U.S., Japan, Australia step in for weak Southeast Asia to chide China
July 26, 2016	01:01 pm JST	 July 26, 2016 | 02:32 pm JST
By VIJAY JOSHI
VIENTIANE, Laos
© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
crouching$amuraiHiddenNinja
July 26, 2016	03:52 pm JST
Lol. It's pretty clear now that this South china sea is more of a "US and friends(Aussie and JPN)" vs "China and friends"
I like how there's been numerous articles written by US, Australian journalists who try to paint China as an extremely dislikable diplomatic nation. I've seen so many articles where they try to explain that China has made so many enemies over south china sea, that all the neighbors are against China.
I don't think what they account is how much influence China has over the politics of the South East Asian nations. Sure America's got considerable influence in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Philippines but those are all East Asia, not south east Asia like Thailand, malaysia, indonesia, vietnam, etc. And not to mention Philippines newly elected president and political party are now taking a China-favored stance. They're not even going to enforce the Hague ruling against China.
China's influence is all over Asia and has been forever and in the future. Something that most American politicians don't want to accept.
Eventually if we, Americans, go to war with China. We'll be fighting over small nations' interest rather than our own. We don't have any real stake of claim in South China Sea, apart from the trade routes our corporations share with the global market. We dont own any islands or fishery.
Triring
China's so called friends are land locked Cambodia and Laos in which their fresh water security is held by China since the source of rivers are in China and by damming up water would cause a serious water shortage. Both PRC and their so called friends knows this which can easily fall prey by twisting their arms.
In a sense the issue can be boiled down to the US and China, but it probably is at bit too simplistic. As I understand the issue it is about every nations rights in an international perspective. Post ww II the US has asserted its influence in Asia mainly because of the perceived communist threat. I think the logic behind such a political stance was rather simple. If you let the perceived threat grow from small to big it may become a very serious threat (Hitlers land grabbing in fresh memory). Imagine a situation in which most of Asias countries could have been under the communist ideology umbrella. The political agenda of the US could of course be interpreted as right or wrong depending on viewpoint. Now it is quite clear that Chinas nationalists and current government are pushing ridiculous claims about historical rights in a land grabbing effort. Is this any different than the cold war political game played by the Soviets and US? From an international perspective and in late modern times lets assume that every nation has rights: If every nation with a long or short history starts claiming lands lost at some point in history, the global situation could be spelled with tree words, third world war. Lets say for the case of stability and prosperity for all nations regardless of military muscles, that every nation have to abide by international law and actually accept that the ruling may go against their interest. The social contract of the international community cannot function unless the member nations acccept the rules. So the stability and prosperity is dependent on every nations participation. However Chinas government has been very clear about that they do not accept any other ruling than one that favours them. Thus it seems clear that China does not respect anyone else and that the only thing with relevance in a dispute is economical and military might. So I guess Chinas main message to the international community is clear. China defines who has stability and prosperity and the rest can follow. I dont know how you think but to me it certainly seems that someone is still living in the cold war era.
1glenn
On another note, as the ocean level continues to rise, China's man-made islands will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Already, they must be very vulnerable to any passing hurricane.
Matt Hartwell
Indonesia is an interesting one that too often gets overlooked. Not happy recently with Chinese fisherman infringing on the Natuna Islands so they intend to station troops, an F16 and various other military hardware to protect it. Along with a fish market and other business targeted towards tourism. Neighbours with claimant states, the Philippines and Malaysia. Now coordinating with those neighbours to fight Abu Sayyaf. And since the low point in relations with Australia surrounding the execution of Australian drug smugglers, that relationship has been extensively rebuilt, now probably the best its ever been and continues to strengthen. All the time mindful, that Australia is a key U.S ally that stages the most important U.S military base, Pine Gap, outside of the U.S mainland and Japan.
In my mind, Indonesia is the most powerful country in ASEAN. In the not too distant future they will come to dominate based on sheer numbers alone. It is the linch pin between the Indian and Pacific powers, as they have publicly stated. They could be the key to peace in the region by ensuring a positive relationship with China is balanced by a positive relationship with India, a country that they already trade extensively with. I am hoping that Indonesia will play a strong, positive role in a peaceful S.E and East Asia.
RealCDN
China is simply the neighborhood bully. In such cases, what typically happens when the small/weak cannot defend themselves?
OssanAmerica
crouching$amuraiHiddenNinjaJul. 26, 2016 - 03:52PM JST Lol. It's pretty clear now that this South china sea is more of a "US and friends(Aussie and JPN)" vs "China and friends"
China has no "friends". Just ask Russia or Vietnam how their "friendship" ended. China has "subserviants", the 21st century version of Tributary States perhaps; weak countries that it can force to act in their favor through economic pressures or threats. And the dog on the leash in Pyongyang.
ThePBot
July 27, 2016	12:28 am JST
They're not even going to enforce the Hague ruling against China.
Uhm, no one can. There's no legal binding to it to begin with.
Wrong, the PAC ruling is legally binding. It simply has no enforcement mechanism. Two different issues.
The United States, Japan and Australia have urged China not to construct military outposts and reclaim land in the disputed South China Sea, in a strong show of support for Southeast Asian nations
lol again, so many people here who believe Beijing has "no friends" is so completely naive. Vietnam and Russia's relationship with China has had some rocky periods, but they internal politics are very much on each other sides. As well as important to note that Beijing has a stable relationship with many of its neighbors. I believe many of you need to start reading and observing the ACTUAL political and economic relationship between many nations in Asia and the Pacific rather than reading our "western" perspective view.
