, mate!

Transforming sandbars into _military encampments with airstrips_ ...
just cannot be termed a _*peaceful rise*_ no matter how you twist it!

Agreed on the dragon though, have a great day, Tay.


----------



## salarsikander

Taygibay said:


> LOL, you went a little overboard with your phrasing there, mate!
> 
> Transforming sandbars into _military encampments with airstrips_ ...
> just cannot be termed a _*peaceful rise*_ no matter how you twist it!
> 
> Agreed on the dragon though, have a great day, Tay.


LOL. When France builds it base in middle east or carries out operation In africa is it fine ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> blahblahblah you can accuse me as ignorant as you want, I'm tired of aguring two opposed opinions, let's just see how things will going on and each of us can do what ever we should do to defend our claims, that's fair and square.



Your government is doing it wrong. Why defend your claims? when you can just take it from us? What is stopping your government from doing that? I'm referring to a war with US.


----------



## Sommer

*Of Course China, Like All Great Powers, Will Ignore an International Legal Verdict*
In ignoring an upcoming verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following well-established precedent by great powers.
This week the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) will deliver its award in the Philippines’ case against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. In a bid to thwart Beijing’s attempt to turn the South China Sea into its own virtual lake, Manila contends that China’s claim to exclusive sovereignty over all the islands and shoals within the nine-dashed line – which encompasses 86 percent of the Sea – has no basis in international law. There is not much suspense about what the tribunal will decide: it will almost certainly side with the Philippines. The United States and its allies have already started criticizing China for signaling in advance that it will ignore the court’s ruling, which one Chinese official derided last week as “nothing more than a piece of paper.”

It may seem un-American to ask whether China should do as we say, or, by contrast, as we do. But suppose someone were bold enough to pose that question. The first thing they would discover is that no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the PCA on an issue involving the Law of the Sea.* In fact, none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests.* *Thus, when China rejects the Court’s decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades.*

From the day the Philippines went to court, China has argued that the PCA has no legitimate jurisdiction on this issue since it concerns “sovereignty” – which the text of the Law of the Sea treaty explicitly prohibits tribunals from addressing. When the Court rejected China’s objection, Beijing refused to participate in its hearings and made it clear that it will ignore the PCA’s ruling. The United States and others have criticized Beijing for taking this stance. But again, if we ask how other permanent members of the Security Council have acted in similar circumstances, the answer will not be one we like.

When the Netherlands sued *Russia* after the latter’s navy boarded and detained the crew of a Dutch vessel in waters off of the Russian coast in 2013, Moscow asserted that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter and refused to participate in the hearings. It also ignored a tribunal’s order that the crew be released while the dispute was being resolved. After the PCA ruled that Russia had violated the Law of the Sea and ordered Moscow to pay the Netherlands compensation, Russia refused.

Anticipating the Court’s ruling in the case brought by the Philippines, *UK* Prime Minister David Cameron proclaimed: “We want to encourage China to be part of that rules-based world. We want to encourage everyone to abide by these adjudications.” Perhaps he had forgotten that just last year the PCA ruled that the UK had violated the Law of the Sea by unilaterally establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Islands. The British government disregarded the ruling, and the Marine Protected Area remains in place today.

*The United States* has never been sued under the Law of the Sea because – unlike China – Washington has not ratified the international agreement and is thus not bound by its rules. Expect Chinese commentators to emphasize this point in the mutual recriminations that will follow the Court’s announcement.

The closest analogue to the Philippines case involving the United States arose in the 1980s when Nicaragua sued Washington for mining its harbors. Like China, the United States argued that the International Court of Justice did not have the authority to hear Nicaragua’s case. When the court rejected that claim, the United States not only refused to participate in subsequent proceedings, but also denied the Court’s jurisdiction on any future case involving the United States, unless Washington explicitly made an exception and asked the Court to hear a case. If China followed that precedent, it could withdraw from the Law of the Sea Treaty altogether – joining the United States as one of the world’s only nations not party to the agreement.

In the Nicaragua case, when the Court found in favor of Nicaragua and ordered the United States to pay reparations, the U.S. refused, and vetoed six UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to comply with the court’s ruling. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick aptly summed up Washington’s view of the matter when she dismissed the court as a “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.”

Observing what permanent members of the Security Council do, as opposed to what they say, it is hard to disagree with realist’s claim that the PCA and its siblings in The Hague – the International Courts of Justice and the International Criminal Court – are only for small powers. Great powers do not recognize the jurisdiction of these courts – except in particular cases where they believe it is in their interest to do so. Thucydides’ summary of the Melian mantra – “the strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they must” – may exaggerate. But this week, when the Court finds against China, expect Beijing to do as great powers have traditionally done.

_By Graham Allison
Graham Allison is director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and author of the forthcoming book, “Destined for War: America, China, and Thucydides’s Trap.”_

Link: http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/of-c...s-will-ignore-an-international-legal-verdict/

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Always Neutral

soundwave1987 said:


> yeah, we have no might to stop USN cruising yet USN has no might to stop our island building either, so that's really a unsatisified situation for both of us.



No one is stopping you from building islands at such high costs which will serve no purpose unless you can get 200 miles around it as Chinese EEZ which is not going to happen.


----------



## vtnsx

Always Neutral said:


> yes you tested it while you were high with the three guys who thanked you? Even the CPC does not claim Kublai Khan was Chinese and everybody agrees including Marco Polo that he conquered china and executed the child Chinese King. Please stop smoking opium and learn some history.



lol! they can't because reality is too harsh for them they would rather ignore it and hope for the best. It is like closing your eyes and marching towards your enemy's tanks.


----------



## deckingraj

salarsikander said:


> Keep USA (the one who used orange agaent on your ancestors) and EU out. None of them are coming to save you lot and for what ? As for China no one can stop the peaceful rise of dragon


Well cheer leading is fine...however lets not defy logic to that extent that it looks outright disgusting...


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

Hamartia Antidote said:


> So are you saying it was ok for the UK and Portugal to takie over Hong Kong and Macau?




They are much smaller than the U.K and Portugal. Did UK take all of Qing China despite the technological disparity?

Need a diagram?


1930s China is a much different animal than 2016 China. Japan will have to wait until the next Chinese civil war to make her opportunistic move.

Carrion feeder eats onlt dying and sick animals if not dead ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

Hamartia Antidote said:


> So are you saying it was ok for the UK and Portugal to takie over Hong Kong and Macau?



You can ask them com to take, if they have enough balls.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Your government is doing it wrong. Why defend your claims? when you can just take it from us? What is stopping your government from doing that?


how can you say our government is wrong? Do you think I don't learn by myself? clearly I learned and I believe our claims are just, so certainly I will defend my ancestors legacy. You can say CCP is wrong and we are brain washed but why the taiwan government aka republic of china claims the same? You'd rather say all we chinese are wrong better than just accuse CCP government.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> how can you say our government is wrong? Do you think I don't learn by myself? clearly I learned and I believe our claims are just, so certainly I will defend my ancestors legacy. You can say CCP is wrong and we are brain washed but why the taiwan government aka republic of china claims the same? You'd rather say all we chinese are wrong better than just accuse CCP government.



Because you're of the same people. Who falsely believe your government is right. How do you know your government is ABSOLUTELY not wrong?


----------



## TechMan

It is a court of arbitration, it has no power to enforce its decision. Philippines can go to war, impose sanctions or get a UN Security Council resolution against China, but none of these will happen. Philippines will not go to war with China clearly. It is also too small economically to impose sanctions against China. China has veto power in UN Security Council, Philippines will never get a resolution from UN Security Council without China vetoing it. All Philippines can do is make some noise in the media which China doesn't care.

In another word, this is just a drama in the international theater concerning South China Sea involving actors such as US, EU, China and Philippines. It will have no real life consequences.

One thing that is also noteworthy is China has never agreed to the arbitration. An arbitration needs two parties to agree to the arbitration to work. Philippines submitted the case unilaterally. The Permanent Court of Arbitration should not have accepted a case submitted unilaterally by one party. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has shown itself to be a political institution and not a judicial institution in this instance.

This has damaged the reputation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Is this surprising? Probably not given the influence of the West on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. However, the rest of the world will see the Permanent Court of Arbitration as political and will set up its own court of arbitration that is apolitical.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## soundwave1987

Always Neutral said:


> No one is stopping you from building islands at such high costs which will serve no purpose unless you can get 200 miles around it as Chinese EEZ which is not going to happen.


ok,thank you, we'd like to spend the money this way as we see fit, thanks for not stopping us, btw we don't want to stop USN as long as we can use the islands freely and the natural resources of our own.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Green Angel

Always Neutral said:


> What might has China got? Your might is tramped by USN everyday in SCS.



SCS has become Surrendering point for US Navy.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> They are much smaller than the U.K and Portugal. Did UK take all of Qing China despite the technological disparity?
> 
> Need a diagram?
> 
> 
> 1930s China is a much different animal than 2016 China. Japan will have to wait until the next Chinese civil war to make her opportunistic move.
> 
> Carrion feeder eats onlt dying and sick animals if not dead ones.



Well Portugal didn't need to take over all of China to send Chinese people into slavery.


----------



## Taygibay

salarsikander said:


> LOL. When France builds it base in middle east or carries out operation In africa is it fine ?



Ah, come on, man! Not only is this a violent steer towards off-topic
but in addition, these bases are all built with the agreement of the
local authorities ... contrary to the islands in this SCS case so ...

moot point!​
Besides, I said nothing about right or wrong on the matter, only
that your choice of nomenclature was erroneous.

 Really, don't fret over so little and have a great day, Tay.


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Because you're of the same people. Who falsely believe your government is right. How do you know your government is ABSOLUTELY not wrong?


no no no I admit both countries have their own right of claiming because of the mess in SCS historically that's why we should negotiate,but clearly now it is a power play,besides why do you think taiwan government claims exactly the same as CCP? are they both wrong?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> no no no I admit both countries have their own right of claiming because of the mess in SCS historically that's why we should negotiate,but clearly now it is a power play,besides why do you think taiwan government claims exactly the same as CCP? are they both wrong?



Taiwan has mixed people. There can be both. One can agree. When you're talking about power. US has much more power to offer than China. Your government really underestimate the USA.


----------



## Pinoy

What a victorious moment indeed for our country but we cannot celebrate just yet. 

This is just the easy part I believe. The most difficult part would be on how to enforce it. The pressure is on China though as the international community will be watching closely on this great development in our country's favor.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## deckingraj

salarsikander said:


> What will you say about US's Illegal invasion of iraq for that matter ?


Disgusting...why would it be any different...i am no one's cheer leader!!


----------



## Zero_wing

soundwave1987 said:


> hey man if philipine will enforce your claims then china has the same right to do the same, but this is clearly a bad situation that both of us should try to aviod.



Or you can just leave and its Philippines with an S

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vtnsx

Jlaw said:


> He forgot to tell you that due to Vietnam war that is why he is living in Canada.
> 
> 
> A son of a displaced refugee



Better than China. You're still living in that third world country? hahaha


----------



## deckingraj

salarsikander said:


> LOL says an Indian, who is actually not even recognized by India as its citizen. SO how easy it is for to apply for Indian visa ?


that just explains how immature you are...first of all i don't have to apply for a visa to visit my won country...(may be different in your country)...secondly for fellow NRI's it has never been so easy....apply for OIC and you are good for life

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Taiwan has mixed people. There can be both. One can agree. When you're talking about power. US has much more power to offer than China. Your government really underestimate the USA.


We don't underestimate anyone, we are more than anyone to know that US is MUCH MUCH MORE powerful than us, but it doesn't means we will yield, just like Veitnam and philipine won't yeild to china. You can watch the taiwanese channel to see if they are willing to give up the lecacy of our common ancestors, yeah, you can easily convince yourself that we are brainwashed zobie under CCP government, but when the so called "democratic" chinese oppose you, pls think why.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taygibay

vtnsx said:


> If you stood in front of me and say shit like that, the only think you will see is a knife to your skull.



Huh, buddy?
I'm quite volatile IRL too but saying things like that is not quite recommended ...
and it is against the rules of PDF even in the conditional form. Please desist.

Good day, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

TechMan said:


> This has damaged the reputation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Is this surprising? Probably not given the influence of the West on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. However, the rest of the world will see the Permanent Court of Arbitration as political and will set up its own court of arbitration that is apolitical.


This is what essentially happened...

China: The entirety of the SCS is ours.

Asia: No, it is not.

China: Yes it is.

Asia then petitioned for the opinions of outsiders. It does not matter if China was a participant of that petition. What the rest of Asia want was the opinion of other people. It does not matter if the UN can enforce its decision or not. Everybody know the UN cannot. The point here is that Asia want China to know that China is basically alone. No thief can point to other thieves to justify his own actions.

There is no 'damage' other than to China's image.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## beijingwalker

Srinivas said:


> If china rejects Hague court verdict, why stay in UN?
> 
> Get out of UN and do as you like !


US also rejected and they did it before China, US out of UN and China will follow

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

^^^ *vtnsx post # 451*

Lots of you up there when I said nothing bad about Vietnam, myself.
The rules still exist however. Keep them on your part and report wrongdoing?

Getting banned gives the upper hand to your adversary, you know?
Be them trolls or saints!

Good luck, Tay.


----------



## beijingwalker

China to the tribunal ruling

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

Zero_wing said:


> Or you can just leave and its Philippines with an S


sorry man but I think that is our right to reclaim the islands and we are not willing to relinquish and I believe you have the same thought too, so that's why CHina and Phlippines government should talk, if both side decide to "enforce" sth then it will end up badly, we have differences, we should hold bilateral negotiation, you see even the taiwan government can't accept this clearly unfair tribunal manipulated by the US, so you can expect why we react like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## deckingraj

salarsikander said:


> When did I cheer lead?


fair enough...let's clear the dust..shall we...so what is your stand on the international ruling??


----------



## Providence

I like the US spin here except that US never signed something like that. China on the other hand is a signatory to a multilateral pact. Going back on the words when push comes to shove means open violation and a huge egg on china's face

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

Jlaw said:


> It was a bad move for China to sign the law of the sea even though they put clauses in there. Good lesson for China is that contracts and treaties can be breach


U.S still not sign "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", is that mean China better than U.S ? Maybe China should leave it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Trust me, you will never understand until you leave China and live in USA. You will understand what freedom means. I'm sure you get your freedom in China and I'm sure they treated you well there. But the trade off is your thoughts to think freely for the freedom to live. Whereas, USA you retain the freedom to think freely and express openly and still live.


man, if you live in China, you can see that we are not living in a hole...you can see ppl on weibo and wechat or other website oppose ccp publicly and freely, sure we have a lot to improve and a long way to go, but I've been to england as exchange student, frankly I don't think the "free media" dare or willing to report a CHina that I see from my own eyes, I'm not saying China is flawless, I'm just saying we are actually not that ignorant and brainwashed as you think or what public medias want you to think, most of our differences came form different point of view or different culture,that 's all. Yes China and other countries had to play power play in SCS, but it means not we like to play like that, and I always believe if both governments can hold up bilateral negotiation without other's intervention, things would be a lot better. Btw, taiwan has free media, but they can not accept this unfair tribunal, that says a lot of things.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

beijingwalker said:


> China to the tribunal ruling


That is what the UN said to China about the claiming the SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## beijingwalker

gambit said:


> That is what the UN said to China about the claiming the SCS.


UN said that to US before, remember? So , both China and US don't care. And what else the tribunal can do ? Appeal to the UNSC? Sorry, vetoed..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

vtnsx said:


> Lol, your judgement is beyond ignorant. Maybe you live my life, so you know everything. You don't even know the Vietnam war. Go read it and learn it. It will open your eyes as to why I sided with the US. Otherwise, you're just a waste of air.


And yet still u are in Canada living a good life while your fellow countrymen suffer. Talk of patriotism



deckingraj said:


> fair enough...let's clear the dust..shall we...so what is your stand on the international ruling??


The one designed to contain China ? lol 
Come on they can go and invade iraq, attack Libya leave it in Dust. What worth does this Biased ruling have ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stealth

SCS - International Tribunal backs case against China brought by Philippines.
China does not accept and recognize Hague Tribunal Ruling - Foreign Affairs of China

Must Watch the video





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=983226875109738

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> man, if you live in China, you can see that we are not living in a hole...you can see ppl on weibo and wechat or other website oppose ccp publicly and freely, sure we have a lot to improve and a long way to go, but I've been to england as exchange student, frankly I don't think the "free media" dare or willing to report a CHina that I see from my own eyes, I'm not saying China is flawless, I'm just saying we are actually not that ignorant and brainwashed as you think or what public medias want you to think, most of our differences came form different point of view or different culture,that 's all. Yes *China and other countries had to play power play in SCS, but that not means we like to play like that, and I always believe if both governments can hold up bilateral negotiation without other's intervention, things would be a lot bette*r. Btw, taiwan has free media, but they can not accept this unfair tribunal, that says a lot of things.



Yet, China hasn't play fair? Why did you even go to school in England? why didn't you stay in China and study there? So obviously, you did think the Education in England was better. Thus, the west influence is more comfortable for you. You know it, but you didn't fit into the culture because it was more difficult for you to adapt. I can agree with you on that. Chinese major cities all adopted Western influences. Tall buildings, roads, highways, speed trains, planes, etc. If China didn't absorb those things into Chinese culture, there would still be old ancient brick buildings and mud/straw houses. Your government has a bigger motive.



salarsikander said:


> And yet still u are in Canada living a good life while your fellow countrymen suffer. Talk of patriotism
> 
> 
> The one designed to contain China ? lol
> Come on they can go and invade iraq, attack Libya leave it in Dust. What worth does this Biased ruling have ?



lol, go tell that to the VCP. I have nothing to do with that. Go blame them.

You can choose to live anywhere you want and run your life how you want. Up to you. No one says you have to live in the gutter.


----------



## INDIAPOSITIVE

*South China Sea: India, US say 'accept ruling' while Pakistan backs China*
TNN & Agencies | Jul 12, 2016, 09.16 PM IST
*HIGHLIGHTS*

India has urged all parties involved in the South China Sea dispute to show utmost respect for the UN-backed tribunal's ruling
An International tribunal struck down China's claims of "historical rights" in the strategic South China Sea




A ship (top) of the Chinese Coast Guard is seen near a ship of the Vietnam Marine Guard in the South China Sea. (Reuters photo)
NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday urged all parties involved in the South China Seadispute to show utmost respect for the UN-backed tribunal's ruling.

A UN-backed international tribunal on Tuesday struck down China's claims of "historical rights" in the strategic South China Sea, prompting Chinese President Xi Jinping to reject its ruling and asserting that Beijing will not accept the verdict "under any circumstances".

"Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development. As a State Party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS), India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans," the ministry of external affairs said in a statement.

India supports freedom of navigation and over flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS, the statement said.

India believes that States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability, it further said.

Earlier today, the Permanent Court of Arbitration said in a statement that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'.

China "neither accepts nor recognises" the ruling of the tribunal in the SCS arbitration established at the request of the Philippines, the Chinese Foreign Ministrysaid in Beijing.

"The award is null and void and has no binding force," it said in a statement minutes after the tribunal delivered its judgement striking down Beijing's claims of historic rights over the area, strongly disputed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.

The US has also urged all parties to accept the tribunal's ruling saying it's "final and legally binding."

"The decision today by the Tribunal in the Philippines-China arbitration is an important contribution to the shared goal of a peaceful resolution to disputes in the South China Sea," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

Pakistan, however, backed its "all-weather" ally China and said Islamabad opposes any imposition of "unilateral will" on others.

Pakistan maintains that disputes over the South China Sea (SCS) should be peacefully resolved through consultations and negotiations by states directly concerned in accordance with bilateral agreements and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Nafees Zakaria said.

"Pakistan opposes any imposition of unilateral will on others and respects China's statement of optional exception in light of Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea," Zakaria said.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...Pakistan-backs-China/articleshow/53178722.cms


----------



## beijingwalker

*A Philippine victory — or was it?*
While the case was brought by the Philippines, China has long blamed the United States for inflaming the situation through its regional allies.

Paul Reichler, the lawyer who spearheaded the Philippines' case, claimed the ruling was a "remarkable victory for the Philippines."

The case was filed in 2013, after China seized Scarborough Shoal, a reef 150 miles off the Philippines that is claimed by both countries.

Filipinos took to the streets Tuesday to claim the result as a victory. For days the hashtag #Chexit has made the rounds on social media, meaning China should exit what Filipinos see as their territorial waters.

But it is unclear how far the current Philippine government will go to enforce the ruling.

Manila welcomed the decision but also urged "restraint." The current government is not the same regime that filed the case in 2013, and the new president, Rodrigo Duterte, has expressed interest in attracting Chinese investment.

He has also distanced himself from Washington, proclaiming a month before his June election that his country "will not be dependent on America."

*Will the ruling prompt the U.S. to act?*
What happens next could strain U.S.-China relations.

Washington could use the decision as a reason to step up naval patrols to show support for the Philippines, despite Duterte's proposed talks with China toward maritime cooperation.

While the U.S. is hesitant to go to war over a scattering of uninhabited islands, there is also concern about ceding the sea to China as it appears on course to militarize the area.

U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in March that China would "have significant capacity" to project "substantial military power" in the region by early next year.

Victor Gao, an international affairs analyst and former interpreter for former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, agrees.

"China is telling the United States the days when China could be bullied are forever over," he told NBC News. "If the United States can send its warships to the South China Sea, China can do the same — sending them to the Caribbean and to the Gulf of Mexico and to the offshore areas in California."

Gao added: "If the United States does not believe that, wait until it happens and it'll be too late."

*What about China?*
China could take any number of steps in wake of the ruling.

It may withdraw from the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Seas treaty, step up its land reclamation, or impose a new "air defense identification zone" that would allow Chinese forces to monitor and move against planes in the area.

The ruling also may prove to be a strong rallying point for Chinese nationalism.

Social media platforms were kinetic with messages that called for unity around the decision.

In the hours ahead of the ruling, #SouthChinaSeaArbitration was the top trending topic on Weibo with well over 100 million views.

The Global Times featured a front-page editorial on the day the ruling was released saying that China's reaction will depend on outside provocation and that does not rule out the possibility of military confrontation to defend China's claims and its dignity.

China "has become a formidable competitor that deserves respect," the editorial said, "As long as we stick together, provocateurs are doomed to fail."

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## danger007

cnleio said:


> U.S still not sign "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", is that mean China better than U.S ? Maybe China shld leave it.




China accepted UN convention on the law of the sea ... and hence either it must accept the verdict or leave... but as it mulling to ignore the verdict, China might become isolated in SCS ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

gambit said:


> There is no 'damage' other than to China's image.


Isn't this what China wants? To establish that it can break with the legal order that was formulated when it was "weak"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

@vtnsx calm down mare, this is Pakistani forum and these guys are biased towards Chinese.

Don't get yourself banned.


----------



## Director General

Number of countries which supported India in NSG- 48.

Number of countries which supported China in UN Tribunal- 8.

rofl:


----------



## William Hung

Yes, China can ignore an international legal verdict, or even pull out of the UNCLOS. But I wonder how China is going to now use those “we have historic and legal rights to xyz water” or “country xyz had violated international law” rhetorics. A few weeks ago, didn’t China accused Indonesia of violating UNCLOS during the fishing boats skirmish? Didn’t China recently appealed to UNCLOS and international laws with regards to the maritime disputes with Japan?

So what will China be invoking UNCLOS or international law again with these kind of disputes? Oh China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

Director General said:


> Number of countries which supported India in NSG- 48.
> 
> Number of countries which supported China in UN Tribunal- 8.
> 
> rofl:



2 be fair the NSG is NOTHING compared to UN ruling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIAPOSITIVE

*South China Sea dispute: India urges all parties to show respect for UNCLOS*


*New Delhi:* India on Tuesday urged “all parties” to the South China Sea dispute to show “utmost respect” for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) after a tribunal ruled that China had no historic title over the waters of the South China Sea.

“As a State Party to the UNCLOS, India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans,” the statement by the Indian foreign ministry said.

Though India did not name China, it was a clear reference to its Asian neighbour, which rejected the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it,” a Chinese foreign ministry statement, made available in New Delhi, said.

Both India and China are party to the UNCLOS, which defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans. India had in July 2014 accepted an UNCLOS verdict that awarded Bangladesh 19,467 sq. km of 25,602 sq. km sea area of the Bay of Bengal.

*Also Read: How the South China Sea dispute unfolded*

“India supports freedom of navigation and over flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS. India believes that States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability,” the Indian statement said.

“Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development,” it added.

The Indian statement seemed to mirror the statement put out by the US Department of State on the South China Sea ruling, in some ways.

“In the aftermath of this important decision, we urge all claimants to avoid provocative statements or actions. This decision can and should serve as a new opportunity to renew efforts to address maritime disputes peacefully,” state department spokesman John Kirby said.

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/1j...pute-India-urges-all-parties-to-show-res.html


----------



## salarsikander

Srinivas said:


> @vtnsx calm down mare, this is Pakistani forum and these guys are biased towards Chinese.
> 
> Don't get yourself banned.


No not at all. Just accepting the natural order. YOu will not accept unilateral imposed on you wil ya ? You are inida not iraq or libya for that matter ( no offence to those countries) the only fact that you guys can sustain is because you're strong. Same logic goes with China

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## XenoEnsi-14

China still hasn't fired the first weapon. Game is still on.


----------



## Director General

Good move by India.


----------



## ThaniOruvan

Whether China obeys this ruling or not it is clearly evident that the world doesn't approve China.
Hague did not consider the fact that China is a permanent member of UNSC and an economic power and has ruled in favor of a country which is just 1/100th of China. If China does not respect this ruling then there will be talks like "China, one among the P5 has violated UN international framework". Should wait and watch. I am sure the sympathy-secreting and bully-panicking Chinese will have ready made answers.


----------



## SrNair

India is really enjoying this game right after that NSG fiasco.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

Whether US obeys the ruling or not it is clearly evident that the world doesn't approve China.
Hague did not consider the fact that US is a permanent member of UNSC and an economic power and has ruled in favor of a country which is just 1/100th of US. If US does not respect this ruling then there will be talks like "US, one among the P5 has violated UN international framework". Should wait and watch.

*China’s Defiance of International Court Has Precedent—U.S. Defiance*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jha

Solomon2 said:


> Isn't this what China wants? To establish that it can break with the legal order that was formulated when it was "weak"?



Poking in the eyes of every neighbor and earning life long enmity does not seem to be a smart strategy. But then who knows what China exactly wants ?


----------



## William Hung

I must admit the legal team on the Philippines side was very strong.

One of the important things that the Philippines had won was that it made the Tribunal officially rule that China’s claims are invalid, both historically and legally.

The more interesting implications, that many people haven’t raised yet, is that how will China respond to other disputes like the one with Japan, or even if countries like the US send ships near its territoty water. Will China still invoke UNCLOS or laws like it had previously done?


----------



## beijingwalker

jha said:


> Poking in the eyes of every neighbor and earning life long enmity does not seem to be a smart strategy. But then who knows what China exactly wants ?


China has 14 border sharing neighbors. India is the only country which China has land disputes with. It is India that has disputes with almost every neighbor. as for sea neighbor, Japan is the country who has island disputes with every single neighbor, China, Russia, N.Korea, S.Korea and Taiwan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## #hydra#

Let's hope Chinese will accept the verdict.


----------



## beijingwalker

You will see, business as usual, China will still be busy building land claiming islands and sending ships and fighter jets to those newly built air strips and make China's presence stronger every passing day.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

jha said:


> Poking in the eyes of every neighbor and earning life long enmity does not seem to be a smart strategy. But then who knows what China exactly wants ?



"People in glass house shouldn't throw rock."

India is the same as China in these regard.


----------



## Kwame Brown

This will change absolutely nothing. China has already stated they reject and will not recognize this. International law only works for countries who have both the might and willingness to enforce it, and then only against countries who do not have the might and/or willingness to fight back. It's the same way USA rejected ICJ ruling in the Nicaragua case.

There are essentially two methods of enforcement that can be attempted: Military intervention and economic sanctions.

Military intervention is a non-starter. No country on earth is going to risk what would quickly and easily escalate into World War 3 over the South China sea. It's just not going to happen.

This leaves economic sanctions, and no country worth a damn is going to attempt to enforce economic sanctions on China, which would be detrimental to their own economy and would run the risk of China retaliating economically in return. Simply put, most countries outside of _maybe_ the US would end up doing more harm to their own economies in the long run than they would do to China's. Any economic sanctions are virtually guaranteed never to be actually enforced.

So what's going to happen? Countries like the Philippines will make a whole bunch of noise. The international community will engage in a whole bunch of sabre rattling, toothless resolutions, condemnations, and "sternly worded letters". China will reply by telling them to mind their own business and stay out of "China's affairs", just like they always do. Then everybody will shrug and just move on with life.

International law doesn't really apply to countries like the US and China because they are way too strong militarily, and cornerstones of the global economy, making it impossible to fight economically. I'm not saying this is _right_, I'm just saying that this is the reality of the world we live in. For better or worse, some countries really are "above the law".

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## jha

Reashot Xigwin said:


> "People in glass house shouldn't throw rock."
> 
> India is the same as China in these regard.



India last years accepted an arbitration ruling wrt Bangladesh. Not exactly a glasshouse in this sense.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

oprih said:


> China will not leave the SCS area anytime soon, such ruling is meaningless.


rules change in these international organisations according to sweet wills. countries are attacked on flimsy claims. face embargoes and some favourite ones are allowed to swallow land and disregard names sake resolutions and then this one

China can follow the Indian and Israeli lead and tell the tribunal where to go



Kwame Brown said:


> This will change absolutely nothing. China has already stated they reject and will not recognize this. International law only works for countries who have both the might and willingness to enforce it, and then only against countries who do not have the might and/or willingness to fight back. It's the same way USA rejected ICJ ruling in the Nicaragua case.
> 
> There are essentially two methods of enforcement that can be attempted: Military intervention and economic sanctions.
> 
> Military intervention is a non-starter. No country on earth is going to risk what would quickly and easily escalate into World War 3 over the South China sea. It's just not going to happen.
> 
> This leaves economic sanctions, and no country worth a damn is going to attempt to enforce economic sanctions on China, which would be detrimental to their own economy and would run the risk of China retaliating economically in return. Simply put, most countries outside of _maybe_ the US would end up doing more harm to their own economies in the long run than they would do to China's. Any economic sanctions are virtually guaranteed never to be actually enforced.
> 
> So what's going to happen? Countries like the Philippines will make a whole bunch of noise. The international community will engage in a whole bunch of sabre rattling, toothless resolutions, condemnations, and "sternly worded letters". China will reply by telling them to mind their own business and stay out of "China's affairs", just like they always do. Then everybody will shrug and just move on with life.
> 
> International law doesn't really apply to countries like the US and China because they are way too strong militarily, and cornerstones of the global economy, making it impossible to fight economically. I'm not saying this is _right_, I'm just saying that this is the reality of the world we live in. For better or worse, some countries really are "above the law".


summed it up well

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zero_wing

Oh you guys are making more seen now then ever it just make you people look guilty and bitter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yolo2016

If Pakistan backs China in stating old maps equals rights of territory, then it says to those Indians who claim Pakistan should be back into India's fold- that they are correct.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...nity-pakistan-bangladesh-151224100753698.html

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jha

beijingwalker said:


> China has 14 border sharing neighbors. India is the only country which China has land disputes with. It is India that has disputes with almost every neighbor. as for sea neighbor, Japan is the country who has island disputes with every single neighbor, China, Russia, N.Korea, S.Korea and Taiwan.



Not interested in rhetoric sir. Please carry on your debate with other people. Thank You.


----------



## Zero_wing

Kwame Brown said:


> This will change absolutely nothing. China has already stated they reject and will not recognize this. International law only works for countries who have both the might and willingness to enforce it, and then only against countries who do not have the might and/or willingness to fight back. It's the same way USA rejected ICJ ruling in the Nicaragua case.
> 
> There are essentially two methods of enforcement that can be attempted: Military intervention and economic sanctions.
> 
> Military intervention is a non-starter. No country on earth is going to risk what would quickly and easily escalate into World War 3 over the South China sea. It's just not going to happen.
> 
> This leaves economic sanctions, and no country worth a damn is going to attempt to enforce economic sanctions on China, which would be detrimental to their own economy and would run the risk of China retaliating economically in return. Simply put, most countries outside of _maybe_ the US would end up doing more harm to their own economies in the long run than they would do to China's. Any economic sanctions are virtually guaranteed never to be actually enforced.
> 
> So what's going to happen? Countries like the Philippines will make a whole bunch of noise. The international community will engage in a whole bunch of sabre rattling, toothless resolutions, condemnations, and "sternly worded letters". China will reply by telling them to mind their own business and stay out of "China's affairs", just like they always do. Then everybody will shrug and just move on with life.
> 
> International law doesn't really apply to countries like the US and China because they are way too strong militarily, and cornerstones of the global economy, making it impossible to fight economically. I'm not saying this is _right_, I'm just saying that this is the reality of the world we live in. For better or worse, some countries really are "above the law".



Funny that what they said about the civil rights movement



jha said:


> Not interested in rhetoric sir. Please carry on your debate with other people. Thank You.



Bitter as bitter as they can get


----------



## beijingwalker

Zero_wing said:


> Oh you guys are making more seen now then ever it just make you people look guilty and bitter



Just as what US is doing around the world every single day? Sorry, all big powers in the human history stepped on someone feet sometimes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dhobi ka kutta na ghar ka na ghat ka...

I hope China does not accept this verdict.


----------



## Providence

T-Rex said:


> *China also has the backing of another power, must I mention the name? It might hurt your feelings. You see, that power also needs China's backing more than ever. It's a question of give and take.*



Russia ? LOL

Sorry to break your dream. Russia has actually used clauses of UNCLOS to set up mining bases in Arctic Ocean

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## William Hung

salarsikander said:


> No not at all. Just accepting the natural order. YOu will not accept unilateral imposed on you wil ya ? You are inida not iraq or libya for that matter ( no offence to those countries) the only fact that you guys can sustain is because you're strong. Same logic goes with China



Saying “unilateral imposed on you”, are you refering to the ruling made by the Tribunal?

If that is what you are referring to then its not truly unilateral because China had agreed to the UNCLOS with clause that says if there is a certain dispute, then a Tribunal can be set up to issue a legally binding ruling, even if one party does not participate. China claims that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the case, but the UNCLOS also have a clause that say if any party don’t agree that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, then its still the Tribunal that gets the final say in having jurisdiction. Yep, thats what China had agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS.

So its not something unilaterally imposed on China, its actually something that China had previously agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

beijingwalker said:


> Just as what US is doing around the world every single day? Sorry, all big powers in the human history stepped on someone feet sometimes.



First your regional power not world power well not yet second you're not the US you ust another cheap sweatshop factory that is about to go down and lasty your screwed this well have long term effect for china so give it up your drone reasoning will not change peoples mind and china made a lot of enemies and they capitalized on this so please you're screwed


----------



## SamantK

So China is nothing more than expected, a two faced country selectively applying moral principles.

It should tone down on the principles part and say it out in the open - It doesn't care for principals.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jha

Zero_wing said:


> Funny that what they said about the civil rights movement
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter as bitter as they can get



Am not one to generalize but people from this particular country can get real boastful at times. Impossible to discuss anything with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

There should not be any international court that could judge territory ownership. The reasonable role of International court should be a mediator rather than a judge. Which will create problems and flare conflicts between countries. This derails the real purpose and spirit of UN.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zero_wing

William Hung said:


> Saying “unilateral imposed on you”, are you refering to the ruling made by the Tribunal?
> 
> If that is what you are referring to then its not truly unilateral because China had agreed to the UNCLOS with clause that says if there is a certain dispute, then a Tribunal can be set up to issue a legally binding ruling, even if one party does not participate. China claims that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the case, but the UNCLOS also have a clause that say if any party don’t agree that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, then its still the Tribunal that gets the final say in having jurisdiction. Yep, thats what China had agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS.
> 
> So its not something unilaterally imposed on China, its actually something that China had previously agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS.



Otherwise known is your screwed china


----------



## Kinetic

Historic right!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

vtnsx said:


> Yet, China hasn't play fair? Why did you even go to school in England? why didn't you stay in China and study there? So obviously, you did think the Education in England was better. Thus, the west influence is more comfortable for you. You know it, but you didn't fit into the culture because it was more difficult for you to adapt. I can agree with you on that. Chinese major cities all adopted Western influences. Tall buildings, roads, highways, speed trains, planes, etc. If China didn't absorb those things into Chinese culture, there would still be old ancient brick buildings and mud/straw houses. Your government has a bigger motive.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, go tell that to the VCP. I have nothing to do with that. Go blame them.


I went to england because there was a research program...England has better education for sure, but I’ve only been there for a year, my major education was in China. I don't know if it's fit to say this, I don't want to sound like racist but...like I said about the western medias, I kind of feeling about some sort of stereotype toward us Chinese maybe even eastern asain... I made westerner friends personally and they are really really nice ppl but to the public opinion,well, deep down, sometimes they misunderstand us, sometimes they underestimate us, and sometimes when we got achivements they sort of fear us. I met this Japanese guy at a meeting and talking about it man even the Japanese can feel the difference between "us" and "them", so it's really really hard to trust the intention of the Western (like the US) government, I feel like as a whole race they always want to "put us down"(not only China, but also the east subjects to the west), again that's only my personal opinion and I could be terribly wrong. But in case of that, anything that invloves the US we will keep an eye on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## barbarosa

Well done by Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

jha said:


> Am not one to generalize but people from this particular country can get real boastful at times. Impossible to discuss anything with them.



Well the chinese imperials saw themselves as superior to other people since they are an older civilization kuno as we filipinos would say but that just neo nazi thing for them let them do what they want as they say pride before a fall with the fast rate this arrogant fools stepping on other people toes they have whats coming to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

jha said:


> India last years accepted an arbitration ruling wrt Bangladesh. Not exactly a glasshouse in this sense.



You guys also stopped the shipment of gas to Bhutan for reasons you don't approve. I mean how petty the indian government have to be to be that much of a dick to their neighbor?

China & India are cut from the same the cloth in these regard. Both of you are bullies.


----------



## Solomon2

beijingwalker said:


> China has 14 border sharing neighbors. India is the only country which China has land disputes with. It is India that has disputes with almost every neighbor. as for sea neighbor, Japan is the country who has island disputes with every single neighbor, China, Russia, N.Korea, S.Korea and Taiwan.


So in thirteen out of fourteen cases China_ negotiated_ its land borders, yes? But here we have a sea border that China has merely _declared_ - and that in opposition to the obligations of the treaty China itself signed.


----------



## +4vsgorillas-Apebane

William Hung said:


> I must admit the legal team on the Philippines side was very strong.
> 
> One of the important things that the Philippines had won was that it made the Tribunal officially rule that China’s claims are invalid, both historically and legally.
> 
> The more interesting implications, that many people haven’t raised yet, is that how will China respond to other disputes like the one with Japan, or even if countries like the US send ships near its territoty water. Will China still invoke UNCLOS or laws like it had previously done?



Strong legal team? The Chinese side didnt even bother to send representation let alone acknowledge the legality of the court.

The Phillipines was preaching to the choir.

Once the SCS is settled Japan will be dealt with next. The Laws of the sea were created when China had no say or was in no position to question the slanted international order. No member of the P5 have ever allowed soverign issues to be settled by international courts. To expect China to adhere to European rulings is absurd.

China will fish in waters disputed by Japan while escorted by colossal coast guard vessels. The dispute will be settled by the larger ships for ramming, the strongest water cannons and the most fishing boats.



Zero_wing said:


> First your regional power not world power well not yet second you're not the US you ust another cheap sweatshop factory that is about to go down and lasty your screwed this well have long term effect for china so give it up your drone reasoning will not change peoples mind and china made a lot of enemies and they capitalized on this so please you're screwed



Here since 2012 and your writing still havent improved! You do know its extremely difficult for people to understand you right?

Still no punctuation, spelling and sentence structure.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jha

Reashot Xigwin said:


> You guys also stopped the shipment of gas to Bhutan for reasons you don't approve. I mean how petty the indian government have to be to be that much of a dick to their neighbor?
> 
> China & India are cut from the same the cloth in these regard. Both of you are bullies.



You probably meant Nepal. Technically its their internal situation which forces trucks to not cross India-Nepal border. That matter may be discussed in another thread as this is off-topic for this thread.


----------



## salarsikander

William Hung said:


> Saying “unilateral imposed on you”, are you refering to the ruling made by the Tribunal?
> 
> If that is what you are referring to then its not truly unilateral because China had agreed to the UNCLOS with clause that says if there is a certain dispute, then a Tribunal can be set up to issue a legally binding ruling, even if one party does not participate. China claims that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the case, but the UNCLOS also have a clause that say if any party don’t agree that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, then its still the Tribunal that gets the final say in having jurisdiction. Yep, thats what China had agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS.
> 
> So its not something unilaterally imposed on China, its actually something that China had previously agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS.


By same logic US too agreed to south sea china claim after ww2 and now its backing off

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## beijingwalker

Solomon2 said:


> So in thirteen out of fourteen cases China_ negotiated_ its land borders, yes? But here we have a sea border that China has merely _declared_ - and that in opposition to the obligations of the treaty China itself signed.



China negotiated and solved all those land disputes directly with individual relevant countries and never accepts outside arbitration. That's the principle China holds from the very first day that PRC was established.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

Zero_wing said:


> First your regional power not world power well not yet second you're not the US you ust another cheap sweatshop factory that is about to go down and lasty your screwed this well have long term effect for china so give it up your drone reasoning will not change peoples mind and china made a lot of enemies and they capitalized on this so please you're screwed


China is the biggest industrial country , biggest manufacturing nation, biggest trading nation.... in the world, if you mean the world itself is a region then China is a regional power but still powerful enough to kick your butt whenever we want.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## William Hung

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Strong legal team? The Chinese side didnt even bother to send representation let alone acknowledge the legality of the court.



China had already acknowledge the legality of the court when it first ratified UNCLOS, because it has a clause that says the court/Tribunal gets the final say in whether it has jurisdiction over disputes.




+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Once the SCS is settled Japan will be dealt with next. The Laws of the sea were created when China had no say or was in no position to question the slanted international order. No member of the P5 have ever allowed soverign issues to be settled by international courts. To expect China to adhere to European rulings is absurd.



Deal with Japan? By appealing to UNCLOS?


http://interaksyon.com/article/432...row-with-japan-before-unclos-amid-war-jitters

HEADLINE: China brings islands row with Japan before UNCLOS amid war jitters




+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> China will fish in waters disputed by Japan while escorted by colossal coast guard vessels. The dispute will be settled by the larger ships for ramming, the strongest water cannons and the most fishing boats.



Just a few weeks ago, Chinese Coast Guard ship that outsized the Indonesian ships, could only sit and watch as the Indonesian counter-part arrests chinese fishermen. China then later argues that Indonesia violated UNCLOS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

beijingwalker said:


> China negotiated and solved all those land disputes directly with individual relevant countries and never accepts outside arbitration. That's the principle China holds from the very first day that PRC was established.


Exactly never accepted anything imposed by a country that Can protect an illegal state of UN resolution and then go on to Destroy an entire country based on false pre-text of WMD

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

beijingwalker said:


> China negotiated and solved all those land disputes directly with individual relevant countries and never accepts outside arbitration. That's the principle China holds from the very first day that PRC was established.



Here, it is not merely the _arbitration_ China rejects but the very _content _of a treaty it negotiated with its neighbors. For the ruling states, "to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention."

So it's not a dispute over borders at all. The argument of "historic fishing grounds", etc. that the Chinese gov't uses to justify itself to its people are themselves null and void.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jlaw

vtnsx said:


> Trust me, you will never understand until you leave China and live in USA. You will understand what freedom means. I'm sure you get your freedom in China and I'm sure they treated you well there. But the trade off is your thoughts to think freely for the freedom to live. Whereas, USA you retain the freedom to think freely and express openly and still live.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indos

Newer generation should not become a follower of their anchestor into such fanatic. Use commont sense to break that bad mentality in order to adopt. But I think it is difficult to do so in a dictatorial regime. 

Indonesia history has this kind of case when Soekarno want to grab Malaysia and Singapore since both nation were part of Majapahit kingdom long before the West invation and we were very powerful militarily at that time. British and other commonwealth nations come and prevent that happening. Many people then oppose him because of this and other reason (ideology)

Soeharto then let go this effort and set up ASEAN instead to grow our nation economy and geopolitics influence.A right decision.

The question is why China needs to do this...? 

My answer:

China leadership get pressure from their own people, they need to look tough to preserve their power since it has already become powerful economically and militarily. 

They clever people In the leadership get trapped and cannot play smart anymore as nationalist people in the leadership will take benefit if the smart ones do that. Its decision to include Indonesia ZEE is the prove of that since even though it is actually a very small area without real economic and strategic reason they still try to grab that by saying its traditional fishing ground retoric.

The resulth than can give more reason for the clever guy in the leadership to play smarth without too much risk. So the resulth is actually good for China. It will lift some political burden on leadership shoulder to play aggressive due to their people aspirations (which is derived from psychological needs)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Providence

Solomon2 said:


> Here, it is not merely the _arbitration_ China rejects but the very _content _of a treaty it negotiated with its neighbors. For the ruling states, "to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention."
> 
> So it's not a dispute over borders at all. The argument of "historic fishing grounds", etc. that the Chinese gov't uses to justify itself to its people are themselves null and void.



I don't think the paid idiots will try to get their head around such arguments which are legally tenable. The govt treat them like mushrooms. Feed them shit and keep them in the dark.


----------



## beijingwalker

*Chinese military will protect sovereignty and interests*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## William Hung

salarsikander said:


> By same logic US too agreed to south sea china claim after ww2 and now its backing off



Huh? we were talking about how a certain thing got “unilaterally imposed” on someone.

So are you admitting here that China indeed had agreed to something and then now backing off? meaning, this is not unilaterally imposed on China, but something that China had agreed to, but is now backing off. So you agreed with my point?


----------



## beijingwalker

*China rejects Hague tribunal judgment*
*



*
Chinese FM says China rejects ruling, arbitration is a political farce made under pretext of law

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

jha said:


> You probably meant Nepal. Technically its their internal situation which forces trucks to not cross India-Nepal border. That matter may be discussed in another thread as this is off-topic for this thread.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...el-subsidy-to-Bhutan/articleshow/20936874.cms

Just found it quite funny that Indian in here accuses China of "poking their neighbors" despite their country doing the same. It's the same as North Korea complaining about human right abuses in other countries. Switch the flag & there's no difference in how they treat their neighbors. There's a reason why Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan & others in here hate India & love China.


----------



## beijingwalker

China only negotiates with individual relevant countries to settle disputes, all previous land disputes were settled this way, no exceptions in the history,no outside parties are allowed, That's China's decades old principle which can not be bent or compromised.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Providence

kankan326 said:


> There should not be any international court that could judge territory ownership. The reasonable role of International court should be a mediator rather than a judge. Which will create problems and flare conflicts between countries. This derails the real purpose and spirit of UN.



It's not an ad-hoc judgement but a 496 page report giving details and reasons for the judgement. Read that.



William Hung said:


> Yes, China can ignore an international legal verdict, or even pull out of the UNCLOS. But I wonder how China is going to now use those “we have historic and legal rights to xyz water” or “country xyz had violated international law” rhetorics. A few weeks ago, didn’t China accused Indonesia of violating UNCLOS during the fishing boats skirmish? Didn’t China recently appealed to UNCLOS and international laws with regards to the maritime disputes with Japan?
> 
> So what will China be invoking UNCLOS or international law again with these kind of disputes? Oh China.



Actually China is not just a signatory to UNCLOS but some of it's clauses form an integral part of border dispute agreements. China is willing to let go of even that if the paid idiots here are to be believed

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Providence

beijingwalker said:


> China only negotiates with individual relevant countries to settle disputes, all previous land disputes were settled this way, no exceptions in the history,no outside parties are allowed, That's China's decades old principle which can not be bent or compromised.



Was china smoking opium then when it signed the UNCLOS ?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

Solomon2 said:


> Here, it is not merely the _arbitration_ China rejects but the very _content _of a treaty it negotiated with its neighbors. For the ruling states, "to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention."
> 
> So it's not a dispute over borders at all. The argument of "historic fishing grounds", etc. that the Chinese gov't uses to justify itself to its people are themselves null and void.



Israel can claim Palestine on the basis of "historic Jewish ground" so why can't China do the same? Not that its any better, but there's a serious case of double standard here.


----------



## jha

Reashot Xigwin said:


> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...el-subsidy-to-Bhutan/articleshow/20936874.cms
> 
> Just found it quite funny that Indian in here accuses China of "poking their neighbors" despite their country doing the same. It's the same as North Korea complaining about human right abuses in other countries. Switch the flag & there's no difference in how they treat their neighbors. There's a reason why Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan & others in here hate India & love China.



Wow.. So you dug up a 3 years old article from net regarding some gas subsidy ( which not longer is relevant as govt has changed in India and we enjoy very warm relationship with Bhutan ) to create an equivalence with forcefully taking water from neighbors. Very poor job. looks like you will go to any length to establish the false equivalence. I am not interested in that exercise. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jlaw

Indos said:


> Newer generation should not become a follower of their anchestor into such fanatic. Use commont sense to break that bad mentality in order to adopt. But I think it is difficult to do so in a dictatorial regime.
> 
> Indonesia history has this kind of case when Soekarno want to grab Malaysia and Singapore since both nation were part of Majapahit kingdom long before the West invation and we were very powerful militarily at that time. British and other commonwealth nations come and prevent that happening. Many people then oppose him because of this and other reason (ideology)
> 
> Soeharto then let go this effort and set up ASEAN instead to grow our nation economy and geopolitics influence.A right decision.
> 
> The question is why China needs to do this...?
> 
> My answer:
> 
> China leadership get pressure from their own people, they need to look tough to preserve their power since it has already become powerful economically and militarily.
> 
> They clever people In the leadership get trapped and cannot play smart anymore as nationalist people in the leadership will take benefit if the smart ones do that. Its decision to include Indonesia ZEE is the prove of that since even though it is actually a very small area without real economic and strategic reason they still try to grab that by saying its traditional fishing ground retoric.
> 
> The resulth than can give more reason for the clever guy in the leadership to play smarth without too much risk. So the resulth is actually good for China. It will lift some political burden on leadership shoulder to play aggressive due to their people aspirations (which is derived from psychological needs)



And you're the best think tank Indonesians have on PDF?



I feel for you guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## beijingwalker

Providence said:


> Was china smoking opium then when it signed the UNCLOS ?


Don't know, and I don't know if it has jurisdiction rights to rule or not. If China finds that is a unjust organ China can always choose to back out of it like US did.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shah1398

beijingwalker said:


> *Chinese military will protect sovereignty and interests*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



China is least bothered on the decision of Hague tribunal and business would go on. Nonetheless what are the options all these parties including US have against China?
Military Option?....Not at all.
Economic Option???...Heck No.
Things would be going as usual out there.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

sweetgrape said:


> Hehe, good news.
> Question, China care? who will excute the decision?
> Time to reclaim Huangyan island.
> 
> they successfully provocate 1.4 billion Chinese, more support to CCP from Chinese, go accelerate the construction on SCS island, or go to war with any countries there, including USA.
> 
> 
> We can tear the judgement like USAhad done, or We do even not receive it, get you so called moral victory, that is only you can get?



