THAAD will not protect ROK but cripples UN unity on NK nukes; Sino-US ties should surmount saber-rattling


https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FPeoplesDaily%2Fvideos%2Fvb.188625661189259%2F1214540878597727%2F%3Ftype%3D3&show_text=1&width=560

Public opinion in the Republic of Korea is divided over whether the deployment of the United States’ Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system is in the national interest.

Many of those in their 20s, 30s or 40s disagree with the decision. And anti-THAAD lawmakers have demanded an open debate in the National Assembly to discuss whether the THAAD is really in the ROK’s interests militarily, diplomatically and economically.

THAAD is incapable of defending against the potential missile threat from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as the DPRK’s missiles travel at a lower altitude than those THAAD is designed to intercept. Even if that was not the case, one THAAD battery would not be able to provide protection against all the DPRK missiles. The capital Seoul and its adjacent metropolitan area, the country’s most populous regions, are even outside the protection range of THAAD.

However, the system’s X-band radar has a range of at least 2,000 km, which is the real reason the United States wants it deployed in the ROK as it will be able to snoop deep into Chinese and Russian territories.

Seoul claims that it will adopt the radar with a detectable range of 600-800 km, but the mode change can be made at any time in accordance with the needs of the US military that will operate the THAAD battery in the ROK.

If THAAD is deployed, it will sour the ROK’s relations with China and Russia, trigger an arms race and damage trade. It will make it difficult for the country to seek cooperation from China and Russia in denuclearizing the peninsula.

Seoul should heed the voices saying the only way to denuclearize the peninsula is through peace talks and changing the armistice treaty after the 1950-53 Korean War into a peace treaty. – China Daily

Related:

South Korean leader should listen to anti-THAAD voices

In recent days, South Korean President Park Geun-hye has seemed unhappy as six lawmakers of the main[Read it]

 THAAD cripples UN unity on NK nukes

The UN Security Council failed to agree on a US-drafted statement that condemns North Korea’s latest ballistic missile launch on Tuesday, because China demanded the statement oppose any provocative moves that take advantage of North Korea’s nuclear threat and missile project to enable a deployment of anti-missile systems in Northeast Asia.

China’s proposition is aimed at the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system that will be stationed by the US in South Korea. Since the US and South Korea announced the plan, the UN Security Council has failed twice to reach agreement over North Korean missile launches because of the major split between China and the US.

The planned deployment is adding a new challenge to the vulnerable geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia. The international collaboration against North Korea’s nuclear project has been crippled. A degenerative aura of the Cold War is emanating from the US-Japan-South Korea alliance.

China does not have a motive to encourage North Korea to develop nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles, because at the cost of its ties with the North, it has been a backer of the UN Security Council’s sanctions against it. However, the US and South Korea went too far and made use of North Korea’s nuclear threat to deploy THAAD, which will cause great harm to China’s national security. Given China’s cooperation in sanctioning North Korea, it is nothing but a stab in the back.

North Korea’s nuclear ambition was primarily triggered by long-standing military pressures imposed by South Korea and the US. The escalating pressures have met bolder nuclear projects. China being a well-intentioned and responsible mediator has been paid back by a threatening advanced military system.

The US and South Korea are strongly convinced that they are absolutely right in this case, and any disagreement is totally wrong. The narrow-mindedness renders all proposals fruitless and futile.

The Korean Peninsula is intertwined with too many complications and concerns. The deployment of THAAD is a selfish and reckless move that will break the fragile balance with terrible outcomes: There will be a huge setback in the Sino-South Korean relationship; the susceptible Sino-US collaboration over Northeast Asia will collapse – all will result in a reconfiguration of each stakeholder’s policy on the region.

Although unwilling to go to war, all players in the big game should reflect on their policies as growing tensions have turned them more defensive rather than open.

The major-power rivalry between China and the US is behind many disputes in East Asia. Beijing and Washington seem to have a tacit understanding that their rivalry won’t explode into a physical conflict. However, some countries cannot look at the big picture, and are eager to pick sides, but they will only find that they are cannon fodder.