Again as i have said in the past, we Americans and other westerners are only reading what news articles our mass media wants to print. And it's overwhelmingly anti-China.
Now imagine how mass media can influence the people of our society that China is a human-rights violating, imperialistic, war-hungry, Nemisis-of-Asia, than imagine how voters mind set are when choosing their elective representatives in dealing with China.
We're just going to end up escalating tensions and igniting an unnecessary war that will send our troops to the meat-grinder.
And it baffles me how many people believe that our nation's leaders is doing the right thing and preventing "evil and oppression" from occurring, when our military and political influence is causing and inflating more wars overseas.
Americans need to wake up and realize that our government isn't protecting the world! the suffering and the pain of those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria are bleeding and crying over the consequences of our actions
Fre Okin
"The United States, Japan and Australia"
Notice these three musketeers are not in the South China Sea neighborhood. Yet they think their opinions are more important than ASEAN countries. Maybe it is time for ShameFare against them. If they have issue with 'security' of their trade passing through the South China Sea, they can easily divert to other sea lanes. The ocean is big enough to take them to every other route they want to address the 'security' issue.
crouching$amuraiHiddenNinjaJul. 27, 2016 - 08:36AM JST lol again, so many people here who believe Beijing has "no friends" is so completely naive. Vietnam and Russia's >relationship with China has had some rocky periods
Yes, "rocky periods" like shooting at each other. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7720461/USSR-planned-nuclear-attack-on-China-in-1969.html http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/01/402572349/ask-the-vietnamese-about-war-and-they-think-china-not-the-u-s
@OssanAmerica
"Wrong, the PAC ruling is legally binding."
I exposed the PCA as a fraudulent body with no UN authenticity. Its lawsuit is funded by PH so it basically act as an Expert Witness for PH, a Tainted Jury instead of acting as actual judges. There is no venue to dismiss the lawsuit as Frivolous which is available in a normal court. PCA is a kangaroo court, not a normal court, so how can the ruling be legally binding? I make multiple comments back and forth to debunk PCA verdict.
"http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/china-says-it-is-closing-off-part-of-south-china-sea-for-military-exercises"
yosun
Isn't it funny that outsiders(US, AU, JP) of South china sea think they are right and insiders (ASEAN, CN) are not? Actually ASEAN know that during 50's- 80's how bad they suffered in wars when outsiders involved around.
Argus Tuft
@crouchingsamurai
We don't have any real stake of claim in South China Sea, apart from the trade routes our corporations share with the global market.
Isn't that enough of a stake for you ?
Yoshitsune
@fre
I make multiple comments back and forth to debunk PCA verdict.
And totally fail to do so. I think any reader who follows your link and reads our debate in full will see that you haven't read the ruling (despite me providing you with relevant passages), therefore don't grasp the reasons for which the ruling was made, and therefore don't have any logical or factual arguments with which to rebut it.
Fre OkinJul. 27, 2016 - 11:30AM JST @OssanAmerica "Wrong, the PAC ruling is legally binding."
I exposed the PCA as a fraudulent body with no UN authenticity.....
The only thing that China's position, rejection of not just the PAC ruling but the body itself exposes China's disregard for the rule of law shared by CIVILIZED countries on this planet. The more CCP supporters parrot the ridiculous Chinese Foreign Ministry position, the more this ugly view of China is impressed upon the world.
"The Award of today's date addresses the issues of jurisdiction not decided in the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility and the merits of the Philippines' claims over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The Award is final and binding, as set out in Article 296 of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII. "
https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf
China's unilateral actions violate rules established under UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , to which China is a signatory. https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/
China can not act like an animal and argue ad infinitum to convince the world that they, not the rule of law is right. The rule of law is there to resolve disputes in a peaceful manner. But then, that doesn't seem to matter to China these days, does it?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/chinese-propaganda-arm-prepare-for-war-in-the-south-china-sea/V
It is clear even US is starting to shy away from using PCA verdict to shame China into compliance. Why is this so? She see the handwritings on the wall which indicate ASEANs are no dummy. They understand UNCLOS just as much as her and conclude this 'Taiping Island is a rock' verdict is so laughable they have enough of this scheme to use PCA ruling as authority to get them to be submissive to 'experts' from the PH and the West, US and The Hague to be specific. This is why they make no reference to PCA ruling in the just concluded ASEAN foreign ministerial meeting in Laos. US is now telling PH to make bilateral negotiation with China. If US believe in PCA verdict, she will insist PH keep mentioning it which is of course a non starter. What a surprise!
@Yoshitsune
Fresh off the oven:
"Just who are these PCA judges to decide on economic activities? People Choose to Stay or just come and go, As They Wish. YES, They CAN have ECONOMIC LIFE all on their own, like the guano harvesting in Diaoyu/Senkaku which you say is a rock. So what are you talking about?
