South China Sea Forum

[JSCh]

Third cruise liner to sail in South China Sea
Xinhua 2016-12-26 19:39:33

A file photo of cruise ship "Changle Princess" [Photo: Chinanews.com]​

A Chinese company will soon add another cruise ship to sail around the Xisha islands in the South China Sea, bringing the number of regular cruise ships in the region to three.

The Changle Princess, a 126.6-meter-long, 20.5-meter-wide cruise liner, will begin its maiden tour in March 2017. It is built to carry a maximum of 1,000 people and features bars, dance floors, cafes, tea rooms, shops, and reading rooms. The ship can ferry private cars for tourists who want to drive on the islands, according to operator Hainan Strait Shipping Co., Ltd.

The ship will depart from the city of Sanya in Hainan and make a loop around the islands in Xisha. A typical four-night package will take tourists to the beaches on Yinyu, Quanfu, and Yagong islands, and activities such as diving, fishing, and photography will be available.

Hainan Strait Shipping Co. Ltd. launched the first tourist cruise ship in 2013. It has set sail 121 times, carrying a total of 23,000 tourists. Another company, Nanhai Cruises Company, says it will start operating a second cruise liner, the Nanhai Zhi Meng, later this month.

All three will sail the same route.

The Xisha Islands are a cluster of islets, sandbanks and reefs in the South China Sea. China established the municipality of Sansha in the region in 2012, with its government office on Yongxing island. The municipal government plans to make tourism Sansha's main industry, taking advantage of the area's pristine white sand beaches and breathtaking ocean views.

 

[TaiShang]

Construction of South China Sea Museum in progress
(People's Daily Online) December 27, 2016


Photo taken on Dec. 26 shows the South China Sea Museum in Qionghai, Hainan province. The museum combines modern elements with Hainan’s traditional characteristics, and resembles the boat houses of the Li people in Hainan.

The museum’s construction began in November 2015. It is set to open in March 2017. Covering 10 hectares, the institution will display artifacts related to the history, culture and natural resources of the South China Sea, highlighting China's sovereignty over the sea and the protection of cultural heritage, according to Ding Hui, head of the Culture Department of Hainan's provincial government.

 

[cochine]

East Sea: How can China's irrational arguments be disposed of?

VietNamNet Bridge - This article points out the absurdity of the arguments of China and pro-China scholars against the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s (PCA) ruling.

A photo taken by satellite


Since the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (hereinafter called the "Court of Arbitration") was formally established [1] after the Philippines filled the case against Chinauntil the final ruling was released on July 12, 2016, China has repeatedly stated it rejected the PCA’s ruling and the legal effect of the ruling.

This article discusses the arguments of China and pro-China scholars against the PCA’s ruling and points out why these arguments are unfounded in UNCLOS in particular and in international law in general.

Argument 1: Exceptions of historic rights

The Philippines requested the Court of Arbitration to rule on the legal validity of the nine-dotted line and the historic rights of China in the East Sea (internationally known as the South China Sea) [2]. China said that this requirement directly related to its historic rights in the East Sea, in the exceptions outlined in UNCLOS 1982. Therefore, the Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction to resolve the issues raised in the Philippines’ complaints.

In the ruling on jurisdiction dated October 29th 2015, the Court of Arbitration reserved, did not make a decision about the Court of Arbitration’s jurisdiction for this issue [3]. On Juily 12th 2016, in the final ruling, the Court of Arbitration not only declared its jurisdiction to consider this issue, but also rejected the entire claim on the historic rights of China in the East Sea, confirming the worthless in terms of law of the nine-dashed line [4].

China has repeatedly denied the Court of Arbitration’s ruling. Photo: Pca-cpa.org


According to the Court of Arbitration, the exception provided in Article 298 of UNCLOS aims to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for disputes relating to "historic bays" or "historic title", and the request of the Philippines does not lie within the scope of this exception.

Firstly, the East Sea is not a gulf, whether geographically or legally [5]. Secondly, from China's behavior in the East Sea (issuing a ban on fishing, oil and gas exploration and claims to respect freedom of navigation and freedom of aviation), the Court of Arbitration concluded that the nature of the nine-dashed line of China in the East Sea is China's historic rights to the mineral resources here [6].

The concept of "historical rights" is not synonymous with "historic title" which is defined in Article 298. Historic title is attached to the sovereignty of a country for certain waters during a long time and must be reflected in the exclusive control of that country.