China and the US are exchanging blows over THAAD, but they won’t get into a real fight. However, if South Korea leaps headlong into this round of games and becomes a US agent, it will put itself in the middle of a new crisis.

South Korea is a confused player in the big game. It might eventually find out that THAAD will not bring about what it really expects.- Global Times

Sino-US ties should surmount saber-rattling

US naval ship visits Qingdao after disputed South China Sea ruling

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/wkOwZwuDOyg

US naval ship visits Qingdao after disputed South China Sea ruling

  A US Navy guided missile destroyer has arrived in the northern Chinese port of Qingdao. This is in the first visit by an American warship to China, after China refused to accept an arbitration ruling on the South China Sea dispute.US Navy guided missile destroyer the USS Benfold arrived in the northern Chinese port of Qingdao on Monday, marking the first visit by a US military ship to China since the South China Sea arbitration. This visit is believed to be a signal and an opportunity for both countries to ease tensions between them.

Before the arbitration award was announced, Washington deployed two aircraft carriers in and around the South China Sea, an obvious move to flex their muscles, pile pressure on China and encourage its allies. China responded in kind with a large military drill in the region and a routine combat patrol. Both countries have engaged with each other in a fierce tug of war.

This is not the whole picture of Sino-US relations, not even their military relationship. Not long ago, the US kept its invitation for China to participate in its Rim of the Pacific military exercise, which is mainly attended by its allies.

The Chinese shouldn’t always push the USS Larson’s provocations in the South China Sea into the limelight, nor can they easily turn over a new leaf with the US as the USS Benfold came in peace. We shouldn’t be tricked by a single gesture from Washington. Both China and the US must admit that the undefined Sino-US ties will continue being shaped in the future.

China and the US are exercising more precautions against each other, and they should get used to the new developments, such as a limited arms race, and not having to take the other’s defensive actions as unacceptable.

Throughout the history of human civilization, China and the US have engaged in the most peaceful rivalry between an emerging power and an established power. The Chinese should know as a dominant powerhouse, the US is relatively rational, and has not opted for harsh gambits. Washington also admits that China is a rational and careful emerging power, and pays enough respect to US national interests.

However, both China and the US still feel their own national security is being challenged by each other. Frankly speaking, China feels more insecure than the US. The US doesn’t have to overreact as for a long time to come, China won’t be powerful enough to launch a showdown against the US.

China should speed up its military modernization and narrow the gap with the US in military strength. The priority should be an increase in strategic military deterrence. The US shouldn’t see this as a hostile move. It must know that it cannot sustain an overwhelming military advantage over other countries forever. A strategic balance is essential to world peace in the nuclear age.

China has no plan to dominate Asia with its military prowess. What is happening in the East and South China Seas are simply territorial disputes, not a prelude for China to overturn the current world order.

China and the US should nurture a strong awareness of risk control and strategic trust to ensure the incessant frictions won’t become a real conflict.

Saber-rattling remarks do not mean both sides are ready for a war. Both sides must strive to avoid a military showdown. Whether they like it or not, they should respect the other’s core national interests. – Global Times

Related Posts:

South Koreans protest US Terminal High Altitude Area …

 Jul 22, 2016 More than 2,000 people from Seongju county, where one THAAD battery will be
deployed, gathered at a square in Seoul for a rally on …

PLA Air Force conducts combat air patrol in South China Sea

 Jul 19, 2016 South China Sea arbitration award won’t hamper China-ASEAN cooperation: ….
China hardens after illegal tribunal ruling on South China Sea.

PLA Air Force conducts combat air patrol in South China Sea Jul 19, 2016 … South China Sea arbitration award won’t hamper China-ASEAN cooperation: …. China hardens after illegal tribunal ruling on South China Sea.

 Jul 18, 2016 China hardens after questionable tribunal ruling on South China Sea ….
Permanent Court of Arbitration clarifies role in South China Sea case THE  HAGUE, July 16 … 不合法的裁决不过废纸一张, Illegal ruling but a waste paper.

