South China Sea Forum

[William Hung]

How can Japan was able 2 bully China but Vietnam can not?...

...The political system of China and Vietnam is the same, Communism-one party with half free market model...

...Japan-Constitutional Monarchy with full free enterprise model.

Japan was able to bully the rest of Asia by opening up to the outside world and begin to industrialize during the Meiji period. In that same period (actually before the period) the Chinese and Vietnamese Monarchy shut itself from the outside world, got weak and then eventually got bullied by western foreigners.

China, under the leadership of the CCP, was able to overtake the Japanese economy. So how are you going to compare Japanese "constitutional monarchy" and Chinese communism now?

Stop dreaming of bullying China if Vietnam is still relying on ODAs and foreign aids.

 

[DaiViet]

Japan was able to bully the rest of Asia by opening up to the outside world and begin to industrialize during the Meiji period. In that same period (actually before the period) the Chinese and Vietnamese Monarchy shut itself from the outside world, got weak and then eventually got bullied by western foreigners.

There you go, is this what I have been saying. The Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam was dumb enough to copy China closed its door to foreign trade while Japan was smarter they did not copy China and did go on its own way. Japan have their political system Constitutional Monarchy with full free trade enterprise. Vietnam is still have half azz Market economic which called social-market which the same as China where SOE account for most of its economic, even worse Vietnam SOEs are a complete failure . How does Vietnam ever beat China with the economic model copy from China even worse Vietnam did not do it right when copy from China?

It is like some cheap China iPhone copy can never beat genuine iPhone from Apple.

China, under the leadership of the CCP, was able to overtake the Japanese economy. So how are you going to compare Japanese "constitutional monarchy" and Chinese communism now?

Over take Japanese economy by what? GDP or GDP per capita? Chinese has 1.3 billion of course its total output must larger than Japan which has only 128 millions. By GDP per capita, you Chinese are poor compare with Japan, GDP per capita Japan =$46,000 while China = 6,000.

In a country, a person make only $6000 USD and saying that his country economic richer than a country who make $46,000 USD. This is only simple macro and yet this Chinese do not understand.

Stop dreaming of bullying China if Vietnam is still relying on ODAs and foreign aids.

Vietnam can never bully China as I have mentioned above when they are too dumb to follow/copy China and they still have not realized that.

 

[William Hung]

Over take Japanese economy by what? GDP or GDP per capita? Chinese has 1.3 billion of course its total output must larger than Japan which has only 128 millions. By GDP per capita, you Chinese are poor compare with Japan, GDP per capita Japan =$46,000 while China = 6,000.

In a country, a person make only $6000 USD and saying that his country economic richer than a country who make $46,000 USD. This is only simple macro and yet this Chinese do not understand.

Obviously GDP, not GDP per capita. From this perspective, China is in fact richer than Japan eventhough the average Chinese earns less than average Japanese. You're the one who doesn't understand. In world politics, GDP per capital doesn't matter (unless you're an activist or some kind of NGOs or saint). Since you love talking about countries bullying other countries, GPD is all that matters.

Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand, etc. have higher GDP per capita than China. But they all need to suck up to China for their economy and trade. Japan had to tone down their anti-China rhetorics recently. Why? because they found out the hard truth that China can hurt them bad, economically. Even a few years back, several European countries had to ask China for help during the global financial crisis. All these countries I mentioned have higher GDP per capita than PRC but that doesn't mean sh!t.

Vietnam can never bully China as I have mentioned above when they are too dumb to follow/copy China and they still have not realized that.

I know what you're trying to say. You want to say that countries like Vietnam need to overthrow their Communist government and fully open up their market. After that, Vietnam will be as strong and rich as South Korea and Japan. That is only a wet dream. Having western democratic constitution and having a free market does not guarantee your country will be super rich. Just look at Cambodia and Philippines, they are democratic with a free market but they're not super rich are they?