In the case of those islands in the Spratlys, SURE, they can have Economic Life Easily. They can TRADE Coconuts, they can Trade Fishes processed there, even Guano if birds poop there often enough. Greenhouse vegetation, trade with neighboring islands. Sell Excess water to neighbors. Now these are economic activities, aren't they? They can serve as a fantastic one of a kind touristy attraction. Let's deliberately shipwreck Sierra Madre 2.0 there and make that into a touristy site! People are creative and can easily market them as something with economic activities that the PCA dim bulbs cannot imagine. What about the Isles of Man in the UK? Something like that as a Haven for business activities, special Off Shore banking privilege like say Labuan island in Malaysia near Sabah.
So look at the UNCLOS rules carefully as I excerpted below: Human habitation you already say is possible. Economic Life you make an issue about I debunk clearly here it is Easy to do. So Taiping Island IS actually an Island, Not Rock since it Does NOT fail the UNLOS test. So are almost all the other islands in the Spratlys.
"Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf" http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm"
Fre OkinJul. 27, 2016 - 11:15PM JST @OssanAmerica It is clear even US is starting to shy away from using PCA verdict to shame China into compliance
The only thing that is clear is that China has no sense of shame. Do they pay you by the post or by word count?
Let ShameFare begin! As I said, Australia, Japan, US are all outsiders. They are passersby in the South China Sea area. Compare to ASEANS, who Live There. what make you think passersby have more say than people who live there and have more at stake?
Legally speaking, I have shown PCA is a fraud. If it is so legit, why don't it have a genuine international majority support? What you have are lies perpetuated by the media, like Reuters caught at least twice mentioning PCA verdict as UN backed verdict. Say who? Is there a UN General Assembly vote to give PCA verdict a thumbs up? Nope, it is all a Western media and US/PH government scheme to twist PCA lies into facts. ASEANs are no dummies. They can see through PCA lies.
Fre OkinJul. 28, 2016 - 03:30AM JST @OssanAmerica Let ShameFare begin! As I said, Australia, Japan, US are all outsiders. They are passersby in the South China Sea area. Compare to ASEANS, who Live There. what make you think passersby have more say than people who live there and >have more at stake?
China is an outsider. Attempting to take control of an area far from it's shores through ridiculous claims and territorial expansion.
So what are you taking about
https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf
"The principal features of the Spratly Islands are not barren rocks or sand cays, devoid of fresh water, that can be dismissed as uninhabitable on the basis of their physical characteristics alone. At the same time, the features are not obviously habitable, and their capacity even to enable human survival appears to be distinctly limited. In these circumstances, and with features that fall close to the line in terms of their capacity to sustain human habitation, the Tribunal considers that the physical characteristics of the features do not definitively indicate the capacity of the features. Accordingly, the Tribunal is called upon to consider the historical evidence of human habitation and economic life on the Spratly Islands and the implications of such evidence for the natural capacity of the features....In addition to the presence of fishermen noted above, Itu Aba and South-West Cay were the site of Japanese mining and fishing activities in the 1920s and 1930s. The Spratlys were also the site of the somewhat more adventurous activities of Thomas Cloma and his associates in the 1950s. More recently, many of the features have been transformed by substantial construction efforts and are now the site of installations hosting significant numbers of personnel, generally of a governmental nature. The first question for the Tribunal is whether any of this activity constitutes "human habitation" or an "economic life of its own" for the purposes of Article 121(3). The second is whether there is evidence to suggest that the historical record of human activity on the Spratly Islands is not proof of the natural capacity of the features. Finally, the Tribunal does not consider that the military or other governmental personnel presently stationed on the features in the Spratly Islands by one or another of the littoral States suffice to constitute "human habitation" for the purposes of Article 121(3)." These groups are heavily dependent on outside supply, and it is difficult to see how their presence on any of the South China Sea features can fairly be said to be sustained by the feature itself, rather than by a continuous lifeline of supply and communication from the mainland...616. The Tribunal sees no indication that anything fairly resembling a stable human community has ever formed on the Spratly Islands. Rather, the islands have been a temporary refuge and base of operations for fishermen and a transient residence for labourers engaged in mining and fishing. The introduction of the exclusive economic zone was not intended to grant extensive maritime entitlements to small features whose historical contribution to human settlement is as slight as that. Nor was the exclusive economic zone intended to encourage States to establish artificial populations in the hope of making expansive claims, precisely what has now occurred in the South China Sea...In the Tribunal's view, all of the economic activity in the Spratly Islands that appears in the historical record has been essentially extractive in nature... to constitute the economic life of the feature, economic activity must be oriented around the feature itself and not be focused solely on the surrounding territorial sea or entirely dependent on external resources. The Tribunal also considers that extractive economic activity, without the presence of a stable local community, necessarily falls short of constituting the economic life of the feature...625. The Tribunal concludes that Itu Aba, Thitu, West York, Spratly Island, South-West Cay, and North-East Cay are not capable of sustaining an economic life of their own within the meaning of Article 121(3). The Tribunal has also considered, and reaches the same conclusion with respect to, the other, less significant high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, which are even less capable of sustaining economic life, but does not consider it necessary to list them individually...625. The Tribunal concludes that Itu Aba, Thitu, West York, Spratly Island, South-West Cay, and North-East Cay are not capable of sustaining an economic life of their own within the meaning of Article 121(3). The Tribunal has also considered, and reaches the same conclusion with respect to, the other, less significant high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, which are even less capable of sustaining economic life, but does not consider it necessary to list them individually."
