Chinese FM rejects Philippine, Japanese, U.S. claims on South China Sea issue

[TaiShang]

Chinese FM rejects Philippine, Japanese, U.S. claims on South China Sea issue

08-07-2015 08:11 BJT

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug. 6 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made clear China's stance on the South China Sea issue on Thursday, rejecting the claims of the Philippines, Japan and United States.

Speaking at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), Wang said China felt imperative to speak the truth and make clear its stance as the South China Sea issue was raised by some countries at the ARF and the East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers' Meeting earlier.

"First of all, the general situation in the South China Sea is stable, and the possibility of a major conflict simply doesn't exist," he said. "Therefore, China is against any unconstructive words and deeds that exaggerate differences and stand-off, and create tensions. They do not comply with facts at all."

China has the same concern as other countries over freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, as most of China's merchandise is transported by the Sea, the Chinese minister said, noting that freedom of navigation there is very important to China, too.

Wang said, "China has always held the stance that parties enjoy freedom of navigation and flyover in the South China Sea according to international laws. China is willing to work with other parties in keeping freedom of navigation and flyover in the South China Sea."

With regard to the disputes over the Nansha Islands, Wang pointed out, "It is an old problem."

Islands in the South China Sea are China's territories as China is the first country to discover and name the islands, he emphasized.

The Chinese minister said this year marks the 70th anniversary of the victory of World War II, and 70 years ago China took back Nansha and Xisha Islands, which had been illegally occupied by Japan.

Highlighting that the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, on which the post-war international order is founded, demanded Japan return the territories it had stolen from China, Wang said.

"The naval ships that were used by China to take back the islands were provided by the United States, our ally," he said, adding, "These facts must have been recorded in your respective archives."

"Till the 1970s, some countries began to invade and occupy islands and reefs following reports on oil reserves in the South China Sea, infringing the legal rights and interests of China. According to international laws, China is entitled to defend its own sovereignty, and rights and interests, and to make sure that the illegal actions infringing China's legal rights and interests wouldn't happen again."

Wang said the Philippines had failed to tell the truth when raising the South China Sea issue.

He said the Philippines alleges that Huangyan Island and other related islands and reefs in the South China Sea belong to the Philippines; however, the Treaty of Paris (1898), the Treaty of Washington (1900) and the Convention between the United States and Great Britain (1930) state clearly that the west limit of the Philippine territory is 118 degrees east longitude, while Huangyan Island and Nansha Islands are obviously not Philippine territories as they are located completely west to the 118 degrees east longitude.

After independence, the Philippines' domestic laws and relevant treaties have all reaffirmed the legal effects of the above- mentioned three treaties and once again expressively defined that the west limit of the Philippine territory is 118 degrees east longitude, Wang said.

 

[Beast]

Chinese FM rejects Philippine, Japanese, U.S. claims on South China Sea issue

08-07-2015 08:11 BJT

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug. 6 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made clear China's stance on the South China Sea issue on Thursday, rejecting the claims of the Philippines, Japan and United States.

Speaking at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), Wang said China felt imperative to speak the truth and make clear its stance as the South China Sea issue was raised by some countries at the ARF and the East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers' Meeting earlier.

"First of all, the general situation in the South China Sea is stable, and the possibility of a major conflict simply doesn't exist," he said. "Therefore, China is against any unconstructive words and deeds that exaggerate differences and stand-off, and create tensions. They do not comply with facts at all."

China has the same concern as other countries over freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, as most of China's merchandise is transported by the Sea, the Chinese minister said, noting that freedom of navigation there is very important to China, too.

Wang said, "China has always held the stance that parties enjoy freedom of navigation and flyover in the South China Sea according to international laws. China is willing to work with other parties in keeping freedom of navigation and flyover in the South China Sea."

With regard to the disputes over the Nansha Islands, Wang pointed out, "It is an old problem."