Besides, the Court of Arbitration also stressed that the historic title of nations must not be opposed by other countries.

Thus, from China's behavior in the East Sea, the Court concluded that China’s claims through the nine-dotted line can be considered as statements about historic rights and cannot be seen as China’s claims of historic title here. So this claim of China is not an exception that is provided in Article 298 of UNCLOS [7].

Related to the issue of legal value of China’s claims of historic rights through the nine-dotted line, the Court of Arbitration found that the historical rights over the exploitation of biological and mineral resources have been identified in the course of construction of UNCLOS.

So, while the concept of "historical rights" exist in the international law of the sea, but when nations became members of UNCLOS, they have abandoned historical rights to waters to accept the rights of coastal nations for the resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf as established under the provisions of the Convention [8].

At the same time, the Court of Arbitration also analyzed the provisions of UNCLOS on the sovereign rights and jurisdiction right of coastal states in the EEZ and the continental shelf and asserted that these rights are not synonymous with the concept of "historical rights" formed before the Convention came into force [9].

On that basis, the Court of Arbitration affirmed that the UNCLOS only allows the member states to have sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the resources within their EEZ and continental shelf. Therefore, the so-called "historical rights" that China claimed is completely inconsistent with UNCLOS. Since then, the Court of Arbitration asserted that China’s nine-dotted claim in the East Sea has no legal value [10].

Argument 2: China has exception of sovereignty over the features in Truong Sa (Spratly Islands)

Photo taken from a satellite on the current state of the Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands: The Guardian/VietnamPlus


In the petition submitted to the Court of Arbitration, the Philippines requested the Court to clarify the legal nature of the eight features in the Spratly Islands as islands, reefs or low-tide elevations. According to China, this issue is related to the determination of sovereignty over the features and relevant to the delimitation of the waters in the Spratlys.

China said that under the provisions of UNCLOS, the Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction to resolve both issues. However, in the PCA’s ruling on the jurisdiction, the Court of Arbitration confirmed a dispute can include many different legal issues, so if one or several issues are out of the Court's jurisdiction it does not affect its jurisdiction over the remaining issues [11]. This view has repeatedly been confirmed by international courts in the previous legal cases [12].

Since the determination of the legal nature of the features in the Spratly Islands is the interpretation and application of Article 13 and Article 121 of UNCLOS, the Court of Arbitration should is fully competent to solve this problem.

In the ruling dated July 12th 2016, the Court of Arbitration made an extremely important decision on the legal nature of not only the eight features requested by the Philippines. Accordingly, after considering the most reliable evidence in terms of geography, geology and geomorphology, the Court of Arbitration confirmed that no feature in the Spralty Islands has enough elements to be considered "islands" as stipulated in Article 121 of UNCLOS [13].

This conclusion means that no island of the Spratly Islands that allows China to have the exclusive economic zone. Since then, the ruling indirectly eliminates China's territorial claims over the features that the Philippines mentioned in its case.

Pham Ngoc Minh Trang

 

[samsara]

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.

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/snhwtlcwj_1/t1379493.htm


* * * * * * * * * * * *


China opens S China Sea website
(Xinhua) Updated: 2016-08-04

BEIJING - China on Wednesday opened a website on the South China Sea, complete with historical maps, articles and research, according to the State Oceanic Administration (SOA).

Run by the National Marine Data & Information Service, the Chinese language site has 10 sections that cover basic information, news, historical archives, development and management, expert opinion, law and regulations, a timeline of major events, pictures and videos and Q&A.

"The South China Sea has drawn huge attention, but some information online is not accurate," said Zhang Haiwen, SOA official in charge of international cooperation. "We hope that this website will enable domestic and overseas people to better understand it and learn about the truth behind the 'dispute' over it."

According to Zhang, the website contains not only maps and archives but also exclusive analysis and expository articles based on experts' research of thousands of maps.

Zhang cited that a map often used by Vietnam to prove that it owned the Xisha Islands was actually pieced together by two maps, which have already been obtained by experts and might be used to refute the country's claim.

Zhang said new findings will be published on the website once verified.

According to the SOA, information on the website must first be reviewed by an expert panel and be "comprehensive, authoritative, detailed and accurate."

"The website is founded with the aim of positively publicizing our policies, claims, historical proof, legal basis and international cooperation while serving as a reliable channel for domestic and overseas government departments, research groups and individuals to learn about the South China Sea," said SOA spokesman Shi Qingfeng.