The sentences in bold deal with your speculation about guano and coconuts. Yes, they are economic activities; but they are extractive, and carried out by transient populations which require constant resupply from outside. Therefore they do not constitute economic life of their own and so do not qualify those features do for EEZs.
And yes, what about the Isle of Man? It isn't even remotely comparable; in fact it's a very good example of what Taiping is not. It has been inhabited continuously by a permanent population for thousands of years who form a distinct ethnic group and have their own language (Manx) with a population in the tens of thousands today - and it isn't actually part of the UK as you seem to believe; it has a political life of its own, not just an economic life of its own. None of which can be said for Taiping or Thitu or any of the other Spratlys.
Shorter paragraphs and less cut and pasting please.
"The sentences in bold deal with your speculation about guano and coconuts. Yes, they are economic activities; but they are extractive, and carried out by transient populations which require constant resupply from outside. Therefore they do not constitute economic life of their own and so do not qualify those features do for EEZs."
I gave a couple more examples like using islands as small as Taiping Island and even smaller for service oriented economic activities. Just a couple more examples like having a teetered aerostat to give a near earth tourism to see curvature of earth, sky diving from that as well, like a flying man from edge of space which was done before. Also near earth launch pad space tourism. How about a time sharing condo there? How about a holiday getaway destination for nudists? Lots of stuff can be done other than extractive industries and they can be sustained easily.
The limiting factor is always water and as I have shown you, PCA is nobody to define what number of people is upper or lower limit to differentiate between a rock or an island. Also PCA is nobody to determine what tools, devices explorers, fishermen, ordinary civilians can bring to the island to make them sustainable to supply water ad infinitum. What standard to they apply? If they say no tools, not even stuff that primitive people bring along Wherever They Go, then many Large islands will also disqualify as islands so long as they have no rivers, lakes, ponds, waterfalls, these larger islands are virtually unsustainable due to 'no tools' restriction, but who are these PCA people anyway to rule on this? Is it in UNCLOS regulation?
Effectively as I said over and over, PCA judges are penalizing people for being creative and have survivalist skills. They have no idea the real world outside their cubicles are populated with tough hardy people who can turn their rocks into islands easily, sustaining life and have vibrant economic activities, beyond those that are extractive in nature. Yet even this extractive criteria to deny island status is their own story telling. Economic activities Evolve. PCA judges are nobody to just take a snapshot of one time frame and rule the island as lifeless after that, no more economic activities possible thereafter. They lack imagination as I show in my numerous examples economic activities of all kinds are available to islands wrongly classified as rocks.
They lack imagination
We need evidence, not imagination. Your imaginary space pad in the Spratlys is not evidence, nor is your imaginary sky diving operation, and nor is your imaginary nudist resort. And if any of those things did exist, they would be staffed by transient workers and serving transient visitors and would still make a very weak case for constituting 'an economic life of their own'.
The Spratlys is a perfect place for all the possible economic scenarios I mentioned. If they are occupied by China, they will do better than the basic economic activities of VN, PH, even TW as China have superior technology.
China or other countries can easily have a radio propaganda station there or just a cultural station to broadcast their music and educational materials. You don't need more than a couple of people to have a radio station to go on the air. It doesn't have to be government based radio station, just an AM/FM station paid by advertisement to reach certain audience. Even a Wimax internet relay station from satellite internet to share with neighboring islands. The flat surface ensure the Wimax signal can travel long distance, dozens of miles to reach neighboring communities, charge them for the service.
Lots of things one can do with a tiny island for self sustaining economic activities. It is clear PCA judges live in ancient times. They use examples from underdeveloped countries to draw their wrong conclusion.
They use examples from underdeveloped countries to draw their wrong conclusion.
If you actually read their statement, you'll see that what they used was the historical record relating to the Spratlys. Not "examples from undeveloped countries"
"The U.S. and other coastal nations could lose millions of square nautical miles of ocean that are now in their exclusive economic zones. The loss would be an indirect result of an arbitration panel's ruling on China's dispute with the Philippines in the South China Sea."
Japan will be loser too, so is PH herself with her 7000 + islands, many are rocks per PCA definition. You will see the PCA discredited by US and her allies in the months ahead and Nine Dash Line verdict also questioned as one made by an incompetent panel of 'judges'. Let the fun begin!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-07-28/u-s-japan-and-other-nations-could-lose-exclusive-economic-zones
Hello again. Thanks for the link; interesting read. Yes indeed, I agree that the Spratlys ruling indicates that many other features around the world such as Japan's Okinotorishima or the UK's Rockall also do not qualify for EEZs. I don't for one second think you are correct to predict that the PCA is going to be discredited by the US and her allies; and no one is questioning the 9-dash line verdict except for China. As for the thousands of islands you mention in the Philippines; it doesn't matter if they are rocks or islands because they lie within the existing archipelagic waters of the Philippines and the question of whether they generate EEZs is therefore mute.
I would simply say the PCA are a bunch of bookworms who rule based on what they read, only what they read and refuse to go outside their narrow visions to see what is Outside the time frame they read. Historical title stuff is outside the time frame they read about and find no strong evidence to support Nine Dash Line. Future economic activities as I simulated, they never imagine. Many can be done right now, not some impractical ideas. Just because they are not done on the Spratlys does not mean they should be ruled out.