Good.

Just the kind of arrogant, Sinocentric, hegemonist answer that was expected.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jlaw

kankan326 said:


> There should not be any international court that could judge territory ownership. The reasonable role of International court should be a mediator rather than a judge. Which will create problems and flare conflicts between countries. This derails the real purpose and spirit of UN.


Well obviously this is a game between US-China. No point in justifying who is right or wrong. The question is, what is china going to do next?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Carlosa

Reashot Xigwin said:


> Israel can claim Palestine on the basis of "historic Jewish ground" so why can't China do the same? Not that its any better, but there's a serious case of double standard here.



Where is the double standard? Did the UN or any international body agree to the "historic Jewish ground"?


----------



## beijingwalker

What if the world number one and number two economies both choose not to be part of UNCLOS, what will become of this organization? disbanded maybe..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sinopakfriend said:


> China was not present at the PCA hearing, delaring from beginning it to be meaningless. The hearing and the result was on request of Philppines. The findings are non binding. At the end of the day nothing changes on the ground or sea in this case. Just some more noise will be raised and nothing further will come out of it. Philppines is going to change its tune soon. They already have. So, storm in a tea cup will settle soon.



Translation: It didn't make us look good, so it doesn't matter, it never happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Solomon2

Reashot Xigwin said:


> Israel can claim Palestine on the basis of "historic Jewish ground" so why can't China do the same? Not that its any better, but there's a serious case of double standard here.


That's a "straw man argument": the legal claims of the modern State of Israel are founded upon the British Mandate, U.N. Resolution 242, and quite sound shared principles of international law. But that is stuff for another thread in another section.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

beijingwalker said:


> Don't know, and I don't know if it has jurisdiction rights to rule or not. If China finds that is a unjust organ China can always choose to back out of it like US did.



 Of course China should back out. It is best to depend on military might to settle all international disputes, small or large.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

Joe Shearer said:


> Of course China should back out. It is best to depend on military might to settle all international disputes, small or large.


Are you talking about US?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing




----------



## Reashot Xigwin

Solomon2 said:


> That's a "straw man argument": the legal claims of the modern State of Israel are founded upon the British Mandate, U.N. Resolution 242, and quite sound shared principles of international law. But that is stuff for another thread in another section.



Its sarcasm mate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

beijingwalker said:


> Are you talking about US?



No.

About the People's Republic of China.


----------



## Providence

beijingwalker said:


> Don't know, and I don't know if it has jurisdiction rights to rule or not. If China finds that is a unjust organ China can always choose to back out of it like US did.


the fundamental reason why UNCLOS exist, is to settle marine boundary disputes. When you are signing it, means you recognize it's charter and the group as an entity. So, your claim of "China would never allow 3rd party interventions in settling disputes and we prefer to do it one-on-one" is totally BS

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> Strong legal team? The Chinese side didnt even bother to send representation let alone acknowledge the legality of the court.
> 
> The Phillipines was preaching to the choir.
> 
> Once the SCS is settled Japan will be dealt with next. The Laws of the sea were created when China had no say or was in no position to question the slanted international order. No member of the P5 have ever allowed soverign issues to be settled by international courts. To expect China to adhere to European rulings is absurd.
> 
> China will fish in waters disputed by Japan while escorted by colossal coast guard vessels. The dispute will be settled by the larger ships for ramming, the strongest water cannons and the most fishing boats.
> 
> 
> 
> Here since 2012 and your writing still havent improved! You do know its extremely difficult for people to understand you right?
> 
> Still no punctuation, spelling and sentence structure.







:



beijingwalker said:


> China is the biggest industrial country , biggest manufacturing nation, biggest trading nation.... in the world, if you mean the world itself is a region then China is a regional power but still powerful enough to kick your butt whenever we want.



And still amounts to nothing in the end your economy is failing and now with this case will have will a great effect on your country. As for Military force sure i have agree but we have world opinion now still a strong weapon than any army in the world plus the MDT so please go ahead and while we wait for your meaningless threat here is song for all you chinese imperialist enjoy 



:


----------



## Zero_wing

:


----------



## Zero_wing

:


----------



## Solomon2

beijingwalker said:


> Don't know, and I don't know if it has jurisdiction rights to rule or not. If China finds that is a unjust organ China can always choose to back out of it like US did.


How will the Chinese people respond when they realize the Court says China committed to "extinguish" any "historic" claims it had to territory in the SCS when it signed the UNCLOS treaty?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing




----------



## beijingwalker

*South China Sea Arbitration - Who Cares?!*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Providence

Joe Shearer said:


> Of course China should back out. It is best to depend on military might to settle all international disputes, small or large.



Well I hope the chinese members here do realize the stupidity of such a move which you just highlighted.


----------



## salarsikander

William Hung said:


> Huh? we were talking about how a certain thing got “unilaterally imposed” on someone.
> 
> So are you admitting here that China indeed had agreed to something and then now backing off? meaning, this is not unilaterally imposed on China, but something that China had agreed to, but is now backing off. So you agreed with my point?


Point is IF US can back off? ignore then why cant China ? 
Secondly, Please refrain from making silly assumptions here, I never said such thing

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

:


----------



## Ali Zadi

Good news for all sharing SCS with china


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

Providence said:


> Well I hope the chinese members here do realize the stupidity of such a move which you just highlighted.



They do realize it. Nobody is that stupid.


----------



## Jlaw

Reashot Xigwin said:


> They do realize it. Nobody is that stupid.


You and @Providence do not speak for Chinese people. Just watch in the next coming days. China will speed up militarizing SCS.

Indonesia may have the biggest muslim population. But not the smartest.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ali Zadi

This was bound to happen China had already said it would not obey to the UN ruling.


----------



## seven7seven

This is fantastic news for China. It means China will get even more public support for China to militarize SCS and the UN tribunal will seem even more pointless as China totally disregards it.

Philippines doesn't understand that small countries always lose when they go against a World Power. China has both economic and military clout so nobody is going to stand up against China, to defend Pinoy position on SCS. This is just a Pyrrhic victory for Pinoys, They are now in an even weaker position, as they have shown to everyone that they have no power to do anything against China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

Jlaw said:


> You and @Providence do not speak for Chinese people. Just watch in the next coming days. China will speed up militarizing SCS.
> 
> Indonesia may have the biggest muslim population. But not the smartest.



Wow now turning on Indonesia a traditional trading partner keep it up china making enemies everywhere

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shah1398

beijingwalker said:


> *South China Sea Arbitration - Who Cares?!*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *



Epic Response


----------



## Providence

Jlaw said:


> You and @Providence do not speak for Chinese people. Just watch in the next coming days. China will speed up militarizing SCS.
> 
> Indonesia may have the biggest muslim population. But not the smartest.



USN will just respect the UNCLOS and waltz through scs like it's nobody's business. You guys can arm up your frigates all you want.


----------



## Providence

beijingwalker said:


> US is the hometown of BS. the biggest threat to the world peace.



Did you even read what I wrote ?


----------



## Jlaw

Zero_wing said:


> Wow now turning on Indonesia a traditional trading partner keep it up china making enemies everywhere


big deal. China's biggest trading partner is US and they fight like hell. Indonesia trade is not higher than trade with US



Providence said:


> USN will just respect the UNCLOS and waltz through scs like it's nobody's business. You guys can arm up your frigates all you want.


US didn't even sign it. China will not care. Just sit back and watch the show.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## beijingwalker

Providence said:


> USN will just respect the UNCLOS and waltz through scs like it's nobody's business. You guys can arm up your frigates all you want.


We never tried to impede the navigation routes in that region. You can always come to visit our newly built islands and we are going to build more and more.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Providence said:


> Well I hope the chinese members here do realize the stupidity of such a move which you just highlighted.



Trust me, they won't. They are going through one of their historical phases, the hubris phase. They have these in cyclic fashion. In this state of mind, they convince themselves that they are invincible, and act that way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

Gold opportunity for the Chinese government ,now it has 1.4 billion Chinese people united and firmly behind its back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

beijingwalker said:


> We never tried to impede the navigation routes in that region. You can always come to visit our newly built islands and we are going to build more and more.


The tribunal also ruled that building these islands was environmentally damaging and an aggravation of the dispute by China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

beijingwalker said:


> What if the world number one and number two economies both choose not to be part of UNCLOS, what will become of this organization? disbanded maybe..



The organization will exist , but one will become pariah and the other is super power with so many allies.

China is economic power not a military power, with no strategic thinking.

The way you are going soon there will be new power that will emerge and counter the threats emerging from west .Also fill the vacuum that is being left by China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## William Hung

salarsikander said:


> Point is IF US can back off? ignore then why cant China ?
> Secondly, Please refrain from making silly assumptions here, I never said such thing



Thats not really relevent. The US could be the Great Satan for all I care. The point was not about whether China can do what country xyz did, the point was that you were claiming the ruling was “unilaterally imposed”. Did China not ratified UNCLOS (which included those specific legal clauses)? yes or no? If China did, then this ruling is not something that was “unilaterally imposed” but something that China had originally agreed to when it first ratified UNCLOS. Don’t try to now change the topic by talking about country xyz and whether China can “back off” like what xyz did. You were talking about the ruling being “unilaterally imposed”.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

beijingwalker said:


> We never tried to impede the navigation routes in that region. You can always come to visit our newly built islands and we are going to build more and more.



Not yet.

Not too far back, you didn't claim the sea the way you have today. Then you claim. Then you use force to back up your claim.

Same-old same-old.


----------



## beijingwalker

Solomon2 said:


> The tribunal also ruled that building these islands was environmentally damaging and an aggravation of the dispute by China.


Sorry that they think that way, go cry a river.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

Jlaw said:


> You and @Providence do not speak for Chinese people. Just watch in the next coming days. China will speed up militarizing SCS.
> 
> Indonesia may have the biggest muslim population. But not the smartest.



Still stand by my statement that no one could be that stupid. 

Also here's a little thing about me I called on bullshit where I see it regardless of what it may be.


----------



## Solomon2

beijingwalker said:


> Sorry that they think that way, go cry a river.


I didn't think Chinese would care about that, either. But the ruling that under _international _law China bargained away its claims when it signed UNCLOS isn't going to go away. Chinese can be bad losers and in this case their government is to blame, not any foreign party. Will there be riots or not?


----------



## Zero_wing

seven7seven said:


> This is fantastic news for China. It means China will get even more public support for China to militarize SCS and the UN tribunal will seem even more pointless as China totally disregards it.
> 
> Philippines doesn't understand that small countries always lose when they go against a World Power. China has both economic and military clout so nobody is going to stand up against China, to defend Pinoy position on SCS. This is just a Pyrrhic victory for Pinoys, They are now in an even weaker position, as they have shown to everyone that they have no power to do anything against China.



Oh really i think you miss your history lesson funny the Japanese thought so too so did the Germans and later the Romans and Byzantine Empires tell me where are those empires now? You arrogant trolls think highly of yourselves now that your pride was hit you acting like children who did not get their way you're Just a Regional power dont kid yourselves your powerful but you're nothing compare to the other world powers.

The sad part is your in trap you can't escape since we have world opinion and china has been found guilty of stealing we can now enforce our laws and if china mussels its ways your the one who have to face not Just US but a great majority of the world for violating other states rights so go ahead make all the threats name calling and other bull you people want because your screwed once you attack our ships and our interest.


----------



## salarsikander

William Hung said:


> Thats not really relevent. The US could be the Great Satan for all I care. The point was not about whether China can do what country xyz did, the point was that you were claiming the ruling was “unilaterally imposed”. Did China not ratified UNCLOS (which included those specific legal clauses)? yes or no? If China did, then this ruling is not something that was “unilaterally imposed” but something that China had originally agreed to when it first ratified UNCLOS. Don’t try to now change the topic by talking about country xyz and whether China can “back off” like what xyz did. You were talking about the ruling being “unilaterally imposed”.


IS it ? Talk of the hypocrisy then. WHat does the rules say about NSG members that US signed ? No non NPT member can be admitted, right ? But the rules were twisted for inclusion of India. So you see US or west for that matter will keep on changing anything that suits their interests these ruling or shits have lost its total meaning now. So even if China did, is it really bound? morally ? There is no such thing as moral in International politics ? legally ? China is no Iraq to whom US can bomb out of will for non-existent WMD. It is simple China will seek to look after its interests, If there any country that can force China into submission. Then I would be more than happy to see that country carving its path to destruction

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zero_wing

Jlaw said:


> big deal. China's biggest trading partner is US and they fight like hell. Indonesia trade is not higher than trade with US
> 
> 
> US didn't even sign it. China will not care. Just sit back and watch the show.



OK fine but remember pack of wolves can still take down elephant


----------



## salarsikander

Solomon2 said:


> The tribunal also ruled that building these islands was environmentally damaging and an aggravation of the dispute by China.


The question is, can the tribunal enforce anything on China ? the rest is B.S

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Centurion2016

USA TEACHING CHINA A LESSON.

Don't interefere in USA interests including NSG fiasco with USA ally india

GOOD SHOW USA


----------



## salarsikander

Zero_wing said:


> pack of wolves


Pack of what  ?
Taking down elephant or Dragon  ?

So will dare to ? Taiwan, vietnam, Philippine ? Cambodia ? who I would really love to see

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## William Hung

salarsikander said:


> IS it ? Talk of the hypocrisy then. WHat does the rules say about NSG members that US signed ? No non NPT member can be admitted, right ? But the rules were twisted for inclusion of India. So you see US or west for that matter will keep on changing anything that suits their interests these ruling or shits have lost its total meaning now. So even if China did, is it really bound? morally ? There is no such thing as moral in International politics ? legally ? China is no Iraq to whom US can bomb out of will for non-existent WMD. It is simple China will seek to look after its interests, If there any country that can force China into submission. Then I would be more than happy to see that country carving its path to destruction



Now you are trying to talk about hypocrisy and morally? But those are still irrelevent to what I was talking about. I talking about your claim that this is “unilaterally imposed”. Stick to this please. Did China, out of its own free-will, ratified UNCLOS or not? If China did, then this is not, as I have previously explained, a case of something being unilaterally imposed on China but comes from clauses that China had originally agreed to. This was the topic I raised. Just admit it if you were wrong, dont try to beat around the bush by adding new topics.


----------



## Zero_wing

salarsikander said:


> Pack of what  ?
> Taking down elephant or Dragon  ?
> 
> So will dare to ? Taiwan, vietnam, Philippine ? Cambodia ? who I would really love to see



Well lets see we still have a long time and history in this case do repeat themselves


----------



## Solomon2

salarsikander said:


> The question is, can the tribunal enforce anything on China ? the rest is B.S


You misunderstand. _China_ may not accept the tribunal's ruling as binding. However, many of the other UNCLOS signatories _do_. So, for example, raw materials China mines in the area may become illegal to trade, as may be Chinese products made from them: computers, cell phones, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Well since the ruling is technically "legally binding", anyone is welcome to come and try to use their military to try and "enforce" it.

Any takers?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## salarsikander

Solomon2 said:


> You misunderstand. _China_ may not accept the tribunal's ruling as binding. However, many of the other UNCLOS signatories _do_. So, for example, raw materials China mines in the area may become illegal to trade, as may be Chinese products made from them: computers, cell phones, etc.


That still dont matter , just like how the illegal settlers export their stuff which is also illegal but is still traded



Zero_wing said:


> Well lets see we still have a long time and history in this case do repeat themselves


And when is the last time a dragon was taken down ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

salarsikander said:


> The question is, can the tribunal enforce anything on China ? the rest is B.S


that's the whole point. Where is the enforcement going to come from? US? PN? Once they figure that out, than let's talk. For now it's just verbal back and fourth from Chinese members and non Chinese members

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Reashot Xigwin

Srinivas said:


> The organization will exist , but one will become pariah and the other is super power with so many allies.
> 
> China is economic power not a military power, with no strategic thinking.
> 
> The way you are going soon there will be new power that will emerge and counter the threats emerging from west .Also fill the vacuum that is being left by China.



For the love of fvcking god stop saying that China will be a "Pariah" state. Everybody stop saying that! Do you even know what "Pariah" means? 
pa·ri·ah
pəˈrīə/
_noun_
noun: *pariah*; plural noun: *pariahs*

*1*.
an outcast.
"they were treated as social pariahs"
synonyms: outcast, persona non grata, leper, undesirable, unperson, nonperson; More
_informal_black sheep, red-headed stepchild
"they were treated as social pariahs"
*2*.
historical
a member of a low caste in southern India. (this is added by google btw.)
By saying China is an economic power you already contradicted your first statement also China is not North Korea nobody can outcast China without suffering economic maelstrom of some sort. 
Here's the thing that's gonna happen nothing will happens. China only lost the claim to the SCS, but they still have presence there & will continue to do so until circumstances change.


----------



## fsayed

@nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Abingdonboy @SR-91 @nang2 @fsayed @anant_s @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair
@TejasMk3
@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @PARIKRAMA @egodoc222 @DesiGuy1403 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @MilSpec @Spectre @Windjammer @Horus @Arsalan @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular
@MilSpec @Spectre
@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs
@GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina @randomradio @Guynextdoor2 @2800 @calmDown@all 

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Sou...-Beijing-say-experts/articleshow/53180365.cms
NEW DELHI: The verdict of The Hague, rejecting China's claims to economic rights across large swathes of the South China Sea, is a damning indictment of Beijing. Its significance also lies in its stunning clarity - it leaves China with absolutely no room for re-interpretation.
For India, it was a sweet verdict, because it was recently stifled by China at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So the verdict by the UN-appointed international court of arbitration was greeted with much satisfaction by New Delhi.

China said it neither accepts nor recognizes the tribunal's verdict
India's comment after the verdict was measured, but it was chiding China, for sure.
Experience life with the stars
Ad Sky City By Oberoi Realty
"Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development. As a State Party to the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans" the external affairs ministry said in a statement.
Simultaneously, India's statement was also a reminder that India took an adverse UNCLOS ruling on the chin to resolve a maritime boundary issue with Bangladesh two years ago.
The MEA stated, "India supports freedom of navigation and over flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS. India believes that States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability."
It was a strong criticism of China's decision to disregard the award and continue as before. As expected, when China rejected the ruling it cited 2,000 years of history.
"China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards."
Shyam Saran, former foreign secretary said, "It's a damning indictment. Of course they can up the ante. But what does it do to them? They would appear as a rogue state if they fail to abide by international law."
Former NSA, Shivshankar Menon said he expects China to continue its aggressive expansionism in the South China Sea in the near future. "They cannot be seen to be backing down."

Victory not just for Philippines
Dr Mohan Malik, professor of Asian security in Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies Hawaii, said the verdict would be beneficial for India, too, not just for the Philippines.
"The verdict is a welcome development for India's economic (especially oil exploration in the South China Sea off Vietnam) and strategic interests. It provides legal and diplomatic cover for increased Indian naval engagement with other south-east Asian countries," he said.
The Hague's verdict could be a shot in the arm for other claimants like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam etc. But Indian strategists believe the ASEAN would become more polarised than ever. This could give India greater acceptability as a balancing power.
Malik said the award would be beneficial for India in other ways too. "It will bolster India's case for NSG membership and weaken China's opposition and efforts to rally countries like South Africa, Brazil, Ireland and New Zealand against India in the next plenary meeting."
The most important part of the tribunal's award is the unequivocal quashing of Chinese claims of its territory on the famed 'nine-dash line.'
"Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention....
The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'.
The tribunal ruled China-occupied Spratly Islands could not "generate extended maritime zones" quashing China's claim that possession of these islands would give Beijing 200 nautical mile EEZ.
The court rapped China for violating "Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone" adding "Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels."
China, the court ruled, "had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species."
In a damning conclusion, it said "China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute."

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Zero_wing

salarsikander said:


> That still dont matter , just like how the illegal settlers export their stuff which is also illegal but is still traded
> 
> 
> And when is the last time a dragon was taken down ?



Let see the we took them down in the Korean war at battle of Yultong and Japan at world war 2, Sino Japanese War the world superpowers of the 19th century at the boxer rebellion, the UK in opium wars and France oh the Mongol Empire that formed the Yuan dynasty etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

salarsikander said:


> ...just like how the illegal settlers export their stuff which is also illegal but is still traded.


The difference is that "illegal settlers" is merely what Jews are _called_ - a legally unsupportable label - whereas _here_ it's the real thing.


----------



## beijingwalker

Zero_wing said:


> And i care why? as long as you dont interfere with our interest your floating bathtub is safe


Wow, what is to "interfere" ? we are always there, now we are busy building military infrastructures, what are you gonna do about it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

Solomon2 said:


> The difference is that "illegal settlers" is merely what Jews are _called_ - a legally unsupportable label - whereas _here_ it's the real thing.


No, sir it clearly recognized in international law, hence thats why theyre known as illegal settlements



Zero_wing said:


> *Let see the we *took them down in the Korean war at battle


Exactly who we ? aliens ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

beijingwalker said:


> Wow, what is to "interfere" ? we are always there, now we are busy building military infrastructures, what are you gonna do about it?



we be enforce our laws if you attack our ship or interfere with our interest your country screwed


----------



## Zero_wing

salarsikander said:


> No, sir it clearly recognized in international law, hence thats why theyre known as illegal settlements
> 
> 
> Exactly who we ? aliens ?



Well there is no formal alliance yet


----------



## salarsikander

Zero_wing said:


> Well there is no formal alliance yet


And there will never ever be. Mark my words !

EU is tearing itself apart, which means NATO is already having cracks in its posture

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Snakebite

Well China is now going to show some muscle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

salarsikander said:


> No, sir it clearly recognized in international law, hence thats why theyre known as illegal settlements


Go start another thread and post them there. (You may be surprised at what you discover, too.) Just don't pollute this thread.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

salarsikander said:


> IS it ? Talk of the hypocrisy then. WHat does the rules say about NSG members that US signed ? No non NPT member can be admitted, right ? But the rules were twisted for inclusion of India. So you see US or west for that matter will keep on changing anything that suits their interests these ruling or shits have lost its total meaning now. So even if China did, is it really bound? morally ? There is no such thing as moral in International politics ? legally ? China is no Iraq to whom US can bomb out of will for non-existent WMD. It is simple China will seek to look after its interests, If there any country that can force China into submission. Then I would be more than happy to see that country carving its path to destruction



Hey brother, do you know the ruling is "legally binding"?

Now we've just got to sit back.... and wait for someone to try and enforce it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## beijingwalker

Zero_wing said:


> we be enforce our laws if you attack our ship or interfere with our interest your country screwed


I am so scared of your mighty navy...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

salarsikander said:


> And there will never ever be. Mark my words !
> 
> EU is tearing itself apart, which means NATO is already having cracks in its posture



Well as we say here wag ka magsalita ng tapos (dont say its over or done)


----------



## Solomon2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> ...Now we've just got to sit back.... and wait for someone to try and enforce it.


The most likely avenue of enforcement is through restriction of Chinese trade. Will China use its military to start its own Opium Wars to force Chinese goods upon others?


----------



## Sommer

Providence said:


> I like the US spin here except that US never signed something like that. China on the other hand is a signatory to a multilateral pact. Going back on the words when push comes to shove means open violation and a huge egg on china's face


Just like USA signed the 《Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs》, but it didn't stop legalization of marijuana in USA.
Or 《Geneva Conventions》for the POW in Iraq.
Or the whole war against Iraq.
Or Guantanamo Bay detention camp, or the Guantanamo Bay itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zero_wing

beijingwalker said:


> I am so scared of your mighty navy...



Well its not just the navy any Filipino ship i mean any ship so go ahead either way you're screwed


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Solomon2 said:


> The most likely avenue of enforcement is through restriction of Chinese trade. Will China use its military to start its own Opium Wars to force Chinese goods upon others?



Then let's see it.  I remember similar noises when China seized the Scarborough shoal from the Philippines in 2012.

But America chose to abandon their "mutual defence treaty" with the Philippines instead of restricting even 1 cent in trade.

Is this ruling more important than abandoning a mutual defence treaty? We shall see.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jha

Its really time for Indians to wait and watch. Show is getting exciting. Popcorn kholo aur masti se pura natak dekho. China ne theek se calculate nahi kiya NSG ke time.



#hydra# said:


> Let's hope Chinese will accept the verdict.



Lets hope China does not accept the verdict. What precedence would that set. Just think how many lifelong enemies will china create in her neighborhood for sake of some old rocks and some fish. We dont even need to invest in any string of pearls. Just help those countries militarily if they request.

Now every neighbor of China will start arming herself to teeth. Just by this one action, 10 times more missiles will be pointed at china.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Then let's see it.  I remember similar noises when China seized the Scarborough shoal from the Philippines in 2012.
> 
> But America chose to abandon their "mutual defence treaty" with the Philippines instead of restricting even 1 cent in trade.
> 
> Is this ruling more important than abandoning a mutual defence treaty? We shall see.



Wow did you read anything MDT can only take effect if our ships/cities etc are attack so no need to invoke the MDT


----------



## hirobo2

Hahaha. Now China has even more reasons to further miliatarize those islands for defense against possible attacks. Thank you US, PH, you've just allowed China to further her goals in the SCS. There can only be real peace when China is the strongest in her historical backyard...


Let me put this another way: 5 years from now, which do you think has more tangible value, [reasons to build] multiple military outposts [on the islands already reclaimed], or a "piece of trash paper"? Who do you think came out the bigger winner from this ruling?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zero_wing

hirobo2 said:


> Hahaha. Now China has even more reasons to further miliatarize those islands for defense against possible attacks. Thank you US, PH, you've just allowed China to further her goals in the SCS. There can only be real peace when China is the strongest in her historical backyard...



Well lets see now that world know our rights we can finally enjoy our resources and if you arrogant trolls interfere and god forbid sink our ships well word opinion the nations you people piss off the MDT well bring a lot of sun block


----------



## Srinivas

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Hey brother, do you know the ruling is "legally binding"?
> 
> Now we've just got to sit back.... and wait for someone to try and enforce it.



Do you know what happens?

USA will go through those waters with out giving damn what china thinks occasionally, when ever China tries to project its power or tries to rise as a military power. Reminding who is the big boss, China is going to be rattled in Scs for sure.

Now you need to spend your gdp on Scs on which you are seen as occupier by surrounding countries as each country tried to mark its boundaries with the USA support.

China just entered the rat trap, there will be constant tussles between China and surrounding countries which will impact economic ties, and occasional humiliations caused due to USA patrols.

Chinese ccp and sun tzu strategy ?

China just gobbled up some thing which it cannot chew or digest!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Johny D

Lol...China, Pakistan and North Korea...Great Alliance !!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Again when has the UN ever been successful or useful for that matter? China can keep doing what they're doing and I don't anything will happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Stealth

New Sheriff in Town


----------



## jha

JD_In said:


> Lol...China, Pakistan and North Korea...Great Alliance !!



menage e trois

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maira La

Thunder-17 said:


> I hope Xingiang is next. Its about time our brothers get their freedom from the Commies.



This guy is a known Indian false flagger.

He's most likely a second id of an existing member - created a new account just to incite Islamophobic feelings among non-Muslims.

Here's one of his posts from the BD section after the IS attack:


Thunder-17 said:


> ...among the dead and hostages. Bangladesh has plenty of Hindus, so I'm hopeful it wasn't any Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## salarsikander

Solomon2 said:


> The most likely avenue of enforcement is through restriction of Chinese trade. Will China use its military to start its own Opium Wars to force Chinese goods upon others?


LOl china does not need ! the question can the world including America actually resist the temptation of not buying Chinese made goods? if they do so will they be able to take in the blow of extremely high prices if the goods were made in the respective countries ?



Chinese-Dragon said:


> Hey brother, do you know the ruling is "legally binding"?
> 
> Now we've just got to sit back.... and wait for someone to try and enforce it.


I would personally love to see who can actually enforce it ! or has the guts to. US has been fighting weaklings after ww2 and has actually not fought a well capable adversary, hence that is the reason why their sailor got caught withe hands up in Iranian water by Iranian navy. challenging is entirely different matter



Zero_wing said:


> Well as we say here wag ka magsalita ng tapos (dont say its over or done)


Then what do you say ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

salarsikander said:


> LOl china does not need ! the question can the world including America actually resist the temptation of not buying Chinese made goods? if they do so will they be able to take in the blow of extremely high prices if the goods were made in the respective countries ?
> 
> 
> I would personally love to see who can actually enforce it ! or has the guts to. US has been fighting weaklings after ww2 and has actually not fought a well capable adversary, hence that is the reason why their sailor got caught withe hands up in Iranian water by Iranian navy. challenging is entirely different matter
> 
> 
> Then what do you say ?



If china keeps this up she going to deal with a lot of foes


----------



## kadamba-warrior

Max said:


> China will stand firm..



And alone!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

kadamba-warrior said:


> And alone!



Well they have North Korea and Pakistan and Cambodia etc mostly land locked countries and Africa well let see

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

Zero_wing said:


> If china keeps this up she going to deal with a lot of foes


With all due respect, Countries as big as China dont need to fight you hand to hand, it far to disgraceful for the dragon. China is no USA who fight weaklings. Just wait and watch how Chinese buy your governments who will favour chinese views. Thats the beauty of democracy, Rich countries can buy poor country's govt



Zero_wing said:


> Well they have North Korea and Pakistan and Cambodia etc mostly land locked countries and Africa well let see


No actually Chinese can help those country, It doesn't actually need them, other than for moral support I don't find any other use. Seriously China doesn't need to sit in US's lap and to call them for help like the countries in SCS

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Well since the ruling is technically "legally binding", anyone is welcome to come and try to use their military to try and "enforce" it.
> 
> Any takers?


I think US should be enforcing it. They are after all the policeman of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Well since the ruling is technically "legally binding", anyone is welcome to come and try to use their military to try and "enforce" it.
> 
> Any takers?



Decision won't have any immediate effect, except Chinese Keyboard Warriors will have zero
credibility here at PDF when they try to argue that Chinese have any historical right to the area.
The real argument now is that Chinese will be bullying their neighbours because they can,
not because they are right.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

salarsikander said:


> With all due respect, Countries as big as China dont need to fight you hand to hand, it far to disgraceful for the dragon. China is no USA who fight weaklings. Just wait and watch how Chinese buy your governments who will favour chinese views. Thats the beauty of democracy, Rich countries can buy poor country's govt
> 
> 
> No actually Chinese can help those country, It doesn't actually need them, other than for moral support I don't find any other use. Seriously China doesn't need to sit in US's lap and to call them for help like the countries in SCS



Well its your opion


----------



## salarsikander

Zero_wing said:


> Well its your opion


No, Its the reality

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

salarsikander said:


> No, Its the reality



Not so its opinion and i respect that


----------



## Indika

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Hey brother, do you know the ruling is "legally binding"?
> 
> Now we've just got to sit back.... and wait for someone to try and enforce it.



Respect the arbitration and follow the *UNCLOS. * If not lose the freedom of navigation across other ocean. Other countries need not provide safe route to your ships or your ships can be taken for granted. 

Well like a smart jack you can argue that china is a super duper power blah...blah which will ensure safety of its maritime trade but the reality is that china cannot be present all over the globe, insurance rates will increase , countries can stop providing access to its port and the exports will become expensive. Over a period of time that arrogant smirk will be wiped off as the reality starts biting.

Chinese ships will be game for any pirates, good luck with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

Solomon2 said:


> Go start another thread and post them there. (You may be surprised at what you discover, too.) Just don't pollute this thread.


truth hurts ! but you hardly respond there



Zero_wing said:


> Not so its opinion and i respect that


US fighting weaklings is opinion ? SCS insignificant country's sitting on US lap and calling for its help is opinion ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indika

Max said:


> China will stand firm..


yeah at the bottom of the sea.


----------



## Solomon2

Here we go:

 "....the Tribunal sees nothing to suggest that Article 298(1)(a)(i) was intended to also exclude jurisdiction over a broad and unspecified category of possible claims to historic rights falling short of sovereignty". ​
So because China bases its claims upon "historic rights", _not _sovereignty ("historic title"), and that this distinction was clear in the Chinese version of UNCLOS and in China's public statements, *the Tribunal rejects China's claim that China's own reservations as expressed in its letters at and after signing apply.*

*Hence China remains bound by the full terms of UNCLOS*, *including the arbitration tribunal.* (China would have to claim sovereignty by, for example, denying passage to shipping before China could invoke the optional exception to the rules.)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

beijingwalker said:


> *China rejects Hague tribunal judgment*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Chinese FM says China rejects ruling, arbitration is a political farce made under pretext of law



This simple statement truly covers this entire unnecessary mess. Now that is the stated position of the Chinese government. 

Short of WW3, nothing is going to change the historic facts on the ground. And no one is going to start a war over this. Least of all Philppines. All those wishing a shooting war between US and China can have their peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## salarsikander

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The real argument now is that Chinese will be bullying their neighbours because they can,
> not because they are right.


But it is much better than invading a country under a fasle pretext of WMD , right ?


----------



## Thunder-17

Maira La said:


> This guy is a known Indian false flagger.
> 
> He's most likely a second id of an existing member - created a new account just to incite Islamophobic feelings among non-Muslims.
> 
> Here's one of his posts from the BD section after the IS attack:


Anyone who doesnt conform to your in-consistent narrative is a false flagger?
Why seperate rules for Muslims of palentine and kashmir and not for Xingiang? Xingiang musliams are not even allowed to pray to their wish. Everything they do is restricted by the commies. They have even less freedoms than our brothers in Kashmir and palestine. If you are a true muslim with an IQ greater than a chimp, it should instantly strike you.

Oh and I'm a false flagger nonsense crumbles down right away if you understand the words written here by me - https://defence.pk/threads/10-bangl...ve-entered-india-says-bangladesh-govt.439002/


----------



## Jlaw

@waz @WebMaster this is in wrong section. Please move thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TechMan

It is a court of arbitration, it has no power to enforce its decision. Philippines can go to war, impose sanctions or get a UN Security Council resolution against China, but none of these will happen. Philippines will not go to war with China clearly. It is also too small economically to impose sanctions against China. China has veto power in UN Security Council, Philippines will never get a resolution from UN Security Council without China vetoing it. All Philippines can do is make some noise in the media which China doesn't care.

In another word, this is just a drama in the international theater concerning South China Sea involving actors such as US, EU, China and Philippines. It will have no real life consequences.

One thing that is also noteworthy is China has never agreed to the arbitration. An arbitration needs two parties to agree to the arbitration to work. Philippines submitted the case unilaterally. The Permanent Court of Arbitration should not have accepted a case submitted unilaterally by one party. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has shown itself to be a political institution and not a judicial institution in this instance.

This has damaged the reputation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Is this surprising? Probably not given the influence of the West on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. However, the rest of the world will see the Permanent Court of Arbitration as political and will set up its own court of arbitration that is apolitical.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

TechMan said:


> It is a court of arbitration, it has no power to enforce its decision. Philippines can go to war, impose sanctions or get a UN Security Council resolution against China, but none of these will happen. Philippines will not go to war with China clearly. It is also too small economically to impose sanctions against China. China has veto power in UN Security Council, Philippines will never get a resolution from UN Security Council without China vetoing it. All Philippines can do is make some noise in the media which China doesn't care.
> 
> In another word, this is just a drama in the international theater concerning South China Sea involving actors such as US, EU, China and Philippines. It will have no real life consequences.
> 
> One thing that is also noteworthy is China has never agreed to the arbitration. An arbitration needs two parties to agree to the arbitration to work. Philippines submitted the case unilaterally. The Permanent Court of Arbitration should not have accepted a case submitted unilaterally by one party. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has shown itself to be a political institution and not a judicial institution in this instance.
> 
> This has damaged the reputation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Is this surprising? Probably not given the influence of the West on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. However, the rest of the world will see the Permanent Court of Arbitration as political and will set up its own court of arbitration that is apolitical.



Totally agree!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jlaw

hirobo2 said:


> Hahaha. Now China has even more reasons to further miliatarize those islands for defense against possible attacks. Thank you US, PH, you've just allowed China to further her goals in the SCS. There can only be real peace when China is the strongest in her historical backyard...
> 
> 
> Let me put this another way: 5 years from now, which do you think has more tangible value, [reasons to build] multiple military outposts [on the islands already reclaimed], or a "piece of trash paper"? Who do you think came out the bigger winner from this ruling?


They fell for China's scheme. Now China militarize as much as they want. Possibly even stop importing bananas from PN and damage their fragile economy.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Solomon2

TechMan said:


> ...One thing that is also noteworthy is China has never agreed to the arbitration. -


Read the ruling. China agreed to UNCLOS, with reservations regarding cases involving Chinese sovereignty. This case does not, since China is only standing upon "historic rights", not "historic title" or sovereignty. Thus the mandated arbitration process applies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Jlaw said:


> They fell for China's scheme. Now China militarize as much as they want. Possibly even stop importing bananas from PN and damage their fragile economy.



Sure sure and please send a nuke on the way


----------



## Zero_wing

looking forward for some Tejas and non nuke Agni missiles from India

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHD

JD_In said:


> Lol...China, Pakistan and North Korea...Great Alliance !!


Russia, Iran , African countries, South american countries, central Asia. You my friend should come out of your delusions.

Russia and China backs each other on every issue and if their is any adventure by west they will face both Russia and china and at that time Rrussia will also ask you whose side you are on

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jha

Zero_wing said:


> looking forward for some Tejas and non nuke Agni missiles from India



Sure,why not ? India must assist friendly countries in securing their interests in every possible way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Johny D

CHD said:


> Russia, Iran , African countries, South american countries, central Asia. You my friend should come out of your delusions.
> 
> Russia and China backs each other on every issue and if their is any adventure by west they will face both Russia and china and at that time Rrussia will also ask you whose side you are on


lol..except Russia others hardly have any influence and many of them will change their stand if US ask them to do so.....and FYI...Russia is the biggest supporter of India! Russia and China are partners but India and Russia are friends since decades!


----------



## Maira La

Thunder-17 said:


> Anyone who doesnt conform to your in-consistent narrative is a false flagger?
> Why seperate rules for Muslims of palentine and kashmir and not for Xingiang? Xingiang musliams are not even allowed to pray to their wish. Everything they do is restricted by the commies. They have even less freedoms than our brothers in Kashmir and palestine. If you are a true muslim with an IQ greater than a chimp, it should instantly strike you.
> 
> Oh and I'm a false flagger nonsense crumbles down right away if you understand the words written here by me - https://defence.pk/threads/10-bangl...ve-entered-india-says-bangladesh-govt.439002/




Here's another gem from this saffron panty bot:



Thunder-17 said:


> The entire country will now shit its pants because of 10 determined people. Coward enslaved country for a 1000 years still fears us Muslims.



Even false flagging requires IQ - you're just giving yourself away!

*By the way, where in Pakistan are you from? Which city, which area? What's your native language? *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## danger007

fsayed said:


> @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Abingdonboy @SR-91 @nang2 @fsayed @anant_s @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair
> @TejasMk3
> @jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @PARIKRAMA @egodoc222 @DesiGuy1403 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @MilSpec @Spectre @Windjammer @Horus @Arsalan @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular
> @MilSpec @Spectre
> @Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs
> @GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina @randomradio @Guynextdoor2 @2800 @calmDown@all
> 
> http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Sou...-Beijing-say-experts/articleshow/53180365.cms
> NEW DELHI: The verdict of The Hague, rejecting China's claims to economic rights across large swathes of the South China Sea, is a damning indictment of Beijing. Its significance also lies in its stunning clarity - it leaves China with absolutely no room for re-interpretation.
> For India, it was a sweet verdict, because it was recently stifled by China at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So the verdict by the UN-appointed international court of arbitration was greeted with much satisfaction by New Delhi.
> 
> China said it neither accepts nor recognizes the tribunal's verdict
> India's comment after the verdict was measured, but it was chiding China, for sure.
> Experience life with the stars
> Ad Sky City By Oberoi Realty
> "Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development. As a State Party to the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans" the external affairs ministry said in a statement.
> Simultaneously, India's statement was also a reminder that India took an adverse UNCLOS ruling on the chin to resolve a maritime boundary issue with Bangladesh two years ago.
> The MEA stated, "India supports freedom of navigation and over flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS. India believes that States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability."
> It was a strong criticism of China's decision to disregard the award and continue as before. As expected, when China rejected the ruling it cited 2,000 years of history.
> "China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards."
> Shyam Saran, former foreign secretary said, "It's a damning indictment. Of course they can up the ante. But what does it do to them? They would appear as a rogue state if they fail to abide by international law."
> Former NSA, Shivshankar Menon said he expects China to continue its aggressive expansionism in the South China Sea in the near future. "They cannot be seen to be backing down."
> 
> Victory not just for Philippines
> Dr Mohan Malik, professor of Asian security in Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies Hawaii, said the verdict would be beneficial for India, too, not just for the Philippines.
> "The verdict is a welcome development for India's economic (especially oil exploration in the South China Sea off Vietnam) and strategic interests. It provides legal and diplomatic cover for increased Indian naval engagement with other south-east Asian countries," he said.
> The Hague's verdict could be a shot in the arm for other claimants like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam etc. But Indian strategists believe the ASEAN would become more polarised than ever. This could give India greater acceptability as a balancing power.
> Malik said the award would be beneficial for India in other ways too. "It will bolster India's case for NSG membership and weaken China's opposition and efforts to rally countries like South Africa, Brazil, Ireland and New Zealand against India in the next plenary meeting."
> The most important part of the tribunal's award is the unequivocal quashing of Chinese claims of its territory on the famed 'nine-dash line.'
> "Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention....
> The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'.
> The tribunal ruled China-occupied Spratly Islands could not "generate extended maritime zones" quashing China's claim that possession of these islands would give Beijing 200 nautical mile EEZ.
> The court rapped China for violating "Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone" adding "Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels."
> China, the court ruled, "had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species."
> In a damning conclusion, it said "China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute."





I am not surprised with the verdict or Chinese stance .. it is clear that China showing up its muscle.... It will be interesting to see how long and to how many they will show up... snatching resources rich sea, thus to control fishing, other economical activities... kinda silly, when some Chinese members here or .... arguing they have power to suppress weak countries or as because China is major power... great powers fallen due to their global hegemony& expansionism.... world went to peaks during world wars because colonial powers - power showdown... this is nothing new to the world ... but looks like history repeats once again.. but damage could be huge ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CHD

JD_In said:


> lol..except Russia others hardly have any influence and many of them will change their stand if US ask them to do so.....and FYI...Russia is the biggest supporter of India! Russia and China are partners but India and Russia are friends since decades!


You are just a buyer of Russian toys, if you were so close friends JF-17 will not be flying with Russian engines as you tried but due to china influence Russians rejected Indians, which shows how much influence you have and how much chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Johny D

CHD said:


> You are just a buyer of Russian toys, if you were so close friends JF-17 will not be flying with Russian engines as you tried but due to china influence Russians rejected Indians, which shows how much influence you have and how much chinese.


lol..it was a mutual arrangement..u wont understand it now...remember, your engines are in Russian hands now! ,,
And dont forget Russia's role in Bangladesh separation from Pakistan... u need to grow up kid..,


----------



## jha

Chinese are way over reacting over an issue they claim to totally ignore. If this verdict is pointless and will have no impact whatsoever, why so much reaction ? Statements from everyone in govt ( From president to Def. minister to Foreign office ) and so many " sudden and not at all sponsored by state " reaction from citizens point to something else.


----------



## Zero_wing

danger007 said:


> I am not surprised with the verdict or Chinese stance .. it is clear that China showing up its muscle.... It will be interesting to see how long and to how many they will show up... snatching resources rich sea, thus to control fishing, other economical activities... kinda silly, when some Chinese members here or .... arguing they have power to suppress weak countries or as because China is major power... great powers fallen due to their global hegemony& expansionism.... world went to peaks during world wars because colonial powers - power showdown... this is nothing new to the world ... but looks like history repeats once again.. but damage could be huge ...



Well its their lives they screwing let them


----------



## Solomon2

*Statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights and Interests in the South China Sea*

2016/07/12
*To reaffirm China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights* and interests in the South China Sea, enhance cooperation in the South China Sea with other countries, and uphold peace and stability in the South China Sea, the Government of the People's Republic of China hereby states as follows:

I. China's Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands) consist of Dongsha Qundao (the Dongsha Islands), Xisha Qundao (the Xisha Islands), Zhongsha Qundao (the Zhongsha Islands) and Nansha Qundao (the Nansha Islands). The activities of the Chinese people in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China is the first to have discovered, named, and explored and exploited Nanhai Zhudao and relevant waters, and the first to have exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over them continuously, peacefully and effectively, thus establishing territorial sovereignty and relevant rights and interests in the South China Sea.

Following the end of the Second World War, China recovered and resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao which had been illegally occupied by Japan during its war of aggression against China. To strengthen the administration over Nanhai Zhudao, the Chinese government in 1947 reviewed and updated the geographical names of Nanhai Zhudao, compiled Nan Hai Zhu Dao Di Li Zhi Lüe (A Brief Account of the Geography of the South China Sea Islands), and drew Nan Hai Zhu Dao Wei Zhi Tu (Location Map of the South China Sea Islands) on which the dotted line is marked. This map was officially published and made known to the world by the Chinese government in February 1948.

II. Since its founding on 1 October 1949, the People's Republic of China has been firm in upholding China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. A series of legal instruments, such as the 1958 Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea, the 1992 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the 1998 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf and the 1996 Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on the Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, have further reaffirmed China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.

III. Based on the practice of the Chinese people and the Chinese government in the long course of history and the position consistently upheld by successive Chinese governments, and in accordance with national law and international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China has territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, including, inter alia:

i. China has sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao, consisting of Dongsha Qundao, Xisha Qundao, Zhongsha Qundao and Nansha Qundao;

ii. China has internal waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone, based on Nanhai Zhudao;

iii. China has exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, based on Nanhai Zhudao;

iv. China has historic rights in the South China Sea.

The above positions are consistent with relevant international law and practice.

IV. China is always firmly opposed to the invasion and illegal occupation by certain states of some islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao, and activities infringing upon China's rights and interests in relevant maritime areas under China's jurisdiction. China stands ready to continue to resolve the relevant disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation with the states directly concerned on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law. Pending final settlement, China is also ready to make every effort with the states directly concerned to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature, including joint development in relevant maritime areas, in order to achieve win-win results and jointly maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.

V. China respects and upholds the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all states under international law in the South China Sea, and stays ready to work with other coastal states and the international community to ensure the safety of and the unimpeded access to the international shipping lanes in the South China Sea.

****

Sorry, China, but the tribunal says that since China isn't applying sovereign actions and has no historical (pre-UNCLOS) record of control of the SCS the dispute is about rights, not sovereignty, and hence China didn't claim an exception from the arbitration tribunal in the letters it attached to the UNCLOS treaty.

Looks like poor Chinese diplomacy is to blame for this fiasco. Of course, nationalist Chinese lawmakers who forbade them to negotiate didn't help either. (Sometimes it's hard to tell a nationalist Chinese from a Nationalist Chinese, isn't it? Does anybody remember the days when the Chicoms were considered internationalists?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHD

The US is just going along the same path that Hitler followed, that is making to many enemies at the same time.

First Americans attacks muslims for oil and strategic locations then sanctions Russia and now teasing chinese. Are Americans sure that they want to go along the same path?
And all of these Parties needs to come together to face the next evil after Hitler

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

"the Tribunal accepts that China has asserted its claim to rights in the waters within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines baselines in good faith. That the Tribunal disagrees with China’s understanding of its rights and considers that there is no possible legal basis for China’s claimed rights does not mean that China’s understanding has not been genuinely held."

That's diplomatic language for, "*China's diplomats and politicians may have been stupid and didn't understand what they were signing, but that's no excuse, either.*"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sims1729

if pakistan is backing china against UN then how can they claim UN resolution on kashmir as valid...this ruling is as useless as kashmir UN resolution

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Decision won't have any immediate effect, except Chinese Keyboard Warriors will have zero
> credibility here at PDF when they try to argue that Chinese have any historical right to the area.
> The real argument now is that Chinese will be bullying their neighbours because they can,
> not because they are right.





Solomon2 said:


> Read the ruling. China agreed to UNCLOS, with reservations regarding cases involving Chinese sovereignty. This case does not, since China is only standing upon "historic rights", not "historic title" or sovereignty. Thus the mandated arbitration process applies.



And has anyone bothered to stop Israel from building all those illegal settlements, according to the UN? 

They do it because they can. Same with the rest of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

This is pretty retard, a Japanese judge on SCS affaire, this is no different of putting an ISIS judge to rule if American's claim still valid of Hawaii or America itself...LMAO just too funny

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> This is pretty retard, a Japanese judge on SCS affaire -


Don't look at the person, look at the arguments. That's where the authority comes from. China lost and lost very, very big. And because it presumed good faith on China's part, the tribunal concluded it was from stupidity and obtuseness. The implication is that if China's leaders were more talented China could have done a better job of it.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

eyeswideshut said:


> Respect the arbitration and follow the *UNCLOS. * If not lose the freedom of navigation across other ocean. Other countries need not provide safe route to your ships or your ships can be taken for granted.
> 
> Well like a smart jack you can argue that china is a super duper power blah...blah which will ensure safety of its maritime trade but the reality is that china cannot be present all over the globe, insurance rates will increase , countries can stop providing access to its port and the exports will become expensive. Over a period of time that arrogant smirk will be wiped off as the reality starts biting.
> 
> Chinese ships will be game for any pirates, good luck with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Solomon2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> And has anyone bothered to stop Israel from building all those illegal settlements, according to the UN?


UNCLOS' dispute resolution mechanism is quite separate from rest of U.N. 



> They do it because they can. Same with the rest of the world.


We will see. 

Perhaps it will end with the Filipinos enjoying the islands China is making for them, while China foots the bill for environmental remediation from the destruction it wreaked in their creation.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Solomon2 said:


> UNCLOS' dispute resolution mechanism is quite separate from rest of U.N.
> 
> We will see.
> 
> Perhaps it will end with the Filipinos enjoying the islands China is making for them, while China foots the bill for environmental remediation from the destruction it wreaked in their creation.



And perhaps the Palestinians will inevitably overrun Israel due to the inevitability of demographics.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Solomon2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> And perhaps the Palestinians will -


How long do you think it will take China to regain its temper?


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

gambit said:


> China can build anything she want. She just cannot claim the seas around those islands. Without even the facade of legitimacy of that claim, China will be wasting her money.



then there's nothing to worry about. The islands get built up and US soldiers keep going out for their swims. I don't see the issue here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Solomon2 said:


> Don't look at the person, look at the arguments. That's where the authority comes from. China lost and lost very, very big. And because it presumed good faith on China's part, the tribunal concluded it was from stupidity and obtuseness. The implication is that if China's leaders were more talented China could have done a better job of it.