The website has now six domain names, including www.thesouthchinasea.org and www.china-nanhai.org, due to "information unification and security concerns," according to the SOA.

-----

Cross-posted at South Front: China Launches Website to Justify South China Sea Claims
https://southfront.org/china-launches-website-to-justify-south-china-sea-claims/


Other references:

History and law back China's sovereignty | Document | China Daily
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2016-07/14/content_26088896.htm

The South China Sea Issue_CCTV.com English
http://english.cctv.com/special/southchinasea/

South China Sea Arbitration
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/special/SouthChinaSea/

NISCS - National Institute for South China Sea Studies
http://en.nanhai.org.cn/

 

[cochine]

Last update 15:18 | 02/11/2016

Chinese officials cannot incessantly talk about 'the nine-dash line'

VietNamNet Bridge – International experts said that the recent ruling released by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has strongly changed debate on the issue of the East Sea, especially among Chinese scholars and officials.

China’s illegal runway on the Fiery Cross reef in Vietnam’s Truong Sa (Spratly Islands). Photo: CSIS





The dispute resolution measures provided under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other legal frameworks should be considered an important measure (besides political and diplomatic measures) to solve territorial water disputes. More importantly, when a ruling is issued by the fair and reputable judges, it should be obeyed by state members. This is the view that was emphasized in both important events related to the East Sea (internationally known as the South China Sea) last week [1].

Powerful impact

In July, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was established under the petition of the Philippines government. It released a ruling consisting of 3 main groups of contents.

Firstly, the Court of Arbitration rejected the claim of historic rights and sovereignty claims of China’s 9-dash line.

Secondly, the Court of Arbitration declared that all the features in the Spratlys Islands have not reached the legal status of an "island", meaning that no feature shall enjoy the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles.

Thirdly, the Court of Arbitration considered the actions of China not military operations and violating several provisions of the UNCLOS, exacerbating the tensions in the East Sea.

International experts said that the recent ruling released by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has strongly changed debates on the issue of the East Sea, especially Chinese scholars and officials.

They no longer have the right to criticize other countries and claim China’s "indisputable sovereignty" in the waters within the "nine-dash line". This line has been completely erased from the international map.

Regarding the legal field, MSc. Pham Ngoc Minh Trang, a lecturer of the Faculty of International Relations, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, HCM City, also referred to several cases in which a country did not participate in and did not comply with the Court's ruling: Nicaragua's case with the US, which was the party that refused to participate in (1986), and most recently the lawsuit between the Netherlands with Russia, in which Russia behaved like China today. However, Russia still adhered to the final judgment of the Court.

Conduct of the countries in the absence of compliance with the ruling (especially China) will create a very bad precedent for that country itself.

Because later on, if China wants to sue a country in the International Court, the defendant can possibly behave in the "Chinese style" and not attend the hearing, causing difficulty for China when it wants to be protected by international law - MSc. Minh Trang analyzed.

The East Sea cooperation after the lawsuit

Through the main conflicts related to oil exploration in the East Sea (2007 in the Hoang Sa – Paracels Islands, 2011 in Truong Sa – Spratly Islands and in 2012 at the South mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin), scholar Kathrin Reed, researcher at the Institute of Peace and Cooperation of Cambodia, insisted that the conflicts are only a part, and does not occupy a dominant role, making the East Sea dispute as the opinion of many researchers.

In other words, the East Sea conflict cannot be interpreted by any single factor of natural resources, trade and sovereignty ... but by a comprehensive view. If only focusing on one element and ignoring other factors, leading to single methods of settlement, it will not help terminate the current instability in the East Sea.

This scholar said, focusing on the relationship of the Southeast Asian countries with China will mean both acknowledging and upholding the ruling of the PCA, and at the same time wanting to use it to fight with China.

Meanwhile, Southeast Asia needs to urgently work with the United States and other partners - including Japan, India and Australia - to convince Chinese leaders about the value of the stable relationship of China with the region.

Dr. Felix Heiduk, from the Institute for International and Security Policy Studies of Germany, commented on the security dilemma that is appearing in the East Sea and the increased uncertainty for all parties on all aspects of law, military, diplomacy and economics.

Fisheries, fishing management and maintenance of traditional fishing grounds have a very important role in the economy and food security of China but they have not been discussed much on the media.

Dr. Felix also stressed the central role of ASEAN in addressing and governing East Sea disputes, especially after the ruling of the Court of Arbitration on July 12th.