The time frame Far Back and in Future are real. What is ruled as 12 NM for eg with one US island up in the Aleutian chain can easily be converted into 200 NM with the economic activity options I simulate. As I said, the PCA judges re unimaginative, don't look around at the real world and just make up stories based on their narrow view of the world plus to punish China I am pretty sure.
With such a flawed mindset, there is no reason to support their Nine Dash Line verdict. They should hear it from the horse's mouth, get the evidence from China by reading up the Chinese version and most important not simply rule out historical title have no relevance as UNCLOS neither rule out nor rule in historical title. As long as UNCLOS law is vague, PCA do not have authority to make a definitive ruling and should just have recommend the Nine Dash Line to go to ICJ for initial ruling become coming to them.
Fre, you have already said all of that, and repeating it doesn't make it any more persuasive; the 9-dash line ruling is not dependant on the rock/island ruling. Even if you disproved the latter (which you have not), the former still would not be disproved as a result.
Yes I agree the ownership of the Spratlys should go to the ICJ. I don't believe China wants to go down that route, as I don't believe China is confident in its case. Ditto the other claimants; none if them are confident, because none of them have proof of ownership. (However I don't agree the entire 9-dash line needs to go the ICJ, as it is little more than a fantasy line on an old map with no basis in any international law or treaty and which was in any case superseded by China's signing up to UNCLOS)
Jason Lovelace
I guess Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Brunei, Myanmar, The Republic of China, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea were all unavailable for comment? After all, these nations, as well, have expressed outrage and concern over the "P"RC (a.k.a "Red") China's extensions into the Southeast Pacific. When will Beijing get the idea that she and the "P"RC don't rule the World, nor the Pacific?
The simple reason I tie the Nine Dash Line to the 'island as rocks' ridiculous verdict is the PCA judges have completely damaged the institution's reputation. You wouldn't buy some other products from a company that sold you something that is pure fabrication, would you? It is not just a small misjudgement. The 'island as rock' verdict is Legal Mischief orchestrated by PH and US in the background (hey, US law firm Paul Reichler, don't think there is no patriotism involved here?) What the PCA judges have done is Advertising Fraud, promoting untruth. They Forgot this knife cut both ways and now as the Bloomberg article exposed, US held Aleutian islands are now a prime candidate for 12 NM restrictions.
@Jason Lovelace I had said over and over and over None of the claimants have indisputable right to the islands they occupy. They all have questionable claims as well, thus they play smart, keep quiet while letting PH do the dirty work on their behalf.
If the verdict have said, islands are what they are, including those held by Vietnam and have 200 NM EEZ And China as a co claimant of the Nine Dash Line can co share the 200 NM EEZ, I would have find this acceptable. Let VN, PH, Malaysia etc keep their islands. These islands are not that important to China,especially in the light of her available artificial islands though a couple of strategic Vietnamese islands nearer to the busy commercial lanes will be helpful for her to extend her control in the South China Sea.
The simple reason I tie the Nine Dash Line to the 'island as rocks' ridiculous verdict is the PCA judges have completely damaged the institution's reputation
Logic is not reliant on reputations; there is no logical repudiation of the 9-dash line verdict that can be drawn from the rock/island verdict. However hard you may try to discredit the judges, it makes no difference; if you want to repudiate their verdict on the 9-dash line then you need to repudiate their arguments on the 9-dash line - and that is something that you haven't even attempted to do, and nor has the Chinese government. This speaks volumes.
In other words, some people are Easily Duped by the PCA judges which I have already Shot Down Their Reputation. Making a diversion to debate on the merits of the Nine Dash Line does not enlighten anybody. As I had said, PCA is Damaged Goods and have lost all it's credibility. I am opened to ICJ taking up the case to Settle Islands/Rocks Sovereignty First. This is how international law operates: Land Over Sea sovereign clarity First before ruling on maritime matters and PH, VN, Malaysia will all be exposed as squatters before ICJ. Hiding behind PCA's verdict show you fear a negative ICJ ruling against PH.
Aug. 1, 2016	01:48 pm JST
Once again, you make no attempt to argue against the 9-dash line verdict on the merit of the arguments themselves. Again, this speaks volumes. Discrediting the judges (not that you have successfully done so) does not disprove the arguments; failing to engage with the arguments indicates that you are unable to do so.
You are beating a dead horse. I have shown you the island as rock Taiping Island verdict is so wrong the Nine Dash Line verdict should be trashed, never to see the light of day.
You cannot decouple the Nine Dash Line verdict from the island as rock verdict as the 'rocks' are intrinsic in the Nine Dash Line. So the Nine Dash Line verdict is Stained, no need to talk about it further.
We will debate about it if presented to ICJ, the proper venue. Scoring points here is premature as the Venue is wrong. Once it ever get to ICJ, I will start to show both sides of the argument and let the chips fall where they may.
Once again, you have failed to engage in the arguments regarding the 9-dash line. Obviously you are unwilling to do so because you are unable to do si. In logical debate, discrediting a speaker does not defeat their argument. You must defeat the argument in its own merits, and you're not even attempting to do so.
I have shown you the island as rock Taiping Island verdict is so wrong
You have completely failed to do so.
You cannot decouple the Nine Dash Line verdict from the island as rock verdict
They do not need to be decoupled because they were never coupled in the first place.
