To Jeremy 1998
The sovereignty of South China Sea within the 9 dash line is China’s undisputable territory (thousands of years before the independent day of US of A), China never CLAIM anything that belongs to China according to the link you provided (someone might claim your money in your pocket is theirs). It is the trouble maker make a claim on behalf of some countries in frustration and in the name of National interest, that this trouble maker lost grip in Europe; Mediterranean Middle East; Taiwan striate and unwelcome to visit Hong Kong.
China peacefully sorted out the boundary issue with Korea; Russia; Mongolia; Kazakhstan; Afghanistan; Tajikistan; Pakistan; Nepal; Bhutan; Myanmar and Lao.
Bilateral negotiation will peacefully create a WIN WIN situation that the Sabre Rattling “third party” unwilling to see.
It seems unfair that the "nine-dash line" delineates most of the South China Sea,which China claims, but not all the thing are fair, just like the variety of the land a countries can own, which's based on lots of history factors. After the arbitration award, Chinese government make a claim; I got it from China Daily, a mouthpiece of the government:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016scsi/2016-07/12/content_26062135.htm
In brief, there are five points in the statement:
First, China's sovereignty and Maritime right has the decent historical evidence.
Second, China's claim have legal bases, both domestic and international,even accepted by the countries involved.
Third, the contents of China's maritime rights.
Fourth, the way China has long argue to follow to settle these problem: peaceful and fair bilateral negotiations.
Fifth, China protects the freedom of navigation and overflight.
Based on the article and other relevant information. On the on hand, we have to make clear that the PCA has made a unfair award , at least it's inappropriate. On the other hand, we have to accept China still considerably lack enough awareness of the importance of International rules. The UNCLOS was hammered out with the attendance of PRC, it could have chances to set some items in its interest, and for the tribunal today, it could have choose to join and use legitimate projects to turn the tide or postpone the ruling ,turning to the way of bilateral negotiation ,the sole way it has long strongly argue to avoid such a embarrassing state today. China still have a long way to go from being a fully-fledged in a world filled with game rules set by the west. Learn and change them if possible, or there will be failures forward.
It's a pity that China shows the same early signs of hubris that seem to be associated with superpower status. The US, Russia and in earlier ages Britain, Japan and Germany have all shown that once a certain status has been achieved in world politics, international agreements and regulations must be flouted. China could have been a harbinger of a new inclusive world-order, instead it has proven it wants to impose its will on others. A missed opportunity for a country that publicly denounces imperialism, but has now set course to becoming an imperialist itself.
China's exercise of its claims in the South China Sea is simply Beijing re-exercising control over islands which China was previously too weak to control.
Following WWII, the US Navy patrolled the South China Sea because China was too weak but, in imperial times, what are now Vietnam and the Philippines were all Chinese tributary states. They would all offer gifts to the Chinese emperor every year, and the Chinese emperor would let them run their countries as they saw fit. The Chinese always allowed free trade and transport in the region.
China is now saying that since it is back and is powerful again, it is natural that it will make moves to restore its control over lands and seas it considers to be its own territory.
What appears to Americans as a suddenly aggressive move really should not be considered as such. The US should have expected this to happen ever since China's economy started to take off. It was just a question of when.
"too weak to control" is simply an admission of no control. This is precisely how the arbitral tribunal ruled: China did not have control, whatever the reason.
By the argument that "what are now Vietnam and the Philippines were all Chinese tributary states. ... and the Chinese emperor would let them run their countries as they saw fit.", China can now exert sovereignty over them by "historic claims".
The only thing china will understand is force. The admiral with the ruling in his back pocket should park the US carriers near the rocks and wait for them.
Speak for yourself. Do you think the US and its admiral will understand any other "thing"?
China is dying to use their new toys. Just watch CCTV 4 and BTV and you will see how they are preparing a confrontation. We got two carrier group in the area . Lets wait that they do the first move and then lets wipe out their entire fleet.
This article is misleading and full of bias
You should be more concerned about the China dictatorship's misleading, biased, and legally unsupported Nine Dash LIE.
You're concerned about a TE article. Commie China's neighbors are concerned about the gangster dictatorship's criminal theft of the SCS.
Agree. Wonder who is the BS editor.
"..(China) will be elevating brute force over international law as the arbiter of disputes among states."
Quite shocking. Maybe China should learn something from peaceful nations such as the US.
The author's logic is simple: Every country should follow the rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, provided The Economist agrees with them.