Stay vigilant to Japan’s “China Threat”, right-wing ‘hawk’ Inada as new defense minister


Once again, in its latest defense white paper, Japan has shamelessly accused China of jeopardizing regional peace and stability, playing up the “China Threat” for its own right-wing agenda.

As the Abe administration moves Japan’s security policy further and further to the right, rebuilding the country as a military power, those neighboring nations who remember the past look on aghast.

The new defense paper adopts an even more confrontational tone compared to previous ones, accusing China of “changing the status quo by relying on its strength” and expressing “deep concern” over China’s activities in the East and South China seas.

If history is indeed a mirror, then surely that mirror reflects Japan’s recent record of stirring up regional trouble and enmity wherever and whenever it can. If there is any meddling with the status quo, it is easy to see that Japan is the meddlesome one.

In 2012, Tokyo stoked up tensions in the East China Sea through the transparent farce of “purchasing” the Diaoyu Islands. Warships and aircraft were dispatched to the islands’ waters and skies, harassing Chinese vessels and aircraft going about their lawful business.

On the South China Sea, Japan — far from an interested party — can’t seem to keep its nose out of the issue, pointing fingers at China and cheerleading for distant parties who also seek to interfere in the dispute.

And then in April, Japan sent warships to the Philippines, perhaps as a direct “thank-you” for the spurious South China Sea arbitration, laying bare its attempts to mount pressure on China.

The Abe administration has tinkered with the stability of the Asia-Pacific and conjured up security threats for no reason other than to justify a move to the right: a militarist move which includes, but is not limited to, easier arms trade, weaker civilian control over the military, and these controversial security bills.

This year’s white paper makes much of the “constitutionality” of Japan’s new security laws – the legal foundation for the right-wing to take control of Japan’s defense.

Japan talks of “concern” and “vigilance” over China’s military development, and has done so in its annual papers since 2005. After new security legislation last year, Japan has taken a more proactive approach, a more aggressive approach, directly condemning and challenging China.

Abe and his coalition partners are clearly speeding up their attempts to rewrite the constitution before his tenure ends in 2018. Laws allowing Japan to engage in armed conflict overseas, even if Japan is not attacked or threatened, came into effect in March. The Abe administration is inching closer to its dream of replacing the country’s pacifist constitution with… a different kind of constitution.

The fanciful “China Threat” and tensions in the region are the best excuses for aggressive military and security polices that Tokyo can cook up.

Seven decades after World War II, Japan now stands at a critical juncture: to continue on its peaceful path or to return to militarism with all the fears and tensions that will bring to the region.

Each and every responsible member of the international community must stay vigilant. This peace and stability was hard-won. Its loss will be harder still. – Xinhua

Abe appoints ultra-right wing “hawk” Inada as new DM to push military agenda

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/X0kSBfF7XS4

Her comment that Japan’s actions during the war “depends on one’s point of view” has sparked anger from neighboring South Korea and China.

Japan’s new Defense Minister, Tomomi Inada, inspects a honor guard on her first day at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo, Aug. 4, 2016.

TOKYO, Aug. 3 (Xinhua) — Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe‘s appointment of Tomomi Inada as defense minister following a cabinet reshuffle on Wednesday has underscored his intentions to forge ahead with a controversial push to amend the nation’s pacifist Constitution and further expand the scope of the nation’s military, observers here have said.

The prime minister, nevertheless, has maintained that the reshuffle was aimed at speeding up the pace of the nation’s sluggish economic revival, following multiple failed installments of his “Abenomics” economic policy mix, following the approval a day earlier of a 28.1 trillion yen (277.74 billion U.S. dollar) stimulus package.

However, political observers attest that the hawkish Inada, 57, a particularly close ally of Abe’s, yet a novice when it comes to security issues, being given the defense minister’s portfolio demonstrates the prime minister’s intention to use his coalition’s newly-gained dominance in both chambers of parliament to advance his legacy-led mission to fundamentally reshape Japan’s security paradigm in the biggest, most controversial shift since WWII.