Laughable to say Nine Dash Line is not coupled with island as rocks. The island as rock verdict basically make all Nine Dash Line Clusters of islands to be deemed 12 NM, not 200 NM EEZ. This is the Fear PH and US have should China win the Nine Dash Line legally in ICJ if filed there, or if there is a skirmish between China and VN or PH and China grab some of the islands that are also deemed as rocks. In this scenario, China will have 200 NM EEZ in each of the newly acquired island.
Vietnam have pulled off such a stunt with regard to Pugad island aka SouthWest Cay, so there is no guarantee there will be no future dispute in the Spratlys with China getting a few islands which can be further used as military bases and also more EEZ of course.
Demanding Nine Dash Line to be debated here is a non starter. Why insist on such a complex situation to be debated here? PH file thousands of pages in her lawsuit. Do you think there is enough space in the Comment section here for such a debate? It is clear you want to avoid staining the other party if Nine Dash Line is brought to ICJ, the proper forum for deliberation. Me, I will point out all the lies perpetuated by the other parties and also show China do not have iron clad legal footing. We all know the evidence she have were Tampered by thieves like Tomas Cloma and also washed away by time. Overall I already said China have much more merits than others and let a proper forum like ICJ be the basis for discussion. What more do you want?
Just for the record, the island as rock verdict do have a positive outcome for China besides all the negatives since now she can park her oil rigs up to 12 NM of VN, PH, TW islands/rocks, fish in the previous perceived 200 NM zones with impunity. These countries must be very disappointed with the PCA ruling but dare not utter them in public. Like the China proverb say 'Be Careful What You Wish For' and now they are reaping the bitter fruits of their scheme to defame China.
Aug. 2, 2016	12:11 am JST
Good lord. You accused me of flogging a dead horse, but the whip is in your hand and you are doing the flogging. What I think I'm doing is more like talking to a brick wall - you still have made no attempt to actually logically argue against the reasons for the 9-dash line verdict. You're not even trying to do so, and until you do so, you are not going to convince me.
Vietnam have pulled off such a stunt with regard to Pugad island aka SouthWest Cay
Southwest Cay also has no EEZ.
Just for the record, the island as rock verdict do have a positive outcome for China besides all the negatives since now she can park her oil rigs up to 12 NM of VN, PH, TW islands/rocks, fish in the previous perceived 200 NM zones with impunity.
Incorrect. Most of the Spratlys lie within the EEZs of Philippines (from Palawan) and Malaysia (Borneo); so no, China cannot park her oil rigs or fish there. Yes, there are some Spratlys lying outside of any EEZs, and so yes in those specific cases China (or anyone else) can do what they like outside the 12-mile limits.
I see. You try to give life to a Still Born Baby (Nine Dash Line Verdict). No, I am not giving you the oxygen to resuscitate it. Get your oxygen on the ICJ platform.
I gave the SouthWest Cay as example of potential future conflict since all the Spratlys are unsettled issues. I am not saying this particular feature have 200 NM EEZ.
PH do not have 200 NM EEZ eg from Palawan as baseline with whatever islands/reefs/shoals that lies beyond. Since PH claim them to be their sovereign property, THEY will be The Basis for the 12 NM Limitation Facing The China Sea Even Though they still lie within 200 NM of say Palawan. In other words the Palawan 200 NM EEZ is Truncated by this 12 NM rock ruling by PCA.
So thanks to the genius at PCA, all PH claimed features be they Thitu island, Half Moon Shoal, James Shoal, Ayunjin Reef, Reed Bank etc, they are now no more within 200 NM of the Larger PH land mass like Palawan, Luzon, Mindanao etc. China and other countries can now come up to 12 NM on the Side Facing The South China Sea and fish, drill oil/gas all they want. China Win Big due to this foolish PCA ruling.
In fact don't be surprised China find some shallow spot just outside the 12 NM EEZ and park a militarized oil rig kind of platform there as a permanent presence to monitor the South China Sea at strategic spots.
You still make no attempt to offer a logical argument on the 9-dash line. So you still haven't pursuaded me. Unless you are going to actually make an argument, please stop wasting time by talking about it.
You are mistaken. A coastal EEZ doesn't end when it meets a rock; the rock lies within the EEZ, and apart from its 12-mile territorial waters it does not affect that EEZ. So no, China (and anyone else) cannot park an oil rig 12nm from James Shoal, on any side of it, because that would be in Malaysia's (Borneo's) EEZ. Yes, China (and anyone else) can do that near Thitu - because Thitu is one of the Spratlys that lie well outside any country's EEZ (Thitu is not within 200km of Palawan).
Such inflammatory behaviour from China would not surprise me at all.
Keep trying to discredit China with regard to the Nine Dash Line dispute. Look, you can try a gadzillion time and it won't work as long as the forum is not proper. It appear you are afraid of me pointing out the illegal occupation of the other parties, thus your incessant focus on China.
As for the truncated EEZ, sure PH will suffer from the ruling. Is there any UNCLOS rule that say Luzon, Mindanao, Palawan have to be the baseline for 200 NM EEZ? Since PH claim all those shoals, bank etc she occupy near Palawan, they should be the Outermost EEZ determination isn't it? What authority do PH have to declare they are not the Outermost sovereign asset as Basis for EEZ determination?