Similar 'international rulings' have been rejected by the US (against Nicaragua), by the UK (against Argentina) and by Japan (against Australia) when the court decided against them. These cases are well documented. And yet - it is China that must "accept" the ruling.
The Economist's reporters are simple people - they like to differentiate countries into goodies and baadies. Calling this author a foolish journalist would be a category error, for he (or she) can hardly be called a journalist. Rather, such correspondents are useful idiots for the US and its allies, who simply want the South China Sea turned into an American lake.
It is also far from clear that America is "deeply reluctant to risk a conflict". Since World War II, the superpower has been engaged in the following (link):
1. Attempting to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of them democratically-elected.
2. Attempting to suppress a populist or national movement in 20 countries.
3. Grossly interfering in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
4. Dropping bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
5. Attempting to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
"Guarantor of peace" indeed. Asking the US to maintain peace is like asking a terrorist to head the FBI.
This ruling (by an arbitrary court which has nothing to do with the UN) is an excellent excuse for the US and other countries to portray China as the troublemaker, a country whose military hasn't fired a single shot since 1979. The American military, on the other hand, has been constantly engaged in conflict since WW II. It has 50,000 troops stationed in Japan and another 30,000 in South Korea. It has surrounded China with its treaty allies: Japan, S. Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, and Australia.
America WANTS a "rules-based order", because it is America that creates the rules and can lobby other countries to do so as well. It is no surprise that the US wants China to follow international law. The Economist and other newspapers have been rather successful in portraying it as a "China vs the rest" situation, ignoring the fact that other countries have overlapping claims too. Many such claims are also based on historical factors and not UNCLOS.
It is indeed rather interesting that this newspaper has never, ever - without exception - actually questioned America's stance. Words such as "assertive", "belligerent", pandering to "nationalism", "chest-thumping" etc. are used about China, but no such language is used against the US, a country that is interfering in disputes on the other side of the globe, not to mention not having ratified the UNCLOS yet. America's interference is treated almost as something biblical - a fait accompli and something benevolent that shouldn't ever be questioned. (See article)
It is no coincidence that wherever the US goes, death and destruction follows. And China is certainly not going to tolerate the US fostering enmity and muddying waters in its backyard. In fact, China is very much the opposite of the US, and its stance is clearly seen in the way it has settled its land border disputes (article) with neighboring countries. China's behavior in its territorial disputes bears directly to the future of stability in Asia, which is in stark contrast to America's attitude: establishing military bases and alliances around the region and encircling China.
- Maitreya
http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/
well said, can't agree more.
Your "what about" deflection is totally irrelevant.
The US isn't stealing the SCS; the Chinese dictatorship is stealing the SCS.
The dictatorship's theft is based on a legally meritless Nine Dash Line which is a laughable fiction.
Does the author know the fact that this tribunal is not an international institution, different from International Court of Justice? this institution is temporary. How can its award be legitimate? The author's article confuses the public with his own political views. Unfair and inappropriate!
A good start would be for the US to accede to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Until America does so, it is simply inviting China to assert similar exceptionalism.
A good start would be for you to realize the Chinese dictatorship is stealing the SCS, not the US.
But nice try at "what about" deflection.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/china-reasserts-claims-over-sou...
Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin released a white paper on Wednesday reiterating China's historical and legal claims to the disputed islands, defiantly ignoring Tuesday's ruling.
But he went further, saying the five judges were out of touch with the issues because they all live in Europe, and then questioning if they were swayed by money.
"These judges are paid, so who's really behind this tribunal," Mr Liu asked at a media conference.
"Who was paying them? Was it the Philippines or some other country?"
He also pointed out that a Permanent Court of Arbitration judge responsible for selecting the five arbitrators was from Japan, China's traditional rival.
Shunji Yanai "manipulated the tribunal" and helped influence the decision, Mr Liu said.
So what?
The PCA properly concluded that the Chinese dictatorship's laughable Nine Dash Line has no legal basis. Which is why the dictatorship didn't participate. It knew its lies are unbelievable crap.
Does this poster know that the Nine Dash Line was also claimed by the Republic of China (Taiwan), which by any means is not a dictator.