Security experts as well as senior members within the defense ministry itself believe that Inada, Japan’s second female defense minister following Yuriko Koike, herself recently elected to be Tokyo governor who held the position briefly in 2007, is ill-equipped and lacks the necessary experience to hold the defense ministry’s top post.

Inada is currently only serving her fourth term as a lower house lawmaker and previously held the post of state minister in charge of administrative reform for just two years and has chaired the ruling Liberal Democratic Party Policy Research Council again for just two years.

Defense, security and military affairs are not in her repertoire, experts close to the matter have maintained.

Inada, however, is known to share the prime minister’s singular goal of revising Japan’s postwar, pacifist constitution and is also, along with Abe and a number of other prominent cabinet members, a visible member of the ultra-right wing Nippon Kaigi fraternity.

“Inada has long been a member of Abe’s inner coterie and shares his fundamental beliefs about the future course of the nation’s political and security direction,” Asian affairs commentator Kaoru Imori told Xinhua, ahead of Inada’s widely-expected appointment.

“She is also a known right-wing revisionist and has made a number of controversial remarks about Japan’s history, and her membership to the right wing Nippon Kaigi group is evidence of her tendentious political and nationalistic views,” Imori added.

Nippon Kaigi is an ultranationalistic nonparty entity with around 300,000 members who all believe in praising the Imperial family (The Emperor), changing the war-renouncing, pacifist Constitution, promoting nationalistic education in schools and supporting parliamentarians’ visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine.

It is the biggest right-wing organization in Japan and Abe has, ostensibly, cherry picked his Cabinet members from this group to run the country, with these “Shinto Conservatives” believing that Japan should not apologize for its wartime acts of brutality, despite the legitimacy of proven historical events.

The appointment of Inada as defense minister will almost certainly ruffle the feathers of Japan’s neighbors, experts claim. “The mood now is to try to promote cooperation,” Jeffrey Kingston, director of Asian studies at Temple University in Tokyo, was quoted as saying of the current situation regarding ties between Japan and its immediate neighbors.

“That could change if she makes a pilgrimage to Yasukuni in a couple of weeks,” Kingston added.

“Inada supports the prime minister and all parliamentarians’ visits to Yasukuni (shrine) and has openly contested The International Military Tribunal for the Far East after World War II. She also believes that Japan should not apologize for its internationally-recognized war crimes committed and is a proponent of denying Japan’s wartime atrocities,” Imori said.

To this end, Abe appointed her chairperson of the LDP Policy Research Council in September 2014, despite the fact that the position is almost always exclusively held by party members who have had lengthy political careers. – Xinhuanet

THE ATOMIC BOMB: HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI August 6 & 9, 1945

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_z4ZBA_HEVY

Rape of Nanking Part I Atrocities in Asia Nanjing Massacre

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/YoW2WYdOsvg

‘Nanking’ with Woody Harrelson – Full Movie | Snagfilms

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/jfkk-GtM_sI

Related:

Japan hypes up “China threat” in defense white paper

TOKYO, Aug. 2 (Xinhua) — The Japanese government approved a defense white paper for 2016 on Tuesday, summarizing Japan’s defense policy changes while smearing China’s normal maritime activities to justify Japan’s own militarization.

The annual document came after an ad hoc arbitral tribunal with judges mostly picked by Shunji Yanai, a Japanese right-winger, issued a biased and illegal award over the South China Sea dispute. Full story

Related News

Japan hypes up “China threat” in defense white paper
Opinion: China’s military spending growth rational, no room for “China threat” cliche
Xi dismisses “China threat” rhetoric
Japanese media slashes gov’t “China threat” tactics as “dangerous gamble”
Japan hypes “China threat” as excuse for new security bills: DM spokesperson

Related posts:

 

Dec 14, 2014 China observed the first National Memorial Day for Nanjing Massacre Victims on
Saturday. It is a day to reflect on the past and look forward to …

Jun 13, 2014 China said on Thursday UNESCO has accepted its application to register records
of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre and Japan’s wartime sex …

Mar 14, 2015 China said on Thursday UNESCO has accepted its application to register records
of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre and Japan’s wartime sex … Japanese World War II criminals‘ confessions released
Jul 4, 2014 BEIJING, July 3 — Confessions made by 45 Japanese war criminals tried and
convicted by military tribunals in China after World War II (WWII) …right-waystan.blogspot.com

 Japanese surrendered on Aug 15: It’s dangerous for ...

