China Blog transcript

7/23/2019 China Blog transcript

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/china-blog-transcript 1/173

3. Who will most benefit if the Sabah claim is successfully negotiated between the Philippines and Malaysia?

Ah Ee Tan 2 months agoI read through the comments and found reasonable facts are mentioned... like 300 year old map by Phillippine where China southern most land is Hainan, like China historical maps dating thousand years ago, like 9, dash lines drawn during Cairo declaration and Postdam treaty in the presence of US, Britain, France, Russia and China....where US ships even sail around those islands helping China to claim them back from Japan after the world war II. Let us see How UNCLOS judges this case...is it under its jurisdition? I also wander how the Judges can make decision without those DOCUMENTs of WWII Postdam treaty, Cairo decraration, Japan/Taiwan treaty.Never the less, China's peaful rising has benefitted most of the South China Sea neighbouring smaller countries.

JB Ah Ee Tan 2 months agoThey are not making a judgment on that and the Philippines did not asked them to. Because that is outside the authority of UNCLOS. The case is simple does UNCLOS apply here and if it does what are the rights the features have under UNCLOS.That is it no judgement on who owns what. The case is relative simple and stillprofound lets see what happens

Ah Ee Tan Ah Ee Tan 2 months ago

Typo mistake " Peaceful" NOT" PEAFUL". One million apologies!

makeehsig 2 months agoHere are "some" of the evidence of the Philippines to back up its claim. You can also find it in the internet.> 1636 China Veteribus Sinarum Regio Nunc Inculis Tame Dicta.> 1662 Tabulae Indiae Orientalis> 1744 Carta Hydrographica y Chrographica de las Yslas Filipinas> 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino> 1940 Philipine Islandsall these maps consistently show, from 1636 to 1940, that the disputed territories in the SCS are part of the Philippines. That's a period of 304 years.Since the Song dynasty until 1946, China's official maps, its republican constit

utions, & its official statement declared to the world (1932 Note Verbale, France) has always been Hainan island as the southernmost territory. (Carpio2014)justice_first makeehsig 2 months agoBoth the US and Spain, the previous colonial powers of the Philippines does notrecognize the SCS islands and features were part of the Philippine Islands. It was in 1946 that Philippines became a sovereign nation, gaining independence from its colonial masters. It is strange for some one to say the islands and features "belonged" to the Philippines before its independence.What kind of logic is that ?makeehsig justice_first 2 months agoChina was not even a country until the early 20th century, either. the Republicof China was established in 1911, and the People's Republic of China 1949 rightafter the Chinese civil war. Having said this, the Philippines is older than Chi

na. The remnants of the Imperial China is in Taiwan the rightful inheritor ofthe mainland. Add to that the long history of being slaves to its Mongolian Overlords, British Masters and Japanese Emperor. - Arcane2015can your logic accept this?

justice_first makeehsig 2 months agoChina, as an enduring empire, has written history for a long long time. The most well known recent periods could be the Ming and Qing Dynasties, going back to the 1400's. The empire became a republic in 1911 under ROC, then in 1972, the PRC took the seat of ROC at the UN. It is a long history. There is no remnants of I



mperial China in Taiwan. The status of Taiwan is clear, it is a province of China where the defeated Kumintang government resides.

makeehsig justice_first 2 months agodid the Taiwanese agree that they are considered as just a province of china & not an independent nation? "Two china, one country policy?" it s a no, right? Taiwan rejected them."Your communist china has this delusion that it inherits all of Taiwan's territories after the civilwar -- IT DIDN'T. Taiwan was not really defeated by your army. It merely drove them out of mainland China. And right now, the Republic of China is still alive and kicking in Taiwan under the protective wings of the mighty Americans."Arcane

justice_first makeehsig 2 months agoyou still think the American is mighty? OK, you may still get to keep your illusion.But, Taiwan has never declared independence from the mainland. Show me the proof if they have done so.It is not two China, one country, it is One China, two systems. This is clear evidence that you don't really know what you are talking about. You are just a confused mind.makeehsig justice_first 2 months agoyikes! okay. my bad. One china, two systems. of course, i still think the Americ

ans are mighty. you know why? they have allies. JAPAN, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, maybe India & the Philippines. china has what?of course, Taiwan will never declare it. there are about 5,000 chinese missilesare aimed at it by the communists. maybe dong fengs. In fact, they're very concerned of the growing military power of her communist neighbor. In short, all themore reason to strengthen ties with the mighty Americans & the Japanese. And the US is being clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the Spratlys are a disputed region that must be resolved through the UN, and any unilateral declaration ofits ownership or to change the status quo will not be recognized. Arcane2015.San Andreas justice_first 2 months agoThose are not islands, those are reefs and rocks. They are part of the Philippine's Exclusive Economic Zone as agreed by China when it signed UNCLOS. The 9-dash line claim was only invented by China after its failed empire was released by i

ts British and Japanese colonial Masters at the end of the World War II.Communist China claims reefs as far as Indonesia without any proven evidence, what kind of logic is that?

justice_first San Andreas 2 months agoChina, now represented by the PR of China in the UN, has historic proof that italready owned those land features, whether they be islands, rocks, or reefs in the SCS. Actually the US was involved helping China, the Republic of China, to repossess those features after the WW2 from the Japanese. It is therefore clear from historic records, China owns those land features in SCS. You may like to digdeeper into the history before 1946. As I said, Philippines did not become a sovereign country until independence in 1946.

makeehsig justice_first 2 months agoTaiwan & china are not the same. don't confuse yourself. if history is to be talked about, then your communist fetus eating china is out of it. the PRC only gained power in 1949. The Koumintangs are in Taiwan. They are the legitimate rulers of china. ergo, you, mao zedong, & that eunuch xi jinping are excluded.1justice_first makeehsig 2 months agoIt is not for you to say who is the legitimate ruler of China. Only the Chinesepeople can decide on this question, and most of them are living in mainland China. Even the mainland and Taiwan agrees that there is one China.



makeehsig justice_first 2 months ago& neither do you. why don't you read all the comments here? way down below "Arcane" has answered all the possible queries in this issue. no need for me to repeat.San Andreas justice_first 2 months ago"Historic proof" that your Communist government in China still hasnt proven until this very day. You cant even determine where the 9-dash line boundaries are. LOL. Are you guys still waiting for Chiang Kai Shek to do the job for Mao? Communist China only became a despotic soverign country after 1949. Try again ;)

justice_first San Andreas 2 months agoThe PR of China, which we call China, is the legitimate sovereign representing China in the UN. The nine dash lines are a set of symbols on Chinese maps. They are clearly not maritime delimitation. They do not have geographic coordinates, because they are symbols only. By using these lines, China is claiming all the land features, including rocks, inside the lines. This is the so called historic title. China is not claiming all the sea inside the lines contrary to common misconception.

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice_first wrote ,"The PR of China, which we call China, is the legitimate sovereign representing China in the UN."LOL. That's not what Taiwan says. Taiwan says that the Republic of China is theSOLE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF ALL CHINA and the one currently in mainland is an

illegal, thieving, deceptive government.justice_first wrote ," The nine dash lines are a set of symbols on Chinese maps. They are clearly not maritime delimitation. They do not have geographic coordinates, because they are symbols only. By using these lines, China is claiming all the land features, including rocks, inside the lines. This is the so called historic title."LMAO. Historic title??? Just where the h3ll did you get that cr4p? According tointernational laws, to claim an island based on history, there has to be an effective occupation and administration or sovereignty by one's government in the past. In other words, the island must be claimed and administered by your ancientgovernment. One has to provide a solid, undeniable proof of past settlements and administration by one's government like in the case of the British Falklands! China has NO SUCH EVIDENCE to back its historical claim.

Now, to demonstrate that this is INDEED the case, I CHALLENGE you to name the Chinese emperor who claimed the entire South China Sea and took effective controlof that water, its islands and reefs. Can you name him??? LMAO!I also CHALLENGE you to find the Spratleys in any of those ancient Chinese territorial maps created thousands of years ago. Because if China really owns the sovereignty rights of the entire South China Sea for thousands or milennium of years as your government claims, then why doesn't your ancient territorial maps show this??? Why go all the trouble drawing all those Chinese lands, boundaries, rivers and waters in intricate detail and yet stop at Hainan island???Ancient visits to places for trading, fishing and scientific purposes -- anything other than to establish colonies and control -- DOES NOT constitute an effective occupation by a state that is recognized by international laws as a basis for historical claim. Even ancient records of fishermen staying on an island for a

time doesn't count. Those private fishermen didn't claim the islands for their emperor for Pete's sake. So, even if your communist government has records of such travels, they're not going to fly in the international arena. Do you know why? Because if we are to accept that communist bullcr4p, then everybody owns the sovereignty rights of everything because many countries have records of their ancient people's travels around the world! Italy should then own China and Mongoliabecause they have historical records (documents and maps) of Marco Polo's ancient travels to China and Mongolia from Venice! Iran should also claim Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Palestine and all the countries in Western and Central Asia because they've been once part of the Persian Empire. At least, Iran took effective



control of those places and established colonies. Your ancient people DID NOT. And what about India? Ancient India had traveled through the South China Sea, reaching the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and what have you. Should India claim the South China Sea and these countries as well? LOL.Second, China, as a country, DID NOT EVEN EXIST thousands of years ago. As I'vebeen saying many times over, your China, as a country, was established in the 20th century! In fact, your ancient people didn't have the concept of a country until that time. They believed that the entire world belonged to their Emperors -- the Sons of Heaven. That their emperors were the legitimate Supreme rulers of the world. So China's sovereignty was not even established or questionable priorto 1911 when ROC was born. That's why when it lodged a protest against Germany for surveying the Paracel and Spratley islands in 1883, it had NO LEGAL STANDING!Third, your government used military force in taking control of the Paracel andSpratley islands like when your navy massacred 64 unarmed Vietnamese sailors onJohnson South Reef in 1988 (i.e. Paracel and Spratleys). This is a grave violation of international laws, particularly the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which clearly states that, "The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territoryof a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.So, if you are smarter than a 3 year old, Justice, then you know that all the is

lands that have been forcibly acquired by your communist China like those in the Paracels and Spratleys are ALL ACQUIRED ILLEGALLY and are NOT RECOGNIZED by any UN member state.Fourth, China cannot claim sovereignty over shoals and rocks like those it acquired in the Spratleys. Shoals and rocks are NOT subject to sovereignty claims according to international laws! LMAO.And as if the grave violations aren't enough, your d-mn communist government built artificial islands on these shoals and rocks! That is ALSO A VIOLATION of international laws as you are not allowed to do so beyond your 200 mile EEZ!Your government has been violating the international laws left and right, and here you are defending your thieving government. Shame on you.

justice_first Arcane 2 months ago

we really don't have to go back thousands of years. It was after the Second World war ( after 1945) that the UN designated China (ROC) to repossess the islandsand features from the Japanese, with American assistance. The relation between Taiwan (called ROC) and PRC is strictly an internal matter of China, because there is only one China. I am not trying to defend China's claim which will ultimately be negotiated with the Philippines and other claimants.

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice_first wrote, "we really don't have to go back thousands of years."Well, then communist China shouldn't be making historical claim with its 9-dash-line because it clearly has no solid historical evidence to back it up. Last time I read, they said something about shaming their ancestors if they give up their historical claims (LOL) when, in reality, their ancestors had neither administ

ered nor took effective control of the Spratleys or much of the South China Seain the past. They traveled there, yeah? But so did other ancient people in the world.And another thing to note is that Communist China has no business in using the Cairo Declaration in staking its territorial claims because China is neither a party nor mentioned in that treaty. You say that there is only one China? There'sone China the continent, but there are two Chinese governments. One is democratic and the other is a communist. And the Cairo Declaration specifically mentioned the ROC -- not the communist one. So, the PRC is basically making fraudulent claims and lying about its history.



justice_first Arcane 2 months agoyou have not read correctly, or understood my comment on what happened after WW2, after 1945. China resumed sovereignty over the SCS islands, and the nine dashlines were drawn in 1947 to mark the fact of Chinese sovereignty. Chinese sovereignty was based on historic titles as claimed by China. That is in fact their claim. It is up to the Philippines to prove otherwise.Within a country, there could be many governments. This is common sense.

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice_first wrote, "China resumed sovereignty over the SCS islands"That's what China wants to believe. But that's not really the case. China hasn't really defeated the ROC. It only drove it out from mainland China. The ROC is still alive and kicking in Taiwan under US protection.justice_first wrote "and the nine dash lines were drawn in 1947 to mark the fact of Chinese sovereignty."Again, the PRC has no business with the 9-dash-line. This is Taiwan's. And Taiwan has not been aggressively pursuing this claim because it doesn't really jive with the established international laws and the fact that its close ally -- the US -- has made it clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the Spratleys is a disputed region that must be resolved through the UN. And any unilateral declaration or attempt to change the status quo will not be recognized..justice_first wrote ,"Chinese sovereignty was based on historic titles as claimed by China."

When you're making a claim based on "historic titles" you have to prove your history, okay? And China does NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys. As I'd been saying over and over, there were no ancient Chinese colonies in those islands, most especially on those reefs (LOL). No ancient Chinese structures or outposts. No markers that suggest that they were claimed by some Chinese emperors a long time ago. So, what solid evidence can your China provide to the international community to back its historical claim? Answer: NOTHING. So, why is China making a historical claim when it DOES NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys?justice_first wrote ,"That is in fact their claim. It is up to the Philippines to prove otherwise."The burden of proof lies on China. China has to prove its historical claim. Youcan't just draw 11, 10, or 9 dashes on a map and say all the islands, reefs, shoals and waters within those lines are yours based on non-existent history. Did C

hina effectively control or administer the entire South China Sea in ancient past to make such bold claim? Of course, not. In fact, all of your ancient Chinesemaps corroborate the fact that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China for over millenium of years. It doesn't go beyond that.Also, do you even know the exact coordinates and size of your 9-dash-line, justice, because your government doesn't know? How can you claim a territory withoutknowing its size? You can't even do that to a mere residential land property. So why is your government take the world for a fool? The 9-dash-line is already aviolation of international laws.justice_first wrote ,"Within a country, there could be many governments. This is common sense."Oh, please don't take me for a fool. Where can you find a country with two presidents and two different opposing governments? One is a communist and the other i

s a democracy? Didn't I just tell you that Taiwan claims to be the sole legitimate government of all China and the one in mainland is an ILLEGAL government??? LMAO.justice_first Arcane 2 months agoyou constantly like to bring out the legitimacy of the Taiwan government as thelegitimate government of all China. This might be Taiwan's claim, but the Chinese people don't think so. PRC is in the UN representing the Chinese people, and this is a fact. By taking up the seat of China, the PRC has inherited the rightsand power of a sovereign state: China, including the nine dash lines. The reason why Taiwan, though occupying the largest island in the SCS, is not doing much t



o claim the islands and reefs, is because it is too weak to do so. Yet it is claiming as much as the PRC in terms of scope and substance. Why? It is because ofhistoric title, because they share the same history, being the same country. You will not succeed in splitting them apart, because it is impossible to separateTaiwan from the Mainland by way of independence, not even if the US want to. Bythe way, Taiwan has declared no independence as being practical. Time is on theside of all Chinese to solve this issue involving Taiwan, and will not be such a big deal after all. What China and the Philippines should do now is to choose the wise way, the right way of building a better and more mutually beneficial relation, in this century, in trades and investments, not in war. Only negotiationcan solve the dispute. War is far far too expensive for the Philippines. The USwill only push the Philippines to economic disaster, without helping the Philippines economically. Whats the use of bullets if you have no food.

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote ,"you constantly like to bring out the legitimacy of the Taiwan government as the legitimate government of all China."Let me remind you that the Republic of China was a sovereign and independent nation when your communist party took its mainland home by force. And it is STILL a SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT nation that is now running its government in Tapei. As I said, your PRC has not defeated the ROC. It only drove it out from the mainland. The Taiwanese are a resilient people whose government is quite capable of running and defending their new home as they have demonstrated for many years.So, again, Taiwan is an INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION. It has its own government.

Its own military. Its own economic policy, foreign policy and what have you. It does not rely on or need China to run its country.justice wrote ,"By taking up the seat of China, the PRC has inherited the rights and power of a sovereign state: China, including the nine dash lines."This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a long time. Really. The UNis just an organization made up of many countries that tackles diplomacy and various issues in the world. Just because a country isn't a member or has been removed from its UN membership doesn't make that country less of a sovereign nation. Kosovo is not a UN member, but does that make that country incapable of exercising its sovereignty and rights, Justice? Ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the laugh there. You're funny.China never did inherit the 9-dash-line. But since you insist, tell me which specific UN resolution that states that your communist government has been given th

e full rights to the 9-dash-line claim and or the Cairo Declaration? If you can't even tell me this, don't even bother to bring it up again. Don't push it because I will ask you the same question to back your statement and I know you can'tgive me an answer, so it'll only make you a clown in this argument.justice wrote"What China and the Philippines should do now is to choose the wise way... Only negotiation can solve the dispute."We tried this. Bilateral talks with your country didn't work. In fact, your government violated its bilateral agreement by taking Mischief Reef, Scarborough Shoal and other shoals/reefs. And our government's diplomatic protests didn't helpto stop the violations. This was the reason why the Philippines sought UN arbitration in the first place because China's "bilateral talk" was PURE BULLSH-T.justice wrote,"War is far far too expensive for the Philippines. The US will only push the Philippines to economic disaster, without helping the Philippines eco

nomically. Whats the use of bullets if you have no food."The US has nothing to do with this mess. This is China's creation. The US has been very clear from the get-go. It doesn't take sides, but it wants parties to resolve the issue through international laws and not by force. It also has interest in the freedom of navigation in that region.The only time the US will get involved is when the Philippines is attacked by ahostile nation. As you know, the Philippines is not only the oldest and closestUS ally in Asia, it's also a former US colony. And because of our Mutual Defense Treaty, an attack on the Philippines is tantamount to an attack on the US and vice-versa. So, it would be unwise for any state to attack a friendly small count



ry as my Philippines.** * Reply

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoyou really sound like you don't understand much. Under international law, Taiwan cannot declare itself an independent sovereign nation. Taiwan never did. Do you know why? A government cannot legitimately declare itself the ruler of a sovereign nation (China) when it has lost almost 99.9% of its territories. The Kumintang government fled to Taiwan in 1949 but maintains it is the ruler of all China. You may visit the constitution of Taiwan. This is of course illegal under international law.Another major point is international recognition. The overwhelming majority of the world's nations, in the UN, recognize the PRC as the legitimate government of all China. If I cannot convince you of anything meaningful, so be it. You haveyour own way of imagining things.** * Reply* * Share **

*****

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoThe Chinese people is one and only people, and the Chinese sovereignty is one and only sovereignty for the governments. Taiwan is pure internal matters of China, just like the Philippines and the Moro of Southern Philippines. It is internal matter. Even if the ROC ( we call Taiwan ) is claiming to be the government ofall China, of all Chinese people, the Chinese people, as a whole, is the same people for both the mainland and Taiwan. This is why Taiwan is still a special dis

trict of China. Do the math yourself. As for the US, it is not protecting Taiwan at all because Taiwan has no diplomatic relation with the US. Taiwan has no defense treaty with the US. Under the UN convention and international law, it is illegal for the US to interfere, or intervene with Chinese internal matters. Thisis called sovereignty in the UN Charter.In 1972, the PRC became the ONLY legitimate government of all China, taking theseat of the ROC.China apparently has much more historic title, and proofs, than the Philippines, and this is why the two countries must sit down and negotiate a way out. Goingto UNCLOS is a total waste of time because entitlement cannot solve the issue of sovereignty.**

* Reply* * Share *******



Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote, "The Chinese people is one and only people, and the Chinese sovereignty is one and only sovereignty for the governments."This is like saying that there's only one American country and the Brazilians, Puerto Ricans, Canadians, Mexicans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Chileans, and Venezuelans are "one people" and the American sovereignty "is one and only sovereignty for their governments." They're all Americans, by the way, if you don't know that. They're all from the American continent. In fact, their people share some history and even related in some cases.But guess what??? America is comprised of many countries, each with its own president, who heads his own government that exercises sovereignty over its nation.We could say the same thing about South and North Korea. Are you telling us nowthat there's only one Korean country? Only one Korean sovereignty for both governments, right? That's essentially what you're saying here and it shows completeignorance on your part.Sure, the two Korean people share the same ancestry and history, but their present governments and ideologies are not the same. You cannot mix socialist ideologies with those of a democratic country's. The two are at the extreme opposite ends of each other. And that's the same situation with China and Taiwan.As a side note, Korea used to be one sovereign nation until your communist government came and sowed chaos and division among the Korean people. Now, look whathappened? North Korea is now being headed by a communist dictator who's both a menace to his own people and the world and making irrational threats of war and d

estruction from time to time. But his attitude isn't that surprising because that's exactly the behavior of your great communist leader, Mao Zedong. Yeah. Remember him? The man responsible for beating, starving to death and murdering 45 million of his own people in the span of 4 years??FOUR FREAKIN' YEARS. 45 MILLION PEOPLE DEAD!He wasn't called the GREATEST MASS MURDERER IN HUMAN HISTORY for nothing, Justice. And as if the murders weren't enough, your government boasted killing 300 million babies through force abortion with its Once Child Policy. And that's according to your own Ministry of Health. I could only imagine the pain and sufferingthat each mother and family have to go through after the horrible ordeal. In fact, many Chinese families fled to other countries because of this. Some were forced to hide their extra children from the authorities or sell them. You have a heartless government.

justice wrote, "China apparently has much more historic title, and proofs, thanthe Philippines, and this is why the two countries must sit down and negotiate a way out."Again and again, how many times does one have to tell you that when you are claiming "historic titles," you NEED TO HAVE HISTORY? What history does China have over the Spratleys? Can you tell us? You seem so sure about this when your communist government can't even provide a single solid evidence of its history in theSpratley archipelago. So, why don't you enlighten us about your history?The 9-dash-line was only created in the 1940s. So, clearly there's no historical basis behind it despite the claim. Again, if you insist that China has historical rights over the Spratleys, then I challenge you to tell us its history.justice wrote, "Going to UNCLOS is a total waste of time because entitlement cannot solve the issue of sovereignty."

Who are you to say that it's a waste of time? The Philippines would have been very happy to take on China on the issue of sovereignty, but since the tribunal has no jurisdiction to judge over it, it adjusted its argument to entitlements. Maritime entitlements are very well covered by the UNCLOS.Scarborough Shoals are just freakin' rocks that your communist party seized by force, and by international laws, rocks are not subject to sovereignty claims and are only entitled to 12 nm of water. Beyond that is Philippine water because those rocks are within the Philippine's EEZ.Mischief and McKennan reefs are permanently submerged under water. And again, by international laws, they're not subject to sovereignty claims and they don't ha



ve any maritime entitlements! Yet greedy China took them by force and built installations over them!How nice of your government to be violating the international laws governing land and sea, justifying it with a historical bullcr4p that it could not even prove and basing its claim from a 9-dash-line map that it didn't make or own in the first place! It's crazy.justice wrote "As for the US, it is not protecting Taiwan at all because Taiwanhas no diplomatic relation with the US. Taiwan has no defense treaty with the US."No diplomatic relations? Wrong.The US - as with other nations - has maintained a diplomatic relation with Taiwan. Although unofficial, it's a diplomatic relation nonetheless!No defense treaty? LOL. You're referring to the past in 1954 when the US terminated its defense treaty with the ROC. But under former Pres. Reagan, the US maintains its security obligation for Taiwan and has since been providing military assets, training and services for Taiwan's defense under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances. Just a quick look at the military hardware and vehicles of Taiwan will tell you that they're mostly US-made.Taiwan is one of the key strategic US allies in Asia and plays a critical piecein preventing the spread of communism in Asia-Pacific, and so it is worthy of protection and MUST BE DEFENDED.** * Reply

* * Share *******

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoChina's historic title claim is already very clear. You may get much more information from Chinese official websites. You may search the web and know the basis

of the claim, even if you disagree. China has a long written history, and its administration in the SCS can be traced back centuries. Lets see what the Philippines can produce as its historic title, perhaps none. I don't remember Philippines ever claiming historic title, only territorial EEZ.From US move to get closer to Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, we know how very desperate the US has become. I believe it is right for the Philippines to reestablish a stronger relation with China, on trade and investment, rather than going back to its colonial past, relying on a frightened America, who seems to have lost its own direction in the world.** * Reply*

* Share *******

Arcane justice_first 2 months ago



justice wrote, "China's historic title claim is already very clear. You may getmuch more information from Chinese official websites. You may search the web and know the basis of the claim, even if you disagree. China has a long written history, and its administration in the SCS can be traced back centuries."I've read your government's historical justification behind its 9-dash-line claim. And none of its explanations or assertions can be used as a legitimate "historical claim" under international laws. We're going to go over each of those assertions later.Also, China hasn't explained what those 9 dashes mean. We don't know if they are a) national boundaries or b) maritime boundaries. But in any case, the 9-dash-lines violate the established international laws because, for one, it doesn't have geographical coordinates, two, they're not continuous solid lines that clearly outline China's boundaries from other sovereigns states and, three, they're not stable. The 9-dash-lines have gone through a number of changes from 11 to 10 and then to 9 without any explanation from your government. In fact, Yink Wenqiang, a senior Chinese government maritime law expert admitted that he didn't know the basis for the nine dashes!Also, the map given by your government to the international community in 2009 is "cartographically inconsistent" with other Chinese maps. The dashes from the 2009 map don't appear on the same geographic locations as the dashes in the maps published between 2013 and 2014 and the ones made in the 1980s. Obviously, the maps are not clearly defined and stable and thus violate international laws. Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfI told you that for a country to claim "historic title" it needed to have histor

y. And by history, it must prove its effective control and administration of a territory for a long period of time. In fact, there are three criteria that a state must meet in order for the international court to recognize its historic title or claim.1. That the state has established an effective occupation of the territory for a long period of time.2. That the state has continued to exercise authority of the territory.3. That such occupation has been recognized by other foreign states; that they have not protested the exercise of authority of the state over the territory.In the case of China, your government has NOT effectively occupied or administered the Spratley group of islands. In fact, it hasn't done that in much of the islands in the South China Sea.The Spratley archipelago has 33,000 islands including the reefs. And many ancien

t people in the past living in close proximity to the Spratleys like in the Philippine archipelago, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei had travelled to some of these islands and fished around them. It doesn't take a genius to know this. Just look at the map. Look at how far China is to the Spratleys compared to all these Southeast Asian nations.So, to say that China has exercised exclusive sovereignty over the entire SouthChina Sea for thousands of years as your government claims is a BIG LIE. Your ancient people weren't the only ones who knew how to fish and engage in interisland trade in Asia, you know?Now, let's examine the so-called "evidences" or "assertions" by your governmentto back its claim.1. Chinese activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago.China was the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources

of the South China Sea Islands and the first to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them.This claim has not been corroborated by any official historical document. Most of the historical documents your government has in its possession are just travel records and navigation charts showing territories not only belonging to China,but also to other nations. In fact, all of your ancient territorial maps datingthousands of years ago consistently show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China.Even your Gujin Tushu Jicheng (Complete Atlas on the Past and Present) that wasfinished during the Qing Dynasty in 1706 showed maps of China whose southernmost



territory was Hainan. It didn't go beyond that. Those maps can be found under the following sections of that atlas:a) Zhifang Dian (Dictionary of Administrative Units).b) Zhifang Zongbutu (General Map of the Administrative Units, Number 1).c) Guangdong Jiangyutu (Territorial Map of Guangdong, Number 157).d) Qionzhoufu Jiangyutu (Territorial Map of Qianzhou Prefecture, Number 167).The map created during your Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty between 1522-1567 also depicted Hainan as China's southernmost territory.I have written a lengthy reply to Aquarium below, sharing him all of your ancient Chinese territorial maps (complete with links from credible sources) beginning from the Song Dynasty in 960 AD until the end of the Qing Dynasty -- a span ofa millennium -- that consistently show Hainan as the southernmost territory of China. I want you to read my reply for him in this forum, so you can see for yourself how much of a farce PRC's 2,000 year old historical claim is.And as late as 1932, your government (in a Note Verbale to France) has reiterated to the world that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan island.Now what does this tell us, Justice? It tells us that your government has neither controlled nor exercised sovereignty over the entire South China Sea for thousands of years DESPITE its bold claim. Otherwise, historical records would support this. But they didn't. And China would have never sent a Note Verabale to France to reinforce the fact that Hainan is China's southernmost territory.Ever wonder why your government hasn't been very generous in sharing maps priorto the 9-dash-line to support its claim? Because the majority of your ancient maps don't show the South China Sea as Chinese territory. The few ones that do are

just travel or trade expedition maps that also depict territories of other nations and their accompanying documents corroborated this. They're not territorialmaps.Let's examine another assertion by your government to back its historic title.2. That their emperors in the 13th century had sent their astronomer, Guoshoujing, to conduct astronomical observations in many areas including the Paracel islands.This is just a science expedition. It doesn't prove effective occupation by a state. If we are to take this as a basis to claim historic titles then many countries whose people conducted scientific observations beyond their borders in the not-too-distant past would be claiming historic titles on the places they'd beento as well. The UK could claim historic title over the Galapagos because the late Charles Darwin did a scientific expedition in those islands where his theory o

f evolution by way of natural selection was born. There were Arabs and Indians in the past who had traveled to many different places around the world to conduct scientific studies as well. Should their respective countries be claiming historic titles also? Let's not kid ourselves here. Unless the purpose of the expedition was to permanently settle or effectively occupy a place then it cannot be used to stake a historical claim according to our international laws.Let's examine the next one.3. . That there were archaeological evidence like ancient Chinese money and goods to support its presence of its fishermen in the archipelagos.Even if this was true, those Chinese fishermen acted as private individuals. They had not claimed the islands for their emperors, so they didn't constitute an "effective occupation by a state" required by international laws. In fact, therewere no official historical records that any of your Chinese emperors had claime

d the South China Sea or the Spratley group of islands for that matter. If you think I'm lying, prove me wrong. Name one Chinese emperor who claimed the South China Sea or the Spratleys. I'm sure your government has historical records of such claim if they really exist. If ancient China managed to consistently name all their territories and drew them on their maps for thousands of years, then there should be ancient records claiming the South China Sea as Chinese territories. But the big questions are -- DO THESE HISTORICAL RECORDS EVEN EXIST? and WHY ARE YOUR ANCIENT TERRITORIAL MAPS DON'T SHOW THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AS CHINESE TERRITORY? Go figure!Let's examine another assertion.



4. That the local government of Guangdong had protested Germany for conducting research study in the Spratleys in 1883.Such diplomatic protest had no legal standing because China's sovereignty at that time had not been established. Like I said, your people prior to the early 20th century had NO CONCEPT of a country because they believed that their emperors-- the Sons of Heaven -- were the Supreme rulers of the world.Here's an excerpt from a book "China World Politics" by Judith F. Kornberg -- Dean of the School of Continuing and Professional Studies at the Fashion Institute of Technology -- and John R. Faust -- Professor Emeritus of Political Science Eastern Illinois University and research associate at the Eastern Illinois Public Policy Institute:The Chinese people call their nation the Middle Kingdom, the center of the natural order and the world order as they knew it for centuries. From prehistory until 1911, China's emperors ruled so long as they held the Mandate of Heaven, the natural force that dictated whether a dynasty had sufficient rectitude to provide moral guidance to the people. When the mandate was lost through immoral actions, corruption, or other behavior that offended the heavens, the natural forces would show their displeasure through disasters such as floods, earthquakes, or droughts. The Chinese people then would know that a change in dynasties was imminent. Chinese leaders did not rule on the basis of social contract with the peopleor on the basis of a constitutional relationship with other political entities,as did leaders in Western Europe and the United States. Chinese rulers were thesons of heaven.Source: goo(dot)gl/AfIv0C

Did you read that? It says that your emperors DID NOT RULE on the basis of "social contract" or "constitutional relationship with other political entities" as did leaders in Europe or US.Let's read further.China was at the center of both heavenly forces and earthly order. Surrounded for centuries by nations such as Korea and Vietnam, which sent emissaries periodically to bring presents to the Chinese emperor, the Chinese people believed thatthe tribute system confirmed the superiority of Chinese civilization. Relationsbetween China and Korea or China and Vietnam were not analogous to relations between sovereign nations in an anarchic international system or even between a colonizing power and its colony; rather, the nations surrounding China were considered inferior because they were not Chinese. Only through adoption of Chinese civilization, which the neighboring elites would be exposed to during their voyages

to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor, would the nations on China's borders beaccepted as anything but barbarians.Source: goo(dot)gl/AfIv0CWow. So, prior to the 20th century, your people believed that China was the Middle Kingdom and their emperors were the legitimate leaders of the world. Non-Chinese were considered inferior and must give tributes!That's why China's sovereignty in those times was questionable to civilized governments because your people actually believed their emperors owned the entire planet! Crazy.Also, I'm going to say this again. That your communist government has been using military force in seizing control of the islands/features/water in both the Paracel and Spratley archipelagos. That is also a violation of international laws!In particular, it violates the Declaration on Principles of International Law Co

ncerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which states that "The territory of a state shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provision of the Charter. The territory of a state shall notbe the object of acquisition by another state resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from th threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal."In other words, Justice, should your communist government and other parties decide to bring the question of sovereignty before the UN, China cannot legitimize its claim for the islands/waters/feature it acquired in the Paracel and Spratleys



because it has VIOLATED the international laws by using gunboat diplomacy!** * Reply* * Share *******

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoI already said that you might disagree with China's historic title. The only resolution of the difference must be through either negotiation or the ICJ. If youinsist, through your own interpretation of international law, that China cannotlegitimize its historic title, and that the ICJ is not your venue of choice, then the best remaining way is negotiation. If you say you don't want to negotiatewith China, then you will have to go to war with China. The alternatives are clear. But, if you don't want war, then you have to take up the almost impossible task of negotiation. If you can't even win in the UNCLOS tribunal, you may not even have a chance winning in the ICJ.

But, the ideal way for the Philippines is to go to the ICJ despite of what, spelling out its case. May be you can act as a chief counsel.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote, "I already said that you might disagree with China's historic title. "Well, yeah, base on international laws, those assertions are nothing. They're not going to fly in the international arena. Are you suggesting that China shouldhave its own international laws? China doesn't own the planet. That primitive mentality isn't accepted by civilized nations, especially in the 21 century. LMAO.Anyways, I'm going to go out. I'll be back and answer some of that novel you wrote. So, I'll see you until then.**




justice_first Arcane 2 months agoIn the final analysis, the Philippines has to prove its case, that it owns the eight features in the SCS it is occupying. You can't win your case by attacking China's nine dash lines. You can't prove your case by relying on the EEZ. You have to prove your own worth, that you have not stolen from China, those islands China already claimed, and repossessed after World War 2, with the help of the American military, before Philippines even existed, and came into the picture. This is why the Philippines do not have a historic title no matter how hard it tries. This is simply a fact of history.if you want to challenge China on its historic title, you have to go to the ICJand spell out your case why China does not have historic titles, and why the world should believe in the Philippines with Philippines history.** * Reply* * Share ooo**o

o

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote, "In the final analysis, the Philippines has to prove its case, that it owns the eight features in the SCS it is occupying."Oh, stop lying. Those aren't features. Those are islands. And those islands were discovered TERRA NULLIUS, meaning no country had exercised sovereignty over them. They were no evidence of Chinese settlements, structures and outposts, or markers that they had been claimed by China. No evidence of effective occupation by China. China has never exercised sovereignty over those islands. And so under international laws, the Philippines has effectively occupied the islands and owned them. And all of those islands are well within 200 miles of the Philippine's coastal lines and thus they also conform to the Law of the Sea Convention. So, YE

S, those islands BELONG to the Philippines and is recognized by international laws.The facts don't lie. There are 33,000 islands and reefs in the Spratley. How could China effectively occupy all 33,000 more than 200 miles from its coastal lines of Hainan? That's crazy. The burden of proof lies on communist China for its historical title. None of your Chinese historical records (i.e. documents and maps) proved effective Chinese occupation of the Spratleys or the entire South China Sea.justice wrote, " You can't win your case by attacking China's nine dash lines."LOL. You keep harping your 9-dash-line bullcr4p. IT'S ILLEGAL. It violates international laws. I already told you why.And, by the way, the UNCLOS does not exempt historical claim because it doesn'tcontain exceptions for such matter.

