What's new

ASEAN breaks deadlock on South China Sea, Beijing thanks Cambodia for support

Your post proves the point, about Chinese arrogance and desire to impose the will of a single nation on all its neighbours. This is the stuff of imperialism, the imperialism about which Mao's predecessors and intellectual forebears wrote, the imperialism of Lenin's thesis, not the imperialism of the Middle Kingdom.

There is no point in refuting your misconceptions; your corroborating the picture that is slowly building up is good enough.




Translation: I will insult individuals by insulting their nation, and I will believe in my typical Chinese bravado that they will ignore my rude and uncouth behaviour.

Well done, Han.

China ( impose ) the will of cooperating with all neighbors, about economy development, transportation link, culturel dialogue. This is not imperialism. Protecting territory is national interests, which has nothing to do with ideology. Your arrogance has reach new low level.

Again, as a "professional", you analyse what will benefits India when China is an American-like one person one vote nation?
 
Last edited:
China ( impose ) the will of cooperating with all neighbors, about economy development, transportation link, culturel dialogue. This is not imperialism. Protecting territory is national interests, which has nothing to do with ideology. Your arrogance has reach new low level.

Again, as a "professional", you analyse what will benefits India when China is an American-like one person one vote nation?

To start from the end of your post, India will benefit nothing, perhaps, and China will benefit entirely, once it becomes a one-person one-vote nation. It is clear that you have absolutely no idea, and not even a foggy understanding of where I am coming from.

What I find most objectionable about Chinese members' posts on the board is that it is entirely based on an utterly selfish, Sino-centric view of the world. That does not mean that other members are not equally selfish, or that all of them are saintly and disinterested. It means that when they, other members of other national groupings, express themselves in such terms, they sometimes, or even often, feel embarrassed about being so disinterested in the rest of the world. The Chinese suffer no such pain. For them, what is Chinese is Chinese, what is that of others is negotiable.

So you would not understand any member from any other country hoping and wishing that China would be a democracy, because for you, the idea that a member of one nation may care that the citizens of another nation should get freedom is so strange, so alien, that you refuse to believe that it is based on anything other than a cold-blooded attempt at deception and getting some sort of an unfair advantage over an unwary enemy.

I feel sorry for the lot of you. And that is the truth. After the disdain, the contempt is finished, it is a question of sadness that human beings should be like this and should actually think that they are the best of all types of people in the best of the countries in the world. With, of course, no bad points, no shortcomings, nothing to address or to improve. And why should they? Every post reeks of the same self-declared superiority, and those making those posts are so smug and complacent that it is clearly a waste seeking to communicate. After all, your dictum has already been enunciated by the Great Helmsman -"Power flows out of the barrel of a gun."
 
Am loving the Chinese diplomacy more and more :smitten::china:.
China has just two nations in the world that support them - Cambodia and Pakistan. But it's surprising Pakistan hasn't openly supported China after the tribunal's verdict.
 
China stands alone when it comes to defending its core interests.
But then China's core interests are not the core interests of the world in general and international relations. Playing bully is equal to what a banana republic would do where might is right, throwing all laid down conventions to the wind.

Such irresponsible behavior doesn't deserve a seat in the UN Security Council. Undemocratic Banana republics should be kept out.
 
To start from the end of your post, India will benefit nothing, perhaps, and China will benefit entirely, once it becomes a one-person one-vote nation. It is clear that you have absolutely no idea, and not even a foggy understanding of where I am coming from.

What I find most objectionable about Chinese members' posts on the board is that it is entirely based on an utterly selfish, Sino-centric view of the world. That does not mean that other members are not equally selfish, or that all of them are saintly and disinterested. It means that when they, other members of other national groupings, express themselves in such terms, they sometimes, or even often, feel embarrassed about being so disinterested in the rest of the world. The Chinese suffer no such pain. For them, what is Chinese is Chinese, what is that of others is negotiable.

So you would not understand any member from any other country hoping and wishing that China would be a democracy, because for you, the idea that a member of one nation may care that the citizens of another nation should get freedom is so strange, so alien, that you refuse to believe that it is based on anything other than a cold-blooded attempt at deception and getting some sort of an unfair advantage over an unwary enemy.

I feel sorry for the lot of you. And that is the truth. After the disdain, the contempt is finished, it is a question of sadness that human beings should be like this and should actually think that they are the best of all types of people in the best of the countries in the world. With, of course, no bad points, no shortcomings, nothing to address or to improve. And why should they? Every post reeks of the same self-declared superiority, and those making those posts are so smug and complacent that it is clearly a waste seeking to communicate. After all, your dictum has already been enunciated by the Great Helmsman -"Power flows out of the barrel of a gun."