There is no argument on this bias tribunal that is control by US, China can put up an tribunal to judge US, we can provide a ton of argument that American have no right to live in US and annexe Hawaii, are Americans gonna accepted that? Through out our history, we're judge and not to be judged.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

danger007 said:


> China accepted UN convention on the law of the sea ... and hence either it must accept the verdict or leave... but as it mulling to ignore the verdict, China might become isolated in SCS ..



Lol how about start with India, just lead the way to isolate China first...if you dare

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Solomon2 said:


> How long do you think it will take China to regain its temper?



What temper? 

It's illegal under international law right? Just like Israeli illegal settlements.

Or "Iranian nuclear weapons".

But guess what?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## danger007

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Lol how about start with India, just lead the way to isolate China first...if you dare




You are just being ignorant... aren't you..


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

danger007 said:


> You are just being ignorant... aren't you..



You just thrown you words in to the air and expect us to buy that? tell me which nation effectively today start isolate China after the verdict...you're just try to comfort yourself with some bullsh1t.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Zero_wing said:


> Oh you guys are making more seen now then ever it just make you people look guilty and bitter


Guilty? We didn't even bother sending your kangaroo court a reply. Come get it if you think it's yours. You'll see what happens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Param said:


> Yes great master China.Whole of East Asia are subjects and China its great dictator.Will crush all that comes into its way.So Philippines,Vietnam,Japan and others just shut up and pay heed to Chinese interests.And say loudly- Chinese products are best.



You will not be surprise that one day, we will demand a good fine tribute from India as we did to these neighbors, start to learn with that.



Param said:


> I just watched World War documentary where Japanese Forces defeated Chinese Forces,10 times their numbers.And kept on advancing in the Chinese territory.Just a reminder,from your small neighbors.



how about England, 200 years of colonization of India...LMAO, is England is bigger than Japan?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## danger007

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> You just thrown you words in to the air and expect us to buy that? tell me which nation effectively today start isolate China after the verdict...you're just try to comfort yourself with some bullsh1t.



in the verdict itself China isolated .. and you are aware that China trying to steal as much as possible from weak countries.. you see greatness in that .. just like nazis...


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

seven7seven said:


> This is fantastic news for China. It means China will get even more public support for China to militarize SCS and the UN tribunal will seem even more pointless as China totally disregards it.
> 
> Philippines doesn't understand that small countries always lose when they go against a World Power. China has both economic and military clout so nobody is going to stand up against China, to defend Pinoy position on SCS. This is just a Pyrrhic victory for Pinoys, They are now in an even weaker position, as they have shown to everyone that they have no power to do anything against China.



We will witness that China will create our own "UN" tribunial as we did with AIIB to deal with the unfairness and bring justice to this world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

danger007 said:


> in the verdict itself China isolated .. and you are aware that China trying to steal as much as possible from weak countries.. you see greatness in that .. just like nazis...



Lol an Indian call China thief, we haven't finished with you yet for stealing our South Tibet region, you don't think you gonna get away by diverting us to SCS issue...nice try.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S10

Let me get this straight:

This "tribunal" is consist of mostly old white men acting as some sort of self-appointed judge. The place is located in Hague, half way across the world from South China Sea and it thinks it has jurisdiction to decide who owns what. Sounds like these old farts think they live in the good o'l days of the Opium War and height of European colonial powers. Reminds me of League of Nations deciding the fate of Manchuria in the 1930's, without China ever being consulted.

All I see is a toothless and arrogant clown show.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xunzi

Now that you have your rule, who have the ball to come challenge our territorial integrity?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## danger007

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Lol an Indian call China thief, we haven't finished with you yet for stealing our South Tibet region, you don't think you gonna get away by diverting us to SCS issue...nice try.




whatever floats your boat... don't let them sink..


----------



## xunzi

Unilateral ruling is never a good rule, especially one that is acting way above its legal permission.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xunzi

Solomon2 said:


> UNCLOS' dispute resolution mechanism is quite separate from rest of U.N.
> 
> We will see.
> 
> Perhaps it will end with the Filipinos enjoying the islands China is making for them, while China foots the bill for environmental remediation from the destruction it wreaked in their creation.


When are you going to come to take our islands? We are waiting...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## S10

Thunder-17 said:


> I hope Xingiang is next. Its about time our brothers get their freedom from the Commies.


You can't even spell Xinjiang right, retarded Indian troll. Ain't nobody falling for your gimmick.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## xunzi

Of course Paul Reichler is happy. He just earn his millions and bonus.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

danger007 said:


> whatever floats your boat... don't let them sink..



 we have unsinkable carriers in SCS, you just made an empty talk

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Joe Shearer said:


> Not yet.
> 
> Not too far back, you didn't claim the sea the way you have today. Then you claim. Then you use force to back up your claim.
> 
> Same-old same-old.



The claim dates back to the 1930's at the latest.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xunzi

How can you accept a unilateral rule? It makes no sense. What we did is uphold international law of sovereign state the option to use peaceful negotiation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

xunzi said:


> Unilateral ruling is never a good rule, especially one that is acting way above its legal permission.



Unilateral ruling is like sing a song for themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pandora

gambit said:


> Yeah...Am sure the Pakistani government will write a very strong letter of support to Beijing.



http://nation.com.pk/international/...-pakistan-support-china-on-sea-issue-diplomat

No offence BUT for a Professional you seem awfully frustrated that no one is taking this news seriously. Did you stop and start to think that no one gives a damn and this world has got bigger fish to fry. Considering the mess Americans have made in middle east who would follow you blindly? Euorpeons? Common wealth Nations? UK? France? Germany? Who knows maybe if Donald trump get elected he will demand it away from china 

The reality is that not even SCS nations will follow you if you Americans decide to embark on another one of long list of failures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Decision won't have any immediate effect, except Chinese Keyboard Warriors will have zero
> credibility here at PDF when they try to argue that Chinese have any historical right to the area.
> The real argument now is that Chinese will be bullying their neighbours because they can,
> not because they are right.



Perfect way of putting it. Spot on.


----------



## Nilgiri

William Hung said:


> The problem with this Chinese objection is that China had already ratified, in other words:* had agreed to*, the UNCLOS which included a very specific legal clause that fundamentally says that if there are any dispute or disagreement over whether a court/tribunal has jurisdiction or not, then the court/tribunal will be the one that has the final say about its jurisdiction. Yes, the court/tribunal will get to decide on it, not the dispute parties. It may sound unbelievable to some Chinese now, but that is what China had ratified and agreed to lol.



Its the spoiled brat syndrome + middle kingdom ego.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

PK is doing the most proper thing by supporting the rightful Chinese position. Act of a true friend.

When all the dust settles their position will be validated. It is just the first voice...more such voice will come forward. Sanity must pervail.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

Sinopakfriend said:


> PK is doing the most proper thing by supporting the rightful Chinese position. Act of a true friend.



Any official press releases?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Nilgiri said:


> Its the spoiled brat syndrome + middle kingdom ego.



Sir right on the mark

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

to celebrate this occasion 



Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Yes try to laugh of the misfortune of other, one day you India will get the true meaning of what call Karma.



Wow the chinese back into a corner and answer mindless meaningless threats karma is a bic#ch

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xunzi

LOL I can see that many Indian cheerleader are happy because of their butthurt on NSG but really even go as becoming a lackey to the US just for the purpose of getting back at us for failing to obtain NSG membership?  Come on now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Zero_wing said:


> Wow the chinese back into a corner and answer mindless meaningless threats karma is a bic#ch



you call Imperialist Chinese (That you use to call us) back into a corner? what is your definition of empire?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## XenoEnsi-14

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> we have unsinkable carriers in SCS, you just made an empty talk


It needs coconuts and bananas.


----------



## Nilgiri

Zero_wing said:


> Sir right on the mark



Its tantamount to someone recognising the authority of a court much earlier....but choosing not to recognise the verdict of a court by virtue of its self-perceived size and power....and knowing the court has no physical way to enforce its verdict.

Therefore China has basically thrown its whole "peaceful" rise into question when it blatantly violates a verdict from a court and convention it is party to. I mean why join and remain a member thinking every ruling is going to go your way. Sorry the world does not operate on might = right principles.

They have been thoroughly and royally exposed big time. Severe loss of face, no matter how they try to whinge that "it doesn't matter". It truly wouldn't have mattered if China wasn't part of UNCLOS. But now China basically is saying, if you feel you are powerful enough....feel free to ignore/violate any ruling of any charter you are a member of. Then they expect the world to take them as a mature responsible peacefully rising power. Seems the Chinese are experts at scoring in their own goal

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

Nilgiri said:


> Its tantamount to someone recognising the authority of a court much earlier....but choosing not to recognise the verdict of a court by virtue of its self-perceived size and power....and knowing the court has no physical way to enforce its verdict.
> 
> Therefore China has basically thrown its whole "peaceful" rise into question when it blatantly violates a verdict from a court and convention it is party to. I mean why join and remain a member thinking every ruling is going to go your way. Sorry the world does not operate on might = right principles.
> 
> They have been thoroughly and royally exposed big time. Severe loss of face, no matter how they try to whinge that "it doesn't matter". It truly wouldn't have mattered if China wasn't part of UNCLOS. But now China basically is saying, if you feel you are powerful enough....feel free to ignore/violate any ruling of any charter you are a member of. Then they expect the world to take them as a mature responsible peacefully rising power. Seems the Chinese are experts at scoring in their own goal



Sick burn let them cry over it soon they going to have more problems in their hands and with that economy well lets see

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> you call Imperialist Chinese (That you use to call us) back into a corner? what is your definition of empire?



Wow you people really ran out of ideas even insults i pity you fools how about a song

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vtnsx

soundwave1987 said:


> I went to england because there was a research program...England has better education for sure, but I’ve only been there for a year, my major education was in China. I don't know if it's fit to say this, I don't want to sound like racist but...like I said about the western medias, I kind of feeling about some sort of stereotype toward us Chinese maybe even eastern asain... I made westerner friends personally and they are really really nice ppl but to the public opinion,well, deep down, sometimes they misunderstand us, sometimes they underestimate us, and sometimes when we got achivements they sort of fear us. I met this Japanese guy at a meeting and talking about it man even the Japanese can feel the difference between "us" and "them", so it's really really hard to trust the intention of the Western (like the US) government, I feel like as a whole race they always want to "put us down"(not only China, but also the east subjects to the west), again that's only my personal opinion and I could be terribly wrong. But in case of that, anything that invloves the US we will keep an eye on it.



Your feelings don't lie. But there are people that are racist and some aren't. But that is everywhere we live, even in our own backyard. But we can all relate to the same matter in SCS situation. Why are we even fighting each other over islands? Why does China wants everything and being a push over? US never go to Canada and told them that Vancouver islands belong to them or go to Mexico and told them that Cancun belongs to them. 

England is a different culture compare to the US. The people of England feels that you were there stealing their jobs. They have the right to fear just like you and me. They will hate us for it. China's 9 dashed lines is just ridiculous.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

Zero_wing said:


> to celebrate this occasion
> 
> 
> 
> Wow the chinese back into a corner and answer mindless meaningless threats karma is a bic#ch



Haha great catchy tune there.....perfect to the occasion hehe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Nilgiri said:


> Yeah it means a lot coming from the land of hot air, middle kingdom ego and paper tigers.
> 
> You are calling this a misfortune for China? I thought China didn't care about it at all?



Simple they thought less about their neighbours and now their image was damage they crying out bloody murder they have feelings too you know it's just they don't care about other people



Nilgiri said:


> Haha great catchy tune there.....perfect to the occasion hehe.



Its old filipino comedy song but your right sound chinese though so i thought why not just for the  laughs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cloud_9

After South China Sea Ruling, China Censors Online Calls for War

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Middle kingdom ego? we still have lost our ego because we lose nothing yet, ...hum...paper tiger, ask who ever try to burn Chinese's paper then we will show you the tigerclaw. Yes a misfortune for China that we have to deal with the wold troublemaker as you have experienced during 70s, at least we didn't laugh at India misfortune at that time but we shall see who will have the great laugh in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> yourself was crying all day long to call us imperialist Chinese, you're insulting yourself and blaming us? go to dig on all your posts, to see how many time you call us imperialist Chinese...LMAO



Well now are hurt well pride before a fall you taking waters, resources and territories from your neighbors what should i call you people? Is it imperial the word that should be use?



cloud_9 said:


> After South China Sea Ruling, China Censors Online Calls for War



Let them so the chinese threat can end once and for all

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## phancong

US killed over millions Irag population over a lie and with no court have the power to bring the US to justice over millions Muslims died in the Middle East, countless country in ruin because of the US policy, when tribunal court doesn't have the power to force US and US allies to stand trail for war crime committed on Muslims nations and convicted US for the atrocity committed on the Muslims worldwide. Since the tribunal court have no power to enforce any kind of laws on the soveignty nation, the court render it ruling as useless with no country will abide by.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## danger007

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> we have unsinkable carriers in SCS, you just made an empty talk






 unsinkable ... nature takes all..


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

danger007 said:


> unsinkable ... nature takes all..



Really, This unsinkable carriers scare the nature but also scare our "voisines"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

smuhs1 said:


> http://nation.com.pk/international/...-pakistan-support-china-on-sea-issue-diplomat
> 
> No offence BUT for a Professional you seem awfully frustrated that no one is taking this news seriously. Did you stop and start to think that no one gives a damn and this world has got bigger fish to fry. Considering the mess Americans have made in middle east who would follow you blindly? Euorpeons? Common wealth Nations? UK? France? Germany? Who knows maybe if Donald trump get elected he will demand it away from china
> 
> The reality is that not even SCS nations will follow you if you Americans decide to embark on another one of long list of failures.


And you are wrong.

A lot of people, the kind that make more money than you, that have more military experience than the blustering PDF Chinese, and the kind that actually read which is more than we can say for most of the people on this forum, take this UN decision seriously.

While it maybe easier to travel on land, one can travel much farther on sea, this mean for countries that shares bodies of water, maritime traditions and laws greatly contributes to regional pecking order, read: balance of power. Either China, who had been trying to arbitrate individually and failed, renounces UNCLOS, or reinterpret those maritime traditions and laws to favor China and try again to argue those reinterpretations inside UNCLOS legal framework. Neither options are feasible.

It is not that China cannot withdraw from UNCLOS. Certainly she can, and I would dare to guess that there are many regionally who secretly wishes China would withdraw. But as I said earlier, withdrawal would leave China vulnerable to responses, from greater latitudes, that China cannot predict and anticipate.

It is not that China cannot reinterpret maritime traditions and laws. Certainly she can and China does have the muscle to back up those new interpretations. But this is not the 17th, 18th, or even 19th century where affairs of states in one part of the world have insignificant effects on the affairs of states in another part of the world. This is the 21st century where China insisted to have seats and influences on many tables, from economic to military, that created this inter-dependent world. Current maritime traditions and laws have created stable relationships among all sea faring countries. No one is going to blindly accept anyone's reinterpretations of those traditions and laws that obviously will put many at disadvantages. China's claim to the entirety of the SCS was that surprise attack, an Asian 'Pearl Harbor', if you will.

So when I said that neither options are feasible, it is to mean that in the long term, China will have *PERSISTENT* negative perceptions and consequences not just in Asia but worldwide. Am not talking public polls so do not bring up that silly poll that says the US is the greatest threat to whirled peas. Asians are going to see China as the greatest threat to their own economic well being regardless of whatever a bunch of Eurosnobs says about US in the cafes of Berlin and Paris.

In the meantime, the US will be courted as a guarantor of security, if not of peace, but more likely both since China is in no way capable of challenging US no matter how much the PDF Chinese can blabber about DSI and the DF-21D. The US will be the better defender of the current interpretations of maritime traditions and laws than China can of hers. The SCS countries are seeing this in their water backyards, not events in landlocked deserts on the other side of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Hey brother, do you know the ruling is "legally binding"?
> 
> Now we've just got to sit back.... and wait for someone to try and enforce it.



Don't even bother. Nobody is going to try and enforce it. 

Oh, by the way. Your trousers are around your ankles. Nobody is going to try and lift them up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TMA

JanjaWeed said:


> Being one of the P5s China is morally bound to follow this UN mandated tribunal decision! Discarding this ruling will only undermine the authority of UN.. & will make it look like a joke.. while less fortunate countries gets bossed around & powerful ones get away!


Moral? In International law and relations? 
UN is already a joke. Not China's fault for this.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

Joe Shearer said:


> Oh, by the way. Your trousers are around your ankles. Nobody is going to try and lift them up.



Sirjee you made me spill my drink haha. Didn't know you had it in you


----------



## phancong

gambit said:


> And you are wrong.
> 
> A lot of people, the kind that make more money than you, that have more military experience than the blustering PDF Chinese, and the kind that actually read which is more than we can say for most of the people on this forum, take this UN decision seriously.
> 
> While it maybe easier to travel on land, one can travel much farther on sea, this mean for countries that shares bodies of water, maritime traditions and laws greatly contributes to regional pecking order, read: balance of power. Either China, who had been trying to arbitrate individually and failed, renounces UNCLOS, or reinterpret those maritime traditions and laws to favor China and try again to argue those reinterpretations inside UNCLOS legal framework. Neither options are feasible.
> 
> It is not that China cannot withdraw from UNCLOS. Certainly she can, and I would dare to guess that there are many regionally who secretly wishes China would withdraw. But as I said earlier, withdrawal would leave China vulnerable to responses, from greater latitudes, that China cannot predict and anticipate.
> 
> It is not that China cannot reinterpret maritime traditions and laws. Certainly she can and China does have the muscle to back up those new interpretations. But this is not the 17th, 18th, or even 19th century where affairs of states in one part of the world have insignificant effects on the affairs of states in another part of the world. This is the 21st century where China insisted to have seats and influences on many tables, from economic to military, that created this inter-dependent world. Current maritime traditions and laws have created stable relationships among all sea faring countries. No one is going to blindly accept anyone's reinterpretations of those traditions and laws that obviously will put many at disadvantages. China's claim to the entirety of the SCS was that surprise attack, an Asian 'Pearl Harbor', if you will.
> 
> So when I said that neither options are feasible, it is to mean that in the long term, China will have *PERSISTENT* negative perceptions and consequences not just in Asia but worldwide. Am not talking public polls so do not bring up that silly poll that says the US is the greatest threat to whirled peas. Asians are going to see China as the greatest threat to their own economic well being regardless of whatever a bunch of Eurosnobs says about US in the cafes of Berlin and Paris.
> 
> In the meantime, the US will be courted as a guarantor of security, if not of peace, but more likely both since China is in no way capable of challenging US no matter how much the PDF Chinese can blabber about DSI and the DF-21D. The US will be the better defender of the current interpretations of maritime traditions and laws than China can of hers. The SCS countries are seeing this in their water backyards, not events in landlocked deserts on the other side of the world.


If China incapable to challenge the US navy, those reclamation island would have been destroyed by the US navy and US wouldn't have to wait for the powerless tribunal court to rule on the SCS dispute, US wouldn't urge all parties on the dispute to honor the court ruling especially US ask China not to militarized the newly build island to enforced China claim of the SCS, remember in the 90's China military still weak, US didn't hesitate to bomb China embassy in Eastern Europe becuase China embassy in the possession part of the US downed stealth bomber. Now China military power can pack a serious punch against US navy, US not hastily ready to bomb China newly build island.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## phancong

For China national interest they will protect their claim to the SCS. The tootless tribunal court can't force China to forfeit her claim of the SCS not even the US can force China to vacate the newly build island without a major war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

FairAndUnbiased said:


> The claim dates back to the 1930's at the latest.



Yes, that is an ancient claim. And it has been dealt with adequately, unlike many of your other claims.



phancong said:


> For China national interest they will protect their claim to the SCS. The *tootless* tribunal court can't force China to forfeit her claim of the SCS not even the US can force China to vacate the newly build island without a major war.



Nobody gives a toot, Tootsie.


----------



## phancong

China stated they ready to fight for the SCS with no regard to the tribunal court decision.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

Joe Shearer said:


> A cider AND a beer? Hmm. Is it just the UNCLOS verdict?



Haha....I don't make it a habit...but yes this and I have a bunch of cider left over from cottaging earlier + weddings I attended. Perfect weather and opportunity to enjoy it now. UNCLOS verdict is just a minor reason to be honest.

Have you ever tried Perry by the way (Pear Cider)?


----------



## Pandora

gambit said:


> And you are wrong.
> 
> A lot of people, the kind that make more money than you, that have more military experience than the blustering PDF Chinese, and the kind that actually read which is more than we can say for most of the people on this forum, take this UN decision seriously.
> 
> While it maybe easier to travel on land, one can travel much farther on sea, this mean for countries that shares bodies of water, maritime traditions and laws greatly contributes to regional pecking order, read: balance of power. Either China, who had been trying to arbitrate individually and failed, renounces UNCLOS, or reinterpret those maritime traditions and laws to favor China and try again to argue those reinterpretations inside UNCLOS legal framework. Neither options are feasible.
> 
> It is not that China cannot withdraw from UNCLOS. Certainly she can, and I would dare to guess that there are many regionally who secretly wishes China would withdraw. But as I said earlier, withdrawal would leave China vulnerable to responses, from greater latitudes, that China cannot predict and anticipate.
> 
> It is not that China cannot reinterpret maritime traditions and laws. Certainly she can and China does have the muscle to back up those new interpretations. But this is not the 17th, 18th, or even 19th century where affairs of states in one part of the world have insignificant effects on the affairs of states in another part of the world. This is the 21st century where China insisted to have seats and influences on many tables, from economic to military, that created this inter-dependent world. Current maritime traditions and laws have created stable relationships among all sea faring countries. No one is going to blindly accept anyone's reinterpretations of those traditions and laws that obviously will put many at disadvantages. China's claim to the entirety of the SCS was that surprise attack, an Asian 'Pearl Harbor', if you will.
> 
> So when I said that neither options are feasible, it is to mean that in the long term, China will have *PERSISTENT* negative perceptions and consequences not just in Asia but worldwide. Am not talking public polls so do not bring up that silly poll that says the US is the greatest threat to whirled peas. Asians are going to see China as the greatest threat to their own economic well being regardless of whatever a bunch of Eurosnobs says about US in the cafes of Berlin and Paris.
> 
> In the meantime, the US will be courted as a guarantor of security, if not of peace, but more likely both since China is in no way capable of challenging US no matter how much the PDF Chinese can blabber about DSI and the DF-21D. The US will be the better defender of the current interpretations of maritime traditions and laws than China can of hers. The SCS countries are seeing this in their water backyards, not events in landlocked deserts on the other side of the world.



Here comes the protector of the innocent speech. You people probably lost count about how many Muslims you killed in order to maintain this facade of justice. The fact that you are trying so hard to make an issue out of non issue is hilarious. Rather than gloating about being champion of justice why dont you wait and see how much US can enforce. Under article 298 of UN forceful or one sided arbitration of any sea based dispute is not allowed so there is no basis for your argument in the first place. No offense but your argument was becoming incoherent with every passing comment so i guess i should stop this merry go round before your head explodes from anticipation of Chinese demise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

danger007 said:


>




Why are you waving a Pakistani flag?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

gambit said:


> It is not that China cannot withdraw from UNCLOS. Certainly she can, and I would dare to guess that there are many regionally who secretly wishes China would withdraw. But as I said earlier, withdrawal would leave China vulnerable to responses, from greater latitudes, that China cannot predict and anticipate.



What response, anything short of war and sanctions means less than nothing. China is a developing nation, we are communist in name, we are strong but not in the Western order like Japan. How much worse can this reputation get. 

Isolating China is just a fantasy dreamed by random people. Even Iran and North Korea isn't totally isolated, but China can be? Certainly support may be too much to ask for, as the US is still the undisputed world power, but isolation seems unlikely to say the least.

Other than that, freedom of navigation, demonstrations, and what else is new? Even in 1996 America sailed her carrier to China's shores, so how is this any different. If anything, this is an improvement to 1996. 

In terms of international organizations, like AIIB and all that, I'm quite sure feelings on China was set even then, so if there is to be any problems here, it would most than likely be based on performance than anything else. 



> It is not that China cannot reinterpret maritime traditions and laws. Certainly she can and China does have the muscle to back up those new interpretations. But this is not the 17th, 18th, or even 19th century where affairs of states in one part of the world have insignificant effects on the affairs of states in another part of the world. This is the 21st century where China insisted to have seats and influences on many tables, from economic to military, that created this inter-dependent world. Current maritime traditions and laws have created stable relationships among all sea faring countries. No one is going to blindly accept anyone's reinterpretations of those traditions and laws that obviously will put many at disadvantages. China's claim to the entirety of the SCS was that surprise attack, an Asian 'Pearl Harbor', if you will.
> 
> So when I said that neither options are feasible, it is to mean that in the long term, China will have *PERSISTENT* negative perceptions and consequences not just in Asia but worldwide. Am not talking public polls so do not bring up that silly poll that says the US is the greatest threat to whirled peas. Asians are going to see China as the greatest threat to their own economic well being regardless of whatever a bunch of Eurosnobs says about US in the cafes of Berlin and Paris.
> 
> In the meantime, the US will be courted as a guarantor of security, if not of peace, but more likely both since China is in no way capable of challenging US no matter how much the PDF Chinese can blabber about DSI and the DF-21D. The US will be the better defender of the current interpretations of maritime traditions and laws than China can of hers. The SCS countries are seeing this in their water backyards, not events in landlocked deserts on the other side of the world.



China and the US were ideological enemies in the 70s, yet we became allies due to interests. As much as people like to play up this issue, it's no where near the cold war level of hostilities, and that was ended in an instant. 

Philippines, Vietnam, and who else can shout whatever they want, but in the end we are no playing in the same league. What's Vietnam's end game, compete to be a world power? Doubtful. A far more likely goal is regional supremacy, and for that you need a global backer. In this the US already has a favorite, at the very least, it wouldn't be possible to have two. 

This won't happen now or a year from now, just like US China relations deteriorated over time, eventually, Chinese perception will change. But it won't change for the better if China is not seen as capable to hold our own internationally.


I'm not saying China will do either, both seems unimportant, but perception isn't as long lasting as some seem to think and actions? The reason China haven't gone to war over this is the same reason no one else will do anything concrete.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Oh I beg to differ.



Nobody, NOBODY doubts that. That is what adds to the humour of the situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FullMetalJacket

Get this. China's claim on SCS is based on some "ancient" map some fishmerman apparently "found". When the fisherman was questioned about the map by international news agency, he simply "threw" it away because it was old and broken.  nice try, commies.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Genesis said:


> What response, anything short of war and sanctions means less than nothing. China is a developing nation, we are communist in name, we are strong but not in the Western order like Japan. How much worse can this reputation get.
> 
> Isolating China is just a fantasy dreamed by random people. Even Iran and North Korea isn't totally isolated, but China can be? Certainly support may be too much to ask for, as the US is still the undisputed world power, but isolation seems unlikely to say the least.
> 
> Other than that, freedom of navigation, demonstrations, and what else is new? Even in 1996 America sailed her carrier to China's shores, so how is this any different. If anything, this is an improvement to 1996.
> 
> In terms of international organizations, like AIIB and all that, I'm quite sure feelings on China was set even then, so if there is to be any problems here, it would most than likely be based on performance than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> China and the US were ideological enemies in the 70s, yet we became allies due to interests. As much as people like to play up this issue, it's no where near the cold war level of hostilities, and that was ended in an instant.
> 
> Philippines, Vietnam, and who else can shout whatever they want, but in the end we are no playing in the same league. What's Vietnam's end game, compete to be a world power? Doubtful. A far more likely goal is regional supremacy, and for that you need a global backer. In this the US already has a favorite, at the very least, it wouldn't be possible to have two.
> 
> This won't happen now or a year from now, just like US China relations deteriorated over time, eventually, Chinese perception will change. But it won't change for the better if China is not seen as capable to hold our own internationally.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying China will do either, both seems unimportant, but perception isn't as long lasting as some seem to think and actions? The reason China haven't gone to war over this is the same reason no one else will do anything concrete.



It is nice to see Chinese members labouring to produce closely argued reasons why the world continues as normal. I doubt - personal opinion with no data points to back it - that even two days ago, this post would have felt necessary. One good effect already.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genesis

Joe Shearer said:


> It is nice to see Chinese members labouring to produce closely argued reasons why the world continues as normal. I doubt - personal opinion with no data points to back it - that even two days ago, this post would have felt necessary. One good effect already.



We had this exact argument sometime back, I think it's you. I didn't continue because work got crazy, but this isn't a new view. I can find it for you if you like.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nilgiri said:


> Haha....I don't make it a habit...but yes this and I have a bunch of cider left over from cottaging earlier + weddings I attended. Perfect weather and opportunity to enjoy it now. UNCLOS verdict is just a minor reason to be honest.
> 
> Have you ever tried Perry by the way (Pear Cider)?



Yes. There is, incidentally, a Swedish version, which I quaffed in larger quantities than was good for me, at a particular foreign station where I was posted.



Genesis said:


> We had this exact argument sometime back, I think it's you. I didn't continue because work got crazy, but this isn't a new view. I can find it for you if you like.



No, no, don't take the trouble. I believe you. We all believe you. And I won't doubt your claim by going back into the records and showing the number of times Chinese members (not you, necessarily) closed a discussion with a flat-out arrogant statement that said it all. Perhaps all that might change one millimetre - not an impossible target.

Perhaps.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vtnsx

Genesis said:


> What response, anything short of war and sanctions means less than nothing. China is a developing nation, we are communist in name, we are strong but not in the Western order like Japan. How much worse can this reputation get.
> 
> Isolating China is just a fantasy dreamed by random people. Even Iran and North Korea isn't totally isolated, but China can be? Certainly support may be too much to ask for, as the US is still the undisputed world power, but isolation seems unlikely to say the least.
> 
> *Other than that, freedom of navigation, demonstrations, and what else is new? Even in 1996 America sailed her carrier to China's shores, so how is this any different. If anything, this is an improvement to 1996. *
> 
> In terms of international organizations, like AIIB and all that, I'm quite sure feelings on China was set even then, so if there is to be any problems here, it would most than likely be based on performance than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> China and the US were ideological enemies in the 70s, yet we became allies due to interests. As much as people like to play up this issue, it's no where near the cold war level of hostilities, and that was ended in an instant.
> 
> Philippines, Vietnam, and who else can shout whatever they want, but in the end we are no playing in the same league. What's Vietnam's end game, compete to be a world power? Doubtful. A far more likely goal is regional supremacy, and for that you need a global backer. In this the US already has a favorite, at the very least, it wouldn't be possible to have two.
> 
> This won't happen now or a year from now, just like US China relations deteriorated over time, eventually, Chinese perception will change. But it won't change for the better if China is not seen as capable to hold our own internationally.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying China will do either, both seems unimportant, but perception isn't as long lasting as some seem to think and actions? The reason China haven't gone to war over this is the same reason no one else will do anything concrete.



I'm still waiting for China to sail near Hawaii like the Jap did. Until then, China has no real power. All talk.


----------



## Genesis

Joe Shearer said:


> No, no, don't take the trouble. I believe you. We all believe you. And I won't doubt your claim by going back into the records and showing the number of times Chinese members (not you, necessarily) closed a discussion with a flat-out arrogant statement that said it all. Perhaps all that might change one millimetre - not an impossible target.
> 
> Perhaps.



I don't have quite as many posts these days, so easy to find.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Genesis said:


> I don't have quite as many posts these days, so easy to find.



Please don't take the trouble. Nobody is doubting your word. There is no need to provide historical evidence. This is PDF, not UNCLOS.


----------



## Tiger Genie

phancong said:


> If China incapable to challenge the US navy, those reclamation island would have been destroyed by the US navy and US wouldn't have to wait for the powerless tribunal court to rule on the SCS dispute, US wouldn't urge all parties on the dispute to honor the court ruling especially US ask China not to militarized the newly build island to enforced China claim of the SCS, remember in the 90's China military still weak, US didn't hesitate to bomb China embassy in Eastern Europe becuase China embassy in the possession part of the US downed stealth bomber. Now China military power can pack a serious punch against US navy, US not hastily ready to bomb China newly build island.



just because we order flags to be manufactured in China does not mean you can fly them yourself (unless ofcourse you are so fed up with Communist Party of China and want to give them the brooklyn salute, in which case I compliment your daring).

that said, you are absolutely right - we do not want to waste a single bullet or bomb on China. To speculate whether US can take on China or not is plain stupid. All we have to do is cancel a few orders and you are toast.


----------



## Joe Shearer

smuhs1 said:


> Here comes the protector of the innocent speech. You people probably lost count about how many Muslims you killed in order to maintain this facade of justice. The fact that you are trying so hard to make an issue out of non issue is hilarious. Rather than gloating about being champion of justice why dont you wait and see how much US can enforce. Under article 298 of UN forceful or one sided arbitration of any sea based dispute is not allowed so there is no basis for your argument in the first place. No offense but your argument was becoming incoherent with every passing comment so i guess i should stop this merry go round before your head explodes from anticipation of Chinese demise.



Oh dear.

Bade miya to bade miya........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

Joe Shearer said:


> Please don't take the trouble. Nobody is doubting your word. There is no need to provide historical evidence. This is PDF, not UNCLOS.


Well considering you don't want to participate, maybe it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## billyong

Man,all the moneys jump up and down, celebrating like no tomorrow, about a useless paper... meanwhile, China continues building the island...
Diffidently gonna spent a summer vacation on the island in couple years...such a beautifully place..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

FullMetalJacket said:


> Get this. China's claim on SCS is based on some "ancient" map some fishmerman apparently "found". When the fisherman was questioned about the map by international news agency, he simply "threw" it away because it was old and broken.  nice try, commies.



No we're not trying, we're be there, done, achieved and write in our historical book, how about you Indians trying to reinforce the verdict, coward can just stand, watch and murmuring.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

#hydra# said:


> Let's hope Chinese will accept the verdict.



Give India in exchange

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Zero_wing said:


> Sick burn let them cry over it soon they going to have more problems in their hands and with that economy well lets see



why cry when we have lost nothing? and talk about economy  your president is prepared to crawl to Beijing begging for money and aid...LMAO...just too funny

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

xunzi said:


> When are you going to come to take our islands? We are waiting...



I think the response will just be business as usual in International waters, ignoring Your ranting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

UN is only good for subjugating weak nations.

I doubt ruling will have any effect on China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

Man these fools can't stop

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> why cry when we have lost nothing? and talk about economy  your president is prepared to crawl to Beijing begging for money and aid...LMAO...just too funny



Him not really he be impeach once he does that

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Genesis said:


> Well considering you don't want to participate, maybe it is.



Don't want to participate in what? Do you want me to drag out examples of the rude behaviour of your fellow countrymen? What good will that do? Will their behaviour improve? No chance. So why should I waste your time, when you aren't even the sort of person whose bullying behaviour was offensive and annoying?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zero_wing

Man the chinese uber bitter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## faithfulguy

http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/taiwan-south-china-sea-ruling-completely-unacceptable/


Itu Aba (Taiping Island)
Image Credit: Google Maps
*Taiwan: South China Sea Ruling 'Completely Unacceptable'*
Taiwan denounces the tribunal’s decision that Itu Aba is a rock, not an island


On July 12, an arbitral tribunal in The Hague issued a landmark ruling, overturning many of China’s claims in the South China Sea. The case, _Republic of Philippines v. People’s Republic of China_, was initiated in 2013, when Manila filed legal objections to Beijing’s claims and behavior in the disputed area. The case has attracted worldwide attention – particularly in Taiwan.

Taiwan shares many of its South China Sea claims with the PRC – in fact, the claims officially originated not with the PRC but with the Republic of China (ROC) government in the immediate post-war era. When the ROC moved its capital to Taipei at the end of the Chinese Civil War, it brought its territorial claims. Taiwan thus found itself in the uncomfortable position of having its claims challenged – through the Philippines’ case against China – without having an opportunity to participate in the case. Taiwan, which is not a member of the United Nations, is likewise not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); there was no legal avenue for Taipei to insert itself into the case. Even Taiwan’s request to send an observer delegation to the hearings was denied.

Most importantly for Taiwan, the tribunal took up the question of the status of Itu Aba, known as Taiping Island in Taiwan. The island, the largest naturally occurring feature in the Spratlys group, is occupied by Taiwan and houses a military garrison, a hospital, and a farm. Taipei strenuously argued its case that Itu Aba is capable of sustaining human habitation, with its freshwater wells and ability to grow produce, and is thus an island under UNCLOS. That, in turn, would give Taipei a claim to a 200 nautical mile EEZ extending from Itu Aba and encompassing a wide swath of the South China Sea.

Because Taipei was not able to officially participate in the case, it made its arguments in the court of public opinion, taking journalists to the island for a tour of its facilities and posting numerous images of Itu Aba online. At the last minute, the tribunal accepted an amicus curiae briefing from the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, which made the legal argument that Itu Aba should be considered an island.

The tribunal, however, ultimately disagreed. It found that Itu Aba – along with the rest of the Spratlys – is not an island, as it cannot sustain a human community without external aid. Taiwan’s response was immediate.

“We absolutely will not accept [the tribunal's decision] and we maintain that the ruling is not legally binding on the ROC,” the Presidential Office of Taiwan said in a statement. The statement pointed out that the tribunal did not consult with Taiwan or invite it to participate in the case, yet the ruling has “seriously undermined” Taiwan’s maritime rights in the South China Sea.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its own statement, calling the ruling “completely unacceptable to the government of the Republic of China.” The Ministry also explained Taiwan’s reasons for concluding that the decision has “no legally binding force on the ROC.” First, the statement said, “In the text of the award, the ROC is referred to as ‘Taiwan Authority of China.’ This inappropriate designation is demeaning to the status of the ROC as a sovereign state.”

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

Zero_wing said:


> Him not really he be impeach once he does that



Its funny how they think Duterte will be pro-China in opposition to his own people in this delicate matter.

Looks like PRC needs another reality check and ego busting.


----------



## Zero_wing

Nilgiri said:


> Its funny how they think Duterte will be pro-China in opposition to his own people in this delicate matter.
> 
> Looks like PRC needs another reality check and ego busting.



Duterte is a lot moron but even him will not go against the constitution and the people let these arrogant chincoms throw all the insults they can they are screwed if they attack our ships and durtertard will use this against them. Again duterte is just another president we can alway elect someone better something the chincoms dont know crap about

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Isa pa ito taiwan man you chinese should just become one country already we can not surrender our rights to you people not the mainlanders and certainly not you taiwan


----------



## Zero_wing

Joe Shearer said:


> Don't want to participate in what? Do you want me to drag out examples of the rude behaviour of your fellow countrymen? What good will that do? Will their behaviour improve? No chance. So why should I waste your time, when you aren't even the sort of person whose bullying behaviour was offensive and annoying?



It's no use it's denial let him be as we say here in the Philippines "You're more stupid if you argue with stupid people"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Nilgiri said:


> Its funny how they think Duterte will be pro-China in opposition to his own people in this delicate matter.
> 
> Looks like PRC needs another reality check and ego busting.



You said it yourself that If Pinoy president is pro-China mean he's not hallucinate like Indians, he's pragmatic and realist, Indians are the ones that need the reality Check...LMAO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genesis

Joe Shearer said:


> Don't want to participate in what? Do you want me to drag out examples of the rude behaviour of your fellow countrymen? What good will that do? Will their behaviour improve? No chance. So why should I waste your time, when you aren't even the sort of person whose bullying behaviour was offensive and annoying?



I can't speak for anyone else. Just like you can't speak for others. If I consider what other Indians or any other nationality are saying, I wouldn't be having a debate at all. 

I just meant, my views are not new and it sounded like you doubted my claim. I don't know it's hard to tell sometimes when there is no tone. 

BTW, when did I have bullying behavior? I am confident in my views. I am a firm believer if you do the work, you get the reward. I can honestly say China has done the work, now that it is time we take our seat, why should we stand? I don't expect people to roll over for us, but similarly, why should we roll over for anyone else, when presented with the same opportunity, we succeeded and the others didn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## damiendehorn

JanjaWeed said:


> Being one of the P5s China is morally bound to follow this UN mandated tribunal decision! Discarding this ruling will only undermine the authority of UN.. & will make it look like a joke.. while less fortunate countries gets bossed around & powerful ones get away!



You mean like how the US is morally bound?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Genesis said:


> I can't speak for anyone else. Just like you can't speak for others. If I consider what other Indians or any other nationality are saying, I wouldn't be having a debate at all.
> 
> I just meant, my views are not new and it sounded like you doubted my claim. I don't know it's hard to tell sometimes when there is no tone.
> 
> BTW, when did I have bullying behavior? I am confident in my views. I am a firm believer if you do the work, you get the reward. I can honestly say China has done the work, now that it is time we take our seat, why should we stand? I don't expect people to roll over for us, but similarly, why should we roll over for anyone else, when presented with the same opportunity, we succeeded and the others didn't.



My dear Sir, where did you get any allusion to all that marked in red above in my posts? I am talking in a generic manner.

As for the rest, it was never a question of denying you your rights. It makes strange reading for an educated and historically aware Indian, since for over a decade, India worked hard to make China a recognisable and respected entity in international affairs. You seem to be referring to developments over the last ten years; I wish to draw your attention to India's behaviour towards China in exactly this context, in the 50s of the last century.



damiendehorn said:


> You mean like how the US is morally bound?



Yes, to treaties that it signs, willingly, voluntarily, not to treaties that it doesn't sign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

xunzi said:


> When are you going to come to take our islands? We are waiting...


Geez, it's like the nineteenth century colonialism all over again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> Its funny how they think Duterte will be pro-China in opposition to his own people in this delicate matter.
> 
> Looks like PRC needs another reality check and ego busting.



China is just a developing nation. It will further develop the islands and utilize natural resources. Peaceful rise shall continue. I guess that's at least we can agree about.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Solomon2 said:


> Geez, it's like the nineteenth century colonialism all over again.



We toke the page out of American contemporary book.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> Isa pa ito taiwan man you chinese should just become one country already we can not surrender our rights to you people not the mainlanders and certainly not you taiwan



We are already one and the same on this.

What will you do about your so called rights?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

billyong said:


> Man,all the moneys jump up and down, celebrating like no tomorrow, about a useless paper... meanwhile, China continues building the island...
> Diffidently gonna spent a summer vacation on the island in couple years...such a beautifully place..




PLEASE don't be diffident; we couldn't bear it if you were. I am sure you will get a wonderful sun tan; we are born with it, so we can't join you, but we will look forward to seeing you (post pictures, please) looking a nice burnt siena, or even umber.


----------



## Genesis

Joe Shearer said:


> My dear Sir, where did you get any allusion to all that marked in red above in my posts? I am talking in a generic manner.
> 
> As for the rest, it was never a question of denying you your rights. It makes strange reading for an educated and historically aware Indian, since for over a decade, India worked hard to make China a recognisable and respected entity in international affairs. You seem to be referring to developments over the last ten years; I wish to draw your attention to India's behaviour towards China in exactly this context, in the 50s of the last century.



Again, hard to tell due to no tone. 

I know of India's actions in the 50s. What China felt at the time was Nehru clearly felt India was the leading man in the developing world. China had other intentions. India China never had too much conflict anyways, even during the 62 war. This NSG saga is more of an Indian media created phenomenon, there isn't a strong feeling in China for or against India. On many levels I see it as not even about India. 

But I don't understand this line of questioning, I don't have a problem with what India did or didn't do, now or before. In fact, this has very little to do with India, and in a sense America. No one wants to give up power, Americans don't and I highly doubt we will welcome anyone in with open arms should we prove to be successful.

The world is what it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> We are already one and the same on this.
> 
> What will you do about your so called rights?



I think some are living in the past you people are been found stealing our ezz etc so please


----------



## TaiShang

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I think the response will just be business as usual in International waters, ignoring Your ranting.
> 
> View attachment 317139



We still continue with the build up.

You continue innocent passage.

We show up in your waters. You show up in our waters.

So what? That's just game of the big.



Solomon2 said:


> Geez, it's like the nineteenth century colonialism all over again.



Do as we say, not as we do.



Zero_wing said:


> Man the chinese uber bitter



You need rest, man.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

TaiShang said:


> China is just a developing nation. It will further develop the islands and utilize natural resources. Peaceful rise shall continue. I guess that's at least we can agree about.



We welcome peaceful rise of China. I have worked with many chinese businessmen and have trained some of their workers...its a good thing for the whole world.

However China must stay away from having too much ego and realise its just a regular nation like any other (albiet a large scale one) subject to the same rules of world order...and it risks alienating this peaceful rise if it seeks to now escalate the situation rather than de-escalate it or even resolve it through negotiations etc.

So far the comments from PRC govt have been good....they want to continue to work to resolve the situation peacefully.


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> I think some are living in the past you people are been found stealing our ezz etc so please



We will continue to sail in our waters and utilize the resources to its full extent.

What will you do about it? Post more messages? You need to show me real tangible result. Otherwise, it is much less than a UNGA resolution against the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Zero_wing said:


> I think some are living in the past you people are been found stealing our ezz etc so please



come to claim it back...please

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

oprih said:


> Such rulings are only meant to create chaos and trouble in the area. I'm sure western powers are behind.


 
Not western powers behind, its two vampire behind: America and Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> We welcome peaceful rise of China. I have worked with many chinese businessmen and have trained some of their workers...its a good thing for the whole world.
> 
> However China must stay away from having too much ego and realise its just a regular nation like any other (albiet a large scale one) subject to the same rules of world order...and it risks alienating this peaceful rise if it seeks to now escalate the situation rather than de-escalate it or even resolve it through negotiations etc.
> 
> So far the comments from PRC govt have been good....they want to continue to work to resolve the situation peacefully.



China sticks with the development path. The court ruling will not have any more impact than one of the hundreds of UNGA ruling against the US.

Island development activity is part of the regional public goods scheme.

Of course, territorial sovereignty is not to be negotiated. Other than this, China is ready to talk cooperation with any state actor.


"President Xi Jinping said the South China Sea Islands have been China's territory since ancient times. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime interests in South China Sea, in any circumstances, will not be affected by the award.

He made the remarks on Tuesday afternoon while meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Beijing."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> come to claim it back...please



again you can hold on to whatever you want but if you stop filipino vessels at sea your country is screwed



TaiShang said:


> We will continue to sail in our waters and utilize the resources to its full extent.
> 
> What will you do about it? Post more messages? You need to show me real tangible result. Otherwise, it is much less than a UNGA resolution against the US.



Then you violate international law good luck with that


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> again you can hold on to whatever you want but if you stop filipino vessels at sea your country is screwed



You need to try it now and see for yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Zero_wing said:


> again you can hold on to whatever you want but if you stop filipino vessels at sea your country is screwed



Why we want to stop Pilipino vessels, we 're peace loving people

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Taiping Island has freshwater source on it. It is a full fledged island constantly emerged above sea level with vegetation and wild life. It shows how much of a joke that tribunal is trying to tell the world this is a reef.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> You said it yourself that If Pinoy president is pro-China mean he's not hallucinate like Indians, he's pragmatic and realist, Indians are the ones that need the reality Check...LMAO.



We just need to wait and see if he comes begging to China on SCS like you claimed he well.

He definitely wont. You had a better chance with weakling aquino 

He will like to continue and expand the business relationship for sure....but it will not be at the expense of SCS and Philippines territorial integrity and sovereignty. If China decides to equate the two, you will find Duterte will choose his countries integrity over everything....this is the guy that put out vigilante groups to target criminal terrorist groups in Davao after all. If you decide to agree to disagree, maintain status quo and keep expanding business relations with countries you do not see eye to eye with like a good paper tiger that you are.....you will only benefit in the long run.

Its simple.


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> Then you violate international law good luck with that



It is worthless.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> You need to try it now and see for yourself.


Well go and still wait for that nuke you arrogant trolls promise



TaiShang said:


> It is worthless.



Ok then worthless pala i just read article that we be starting our naval activities again today July 13 so go ahead make china look bad more.


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Haha someone got owned



Kinda like china today still burn you people need to apply aloe vera on that burn
or better yet.


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> Well go and still wait for that nuke you arrogant trolls promise
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then worthless pala i just read article that we be starting our naval activities again today July 13 so go ahead make china look bad more.



No nuke for you. Sorry. Just water cannons.

You come to China's waters, we chase you off.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> No nuke for you. Sorry. Just water cannons.
> 
> You come to China's waters, we chase you off.



Ok sure and pig fly


----------



## greenwood

Nilgiri said:


> We just need to wait and see if he comes begging to China on SCS like you claimed he well.
> 
> He definitely wont. You had a better chance with weakling aquino
> 
> He will like to continue and expand the business relationship for sure....but it will not be at the expense of SCS and Philippines territorial integrity and sovereignty. If China decides to equate the two, you will find Duterte will choose his countries integrity over everything....this is the guy that put out vigilante groups to target criminal terrorist groups in Davao after all. If you decide to agree to disagree, maintain status quo and keep expanding business relations with countries you do not see eye to eye with like a good paper tiger that you are.....you will only benefit in the long run.
> 
> Its simple.


 
The award is null and void, China don't accept and recognize it.
It is very simple. The arbitration is a political operation not judicial action.

When China and India has serious territory disputes, what you say is bullshit.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> Ok sure and pig fly

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

greenwood said:


> The award is null and void, China don't accept and recognize it.
> It is very simple. The arbitration is a political operation not judicial action.
> 
> When China and India has serious territory disputes, what you say is bullshit.



Then china can join the other fallen empires


----------



## TaiShang

China's Defense Ministry says the country's armed forces will unswervingly protect national sovereignty, security, maritime rights and interests. Defense Ministry spokesperson Yang Yujun rejected claims that training exercises in the South China Sea were related to arbitration tribunal case initiated by the Philippines.

"The recently concluded training exercise in the South China Sea was a routine arrangement as part of the annual training program. It was intended to improve the capability of Chinese navy. *The Chinese government's position on the South China Sea arbitration case initiated by the Philippines is consistent and clear. No matter what ruling is made, China's sovereignty, rights and interests will not be affected,"* said Yang Yujun, spokesperson of Chinese Defense Ministry.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2016-07/12/c_135507939.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Nilgiri said:


> We just need to wait and see if he comes begging to China on SCS like you claimed he well.
> 
> He definitely wont. You had a better chance with weakling aquino
> 
> He will like to continue and expand the business relationship for sure....but it will not be at the expense of SCS and Philippines territorial integrity and sovereignty. If China decides to equate the two, you will find Duterte will choose his countries integrity over everything....this is the guy that put out vigilante groups to target criminal terrorist groups in Davao after all. If you decide to agree to disagree, maintain status quo and keep expanding business relations with countries you do not see eye to eye with like a good paper tiger that you are.....you will only benefit in the long run.
> 
> Its simple.



Do we really care if he's pro-China or not, bottom line it's our interest regardless of who he's.



Zero_wing said:


> Then china can join the other fallen empires



, Philipiine is been subjugated by external empires from Spain to US for centuries and even now, you don't even know how empire rise, empire fallen, go get your 101 lesson about empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

Nilgiri said:


> We welcome peaceful rise of China. I have worked with many chinese businessmen and have trained some of their workers...its a good thing for the whole world.
> 
> However China must stay away from having too much ego and realise its just a regular nation like any other (albiet a large scale one) subject to the same rules of world order...and it risks alienating this peaceful rise if it seeks to now escalate the situation rather than de-escalate it or even resolve it through negotiations etc.
> 
> So far the comments from PRC govt have been good....they want to continue to work to resolve the situation peacefully.