Islands in the South China Sea are China's territories as China is the first country to discover and name the islands, he emphasized.

The Chinese minister said this year marks the 70th anniversary of the victory of World War II, and 70 years ago China took back Nansha and Xisha Islands, which had been illegally occupied by Japan.

Highlighting that the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, on which the post-war international order is founded, demanded Japan return the territories it had stolen from China, Wang said.

"The naval ships that were used by China to take back the islands were provided by the United States, our ally," he said, adding, "These facts must have been recorded in your respective archives."

"Till the 1970s, some countries began to invade and occupy islands and reefs following reports on oil reserves in the South China Sea, infringing the legal rights and interests of China. According to international laws, China is entitled to defend its own sovereignty, and rights and interests, and to make sure that the illegal actions infringing China's legal rights and interests wouldn't happen again."

Wang said the Philippines had failed to tell the truth when raising the South China Sea issue.

He said the Philippines alleges that Huangyan Island and other related islands and reefs in the South China Sea belong to the Philippines; however, the Treaty of Paris (1898), the Treaty of Washington (1900) and the Convention between the United States and Great Britain (1930) state clearly that the west limit of the Philippine territory is 118 degrees east longitude, while Huangyan Island and Nansha Islands are obviously not Philippine territories as they are located completely west to the 118 degrees east longitude.

After independence, the Philippines' domestic laws and relevant treaties have all reaffirmed the legal effects of the above- mentioned three treaties and once again expressively defined that the west limit of the Philippine territory is 118 degrees east longitude, Wang said.

He said the Philippines alleges that Huangyan Island and other related islands and reefs in the South China Sea belong to the Philippines; however, the Treaty of Paris (1898), the Treaty of Washington (1900) and the Convention between the United States and Great Britain (1930) state clearly that the west limit of the Philippine territory is 118 degrees east longitude, while Huangyan Island and Nansha Islands are obviously not Philippine territories as they are located completely west to the 118 degrees east longitude.

After independence, the Philippines' domestic laws and relevant treaties have all reaffirmed the legal effects of the above- mentioned three treaties and once again expressively defined that the west limit of the Philippine territory is 118 degrees east longitude, Wang said.

I want to see what the Pinoy troll will say about those underline and highlighted words

Pinoy thieves brag about China steal their island in fact, greedy pinoy steal Chinese island and act victim. Pathetic worms!

 

[xesy]

I can't imagine this FM dude giving this speech with a straight face. Who could take this as the truth about SCS issue?

"First of all, the general situation in the South China Sea is stable, and the possibility of a major conflict simply doesn't exist,"

Yeah yeah, those subs and warships and airplanes and naval bases are built or purchased just to look cool huh (on all sides)?

With regard to the disputes over the Nansha Islands, Wang pointed out, "It is an old problem."

Way to avert the attention, by saying it's "old". "Old, but not obsolete!"

"The naval ships that were used by China to take back the islands were provided by the United States, our ally," he said, adding, "These facts must have been recorded in your respective archives."

LOL, really!? Planes which bombed Pearl harbor run on US oil. Therefore... that's right, follow that logic, you conspiracists.

 

[TaiShang]

Yeah yeah, those subs and warships and airplanes and naval bases are built or purchased just to look cool huh (on all sides)?

To ensure freedom of navigation and security, which is constructive.

Way to avert the attention, by saying it's "old". "Old, but not obsolete!"

It is old, because the world has already moved over. Nobody is talking about them.

Planes which bombed Pearl harbor run on US oil. Therefore... that's right, follow that logic, you conspiracists.

How do you know? Besides, US support of anti-Japanese war efforts is well recorded in history. No country is good Samaritan, for sure, but, out of their own interests, two two countries stood side by side, as has been confirmed by many historical documents that were signed in the aftermath of the WWII.

 

[xesy]

To ensure freedom of navigation and security, which is constructive.



It is old, because the world has already moved over. Nobody is talking about them.