What China will benifits referring to territory disputes, when China is a American-like one person one vote nation? I don't like to judge where members come from, I talk to his nationality as to the website information ( flag? ) or his self-introduction, sometimes take first language as reference.

"What I find most objectionable about Chinese members' posts on the board is that it is entirely based on an utterly selfish, Sino-centric view of the world. That does not mean that other members are not equally selfish, or that all of them are saintly and disinterested. It means that when they, other members of other national groupings, express themselves in such terms, they sometimes, or even often, feel embarrassed about being so disinterested in the rest of the world. The Chinese suffer no such pain. For them, what is Chinese is Chinese, what is that of others is negotiable."
To which content this big section is in order to reply? It give me a sudden sense. The content in fresh red is not a regulatory postulate. Before disputes solved, what is that of others is not others.

"So you would not understand any member from any other country hoping and wishing that China would be a democracy, because for you, the idea that a member of one nation may care that the citizens of another nation should get freedom is so strange, so alien, that you refuse to believe that it is based on anything other than a cold-blooded attempt at deception and getting some sort of an unfair advantage over an unwary enemy."

Indian caring about such disputes has the reason China and India has territory disputes, as well as Philippines, Vietnam' members. As you said, that does not mean that other members that all of them are saintly and disinterested. But we did have good discussion with members from other part of the world. You might count where are the most members like joining recently in the SCS issues' discussion, twisting no irrelevant things together, this prove my point.

"I feel sorry for the lot of you. And that is the truth. After the disdain, the contempt is finished, it is a question of sadness that human beings should be like this and should actually think that they are the best of all types of people in the best of the countries in the world. With, of course, no bad points, no shortcomings, nothing to address or to improve. And why should they? Every post reeks of the same self-declared superiority, and those making those posts are so smug and complacent that it is clearly a waste seeking to communicate."

This disdain and arrogance is more suitable to your post. It's you who again and again advocate democracy is the best in the world, you market it and vow it will benefits China. I didn't sell my ideology to you. Chinese posts can't prove you "no bad points, no shorcomings, nothing to address or to improve". In the beginning I had said, Chinese firstly want to make China an developed / advanced nation.
 
Wisdom has pervailed over ignorance and malice.

BeiJing has wisely thanked the voice of reason in ASEAN. There are many many more voices of reasons there.

Soon this all die down and we will get on with development and building our economy. All this distration was for many pruposes. But the troubles that troubles makres wanted to create did not materialise.

Without ASEAN support as one voice... who is going to care for what outsiders think.

It is insightful to see the reactions of those who have nothing to do with this artificial issue. Truly educational. BeiJing is always a keen listner.
 
But then China's core interests are not the core interests of the world in general and international relations. Playing bully is equal to what a banana republic would do where might is right, throwing all laid down conventions to the wind.

Such irresponsible behavior doesn't deserve a seat in the UN Security Council. Undemocratic Banana republics should be kept out.

Might is ALWAYS right. Ask every great power in the history of the world.

If might is not right, 'India' wouldn't even be a country since the British used their might to conquer those tiny little kingdoms in South Asia and glued it together and gave you an artificially created country called 'India'.

UNSC veto power is given to countries with independent foreign policies, not to 3rd world countries where half the population still defecates in the open.
 
China has just two nations in the world that support them - Cambodia and Pakistan. But it's surprising Pakistan hasn't openly supported China after the tribunal's verdict.
Cambodia but as long as the money flows. If Chinese run out of money, the Khmer will dump them into the next trash bin.
 
UNSC veto power is given to countries with independent foreign policies, not to 3rd world countries where half the population still defecates in the open.
Back to 'defecation'? Shows you are intellectually bankrupt as you have nothing to offer in your arguments and rely on your standard deadbeat slogans of 'defecation' and 'poverty' (as if there is no poverty in China).

Think up something new in your arguments. This has got pretty boring and silly too.
 
China has just two nations in the world that support them - Cambodia and Pakistan. But it's surprising Pakistan hasn't openly supported China after the tribunal's verdict.

Are U deliberately trying to sow sort of distrust between Chinese and Pakistanis members or U are not up to date? In any case let me give U some insight.

http://www.samaa.tv/pakistan/2016/0...-support-to-beijing-on-south-china-sea-issue/

http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/07/14/16/pakistan-supports-chinas-position-on-s-china-sea

So U were saying something? o_Oo_Oo_O




@Beidou2020 , @Zhu Rong Zheng Yang , @Kiss_of_the_Dragon , @TaiShang , @cnleio , @Sinopakfriend, @Place Of Space
 
Are U deliberately trying to sow sort of distrust between Chinese and Pakistanis members or U are not up to date? In any case let me give U some insight.

http://www.samaa.tv/pakistan/2016/0...-support-to-beijing-on-south-china-sea-issue/

http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/07/14/16/pakistan-supports-chinas-position-on-s-china-sea

So U were saying something? o_Oo_Oo_O
Read his statement carefully - double speak to say the least.....