Japan continues to kill whales and sell the meat from its hunts, despite the ban (moratorium) on commercial whaling. Japan's whalers have recently been able to exploit a loophole in the founding treaty of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which allows whaling for 'scientific research'. However, on 31st March 2014, the UN's International Court of Justice ordered it to stop whaling in Antarctica and that its so-called 'scientific whaling' is not compatible with the ICRW, the rulings of the IWC, or international law. On the 27th Nov 2015 Japan announced that it would resume so-called scientific whaling in Antarctica despite the ICJ ruling and after failing to get IWC support for its new lethal programme, NEWREP-A.
http://us.whales.org/issues/whaling-in-japan
the point is Japan, like the US, also has a history of non-compliance of international law.
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[3]
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."
The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted. In Statement 9, the Court stated that while the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, this did not, however, make such acts attributable to the U.S.[4]
Tony Blair could face contempt of parliament motion over Iraq war
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/tony-blair-contempt-moti...
...
after making a mess in the Middle East, the US now wants to make a mess in South East Asia. but i don't think the UK or EU will trust the US anymore.
Philip Tang with yet more IRRELEVANT "what about" deflection.
Tony Blair isn't trying to steal the SCS -- the Chinese dictatorship is the thief.
Hey, Phil, do you think you can stay focused on the issue?
You brought up your repeated allegation about "stealing". China has historic claim over the South China Sea until it was challenged lately. And sovereignty issues are not subject to arbitration under the Convention.
Those who steal are the foreign powers who ransacked Beijing in the last century. Look at the spoils in the British Museum, and Japan's war crimes. These are murders and stealing. And the US is destroying with bombs everywhere. I am not promoting hate here. My point is all such repeated finger pointing should first do some research, and you will know you don't stand on any moral high ground.
It seems that the international spotlight and coverage of the PCA’s farcical SCS ruling have been quickly overshadowed by the Nice terrorist attack and the coup in Turkey. I bet the world’s attention will soon be shifted to the Rio Olympics too.
.
So China can simply lay low for the moment, and wait until the G20 summit is over in Hangzhou in early September.
.
After that, it will be business as usual. That is, China will continue to strengthen and expand control of its SCS islands and territorial waters as planned.
Given China's absurd 9-dash line, its defiance of the tribunal's decision, and its aggressive warnings to Australia, Japan, and others to mind their own business or "else" - at this point, I hope the Chinese will continue their crazy jump of the cliff by threatening or shooting at the U.S. carrier groups in the region so that that the U.S. Navy would have the opportunity to respond militarily to show to the world that the China is decades behind the U.S., which continues to be the world's dominant power. It is better that this happens sooner rather than later. 10 or 20 years from now, the Chinese Dragon may be stronger and the American Eagle will have a harder time clipping the dragon's wings. So...as Clint Eastwood would say "make my day." By deploying two carrier groups in the region, the U.S. is basically saying that.
Japan absurdly proclaimed the far-flung Okinotori as islands and tried to get the EEZ based on it. Does anyone accuse them? Obviously, Japan lambasted China for their own interest in the East China Sea, which helps them to continue their expansion in the East China Sea. China wasn't even the first one to build man-made structures and drill oil in the South China Sea; it was merely responding to other countries' actions. However, China is the only one to attract criticism and attention. The 9 Dash Line isn't a new idea either. It was actually proposed decades ago(not by CCP but by the ruling party of China at that time), long before anyone else made similar claims about South China Sea, which had seen heightened tension since vast amounts of underwater gas reserves were discovered in the 1970s. The US isn't even a signatory of the convention and had never complied with its rules, yet it now urges China to comply. This whole thing is very absurd. I am not saying China is right, but with national interest on their minds nobody is at this point. Even if China stops its claim in South China Sea, I bet you Philippine and Vietnam would definitely fight amongst themselves over this issue as well. They just want to get the biggest player out of the game first.
Japan isn't trying to steal the SCS; China is.
The Nine Dash LIE is just that -- a lie. The PCA found it had no legal basis. NONE.
China is NOT a superpower. Although it has a sizeable army, navy and a 600-800 ?[correct me if I'm wrong] stockpile of nuclear warheads, it does NOT have full control over its ENERGY SUPPLY. That is, 60% of its oil needs are imported, most of it going through the South China Sea, the whole route being under the watch of the US Navy. At any time can the US impose an embargo on Oil & liquefied natural gas and China will be back to the 14th century within 9 to 12 months. 1. Containment. 2. Heat up. 3. Wait till the rat comes out. 4. Send the proxies. 5. Repeat.
Any country that can destroy all your cities in 45 minutes – and against whose destructive weapons you have no defense – is a superpower. Like God, only much worse.