Also look at the oversea Vietnamese community in countries like Australia, Canada and UK. They live in democratic countries with free market but their community is filled with criminals, drug dealers, tax evader, people who cheat the welfare system, etc. It looks just exactly like those SOEs in vietnam. I know all this because I have stayed in Australia before and seen the Vietnamese community there. The Chinese community in Australia has those kind of people too but not as much as the Vietnamese, per capita

 

[Krueger]

CHINA'S WORLD | October 14, 2013

A Washington Lawyer Helps Manila Challenge Beijing's Sea Claims

Lawyer Paul Reichler points to the area in dispute on a map in his office in Washington, D.C.

Paul Reichler, a Washington-based lawyer, has spent much of his career representing small countries against big ones: Nicaragua versus the U.S.; Georgia versus Russia; Mauritius versus the U.K., Bangladesh versus India.

His first big victory made headlines in the 1980s when the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that U.S. support for Contra rebels trying to overthrow the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua violated international law.

That's one reason to pay attention to the case he launched this year at a United Nations arbitration body: the Philippines versus China.

Lawyer Paul Reichler, who specializes in international public law, is taking China to court on behalf of the Philippines over a dispute in the South China Sea.

Mr. Reichler is the lead lawyer representing Manila in its legal challenge against China's claim to almost all of the South China Sea, signified by the "nine-dash line"-a U-shaped protrusion on Chinese maps that brushes the coastlines of smaller states, including the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam.

The Philippines brought the case in January under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs the world's oceans. China is a signatory. The heart of the case is that the line has no basis under the U.N. convention, which states that coastal states are entitled to a territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles as well as a 200-mile economic exclusion zone in which they have rights to fish and extract undersea resources.

"Of course we're aware of the enormity of taking on a country like China. We'd be foolish not to" be aware, says Mr. Reichler, a litigator with the U.S. law firm Foley Hoag.

The Arbitral Tribunal has appointed a five-person panel of judges and issued a timetable for handling the case, including a deadline for the Philippines to submit its evidence by March 30 next year.

It's the first time that Beijing has been taken to a U.N. tribunal and China is furious. Most recently, it showed its displeasure by making clear that Philippine President Benigno Aquino III wouldn't be welcome at a trade event in southern China in August. The Chinese Foreign Ministry didn't respond to requests for comment on the arbitration action. But Beijing has said it will ignore the legal proceedings, without giving any reasons.

China insists that territorial disputes over islands in the South China Sea should be settled through bilateral negotiation under its frequently stated principle of "shelving disputes and going in for joint development." The sea contains potentially vast reserves of oil and natural gas. In addition, Beijing maintains that the nine-dash line presents no obstacle to freedom of navigation in a stretch of water that carries a third of global trade—a major U.S. concern.

Beijing's refusal to participate hasn't stopped the case going ahead. It could even speed its resolution: Mr. Reichler says that if China doesn't take part, the case could wrap up by the end of 2014. Such cases can otherwise drag on for up to five years.

To some skeptics, Manila's challenge is quixotic. Even if the tribunal decides it has jurisdiction over the case, and then finds in Manila's favor, Beijing could simply ignore the verdict.

Yet there are more than legal considerations at stake. The case is also significant for what it will signify about the way that China views the world.

China's self-image is wrapped up in its own sense of victimhood at the hands of imperialist powers led by Britain starting in the mid-19th century. That, in turn, has driven a Chinese foreign policy that professes to treat all countries equally, large or small, rich or poor.

But now that China is a global player, and dominates its own backyard, neighbors are asking anxious questions. Will it seek to work within existing international laws, or try to bend them to suit its purposes? As it acquires a blue-water navy to project power far from its own shores, will it be more tempted to use force to settle territorial disputes? And how will it treat smaller countries, like the Philippines, that feel bullied by China's growing military might?

Mr. Reichler is counting on international opinion to sway China's response toward any judgment that doesn't go China's way. "It's a terrible blow to a state's prestige to defy a tribunal's decision," he says.