How do you know? Besides, US support of anti-Japanese war efforts is well recorded in history. No country is good Samaritan, for sure, but, out of their own interests, two two countries stood side by side, as has been confirmed by many historical documents that were signed in the aftermath of the WWII.

You see the world too bright. A major conflict is unlikely, but small skirmishes are easily sparked, may be started by our side or yours, no one knows for sure.

Just because nobody pays attention doesn't mean the matter doesn't exist.

Unless China had US support on the paper, then we agreed that US HAD supported China regarding SCS matters. Otherwise, giving someone a gun doesn't mean supporting shooting spree or mass murder.

 

[TaiShang]

You see the world too bright. A major conflict is unlikely, but small skirmishes are easily sparked, may be started by our side or yours, no one knows for sure.

Small conflicts here and there, perhaps, but I do not see a major war over Spratlys. Two reasons:

1. There is no clear bloc against XXX vs. China. All parties have overlapping claims. Hence, the conflict is multilateral.

2. The very countries (two specific countries, to be exact) that put all the blame on China are in fact the pioneers of island construction and build up. Hence, they are unable to mobilize international opinion on the grounds of moral superiority.

Just because nobody pays attention doesn't mean the matter doesn't exist.

In fact, a social (economic, political etc) phenomenon exists only to the degree that people recognize its existence.

Unless China had US support on the paper, then we agreed that US HAD supported China regarding SCS matters. Otherwise, giving someone a gun doesn't mean supporting shooting spree or mass murder.

There are various historical documents on this. But for present geopolitical reality, they are not of much importance. In the end, it all comes down to which side has a greater aggregate national power.

 

[opruh]

US should stop in trying to destabilize the region with the use of the dumb Philippines, Japanese and Vietnamese leaders.

 

[Beast]

US should stop in trying to destabilize the region with the use of the dumb Philippines, Japanese and Vietnamese leaders.

They encourage Pinoy to steal what not belongs to them becos US knows they can't stop the rising of China besides using some petty underhand method.

From middle east to North South East Asia, US is the villain of all world.

 

[xesy]

1. There is no clear bloc against XXX vs. China. All parties have overlapping claims. Hence, the conflict is multilateral.

I can only say "Not yet".

And the mutual understanding between VN and Phil is that for us to have proper talk, we must first push China out of the negotiation table. In offical newspapers, VN still claims some islands are occupied illegally by Phil.

The very countries (two specific countries, to be exact) that put all the blame on China are in fact the pioneers of island construction and build up. Hence, they are unable to mobilize international opinion on the grounds of moral superiority.

Are you trying to compare this

to this?

I don't know what about Phil, but VN only build basic buildings to support infantry presence on islands. Some islands do not even have habors or airstrip and people have to use small canoe to move in. Those with airfields and habors are large island with non-military personel and such structures are nescessary. And there is no evidence of we actually expand the island, only preventation of corrosion of land.

China turned underwatered islands into airfields and harbors, with guns, missles and bunkers. Even workers who work there are military personel, and buildings are purely for military uses. Sure you say "they are for civilian use too. For rescuse effort, tourism and research." Yeah, then why the military put so much money and effort on that, using tax and hardware on those islands, so that non-military personels can come and use the structures? Military is not a charity organization, especially not a non-profit one.

In fact, a social (economic, political etc) phenomenon exists only to the degree that people recognize its existence.

He said it's old, not it's non-existence or gone. And while it's not gone, someone (like us) would love to cling on it.

There are various historical documents on this. But for present geopolitical reality, they are not of much importance. In the end, it all comes down to which side has a greater aggregate national power.

I have encountered that very Chinese mindset for a long time. In your language, it literally means "the guy with the bigger punch is always right". In our language, we call it "jungle law" (no pun intended). Personally, I think that belief is very anti-civilized, anti-humane, anti-culture. Human, in VNese: "Con (beast/specy) Người (man)", in Chinese: "人(man) 性(specy)", like a Russian writer said, always strive to be less of an animal, and more of a man. I know this is a more or less Dog-eat-Dog world, yet we have the right, and the ability to search for higher value in ourselves. Don't let the cruel fact stop the fire of passion.