Because the Conventions provisions relating to the EEZ, continental shelf, and high seas do not contain exceptions for historic claims, the Conventions provisions prevail over any assertion of historic claims made in those areas. The 1962 study on historic waters commissioned by the Conference that adopted the 1958 Geneva Conventions reached this same conclusion withrespect to interpretation of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.64Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfoo



o Replyo o Share ***oo**

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoThat is exactly a legal problem for the Philippines. To say the islands were Terra Nullius, you have to submit solid proofs that they were indeed Terra Nullius.Can you show any substantial proof that they were Terra Nullius ? I guess not.This is total nonsense because the Chinese discovered them, named them and administered them over centuries. by 1947, the Chinese publicly proclaimed ownershipof all the islands and features in the SCS. There are volumes of historic records to prove beyond any doubt they were not Terra Nullius. Once this is done, thePhilippines has no case.** * Reply*

* Share *******

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote "That is exactly a legal problem for the Philippines. To say the islands were Terra Nullius, you have to submit solid proofs that they were indeed Terra Nullius."

Do you even know what is TERRA NULLIUS? Or are you going to make up your own definition again?Alright. I'll be a good guy. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself after all the embarrassments I put you through. Define "terra nullius" for me. I just want to make sure that we're on the same page. If you really knew its meaning, youwouldn't be even telling me this.** * Reply* * Share **

*****

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoyou are funny. Philippines have the burden of proof for alleging that it discovered the islands in the SCS Terra Nullius. Never mind what I understand about the term. Give me proof that the islands were Terra Nullius in accordance with inte



rnational law. If you cannot substantial it, It is not true.We all know by now, from a historical perspective, by most knowledgeable historians, the islands were not Terra Nullius because China already discovered them, claimed them, for a long time before the so call discovery by the Philippines.The Philippines discovery was in fact a joke, not a fact.** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote "you are funny. Philippines have the burden of proof for allegingthat it discovered the islands in the SCS Terra Nullius."If you don't even know what "terra nullius" means then what makes you think that you know what you're talking about? What exactly are you defending here?I already told you the 3 criteria recognized by international laws as a basis fo

r "historic titles" and you still didn't get it.Come on. Try it. I know you know the meaning. But you just don't want to say itbecause you know your argument is weak. Do you want me to give you a little hint? LMAO.** * Reply* * Share ****

***

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoyou sound you are backing out, with fear. You cannot prove that the islands were Terra Nullius. in the ICJ, you have to prove this point with concrete evidence, because Terra Nullius is a very serious argument. There are already tons of historic evidence, known by many, that the islands were not Terra Nullius, and do not belong to the Philippines, You cannot tell lies in the ICJ, or in any court of law, because you will be exposed very easily. Don't try it.**




Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote "you sound you are backing out, with fear. "No. Not at all. I want you to define me "terra nullius." Why are you avoiding it? Because you know it's going to demolish your argument of historic title for China. Try me. Do you need a hint? LOL** * Reply* * Share *******

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoAgain, I have to ask you to ask the Philippines government to explain the meaning of Terra Nullius with supporting evidence, because they are the one making the claim. They claim they discovered the islands Terra Nullius.They must make sure they know what they are saying. If they are wrong, they will

have no case in the SCS. This is that serious. They will face overwhelming evidence from other claimants.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote, "Again, I have to ask you to ask the Philippines government to explain the meaning of Terra Nullius with supporting evidence, because they are the one making the claim."I don't have to ask anybody because I know its meaning. And I know you do. Justa quick search on Google will tell you. Stop fooling around. What are you afraid of? I'm just asking you to define it.Or maybe you have your own definition of that word, is that why you're afraid to write it down for me? Hahahahaha. You know very well where I'm going with this, right? And you clearly don't want me to go there. So, I guess you're giving up. Too bad. I just wanted to have a little fun. LOL

** * Reply* * Share ooo**



oo

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoWhat does it matter what I know? It is your government using the excuse of Terra Nullius for occupying the islands. The burden is on them to tell the world, why? What do they mean by Terra Nullius?, not what I think. You know, how do you expect people to defend themselves without knowing exactly what the accusation isall about? If you occupy certain islands in the 1970's, you must clarify your ground. The logic is very very clear.You have the burden of proof.oo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "What does it matter what I know? It is your government using the excuse of Terra Nullius for occupying the islands."Alright. Since you dont want to play. I'll define it for you. This is coming straight from the WORLD HERITAGE ENCYCLOPEDIA:Terra nullius (/?t?r? n??la?.?s/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty.Source: community(dot)worldheritage(dot)org/article/WHEBN0000247874/nullius

China had never exercised sovereignty over those Spratly islands because if they had, its navy would have been able to shoo away non-Chinese from those islands. In fact, communist China did not dare venture into the Spratleys because the home of the US military was just right across in Subic, Philippines.How do you think China backup its sovereignty claim before the international community? That they had a fleeting glimpse of those islands a long, long time ago? LMAO.** * Reply* * Share *

****oo

Arcane Arcane 2 months agojustice wrote, "In order to show you have the true version of Tibetan history, I challenge you to show me the UN official report, written by credible sources, c



ondemning the Tibetan invasion and Chinese atrocities."Sure thing. Here's one credible source -- the World Heritage Encyclopedia -- quoting the UN as it describes Chinese invasion and illegal occupation of Tibet. Head straight down to "Physical Abuses" Link: worldheritage(dot)org/articles/Human

_rights_in_TibetThe United Nations had also passed several resolutions in 1959, 1961 and then in 1965. Access the link below and then click on "2079 (xx) - Question of Tibet."Link: un(dot)org/documents/ga/res/20/ares20(dot)htmYou can also find the other two resolutions mentioned there in this link: tibetpolicy(dot)eu/un-general-assembly-resolution-2079-xx-of-1965/The UN General Assembly Resolutions of 1965 has this to say:The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the principles relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights,

Reaffirming its resolutions 1353 (XIV) of 21 October 1959 and 1723 (XVI) of 20 December 1961 on the question of Tibet,

Gravely concerned at the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet and the continued suppression of their distinctive cultural and religious life, as evidenced by the exodus of refugees to the neighbouring countries,

Deplores the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet;

Reaffirms that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution of a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;

Declares its conviction that the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Tibet and the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious lifeof its people increase international tension and embitter relations between peoples;

Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of all practices which deprive the Tibetan people of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which they have always enjoyed;

Appeals to all States to use their best endeavors to achieve the purposes of the present resolution.Now, here's a report from the International Commission of Jurist or ICJ. If youdon't know the ICJ, it is an international human-rights non-governmental organization. A very well-respected and credible organization. And they have this in their report describing China's violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Tibetans that the UN described in its resolution quoted above!The Committee found from the evidence it examined that Tibetan human rights hadbeen violated in respect to the following Articles of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights:

Article 3: The right to life, liberty and security of person was violated by acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment.

Article 5: Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were inflicted onthe Tibetans on a large scale.

Article 9: Arbitrary arrests and detention were carried out.



Article 12: Rights of privacy, of home and family life were persistently violated by the forcible transfer of members of the family and by indoctrination turning children against their parents. Children from infancy upwards were removed contrary to the wishes of their parents.

Article 13: Freedom of movement within, to and from Tibet was denied by large-scale deportations.

Article 16: The voluntary nature of marriage was denied by forcing monks and lamas to marry.

Article 17: The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of private property was violated by the confiscation and compulsory acquisition of private property otherwise than on payment ofSource: icj(dot)wpengine(dot)netdna-cdn(dot)com/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/Tibet-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-thematic-report-1997-eng(dot)pdfoo o Replyo o Share ***

o***

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote, "In order to show you have the true version of Tibetan history, I challenge you to show me the UN official report, written by credible sources, condemning the Tibetan invasion and Chinese atrocities."Sure thing. Here's one credible source -- the World Heritage Encyclopedia -- quoting the UN as it describes Chinese invasion and illegal occupation of Tibet. Head straight down to "Physical Abuses" Link: worldheritage(dot)org/articles/Human

_rights_in_Tibet

The United Nations had also passed several resolutions in 1959, 1961 and then in 1965. Access the link below and then click on "2079 (xx) - Question of Tibet."Link: un(dot)org/documents/ga/res/20/ares20(dot)htmYou can also find the other two resolutions mentioned there in this link: tibetpolicy(dot)eu/un-general-assembly-resolution-2079-xx-of-1965/The UN General Assembly Resolutions of 1965 has this to say:The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the principles relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights,

Reaffirming its resolutions 1353 (XIV) of 21 October 1959 and 1723 (XVI) of 20 D

ecember 1961 on the question of Tibet,

Gravely concerned at the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet and the continued suppression of their distinctive cultural and religious life, as evidenced by the exodus of refugees to the neighbouring countries,

Deplores the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet;



Reaffirms that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution of a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;

Declares its conviction that the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Tibet and the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious lifeof its people increase international tension and embitter relations between peoples;

Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of all practices which deprive the Tibetan people of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which they have always enjoyed;

Appeals to all States to use their best endeavors to achieve the purposes of the present resolution.Now, here's a report from the International Commission of Jurist or ICJ. If youdon't know the ICJ, it is an international human-rights non-governmental organization. A very well-respected and credible organization. And they have this in their report describing China's violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Tibetans that the UN described in its resolution quoted above!The Committee found from the evidence it examined that Tibetan human rights hadbeen violated in respect to the following Articles of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights:

Article 3: The right to life, liberty and security of person was violated by acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment.

Article 5: Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were inflicted onthe Tibetans on a large scale.

Article 9: Arbitrary arrests and detention were carried out.

Article 12: Rights of privacy, of home and family life were persistently violated by the forcible transfer of members of the family and by indoctrination turning children against their parents. Children from infancy upwards were removed contrary to the wishes of their parents.

Article 13: Freedom of movement within, to and from Tibet was denied by large-scale deportations.

Article 16: The voluntary nature of marriage was denied by forcing monks and lamas to marry.

Article 17: The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of private property was violated by the confiscation and compulsory acquisition of private property otherwise than on payment ofSource: icj(dot)wpengine(dot)netdna-cdn(dot)com/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/Tibet-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-thematic-report-1997-eng(dot)pdf**

* Reply* * Share ooo**oo



justice_first Arcane a month agoYes, I am not about to endorse all the so called "reports" generated by the ICJbecause of the Dalai Lama and followers' direct or indirect involvement in writing those reports. There were clear political overtone, that is not neutral and not objective. Hear says could never replace direct factual investigation insideTibet. You have to travel extensively inside Tibet to really understand what isgoing on. Don't rely on the testimonies of Dalai's group of fanatics for the right information. This is a question of sourcing. Not all UN resolutions were fair or even accurate because there were political interference from powerful countries in the Assembly particularly from the US. It is now known that the CIA was involved in the rebellion in Tibet and the financial support to the Dalai Lama. What justice could that be anyway? Is the ICJ ready to criticize the US extremely inhumane drone killings? I don't think the ICJ is objective and neutral in itsstanding. I don't find the PRC represented in the ICJ. What kind of UN body could that be?oo o Replyo o Share ***

o*oo

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoThank you for bringing the ICJ, the Tibet human rights issue into the picture. I am for human rights and freedom of expression. I am not even a communist as you have accused me of. I commented on the SCS issue on basis of historic facts. Ihope both China and the Philippines will negotiate to resolve the issue, otherwise the only venue will be the international court of justice. This is quite clear by now.Just on the sideline, I am for human rights for the people of Tibet and China.

oo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote ,"Thank you for bringing the ICJ, the Tibet human rights issue into the picture. I am for human rights and freedom of expression. I am not even acommunist as you have accused me of. I commented on the SCS issue on the basis of historic facts."You're very welcome. But you're flip-flopping. You're accusing the UN of being biased of their resolutions. In fact, you don't accept their findings that the fundamental rights and liberty of the Tibetan people have been gravely violated by China.But you seem to agree to the findings of the ICJ (I hope). Otherwise, you won't



thank me for sharing you the report and say that you're all for human rights and freedom of expression. Even mentioned that you're not a communist.

I'm going to drop a bombshell on you. I've intentionally didn't mention the fact that the ICJ works mostly under the auspices of the United Nations. It's even safe to say that it's a branch of the UN since it reports to the UN on a regularbasis concerning human rights and rule of law around the world. In fact, its current president, Prof. Sir Nigel Rodley, is a member of the UN Human Rights Committee. Its vice president, Prof. Robert Goldman has worked for the UN Human Rights Commission. Former president Mary Robinson was also a member of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

And here's another bombshell. Those UN resolutions were actually drawn from theICJ reports and the report from His Holiness, Dalai Lama, on the violence and deprivation of rights and liberty committed by the Chinese on the Tibetan people....Later that July, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) published TheQuestion of Tibet and the Rule of Law, the first of several reports. It found that evidence points to a prima facie case of systematic intentionto destroy in whole or in part the Tibetans as a separate nation and the Buddhist religion in Tibet. Concern by the international community finally moved the General Assembly to act, and the first resolution on Tibet was passed in October of that year.

Tibets case was bolstered by the ICJs second report Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic. Upon examining Tibets legal status, and violations of human rights there

, the report concluded that acts of genocide had been committed, and that Tibet was at the very least a de facto independent State before its annexation by the Chinese government in 1951. With the support of 56 member states, Resolution 1723 (XVI) was passed in the General Assembly on December.

By 1965 conditions in Tibet remained bleak. A third ICJ report, Continued Violations of Human Rights in Tibet, was published the previous December. Based on accounts from Tibetan refugees fleeing to India, the report disclosed a continuanceof ill-treatment of many monks, lamas, and other religious figures, resulting in death through excessive torture, beatings, starvation and forced labour Following the report and the Dalai Lamas appeal, the issue was reintroduced at the UN yetagain by the 1961 sponsors, joined this time by Nicaragua and the Philippines.

Source: savetibet(dot)org/policy-center/united-nations/un-general-assembly-resolutionsHaving said this, are you now going to doubt the credibility of the reports of this highly-respected organization as you doubt the fairness of the UN resolutions? You're just fooling yourself if you deny the horrible atrocities -- as described in the ICJ reports and in the UN resolutions -- committed by China on the Tibetan people. That's like saying the Holocaust never happened.Do you also doubt the credibility of the World Heritage Encyclopedia for quoting the UN, characterizing Chinese invasion and illegal occupation of Tibet by "acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment; torture and cruel, inhuman and degraded treatment of Tibetans on a large scale?"And since you say you're not a communist, where are you from?

** * Reply* * Share *****



oo

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoRegarding resolution 2079 of 18 December 1965 of the General Assembly of UN, onquestion of Tibet, I cannot see any wording condemning China's "invasion" of Tibet or any alleged atrocities carried out by the Chinese. I have noted the so called grave concern on the violation of human rights in Tibet without giving any substantial evidence. This resolution was adopted in 1965 when the Chinese mainland government was not represented in the General Assembly debate. The PRC government was unable to defend the politically biased anti communist one sided accusation of human rights violation in Tibet. This was obviously unfair judgement because the arguments from the other sides were never given a chance. There are pro Chinese and anti Chinese arguments in the cold war era, and such one sided simple resolution is an example of the tremendous prejudice and bias of the time led by the west and the US against communism and the Soviets. Therefore I cannot rightly accept this resolution as a fair piece of judgement. On the question of human rights in Tibet, much has been written about the Theocratic Serfdom before the 1950, and the extremely cruel human condition, considered to be much much worse than under Chinese rule.By the way, most of the countries today recognize Chinese SOVEREIGNTY over Tibet, and none recognizes the rebel government in India. Tibet today has the highest living standards in all times. That should tell you something.I am not an expert on Tibetan history, and therefore I would pass the chance of

further discussing the subject. .oo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote,"Regarding resolution 2079 of 18 December 1965 of the General Assembly of UN, on question of Tibet, I cannot see any wording condemning China's "invasion" of Tibet or any alleged atrocities carried out by the Chinese. I have noted the so called grave concern on the violation of human rights in Tibet without giving any substantial evidence."Do you even know the meaning of the word CONDEMN, Justice?????? **bangs head onthe wall** Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! How old are you? Seriously, this is too funny. Boy, you made me laughed there.Alright. I'll give you a hint. LMAO. "Condemn" and "deplore" are synonymous. Hahahahahaha.

You're just trying to find a loophole. There's no loophole there, buddy. The details of the atrocities committed by your people on the Tibetans are all recorded in those ICJ reports that have been submitted to the UN. Why don't you take the time to read it? I gave you the link of that ICJ PDF book, right? The reports are all described there in detail. Read it.** * Reply* * Share



*******

justice_first Arcane a month agoIn an effort to discredit China on the SCS issue, some countries turn to attacking China on the Tibet issue. They are following US foot step of attacking China's human right records, and most of all China's communism. All these will be futile because China will continue to improve its economy, for all the mainland andTibet, so that its people will be enjoying better and better living standards and human rights, and stability. Yes, stability is important because you need stability for economic growth. China knows what is far more important: to achieve its targets in this century. The problem is still very much with the Dalai Clique, as some people would characterized them as clique. However they will never succeed in destabilizing Tibet because China will be too strong, and the Tibetan people choose growth rather than empty promises from the clique. Tibet's problem is economical, not religious. Tibet has too much religion already, as I have personally witness. They need advance education, economic development, industrial progress, and increase in living standards. The Chinese government is doing fine, instead of just talking. The whole Tibet is thriving. This is the best form of hu

man condition, when people has economic power.The internal condition in Tibet is far more complex than you know, because of the presence of the Dalai interference with the help of the CIA.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "In an effort to discredit China on the SCS issue, some countriesturn to attacking China on the Tibet issue. They are following US foot step of attacking China's human right records, and most of all China's communism. "That's because your communist government has a history of violence in staking territorial claims. China had invaded and occupied Tibet and the East Turkestan, killed thousands of people and subjected the survivors to cruelty. It had scuffled with Vietnam, India, Japan and even Russia. And now, you are here in our backyard, employing the same gunboat diplomacy. We're not going to take that cr4p here. We're going to use the laws to fight China. The Philippines may not be a powe

rful nation as your country, but we're not going to give up a fight when we know we are on the right side of the law.justice wrote, "The internal condition in Tibet is far more complex than you know, because of the presence of the Dalai interference with the help of the CIA."A 10 year old can make a very convincing story than that. So, please spare me your lies. No one's going to believe that if you can't even cite a credible source to back it up.** * Reply



* * Share *******

justice_first Arcane a month agoOK, you English major. I will tell you the truth. Condemn is a much stronger word in the English Language meaning something is absolutely wrong. A condemned criminal may suffer the death penalty. Deplore, on the other hand, is a much lighter weaker word meaning inferring some personal preference of not agreeing, not liking something. They are not synonymous.When the ICJ and Dalai Lama is apparently so close, I have doubts that it can maintain a neutral unbiased attitude toward the most sensitive question of Tibet.Dalai Lama is known to be very anti China, strongly political as well as religious. I will not trust the ICJ in all its criticism of China on human rights violation. The Dalai Lama was the head of a most brutal regime in Tibet before the 1950. You can read a lot on that regime of Serfdom and slaves, and the cruelty was beyond your imagination. Yet Today the Dalai Lama is criticizing China for violating human rights. I strongly think he has political intention in his associati

on with the ICJ, giving prizes to its members etc. etc. The ICJ is simply not neutral and objective in rendering judgement in my view because of clear lack of "first hand" knowledge and experience inside Tibet. What is the use of hear says? One sided comment is dangerous. The west stand on the side of Dalai Lama and US, for geopolitical purposes, when criticizing China's human rights records. We know now that China has roughly brought over 500 millions people out of abject poverty in the last 30 years, to become one of the leading economy in the world. Literacy has shot up to over 95%. Human rights have largely been respected.Have you been inside Tibet? You should go there before you pass any harsh judgement on human rights. I have been there.I wonder how often the ICJ criticizes the US for human rights violations. War after war, drone after drone, the US killings go on and on, with innocent women and children unnecessarily slaughtered and sacrificed for the so called anti terro

rism What has the ICJ said about all those killings in terms of human rights for the women and children ? If it has remained darkly silent on those killings, Iwould consider it a western political puppet, not worth my time to read their opinions, with any seriousness.After all, I prefer to go and see for myself inside Tibet.** * Reply* * Share ***

****

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ,"Condemn is a much stronger word in the English Language meaningsomething is absolutely wrong. A condemned criminal may suffer the death penalty. Deplore, on the other hand, is a much lighter weaker word meaning inferring some personal preference of not agreeing, not liking something. They are not synon



ymous."Fail again. The word condemn has two different meanings depending on how you use it.Condemn (verb)1. express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure."fair-minded people declined to condemn her on mere suspicion"synonyms: censure, criticize, denounce, revile, blame, chastise, berate, reprimand, rebuke, reprove, take to task, find fault with; More

2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death."the rebels had been condemned to death"Here's deplore:Deplore (verb)1. feel or express strong disapproval of (something)."we deplore this act of violence"synonyms: abhor, find unacceptable, frown on, disapprove of, take a dim view of, take exception to; detest, despise; condemn, denounce"we deplore violence"In the context of those UN resolutions, it CLEARLY meant to express STRONG or COMPLETE DISAPPROVAL of the GRAVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED by the CHINESE PEOPLE on the Tibetans. And, thus, DEPLORE is SYNONYMOUS to CONDEMN! LOL. Goodgrief, Justice. In your effort to defend the wrong (China), you've become ignorant.justice wrote, "When the ICJ and Dalai Lama is apparently so close, I have doubt

s that it can maintain a neutral unbiased attitude toward the most sensitive question of Tibet. Dalai Lama is known to be very anti China, strongly political as well as religious. I will not trust the ICJ in all its criticism of China on human rights violation. "The ICJ is an independent organization and its reports are UNBIASED and completely INDEPENDENT from the Dala Lama's. As a leader of his people, he made an appeal to the UN to save the Tibetans from the relentless persecution by the ChineseOCCUPIERS.As for the US, its military and allies didn't go to the Middle East with the goal of occupying another country and killing innocent people like your China did in Tibet and the East Turkestan territories. The US and her allies are in the Middle East to fight the terrorists who have been butchering anyone who doesn't embrace their radical beliefs.

You read too much Chinese propaganda that you're now incapable of feeling sympathy towards the victims of Chinese aggression in Tibet. And you claim to be all for human rights for the people of Tibet? Shame on you.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

justice_first Arcane a month agoFor goodness sake, people don't use words by merely looking up dictionary. Words have meanings as well as feelings attached. This is why Condemn is generally considered a much stronger harsher word than deplore. The use of words is dictated by human feelings, not by a dictionary. You might get killed by using the wrong word. The choice of word in a legal context, such as in a resolution, is even more important. Deplore is the right word they used because of the clearly limite



d power of the UN general assembly. It is not an international court of law. They could not use the word condemn because it is too strong. Therefore, by practice, they are not the same.China has denied very clearly some of the violation alleged by the west. The Dalai Lama is trying hard, with CIA help, to stir up conflict within Tibet. This might be part of the reason of strife and discord in some sector of the society there. But, over-all the Chinese government has been tremendously successful in bringing progress and prosperity to Tibet, benefiting all the people in Tibet. Dalai can only talk about things and instigating discord. He will not lead Tibet to a much brighter future.China is not occupying Tibet. Tibet is part of China since the 12th century. You have to get this right. Even the Dalai Lama is not saying Tibet is not part ofChina. There are separatists, but they will not succeed.The US is just a hypocritical nation with double standards. It is not a member of UNCLOS, and yet insists other countries follow the rules. As for human rightsviolation, the US has gravely violated human rights by going to war in Iraq without UN approval. What is this? rule based approach ?You too have double standards, all over you, that you may not even know. That is a pity.** * Reply* * Share

*******

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "The US is just a hypocritical nation with double standards. It is not a member of UNCLOS, and yet insists other countries to follow the rules."Just because the US isn't an UNCLOS member doesn't entitle China to derogate from its duty and back out.

The fact that China is an UNCLOS signatory doesn't exempt it from the final judgement of the arbitration over the issue. As an UNCLOS member, China has given consent to arbitration. Even if China will not participate, the proceeding will continue as it is now and, according to Article 11 of the Convention, its arbitration award will be final and without appeal. It shall be complied by the partiesto the dispute and it will be binding.It will not be in the best interest of China if it ignores the arbitration ruling because it will show that China has no respect for the very laws it ratified.** * Reply* * Share

*******

justice_first Arcane a month agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?...



in about 10 years, when the Chinese economy become the number one economy of the world, the whole dynamic of the SCS will change. Japan will change. Vietnam will change. The whole SCS dispute will be handled by negotiation and joint development, which incidentally can only be the only way to resolve the issue, over the long term, on a practical level.Nations will sit down and put their differences on the table, and jointly find solution together in peace. This will be a happy ending.** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "China is not occupying Tibet. Tibet is part of China since the 12th century. You have to get this right."Not according to the Dalai Lama. And within the international laws, Tibet remain

s an independent state under ILLEGAL OCCUPATION. This is recognized by the US Congress:Whereas the United States should not condone aggression by accepting Chinas claim to sovereignty over Tibet; Now, therefore, be it:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that Tibet, including those areas incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, and Quinghai, is AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY UNDER THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WHOSE TRUE REPRESENTATIVES ARE THE DALAI LAMA and the TIBETAN GOVERNMENT IN EXILE as recognized by the Tibetan people." (Passed the Senate May 24 (legislative day, April 25) 1991).A conference of international lawyers also recognize the illegal occupation of Tibet by China and concluded that:

Since the military action of 1949/50 Tibet has been UNDER THE ALIEN OCCUPATION AND DOMINATION of the PRC and has been administered with the characteristics of an OPPRESSIVE COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION. (Article 5.7 Conference of International Lawyers-Self-Determination and Independence for Tibet London 6th to 10th January 1993).It's a shame that a person like you denies the horrible human atrocities committed by your government on the Tibetan people as if China has not committed horrendous crimes on its own people. 45 million Chinese were murdered by your great leader Mao Zedong. If a leader could do that to his own kind, then how much more to others whom he had no racial and cultural connections? 300 million babies were forcibly aborted through your government's One Child Policy. And here you are claiming to be all for human rights and freedom of expression and questioning the credibility of the ICJ reports?? Ha! You're a hypocrite. Shame on you.




**

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "For goodness sake, people don't use words by merely looking up dictionary. Words has meanings as well as feelings attached."For Pete's sake, it doesn't remove the fact that the United Nations has expressed STRONG DISAPPROVAL (CONDEMNATION) of the human atrocities committed by your people on the Tibetans. IT DOES NOT MAKE THE CRIME ANY LESSER. A MURDER IS STILL A MURDER. A RAPE IS STILL A RAPE. And besides, feelings associated with words are subjective. What maybe a strong word to you may not be the case to others.justice wrote ,"China has denied very clearly some of the violation alleged by the west. The Dalai Lama is trying hard, with CIA help, to stir up conflict within Tibet."Oh, yeah? Where did you get this information? From your barber? You think you can just tell people some wild stories and expect them to believe you without backing them up with credible sources? Don't take people for f00ls. You have to do better than that.** * Reply* * Share *

******

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoThe North and South Korean situation is different from China's. Both the PRC and ROC proclaim to owning the same territories and people. There is no division of sovereignty. This is solidly proven by their respective constitution. What is between the North and South Korean is purely a matter for them to decide among themselves.

If the US wants to intervene in matters relating to Taiwan's independence, it has to go to the security council of the UN. China has veto power. This means theUS can never legally intervene in China's internal business. This is quite clear. Of course we have seen US attacking Russia in the UN for interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs.Regarding China's historic title to the SCS, I would suggest the Philippines togo the ICJ instead of the ITLOS, despite China's position in the ICJ, to prove to the world that Philippines has a case. It is most interesting to see how Philippines can present its own historic title and how the law of the sea can trump the international laws on sovereignty. Please do it if you can. This is better than just attacking China's claim on historic title. Philippines strongest argument is the 200 miles EEZ, a construct of the 1982 law of the sea. However it has not precluded historic titles before 1982. The UNCLOS is not even a law on sovere

ignty, and therefore cannot handle historic titles and historic rights.** * Reply* * Share ****



***

Arcane justice_first 2 months agoHey, Justice. Check out the reaction of your President Xi when German Chancellor Angela Merkel showed him some ancient Chinese maps showing Hainan as China's southernmost territory. The maps were created by Mr. dAnville, considered as a "professional, prolific and prestigious cartographer in Europe in the 18th century." Funny stuff. LMAO.The map was made on the basis of combined surveys and measurements by Qing dynasty and French missionaries, helping Europeans fully and correctly understand overall geographical features of China.Source: southchinasea(dot)com/analysis/738-german-chancellors-map-unveils-chinas-territories-limited-by-hainan-island(dot)html** * Reply* * Share ****

***

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoNo map is 100% correct. Each map may be designed to show some specific features. Indeed, if the map in question, as presented by the German Chancellor, is for showing "geographical features" of old China, then its scope could have easily omitted the administration aspects of the SCS. We can find significant amount of historic records on administration, naming, and discovery form China. The fact for historians to find out is not whether the SCS was included in old Chinese maps, it is more the fact of factual administration on which the historic title wasbased. Philippines has no old records of administration before 1945.

** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote, "We can find significant amount of historic records on administration, naming, and discovery form China."Significant amount? Hahahahaha. You don't really stop lying, do you? But that'sfine with me. It's your reputation as a poster is at stake here. LOL.justice wrote, "The fact for historians to find out is not whether the SCS was included in old Chinese maps, it is more the fact of factual administration on which the historic title was based."So, basically you're saying that ancient China has been drawing all their territories on their maps for thousands and thousands of years, but doesn't include th



e South China Sea despite being part of China. That's what you're saying, right? Tell me why this isn't logical, Justice? Tell me why this isn't going to fly with the international community? The historians will not believe this cr4p you just posted.Let's see. Rome had a map of all the territories they conquered in the world including waters. So did the Persians. So did the Mongols, the Turks, the French, the Spaniards and others. They all proudly recorded their territories on their historical documents and maps. And China?China says, "Oh! We didn't include the South China Sea in our maps because, forus, factual administration of the SCS was more important. But we drew our mainland territory, Hainan and the small bit of water surrounding it!" Hahahahahaha. LMAOSee, Justice, this is what happens when you base your arguments on lies. You have to invent something up to avoid answering directly because the real answer isn't going to be in your favor. It's pathetic.** * Reply* * Share ****

***

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoIt is well known, that in 1947, China diplayed the eleven dash line "symbol" tosignify its Sovereignty over the islands and features. This was in all Chinese maps. No one challenged China's claim at that time. Philippines claim began in the 1970's or around that time, much later than China's.Philippines had no official map of the SCS islands upon its independence in 1946, therefore has no historic title.Chinese first discovery, first naming, and administration, based on historic evidence, were in fact the very basis of its historic title. This is extremely stro

ng compared to Philippines assertions in the 1970's and on the EEZ.** * Reply* * Share ooo**oo

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote ,"It is well known, that in 1947, China diplayed the eleven dash line "symbol" to signify its Sovereignty over the islands and features."No. It is NOT well-known. Stop lying. It's not cool.Now, to prove to you that it is not well-known. I'm going to ask you a very simple question. When did China submit an official dash-line map to the UN?The answer to this will only prove your lack of knowledge to the events. LOL.justice wrote ,"Chinese first discovery, first naming, and administration, based on historic evidence, were in fact the very basis of its historic title."



Again, no official historical documents supporting this claim. In fact, China has yet to provide a convincing evidence to prove its historical claim of the entire South China Sea. So, try again.oo o Replyo o Share ***o*oo

justice_first justice_first 2 months agoAnother very powerful evidence is China's repossession of the islands and features in the SCS from the Japanese. All the major allies in the world did not challenge China's entitlement to the repossession. This is concrete and solid evidence that only China has the sovereignty concerned, and the UN actually issued written authorization to China (only) to perform certain specific services and functions in the SCS for the general good. The papers are kept in China's archive. The US is totally aware of this fact because the US was member of the UN committee

issuing such authorization. This is why US is not about to challenge China's claim in the SCS.Now you have it, I presume.oo o Replyo o Share ***oo

**

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote , "Another very powerful evidence is China's repossession of the islands and features in the SCS from the Japanese."Which islands and features did they repossess after WW2? Do you know? I highly doubt it.You're just generalizing as if China has occupied each of the 33,000 islands and reefs in the Spratleys after the war. You need to be more specific. You can't just say "South China Sea" or "Spratley" as if every island or reef in that region has been occupied by your nation.If China had occupied the Scarborough Shoals, Mischief Reef and others within 20

0 EEZ of the Philippines at that time, we would have known it immediately. In fact, China had never dared enter the Spratleys because the US military has been projecting American dominance in Asia and the Western Pacific from its home in Subic, Philippines. US and Philippine navies used Scarborough Shoals, which are just rocks, as target practice.justice wrote , "All the major allies in the world did not challenge China's entitlement to the repossession."That's because China has never submitted an official map to the UN that time. Tell me when they submitted an official dash-line-map to the UN. Do you even knowthis? I doubt it. But here you are giving me another bullcr4p as if it's the "Ho



ly Grail" of truth. LOL.justice wrote ,"This is concrete and solid evidence that only China has the sovereignty concerned, and the UN actually issued written authorization to China (only) to perform certain specific services and functions in the SCS for the general good. The papers are kept in China's archive."Hahahahahaha! You really are full of it! :))))))))))))))))The papers are kept in China's archive??? LMAO. Why??? How come China doesn't share your so-called UN written authorization on their government's website or before the international media when it really matters in this time to solidify their claim???And besides the UN should have a copy of that imaginary written authorization of yours. But the fact that many countries including Australia, UK, Canada, Japan, Belgium, Germany, Spain, US, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia, all the European Union countries and the G7 countries have called on China to respect the international laws governing land and sea (UNCLOS) and to face the Philippines and other claimants before the tribunal in settling the dispute is enough proof that no such official document or permission has been given to China. Those countries I mentioned are ALL MEMBERS of the United Nations. And not one of them has mentioned your so-called UN written authorization.The truth is, Justice. The 9-dash-line violates international laws. No country believes in it except your government. China is alone. It would be in the best interest of China and her people to heed the international call to respect the laws and that territorial dispute must be resolved through UN arbitration-- not thr

ough bilateral negotiation because we already experienced being deceived by your government.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoWhich law in international law the nine dash lines have violated ?China has announced recently, while doing the reclamation, the existance of UN authorization for specific services such as weather reporting, navigational guidance, maritime rescue etc in the SCS. The US was a member of the UN committee issuing the authorization. I am sure the document will come out later. I have toldyou all the facts you need to assess your country's position in the SCS.** * Reply*

* Share *******

Arcane justice_first a month ago



Justice wrote "China has announced recently, while doing the reclamation, the existance of UN authorization for specific services such as weather reporting, navigational guidance, maritime rescue, etc in the SCS."Where'd you get this news? From the Chinese propaganda media? LOL! I highly doubt that such document exist. And even if it's true, I'll bet you the document doesn't say anything that will give validity to the 9-dash-line claim. Otherwise, China would have shared it to the international media a long time ago since it'sa solid, undeniable proof of UN-backed 9-dash-line.We're talking about the UN here, okay? The UN will not give any country the permission to infringe the sovereign rights of other nations except on very specialcases. So, I just find this news from you incredibly unbelievable. If such document exist, maybe it's for humanitarian purposes like what you said "maritime rescue" in international water and maybe even in cooperation with other sovereign states close to the area, but it has nothing to do with the 9-dash-line.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

justice_first Arcane a month agoI am sure it is from a Chinese source to support the recent land reclamation onthe use of the outposts to fulfill China's "international responsibilities". These responsibilities, including maritime search and rescue, were assigned to China by the IMO, the International Maritime Organization of the UN, within a 1985 directive or determination. The US was a member, among many, of the organization. China was the "only" country having administrative power of the SCS after WW2 to provide maritime services to the region NORTH OF 10 DEGREE NORTH LATITUDE, AND WEST OF 124 DEGREE EAST LONGITUDE. The geographical location was clear and specific.