 
Did you know China in 1970's and 1988 have sea war on SCS?
Peaceful rising is not what you understand.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

CorporateAffairs said:


> The suppa pavvar is unable to to take this humiliation and frustration is kicking in.



Only Indian know what is humiliation

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> We still continue with the build up.
> 
> You continue innocent passage.
> 
> We show up in your waters. You show up in our waters.
> 
> So what? That's just game of the big.
> 
> 
> 
> Do as we say, not as we do.
> 
> 
> 
> You need rest, man.



i rest if you leave thanks but no thanks #chexist


----------



## TaiShang

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Only Indian know what is humiliation



Only India knows what it is like to be a superpower -- since 2012.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

greenwood said:


> Did you know China in 1970's and 1988 have sea war on SCS?
> Peaceful rising is not what you understand.



Those are how long ago now? China occupied one shoal from PH in 2012....and thats about all we have seen in recent years.

China knows better than to engage in any violent conflict. Its best to let the internet jingos and keyboard warriors chest thump....rather than actually risk a violent engagement that will only be very bad for China in the long run.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Zero_wing said:


> Ok sure and pig fly



no argument but keep repeat the same video like robutt, I didn't bother to open it

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

Zero_wing said:


> Then china can join the other fallen empires


 
if curse has effectiveness, zerowing can make filippines the only empire on earth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Do we really care if he's pro-China or not, bottom line it's our interest regardless of who he's.
> 
> 
> 
> , Philipiine is been subjugated by external empires from Spain to US for centuries and even now, you don't even know how empire rise, empire fallen, go get your 101 lesson about empire.



It's china's turn. And your giving history lesson man sorry we don't take advice from factory made propaganda pass on as historical fact.


----------



## Nilgiri

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Do we really care if he's pro-China or not, bottom line it's our interest regardless of who he's.



Then stop bringing up their leader every time as though he is China's pawn or something. He is an independent pragmatic guy....but he knows the clear red lines in his country when dealing with China.....just like any leader should.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

TaiShang said:


> Only India knows what it is like to be a superpower -- since 2012.



Indians like hallucinating about China...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> Then china can join the other fallen empires



Hmmm, in your subconscious, China is already an empire. That's flattering, but, no thanks, China is still a developing nations that has reached about 25% of its potential only.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

greenwood said:


> if curse has effectiveness, zerowing can make filippines the only empire on earth.



Wow name calling seriously?filippines? Someone supper uber bitter today sorry to say we filipinos never once made an empire it's more of the chinese who makes empires because they can't get enough of stealing from others

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Zero_wing said:


> It's china's turn. And your giving history lesson man sorry we don't take advice from factory made propaganda pass on as historical fact.



As matter of fact, China is on the rise and you're not, it's likely China turn to take over US

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

greenwood said:


> The award is null and void, China don't accept and recognize it.
> It is very simple. The arbitration is a political operation not judicial action.
> 
> When China and India has serious territory disputes, what you say is bullshit.



Yet China signed on to be a UNCLOS member and is still a UNCLOS member after this ruling (and it will not withdraw).

Basically you have shown that you will not accept a verdict that goes against you.....thats not how international conventions (THAT YOU SIGNED AND JOINED) work. But China is free to indulge in whatever illegal behaviour now....just don't expect the world to see it you way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> Those are how long ago now? China occupied one shoal from PH in 2012....and thats about all we have seen in recent years.
> 
> China knows better than to engage in any violent conflict. Its best to let the internet jingos and keyboard warriors chest thump....rather than actually risk a violent engagement that will only be very bad for China in the long run.



It is step by step, incremental development. Drastic action can betaken at times, like in the past, but, the overall discourse of peaceful rise is to be maintained.

Incremental island development and capability build up suggest that the progress is not to be noticed easily. Hence, peaceful development (not 'rise,' we have long given up that concept).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> Hmmm, in your subconscious, China is already an empire. That's flattering, but, no thanks, China is still a developing nations that has reached about 25% of its potential only.



take it as you will you're country screwed either way.


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> Yet China signed on to be a UNCLOS member and is still a UNCLOS member after this ruling (and it will not withdraw).
> 
> Basically you have shown that you will not accept a verdict that goes against you.....thats not how international conventions (THAT YOU SIGNED AND JOINED) work. But China is free to indulge in whatever illegal behaviour now....just don't expect the world to see it you way.



Your world must be too small. Because most of the world as we know does be give a damn about it and business as usual continues.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> As matter of fact, China is on the rise and you're not, it's likely China turn to take over US



Sure if you have to even manufacture your own economic data sure china is on the rise etc well keep using that drug reality is a b#%tch


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Nilgiri said:


> Then stop bringing up their leader every time as though he is China's pawn or something. He is an independent pragmatic guy....but he knows the clear red lines in his country when dealing with China.....just like any leader should.



Lol he's not independent, as matter of fact base on his statement, he's more pro-China and anti-US and probably anti-India to since you guys are cheerleading US, that's my logical deduction.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> Your world must be too small. Because most of the world as we know does be give a damn about it and business as usual continues.



Wow insult here insults there super uber bitter


----------



## Nilgiri

TaiShang said:


> Of course, territorial sovereignty is not to be negotiated. Other than this, China is ready to talk cooperation with any state actor.



By negotiation I mean more like agree to disagree and keep the status quo as long as needed for peace to prevail.

I mean China clearly keeps the status quo for a long time with regards to Taiwan....and Taiwan is certainly a much bigger prestige and public goods + wealth issue than SCS ever will be.

So I expect the same for SCS to continue.


----------



## TaiShang

Zero_wing said:


> take it as you will you're country screwed either way.



Do not re-post the video, I won't be listening after I tried the first 15 seconds. It is not for my taste.

As I read the news, China just dispatched another exploration vessel to Pacific today. If this is how countries are screwed, I guess PH will never get screwed.



Zero_wing said:


> Wow insult here insults there super uber bitter



Where is the insult?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Lol he's not independent, as matter of fact base on his statement, he's more pro-China and anti-US and probably anti-India to since you guys are cheerleading US, that's my logical deduction.



You are welcome to believe whatever you want and deduce whatever you want.

It is you that will have egg on your face when Duterte simply continues the same SCS policy of PH and gives China absolutely nothing on this matter. He has to be accountable on it to his own people.....having been well versed in the political sphere of his country he knows this only too well.

Shall we see who is right and wrong? Chinese do not understand how a democracy works....so it may seem strange to you how Duterte operates in many fronts independently.


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> Do not re-post the video, I won't be listening after I tried the first 15 seconds. It is not for my taste.
> 
> As I read the news, China just dispatched another exploration vessel to Pacific today. If this is how countries are screwed, I guess PH will never get screwed.



Oh so now you know how the rest of the world feels about your historical claim nonsense see you do feel something but sadly i have to adopt something from you people why should we? 








TaiShang said:


> Do not re-post the video, I won't be listening after I tried the first 15 seconds. It is not for my taste.
> 
> As I read the news, China just dispatched another exploration vessel to Pacific today. If this is how countries are screwed, I guess PH will never get screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the insult?



Wow from name calling to denial


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Zero_wing said:


> Sure if you have to even manufacture your own economic data sure china is on the rise etc well keep using that drug reality is a b#%tch



Wow insult China as cheater to fabricate economic data, what a super uber bitter

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## greenwood

Nilgiri said:


> Those are how long ago now? China occupied one shoal from PH in 2012....and thats about all we have seen in recent years.
> 
> China knows better than to engage in any violent conflict. Its best to let the internet jingos and keyboard warriors chest thump....rather than actually risk a violent engagement that will only be very bad for China in the long run.


 
I have said, India and China has serious territory disputes, you can satisfy pinoys self-delusion at the moment, and calculate your own method to counter against China. You don't need to sounds generous and objective as an stand-by observer. Indian have two options: invisibility in the topic and direct to China-India territory disputes. Other thing you talk are dogsht.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Wow insult China as cheater to fabricate economic data, what a super uber bitter



No your copying do you chinese ever heard of originality but then again


----------



## Nilgiri

TaiShang said:


> Your world must be too small. Because most of the world as we know does be give a damn about it and business as usual continues.



That applies to China as well...it wont be occupying any more islands forcibly like some of your compatriots are saying (bringing up the 70s and 80s).

If the world truly doesn't give a damn, its strange that its frontpage headlines for 2 days in a row now and counting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> By negotiation I mean more like agree to disagree and keep the status quo as long as needed for peace to prevail.
> 
> I mean China clearly keeps the status quo for a long time with regards to Taiwan....and Taiwan is certainly a much bigger prestige and public goods + wealth issue than SCS ever will be.
> 
> So I expect the same for SCS to continue.



Probably the status quo will prevail unless PH or any third parties do not take some aggressive steps. China can tolerate US innocent passages as long as it does not impinge upon island development activities.

Here and there chasing some PH/VN boats and small wash-ups by water cannon won't lead to a major crisis.

Just let the excitement pass, it will be yet another systemic flaw to be recorded in IR history.



Zero_wing said:


> No your copying do you chinese ever heard of originality but then again



You are losing your grip on reality. Seriously, get some rest, man.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> Probably the status quo will prevail unless PH or any third parties do not take some aggressive steps. China can tolerate US innocent passages as long as it does not impinge upon island development activities.
> 
> Here and there chasing some PH/VN boats and small wash-ups by water cannon won't lead to a major crisis.
> 
> Just let the excitement pass, it will be yet another systemic flaw to be recorded in IR history.
> 
> 
> 
> You are losing your grip on reality. Seriously, get some rest, man.



Why its fun


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> That applies to China as well...it wont be occupying any more islands forcibly like some of your compatriots are saying (bringing up the 70s and 80s).
> 
> If the world truly doesn't give a damn, its strange that its frontpage headlines for 2 days in a row now and counting.



Yes, the world does not give a heck. Two days, or a week on the headlines does not mean much. Eurocup has taken greater space. But, after a week, people go back to business and newspapers look for another exciting story.

China will incrementally increase presence and capability as it does now. The next development target will likely be Scarborough shoal, as I talk to experts from my institution and Mainland China.

Eventually the islands will be recovered, but, that's not a priority at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Nilgiri said:


> You are welcome to believe whatever you want and deduce whatever you want.
> 
> It is you that will have egg on your face when Duterte simply continues the same SCS policy of PH and gives China absolutely nothing on this matter. He has to be accountable on it to his own people.....having been well versed in the political sphere of his country he knows this only too well.
> 
> Shall we see who is right and wrong? Chinese do not understand how a democracy works....so it may seem strange to you how Duterte operates in many fronts independently.



Like I said, we don't give a fly of who he's, if he wants to be friend with China, we're open our arms for him and not thing prevent him to take opposite direction, we sure are equipped with counter measure, He's accountable to his people, we're accountable to China interest. And we're dealing with the world most powerful troublemaker democrazy country and you said we don't understand how democrazy work??? we probably know better than India to exploit the loophole of democrazy to make China as 2nd economical power.



Zero_wing said:


> Why its fun



keep trolling with repeat video will get you ban.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

TaiShang said:


> the overall discourse of peaceful rise is to be maintained.



I certainly do not see it being disrupted in the next couple decades or so. China has to carefully negotiate the position it currently finds itself in economically and geopolitically.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Like I said, we don't give a fly of who he's, if he wants to be friend with China, we're open our arms for him and not thing prevent him to take opposite direction, we sure are equipped with counter measure, He's accountable to his people, we're accountable to China interest. And we're dealing with the world most powerful troublemaker democrazy country and you said we don't understand how democrazy work??? we probably know better than India to exploit the loophole of democrazy to make China as 2nd economical power.
> 
> 
> 
> keep trolling with repeat video will get you ban.



If i get two cents for it why not ban lang pala why is it within you're undisputed claims too?


----------



## Zero_wing

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> no argument but keep repeat the same video like robutt, I didn't bother to open it



Again do we care? its really how we feel to hear china's ridiculous undisputed historical claim that is now trash just like the people who made them so again thanks


----------



## Nilgiri

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> we probably know better than India to exploit the loophole of democrazy to make China as 2nd economical power.



Well this ruling certainly didn't lend much credence to your assertion.

40 - 8....I was expecting the overall result but not such a skewed one given China's outreach, investments (+bribing) and charm offensives over many years to many countries.


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> I certainly do not see it being disrupted in the next couple decades or so. China has to carefully negotiate the position it currently finds itself in economically and geopolitically.



In the end, as you say, it is a matter of management, people may get excited and jumpy on this board, but, decision-makers have to be cold and cool-headed as stone.

Simplicity and one-liner diplomacy is more powerful than being wordy in international relations. Hence, China will likely continue to repeat the same message through spokespersons until the ground reality becomes visible again amid the noise.

In the end, there will be thousands of opinion but a single ground reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

Nilgiri said:


> Well this ruling certainly didn't lend much credence to your assertion.
> 
> 40 - 8....I was expecting the overall result but not such a skewed one given China's outreach, investments (+bribing) and charm offensives over many years to many countries.



Too bad they wasted all that money next time go for countries who are archipelagic not landlocked 



TaiShang said:


> In the end, as you say, it is a matter of management, people may get excited and jumpy on this board, but, decision-makers have to be cold and cool-headed as stone.
> 
> Simplicity and one-liner diplomacy is more powerful than being wordy in international relations. Hence, China will likely continue to repeat the same message through spokespersons until the ground reality becomes visible again amid the noise.
> 
> In the end, there will be thousands of opinion but a single ground reality.



That good make more noise and add noise pollution to china's crime against nature

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

greenwood said:


> Indian have two options: invisibility in the topic and direct to China-India territory disputes.



Always dealing in absolutes like the autocrat lovers you are.

So fun to see you reacting saying NO NO NO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DAMNIT....and everyone else just continuing doing what they are doing completely ignoring what you think are the only options.

We will talk about Chinese relations with the SCS countries as much as we darn well please...either counter us with the facts or if you can't resort to silly option giving....and watch us continue like we care about it.

Nuts to your black and white options in a forum (maybe a forum is quite alien to your ideology?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> Well this ruling certainly didn't lend much credence to your assertion.
> 
> 40 - 8....I was expecting the overall result but not such a skewed one given China's outreach, investments (+bribing) and charm offensives over many years to many countries.



But as a result of investment, China has become the largest trading nation on earth and amassed considerable amount of foreign assets. So it was not at all a worthless effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

greenwood said:


> I have said, India and China has serious territory disputes, you can satisfy pinoys self-delusion at the moment, and calculate your own method to counter against China. You don't need to sounds generous and objective as an stand-by observer. Indian have two options: invisibility in the topic and direct to China-India territory disputes. Other thing you talk are dogsht.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

Nilgiri said:


> Always dealing in absolutes like the autocrat lovers you are.
> 
> So fun to see you reacting saying NO NO NO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DAMNIT....and everyone else just continuing doing what they are doing completely ignoring what you think are the only options.
> 
> We will talk about Chinese relations with the SCS countries as much as we darn well please...either counter us with the facts or if you can't resort to silly option giving....and watch us continue like we care about it.
> 
> Nuts to your black and white options in a forum (maybe a forum is quite alien to your ideology?)



And you see ground reality in endless, unprogressive stratum, like caste lovers you are... I, as a Marxist, tend to see reality as being dialectical. Hence, I adopt historical outlook.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zero_wing

TaiShang said:


> And you see ground reality in endless, unprogressive stratum, like caste lovers you are... I, as a Marxist, tend to see reality as being dialectical. Hence, I adopt historical outlook.



calling yourself a Marxist was your first mistake


----------



## oprih

XenoEnsi-14 said:


> China still hasn't fired the first weapon. Game is still on.


There's no need for that, China is comfortably continuing building up in their islands in South China Sea while the only thing the american sailors can do is watch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Nilgiri said:


> Its the spoiled brat syndrome + middle kingdom ego.



Loser can only afford of frustrating envy with hopeless hallucination of China...go for it

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

oprih said:


> There's no need for that, China is comfortably continuing building up in their islands in South China Sea while the only thing the american sailors can do is watch.



indeed

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jason Zhao

Zero_wing said:


> Well its not just the navy any Filipino ship i mean any ship so go ahead either way you're screwed



come on, fire~~

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gayMo

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Lol an Indian call China thief, we haven't finished with you yet for stealing our South Tibet region, you don't think you gonna get away by diverting us to SCS issue...nice try.


Yes, tibet wants to be freed of chinese yoke. Will support that


----------



## Jason Zhao

That's impossible to accept it,unless you get the war to defeat us, then you can get it, otherwise forget it.
The verdict?? it just a joke, who cares? hahaha

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

TaiShang said:


> But as a result of investment, China has become the largest trading nation on earth and amassed considerable amount of foreign assets. So it was not at all a worthless effort.



Yah its just not the 100% conclusive factor in the world it seems.



TaiShang said:


> And you see ground reality in endless, unprogressive stratum, like caste lovers you are... I, as a Marxist, tend to see reality as being dialectical. Hence, I adopt historical outlook.



See there you are speaking in absolutes again. Assuming I am a caste lover when I didn't bring up Caste or anything of the sort here (whereas your friend certainly did bring up autocratism and absolutism).

Marxism has failed miserably. Just look at the Gini coefficient in China these days. At some level you have to accept people are not all identical and allow those that have the drive to succeed and create wealth and the necessary disparity that results.

The Caste system was traditionally a recognition of these differences in any population....only over time did it migrate into a birth-related phenomenon which created a backward social rigidity. It is now changing quite rapidly esp in the urban and semi urban areas.....this phenomenon will only continue to expand.

But you can continue with the generalised absolutism if you want....it also suits us just fine as well.


----------



## oprih

India's opinion is of zero importance to China. Indians need to stop thinking that it's a big deal when it comes to international matters, honestly it's embarrassing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## oprih

This is actually a victory for China since the ruling encourages China to build faster and even start more reclamation in other islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jason Zhao

XenoEnsi-14 said:


> China still hasn't fired the first weapon. Game is still on.


hahaha China has a policy, we never fire first weapon, if first fire against us, we never let them fire again.
USA, COME ON, WHAT ABOUT YOU? DARE YOU FIRE US PLEASE?




Thunder-17 said:


> Anyone who doesnt conform to your in-consistent narrative is a false flagger?
> Why seperate rules for Muslims of palentine and kashmir and not for Xingiang? Xingiang musliams are not even allowed to pray to their wish. Everything they do is restricted by the commies. They have even less freedoms than our brothers in Kashmir and palestine. If you are a true muslim with an IQ greater than a chimp, it should instantly strike you.
> 
> Oh and I'm a false flagger nonsense crumbles down right away if you understand the words written here by me - https://defence.pk/threads/10-bangl...ve-entered-india-says-bangladesh-govt.439002/


Are you really knows our Xinjiang? Have you been there? or just get the news from the people who are against our goverment? 
I suggest you to go there, check it by yourself.

In China, our Han people even wish we can be other minority people. as they are more perfect rights than Han people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jason Zhao

India goverment already state that USA has no right to intervene Asian case, Peace Island is a rock????????? Are you kidding me????

USA you are a BOSS??? Other country scale you, that means so we are

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## greenwood

Nilgiri said:


> Always dealing in absolutes like the autocrat lovers you are.
> 
> So fun to see you reacting saying NO NO NO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DAMNIT....and everyone else just continuing doing what they are doing completely ignoring what you think are the only options.
> 
> We will talk about Chinese relations with the SCS countries as much as we darn well please...either counter us with the facts or if you can't resort to silly option giving....and watch us continue like we care about it.
> 
> Nuts to your black and white options in a forum (maybe a forum is quite alien to your ideology?)


 
Give you a meaningful work here,
Taiping is island or shoal, use your big eyes and give us your first impression:* island or shoal *?





Taiping in 1946




Taiping in 1946

Followings are Taiping's photos recent years.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Pinoy

July 12, 2016
*Asian nations welcome South China Sea ruling*

*



©AP*
Vietnamese nationals cheer during a rally by the Manila Bay on Tuesday to show their support for the Philippine case before the UN tribunal

Asian countries locked in maritime disputes with China welcomed the legal victory won by the Philippines over China’s claims in the South China Sea on Tuesday and urged Beijing to respect the verdict in the interests of regional peace and security.

Confrontations over competing claims to the waters have escalated as China continues to build artificial islands in the sea, threatening security and dividing the capitals of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Perfecto Yasay, the Philippine foreign secretary, called for China to comply with the ruling, handed down by a UN tribunal in The Hague, as part of efforts at “promoting and enhancing peace and stability” in the region.

*“The Philippines strongly affirms its respect for this milestone decision as an important contribution to ongoing efforts in addressing disputes in the South China Sea,”* he said.

The judgment is the first big test for Rodrigo Duterte, the new president of the Philippines. He has promised to improve relations with China but will be under domestic pressure to take a hard line after a judgment so favourable to Manila.


Some observers have questioned whether he may already have reached a deal or understanding with Beijing, although nothing has been said officially by either side.

Hanoi, which has a bitter maritime territorial rivalry with China in the South China Sea, welcomed the ruling and called for territorial quarrels in the region to be resolved using “diplomacy and legal processes” rather than armed force.

Anti-Chinese riots broke out in Vietnam in 2014 after the arrival of a Chinese oil rig near the contested Paracel Islands, causing severe damage to industrial zones.

Japan said it “strongly expects” that compliance with ruling by the two parties would “eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea”. Tokyo has a separate conflict with Beijing in the East China Sea over a chain of islands known in Japan as the Senkaku and in China as the Diaoyu.

But some analysts say Beijing is likely to respond to Tuesday’s legal setback with a show of strength in the affected areas.

“The ruling . . . potentially limits China’s negotiating stance on the disputed maritime area with other countries that also assert claims there, namely Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam,” said Amarjit Singh, senior consultant for country risk at IHS. “However, initially, China’s reaction to the ruling can be expected to be assertive.”






Multiple territorial disputes have caused tensions within Asean, where countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam are pitted against China-leaning Cambodia and Laos, the regional grouping’s current chair.

Beijing has accused some nations, including Vietnam, of doing their own island building.

Hun Sen, Cambodia’s prime minister, has previously accused The Hague tribunal of political bias. A Cambodian government spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Thailand, which is not engaged in any maritime dispute with China, called for a code of conduct governing the South China Sea, reflecting efforts by other Asean members to find an agreed way forward.

Singapore urged all parties to “fully respect legal and diplomatic processes”.

“We support the peaceful resolution of disputes among claimants in accordance with universally recognised principles of international law . . . without resorting to the threat or use of force, ” a spokesman for Singapore’s ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement.

The city state has no territorial claims in the South China Sea but is a small open economy that relies on free trade and unhindered navigation.

Malaysia’s ministry of foreign affairs issued a statement calling for the implementation of the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, a 2002 agreement signed by China and Asean to refrain from occupying uninhabited reefs and shoals.

Malaysia, which has staked a territorial claim in the South China Sea, called for all sides to exercise restraint and avoid the use of force, saying it believed a peaceful resolution was possible with respect for international law.

Ian Storey, a senior fellow at Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, said that “given the divisions within [Asean], and China’s ability to exploit those divisions by putting pressure on certain members to do its bidding”, the organisation was unlikely to endorse The Hague verdict when members meet later this month.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

greenwood said:


> Give you a meaningful work here,
> Taiping is island or shoal, use your big eyes and give us your first impression:* island or shoal *?
> View attachment 317152
> 
> Taiping in 1946
> View attachment 317148
> 
> Taiping in 1946
> 
> Followings are Taiping's photos recent years.
> View attachment 317147
> 
> View attachment 317146
> 
> View attachment 317149
> 
> 
> View attachment 317153
> View attachment 317154



When i said shoal earlier I was referring to the shoal Chinese occupied in 2012.

I agree there are islands that China is in control for various lengths of time in modern history.

But same goes for PH and Vietnam w.r.t SCS islands in general.


----------



## Jason Zhao

India~~ Come on~~you have no power to effect us, IF ONE COUNTRY DO NOT WIN THE HISTORY, HOW TO BE A COUNTRY? 

This is a basic education of one country!! Of course if that country has no history, then they can forget it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*South China Sea decision a hollow victory for the Philippines*
*ANALYSIS*
Bill Birtles
Updated about 2 hours ago





Rarely does a victorious party in such a major legal dispute welcome a decision with such caution.

But the short three-sentence statement read out by Philippines Foreign Minister Perfecto Yasay shows how little the country's international legal win over China will change the situation on the water.

The move by the former Aquino government to attempt to defend the Philippines' maritime territorial rights in the arena of international law was always going to be a bold gamble.

Three years on, the Arbitration Court's award has decimated the basis for most of China's territorial claims, including its historical claims to the "nine-dash line" that engulfs most of the sea.

Even worse for Beijing, the ruling rejects China's assertions that the artificial islands it has constructed give it the legal basis for exclusive economic zones.


That, combined with further adverse findings about China breaching the legal rights of the Philippines and causing "severe harm" to the coral reef environment, should be cause for celebration in Manila.

But this is a David-and-Goliath battle, and whatever moral clout the decision gives to the Philippines, it means little for its fishermen trying to make a living near Chinese-occupied reefs.

After the decision, China declared the ruling "null and void", declared it had carried out more civilian aircraft landings on disputed islands and announced the commissioning of a new guided missile destroyer.

President Xi Jinping declared the ruling would not affect China's interests in the heavily disputed waters, while nationalistic state media outlets declared the tribunal's decision "shameless" and "hopelessly one-sided".

In other words, Beijing is now openly flouting international law and firing up a nationalistic movement at home, ensuring there will be no domestic political softening on its stance.

It appears the Philippines' new government, under President Rodrigo Duterte, is already resigned to that outcome, knowing neither it nor its ally the United States, can do anything substantial to force China to abide by the tribunal's decision.

In the lead-up to the decision, the Philippines made overtures suggesting it was open to joint exploration with China in the areas it claims.

It is obvious which country would hold the power in any negotiations.

"The award of the court vindicates those many nations which have called on China to accept a rules-based order in Asia," ANU's National Security College analyst Rory Medcalf said.

"And it puts expectations on other countries in the region, such as Australia, to stand up for international law."

But with China unwilling to bend, the Philippines may be left wondering if it has won the argument but lost the overall contest for control.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/south-china-sea-philippines-hollow-victory/7623460

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cochine

*US: Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding*

July 12, 2016 Joel Dizon Nation 0



The United States government said that according to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Tribunal’s decision on West Philippine Sea case is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines.

“As provided in the Convention, the Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines. The United States expresses its hope and expectation that both parties will comply with their obligations,” US State Department spokesperson Assistant Secretary John Kirby said in a press statement released today.

He added that the United States urges all claimants to avoid provocative statements or actions. “This decision can and should serve as a new opportunity to renew efforts to address maritime disputes peacefully,” he added.

“The United States strongly supports the rule of law. We support efforts to resolve territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea peacefully, including through arbitration,” Kirby said.

He said that the US government is still studying the decision and have no comment on the merits of the case.


----------



## cochine

*US: Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding*

July 12, 2016 Joel Dizon Nation 0



The United States government said that according to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Tribunal’s decision on West Philippine Sea case is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines.

“As provided in the Convention, the Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines. The United States expresses its hope and expectation that both parties will comply with their obligations,” US State Department spokesperson Assistant Secretary John Kirby said in a press statement released today.

He added that the United States urges all claimants to avoid provocative statements or actions. “This decision can and should serve as a new opportunity to renew efforts to address maritime disputes peacefully,” he added.

“The United States strongly supports the rule of law. We support efforts to resolve territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea peacefully, including through arbitration,” Kirby said.

He said that the US government is still studying the decision and have no comment on the merits of the case.


----------



## Jason Zhao

kecho said:


> *US: Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding*
> 
> July 12, 2016 Joel Dizon Nation 0
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government said that according to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Tribunal’s decision on West Philippine Sea case is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines.
> 
> “As provided in the Convention, the Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines. The United States expresses its hope and expectation that both parties will comply with their obligations,” US State Department spokesperson Assistant Secretary John Kirby said in a press statement released today.
> 
> He added that the United States urges all claimants to avoid provocative statements or actions. “This decision can and should serve as a new opportunity to renew efforts to address maritime disputes peacefully,” he added.
> 
> “The United States strongly supports the rule of law. We support efforts to resolve territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea peacefully, including through arbitration,” Kirby said.
> 
> He said that the US government is still studying the decision and have no comment on the merits of the case.



*USA ALSO DO NOT ACCEPT THE Tribunal’s decision BEFORE, HOW DARE HE CAN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE?? SO FUNNY*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shree835

Jason Zhao said:


> India~~ Come on~~you have no power to effect us, IF ONE COUNTRY DO NOT WIN THE HISTORY, HOW TO BE A COUNTRY?
> 
> This is a basic education of one country!! Of course if that country has no history, then they can forget it.



Did not understand your Chinese English...better you type in Chinese...will try to translate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## greenwood

Nilgiri said:


> When i said shoal earlier I was referring to the shoal Chinese occupied in 2012.
> 
> I agree there are islands that China is in control for various lengths of time in modern history.
> 
> But same goes for PH and Vietnam w.r.t SCS islands in general.


 
Is Taiping island or shoal after you read those photos, the first impression?




Taiping in 1946

Followings are Taiping in recent years:














@Doordie @kankan326 @T-Rex @Rain Man @Tiqiu @Zero_wing @william Huang @hirobo2 @Sinopakfriend @Nilgiri @etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

Quotable quotes 

***

*Quotable quotes on the unlawful S. China Sea arbitration*

Source: Xinhua | 2016-07-12 23:52:07 | 

BEIJING, July 12 (Xinhua) -- The Hague-based arbitration court issued on Tuesday an ill-founded award on an arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines against China regarding their dispute in the South China Sea. The Chinese government officials and overseas experts have voiced their disapproval of the court's verdict.

Xi Jinping

-- China will not accept any proposition or action based on the award. The South China Sea Islands have been China's territory since ancient times.* China's territorial sovereignty and maritime interests in the South China Sea, in any circumstances, will not be affected by the award.*

Wang Yi, Chinese Foreign Minister

-- The arbitration is a political farce under the pretext of law.

Spokesman of Pakistan's Foreign Ministry

-- Pakistan opposes any imposition of unilateral will on others, and respects China's statement of optional exception in light of Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Countries outside the region should fully respect efforts made by China and the ASEAN countries to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea, and play a constructive role to this end.

Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute of the National University of Singapore

-- The arbitration, initiated by the Philippines against China, is a political issue manipulated by the United States, which demands political solutions, instead of the employment of the law.

Satur Ocampo, a former member of the Philippine House of Representatives

-- The Aquino government should not initiate an arbitration case on the disputed South China Sea to the arbitral tribunal. If a conflict arises between China and the Philippines,* it would provide the United States with the excuses they need in interfering in the regional affairs.*

Saeed al-Lawindi, a political researcher and expert of international relations at the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies

-- I believe that the ruling issued today is completely biased and it might in some way or another stir up serious conflict in the region.

*What is happening now is a kind of cold war, directly between China and the Philippines and indirectly between the United States and both China and *Russia*.*

Mahmoud Allam, former Egyptian ambassador to China

-- International arbitration is one of the mechanisms used for settling disputes as stated by the United Nations charter, but this mechanism must meet several conditions, otherwise it would be null and void.

Accordingly, it is obvious that the Philippines' unilateral resort to arbitration regarding the South China Sea issue without the approval of the other party, which is China ... makes the arbitration itself null and void in form.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## deckingraj

salarsikander said:


> The one designed to contain China ? lol
> Come on they can go and invade iraq, attack Libya leave it in Dust. *What worth does this Biased ruling have *?


Then you were complaining that i was mocking you as cheerleader...How do you know the ruling is biased?? Do you even have an idea what ICJ is?? Here read about it
http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1

b/w FYI - there are many times Pakistan has also dragged India into the same court and vice versa...also like ICJ another UN body did actually did this to you..
http://www.dawn.com/news/1170986/pa...feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dawn-news+(Dawn+News)

Now suddenly UN bodies are biased  ?? Anyways just for argument sake what is your take on china claim of almost whole of south china sea??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

kecho said:


> *US: Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding*
> 
> July 12, 2016 Joel Dizon Nation 0
> 
> 
> 
> The United States government said that according to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Tribunal’s decision on West Philippine Sea case is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines.
> 
> “As provided in the Convention, the Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines. The United States expresses its hope and expectation that both parties will comply with their obligations,” US State Department spokesperson Assistant Secretary John Kirby said in a press statement released today.
> 
> He added that the United States urges all claimants to avoid provocative statements or actions. “This decision can and should serve as a new opportunity to renew efforts to address maritime disputes peacefully,” he added.
> 
> “The United States strongly supports the rule of law. We support efforts to resolve territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea peacefully, including through arbitration,” Kirby said.
> 
> He said that the US government is still studying the decision and have no comment on the merits of the case.



Who cares what US says anything? Where were they when China took over the Paracels in 1974? oh, Yes, actually they were there right besides you but didn't have the balls to do anything. lol..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pinoy

*'No legal basis' for China's South China Sea claims
Ruling seen as a victory for the Philippines, which filed the case before the tribunal at The Hague.
*
*An arbitration tribunal in The Hague has rejected China's claims to economic rights across large swaths of the South China Sea, in a ruling that will be claimed as a victory by the Philippines.*

*"There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line',"* the Permanent Court of Arbitration said on Tuesday, referring to a demarcation line on a 1947 map of the sea.

The South China Sea is a resource-rich strategic waterway through which more than $5 trillion of world trade is shipped each year.

In the 497-page ruling, the court also found that Chinese law enforcement patrols had risked colliding with Philippine fishing vessels in parts of the sea and caused irreparable damage to coral reefs with construction work.

China, which boycotted the case brought by the Philippines, rejected the ruling, saying its islands had exclusive economic zones and the Chinese people have more than 2,000 years of history of activities there.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said his country "will not accept" the decision, adding that China "under any circumstances, will not be affected by the award", Xinhua state news agency reported. 

READ MORE: Tensions ahead of Hague ruling

Al Jazeera's Adrian Brown, reporting from Beijing, said: "It's fair to assume that the Chinese government knew which way this was going to go.

"Within minutes of the decision, the Chinese government released a fairly detailed statement restating why China always believes these islands belong to them, so now the question is really what is going to happen in the coming days."

China has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, including the Spratlys and Paracels, and Beijing's position is consistent with international law and practice, the Chinese foreign ministry said.

The United States, which China has accused of fuelling tensions and militarising the region with patrols and exercises, said the ruling should be treated as final and binding.

"We certainly would urge all parties not to use this as an opportunity to engage in escalatory or provocative action," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters in a briefing.

Al Jazeera's Marga Ortigas, reporting from Manila, said the Philippine government has "called for calm in terms of how to move forward after the decision despite now having gained leverage with this court ruling.

*"President Rodrigo Duterte seems to want to retain friendly relationship and open ties with China. However, there is concern among many Filipinos here that its current government might be a little too friendly," *Ortigas said. 
*
Perfecto Yasay, the Philippine foreign secretary, said in Manila that the "milestone decision" was an important contribution to efforts in addressing disputes in the sea.

"The Philippines reiterates its abiding commitment to efforts of pursuing the peaceful resolution and management of disputes with the view of promoting and enhancing peace and stability in the region," he said.






*
The ruling is expected to further increase tensions in the region, where China's increased military assertiveness has spread concern among its smaller neighbours and is a point of confrontation with the US.

"This award represents a devastating legal blow to China's jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea," Ian Storey, of Singapore's ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, told Reuters.

"China will respond with fury, certainly in terms of rhetoric and possibly through more aggressive actions at sea," he said.

United States diplomatic, military and intelligence officers told Reuters that China's reaction to the court's decision would largely determine how other claimants, as well as the US, respond.

In China, social media users reacted with outrage at the ruling.

"It was ours in the past, is now and will remain so in the future," wrote one user on microblogging site Weibo. "Those who encroach on our China's territory will die no matter how far away they are."

Spreading fast on social media in the Philippines was the use of the term "Chexit" - the public's desire for Chinese vessels to leave nearby waters.

Al Jazeera's Jamela Alindogan, reporting from northern Luzon, near the disputed Scarborough Shoal, said Filipino fishermen affected by the dispute have welcomed the decision, but are awaiting for Philippine President Duterte's help in improving their livelihood.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bobsm

beijingwalker said:


> Who cares what US says anything? Where were they when China took over the Paracels in 1974? oh, Yes, actually they were there right besides you but didn't have the balls to do anything. lol..



I think, while they are celebrating with champagne in hands, this is the part they tend to purposely forget:



> It appears the Philippines' new government, under President Rodrigo Duterte, is already resigned to that outcome, *knowing neither it nor its ally the United States, can do anything substantial to force China to abide by the tribunal's decision.*


 
That is, Law without enforcement, is a law not worth the paper it's written on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

greenwood said:


> Is Taiping island or shoal after you read those photos, the first impression?
> View attachment 317158
> 
> Taiping in 1946
> 
> Followings are Taiping in recent years:
> View attachment 317160
> View attachment 317161
> View attachment 317162
> View attachment 317163
> 
> 
> @Doordie @kankan326 @T-Rex @Rain Man @Tiqiu @Zero_wing @william Huang @hirobo2 @Sinopakfriend @Nilgiri @etc.



Looks like an island to me. Your point?


----------



## kankan326

Providence said:


> It's not an ad-hoc judgement but a 496 page report giving details and reasons for the judgement. Read that.


Whatever. The ruling does define the territory issues. You can not deny that. No need words game.


----------



## kankan326

Nilgiri said:


> Looks like an island to me. Your point?


The arbitration ruling said there is no island in SCS, all shoals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

kankan326 said:


> The arbitration ruling said there is no island in SCS, all shoals.



OK, well I am not sure what the legalese is regarding the definition of islands and shoals.

Many of the names given to the "shoals" have the word island in them it seems anyway.


----------



## beijingwalker

*Major Chinese Navy Fleets Military Exercise In South China Sea Live Firing




*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## greenwood

Nilgiri said:


> Looks like an island to me. Your point?


 
So do I, folks' eyes are bright!



Nilgiri said:


> OK, well I am not sure what the legalese is regarding the definition of islands and shoals.
> 
> Many of the names given to the "shoals" have the word island in them it seems anyway.


 
Haha, after you read kankan's post, you start the sophistry for the illegal arbitration award.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

greenwood said:


> Haha, after you read kankan's post, you start the sophistry for the illegal arbitration award.



Interpret it however you want.

Has PRC govt come out with any statement saying it is not applicable because of the word shoal instead of island? ...or they are objecting on other grounds?

Will it mean that the actual shoals (that you consider shoals beyond doubt) will be rescinded by PRC now due to the verdict?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

gayMo said:


> Yes, tibet wants to be freed of chinese yoke. Will support that


We will support Kashmir to be free of indian yoke, and eastern states and Maoists... wait..just found that there are so many of them..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

@kuge Take a rest, play the images identify game, Taiping is island or shoal / reef?

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm


----------



## cochine

beijingwalker said:


> Who cares what US says anything? Where were they when China took over the Paracels in 1974? oh, Yes, actually they were there right besides you but didn't have the balls to do anything. lol..



*Japan: Parties are required to comply with Arbitral Tribunal’s award*

July 13, 2016 Gracel Ortega World 0



“Japan has consistently advocated the importance of the rule of law and the use of peaceful means, not the use of force or coercion, in seeking settlement of maritime disputes,” Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said after the Arbitral Tribunal instituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rendered it award regarding the West Philippine Sea dispute.

He added that as the Tribunal’s award is final and legally binding on the parties to the dispute under the provisions of UNCLOS, the parties to this case are required to comply with the award.

“Japan strongly expects that the parties’ compliance with this award will eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea,” the Japanese Minister added.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

William Hung said:


> The problem with this Chinese objection is that China had already ratified, in other words:* had agreed to*, the UNCLOS which included a very specific legal clause that fundamentally says that if there are any dispute or disagreement over whether a court/tribunal has jurisdiction or not, then the court/tribunal will be the one that has the final say about its jurisdiction. Yes, the court/tribunal will get to decide on it, not the dispute parties. It may sound unbelievable to some Chinese now, but that is what China had ratified and agreed to lol.


The problems with your such remarks are that you are blank in law subject and you never lived in a place outside Vietnam. If you had lived in the West, you would know there will be exclusion clause in every legal agreement, be it international treaty, legal contract or simple commercial/retail agreement. For instance In Australia, if you buy an insurance policy,or buy a ferry ticket,or send your cloths to dry-clean, there will be disclaimer clauses to prevent from claiming your rights in certain circumstances which are already pre-described on the legal document/ticket/receipt. You need to check the exclusion clause of the UNCLOS before making your comments on this matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

Nilgiri said:


> OK, well I am not sure what the legalese is regarding the definition of islands and shoals.
> 
> Many of the names given to the "shoals" have the word island in them it seems anyway.


 
Name is something habit. But court / legal orgalization should has its justice spirit and very serious terms.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

kecho said:


> *Japan: Parties are required to comply with Arbitral Tribunal’s award*
> 
> July 13, 2016 Gracel Ortega World 0
> 
> 
> 
> “Japan has consistently advocated the importance of the rule of law and the use of peaceful means, not the use of force or coercion, in seeking settlement of maritime disputes,” Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said after the Arbitral Tribunal instituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rendered it award regarding the West Philippine Sea dispute.
> 
> He added that as the Tribunal’s award is final and legally binding on the parties to the dispute under the provisions of UNCLOS, the parties to this case are required to comply with the award.
> 
> “Japan strongly expects that the parties’ compliance with this award will eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea,” the Japanese Minister added.


You know what Japan says means to China, right? not even worth the crap, an occupied country by US, just a lapdog of Uncle Sam.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cochine

beijingwalker said:


> You know what Japan says means to China, right? not even worth the crap, an occupied country by US, just a lapdog of Uncle Sam.



China is a loser.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pinoy

*Ex-Pres. Aquino on the ruling issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration*

*Published *July 13, 2016 
_Statement of Benigno S. Aquino III on the ruling issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on the case submitted by the Philippines July 13, 2016:_






I reviewed the Press Release and Summary issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the “South China Sea Arbitration” (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China). *I am, of course, quite elated particularly since all the points we had raised were affirmed.*

*We want to thank the Permanent Court of Arbitration for their fair judgment, and we would also like to extend our gratitude for the clarity with which they presented their ruling.*

Let us remember that the disputes in the Sea Known by Many Names have gone on for decades—from our perspective, stretching as far back as the 1970s. These conflicts have come about, primarily because of the differing opinions on each country’s rights and obligations. To this end, I would ask our countrymen and all people of goodwill to read the Press Release and Summary issued by the Tribunal, to gain a full understanding of the issues involved.

*Let me emphasize: All countries that have made a comment on this issue, to our knowledge, have expressed adherence to international law. Indeed: International law has been made clearer with this monumental decision. This of course deals with the Philippines and China, clarifying each state’s rights and obligations; but as our lead counsel said, it also has very strong implications as far as other coastal states are concerned, with regard to UNCLOS.*

At this point, may I suggest that instead of viewing this decision as a victory of one party over another, the best way to look at this judgment is that it is a victory for all. I say this because the clarity rendered now establishes better conditions that enable countries to engage each other, bearing in mind their duties and rights within a context that espouses equality and amity.

Might I say: The decision to pursue arbitration was not an easy one to make. Going into arbitration was called a game-changer. We foresaw and experienced the pressures in taking this route; yet until the end, we stood our ground.

In this course, we involved all branches of government. During the consultations, we had the Senate as represented by then-Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, and later on by Senator Franklin Drilon, as well as the House under the leadership of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. Former Presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph Estrada were unequivocal in their support. We also invited the Judiciary, which at that time, due to prudence on handling cases related to the matter, had to decline.

Allow me to reiterate my gratitude to all our countrymen and partners who have worked hard to defend our shared cause, specifically: then-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario, former Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., former Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, former Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, former Solicitors-General Francis Jardeleza and Florin Hilbay, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, former Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and now Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, Sandiganbayan Justice Sarah Fernandez, former Undersecretary Emmanuel Bautista and Deputy Executive Secretary Menardo Guevarra, former Assistant Secretary Henry Bensurto Jr. and former Undersecretary Abigail Valte. We also thank the lawyers and experts who assisted our team, as led by Paul Reichler of the Washington-based law firm Foley Hoag.

*Let us bear in mind: Where there is conflict over claims and opinions, cooperation cannot exist. Now that the rules are even clearer, we can all move forward as a global community. Without doubt, this long-running dispute is now closer to having a permanent solution.*

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...ent-court-of-arbitration#sthash.CQ1bF7Y9.dpuf


----------



## Tiqiu

Quite contrary to what many Vietnamese posters did here jumping up and down, their government has a zipped lips.What are they afraid of? What can they do to make China obey the ruling?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

greenwood said:


> Name is something habit. But court / legal orgalization should has its justice spirit and very serious terms.



What is the difference between a shoal and island according to UNCLOS? Any document stating the definition?

There must be significant overlap I think. Also if shoals have been reclaimed to make them into artificial islands, the court may still recognise them as shoals (what they originally were).


----------



## beijingwalker

kecho said:


> China is a loser.


We will see

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

It's a Embarrassing victory coz china didn't move a inch and congrats to China


----------



## beijingwalker

Chinese people just flipped off at the ruling

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## barbarosa

USA will make hot the field and then runaway.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-Rex

Thunder-17 said:


> I hope Xingiang is next. Its about time our brothers get their freedom from the Commies.



*Your intention has been exposed, so get the fvck out of here.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## greenwood

kecho said:


> http://www.update.ph/2016/07/japan-parties-are-required-to-comply-with-arbitral-tribunals-award/7479
> 
> *Japan: Parties are required to comply with Arbitral Tribunal’s award*
> 
> July 13, 2016 Gracel Ortega World 0
> 
> 
> 
> “Japan has consistently advocated the importance of the rule of law and the use of peaceful means, not the use of force or coercion, in seeking settlement of maritime disputes,” Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said after the Arbitral Tribunal instituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rendered it award regarding the West Philippine Sea dispute.
> 
> He added that as the Tribunal’s award is final and legally binding on the parties to the dispute under the provisions of UNCLOS, the parties to this case are required to comply with the award.
> 
> “Japan strongly expects that the parties’ compliance with this award will eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea,” the Japanese Minister added.


 
This is joke of the day. The Japanese cheer for an illegal arbitral tribunal award. China don't accept and recognize the award. We have repeated it clearly and directly for years, the japanese foreign minsiter is a deef.



Nilgiri said:


> What is the difference between a shoal and island according to UNCLOS? Any document stating the definition?
> 
> There must be significant overlap I think. Also if shoals have been reclaimed to make them into artificial islands, the court may still recognise them as shoals (what they originally were).


 
That arbitration court lawer and chief judge's work to make clear definition of islands. ( see post 109. ) Obvisouly those court guys are incomponent to know what island is. They need to learn UNCLOS again.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dawood Ibrahim

kecho said:


> China is a loser.




Paray it's called A Victory without a trophy it shows who really the boss of the region real is
CHINA

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-Rex

Rain Man said:


> Btw, @T-Rex being a Bangladeshi you must be knowing that India did honour a similar verdict from The International Court of Arbitration and left some vital sea areas to Bangladesh, and you are rejoicing China's rejection to honour the verdict when Philippines, another smaller country like Bangladesh is on the receiving end of it. How should I define it, hypocrisy, or shamelessness?


*
The whole thing was a drama orchestrated by Delhi and played out by Delhi's puppets in Dhaka. It was shown by the critics of the indian puppet regime how BD actually lost the most vital part of the Bay of Bengal, the area adjacent to the Talpatti island. Now try your tale somewhere else. We know all too well which kind of people form these tribunals and its good for us that China has also found it out. *

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sasquatch

Threads cleaned up. All news related to the ruling has been merged into a single thread.

Multiple users who completely lost it have been given infractions and bans. Stick to the topic and stay civil or be banned *FINAL WARNING*.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SpArK

South China Sea belongs to China.

Just like Indian Ocean belongs to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-Rex

kecho said:


> China is a loser.


*
Wasn't it a Vietnamese boat that was sent to the bottom of the SCS recently by the Chinese navy? These Vietnamese people have a weird notion of victory and defeat.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

kecho said:


> China is a loser.


These 64 Vietnamese widows who lost their soldier husband 28 years ago in a sea battle with China over the disputed islands would think otherwise. We should do our best to avoid such thing from happening again. The lessons to be learned is if China says we don't accept it, you better take it that way, and take it seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dy1022

T-Rex said:


> *Wasn't it a Vietnamese boat that was sent to the bottom of the SCS recently by the Chinese navy? These Vietnamese people have a weird notion of victory and defeat.*





Thai navy destoryed 2 ships from Vietnam and killed 1 viet at the same time as well!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## anant_s

Jason Zhao said:


> India~~ Come on~~you have no power to effect us


Probably true.
But we are discussing here, how the ruling is going to effect the nations involved in South China issue. India is not a party to it.


----------



## beijingwalker

Love this video

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Nilgiri

@greenwood

In response to

https://defence.pk/threads/south-china-sea-arbitration-news-discussion.438910/page-56#post-8461728

and

https://defence.pk/threads/south-china-sea-arbitration-news-discussion.438910/page-60#post-8461840

QUOTE:

"That arbitration court lawer and chief judge's work to make clear definition of islands. ( see post 109. ) Obvisouly those court guys are incomponent to know what island is. They need to learn UNCLOS again."

The UNCLOS statement was as follows:

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125726/full-text-dfa-sec-albert-del-rosarios-speech-at-un-tribunal

Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are “rocks” within the meaning of Article 121, paragraph 3; others are low-tide elevations; and still others are permanently submerged. As a result, none are capable of generating entitlements beyond 12M, and some generate no entitlements at all. China’s recent massive reclamation activities cannot lawfully change the original nature and character of these features;


So I am afraid that black and white picture you have of Taiping "island" means nothing unless you have some way of proving human habitation was able to be preserved there under its natural unaltered environment (definition of an island vs rock by UNCLOS convention).


----------



## beijingwalker

Why the United States Needs to Join UNCLOS
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-united-states-needs-join-unclos-16948

No worries. US, China will be out with you soon. Leave that party for junior players messing around.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

beijingwalker said:


> Love this video


No, we care

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kankan326

Yes. Arbitration like this will gradually change the UNCLOS into "loser only" club.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Param

dy1022 said:


> we just crashed a Viet's ship 2 days ago in the SCS.
> 
> we are not going to talk with anyone anymore after today, the only things you have to face in future are Chinese missiles including Nuclear and Thermonuclear one!
> 
> 
> End of discussion in here, come and stop us in the SCS if you dare !!!


And i read two chinese fishing boats were sunk recently,one by Indonesian Navy.What did you then.


----------



## beijingwalker

*If China defies tribunal without tangible loss, Beijing will be the winner*

Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
|
Updated: Jul 12, 2016 22:24 IST






Though it lost on all legal fronts in the judgment of the international tribunal over its South China Sea claim, China may yet emerge geopolitically the winner.