 

[Place Of Space]

I can only say "Not yet".

And the mutual understanding between VN and Phil is that for us to have proper talk, we must first push China out of the negotiation table. In offical newspapers, VN still claims some islands are occupied illegally by Phil.


Are you trying to compare this

to this?

I don't know what about Phil, but VN only build basic buildings to support infantry presence on islands. Some islands do not even have habors or airstrip and people have to use small canoe to move in. Those with airfields and habors are large island with non-military personel and such structures are nescessary. And there is no evidence of we actually expand the island, only preventation of corrosion of land.

China turned underwatered islands into airfields and harbors, with guns, missles and bunkers. Even workers who work there are military personel, and buildings are purely for military uses. Sure you say "they are for civilian use too. For rescuse effort, tourism and research." Yeah, then why the military put so much money and effort on that, using tax and hardware on those islands, so that non-military personels can come and use the structures? Military is not a charity organization, especially not a non-profit one.


He said it's old, not it's non-existence or gone. And while it's not gone, someone (like us) would love to cling on it.

I have encountered that very Chinese mindset for a long time. In your language, it literally means "the guy with the bigger punch is always right". In our language, we call it "jungle law" (no pun intended). Personally, I think that belief is very anti-civilized, anti-humane, anti-culture. Human, in VNese: "Con (beast/specy) Người (man)", in Chinese: "人(man) 性(specy)", like a Russian writer said, always strive to be less of an animal, and more of a man. I know this is a more or less Dog-eat-Dog world, yet we have the right, and the ability to search for higher value in ourselves. Don't let the cruel fact stop the fire of passion.

Why not to invade Cambodia and Laos? Those were under one unit before WWII.

 

[Viet]

Wang Yi is a typical liar. Repeating the same lies over and over again. Shameless. His understanding of history and nation sovereinty are virtually non existent. He assumes other people are dumb and cannot see Chinese actions on the ground speak against his words in public. But he is typical for most chinese. Speak one thing while do another thing.

 

[Place Of Space]

Wang Yi is a typical liar. Repeating the same lies over and over again. Shameless. His understanding of history and nation sovereinty are virtually non existent. He assumes other people are dumb and cannot see Chinese actions on the ground speak against his words in public. But he is typical for most chinese. Speak one thing while do another thing.

You depend on "other people", we dedepend on ourslevs. looool, Vietnamese didn't invite French in 19th century, Vietnam's history maybe the similar with Thailand.

 

[Viet]

You depend on "other people", we dedepend on ourslevs. looool, Vietnamese didn't invite French in 19th century, Vietnam's history maybe the similar with Thailand.

Can you tell me how many times is China bigger than Vietnam? There is a little difference between brave and dumb. Sure, we invite the external powers when there were internal fightings and conflicts with a great power. With all negative consequences. Including the one you mentioned, the french.

Also, if China fully supported Vietnam in the first Vietnam-France war, we would have probably won the war. And don't forget, the french would never have the chance to use Vietnam as the springboard for the invasion of China.

 

[somsak]

Therefore, one should avoid inviting external power for ones own internal politics.

I see Philiphines is inviting US to base in Philliphines for conflict of SCS. I think this is a weakness. One should try to upgrade their military power by oneself, with a new military doctrine to fight a larger force (China). That, I think, is the spirit of an independent nation.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Wang Yi is a typical liar. Repeating the same lies over and over again. Shameless. His understanding of history and nation sovereinty are virtually non existent. He assumes other people are dumb and cannot see Chinese actions on the ground speak against his words in public. But he is typical for most chinese. Speak one thing while do another thing.

pretty sure that Chinese do what we say just that no one listens then they get fked up and don't know why.