China has disclose this information to provide sufficient proof that the reclamation is legitimate and necessary to perform the duties authorized by the UN. Itis interesting to note that China was the only country assign such duties in the SCS after WW2. At the time, only China had legitimate outposts in the SCS.** * Reply* * Share ****

***

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ,"I am sure it is from a Chinese source to support the recent land reclamation... China has disclose this information to provide sufficient proofthat the reclamation is legitimate and necessary to perform the duties authorized by the UN."You are sure? LOL. Even if it's true, it's not a permission to infringe on other



nation's sovereignty. It doesn't give validity to the 9-dash-line claim. Chinaneeds to do better than that if it wants to convince the world of its historical title in the South China Sea. Just the fact that it comes from the Chinese propaganda media is already suspect. China cannot even substantiate that news by showing to the media your imaginary UN written authorization. Hahahahaha.** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane justice_first a month agoJustice wrote "Which law in international law the nine dash line have violated?"All of the features that China ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED are either submerged reefs orrocks. For examples, McKennan Reef, Mischief Reef and Johnson South Reef are permanently submerged features, so they don't have any maritime entitlements. And yet China claims the reefs more than 200 nautical miles from its southernmost isl

and of Hainan and the waters surrounding them. That's is a violation of Article13.2 of the Law of the Sea Convention.

For rocks like the Scarborough Shoal that China seized illegally they have no EEZ or continental shelf. Yet China is claiming more than 12 nautical miles of water surrounding it. It violates Article 121.3 of the Convention.China also built artificial islands on some submerged features like the Fiery Cross Reef. This is in direct violation of Article 55 and Article 56.b as you arenot allowed to build artificial islands beyond 200 nautical miles from your coastal baseline, which in this case, from China's southernmost territory of Hainan. Also, artificial islands don't possess the status of islands and has no territorial sea but China considers them islands. That is also a violation of Article 60.8 of the Convention.

You should read the detailed study of China's 9-dash-lines by the US State Department. According to the study, if the 9-dash-lines represent maritime boundaries then they are in direct violation of the Law of the Sea because those dashes are more than 200 nautical miles from the Spratley islands and features being claimed and or occupied by China. In fact, they are very close to the coastal linesof other sovereign states.Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfChina cannot use "historic titles" to justify its ridiculous claim because the Convention has not given exceptions for such things.Because the Conventions provisions relating to the EEZ, continental shelf, and high seas do not contain exceptions for historic claims, the Conventions provisions prevail over any assertion of historic claims made in those areas. The 1962 study on historic waters commissioned by the Conference that adopted the 1958 Genev

a Conventions reached this same conclusion withrespect to interpretation of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.

The 1982 LOS Convention continued this approach by retaining provisions relatedto historicbays and titles that are substantively identical to those contained in the 1958Convention. Had the drafters of the LOS Convention intended to permit historic claims of one State to override theexpressly stated rights of other States, the Convention would have reflected thi



s intention in itstext. Instead, as with the 1958 Convention, the LOS Convention limits the relevance of historicclaims to bays and territorial sea delimitation.Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfThus, those "historic title" lines are in direct violation of Article 10 and Article 15 of the Law of the Sea Convention.The argument that China's claim is made prior to UNCLOS DOES NOT give reason for China to not uphold the Convention. The Convention was created to solve ALL the issues of maritime boundaries among parties involved and as a signatory to theUNCLOS, China has consented to be BOUND to its laws.The fact that Chinas claims predate the LOS Convention does not provide a basis under the Convention or international law for derogating from the LOS Convention. 72 The Conventions preamble states that it is intended to settle all issues relating to the law of the sea and establish a legal order that promotes stability and peaceful uses of the seas.73 Its object and purpose is to set forth a comprehensive, predictable, and clear legal regime describing the rights and obligationsof States with respect to the sea. Permitting States to derogate from the provisions of the Convention because their claims pre-date its adoption is contrary to and would undermine this object and purpose.Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfChina has not even met the 3 criteria recognized by international laws for staking a "historic title" claim.Even assuming that a Chinese historic claim in the South China Sea were governed

by general international law rather than the Convention, the claim would still need to be justified under such law. In this regard, a Chinese historic waters claim in the South China Sea would not pass any element of the three-part legal test described above under the Basis of Analysis:

(1) No open, notorious, and effective exercise of authority over the South China Sea. China did not communicate the nature of its claim within the dashed line during the period when China might purport to have established a historic claim;indeed, the nature of Chinese authority claimed within the dashed line still has not been clarified. Likewise, China has not established its claims with geographical consistency and precision. As such, it cannot satisfy the open or notorious rquirements for a valid claim to historic waters.

(2) No continuous exercise of authority in the South China Sea. There has long been widespread usage of the South China Sea by other claimants in a manner thatwould not be consistent with Chinese sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction. Many islands and other features in the South China Sea are occupied not just by China, but by Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan, and the mainland maritime claims of Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, and Vietnam also project into the South China Sea. These countries have all undertaken activities, such as fishing and hydrocarbon exploration, in their claimed maritime space that are not consistent with effective or continuous exercise of Chinese sovereignty orexclusive rights over that space.

(3) No acquiescence by foreign States in Chinas exercise of authority in the Sout

h China Sea. No State has recognized the validity of a historic claim by China to the area within the dashed line. Any alleged tacit acquiescence by States canbe refuted by the lack of meaningful notoriety of any historic claim by China, discussed above. A claimant State therefore cannot rely on nonpublic or materially ambiguous claims as the foundation for acquiescence, but must instead establish its claims openly and publicly, and with sufficient clarity, so that other States may have actual knowledge of the nature and scope of those claims.69 In thecase of the dashed line, upon the first official communication of a dashed-linemap to the international community in 2009, several immediately affected countries formally and publicly protested.70 The practice of the United States is also



notable with respect to the lack of acquiescence. Although the U.S. Government is active in protesting historic claims around the world that it deems excessive, the United States has not protested the dashed line on these grounds because it does not believe that such a claim has been made by China. Rather, the United States has requested that the Government of China clarify its claims.71Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfIn conclusion, China is in the wrong side of the law. No other country has recognized the 9-dash-lines. The good government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) has even abandoned the claim because it clearly doesn't conform to the Law of theSea. The international community refuses to be subjected to gunboat diplomacy and is calling for China to respect the international laws and settle the maritime disputes with other claimants through the UN arbitration.** * Reply* * Share *******

justice_first Arcane a month agoChina is not asking any country to recognize the nine dash lines. I don't know why you are so concerned about this "symbol" on Chinese maps. The US don't understand what the lines stand for except they are symbols for China's claim in the SCS. They are not maritime delimitation, and therefore has nothing to do with law of the sea. This is why the nine dash lines violate no law at all.** * Reply* * Share *

******

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice ,"China is not asking any country to recognize the nine dash lines."Then it shouldn't continue with that bogus claim. World countries are opposed to it. Why continue?**




justice_first Arcane a month agoChina has displayed the lines as a symbol of its sovereignty in the SCS, that was the result of historic title and the second world war. The case is very strong in terms of facts and evidence. Philippines is ignoring this claim at its own risks, as an outlaw. Your country will suffer the consequences of occupying Chinese territories. China is not in a hurry to settle the issue.** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "Your country will suffer the consequences of occupying Chinese territories. China is not in a hurry to settle the issue."Veiled threats of war isn't going to work on the Philippines. We're going to use

the laws to expose China of its true color. We may not have bigger guns, but the laws and the truth are on our side. Let's see how China can handle it.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

justice_first Arcane a month agoThe Philippines is almost blind in following the American to the Tribunal arbitration, which is flawed on fundamentals. Sea cannot dominate lands. That is onlya "clever" American ploy, or contraption to fool the world and establish "obstacles" to China's development. I wonder what kind of spell is forced upon the Philippines. You cannot lead your nation with half your brain intact. The American will not be your protector because they have their own problems and concerns. Philippines must rely on itself, not on American, or Spain again. Look at all the other Asean nations. They are going forward with vigorous economic programs, unlike the Philippines clinging to the past, staying stagnant in almost all aspectsof its vital growth. Poverty, as China has learned, is and can be the worst form

of violation to human rights. The American is using your country to serve its goals because you still cannot develop the resources in the SCS. You still have no financing to do that. You still do not have the money to build up your military. That is going to be the real costs. China do not need war to solve any problems. China wil negotiate with fairness, as it has done so with 14 other countries on border issues. The outcome is always win win.After all, China has a solid case of history and WW2 behind its claim. When Philippines claimed the Archipelago (Island state) and the surrounding waters, it used the same argument of historic title. This is significant for you to remember.*



* * Reply* * Share ooo**oo

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "The Philippines is almost blind in following the American to the Tribunal arbitration, which is flawed on fundamentals. Sea cannot dominate lands. That is only a "clever" American ploy, or contraption to fool the world and establish "obstacles" to China's development."It's foolish of you to drag the Americans into this mess or to even suggest that the Philippines is just being used by the Americans.Your communist government is encroaching into Philippine territories as it has done so with her other neighbors like Vietnam, India, Japan, Russia, Tibet and the East Turkestan. This is OUR lands, OUR sea that China is stealing here -- NOTthe American's. We have all the right to defend what are rightfully ours in theeyes of international laws. And we are going to use the laws against your govern

ment and put China into shame for its despicable, thieving behavior. Your government can't do anything to stop the Philippines from doing what is right.China has no solid backing for its historical bullcr4p. Until now your government could not substantiate its claim with a tiny bit of concrete proof.You can't even do it yourself. I challenged you to cite me one credible source that would solidify China's claim. Just one freakin' source and you couldn't even do it. LOL. What you're doing here is just lip service. It's nothing. It's allair. Good luck fantasizing your non-existent sovereignty. LOL.oo o Replyo o Share

***oo**

justice_first Arcane a month agoAll you can claim is the so called 200 miles EEZ under UNCLOS. I guess the dispute will continue, for a long long time. Remember UNCLOS is silent on sovereignty, and that is the sad part of a legal regime that came late, approved into law only in 1992. The US has not even ratified this law. We all know this law cannot

trump all the other international law on sovereignty, and therefore the disputeis clearly unfortunate due to this "new" law of the sea.The world is actually more unstable, not safer because of this new law, not better than before 1992.The Philippines is taking a big risk in ignoring all the other laws on sovereignty. You take on China because you think the US will cover your a** * Reply*



* Share *******

justice_first Arcane a month agoBeware of the real truth, that China possessed uncontested title and sovereignty to the islands and feature ( shoals or reefs) clearly after WW2. You have to live with fact. At the end, your country may be the biggest loser among all claimants, because Vietnam will surely cooperate with China and resolve the disputes.Their case is simply too weak. The costs to your country will be huge, as I seeit. The arbitration is unwinnable because it started on the wrong foot with serious flaws. Only the American can recommend such a stupid move, making money outof a poor nation. This is truly unethical. Philippines will gain nothing exceptsome sympathy. America will not make Philippines rich. This is what I mean by consequences: loss in opportunities for your country, while other south east Asians thrive.China's position is : China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands (the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and theNansha Islands) and the adjacent waters. Chinese activities in the South China S

ea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China was the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea Islands and the first to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them. From the 1930s to 1940s, Japan illegally seized some parts of the South China Sea Islands during its war of aggression against China. At the end of the Second World War, the Chinese Government resumed exercise of sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Military personnel and government officials were sent via naval vessels to hold resumption of authority ceremonies. Commemorative stone markers were erected, garrisons stationed, and geographical surveys conducted. In 1947, China renamed the maritime features of the South China Sea Islands and, in 1948, published an official map which displayed a dotted line in the South China Sea. Since the foundingof the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949, the Chinese Government hasbeen consistently and actively maintaining its sovereignty over the South China

Sea Islands. Both the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic ofChina on the Territorial Sea of 1958 and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 expressly provide that the territory of the People's Republic of China includes, among others, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands. All those acts affirm China's territorial sovereignty and relevant maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.in simple terms, China already claimed and administered the land features in SCS in clear terms under international law, before the Philippines "discovered" them. I am not saying Philippines will lose the arbitration, but the chances are really really slim. The illegal occupation is not your best bet.**




Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "Beware of the real truth, that China possessed uncontested title and sovereignty to the islands and feature ( shoals or reefs) clearly after WW2... China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands (the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands) and the adjacent waters. "Quit it, Justice. It's over. You lose. You have nothing to substantiate China'sbogus historical title over the entire South China Sea. All the things you saidhere couldn't hold water in the court of law. It's all air. I rather read a boring novel than your fictional stories of China's sovereignty over the SCS.I asked you some very simple questions and you conveniently avoided them because you knew they would expose China's lies.1. When did China submit an official 9-dash-line map to the UN? (avoided to answer)2. Can you name one Chinese emperor who had claimed sovereignty over the entireSouth China Sea and effectively controlled and administered the water? (avoidedto answer)3. How come all of your ancient Chinese territorial maps consistently show Hainan as the southernmost territory of China? (avoided to answer)4. Why is it that in 1932 your government sent a Note Verbale to France reiterating to the world that Hainan is China's southernmost territory? (will avoid to answer)Feel free to answer these questions anytime you like. Ask your PLA propaganda of

ficer what would be a convincing answer to each of these questions. In the meantime, I'm going to go and read a boring novel. See you later, alligator. :)))))))))))))))))))))oo o Replyo o Share ***oo

**

justice_first Arcane a month agoThe 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and Chinaafter the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.1898 The Philippine Islands were ceded by Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris following the SpanishAmerican War. There was no mention of the SCS.1946 Republic of China sent warships to claim Itu Aba, the largest of the Spratly Islands and renamed it Taiping Island. The Paracels and Spratlys were handed over to Republic of China control from Japan after the 1945 surrender of Japan, since the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surren

ders in that area. The Republic of China garrisoned at Itu Aba (Taiping) islandin 1946 posted Chinese flags and markers on it along with Woody island in the Paracels, France tried, but failed to make them leave Woody island.The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims. The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, showing the U shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.Later in 1953 the People's Republic of China published the map with the 9 dash lines remaining.The above selected chronology, just for your reference, may be informative on th



e origin of the nine dash lines and China's claims, before the Philippines evendeclared "discovery" of some of the islands in the SCS. It would be more correct to say China had a very real administration of the SCS for hundreds of years, and then "officially" claimed the islands and reefs in 1947 through the nine dash lines. This is what the US is asking China for an explanation of the lines.It is then clearer to argue that China actually officially claimed the SCS in 1947, earlier than all the other claimants, through the lines, based on historic relation with the SCS.** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ,"The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the S

pratly and Paracel islands."LMAO. Justice. Nice try, but nope. Try again. Try very, very hard.Did you e-mail your PLA propaganda officer about those questions? No reponse yet, huh? Okay. I'm just here, reading my boring novel. LMAO.** * Reply* * Share ****

***

justice_first Arcane a month agoIf you still do not appreciate China's heavy historic involvements in the SCS before Philippines "discovered" the occupied islands, you have only yourself to blame. The US pivot to Asia has misled your country into thinking you can get what you want.** * Reply*

* Share *******




justice wrote ,"If you still do not appreciate China's heavy historic involvements in the SCS before Philippines "discovered" the occupied islands you have only yourself to blame. The US pivot to Asia has misled your country into thinking you can get what you want."Heavy historic involvements? LMAO. Answer questions number 2, 3 and 4 above to prove it. If you can't answer those simple questions, beat it. Your "heavy historical involvement" is a sham. Not one historical record will support that claim.It's been three hours since I posted that comment. Still haven't got a reply from your propaganda officer? Hahaha. Those are very simple questions. You should be able to answer them if China really has substantial evidence to back its fictional sovereignty over the SCS.I'm playing the piano right now. I expect those answers once I'm done. If you still don't have those answers then what are you doing here? You're just wasting your time doing lip service for something you can't prove. The world will not buy the things you've been posting here. Give us something tangible. Not air, okay? So, try again :)))))))))))))))** * Reply* * Share ***

****

justice_first Arcane a month agoin 1932, China had not officially included the SCS as its sovereign territories. It was in 1947, through the nine dash lines, China effectively incorporated the SCS, and all land features within the lines, into China's territories. This isquite clear by now. Your question 4 is now answered. From 1947 to the 1970's, China's sovereignty was never contested, never challenged, until the adoption of the law of the sea convention in 1992.Before 1992, China was directed/assigned by the UN, through the international ma

ritime organization in 1982, to carry out certain maritime responsibilities forthe international communities in the SCS. China reestablished presence in the SCS, at the largest island named the Taiping Island in Chinese, and other islandsand reefs, with the assistance of US military. China repossessed the islands and reefs directly from the Japanese. All these are facts and evidence open to theinternational community.** * Reply* * Share **

*****

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "in 1932, China had not officially included the SCS as its sovereign territories. It was in 1947, through the nine dash lines, China effectivelyincorporated the SCS, and all land features within the lines, into China's terri



tories. This is quite clear by now. Your question 4 is now answered. From 1947 to the 1970's, China's sovereignty was never contested, never challenged, until the adoption of the law of the sea convention in 1992."That Note Verbale to France is a strong admission by your government that China's southernmost territory doesn't go beyond Hainan. All its so-called "historical evidence" prior to 1932 just go straight out of the window. That admission is the undeniable proof that China has neither claimed nor exercised sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.Now the reason why China's dash-line-map was uncontested from 1947 to 1970s wasquite obvious. China had never submitted an official dash-line-map to the UN during that period. In fact, the maps were only distributed domestically in China and in Chinese language, so how could the world contest the maps when they hadn't received an official copy?I want you to ask your PLA propaganda officer what year China submitted an official 9-dash-line map to the UN because you either don't know or pretend not to know. LOL. It's recent :) And when your government did so, the world naturally reacted especially the Southeast Asian nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Brunei.So, question number 1. Answer that. LOL** * Reply* * Share

*******

justice_first Arcane a month agoThe nine dash lines are the single most glaring and colorful historic evidence that China did to show its claim in 1947 before any other claimants was able to do, to satisfy, in basic terms, modern international law. China was able to do that because of historic experience, historic influence, records, administration,

first discovery, first naming, various activities in the SCS, over hundreds of years before 1947. That should support China's "historic title" to the islands and reefs. You may study how Philippines laid claim on the whole archipelago, andeven to the Moro Islamic states in Southern Philippines on basis of historic title.China used the nine dash lines as a symbol to declare to the world its sovereignty to the landed features, islands, reefs etc in the SCS. This is like placing a rock, a cross, on an island, as a symbol of claim. The claiming was certainly legal in 1947 before any other nation.** * Reply*

* Share *******




justice wrote "The nine dash lines are the single most glaring and colorful historic evidence that China did to show its claim in 1947 before any other claimants was able to do, to satisfy, in basic terms, modern international law."Again and again, you cannot claim historic titles without history. To recap before I end this discussion:1. China's 9 dash line was only created recently and it was not based on history. It's based on an expansionist agenda.2. The Note Verbale to France is a strong admission by China that its southernmost territory doesn't go beyond Hainan island. Any "historical evidence" dating thousands of years prior to the admission in 1932 go straight out the window andcannot be used for evidence.3. Even if we are to use China's so-called thousand year old historical evidences to claim historic or sovereignty title, they don't pass the sovereignty test recognized by international laws. Namely, no effective occupation, no continued exercise of sovereignty, and no acquiescence by foreign states in China's exercise of authority in the South China Sea.3.a All of the ancient Chinese territorial maps consistently show Hainan as China's southernmost territory, and no Chinese emperors has ever claimed sovereignty over the entire South China Sea. None of the ancient Chinese historical records (documents and maps) ever show or mention the South China Sea as being part ofChina.3.b The so-called ancient "historical evidences" by China to stake its claim were travel documents for fishing, trade and scientific observations with maps showing territories not only belonging to China but also to other nations. They are

not proofs of effective occupation by a state recognized by international laws to claim sovereignty.4. China has never made a public notoriety of its historic claim. In fact, the dash-line-maps were only distributed domestically in China and in Chinese language in 1947. China never submitted an official dash-line-map to the UN from 1947 until 2009!5. The 9-dash-line map violates international laws. Particularly, Articles 10, 15, 13.2, 55, 56.b, 60.8 121.3 of the Law of the Sea Convention.6. China cannot use "historic titles" to justify its claim because the Convention has no exceptions for such things.7. China could not use the argument that its claim was made prior to UNCLOS because the Convention was made to solve ALL issues of maritime boundaries. And as a signatory to the UNCLOS, China had consented to be bound to its laws.

8. The People's Republic of China was neither mentioned nor a party to the Cairo Declaration, and thus, China could not use it for justifying its claim over the Senkakus, the Spratley and or the entire South China Sea.9. No other country recognizes China's ridiculous 9-dash-line map. In fact, only China, of all the countries in the world, claims sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.10. The government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) has already abandoned the dash-line claim because it does not conform to international laws.11. All the world countries including Australia, Canada, US, UK, Belgium, Japan, Germany, Spain, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, all the European Union countries and the G7 countries like France, Italy, etc have ALL called on China to respect the international laws governing land and sea (UNCLOS) and to settle the terr

itorial disputes through the UN tribunal.12. Even its closest ally, Russia, does not support China or is neutral in the South China Sea dispute. Source: thediplomat(dot)com/2014/06/why-doesnt-russia-support-china-in-the-south-china-sea/13. If China and other claimants bring the question of sovereignty before the international court, China cannot legitimize its sovereignty claim because many of the islands and or features it currently occupies have been forcibly acquired.Like when the PLA navy massacred 64 unarmed Vietnamese sailors on Johnson SouthReef in 1988. This is in direct violation of international laws, particularly, the "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations



and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."In conclusion, China is making fraudulent claims. And as it has done so in the past with Tibet, East Turkestan, Vietnam, India and Russia, it is now setting its eyes in the Spratleys and the Senkakus, pitting against Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and other nations. China employs deceptive practices, lies and gunboat diplomacy in staking its claim. It is quite contrary to its slogan of a "Peaceful Rise." It is not peaceful when international laws are disrespected.** * Reply* * Share ooo**oo

justice_first Arcane a month agoYou may note that the American never directly challenge China on legal ground, t

hat China has no sovereignty. It pushes Philippines to do it. The American is smarter. They know it will never work after 66 years. No one has filed a claim against China. Why should the Philippines succeed when no one even dare to do that? If the court case fails, only the Philippines has to bear the blame and consequences. In fact the American approach is military, as witnessed by the Pivot. However military action will never help the Philippines to win a legal case, because China will never yield under force and coercion. No wonder some very smart people think Philippines has committed a very stupid strategic error, and will lose big. After that, the Philippines will be completely at US mercy, because Chinawill simply leave Philippines alone. The US will again become the master of thePhilippines, even more powerful than ever before.oo

o Replyo o Share ***o*oo

justice_first Arcane a month agoAs a matter of jurisprudence, in accordance to the spirit of international law,

you or the Philippines government should have brought your case against China'sso called "fraudulent" claim to an international court of justice in 1947, or there about, under protest. You should have filed your protest in 1947 over the nine dash lines and China's claim over the SCS maritime features. You have waitedalmost 66 years to bring on the complaint, not to an international court of justice, but to a maritime tribunal. So whatever reasons, or ground, you are amassing against China today, it is too late due to a statue of limitation (of time) to file a case. If you have not even filed a case, your personal judgement of China violating any international law is completely useless. It is generally accepted that only until a judgement is passed by a court of law against China, China i



s "not" guilty of committing fraudulent claim. This is a fundamental principle of law. There is a very strong case of acquiescence, after 66 years. I am sure you know this point of law. You are simply too late to accuse China of declaring sovereignty on those maritime features as a fraudulent act.oo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote " You should have filed your protest in 1947 over the nine dash lines andChina's claim over the SCS maritime features. You have waited almost 66 years to bring on the complaint, not to an international court of justice, but to a maritime tribunal."No one protested because your China had not officially claimed the region until

2009. The maps were only submitted in that year. As soon as your country did that, it immediately faced opposition from various countries including the Philippines. That's a hard fact to deny. Just ask your PLA propaganda officer if your government had publicly distributed the dash-line maps to other UN states. He would tell you that the maps were only for internal distribution prior to 2009.** * Reply* * Share ***

****

justice_first Arcane a month agoThe UN specifically assigned China to repossess the SCS islands and features from the Japanese after the war. The US assisted China in doing so. This is a known fact, and therefore there is no doubt nations knew about China's position after the war. Even without the nine dash lines, nearly all nations knew what China was doing in 1947. You may be the only exception.The US specifically told the Philippines after independence that the SCS islands or features were not part of, not included in Philippines territories. This is

also a fact.** * Reply* * Share ****



***

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "The UN specifically assigned China to repossess the SCS islands and features from the Japanese after the war."Stop generalizing. Which islands in the South China Sea did the UN assigned to China? And show me proof of your so-called UN authorization that gave China the right to infringe the sovereignty of other nations? I'm sure there is a copy online if it really exist. If it's a UN resolution or an official declaration or authorization, then there should be one online. If you can't even do this, then you are just doing lip service you can't prove. Sorry.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

justice_first Arcane a month agoI am not generalizing, I am telling you facts that you don't know. After you have brushed up your history of the post war Asia after 1945, you will know.** * Reply* * Share ***

****

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "China did not take the islands by force."You are generalizing because when you say SCS islands, you are referring to ALLthe islands of the South China Sea, as if China has actually occupied them all when that's not really the case. So, stop generalizing the entire SCS.justice wrote, "I am telling you facts that you don't know."Facts? And this is coming from someone who was caught fabricating stories? Hahahaha. Okay :))))))))))))))))))

justice_first Arcane a month agoI would sum up, for the last time, in saying that what Philippines is most afraid of is that China actually had historic title. This is why Philippines is doing all it can to demolish China's history in the SCS, China's repossessing the SCS features after 1945, China's nine dash lines set up in 1947,in order to destroy China's claim to historic title. Philippines used historic title to gain control of its Archipelago islands, including the southern Moro Islamic states, and islamic people. Yet it refutes China on using historic title for the SCS. Yet there is so far no court ruling that China has no historic title over SCS features.



Even international law is not clear on China's case because it goes back centuries of intimate relation and administration over the SCS. China has plenty of evidence to support its claim, and no court has ever ruled against them. If China has historic title, which I believe it does, then the Philippines occupation in the 1970's was illegal, and the islands were never Terra Nullius.China openly declared sovereignty in 1947, through the nine dash lines, to all the allies of WW2, to Japan and the rest of the world. There was no challenge. There were periods after 1947 that China was indeed in trouble of its civil war, up to the 1970's, between the mainland and Taiwan, that it was lax in "managing"the islands. Philippines took the chance to steal the islands away from China, only in the 1970's, and destroyed almost all traces of China's presence on the islands.Now, China wants to have them back despite Philippines denial and teaming with all the big powers to oppose China's rightful claim. This is a thieve calling out thieve, and will not succeed in the end. Philippines will only lose out big time in the end.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "I would sum up, for the last time, in saying that what Philippines ismost afraid of is that China actually had historic title."No, not at all. The Philippines is not afraid to face China before any legal proceeding. In fact, it's in the Hague right now. It is China who is afraid of thePhilippines. I don't even think China is ever going to face the Philippines or a

ny claimant before the ICJ because it cannot substantiate its historical title.Plus the fact that it violated international laws when it took those islands/features by force. Add another fact that your government sent a Note Verbale to France, affirming Hainan being the southernmost territory of China. Then another fact that your ancient territorial maps don't show the SCS as being part of China. Then another fact that no Chinese emperor had ever claimed or administered theentire South China Sea, especially the Spratleys. Then the fact that many of the Chinese names given to the Spratley islands were just translated from the British names. And yet another fact that the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations effectively occupied the islands without a sweat. And many more glaring truths that demolish your government's claim over the Spratley. China has a very difficult job to convince the world of its historic title because it's not backed by history.

justice_first Arcane a month agoyou are repeating. we have already covered all the points you are raising. Comparitively, Philippines has the weakest claim among all claimants, because you can't even prove your own entitlement. If you can, why are you going to the tribunal? It is now extremely clear, after reading your nonsense, your country has no valid case of ownership. You just grabbed lands from China, and that is a huge political blunder. You want to challenge China, go ahead. It is clear that your country wanted to expand to the SCS islands, through various illegal occupation. That is not going to work for you under international law because the world knows where Philippines territories end. Reichler cunning repackage will backfire, and will not win for the Philippines in the end. Justice will always be justice, and stealing will not be awarded by law.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "It is now extremely clear, after reading your nonsense, your country has no valid case of ownership. "I know in your country you call facts nonsense when they don't help your case. But when confronted with the truth, you resort to lying and silly comments like "factual administration." I admit I enjoy talking to you because many of your replies are out of touch from reality and funny. Thanks :)




justice wrote, "If you can, why are you going to the tribunal?"Don't worry about the tribunal. We can go to the ICJ after the tribunal. But the BIG question is -- will China ever going to face the Philippines before the ICJ, or will it find another excuse to not attend the proceeding?As you already know, China could not legitimize its claims under international laws because those islands/features were taken forcibly. So, what reason do you think China will come up next time to refuse to face the Philippines before ICJ?

justice_first Arcane a month agoI challenge and recommend the Philippines go to the ICJ with its case. May be Reichler can help too.China did not take the islands by force. China was retaking the islands from Philippines illegal occupation. It is very important to know the facts.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "China did not take the islands by force."I didn't know that using your military to harass our fishermen and our smaller navy wasn't an exercise of force. How about the killing of 64 unarmed Vietnamesesailors? I guess in China they call these incidents a "peaceful re-taking." LOL.

justice_first Arcane a month agoyou do know what happened at the Scarborough Shoal? The Philippines dispatched its only 2nd hand naval gun boat to harass Chinese fishermen, only to be rescuedby Chinese maritime surveillance vessels, not Chinese military ships. China is n

ow using maritime police instead of navy ships. In any case you have to be ableto distinguish between taking and retaking an island, before any meaningful conversation can take place.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ,"you do know what happened at the Scarborough Shoal? The Philippines dispatched its only 2nd hand naval gun boat to harass Chinese fishermen, only to be rescued by Chinese maritime surveillance vessels, not Chinese military ships. "Yes, I know what happened in Scarborough Shoal. Your people were poaching endangered species more than 200 nautical miles from your southernmost territory of Hainan -- in our backyard in Scarborough Shoal. Our coastguards/navy have the right to arrest your fishermen for their illegal activities.

All other Chinese fishing vessels were subsequently boarded and that they all yielded assorted endangered species, corals, live sharks, and other marine endangered species, Pama said.Source: globalnation(dot)inquirer(dot)net/32493/illegal-poaching-activities-of-chinese-vessels-cause-standoffCheck out the photos of the endangered marine species that your fishermen were illegally poaching in our waters from that link. Your people have been illegallypoaching in our waters for many years.Even endangered sea turtles were hunted by your fisherfolks. 500 of them were found in your people's fishing vessels at one time. Here's the news from BBC News:A court in the Philippines has found nine Chinese fishermen guilty of poaching and catching an endangered species in the South China Sea.

Police found more than 500 sea turtles on their boat when the fishermen were intercepted at sea in May.Source: bbc(dot)com/news/world-asia-30173962Here's another one from the Global News, a Canadian-based news agency.MANILA, Philippines The Philippines charged nine Chinese fishermen Monday with poaching more than 500 endangered sea turtles at a disputed South China Sea shoal despite Chinas demand for them to be immediately freed.Source: globalnews(dot)ca/news/1325136/chinese-fisherman-charged-with-poaching-500-endangered-sea-turtles/Another one from Channel News Asia. This time your people were poaching hundreds



of endangered anteaters in Philippine sanctuary waters. Check out the photos of those endangered animals.Wildlife officials have been informed of the surprising discovery, which could lead to more charges for the 12 Chinese men arrested on charges including poaching after their boat was stranded in Tubbataha Reef last week.

"We found 400 boxes containing anteaters aboard the vessel, and we are now determining where these came from," coast guard spokesman Lieutenant Commander Armand Balilo told AFP.

According to the International Union of Conservation of Nature, all eight species of the insect-eating mammals are protected by international laws around the world.

Two - the Malaysian and Chinese pangolins - are in its "red list" of endangeredspecies.

Pangolins are also found roaming in the wild in the western Philippine island of Palawan, the nearest land area to Tubbataha Reef where the Chinese boat had been marooned.Source: channelnewsasia(dot)com/news/asiapacific/philippines-discovers/638838(dot)htmlSo, yeah, just like your thieving government, your fishermen have no respect for international laws. Not only they're encroaching into our waters, they are also

poaching endangered marine species. So, don't be surprised if your favorite Pangolin and sea-turtle dish aren't on the menu today. That's just because our coastguards and navy are doing their job in implementing the laws by arresting yourfishermen in our waters. And they will arrest them whenever they get the chancebecause 101% of the time, they are committing a crime.But then again, as a communist yourself, you applaud your people's handiwork. In fact, you are proud. Clap clap clap clap!

justice_first Arcane a month agoThe question of poaching is again related to the question of territorial water.Beijing claimed the arrests took place in Chinese water, because the land features were within Chinese sovereignty. Philippines has no jurisdiction in those waters. Philippines has yet to prove that those waters belong to the Philippines, a

nd the Sea Tribunal cannot solve this issue for the Philippines. If they happened in disputed waters, then again, the legality of Philippines court action is still in question. We have to solve the question of sovereignty and territorial water "before" Philippines can rightly say the poaching took place in Philippineswaters. The fact that some species were found on board Chinese boats does not automatically mean they poached because it has been well known, and in practice for a long time, that they bought them from Philippines fishermen.Another point, the use of gun boat by the Philippines violates international law. They should only use their maritime or surveillance units instead. The use ofmilitary force was a disastrous mistake in international policing practices.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "The fact that some species were found on board Chinese boats doe

s not automatically mean they poached because it has been well known, and in practice for a long time, that they bought them from Philippines fishermen."Have you ever heard of the word "substantiate?" Yeah, you should look it up sometime in your dictionary. Trust me, it will help people believe your fantastic stories.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "The fact that some species were found on board Chinese boats does not automatically mean they poached because it has been well known, and in practice for a long time, that they bought them from Philippines fishermen."



Oh, okay. So, Chinese fishermen get their fish from the Filipino fishermen. What about your Chinese farmers? Do they just buy their farm products from Filipinofarmers? LMAO!