From the Philippines' point of view, legal action was the last option after diplomacy failed. China wouldn't budge from its claim to "indisputable sovereignty" over the whole sea, say officials in Manila, and it was steadily encroaching on Philippine territory. Last year, Chinese ships fenced off the Scarborough Shoal, a fishermen's haven just west of Manila. China says the Philippines navy was harassing Chinese fishermen.

Manila conducted a global search for legal counsel before settling on Mr. Reichler. "We wanted the best," says one high-placed Philippine official.

China uses history to support its claims to the South China Sea and all its land features. These date back to its own imperial days centuries ago, when China treated its neighbors as mere vassals. However, the nine-dash line itself was first published on a map in 1947 by the Chinese Kuomintang government, and the Communists inherited it after the civil war that brought the Communists, led by Chairman Mao, to power.

The line extends almost to Indonesia, some 900 miles from China's southernmost territory, Hainan Island. Such a far-reaching claim has no parallel anywhere in the world.

As for the islands, rocks and reefs that fall within the line, Mr. Reichler makes a technical argument in the Philippines' case. The convention rules that a habitable island is entitled to a 200-mile economic exclusion zone. A rock that juts out of the sea gets 12 miles. A semisubmerged reef gets nothing.

Mr. Reichler's argument is that all the sea features that the Philippines disputes with China are either rocks or reefs. And, therefore, even if China owns them, it has only limited rights to the surrounding resources.

His legal team is pulling together a massive document to support that contention consisting of aerial photographs, naval charts, hydrology reports and geographical findings. "I'm not in a position to say how China will react," he says. "My job is to say [to the Philippines]: 'This is a good case for you to win or not.'"

Philippines Challenges Beijing's Claims in the South China Sea -- in Court - WSJ.com

 

[DaiViet]

Obviously GDP, not GDP per capita. From this perspective, China is in fact richer than Japan eventhough the average Chinese earns less than average Japanese. You're the one who doesn't understand. In world politics, GDP per capital doesn't matter (unless you're an activist or some kind of NGOs or saint). Since you love talking about countries bullying other countries, GPD is all that matters.

Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand, etc. have higher GDP per capita than China. But they all need to suck up to China for their economy and trade. Japan had to tone down their anti-China rhetorics recently. Why? because they found out the hard truth that China can hurt them bad, economically. Even a few years back, several European countries had to ask China for help during the global financial crisis. All these countries I mentioned have higher GDP per capita than PRC but that doesn't mean sh!t.




I know what you're trying to say. You want to say that countries like Vietnam need to overthrow their Communist government and fully open up their market. After that, Vietnam will be as strong and rich as South Korea and Japan. That is only a wet dream. Having western democratic constitution and having a free market does not guarantee your country will be super rich. Just look at Cambodia and Philippines, they are democratic with a free market but they're not super rich are they?

Also look at the oversea Vietnamese community in countries like Australia, Canada and UK. They live in democratic countries with free market but their community is filled with criminals, drug dealers, tax evader, people who cheat the welfare system, etc. It looks just exactly like those SOEs in vietnam. I know all this because I have stayed in Australia before and seen the Vietnamese community there. The Chinese community in Australia has those kind of people too but not as much as the Vietnamese, per capita

Hahaha I stopped there, the first sentence has so much contradictions that I do not bother to read the rest of the post. China is richer than Japan? Another delusional Chinese extremist.

 

[sweetouch]

The international community is silently watching the outcome of this undertaking. Hope the problem will be solved amicably.

 

[Srinivas]

Right thing to do, when the nations are signatory of UNCLOS.

 

[William Hung]

Hahaha I stopped there, the first sentence has so much contradictions that I do not bother to read the rest of the post. China is richer than Japan? Another delusional Chinese extremist.

Good boy, I'm happy you've stopped. I know you've read the rest of the post and got nothing intelligent to reply.