Zakaria said that Pakistan opposes any imposition of unilateral will on others.

Meaning China should adhere to the UNCLOS though not said in as many words! :P
 
That is what Vietnam did! China in Vietnam war gave money, food to Vietnam, when we run out of money, the Vietnamese dump us into the trash bin.
Nobody dumped China. It is Chinese leadership who returns to the old path of confrontation.
 
ASEAN ignored US backed proposal.

--------

World | Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:46pm EDT
Diplomatic win for China as ASEAN drops reference to maritime court ruling
VIENTIANE | By Michael Martina and Lesley Wroughton

China scored a diplomatic victory on Monday as Southeast Asian nations dropped a U.S.-backed proposal to mention a landmark international court ruling against Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea in a joint statement.

A weekend deadlock between Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers was broken only when the Philippines withdrew its request to mention the ruling in the face of resolute objections from Cambodia, China's closest ASEAN ally.

China publicly thanked Phnom Penh for the support, which threw the regional bloc's meeting in the Laos capital of Vientiane into disarray.

The United States had earlier on Monday urged ASEAN to make a reference to the July 12 ruling by the U.N.-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration, in which U.S. ally Manila won an emphatic legal victory over China on the dispute.

In a meeting with host Laos' Foreign Minister Saleumxay Kommasith, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry "urged ASEAN to reach consensus and issue a joint statement on the arbitral tribunals recent ruling on the South China Sea", said U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner.

Kerry pressed the issue during other bilateral meetings with ASEAN members, Toner said.

Competing claims with China in the vital shipping lane are among the most contentious issues for the 10 members of ASEAN, who are pulled between their desire to assert their sovereignty while fostering ties with an increasingly assertive Beijing.


ASEAN CONSENSUS

The Philippines and Vietnam both wanted the ruling, which denied China's sweeping claims in the strategic seaway that channels more than $5 trillion in global trade each year, and a call to respect international maritime law to feature in the communique.

But ASEAN works strictly by consensus, and Cambodia rejected the wording on the ruling, diplomats said, backing instead China's call for bilateral discussions.

Manila backed down to prevent the disagreement leading to the group failing to issue a joint statement after a meeting for only the second time in its 49-year history.

The communique referred instead to the need to find peaceful resolutions to disputes in the South China Sea in accordance with international law, including the United Nations' law of the sea, to which the court ruling referred.

"We remain seriously concerned about recent and ongoing developments and took note of the concerns expressed by some ministers on the land reclamations and escalation of activities in the area, which have eroded trust and confidence, increased tensions and may undermine peace, security and stability in the region," the ASEAN communique said.

ASEAN Secretary General Le Luong Minh said that the communique was not a victory for China, but for ASEAN's values and principle of finding consensus. But he conceded an earlier proposal for the communique referred to the court's decision.

In a separate statement, China and ASEAN reaffirmed a commitment to freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea and said they would refrain from activities that would complicate or escalate disputes. That included inhabiting any presently uninhabited islands or reefs, it added.

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi said a page had been turned after the "deeply flawed" ruling and it was time to lower the temperature in the dispute.

"It seems like certain countries from outside the region have got all worked up, keeping the fever high," Wang told reporters.

China frequently blames the United States for raising tensions in the region and has warned regional rival Japan to steer clear of the dispute.


MAJOR POWERS ARRIVE

The United States, allied with the Philippines and cultivating closer relations with Vietnam, has called on China to respect the court's ruling.

It has criticized China's building of artificial islands and facilities in the sea and has sailed warships close to the disputed territory to assert freedom of navigation rights.

Meeting U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice in Beijing, Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi said both countries needed to make concerted efforts to ensure stable and good relations between the two major powers.

"So far this year, relations between China and the United States have generally been stable, maintaining coordination and cooperation on bilateral, regional and international level. Meanwhile, both sides face challenging differences that need to be carefully handled," said Yang, who outranks the foreign minister.

Kerry arrived in Laos on Monday for the ASEAN regional forum and East Asia summits.

After a meeting with the foreign ministers of Japan and Australia, the three countries issued a statement in which they called on China and the Philippines to abide by the court ruling "which is final and legally binding on both parties".

"The ministers stressed that this is a crucial opportunity for the region to uphold the existing rules-based international order and to show respect for international law," they said.

Kerry was also expected to discuss maritime issues in a meeting with Wang on Monday.

(Additional reporting by Simon Webb and Manuel Mogato in VIENTIANE, and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Writing by Simon Webb; Editing by Lincoln Feast and Alex Richardson)
 
Back
Top Bottom