Here's what the ASEAN 2002 DECLARATION ON THE CONDUCT OF PARTIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, to which Commie China is a signatory, provides in part in paragraph 5:
"5. The Parties undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a
constructive manner."
Absolutely clear violation of Paragraph 5 of the Declaration by the thug Commie China lawless dictatorship.
China has a precedent : Falkland Islands.
Then there is a saying : might is right.
Nonsense - the Falkland Islands are inhabited and have been for generations, the land area of them is about 4700 sq miles.
None of these specks of rock and coral are inhabited and most are uninhabitable.
Total rubbish and utterly false analogy.
The Falklands are proper islands, not previously uninhabited shoals and reefs that are under water at high tide.
China is quickly becoming a joke civilization, they're not even abiding by the UNCLOS treaty they themselves signed. This should be a good precedent for all counterparties to China breaking off any contract obligations that they have at any time at their convenience.
Although none of this is surprising from China as ancient Chinese tradition usually dictates immoral and uncivilized breaking of treaties and law, so they don't know any better. China always disappoints
Good points. Part of the Chinese dictatorship's current lawlessness in the SCS can be put down to Communist China's worthless founder.
The Communist China dictatorship was founded by Mao. He was a murderous dictator and one of the worst and most incompetent administrative BUNGLERS in modern history. For an example of administrative bungling, we have Mao's laughable pig iron fiasco.
This idiot founded the country. In track and field, we call that a false start.
Mao was a genius. His pig iron fiasco can not be laughed at. It provided valuable insight to Chinese people in iron making technology. Now they produce more steel than all Western World produces. They produce all the things which West does not produce but loves to consume. That is like opiate West forced Chinese to get addicted to. China will rule world one day - not by force but by controlling resources and manufacturing activity.
In March, the UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf ruled that the disputed Falkland Islands (or Islas Malvinas) were within Argentina’s sovereign waters. However, this UN ruling was promptly dismissed by the British Foreign Office which stated that the commission had no jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (or Islas Malvinas).
.
You see, not even the Brits (or “Little Englanders” now after Brexit) gave a damn about the supposedly “legally-binding” UN ruling when the result was not in their favor, although both Britain and Argentina are signatories of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
.
In 2010, Australia sued Japan in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Japan had been unnecessarily and excessively hunting whales in the Antarctic and had violated the International Whaling Commission’s 1986 ban on commercial whaling. (Japan has always claimed that its whaling activities are for scientific research purposes, not commercial.)
.
In March 2014, the ICJ ruled that Japan must halt its whaling activities in the Antarctic as the hunts were not, as Japan claimed, conducted for scientific research.
.
So, what was Japan’s response? It did temporarily stop whaling in the Antarctic after the ruling was out but continued to hunt whales in the northwest Pacific Ocean. And then in 2015, Japan simply resumed whaling in the Antarctic, despite fierce protests from Australia and New Zealand.
.
In the internal arena, might always makes right and national interests are always paramount. Everything else, such as international laws, justice, ethics, morality, fairness, etc. are merely secondary, tertiary, or quaternary…
"In the internal arena, might always makes right"
That may be the general opinion. But that doesn't make it right nor true. In fact many Nations submit to the rule of international law. It is my personal understanding that in order to avoid conflicts and war, humanity should leave petty nationalism and land grabbing behind and subscribe to international law. Be it the Japanese, British or Chinese.
Ah yes, the "what about" deflection.
Even assuming your points have any validity, there's a very simple concept that applies to Commie China's lawlessness in the South China Sea:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Try to stay on topic; this isn't a discussion about Japan's whaling or Brexit or the Falklands.
If you watch your neighbour build a house on common land between your property and his and then you watch him decorate it and fit it out and then watch him move in and then watch him hold the housewarming party to celebrate and only then start legal proceedings to have the new house demolished because of lack of planning consent then it should be no surprise that your neighbour will not be happy with you. China new it would be extremely provocative but went ahead regardless but the delay in action by the UN has only made things worse. Why has the international community and the UN left it until this point to find that the construction on the disputed ‘islands’ is illegal? Is it lack of competence or is it deliberately intended to enrage China? If the former it undermines their credibility; if the latter then you have to ask why? We are at a position where it will be easier for China to protect their ownership rights now they are in occupation but to what extent is the UN and US prepared to go to to challenge those rights and how vigorously is China prepared to defend those rights. If China is to step back from this then what should they expect in return as it is unlikely to do so unless it can save face.