China is indeed richer than Japan. Just accept that fact. Whether it's GDP, growth rate, PPP, foreign exchage reserves, etc, China is on top of Japan.

The only thing you have to argue with is GDP per capita. Too bad that doesn't mean much. Timor-leste and Papa new guinea both have higher GDP per capita than Vietnam. So according to your logic, Timor-leste and PNG are both richer than Vietnam and Vietnam should should tremble in fear because they both can come and bully Vietnam any time.

Don't be angry because I exposed you as an anti-communist. All of your posts are basically stupid anti-VCP and anti-CCP rhetorics. I bet you are an oversea vietnamese or have relation with oversea anti-communists.

Hahaha I stopped there, the first sentence has so much contradictions that I do not bother to read the rest of the post. China is richer than Japan? Another delusional Chinese extremist.

Good boy, I'm happy you've stopped. I know you've read the rest of the post and got nothing intelligent to reply.

China is indeed richer than Japan. Just accept that fact. Whether it's GDP, growth rate, PPP, foreign exchage reserves, etc, China is on top of Japan.

The only thing you have to argue with is GDP per capita. Too bad that doesn't mean much. Timor-leste and Papa new guinea both have higher GDP per capita than Vietnam. So according to your logic, Timor-leste and PNG are both richer than Vietnam and Vietnam should should tremble in fear because they both can come and bully Vietnam any time.

Don't be angry because I exposed you as an anti-communist. All of your posts are basically stupid anti-VCP and anti-CCP rhetorics. I bet you are an oversea vietnamese or have relation with oversea anti-communists.

 

[sincity]

Can Native Indian Bring US to court and win back their land? Can South Tibet and Tibet bring both China and Indian to court and win back their land? This lawsuit has no merit at all.

 

[Krueger]

October 15, 2013

Q&A: Taking China to Court

In a long career as an international arbitrator, Paul Reichler of U.S. law firm Foley Hoag.

Now, he’s launched legal proceedings against China on behalf of the Philippines over its claim to almost the entire South China Sea – everything within a “nine-dash line” – under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The case is being handled by a tribunal sitting in The Hague.

China Real Time caught up with Mr. Reichler, the son of a famed baseball writer for the Associated Press, in his penthouse apartment in Washington, D.C., with some follow-up questions by email. Edited excerpts:

Where are we in the proceedings?

The Arbitral Tribunal has adopted rules of procedure, which include a schedule. The Philippines is required to submit its memorial (its main written pleading), which addresses both jurisdiction and merits issues, by March 30, 2014. Normally, the respondent state (in this case China) would be given an equal amount of time (eight months) to submit its counter-memorial. Then, in the normal sequence, the parties would have had a second round of written pleadings, with the Philippines getting four or five months to submit a reply, and China getting the same amount of time to submit a rejoinder. However, since China has announced that it will not actively participate in the arbitration, the tribunal only fixed the date for the filing of the Philippines’ memorial.

How soon could we get a result?

Arbitrations under the Law of the Sea Convention have normally taken between three and five years from beginning to end. However, in all those cases, there were two parties fighting it out. The proceedings will go a lot faster in this case if China holds to its current position not to actively participate. Since the tribunal has not yet decided on the procedure after the Philippines submits its memorial, it is difficult to predict how long beyond that date it will take to complete the arbitration. I imagine that, after reading our memorial, the members of the Tribunal will place themselves in China’s position and try to identify counter-arguments China might have made, and then give us a chance to address these hypothetical counter-arguments as well as any questions the members of the tribunal might have. I think the post-memorial process could take anywhere from six to 12 months [bringing us to] somewhere between April and October 2014 for the completion of the case.

What exactly is Manila’s legal case?

The Philippines’ core claims are these:

1. The nine-dash line is inconsistent with international law, as set forth in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and does not indicate China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, which are limited to a 12-mile territorial sea, and a 200-mile continental shelf and exclusive economic zone.