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "you are repeating. we have already covered all the points you are raising."Well, you keep raising the same weak arguments, so I have to reply you with thesame facts that will throw your arguments to the bin.

justice_first Arcane a month agoFirst we must wait for the tribunal decision on jurisdiction. If the Tribunal is unsure of any jurisdiction, then Philippines case may fly out of the window. The case "may" have to go to the ICJ to argue for or against historic titles. We will certainly expect a protracted dispute. China, having the first discovery, first naming, first administration over the islands and reefs, will not give up.We do have a problem here. Don't you agree? it may never be resolved. The ultimate solution is either by war or by negotiation. It may even mean a third world war. Then who is right and who is wrong in the case? China is using a political system before international law existed, and the Philippines is using a convention adopted only from 1992. These things are not so black or white. The US does not even recognize the sea convention and does not even follow the rule of law, as in the case of Iraq. It is not surprising that we see so many wars and killings, say by drones, all over the world. When something is unsolvable, they go to wa

r. This is sad. Territorial dispute is some of the most difficult challenges wehave, and we have to face them realistically.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "First we must wait for the tribunal decision on jurisdiction. If the Tribunal is unsure of any jurisdiction, then Philippines case may fly out of the window."The tribunal's jurisdiction on the questions being raised by the Philippines isquite clear -- it has jurisdiction. Watch the video below. Skip to 35:00 if youcan't wait. You will hear Mr. Paul Reichler's explanation of the Philippine's case before the tribunal. You will also see some of the features that your country is illegally occupying in the Spratleys. Source: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=CCoiBS1bdIY

justice wrote, "The case "may" have to go to the ICJ to argue for or against historic titles."A historic title that has not been proven with solid evidence will not fly in the ICJ.justice wrote, "We will certainly expect a protracted dispute. China, having the first discovery, first naming, first administration over the islands and reefs, will not give up."There you go again with your "first discovery, first naming, first administration" line. China has no concrete evidence to back this. The facts that the dash-line-map is just a recent creation and the Chinese names given to the Spratley islands are only translations of the British names are two of the many undeniable proofs that the Chinese has never been the "first" to discover, name and administer those islands, and its "historical title" is a sham.

justice wrote, "We do have a problem here. Don't you agree? it may never be resolved. The ultimate solution is either by war or by negotiation. It may even mean a third world war."If China decides to go to war, it will lose everything it has worked so hard for for many, many years to achieve the economic status its people are enjoying right now. We are Southeast Asians; we will bond together with our brethren in Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and our friends in the international communityto fight China legally through international laws. And if China becomes overly aggressive and uses force on any one of us at these very volatile times, we willgladly respond in kind. China will not win in a war against a coalition of natio



ns. In fact, the war will be a perfect reason for us to breakup that communist nation into many independent states. We will return Tibet and the East Turkestanto their rightful people. Our friends from Taiwan can move back in to the mainland, their home, and Hong Kong and Macau can finally be free from a despotic regime and become their own independent countries. So, be very, very careful to suggest or hint of a war because that's not going to end up nice for your communistgovernment. It could be the greatest karma that the Dalai Lama and his people are waiting to happen.justice wrote, "The US does not even recognize the sea convention..."Wrong. The US recognizes the Convention except for Article XI, which pertains to deep seabed portions and mining of valuable metals. Read the statements of Roger Rufe, President of the Ocean Conservancy before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on October 21, 2003 here --> foreign(dot)senate(dot)gov/imo/media/doc/RufeTestimony031021(dot)pdfJust because the US has not ratified the Convention doesn't mean that it has ignored all its articles. That's a wrong assumption.Also, China cannot use that as a reason for its government not to abide the Laws of the Sea Convention because it is a SIGNATORY; it ratified the laws and thusit is liable. China cannot cherry-pick the laws while other signatories have toconform. That's not how it works, okay?justice wrote, "It is not surprising that we see so many wars and killings, sayby drones, all over the world."There are actually studies supporting the use of drones in military missions because they help minimize casualties both civilians and military combatants. Drone

s are capable of doing reconnaisance for hours and wait for their targets unnoticed. And they can be configured to carry just the right bombs for the missions.But that's not a topic we should be talking.justice wrote, "When something is unsolvable, they go to war. This is sad."It is sad, indeed. But what will you do if you have a property and your neighbor stops by and says, "That's my yard!" And he started fencing your yard. And no matter how much you explain to him that it is yours 'cause the law says so, he won't budge. He says, "Okay, okay, let's talk about this." But he keeps building the fences! Meanwhile, he carries a big stick and won't let you and your family step into your yard. Not even your pet. So, you went to the court and invited him to resolve the issue. But he says, "Scr3w the court! I don't care what it says! Let's just talk about this ourselves." And by then you feel helpless. That is what China is doing to Philippines right now.

justice_first Arcane a month agoyour analogy of a property and your neighbor is entirely inappropriate, becauseyou have no right to the property in the first place. Somebody already claimed the property long long time ago. You have to prove them wrong in court. That is your job, but not to a sea court. You should address the issue who owns the property, not who is entitled to using the road in front of the property. Reichler thought out this trick of repackaging the issue of sovereignty, and asks the tribunal to pass judgement confirming Philippines ownership of the properties. This is not a circus. This is a court of law. Law is law and it must be interpreted strictly to the letters. UNCLOS does not deal with sovereignty.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "your analogy of a property and your neighbor is entirely inappropriate, because you have no right to the property in the first place. "

Oh, it's a perfect analogy because the claimant is claiming a property through fraudulent means -- it's a bogus claim. It doesn't even have the titles to the properties to show. Even his neighbors are saying that the claimant is lying and must settle the dispute in the court.justice_first Arcane a month agoAgain, about your analogy of "your" house being fenced off by a neighbor, you have to consider one very important principle. Philippines assumes everything within its so called 200 mile EEZ belongs to the Philippines. I hear Rosario saying: what is mine is mine. But, this is not correct, because there were previous owners of the islands and reef in SCS before the sea convention being adopted in 1



992. The sea convention does not trump other international laws on sovereignty.This is common knowledge.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote,"But, this is not correct, because there were previous owners of the islands and reef in SCS before the sea convention being adopted in 1992."It is correct. Your so-called "previous owner" is not really previous. It's just some greedy neighbor with an expansionist agenda. This neighbor could not evenshow any document or title to the properties. It's a bogus claim:China: I own this property!Philippines: Okay, do you have any document to support that claim?China: YesPhilippines: Okay, show it to us.China: I don't need to show it to you.Philippines: Let's go to the court then.China: We don't have to go to the court. I have undisputed ownership of this property.Philippines: Umm, apparently, it's not undisputed. There are other claimants.China: Who cares about their claims. This is my property!Philippines: Where is your proof then?China: I don't have to show it to you!LMAO.

justice_first Arcane a month ago

If you want to bring the matter of title to court, bring it to the ICJ where they can decide whether your question of "where is your proof" is valid or not. China has a very title because no one challenged its ownership for 66 years.You are too late to do it now.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "China has a very title because no one challenged its ownership for 66 years."No one challenged because nobody knew what the heck China was claiming during those times until 2009 when it finally submitted a dash-line map to the UN. Even your own Chinese scholars could not refute this solid fact that China's dash-line maps prior to 2009 were only published domestically throughout China in Chinese language. The US knows this. Everybody knows this. Even you know this but wants to deny it. LOL.

justice_first Arcane a month agoyou must remember the nine dash lines, un-connected as they are, can only be anabstract symbol for a claim, because they are not territorial boundary lines. Nearly all the countries knew the lines after WW2, may be except the Philipppines. In fact there is absolutely no record of any country officially denying knowledge of the nine dash lines since 1947. Unless you can show me a proof, I cannot under-estimate the intelligence of people around the world.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, " I cannot under-estimate the intelligence of people around the world."Yes, don't ever underestimate the intelligence of people around the world. And their intelligence is telling them -- The 9 dash lines violate international laws. China must respect the international laws and face the Philippines and other c

laimants before the UN tribunal to resolve the territorial dispute.justice_first Arcane a month agoThe interesting thing is, when you think deeper, China has more respect to the law of the sea than the Philippines. Why? Philippines is trying to use the law of the sea to indirectly deal with a sovereignty issue, while China recognizes that this is putting the cart in front of the horse. China is saying that if you want to use the law of the sea, you have to solve the issue of sovereignty first,to clarify who owns what. Without getting this clarified, you cannot ask the court to rule on sea delimitation, sea boundary or entitlement. After all, it is not correct, not accurate, to say the nine dash lines represent any sea boundary.



China is not claiming the sea within the lines. Philippines is abusing the law of the sea with a hidden purpose. This is not respecting the law, and it cannot even solve the dispute. If you want to solve the dispute, go to the ICJ.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, " After all, it is not correct, not accurate, to say the nine dash lines represent any sea boundary. China is not claiming the sea within the lines. "When did they promote you from being an Internet PLA agent to a spokesperson for your government in maritime laws? Why I wasn't informed about this so we couldinvite the experts in international laws into the forum?justice_first Arcane a month agoask Reichler. The US government have been asking the Chinese government what the lines stand for from day one. They all know those are not maritime boundary, because they cannot be a boundary line. All boundary delimitation are defined by UNCLOS, subject to determination of sovereignty.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "The interesting thing is, when you think deeper, China has morerespect to the law of the sea than the Philippines."Do you know what's really interesting? How you see China's defiance of the Convention as "respecting the law of the sea." LOL.justice_first Arcane a month agoChina is not defying the Convention. China is following the law to the letter, to the exclusion of matters of sovereignty. For sovereignty matters, you have togo to the ICJ.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "China is not defying the Convention. China is following the lawto the letter, to the exclusion of matters of sovereignty."If China is following the Convention then those rocks claimed by your thieving government like the Scarborough Shoal should only have 12 nautical miles of water. But your greedy government claims the water beyond that.And under the Convention, permanently submerged reefs have no water of their own and cannot be claimed for sovereignty by any country except by the state whose200 EEZ encompasses those features or the state that owns the continental shelf(within 200 EEZ) on which those reefs are part of. But China have no respect for the laws and violate them.You really do have thick skin for lying all the time. But I don't really care if you keep lying and making up stories because every time you do that, you are re

inforcing the fact that China is in the wrong side of the law :)Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "you must remember the nine dash lines, un-connected as they are, can only be an abstract symbol for a claim, because they are not territorial boundary lines. "The 9-dash-lines violate international laws, even the general international laws prior to UNCLOS like the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the ContinguousZone (CTSCZ). Islands are only afforded 12 nautical miles of water, but China claims far more beyond that. Low-tide elevation features like those submerged reefs have no baselines. So, they cannot have water. That violates Article 4.3 of the CTSCZ. Baselines must also be clear, but China clearly didn't define any baselines with the 9 dash lines. So that violates Article 4.6 of the CTSCZ. There are others I don't mention. But you can check them out for yourself here: goo(dot)g

l/QEnKTbjustice wrote, "Nearly all the countries knew the lines after WW2, may be except the Philipppines."Apparently, nobody knew except China until 2009. Otherwise, the dash-line maps would not be opposed when your government finally submitted one to the UN. Like I said, even your scholars like Bing Bing JIA, Professor of International Law, Law School, Tsinghua University, Beijing and Haiwen Zhang, one of the vice-presidents of the Chinese Society of International Law admitted that the dash-line maps (atlases) were only "circulated internally" in the 1940s -- not internationally. This only reinforces the fact that you are a liar and is not ashamed to deny i



t.justice_first Arcane a month agoYou are under estimating the intelligence of all the nations after WW2. How China's maps were circulated has nothing to do with being public information. China's maps were public information, unless you can prove that they were state secret.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ,"You are under estimating the intelligence of all the nations after WW2. How China's maps were circulated has nothing to do with being public information."LOL. Since when did "internal circulation" become "public information?" Hahahaha. You're very funny, Justice. Too bad you're not a chic. I would have asked foryour number so we could resolve this dispute over the phone. We'll have our ownbilateral talk :D ;););););););););););)Anyways, it is you and your government that underestimate the intelligence of the international community for telling them that "internal circulation" is synonymous to "public information." LMAO!Public only in China, but not internationally. Big difference :)justice_first Arcane a month agoPhilippines is not helpless. you get nowhere with UNCLOS anyway. what do you get at the end? Nothing. If you want the islands, go and fight China. Don't get laughed at by the world.The world already know the tribunal will go nowhere. Even jurisdiction is in question. Can you see the problem?

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "Philippines is not helpless. you get nowhere with UNCLOS anyway. what do you get at the end? Nothing."Hahaha, Justice. You don't have to be shy to admit that the Chinese names givento the Spratley islands are just translated from the original British names. Meaning China was not the first to discover and name those islands as claimed by your lying government. LMAO. Why are you shy? It's not like your government hasn't lied and committed fraudulent claims before. It has done them many times. So, don't be shy. Be proud of your government's criminal activities.justice_first Arcane a month agoIt is very dangerous for Reichler and the Philippines to repackage its case in such as way as to blatantly fool the judges of the Tribunal into thinking the court has jurisdiction over the issue. They are not stupid. So lets wait for the ou

tcome of their first judgement.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "It is very dangerous for Reichler and the Philippines to repackage its case in such as way as to blatantly fool the judges of the Tribunal intothinking the court has jurisdiction over the issue."Oh, when did you become an expert in international laws? That's your opinion. Between you and Mr. Reichler, he has credibility, while you have none.justice_first Arcane a month agoReichler and the Philippines government is playing a PR game. It is clear Reichler is not seeking resolution of the dispute with China, but merely clarification on entitlement of some features in the SCS, in a veiled and indirect attack toChina's 9 dash lines. This is an enormously wasteful exercise with no concrete solution to the maritime dispute. This is the world's most complex maritime dispu

te involving six parties, and Philippines legal action is totally inconsequential. Vietnam will never follow suit because it will soon see the futility of ITLOS. Even international law cannot handle the complexity.In the much longer term, the disputes can only, I repeat only, be resolved between the parties by bilateral negotiations, not by arbitration.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "In the much longer term, the disputes can only, I repeat only, be resolved between the parties by bilateral negotiations, not by arbitration."Uhuh. And this is coming from someone who cannot even substantiate its government's sovereignty claim. LOL. That's just funny. Sorry, Justice. You're just dream



ing. :)))))))))))Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "You don't have to be expert in international law to understand that Reichler is just making a living, and Philippines is paying the price."Thanks for admitting that the Philippines has a VERY STRONG CASE against your country's illegal activities in the Spratleys. You probably didn't see that coming, huh? :) Mr. Riechler is a very intelligent and highly credible attorney, expert in international laws and has represented many countries in sovereignty cases. A lawyer of his integrity and caliber will not take this job if the Philippines doesn't have a case. You know it. Everybody knows it. Even your government knows it. :) That's why it doesn't want to face the Philippines before the tribunalbecause China has NOTHING SOLID to back its historical bullcr4p. It's just using the excuse of "jurisdiction" to not attend the proceeding. Pathetic. But nope.You can't fool people with kind of line. LOL.China will not even face the Philippines before the ICJ should that time comes because it really has nothing to substantiate its bogus sovereignty. You can't even do it yourself even with the help of your PLA Propaganda officer. Hahaha. Add the fact that the PRC has forcibly acquired the islands and features it currently occupies in the Paracel and Spratley. This fact alone already invalidates China's claim of those territories because it violated international laws. So, I'msorry again, Justice. You need to do better than that to prove China's historical bullcr4p. LOL. You should ask your President Xi, maybe he knows something youdon't know? LMAO!justice_first Arcane a month ago

May be Reichler is good in fighting sovereignty cases as you have said, very intelligent, very smart. But you must know he is not fighting a sovereignty case for the Philippines, he is seeking clarification of entitlement under UNCLOS, andthat is not sovereignty. He cannot win for the Philippines in sovereignty, thatthose islands belong to Philippines. Don't you understand ?Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "But you must know he is not fighting a sovereignty case for thePhilippines, he is seeking clarification of entitlement under UNCLOS, and that is not sovereignty."LOL. You keep throwing your "sovereignty" line, but you can't even prove this with your historical records. In fact, your sovereignty/historical claim has beendemolished with the actual history that occurred. So, what sovereignty are you talking about? Hahaha. I challenge you to cite me a credible source that will bac

k your country's exercise of sovereignty over the Spratleys that pass the 3 sovereignty tests required by international laws.Also, why did China translate the British names if it was really the first country to discover and name the Spratley islands? Hahahaha. I am very interested what silly answer you and your PLA propaganda officer will come up for this question. Oh, boy, this is going to be funny! Please entertain me. Please??? LMAO!justice_first Arcane a month agoThe Chinese discovered the Spratly group of islands roughly in the 4th century.The British came to the scene in the 19th century. The Spanish may be a bit earlier in the 18th century. In the 16th century, the Chinese had the largest fleet, the biggest vessel in South East Asia, as was known to the world. The many huge Chinese diaspora in South East Asia bear strong witness to the active Chinese presence in South East Asia, from trade to exploration. In fact the Chinese had a

much more advanced ship building capability before the 18th century, that allowed them to travel all over Asia and the SCS. There is a lot of history for you to read if you have time.justice_first Arcane a month agoAbout the British naming some of the islands or reefs, it is known that, although they came late to the scene, they are used to naming with their own names. You remember the Senkaku? That name was a transliteration of a British name "Pinnacal" Islands from the British Navy, meaning a spike point. Of course before that, the Chinese had another name, at much earlier time, called the Diaoyu, dating back to the 1400's. In any case the western colonial powers came to the far east



much later than the 4th century, say in the 19th and 20th century. Don't be bogged down by this naming question. All you need to explore is how the Chinese first name the Spratly as a group of islands in the SCS, followed by additional more individual naming later on.The history is there.** * Reply* * Share ooo****

justice_first Arcane a month agoyou always say China translated the British names. However China named the Spratley Islands as a group first, long before the British, or the French, or the Spanish, named them. China had its own names for the group first, and many of the major features inside the group.If I am not the right person to show you all the detailed records, the facts sti

ll exist. China's history is still richer than the Philippines, by far.** * Reply* * Share ooo****

justice_first Arcane a month agoAs far as names of the islands go, there is no doubt that China was the first to discover, to name the groups of islands. The British and the French, includingother western colonial powers, came much later to the scene. The naming historygoes like this ( can be supported by Chinese records):The South China Sea Islands were discussed from the 4th century BC in the Chinese texts Yizhoushu, Classic of Poetry, Zuo Zhuan, and Guoyu, but only implicitlyas part of the "Southern Territories" (Chinese: ??; pinyin: Nán Zh?u) or "South Sea" (??, Nán H?i). During the Qin Dynasty (221206 BC), government administrators called the South China Sea Islands the "Three Mysterious Groups of Islands" (???, S?n Shén Sh?n). But during the Eastern Han dynasty (23-220), the South China Sea was renamed "Rising Sea" (??, Zh?ng H?i), so the islands were called the "Rising S

ea Islands" (????, Zh?ngh?i Qítóu). During the Jin Dynasty (265420), they were knownas the "Coral Islands" (???, Sh?nhú Zh?u). From the Tang Dynasty (618907) to the Qing Dynasty (16441912), various names were used for the islands, but in general Changsha and permutations referred to the Paracel Islands, while Shitang referredto the Spratly Islands. These variations included, for the Paracels: Ji?r? Luózh?u (????), Q?zh?u Yáng (???), Chángsh? (??), Qi?nl? Chángsh? (????), and Qi?nl? Shítáng ?); for the Spratlys: Shítáng (??), Shíchuáng (??), Wànl? Shítáng (????), and Wànl? Chá).[5]During the Qing, the names Qianli Changsha and Wanli Shitang were in vogue, andChinese fishermen from Hainan named specific islands from within the groups, alt



hough the Qing officially named 15 large islands in 1909. During China's Republican era (1912-1949), the government named the Spratlys Tuánsh? Qúnd?o (????) and then Nánsh? Qúnd?o (????); the Paracels were X?sh? Qúnd?o (????); Republican authoritiesmapped over 291 islands, reefs, and banks in surveys in 1932, 1935, and 1947. The People's Republic of China has retained the Republican-era names for the island groups, supplementing them with a list of 287 names for islands, reefs, banks, and shoals in 1983.[5] From 2011-2012, China's State Oceanic Administration named 1,660 nameless islands and islets under its claimed jurisdiction; in 2012, China announced plans to name a further 1,664 nameless features by August 2013. The naming campaign is intended to consolidate China's sovereignty claim over Sansha (??),[6] a city which includes islands from the Xisha (Paracel), Nansha (Spratly) and Zhongsha (??, Zh?ngsh?; Macclesfield Bank,Scarborough Shoal, and others) groups.I do not pretend I can show all the historic records for all the names cited above, but this is up to the historian to further substantiate instead of layman like me. It is fair to say Philippines historic title is far far weaker than China's, to almost non-existent level. From the above naming, we can see China's long relation and administration of the SCS. Can you make a legitimate and coherentrebuttal to the names cited above from your Philippines records?** * Reply* * Share

ooo****

justice_first Arcane a month agoYou don't have to be expert in international law to understand that Reichler isjust making a living, and Philippines is paying the price. Philippines should have filed its case to the ICJ and ask China to join in. If China refuses, then Philippines can have a high moral ground to stand on. Now, in this law of the sea

court, asking for entitlement and delimitation, without first resolving the issue of sovereignty, Philippines will just get ridiculed. Who will respect the Philippines after that?Philippines will lose big time. This time Reichler is wrong.** * Reply* * Share ****

o**

Arcane justice_first a month ago[duplicate comment removed]** * Reply*



* Share *******

justice_first Arcane a month agoEveryone knew about China's nine dash lines from 1947. The US knew very well about the nine dash lines. Chinese maps were public information after WW2, and it is not merely for internal consumtion. If China submitted a map of 1947 to the UN, I am not aware of that. In any case, it has nothing to do with China's proving its sovereignty in 1947 because the UN knew about China's repossessing the SCSfrom the Japanese after the war. China has absolutely "no need" to "prove" anything to the UN by submitting a map of 1947. Your question number 1 is irrelevant.** * Reply* * Share **

*****

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "Everyone knew about China's nine dash lines from 1947."Everyone knew? Hahaha! Another one of your fabricated stories. Sorry, Mr. China, you need to do better than that.justice wrote, "The US knew very well about the nine dash lines. Chinese maps were public information after WW2, and it is not merely for internal consumtion."LOL. The US knew and it was public information? Is that the reason why in their

study they said that there was "(3) No acquiescence by foreign States in Chinas exercise of authority in the South China Sea?"Any alleged tacit acquiescence by States can be refuted by the lack of meaningful notoriety of any historic claim by China, discussed above. A claimant State therefore cannot rely on nonpublic or materially ambiguous claims as the foundation for acquiescence, but must instead establish its claims openly and publicly, and with sufficient clarity, so that other States may have actual knowledge of the nature and scope of those claims."Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfNonpublic, ambiguous claims. Lack of meaningful notoriety. Their words. Not mine. LOL. You're getting demolished again and again here, Justice. It's embarrassing. :)))))))))))))justice wrote "If China submitted a map of 1947 to the UN, I am not aware of tha

t."Then what in the world are you doing here defending something you barely know about? Stop fooling readers with your unfounded comments. You're not helping China's image by fabricating stories.justice wrote "In any case, it has nothing to do with China's proving its sovereignty in 1947 because..."Oh, it has. How many times does one have to tell you that to PROVE your soveriegnty under international laws you need to pass those 3 criteria I mentioned? China had never met those. Otherwise, the Philippines would have never been able toeffectively occupy them without a sweat. Remember, the Philippines didn't use fo



rce to acquire those islands unlike what your government did to the Vietnamese in the Paracels. That's an undeniable proof right there that China never did administer those places or exercised sovereignty. So, your argument is VERY WEAK.justice wrote, "the UN knew about China's repossessing the SCS from the Japanese after the war. China has absolutely "no need" to prove anything to the UN by submitting a map of 1947. Your question number 1 is irrelevant."LOL. Another one of your unsubstantiated claims. How much more lies do you haveto write to defend your thieving government? It's pathetic. But I thank you fortaking the time to reply because every lie you make here is a permanent record for everyone to see how much of a farce China's historical title or fictional sovereignty is that even its citizens cannot defend with facts. Could not even answer simple questions without resorting to lies and silly arguments. LMAO. So, thank you! Xie xie! :))))))))))))))))))** * Reply* * Share ooo**o

o

justice_first Arcane a month agoyou spent most of your time criticizing instead of listening. You don't listen,and that is why you can't really understand the truth. This is why you are defending your country's most stupid act, and you will know when the judgement comesout. I am ending my discussion with you. I have given many extremely valuable facts and evidence, and you don't really appreciate my polite form of exchange. You just know how to ridicule. It is clear you don't have half a brain. Of coursethe US knew about the nine dash lines. You think the CIA was dumb or doing nothing!!!! They knew China's 1947 claim to the letters. They are not stupid.They knew China repossessed the islands and reefs from the Japanese, because itthem who provided the transportation, the ships to the Chinese troops. When no o

ne contested China's claim, it was acquiescence. The lines were public information like it or not.oo o Replyo o Share ***oo*

*

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "you spent most of your time criticizing instead of listening. You don't listen, and that is why you can't really understand the truth."Correction. Those are not criticisms. Those are direct rebuttals to your arguments. I have provided some very strong counter-arguments that you obviously couldnot refute without resorting to lies and silly comments. I pointed out those lies and you didn't seem to like it (LOL).justice wrote ,"extremely valuable facts and evidence..."



No. Those are not facts and evidence. Those are just fabricated stories that you could not substantiate with credible sources. The ones that are true aren't evidence to prove effective occupation by a state recognized by international lawsto stake a sovereignty or historical claim, but you keep harping them as if they are.I'd provided many sources to back my arguments, but none from your side. In fact, my conversation with you had revealed that you are a liar. You're not helpingChina's image by lying, by the way.And what? I don't have "half a brain?" Yes, because I have a full brain. If youcan't even refute the facts I presented without resorting to lies and silly arguments then who has no brain here? Fabricating a story is quite easy that any 3-year old can do.justice wrote "Of course the US knew about the nine dash lines. You think the CIA was dumb or doing nothing!!!! They knew China's 1947 claim to the letters. They are not stupid."Uhuh. I think the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is more believable than that.justice wrote, "I am ending my discussion with you."Sure. No problemo. Thanks again and come back anytime :)))))))))))justice wrote ,"The lines were public information like it or not."Hahaha. Like it or not, huh? Funny you can't substantiate it. LOL. Bye :)))))))))))))))))))))** * Reply

* * Share *******

justice_first Arcane a month agowhen you call a person a liar, you are criticizing him of not being truthful. He may be honestly telling you what he knows, but you insist on calling him a liar

. That is a perfect way to end a conversation. Without dialogue, you learn nothing except your own stubborn opinions. Many a times, you don't even make sense. But, I am not here to convince you.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "when you call a person a liar, you are criticizing him of not being truthful. He may be honestly telling you what he knows, but you insist on calling him a liar. That is a perfect way to end a conversation."Yes, you are a liar and you've been lying from the start. I have every right topoint them (lies) out because your intention, as a communist agent, is obviously to sow confusion among unsuspecting readers and try to sway their opinion to su



pport your government's illegal activities in the South China Sea. And as a concerned citizen of the world, I feel that those lies need to be corrected.So, let's enumerate the lies that you proudly and unashamedly posted here on this forum.*** You lied that China had inherited sovereignty of all the territories mentioned in the Cairo Declaration (i.e. Senkakus, etc) and the dash-lines (SCS) by virtue of its UN membership, but when challenged to substantiate that statement byproviding a single UN resolution that explicitly gave the PRC the legitimacy and full rights to the territories mentioned in that treaty or the dash-lines, youran away.That challenge is still open for you to take. Prove me wrong that the UN had never given the PRC the sovereignty rights (just by mere membership) to all the territories mentioned in the Cairo Declaration and the dash-line through any sort of UN declaration or resolution.

The mere fact that the PRC has gained a seat in the UN to represent China is moot because such recognition is not shared by all member states and can be taken away anytime, so it is not permanent. In fact, UN members have switched recognition between the two countries from time to time. For example, Kiribati, which had switched recognition from the PRC to the ROC on November 2003. Read the remarks from your Chinese official when Kiribati decided to switch recognition to the Republic of China. Source: fmprc(dot)gov(dot)cn/ce/cecz/cze/xwyd/t127294(dot)htmIn 1989, Liberia switched recognition to the ROC from PRC, and then back to PRCin 2003.

There are currently 22 UN countries that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation and they each have embassies in Taiwan!Your government even uses its economic muscle and veto power to force other nations to switch recognition to PRC. Case in point was the Republic of Macedonia, which recognized the ROC in 1999, but was forced to switch after China imposed economic sanctions and used its veto power to block the UN Security Council's peacekeeping efforts. Dominica was another example as it ended its recognition of the ROC because China offered to provide $117 million over six years! And here's more from the book "Taiwan Country Study Guide: Strategic Information and Development" by the International Business Publication:In March 2004, Dominica switched recognition to the PRC in exchange for a largeaid package. However, in late 2004, Vanuatu briefly switch recognition from Beij

ing to Taipei, leading to the ousting of its Prime Minister and a return to itsrecognition of Beijing. On January 20, 2005, Grenada switched its recognition from Taipei to Beijing, in return for millions of aid (US $1,400 for every Grenadian). However, on May 14, 2005, Nauru announced the restoration of formal diplomatic relations with Taipei after a three-year hiatus, during which it briefly recognized the People's Republic of China.Source: goo(dot)gl/PiqWBTIn short, Justice, this recognition depends on the political and economic relationships (plus/minus intimidation factors) between member states. It has no bearing on the sovereignty claims over those territories mentioned in the Cairo Declaration and or the 9-dash-lines. So for you to say that the UN recognizes China as the legitimate government of all of China is horsesh*t because, apparently, not all UN members recognize China.

If all you do here is just talk and talk and cannot corroborate your statementswith even one credible source when asked, you are essentially fabricating stories. We're both adults here, right? So, let's not kid each other.*** You lied that the PRC has inherited the Spratleys through the dash-lines when in fact the Spratleys was not even included in the Cairo Declaration among ROC's territories. Here's the full communique of that treaty and none of the paragraphs has ever mentioned the Spratleys as being part of the ROC or does it mention the PRC to be the legitimate successor of the South China Sea or the Spratleyfor that matter should Taiwan loses its UN seat. Boooo! Source: ndl(dot)go(dot)jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46shoshi(dot)html



*** You lied about Taiwan having no diplomatic relation with the US when in fact it has one albeit unofficial. Taiwan, being a sovereign and independent country, has both official and unofficial diplomatic relations with many nations. As Imentioned earlier, 22 countries including the Holy See recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state and have embassies in Taiwan. Other countries maintain unofficial diplomatic relations. And however you want to call them, they are STILL "diplomatic relations."*** You lied that Taiwan has no defense treaty with the US when in reality there is one under the Taiwan Relations Act. Not only that treaty obligates the US -- under Article 2 B (5) -- to provide military hardware and technology for Taiwan's defense, it also obligates the US to intervene militarily if the PRC attacksor invades Taiwan. So, "boooo!" again for lying.*** You lied that the reason Taiwan did not do much to claim the islands in theSouth China Sea because it was too weak to do so when in reality the ROC had given up the claim because it didn't conform to international laws. In fact, it even passed legislations to reinforce their new position on their South China Sea claim.In 1993, Taiwan officially approved Policy Guidelines for the South China Sea, which state the view that the waters within the dashed line are its historic water limit within which Taiwan possesses all rights and interests. Cited in K-H. Wang, Th ROCs Maritime Claims and Practices with Special Reference to the South China Sea, Ocean Devt & Intl L., 41:237-252 (2010). Subsequent maritime legislation enactedby Taiwan and subsequent public statements, however, suggests that this view may no longer be officially held by Taiwan. See id. and Limits in the Seas No. 127:

Taiwans Maritime Claims, U.S. Dept. of State, Nov. 15, 2005.Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf*** You lied about "sovereignty" being a 19th or early 20th century concept to China when in fact it is as old as the concepts of kings and emperors. Chinese emperors including your Emperor Yongle had claimed sovereignty over many territories including Ceylon in the 1400s and demanded tributes. Some details of its history were written in the book "When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne" by Louise Levathes. Source: goo(dot)gl/07KvF0So "booooo!" again for lying.*** You lied that your ancient territorial maps didn't show the South China Seaas part of China because your emperors only did "factual administration" when in fact history had shown that China had consistently drew all its territories onmaps for thousands and thousands of years and all of the world's greatest empire

s had maps of their territorial conquests from the Romans, French, Mongols, to the Turks, Spaniards and the Sultans in Southeast Asia.*** You lied that "there is a significant amount of historic records on administration, naming and discovery from China" over the SCS when you could not even substantiate this lie with credible sources. In fact, the Chinese names given to those Spratley islands were just translated from the British names:When a Chinese government committee first gave Chinese names to the islands in 1935 all it did was either translate or transliterate the existing British names. In the Paracels, for example, Antelope Reef became Líng yang (the Chinese word for antelope) and in the Spratlys, North Danger Reef became B?i xi?n (Chinese for north danger), Spratly Island became Si-ba-la-tuo (the Chinese transliteration ofthe English name). The Chinese committee simply copied the British maps, errorsand all. The names were then revised, twice. Scarborough Shoal, named after a Br

itish ship in 1748, was originally transliterated as Si ge ba luo in 1935, renamed Minzhu JiaoDemocracy Reef by the nationalist Republic of China in 1947 and then given the less politically-sensitive name of Huangyan (Yellow Rock) by the communist Peoples Republic of China in 1983.

There is no archaeological evidence yet found that any Chinese ship travelled across the sea before the 10th centurySource: prospectmagazine(dot)co(dot)uk/world/chinas-false-memory-syndromeSo, what's that again? They were the first to discover and name the islands? Boooooooo!