It is clear China and other countries have at least 24 NM wide on the side facing the South China Sea for Each of the PH shoals, reefs. Same can be said for VN, Malaysia. In the final analysis China Win Big Time, able to drill close to PH outermost assets. Oh yes, there is nothing inflammatory. China can do what she want in International Water. What's wrong with Chinese Freedom of Navigation expression?
Keep trying to discredit China with regard to the Nine Dash Line dispute. Look, you can try a gadzillion time and it won't work as long as the forum is not proper
I'm not trying to discredit China. You are trying to discredit the PCA, and I am inviting you to attempt a logical argument against their reasoning instead. You have yet again declined to do so, because evidently you cannot; and if you will not, please stop wasting our time by talking about it.
Is there any UNCLOS rule that say Luzon, Mindanao, Palawan have to be the baseline for 200 NM EEZ?
Since PH claim all those shoals, bank etc she occupy near Palawan, they should be the Outermost EEZ determination isn't it?
Obviously not; as you are well aware, such features don't get EEZs under UNCLOS
It is clear China and other countries have at least 24 NM wide on the side facing the South China Sea for Each of the PH shoals, reefs. Same can be said for VN, Malaysia
That is pure nonsense. Completely made up and based on nothing whatsoever. Of course there is nothing wrong with Chinese FON; but you were talking about China drilling for oil in other countries' EEZs, which is not FON.
I discredit PCA simply because I smell the interlink between Nine Dash Line verdict and island as rock verdict. If they don't go over the top with such a ridiculous ruling, I will consider their Nine Dash Line verdict as serious but To Be Fair, why not Stain VN, Malaysia and PH as well for their illegal occupations? Are you pretending these guys are unblemished?
What right does PH have to make a Narrow lawsuit against China and not involve other parties Illegally Squatting In The Nine Dash Line, including PH herself?
Give proof UNCLOS have clear cut ruling that say a big land mass is The Criteria to determine 200 NM EEZ, Disregarding Other smaller islands/rocks Further Out as The defining measurement of 200 NM EEZ. If you can't it simply means other countries can Truncate the Main islands like Palawan, Luzon, Mindanao 200 NM EEZ and use the smaller Outermost islands as determinant ie 12 NM Override the bigger land mass 200 NM EEZ.
BTW, same can be said about Natuna archipelago with almost 300 islands. China, VN, Thailand, Malaysia etc, their fishermen Should be able to fish Up To the 12 NM Outermost islands/ROCKS in the Natuna chain.
Are you pretending these guys are unblemished?
I'm not pretending anything. Are you now pretending that this case is about sovereignty? None of this is about illegal occupation by anyone. This ruling is not about sovereignty. It's about UNCLOS and EEZs.
Again, if you're not even going to attempt to make logical or factual arguments about the 9-dash line verdict, just stop talking about it.
Give proof UNCLOS have clear cut ruling that say a big land mass is The Criteria to determine 200 NM EEZ,
The requirements for a feature to generate an EEZ are in the text of UNCLOS, which I know you have read because I already copy&pasted the relevant rules for you when you previously demanded proof of them. The EEZ they generate can only be reduced if it runs up against another EEZ, in which case the two EEZs meet at the midpoint. Non-EEZ generating features do not truncate EEZs around them; if you are claiming that they do, then it is you that needs to prove it by showing where UNCLOS says so (it doesn't). Your non-arguments are getting rather tedious.
same can be said about Natuna archipelago with almost 300 islands. China, VN, Thailand, Malaysia etc, their fishermen Should be able to fish Up To the 12 NM Outermost islands/ROCKS in the Natuna chain.
Incorrect. The Natuna have an EEZ, and other nations cannot fish in Indonesia's EEZ.
"This ruling is not about sovereignty. It's about UNCLOS and EEZs."
There goes the Deception PH try to dupe the world. Laws of the Land Trump Laws of the Sea. UNCLOS laws Can Only be applied After Land Sovereignty is settled first. PH illegal occupation of the Spratlys with the Tomas Cloma front is the Original Sin of PH and she try to hide from the public. That is why she dare not go the ICJ route. Similarly Vietnam, Malaysia, quiet as a mouse as they do not have legal standing in the Spratlys occupation.
Prove they have Continental Shelf Extension legitimate claim and they can have islands, shoals, reefs, banks within this part of the sea.
I challenge you to quote Exactly what UNCLOS say instead of saying you copy and paste before. I want you to show readers the Exact Sentence that prove PH can use Palawan for example as 200 NM EEZ.
My argument against this 'big island' criteria is very simple. Since PH claim sovereignty of ALL the islands, shoals, reefs which are now Deem as Rocks per PCA, THEY form the Outermost of Philippines SOVEREIGNTY, so what basis do you have to conveniently pick Palawan as baseline? You Use the Outermost archipelagic Islands/Rocks as Your Perimeter, not your fancy Palawan or Luzon, Mindanao otherwise why call them Your Sovereignty?
Same goes for Natuna. If you can't, Chop Off those 'rocks' and let China or other countries have ownership.
Those outermost 'rocks' are Facts On The Sea, claimed as Sovereign property of PH, Indonesia and They are 12 NM limited EEZ, thus Truncating the bigger islands 200 NM EEZ.