Reliable and smart solutions will be required by all parties to prevent local conflicts turning into large-scale armed conflicts as well as to prevent aggression from the claimants.

This solution has the broad support from the Southeast Asian countries in the presence of the US military in the East Sea, as well as the current support of this country and its allies to boost marine surveillance and defense capability of claimants like the Philippines.

During the discussion session, international scholars made different assessments of the impact on policies of the ruling of the Court of Arbitration which was established under Annex VII of UNCLOS.

Scholars said that the ruling of the Court of Arbitration actually had a positive impact on the regional situation, and whether the impact is not the same for all parties, it will create more opportunities for solving the East Sea conflicts in the direction of peace, stability and equitable development in the region.

Tran Thang

[1] The seminar "Update on the East Sea 2016" held by the Center for International Studies (SCIS) and the Centre for Strategy and National Policy Studies (CSS), University of Social Sciences and Humanities, HCM City and international seminar "The legal issues related to the ruling of the Court of Arbitration established under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982" held by the HCM City University of Law in collaboration with the Association of Vietnam Lawyers.

 

[TaiShang]

@kecho , bro, please take a look. PH wants you to sacrifice yourself because they decided to get along with China.

**

China’s Artificial Islands No Cause for Concern in Philippines – Duterte
29.12.2016


Rodrigo Duterte, the president of Philippines stated that China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea waters were not a cause of concern for Philippines.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The president of Philippines said Thursday he did not regard China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea waters as a cause for serious concern and suggested Washington could take the issue in its own hands. Asked if China’s manmade islands were a cause for concern, Rodrigo Duterte told CNN Philippines, "No, because if it really were a serious concern, the US should lead the way and stop it right in the beginning."

...

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201612291049096794-philippines-china-duterte/

 

[cochine]

@kecho , bro, please take a look. PH wants you to sacrifice yourself because they decided to get along with China.

**

China’s Artificial Islands No Cause for Concern in Philippines – Duterte
29.12.2016


Rodrigo Duterte, the president of Philippines stated that China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea waters were not a cause of concern for Philippines.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The president of Philippines said Thursday he did not regard China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea waters as a cause for serious concern and suggested Washington could take the issue in its own hands. Asked if China’s manmade islands were a cause for concern, Rodrigo Duterte told CNN Philippines, "No, because if it really were a serious concern, the US should lead the way and stop it right in the beginning."

...

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201612291049096794-philippines-china-duterte/

Nothing special and serious bro, same what China did in Vietnam war, when China shooken hands and get along with Uncle Sam from 1972. Other than Durtete is very naive, his term is not forever..

 

[TaiShang]

China to release environmental forecasts on three Nansha reefs from Jan. 1
Xinhua, December 31, 2016

The State Oceanic Administration (SOA) announced Saturday that forecasts on the marine environment of three reefs in the Nansha Islands will be released from Sunday.

Forecasts for waves, tides, ocean temperatures, winds and tropical cyclones, as well as warnings of marine disasters will be posted daily on nh.hyyb.org.

The SOA has carried out five projects on the Yongshu, Meiji and Zhubi reefs, including marine observation centers and marine research facilities, in order to meet growing demands for services regarding marine environmental protection in the South China Sea, including research and navigation safety.

Marine meteorological monitoring, hydrological observation and routine marine environmental monitoring on the reefs will start on the first day of 2017, the SOA said.

Tsunami and seismic observation, along with special marine environmental monitoring activities, is expected to follow.

The SOA's development of a marine observation and early warning network and its monitoring activities will significantly improve marine environmental protection, island surveillance and monitoring, oceanographic survey and research, as well as disaster prevention and mitigation, an SOA official said.

The development of marine observation and forecasting on Nansha reefs is of much value in the peaceful exploitation and use of marine resources in the South China Sea, and for China's fulfillment of international responsibilities and obligations of environmental protection in the region, the official said.

The move will also boost the social and economic development of China and countries around, the official added.

**

And they say China militarizes its own islands? How clueless...

 

[Globenim]

In this case -- it does.
The goal of providing proof of ownership is not to show proof of ownership but to convince others that, if they have contesting/challenging claims to the same item, their claims are inferior to yours.

...

We know why you pretend to have contradicting proof, deny history, fabricate lies, act dishonest, biased ignorant and what you try to achieve with it. Your longwinded justification to push your propaganda doesn't change the fact your propaganda is building on these false premises. That just flags you as yet another liar, idiot or ignorant.