*** You lied that "condemn" and "deplore" are not synonymous when in fact they are, depending on the context! And I showed that to you. Booooo!*** You lied that the Spratley islands were not terra nullius when in fact, they were when my people discovered them. If they were not terra nullius and had been under Chinese administration and control or sovereignty, the Philippines would not be able to effectively occupy those islands because your PLA would shoo them away from the area. In fact, my people occupied the islands without breaking a sweat. No communist soul had ever ventured into the Spratleys that time because the vanguards of freedom and democracy were just lounging in their home nearbyin Subic, Philippines!*** You lied that China openly declared sovereignty in 1947 through the nine-dash lines when those maps were only published domestically throughout China and in Chinese language. The US State Department corroborated this very SOLID fact and I quote:The mere publication by China of the dashed-line map in 1947 could not have constituted official notification of a maritime claim. Chinas Map of South China Sea Islands made no suggestion of a maritime claim, and its DOMESTIC PUBLICATION in the Chinese language was NOT act of SUFFICIENT INTERNATIONAL NOTORIETY to have properly alerted the international community to such a claim, even if it had asserted one.56 The various maps published by China also lack the precision, clarity,and consistency that could convey the nature and scope of a maritime claim.Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdfWe could go on all night, enumerating all the lies you posted here. So, YES, just like your thieving, deceptive government you are a liar. A BIG FAT ONE AT THAT

. You have zero credibility as a poster. I wouldn't be surprised that you work for the PLA Propaganda Office because this is definitely not normal.Don't say that you're just telling me what you honestly know. We're not kids here, okay? Don't play that line on me. You keep harping those lies after they have been demolished with facts that means you're not really here seeking for the truth or just innocently defending China. A normal person, upon realizing that his argument is weak or is not supported by facts will say, "Hold on, you're right. I don't know much about this subject for me to say this with full confidence."But you, on the other hand, keep maintaining those lies after they have been proven to be false.Upon close examination, most of your arguments are tarnished with lies and obvious attempts to cover-up the truth. So, whoever you are, shame on you for defending the wrong and encouraging your government to continue breaking international

laws. Lives are at stakes here, okay? Those poor fishermen who are threatened by your navy could no longer fish in our traditional water. China's action has severely affected their livelihood and the lives of their families and children, so shame on you for helping that. And you claim to be all for "human rights" and "freedom of expression?" Ha! But then again, what can we expect from a person who denies the horrendous atrocities committed by his government on the Tibetans? You're an embarrassment to the Chinese people. And you're not helping China's image with your lies. Shame.justice_first Arcane a month agoThe UN has a voting system, not a recognition system. Majority wins. The PRC was voted in by overwhelming majority as the sole representative of all China.It does not matter how many countries recognize Taiwan, or the ROC, the PRC is the representative government of all China. under international law.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "It does not matter how many countries recognize Taiwan, or the ROC, the PRC is the representative government of all China. under international law."Sorry, it still doesn't change the realities that 1) the PRC has no business with the dash-lines and the Cairo Declaration as it is not a party to that treaty and that the ROC is still a functional and thriving government after the war 2) that the PRC's membership in the UN isn't recognize by all UN states and at any time countries can switch diplomacy and 3) that despite the majority-vote, countries still maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Your argument is very weak.



justice_first Arcane a month agoThe PRC has succeeded the ROC as the legitimate government of China, inheritingall rights and responsibilities of China in the UN, under international law. I told you the sovereignty of China is intact, not split up, and is one. The UN does not operate in a recognition system, that you can choose who represent China,it is a voting system that majority wins in a resolution. The issue of the PRC being admitted, replacing the ROC, into the UN was by majority vote system. Everyone with the knowledge and common sense will agree. Don't bet on the fact that the ROC is still the ruling government of all China, although they might still think so. Your argument using the recognition of ROC by some is not going to go anywhere. You may try but you will not succeed in splitting China. Of course eventhe Philippines does not officially recognize the ROC. I don't worry about any ambiquity here, because international law is clear that China is solely represented by PRC alone.You are wasting your time in such frivolous argument leading to nowhere to be any good to your country.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "I told you the sovereignty of China is intact, not split up, and is one."LOL. You start to sound like a broken record, Justice, for repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I already told you that there is no "One Chinese Sovereignty," okay? The sovereignty is apparently split up. China has no authorityor control over Taiwan. And Taiwan has no authority or control over China mainland. Even you cannot deny this reality because that's what's happening on the gro

und -- like it or not. The ROC still maintains official and unofficial diplomatic relations with UN states. It has its own government, its own military, and its own sets of domestic and foreign policies that the PRC has no control over. And whatever decision China makes in the UN, it has no effect on Taiwan because everybody knows that the PRC's sovereignty is only confined to China mainland. So,I'm sorry. Your "one China sovereignty" is a feeble argument.justice wrote, "Of course even the Philippines does not officially recognize the ROC. I don't worry about any ambiquity here, because international law is clear that China is solely represented by PRC alone."Yeah, and the Philippines can switch recognition anytime. If push comes to shove, the situation could force our Congress to switch as a protest. Other UN states can follow suit, especially the other claimants. Don't ever forget that.justice_first Arcane a month ago

Regarding your question number 2, my answer is no. There was no Chinese emperorwho claimed "Sovereignty" of the SCS. Why? This is because the very concept of sovereignty, including maritime sovereignty, is essentially a late 19th century and early 20th century western legal concept that no emperor was likely to know or appreciate. China established however the so called area of influence by it tributary geopolitical system when dealing with surrounding contiguous areas, or states, the so called zone of influence. Remember modern international law was not yet in existence. It was mainly after WW2, in 1947, that China declared sovereignty of the land features within the nine dash lines, based on records of historic influence China had on the region of SCS. China clearly, for the first time, claimed sovereignty from 1947 onward by taking possession from the Japanese.Regarding your question number 3, about Chinese maps. It is quite natural that Chinese did not use maps to demonstrate sovereignty, using basically similar argu

ments as above. Map might show other features, both geographical, geopolitical as such, but not sovereignty or geopolitical influence of the time. China can use its administrative realities or influence to justify its sovereignty, using the western concept of "ownership", to declare its sovereignty of the land features of the SCS, as it did in 1947 without contest.All China has to present is what happened after WW2, the facts on the ground ofdeclaring sovereignty, of physical possession and administration, to the international community, on basis of modern international law.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote, "Regarding your question number 2, my answer is no. There was no



Chinese emperor who claimed "Sovereignty" of the SCS. Why? This is because the very concept of sovereignty, including maritime sovereignty, is essentially a late 19th century and early 20th century western legal concept that no emperor waslikely to know or appreciate. "UN Tribunal Judge: Mr. China, it has been brought to our attention that no Chinese emperor has ever claimed sovereignty to the islands in the South China Sea and the waters appurtenant thereto. What is then the basis of your government to claim sovereignty over the entire region?justice_first: Yes, Your Honor. There was no Chinese emperor who claimed "Sovereignty" of the SCS because the very concept of sovereignty, including maritime sovereignty is essentially a late 19th century and early 20th century western legal concept that no emperor was likely to know or appreciate. We believe that factual administration is more important than recording our exercise of sovereigntyin our historical documents, Your Honor.UN Tribunal Judge: Is your government not aware that the concept of "sovereignty" is as old as the concepts of "kings" and "emperors?" It is not an idea born in the 19th or early 20th century. It is much older and not exclusive to western cultures. In fact, historical records show that ancient Chinese emperors had claimed and exercised sovereignty over vast tracts of lands including your emperor of the Ming Dynasty, Emperor Yongle, who claimed sovereignty over Ceylon in the 1400s and demanded tributes. Ancient historical records have corroborated this in writing. So, therefore, "sovereignty" is not a recent concept to China as you have just claimed before this court.justice_first: No, Your Honor. We are not aware of that historical fact, Your Ho

nor.UN Judge (looking sternly): Mr. China, it is our understanding that you have been fabricating stories in support of your government's claim. Are you even awareand understand the ramifications when you lie under oath?justice_first: Yes, Your Honor. I am aware of the consequence of lying under oath, Your Honor.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LMAO. Please, Justice, why continue embarrassing yourself with more lies? I just don't get it.The Philippines has a very easy task against China's historical bullcr4p. It just tells the TRUTH.Your China, on the other hand, has to fabricate stories after stories like what

you're doing here. And the biggest challenge when doing that is to find historical records to back the lies. And those records are non-existent, so what is China going to do? Gunboat diplomacy. That's exactly what it is doing right now. And that's contrary to what China says of a "peaceful rise." It is not peaceful when you ignore international laws to solve disputes and use your military and economic powers to intimidate weak countries.So, I'm sorry, your lies will not fly with the international community. It's game over. You lose.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ,"Philippines is ignoring this claim at its own risks, as an outlaw."Is that the reason why Australia, Canada, Japan, Belgium, Germany, Spain, US, the EU and G7 countries are supporting the Philippines in this issue? So, who's th

e outlaw now? LOL. You need to seriously quit whatever that is you're smoking because you're now hallucinating.Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ," The case is very strong in terms of facts and evidence. "What strong case are you talking about? The only facts and evidence your China is sharing to the world are ancient travel records of fishing, trade and scientific observations -- hardly an effective occupation by a state to claim sovereignty as recognized by international laws.The fact that China has never occupied most of the features that it occupied right now until recently is proof that China has never exercised sovereignty over t



hose features in the past. Historical records also corroborated this.That's why China has never been generous to the media when it comes to proofs because that's all they have -- travel records of fishing, trade and scientific observations.And to prove that this is really the case, I challenge you to post a credible online source that will solidify China's bogus historic titles over the Spratleys.If you can't even do this, it's game over. You can fantasize about it though. LOLArcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote ,"China is not asking any country to recognize the nine dash lines. I don't know why you are so concerned about this "symbol" on Chinese maps..."It's too late for China to be staking a claim base on historic titles when the UNCLOS has already been ratified. The fact that it's a signatory already gives consent to all the articles in the Convention. China cannot cherry-pick the laws just because it has an expansionist agenda in the South China Sea. That will notgo well with the international community as we are all now witnessing as China's defiance to the Convention continues.No matter how hard you try to lie here or in any forums you go to, defending China's obvious violations, the people of the free world cannot be fooled.justice_first Arcane a month agoyou are fooling yourself that UNCLOS can trump other international laws on sovereignty. UNCLOS is silent on sovereignty, or who owns what. Your country is making a bet that you will get something out of the Tribunal using ITLOS as a platform, but I don't think it will succeed. Law is law, and its scope and jurisdiction

is governed by meaning, not sentiment. We yet have to hear a judgement on jurisdiction. Don't celebrate too soon, if I were you. Aiming at the nine dash broken lines is meaningless and a waste of time because the lines are not territorialdelimitation.

Arcane justice_first a month agojustice wrote "you are fooling yourself that UNCLOS can trump other international laws on sovereignty"Again, China has not exercised sovereignty over the Spratleys, so what sovereignty are you talking about? Stop fooling yourself. The fact that China hasn't effectively occupied those islands/features before the UNCLOS was enough proof thatit had no basis for its sovereignty claim. You can dream about your sovereignty, that's fine. But in the eyes of international laws, the claim is very weak.

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoyou just have to remember one point: the Chinese sovereignty is intact. Consequently, the Chinese people remain undivided as a people of China. Taiwan is not another country despite some administrative autonomy. It is legally a part of China, under the UN constitution. The so called Taiwan relation act is purely US internal law. They have no power to interfere with Chinese internal matters, underthe UN convention, and international law. If US attack China because of Taiwan,the US is violating international convention. China has the full legal right todefend against such action, defending the integrity of a sovereign. US will be in the wrong, similar to attacking Iraq.When people make reference to Americans, for the peoples in the Americas, it differs from a reference to the Chinese for China. China is a sovereign nation, Americas is not a single sovereign. You have to know this.

By the way, Mao is not longer the leader of China today. You are probably living in the past.Taiwan is not a key strategic ally of the US because the US has no military presence in Taiwan, and the US is not an enemy of communism anymore as witnessed byits warm relation with Vietnam. Go and live in the present.Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote"you just have to remember one point: the Chinese sovereignty is intact."I don't think you even know the meaning of that word. Sovereignty means authority. And nope, Chinese sovereignty isn't intact if you're referring to both Taiwan



and China. Can Taiwan exercise authority over China mainland? Can China exercise authority over Taiwan? The answer to these questions are a resounding NO. So,you cannot say Chinese sovereignty is intact because they're clearly not. In fact, they each maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereign nations.justice wrote "Consequently, the Chinese people remain undivided as a people ofChina."You must be kidding. They are divided. One people embrace communism with a totalitarian government and they live in China. The other embrace democracy and freeto vote anyone they choose to run their government and they live in Taiwan.The PRC hates the ROC. The ROC hates the PRC. In fact, they fought bloody wars because they didn't like each other. And they still don't. There have been a number of times that your PRC government has called Taiwan to join them with its "Two Chinas, One Country" bullcr4p and the ROC has rejected those calls. That speaks a lot that the Taiwanese people don't want to be associated with your communist government.justice wrote "Taiwan is not another country despite some administrative autonomy."Who are you kidding here? It is another country. Everybody knows this. Where can you find a country that has two presidents and two different political ideologies? Taiwan has its own foreign and economic policies that are different from China's. LOL. How could you say they're one country? That's crazy.justice_first Arcane 2 months agoSovereignty is certainly not authority. Even during the most heated period, sayin 1945, when the civil war within China was waging, sovereignty of China remain

ed intact despite a breakdown in central authority. The relation between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan is clear: travelling across the Taiwan Strait requiresno visa. The relation is not country to country. Both remain within one country. You said it wrongly, it was one country two systems. This is solid evidence that the sovereignty is intact, within the meaning of the UN convention.You may find other example where civil wars exist and yet no division of sovereignty. What is happening in Ukraine is a good example. Here recognition by the UN and major powers play a role. What is happening in Southern Philippines, wherethe Moro people has practical independence, is another good example. You may have an Islamic state there, but the Philippines sovereignty is intact. There are just too many examples out there in the world. Remember Syria? Sovereignty is a legal status of a country under international law. Taiwan has never declared independence from the mainland, and this is a fact.

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote ,"Sovereignty is certainly not authority. "Are you trying to make your own definition of "sovereignty" now, Justice?Here's the definition of sovereignty on Webster:Sovereignty (noun): unlimited power over a country: a country's independent authority and the right to govern itselfSource: merriam-webster(dot)com/dictionary/sovereigntyHere's from the Oxford dictionary:Sovereignty (noun)

1. Supreme power or authority:the sovereignty of Parliament

1.1 The authority of a state to govern itself or another state:"national sovereignty"Source: oxforddictionaries(dot)com/definition/english/sovereigntySo, let's see."Unlimited power over a country""The authority of a state to govern itself or another state"China has NO "unlimited power" over its country because it obviously cannot control Taiwan. And this is only if we take your stup1d idea that China and Taiwan are one country. China definitely has NO AUTHORITY to govern Taiwan. In other wor



ds, China has NO SOVEREIGNTY over Taiwan! LMAO. Don't ever lie to me because I will point it out and you'll be embarrassed.justice_first Arcane 2 months agounlimited power is certainly not sovereignty. This is why some people are against the use of force and coercion. You cannot invade a country and then proclaim it yours. It has to be legal. This is what the Philippines had done in the 1970's, usurping those islands and features from China ( China claimed them long before the Philippines), removing any symbols of Chinese presence from those features. This is also why Philippines finds it so difficult to prove its historic title against China's claim. Philippines find it imperative to destroy China's claimof title. But, this is lying to the world, and the US knows it. This is why theUS is not siding with the Philippines in terms of sovereignty, despite being its ally.Ultimately, Philippines cannot lie its way through, because the truth will comeout.Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote, "Philippines had done in the 1970's, usurping those islands and features from China ( China claimed them long before the Philippines), removing any symbols of Chinese presence from those features."You know what? Making unsubstantiated claims maybe a norm in your communist country, but not in the free world. Your government has been feeding its people with all kinds of propaganda lies for centuries and you folks have no choice but totake them all in. In fact, I won't be surprised if you think that it's just a normal thing that's why you're also doing it here in the forum, twisting facts and

lying your way out of the argument as if it's no big deal. But that's not going fly with a lot of posters here.You claimed that the Philippines took Chinese markers/symbols in those islands then you have to PROVE IT. Don't just say this and expect everyone to buy it like how your government expects its people to believe every lie it tells them.

Arcane justice_first 2 months agojustice wrote "This is why some people are against the use of force and coercion. You cannot invade a country and then proclaim it yours. It has to be legal."Hahahahahahahahaha! You know what's hilarious about your statement? Is that it's from coming a die-hard communist like you. Have you forgotten your history, Justice? Let's talk about your history then. LMAO.China invaded and occupied Tibet. Tibet was once an independent nation until you

r Chinese government invaded it, killing thousands of Tibetan monks and their supporters along the way. According to the UN, "Chinese occupation of Tibet has been characterized by acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment, torture and cruel, inhuman and degraded treatment of Tibetans on a large scale." The DalaiLama managed to flee to India and is now running the Tibetan government in exile. And to add insult to injury, after their hostile takeover, Chinese governmentinstalled a fake Dalai Lama to appease the public!The real one in India said that his country was "invaded and colonized by China!" And according to the International Commission of Jurists, "there was a prima facie case of genocide committed by the Chinese upon the Tibetan nation... the gravest crime of which any person or nation can be accused... the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group and detail atrocities to which Tibetans were subjected. These include public execution by

shooting, crucifixion, burning alive, drowning, vivisection, starvation, strangulation, hanging, scalding, being buried alive, disemboweling and beheading; imprisonment without trial; torture; forced labor; and forcible sterilization. Manypeople, including children under 15 years, disappear without trace. The United Nations condemns Chinese atrocities." Source: icj(dot)org/new-report-the-question-of-tibet-and-the-rule-of-law/More than 10,000 Tibetans were killed by your China's army in the three days ofthe invasion, and of the 6,000 Tibetan monasteries, only 6 remained, the rest were destroyed! And I've not even talked about the East Turkestan yet. This is just Tibet.



So, what's that? You cannot invade a country and then proclaim it; it has to belegal? Hahahahahahahahahahaha! I totally didn't expect that! Thanks for the laugh, bro. :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. The Philippines invaded China in the Spratleys by killing a total of ZERO Chinese and sent the survivors to hard labor camps. LMAO!

justice_first Arcane 2 months agoIn order to show you have the true version of Tibetan history, I challenge you to show me the UN official report, written by credible sources, condemning the Tibetan invasion and Chinese atrocities. Only when you can produce this report, can I believe what you are saying is true. Show me the UN report now. Otherwise you are fabricating history. In other words, I need concrete evidence from you that you are telling the truth. A UN official report is a good evidence.

ting_m_1999 San Andreas 2 months agoChina announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation from WWII other victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member in that time anddidn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Lines belong to China. UN recognized China to take over the representation and responsibility of KMT to represent China, The specific demarcation of the Lines have to be negotiated with nations around. So far no nations agree to negotiate.makeehsig justice_first 2 months agoChina was not even a country until the early 20th century. ROC was established in 1911, and the Communist in 1949. the Philippines is older than ah tiong land.

ting_m_1999 makeehsig 2 months agoUN recognized China to take over the representation and responsibility of KMT to represent China,makeehsig ting_m_1999 2 months agowell if that is the case, then why don't you, ah tiongs face the Pinoys at UNCLOS? scared?ting_m_1999 makeehsig 2 months agowaste of time and resourcesmakeehsig ting_m_1999 a month agooh. Isthat the reason why china is invoking UNCLOS provision in its claims of theSenkaku Islands against Japan? Your communist China submitted aclaim of the Senkaku Islands, seeking UNCLOS rules in determining territorial

rights. you can ask Li Baodong all about it. that's a bit discriminatory, yah? use use bullying tactics with your fake guns & stolen technology against the weaker Philippines, but uses UNCLOS against the "mighty" Japanese? is that it?ting_m_1999 makeehsig a month agoChina don't invoke UNCLOS on Daioyu islands. Philippine is dumb to think it is David.makeehsig ting_m_1999 a month agohere is the excerpt from the InterAksyon. you can google it.Early this morning, Ambassador Li Baodong, China's Permanent Representative to the UnitedNations, deposited the coordinates table and chart of the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of China's Diaoyu/Senkaku and its affiliated islandswith UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Le told an audience of scholars and expert

s."He said the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliatedislands are in line with the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, and consistent with relevant provisions of UNCLOS."The submission to UNCLOS was announced by Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Le Yucheng Friday during a symposium in Beijing hosted by THE China Institute of International Studies, Beijing Youth Federation, and Xinhuanet."ting_m_1999 makeehsig a month ago



China submitted to UN Secretary and not UNCLOS. Philippine shot dead Chinese fishermen and China has not shot dead any Philippine fishermen. So Philippine is bullying and use deadly forces.makeehsig ting_m_1999 a month agoUN Secretary & UNCLOS are different institutions? lmao! that's new, indeed. Philippine shot dead Taiwanese fishermen, not chinese. Philippine already is payingfor it. providing compensations. if china "really" has sovereignty over the South china sea then it has to prove it at UNCLOS for the world to see. stop bullying weaker neighbors with guns & ships. china won't earn respect that way. prove to the world that china is "really" a superpower by adhering to UNCLOS of which ah tiong land is also a signatory.ting_m_1999 makeehsig a month ago.They are independent institutions. Compensation doesn't erase proof of Philippine's deadly bully action. Philippine recognize Taiwan as part of China; so Taiwanese are Chinese. Why should China be manipulated by the nonsense lawsuit of Philippine. Let Philippine be the laughing stock because of its nonsense lawsuit. . ...** * Reply* * Share **

*****

makeehsig ting_m_1999 a month agothe Philippines a laughing stock? who said that? you & china? ha ha! yep. Taiwanese are also chinese but Taiwan is not china. if it is then the senkakus wouldn't be disputed. you call the lawsuit nonsense, & yet china filed a "nonsense" lawsuit against japan.. lmao.**


ting_m_1999 makeehsig 25 days agoSo you laugh "ha ha1 yep" at Philippine ! You said Taiwanese are Chinese. They a

re in control of Taiwan. So Taiwan is China. China didn't file nay lawsuit against Japan.** * Reply* * Share ***



****

makeehsig ting_m_1999 25 days agolmao. if you say so.** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 makeehsig 25 days agoKeep laughing**

* Reply* * Share ooo****

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "waste of time and resources"

Yeah, it'll be a waste of time and resources for China because they know they'll lose. They have nothing solid against UNCLOS.Those artificial islands they build on those shoals are illegal. Shoals are notsubject to sovereignty claims according to international laws. Thus, their reclamation activities are a violation of the very laws established by the international community.** * Reply* * Share oo

o**oo

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoChina already have rejected any UNCLOS deliberation. Nothing to loose. Any islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Dash Lines belong to Chinao



o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "China already have rejected any UNCLOS deliberation."Yeah, an act of a thieving government, too guilty and coward to face a small country in a legal proceeding.ting_m wrote, "Any islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Dash Lines belong to China"No other countries believe this cr4p except communist China. Name one? LOL. So,China against the international community. Goodluck. LMAO** * Reply*

* Share *******

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoNo worth to face a small country that thinks it is a superpower. No WWII victors, including USA, protested the Dash Line when it was announced. Philippine didn't protest either at that time.

** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "No worth to face a small country that thinks it is a superpower."This small country can kick China's butt in any UN legal proceeding.ting_m wrote, "No WWII victors, including USA, protested the Dash Line when it was announced. Philippine didn't protest either at that time."Doesn't remove the fact that NO OTHER COUNTRY BUYS IT. Name one? LOL.So, China made a unilateral declaration that no one believed. It's pathetic. And it's quite understandable because the claim itself is outrageous and ridiculous.*



* * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoChina steadfastly reject any UNCLOS proceeds. That renders UNCLOS's effort meaningless and Philippine's effort wasteful. That is Philippine is kicked in the butt. The law is passed if no body say Nay.** * Reply* * Share ***

****

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "China steadfastly reject any UNCLOS proceeds. That renders UNCLOS's effort meaningless and Philippine's effort wasteful. That is Philippine is kicked in the butt. The law is passed if no body say Nay."Nope. That still doesn't remove the fact that NO OTHER COUNTRY believes in your9-dash line. Name one if you can? LOL.**


ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoNO OTHER COUNTRY believes the boundary of any nation.




**

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "NO OTHER COUNTRY believes the boundary of any nation."Uhuh, is that the reason why countries have coast guards? Silly, kid.** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoSo you say China is right in chasing off intruding foreign vessels inside the Dash Lines.. Cute baby**

* Reply* * Share ooo**o

This comment was deleted.oo

**

JB Guest 2 months agoOk name calling makes you look small and petty so why not just keep it to factsand leave out the redderik. UNCLOS has rules regarding any historical claims soyou could just follow the agreed up rules and see what the result will be.But again the Philippine case is a lot smarter than most here realize and it isnot about ownership of the features but the right these features projects independent of who owns them. Than take the delta of those rights and volia you have your an undisputed EEZ back .... and later you can figure out the ownership of the features* 1

* * Reply* * Share ****o*



*

cita Guest 2 months agoYou are also considered an uneducated person,you are talking about China's history?Nonsense!Just fallow the International law...that is really make sense.Law is law,period.* 1* * Reply* * Share ****o**

Arcane Guest 2 months agoBernt wrote "...whereas China's territories were all set for thousands of years."Thousands of years? Is that the reason why their ancient maps dating thousands or even millennium of years don't show the South China Sea being part of China?

Let's just say, for conversation sake, that China owns the ENTIRE South China Sea for thousands of years. Do youknow who, among their ancient Chinese emperors, claimed the water?Your communist government has no historical backing for their claim. It's all based on lies and deceit. Ancient Chinese travels for trade and scientific purposes don't give the right to sovereignty over waters or an area. So, even if they have records of such travels, they're not proofs of ownership by a sovereign country. Ancient records of private fishermen being on a certain island for a time does not constitute an effective occupation by a state that is recognized by international laws as a basis for historical claim. Those private individuals had not even claimed the islands for their Chinese emperor.And here's another bombshell. China, as a country, did not even exist 900 yearsor thousands of years ago. So, its sovereignty was not even established or quest

ionable at that time. If you know your history, Bernt, communist China, as a country, was established in 1949, right after the Chinese civil war. That's why when they lodged a protest against Germany for surveying the Paracel and Spratley islands in 1883, it had NO LEGAL STANDING.And the most damning thing your Chinese government is doing right now is building artificial islands within other countries' Exclusive Economic Zone. That is another violation of international laws as you are not allowed to build artificial islands more than 200 miles from your coastal lines.So, please spare us from your lies and stup1d argument. You can't fool the people of the free world.* 1* * Reply

* * Share *******



ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoChina announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation from WWII other victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member in that time anddidn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Lines belong to China.** * Reply* * Share *******

aquarium7 Arcane 2 months agoArcane appears to be a damn serious but half-baked legal expert! In his lengthyand confusing tirade, on the legality of claim, not to mention the wild history, he conveniently ignored the feverish illegal constructions of Philippines and Vietnam in SCS much earlier on than China. Perhaps, in his simplistic interpretation of law, form the basis of their claims. He chose to shelve the so-called discov

ery of islands by Philippines and Vietnam as recent as from seventies onwards, because he could not find any credible legal documents or maps to indicate so. I bet he is still withholding much secret information that will expose the missinglinks of their claims. With legal experts of his caliber around, it sent chillsdown my spine regarding the credibility of those judges in UNCLOS, particularlywhen there is a hidden dark hand meddling in SCS. Even so, Arcane can rest be assured that the arbitration will definitely not rule in favor of Philippines, otherwise, UNCLOS, US, Philippines, Abe, Aquino, Carter, Russel, .... will all become laughing stocks of the Just World. In the meantime,Arcane can continue to mislead the readers in Value Walk, but if he is honest with himself and seriously want to be an expert, he should study all the clauses ofUNCLOS carefully. Just for his information, the CNN spy plane could be shot down according to UNCLOS should the need arrised.

** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane aquarium7 2 months agoaquarium wrote, "Arcane appears to be a damn serious but half-baked legal expert... With legal experts of his caliber around..."You're the one who called me that. And that's the funny thing. I'm not even a lawyer, but I made you peed in your pants after I presented you the glaring facts. How much more if China faces our multinational lawyers before the UN tribunal?China's historical claim will be demolished BIG TIME by our REAL LEGAL EXPERTS.I asked you some very simple questions and you could not even give me the answers. You ignored them and ran away. But don't worry. I wasn't surprised by this behavior. In fact, it's quite typical. You're not the first Chinese netizen I've e



ncountered to have done this. Often times, when confronted with the truth, youronline people run away or throw me all sorts of trash that have nothing to do with the discussion.aquarium wrote, "In his lengthy and confusing tirade, on the legality of claim", not to mention the wild history..."I told you that the 9-dash-line was a violation of international laws. What, doI have to spoon-feed every thing to you that this is indeed the case? Are you telling me now that you're incapable of doing a simple research that any 10 year old child can do? Everything I said in this forum about your history and about the issue is verifiable anytime if you're NOT lazy.Now, you mentioned "wild history." Which of the things I wrote sounded unbelievable to you? Was it the part I said that your ancient people didn't have a concept of a country since they believed their Emperors -- the Sons of Heaven -- werethe legitimate Supreme rulers of the world? Are you trying to rewrite your ancient history now, Aquarium, or are you trying to deny it?Do you find it wild and unfounded the fact that all of your ancient Chinese territorial maps conclusively show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China?Let me reiterate this. China's southernmost territories don't go beyond Hainan island. So, I'm going to share you some of your ancient maps to DISPROVE your country's ridiculous historical claim over the entire South China Sea, most especially the Spratleys.Here is a map that's engraved in stone in Fuchang in 1136 AD during the Song Dynasty. This map was published in 1903 by rubbing the stone engraving. It is now i

n the Forest of Stone Steles Museum in Xi'an China. The map shows that China's territory doesn't go beyond Hainan island. Replace (dot) with a period from the source links given) Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2002626771/Here's another one published in 1389 during the Ming Dynasty. Again your ancient map shows that Hainan is the southern-most territory of China! Source: commons(dot)wikimedia(dot)org/wiki/File:Da-ming-hun-yi-tu.jpgThis one was published between 1547 and 1559 during the Ming Dynasty. Again themap shows that Hainan island is the southern-most Chinese territory. Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2002626776/So, what's that again? The Spratleys have been part of China for thousands or millenia of years??? Why don't your ancient maps show this??? I feel embarrassed for you for being exposed lying all the time, Aquarium. My conversation with youand your friends has already revelead that you all have zero credibility as a po

ster. And that you're not here to defend the truth and justice. You are just defending your government even if what it's doing is wrong. This is one of the reasons why many netizens in any online forum you go to are opposed or angry at your government's ridiculous claim because it is based on lies and deceit. One cannot simply turn a lie into a truth. A lie is a lie. But we're not going to stop here, Aquarium. I feel that you need to be educated by your own Chinese history. So, I'm going to share you some more of your ancient Chinese maps because I'm a good guy like that. :)Here's another map published in 1601 also during the Ming Dynasty by a Chinese guy name Junheng Zuo. The map shows China in its entirety as a celestial sphere!And guess what? It shows Hainan as its southernmost territory! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2002626725/Another one also published during the Ming Dynasty in 1602. And again Hainan is

shown as the southernmost territory of China! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2010585650/Now, here's a nice looking map published in China in 1811 by your Qing Emperor Jiaqing. Tell me, Aquarium. did your emperor believe that the Spratleys were part of China? Answer: NO. But did he believe that Hainan was China's SOUTHERNMOST TERRITORY? Answer: YES!!! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/gm71005018/This map was published between the years 1814 and 1816 by Qianren Huang, and itshowed Hainan as China's southernmost territory! No surprise there. Source: loc(dot)gov/item/gm71005060/Let's make this interesting by playing a little geography game, Aquarium. You re



ady? Find me the Spratley's in this ancient Chinese map IF YOU CAN. This map ofChina was published in 1885 during the Qing Dynasty, and, YES, it showed Hainanas THE SOUTHERNMOST TERRITORY OF CHINA!Source: loc(dot)gov/item/gm71005068/Did you find the Spratleys? No? How about in this map? This was published in 1896 in China by Peilan Li. And again and again, it is common knowlege that Hainanisland is the southernmost territory of China as this map shows! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/gm71005083/A map created by Hebei Sheng and Gong Shang Ting in 1929. It mentioned the treaties signed by China and the harbors opened to foreign powers. And, yes, you guessed it right! The map shows Hainan island as the southernmost territory of China! But where's the Spratleys, Aquarium??? Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2007628129/Let's do one more. This map was published in 1933 in China by Ya Xin Di Xue She. Look very closely at the map and tell me if it shows the Spratley's as part ofChina. Doesn't this map -- as with all other ancient Chinese maps, official andunofficial -- clearly shows that Hainan is the SOUTHERNMOST TERRITORY OF CHINA?China's territory doesn't go beyond Hainan island! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2006629696/I have more ancient Chinese maps to share created by Chinese officials, civilians and foreigners. All of these maps are consistent about one thing -- that China's southernmost territory was, is and ALWAYS be Hainan island. In fact, as lateas 1932, your government (in a Note Verbale to France) has reiterated to the world that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan Island.As you see, since the start of the Song Dynasty in 960 AD until the end of Qing

Dynasty in 1912 (a span of a millenium), the southernmost territory of China has always been Hainan based on all official and unofficial maps of China.Your government officials are lying through their noses about China's historical claim over the Spratley's or the entire South China Sea. They could not even provide one iota of proof of their historical claim. That's why they ignored the UN and unilaterally declared the entire region (9-dash line) as Chinese territory.They also could not tell the world the exact coordinates and size of its 9-dash-line! Can you??? That is already a VIOLATION of international laws! I asked youthis before and you ignored it. So, I'm going to ask you again. How could anyone declare a territory without even knowing how big it is? Like I said, you can'tjust simply draw 11 or 9 dashes on a map and say everything in these lines are yours! Do you take world governments for stup1d to actually buy that, Aquarium? Y

ou can't even do that to a mere residential land property.If you are a person of reason, you will protest to your communist government for their lies because they are creating tension in the region that can potentially spark into a bloody war conflict. If your government has any sense, it should clarify their historical position with the Philippines and other claimants before the UN and respect whatever UN decision that might come out from that process.aquarium wrote, "he conveniently ignored the feverish illegal constructions of Philippines and Vietnam in SCS much earlier on than China...He chose to shelve the so-called discovery of islands by Philippines and Vietnam as recent as from seventies onwards, because he could not find any credible legal documents or maps to indicate so."Do you know how many islands in the Spratley archipelago, Aquarium? 33,000 islands including the reefs. The Philippines only claims 7 of them that are well with

in our EEZ -- under international law. Those islands were discovered TERRA NULLIUS, meaning no country has exercised sovereignty over these islands. They were no people there. No evidence of ancient Chinese colonies. No ancient Chinese ruins or physical structure or outpost. No markers that suggest that they've been claimed by some Chinese emperor a long, long time ago. But your greedy communist government claims all 33,000 of them -- EVERYTHING -- saying that they have historical basis for their ridiculous and outrageous claim. But not one proof was presented to back its historical bullcr4p.Now, this failed in comparison to the Falklands when the British GOVERNMENT -- NOT some private individuals -- claimed the Falkland islands in the 1600s for the



ir Queen and actually occupied and established permanent settlements! Your ancient people DID NOT! That's the reason why the Falklands is BRITISH TERRITORY despite it being within Argentina's EEZ.Remember this because this is important --> The UN does recognize territorial claims with historical basis over EEZ (case in point: Falklands). So, if your government really has a solid evidence to back its historical claim, why can't theypresent it? But they won't. Don't even want to face the Philippines before the international/UN court to clarify its position. Do you know why? I'll answer this for you. Because China has NO HISTORY in the Spratleys and its bullcr4p historical claim cannot stand a chance against UNCLOS.aquarium wrote, "Perhaps, in his simplistic interpretation of law, form the basis of their claims."This is pure nonsense. Not worth answering.aquarium wrote, "I bet he is still withholding much secret information that will expose the missing link of their claims."Another trash. So, ignoring.aquarium wrote, "Even so, Arcane can rest be assured that the arbitration will definitely not rule in favor of Philippines, otherwise..."This is purely your speculation. You and I both know that speculations don't really mean a thing. And as my good friend, Reality, used to say, "Who's to say that it will or won't happen? No one owns the future!"aquarium wrote, "In the meantime, Arcane can continue to mislead the readers inValue Walk."Between you and I, Aquarium, you're the one misleading the readers. They can alw

ays verify all the facts I wrote here. You don't have to make up stories just because you can't refute the undeniable facts I've presented.Oh, and one more thing. Did you find the Spratleys in those ancient maps yet? Let me know 'cause I'm having a hard time finding it myself. Okay? LOL! :)aquarium7 Arcane 2 months agoArcane should be very authoritative in matter pertaining to territorial claim by Philippines and should have all the time and resources to back up such claim. That being the case, there should not be any obstacle for him to peruse every single clause, every single word written in UNCLOS, and then present any clause(s)that lend support to Philippines claim, to the readers of Value Walk. If he is willing to do that, he might help to stem the many highly provocative, senseless,racist, Chinese-hate, threat comments from presumably many Filipinos, and also the anti-Chinese campaign in Philippines.