2. The Philippines, like China (and the other coastal states along the South China Sea), has entitlements to a 12-mile territorial sea, and a 200-mile continental shelf and exclusive economic zone.

3. Scarborough Shoal is a “rock”, as defined in Article 121(3) of UNCLOS, such that it generates a maritime entitlement only to a 12-mile territorial sea, and not to a 200-mile continental shelf or exclusive economic zone. Thus, all of the water beyond 12 miles from Scarborough Shoal falls within the maritime entitlements of the Philippines, and not of China, out to a distance of 200 miles from the coast of Luzon.

4. Of the eight features in the Spratlys occupied by China, five are either submerged reefs or low-tide elevations (upon which China has constructed installations), which generate no maritime entitlement, and three are “rocks” that generate entitlements only out to 12 miles. The conclusion is that China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, beyond 200 miles from its mainland coast, are very limited. It is possible that China gets nothing from these features. Sovereignty over Scarborough and the three Spratly rocks is contested, and the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide questions of sovereignty over islands.

Who will speak for China on the tribunal?

The arbitrators are required to satisfy themselves that the Philippines’ claims are well-grounded in fact and law. They have many means at their disposal to do this. They can access publicly available maps and charts, and scholarly studies of the insular features put in issue by the Philippines. They can hire technical experts to advise them. They can review China’s laws, decrees and announcements and explanations about the nine-dash line, and its other maritime claims in the South China Sea.

Does Foley Hoag worry about offending China?

[In previous legal cases] my Foley Hoag colleagues and I faced a choice: fight for justice, or avoid antagonizing the rich and powerful who could, if we cultivated them instead of suing them, become very profitable clients for the firm. Because we became lawyers to fight for justice, we have never hesitated in making these choices.

What if China simply ignores a judgment that goes against it?

In more than 95% of international cases — litigation and arbitration before various international courts and tribunals — the states comply with the judgment, even if they are unhappy with it. There are at least two reasons for this. First is reputation and the influence that comes with it. The second reason is that many states understand it is to their advantage, and the advantage of others, to live in a rules-based system. Now, in the case of China, we see a country that is a great power that wishes to project its influence across the international community. China also advertises itself as the anti-imperialist great power, in contrast to the U.S., Russia and others. Think of the economic advantages that will accrue to the richest and most powerful nation in the region if these disputes are resolved and investment in resource extraction from the South China Sea begins.

Q&A: Paul Reichler of Law Firm Foley Hoag on Representing Philippines Vs. China Over South China Sea Claims - Southeast Asia Real Time - WSJ

 

[GR!FF!N]

Can Native Indian Bring US to court and win back their land? Can South Tibet and Tibet bring both China and Indian to court and win back their land? This lawsuit has no merit at all.

buddy,are you sure from USA???then you shouldn't ask this question in the red..

read this...

The Sioux have declined to accept the money,[31] because acceptance would legally terminate Sioux demands for return of the Black Hills. The money remains in a Bureau of Indian Affairs account accruing compound interest and as of 2010 the amount is reported to exceed $570 million. As of Aug. 24, 2011 the Sioux interest on their money has compounded to over 1 billion dollars.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


as for Tibet vs China(I don't know why you're dragging India as Tawang became part of India due to Simla Accord as well as Anglo-Russian Accord which Tibet itself signed),China don't recognise Tibet as separate entity.unless we see China being disintegrate like SU,there is very little Chance that Tibet will ever gain independence.

as for Philippines' move to International Arbitration court,its a smart move.if China fight this in court,they'll surely loose(as their claim is so ridiculous).and if they not,Philippines will come victorious and prove to the whole world that China is unfairly claiming those islands/shoals/water.its a win win scenario.China may patrol as much as they wish,but if they loose the case,they'll be seen as an aggressor by the whole world.just like our winning against Pakistan (almost,as they are now claiming conspiracy)shut them up.