The reason: if Beijing suffers no material damage from defying the tribunal’s judgment, the lesson for Southeast Asia will be that the continent’s unipolar moment has arrived – and China is atop the pole.

China’s strident denunciations of the tribunal even before the judgment indicated it knew it would lose. But for Beijing, the nine-dash line saga has been largely an expression of raw power, a signal that Beijing could lay claim to 90% of an international water body and that no one, specifically the United States, could do anything about it.

This has largely been accomplished. For nearly three years an isolationist Barack Obama administration failed to respond to China’s atoll-hopping.

Only in the past one-and-half years has the US responded with naval patrols and airpower, but none of this changes the hard reality of what China has captured on the ground.

The greatest damage has been to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a regional body of largely American allies. China’s territorial claims overlap those of five ASEAN members: the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.

But, say Vietnamese and Singaporean officials, China has been able to divide ASEAN with at least four members ensuring that the grouping has been unable to put up a common front against the nine-dash line.

“ASEAN unity is now a fiction,” a senior Singaporean diplomat said recently.

*For those Southeast Asian countries which have thrown in their lot with Beijing, the inability of the US to roll back China’s actions is confirmation that they are on the winning side.*

When a former Indian former secretary asked a group of eminent ASEAN people some years ago how they saw the present US-China tussle over the South China Sea, they responded with a military metaphor – *“If a Chinese carrier comes our way we will look to the US. If it does not send a carrier in response, then we will welcome the Chinese carrier with open arms.”*

If, as many expect, the US will do little other than attack China rhetorically after the judgment, Southeast Asians will see it as further evidence of Beijing’s ascendancy.

Privately, Indian diplomats have been critical of the US response to China’s moves. One senior official described the Chinese grab of the South China Sea as akin to Beijing’s takeover of Tibet.

*The Obama administration’s back-and-forth policy on countering China and the US’s inability to get allies like Japan or Australia to join US naval incursions into Chinese maritime claim areas were key reasons India turned down US requests for joint naval patrols in the South China Sea*.

“We will oppose China’s claims to the last Vietnamese or Filipino,” was how one official semi-seriously characterised India’s policy.

However, China’s continuing success in its South China Sea snatch and grab policy has been a major catalyst for India to deepen and broaden its economic and military influence among Indian Ocean states.

A policy that will only be enhanced after a tribunal judgment that China, though obligated by treaty to obey, has declared as “null and void”.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...-the-winner/story-3idpqUsleMRjs8QmeoWZCI.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

faithfulguy said:


> http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/taiwan-south-china-sea-ruling-completely-unacceptable/
> 
> 
> Itu Aba (Taiping Island)
> Image Credit: Google Maps
> *Taiwan: South China Sea Ruling 'Completely Unacceptable'*
> Taiwan denounces the tribunal’s decision that Itu Aba is a rock, not an island
> 
> 
> On July 12, an arbitral tribunal in The Hague issued a landmark ruling, overturning many of China’s claims in the South China Sea. The case, _Republic of Philippines v. People’s Republic of China_, was initiated in 2013, when Manila filed legal objections to Beijing’s claims and behavior in the disputed area. The case has attracted worldwide attention – particularly in Taiwan.
> 
> Taiwan shares many of its South China Sea claims with the PRC – in fact, the claims officially originated not with the PRC but with the Republic of China (ROC) government in the immediate post-war era. When the ROC moved its capital to Taipei at the end of the Chinese Civil War, it brought its territorial claims. Taiwan thus found itself in the uncomfortable position of having its claims challenged – through the Philippines’ case against China – without having an opportunity to participate in the case. Taiwan, which is not a member of the United Nations, is likewise not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); there was no legal avenue for Taipei to insert itself into the case. Even Taiwan’s request to send an observer delegation to the hearings was denied.
> 
> Most importantly for Taiwan, the tribunal took up the question of the status of Itu Aba, known as Taiping Island in Taiwan. The island, the largest naturally occurring feature in the Spratlys group, is occupied by Taiwan and houses a military garrison, a hospital, and a farm. Taipei strenuously argued its case that Itu Aba is capable of sustaining human habitation, with its freshwater wells and ability to grow produce, and is thus an island under UNCLOS. That, in turn, would give Taipei a claim to a 200 nautical mile EEZ extending from Itu Aba and encompassing a wide swath of the South China Sea.
> 
> Because Taipei was not able to officially participate in the case, it made its arguments in the court of public opinion, taking journalists to the island for a tour of its facilities and posting numerous images of Itu Aba online. At the last minute, the tribunal accepted an amicus curiae briefing from the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, which made the legal argument that Itu Aba should be considered an island.
> 
> The tribunal, however, ultimately disagreed. It found that Itu Aba – along with the rest of the Spratlys – is not an island, as it cannot sustain a human community without external aid. Taiwan’s response was immediate.
> 
> “We absolutely will not accept [the tribunal's decision] and we maintain that the ruling is not legally binding on the ROC,” the Presidential Office of Taiwan said in a statement. The statement pointed out that the tribunal did not consult with Taiwan or invite it to participate in the case, yet the ruling has “seriously undermined” Taiwan’s maritime rights in the South China Sea.
> 
> The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its own statement, calling the ruling “completely unacceptable to the government of the Republic of China.” The Ministry also explained Taiwan’s reasons for concluding that the decision has “no legally binding force on the ROC.” First, the statement said, “In the text of the award, the ROC is referred to as ‘Taiwan Authority of China.’ This inappropriate designation is demeaning to the status of the ROC as a sovereign state.”



Most enlightening.

It seems that the Chinese agree with the Chinese.

We are relieved. 

A clash between them would have been unbearable. The emotional pain for the rest of the world would have been of massive proportions.

Thank you, @faithfulguy , for relieving us from this tension.



Tiqiu said:


> No, we care
> View attachment 317173
> 
> View attachment 317174
> 
> View attachment 317175
> 
> View attachment 317176




We get the message - **** the international tribunal, we have the warships and that's what matters.

An exemplary international citizen, and a leading light among the nations.

Thanks for the clarification, @Tiqiu .



TaiShang said:


> China is just a developing nation. It will further develop the islands and utilize natural resources. Peaceful rise shall continue. I guess that's at least we can agree about.



Peaceful rise is hardly the phrase that comes to mind when the peaceful riser strides about the beach kicking sand in other people's faces.



TaiShang said:


> We are already one and the same on this.
> 
> What will you do about your so called rights?



Use 'peaceful' methods, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Ignore treaties and international agreements, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Draw lines on a map and insist that our point of view is the only one, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do.

What else? What is good for China is surely good enough for the rest of the world. You surely want us to follow your shining example?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

Joe Shearer said:


> We get the message - **** the international tribunal, we have the warships and that's what matters.
> 
> An exemplary international citizen, and a leading light among the nations.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, @Tiqiu .


Are you that naive? Look at your own 200 years history under the British rule and come back talking me again.

I am more than happy to clarity for you about how the Americans think of the so-called "international ruling".
*
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 12, 2016

QUESTION:* A follow-up. In a statement you said you ask for all parties to respect the rule of law and you support arbitration. Can you give me any example that the United States has ever complied with any of the rulings on international arbitration, particularly when it’s weighed against your interest?

*MR KIRBY:* Yeah, actually I think I’ve got one in here somewhere. Hang on a second. I know I’ve got one in here.

*QUESTION:* Don’t look in Nicaragua. (Laughter.)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## beijingwalker

*If China defies tribunal without tangible loss, Beijing will be the winner*

Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
|
Updated: Jul 12, 2016 22:24 IST







Though it lost on all legal fronts in the judgment of the international tribunal over its South China Sea claim, China may yet emerge geopolitically the winner.

The reason: if Beijing suffers no material damage from defying the tribunal’s judgment, the lesson for Southeast Asia will be that the continent’s unipolar moment has arrived – and China is atop the pole.

China’s strident denunciations of the tribunal even before the judgment indicated it knew it would lose. But for Beijing, the nine-dash line saga has been largely an expression of raw power, a signal that Beijing could lay claim to 90% of an international water body and that no one, specifically the United States, could do anything about it.

This has largely been accomplished. For nearly three years an isolationist Barack Obama administration failed to respond to China’s atoll-hopping.

Only in the past one-and-half years has the US responded with naval patrols and airpower, but none of this changes the hard reality of what China has captured on the ground.

The greatest damage has been to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a regional body of largely American allies. China’s territorial claims overlap those of five ASEAN members: the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.

But, say Vietnamese and Singaporean officials, China has been able to divide ASEAN with at least four members ensuring that the grouping has been unable to put up a common front against the nine-dash line.

“ASEAN unity is now a fiction,” a senior Singaporean diplomat said recently.

*For those Southeast Asian countries which have thrown in their lot with Beijing, the inability of the US to roll back China’s actions is confirmation that they are on the winning side.*

When a former Indian former secretary asked a group of eminent ASEAN people some years ago how they saw the present US-China tussle over the South China Sea, they responded with a military metaphor – *“If a Chinese carrier comes our way we will look to the US. If it does not send a carrier in response, then we will welcome the Chinese carrier with open arms.”*

If, as many expect, the US will do little other than attack China rhetorically after the judgment, Southeast Asians will see it as further evidence of Beijing’s ascendancy.

Privately, Indian diplomats have been critical of the US response to China’s moves. One senior official described the Chinese grab of the South China Sea as akin to Beijing’s takeover of Tibet.

*The Obama administration’s back-and-forth policy on countering China and the US’s inability to get allies like Japan or Australia to join US naval incursions into Chinese maritime claim areas were key reasons India turned down US requests for joint naval patrols in the South China Sea*.

“We will oppose China’s claims to the last Vietnamese or Filipino,” was how one official semi-seriously characterised India’s policy.

However, China’s continuing success in its South China Sea snatch and grab policy has been a major catalyst for India to deepen and broaden its economic and military influence among Indian Ocean states.

A policy that will only be enhanced after a tribunal judgment that China, though obligated by treaty to obey, has declared as “null and void”.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...-the-winner/story-3idpqUsleMRjs8QmeoWZCI.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Genesis said:


> Again, hard to tell due to no tone.
> 
> I know of India's actions in the 50s. What China felt at the time was Nehru clearly felt India was the leading man in the developing world. China had other intentions. India China never had too much conflict anyways, even during the 62 war. This NSG saga is more of an Indian media created phenomenon, there isn't a strong feeling in China for or against India. On many levels I see it as not even about India.



That is not what I said. I was questioning your statement that there is some hostility you feel towards China on the part of India, and pointing out to you that this was an ironic thing for an Indian to hear given the history of India striving to bring China into the comity of nations. In case you are not aware, China, as a Communist power and as a perceived aggressive power which had just opposed the UN, and the US within the UN, and was blacklisted in every international gathering, was isolated. Chinese analysts and Chinese opinion makers have forgotten how it was for your country, when only Russia was (grudgingly) on your side, and have forgotten the jokes about the Albanians, the lone supporters of China, proclaiming that they and the Chinese were 600 million strong.

Your feeling of hostility is strange, considering that your collective memory is so short.



> But I don't understand this line of questioning, I don't have a problem with what India did or didn't do, now or before. In fact, this has very little to do with India, and in a sense America. No one wants to give up power, Americans don't and I highly doubt we will welcome anyone in with open arms should we prove to be successful.
> 
> The world is what it is.



We welcomed China in with open arms. That is the difference. And it had nothing to do with Nehru's feeling about India being a leader. It had to do with morality. I am sorry to use a strange word and almost a dirty word, but there was such an element. Nothing else that anyone puts forward explains the behaviour of India towards China. And nothing explains China's behaviour towards India.

We were successful enough, and we persuaded a lot of people to talk to China. As far as Nehru feeling India was the leading man, that was his individual ego; for China to build her entire state policy around envy of an individual makes very strange reading. It would appear that Chinese policy, right from the inception of the PRC, has been one of undiluted envy of others. We belong far in the forgotten past; the current Chinese envy and nation desired to be overtaken is the US. Where does it end? Or does it never end?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> We toke the page out of American contemporary book.



Actually it was the U.S. that put a stop to nineteenth century colonialism.
You might of course argue that they replaced it with twentieth century colonialism.


----------



## phancong

Intangible gain by China on SCS with all the newly build island will only enhance China national interest, furthermore China militarize the island adding more defensive layer of maritime protection in the heart of SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tiqiu said:


> Are you that naive? Look at your own 200 years history under the British rule and come back talking me again.
> 
> I am more than happy to clarity for you about how the Americans think of the so-called "international ruling".
> *
> John Kirby
> Spokesperson
> Daily Press Briefing
> Washington, DC
> July 12, 2016
> 
> QUESTION:* A follow-up. In a statement you said you ask for all parties to respect the rule of law and you support arbitration. Can you give me any example that the United States has ever complied with any of the rulings on international arbitration, particularly when it’s weighed against your interest?
> 
> *MR KIRBY:* Yeah, actually I think I’ve got one in here somewhere. Hang on a second. I know I’ve got one in here.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Don’t look in Nicaragua. (Laughter.)



Sure. 

I looked at our 200 year history under British rule. What of it? What in that justifies Chinese behaviour? And what is in it that undermines the statement I made? 

If you bring in America, you beg the question: are you aiming to be as hated as America is today, among certain people and in certain countries?



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Actually it was the U.S. that put a stop to nineteenth century colonialism.
> You might of course argue that they replaced it with twentieth century colonialism.



An excellent answer, but why did you stop where you did? The mind is drawn irresistibly to the possibility of the twenty-first century colonialism.



Tiqiu said:


> Are you that naive? Look at your own 200 years history under the British rule and come back talking me again.
> 
> I am more than happy to clarity for you about how the Americans think of the so-called "international ruling".
> *
> John Kirby
> Spokesperson
> Daily Press Briefing
> Washington, DC
> July 12, 2016
> 
> QUESTION:* A follow-up. In a statement you said you ask for all parties to respect the rule of law and you support arbitration. Can you give me any example that the United States has ever complied with any of the rulings on international arbitration, particularly when it’s weighed against your interest?
> 
> *MR KIRBY:* Yeah, actually I think I’ve got one in here somewhere. Hang on a second. I know I’ve got one in here.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Don’t look in Nicaragua. (Laughter.)



@Genesis 

You see the kind of abrasive behaviour that your countrymen exhibit? They cannot speak in a normal way, I suspect not even at gunpoint. They simply cannot. As the British said of the Germans a century ago, they are either at your throat or at your feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

Joe Shearer said:


> You see the kind of abrasive behaviour that your countrymen exhibit? They cannot speak in a normal way, I suspect not even at gunpoint. They simply cannot. As the British said of the Germans a century ago, they are either at your throat or at your feet.


Maybe that's what makes Germany such a tough nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiqiu

Joe Shearer said:


> I looked at our 200 year history under British rule. What of it? What in that justifies Chinese behaviour? And what is in it that undermines the statement I made?


China does not need any justification for self-defense. Every living thing on this earth needs to be both mentally and physically strong to earn the respect.


Joe Shearer said:


> f you bring in America, you beg the question: are you aiming to be as hated as America is today, among certain people and in certain countries?


Since you answered my question with question, I ll do the same. Does this country list include you India?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

beijingwalker said:


> Maybe that's what makes Germany such a tough nation.





Nice. I don't agree, but neat riposte. Appreciated.

@Genesis 

Do you see the contrast between this subtle response and the ruffian-like behaviour of other posters, that I complain about?



Tiqiu said:


> China does not need any justification for self-defense. Every living thing on this earth needs to be both mentally and physically strong to earn the respect.
> 
> Since you answered my question with question, I ll do the same. Does this country list include you India?



Oh no, not at all. We are too humble and too meek to dare to threaten the masters of the universe.


----------



## TaiShang

Joe Shearer said:


> Use 'peaceful' methods, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Ignore treaties and international agreements, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Draw lines on a map and insist that our point of view is the only one, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do.



Do as we say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Key points of arbitral tribunal’s verdict on PH-China dispute

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/14...nclos-arbitration-spratly-islands-scarborough

Below are five key points included in the summary statement released to the media

*(1)Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’:*
The Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention.

The Tribunal also noted that, although 2 Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources.

The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.

*(2)Status of Features:*
The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.

The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted.

The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.

The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.

*(3)Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:*
Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access.

The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.

*(4)Harm to Marine Environment:*
The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.

The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities

*(5)Aggravation of Dispute:*
Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement.

The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.

*BACKSTORY: #InquirerSeven FAQ about the Philippines vs. China arbitration case*

*The Convention*

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) a coastal state needs to have land before they can claim rights to the sea. The international treaty has been signed and ratified by both the Philippines and China.

“You need to have land before you can have rights to the sea. It’s as simple as that.You cannot just have rights to the sea without owning land,” former Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said in a forum at the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center in 2014, citing the basic principle of UNCLOS.

China asserts it has “indisputable sovereignty” and “historic rights” to over two-thirds of the 3.5 million square kilometers South China Sea using its “nine-dash line” claim that overlaps with the UNCLOS-mandated 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The line, encircling an area roughly the size of Mexico, overlaps territories claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. China argues that its historic rights justify the line. But the Philippines insists that these rights cannot be used to define sea borders.

The Philippines says since the South China Sea is mostly sea, there is no land mass or clumps of islands and rocks there large enough to generate sea borders that will span the over 2 million square kilometers China is claiming with its nine-dash line.

In recent months, China has conducted massive land reclamation activities turning submerged reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military equipment and structures.

Unclos, however, does not recognize artificial islands and states that these are not entitled to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea nor a 200 nm eez.


----------



## beijingwalker

If you want a war ,you fight it yourself, if you count on others fighting it for you. You've already lost the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

Joe Shearer said:


> Peaceful rise is hardly the phrase that comes to mind when the peaceful riser strides about the beach kicking sand in other people's faces.



That's a line with high symbolism.

Going along the same lines...

It is exactly what it means. Peaceful rise; you got to be peaceful so that we can rise. If not, we make our own peace and that may cause inconvenience for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

Joe Shearer said:


> Oh no, not at all. We are too humble and too meek to dare to threaten the masters of the universe.


Your words do not need to travel far to piss off your own countrymen posters who were so not abrasive and so eager to teach China what it should do. China will not obey the ruling, same does Taiwan. So take it or leave it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

TaiShang said:


> Do as we say.



To the letter, 伟大领袖



Tiqiu said:


> Your words do not need to travel far to piss off your own countrymen posters who were so not abrasive and so eager to teach China what it should do. China will not obey the ruling, same does Taiwan. So take it or leave it.



Which is exactly what I expected to read. Congratulations. You are now perfectly predictable



TaiShang said:


> That's a line with high symbolism.
> 
> Going along the same lines...
> 
> It is exactly what it means. Peaceful rise; you got to be peaceful so that we can rise. If not, we make our own peace and that may cause inconvenience for you.



Ah, that is so much clearer, and so much more Chinese: be peaceful or we will beat you into peacefulness. 

Perfect.


----------



## Tiqiu

Joe Shearer said:


> Which is exactly what I expected to read. Congratulations. You are now perfectly predictable


Likewise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaiShang

Joe Shearer said:


> To the letter, 伟大领袖
> 
> Which is exactly what I expected to read. Congratulations. You are now perfectly predictable



You are very readable. As well as answerable. Because you have been writing lightly amused posts all along. That sort of takes away the heaviness and angry-birdiness which the respected members from the PH and VN worked so hard to establish all night.

Look, they are all tired now and you are destroying their efforts. 



Joe Shearer said:


> Ah, that is so much clearer, and so much more Chinese: be peaceful or we will beat you into peacefulness.
> 
> Perfect.



Sort of. Be peaceful, otherwise, we will tranquilize you for your own good as well as for the common good.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

TaiShang said:


> You are very readable. As well as answerable. Because you have been writing lightly amused posts all along. That sort of takes away the heaviness the members from PH and VN worked so hard to establish all night.
> 
> Look, they are all tired now.



They should be. They were busy beating up the heavy-handed Chinese, and those in turn could not see the ridiculous aspect of the situation and continued the grim tone of the conversation.

Is this the way forward?

I would rather be lightly amused than gravely disturbed.



TaiShang said:


> You are very readable. As well as answerable. Because you have been writing lightly amused posts all along. That sort of takes away the heaviness the members from PH and VN worked so hard to establish all night.
> 
> Look, they are all tired now.
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. Be peaceful, otherwise, we will tranquilize you for your own as well as for the common good.



LOL.

Yes, I agree, a much more readable formulation. I shall take the correction in a tranquil manner.


----------



## TaiShang

Joe Shearer said:


> They should be. They were busy beating up the heavy-handed Chinese, and those in turn could not see the ridiculous aspect of the situation and continued the grim tone of the conversation.
> 
> Is this the way forward?
> 
> I would rather be lightly amused than gravely disturbed.



No, we have not even extended our light hand. I would say, China's actions are rather incremental and softish.

At the end of the day, the grimness is to wither away. Why have a heavy heart? Let our take away be the few good laugh.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

UNCLOS has had its reputation severely damaged by the abuse of the arbitration process.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zero_wing




----------



## beijingwalker

*CNN: Will China abide by the South China Sea decision?*
By William Burke-White

Updated 10:57 PM ET, Tue July 12, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/opinions/south-china-sea-decision-burke-white/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

Nilgiri said:


> @greenwood
> So I am afraid that black and white picture you have of Taiping "island" means nothing unless you have some way of proving human habitation was able to be preserved there under its natural unaltered environment (definition of an island vs rock by UNCLOS convention).


*
The photo is the evidence of Chinese civilians inhabiting the island in the last century and that points to the legitimacy of the Chinese claim. Of course those who want to rob China of her territory will say otherwise.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## itaskol

the organisation who make the arbitration about South china sea, they only rented the same location. the whole thing has nothing to do with united nation .

from UN official weibo .

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *The photo is the evidence of Chinese civilians inhabiting the island in the last century and that points to the legitimacy of the Chinese claim. Of course those who want to rob China of her territory will say otherwise.*



inhabiting? How easy is it to send some people to a rock and take a picture or two? Needs pictures of cultivation, harbours and permanent structures.....not a grainy picture of some people on a beach. That certainly will not hold up in court. It just adds to the notion that the Chinese now and then visited the islands but had no permanent presence.


----------



## beijingwalker

Nilgiri said:


> inhabiting? How easy is it to send some people to a rock and take a picture or two? Needs pictures of cultivation, harbours and permanent structures.....not a grainy picture of some people on a beach. That certainly will not hold up in court. It just adds to the notion that the Chinese now and then visited the islands but had no permanent presence.


Will do , a very very permanent presence

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

beijingwalker said:


> Will do , a very very permanent presence



You are welcome to do that now with the reclamation etc. The court does not recognise that as changing the nature of what the rocks were naturally.

I am talking about the historical basis China used to claim sovereignty (rejected by UNCLOS now along with the 9 dash line)....not what Chinese will illegally do from now on....or have done for the last few years.

Basically its exactly like the illegal israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israel can enforce it, but entire world does not agree with it.

I am talking only about the legal perspectives of the case and its verdict.


----------



## T-Rex

*As usual The Hindustan Times is cleverly trying to provoke the US to go for a military confrontation with China. I don't think these foxy indians will succeed in puffing up the big bad wolf's chest this time. The wolf is looking for way to save its face to its minions.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kyle Sun

beijingwalker said:


> *CNN: Will China abide by the South China Sea decision?*
> By William Burke-White
> 
> Updated 10:57 PM ET, Tue July 12, 2016
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/opinions/south-china-sea-decision-burke-white/


**** No.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## yusheng

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states. It should not be confused with the *International Court of Justice, a separate institution*. *(which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN), PCA IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN)

The PCA is a permanent bureaucracy that assists temporary tribunals to resolve disputes among states (and similar entities), intergovernmental organizations, or even private parties arising out of international agreements. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade.

The court was established in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference. The Peace Palace was built for the Court in 1913 with funds from American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Since 1922, the building has also housed the separate Permanent Court of International Justice, which was replaced by the International Court of Justice in 1946.

The PCA is not a “court" in the conventional understanding of that term but an administrative organization with the object of having permanent and readily available means to serve as the registry for purposes of international arbitration and other related procedures, including commissions of enquiry and conciliation. The judges or arbitrators that hear cases are officially called "Members" of the Court.

The public at large is usually more familiar with the *International Court of Justice* than with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, partly because of the closed nature of cases handled by the PCA and also the small number of cases dealt with between 1946 and 1990. Sometimes even the decision itself is kept confidential at the request of the parties. 

TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where *International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.
*

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## T-Rex

Nilgiri said:


> inhabiting? How easy is it to send some people to a rock and take a picture or two? Needs pictures of cultivation, harbours and permanent structures.....not a grainy picture of some people on a beach. That certainly will not hold up in court. It just adds to the notion that the Chinese now and then visited the islands but had no permanent presence.


*
What cultivation? The size of the island cannot support agriculture, the inhabitants lived on fishing and I'm sure our Chinese friends have photos of the their fishing vessels. The picture is grainy because it was taken almost a century ago, it only adds to the credibility of the Chinese claim.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mrc

No .. no need

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

it is not even an UN organization, and according to the UN Charter (a foundation of international law, I might remind everyone) arbitration can only occur under two party consent. China did not even consent to participation in the PCA.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> The size of the island cannot support agriculture, the inhabitants lived on fishing and I'm sure our Chinese friends have photos of the their fishing vessels.



By using the word inhabitant you have to show evidence of their habitation....i.e that they had houses at the place in question.

A picture of some boats they used to get to the place is not evidence of them living there permanently.


----------



## T-Rex

Nilgiri said:


> By using the word inhabitant you have to show evidence of their habitation....i.e that they had houses at the place in question.
> 
> A picture of some boats they used to get to the place is not evidence of them living there permanently.


*
I saw the photo, I think I saw homes in the background.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *I saw the photo, I think I saw homes in the background.*



Post it here again please. Let me see.


----------



## T-Rex

anant_s said:


> Probably true.
> But we are discussing here, how the ruling is going to effect the nations involved in South China issue. India is not a party to it.



*Now you're being modest! India is not a party to it but on behalf of the indian politicians Hindustan Times is trying its best to show what a great loss the big bad wolf would incur if it does not bite China.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

Nilgiri said:


> Post it here again please. Let me see.



*What was the thread? There are so many of them, it's difficult to keep track!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

itaskol said:


> the organisation who make the arbitration about South china sea, they only rented the same location. the whole thing has nothing to do with united nation .
> 
> from UN official weibo .



*Please translate it for us.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anant_s

T-Rex said:


> *Now you're being modest! India is not a party to it but on behalf of the indian politicians Hindustan Times is trying its best to show what a great loss the big bad wolf would incur if does not bite China.*


Sir, 
Newspapers are entitled for their own views and so are politicians, but my firm belief is foreign policy is over and beyond individual views of person(s).
If you would've noticed, many countries issued statements yesterday after The Hague court ruling, urging to be mature in making comments and not see it as victory or loss to parties. there are gains to some surely, but to make South China issue as a battle in some kind of fictional war against China is certainly absurd, imho.


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *What was the thread? There are so many of them, it's difficult to keep track!*



I use search feature....of Taiping and greenwood for user (for convenience).

Here are the pics he posted:











Ignoring proving that these pictures are even what they claim to be, I don't think a case can be made that any clear houses are in view.

Unless you got some other pictures?

To me they all look like visitors rather than settlers...I mean they are all men and in sailor style outfits....theres even a captain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Rex

Nilgiri said:


> I use search feature....of Taiping and greenwood for user (for convenience).
> 
> Here are the pics he posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring proving that these pictures are even what they claim to be, I don't think a case can be made that any clear houses are in view.
> 
> Unless you got some other pictures?



*
Do you see the roof of a home behind the 9th person from the right? I see it.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zero_wing

Man the chicoms nachings and the drone supports do not understand moot and academic they are in denial thinking insulting us filipinos will change a damn thing well they can say do whatever touch us they are screwed


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *Do you see the roof of a home behind the 9th person from the right? I see it.*



Thats not going to hold up in court I am afraid. Need a better clear picture. It could practically be anything.


----------



## T-Rex

anant_s said:


> Sir,
> Newspapers are entitled for their own views and so are politicians, but my firm belief is foreign policy is over and beyond individual views of person(s).
> If you would've noticed, many countries issued statements yesterday after The Hague court ruling, urging to be mature in making comments and not see it as victory or loss to parties. there are gains to some surely, but to make South China issue as a battle in some kind of fictional war against China is certainly absurd, imho.


*
The kind of maturity in you is rare in india, most indians along with politicians are dancing blindly to the tune being played by the big bad wolves. They have already started worshiping one of those warmongers as a deity, praying to Hindu gods for his victory in election. You tell me, what does it say about your countrymen?*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-Rex

Nilgiri said:


> Thats not going to hold up in court I am afraid. Need a better clear picture. It could practically be anything.


*
You wanted picture of homes and showed you one and now you say it's not going to hold up in court!!!! Yes I agree it's not going to hold up in a kangaroo court. Therefore, China must do what needs to be done and that is to exercise her sovereignty over the SCS.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## itaskol

T-Rex said:


> *Please translate it for us.*



what I wrote was not my comment， it was the translation.
the annoucement of the united nation is“the whole thing has nothing to do with the united nation”

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RPK

Welcome to the world, Hope it is not censored by CPC

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

T-Rex said:


> *You wanted picture of homes and showed you one and now you say it's not going to hold up in court!!!! Yes I agree it's not going to hold up in a kangaroo court. Therefore, China must do what needs to be done and that is to exercise her sovereignty over the SCS.*



Its not a picture of any homes....its not even established its one of the spratly rocks to begin with.

In no international court will that be accepted as evidence of clear habitation.

Not to mention what about the other rocks? How can they be counted as islands all subject to the 12nm definition that forms the basis of the 9 dash line?

China can go ahead and exercise whatever notion of sovereignty it believes it has....but will do so illegally....just like Israel does in the West Bank with its illegal settlements. Its all legal of course in the eyes of the beholder....but that argument does not automatically extend to everyone else. You have to prove sovereignty to them legally....and this did not happen and is legally binding as well as far as the UNCLOS is concerned (which the PRC is a member of).

Thats the end of that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## itaskol

RPK said:


> Welcome to the world, Hope it is not censored by CPC


......
I just tell the truth，
believe or not is not my problem

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 55100864

T-Rex said:


> *Please translate it for us.*


https://defence.pk/threads/what-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration-is.439091/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pher

The UN just issued a statement saying“ Hague tribunal does not belong to UN and has nothing to do with UN"

Actually it is just a fake agency set up by US and Japan to try to embarrass china, nothing more. But those dumb indians buy it and cheer for it. Take your time, indians. we will soon bring up your massacre crime in Kashmir into UN. We will show you what the real UN looks like.

As for those jumping viets and pinoys, be quite and your happy time is over.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Tiqiu

The US kept her mouth zipped when Japan called Okinotori an island and claimed an EEZ around it under the UNCLOS Article 76. If Taiping was a reef, then people could argue Okinawa is a large reef too.






The so-called "Okinotori Island" of Japan

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## greenwood

55100864 said:


> https://defence.pk/threads/what-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration-is.439091/


 
No wonder the ruling is so unprofessional and unserious.

By the way, anybody knows the Permanent Court of Arbitration ( PCA ) ever had any successful case or solved any territory disputes before?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## barbarosa

Thanks God that it was a dummy court which was stage by USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ashok321

The same tribunal at Hague handled India's Savarkar case in 1911


----------



## kankan326

This must be a hit for our Filipino and Indian friends here.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## anant_s

T-Rex said:


> They have already started worshiping one those warmongers as a deity, praying to Hindu gods for his victory in election.


Sorry didn't get this part. Can you please rephrase?


T-Rex said:


> You tell me, what does it say about your countrymen?


As i said above, please don't take each and every voice from media as general thinking of public or political establishment. A lot of media houses in India are privately run and they may or may not convey the official stand. As for the content, since NSG plenary meeting in Seoul, efforts have been made to sensationalize anything to do with China. We must remember here that, often sections of general public like to see things happening as they do in movies or thriller novels and TV channels and print media sometimes take advantage of that fact and play to gallery (& make money in the process).
response from Democratically elected government is usually far more calibrated and mature.


T-Rex said:


> You tell me, what does it say about your countrymen?


trust me if you go to streets and ask a random guy, what South China Sea issue is all about (or even where Hague is) , 9 out of 10 times, you'll get a blank in response. Nobody wants war!

@Joe Shearer @AUSTERLITZ

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## itaskol

ashok321 said:


> The same tribunal at Hague handled India's Savarkar case in 1911


PCA not works like a court.
more like a paid middleman. useless without agreement of both parties.
in this case phillipines paid the whole money for it. they just provide their "useless" service to their client.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Viet

how about reading the Unclos?

both (b) the International Court of Justice and (c) an arbitral tribunal are resided in the Peace Palace in Hague. the PCA is authorized by the United Nations. no matter if the court is the owner of a certain building or a renter.



Article 287

Choice of procedure

1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:

(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;

(b) the International Court of Justice;

(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;

(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.


----------



## 55100864

*Translation: 
International Court of Justice *is the only official judicial institution of United Nation, located at the Hague Peace Conference, Netherlands. the Hague Peace Palace was owned by *Carnegie Foundation. *The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) only happen to be renting the same building where *International Court of Justice is and the UN has nothing to do with the PAC.
*
Carnegie Foundation? that's so convenient！！！

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Jason Zhao

gayMo said:


> Yes, tibet wants to be freed of chinese yoke. Will support that


You can go to Tibet ask all the people there, if they want to stay with China or India



gayMo said:


> Yes, tibet wants to be freed of chinese yoke. Will support that


You can go to Tibet ask all the people there, if they want to stay with China or India



anant_s said:


> Probably true.
> But we are discussing here, how the ruling is going to effect the nations involved in South China issue. India is not a party to it.


Actually your goverment is also support us, as we all do not want Western intervene the Asia CASE. This should be discussed by Asian.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ebrahym

pher said:


> The UN just issued a statement saying“ Hague tribunal does not belong to UN and has nothing to do with UN"
> 
> Actually it is just a fake agency set up by US and Japan to try to embarrass china, nothing more. But those dumb indians buy it and cheer for it. Take your time, indians. we will soon bring up your massacre crime in Kashmir into UN. We will show you what the real UN looks like.
> 
> As for those jumping viets and pinoys, be quite and your happy time is over.


----------



## Viet

55100864 said:


> *Translation:
> International Court of Justice *is the only official judicial institution of United Nation, located at the Hague Peace Conference, Netherlands. the Hague Peace Palace was owned by *Carnegie Foundation. *The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) only happen to be renting the same building where *International Court of Justice is and the UN has nothing to do with the PAC.
> *
> Carnegie Foundation? that's so convenient！！！


translating weibo blog?

Chinese seem becoming desperate after the UN ruling.

the seat of the PCA is irrelevant. it can be in the Netherland or Vietnam or yes, even on the Moon.

also, irrelevant whether PCA owns the building or not.

what matters is PCA is authorized by the United Nations, and specified in the Unclos articles.

Get it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

Taiwan Sends Warship to South China Sea in Rebuke Against Hague 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...te-to-south-china-sea-in-rebuke-against-hague

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

If China wanna become next U.S or next Super-power, at least BeiJing should learn how to refuse U.N rules as same as U.S government ever did in Cold War and Iraq War time lead by U.S.A.

1st lesson BeiJing should learn, it's doing what good for ur interest and International rules & regulations only made by the stronger not the coward.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Jason Zhao

It can not set the picture from my computer??

Oh, it is OK, For South sea, Just like the picture below!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## itaskol

Viet said:


> translating weibo blog?
> 
> Chinese seem becoming desperate after the UN ruling.
> 
> the seat of the PCA is irrelevant. it can be in the Netherland or Vietnam or yes, even on the Moon.
> 
> also, irrelevant whether PCA owns the building or not.
> 
> what matters is PCA is authorized by the United Nations, and specified in the Unclos articles.
> 
> Get it?


first it is official weibo of united nation. (cause we don't use facebook or twitter)
http://weibo.com/un?refer_flag=1005055014_&is_hot=1
second they make it clear that PCA has no realtion with united nation.

also you can watch and check what the un spokeman said in New york yesterday.
http://www.un.org/chinese/News/story.asp?newsID=26478
don't see it in report? because what he said is not interest for western median.
actually a Japanese journalist asked him if both parties need to comply with the judgment.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Viet said:


> translating weibo blog?
> 
> Chinese seem becoming desperate after the UN ruling.
> 
> the seat of the PCA is irrelevant. it can be in the Netherland or Vietnam or yes, even on the Moon.
> 
> also, irrelevant whether PCA owns the building or not.
> 
> what matters is PCA is authorized by the United Nations, and specified in the Unclos articles.
> 
> Get it?



PCA isn't a UN body. It may be mentioned in a UN treaty but it is not funded by, staffed by or endorsed by the United Nations.

China is a responsible member of the United Nations, proven by a track record of minimal vetoes and support for human development in all forms.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## pher

Viet said:


> translating weibo blog?
> 
> Chinese seem becoming desperate after the UN ruling.
> 
> the seat of the PCA is irrelevant. it can be in the Netherland or Vietnam or yes, even on the Moon.
> 
> also, irrelevant whether PCA owns the building or not.
> 
> what matters is PCA is authorized by the United Nations, and specified in the Unclos articles.
> 
> Get it?


It is the official weibo acount of UN in China, But I bet you are too dumb to figure it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ito

It is UN. The news is all across the world. Seem Chinese government has resorted to propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jason Zhao

Pinoy said:


> July 12, 2016
> *Asian nations welcome South China Sea ruling*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> ©AP*
> Vietnamese nationals cheer during a rally by the Manila Bay on Tuesday to show their support for the Philippine case before the UN tribunal
> 
> Asian countries locked in maritime disputes with China welcomed the legal victory won by the Philippines over China’s claims in the South China Sea on Tuesday and urged Beijing to respect the verdict in the interests of regional peace and security.
> 
> Confrontations over competing claims to the waters have escalated as China continues to build artificial islands in the sea, threatening security and dividing the capitals of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
> 
> Perfecto Yasay, the Philippine foreign secretary, called for China to comply with the ruling, handed down by a UN tribunal in The Hague, as part of efforts at “promoting and enhancing peace and stability” in the region.
> 
> *“The Philippines strongly affirms its respect for this milestone decision as an important contribution to ongoing efforts in addressing disputes in the South China Sea,”* he said.
> 
> The judgment is the first big test for Rodrigo Duterte, the new president of the Philippines. He has promised to improve relations with China but will be under domestic pressure to take a hard line after a judgment so favourable to Manila.
> 
> 
> Some observers have questioned whether he may already have reached a deal or understanding with Beijing, although nothing has been said officially by either side.
> 
> Hanoi, which has a bitter maritime territorial rivalry with China in the South China Sea, welcomed the ruling and called for territorial quarrels in the region to be resolved using “diplomacy and legal processes” rather than armed force.
> 
> Anti-Chinese riots broke out in Vietnam in 2014 after the arrival of a Chinese oil rig near the contested Paracel Islands, causing severe damage to industrial zones.
> 
> Japan said it “strongly expects” that compliance with ruling by the two parties would “eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea”. Tokyo has a separate conflict with Beijing in the East China Sea over a chain of islands known in Japan as the Senkaku and in China as the Diaoyu.
> 
> But some analysts say Beijing is likely to respond to Tuesday’s legal setback with a show of strength in the affected areas.
> 
> “The ruling . . . potentially limits China’s negotiating stance on the disputed maritime area with other countries that also assert claims there, namely Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam,” said Amarjit Singh, senior consultant for country risk at IHS. “However, initially, China’s reaction to the ruling can be expected to be assertive.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple territorial disputes have caused tensions within Asean, where countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam are pitted against China-leaning Cambodia and Laos, the regional grouping’s current chair.
> 
> Beijing has accused some nations, including Vietnam, of doing their own island building.
> 
> Hun Sen, Cambodia’s prime minister, has previously accused The Hague tribunal of political bias. A Cambodian government spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
> 
> Thailand, which is not engaged in any maritime dispute with China, called for a code of conduct governing the South China Sea, reflecting efforts by other Asean members to find an agreed way forward.
> 
> Singapore urged all parties to “fully respect legal and diplomatic processes”.
> 
> “We support the peaceful resolution of disputes among claimants in accordance with universally recognised principles of international law . . . without resorting to the threat or use of force, ” a spokesman for Singapore’s ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement.
> 
> The city state has no territorial claims in the South China Sea but is a small open economy that relies on free trade and unhindered navigation.
> 
> Malaysia’s ministry of foreign affairs issued a statement calling for the implementation of the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, a 2002 agreement signed by China and Asean to refrain from occupying uninhabited reefs and shoals.
> 
> Malaysia, which has staked a territorial claim in the South China Sea, called for all sides to exercise restraint and avoid the use of force, saying it believed a peaceful resolution was possible with respect for international law.
> 
> Ian Storey, a senior fellow at Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, said that “given the divisions within [Asean], and China’s ability to exploit those divisions by putting pressure on certain members to do its bidding”, the organisation was unlikely to endorse The Hague verdict when members meet later this month.


This map seems like, Vietnam is small, then they will get the sea to be fatter??
The line shows, wow~~ It will be same size as China, hahaha
Calm down, guys, that's impossible, dream is nice, but reality is so cool.



shree835 said:


> Did not understand your Chinese English...better you type in Chinese...will try to translate.



You like this work? hehe, My English is poor, but not means every one can do not understand it~~

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## itaskol

ito said:


> It is UN. The news is all across the world. Seem Chinese government has resorted to propaganda.


but none of what you read are from UN.
at least you can watch or read what the UN spoke man in new York said yesterday.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## beijingwalker

We have already built comprehensive infrastructures on those islands, and we are going to build more. like it or not, we are going to stay and gradually, I would say,20 years maximum, vacate all other countries from this region. UNCLOS is not a prison, once its members find that it is not fair and just, they can always choose to back out of it or simple not to join, like US did.

Even British chose to quit EU, same case here in this situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ashok321

Taiwan sends warship to South China Sea after ruling

SChina Sea ruling a shot in the arm for India: Experts


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

greenwood said:


> Is Taiping island or shoal after you read those photos, the first impression?
> View attachment 317158
> 
> Taiping in 1946
> 
> Followings are Taiping in recent years:
> View attachment 317160
> View attachment 317161
> View attachment 317162
> View attachment 317163
> 
> 
> @Doordie @kankan326 @T-Rex @Rain Man @Tiqiu @Zero_wing @william Huang @hirobo2 @Sinopakfriend @Nilgiri @etc.



Thank you for Historical reference. If you can find Japanese surrender maps...you will see the nine dash line as chinese territory... The Chinese government will never accept anything else. One is certain that they will find good solution with ASEAN neighbours with friendly dialogoue and negotitation. But the Chinese will never be intimidated. The Chinese people will never accept another century of humiliation. People must realise that. Especially those who wish to see China destroyed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Viet

pher said:


> It is the official weibo acount of UN in China, But I bet you are too dumb to figure it out.


No it is you who is dumb.

Weibo xinhua global times and other Chinese media are for domestic consumption. Can you prove Chinese UN Weibo is authentic?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## itaskol

Viet said:


> No it is you who is dumb.
> 
> Weibo xinhua global times and other Chinese media are for domestic consumption. Can you prove Chinese UN Weibo is authentic?


you can watch UN press conference in new York.

also people asked the un spokeman if both parties need to comply with the judgment from PCA.
guess the answer?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Viet

FairAndUnbiased said:


> PCA isn't a UN body. It may be mentioned in a UN treaty but it is not funded by, staffed by or endorsed by the United Nations.
> 
> China is a responsible member of the United Nations, proven by a track record of minimal vetoes and support for human development in all forms.


PCA is an institution authorized by the UN, written and specified in Unclos.

You can deny it but it does not change the fact.



itaskol said:


> first it is official weibo of united nation. (cause we don't use facebook or twitter)
> http://weibo.com/un?refer_flag=1005055014_&is_hot=1
> second they make it clear that PCA has no realtion with united nation.
> 
> also you can watch and check what the un spokeman said in New york yesterday.
> http://www.un.org/chinese/News/story.asp?newsID=26478
> don't see it in report? because what he said is not interest for western median.
> actually a Japanese journalist asked him if both parties need to comply with the judgment.


You should stop posting irrelevant posts.


----------



## pher

Viet said:


> No it is you who is dumb.
> 
> Weibo xinhua global times and other Chinese media are for domestic consumption. Can you prove Chinese UN Weibo is authentic?


you dumb little viets still didn't get it, did you? pretty much every major government in the world has an offical account on Weibo, including US, Russia, German etc. and Sina Weibo has a procedure to approve the authenticity of those accounts.This is the sign of China's influnce. What further evidence you want to have? you can continue to pretend to not believe it. do we care?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## itaskol

Viet said:


> PCA is an institution authorized by the UN, written and specified in Unclos.
> 
> You can deny it but it does not change the fact.
> 
> 
> You should stop posting irrelevant posts.


you dare to tell me stop posting irrelevant posts? who you think you are
what you post is not irrelevant but rubbish

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ashok321

China struggles to win friends over South China Sea


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Viet said:


> PCA is an institution authorized by the UN, written and specified in Unclos.
> 
> You can deny it but it does not change the fact.
> 
> 
> You should stop posting irrelevant posts.



UNCLOS is separate from the UN itself, which is fully defined in the UN charter. You can be a UN member without any adherence to UNCLOS at all. There are states out there who do this, want me to name a few prominent ones?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ashok321

A honey bee went to a wise man with a complaint saying: I make honey, while others eat it?

Wise man: Take Chinese citizenship and be Chinese.


----------



## cnleio

BeiJing government won't care the rule in SCS and artificial islands continue building, my friends !
The game for China isn't failure of some rule claimed, it's next year sending staffs and equipments on artificial islands to protect the interest in SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Viet

FairAndUnbiased said:


> UNCLOS is separate from the UN itself, which is fully defined in the UN charter. You can be a UN member without any adherence to UNCLOS at all. There are states out there who do this, want me to name a few prominent ones?


I wonder in which world you are living?

the UN has some 560 international treaties and conventions. Unclos is just one of them. and of course those 560 treaties and conventions are of UN. separate or not. you can argue until you fall dead. the most import thing is, once you sign a convention or treaty, you must abide it.

if China decides to leave Unclos, you are not obliged to follow the convention.


----------



## gayMo

beijingwalker said:


> We will support Kashmir to be free of indian yoke, and eastern states and Maoists... wait..just found that there are so many of them..


Lol.. first try to be a good global citizen and obey the UN verdict.


----------



## beijingwalker

gayMo said:


> Lol.. first try to be a good global citizen and obey the UN verdict.


Learn from US?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Viet said:


> I wonder in which world you are living?
> 
> the UN has some 560 international treaties and conventions. Unclos is just one of them. and of course those 560 treaties and conventions are of UN. separate or not. you can argue until you fall dead. the most import thing is, once you sign a convention or treaty, you must abide it.
> 
> if China decides to leave Unclos, you are not obliged to follow the convention.



China included an exclusion clause on matters related to sovereignty. If China believes that the PCA does not have jurisdiction on the matter, as it relates to national sovereignty, then China has no obligation to acknowledge even the existence of this ruling while still perfectly abiding by all relevant UN resolutions, treaties and conventions.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zero_wing

again you violate our sovereign rights


----------



## itaskol

can/ dare Ban Ki-moon speak to the world that china must comply with the PCA judgement？
surely he can not

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gayMo

beijingwalker said:


> Learn from US?


you do not have to learn from anyone. some self learning can be applied.



Tiqiu said:


> The US kept her mouth zipped when Japan called Okinotori an island and claimed an EEZ around it under the UNCLOS Article 76. If Taiping was a reef, then people could argue Okinawa is a large reef too.
> 
> View attachment 317208
> 
> The so-called "Okinotori Island" of Japan


was it 3000 km from japans coast?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Viet

FairAndUnbiased said:


> China included an exclusion clause on matters related to sovereignty. If China believes that the PCA does not have jurisdiction on the matter, as it relates to national sovereignty, then China has no obligation to acknowledge even the existence of this ruling while still perfectly abiding by all relevant UN resolutions, treaties and conventions.


Have you read the treaty at all?

you can declare what you like, even the sea on the Moon is yours. Fact is as per Unclos, China exclusion declarations are worthless, having no bearing.


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

CNN? Oh, please... even most Americans don't trust their MSM.. dig the web to validate.
So, who is going to believe CNN or other MSM in Asia?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-Rex

*Everybody knows what China is going to do, China is already doing it. The big question should be directed to the US government, what are you going to do about it?*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## greenwood

gayMo said:


> Lol.. first try to be a good global citizen and obey the UN verdict.



It is not UN verdict, idiot, if you mean this Hague ruling.



gayMo said:


> you do not have to learn from anyone. some self learning can be applied.
> 
> 
> was it 3000 km from japans coast?



Since when, distance matters in territory issue?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gayMo

greenwood said:


> It is not UN verdict, idiot, if you mean this Hague ruling.


Your parents have taught you well on how to talk to people you have never met and with someone you merely disagree with.
Its international arbitration tribunal based on UNCLOS. read up please. Yes its not a security council ruling which will obviously be vetoes, hence the question needs to be asked if irresponsible powers should indeed have a veto but that's a different topic I don't want to debate now.



greenwood said:


> It is not UN verdict, idiot, if you mean this Hague ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Since when, distance matters in territory issue?


To be fair , it doesn't, but in the modern world its a little kiasu to eat up everything you want.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## greenwood

gayMo said:


> Your parents have taught you well on how to talk to people you have never met and with someone you merely disagree with.
> Its international arbitration tribunal based on UNCLOS. read up please. Yes its not a security council ruling which will obviously be vetoes, hence the question needs to be asked if irresponsible powers should indeed have a veto but that's a different topic I don't want to debate now.
> 
> 
> To be fair , it doesn't, but in the modern world its a little kiasu to eat up everything you want.



My fault to call you an idiot, sorry, but you at least try to show some of your wills of learning.

Everthing involving in "international" in your mind seems giant and legal. ISIS is internatioal too.

The PCA was founded in 1899, it is a product of colonial period.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states. It should not be confused with the *International Court of Justice, a separate institution*. *(which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN), PCA IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN)


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/what-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration-is.439091/#ixzz4EHfIh9oq

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

gayMo said:


> was it 3000 km from japans coast?


It is just some 1000 miles south of Tokyo. BTW, Taiping island is only 1154 km from Chinese Hainan. You can do the maths if you know the difference between British and Metric system.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## William Hung

Tiqiu said:


> The problems with your such remarks are that you are blank in law subject and you never lived in a place outside Vietnam. If you had lived in the West, you would know there will be exclusion clause in every legal agreement, be it international treaty, legal contract or simple commercial/retail agreement. For instance In Australia, if you buy an insurance policy,or buy a ferry ticket,or send your cloths to dry-clean, there will be disclaimer clauses to prevent from claiming your rights in certain circumstances which are already pre-described on the legal document/ticket/receipt. You need to check the exclusion clause of the UNCLOS before making your comments on this matter.



Good try, but you still fail. The “exclusion clause” you are referring to is UNCLOS article 298 and the 2006 declaration. However, the Tribunal has ruled that those exclusion clauses and the 2006 declaration *are not* applicable to this specific case (except for 1 minor exemption related to the use of military assets). 