Of course, war should be the last option in any conflict, but there should not be any fear from the US led coalition taking on China militarily. Arcane should have known it is never the policy of China to fire the first shot and the no firststrike nuclear deterrence strategy different from US and Russia, but if it has to come down to that stage, rest be assured China, and for that matter Russia, are ready to usher front seats to any trouble makers.makeehsig aquarium7 2 months agoha ha! any answers to arcane's comments?Arcane aquarium7 2 months agoaquarium wrote "Arcane should be very authoritative in matter pertaining to territorial claim by Philippines and should have all the time and resources to backup such claim...."Well, thank you for affirming that China really has no evidence to back its hist

orical claim over the Spratleys and is currently violating the international laws. The fact that you don't bother -- as always -- to refute the facts I've presented means that you really have nothing to say against them because YOU KNOW they're true. But you prefer spreading lies instead and that speaks alot about your character.You're always welcome to refute those facts anytime, by the way. If you think Ilied and just made those stories up myself, point them out. Prove me wrong. Embarrass me.aquarium wrote "If he is willing to do that, he might help to stem the many highly provocative...from presumably many Filipinos, and also the the anti-Chinese c



ampaign in Philippines."Oh, please don't even go there. Like I said, I don't hate the Chinese people. Just your government. I'm not racist. In fact, I have Chinese blood myself. My grandma's parents from my mother's side immigrated from mainland China to a beautiful island of Cebu, Philippines a long, long time ago.I won't be surprised that many of the Filipinos you encounter here online have some connection to China or have Chinese blood. And there's no anti-Chinese campaign in the Philippines. Perhaps you read from some people online about boycotting Chinese products, but that's about it. The Philippines is a very tolerant nation. We're a democracy. This is a country whose greatest hero -- Dr. Jose P. Rizal -- has Chinese ancestry. And back in the days when your great leader Mao Zedong was killing his own people, thousands of Chinese refugees fled to our countryand were welcomed with open arms.Many of us -- myself included -- understand that not all Chinese support what their government is doing in the Spratleys or the South China Sea and would like China to take the legal proceeding with the Philippines and other claimants to resolve the dispute. I know this because I have talked to some in person. Yeah. Only problem is that in China, your people have no voice. They cannot vote. You're stuck with this one party government and anyone who opposes its policies will be meted with harsh punishment or death.aquarium wrote "Of course, war should be the last option in any conflict.."The Philippines took a very sensible approach to the conflict. Bilateral talks with your government weren't fruitful, so we went to the UN. We didn't go ramming the Chinese navies or coastguards in the seas like what the Vietnamese did, tho

ugh I would have preferred it that way because it seemed more effective in keeping China at bay while the issue was being resolved behind closed doors. But we didn't. Our government took the legal and peaceful route despite China's continued illegal reclamation activities in the Spratleys.aquarium wrote "Arcane should have known it is never the policy of China to fire the first shot..."That's not what history says. Like when your Chinese navy shot dead 64 unarmed Vietnamese sailors in Johnson Reef back in 1988. And those poor Tibetan monks and Uygurs who were mercilessly killed by your communist military during its invasion.But I can assure you that if China does that to our people, especially those living in the Spratleys, there will be war. H3ll will be on Earth once again. And since China is making more enemies than friends, it will be facing against a coal

tion of nations. Countries with weak military like my Philippines will suffer heavy casualties. But I will tell you this now before it's too late -- after the guns have been fired and the smoke cleared -- China will never come out victorious. Its greedy ambitions in the South China Sea will be met with angry nations who are fed up with China's aggression and have formed alliances. Your governmenthas been doing this with her neighbors. India. Vietnam. Japan. And even Russia.Now, the Philippines. World countries are not really happy about it. So, an attack from China on the Philippines will not have a good outcome for your communist government. I can assure you that.Well, I guess you're done with me. So, that's it. Thanks anyways for replying.

aquarium7 Arcane 2 months agoIt is not finished. My conviction was correct. What we have here is just a bias

pseudo scholar easily lose his cool head, and showing his ugly head as well with threat. Shame and damn!

Arcane aquarium7 2 months agoaquarium wrote "It is not finished. My conviction was correct. What we have here is just a bias pseudo scholar easily lose his cool head, and showing his ugly head as well with threat. Shame and damn!"I never threatened you at all. I'm just simply replying to your allusion that China's military is powerful, which is true, by the way, and can easily take on the Philippines and allied nations. And the possible outcome of a war (God forbids



). And if you think I'm bias, like I said, prove my statements wrong.aquarium7 Arcane 2 months agoBut with all fairness, I commend Arcane's lengthy discussion and contribution to this forum. On that note, I wish him a good day.Arcane aquarium7 2 months agoI commend aquarium, too, for his excellent counter-argument during the discussion. Good day to you as well. :)Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago[duplicate comment removed]Ros Feliciano 2 months agoThe Chinese Communists claim that they have a continuous civilizationfor over 5000 years.Well, the Iranians have as well continuouscivilization for over 5,000 years; they just changed their country'sname to Iran from Persia. Partly true for China interrupted only duringthe WWII. However, like the Iran, China continues to be a nation. Chinais notorious for her stubborn character and this is why everywhere theygo they cannot assimilate the culture of the host country and so theyare allowed to stay in seclusion known throughout the world as Chinatown. Is this true of not or simply a crap?San Andreas Ros Feliciano 2 months agoChina was conquered by its Mongolian Masters, British Masters and Japanese Masters throughout history and its borders changes variably, losing control and ownership of lands in the process. The only time it gained more territory what when it illegally occupied Xinjiang and Tibet, and now its doing the same in the South

East Asian seas. Never trust a communist.Ros Feliciano 2 months agoThe Chinese from the mainland don't listen to anyone including the United Nation, and if they listen they just pretend to do so as their taught travel far fromthe conversation. However, in a group of hundred of them talking at the same time, surprisingly still they understand each other and this is why they continue building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea, which is part of the South China. This is a proof that they don't listen to anyone. They just wish to set example the colonial powers of the past century that simply because, as they say, their ancestors roam around the area for over centuries then they owned the area. They want Spain to follow their notorious character so in this way Spain will be encouraged to claim the whole South American Continent and even parts of the USA for that matter.

oo o Replyo o Share ***oo*

This comment was deleted.

****

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoLOL. Commie propaganda.** * Reply



* * Share *******

cita Guest 2 months agoNonsense!The main topic here is about the South China sea.Any country around the globe has their follies.** * Reply* * Share ****o*

*

China Lee Ros Feliciano 2 months agoGet a clue. Spain doesn't have thermonuclear weapons.Spain doesn't sit on the UN Security Council with a permanent veto.Spain is smaller than a Chinese province. China is continent-size and the third-largest country in the world.China is a superpower. Spain is a weakling.What's your point in trying to draw an analogy between the two? It doesn't makeany sense.* 4* * Reply

* * Share *******

San Andreas China Lee 2 months agoLOL. Britain is so much smaller than China but it kicks Communists' butt. Communist China had never won wars except those in the mass killings in Xinjiang and T

ibet. Its even funnier because Japan is smaller than a Chinese province yet Japan easily conquered the Chinese empire, with millions of Chinese ending up as Japan's slaves during the World War. No wonder they're so bitter about their Japanese Masters.** * Reply* * Share *



****oo

cimatar 2 months agoChinese owns the MOON because they celebrate Moon cake festival! All Chinese people know this... its a part of their History! They will show you the 9-dash line drawing in the moon as proof..LOLoo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

San Andreas cimatar 2 months agoThey also own the China Town in San Francisco because its called China. Communist logic!** * Reply* * Share *****

oo

cimatar 2 months agoChinese owns the MOOn because they celebrate Moon cake festival! All Chinese people know this... its a part of their History! They will show you the 9-dash line drawing in the moon as proof..LOLo 2o o Replyo o Share *

**oo*

This comment was deleted.***



*

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoThey also own the China Town in San Francisco because its called China. Commie logic!** * Reply* * Share *****oo

aquarium7 2 months agoHow hilarious!! Obama said to Trong the South China Sea dispute needed to be resolved using InternationalRules, but his body language and mild trembling tone gave him away (not the first time). Forget about US a non-signatory country of UNCLOS, forget about US not being a party involved in, IF there is any, dispute in South China Sea since the

Yuan Dynasty, forget about US not taking side in, IF there is, any territorial dispute in South China Sea and in East China Sea, forget about that freedom of navigation concern (so far only ONE reported dead related to navigation!!!),...... need I waste more space to reveal the true credibility, true color of this world hegemony?? Even Abe and his right wing government, the German, the British, the French now have second thought .....o 1o o Replyo o Share **

*oo*

This comment was deleted.****

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoNeutral countries, world bodies and international organizations condemn Communis

t China for its pirate-like attitude in the seas and for bullying smaller, weaker nations around to get its illegal ways. They have no shame and not in the moral ground to make fair judgment against those countries.** * Reply* * Share **



***oo

Guest 2 months agoNo, China will not abide to unfair UN ruling. Where was the UN at the Vietnam, Korean, Aghanistan and Iraq war? China have had an experience war against US coaliation with the UN in Korean War. She prevailed to thwart back the coalition at38th parallel line. It was then China was weak and poor, yet they were at victory to defend the North Korea. Now the situation is reversed, where China is at her golden age of prosperity and her navy is yet rising to a mightier state.The UN is useless organization abused by the Americans. It is time to refurbishit.o 3o o Replyo o Share ***o

o**

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoThe golden age of China was 3000 years ago, long gone and dead. Communist Chinais but a trickle of its supposedly glorious past, thats why it always invokes its history because it cant stand on its own. It persecutes its own people and just recently announced sweeping changes to its laws giving the authoritarian Communist Party more power to abuse its own citizen-slaves who have no rights of their own.China had a taste of its long list of humiliating defeats during the Opium Warsagainst Western Coalitions, at a time when it consider itself powerful and might

y, like today. During the Korean War, US was not interested in defeating an already decapitated China so its aim is to merely stop it from conquering Korea, and the US succeeded. Now thanks to Communist China, North Korea is poorer than the rats the Chinese serves in their meals everyday.* 1* * Reply* * Share ****

o*


San Andreas Guest 2 months ago



Did you complain when UN declared the pyramids a heritage site when it was built by slaves? Or the Imperialist China's Forbidden City when in fact its a promoter of racial and social segregation?* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

Guest Guest 2 months agoGood idea. However, all those high ranking chiefs at the UN hierarchy are held by American, British or the proven loyal outstandingly to US gov. They dictate who will be chief or agenda, what will be the mission task and which country willbe the target.The main key position holders have never deviated from Anglo-American interests.Been there and done that.*

* * Reply* * Share ****o**

Arcane Guest 2 months ago

Alex wrote, "The UN is useless organization abused by the Americans. It is timeto refurbish it."The UN is useless you say? Is that the reason why they are invoking UNCLOS provision in its claims of the Senkaku Islands against Japan? Yeah, minor. Your communist China submitted a claim of the Senkaku Islands, seeking UNCLOS rules in determining territorial rights. So, before you write another stup1d statement likethat and make a clown of yourself -- KNOW YOUR HISTORY.** * Reply* * Share *

*****




*

Arcane Guest 2 months agoBernt wrote "Senkaku is not Japan's and most Japanese know it incl. many historical evidence. "It doesn't remove the fact that communist China -- the People's Republic of China -- has no business in claiming the island for itself using the Cairo Declaration. It was neither a party nor mentioned in that treaty. Meaning China wants the island based on false claims. That's just fraud.Bernt wrote "Abe is using this as a way to booster its military and then kick the useless American occupying troops out of Japan."And how did you manage to know this intimate details of Abe's plan? Are you hisbest buddy for him to tell you this? In other words, it's just your unproven opinion. And it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

Guest Arcane 2 months agoSenkaku/Diosan has confirmed China expectation that the UN is useless. China, Russia, the non-block and Islam countries might as well start to set up a NEW UNITED NATION.China AIIB is a proof that she is leaving World Bank, a UN most prominent main-core organization. Bye bye UNCLOS, China bid you farewell!** * Reply*

* Share *******

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoIt would be funny if China can actually sustain its fantasy AIIB when their stock markets are starting to CRASH DOWN like mahjong blocks. Soon, its economic bubble and its real-estate boom will explode once the Communist lockdown on free in

formation sets loose.** * Reply* * Share ****



***

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoThe laws of the peace-loving nations making up the UN is useless to rogue nations like China Russia, North Korea and other authoritarian despotic regimes, so its expected theyll call it useless. If Nazi Germany was still around, it would probably call UN useless too.** * Reply* * Share *******

harold Guest 2 months ago"China AIIB is a *prove* that she is leaving ...." = *PROOF

* 1* * Reply* * Share *****oo

maxuout0143 2 months agoWhat Case?oo o Replyo o Share ***o*o

o

China Lee 2 months agoThe Philippines is asking for the impossible.Firstly, China's 1947 nine-dash-line map precedes the existence of UNCLOS by 35years. This means UNCLOS, which was established in 1982, cannot retroactively seize Chinese maritime territory.Secondly, UNCLOS has no enforcement mechanism. It only issues an advisory opinion. By the way, the United States has never ratified UNCLOS and is not bound by any UNCLOS opinion. Also, Russia disregarded an UNCLOS opinion in November 2013 o



n the Arctic Sunrise case. The precedents show that no major country takes UNCLOS seriously.o 6o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

San Andreas China Lee 2 months agoCommunist China is asking for the impossible because could it NOT prove its claims for historical rights and the legality of its 9-dash line invention. Until now, China cant show a single proof.While UNCLOS has no enforcement capacity over its rules, it will certainly bring the big bully China down with less respect and prestige it so wanted for so long. Imagine, a big bad bully China gets lawfully defeated by a weaker, smaller nation! Thats so shameful youll be disowned by your ancestors.*


JB China Lee 2 months ago

Regarding the second one UNCLOS is not an advisory opinion but a binding decision. Now you are correct they have no way inforse it but that does not make it less binding.Now the majority of its decisions are being followed one of the latest one was India against Bangladesh and India lost (also a very large country vs a small country) but India has said they will follow the ruling.** * Reply* * Share **

**o**

Emily Han China Lee 2 months agoWho talks about seizing Chinese territory? In fact, China is the only claimant that seized others territories by violent means and for your record, China actually, owned nothing in 1947 when the map was drawn.



* 1* * Reply* * Share ****o*


China Lee Guest 2 months agoThe nine-dash-line map was drawn in 1947 by the Republic of China, a democracy.When the People's Republic of China won the civil war, it inherited the nine-dash-line map.By the way, the Republic of China still exists on the island of Taiwan. Also, the Republic of China adheres to its original nine-dash-line map.

* 4* * Reply* * Share *******

San Andreas China Lee 2 months agoThanks for the confirmation the 9-dash line claim is an invention only made in the 1940s :)* 1* * Reply* * Share *****

**

RobRoyston China Lee 2 months agoguys, just stop replying to this china lee. hes just an absolute waste of time.* 1* * Reply* * Share



*******

Emily Han China Lee 2 months agoThe original was 11 dashed map just in case your accuracy and Chinese "indisputable history" need reminding!* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane China Lee 2 months agoChina Lee wrote "When the People's Republic of China won the civil war, it inherited the nine-dash-line map."What a loaded bull of cr4p. Communist China has never inherited the nine-dash-line, though it likes to think so. Communist China has not completely defeated Taiwan. It only drove it out from the mainland. The Republic of China is still alive and kicking in Taiwan under the protective wings of the great American bald eagle.But this is the kind of lies China's been doing all the time. It also claims the Senkaku Islands using the same bullcr4p that it inherited it after defeating Taiwan. Basically using the Cairo Declaration as its justification to claim the Senkakus. Now, why would China -- the People's Republic of China -- used the Cairo Declaration in claiming the Senkaku Islands when it was neither a party (co-sig

ner) nor mentioned in that treaty? That's just crazy.* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoUN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Taiwan to represent China in all respect.** * Reply* * Share *



******

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "UN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Taiwan to represent China in all respect."Uhuh, and who do you think you're lying here?** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoIf you don't know it, that means you are ignorant.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "If you don't know it, that means you are ignorant."Who you're trying to fool here? You're lying plain and simple. Shame on you.** * Reply* * Share ***

****

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoYou're trying to fool yourself. Acknowledging your own ignorance. Shame on you!** * Reply



* * Share ooo**oo

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "You're trying to fool yourself. Acknowledging your own ignorance. Shame on you!"I AM 1000% SURE THAT YOU'RE LYING. You're a pathological liar. I think this is the result of many years of communist indoctrination by your government.Communist China has this delusion that it owns Taiwan when the ROC clearly doesn't want to be associated with your crazy communist government. LOL.oo o Replyo o Share **

*oo**

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoYou have a pathological symptom that you are intensely indoctrinating yourself with untruths. Whether ROC want to be unified with China or not is not for them to decide. It is decided by 14 billions Chinese.** * Reply

* * Share *******

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "You have a pathological symptom that you are intensely indoctrinating yourself with untruths. Whether ROC want to be unified with China or not is

not for them to decide. It is decided by 14 billions Chinese."14 billion Chinese? I didn't know that your country's population was twice as much as the total population of the world of 7 billion. Are some of them living underground, ting_m? That's amazing. In other words, it is time for you to take your psychotropic meds.And what's that? It's not for them to decide? You sounded just like your leaderMao Zedong. You really are a scary person.** * Reply



* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoSo you are afraid of me because I said 14 billion! but I'm a kind person.** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "So you are afraid of me because I said 14 billion! but I'm a kind person."You sounded like your crazy dictator. That's what scary about you.** * Reply* * Share ***

****

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoI thought you are brave enough not to be afraid of dictator. Don't be timid, Stand on your feet. Walk tall.** * Reply* * Share

*******

Ansong2 China Lee 2 months agoThe Philippines has a map that dates back 350 years or so ago. And this map has



been submitted to UNCLOS. Vietnam also has a map a few centuries old. These twomaps show China's southernmost boundary is Hainan - 600 miles north of Spratly.Now, when did you say, your mickey mouse map (9-dash line) was drawn, 1947?Never trust China. It's the land of thieves, liars, and cheaters.* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Ansong2 2 months agoThe 350 years old Philippine map was not an official government map. So it is not legal** * Reply*

* Share *******

Ansong2 ting_m_1999 2 months agoThe 350-year old map of the Philippines which includes the Spratlys and Bajo deMasinloc is an official map that is recognized by western nations. The Chinese map, on the other hand, made by the Chinese government, is fake like everything el

se made in China. Never trust China! It's a nation of thieves, liars and cheaters!* 1* * Reply* * Share ******

*

ting_m_1999 Ansong2 2 months agoNot by its colonial master Holland and USA** * Reply* * Share *



******

China Lee Ansong2 2 months agoYour claim is not true.The Philippines wasn't even a country until 1899. Since the Philippines has been a country for only 116 years, you are making a ridiculous claim.* 4* * Reply* * Share *******

San Andreas China Lee 2 months agoCommunist China isnt even a country until after World War II. The remnants of the Imperial China is in Taiwan the rightful inheritor of the mainland.* 1* * Reply* * Share *****

**

Ansong2 China Lee 2 months agoThe Philippines then was ruled by Rajahs, Datus, & Sultans. Have you heard any of the Rajahs? Soliman? Have you heard of the Madjapahit Empire? I doubt it. Youjust believe what is fed to you by your commie bosses. Never trust a slit-eyed commie! They are thieves, liars and cheaters.* 1* * Reply* * Share

******

This comment was deleted.**



**

China Lee Guest 2 months agoI reported your racist post.* 3* * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane China Lee 2 months agoChina Lee wrote "The Philippines wasn't even a country until 1899. "LOL. And China was not even a country until the early 20th century. If you remember your history, Lee, the Republic of China was established in 1911, and the People's Republic of China? 1949 right after the Chinese civil war! Having said this, the Philippines is older than your China.

* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoUN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Taiwan to represent China in all respect.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "UN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Taiwan to represent China in all respect."That's a lie. I've talked to you before in another forum, and you've been lyingall the time. You have no credibility as a poster. Shame on you to come here and post this cr4p.*



* * Reply* * Share *******

China Lee Arcane 2 months agoYou are wrong.China has been a continuous civilization for 5,000 years. Each successor Chinese government inherits the rights and responsibilities of the previous Chinese government.The Philippines cannot claim to be a continuous civilization from their Spanishoverlords. Spaniards are white people. Philippines are not white people. Hence,the Philippines is not a continuous civilization.* 4* * Reply*

* Share *******

San Andreas China Lee 2 months agoCommunist China isnt even a country until after World War II. The remnants of the Imperial China is in Taiwan the rightful inheritor of the mainland. Add to that the long history of being slaves to its Mongolian Overlords, British Masters a

nd Japanese Emperor.The Philippines as an independent country is even older than the Communist China LOL.* 1* * Reply* * Share *****

**

Emily Han China Lee 2 months agoSo what happened when Mongolia rules China for hundreds of years and/or some small European countries sliced and diced China into pieces that they each liked and spited out the rest that they did not care for? All China has was a continuous 5,000 years of self-deceits thinking strong but really a weakling of Asia. That reflects in talking tough and parading warships over small neighbors but runs for cover when the US raises its voice "the US can patrol SCS but Japan can't..."



,..* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

makeehsig China Lee 2 months agohere are some Chinese maps that "prove" China doesn't own those islands. All available in Google.1389 "Da Ming Hun Yi Tu"1601 "Tian Di Tu"1811 "Da Qing Wan Nian Yi Tong Tian Xia Quan Tu"1896 "Huang Chao Zhi Sheng Yu Di Quan Tu"1933 "Zhonghua Min Guo Fen Sheng Xin Tu"All these maps show Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. "No Paracelsnor Bajo De Masinloc (Spratlys)".

China's One Million Dashed Lies was only drawn in 1947 by the Communists after the Koumintangs have been expelled.* 1* * Reply* * Share ******

*

San Andreas makeehsig 2 months agoThe Philippines have actual proofs Communist China have ZERO. No wonder nobody believes China other than its paid 50 Cent Party.* 1* * Reply* * Share ooo

****

Ros Feliciano China Lee 2 months agoThe Iranians have as well continuous civilization for over 5,000 years; they just changed their country's name to Iran from Persia. Partly true for China interrupted only during the WWII. However, like the Iran, China continues to be a nation. China is notorious for her stubborn character and this is why everywhere the



y go they cannot assimilate the culture of the host country and so they are allowed to stay in seclusion known throughout the world as China town. Is this trueof not or simply a crap?** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane China Lee 2 months agoLOL. You changed it to Spanish overlords now. LMAO! Pathetic. That's like how your government changes things like the 9-dash line. First it was 11, then 10, and finally 9. Ha ha ha ha ha.** * Reply*

* Share *******

China Lee Arcane 2 months agoI corrected it two minutes after my original post when I proof-read it. It's normal.* 3


Arcane China Lee 2 months ago

China Lee wrote "I corrected it two minutes after my original post when I proof-read it. It's normal."It's normal? If it was a typo or grammatical error, I would have understood, but you did mention France twice in that paragraph. What were you thinking at thattime? You must had thought the Philippines and Vietnam were one country. LMAO.oo o Replyo o Share



***o***

Arcane China Lee 2 months agoChina Lee wrote "You are wrong. China has been a continuous civilization for 5,000 years. The Philippines cannot claim to be a continuous civilization from their French overlords. French are white people. Philippines are not white people. Hence, the Philippines is not a continuous civilization."The French? The French had never administered the Philippines in ancient past. LMAO. This is proof right here that you don't know squat about history. That speaks volumes as to how little you know about the history of China.Yeah, China as a country DID NOT EXIST thousands of years ago. If you read yourhistory, your people didn't have a concept of a country until the 20th century.They believed the entire world belonged to their emperors, the Sons of Heaven!This established the fact that Japan, as a nation-state, had first control of the Senkaku Islands -- uninhabited at that time -- before China, as a country, did. Second, even during the dynastic times in your part of Asia, no physical structures were erected or people living permanently in those islands -- INCLUDING THE SPRATLEYS -- to prove that they had been under the control of some Chinese emp

eror. Compare that to the Romans who managed to build structures or outposts inall their colonies like Egypt.Are you telling us now that it's okay for Iran to declare that Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Palestine, and all these countries in Western and Central Asia as Iranian territories since they have been under the Persian Empire?? Don't you realize how absurd and ridiculous you sound?Communist China -- as a country -- DID NOT even exist 900 years ago when its so-called map was made. Again, this is like saying that Iran should claim her old territories based on a map dating back to the Persian Empire. They do have a real map showing that. The big difference between the Persian Empire and your people's ancient empire was that the former actually administered and took control oftheir territories, building structures and outposts and engaging with the locals -- your people DID NOT. But they saw those islands, yeah?

Is your government going to claim the Americas, too, because there was a recentarticle, proving that people from your part of Asia had first discovered Americas long before Columbus did? What about the Moon? Are your people going to claimthe Moon, saying they first saw it? Please stop embarrassing yourself further with this nonsense.see more** * Reply* * Share **

*****

Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months agoIn the world map, there is no such country as communist China. There is always a CHINA!. The world recognise only ONE CHINA! It is currently governed by COMMUNIST Party of China, which was previously governed by Democratic party of Chiang K



ai Sek...currently becomes Democratic Taiwan. Nowaday, Taiwan admits they are part of China state., cannot gain independence by itself! By the way, the real South China Sea maps dating back thousand years ago are still with 1800 Britanica world Atlas and New Britainica world maps. All other maps are merely drawing without proper cordinats of longitutes and latitudes. Nevertheless, Cairo treaty and Postdam proclamation after WWII done by the 5 alliance countries US, RUSSIA, CHINA, BRITAINand FRANCE are very important for Sovereighty clarification. This can only overide by WORLD WAR III, and Not by UNCLOS!..the ultimate motive of this case is SOVEREIGHTY.** * Reply* * Share ooo**oo

Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months agoAh Ee Tan wrote "In the world map, there is no such country as communist China.

There is always a CHINA!. The world recognise only ONE CHINA!"That still doesn't remove the fact that China -- as a country -- was established in the 20th century. 1911 when the Republic of China (Taiwan) was born. 1949 when your communist People's Republic of China (China) was established.Ah Ee Tan wrote " By the way, the real South China Sea maps dating back thousand years ago are still with 1800 Britanica world Atlas and New Britainica world maps."The real maps? Are you saying that those official and unofficial Chinese territorial maps dated thousands and even millenia of years ago used by your ancient people and emperors are NOT REAL??? Even your Qing Emperor Jiaqing made a map of China's entire territory in the 1800s, showing that China's southernmost territory doesn't go beyond Hainan island. Are you telling us now that his map is FAKE?You must be joking.

Ah Ee Tan wrote "This can only overide by WORLD WAR III, and Not by UNCLOS!"And how do you know this for sure? Is war the only thing you communist people know how to resolve disputes?Also, no other country in the world believes in this 9-dash-line cr4p. I challenge you to name one country besides Taiwan who believes in it.As I've been saying, your 9-dash-line is already a violation of international laws. Your government could not even tell the world its exact coordinates and howbig that is. Do you know how big your 9-dash-line is, Tan? How can you declare a territory without knowing its exact coordinates and measurements? You can't just draw 11, 10 or 9 dashes on a map and say that everything in those lines are yours. World governments aren't that stup1d to fall for that. Can you even do that to a residential land property, of course not! So, why is your communist government take the world for a fool?

Ah Ee Tan wrote "..the ultimate motive of this case is SOVEREIGHTY."That's right. And you cannot claim sovereignty rights over an area without a solid historical backing. And China lacks the historical backing when it comes to the Spratleys. Because if your country has solid evidence to back its historicalclaim of the Spratley, then it shouldn't have to worry facing the Philippines before any UN legal proceeding because the UN does recognize historical basis in claiming territories like in the case of the British Falklands.oo o Reply



o o Share ***oo**

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoChina announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation from WWII other victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member in that time anddidn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Lines belong to China.** * Reply* * Share ****

o**

Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months agoYou tend to avoid the facts established after WWII, Japan returened all the islands they occupied in the Spratleys to China under the noses and eyes of US, Russia, Britain, China and France as Cairo declaratiosn and Postdam proclaimation, plus Japan and Taiwan treaty. All these changed hand after WWII when Japan was defeated. There are documents..very solid documents on these!..very solid historical documents. I can say here unless there is WWIII, and China loss the war. OK,some other alliance country will claim them . I can feel Japan has the potential...if US back them up .I do not think US will fight for Phillippine, they are ne

ver in the history that those islands are Phillipines. Post WWII, they are Japnese's islands. OK, now Japan is coming back, and we shall have a good WATCH!** * Reply* * Share ******

*

Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months agoAh Ee Tan wrote ,"You tend to avoid the facts established after WWII, Japan returened all the islands they occupied in the Spratleys to China under the noses... as Cairo declaratiosn"Well, didn't you get the memo? Communist China was neither mentioned nor part of that treaty!So, why is your government using the Cairo Declaration to justify its ridiculous claim when it was NOT a party of that treaty agreement? That's just crazy.



Your communist state has this delusion that it inherits all of Taiwan's territories after the civil war -- IT DIDN'T. Taiwan was not really defeated by your army. It merely drove them out of mainland China. And right now, the Republic of China is still alive and kicking in Taiwan under the protective wings of the great American bald eagle.Second, Taiwan is not making a BIG FUZZ over this treaty because at this very moment 5,000 Chinese missiles are aimed at it by your communist government. In fact, they're very concerned of the growing military power of her communist neighbor. In other words, Tan, all the more reason for Taiwan to strengthen its alliance with the US. And the US is being clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the Spratleys is a disputed region that must be resolved through the UN, and any unilateral declaration of its ownership or to change the status quo will not be recognized.And despite numerous calls by your communist party for Taiwan to join with themand form a "Two China, One Country", Taiwan rejected them. That speaks VOLUMES of how the Taiwanese people despise your communist regime. The Taiwanese love their freedom and democracy. Their forefathers fought and died for this freedom and they're not going to give that away easily.* 1* * Reply* * Share *

******

Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months agoAs far the current and historical world order is concernt, Taiwan and China is one China ....be it governed by communist party or democratic party..the same CHINA is there since 5000 years ago, it is their internal politics, unless it was conquered and torn by other countries, like situation of Hong Kong, Macau and now , Taiwan. Why hype' COMMUNIST' of China? They are more and better decratic syst

ems then other democratic countries which are more corrupt and moneytocratic.Their people are welcomeby many democratic countries as tourists and areprovided with previlage entry VISA. They grow all the way up from 30 years ago when they wetre damn poor...like current Phillippine. It is better Phillippine learn and cooperate with China to rib themselves out of poverty.** * Reply* * Share ***

****

Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months agoAh Ee Tan wrote "As far the current and historical world order is concernt, Taiwan and China is one China ....be it governed by communist party or democratic party.."However you want to say it, it still doesn't remove the reality that the People'



s Republic of China is NOT a party of the Cairo Declaration. And that it has NOBUSINESS in meddling with Taiwan's affairs because Taiwan has its own government that is very much capable of running its own country, and clearly doesn't wantto be associated with your communist state.We're talking about governments here -- not China the continent. Okay, so don'tget mixed up. If you want to say that there's only one China, doesn't matter because they are two different governments. And the Cairo Declaration doesn't involved your communist government. Having said this, your communist China really has no business in the Spratleys and the Senkakus. Full stop.** * Reply* * Share *******

Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months agoSo, are you saying the UNCLOS LAW requires Taiwan government to rule China, then

Cairo Declaration and Postdam proclamation are valid? By the way, the real fact is, Phillipines was not mentioned in these Documents. Can you see the international politics....under the game of play,.Phillipines stir first...alliance drums up...finally the WWII loser shows up..ultimate motives to rewrite world boundaries and history...this time cairo declaration and Postdam proclamation will be overwriten, and new treaty will most likely be done in the HAGUE. By this time, the whole world will suffer serious economic showdown..and worst countries will be in the ASIA! Do not hype peaceful rising of CHINA...try to ride on their rising wagon to sell Phillipine coconut oils ( extremely healthy), sea foods, agriculture products..the next few years, your citizens will be very thankful to your wise politic...**


Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months agoAh Ee Tan wrote,"So, are you saying the UNCLOS LAW requires Taiwan government to

rule China, then Cairo Declaration and Postdam proclamation are valid? By the way, the real fact is, Phillipines was not mentioned in these Documents."You don't really get it. LOL. UNCLOS has nothing to do with ruling China mainland! UNCLOS are a set of laws that govern the rights of nations with respect to the ocean! Okay, so don't wander off our current topic here, which is the CAIRO DECLARATION. Now, in that treaty, it specifically mentioned the REPUBLIC OF CHINA-- NOT your PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. They're not one government. One is democractic and the other is communist. One is a party to the Cairo Declaration, andthe other is NOT.I'll give you a very simple analogy that any 10 year old can understand. A guy n



amed Rocky had a house with a big lot. He owned the titles to his properties (house and lot) all under his name. It so happened that his cousin, Precy, also lived with him in that same house. But Precy wasn't really a good fella because hewanted the house all for himself. So, he started fighting Rocky and because he was stronger and bigger, he managed to kick Rocky out of the house. Rocky now lived in his barn nearby that was also on that same lot. And if it weren't for hisgood neighbor, Uzzy, who intervened the physical altercation, Precy would have completely kicked Rocky out of his land.Now, here's a big QUESTION for you. Does the incident make Precy owns the titles of Rocky's house and lot? Of course, not! Just because Precy managed to kick his cousin out doesn't make him the legitimate owner of the properties. LMAO!But Crazy Precy is claiming that he owns the house, the lot, and the barn usingthe titles that are all under Rocky's name! Now if that's not crazy for you, what is??? LMAO.It should be very clear who is who in this very simple analogy I shared you. Precy is the People's Republic of China (PRC), Rocky is the Republic of China (ROC) and Uzzy is the United States (US).There's no way in heaven that Rocky will forgive Precy for his violent, thieving, lying and deceptive behavior. In fact, the Taiwanese government says that it is the sole legitimate government of all China! And the one that is currently living and breathing in China mainland is an illegal government.Now, if you still don't get it from this grade-school level analogy then I'm very sorry to tell you -- I can't help dumb people.*

* * Reply* * Share *******

Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months ago

You cannot twist words and truth under Cairo declaration and Postdam proclamation that Phillippine was not a party. Now, I do not know who is dumb? There was rock truth that PRC and ROC fight together as one CHINA! against Japanese intruders during WWII. PRC and ROC were China internal political problem..and not for outside world to meddle with.Same also on issue of South China Sea....** * Reply* * Share ***

****

Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months agoAgain, I must stress that in the WORLD, or the world map, there is only one China since 5000 years ago..it may be ruled by Emperor, Democratic party, socialistparty or now, communist party, it is still China....DNA of China.*



* * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months agoAh Ee Tan wrote "Again, I must stress that in the WORLD, or the world map, there is only one China since 5000 years ago..."That's like saying there's only one American continent in the world map. But America is comprised of many different countries and governments. There's Canada, there's the United States, and if you go down south, you have Brazil, Argentina,and what have you.Like I said, don't get mixed up. Sure, there's one China the continent. But there are two Chinese governments (Taiwan isn't even part of that continent). And one of them was NOT involved in the Cairo treaty!**


Ah Ee Tan Ah Ee Tan 2 months agosorry again typo grammer error!' PRE WWII'

Not' post wwII'** * Reply* * Share *******

Guest Arcane 2 months agoChina Lee is right.The French colonialized Vietnam and took over Spratly.The more you write, the more you are in delusional of your thought that China is making groundless claim.Why don't you type the word " China history" in Google and start learning aboutyour adversary?Or you might as well declare since Philippine is a Christian State, therefore whatever She does and claims are by her virtue is true, as the Bible said. Since you are the descendant of Abraham, so is Spratly by virtue is yours, by the help



of Christian guardian The USA** * Reply* * Share ooo**oo

Arcane Guest 2 months agoAlex wrote, "The French colonialized Vietnam and took over Philippine."France took over the Philippines? Ha ha ha ha. Oh, God, please help these people. And what's that? Colonialized? LMAO! You never fail to make me laugh, Alex. You're such a funny clown. :)))))))))))))))))))))))oo o Replyo o Share

***oo**

Guest Arcane 2 months agoOh God, please guide these senseless people as not to trespass China water, or else bullets shall welcome their ignorants life. Amien**


Arcane Guest 2 months agoAlex wrote, "Oh God, please guide these senseless people as not to trespass Chin

a water, or else bullets shall welcome their ignorants life. Amien"Ignorants and amien? Ha ha ha ha ha. You're very funny, minor. LMAO!** * Reply* * Share ***



*o**

Guest Arcane 2 months agoRead it again. Hahaha!** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane Guest 2 months agoAlex wrote, "Read it again. Hahaha!"I did. You're so dumb and funny! :))))))))))))))*

* * Reply* * Share *******

RobRoyston China Lee 2 months ago

i have a parcel of land, and i have specific boundaries complete with exact coordinates. this tells my neighbors where my property end and where their propertybegins. this way ownership is legally and formally recognised.if this 9dash line is a legal & formal claim can you provide specific coordinates to specify the limits of this claim? if you cannot provide specific coordinates (eg, precise points on the map complete with latitude / longitude) then it cannot be considered as a legal claim.it is a mickey mouse claim, thats what it is.* 2* * Reply* * Share

*******

China Lee RobRoyston 2 months agoYour claim is not true.