Our ownership does not disappear by your denial.

Don't come at us with propganda or excuses based on the premise of denied ownership and expect anyone but the other U.S. cheerleader to go along with it. This subject is not up to debate. Only drivel written for naive and ignorant masses makes it seems like it could be argued, to emotionally ready and convince their own foolish masses into alegiance, not to convince others. It only changes by force or trade, not some dumb reinterpretations and denial of history books and maps and crafty words spins spammed by Vietnamese forum trolls.

That is not the point.

Oh it was. You made unambigous claims about policing and norms in your host nations society that are simply wrong and should sound stupid to anyone who hasn't spend his entire life in a barn in the mountains or desert. What you falsely claim he missed to say bears no relevance. You blew it all by yourself.

The argument from your fellow Chinese said nothing about notifying anyone, simply that if an item is unattended, it is free to be possessed, or at least control, by anyone.

First of his argument wasn't that any arbitrary "item" could be possessed or controlled by "anyone" merely when being "unattended". Actually he didn't say anything similar and general like this at all. This is the relevant section of his post:

If you throw something on the ground in a public area, is the next guy picking it up stealing? And if you leave your car unattended on the road, does the police not have the power to tow it away? China is exercising its administrative right in the water it claims, and an unmanned drone would not enjoy the same immunity a flagged warship does.

Thats a) a statement about sweeping ignorant accussation of "theft" simply for picking up something abondoned in a public space, where its completely normal for authorities to pick up stuff they consider abondoned or displaced at their own discretion, not the one of the actual owner if there even is one, b) a very explicit example of unnattended car on a road and police reaction that lead to your flawed analogies, c) the inequality of an [unflagged] unmanned drone and a flagged warshipped that justifies different treatment like for the U.S. toy drone. These flaws of ambiguity and generalization your are playing on are your craft, not his.

Secondly, just because you drop common sense over board, arguments of others you reply to are not becoming flawed or incomplete. No one needs to add every detail nessessary to dismiss every hypothetical flawed excuses like yours, when common sense and context cover them and makes them redundant to mention or make them completely unrelated to the discussion. Like that the minimum China will obviously expect is a notification in respect of customs and laws before your are sending suspiscious submerged unflagged toys into our administered waters with some silly "dont pick this up" labels. Not mentioning that doesn't even remotely justify the silly analogy of yours to Baidus unmanned cars roaming in China or those alleged freedoms (that don't even exist) of tossing you car around everywhere you want without anyones interference ever not even police in your host countries society .

You just try to misconstrue the entire argument now to make loopholes for more of your silly excuses. And thats a really pathetic tradition linking to post and sources while paraphrasing them to an extend they barely resemble the orginal in hope no one would notice. So is trying to shift the blame after your silly replies blew up.

Our UUV was deployed into the ocean wild.

There is no authority figure to notify that it belongs to US. Therefore, common sense takes over. If you see markings on the UUV, clearly common sense suggests that the thing belongs to someone whether it is unattended or not, and you should either leave it alone or at least try to return it to the owner, if you can find him.

China did not exercise common sense. China simply took our UUV right in our plain sight. China was a thief.

Oh yes there is an authority figure. The one that fished your clutter out of our administered waters. Your continous denial doesn't make it disappear. Common sense says respect our laws and customs or deal with the consequences when playing Pirate of the Chinese Sea. That applies to civil as well as your U.S. navy "civil" vessels.

Saves you all the embarassment and efforts to fabricate excuses when it doesn't work out as expected and cheerleaders can't tout "U.S. navy stands up to China and conducted exercises with submerged drones near not-Chinese not-islands while China did nothing! Papertiger!" as you would have obviously prefered.

This event happened inside Subic Bay. Are you denying that ?

Subic Bay isn't the entire South Chinese Sea. Are you denying that? See everyone can formulate inappropiate, stupid, ambigous, missleading and loaded questions, intentionally missing and dodging the point and playing at false premises at ever occassion like you.

These U.S. sphere media propaganda spins you are playing at are only be scoffed at and are not worth to be denied. They are written for their own ignorants and fools. Just the usual loopsided propaganda spins the U.S. media produces. Olds "news" to us. Like the regular beating on the proximity of Philipines to Chinas islands to dispute our sovereignty, while they hold on islands like Guam them self or complaining about Iranian coast guard proximity in the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately for you we lack the clientele to fall for these spins here so think of some smarter replies.