If you don’t understand, let me explain it to you further: China rejected the Tribunal using the argument that *the Tribunal has no jurisdiction* (i.e. no authority to settle this dispute case) because there are clauses and declaration for exemptions. The Tribunal disagreed with this objection and ruled that the exclusion clauses is not applicable to this case, so they do have jurisdiction.

And here is the key clause: article 288.4. It says that if there are disagreements over whether the court/Tribunal has jurisdiction or not, then it is the Tribunal that gets to decide if they truly have jurisdiction, in other words, the Tribunal gets the final say on this matter. Read that clause carefully, article 288.4. 

So good try, but no cigar for you (and please next time do reference the specific clauses and convention of the UNCLOS, don’t just try to use hypothetical cases about ferry tickets and laundry to support your argument).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## greenwood

gayMo said:


> Your parents have taught you well on how to talk to people you have never met and with someone you merely disagree with.
> Its international arbitration tribunal based on UNCLOS. read up please. Yes its not a security council ruling which will obviously be vetoes, hence the question needs to be asked if irresponsible powers should indeed have a veto but that's a different topic I don't want to debate now.
> 
> 
> To be fair , it doesn't, but in the modern world its a little kiasu to eat up everything you want.



But China own and manage SCS islands not begenning at modern world, we have historical rights. Our buddhistm came back from India through SCS, our fleet went to Indian ocean ( West Ocean we ever call it ) through SCS. Our long long history have enough detailed files recording SCS islands and our fishermen on the SCS islands were the first Chinamen met with European maritime venture via SCS.



William Hung said:


> Good try, but you still fail. The “exclusion clause” you are referring to is UNCLOS article 298 and the 2006 declaration. However, the Tribunal has ruled that those exclusion clauses and the 2006 declaration *are not* applicable to this specific case (except for 1 minor exemption related to the use of military assets).
> 
> If you don’t understand, let me explain it to you further: China rejected the Tribunal using the argument that *the Tribunal has no jurisdiction* (i.e. no authority to settle this dispute case) because there are clauses and declaration for exemptions. The Tribunal disagreed with this objection and ruled that the exclusion clauses is not applicable to this case, so they do have jurisdiction.
> 
> And here is the key clause: article 288.4. It says that if there are disagreements over whether the court/Tribunal has jurisdiction or not, then it is the Tribunal that gets to decide if they truly have jurisdiction, in other words, the Tribunal gets the final say on this matter. Read that clause carefully, article 288.4.
> 
> So good try, but no cigar for you (and please next time do reference the specific clauses and convention of the UNCLOS, don’t just try to use hypothetical cases about ferry tickets and laundry to support your argument).



You ignore the most importance aspect, the PAC judges have no means to face it: the court has no jurisidction to territory disputes. This is the reason they rudely declare islands / shoal / reef in SCS all are not islands. In order to make this case applicable to their jurisdiction, they have break the basic fact, we can call it a scandal, and the rulingis harming the UNCLOS authority.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## William Hung

I’m not surprised that the UN had to make this clarification because I have seen many Chinese who had misconceptions about UNCLOS and the UN. I remembered not to long ago a Chinese member argued that the Tribunal is meaningless since China has veto power. Clearly a misconception since the UNSC (where China has veto power) is not the one to issue the ruling but it is issued by the Tribunal established under UNCLOS (where no signatory has veto power).

So yes, the UNSC is quite seperate from UNCLOS, a convention and law that countries voluntarily ratify. And this Tribunal, located in the Hague, was established under the provisions of UNCLOS, which both the Philippines and China had ratified. So why are Chinese members making a fuss regarding the Tribunal/PCA using/“renting” a vertain building? lol. The important thing is that the Tribunal, on the basis of the PCA, *was established under the provisions of the UNCLOS, you know, the same UNCLOS that China had ratified and is still signatory to.*



FairAndUnbiased said:


> If China believes that the PCA does not have jurisdiction on the matter, as it relates to national sovereignty, then China has no obligation to acknowledge even the existence of this ruling while still perfectly abiding by all relevant UN resolutions, treaties and conventions.



Wrong. If China believes that the PCA does not have jurisdiction over the matter, then it is still the Tribunal that gets to decide whether it has jurisdiction or not. And in this case, the Tribunal had decided and ruled that it indeed has jurisdiction over most of the matter.

Please read the clause under article 288.4 of UNCLOS:



> Article 288: Jurisdiction
> 
> 4. In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall *be settled by decision of that court or tribunal*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## greenwood

The arbitration court is made up of those 5 judges and a chief judge:

The Phillipine appoint one judge and the Japanese chief appoint other 4.




















the Japanese chief judge

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kuge

a few days ago my local newspaper ran a page on report between an iranian scholar & a chinese scholar about ancient Iranian maps naming SCS as china sea.& in some cases china islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

*SHINZO ABE’S HENCHMEN RIGGED THE SPRATLYS KAW CASE AGAINST CHINA*
Yoichi Shimatsu | Tuesday, July 12, 2016


First in a 2-part series, this investigative report exposes a high-level intrigue by pro-militarist Japanese diplomats in rigging “Philippines vs. China”, a law case in The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which will soon render its decision on the maritime dispute over the Spratly Archipelago (Nansha in Mandarin). The second part to come will uncover the Tribunal’s political bias in favor of Manila’s marine environmental complaints against China in blatant disregard of the Philippines’ worst-offender record on ecology.

This investigative report is an open call to the UN Committee on the Law of the Sea and the Secretary General to launch an internal investigation into the political influence-peddling and corruption at the International Tribunal for The Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which has compromised the impartiality of the judicial panel for Philippines versus China.

The evidence so far indicates that the Hon. Shunji Yanai, the President of Court of Arbitration/ITLOS, encouraged and facilitated the Philippines case on orders from the office of Shinzo Abe and Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The conspirators’ objective was to promote intentional bias and prejudicial tactics in the court proceedings in favor of the Philippine government in its dispute with the People’s Republic of China over sovereignty in the Spratly Islands (Nansha group) in whole as an archipelago or in part as separate sub-groups.

The evidence so far indicates that the ICA-ITLOS President, Shunji Yanai [柳井俊二], unlawfully and unethically promoted acceptance of Philippines vs. China into the Tribunal schedule at the behest of the Government of Japan. The tactical plan in the conspiracy involves judicial misconduct with the aim of influencing the United Nations and world public opinion to categorically reject without fair consideration all of China’s claims to the Spratly region. These illegal activities include a disguised effort to usurp jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice on principles of sovereignty as applied to maritime boundaries.

Since the predictable outcome for this one-sided case, throughout which only the Philippines side has been represented, will be to inflame regional tensions in East Asia and the Pacific to the military-strategic advantage of the Government of Japan, along with its pro-militarism supporters and criminal associates.

The principle suspects in this conspiracy, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and their chief strategist Shunji Yanai, should be investigated for tampering with the court with the intent of launching neocolonialist aggression in violation of the UN Charter and Constitution of Japan.

The UN, and especially the courts at The Hague, must not accept their own subversion and corruption toward the goal of war-making. The concerns related to covert agendas of intervention is drawn also from the many worldwide calls for investigation and judicial review related to similar deliberate falsehoods that led to the two Gulf Wars against the Republic of Iraq.

Behind the Mask

The author of this report has met His Excellency Shunji Yanai on several occasions during his stint at the Consulate of Japan in San Francisco. His courteous demeanor and caring attitude are charming and nearly convincing, yet in truth quite disturbing, being a mask donned by a master of Orwellian doublespeak.

Philippines vs. China may appear to be a mild-mannered legal exercise, ostensibly to promote a peaceful resolution to the maritime dispute. In essence and in the flow of events, however, the court case stands as a primary justification for war in Asia and the Pacific.

The Spratlys case was conceived and designed from the start as a propaganda stunt to create a veneer of legality for a coming naval confrontation. The deception is similar to how wars of aggression by the Western Powers were contrived under the “responsibility to protect” against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other raging battlefronts.

A military conflict in East Asia could rapidly lead to a global conflagration by nuclear weapons that can annihilate human civilization worldwide. The prospect of apocalyptic destruction is not based on idle speculation but firmly rooted in the shocking experiences of World War II, which demonstrated the superhuman will of a militarized Japanese society ready to accept any sacrifice for the goal of world domination.

The unthinkable suffering for the majority of Asians during those dark years from the 1930s to 1945 is now idealized as a beautiful dream by Japan’s prime minister, who is enamored with the sanitized legacy of his grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, a top-level perpetrator of sinister aggression as wartime Minister of Munitions and paymaster in the military-occupied pseudo-nation called Manchukuo [満州国].

The lessons of history matter, especially now when Japan pushes toward national remilitarization through rearmament and imposition of a draconian internal security regime. The upcoming court decision on Philippines vs. China will be the legal steppingstone into the next bloodbath, and as such a life-and-death existential test for the UN, just like the Second Sino-Japanese War was for the League of Nations.

A Belligerent Provocateur

Even his colleagues at the UN probably know very little about Mr. Yanai, other than his diplomatic career that culminated with an appointment as Ambassador to the United States, much later followed by his advisory role at the UN University.

A graduate of Tokyo University’s faculty of law, he is a supreme expert on bypassing constitutional constraints related to overseas deployment of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces. His mastery of law, and the subversion of law, has focused on warping Article 9 of the Constitution, which in no uncertain terms forbids war as an instrument of national policy, bans troop deployments overseas, and excludes offensive armaments.

So how does Yanai get away with subverting the peace clause? His artfulness is based on softening the strictest language forbidding warfare under a haze of ambiguity by massaging steel into a malleable fabric and quietly gnawing like the termites into the stout foundations of the halls of justice.

In contrast to the about-face statements from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, Yanai’s koans focus on the half-empty glass. There is still space for Peace. Never mind the waters that our noble-minded peacekeepers must cross to bring peace to unfortunate victims in foreign lands like Cambodia and Iraq.

Never mind the bullets and the weapons we brandish, for those are not to be fired in anger but are necessary for the protection of mothers and children from . . . not from ourselves . . . but from those dastardly terrorists. Can anyone conceive of any greater evil than cloaking aggression under the veil of kindness?

In 2007, during his first term as prime minister, Shinzo Abe addressed the opening plenary of the Advisory Panel for the Reconstruction of National Security on a Legal Foundation. The historic gathering of law scholars devised the legal strategy for “normalization” of Japan’s nonviolent foreign policy into a juggernaut of war.


The chairman of that illustrious group was Shunji Yanai, an honor reflected in the informal title of the published proceedings released in June 2008:: Yanai Report to the Diet of Japan. In the foreword, he explained:

“Faced with such a drastically changing security environment, Japan is now pushed to return to the very basics of security and must deliberate seriously about how to protect the irreplaceable lives, assets, land and other such basic values of Japanese citizens as human rights and democratic principles. As for interpretation of Article 9, it is also important not to swerve from the original purpose of security, or fall into the impediments of adhering to precedent, or halting the thinking process. Rather, it is essential to review open-mindedly the stipulations of the Constitution.”

His silky smooth persuasion follows the same logic toward the Constitution as that memorable axiom from the Vietnam War: “It became necessary to destroy the village to save the village.” To rephrase in light of the paragraph above: “To ensure peace in these times of unprecedented threats against the peace, constitutional guarantees for peace must be subdued, silenced and transformed into the very opposite.”

Yanai’s theory is based on evasive terms aimed at nullifying constitutional prohibitions against war and aggression, with the same talking points repeated over again like the chanting of a mantra:

– the security-threat in the Pacific theater surrounding Japan has fundamentally worsened since the Cold War (an unspoken reference to North Korean development of nuclear-tipped missiles and the rapid modernization of Chinese naval forces);

– the need to adopt a “collective security” doctrine enabling Japanese defense forces to come to the armed support of the American military, whenever it comes under fire, anywhere in the world;

– provision of rather vague “logistical support” by the self-defense forces in overseas emergencies, presumably allowing armed escort of those supplies, which may include weapons and ammunition;

– procurement of long-range weapons-delivery systems necessary for protection of US forces on overseas deployments (as if American forces are lacking sufficient weaponry); and

– any whatever other yet-to-be defined actions are needed to restore the peace of mind to the Japanese public.

The Yanai doctrine is a carte blanche for rearmament and intervention, much like Hitler’s crash weapons program and Anchluss policy in the interbellum years. In a nutshell, if just one American soldier finds himself at risk, Japan can launch an all-out invasion to protect this lone ally against entire armies and navies of that unnamed threat from somewhere across the Japan Sea.

With twisted logic that puts Machiavelli to shame, Yanai was the perfect choice to head the International Court of Arbitration (ICA), which supervises the Law of Sea tribunal. To arbitrate, after all, is not to wield the swift sword of stern justice; it is compromise, a gray market of ethical commerce where principles are traded in for pragmatic profit. Arbitration is law for sale, according to the consummate diplomat and middleman who is consummating the purchase of the pretext for war on China.

Yanai is not just a peddler of linguistic mush and diplomatic flowers. His 2008 report gained real muscle and sinews of steel with the return of Shinzo Abe for his second term as prime minister. His legal arguments provided the gameplan for Nippon Kaigi [日本会議, Japan Conference], the newly formed pro-militarist parliamentary bloc.

With their majority in the Lower House, only one small hurdle is waiting to be removed before radical surgery can begin on cutting out the cancer known as Article 9. That’s the House of Councillors elections to be held on the day of publication of this report, July 10, 2016.

The ducks are lined up in a row. Two days later, Yanai’s kangeroo court at The Hague will deliver the green light for war in the South China Sea. The timing is impeccable, a classic example of Clauswitz’s maxim on war being an extension of politics. For those narcissists who can’t be distracted from social media and taking selfies, none of this matters because who cares if millions of naive innocents perish in the nuclear exchanges of ballistic missiles and atomic torpedoes. Go home to watch the Desperate Housewives of Osaka. Those brave few who are willing to try to stop Armageddon, read on.


Any mastermind equal to Sherlock Holmes’s nemesis Professor Moriarty deserves more than 15 minutes of notoriety. Yanai’s biography shows how amid total defeat, a young lad can dedicate his life to the revival of national glory. Yanai inherited his diplomatic post from his father, who worked for the ministry’s Treaty Bureau during the rather undiplomatic attack on Pearl Harbor. Under international law, a signatory nation was supposed to give prior warning to adversaries of its declaration of war. Such ungentlemanly conduct is something to watch for during the anxious months and years ahead.

Following his halcyon consular sojourn in San Francisco, glowing in the halo of Napa wine and Dungeness crab generously served at consular receptions, Yanai returned to Tokyo where his legal training powered a rapid rise up the ranks of the diplomatic corps, primarily due to outbreak of the First Gulf War.

During George Bush the Elder’s long drawn-out preparation for the liberation of Kuwai from Saddam Hussein’s Republic Guards, Tokyo was flummoxed by the Pentagon demands for Japan to either dispatch a battalion of troops for the invasion or pony up millions of dollars in support for the US military. Finance Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto was outraged by this bold act of extortion, until he was confronted at the Plaza Hotel with photographic evidence of an extramarital tryst in a Tokyo love hotel with the wife of a diplomat, let’s say, from a nearby Asian country.

The impending scandal was suppressed with brute official censorship on the Tokyo news media. Foreign Ministry bureaucrats recognized that its is much better to send Japanese youths to die in the desert than open the national treasury to the avaricious and much-despised Yankee barbarians.

Thus, Yanai was put in charge of the Gaimusho (Foreign Ministry) Bureau for Peace Cooperation, the key body that could raise troops for future suicide mission. The searing experience provided the impulse to get rid of Article 9. By the time of his appointment as Ambassador to Washington, which coincided with the 911 attack on the World Trade Center and supposedly the Pentagon, Yanai had crafted all the rationales and omissions needed to dispatch the Ground Self-Defense Force to Iraq in the Second Gulf War.

His carreer path can be charted through his Constitution-subverting legislative bills: UN Peace Mission Cooperation Law during the First Persian Gulf War, which was blocked in the Diet; the Counter-Terrorism Law in the wake of the 911 incident; and finally the Iraq Mission Law, which led to the deployment of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq in the Second Gulf War. Yanai has proven himself to be a despicable lackey of both Bush presidents, a father and son duo much like his own relationship with Yanai Senior.

Beneath his appearance of abject servility to the Pentagon, Yanai’s ulterior motive is the revival of Japanese militarism and de facto colonialist domination of Asia and the developing world.

After serving as envoy to Washington, Yanai moved from being a Foreign Ministry bureaucrat to advance his legal research as a law professor and then legal adviser to Prime Minister Abe drive to transform peace-loving Japan into a “normal country” armed to the teeth for overseas interventions and ideally situated for the final battle to rid the universe of “rising Chinese power.” Whipping a country of 1.5 billion people is a tall order for a small nation like Japan, even though it’s been done before. The “Japanese spirit” with a little help from innovative weapons of mass destruction can eliminate any threat. It just requires lots of money.

Dark Side of the Force

Toward those goals, Yanai has received financial support from the Sasakawa underworld organization and its public face, the Nippon Foundation, [日本財団 , Nipponzaidan]. The revenues of this highly politicized “charity” derive from speedboat racing [競艇, kyotei], a venue for gambling, and the related methamphetamine trade (drugs are transported aboard fast boats).

The Nippon Foundation was the funding donor behind the contrived national holiday called Oceans Day [海の日], which celebrates the Japanese whaling industry’s phony “scientific research” and rallies public support for worldwide naval operations by the Self-Defense Forces and Maritime Safety Agency. This year’s festivities on July 18 will be extra-special, coming on the heels of Law of Sea Tribunal’s verdicts in favor of naval ally Philippines and after the ruling Liberal Democrats achieve an unstoppable majority with an electoral victory in the Upper House elections, which is key to constitutional revision.

On that happy day, every rightist in Japan will feel in their hearts a phoenix rising from the ashes of defeat on new wings toward future victories. Yanai’s mentor and financial supporter, the late Ryoichi Sasakawa [笹川 良一], was a prewar admirer and copycat of the founder of fascism, the Italian demagogue Benito Mussolini. As a Diet member, Sasakawa collaborated with Japan’s version of the Gestapo called the Kempeitai [憲兵隊], involving his supporters in the drug trade and property confiscations across Japanese-occupied Asia.

After the 1945 defeat, Sasakawa was confined as a war criminal in Sugamo Prison [巢鴨拘置所] with Yoshio Kodama[児玉 誉士夫] , the gangster boss associated with the Tosei-kai [東声会 / 東亜会] , since renamed the Toa-kai or East Asia group, a violent yakuza gang on the payroll of the CIA. Since then gangland has flourished with rightist terrorism, extortion, drug trafficking and the global sex trade.

Thanks to officials like Yanai and IAEA chief Yukio Amano [天野 之弥] , rivers of black money have flowed into pockets at the United Nations, where Japanese bribery is eagerly although silently welcomed. Foreign Ministry officials, with their secret slush fund harvested from the Postal Savings Bank and bolstered with donations from underworld figures and maniacal cult leaders, has corrupted the international community like termites gnawing at the foundations of the halls of justice, as recently exposed in the massive bribery related to Tokyo’s 2020 Olympics bid.

Tribune of Seas

Moving from a part-time appointment as advisor to the UN University, Yanai wormed his way into the Tribunal of the Law of the Sea as a judge in 2005 and has served at ITLOS president since 2011. The Japanese diplomat personally appointed the pro-UK British-Ghanaian judge Thomas Mensah in June 2015 to head the 5-jurist panel for Philippines vs. China. Mensah’s unashamed bias was immediately expressed in media coverage that referred to the disputed maritime region as the “West Philippine Sea” instead of the geographically accepted descriptor South China Sea.

The political intrigue that hatched the Spratlys lawsuit was launched in February 2013 with Yanai’s “courtesy call” on Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida [岸田 文雄] , who is a kobun [子分, “foster child”] or underling in Abe’s Liberal Democrat faction. Their highly unusual private meeting was focused on the ITLOS split decision over the Southern Bluefin Tuna case, submitted by New Zealand and Australia to protect wild fish stocks devastated by the global appetite for maguro at sushi bars. Sabotaged by the Japanese-controlled ITLOS under the category of a “contentious case”, Bluefin is effectively dead in the water.

According to the abbreviated meeting notes from the Foreign Ministry, Kishida urged Yanai to advance “the development of a legal order over the oceans”, a catch phrase for Abe’s intrusion into the Spratly dispute with the provision of naval vessels and legal aid, via Yanai, to the Aquino regime against China’s claims. (For those unfamiliar with wartime events, the Aquino family was among the leading collaborators under the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines.)

Yanai soon followed up on his orders from Foreign Minister Kishida by appointing His Honarable Chris Pinto to head the panel Philippines vs. China. In May, the judge from Sri Lanka, however, was forced to resign for conflict of interest when it was discovered that his wife is a Pinay (Filipina). Amid the red faces at the Court of Arbitration, Judge Mensah was called to step into the breech. This first misstep was followed by other shady moves at Yanai’s nest of corruption, for example, with the ITLOS acceptance of funding for a training program from the Nippon Foundation.

Once again, as in the two Sino-Japanese Wars, Tokyo has relied on suppression of popular protest in Japan, heavy-handed media censorship, bold lies to the world community, collaboration with gangsters and industrialists, ceaseless subversion of international law and if the history of Manchuria (Northeast China) serves as any indication, soon-to-come false-flag operations followed by gunship diplomacy and outright invasions. History not only repeats, it outdoes itself with greater brutality. Asia and the world is again on the brink, and just as before nobody seems to notice the dangerous waters of a rising tsunami.

The momentous events over the coming week in July are an fast-approaching super-typhoon. Whether the momentum of neo-militarist aggression can be maintained with an electoral victory by the hawkish Hillary Clinton is the last uncertainty along the sealane toward World War III.


Yoichi Shimatsu, a former editor with The Japan Times group, former 4th Media Editor-in-Charge At Large, an investigative reporter based in Hong Kong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng

all european, no asian , 





are they really understand the situation and history of Asia?



and the japanese main judger is embezzle , an extrem Japanese right-winger.




the japanese judger who called the other four juders, once was japanese ambassador to USA.





empty seats with on Chinese

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## William Hung

greenwood said:


> But China own and manage SCS islands not begenning at modern world, we have historical rights. Our buddhistm came back from India through SCS, our fleet went to Indian ocean ( West Ocean we ever call it ) through SCS. Our long long history have enough detailed files recording SCS islands and our fishermen on the SCS islands were the first Chinamen met with European maritime venture via SCS.
> 
> 
> 
> You ignore the most importance aspect, the PAC judges have no means to face it: the court has no jurisidction to territory disputes. This is the reason they rudely declare islands / shoal / reef in SCS all are not islands. In order to make this case applicable to their jurisdiction, they have break the basic fact, we can call it a scandal, and the rulingis harming the UNCLOS authority.



The Philippines had carefully constructed their case so as not to include issues regarding *specific* territorial disputes such as boundary delimitation, etc that are indeed outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was filed so that the dispute is about the “intepretation” of the law and conventions of UNCLOS, things which the Tribunal do indeed have jurisdiction over. And the Tribunal had disagreed with China and accept that the case is not related to those *specific* disputes that are exempted from UNCLOS, so the Tribunal ruled that it indeed has jurisdiction over most of the matter. If China disagree, then its too bad, because China had already ratified UNCLOS which has a very specific clause saying that even if there are disagreements regarding the Tribunal having jurisdiction, it is still the Tribunal that gets to decide on it. Read article 288 under UNCLOS. This specific clause validates the Tribunal’s ruling and its jurisdiction...and it is a clause that China had agreed to when it first ratified UNCLOS. In other words, this Tribunal and its ruling is valid and legal under UNCLOS, the same UNCLOS that China voluntarily became signatory to and the same UNCLOS which China is still legally binded to.

If you don’t like it then you can lobby your government to pull China out of UNCLOS, but you cannot claim that the Tribunal or its ruling is illegal, because it is in fact valid and legal under the provisions of UNCLOS. But I totally understand that when one party recieve an unfavorable ruling from a court, even in a normal civilian court, the most common reaction from the said party is to say that the court or ruling is biased or unfair. That’s a common reaction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Shunji Yanai with Abe

*Questions of neutrality: China takes aim at judges in South China Sea case*
July, 11, 2016 SCMP

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...neutrality-china-takes-aim-judges-south-china

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

yusheng said:


> The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states. It should not be confused with the *International Court of Justice, a separate institution*. *(which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN), PCA IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN)
> 
> The PCA is a permanent bureaucracy that assists temporary tribunals to resolve disputes among states (and similar entities), intergovernmental organizations, or even private parties arising out of international agreements. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade.
> 
> The court was established in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference. The Peace Palace was built for the Court in 1913 with funds from American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Since 1922, the building has also housed the separate Permanent Court of International Justice, which was replaced by the International Court of Justice in 1946.
> 
> The PCA is not a “court" in the conventional understanding of that term but an administrative organization with the object of having permanent and readily available means to serve as the registry for purposes of international arbitration and other related procedures, including commissions of enquiry and conciliation. The judges or arbitrators that hear cases are officially called "Members" of the Court.
> 
> The public at large is usually more familiar with the *International Court of Justice* than with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, partly because of the closed nature of cases handled by the PCA and also the small number of cases dealt with between 1946 and 1990. Sometimes even the decision itself is kept confidential at the request of the parties.
> 
> TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where *International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.
> *
> View attachment 317194



* So PCA has no affliation to the UN*
(TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gayMo

greenwood said:


> My fault to call you an idiot, sorry, but you at least try to show some of your wills of learning.
> 
> Everthing involving in "international" in your mind seems giant and legal. ISIS is internatioal too.
> 
> The PCA was founded in 1899, it is a product of colonial period.
> 
> The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states. It should not be confused with the *International Court of Justice, a separate institution*. *(which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN), PCA IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN)
> 
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/what-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration-is.439091/#ixzz4EHfIh9oq


Hi no offence thnk you. There is a reason that the pca has members and signatorieS, the world is aware of its capabilities and it's limitations and that is not enforceable. China is not the first power that has trashed international arbitration outcomes that are not ruled in its favor and won't be the last.
It just puts paid to China s claim of peaceful rise, cooperation etc. There is a reputations price. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. Again as i have mentioned in earlier unrelated threads, what we say here is of little value and of no consequence so let's just be pleasant to one another and agree to disagree should the need arise and move on.


----------



## kuge

kuge said:


> a few days ago my local newspaper ran a page on report between an iranian scholar & a chinese scholar about ancient Iranian maps naming SCS as china sea.& in some cases china islands.


here it is: sorry in chinese
http://www.kwongwah.com.my/?p=166218


----------



## greenwood

William Hung said:


> The Philippines had carefully constructed their case so as not to include issues regarding *specific* territorial disputes such as boundary delimitation, etc that are indeed outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was filed so that the dispute is about the “intepretation” of the law and conventions of UNCLOS, things which the Tribunal do indeed have jurisdiction over. And the Tribunal had disagreed with China and accept that the case is not related to those *specific* disputes that are exempted from UNCLOS, so the Tribunal ruled that it indeed has jurisdiction over most of the matter. If China disagree, then its too bad, because China had already ratified UNCLOS which has a very specific clause saying that even if there are disagreements regarding the Tribunal having jurisdiction, it is still the Tribunal that gets to decide on it. Read article 288 under UNCLOS. This specific clause validates the Tribunal’s ruling and its jurisdiction...and it is a clause that China had agreed to when it first ratified UNCLOS. In other words, this Tribunal and its ruling is valid and legal under UNCLOS, the same UNCLOS that China voluntarily became signatory to and the same UNCLOS which China is still legally binded to.
> 
> If you don’t like it then you can lobby your government to pull China out of UNCLOS, but you cannot claim that the Tribunal or its ruling is illegal, because it is in fact valid and legal under the provisions of UNCLOS. But I totally understand that when one party recieve an unfavorable ruling from a court, even in a normal civilian court, the most common reaction from the said party is to say that the court or ruling is biased or unfair. That’s a common reaction.



Hey, please learn the differences among:
the SCS Arbitration court,
( Hamburg ) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,
International Court of Justice,
( Hague ) PCA ( pernament court of arbitration )

Dont mess up all to talk together, all you said seems correct, but their relation is apple and orange.
This SCS arbitration is not UNCLOS convention.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gayMo

greenwood said:


> But China own and manage SCS islands not begenning at modern world, we have historical rights. Our buddhistm came back from India through SCS, our fleet went to Indian ocean ( West Ocean we ever call it ) through SCS. Our long long history have enough detailed files recording SCS islands and our fishermen on the SCS islands were the first Chinamen met with European maritime venture via SCS.
> 
> 
> 
> You ignore the most importance aspect, the PAC judges have no means to face it: the court has no jurisidction to territory disputes. This is the reason they rudely declare islands / shoal / reef in SCS all are not islands. In order to make this case applicable to their jurisdiction, they have break the basic fact, we can call it a scandal, and the rulingis harming the UNCLOS authority.


I dont know about the historical facts you quote. But the nine dash line seems a bit unrealistic to me given that its so close to all the asean countries and so far away from mainland. Also to bolster the claim all the small so called rocks are being converted to islands. In the modern world it seems a bit unfair. I am the first to say that worse things have been done by western powers but it does not change perception of what china is doing and now that perceptionperception has become fact after the tribunal verdict.



Tiqiu said:


> It is just some 1000 miles south of Tokyo. BTW, Taiping island is only 1154 km from Chinese Hainan. You can do the maths if you know the difference between British and Metric system.


What is the closest point in japan from this island is it tokyo? If not your calculation has to be between beijing vs Tokyo from this islands isnt it?
Also do you agree that what japan did was right?


----------



## William Hung

beijingwalker said:


> *CNN: Will China abide by the South China Sea decision?*
> By William Burke-White
> 
> Updated 10:57 PM ET, Tue July 12, 2016
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/opinions/south-china-sea-decision-burke-white/



I doubt any country would expects China to abide by any unfavorable ruling, which actually, the question title doesn’t really made sense in the first place. In fact, the Philippines didn’t actually asked the Tribunal to tell China to leave the SCS. What the Philippines had asked for, is to have the Tribunal officially issue a judgement whether China’s SCS claims are legally valid under UNCLOS, whether Chinese’s conducts in the SCS had violated UNCLOS. And the Philippines received favourable rulings in the sense that the Tribunal did eventually ruled and agreed with what the Philippines had asked for, namely, to issue an official judgement and rule that certain Chinese conducts in the SCS, had indeed violated UNCLOS, and more importantly, to officially issue a judgment that the so-called Chinese “historic” and “legal” claims over the SCS are officially invalid and illegal under UNCLOS.

Before these rulings, China had always argued that they are complying to UNCLOS, that they have “indisputable” evidences and full historic and legal rights to their SCS claims, that their claims are legally valid. China have even invoked UNCLOS to dispute the claims/conducts of other dispute parties, with the latest example just a few weeks ago when China accused Indonesia of violating UNCLOS. But this Tribunal ruling had essentially flushed all these PRC rhetorics and arguments down the toilet. It is quite harsh like that. It fundamentally ruled that, China, it is you who have violated UNCLOS, it is your SCS claims that are illegal and invalid under UNCLOS. More importantly, the ruling is an official judgement, not just some advisory comments, etc.


----------



## greenwood

gayMo said:


> I dont know about the historical facts you quote. But the nine dash line seems a bit unrealistic to me given that its so close to all the asean countries and so far away from mainland. Also to bolster the claim all the small so called rocks are being converted to islands. In the modern world it seems a bit unfair. I am the first to say that worse things have been done by western powers but it does not change perception of what china is doing and now that perceptionperception has become fact after the tribunal verdict.
> 
> 
> What is the closest point in japan from this island is it tokyo? If not your calculation has to be between beijing vs Tokyo from this islands isnt it?
> Also do you agree that what japan did was eight?



It is not my fault you don't know the hsitorical facts, just like it is not your fault the European call native American as Indian in the first place. If the European then made some simple survey or inquiry, they wouldn't make the joke.
That's the reason I repeat you need to learn if you have interesting intention of this affair. China recently issued the "white paper" of China-Phillipines territory disputes about SCS. I hope next time, when we met, if taking this issue randomly, you don't speak out again "I don't know about the historical facts you quote"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> * So PCA has no affliation to the UN*
> (TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.)


The PCA is *AFFILIATED* with the United Nations, if not in hierarchy, then in principles. The UN is a recent development compares to the PCA, so if there are disputes where the PCA's historical experience can be better applied, referrals from the UN carries equal force.

https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680052af1


> Not only do states more frequently seek recourse to the PCA, but international commercial arbitration can also be conducted under PCA auspices.
> 
> The 1976 United Nations UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules entrust to the Secretary-General of the PCA the role of designating, upon request of a party to arbitration proceedings, an "appointing authority" to decide on the appointment or rule on questions concerning the challenge of arbitrators. Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number and complexity of such requests, emanating from ad hoc arbitrations worldwide. In addition, the Secretary-General has with increasing frequency been requested to serve directly as appointing authority in UNCITRAL arbitrations.


The PCA have been accepted by the international community as a legitimate body for appeals in international disputes.

This is a feeble attempt to diminish the impact of the PCA regarding the SCS controversy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gayMo

greenwood said:


> It is not my fault you don't know the hsitorical facts, just like it is not your fault the European call native American as Indian in the first place. If the European then made some simple survey or inquiry, they wouldn't make the joke.
> That's the reason I repeat you need to learn if you have interesting intention of this affair. China recently issued the "white paper" of China-Phillipines territory disputes about SCS. I hope next time, when we met, if taking this issue randomly, you don't speak out again "I don't know about the historical facts you quote"


Ok, it is not random, i did not open my mouth until the UNCLOS verdict came. I think i will stick with that version. India complied with a decision that went aginst it 2 years sgo. One can massage a story in many ways to suit your interests.


----------



## alaungphaya

Here is what Myanmar's official line is. I don't know of any other non-invested SE Asian countries releasing statements about it yet.


----------



## gambit

William Hung said:


> What the Philippines had asked for, is to have the Tribunal officially issue a judgement whether China’s SCS claims are legally valid under UNCLOS, whether Chinese’s conducts in the SCS had violated UNCLOS.


This is what the PDF Chinese ain't gots the brains to understand.

The Tribunal's decision was not meant for China but for anyone who uses the SCS, that China's claim to the SCS is basically nonsense.

This leave China with two options: Either militarily enforce her claim to the SCS by attacking every ship that does not comply with her wishes, or leave those ships alone as they passage thru the SCS.

The latter is effectively an abandonment of her claim, in idea if not in fact.


----------



## yusheng

what the contributin the PCA done to the so called "internation community" ?
any good history the PCA has?
any good results the PCA has?
maybe only good for westerns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

yusheng said:


> all european, no asian ,
> View attachment 317304
> 
> 
> are they really understand the situation and history of Asia?
> 
> 
> 
> and the japanese main judger is embezzle , an extrem Japanese right-winger.
> View attachment 317302
> 
> the japanese judger who called the other four juders, once was japanese ambassador to USA.
> 
> View attachment 317303
> 
> empty seats with on Chinese



It never about "History" of Asia, the issue is always about Law. If History is to precede law, then we should all give our country back to Africa, each of our land are separated by the African continent in pre-historical sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## William Hung

greenwood said:


> Hey, please learn the differences among:
> the SCS Arbitration court,
> ( Hamburg ) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,
> International Court of Justice,
> ( Hague ) PCA ( pernament court of arbitration )
> 
> Dont mess up all to talk together, all you said seems correct, but their relation is apple and orange.
> This SCS arbitration is not UNCLOS convention.



I did not even mentioned ITLOS or the ICJ in my post, nor do I need to. It is you that need to understand more about UNCLOS.

When there are a certain type of disputes between signatories of UNCLOS (which include China), there is a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism that a dispute party can invoke, which include ITLOS, ICJ or an abitration tribunal:



> SECTION 2. COMPULSORY PROCEDURES ENTAILING BINDING DECISIONS
> 
> Article 286
> Application of procedures under this section
> Subject to section 3, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section.
> 
> Article 287
> Choice of procedure
> 1.	When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
> (a)	the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annx VI;
> (b)	the International Court of Justice;
> *(c)	an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;*
> (d)	a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.



ITLOS and ICJ is not necessary because the Philippines chose option (c), to establish an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Anx VII. This Abitration tribunal was located in the Hague.

What is Anx VII? It is this: 
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex7.htm

Basically it is provisions under UNCLOS to establish an arbitration tribunal as a dispute settlement mechanism. The thing to note about this provision is that the ruling and judgment of the abotration tribunal is final, and even if one party refused to participate, it can still continue proceed to settle the dispute.

So you are wrong my dear, this arbitration tribunal was indeed established legally under the provisions of UNCLOS.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

gambit said:


> The PCA is *AFFILIATED* with the United Nations, if not in hierarchy, then in principles. The UN is a recent development compares to the PCA, so if there are disputes where the PCA's historical experience can be better applied, referrals from the UN carries equal force.
> 
> https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680052af1
> 
> The PCA have been accepted by the international community as a legitimate body for appeals in international disputes.
> 
> This is a feeble attempt to diminish the impact of the PCA regarding the SCS controversy.



I disagree.

The *Permanent Court of Arbitration* (*PCA*) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states.[1] It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, a separate institution.

The PCA is a permanent bureaucracy that assists temporary tribunals to resolve disputes among states (and similar entities), intergovernmental organizations, or even private parties arising out of international agreements. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade.

The court was established in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference. The Peace Palace was built for the Court in 1913 with funds from American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Since 1922, the building has also housed the separate Permanent Court of International Justice, which was replaced by the International Court of Justice in 1946.

 THE VERY FUNNY THING HERE IS HOW CAN WE HAVE AN ARBITRATION IN THE ABSENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES? We cannot have an arbitration in the absence of either one of the parties. Now the so-called International Tribunal which is *fully sponsored and approved* by Philippines simply appointed an unknown individual to represent the other party.   

HENCE TO MANY OF US, THE ARBITRATION COURT SPONSORED BY PHILIPINES HAS MERELY HANDED IN A *DEFAULT RULING* ALTHOUGH CLEARLY IT HAS NO JURISDICTION! China damage to the eco-system! Uh! China has NO right to historical claim! Uh! This will returned to haunt USA and her cronies, one of these days


https://defence.pk/threads/shinzo-abe’s-henchmen-rigged-the-spratlys-kaw-case-against-china.439159/

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> I disagree.


You can disagree all you want and it will be for naught. The physical location of the PCA is irrelevant. Its intentions and usage are not. As far as the international community is concerned, it the UN referred an issue to the PCA, it might as well came from the UN.

Yours like saying the Supreme Court have nothing to do with lower courts because the Supreme Court is located in a different building.



CAPRICORN-88 said:


> THE VERY FUNNY THING HERE IS HOW CAN WE HAVE AN ARBITRATION IN THE ABSENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES?


Are you saying that China was not invited to the arbitration ? We would like to see the PCA's official statement on why China was officially excluded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jlaw

greenwood said:


> The arbitration court is made up of those 5 judges and a chief judge:
> 
> The Phillipine appoint one judge and the Japanese chief appoint other 4.
> 
> View attachment 317296
> View attachment 317297
> View attachment 317299
> View attachment 317300
> View attachment 317301
> 
> 
> 
> the Japanese chief judge
> View attachment 317298



But PCA is not a real court so I wouldn't call these judges. It should be called

'Three men, token black and a midget"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

What I don't understand is this..........

If China really like the PDF Chinese here say it's about definance and refuse to accept the ruling, then why these people continue to talk about it as if it is a big deal??

You think this ruling is stupid, you think the order is a toilet paper, you don't care about the ruling, then you should basically let it go as if it never existed. WHat we can see about PDF Chinese here is the exact opposite of not caring......

I would not say giving these so called "illegal" ruling 840 message is what we can defined as "Not Caring" about the verdict.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## itaskol

gambit said:


> it the UN referred an issue to the PCA, it might as well came from the UN.


you should watch the UN press conference in newyork from 07.12

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

gambit said:


> Are you saying that China was not invited to the arbitration ? We would like to see the PCA's official statement on why China was officially excluded.



Yes. But the respondent party has the right to NOT to participate on the ground she has given.

The International Tribunal full sponsored with its Judges appointed by Philippines has NO jurisdiction in this case as it involved historical teritorial lands. 

Hence in the absence of the other party, it became solely a one-sided affair and how are they supposed to arbitrate and with who? Anti-China Philippines vs Pro-China Philippines

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## greenwood

William Hung said:


> I did not even mentioned ITLOS or the ICJ in my post, nor do I need to. It is you that need to understand more about UNCLOS.
> 
> When there are a certain type of disputes between signatories of UNCLOS (which include China), there is a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism that a dispute party can invoke, which include ITLOS, ICJ or an abitration tribunal:
> 
> 
> 
> ITLOS and ICJ is not necessary because the Philippines chose option (c), to establish an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Anx VII. This Abitration tribunal was located in the Hague.
> 
> What is Anx VII? It is this:
> http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex7.htm
> 
> Basically it is provisions under UNCLOS to establish an arbitration tribunal as a dispute settlement mechanism. The thing to note about this provision is that the ruling and judgment of the abotration tribunal is final, and even if one party refused to participate, it can still continue proceed to settle the dispute.
> 
> So you are wrong my dear, this arbitration tribunal was indeed established legally under the provisions of UNCLOS.



This is the first case they use the Anx VII. This is a bad start. When the SCS arbitration court rule all objects in SCS are not islands, they have lost the basic theory of law of UNCLOS. By the way, those 5 judge and chief judge receive salary from the Philippines government not from UN or ITLOS, ICJ...



jhungary said:


> What I don't understand is this..........
> 
> If China really like the PDF Chinese here say it's about definance and refuse to accept the ruling, then why these people continue to talk about it as if it is a big deal??
> 
> You think this ruling is stupid, you think the order is a toilet paper, you don't care about the ruling, then you should basically let it go as if it never existed. WHat we can see about PDF Chinese here is the exact opposite of not caring......
> 
> I would not say giving these so called "illegal" ruling 840 message is what we can defined as "Not Caring" about the verdict.



In order to make the region peace, we have learned how the America use fabricated excues of "massive chemical weapons" to start the war against Iraq. To avoid Amercia use this excuse of SCS arbitration court, we need to tell them what the ruling is, though China isn't afraid of the conflict with Ameria, it's better to avoid a meaningless war potentially.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jason Zhao

As so much abundant experiences from USA, we just get it below
1: Both Small Countries quarrels, Solver by UN, Then both Disappered
1: Small and Big country quarrels, Solved by UN, then small country disappered.
2: Big and Big country Quarrels, Solved by UN, then UN disappred.

So.....are you still cute and trust USA??

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> Yes. But the respondent party has the right to NOT to participate on the ground she has given.


Then China have no cause to complain. Simple as that.

There is an old saying about people representing themselves: Fools.

The corollary to that is if the defendant, or party to a dispute, does not show to present his side of the story: Fool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## greenwood

Jlaw said:


> But PCA is not a real court so I wouldn't call these judges. It should be called
> 
> 'Three men, token black and a midget"



PCA is a real court, but the court made the ruling is the SCS Casual Arbitration Court, which is faiture case.


----------



## kuge

yes..ALL judges are appointed by philippines & japan. They are non-asians...it is only fair china declared ruling void.
Were it the opposite scenario would philippines accept the ruling?
no country would put national sovereignty into the hands of her antagonists, would her?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## itaskol

problem is china care too much about reputation. that sucks
but we will keep doing what we do as always.
keep island constraction, building more and larger airfield.
keep fishing all over SCS. and keep that place a peaceful place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

gambit said:


> This is what the PDF Chinese ain't gots the brains to understand.
> 
> The Tribunal's decision was not meant for China but for anyone who uses the SCS, that China's claim to the SCS is basically nonsense.
> 
> This leave China with two options: Either militarily enforce her claim to the SCS by attacking every ship that does not comply with her wishes, or leave those ships alone as they passage thru the SCS.
> 
> The latter is effectively an abandonment of her claim, in idea if not in fact.


That's your personal interpretation. China never tried to block the sea passage routes in this region, not in the past ,not in the future, what China will do is business as usual ,keeps doing what we always have been doing ,nothing more ,nothing less, sneezes at that void ruling cause that ruling is not worth even the toilet paper to us.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## dy1022

Param said:


> And i read two chinese fishing boats were sunk recently,one by Indonesian Navy.What did you then.




093A cruise missile SSN passes Strait of Malacca at the end of June-2016, final warning to Indonesian Navy.

We let them seen what we have sent to there!








We also heard about that nearly 90 Fishing ships from India been destoryed and captured by Sri-lanka alone in 2015 !

what have India done to that situation???

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jlaw

pher said:


> haha, just you say so? or maybe* india only enjoy an errand boy status* in UN so nobody bothers to inform you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

deckingraj said:


> Then you were complaining that i was mocking you as cheerleader...How do you know the ruling is biased?? Do you even have an idea what ICJ is?? Here read about it
> http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1
> 
> b/w FYI - there are many times Pakistan has also dragged India into the same court and vice versa...also like ICJ another UN body did actually did this to you..
> http://www.dawn.com/news/1170986/pakistan-seabed-territory-grows-by-50000-square-kilometres?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dawn-news+(Dawn+News)
> 
> Now suddenly UN bodies are biased  ?? Anyways just for argument sake what is your take on china claim of almost whole of south china sea??


Ofc They are biased ! ignoring Palestinians struggle, letting US bomb the shit out of Iraq OFC they are

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## deckingraj

salarsikander said:


> Ofc They are biased ! ignoring Palestinians struggle, letting US bomb the shit out of Iraq OFC they are


U know that UN never backed USA on her iraq misadventure??


----------



## salarsikander

deckingraj said:


> U know that UN never backed USA on her iraq misadventure??


And what of the Palestinian resolutions ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## deckingraj

salarsikander said:


> And what of the Palestinian resolutions ?


What about it?? You may have liking for one side however there are two sides to every conflict...but still what is that you expect out of UN there....also mind it in the end UN is a paper tiger


----------



## salarsikander

deckingraj said:


> What about it?? You may have liking for one side however there are two sides to every conflict...but still what is that you expect out of UN there....also mind it in the end UN is a paper tiger


----------



## lcloo

In an arbitration, both parties in dispute have to agree to be bound by the final rulings before it can proceeds. Note that arbitration is NOT litigation, and generally is NOT BINDING if one party does not agree to send the dispute case for arbitration . Thus if only a single party agree to proceed with the arbitration, it is not only non-binding, it is also illegal.

Similar to Law of Contracts, both parties must first agreed to the terms and conditions of the case.

*Arbitration*, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. The parties to a dispute refer it to _arbitration_ by one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), and *agree* to be bound by the arbitration decision (the "award"). A third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts.[1]

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Genesis

Joe Shearer said:


> That is not what I said. I was questioning your statement that there is some hostility you feel towards China on the part of India, and pointing out to you that this was an ironic thing for an Indian to hear given the history of India striving to bring China into the comity of nations. In case you are not aware, China, as a Communist power and as a perceived aggressive power which had just opposed the UN, and the US within the UN, and was blacklisted in every international gathering, was isolated. Chinese analysts and Chinese opinion makers have forgotten how it was for your country, when only Russia was (grudgingly) on your side, and have forgotten the jokes about the Albanians, the lone supporters of China, proclaiming that they and the Chinese were 600 million strong.
> 
> Your feeling of hostility is strange, considering that your collective memory is so short.



There is no hostility as I said. There is interests. Ego as well, as you have said. Any hostility displayed on this forum, well you been here since 09.

However you must take into account, China's main and possibly only real ally is Pakistan. Their interest in South Asia will always mean more to us than anyone else. Same deal with the US and Japan. We may be their biggest trading partner, but Japan is infinitely more important to them. 



> We welcomed China in with open arms. That is the difference. And it had nothing to do with Nehru's feeling about India being a leader. It had to do with morality. I am sorry to use a strange word and almost a dirty word, but there was such an element. Nothing else that anyone puts forward explains the behaviour of India towards China. And nothing explains China's behaviour towards India.



We can debate why Nehru did what he did, but there won't be any facts in this discussion, simply opinions, so I want to leave it. Just for the record, getting us into things makes him look extremely important, not saying that's the entire reason, but his actions suggests as much. My opinion.



> We were successful enough, and we persuaded a lot of people to talk to China. As far as Nehru feeling India was the leading man, that was his individual ego; for China to build her entire state policy around envy of an individual makes very strange reading. It would appear that Chinese policy, right from the inception of the PRC, has been one of undiluted envy of others. We belong far in the forgotten past; the current Chinese envy and nation desired to be overtaken is the US. Where does it end? Or does it never end?



The notion of envy, is not a Chinese characteristic. All functional humans feel it.

Consider this thread, do India really cares what happens in SCS? You have no global obligations nor the alliance networks, you have no prestige to be lost and certainly no interests to speak of in the region that would be impacted. Wars are waging across the world, ME, Africa, and eastern Europe, yet not one place has the reaction been so strong. If anything you are closer to ME and Africa than SCS.

The only thing that is different here is China. If that isn't ego, I don't know what is. Whenever people say China India comparison is apple and oranges, or long term. It's as clear as day what they actually mean.

There is no end, that's what I love about humanity, if there is an end, well the last time that happened, India became a colony and Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau were taken from us, also parts of Shandong province and parts of Shanghai.


Regarding the other matter, I speak for myself, that's all anyone can do. if you don't like some poster's attitude or way of posting, just ignore. That's what I do.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Will this ruling added to the woe of other nations including USA and Britain now that all the islands in the South China Sea are declared as ROCK with a single stroke of a pen?    

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-foreign-minister-sparks-fresh-row-Rock.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

dy1022 said:


> 093A cruise missile SSN passes Strait of Malacca at the end of June-2016, final warning to Indonesian Navy.
> 
> We let them seen what we have sent to there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We also heard about that nearly 90 Fishing ships from India been destoryed and captured by Sri-lanka alone in 2015 !*
> 
> what have India done to that situation???



Nothing!

And do you know what these fishing boats were about, and why India did nothing? Do you care, or were you scoring a point?


----------



## Solomon2

lcloo said:


> In an arbitration, both parties in dispute have to agree to be bound by the final rulings before it can proceed...


That's what happened here. China did indeed attach letters of reservation to UNCLOS, but the tribunal determined these exceptions don't apply since China bases its arguments upon "historic rights" rather than "historic title" - i.e., sovereignty.


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

This thread will for a couple of more days. In a couple of day the new Philppine government issue a statement that would be everything to every man...and then the real business of getting on with business start.. i.e. Chinese investments in Philppines... some bargaining here and there. And this mess was for nothing.

In the end China won.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

Sinopakfriend said:


> In the end China won.






​*Aquino: Ruling a victory for all*
July 13, 2016 10:32 pm
by FELIPE F. SALVOSA II, MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO AND JOMAR CANLAS

FORMER President Benigno Aquino 3rd on Wednesday hailed the international tribunal ruling favoring the Philippines’ claims to the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) as a “victory for all,” as his former Foreign Affairs chief said it was now time for the country to be “magnanimous.”