Only new modern territorial claims are subject to such exacting standards.China's maritime territory in the South China Sea (as demarcated by its nine-dash-line map) is a formalization of China's two-thousand-year-old first-discoveryand claim of the South China Sea.Ancient territorial claims need not meet modern specifications.* 4* * Reply* * Share *******

RobRoyston China Lee 2 months agolet me ask for it again... your coordonates please... ?** * Reply*

* Share *******

Ros Feliciano China Lee 2 months agoChina Lee tell your story to the Romans, Spaniards, iranians, Gengis Khan descendants, the Portugal people, the descendants of Alexander the Great and other great nations on earth and we'll wait their responses.

** * Reply* * Share *******

JB China Lee 2 months agoThe Formalization as you describe it happened in 1947 and at that point and a Geographic coordinate system has been around since the 3rd century BC and a standardized one since 1884 so this does not predate the use of exact coordinates.Now as far as I know the nine dash line has never been used to exert an official claim just as a propaganda/reference to show that is an indisputable claim (that everybody seems to dispute)Now the nine dash line (valid or not) does not make the South China sea an inland water so making the claim that all of it is part of China is a tough claim tomake. I can not think of any other open sea that is part of a single country. Co



rrect me if I am wrong.See independent of the ownership of the features there is a case to make for the waters surrounding it and that is what this case is about.* 3* * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoThe demarcation of the Lines were not specified because of the interruption of the Chinese civil war. Also the Lines have to be negotiated with neighboring nations. Those nations refuse to negotiate. The Lines consists originally 11 lines.Two of the 11 lines were peacefully settled between China and Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf region. There remain 9 lines.**


China Lee JB 2 months agoReliable GPS coordinates were not available until satellite technology was devel

oped.China's nine-dash-line map was the gold standard in ancient territorial demarcation.* 1* * Reply* * Share *****

**

RobRoyston China Lee 2 months agowithout specific coordinates, how will one know where chinese waters end and where phil waters begin?in practical terms how will a ship captain know if he is still sailing in chinese waters or in phil waters. how does chinese and philippine coast guards know the limits of the seas they cover w/o defined coordinates??thats not a golden standard!! instead it is a standard for confusion & conflict!



!** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 RobRoyston 2 months agoThe Lines were not initially specified is because the demarcation of the Lines were not specified because of the interruption of the Chinese civil war. Also the Lines have to be negotiated with neighboring nations. Those nations refuse to negotiate. The Lines consists originally 11 lines. Two of the 11 lines were peacefully settled between China and Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf region. There remain9 lines.** * Reply

* * Share ooo****

RobRoyston China Lee 2 months agomy parcel of land was originally titled in the 1920s (before your 9dash line was published) and the limits of my property is complete with coorfinates. there wa

s no GPS in the 1920s but a latitude / londitude syst already existed.GOLD STANDARD !!??!! what kind of medication are you on??** * Reply* * Share ******

*

JB China Lee 2 months agoLOL we are not talking about GPS my friend but detailed coordinates have been around for centuries. And as I said they were formalized/standardized in 1884.The nine dash is not even close to a gold standard in 1947 I can show you maps of the 16th century that have 100 times more details than the nine dash line. Plus 1947 is not considered ancient we were already in the industrial revolution getting close to the information age.* 1



* * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane China Lee 2 months agoChina Lee wrote "China's nine-dash-line map was the gold standard in ancient territorial demarcation."It's the golden standard? LMAO! Only China believes this cr4p. Here's a little challenge for you. Name one country other than China/Taiwan that believes in your golden 9-dash-line. This is going to be funny. LOL!* 3* * Reply* * Share *

******

Arcane China Lee 2 months agoChina Lee wrote "...formalization of China's two-thousand-year-old first-discovery and claim of the South China Sea."2,000 year old first discovery? Hahahaha. How do you think your government justifies its claim before the world? That they have a fleeting glimpse of those islands 2,000 years ago? LMAO! That's just communist idiocy right there.

Okay, you mentioned first discovery and claim thousands of years ago. Do you know who, among your ancient Chinese emperors, claimed those islands? LMAO.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

Dart Revan China Lee 2 months agoYour ancient maps shows hainan as the southernmost part of china. Your nine dash line is nothing but a hoax.malayan polynesian had discovered the seas long before the chinese did.* 1* * Reply*



* Share *******

China Lee Dart Revan 2 months agoNo. Ancient maps do not demarcate all of China's vast territories.For example, most US maps do not show Guam, Midway, or US Virgin Islands. Yet, all of those islands belong to the US. Similarly, the South China Sea islands belong to China. However, they may not be depicted in all Chinese maps.* 4* * Reply* * Share *****

**

Arcane China Lee 2 months agoLee wrote "For example, most US maps do not show Guam, Midway, or US Virgin Islands. Yet, all of those islands belong to the US. Similarly, the South China Seaislands belong to China. However, they may not be depicted in all Chinese maps."You can't claim something without any history and without even administering it. Your communist China has been saying that they have historical basis to support their claim of the ENTIRE South China Sea, which includes the Spratleys. What historical basis are they talking about when there are no ancient Chinese colonies in those islands, most especially on those shoals or reefs (LMAO)? There wereno ancient structures or outposts. No markers that suggest that they'd been clai

med by some Chinese emperor thousands of years ago? Can you tell us?And you have the nerve to compare this to Guam, Midway or the US Virgin Islandswhen the Americans actually established colonies in those places! No. They're NOT the same.Also, the 9-dash-line is already a violation of international laws. You can't just draw 11 or 9 dashes on a map and expect world countries to believe that you own the sovereignty rights of all the islands, reefs and shoals within those lines. Do you even know the exact coordinates or how big this 9-dash-line is, Lee, because your communist government doesn't even know? So, how could you claim something without even knowing how big it is? H3ck, you can't even do that with simple residential land properties. So, don't take people for fools because we're not.*

* * Reply* * Share ******



*

ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months agoThe Chinese civil war prevented The demarcation of the Lines. Also the Lines have to be negotiated with neighboring nations. Those nations refuse to negotiate.The Lines consists originally 11 lines. Two of the 11 lines were peacefully settled between China and Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf region. There remain 9 lines.** * Reply* * Share ooo****

China Lee Arcane 2 months agoDon't change the subject.My point about a map not showing all of a country's vast territories is correct.* 4


Arcane China Lee 2 months ago

China Lee wrote "Don't change the subject. My point about a map not showing allof a country's vast territories is correct."LOL. Are you trying to be funny now? Your government claims that it owns the ENTIRE South China Sea for thousands of years yet its ancient territorial maps don't show this. And we're talking about territorial maps, both official and unofficial, dating thousands or even millennium of years ago beginning from the Song Dynasty. In fact, as late as 1932, your government (in a Note Verbale to France) has reiterated to the world that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan Island.So, are you telling us now that ancient China owns the region for thousands of years, but it just doesn't want to include it in its maps? Why go all the trouble drawing all those Chinese lands and boundaries in intricate details but stop at Hainan island? That's hilarious.

Please don't think you can get away with this lie. It's pathetic. Really. But let's just say, for the sake of conversation, that ancient China really does own the entire South China Sea, who, among your ancient Chinese emperors, claimed the water? Do you know? LMAO.oo o Replyo o Share *



**o*oo

Chinese stink 2 months agoChinese Xi made up stories, excuses. Hope UNCLOS punish thief China Xi. Bombed islands. Solved. Peace.o 2o o Replyo o Share ***o*oo

Chinese stink 2 months ago

Chinese thief stop stealing, invading Vn and Philip seas.o 2o o Replyo o Share ***o*oo

jim okay 2 months agoThis is the funniest thing I have ever read.Tthe Philippines tries to entertainthe world again, but sarcastically. One of the items in the case the Philippines says they are claiming the islands around its 200 nautical miles of its EEZ isbased on the Principle of Res nullius, which means that an object is ownerless and free to be owned. In other words, the Philippines says, "What the heck, I declare (to myself), hey I assume no body owns these islands, so I'm owning them."What they said before that those islands were discovered by Tomas Cloma is now false. Now they want to say that since no body owns those islands, so I want to own them. President Marcos when he annexed them to the Filipino map in 1978, he didn't say that. So what is true? When the Filipinos knowingly understand that the Chinese always claim those islands, and they are now telling the judges of the

Permanent Court of Justice in The Hague that nobody/country owns them, so theywant to own them. This is not only a joke, but a flat lie! This is also clearlyabout sovereignty, which the PCJ in The Hague has no jurisdiction. Do you all see how dumb the Filipinos are in this case? They try to use moron logic to talk to a group of talented judges. Good luck!!Another funny thing in the case is that the Philippines says that all the islands fall within its 200 nm EEZ. It is either the lawyers in this case who have not really read or understood the text in the UNCLOS, or that Aquino tells them toinclude this item in the case, anyway. It is quite understandable that not onlythe mainland of a coastal country has a 200 nm EEZ, but all islands enjoy a 200



nm of EEZ. If the two EEZs overlap, then it is up to the countries involved to resolve the issue.So far, the Philippines has a very weak case against China. I can't believe that Aquino spent so many millions of dollars and put up such as scrappy case against China while thousands of Filipinos are starving at home.o 6o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

JB jim okay 2 months agoI do have to agree with some of the other comments here that I do not think youknow what the case is about.You state:"and they are now telling the judges of the Permanent Court of Justice in The Hague that nobody/country owns them, so they want to own them"

No where in the case is there anything about ownership of features since UNCLOSdoes not have the authority to rule on that and the Philippines is not asking for it.The case is about defining what rights any of these features have and most willhave nothing or just a 12 mile zone independent of who owns them.You state:"So far, the Philippines has a very weak case against China"I can not concur based on UNCLOS it is unlikely that China would be able to claim all the features and the waters in between plus all of the rest of the South China sea. Now will the Philippines get all features defined as they want probably not but there are quite a few no brainers like the Scarborough shoal that will not have an EEZ and beyond the 12miles zone it would become Philippine EEZ andthat would be a win for the Philippines.

This case is a lot smarter and at the end it would only take that one win (out of several hundreds) to break the claim of the nine dash line. While China wouldhave to win all of them with a 200mile EEZ and could still not claim the full south China Sea based on coverageSo only if they decide that UNCLOS does not apply we would have a draw and thatwould be the best outcome China could ask for.See you can make a case based on facts and analysis and no need call the other side lairs, jokers or degrade them in anyway because that does show you as a small minded petty person so please stop doing that* 1* * Reply*

* Share ****o**

Ansong2 jim okay 2 months ago



Very soon, the world will find out what China is all about. It's a land of thieves, liars, and cheaters.* 1* * Reply* * Share ****o**

gordon jim okay 2 months agoActually you are forgetting Vietnam's claim. Admittedly the Philippines claim is based on possession through invasion but the PRC claim is complicated by the fact it is the same mainly as Taiwan which may or may not be a province of China depening on ones standpoint. Sovereignty issues would come under the remit of the ICJ and both parties have to agree to arbitration.** * Reply

* * Share ****o*


*

Ansong2 Guest 2 months agoVery soon, the world will find out what China is all about. It's a land of thieves, liars, and cheaters. Stop buying low-quality products made in China and help us bring down this troublemaker to its knees.** * Reply* * Share **

****




jim okay Guest 2 months agoYou just trash too much. Most Filipinos are just like you, cannot comment to the issues. Hopeless for the Philippines.** * Reply* * Share ****o*


Ansong2 Guest 2 months agoThe Philippines has a map that dates back 350 years or so ago which show that Ch

ina's southernmost boundary is Hainan. This map was submitted to UNCLOS.Very soon, the world will find out what China is all about. It's a land of thieves, liars, and cheaters.Help us bring down this troublemaker to its knees by boycotting made in China products.** * Reply* * Share ***

*o**

jim okay jim okay 2 months agoAs I said in other websites, the case that the Philippines took China to the PCJ is going to no where. Today, when I see it as presented, it is one of the moronic cases ever filed. the judges will throw out most of the case. Most of the items in the case have nothing to do with UNCLOS. In order to rule on the maritimebenefits for any coastal country, they must decide on the sovereignty. Without knowing who own what, how do you decide where does the 200 nm EEZ start?* 2




*

JB jim okay 2 months agoWhat kind of claims a feature has (eg 10 miles, 200 Miles or nothing ) has nothing to do with who owns it it has to certain rules. Like is it above water both in high and low tide, can it sustain life, what continental plateau etc. The claims the feature has would be the same if it was owned by China, Philippines or any other country. And that is exactly what this case is about the philippines isasking the status of all the features independent of the ownershipThe only other thing they ask is to see if UNCLOS has jurisdiction.So please point out what is moronic about the case and what parts of the case has nothing to do with UNCLOSE* 1* * Reply* * Share ******


jim okay Guest 2 months agoYou're not responding to the issue. You're just trashing. That's most Filipinosknow how to do, and nothing else.* 1* * Reply*

* Share *******

Ansong2 jim okay 2 months agoThe issue is that China is a nation of thieves, liars, and cheaters.**

* Reply* * Share ****o**



Vir jim okay 2 months agoYour comment is the most stupid I've ever read. Why don't you start opening your eyes and read the real and true history and not your made up Chinese version. Do you even know what's UNCLOS?! I doubt it, stupid jerk!* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

JESUSPACQUING Vir 2 months agoI AGREE ANOTHER STUPIDITY..!** * Reply*

* Share *******

jim okay Vir 2 months agoCan you tell me what is "made up" in my comments. Don't talk trash here. Of course I know the UNCLOS. What do you know about the UNCLOS?* 1

* * Reply* * Share *******

Vir jim okay 2 months ago

Hahaha DON'T TRASH TALK?! THEN DON'T TRASH YOUR ALREADY RIDICULOUS BRAIN! UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA WHICH YOUR CHINA DOES NOT RESPECT AT ALL! GO FIGURE WHY! OHHH, EVERYONE KNOWS WHY EXCEPT YOU, YOU GUYS BEEN SUPRESSEDFOR YEARS! YOUR GOVT. WILL ONLY ALLOW NEWS THAT'S PLEASING TO THEIR EYES & TICKLES THEIR BRAIN! SO SAD. YOU ARE A VICTIM OF YOUR COMMUNIST COUNTRY. :( BOOOOHHH:(** * Reply*



* Share *****oo

Ros Feliciano 2 months agoFifty percent of us Filipinos have Chinese blood in us and this cannotbe denied. In the event of conflict with China of course we remains citizens ofthe Philippines. However, the truth is Chinese cannot easily assimilatethe culture of their host countries from generation to many generationsand this is why they are allowed to settle in one community in a countrywhere their ancestors migrated and they called the community Chinatown; in Manila, New York and in many other countries as well. For this reason,I am absolutely doubtful about the loyalty of the Chinese Filipinos if they favors China or the Philippines. Among ustwo peoples we remain friends with each other as we want to avoid war.oo o Replyo

o Share ***oo**

jim okay Ros Feliciano 2 months agoWell, you are deviating from the issue. Look, the Philippines is trying to ask the court to decide the islands the Philippines now occupies since 1978 were actually Res nullius, meaning that they did not have owner and the Philippines claim

s ownership of them. While the Philippines knows it damn well that the islands have claimed by China since ancient time and all the way into modern time (look at the map of China published in 1948 and everymap since then that it clearly displays both in English and Chinese the names of those islands), how can the islands be Res nullius? The real issue is that the Filipinos are greed people and they are stealing property from China. Are telling me that the Chinese Filipinos in the Philippines need to be greedy and to agree with the 100 percent pure bloodFilipinos that stealing others property is right?* 1* * Reply* * Share

*******

Ros Feliciano jim okay 2 months agoWho believe this crap?



** * Reply* * Share ****o**

Totoy Ros Feliciano 2 months agoFifty % of us Filipinos have Chinese blood in us? Where did you get that info?** * Reply* * Share ****

***

Ros Feliciano Totoy 2 months agoWell, this is just an educated guess because in Luzon almost haft of the population are mongoloid in appearance.** * Reply* * Share *

******

JESUSPACQUING Totoy 2 months agoANOTHER STUPID ASSUMPTION , CHINESE FILIPINO ARE LOYAL THE PHILIPPINES, WHY? CHINESE FROM CHINA IMMIGRATED TO THE PHILIPPINES BECAUSE OF DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM FROM CONTROL SUCH BUSHINESS ETC. AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW, THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY ,CHINA CONTROLS HIS OWNPEOPLE..!!




**

gordon JESUSPACQUING 2 months agoChines emigration to the area called the Philippine's occurred long before the PRC existed and also before the Philippines did.** * Reply* * Share *****oo

GAGO333 2 months agoPhilippines already won this case by default, since commie China failed to attend.o 7o

o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Sam Gu GAGO333 a month agoIt is not true.

if one side is absent in this court the arbitration is not valid^Court has no power to enforce its judgment^Many countries including United States do not recognize this court.Your conclusion is incorrect.* 1* * Reply* * Share ****

o**

San Andreas GAGO333 2 months agoThey decided not to attend and hide behind the cloak of 9-dash line because they know they will never win.* 1* * Reply



* * Share *****oo

LAM GIANG 2 months agoAll the country like Tibet and other Viet countries should show the proofs of china invaded their countries and took away a lot of land thousand year ago . Nowit is time to get back those land.o 4o o Replyo o Share ***o*

oo

Duetto 2 months agoThe Philippines said it will honor whatever the decision. Let's see if China does too.o 4o o Replyo o Share **

*oo**

San Andreas Duetto 2 months agoChina wont. Communists are not known to follow the rule of law. They have no honor.* 2* * Reply*

* Share ****o**

gordon Duetto 2 months ago



so the kingdoms of Mercia etc. should take back their land form Wessex and England does not exist. Mexico should take back its lands from the USA, Hawaii should also be independent.* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

Duetto gordon 2 months agoYour point being?* 2* * Reply* * Share *

******

Duetto Duetto 2 months agoYeah just as I had suspected. Gordon is a big Nimrod who can't back up what he says. It's all cool. Just STFU if you can't rebut. You're doing the right thing.** * Reply

* * Share *******

San Andreas Duetto 2 months agoHaha! The 50-Cent Party paid commenters have lost its train of thought. What the heck was that guy talking about anyway LOL

* 2* * Reply* * Share *****



oo

JJXKing 2 months agoLet's wait and see.o 1o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Pepot JJXKing 2 months agoYes. Philippines honors commitments like a KNIGHT.Preserving Honor at this timeis very important to show your integrity and credibility. Not on paper but doing the opposite.* 1*

* Reply* * Share *****oo

NO MADE IN CHINA 2 months agoNO DOGS, NO CHINESE, NO MADE IN CHINA.

o 9o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

JESUSPACQUING NO MADE IN CHINA 2 months agoAGREED..!** * Reply* * Share ***



*o**

Mixa. NO MADE IN CHINA 2 months ago·???????? US is a bastion of idiocy. ????????** * Reply* * Share *****oo

Mixa. 2 months ago?????China ????? can smash America without problem,Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T 50 fighter are much faster and more maneuverable than American F-35 US air force or F

22 Raptor and other technologically obsolete American airplanes... China invests more and more to the armies, and the Americans cut their budget, right now must dump american dollar and then the america becomes bankruptoo o Replyo o Share ***oo

**

San Andreas Mixa. 2 months agoSmash with what? Replicas of old-tech Russian planes? Rusting naval ships it bought from USSR? Oh how about the poor copy of jump jets it stole from the US through hacking? Maybe your Chinese Junks will finally be useful against its enemies. Communist China cant even invent a single thing.** * Reply* * Share

****o**

marley Mixa. 2 months agomixa,



look who's talking!!!! keep your illusion high, if you, chinese are tough enough all you have to do is shot the US recon plane flying above your manmade island. will see how far you guys could go.** * Reply* * Share ****o**

PINOY Mixa. 2 months agoMixa,and then you and your cousin don't have any more to copy from .* 2* * Reply* * Share

****o**

JB Mixa. 2 months agoNot a very useful or even correct remark regarding It is of the subject so why bother posting it. I could go into an analysis on why your statements are incorrect but I am sure it would be fruitless so I am not going to bother.*


Wilson Wazu Escalona Mixa. 2 months ago

Very true Mixa. ! also, you forgot to mention that the earth is the center of the universe ^_^** * Reply* * Share ***



*o**

Duetto Mixa. 2 months agoThe way I see it here now, China needs to invest more in English education.* 2* * Reply* * Share *****oo

aquarium7 2 months agoThere are many inaccuracies in this article. For one, there has never been any territorial dispute in South China Sea since the Ming Dynasty. Aquino's WILD interpretation of UNCLOS in regard to his claim in South China Sea is a fiasco, a la

ughing stock that is backed ONLY by US for obvious reason to contain China. If Aquinos logic stands, then, he could also have challenged US to an International Court for the many imagine or real disputes in America. New Mexico belongs toMexico, Alaska belongs to the Eskimos, Hawaii belongs to the Hawaiian natives. In fact, the entire America belongs to the native Indian just over 200 years ago! That is how WILD Aquino and Philippines can become if they CHOSE to.South China Sea ONLY became disputed when Hillary Clinton fumbled upon that freedom of navigation lie, gold mine that she used to meddled in South China Sea. Later, Carter, Russel, Biden, .... , Abe and Aquino, even the CNN spy plane all join the bandwagon. Funny though, that freedom of navigation lie is rarely heard lately, it must be one more LIE of US has been exposed. Of course, it is not impossible for UNCLOS to rule in favor of Philippines if the judges adopt the AMERICAN VERSION of international law!!!!

In any case, US and her watch dogs Japan, Philippines, Vietnam must not have any illusion that China will forego even half an inch of soil she rightly own. The more they meddle, the tighter the noose around Vietnam and Philippine will become. History, legality and time are on Chinas side. History also shows that evil dealings always failed. You see in Hitler and Japs Fascist in WW II. You will see in scheming US, Abe and Aquino. Damn all the liars.o 1o o Replyo o Share **

*oo**

San Andreas aquarium7 2 months agoThere was never a territorial dispute in the South East Asian seas in the Ming Dynasty because they dont even know there were reefs that exists there. The Chinese claim to those reefs was only invented in 1940s.



* 1* * Reply* * Share ****o**

Ansong2 aquarium7 2 months agoVery soon, the world will find out what China is all about: It's the land of thieves, liars, and cheaters. Shameless breed!** * Reply* * Share ***

*o**

marley aquarium7 2 months agoaqua, i believe your brain and thinking is no longer functioning normally due to excessive inhalation of toxic plus the daily brainwashing.your argument is very shallow, using USA/ UNCLOS judges is a chinese tactics ofeluding a peaceful resolution. LOL china's shouting around the world that CHINAIS A PEACEFUL LOVING NATION. i doubt if someone is buying it, when in fact the international community are becoming hostile against chinese bcoz of your greediness and uncivilized thinking. the latest one in turkey where mistaken korean as

chinese was get hurt by the demonstrator, in thailand where you shown your uncivilized behavior, france where one of your kind urinating right across public restroom. your overwhelming stealing of other countries high tech, researches, business trade information, as well poaching of endanger species around the world.china's image as stinks it sounds, it is your own fault to blame.my advice have a plastic surgeries to alter your mongoloid looks to more socially acceptable looks, do not use your chinese passport, learn to act civilized, take good care of your personal hygiene. may be by then you'll be welcome.** * Reply* * Share

*******

aquarium7 marley 2 months agoMarley sounds like an absolute noble and a perfect human species! Maybe he is ab



ove God. For one, hisdescription does not suit me a bit, of course hypocrite like him will never admit. Tell me which country, which race does not have less civil citizens, your stupid brothers and sisters idiots perhaps. If I CHOSE to, I can use 1000 extreme words to describe people like you and many Pinoys in this forum, starting with racist, chauvinists, terrorist, murderous, subhuman, Chinese hater, stupid, greedy, beggar, ..... The whole point is it is bad to use thoughtless terms to denigrate anyone including you. You mean you can simply murder people just like Hitlerand his adopted son Abee do. Filipinos cannot take on the whole world just because of their failed leaders, failed government and failed country.** * Reply* * Share ****o**

Vir aquarium7 2 months ago

CHINA CAN'T MAKE THEIR OWN SOVEREIGNTY, HISTORY & MAKE THEIR OWN MAP! CHINA DOESN'T WANT TO SEND ANY REPRESENTATIVE IN TRIBUNAL COURT BECAUSE THEY DON'T RESPECT ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE FACT THAT THEY WILL LOST THE CASE. STUPID CHINA EVERYTHING IS FAKE! DOES NOT RESPECT ANY TRADEMARK, PATENT, FAKING EVERYTHING INCLUDING DISNEYLAND, LAS VEGAS, EGYPT, ETC. ETC. ETC.** * Reply* * Share ***

*o*


gnak Guest 2 months agoIt would be stupid of japan to take on a continental powerThe same fate will befall them again.How stupid can you get taking

on the americans, russians and now,chineseonce there is maritime blockade, Japan is finished.China, on the otherhand, does not have this problem** * Reply* * Share **



**o**

PINOY aquarium7 2 months agoLet me tell you something aquarium, You and your cousins alike, are the known liars, the thieves,cheaters, and fakers of everything i can think off. The inch of soil you are talking about is already 2000 acres . So you know what it means now . Give her an inch , she will take 90% of what is West Philippine sea .* 2* * Reply* * Share *******

gnak PINOY 2 months agophilippines already lost. all possible outcomes Checkmated!Will have to beg the chinese to renegotiate** * Reply* * Share *****

**

jim okay PINOY 2 months ago@Pinoy, no matter how many inches of soil does matter. What matter is the Philippines has no legal basis to claim any territory in the South China Sea.* 3* * Reply* * Share **

*****

Vir jim okay 2 months agoJim you are a complete Moron! And what's you and your Chinese govt. basis? NONE! YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR OWN SOVEREIGNTY!*




Tao of Lepton aquarium7 2 months agoFull of lies** * Reply* * Share ****o

**

Arcane aquarium7 2 months agoaquarium wrote "Aquino's WILD interpretation of UNCLOS in regard to his claim in South China Sea is a fiasco, a laughing stock that is backed ONLY by US for obvious reason to contain China."Is that the reason why Australia, Canada, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Spain, US and the UK are ALL calling for China to respect the international laws governing land and sea (UNCLOS) and to face the Philippines before the UN tribunal? The G7 countries have also expressed serious concern of China's thieving activities in the Spratley in violation of international laws.In fact, only China in the WHOLE world stup1dly claims the ENTIRE South China Se

a. No other UN country believes this as the 9 dash line is a VIOLATION of international laws. Do you even know the coordinates of this 9 dash line, aquarium? How big is this 9 dash line that China is claiming sovereignty over? Do you know?Of course, not. Even your government doesn't know. LMAO.How can anyone declare sovereignty over an area without even knowing its coordinates or how big it is? Surely you don't take world governments for fools that you can just draw 11 or 9 dashes on a map and expect them to believe that the islands, shoals, reefs and waters within those lines are all yours?Communist China does not own squat in the Spratley! They're saying that they have historical basis for their claim. What historical basis are they talking about because until now they have not provided even a single iota of proof to back this claim? There were no evidence of ancient Chinese colonies in those islands, most especially on those shoals or reefs (LMAO). There were no ancient Chinese st

ructures or outposts. No markers that suggest that they've been claimed by someChinese emperor a long, long time ago. So, how can they say that they have historical basis for their claim when they have NO HISTORY in the region? Why don't you enlighten us because you seem to know a lot? LMAO.* 3* * Reply* * Share *



******

aquarium7 Arcane 2 months agoFirst, I respect your opinion, but you fail to see my logic. If you scratch peoples back, people will also scratch your back. Whether there is dispute in US is immaerial. Surely, people of your intellectual capability cannot fail or pretend not to see the real purpose of that re-balancing policy! You must have heard, including from experts around the world it is to contain China. That is the ROOT CAUSEofthe dispute in South China Sea.I have said this before and I tell you now. You cant point finger at A a terroristand then B is not because it doesnt serve the interest of US. You cant keep a blindeye to Philippines and Vietnams theft rampage in South China Sea and then DEMAND China to stop constructions in her OWN territories. You cannot keepquiet about lack of democracy in Arab countries because they are allies of US but trumpeting about China not democratic. That is the kind of double standard that world police is preaching you must agree.Surely you know when a country use EEZ to claim territories, immediately the act is illegal. Just to quote one case, this particular claimant country occupies a

n island during the 80s she now call hers, what is your expert opinion on this? Do you mean to say that, up till then, there were not any owner, and it was for grab, your expert opinion really mean it???? You cant be joking!There is no need to go back to prehistoric days, the nine dash line first appeared seventy years ago. Mao proclaimed it again in the Fifties. The then Vietnamese government recognized it. There are tonsof other documents to support Chinas claim only so-called experts like you pretend not to acknowledge for simple incorrigible, bias, chauvinistic, sick westerner mentality that often scrutinies for every fault with China. Hopeless Chinese hater that is.Last but not least, your allies countries from around the world didnt jump up and down then. Now that was CLEAR admission of China's RIGHT in South China Sea you cannot deny! Damn.

** * Reply* * Share *******

Arcane aquarium7 2 months agoaquarium wrote "Surely, people of your intellectual capability cannot fail or pretend not to see the real purpose of that re-balancing policy! You must have heard, including from experts around the world it is to contain China. That is the root cause of the dispute in South China Sea."Sure, the US is realigning its military power to Asia, but it has nothing to dowith the territorial disputes. Don't mix the two things.To put the blame on the US pivot to Asia for the mess China is creating in the South China Sea is downright malicious because your communist government has a history of bloody incursions with her neighbors even after international laws were



established (by the UN that your country is a party of) to prevent conflicts over territories. Let me refresh your memory because you seem to have an amnesia.March 1979, China invaded Vietnam and captured some of the bordering cities, but was forced to retreat. January 1988, Chinese navy gunned down 64 unarmed Vietnamese sailors on Johnson South Reef and occupied the island. March 1969, China invaded Russian borders and a war between the two countries erupted before a resolution was made at a cost of unnecessary lost of lives! October 1962, China invaded Indian borders, capturing Rezang la, Chushul in the west and Tawang in the east. China declared a ceasefire in November and withdrawn from the areas. And let's not forget 1949, when China invaded and occupied the East Turkestan's territories. You can tell that the locals -- the Uyghurs -- were not very happy with the occupation as they staged countless uprisings against the Chinese occupiers! In fact, they had successfully setup an independent republic twice -- one in 1933 and another in 1944. And, of course, how can we forget Tibet, when your Chinese army invaded and occupied that peaceful nation, killing thousands of defenseless Tibetan monks along the way.I would not mention the ones that happened during the dynastic eras because communist China DID NOT even exist until the early 20th century. As we all know, the People's Republic of China was established in 1949 right after the civil war! It would be like blaming Iran for the invasion and murders that occurred during the Persian Empire. In other words, it's stup1d and ridiculous.But now, presently, China is stealing Philippine waters or in disputed water. BIG MISTAKE by China. Because the Philippines is not just the OLDEST and CLOSEST American ally in Asia, it's a former U.S. colony. In other words, you mess with t

he Philippines, you mess with Uncle Sam. And this whole thing happens during a time when US is doing a pivot to Asia. Plus, there is a fine line for the international community to say that they have had enough. China had crossed that line.That's why you're seeing all these negative reactions from the international community -- not just from the US and Philippines but around the globe -- against China. The sentiments of the majority of people from all over in every online forum you go to is already a testament to that. But don't get us wrong though. We don't really hate the Chinese people. We just don't like your communist government and those who support its behavior. If China wants to be respected in the world stage, then it should respect her smaller neighbors and not use its economic and military power to brush off their territorial claims. In fact, the Philippine government took a very sensible and peaceful approach to the problem. First, the Philippines agreed to have a bilateral talk with China. In that talk, they agr

eed to stir clear from the region until the matter was resolved bilaterally. The Philippines halted all repair works in the Spratleys and removed its small navy, believing that China would do the same. But your government was very sly. They started barricading some of the Spratley reefs (i.e. Mischief Reef, etc) and sent in more ships. China violated its own bilateral agreement with the Philippines and its diplomatic protests were no help to stop the violations. This was thereason why Filpino government sought UN arbitration because China's "bilateral talk" was PURE B-LLSH*T.aquarium wrote "I have said this before and I tell you now. You cant point finger at A a terrorist and then B is not because it doesnt serve the interest of US. Yoant keep a blind eye to Philippines and Vietnams theft rampage in South China Sea and then DEMAND China to stop constructions in her OWN territories."Well, you only have your communist government to blame for why many people aroun

d the world labelled China a threat, or countries calling China to respect the international laws and settle the dispute through the UN. This wouldn't have happened if China took the time to sincerely talk the issue with other claimants. And not deceived them by saying one thing, but doing another.What will you do if you have a property and your neighbor stops by and says, "That's my yard!" And he started fencing your yard. And no matter how much you explain to him that it is yours 'cause the law says so, he won't budge. He says, "Okay, okay, let's talk about this." But he keeps building the fences! Meanwhile, he carries a big stick and won't let you and your family step into your yard. Not even your pet. So, you went to the court and invited him to resolve the issue.



But he says, "Scr3w the court! I don't care what it says! Let's just talk aboutthis ourselves." And by then you feel helpless. That is what China is doing to Philippines right now.There comes a time when your patience runs out, when enough is enough and drastic measures have to be taken. And you can't blame all these countries coming forward and strengthening their alliances because they're all feeling the tension -- the heat -- that China is creating in the region. And if they are pushed further to the wall, we don't know what will happen. The situation could spark and lead to something that we all fear.** * Reply* * Share *******

PINOY aquarium7 2 months agoy o u are full of it . you think you know that much . china did not want to part

icipate , because they know they will not be able to prove anything . That is why china instead offered the Philippines of bilateral talks to settle the dispute altogether . Everything they have are all fabricated and made in china including the map . There are just places on Earth people wanted it untouch of the nature it self . Not modernized like beijing and full of pollution .* 4* * Reply* * Share ***

*o**

Arcane aquarium7 2 months agoaquarium wrote "There are many inaccuracies in this article. For one, there hasnever been any territorial dispute in South China Sea since the Ming Dynasty."Ming Dynasty??? That's funny. First of all, China, as a country, DID NOT EVEN EXIST in the 12th century or even 900 or thousands of years ago. You're telling us that the Spratley and the Senkaku islands have been part of China for thousands of years since the Chinese have been there first and have an old map to prove it. That's bullish! Because if you read your history, you'd know that your people

didn't have the concept of a country until the 20th century. They believed theentire world belonged to their emperors, the Sons of Heaven!This established the fact that Japan, as a nation-state, had first control of the Senkaku Islands -- uninhabited at that time -- before China, as a country, did. Second, even during the dynastic times in your part of Asia, no physical structures were erected or people living permanently in those islands -- INCLUDING THE SPRATLEYS -- to prove that they had been under the control of some Chinese emperor. Compare that to the Romans who managed to build structures or outposts inall their colonies like Egypt.Are you telling us now that it's okay for Iran to declare that Egypt, Iraq, Syri



a, Israel, Palestine, and all these countries in Western and Central Asia as Iranian territories since they have been under the Persian Empire?? Don't you realize how absurd and ridiculous you sound?Let me remind you of your history, aquarium. The People's Republic of China, that's right, your COMMUNIST China was established in 1949, right after the Chinese civil war! It has no rights over Senkaku and the Spratley islands. That's evenworst than if Iran reclaims its former territories under the Persian Empire. Atleast, Iran managed to build structures and or outposts in those territories.China never did administer and control those islands. They saw them, yeah. But not a single structure or outpost was built to claim those islands for their emperors. What happened was, your ancestors -- as with other ancient people in the world -- had been trading around the globe including that part of Asia. They drew a map as a guide for their own people and named the places whatever. But the natives living in close proximity to those islands like in the Philippine archipelago, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei (the Southeast Asian countries) had known about these islands and had been fishing around them long before your ancestors did. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. Just look at the freakin' map, aquarium. Look at how far China is to the Spratleys compared to these other nations.Communist China -- as a country -- DID NOT even exist 900 years ago when its so-called map was made. Again, this is like saying that Iran should claim her old territories based on a map dating back to the Persian Empire. They do have a real map showing that. The big difference between the Persian Empire and your people's ancient empire was that the former actually administered and took control of

their territories, building structures and outposts and engaging with the locals -- your people DID NOT. But they saw those islands, yeah?Is your government going to claim the Americas, too, because there was a recentarticle, proving that people from your part of Asia had first discovered Americas long before Columbus did? What about the Moon? Are your people going to claimthe Moon, saying they first saw it? Please stop embarrassing yourself further with this nonsense.Furthermore, all of your ancient Chinese territorial maps that are created since the Song Dynasty in 1136 AD conclusively show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. It doesn't go beyond that. If you think I'm joking, try me. I'll share you all your ancient Chinese maps anytime of day to prove how much ofa farce your government's historical claim over the Spratley or the entire South China Sea really is.