The event happend close to Chinese administered islands and in Chinese administered waters and the proximity of the comparatively hardly even close U.S. related places your propaganda machine puts all over the headlines to fool ignorant sheep with an incomplete missleading picture, becomes thus in combination with the appearance of the submerged object practically irrelevant. Argue the reality or just parrot your propaganda but then dont pretend you are actually replying to me.

I am treating you like an adult, which is more than you deserve.

Another Gambit post ending with these snotty brat retorts... some day even you will see the irony.

 

[gambit]

Our ownership does not disappear by your denial.

Ownership is ultimately by consensus.

When there is a community, inevitably there will be contesting claims on things. Any thing. If you are by yourself in the wild, you can 'claim' anything you want and voila, it is yours. Except, not really. It is not yours until someone else come along and try to make a claim on that same thing and in one way or another, he was discouraged from continuing his claim on that thing.

How many times have people on this forum declared that North America belongs to the Natives and not to 'invading' white Europeans ?

Put aside the legalism for now. The fact that people make that statement, regardless of their hostility to the US, means exactly what have always been acknowledged, that ownership is ultimately by consensus. These people disagreed with the current situation that North America belongs to the 'Americans'. There is no consensus, in their minds.

The historical evidences that China brought on to claim the entirety of the SCS have been found unconvincing. There is no consensus, ergo, there is no ownership.

Thats a) a statement about sweeping ignorant accussation of "theft" simply for picking up something abondoned in a public space, where its completely normal for authorities to pick up stuff they consider abondoned or displaced at their own discretion, not the one of the actual owner if there even is one, b) a very explicit example of unnattended car on a road and police reaction that lead to your flawed analogies, c) the inequality of an [unflagged] unmanned drone and a flagged warshipped that justifies different treatment like for the U.S. toy drone. These flaws of ambiguity and generalization your are playing on are your craft, not his.

But it is his fault.

Your entire argument/defense of his post can and will be destroyed by the history of the event.

Yes, the police, or anyone for that matter, can pick up any unattended item by virtue of perception that said item is seemingly 'abandoned'.

But that is not what happened...

The Chinese ship have been stalking the Bowditch -- FOR DAYS.

The Chinese ship knew exactly who owns that UUV. Just because it is unattached to the mothership, that does not mean it has no owner. No different than a child unattached -- by hands -- to mother does not mean the child belongs to no family. In my neighborhood, children routinely leave their toys, from bicycles to teddy bears, on my front yard. I leave them alone. The next day, those items will be gone. That is how friendly relations works. I do not need to find out who owns what in my front yard. I know that those things have their owners and they will be removed by those owners.

The Chinese ship have been stalking the Bowditch -- FOR DAYS. The Chinese ship knew the Bowditch's daily operations and most likely schedule down to the hour. There is no way the Chinese ship is ignorant of who owns the UUV in order for your friend's and your arguments to be valid.

If Baidu notified the police of their unattended vehicles roaming the city, then it is absurd to argue that those vehicles have no owner, right ?

But by observing who operates the UUV or that driverless car, that is the equivalent of its owner notifying the observer that 'I am the owner'. Surely not even the Chinese police is that stupid.

Do you deny the fact that the Chinese ship were stalking the Bowditch for days, therefore, knew the Bowditch's daily operations ?

Secondly, just because you drop common sense over board, arguments of others you reply to are not becoming flawed or incomplete.

Actually, YOU did so dropped when you deny the history of the event.

Oh yes there is an authority figure. The one that fished your clutter out of our administered waters. Your continous denial doesn't make it disappear.

Authority, just like ownership, is ultimately by consensus. Either you submit to overwhelming force or you vote. In the end, you will have a leader. Consensus.

The immediate community neither submitted nor voted China to be the authority figure regarding the SCS. They submitted to UNCLOS and that convention denied China's claim to the entirety of the SCS.

Subic Bay isn't the entire South Chinese Sea. Are you denying that?

Where did I even implied such ?

Even now, you continues to evade the fact that the event happened far away from China, unless the Philippines belongs to China.

The Chinese ship stalked the Bowditch for days, observed its daily operations, and took the UUV in sight of the Bowditch, who was preparing a recovery process of the UUV.

That is theft.

 

[Viet]

The Chinese claim the sea as theirs based on one sentence: we are the first who discover and name the sea. End of discussion. Saying such statement as rediculous is an understatement. Normally someone needs to check their mental condition.