“Instead of viewing this decision as a victory of one party over another, the best way to look at this judgment is that it is a victory for all. I say this because the clarity rendered now establishes better conditions that enable countries to engage each other, bearing in mind their duties and rights within a context that espouses equality and amity,” Aquino said in a statement.

Tributes to the previous Aquino administration poured on social media on Wednesday, with netizens crediting the former president for initiating the victorious legal case before the United Nations’ Permanent Court of Arbitration that settles international maritime disputes.

Aquino thanked the tribunal, based in The Hague in The Netherlands, for the “fair judgment,” saying he was “quite elated particularly since all the points we had raised were affirmed.”

“Where there is conflict over claims and opinions, cooperation cannot exist. Now that the rules are even clearer, we can all move forward as a global community. Without doubt, this long-running dispute is now closer to having a permanent solution,” he said.

His former Foreign Affairs secretary, Albert del Rosario, said the ruling will have wide-ranging implications on maritime conduct in the South China Sea and should be used as leverage in diplomatic channels.

“If you take a look at the [decision], it has ruled on many aspects which affect not only the Philippines, but other nations of the world that will benefit from the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea,” del Rosario said in a television interview.

“This is a victory for all because it benefits the whole world and people will, of course, enjoy these benefits,” he added.

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza and former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who were part of the Philippine legal team at The Hague, admitted that China will not face sanctions, but risks harming its international reputation.

They agreed that the next steps should be diplomatic rather than confrontational.

“Having a legal right is different from enforcement. Enforcement is a different matter,” Hilbay pointed out.

But “China is bound by the decision, so everyday of violation is a non-compliance with the decision,” he said.

Hilbay particularly referred to the structures China built on areas of the West Philippine Sea.

While China is occupying the disputed territories, the Philippines has the legal title to such areas.

“In layman’s terms, *China occupies the land but we have the title to it*,” Hilbay said.

Jardeleza said the government should resort to peaceful means to resolve the dispute.

“It has been the consistent view of the legal team that this Award will be a potent legal platform as our country moves forward to the political and diplomatic phase of our goal of effectively asserting our maritime entitlements under Unclos [United nations Convention on the Law of the Sea],” Jardeleza said.



greenwood said:


> But China own and manage SCS islands not begenning at modern world, we have historical rights. -


The tribunal says any claim to "historic rights" was "extinguished" when China signed UNCLOS, as it agreed to subject such a matter to the treaty text and binding arbitration. 

The tribunal pointed out that it was previously decided that "historic rights" - like fishing - are "private rights" and that deeming them state's rights was a "western legal fiction" the tribunal refused to endorse (_Eritrea v. Yemen_, 1999). (Paragraph 798).


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Solomon2 said:


> ​*Aquino: Ruling a victory for all*
> July 13, 2016 10:32 pm
> by FELIPE F. SALVOSA II, MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO AND JOMAR CANLAS
> 
> FORMER President Benigno Aquino 3rd on Wednesday hailed the international tribunal ruling favoring the Philippines’ claims to the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) as a “victory for all,” as his former Foreign Affairs chief said it was now time for the country to be “magnanimous.”
> 
> “Instead of viewing this decision as a victory of one party over another, the best way to look at this judgment is that it is a victory for all. I say this because the clarity rendered now establishes better conditions that enable countries to engage each other, bearing in mind their duties and rights within a context that espouses equality and amity,” Aquino said in a statement.
> 
> Tributes to the previous Aquino administration poured on social media on Wednesday, with netizens crediting the former president for initiating the victorious legal case before the United Nations’ Permanent Court of Arbitration that settles international maritime disputes.
> 
> Aquino thanked the tribunal, based in The Hague in The Netherlands, for the “fair judgment,” saying he was “quite elated particularly since all the points we had raised were affirmed.”
> 
> “Where there is conflict over claims and opinions, cooperation cannot exist. Now that the rules are even clearer, we can all move forward as a global community. Without doubt, this long-running dispute is now closer to having a permanent solution,” he said.
> 
> His former Foreign Affairs secretary, Albert del Rosario, said the ruling will have wide-ranging implications on maritime conduct in the South China Sea and should be used as leverage in diplomatic channels.
> 
> “If you take a look at the [decision], it has ruled on many aspects which affect not only the Philippines, but other nations of the world that will benefit from the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea,” del Rosario said in a television interview.
> 
> “This is a victory for all because it benefits the whole world and people will, of course, enjoy these benefits,” he added.
> 
> On Wednesday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza and former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who were part of the Philippine legal team at The Hague, admitted that China will not face sanctions, but risks harming its international reputation.
> 
> They agreed that the next steps should be diplomatic rather than confrontational.
> 
> “Having a legal right is different from enforcement. Enforcement is a different matter,” Hilbay pointed out.
> 
> But “China is bound by the decision, so everyday of violation is a non-compliance with the decision,” he said.
> 
> Hilbay particularly referred to the structures China built on areas of the West Philippine Sea.
> 
> While China is occupying the disputed territories, the Philippines has the legal title to such areas.
> 
> “In layman’s terms, *China occupies the land but we have the title to it*,” Hilbay said.
> 
> Jardeleza said the government should resort to peaceful means to resolve the dispute.
> 
> “It has been the consistent view of the legal team that this Award will be a potent legal platform as our country moves forward to the political and diplomatic phase of our goal of effectively asserting our maritime entitlements under Unclos [United nations Convention on the Law of the Sea],” Jardeleza said.
> 
> The tribunal says any claim to "historic rights" was "extinguished" when China signed UNCLOS, as it agreed to subject such a matter to the treaty text and binding arbitration.
> 
> The tribunal pointed out that it was previously decided that "historic rights" - like fishing - are "private rights" and that deeming them state's rights was a "western legal fiction" the tribunal refused to endorse (_Eritrea v. Yemen_, 1999). (Paragraph 798).



Thanks Solomon for sharing. When all this emotional baiting, counter baiting dies down... things will move like clock work. That is how states, at least mature, conduct their business. 

Only G2, Sino-US, tango this is. All are their to clap and cheer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

Sinopakfriend said:


> Thanks Solomon for sharing. When all this emotional baiting, counter baiting dies down... things will move like clock work. That is how states, at least mature, conduct their business...


I'm recalling a war ancient China once fought with one of its neighbors. The neighbor won but immediately apologized to the Chinese emperor and sent him gifts. Chinese face was saved but China didn't try to invade this neighbor again: everything went back to normal.


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Solomon2 said:


> I'm recalling a war ancient China once fought with one of its neighbors. The neighbor won but immediately apologized to the Chinese emperor and sent him gifts. Chinese face was saved but China didn't try to invade this neighbor again: everything went back to normal.



Wonderful to see a student of history. A rational one? Question? For how long jews lived in Pakistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Solomon2

Sinopakfriend said:


> Wonderful to see a student of history. A rational one? Question? For how long jews lived in Pakistan?


A set-up for an _ad hominem_ attack? Why would you even consider such a thing to be valid?


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

Solomon2 said:


> A set-up for an _ad hominem_ attack? Why would you even consider such a thing to be valid?



Because they lived their for a long time...but let us leave it there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## boomslang

Perpendicular said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752794259917504512




How does anyone look at that map and say,' Yeah, that's about right.' ? China is out of its' friggin' mind.



Sinopakfriend said:


> ...but let us leave it there.



Nope.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Solomon2

Ah. In its brief to the Tribunal the Philippines was able to point to an official Chinese declaration that the waters between the mainland and the Spratlys are "high seas" - which can only mean that at the time this was made China had no claims to either rights or title. (Paragraph 199)


----------



## Sanchez

It‘s about time for US kids to study world maps printed in the US and exam why the f US claim South pole and etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

William Hung said:


> Wrong. If China believes that the PCA does not have jurisdiction over the matter, then it is still the Tribunal that gets to decide whether it has jurisdiction or not. And in this case, the Tribunal had decided and ruled that it indeed has jurisdiction over most of the matter.



In 2013, Russia was also brought before the PCA by the Netherlands for detaining its ship and ordered to pay compensation. Russia simply refused and stated that the court has no jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Arctic_Sunrise_ship_case#Legal_cases_against_Russia

So yes, in actual practice, if China believes the PCA doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter - the PCA doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter. And if you have a question about that, you can ask Russia who set the precedent.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Solomon2

Sanchez said:


> It‘s about time for US kids to study world maps printed in the US and exam why the f US claim South pole and etc.


The U.S. makes no such claim: the U.S. presence in Antarctica is governed by the Antarctic Treaty System, which China ratified thirty years ago. The U.S. established and maintains Amundsen-Scott science station at the South Pole, which also operates under the ATS. Its presence does not establish any "claim" to the South Pole, it's appearance on any maps notwithstanding.

Are you saying that if the U.S. agrees to let China have the SCS, China will agree to give the U.S. an entire continent?


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Real Filipinos recognize that it was the Philippine government that has tricked them and spent millions of their tax dollars on this ruling, instead of bettering their condition. Every cent spent on this tribunal was a theft from the poor and the hungry. The slum dwellers of Cebu and Angeles City do not care about some small islands far away.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Solomon2

FairAndUnbiased said:


> ...The slum dwellers of Cebu and Angeles City do not care about some small islands far away.


When they're told the reason why food is expensive is because Chinese ships are illegally fishing in Filipino waters I'm sure they will care very much, aren't you?



FairAndUnbiased said:


> In 2013, Russia was also brought before the PCA by the Netherlands for detaining its ship and ordered to pay compensation. Russia simply refused and stated that the court has no jurisdiction.


Do you think China would be happy to endure the same sanctions and subsequent economic recession Russia has for defying international laws?


----------



## jhungary

greenwood said:


> In order to make the region peace, we have learned how the America use fabricated excues of "massive chemical weapons" to start the war against Iraq. To avoid Amercia use this excuse of SCS arbitration court, we need to tell them what the ruling is, though China isn't afraid of the conflict with Ameria, it's better to avoid a meaningless war potentially.



This have nothing related to the question I posted........

I said, if China don't care about this verdict, you should not be jumping up and down about it, that is the opposite of not caring...

Technically, if China don't care about the Verdict, the world don't care about the Chinese reaction, which made what you lot do here a moot point.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

This is a powerful investigative report vindicated CHINA action in rejecting a biased Tribunal whose judges were all appointed by Shunji Yanai at the behest of Japan and with the approval of Philippines Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The judges were all fully employed and paid by Philippines.
*
*
*SHINZO ABE’S HENCHMEN RIGGED THE SPRATLYS KAW CASE AGAINST CHINA*
Yoichi Shimatsu | Tuesday, July 12, 2016


First in a 2-part series, this *investigative report* exposes a high-level intrigue by pro-militarist Japanese diplomats in *rigging “Philippines vs. China”*, a law case in The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which will soon render its decision on the maritime dispute over the Spratly Archipelago (Nansha in Mandarin). The second part to come will uncover the *Tribunal’s political bias in favor of Manila’s marine environmental complaints against China in blatant disregard of the Philippines’ worst-offender record on ecology.*

This investigative report is an open call to the UN Committee on the Law of the Sea and the Secretary General to launch an internal investigation into the political influence-peddling and corruption at the International Tribunal for The Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which has * compromised the impartiality of the judicial panel for Philippines versus China.*

The evidence so far indicates that the *Hon. Shunji Yanai*, the President of Court of Arbitration/ITLOS, encouraged and facilitated the Philippines case on orders from the office of Shinzo Abe and Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The conspirators’ objective was to promote intentional bias and prejudicial tactics in the court proceedings in favor of the Philippine government in its dispute with the People’s Republic of China over sovereignty in the Spratly Islands (Nansha group) in whole as an archipelago or in part as separate sub-groups.

The evidence so far indicates that the ICA-ITLOS President, Shunji Yanai [柳井俊二], *unlawfully and unethically promoted acceptance of Philippines vs. China into the Tribunal schedule* at the behest of the Government of Japan. The tactical plan in the conspiracy *involves judicial misconduct *with the *aim of influencing the United Nations and world public opinion* to categorically reject without fair consideration all of China’s claims to the Spratly region. These illegal activities include *a disguised effort to usurp jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice on principles of sovereignty as applied to maritime boundaries.*

Since the predictable outcome for this one-sided case, throughout which only the Philippines side has been represented, will be to inflame regional tensions in East Asia and the Pacific to the military-strategic advantage of the Government of Japan, along with its pro-militarism supporters and criminal associates.

The principle suspects in this conspiracy, *Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and their chief strategist Shunji Yanai, should be investigated for tampering with the court with the intent of launching neocolonialist aggression in violation of the UN Charter and Constitution of Japan.*

The UN, and especially the courts at The Hague, must not accept their own *subversion and corruption toward the goal of war-making*. The concerns related to covert agendas of intervention is drawn also from the *many worldwide calls for investigation and judicial review related to similar deliberate falsehoods that led to the two Gulf Wars against the Republic of Iraq.*







Shunji Yanai, a well known Japanese rightist had served in Japan Ministry of Foreign Affair together with another rightist Japan ABE.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

I have post the part 1 of this article at page 68.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> This is a powerful investigative report vindicated CHINA action in rejecting a biased Tribunal whose judges were all appointed by Shunji Yanai at the behest of Japan and with the approval of Philippines Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The judges were all fully employed and paid by Philippines.
> *
> *
> *SHINZO ABE’S HENCHMEN RIGGED THE SPRATLYS KAW CASE AGAINST CHINA*
> Yoichi Shimatsu | Tuesday, July 12, 2016
> 
> 
> First in a 2-part series, this *investigative report* exposes a high-level intrigue by pro-militarist Japanese diplomats in *rigging “Philippines vs. China”*, a law case in The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which will soon render its decision on the maritime dispute over the Spratly Archipelago (Nansha in Mandarin). The second part to come will uncover the *Tribunal’s political bias in favor of Manila’s marine environmental complaints against China in blatant disregard of the Philippines’ worst-offender record on ecology.*
> 
> This investigative report is an open call to the UN Committee on the Law of the Sea and the Secretary General to launch an internal investigation into the political influence-peddling and corruption at the International Tribunal for The Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which has * compromised the impartiality of the judicial panel for Philippines versus China.*
> 
> The evidence so far indicates that the *Hon. Shunji Yanai*, the President of Court of Arbitration/ITLOS, encouraged and facilitated the Philippines case on orders from the office of Shinzo Abe and Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The conspirators’ objective was to promote intentional bias and prejudicial tactics in the court proceedings in favor of the Philippine government in its dispute with the People’s Republic of China over sovereignty in the Spratly Islands (Nansha group) in whole as an archipelago or in part as separate sub-groups.
> 
> The evidence so far indicates that the ICA-ITLOS President, Shunji Yanai [柳井俊二], *unlawfully and unethically promoted acceptance of Philippines vs. China into the Tribunal schedule* at the behest of the Government of Japan. The tactical plan in the conspiracy *involves judicial misconduct *with the *aim of influencing the United Nations and world public opinion* to categorically reject without fair consideration all of China’s claims to the Spratly region. These illegal activities include *a disguised effort to usurp jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice on principles of sovereignty as applied to maritime boundaries.*
> 
> Since the predictable outcome for this one-sided case, throughout which only the Philippines side has been represented, will be to inflame regional tensions in East Asia and the Pacific to the military-strategic advantage of the Government of Japan, along with its pro-militarism supporters and criminal associates.
> 
> The principle suspects in this conspiracy, *Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and their chief strategist Shunji Yanai, should be investigated for tampering with the court with the intent of launching neocolonialist aggression in violation of the UN Charter and Constitution of Japan.*
> 
> The UN, and especially the courts at The Hague, must not accept their own *subversion and corruption toward the goal of war-making*. The concerns related to covert agendas of intervention is drawn also from the *many worldwide calls for investigation and judicial review related to similar deliberate falsehoods that led to the two Gulf Wars against the Republic of Iraq.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shunji Yanai, a well known Japanese rightist had served in Japan Ministry of Foreign Affair together with another rightist Japan ABE.



As I said before it's pretty retard to put a anti-China japanese as judge over SCS case, if we put an ISIS judge to judge American over America and Hawaii, Americans will have no identity and no place to live "LEGALY" speaking.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> Lol we respect him as a great leader that saved China but I'm not crazy enough about that red book maybe I'm living on different time, now it's 21st century and not mid of 20 century.



My advise for many of us in here is to focus on the topic and stop wasting our time with detractors.

In fact if one agrees with the Tribunal ruling, it stated that the 12NM sea border around China's artificial island applied.

So I will like to see how US Naval warship in exercising their so-called Freedom of Navigation justify their actions now. 

Maybe a return trip for China warships to do the same in Guam or Hawaii may be great in testing USA hypocrisy and double standard.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

CAPRICORN-88 said:


> My advise for many of us in here is to focus on the topic and stop wasting our time with detractors.
> 
> In fact if one agrees with the Tribunal ruling, it stated that the 12NM sea border around China's artificial island applied.
> 
> So I will like to see how US Naval warship in exercising their so-called Freedom of Navigation justify their actions now.
> 
> Maybe a return trip for China warships to do the same in Guam or Hawaii may be great in testing USA hypocrisy and double standard.



When China reach the military parity, you think we will not sail within 12 nm of Guam and Hawaii? American just take advantage that they have bigger gun but all this drama is not a total lost, this will give Chinese generals and strategists something to sharpening their brain cell , human tend to be passive without some stimulus, let American to condition them to be more effective and make them to get close sense of reality and readiness.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> When China reach the military parity, you think we will not sail within 12 nm of Guam and Hawaii? American just take advantage that they have bigger gun but all this drama is not a total lost, this will give Chinese generals and strategists something to sharpening their brain cell , human tend to be passive without some stimulus, let American to condition them to be more effective and make them to get close sense of reality and readiness.



At that time, Americans and their Western medias will term it as *Red China Agression* while in Asia, we called *RETRIBUTION*.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## greenwood

Solomon2 said:


> Can you really trust your judgment here? Consider this statement by a Chinese leader likely more informed and certainly more influential than you:
> 
> It is my opinion that the international situation has now reached a new turning point. There are two winds in the world today, the East Wind and the West Wind. There is a Chinese saying, “Either the East Wind prevails over the West Wind or the West Wind prevails over the East Wind.” I believe it is characteristic of the situation today that the East Wind is prevailing over the West Wind. That is to say, the forces of socialism have become overwhelmingly superior to the forces of imperialism.
> ​That's a quote from Mao Zedong's _Little Red Book_. And Mao's assessment was completely wrong.


 
Mao Zedoing's assessment was correct. Imperialism was obviously colonial system in the era. Since 1940's-1990's, most Asian and African areas gained independence, the West colonial imperialism deadly collapsed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## yusheng

statement of ICJ:

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (www.pca-cpa.org)
*
The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website.*.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## yusheng

本庭依法受理了中国民间人士提起的有关日本列岛法律地位以及相关海洋权益的仲载，经仲裁庭五名宁波法律届资深法官审理，现裁决如下：
一、鉴于日本北海道、本州、四国、九州四岛不适合人类居住、且岛上无淡水（都是动物小便），因此判定为礁。岛上现有人群、生物物种可自行决定是否继续在此居住，但不影响本庭对上述礁岩的法理定位。
二、冲绳列岛为低潮高地，故除不享有专属经济区外，也不享有24海里的领海毗邻区和12海里领海范围。各国船只无论军用、民用都在其12海里范围享有自由航行权、自由停留权。
三、冲之鸟海域无任何海上地物，现有人工建筑物不享有岛屿、礁岩、地潮高地中任何之法理地位，也没有任何海洋权益。任何国家、任何机构个人都可在此海域享有自由航行、自由停留、自由捕鱼、自由钻控勘测之权力。
本裁决具有法律约束力，要求日本政府执行。
本庭声明：鉴于中国民间人士也提出了对菲律宾本岛、英国本岛法律地位以及海洋权益的仲裁请求，在依法下达日本列岛海洋权益仲裁书之后，相关国家可以向本庭提出应诉或不应诉之请求，但不影响本庭在经合议之后在适当时间发布相关仲裁决议。


2016年7月14日
宁波国际仲裁庭

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## greenwood

jhungary said:


> This have nothing related to the question I posted........
> 
> I said, if China don't care about this verdict, you should not be jumping up and down about it, that is the opposite of not caring...
> 
> Technically, if China don't care about the Verdict, the world don't care about the Chinese reaction, which made what you lot do here a moot point.


 
Where did you fabricate such IFs? China care or not and I care or not sometimes same, sometimes different. What make you jump up and down about this ruling, the Pinoy new president has started to want the arbitration affair cool down, expect to diplomatic negotiation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## yusheng

*Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's Regular Press Conference on July 13, 2016*

*2016/07/13







Q: Once the ruling of the South China Sea arbitration case came out, some countries said that China should obey the ruling since it is legally binding, otherwise China violates international law. Do you agree with that?

A: We noted that some countries had made public statements on the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal established at the unilateral request of and funded by the previous Philippine government. We appreciate those who concur with China's position and stance. Of course, we also noted that a couple of countries who neglected the just position taken by the majority of the international community, still argued that the so-called ruling has binding force and corresponds with international law.

Yesterday, the Chinese government and the Foreign Ministry have respectively issued a statement. Together with the White Paper published by the Chinese government today, they comprehensively and systematically explained China's position on the relevant issue, which I see no need to repeat. I know that many of you also attended Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin's press briefing at the State Council Information Office this morning. I just want to comment on the statements made by these couple of countries.

First, we once said that seven or eight countries can in no way represent the international community. It is good that this small group of countries quit positioning themselves as the international community after that.

Second, in face of the fact that a majority of the international community support China's stance in various ways, they still cling to the statement that the conclusion of an illegal arbitral tribunal has binding force. It is regrettable that they did not come around on that point.

Third, upholding authority and sanctity of international law, China will never accept the absurd argument that the illegal conclusion of an unlawful arbitration court is legally binding.

We have pointed out on many occasions that Philippines' territorial sovereignty-related claims in the arbitration case fall outside the jurisdiction of UNCLOS. This is written in black in UNCLOS. If these countries respect international law as they claim so, they should take UNCLOS as it is.

When it comes to Philippines' maritime rights-related claims, the Chinese government has made the optional exceptions declaration pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS. It is not just China that has made such a declaration, if I may stress here, dozens of countries have done the same, including four permanent members of the Security Council barring one who has yet to join UNCLOS. Take the G7 Group who once challenged China on the South China Sea issue as another example, four out of its six state parties to UNCLOS also made declarations under Article 298. We believe that these declarations are an integral part of UNCLOS, and if relevant countries have any respect for international law, they should first of all answer the question: are these declarations valid or not?

We are reasoning with these countries, hoping that they will straighten things out. We also hope that they can work with us, like the majority of the international community do, and take international law seriously, instead of playing with it, still less bending it or selectively citing it to serve their hidden political agendas.

Q: The ruling of the arbitration said that China had caused irreparable damage to the eco-environment of the Nansha Islands, especially the coral reefs there. What is your response?

A: First and foremost, China does not accept nor recognize the ruling of the arbitral tribunal. As to your specific question, we already responded to it before. With undeniable sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao, the Nansha Islands and the relevant waters included, China cares about the eco-environment of these places more than any other country, and we have taken an array of measures to effectively protect the eco-environment of these places. You can check on the information we have released for more details.

Q: Regarding the ruling of the arbitration, the Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that the UN takes no position on the legal and subject matters of the South China Sea arbitration case. What is your comment?

A: We have noted the statement by the Secretary-General's office. As a responsible member of the international community, China has been an important and faithful force in the UN endeavor to promote and practice the international rule of law. China's non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration, and non-recognition of the illegal ruling have sufficient jurisprudential support. China is not only protecting its own legitimate rights and interests, but also standing up for the international rule of law and the basic norms of international relations. We are bound to win the understanding and support of countries and international organizations that uphold fairness and justice. As always, we will remain committed to upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and peacefully resolving relevant disputes with countries directly concerned through negotiation and consultation on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, without wavering in our determination to safeguard territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.

Q: India also made a statement on the ruling of the arbitration, asking all parties involved to peacefully resolve relevant disputes instead of using or threatening to use force and show maximum respect for the ruling. What is your response?

A: I believe that everyone is clear about our position on the South China Sea arbitration case. Among those who have made public statements, as long as they claim that problems should be peacefully resolved through consultation and negotiation in accordance with international law, by that I mean in full and exact compliance with international law including UNCLOS, then their position corresponds with that of the Chinese government.






Q: Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin told the press this morning that the then Philippine government gave bribes to judges of the Arbitral Tribunal, but did not go into details. Does the Chinese side believe that the bribes from the Philippines would make the judges rule in favor of them?

A: As we said before, the establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal has no legitimacy. It is illegal, and what it has done over the past couple of years was questionable. What Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said this morning was that the Arbitral Tribunal was not an international tribunal and had nothing to do with the UN-affiliated International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague. Judges of the ICJ and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea are paid by the UN to ensure their independence and impartiality. As for the five judges in this case, they made money, they were paid by the Philippines. I figure it necessary to make that clear.

Q: It is reported that the US and Japan are trying to push the UN Security Council to issue a press statement, condemning the recent test-fire of ballistic missile by the DPRK. Will China support that?

A: We have talked about our position on DPRK's ballistic missile launches on many occasions.

Considering the complex and sensitive situation on the Korean Peninsula, all relevant parties shall contribute more to regional peace and stability, instead of jeopardizing other countries' security interests, disrupting regional strategic balance, or even heightening regional tension for selfish gains.

Q: We know that First Deputy Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Bakytzhan Sagintayev is now visiting China. Do you have more details? What results has this visit produced?

A: At the invitation of Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli of the State Council, First Deputy Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Sagintayev is in China for a working visit from July 12 to 13. Yesterday, Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli co-hosted with Mr. Sagintayev the chairmen's meeting of China-Kazakhstan Cooperation Committee.

The two sides agreed to further align their development strategies, jointly promote the Silk Road Economic Belt, and move forward bilateral relations.

The two sides also reviewed the progress made after the 7th meeting of China-Kazakhstan Cooperation Committee, delved into topics concerning cooperation on production capacity, energy, finance and investment, trade, agriculture, connectivity, and people-to-people exchanges. The two sides are all pleased with the development of the China-Kazakhstan comprehensive strategic partnership.

Q: China is a permanent member of the Security Council. Is the attitude of refusing to accept the ruling in line with China's widely recognized image as a major global power?

A: Maybe you have missed my previous press conferences. I have said that seven or eight countries cannot represent the international community. Maybe they were used to staging themselves as the international community, but not any more at least after we pointed it out for them.

Being a permanent member of the Security Council does not mean having to accept the illegal ruling. I can tell you that permanent or not, no country should accept anything illegal.

Q: Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said this morning that Nanhai Zhudao is China's territory, and China has the right to establish an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) whenever it wants. Then will China say that it has the right to set up an ADIZ in areas at dispute with India?

A: I need to point out that your first sentence was not exactly what Vice Foreign Minister Liu said. He articulated what was told in the White Paper issued today and the two statements released by the government and the Foreign Ministry respectively yesterday. China's rights and interests in the South China Sea region were also laid out clearly in them.

As for the ADIZ, we have talked about that many times. It is a sovereign act of a sovereign state. Whether to set up an ADIZ or not depends on our judgment of the situation, the security situation of relevant airspace in particular.

Q: The US calls on China to respect the ruling of the arbitration. How do you respond?

A: You can check on our website for our response. The award of the arbitral tribunal, is in essence, an illegal one. We hope that those few countries who are bent on declaring the illegal outcome as legally binding will listen to the voice of the majority of the international community and stop undermining international law under the name of championing it.

Q: Does China believe that the ruling of the international court of arbitration will heighten regional tension? Will there be military action between China and the US?

A: To correct what you just said, it is not an international arbitration court. It is an illegal setting-up assembled at the unilateral request of the then Philippine government. You asked if we are concerned about possible escalation of tension or military action. I can tell you that regional tension and military confrontation is the last thing that China wants to see no matter what, because China wants a peaceful, stable, secure and prosperous external environment. It is also an aspiration shared by all countries in the region. China will continue to work with regional countries to maintain regional peace, stability and security. We also hope that non-regional countries can respect the efforts made by regional countries and do nothing to exaggerate and create tension.

Q: Law is made for the majority. If the majority of the international community do not support China, what will China do?

A: One thing I need to make clear at the outset is whether the arbitration is legal or illegal. It is illegal, as we first made clear three years ago. In fact, you may have noticed that China has been trying to avoid internationalizing this issue, in contrast with some other countries who have been trying the other way around. However, as time goes by, the truth is learnt by more and more countries. Therefore we now have a majority of countries approving of our stance.

Q: The Defense Ministry of the ROK announced the site where a THAAD anti-missile defense system will be deployed. What is your comment? What countermeasures will China take?

A: We keep repeating our solemn position that the deployment of the THAAD system by the US and the ROK severely disrupts regional strategic balance, harms the strategic security interests of regional countries including China, and counteracts the efforts to maintain peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula.

China firmly opposes the deployment of THAAD in the ROK and strongly urges the US and the ROK to halt the process. China will take all necessary measures to safeguard its interests.
*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

lcloo said:


> In an arbitration, both parties in dispute have to agree to be bound by the final rulings before it can proceeds. Note that arbitration is NOT litigation, and generally is NOT BINDING if one party does not agree to send the dispute case for arbitration . Thus if only a single party agree to proceed with the arbitration, it is not only non-binding, it is also illegal.
> 
> Similar to Law of Contracts, both parties must first agreed to the terms and conditions of the case.
> 
> *Arbitration*, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. The parties to a dispute refer it to _arbitration_ by one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), and *agree* to be bound by the arbitration decision (the "award"). A third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts.[1]


Very basic commercial law 101 staff. But I am afraid your efforts are in vain for those who never saw a commercial contract, do not know the difference of court judgement and tribunal arbitration.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pinoy



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

Right is might. Yeah...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pinoy

Our prudent and wise resort to bringing the case before the Arbitral Tribunal three years ago already placed us on high moral ground and gave us the sympathy and support of the nations that really matter (well never mind the expected contrary position of mendicant foreign states held hostage or bribed by China’s foreign economic assistance). That we have the strong support of all the matured democracies and most of the robust economies makes our victory all so much sweeter.


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

yusheng said:


> statement of ICJ:
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en
> 
> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (www.pca-cpa.org)




* So it is once again reconfirmed that PCA has no affliation whatsoever to the UN*
(TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.)

*The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has to PUBLICLY announced that it had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website.*.
So even the ICJ is beginning to feel UNCOMFORTABLE about all these proclaimation and misleading facts by the US lead Western media that the PCA is linked to United Nation.

Philippines should have filed the case directly with the ICJ instead of filing for arbitration with an old European establish like Singapore against Malaysia (Pulau Pasir Batu Mas) or Malaysia against Indonesia (Sipadan). 

* The ICJ have every reason to distance themselves from this 1899 European Intergovernmental Organisation PAC that was established in Hague to resolve CONFLICT between member state in Europe and is not a COURT. *Hence it ruling is neither binding nor enforceable unlike the ICJ (Which Superpower USA, Britain, etc have all ignored although they are legally binding). China is right, International Tribunal has NO JURISDICTION.

AS I says says OVER and OVER again, Philippines only intended it as a *POLITICAL VICTORY*.

But in ruling it stated that *artificial islands have a 12NM border*, did the other claimant states WIN as their stupid media proclaimed or everyone else is now a LOSER and only USA who stoke the dispute WON or did she? *Time will tell*!

*In the meantime all we read is USA will try to distance herself and try NOT to provoke the Chinese. *

*Whereas the United Nation was only establish in 24 October 1947 after World War II*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## itaskol

Pinoy said:


> Our prudent and wise resort to bringing the case before the Arbitral Tribunal three years ago already placed us on high moral ground and gave us the sympathy and support of the nations that really matter (well never mind the expected contrary position of mendicant foreign states held hostage or bribed by China’s foreign economic assistance). That we have the strong support of all the matured democracies and most of the robust economies makes our victory all so much sweeter.
> 
> View attachment 317425


based on unclos annex VII Article 2

A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

does any of the 5 arbitrators from this list? does the secretary _general even know about it?

I just question about the reliability of the 5 arbitrators

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Fearrrr



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

itaskol said:


> based on unclos annex VII Article 2
> 
> A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
> 
> does any of the 5 arbitrators from this list? does the secretary _general even know about it?
> 
> I just question about the reliability of the 5 arbitrators



This is new to us and very interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## itaskol

William Hung said:


> I did not even mentioned ITLOS or the ICJ in my post, nor do I need to. It is you that need to understand more about UNCLOS.
> 
> When there are a certain type of disputes between signatories of UNCLOS (which include China), there is a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism that a dispute party can invoke, which include ITLOS, ICJ or an abitration tribunal:
> 
> 
> 
> ITLOS and ICJ is not necessary because the Philippines chose option (c), to establish an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Anx VII. This Abitration tribunal was located in the Hague.
> 
> What is Anx VII? It is this:
> http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex7.htm
> 
> Basically it is provisions under UNCLOS to establish an arbitration tribunal as a dispute settlement mechanism. The thing to note about this provision is that the ruling and judgment of the abotration tribunal is final, and even if one party refused to participate, it can still continue proceed to settle the dispute.
> 
> So you are wrong my dear, this arbitration tribunal was indeed established legally under the provisions of UNCLOS.


talking about legally. the arbitrators themselves must have legally right.

A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

DO the 5 arbitrator really have the right identity? can you answer me???



CAPRICORN-88 said:


> This is new to us and very interesting.


that is one main problem.
the identity and reliability of the 5 arbitrator are now questioned in china.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

*Arbitration not answer to S. China Sea disputes*
28th June 2016

The disputes over the South China Sea between China and the Philippines are not appropriate for a judicial settlement or arbitration, experts said Monday.

An arbitral tribunal's decision to allow a case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines is also *highly questionable*, according to a group of leading experts on international law who concluded a seminar in The Hague, Holland.

"Because there are so many possible choices regarding how to settle the claims, it will be difficult for a court or an arbitral tribunal to make a proper decision," said Sienho Yee, chief expert at the Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies of Wuhan University, who presented a conclusion of some 30 experts during a press briefing.

"We also heard the positions by the experts that the tribunal seemed to be *manipulating words in its decision* (on jurisdiction)," Yee said, noting that the *tribunal did not respect China's explicit right to exclude territorial and delimitation disputes written in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

*
*Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, former chairman of the UN International Law Commission, said the tribunal has put itself in a very difficult position.*

"The tribunal said it would not try to settle sovereignty disputes, but only to determine geological features. However, the *Philippines' claims will eventually lead to the question of who owns it, and the tribunal has no jurisdiction over this matter," said Rao, who participated in the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea from 1973 to 1982 that led to the adoption of the UNCLOS.*

*Rao's opinion was echoed by Abdul G. Koroma, a former judge of the International Court of Justice who also took part in the historic conference.*

"It is stated in the convention that a tribunal will not be entitled, will not have the right to pass judgment on a territorial and boundary dispute, because it has not been equipped; it has not been given competence to do so," Koroma said. "You cannot use the jurisdiction of one to determine the other."

"It's like someone who has a brain tumor and went to the doctor, and only asked for flu medication. We all know that it is not going to cure his headache," Michael Sheng-ti Gau, a professor of public international law at the Law of the Sea Institute at Taiwan's Ocean University, commented on the Philippines' claims in the case.

The claims of the Philippines only scratch the surface, but do not cover the core dispute, which is a sovereignty issue. *As the court cannot rule on something that is not presented in the claims, the result of the arbitration is unlikely to have any effect on the current situation*, Gau said.

The experts from Asia, Africa, the United States and Europe exchanged views on the case at the seminar, co-organized by Leiden University's Grotius Center for International Legal Studies and Wuhan University's Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

US Department of State Spokesperson John Kirby: The world is watching......

2 new Chinese airline routes to Chinese Islands have been officially opened.....

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kuge

looks like philippines is fighting a losing case & being used again...pitiful
what should philippines do going forward?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## greenwood

International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) announce on its official website:

The SCS arbitration case has nothing to do with ICJ.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

greenwood said:


> International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) announce on its official website:
> 
> The SCS arbitration case has nothing to do with ICJ.
> 
> View attachment 317450



 Now detractors in here will have a very hard time explaining to us what has this unilaterally appoined Tribunal to do with the United Nation as they were defending. 

 It is all SO DECEIVING even the ICJ is embarrassed and is pressured to release a clarification through its official website.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

*United Nations stresses separation from Hague tribunal*
The Permanent Court of Arbitration rents space in the same building as the UN’s International Court of Justice, but the two organisations are not related

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 14 July, 2016

The United Nations clarified on its Chinese microblog yesterday that the tribunal that ruled against China’s historic claims over the disputed South China Sea was not a UN agency.

The statement came amid apparent public misunderstanding of the tribunal’s operations.

The UN said the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which issued the decision on the case on Tuesday, operated out of the same building, the Peace Palace, as the UN’s primary justice branch, the International Court of Justice, but the two agencies were unrelated.

Key rulings to watch out for in South China Sea case

“The UN makes donations to the Carnegie Foundation (the building’s owner) every year for using the building,” the UN post said.

“Another renter of the Peace Palace is the *Permanent Court of Arbitration established in 1899*, but [it] *has nothing to do with the UN*.”

The post came a day after the tribunal dismissed China’s sweeping claims to contested waters in the South China Sea, adding that it violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by building artificial islands and caused irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem.


China has long claimed almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands that also claimed by other Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines and Vietnam.

The Chinese government reacted angrily to Tuesday’s decision, calling the ruling invalid.

Some internet users also lashed out at the UN, apparently thinking the international body was linked to the tribunal.

“When we make such sacrifices to keep peace, a subsidiary of the UN makes a ruling against China’s sovereign rights. So what do you want to do?” a Chinese microblogger wrote in response to a UN post after the ruling was announced.

China has no intention of challenging international order, say former diplomats

China was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945 and one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with the United States, Britain, France and Russia.

China has pledged to be more engaged in the UN, and is the second-biggest contributor to the organisation’s peacekeeping operations, paying 10.2 per cent of the UN’s peacekeeping operations budget.

Established by treaty, the Permanent Court of Arbitration is an intergovernmental organisation that provides various dispute resolution services to the international community, according to its official website.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## FairAndUnbiased

Solomon2 said:


> When they're told the reason why food is expensive is because Chinese ships are illegally fishing in Filipino waters I'm sure they will care very much, aren't you?
> 
> Do you think China would be happy to endure the same sanctions and subsequent economic recession Russia has for defying international laws?



But this is not international law right here. the PCA predates the UN and is entirely distinct from the ICJ, which is the judicial branch of the UN. the jurisdiction is under dispute.

China has also abided by every UN security council and UN general assembly resolution. there can be no argument that China does not follow international law.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xunzi

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I think the response will just be business as usual in International waters, ignoring Your ranting.
> 
> View attachment 317139


I want to remind you that the international water is free for all countries, big and small, regardless of their political background, to operate and go to and not an exclusive rights of your US and their allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

This was what US State Department Spokesperson had to say when asked about China landing two aircrafts on the airfields of two islands In the SCS. Can someone tell me what he meant by "we don't have a dog in this fight"? 

*QUESTION:* And Mark, is it relevant to you that the aircraft that landed today on the Chinese – on the Spratly Islands – that they were civilian and that they were not military? Is that significant?

*MR TONER:* I’m sorry, you’re talking about what exactly? There’s been so many different --

*QUESTION:* So today, two Chinese aircraft – civilian aircraft landed --

*MR TONER:* Right.

*QUESTION:* -- at these new airports on these – on the Spratly Islands.

*MR TONER:* Is this the Mischief Reef and the Subi Reef? Is this what you’re talking about?

*QUESTION:* That’s correct.

*MR TONER:* Yeah, okay.

*QUESTION:* Yeah. Is it significant to you that they were civilian aircraft and not military aircraft?

*MR TONER:* I mean, look, there is, I guess, some measure of significance, but – to that, but we still see those – these kinds of actions as raising tensions unnecessarily rather than lowering them. And we want to see a lowering of tensions. So this is really for all claimants, as I said, to take advantage of the ruling and show restraint and take advantage of the opportunity presented by the tribunal’s finding or decision to work together to manage these. That’s our only focus here, I guess, is we don’t have a dog in this fight other than our belief that – other than, obviously, our treaty obligations but also our belief in freedom of navigation. But what we want to see in this very tense part of Asia – of the Pacific, rather – we want to see de-escalation of tensions, and we want to see all claimants take a moment to look at how we can find a peaceful way forward.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Pinoy said:


> View attachment 317424



Tell that to Americans first

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

beijingwalker said:


> That's your personal interpretation. *China never tried to block the sea passage routes in this region*, not in the past ,not in the future, what China will do is business as usual ,keeps doing what we always have been doing ,nothing more ,nothing less, sneezes at that void ruling cause that ruling is not worth even the toilet paper to us.


It does not matter.

If I claim the sidewalk in front of your house, are you going to sit still ? Would it matter if I tell you that I have never block your passage to the road ?

Do you think we give a shit if China ignores the PCA's ruling ? No, we do not. But what the ruling mean is we think China's claim to the entirety of the SCS is not worth even a square of toilet paper.

Here is the deal...

China can ignore the PCA's ruling and begins belligerency. China can say that any ship that does not comply with China's orders can be boarded, cargo confiscated, and crew imprisoned. Will there be ships that will comply with China's demands ? Of course there will be. But what could happen -- or *WILL* happen -- is that powerful navies like the US or JPN will offer to escort ships thru the SCS. What can China do ? Not an effing goddamn thing, pal.


----------



## phancong

gambit said:


> It does not matter.
> 
> If I claim the sidewalk in front of your house, are you going to sit still ? Would it matter if I tell you that I have never block your passage to the road ?
> 
> Do you think we give a shit if China ignores the PCA's ruling ? No, we do not. But what the ruling mean is we think China's claim to the entirety of the SCS is not worth even a square of toilet paper.
> 
> Here is the deal...
> 
> China can ignore the PCA's ruling and begins belligerency. China can say that any ship that does not comply with China's orders can be boarded, cargo confiscated, and crew imprisoned. Will there be ships that will comply with China's demands ? Of course there will be. But what could happen -- or *WILL* happen -- is that powerful navies like the US or JPN will offer to escort ships thru the SCS. What can China do ? Not an effing goddamn thing, pal.


US was in the past reject the tribunal ruling by stated the tribunal court had no jurisdiction to precided over the lawsuit. China isn't the first or the last nation not honor the ruling by the arbitration court. US didn't suffer any setback by rejected the court verdict, same as the US, China image won't be tarnish by rejected the court verdict.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

xunzi said:


> I want to remind you that the international water is free for all countries, big and small, regardless of their political background, to operate and go to and *not an exclusive rights of your US and their allies.*


Neither is it China's.

But it is hilarious that you said that considering China claiming the entirety of the SCS as her own, implying that passage thru the SCS belongs the exclusive right of China and that international shipping thru the SCS would be at China's generosity.



phancong said:


> US was in the past reject the tribunal ruling by stated the tribunal court had no jurisdiction to precided over the lawsuit. China isn't the first or the last nation not honor the ruling by the arbitration court. US didn't suffer any setback by rejected the court verdict, same as the US, China image won't be tarnish by rejected the court verdict.


Shoo...Go back to wherever sandbox you came from, kid.


----------



## Jason Zhao

so what will you do next please? Handsome boy?


boomslang said:


> How does anyone look at that map and say,' Yeah, that's about right.' ? China is out of its' friggin' mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## phancong

gambit said:


> Neither is it China's.
> 
> But it is hilarious that you said that considering China claiming the entirety of the SCS as her own, implying that passage thru the SCS belongs the exclusive right of China and that international shipping thru the SCS would be at China's generosity.
> 
> 
> Shoo...Go back to wherever sandbox you came from, kid.


He imply China never impeach the passage of commercial ship through the SCS but China national security must not cede any maritime territories to any claimant ally of the US with US naval based in their country that involve in the territory dispute with China. They all have to declare war on China over SCS maritime territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jason Zhao

gambit said:


> It does not matter.
> 
> If I claim the sidewalk in front of your house, are you going to sit still ? Would it matter if I tell you that I have never block your passage to the road ?
> 
> Do you think we give a shit if China ignores the PCA's ruling ? No, we do not. But what the ruling mean is we think China's claim to the entirety of the SCS is not worth even a square of toilet paper.
> 
> Here is the deal...
> 
> China can ignore the PCA's ruling and begins belligerency. China can say that any ship that does not comply with China's orders can be boarded, cargo confiscated, and crew imprisoned. Will there be ships that will comply with China's demands ? Of course there will be. But what could happen -- or *WILL* happen -- is that powerful navies like the US or JPN will offer to escort ships thru the SCS. What can China do ? Not an effing goddamn thing, pal.


One country if they do not value his history, then they will lose, I think Americal do not understand it, as you have no history...

You must understand when we state SCS is ours, nobody say No against that!!
When we set the official system in SCS, USA is not in this world! you are British.
When the WAR 2 finished, nobody say No SCS against it!!

Now we found the oil etc, you jump out!! Are you think all the world is foolish?

The case what you do is Robber's action, Nowwardays is not USA'S world!! You have no right to say anything against Asia

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

xunzi said:


> I want to remind you that the international water is free for all countries, big and small, regardless of their political background, to operate and go to and not an exclusive rights of your US and their allies.



I want to remind You that 

Water is wet.
Ice is cold.
The sun is hot.
if you need more obvious statements, feel free to ask...


----------



## phancong

When China lost the control of the SCS then the real danger of foreign invader will occupy mainland China, 1st fight over maritime security to prevent fighting a war on land.

Over Chinese dead body before China honor the verdict.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yusheng



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Fearrrr

yusheng said:


> View attachment 317774

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cnleio

I like this man and expression in his eyes, we don't care the arbitration.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Solomon2

*Beijing’s South China Sea anger belies dilemma — experts*
By AFP - Jul 13,2016 - Last updated at Jul 13,2016





In this March 29, 2014, file photo, a Chinese Coast Guard ship attempts to block a Philippine government vessel as the latter tries to enter Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea to relieve Philippine troops and resupply provisions (AP photo)

BEIJING — An international tribunal ruling against Beijing’s extensive claims in the South China Sea is the Asian giant’s biggest diplomatic setback in years, leaving it facing a difficult choice between pragmatism and nationalism, analysts say.

Beijing has unleashed a deluge of vitriol against the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, but at the same time the permanent UN Security Council member is trying to position itself as a key player in the global community.

Beijing’s claims to almost the whole of the strategically vital South China Sea are embodied in a nine-dash line dating from 1940s maps, and it has built up a series of artificial islands capable of supporting military operations.

But when the Philippines, a rival claimant, asked the UN-backed tribunal to rule on 15 issues relating to the dispute, it ruled there was no legal foundation for China’s ambitions to control the area’s bounty.

The announcement unleashed a flood of condemnation from the Chinese government and state media, which for months had been preparing for an unfavourable outcome with attacks on the tribunal’s integrity, calling the group everything from a “fraud” to a “mutant”. 

Angry Chinese citizens vented their spleen online but authorities reportedly censored the most aggressive comments, and imposed tight security around the Philippine embassy amid fears of protests.

Beijing reiterated its right to declare an air defence identification zone in the area Wednesday, but did not explicitly threaten action in the water.

Its wrath was undercut by the fact that by boycotting the proceedings, insisting that the tribunal had no jurisdiction, Beijing had repeatedly rejected the opportunity to defend its position, analysts said.

Yanmei Xie, a China analyst for the International Crisis Group, said its ambitions for a bigger place on the global diplomatic stage put it in a quandary. 

“China is at a point where it wants to participate more in the shaping of international institutions and in some cases has taken up a role as a leader,” she told AFP.

Last year China set up a new multilateral lender, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, in September it will host the annual G-20 summit, and it contributes more blue helmets to UN peacekeeping missions than any other country in the world.

But its hard won credibility could be at stake if it is seen as setting itself “against international law and international institutions” or “cherry picking” rules for its own convenience, she said.

*True test*

China’s ruling Communist Party has long used nationalism to bolster its legitimacy, but the rhetoric has escalated under President Xi Jinping, who has responded to weakened economic growth with calls to resist the kind of pernicious Western influences that led to the country’s exploitation and weakness in the 19th century. 

At the same time it has also asserted its territorial claims more aggressively, with Xi regularly exhorting the military to improve its ability to win battles.

“This really will be the first true test of Xi Jinping’s leadership because he’s ridden the tiger of nationalist sentiment and wrapped himself in the flag I think very successfully,” said Euan Graham, of Australia’s Lowy Institute think tank.

But at the same time, “China does take its membership of the United Nations and the Security Council very seriously,” he said, adding “it’s not easy to reject an approved tribunal that is drawing on a United Nations treaty”.

Jay Batongbacal, a maritime affairs expert at the University of the Philippines, said the judgement was “a foreign policy disaster for the Party”.

“It’s going to take a lot of great statesmanship to move China from its very hardline public position without looking like it’s conceding,” he told AFP.

Although China’s foreign ministry issued a hardline response to the ruling, full of denunciations, it also offered an olive branch. The country is “ready to make every effort with the states directly concerned to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature”, it said at the end of a lengthy statement reasserting its claims of sovereignty.

Beijing has warned that it will meet force with force if necessary, but Hu Xingdou, a foreign policy expert at Beijing University of Technology, said a military reaction to the ruling was unlikely.

“It would lead to the interruption of China’s modernisation and lead China to become more and more closed,” he said.

Ultimately, he said, China’s response “must not be too exaggerated, and must not be too outraged”.


----------



## dy1022



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

yusheng said:


> View attachment 317774


Vietnam neighbor: Laos & Cambodia, not support the Arbitration ???
Big brother: Russia, not support the Arbitration ???
Future ally: India, not support Arbitration ???

 Which one has more friends in this world ?!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Solomon2

*Scorched earth ruling on S China Sea*
BY PETER LEE _on_ JULY 14, 2016 _in_ ASIA TIMES NEWS & FEATURES, CHINA, SOUTHEAST ASIA

_The sweeping judgement by the Permanent Arbitration Court in Hague on July 12 has dashed China’s South China Sea claims and left a completely open field for the Philippines and others. It is an important step in efforts to cripple China as a positive and significant economic force. On the other hand, the white paper that China issued soon after the ruling is a signal to neighbors that it is ready to move beyond the nine-dash line to strike a deal with them through bilateral talks._ 

As we say in America, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) got utterly waxed by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal award in _Philippines v. China_. “Waxed” as in “knocked prone, utterly flattened, finished off, now part of the floor, incapable of offering resistance, not a factor.”




_China says its construction in South China Sea is to help maritime search and rescue, disaster relief, environmental protection and navigational security_​
In fact, as observers noted, the commission went above and beyond the call of duty and the scope of the Philippine pleading to assert that there were absolute zero features in the Spratly Islands—the cluster of reefs, atolls, and whatnot off the Philippines that China calls the “Nansha Islands”—that merited classification as anything more than a rock.

Even Itu Aba Island a.k.a. Taiping Island, Taiwan’s flagship holding in the Spratlys, was denied island status, despite holding a 600-person garrison sustained by four wells reputedly capable of pumping out 65 tons of water a day and certainly making a plausible case that it could “sustain economic life.”

No “island” status means no 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone for the “feature” regardless of who controls it.