 

[Aneso]

Notwithstanding China's commitment to implement Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in South China Sea (DOC) based on the norms of International Law and to formulate and implement the Code of Conduct (COC) as well as to resolve the South China Sea disputes peacefully through negotiations, its policies are working just in the opposite direction escalating tension in the region. The serious implications of its aggressive acts and postures are palpable to all who have interests in the South China Sea (SCS).

China following a well-crafted strategy is systematically moving to establish its control over the area it claims in SCS. As a first step, it formed a Committee of thirteen agencies/departments in February 2012 to fabricate evidence and publicise its claims over the most area in SCS shown through the nine dotted lines. After it made recommendations, China in its new biometric passports projected all the areas in the SCS as belonging to China. These passports also show parts of India as belonging to China. This act of China generated a strong reaction in the neighbouring countries as also in other countries using SCS for trade. While both Vietnam and the Philippines refused to stamp the Chinese travel documents, India began to stamp its own version of the Indian Territory. Jakarta called the Chinese act as counter-productive and the US described these Chinese passports as unhelpful to the resolution of disputes. The second step was the establishment of the prefectural level city of Sansha to administer the Paracel and Spratly Islands in June 2012. Soon after this, China created a military command base there. And as the third step of its strategy, China declared that its police in the Southern Chinese Island of Hainan on the SCS has been authorised to board and search any ship they deem illegal in the "Chinese waters". The new regulations are to be enforced from the 1st January 2013.

All these acts of China are in fact potential triggers for conflicts in the region. China is also continuing with its provocative actions. On 30th November, 2012 Vietnam accused a Chinese fishing boat for cutting the cables of its exploration vessel Binh Minh 02. On expected lines, China on the other hand stated that Vietnam expelled its fishing vessels from its waters. The cutting of cables by China has been criticised even by Chinese security experts like Professor Zhu Feng of International Relations at Peking University. China has also stated that its patrol boats would be around Scarborough Shoal. Such provocative acts can result into a conflict. China is now seen as creator of hurdles in the steps being taken by ASEAN to resolve the issue peacefully. The Chinese reluctance to discuss the issue at multilateral forums continues. The ASEAN July meeting in Cambodia clearly established that China keeps on using its influence on Cambodia, the present Chair of ASEAN to ensure that the SCS disputes are not properly discussed. Even the recent ASEAN Summit reflected that the issue remains hostage to the Chinese policy of not allowing proper discussion and projection of the disputes. The neighbours of China also see that the Chinese modernisation of the armed forces at a break-neck speed is not meant to defend its interests but to threaten them into submission. The recent landing of J 15 on the newly acquired air-craft carrier has alarmed the powers interested in the region. They also note that Chinese official defence budget has crossed $106 bn this year.

The Chinese policies and posture are causing an armed race in the SCS region. While Vietnam and Philippines are looking to acquire arms to counter the Chinese activities, Japan is also re-orienting its defence policy. Outside powers are now becoming more assertive in stating that they intend to protect the freedom of navigation. In addition, they are also guided by their strategic objectives. US not only have Asia pivot policy but are clearly taking steps to protect the US interests by enhancing their presences in this region. The situation can be rightly termed as alarming. The security experts in China's neighbouring nations are getting seriously concerned about the Chinese activities. Their security experts point out that modernisation of the Chinese Navy is a major security concern. They point out that the Chinese rise is not peaceful. They are suggesting that suitable up-gradation of their armed forces is imperative in view of developing security environment.

An assessment of the situation reveal clearly that the Chinese posturing and activities have moved up from being merely "a concern" to "a serious threat" to the region's stability. Such Chinese activities have made the situation highly explosive. Even an unintended incident can act as a trigger for a conflict. Today the South China Sea stands very close to a conflict than ever before. The moot question is whether something can be done at this stage or not to save the world from a conflict. The Chinese leaders, who have great sense for learning from historical experiences, should be able to see that their activities are not in their interests. They are getting marginalised in the International Community. The present policy of International Community of managing and engaging China has limits and the moment China crosses the proverbial Rubicon, the concerned powers would abandon this policy and resort to arms to protect their interests. It may be recalled that before the Second World War, UK had adopted the policy of "Appeasement" which was also followed by France and others to a point but when Hitler's Germany decided to attack Poland, they abandoned it and the war followed. Peace loving people do not like to hear the "sound of cannons" but when it comes to protecting their national interests, they would not mind listening to cancerous sound of guns.