Palawan meets the three UNCLOS criteria for an EEZ, so it has an EEZ. Simple as that. You already know what the three criteria are, and I've already quoted them verbatim. This EEZ does not get truncated by any non-EEZ generating feature; if you want to convince me that it does, I challenge you to show us where UNCLOS says that non-EEZ generating features truncate EEZs that they lie within. I know you cannot show us this, because I know it does not say this.
As for the Natuna islands, they are undisputed Indonesian territory and generate an EEZ. Why are you even talking about them? It doesn't help illustrate or back up your arguments in any way, though your arguments are terribly muddled anyway.
I muddle up nothing. Natuna similar as Philippines archipelagic in nature with almost 300 islands.
Remember international law is always Land TRUMP Sea. Those 'rocks' are Land, Claimed As Sovereign by Philippines, Indonesia. Now they have to Live With The Consequence. The consequence is these rocks are Their Outermost Perimeters and They define the 12 NM. They are Facts On The Sea and Have To Comply with the Limitation Of The Sea accorded to the nations claiming them ie PH and Indonesia in my illustration.
PCA rule these as islands as rocks. What basis do you have now to deem Palawan for eg to be 200 NM EEZ Untruncated? Are you trying to override PCA rock 12 NM ruling? You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with PCA rock verdict which you now try to Selectively ignore the consequence of 12 NM entitlement.
sfjp330
SentimentsJUL. 26, 2016 - 05:02PM JST In a sense the issue can be boiled down to the US and China, but it probably is at bit too simplistic.
What does U.S., Japan, or Australia that are many thousands of Km away from affected area? And it boils that to this, let the neighboring countries decide what is best for them. It's the right thing to do. This has nothing to do with U.S.
This entire paragraph is simply nonsensical.
What basis do you have now to deem Palawan for eg to be 200 NM EEZ Untruncated?
Palawan generates an EEZ under UNCLOS. Pretty straightforward.
You are arguing with PCA rock verdict which you now try to Selectively ignore the consequence of 12 NM entitlement.
I am not arguing with the verdict; I very clearly accept it. I'm not selectively ignoring "consequences"; you are merely inventing consequences. The 12nm territorial entitlement of rocks in the Spratlys have no impact on the EEZs generated by Palawan and Borneo; again, I challenge you to quote the passage from UNCLOS which tells us otherwise, or please stop repeating yourself.
How do you define "island"? Okinotori is nothing but a piece of rocks. If Japan can define this piece of rocks as a boundary for EEZ, China and all other countries can do the same to thousands of islands in South China Seas. You cannot see from the air. The latest photo of Okininotori that is completely submerged atoll that surrounds the area, the man-made buildings propped up on stilts, and circular man-made structures ringed with rocks and encased in concrete. The actual islands which are above sea level at high tide are to be found within these concrete structures which protect them. And Japan calls this islands?
Hi sfjp330,
Okinotori is nothing but a piece of rocks
If Japan can define this piece of rocks as a boundary for EEZ, China and all other countries can do the same to thousands of islands in South China Seas.
Other way around - if China et al cannot claim EEZs in the SCS, then clearly Jaoan cannot claim one for Okinotorishima. It is very evident from the SCS ruling that should anyone challenge Japan's Okinotorishima claim, Japan will lose.
Go ask international legal experts. They will tell you EEZ is Derived From Land Sovereignty. I don't need to tell you this. You are hiding behind Flawed PCA judgment which have No Authority to decide on Nine Dash Line because Sovereignty of the Land features in Each of the Nine Clusters have not yet being settled. Given this reality, the whole Nine Dash Line verdict is unfit even to be read.
There is No UNCLOS provision that say a 12 NM sea around a 'rock' Can be deformed. So those 'rocks' at the outermost of a nation's sovereign land features Have to have 12 NM Whole sea Unmolested by your big island Palawan for example 200 NM EEZ.
You are trying to Deform the 12 NM sea area of the outermost 'rocks'. Who give you this authority to Warp PCA Own Interpretation these outermost feature are rocks and thus are entitled to 12 NM? 12 NM IS 12 NM, No Exception for big island Palawan 200 NM EEZ. Who give you the right to make exceptions?
200 NM EEZ is nothing more than a Contour around the coastline of an island say Palawan. However this contour is now Truncated by the outermost 'rocks' which PH claim to be her sovereignty, Thus the Distorted 200 NM EEZ now. What law say big island 200 NM EEZ override the 12 NM rock sea limit?
The Whole archipelago is PH sovereignty, including rocks and the Outermost rocks Define The Border, NOT Palawan island itself. What you are doing is Selective Border interpretation to suit your expansive 200 NM EEZ claim.
The only way out is for PH to disown her sovereign claim to these outermost 'rocks', then she can have her undisturbed 200 NM EEZ around Palawan. In other words, Redraw Her Border to be Clean so there is no room for dual interpretation. Same can be said of Natuna as well with so many 'rocks' outside the big island.
A load of made up nonsense. Yes, the rocks have 12nm territorial waters. If that lies within another country's EEZ, then the EEZ simply surrounds it - on all sides, not only on the side facing the coastline. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me where UNCLOS says so; you cannot, because it does not. We both know this.
I hope you're having fun writing this rubbish; it's certainly amusing for me to read it. But despite my repeated invitations to you to give fact-based and logical arguments against the ruling, you still decline to do so. All these dozens of posts and you haven't given me a single fact or logical point to consider. Not even one cogent point; just factually incorrect waffle.