And that means that for the Philippines, there are no overlapping/conflicting EEZ claims standing in the way of its immediate assertion of its unambiguous and uncontestable EEZ extending into the South China Sea from its archipelagic baseline and covering much of the Spratlys.

That, I suspect, was the point of the commission award.

Cognizant of the fact that the PRC had boycotted the proceedings, aware that the PRC had publicly, repeatedly, and vociferously stated its intention to disregard the ruling, perhaps unofficially contacted by the PRC to receive a heavy-handed threat that an adverse ruling might trigger a PRC withdrawal from UNCLOS and a collapse of the treaty, chafing under PRC accusations of illegitimacy and bias…

…perhaps acting on the assumption that any other arbitration proceedings by other claimants subsequent to the Philippine case would be nothing more than occasions for futile delay and indeed simply provide the PRC more time to consolidate its illegal position in the South China Sea and flout the rights of the claimants…

…maybe the commission decided to make a clean sweep of the PRC case and leave a completely open field for the Philippines and, indeed, everyone else.

China problem solved, in other words, forever. With the nine-dash-line invalidated and the Spratlys out of the picture, the PRC maritime rights in the South China Sea are cut back to a little nubbin between the Vietnamese and Philippine EEZs plus the twelve-mile limits around the various rocks it occupies.

Call it a scorched earth ruling on the South China Sea. And an unpleasant surprise, it appears, for the PRC.

Immediately subsequent to the ruling, the State Council disgorged a lengthy, detailed white paperthat appeared to abandon the nine-dash-line principle with a claim based on PRC sovereignty over the Spratlys as an archipelagic cluster, in other words, a big fat wad of territory in the South China Sea that would merit an archipelagic baseline circumscribing the area as a whole and a big, fat unitary EEZ impinging on the Philippine EEZ.

It now looks like a non-starter.

With the Spratlys deemed underserving of anything more than “rock” status, it seems the “archipelago” dreams are in the rubbish. It should also be noted that it would be extremely unlikely that UNCLOS would have granted archipelagic status (reserved for dense, populated island groups like the Philippines) to the Spratlys.

But maybe the PRC strategy was to introduce another point of plausible dispute and litigation and string this thing out until everybody yielded to Chinese intransigence and cut a deal.

Well, that’s not happening. And maybe pre-empting Chinese delay and obfuscation was the commission’s intention.

Judging by the regional reaction—“Ooooh!”—I think the other South China Sea claimants were equally surprised and perhaps also somewhat taken aback by the scope of the arbitration award.

For President Duterte in the Philippines, the award is something of a poisoned chalice. With the Philippine EEZ issue settled, he has little leeway to trade concessions with the PRC without receiving criticism and worse from his critics. Even when it looked like the arbitral award might leave some room for horse-trading, Philippine legal eagles were already threatening impeachment if Duterte compromised the Philippines’ sovereign rights by cutting deals with China.

Instead, the logic of the UNCLOS ruling would dictate that the Philippines demand that the PRC vacate two elements in its “Great Wall of Sand”, Mischief Reef and Subi Reef, since they are artificial islands inside the Philippine EEZ built on top of below-water features, and enjoy no legal sovereign status as islands, rocks, or whatnot.

If Duterte sends out a military force to evict the PRC and the PRC resists, then we’re skating close enough to invoking the US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty (which is supposed to cover situations when Philippine forces “come under attack” outside of Philippine territory but not offensive operations) to make pivoteers’ hearts go pitty-pat.

The flip side is that pushing the Philippines EEZ rights also raises the specter of PRC “price tag” economic retaliation, something that also thrills pivoteers since it reinforces the polarization narrative at the heart of the strategy, but increases the economic costs to the Philippines and creates an additional nexus of crisis for Duterte in PRC relations, an area he was hoping to pick up a political win with a more conciliatory approach.

The same equation applies to Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, I believe: the window of opportunity for win-win dickering is closing as the need to claim the legal gains offered by the UNCLOS ruling becomes more pressing.

Big winners in the UNCLOS affair are the PRC’s zero-sum competitors, Japan and the United States. The door is open for America’s friends and allies to pursue more aggressive policies in the South China Sea, and the United States gets to play the “international outlaw” card on China or, as Quartz usefully framed it, _China has no respect for international law, its neighbors, or marine life, tribunal rules__._

More grist for the mill that the United States is fighting “revisionist authoritarianism” i.e. China on behalf of the “international liberal order” and not just engaged in great power jostling in the South China Sea.

As for the PRC, in my opinion it hopes to continue doing what it’s been doing, skulking around the South China Sea with its fishing fleets and coast guard vessels, alternately harassing and compromising with its neighbors, trying to keep the conflict levels low enough to avoid military clashes and prevent its presence from escalating into a genuine security issue justifying the military intervention of the United States.

As you might gather, I am not an adherent to the “South China Sea” = “China’s Sudetenland”–or “China’s Sudetenzee” for you German speakers—i.e. a springboard for aggression and conquest. The PRC, in my opinion, hoped to leverage its South China Sea claims in order to wean the Philippines from the United States and Finlandize Vietnam in order to strengthen a ring of sympathetic states around the South China Sea.

This sort of vassalage is anathema to the US and China-hawk and pro-US elements in South East Asia, and the UNCLOS ruling is an important step in efforts to cripple the PRC as a positive and significant economic force—and supplier of attractive economic-friendly “security goods” like lighthouses, coast guard fleets, and so on—in the South China Sea.

The PRC had been quietly backing away from the nine-dash-line embarrassment for several years and hinting it would resolve its conflicts with other South China Sea claimants through various bilateral agreements that did not invoke acceptance of the nine-dash line as a precondition for talks.

The State Council white paper (it doesn’t get any higher than the State Council, folks, at least in non-Party settings), with its lengthy, “UNCLOSian” parsing of the PRC Spratly claims, implies that the PRC had been reaching out to the various claimants on non-nine-dash-line basis for some time.

Probably, the PRC’s _de facto_ abandonment of the nine-dash-line was part of the package it offered to various claimant governments in the last few months in return for an undertaking not to publicly gang up on China once the ruling came down.

The White Paper’s release on the day after the Hague decision is a signal to its neighbors that the PRC is ready to move beyond the nine-dash line, it’s ready to deal…and it’s not leaving the South China Sea.

Hanging around there, however, just got considerably more difficult and expensive.

*Peter Lee* _runs the China Matters blog. He writes on the intersection of US policy with Asian and world affairs._

(Copyright 2016 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## William Hung

itaskol said:


> based on unclos annex VII Article 2
> 
> A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
> 
> does any of the 5 arbitrators from this list? does the secretary _general even know about it?
> 
> I just question about the reliability of the 5 arbitrators





itaskol said:


> talking about legally. the arbitrators themselves must have legally right.
> 
> A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
> 
> DO the 5 arbitrator really have the right identity? can you answer me???
> 
> 
> that is one main problem.
> the identity and reliability of the 5 arbitrator are now questioned in china.



Hi friend, thanks for tagging me. The answer is yes, the 5 arbitrators is in fact on that official list. They are:

-Rudiger Wolfrum, nominated on that official list by Mongolia.
-Jean-Pierre Cot, also nominated on that list by Mongolia.
-Stanislaw Pawlak, nominated by Poland.
-Alfred Soons, nominated by the Netherlands.
-Tom Mensah, nominated by Ghana.

Here is the link to the official list from the UN website. You can confirm them on the list yourself (its near the bottom of the page):

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewD...XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en#bottom

As per the stipulations under Annex VII. The Philippines gets to choose an arbitrator of its choice so it chose Wolfrum. China also gets to choose one but since it did not participate, the president of ITLOS chose one on China’s behalf as instructed by annex VII - Cot was chosen fro China. Since both dispute parties could not reach an agreement to appoint the other 3 arbitrators, the prez of ITLOS once again appointed the other 3 as instructed by annex VII. The prez of ITLOS during that time happens to be Shunji Yanai, a Japanese.

So to answer your question again: Yes, the 5 arbitrators are indeed legitimate people belonging to the official UN list. And yes, their appointment was legal and in compliance with annex VII.


----------



## jha

Hehehe.. China has even counted India in her supporter. Wonder how many such "supporting" nations are there..

http://idrw.org/india-back-china-south-china-sea-beijing-seems-convinced/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## soundwave1987

gambit said:


> It does not matter.
> 
> If I claim the sidewalk in front of your house, are you going to sit still ? Would it matter if I tell you that I have never block your passage to the road ?
> 
> Do you think we give a shit if China ignores the PCA's ruling ? No, we do not. But what the ruling mean is we think China's claim to the entirety of the SCS is not worth even a square of toilet paper.
> 
> Here is the deal...
> 
> China can ignore the PCA's ruling and begins belligerency. China can say that any ship that does not comply with China's orders can be boarded, cargo confiscated, and crew imprisoned. Will there be ships that will comply with China's demands ? Of course there will be. But what could happen -- or *WILL* happen -- is that powerful navies like the US or JPN will offer to escort ships thru the SCS. What can China do ? Not an effing goddamn thing, pal.


I think Chinese experts have stated our attitude for a very long time, we won't fire the first bullet, but we'll ensure the enemy won't be able to fire the second one. As long as no one fires bullets, no one can stop us from doing anything then. We will continue to build up more artificial island and deploy more missiles and aircrafts dispite the arbitration, the only way to stop that is to attack, which means to start a war, otherwise nothing really matters. USN or any other navy can still cruise in this area for sure, we never meant to block you away. But it's like that you are hanging out there and there's always a gun pointing at you, not firing, but just pointing, so the question is, will you attack first? If not, you are just throughing fuel money to the water, but we can hold up the ground to develop tourism or explore resources and stuff, it's profitable for China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

Solomon2 said:


> That's what happened here. China did indeed attach letters of reservation to UNCLOS, but the tribunal determined these exceptions don't apply since China bases its arguments upon "historic rights" rather than "historic title" - i.e., sovereignty.



Wht are you talking about? What happened to comprehensive reading?


----------



## Mangus Ortus Novem

phancong said:


> When China lost the control of the SCS then the real danger of foreign invader will occupy mainland China, 1st fight over maritime security to prevent fighting a war on land.
> 
> Over Chinese dead body before China honor the verdict.



China has always been exposed from the seas. SCS and ECS is the key to China's national security. China can never allow to be exposed from seas ever again. The PLA Navy will do every thing to keep China safe and protected.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## William Hung

greenwood said:


> This is the first case they use the Anx VII. This is a bad start. When the SCS arbitration court rule all objects in SCS are not islands, they have lost the basic theory of law of UNCLOS. By the way, those 5 judge and chief judge receive salary from the Philippines government not from UN or ITLOS, ICJ...



Firstly, I’m not sure if you are trying to deceive people or you are a deceived victim. UNCLOS stipulations says that when article 287 and annex VII is invoked to set up an arbitration tribunal, then it is the dispute parties that must pay for all the expenses of that Tribunal, including the fees for the arbitrators/judges. Since China didn’t participate, it is the Phillippines that needed to pay fro all the cost. So yes, technically their “salary was paid by the Philippines”, but this is not something unusal, it is part of UNCLOS’ rule.

Secondly, whether this is the first time annex VII was used or not is irrelevent. What is revelant is that the aribitration tribunal and its ruling is legal and in compliance to UNCLOS.

As for the ruling that all features in the Spratly are not islands: most of them are indeed just reefs or exposed rocks, so it is correct that they are ruled as not being habitable islands. As for the bigger features like Itu Aba, I do not know the real status of them since I have never been there and public info about Itu Aba is very limited. 

But it is still easy to see why the Philippines won that ruling:

1. There was a lack of cooperation between PRC and Taiwan. If they would work together, share info and data and present a common argument, then maybe the judges would change their views. But this did not happened. PRC leaders cannot reach an agreement with Taiwan to cooperate on this case, and both PRC and Taiwan eventually lose the legality of their claims. This is exactly the same like the 1940s CCP and KMT who could not agree with each other and allowed foreigners to hurt their country.

2. Even if both PRC and Taiwan can agree to cooperate, PRC has put itself at a very big disadvantage by refusing to participate in the tribunal. This means that the tribunal only needs to listen to one side of the arguments, the Philippines’ arguments. Its like you want to fight a court case with your business rival but then you allow your rival to say everything and you staying quiet, so of course your rival will have more chance of winning. So in fact, your CCP leaders basically has given the Philippines all the advantages. Refusing to participate is a good idea if it means that the case will be forced to cancel. But it is a stupid idea under UNCLOS because it has legal clauses saying that if one party refuse to participate, then the tribunal can legally continue and issue its judgement. Your leaders was simply stupid.

But then, if your country had participated, then it means that it recognise that the Tribunal has authority and jurisdiction over the dispute. So your leaders got your country in a dilemma, a bad situation. The CCP was simply stupid and short sighted for provoking the Philippines to file this case...when they should have foreseen that China will lose the legal case. And even if China now announce that it does not agree that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, it is still meaningless because the UNCLOS has a clause saying the court/Tribunal gets to decide if it has jurisdiction or not, UNCLOS gives the tribunal the power to make that final decision about jurisdiction. So you can now see how stupid and short-sighted your CCP leaders are.



jhungary said:


> What I don't understand is this..........
> 
> If China really like the PDF Chinese here say it's about definance and refuse to accept the ruling, then why these people continue to talk about it as if it is a big deal??
> 
> You think this ruling is stupid, you think the order is a toilet paper, you don't care about the ruling, then you should basically let it go as if it never existed. WHat we can see about PDF Chinese here is the exact opposite of not caring......
> 
> I would not say giving these so called "illegal" ruling 840 message is what we can defined as "Not Caring" about the verdict.





cnleio said:


> I like this man and expression in his eyes, we don't care the arbitration.
> 
> View attachment 317788



China care about this arbitration tribunal for sure. Not just the PDF Chinese members cared enough to write 840 messages to argue agaisnt the tribunal, but China itself cared so much that it was going around the world, to all four corners of earth, trying to seek countries to voice their support to China and all the PR stuff that China had tried to do the past months. Hell, I even remembered Chinese members here creating a new thread everytime someone voiced something slightly positive about China’s stance lol. I could only smile (and then saddened) at their naivete.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## greenwood

jha said:


> Hehehe.. China has even counted India in her supporter. Wonder how many such "supporting" nations are there..
> 
> http://idrw.org/india-back-china-south-china-sea-beijing-seems-convinced/



That according to Indian government's official statement. Of course, referring to some Indian media or PDF Indians, if they represent authorized India voice, India should not be counted in. Wonder how they call it is uncredible India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HAIDER

Can anyone post the map of South China sea before and after 1940. Because Chinese claim goes back to 1940 demarcation .
@cnleio


----------



## lcloo

*Many countries, world organizations question ruling on South China Sea* Source: Xinhua | 2016-07-14 20:50:14 | Editor: huaxia

BEIJING, July 14 (Xinhua) -- Many countries and world organizations have expressed support for China's position on the South China Sea and called for solving relevant disputes though dialogue and negotiations.

On Tuesday, the arbitral tribunal issued an award over a case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government, denying China's long-standing historical rights over the South China Sea.

China had from the very beginning refused to participate in the proceedings, insisting that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case, which is in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said China will not accept any proposition or action based on the award, and that China's territorial sovereignty and maritime interests in the South China Sea will under no circumstances be affected by it.

"Negotiation must start immediately. And the arbitral ruling is both useless and irrelevant," said Butch Valdes, former undersecretary of Philippine Department of Education.

Valdes said former Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III led the country in the wrong direction. He said most Philippine people don't want to enter conflicts with China.

Although the arbitral tribunal has announced its so-called final award, the decision won't have any serious consequences, Croatia's former President Stjepan Mesic told Xinhua on Wednesday.

"Only when both countries agree to appear before an international tribunal can the ruling be acceptable," he added.

In an e-mail to Xinhua on Wednesday, Croatian President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic expressed the belief that the best solution is one to which both sides agree.

The Sudanese parliament on Wednesday declared its support for China's call to resolve the South China Sea dispute through dialogue.

"Sudan's Parliament stands with justice and right, and we encourage dialogue as a means for resolving international issues," Mohamed Mustafa Al-Daw, head of the external relations committee in the Sudanese parliament, told Xinhua.

Ashfaqur Rahman, former Bangladeshi ambassador to China, found it very funny to see the work of the tribunal. "What the tribunal has done can never be called an arbitration," he said.

"Arbitration is a process in which both the disputed parties agree to argue their cases and agree to accept a verdict whatever it is," he explained. In this case, "we all know that China was not a party. It did not take part in the process. So how can it be called an arbitration?"

The award of the South China Sea arbitration solves nothing and the dispute between the Philippines and China can only be solved through bilateral dialogue, Nirj Deva, vice chairman of the European Parliament's Development Committee and chairman of the EU-China Friendship Group in the European Parliament said Tuesday.

The lawmaker said Aquino III made "a wrong decision" to have started the arbitration. It broke the country's own commitment made in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).

Deva praised China for abiding by its international commitments.

"On the whole, if you look at China' s history, China has been a very good obeyer of international laws and has kept to all international treaties that it has signed," he said.

The Serbian foreign ministry said in a press release late Tuesday that the country supports interested parties in the South China Sea to have a dialogue.

"Directly interested parties should settle peacefully the dispute in the South China Sea," ministry stated.

"The full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea should by all means be stressed," said the government of Thailand in a statement on Tuesday.

Thailand believes that the ultimate goal should be to render the South China Sea a sea of peace, stability and sustainable development, it said.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric on Tuesday said UN chief Ban Ki-moon has consistently called on all parties to resolve their dispute in a peaceful and amicable way *through dialogue*.

"I think while the dialogue continues, it's important for states to exercise restraint on the conduct and contentious activities in the South China Sea," he said.



HAIDER said:


> Can anyone post the map of South China sea before and after 1940. Because Chinese claim goes back to 1940 demarcation .
> @cnleio



This map is from 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HAIDER

lcloo said:


> *Many countries, world organizations question ruling on South China Sea* Source: Xinhua | 2016-07-14 20:50:14 | Editor: huaxia
> 
> BEIJING, July 14 (Xinhua) -- Many countries and world organizations have expressed support for China's position on the South China Sea and called for solving relevant disputes though dialogue and negotiations.
> 
> On Tuesday, the arbitral tribunal issued an award over a case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government, denying China's long-standing historical rights over the South China Sea.
> 
> China had from the very beginning refused to participate in the proceedings, insisting that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case, which is in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.
> 
> Chinese President Xi Jinping said China will not accept any proposition or action based on the award, and that China's territorial sovereignty and maritime interests in the South China Sea will under no circumstances be affected by it.
> 
> "Negotiation must start immediately. And the arbitral ruling is both useless and irrelevant," said Butch Valdes, former undersecretary of Philippine Department of Education.
> 
> Valdes said former Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III led the country in the wrong direction. He said most Philippine people don't want to enter conflicts with China.
> 
> Although the arbitral tribunal has announced its so-called final award, the decision won't have any serious consequences, Croatia's former President Stjepan Mesic told Xinhua on Wednesday.
> 
> "Only when both countries agree to appear before an international tribunal can the ruling be acceptable," he added.
> 
> In an e-mail to Xinhua on Wednesday, Croatian President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic expressed the belief that the best solution is one to which both sides agree.
> 
> The Sudanese parliament on Wednesday declared its support for China's call to resolve the South China Sea dispute through dialogue.
> 
> "Sudan's Parliament stands with justice and right, and we encourage dialogue as a means for resolving international issues," Mohamed Mustafa Al-Daw, head of the external relations committee in the Sudanese parliament, told Xinhua.
> 
> Ashfaqur Rahman, former Bangladeshi ambassador to China, found it very funny to see the work of the tribunal. "What the tribunal has done can never be called an arbitration," he said.
> 
> "Arbitration is a process in which both the disputed parties agree to argue their cases and agree to accept a verdict whatever it is," he explained. In this case, "we all know that China was not a party. It did not take part in the process. So how can it be called an arbitration?"
> 
> The award of the South China Sea arbitration solves nothing and the dispute between the Philippines and China can only be solved through bilateral dialogue, Nirj Deva, vice chairman of the European Parliament's Development Committee and chairman of the EU-China Friendship Group in the European Parliament said Tuesday.
> 
> The lawmaker said Aquino III made "a wrong decision" to have started the arbitration. It broke the country's own commitment made in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).
> 
> Deva praised China for abiding by its international commitments.
> 
> "On the whole, if you look at China' s history, China has been a very good obeyer of international laws and has kept to all international treaties that it has signed," he said.
> 
> The Serbian foreign ministry said in a press release late Tuesday that the country supports interested parties in the South China Sea to have a dialogue.
> 
> "Directly interested parties should settle peacefully the dispute in the South China Sea," ministry stated.
> 
> "The full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea should by all means be stressed," said the government of Thailand in a statement on Tuesday.
> 
> Thailand believes that the ultimate goal should be to render the South China Sea a sea of peace, stability and sustainable development, it said.
> 
> UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric on Tuesday said UN chief Ban Ki-moon has consistently called on all parties to resolve their dispute in a peaceful and amicable way *through dialogue*.
> 
> "I think while the dialogue continues, it's important for states to exercise restraint on the conduct and contentious activities in the South China Sea," he said.
> 
> 
> 
> This map is from 1947.
> 
> View attachment 317850


 can't understand the map. If post the map with with Chinese claim and rest of countries claim. If you use your pen.


----------



## lcloo

HAIDER said:


> can't understand the map. If post the map with with Chinese claim and rest of countries claim. If you use your pen.



Te title of the map is called South Sea Island Map.

Check the dotted lines. Shown in this map is original 11 dotted lines claimed by Republic of China (ROC). People's Republic of China (PRC) later changed it to 9 dotted lines as good will to the then North Vietnam. The 2 dotted lines disappeared are in between Hanoi and Hainan island because PRC decided to cede some islands in that area to North Vietnam.

Those lines joint one sea port (Hong Kong) to other ports are commercial sea lanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## greenwood

William Hung said:


> Firstly, I’m not sure if you are trying to deceive people or you are a deceived victim. UNCLOS stipulations says that when article 287 and annex VII is invoked to set up an arbitration tribunal, then it is the dispute parties that must pay for all the expenses of that Tribunal, including the fees for the arbitrators/judges. Since China didn’t participate, it is the Phillippines that needed to pay fro all the cost. So yes, technically their “salary was paid by the Philippines”, but this is not something unusal, it is part of UNCLOS’ rule.
> 
> Secondly, whether this is the first time annex VII was used or not is irrelevent. What is revelant is that the aribitration tribunal and its ruling is legal and in compliance to UNCLOS.
> 
> As for the ruling that all features in the Spratly are not islands: most of them are indeed just reefs or exposed rocks, so it is correct that they are ruled as not being habitable islands. As for the bigger features like Itu Aba, I do not know the real status of them since I have never been there and public info about Itu Aba is very limited.
> 
> But it is still easy to see why the Philippines won that ruling:
> 
> 1. There was a lack of cooperation between PRC and Taiwan. If they would work together, share info and data and present a common argument, then maybe the judges would change their views. But this did not happened. PRC leaders cannot reach an agreement with Taiwan to cooperate on this case, and both PRC and Taiwan eventually lose the legality of their claims. This is exactly the same like the 1940s CCP and KMT who could not agree with each other and allowed foreigners to hurt their country.
> 
> 2. Even if both PRC and Taiwan can agree to cooperate, PRC has put itself at a very big disadvantage by refusing to participate in the tribunal. This means that the tribunal only needs to listen to one side of the arguments, the Philippines’ arguments. Its like you want to fight a court case with your business rival but then you allow your rival to say everything and you staying quiet, so of course your rival will have more chance of winning. So in fact, your CCP leaders basically has given the Philippines all the advantages. Refusing to participate is a good idea if it means that the case will be forced to cancel. But it is a stupid idea under UNCLOS because it has legal clauses saying that if one party refuse to participate, then the tribunal can legally continue and issue its judgement. Your leaders was simply stupid.
> 
> But then, if your country had participated, then it means that it recognise that the Tribunal has authority and jurisdiction over the dispute. So your leaders got your country in a dilemma, a bad situation. The CCP was simply stupid and short sighted for provoking the Philippines to file this case...when they should have foreseen that China will lose the legal case. And even if China now announce that it does not agree that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, it is still meaningless because the UNCLOS has a clause saying the court/Tribunal gets to decide if it has jurisdiction or not, UNCLOS gives the tribunal the power to make that final decision about jurisdiction. So you can now see how stupid and short-sighted your CCP leaders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China care about this arbitration tribunal for sure. Not just the PDF Chinese members cared enough to write 840 messages to argue agaisnt the tribunal, but China itself cared so much that it was going around the world, to all four corners of earth, trying to seek countries to voice their support to China and all the PR stuff that China had tried to do the past months. Hell, I even remembered Chinese members here creating a new thread everytime someone voiced something slightly positive about China’s stance lol. I could only smile (and then saddened) at their naivete.



"But then, if your country had participated, then it means that it recognise that the Tribunal has authority and jurisdiction over the dispute."

The disputes is what dispute? If it is EEZ disputes, I guess China governement would like to join in the arbitration case, why not, UNCLOS is mainly order to solve EEZ disputes. Obviously Philippines is referring to territory disputes, China government insist the arbitration court has no jurisdiction, this is supported by UNCLOS. The issues Philippines illegally invading and occupying SCS islands in 1970's-1980's has not been solved, they can't start further any arbitration based on Phillipines has already territory title of SCS islands. As I once made a analogy to another member, one rob a bank, his sons later in court how to inherit his money. The money is illegal income, they should return the money, not discuss how to inherit it.
China in 2002 has signed <Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea> with ASEAN ( Phillipines included ), this is a political document, a part of international law, it has legal effect. According to the Declaration, all parties agree to solve the SCS disputes via negotiations between relevant nations. This is another reason China reject the arbitration. When China signed this declaration with those nations, China had make compromises and release great interests to Southeast Asia nation they were hit badly by 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The DOC is based on equal negotiation, it is the future of the regional cooperation and peace. It is very important. Even the arbitration case is happening, China and ASEAN nations still have high devotion of DOC. Some ASEAN membe publicly insist in applying DOC to solve the SCS disputes.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## oprih

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I want to remind You that
> 
> Water is wet.
> Ice is cold.
> The sun is hot.
> if you need more obvious statements, feel free to ask...


And I also want to remind you and the other cheerleaders that america will do nothing to stop Chinese activities in the SCS simply because they have no capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## yusheng

greenwood said:


> That according to Indian government's official statement. Of course, referring to some Indian media or PDF Indians, if they represent authorized India voice, India should not be counted in. Wonder how they call it is uncredible India.



this is the india official announcement jointed with China and Russia on 2016 4 19

2016 4月18日，中国外交部长王毅和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫、印度外长斯瓦拉吉在莫斯科举行中俄印外长第十四次会晤。根据19日发布的联合公报，围绕南海问题，俄罗斯、印度承诺维护基于国际法原则的海洋法律秩序，认为所有相关争议应由当事国通过谈判和协议解决。




王毅表示：中俄印用一个声音说话，世界都会倾听。三国可以合作，应该合作的领域十分宽广。新形势下，中俄印合作只能加强，不应削弱。中方愿与俄、印共同努力，保持三国外长会晤积极势头，推动三方合作进一步走实、走深、走远。
签联合公报挺中国南海立场
据《北京青年报》20日报道，19日，外交部公布的中俄印外长第十四次会晤联合公报中提到，中国、俄罗斯、印度承诺维护基于国际法原则的海洋法律秩序，该秩序显著体现在《联合国海洋法公约》中。所有相关争议应由当事国通过谈判和协议解决。外长们呼吁全面遵守《联合国海洋法公约》、《南海各方行为宣言》及落实《南海各方行为宣言》后续行动指针。
中-俄-印三方会议发布关于 “南海问题” 的联合声明，概要如下：


“Russia, India and China are committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned. In this regard the Ministers called for full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS, as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the implementation of the DOC.”


三方坚定主张在国际法框架下，“All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned”，一切相关纠纷由相关国家协商解决。






很明显这是对g7南海声明的回应，


*其实想想也正常，印度一直对印度洋有野心，米帝的重返亚太和亚太再平衡侧面上也刺激了印度。

it is easy to understand the India doesn't like so called court to judge the issues in indian ocean when time is coming as india has the ambitions on Indian Ocean.*

on the other hand, India's jointed statement with the US in June 2016,

In June, India and the US dropped a direct mention of the South China Sea disputes in a joint statement issued after a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Barack Obama. This was done after both countries mentioned the disputes in two previous joint statements. But the June statement did mention “freedom of navigation and overflight and exploitation of resources as per international law, including the UNCLOS, and settlement of territorial disputes by peaceful means”.

does india have two faces?
I don't think so.

idrw.org . Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website , Kindly don't post our articles on other copycat websites http://idrw.org/india-back-china-south-china-sea-beijing-seems-convinced/ .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

oprih said:


> And I also want to remind you and the other cheerleaders that america will do nothing to stop Chinese activities in the SCS simply because they have no capability.



No need, because extending the rocks wont affect the status of the area.


----------



## xunzi

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I want to remind You that
> 
> Water is wet.
> Ice is cold.
> The sun is hot.
> if you need more obvious statements, feel free to ask...


Glad to see we finally agree on that international common water way. I don't want to hear anymore of your western bias when our ships operated in international water,

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

In Canada, this world map book printed by the US in 1947 was recently found. It clearly shows the Paracel Islands is marked under China.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rott



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fearrrr

SOUTH CHINA SEA DOES BELONG CHINA！！

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rott

SmilingBuddha said:


> Read the issue at hand again genius, nobody is stopping china from using SCO, they are only going to treat it as international waters giving zero fvcks to chinese claims of territorial claims.Oh, I am only here because I find the hypocrisy in this thread very interesting.


But wasn't this always the case? So why the ruling? Are you saying, their efforts have gone to waste?



egodoc222 said:


> Lol...I'm loving this...Chinese members getting flustered and bringing up the nsg lol


Lol, you're just making yourself feel happy. Chinese still are there tight as ever. At the end of the day, it's the Chinese that still own the islands. The ruling was utter useless.
Btw, how was the NSG?

You seem really happy. Did you recommend to Modi to throw the Chinese our of SCS?  let me hear your thoughts.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TechMan

gambit said:


> This is what essentially happened...
> 
> China: The entirety of the SCS is ours.
> 
> Asia: No, it is not.
> 
> China: Yes it is.
> 
> Asia then petitioned for the opinions of outsiders. It does not matter if China was a participant of that petition. What the rest of Asia want was the opinion of other people. It does not matter if the UN can enforce its decision or not. Everybody know the UN cannot. The point here is that Asia want China to know that China is basically alone. No thief can point to other thieves to justify his own actions.
> 
> There is no 'damage' other than to China's image.





Solomon2 said:


> Read the ruling. China agreed to UNCLOS, with reservations regarding cases involving Chinese sovereignty. This case does not, since China is only standing upon "historic rights", not "historic title" or sovereignty. Thus the mandated arbitration process applies.



Arbitration can only take place if both parties have agreed to it.

*From*
http://www.manilatimes.net/psst-all-superpowers-usually-ignore-international-verdicts/273798/



> I REALLY hope the $30 million (P1.4 billion) I was informed we, taxpayers, spent for the legal fees and expenses of the eight top-notch international lawyers and their staff who prepared our case against China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) turn out to be well spent.
> 
> Not only did they manage to get the PAC to redefine the standard meaning of “arbitration,” which for centuries had been defined as procedure in which two parties agree to a third party to settle their dispute. Now, it seems, “arbitration” can be a unilateral arbitration.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Always Neutral

Green Angel said:


> SCS has become Surrendering point for US Navy.....



WAKE ME UP WHEN THAT HAPPENS AND YOU CAN SAIL SHIPS In US WATERS LIKE USA DOES OVER SCS TILL THEN READ JACKIE CHAN NOVELS



soundwave1987 said:


> ok,thank you, we'd like to spend the money this way as we see fit, thanks for not stopping us, btw we don't want to stop USN as long as we can use the islands freely and the natural resources of our own.



THERE ARE NO RESOURCES ON THE ISLANDS BUT AROUND THEM AND VIETNAM HAS INVITED MANY PEOPLE TO DRILL THERE WHILE CHINA HUFFS AND PUFFS

HECK EVEN TAIWAN SHOWS YOU TWO FINGERS


----------



## Dr Gupta

China is acting like the regional bully just because it has a big military it feels it can do and act how it desires but it will only result in Asia vs China if it continues.


----------



## soundwave1987

Always Neutral said:


> WAKE ME UP WHEN THAT HAPPENS AND YOU CAN SAIL SHIPS IS US WATERS LIKE USA DOES OVER SCS TILL THEN READ JACKIE CHAN NOVELS
> 
> 
> 
> THERE ARE NO RESOURCES ON THE ISLANDS BUT AROUND THEM AND VIETNAM HAS INVITED MANY PEOPLE TO DRILL THERE WHILE CHINA HUFFS AND PUFFS
> 
> HECK EVEN TAIWAN SHOWS YOU TWO FINGERS


I'm not denying Veitnam and other countries drilling around waters nearby their claims and we cant stop that for sure. So we can only focus on what we can do, which is to built up bigger driller like 981 and drill in far sea. Besides, there are much much more and most valuable resources other than oil remain intact under deep water that none of us can explore for now, that's why we develope so many underwater drones and manned deep submergence vehicle like jiaolong. We should prepare for the future to grab the largest cake than focus only on oil drilling. We certainly try to gain upper hand by some tech advantages, after all, we admit the reality and take only what we can get.



Dr Gupta said:


> China is acting like the regional bully just because it has a big military it feels it can do and act how it desires but it will only result in Asia vs China if it continues.


US has been acting like a globle bully like for decades, what happened? Besides, ther's no such thing as asia vs china, different countries have different interests, even some southeast asian countries like Cambodia spport china

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Levina

fsayed said:


> China said it neither accepts nor recognizes the tribunal's verdict


IMO, China should accept it since UN has been very fair to China, recognition of Taiwan is one such issue.



fsayed said:


> Experience life with the stars
> Ad Sky City By Oberoi Realty


Pls edit out these ads before you post articles. Its distracting. 



fsayed said:


> For India, it was a sweet verdict, because it was recently stifled by China at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So the verdict by the UN-appointed international court of arbitration was greeted with much satisfaction by New Delhi.


Why do i feel that this is how Modi might have looked after the verdict was out>>> 
Lol


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Fearrrr said:


> SOUTH CHINA SEA DOES BELONG CHINA！！


*
When in panic, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
*



xunzi said:


> Glad to see we finally agree on that international common water way. I don't want to hear anymore of your western bias when our ships operated in international water,



I don't think anyone cares what You wish.
The statement would make a little more sense if I actually ever commented about Chinese ships
in International Waters.


----------



## bobsm

Levina said:


> IMO, China should accept it since UN has been very fair to China, recognition of Taiwan is one such issue.



Regarding UN:

*UN distances itself from Permanent Court of Arbitration*

http://english.cri.cn/12394/2016/07/14/2743s934198.htm

Regarding Taiwan:

*Taiwan sends warship to South China Sea after rejecting tribunal ruling*

http://interaksyon.com/article/1302...uth-china-sea-after-rejecting-tribunal-ruling

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## S10

Dr Gupta said:


> China is acting like the regional bully just because it has a big military it feels it can do and act how it desires but it will only result in Asia vs China if it continues.


Heh you speak as if Asia is one single entity and they're united behind your retarded ***.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dr Gupta

S10 said:


> Heh you speak as if Asia is one single entity and they're united behind your retarded ***.



Oh so who supports Chinese stance on the SCS in Asia? Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Brunei, Philippines, the list goes on .. just countries like Pakistan would but others are not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pinoy

bobsm said:


> Regarding UN:
> 
> *UN distances itself from Permanent Court of Arbitration*
> 
> http://english.cri.cn/12394/2016/07/14/2743s934198.htm
> 
> Regarding Taiwan:
> 
> *Taiwan sends warship to South China Sea after rejecting tribunal ruling*
> 
> http://interaksyon.com/article/1302...uth-china-sea-after-rejecting-tribunal-ruling


PCA is different from ICJ, and ICJ is UN's not PCA. But did UN ever say the ruling of PCA is invalid? 

UN is simply clarifying the wrong perception that PCA is ICJ and for those who do not know, there are 4 means of settling a dispute in UNCLOS:

1. by ITLOS
2. by ICJ
3. by an ad hoc tribunal 
4. by special tribunal

PCA falls under #3 so there you have it. 

That is how you Chinese propagandists twist the facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grandmaster

Pinoy said:


> PCA is different from ICJ, and ICJ is UN's not PCA. But did UN ever say the ruling of PCA is invalid?
> 
> ...BS stuff..
> 
> That is how you Chinese propagandists twist the facts.


The International Court of Justice said that. china just repeated what International Court of Justice said. Philippine and Japanese propagandas always hide this fact on every news. UN never say this ruling is valid either. Don't live in the dream and delusional rhetoric too much my pinoy friends!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sanchez

Solomon2 said:


> The U.S. makes no such claim: the U.S. presence in Antarctica is governed by the Antarctic Treaty System, which China ratified thirty years ago. The U.S. established and maintains Amundsen-Scott science station at the South Pole, which also operates under the ATS. Its presence does not establish any "claim" to the South Pole, it's appearance on any maps notwithstanding.
> 
> Are you saying that if the U.S. agrees to let China have the SCS, China will agree to give the U.S. an entire continent?



I am saying SCS is not a business of the US

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pinoy

grandmaster said:


> The International Court of Justice said that. china just repeated what International Court of Justice said. Philippine and Japanese propagandas always hide this fact on every news. UN never say this ruling is valid either. Don't live in the dream and delusional rhetoric too much my pinoy friends!


China is a party of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The PCA determined it has jurisdiction over the dispute because China is listed as a party to it.

It has the authority with regards to maritime entitlements.

No amount of obsfucating by Chinese propagandists will diminish the fact that it is now proven beyond dispute that the 9 dashed line has no legal basis in international law.

PERIOD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grandmaster

Pinoy said:


> China is a party of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The PCA determined it has jurisdiction over the dispute because China is listed as a party to it.
> 
> ...BS stuff..
> 
> PERIOD.



yes, China is party of PCA under terms and its scopes. However, sovereignty is out of the scope of PCA, hence China is not a party when PCA is not in its limits. For example, when PCA is bias or ill-will, I believe no country, as responsible country, will want to be a member of it in this case.
Your comments with the word "party" made me recalled the so called party of PCA, all members of ruling does not have any Chinese person in the ruling, how can I say it is party of china? If we swap out the Japanese one with a Chinese person then I will say yes. otherwise, I can only say PCA at this time is just a party of Japanese. again, Philippine and Japan propagandas always hide these details in news. THAT IS how Philippine and japan propagandas are misleading the press.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## S10

Dr Gupta said:


> Oh so who supports Chinese stance on the SCS in Asia? Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Brunei, Philippines, the list goes on .. just countries like Pakistan would but others are not.


Oh so American and its pawns = Asia

Thanks for the laugh.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

H6K patrols and guards Huangyan island. The US and the Philippines rush to send envoys to visit China.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2

3 days after the silly episode
Chinese response: "Full 4G coverage of all SCS islands 
*判决出来后第三天：南沙岛礁4G信号全覆盖*
*




*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tiqiu

China PLA Navy Admiral: "Throw away illusions, prepare to fight"

我海军上将：“仲裁”后军队丢掉幻想 捍卫主权能起决定作用
http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2016-07/9183866.html

*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## xunzi

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I don't think anyone cares what You wish.
> The statement would make a little more sense if I actually ever commented about Chinese ships
> in International Waters.


That's why I want to remind you that freedom of navigation is not an exclusive US's rights.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

*South China Sea: Vietnam detains activists after international ruling*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-17/vietnam-detains-activists-after-south-china-sea-ruling/7636228


*Scores of activists have been detained in Vietnam's capital as they gathered to protest against China who rejected last week's ruling dismissing its claims to much of the South China Sea.*

*Key points:*

Vietnam has competing claims against China to the South China Sea
Protestors in Hanoi are angry China has rejected the recent Hague ruling
Domestic critics accuse Hanoi of being too meek towards Beijing
Anti-Chinese sentiment runs deep in communist Vietnam, but the country's authoritarian rulers move swiftly to tamp down expressions of public anger, fearful that allowing such protests might embolden criticism of their rule.

Activists had used social media to call for protests in Hanoi on Sunday in the wake of this week's ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Haguewhich found there was no legal basis for Beijing's claims to vast swathes of the South China Sea.

The case was brought by the Philippines, but the ruling has been a boon for other regional countries like Vietnam who also have competing claims to the strategic sea.

Authorities in the capital Hanoi were ready for protests.

Plainclothes security forces were out in force, blanketing much of the city centre and keeping a close eye on any crowds that might be gathering, a reporter on the scene said.

Throughout the morning, around 30 activists were swiftly bundled onto waiting buses and cars by security forces after they gathered to hold a protest near the city's famous Hoan Kiem lake, a common spot for demonstrations.

Some chanted "Down with China invasion!" as they were led away to detention.

*Hague ruling infuriates China*
A hollow victory for the Philippines[/paste:font]Expand
Beijing lays claim to virtually all of the South China Sea, putting it at odds with regional neighbours the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, which also have partial claims.

China boycotted the PCA hearings, saying the court had no jurisdiction, and has reacted furiously, vowing to ignore the ruling and arguing it misinterprets international law.

Vietnam and China frequently trade diplomatic barbs over the disputed Paracel island chain and waters in the South China Sea.

China has encouraged patriotic citizens to visit the contested Paracels, which are known as Xisha in Chinese.

Such acts have deepened already simmering anti-Chinese sentiment in Vietnam while domestic critics accuse Hanoi of being too meek towards its giant northern neighbour.

At least three Chinese nationals were killed in 2014 when rioting broke out in Vietnam after Beijing sent an oil rig into contested waters.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## William Hung

greenwood said:


> The disputes is what dispute? If it is EEZ disputes, I guess China governement would like to join in the arbitration case, why not, UNCLOS is mainly order to solve EEZ disputes. Obviously Philippines is referring to territory disputes, China government insist the arbitration court has no jurisdiction, this is supported by UNCLOS.



It is a dispute about the interpretation and applications of UNCLOS, which UNCLOS gives the arbitration tribunal jurisdiction over. In other words, UNCLOS gives a party the right to invoke a arbitration tribunal to interpret and apply the laws of UNCLOS on a country’s claims, in this case, it interpreted the laws of UNCLOS, apply it to your SCS claims/conducts and declare it illegal according to UNCLOS.

China can insist the court has no jurisdiction, but too bad, China had ratified UNCLOS and have previously agreed with the clause that the tribunal will get to decide that they have jurisidiction, even when someone disagree. So this mean you have broken the agreement that you have volunitarily signed to. Or you can be the man and withdraw from UNCLOS.




greenwood said:


> The issues Philippines illegally invading and occupying SCS islands in 1970's-1980's has not been solved, they can't start further any arbitration based on Phillipines has already territory title of SCS islands. As I once made a analogy to another member, one rob a bank, his sons later in court how to inherit his money. The money is illegal income, they should return the money, not discuss how to inherit it.
> China in 2002 has signed <Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea> with ASEAN ( Phillipines included ), this is a political document, a part of international law, it has legal effect. According to the Declaration, all parties agree to solve the SCS disputes via negotiations between relevant nations. This is another reason China reject the arbitration. When China signed this declaration with those nations, China had make compromises and release great interests to Southeast Asia nation they were hit badly by 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The DOC is based on equal negotiation, it is the future of the regional cooperation and peace. It is very important. Even the arbitration case is happening, China and ASEAN nations still have high devotion of DOC. Some ASEAN membe publicly insist in applying DOC to solve the SCS disputes.



You are wrong. DoC has no legal effect because it is not a legally binding agreement, it is just a voluntary “declaration”. The “Code of Conduct” that ASEAN was working on is the one that will be legally binding, and would have the legal power to cancel the arbitration...but too bad your leaders kept delaying and refusing (or so I have heard) to finalize and ratify it with ASEAN. See how short-sighted your leaders are?

Your analogy about the thief and the son is meaningless. When you ratified UNCLOS, you have agreed to its law and conventions about EEZ, reefs, islands, arbitration, etc. So it doesn’t matter if the Philippines didnt occupied those SCS features in ancient times. When China ratified UNCLOS, China had effectively agreed that the Philippines (or any country) can get what they are entitled under the laws and conventions of UNCLOS, and the tribunal had just ruled on that. Disagree with the Tribunal? Well too bad China had also agreed that an arbitration tribunal can issue legally binding rulings and can also have the power to decide that it has jurisdiction. That is what your country had agreed to. You can lobby your govt to withdraw from UNCLOS to nullify these agreements, what is stopping your country?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Welcome to * 沖ノ鳥島*／おきのとりしま _*Okinotorishima. *_

We have total of 9.44 square metre of dry land from two rocks and we have claimed 400,000 Sq Km of EEZ. And last month we have just arrested a Taiwanese fishing boat for fishing in our EEZ and forced them to pay a heavy fine to get their boat released.



Okinotorishima !!!









Oh...... This is just a ROCK in South China Sea, It shoud be called Taiping Reef !!! Please obey our arbitration verdict !!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## greenwood

William Hung said:


> It is a dispute about the interpretation and applications of UNCLOS, which UNCLOS gives the arbitration tribunal jurisdiction over. In other words, UNCLOS gives a party the right to invoke a arbitration tribunal to interpret and apply the laws of UNCLOS on a country’s claims, in this case, it interpreted the laws of UNCLOS, apply it to your SCS claims/conducts and declare it illegal according to UNCLOS.
> 
> China can insist the court has no jurisdiction, but too bad, China had ratified UNCLOS and have previously agreed with the clause that the tribunal will get to decide that they have jurisidiction, even when someone disagree. So this mean you have broken the agreement that you have volunitarily signed to. Or you can be the man and withdraw from UNCLOS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. DoC has no legal effect because it is not a legally binding agreement, it is just a voluntary “declaration”. The “Code of Conduct” that ASEAN was working on is the one that will be legally binding, and would have the legal power to cancel the arbitration...but too bad your leaders kept delaying and refusing (or so I have heard) to finalize and ratify it with ASEAN. See how short-sighted your leaders are?
> 
> Your analogy about the thief and the son is meaningless. When you ratified UNCLOS, you have agreed to its law and conventions about EEZ, reefs, islands, arbitration, etc. So it doesn’t matter if the Philippines didnt occupied those SCS features in ancient times. When China ratified UNCLOS, China had effectively agreed that the Philippines (or any country) can get what they are entitled under the laws and conventions of UNCLOS, and the tribunal had just ruled on that. Disagree with the Tribunal? Well too bad China had also agreed that an arbitration tribunal can issue legally binding rulings and can also have the power to decide that it has jurisdiction. That is what your country had agreed to. You can lobby your govt to withdraw from UNCLOS to nullify these agreements, what is stopping your country?



The SCS arbitration soap opera is over, I don't want to talk it anymore. Next time on fresh news, call me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

lcloo said:


> Welcome to * 沖ノ鳥島*／おきのとりしま _*Okinotorishima. *_
> 
> We have total of 9.44 square metre of dry land from two rocks and we have claimed 400,000 Sq Km of EEZ. And last month we have just arrested a Taiwanese fishing boat for fishing in our EEZ and forced them to pay a heavy fine to get their boat released.
> 
> 
> 
> Okinotorishima !!!
> View attachment 318411
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...... This is just a ROCK in South China Sea, It shoud be called Taiping Reef !!! Please obey our arbitration verdict !!!!
> View attachment 318410



In order for something to be called an island, it must be able to sustain a settlement.
I.E. there is enough water (which I understand there is) and it must be fertile enough to give a decent harvest.
A few coconut, and other fruits, I guess won't do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

*Itu Aba isn’t an island on the account that it doesn’t support a “stable community of people*

http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/5-ta...e-historic-south-china-sea-arbitration-award/


*In 1993, two complete desalination machines were placed on the island, which operate for four hours each day, generating approximately 6,000 gallons of fresh water.*

https://amti.csis.org/taiping-island-an-island-or-a-rock-under-unclos/

The Taiwanese already admitted that Itu Aba is not capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of its own. Taiwan is pouring enormous resources just to sustain Itu Aba. Taiping Island cannot generate maritime entitlement to a 200 nautical miles, an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), or a continental shelf under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).


----------



## lcloo

*The double standard practised by Japan. They insist their 2 specks of rock is island with 400,000 sq km EEZ. Meanwhile they tried in vain but FAILED to get others, especially the Europeans to condemn China over South China Sea islands.*


*

 *

July 15 2016






The Okinotorishima atoll is shown in this aerial photo taken in April 2005. | KYODO
*National / Politics*
*Japan steps up rhetoric over Okinotorishima in wake of Hague ruling*
*by Ayako Mie*
Staff Writer




Tokyo has stepped up its rhetoric over claims that Okinotorishima is an island and not rocks under international law in the wake of a tribunal ruling in The Hague this week on the South China Sea.

On Tuesday, the Permanent Court of Arbitration found in favor of the Philippines in its territorial dispute with China, saying that Beijing had no “legal basis” to claim “historic rights” to islets in the waters.

Adding to the geopolitical fallout, analysts say the decision could potentially undermine Japan’s claim to Okinotorishima, which it administers, but which is also claimed by Taiwan and is geographically similar to the South China Sea islets.

Tuesday’s ruling said the islands in the disputed Spratly archipelago are rocks, not islands, because they cannot sustain a community of people or economic activities, and thus can have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf based on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The verdict also said Hughes Reef and Mischief Reef, which make up part of the Spratlys, generate no maritime entitlement as they are submerged at high tide.

Okinotorishima, located about 1,740 km south of Tokyo, is a collection of tiny specks that are barely visible at high tide.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga on Thursday asserted the position that Okinotorishima is an island under international law and consequently entitled to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.

On Friday, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida reiterated this stance.

“Since 1931, when the interior ministry recognized the island (as Okinotorishima), it has been an island. The verdict does not set the standards for what constitutes rock,” Kishida told reporters.

Kishida also said the verdict’s legal ramifications apply only to China and the Philippines.

Okinotorishima, which sits amid rich natural resources including rare metal, is considered to be a strategically and politically important feature for Japan, which has added concrete embankments to protect it from wave damage.

Despite Tokyo’s claim, China and Taiwan have asserted that Okinotorishima is merely rocks, with former Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou making the comment as recently as April.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

In 2017 there will be a war in SCS, PLAN preparing for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hirobo2

cnleio said:


> In 2017 there will be a war in SCS, PLAN preparing for it.



I believe this will happen too. War is an option to stimulate the Chinese economy, which is seeing its weakest growth rate in 25 years. Look at what happened to US economy/stock market 2003-2008 Afghanistan/Iraq wars, it went up...

Also, US expects China to build up Scarborough Shoal then attack. Too predictable, not gonna happen. Hence 2017 war seems about right...

(Btw, not that I support war, but the CCP probably got together and pondered a way to kickstart Chinese economy, and this showed up as an option. Also, a certain lawless country in the SCS hell-bent on killing defenseless elderly fishermen with their coastguards really deserves a nasty karmic spanking in return...)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------