Chinese new leadership which has interest in expanding the trade with ASEAN, should see that these nations provide an excellent market for their products. Another aspect that the Chinese should realise is the fact that the South China Sea disputes are multi-lateral in nature and have to be discussed at multi-lateral forums involving all parties in the disputes. Fortunately there are some experts in China who understand this aspect.

The International Community too has a responsibility in nudging and pressurising all the involved nations to come to an agreement. There had not been sufficient pressure on China to abandon the present posture which is not conducive for peace. The International Community has been in fact whetting the appetite of China by following a policy of inaction. There has been a view amongst the security community that China is testing waters by provocative steps and is gauging the tolerance limit. The time has come that a unified approach is adopted to deal with China. Keeping in view the Chinese economic interests, China would not be able to ignore such an action. The International Community should put pressure on China to stop provocative steps and take steps for the resolution of the issue. There are number of drafts which have been produced by experts for Code of Conduct (COC) for South China Sea. These should be seriously considered rather than waiting for suitable environment. The implementation of an agreed COC would at least ensure that no untoward incident takes place.

The coming India ASEAN meet in the third week of this month would be another opportunity to discuss the South China Sea issue and come up with some reasonable suggestion. It is understood that final resolution may be difficult to arrive at but COC can be evolved for ensuring peace in the region. The India should take a lead in this direction. India has sufficient experience in dealing with China. Despite 15 rounds of talks there has been practically no progress on the border issue. In addition like in the SCS China continues with provocative actions like intruding on the Indian Territory, writing China on the Indian rocks and objecting presence of Indians from the North East India or J&K in military delegations. Two former Special Representatives and former National Security Advisors of India had noted the Chinese game plan. While Sri M.K.Narayanan had stated that China is playing a waiting game, late Sri Brijesh Mishra had pointed out the need to take help of US to resolve all the issues including our interests in the SCS. The recent round of talks clearly indicated the Chinese strategy of not dealing with the issue of the border dispute but avoiding the main issue by projecting that the talks have broader goals of development, mutual cooperation and inclusive growth. In the past Chinese had come up with double meaning guidelines and frameworks. Indian leadership needs to see this clearly and work out a strategy with ASEAN and other nations for the resolution of its border issue and the SCS which is important to all.

By SD Pradhan, The Times of India.

 

[Bienvenido]

Can Native Indian Bring US to court and win back their land? Can South Tibet and Tibet bring both China and Indian to court and win back their land? This lawsuit has no merit at all.

I remember Chinese FM Spokeperson Hong Lei saying that "China has sufficient historical and jurisprudence evidence to support its claim to the Nansha islands, which are located in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters."

I was like really? Come on then why can't you submit yourself to the international arbitration body?

If you are a responsible member of the international community, then you should not turn your back but rather face the accusation you are claiming to be false, and prove that it is indeed false. Am I right?

 

[Bienvenido]

This lawsuit has no merit at all.

Does this mean that if a Neanderthal comes out now and say "I own the world because me and my forefathers was the first one to walk the earth" would make them owner of 5 continent? Can Armstrong say I own the moon because historically I was the first man to walk on it. Things must be governed by rule of law and not a greed.

 

[northeast]

What can a toothless western puppet tribunal do to china today.I think we have made it clear that we legally own the SCS and we don't give a **** about what westerners think.This whole tribunal thing is only a joke that even more funnier than the so call UN army got beaten upside down in NK，this time they don't even have the guts to form an army，lol.