* 3* * Reply* * Share *******

PINOY Arcane 2 months agoMay God Bless Japan, the Philippines and of course the USA .* 1* * Reply* * Share ***



**oo

Katch Alvarez Sevilla 2 months agoChina and it's citizen's should man-up and get the Spratly Islands and other chines claims out of the way by following International Law and settle their claims in Arbitration at the world court, instead of china trying to re-write International Law in it's favor.China is trying to deceive International community to justify behavior in sea.o 3o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Mixa. Katch Alvarez Sevilla 2 months agoUSA is the warmonger of the world and the world will never be at peace as long as the US keeps meddling.* 1* * Reply* * Share *****

**

San Andreas Mixa. 2 months agoChina is the warmonger in the Asian region starting from mass killings in Xinjiang, invasion of Tibet, political terrorism in Hong Kong and now land grabbing in the South East Asian seas! Never trust a communist.** * Reply* * Share *

*****




*

Mixa. Guest 2 months agoRight now the U.S. strategic grain reserve contains only enough wheat to make half a loaf of bread for each of the approximately 300 million people in the United States. How long do you think that is going to last? Now is the time to get ready. Now is the time to prepare. The United States economy is going to collapseand incredibly hard times are coming. Will you be able to survive when it happens?** * Reply* * Share *******

San Andreas Mixa. 2 months agoRight now, with a population of 1.4 billion, Communist China cant afford to feed

its own people. It started creating fake noodles, fake rice and fake eggs onlyto feed them. And now China's stock markets are crashing SO BAD and its real-estate is putting China in deep debts.Now is the time to get ready. Now is the time to prepare. China's economy is going to collapse and incredibly hard times are coming for the Communist Chinese. Will you be able to survive when it happens?** * Reply* * Share **

*****

Tao of Lepton Mixa. 2 months agoUSA isn't creating artificial islands in the Philippine's EEZ** * Reply* * Share

****o*




**

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoHaha. USA is not claiming any land in the South East Asian seas Communist Chinadoes. Yet it signed the UNCLOS lolol, this is so funny!** * Reply* * Share *******

JB Guest 2 months agoI assume you are referring to the Paris treaty and if I remember correctly thatdefines what is being transferred from Spain to the US not what defines the Philippines.But again independent of who owns the island (not part of this case) it is more

about the water in between all of the island. Even if China has a full claim onall the island, reefs, banks (not say they are) their status most likely will only provide limited rights to the waters surrounding it. So they get a 10 mile zone and any space outside it would go to international waters or the EEZ of the country closed.Now the US follows international law it is a signatory of and it is not a signatory of UNCLOS but even then they indirectly follow it.** * Reply* * Share *

******

Katch Alvarez Sevilla Guest 2 months agoIndisputable claim by china ?...hahahahahahah, not one chines Law Scholar can argue in chines favor !...... USA is very smart that they didn't join UNCLOS, butchina did join UNCLOS and that is your weakness, any country that signed UNCLOShave enjoyed their 2oo nautical Ml. territory including the resources within the 200 N Mlle China's ancient map territory stops at the Hainan Island and their r

espective 200 N Mile.Angela Merkel of Germany handed an old map of china dated 1697-1782 to your president Xi that show's the farthest territory of china end's in Hainan Island andeven Tibet, Lower Mongolia, Manchuria,,Taiwan, Spratly Island, and Scarborough Shoal is not included in old china's map....So quit your LIE'S of indisputable and historical claims and you world war II declaration cause it's not going to work.what china is doing is making your ancestors look really B A D ......* 3*



* Reply* * Share *****oo

David William Phillips 2 months agoBased on historial precedent, then this area should belong to Taiwan--as it is the rightful ruling party of all of China. The cowardly Communist Chinese refused to help fight Japan during WWII, running away from most battles so that they could keep their strength--while the legititimate government soldiers fought bravely. After the war was won, the Chinese communists cowards then attacked the rightful Chinese government and they ended up in Taiwan. If going by laws, China signed UNCLOS agreement in 1980s and should abide by it. Either way shows China isjust stealing from its neighbors and is not in the right--why they are afraid to bring their case to the court.o 4o o Reply

o o Share ***oo*


*

San Andreas Guest 2 months agoAs ridiculous as the Communists' standard revised history and invented claims in the South East Asian seas.** * Reply* * Share ***

**oo

tkell31 2 months agoSome similarities between China and Nazi Germany. Pick disputes with tiny countries that cant oppose you and bank on the US not getting involved.o 1o



o Replyo o Share ***o*oo

ting_m_1999 2 months agoIf China is not entitled to exercise historic rights over the region, then China has no right to the land territory in the Asia continent, and other nations don't have the right too, specially America. China announced the nine Dash Lines right after WWII without receiving any renunciation from other WWII victors who setthe world order at that time. So the islands, shoals, reefs within the Lines belong to China and China has the sovereign right to so whatever is appropriate onthem. China does not claims all of the South China Sea. It claims the Dash Lines as the base for negotiation to the settlement of territorial water. The Preamble of UNCLOS specifically say that ii only considers matters with due regard to sovereignty and nowhere it says it has jurisdiction on sovereign issues.o 1o

o Replyo o Share ***oo*


**

ting_m_1999 Guest 2 months agoF Texan Rock so vulgar** * Reply* * Share ***

*o**

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoThe more comments I read on this subject the more it is clear most people do not understand what this case it about. The case is NOT about sovereignty of the territory it will make no judgement on who owns what. The case is about the following:



1) Does UNCLOS apply to the region ?2) If it does that second part of the request is to identify the status of all the objects in the territory (eg what are they rocks, islands etc)Now the second part is independent on who owns or occupies it at the moment. But what it does do is define the rights that belong to the island. Now this whereit gets interested. If it gets to part 2 than the rights are defined (independent who owns them) and if they are defined as rocks, reefs, stand banks unsustainable islands then they might just have a 10 miles zone and it would mean the space outside that zone would belong to international waters or the 200 miles zone of the nearest country. So even do the Philippines does not have possession of the island they could benefit from this by at least getting the rights beyond the10 mile zone. Scarborough Shoal would be a good example it is nothing more thana bunch of rocks and reefs it can not sustain any life so the best would be it has a 10 zone so any space outside that 10 mile zone would be part of the Philippines 200 EEZNow regarding the historical claims let's make it clear there are strict international rules on what it contains. Never before has an open water been assigned that way. Some of the rules are (and I am pretty sure I am not complete) that the water has to be surrounded by land on three sides of in this case China, been in control during the historical period and a few more. So it usually applies toinland waters or bays and not open seas. So the case would be very weak and unlikely to succeed. Specially since the nine dash line has never been officially claimed as far as I know there are no coordinates associated to it.Now to the legal and binding part both the Philippines and China are signatories

to UNCLOS and it is binding even do China is not participating. Now the UN hasno way to enforce it so China can ignore it but there would be major political and diplomatic pressure to follow them. Even in the past when the US lost against I think it was Nicaragua. Following that it congress who indirectly forced theUS to mostly comply and even more surprising the US it NOT a signatory of UNCLOS like China.see more** * Reply* * Share *

******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago1) UNCLOS applies to territorial water issues that border sovereign territory. It has no jurisdiction on sovereign issues. 2) Because of 1) , there is no issues . China announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciationfrom the other WWII victors including USA. That means the islands. shoals, reefs, rocks within the Lines belong to China and China can do whatever is appropriat

e on them.** * Reply* * Share ****



***

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoOk how is this different from what I said this case is not about sovereign of the islands, reefs etc just to what extent these features can extend rights into the waters around them and that is what UNCLOS is about. So independent to who has sovereignty of the features the type of features has certain rights into the territorial waters around them.The ownership of these features is a completely different from this case and isnot part of it.Now claiming the complete south china sea based on the idea you have ownership of these features will probably not work (well never worked in the past) that would be the same as the US claims the Pacific ocean based on the fact they have Hawaii and Guam. But at best they can claim a 200 miles EEZ (not likely more likely to be 10 or even none) for these features but that would not get from Spratley to China. So you can try to claim features (valid or not) but it will be hard to claim all the water in between.** * Reply* * Share

*******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoOk how is this different from what I said this case is not about sovereign of the islands, reefs etc just to what extent these features can extend rights into the waters around them and that is what UNCLOS is about. So independent to who has rights to the islands they type of features have certain rights into the terri

torial waters around them.The ownership of these features is a completely different from this case and isnot part of it.Now claiming the complete south china sea based on the idea you have ownership of these features will probably not work (well never worked in the past) that would be the same as the US claims the Pacific ocean based on the fact they have Hawaii and Guam. But at best they can claim a 200 miles EEZ (not likely more likely to be 10 or even none) for these features but that would not get from Spratley to China. So you can try to claim features (valid or not) but it will be hard to claim all the water in between.** * Reply

* * Share *******



ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoChina claim the features and their associated right.** * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoCorrect they do and so do others but that is not what this case is about. So think about it like this if UNCLOS applies and I do not see why not than you have the following situation and lets take scarborough shoal as an example. At best it would get a 10 mile zone (might not even get that). So in that case whoever owns scarborough shoal would have the complete rights to that and the 10 miles around it. But beyond that 10 miles you would not have any rights so in this case scarborough shoal is within the 200 miles EEZ of the philippines and all rights of those waters would go to the Philippines.

See and is what this case is about not to determine who has jurisdiction of allthe features because that is outside of the power of UNCLOS but to define what all the rights are for all the features so no other rights can be claimed beyondthat point. So I keep reading that it is some kind of moron claim but if you understand what it is you will see that it is a lot smarter. They do not argue ownership of the features but define and limit the rights of the features and what is left is EEZ or international waters. They might be able to get 90% of their 200 Miles EEZ back without even determining who has the rightful claims to the features.** * Reply*

* Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoThe Scarborough island can have its own EEZ just like any other archipelago islands as defined in UNCLOS, such as Philippine.*




*

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months agoting_m wrote, "The Scarborough island can have its own EEZ just like any other archipelago islands as defined in UNCLOS, such as Philippine."Since when did the Scarborough Shoal become an island? LMAO. You're such a liar.** * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoLets be radical and use the UNCLOS text I know something really unique. But here it goes it states:Article 121 Regime of Island3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own sha

ll have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.Scarborough Shoal (not island) forms a triangle-shaped chain of reefs and rocksand just so I do get into ownership here is a picture of it with the Chinese flag before they started construction.http://static.rappler.com/imag...Scarborough Shoal is really a no brainier it a bunch of rocks and reefs with water in between. It can not sustain life it does not have an EEZNow the same article also statesArticle 121 Regime of Island1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.So in case of all the artificial buildup in both Scarborough Shoal and Spratleythey do not create rights

** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoTell that to Vietnam and Japan. China own Taiping (Itu Aba) island which is thelargest enough island to support human life and so can have an EEZ** * Reply* * Share oo



o**oo

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoPlus that is one of the disputed island if I remember correctly and the whole point of this case is not to determine ownership. So you have to look at independof who owns it. And rights will be determined Independed of who is supposed to own it.oo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoCan the land of America be settled in the way you say.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoYou are really Getting of the point . UNCLOS is not about land. Most of America's EEZ were determined at the creation of it.Could you please stay to this case and do not throw up random stuff** * Reply* * Share **

***oo

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoOk unrelated to this discussions stay to the point but do you now understand that the philipines case is not that crazy. And if not please use facts related toUNCLOS why it is not.



Ps just because you are a bigger island does not always means you get your own EEZ. If I remember correctly an island like Aruba does not have an EEZ. But is there are issues you can bring it too UNCLOS That what it is foroo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoVietnam and Philippine don't bring their EEZ to UNCLOS for approval, If Aruba island is not qualified to have EEZ, why Philippine isalnd is qualified to have EEZ?** * Reply*

* Share ****o**

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoIf Aruba island is not qualified to have EEZ , what qualifies Philippine islandto have EEZ?*

* * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago

I do not know all the rules but I think it is partly related to the continual plateau they are on. I know some of the same rules would apply to spratleys.But you did not answer at this point does it not seem it that the case the Philippines has brought is reasonable** * Reply* * Share *



******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoEEZ depends on sovereignty. If sovereignty is not settled, EEZ cannot be determined and settled** * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago

No that is nonsense. Sovereignty has nothing to do with the rights of a feature. It is independent of ownership. Show me the article that show ownership is a determining factor. The ones I showed were independent.But you still do not answer the question is the case reasonable.** * Reply* * Share ****

***

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoAccording to the Preamble of UNCLOS:"Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention,with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas andoceans ..." Sovereignty is ahead of all issues in connection with seas and oceans.The case is not reasonable because it doesn't satisfy the requirement of sovereignty as stated above.




**

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoWhile going through the 21 mentions of sovereignty in UNCLOSE I also noticed this article"Article 89 Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seasNo State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty."Does this mean that nobody could claim the South China Sea beyond the EEZ??Now I went through the 21 mentioned and the only one that would apply is article 73 but that is an optional one and China has previously opted out of compulsory dispute settlement under UNCLOS so it does not apply** * Reply* * Share ******

*

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoThe full text is:"Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention,with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas andoceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promotethe peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilizationof their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study,protection and preservation of the marine environment,"This not an article (eg law) just preamble (eg introduction) and it has nothing

to do with the that the sovereignty of the features has to be determined for them to do their work just that it respects the sovereignty of all the member states and it is trying create a structure between them to figure out everything peacefullyWhere does it states that sovereignty is ahead of all issues just because it isat the beginning of the document but that is because it is part of the introSo if this is the best you can come up with I would say the the case is valid (now keep in mind I keep saying this, I do not say they will win just that it is a valid case)** * Reply*

* Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago



"With DUE regard for the sovereignty of all States" is ahead of all issues thatfollow. That is the frame work of UNCLOS** * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoYes repeating it does not make it different it is not a law just part of the introduction (not law) and as It does NOT say anything that sovereignty has to be determined before they can do their work. It even states that there are other UNprocesses to deal with that china has previously opted out compulsory dispute settlement under UNCLOS. This was part of resolution III article 73. That unlike the others members have the option to opt out.All of this makes it clear that there is enough doubt that there is a case and reading all of the comments I have not seen any facts just emotional rambling tha

t says the opposite. So let leave it to that and see what the first verdict will be in 90 days and if that will result in dealing with part 2** * Reply* * Share ooo**o

o

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoThe UNCLOS is a legal document. So anything in it has legal sense, including the Preamble. The Preamble is signed by the participants, making it a legal document.oo o Replyo o Share **

*oo**

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoLegal "sense" does not make it legal same as gold "like" does not make it goldYou clearly do not understand legal documents(or maybe that is how it works were you are from) but not in this case. Just let it go you keep repeating the same



thing. The truth will come out when the judges will or will not accept the caseand if they do not why they would not.And watch the video i suggested and just call this discussion closed** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoWhat the Supreme Court justices say is not legal either because what they say is not law.** * Reply* * Share

*******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoYou are correct the Supreme Court does not make laws they validate it against the constitution at least in the US ( for one reason I think you assume I am fromthe US but that is not correct I am not)But the SC does provide validation against the constitution (see if it is not in

conflict with it) and explanation/interpretation in case it is not clear.Now see my other post and you see the legal explanation of Preamble and it showit is NOT legal.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoWhat make the SC decision legal since what they say is not law and, therefore, not legal and need not be obeyed.** * Reply*



* Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoEven in China the judges do not write the law they uphold it and judge according the laws. Now their interpretation of the law stand but they do not write new ones. Separation of power that is valid in most western countries.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoSo the Preamble is not a law but uphold the UNCLOS laws and judge according thelaws.** * Reply* * Share ***

**oo

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoUNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereignty. Therefore it cannot enact laws on sovereignty but that doesn't mean it disregard any law in regards to sovereignty. The Preamble defines the scope of work, intention, goal and framework for UNCLOSand is written by lawyers. So the Preamble has a lawful sense. It defines the process on how UNCLOS functions. It says " ...due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order... " meaning whenever it considers issues, it pay attention to sovereignty first, then a legal order will be issued as required. The Ame

rican president is the president; he doesn't enact any law. Congress enact laws. That doesn't mean the president has nothing to do with the law.oo o Replyo o Share ***



oo**

JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago"UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereignty"Correct"Therefore it cannot enact laws on sovereignty but that doesn't mean it disregard any law in regards to sovereignty"Sure it even directs you to UN processes to resolve it"So the Preamble has a lawful sense"Might have a sense but is NOT a LawIf it was required there would be articles defining that sovereignty had to be resolved before they could proceed and I could not find one. There are articles referring to other UN processes but not state it has to be resolved firstNow your example seems off the wall and yes the president has several roles in the law he has to sign it and he like anybody has to follow it. How does that compareNow I would post a link to some legal explanation on youtube but if I do my comment will go in pending state for several days so I skip that part but looks them up (look for seminars not news there are a few that are an hour or longer withgreat explanations) search google for "Recent Trends in the South China Sea andU.S. Policy: Day 2 Welcome and Keynote" and start watching at like min 35 great

explanationsNow going through the articles I did run into this one"Article 89Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seasNo State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to itssovereignty."Definition of High Sea: The open part of the sea or ocean especially outside territorial waterSo does that mean China can not claim the compete south China Sea??You seem so desperate to find reason that there is not case but with all the doubt here it does not seems clear cut so I would say arbitration would be valid. Now again I do not say who will win but there is a case. Can you atleast agree with that?

** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoIt direct to UN to process but not mandatory. The Preamble has a lawful sense in that regard to sovereignty must be DUELY Regarded when considering issues. if the president like anybody has to follow the law, the Preamble likes the UNCLOS arbitrators to follow its guidance. Since the Lines are not precisely defined byChina, that means they are up for negotiation under the UNCLOS guidance. Yet noother nations want to negotiate.** * Reply



* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoTing ... Really preamble is not the law just an introduction so do not make it like one the articles are the laws. So stop trying to make it ... And even if itwas it doesn't not say that it has to be resolved firstLol on negotiating with China it has been going on for a long time but they areno real negotiation since China keep using the stand it is indisputable ours soaccept it and that is it. Did not work one on one and they refuse to do as partASEAN. But China has been bullying using its economic and military power to push smaller countries around. So this would be the best approach an objective arbitrationDid you watch the video about the legal analys of this case ?Ps I saw you have several thousand of posts all pro China so are you being paidfor this as part of the 50 cent brigade .... Nobody is ever that pro on anything specially not on China

** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoAccording to the Merriam Webster dictionary preamble means": a statement that is made at the beginning of something (such as a legal document) and usually gives the reasons for the parts that follow: something that comes before and leads to something else"UNCLOS is a legal document. So the Preamble is also a legal document and so lawfully and legally defines the tasks of UNCLOS to pay DUE REGARD when performing its tasks. There are over 149 countries in the world. Each country can harass China by bringing unjustifiable issues to court. Therefore China will not play thegame.** * Reply

* * Share *******



JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoOk last time here is the Legal dictionary Q&AQ56. "Is the Preamble considered law?"A. No. In that it grants no power, nor restricts anyone. It only provides context for the original version.And here is another definition:"PreambleA clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute explaining the reasons for its enactment and the objectives it seeks to attain.Generally a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of the reasons for thepassage of the statute, and it aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is prefixed. It has been held, however, that a preamble is NOT an essential part of an act, and it NEITHER enlarges NOR CONFERS powers.West's Encyclopedia of Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved."As I said many times it NOT the lawThere is a tendency for China to describe anything that is not to their liking as unjust but let the court decide on that.I know China has a problem with courts that it can not control but for smaller countries that do not have the economical or military power to bully. But China is afraid it has a desperate need to be a superpower and if it is seen by the international community that it can not be trusted in international affairs its standing will drop considerably.

Now I understand you work for the Chinese government on the propaganda side so you have no option to agree with any of this but time will tell. If China can not learn play nice with its neighbours and learn to accept that it is not always right than this will escalate ...PS do you really get paid 50 cents per post ... if so I want my cut :)** * Reply* * Share ***

****

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoThe Preamble is a legal document defining the authority, scope of work, function of UNCLOS, guidance on the enactment and applicability of UNCLOS laws. Withoutit, UNCLOS doesn't exist and its laws are void and null. So it is the most important document and that is why it is signed by all participants and more important than the laws that UNCLOS enacted. It manages the UNCLOS laws. According to you new definition of preamble: ".....the reasons for the passage of the statute,and it aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which

it is prefixed...." meaning the reasons of the preamble are the foundation of the statute and the interpretation the statute. Without the reasons of the preamble, the statute would not have been passed and no interpretation can be given. That is the statute is under the supervision of the preamble and is more powerful than the laws of the statute.** * Reply* * Share



*******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoWe are done no reasonable facts will change your preset mind plus you are selective in your responses so this is it hope you made a few bucks out if this* 1* * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoMy mind set follows your definition of Preamble. Can you argue your points based on your definition?** * Reply* * Share ooo**

**

Arcane JB 2 months agoJB wrote ,"We are done no reasonable facts will change your preset mind plus you are selective in your responses so this is it hope you made a few bucks out ifthis"The guy doesn't get it. You explained it in a manner that any 10 year old couldunderstand. The Philippines doesn't question the ownership of those shoals/rocks before the tribunal, but whether those features are even entitled an EEZ. But he's too dumb to get it. Good job on demolishing his weak argument.**




JB Arcane 2 months agoThanks Arcane I thought I was logical and not emotional about it. It did gave me a chance to read up on some if the detail in the articles. And I liked some ofthe explanation found on youtube as part of the seminars by few lawyers. I am looking forward to hear the initial verdict if UNCLOS applies then I think the philippines will get some of the features defined their way. Let's wait and see.o 1o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Arcane JB 2 months agoJB wrote ," I am looking forward to hear the initial verdict if UNCLOS applies then I think the philippines will get some of the features defined their way."The questions raised by our government are completely covered by UNCLOS. Does Ch

ina have legal maritime entitlements beyond its 200 EEZ? In the case of Scarborough Shoal, which are just rocks, by the Convention, its maritime entitlement only extends to 12 miles -- not beyond. So, whoever owns those rocks is only entitled 12 miles around them. Beyond that is Philippine water since the Scarborough Shoal is within our country's 200 EEZ.That kid (ting_m) couldn't understand even if you explain it to him in Mandarin.In the case of Mischef Reef, it's a completely submerged reef. And China built an installation over it. Submerged features or those that are submerged during high tide have no legal maritime entitlements according to the Convention. Same with McKennan Reef and the Johnson South Reef where China illegally seized and built installations. All submerged and within Philippine's 200 mile exclusive zone.Now, China's argument that the tribunal has no jurisdiction will not fly because the questions of how much legal maritime entitlements does an island, a shoal,

or a reef has is regulated by specific provisions of the Convention. So, the tribunal has jurisdiction.Second, China refused to attend the tribunal by invoking Article 298. That article only provides exclusion from the arbitral tribunal of CERTAIN DISPUTES and ONLY for those disputes that are mentioned in that article. Article 298 only deals with the delimitation of sea boundaries, but our government is not asking about the delimitation of sea boundaries; it's asking about maritime entitlements!By delimitation, if two countries have overlapping waters, then they split it in half. But there are no overlapping claims between China and the Philippines since there's more than 500 miles of water between them (LOL). So, China is still legally bound by the laws stipulated in the Convention.China isn't the only country that filed a declaration when ratifying the UNCLOS. Japan and South Korea have done it. Our country as well. And I quote:

Understanding made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (8 May 1984) 8/ 9/

1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines.

2. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America, under and a



rising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of 10 December 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the United States ofAmerica and Great Britain of 2 January 1930.

3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner affect the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951 and its related interpretative instruments; nor those under any other pertinent bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement to which the Philippines is a party.

4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto.

5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves theright and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippines Constitution.

6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence and security.

7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vesselsto transit passage for international navigation.

8. The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disputes under article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippines sovereignty.Source: goo(dot)gl/bnMTzIIt is very clear that our Philippine government subscribes to the UNCLOS with the understanding that it doesn't impair our claim to sovereignty in the South Chi

na Sea.And lastly, China cannot use history to stake its claim because they have not effectively control or administer the islands in the past as required by international law to recognize a historical claim. No ancient Chinese settlements, especially on those submerged reefs (LMAO). The islands and or the entire South ChinaSea were not even claimed by their Chinese emperors. No historical records of such claim had been made. All their ancient Chinese territorial maps corroborate this fact.** * Reply* * Share

*******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoThe Preamble was signed by the UNCLOS participants. What the participants agreed



to is the binding power governing the various functions of UNCLOS and the scopes of various other laws that follows. It is the law that requires the signed participants to obey. If the Preamble is not an important part of the UNCLOS document, why it is signed by the participants. You mean the signatures are for ceremony only. Then no participants are required to follow the UNCLOS laws. That is, UNCLOS's other laws are under the confines of the Preamble. Whether you call it is law or not, it has the authority to define the authority of UNCLOS and validity of UNCLOS's products. As your definition says: the passage of the statute andthe interpretation within the statute must follow the guidelines of the reasons. That is , the reasons are the foundation of the passage and interpretation. Ifit is not an essential part, there is no reason for it to be included. The other you say are rubbish.** * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoI am sorry you can not handle definitions or explanations of definitions and seem to not understand the construction of a law. There are parts of the law that is there to help like the introduction, table of content, glossary etc They are part of a law and get signed too they are NOT the legal binding parts. Please watch the video and do not bother responding until you do.The rest is Rubbish sure. Having lived in 6 different countries, worked in 30 and visited over 100 and that include both China and the Philippines I have see the attitude towards China and the mistrust countries have so yes for China to become world leader beyond an economic power. I just came back from Africa and I saw in a number of countries how the people and government hate the blackmail approach the Chinese government has toward investing there.

You have to stop believing the propaganda and see for your self and yes I know you are being paid to say these things I hope in your heart you do not believe them yourself. So lets just leave this this discussion because it will not get anywhere since you are trumping the party line.I wish you a nice day and all the bestCheers .** * Reply* * Share **

***oo

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoUNCLOS has no jurisdiction to enact laws on sovereign matters So UNCLOS has no law on sovereignty. Mentioning "DUE regard for the sovereignty of all states" islawful enough to say UNCLOS respect sovereign right and any matters considered w



ill be done with DUE regard to sovereignty as stated in the Preamble. That is sovereignty must be known and settled first with respect to matters involved. I hope you understand what the lawful meaning of "due" in legal usage. The "introduction" specifies what must be done in the subject matter. The Preamble is the framework, intention, goal of UNCLOS and UNCLOS functions under that framework, goal and intention. The Preamble was written by lawyers and is, therefore, has a lawful sense.oo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoA habitable island is entitled to have its own EEZ. If Aruba is not qualified to have a EEZ, why Philippine island can have EEZ? Vietnam and Philippine don't bring theirs to UNCLOS for approval.

** * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoNow it still has a 12 miles zone but not necessary a EEZ. But you just made thecase the Philippines did take it to UNCLOS to get it rights resolved. Now it covers only the the ones in the philipines area but if successful it probably would result in other countries doing to same.But you did not respond to the what I asked do you now see that it is a reasonable case to bring.now I do not say they will win but there is a pretty good change they get most of what the request. If part one passes.** * Reply* * Share

*******

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoJapan is an island country too. It has never submitted to UNCLOS for its EZZ. Wh



at makes Japan different? What about Britain?** * Reply* * Share *******

JB ting_m_1999 2 months agoOk now you are getting just silly only when there are conflict there is arbitration and there are many cases between different countries go look them up. But please stay to the point now you are arguing why some country have an EEZ. From that point why does China have an EEZ...At the original creation most were determined look them up there were resolutions in case of conflict. And there still a number of open Including the South China Sea.But if you can a not answer the question I have asked now 5 times I will stop because you just throw up random statements

Do you think that the Philippine case is reasonable and if not show based on UNCLOS why that is not the case.** * Reply* * Share ******

*

JB JB 2 months agoSorry I posted the same comment 4 times but it was in pending state for 2 days and I did not know so I tried again** * Reply* * Share ooo

**oo

ting_m_1999 JB 2 months agoThe Philippine case is not reasonable because it has to do with the sovereigntyof the islands involved and UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on settling sovereignty disputeo



o o Replyo o Share ***oo**

Ariel Abella ting_m_1999 2 months agoBring your own case to UNCLOS and explain your side, if you had enough knowledge to counter the Philippines file vise china, then face them, team Philippines is waiting for you to answer your arguments..* 6* * Reply* * Share ***

****

ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months agoUNCLOS has not jurisdiction on the sovereign issues of South China Sea dispute.So China need not bring anything to UNCLOS. Philippine was a UN members when China announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and at the door step of Philippine. If Philippine didn't protest then, it is too for them now.** * Reply

* * Share *******

gnak Ariel Abella 2 months agono need to.just wait for the tribunal to rule first*




*

aquarium7 Ariel Abella 2 months agoI have said this to crack-scull Aquino before and I say the same to you. If beggar Aquino challenge you to a court to vacate your backyard to him, you won't give a damn to him, unless you yourself is a crack-scull! China is facing not onlya hooligan country, but also a sinister US! Obviously shallow scull also like you can never understand.** * Reply* * Share *******

JB aquarium7 2 months agoThis is emotional rambling not based on any facts. But if a country is not willing to play by internationally agreed rules it can and will never be a major play

er in the world.** * Reply* * Share *******

Ariel Abella aquarium7 2 months agothe world is waiting for final judgement, let see what happens next, I guess china could turn back to nothing...* 2* * Reply* * Share ****

***

ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months agoUNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereign issues. So China need not submit a case.* 1* * Reply*



* Share *******

Ariel Abella ting_m_1999 2 months agowhat kind of sovereign china had? china is a member of UN the creator of UNCLOS, china signed the UNCLOS, so UNCLOS had jurisdiction to settle the issue, chinashould respect the law that she signed before. enough eating fetus, it's poisoned your mind... (-____-)* 2* * Reply* * Share *****

**

ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months agoChina announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation from other WWII victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member at that time butdidn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the lines belong to China and China has the sovereign right to do whatever is appropriate on them. For other nations to interfere with China's sovereign action will endanger the peace, stability, security, freedom of navigation, and prosperity in the region. I repeat UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereign issues. So China need not submit a case. The dispute in the South China Sea is about sovereignty.*

* * Reply* * Share *******

yesman ting_m_1999 2 months ago

Lol** * Reply* * Share ****



***

ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months agoUNCLOS has no authority to settle sovereign dispute. China announced the Dash Lines before the establishment of UNCLOS** * Reply* * Share *******

Ariel Abella ting_m_1999 2 months agoUNCLOS had jurisdiction and authority to settle dispute, if you not follow the rules, go away and move to other planet, bring your 1.4 billion chinese mongoloid, I suggest the sun is the perfect planet for chinese mongoloid..

** * Reply* * Share *******

ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months agoSorry to say that your pig face indicates you are ignorant on the functions of UNCLOS that it has no jurisdiction of sovereign issues.** * Reply* * Share *****

**

aquarium7 ting_m_1999 2 months agoBut US does not know that. This alone is enough to throw the Philippines claim lies along with US into rubbish bin** * Reply*



* Share *****oo

dave ford 2 months agophilippine,, only way ur going to win is if you bribe the judges more than whatthe chinese are going to do.oo o Replyo o Share ***oo**

aj dave ford 2 months agoPhilippines already win this case cause china refused to clarify its claim on ICJ....chinese claims have no basis only imaginary line drawn by communist china that's why they keep ignoring the case filed by Philippines....* 6* * Reply* * Share ***

****

JB aj 2 months agoUnfortunately not correct China does not have to participate but it could stillwin. The best scenario for China would be that UNCLOS does not have jurisdiction. I do not suspect that will happen but it is possible** * Reply*

* Share *******

wenn aj 2 months ago



Not by the communist China, but by the KMT China after WWII* 1* * Reply* * Share ****o**

JB dave ford 2 months agoReally is that a useful remark. You are dealing with a court in the Netherlandswhich is one of the least corrupt countries in the world and has very strict anti corruption laws so not a very likely scenario.* 4* * Reply* * Share *

***

justice_first wrote, "China resumed sovereignty over the SCS islands"

That's what China wants to believe. But that's not really the case. China hasn't really defeated the ROC. It only drove it out from mainland China. The ROC is still alive and kicking in Taiwan under US protection.

justice_first wrote "and the nine dash lines were drawn in 1947 to mark the fact of Chinese sovereignty."

Again, the PRC has no business with the 9-dash-line. This is Taiwan's. And Taiwan has not been aggressively pursuing this claim because it doesn't really jive with the established international laws and the fact that its close ally -- the US -- has made it clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the Spratleys is a disputed region that must be resolved through the UN. And any unilateral declaration or attempt to change the status quo will not be recognized..

justice_first wrote ,"Chinese sovereignty was based on historic titles as claimed by China."

When you're making a claim based on "historic titles" you have to prove your history, okay? And China does NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys. As I'd been saying

over and over, there were no ancient Chinese colonies in those islands, most especially on those reefs (LOL). No ancient Chinese structures or outposts. No markers that suggest that they were claimed by some Chinese emperors a long time ago. So, what solid evidence can your China provide to the international community to back its historical claim? Answer: NOTHING. So, why is China making a historical claim when it DOES NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys?

justice_first wrote ,"That is in fact their claim. It is up to the Philippines to prove otherwise."



The burden of proof lies on China. China has to prove its historical claim. Youcan't just draw 11, 10, or 9 dashes on a map and say all the islands, reefs, shoals and waters within those lines are yours based on non-existent history. Did China effectively control or administer the entire South China Sea in ancient past to make such bold claim? Of course, not. In fact, all of your ancient Chinesemaps corroborate the fact that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China for over millenium of years. It doesn't go beyond that.

Also, do you even know the exact coordinates and size of your 9-dash-line, justice, because your government doesn't know? How can you claim a territory withoutknowing its size? You can't even do that to a mere residential land property. So why is your government take the world for a fool? The 9-dash-line is already aviolation of international laws.

justice_first wrote ,"Within a country, there could be many governments. This is common sense."

Oh, please don't take me for a fool. Where can you find a country with two presidents and two different opposing governments? One is a communist and the other is a democracy? Didn't I just tell you that Taiwan claims to be the sole legitimate government of all China and the one in mainland is an ILLEGAL government??? LMAO.

China Blog transcript

Documents

Transcript of China Blog transcript