 

[UMNOPutra]

The Chinese claim the sea as theirs based on one sentence: we are the first who discover and name the sea. End of discussion. Saying such statement as rediculous is an understatement. Normally someone needs to check their mental condition.

Other countries can also do the same thing at SCS if they have also capabilities like China to realize their claim ... If not ...we have to accept it as our destiny as Malaysia did ..

 

[terranMarine]

Other countries can also do the same thing at SCS if they have also capabilities like China to realize their claim ... If not ...we have to accept it as our destiny as Malaysia did ..

He refuses to accept this fate thus he wishes the Americans to stick around in SCS, keep dreaming the Yankees will give Vietnam state of the art modern destroyers and having an arms race with China to become the next China. Plus he was trying to tell us some retired PLA general told some German newspaper Vietnam is the biggest threat to China and he actually believe it himself But somewhere deep in his mind he knows China is and will always be the big boss of Asia. I can smell the fear in him from miles away, it's boring watching him trying to present Vietcongs as fearless fighting machine but not stupid enough to attack or wage war against China image here all the time. "We are brave but not stupid"

 

[cochine]

China to release environmental forecasts on three Nansha reefs from Jan. 1
Xinhua, December 31, 2016

The State Oceanic Administration (SOA) announced Saturday that forecasts on the marine environment of three reefs in the Nansha Islands will be released from Sunday.

Forecasts for waves, tides, ocean temperatures, winds and tropical cyclones, as well as warnings of marine disasters will be posted daily on nh.hyyb.org.

The SOA has carried out five projects on the Yongshu, Meiji and Zhubi reefs, including marine observation centers and marine research facilities, in order to meet growing demands for services regarding marine environmental protection in the South China Sea, including research and navigation safety.

Marine meteorological monitoring, hydrological observation and routine marine environmental monitoring on the reefs will start on the first day of 2017, the SOA said.

Tsunami and seismic observation, along with special marine environmental monitoring activities, is expected to follow.

The SOA's development of a marine observation and early warning network and its monitoring activities will significantly improve marine environmental protection, island surveillance and monitoring, oceanographic survey and research, as well as disaster prevention and mitigation, an SOA official said.

The development of marine observation and forecasting on Nansha reefs is of much value in the peaceful exploitation and use of marine resources in the South China Sea, and for China's fulfillment of international responsibilities and obligations of environmental protection in the region, the official said.

The move will also boost the social and economic development of China and countries around, the official added.

**

And they say China militarizes its own islands? How clueless...

Vietnam did it long time ago.

 

[Cybernetics]

I personally would prefer if there were more positive discussions and less normative discussions. As normative discussions are relative and each side has experienced history differently thus have differing views, and we should respect that. I don't believe there is a right or wrong (from a macro historical perspective) when it comes to any issue, only what is and what you desire.

This is a defense forum and I hope to see more discussions from a geopolitical lens. Historical views (not necessarily historical realities) of a particular topic are respectable but quite irrelevant when it comes to helping us understand geopolitical realities. Desires may be historical but realities are not. When discussing the issue of SCS I see normative discussions to be an endless back and forth (often emotionally charged) due to tricky technicalities (we all have common history). Normative statements' purpose is only to establish an open claim for future generations to fight over or to deter future adversaries from making a claim once physical control has been established (else they will be seen as disturbing an established order).

I see China, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Philippines's historical control or view over SCS as irrelevant. For China present conditions dictate the importance of the region through a few factors such as: breaking containment, securing trade routes, energy deposits, and strategic depth to list a few. China had historical control of certain central Asian territories as well as the part of the Far East but why does China choose to make a big fuss out of SCS currently and not those mentioned territories (even though some may believe those to be historical territories)? Because they don't serve the current realities very well. If we look only at historical views we will never understand what will happen or the nature of the situation. Many have miss judged the reaction of China to Philippines when they chose to de-escalate confrontations. China opened these waters to Filipino fishermen. Why? Doesn't China say the waters are their sovereign waters? You must realize its a guise for China to peruse its core interests since the reality is China didn't build the current international order so it must operate under the language of the current order. It doesn't really care about disrupting the lives of fishermen or securing all the oil but it does care about strategic depth and security much like how the US managed to remove all great powers's influence from the Caribbeans in the 19th century but allowed colonial powers to keep their island assets, China views it the same way.

In the eyes of the universe no one is right, only who has might.