Aug 15, 2014 As the 69th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in WWII, August 15 has …. Japanese World War II criminals‘ confessions released · FOCUS: War …

 

Jul 9, 2014 China publishes video of Japan´s surrender for first time …. Video: Japanese World War II criminalsconfessions released After the end of …

    July 7, remembering Japanese atrocities: China …

Jul 7, 2014 China marks 77th anniversary of start of anti-Japan war · July 7 incident: String of
…. Japanese World War II criminals‘ confessions released.

Jul 2, 2014 It’s almost 70 years since the end of WWII, but Japan has apparently forgotten
about its …. Japanese World War II criminals‘ confessions relea.

 

Mar 23, 2014 The ghosts of Japan’s imperial past have returned to haunt the nation, … war
criminals to proclaim that Japan did nothing wrong in World War II, …

Why do Chinese think differently from the West?


Sculptures of Confucius with his students are seen near the headquarters office building of Chambroad Holding in Boxing, Shandong Province, China, June 27.PHOTO: REUTERS

We live in an age of science and technology, so strictly speaking science should be able to forecast the future and help us make decisions better. But in this Age of Uncertainty, the best economic models did not predict the global financial crisis.

How did the ancients attempt to make better decisions? They relied on history, their own experience or oracles, astrology or mumbo-jumbo. In a situation of uncertainty, you make decisions on the basis of information that you have, and if don’t have that information, you simply have to consult someone or something you believe in.

Some people turn to old sacred text, such as the Bible, with a priest to interpret what God intends. The Greeks used the Delphic Oracle, dating back to 1,400 BC, whose predictions were in riddles that were interpreted by the female diviners. Divination was then serious business, with astronomers studying the stars for some cosmic order.

Most people think that Chinese philosophy began with Confucius [551-479 BC], but his school became famous because it compiled the existing ancient books into the Five Classics, of which the I Ching (or Book of Change) is one. The problem with any translation of ancient text is that we can never differentiate translations from interpretation. How an ancient text is read depends very much upon the translators’ biases or ignorance. This is why reading of sacred text is always personal.

My own view is that the I Ching deserves to be considered a book of early Chinese science, rather than as a book on divination, considered at best as pseudo-science.

The I Ching comprises two books, an earlier classic dated to roughly 1,000 BC, and an interpretive text written about 400-600 years later. The earlier classic comprises the Eight trigrams, attributed to Fuxi, one of the legendary founders of China, and the 64 hexagrams, reputedly invented by Duke Zhou, one of the founders of the Zhou dynasty. In simple terms, the Eight trigrams simply stand for eight possible situations, from good to bad; whereas the 64 hexagrams stand for 64 possible predictive outcomes. The later text is attributed to Confucius and his disciples, which helps the interpretation of what the hexagrams mean. To use the I Ching for divination or decision purposes, you randomly choose a hexagram and then consult the I Ching for what it means.

Herein lies a fundamental difference in decision making between Western science and the Chinese approach to life.

Science developed in the West partly because of the alphabetic language, derived from the Arabs, which means that you can define words and meaning much more precisely, since the English language comprises today over a million words. As the philosopher Wittgenstein argued, all concepts are defined by language.

The Chinese language, on the other hand, is basically ideogramatic and phonetic, meaning that each character comprises radicals that originally were pictures. For example, the character for man can easily be identified as a drawing of a standing man. Because there are limited sounds for each character, each character carries four or five tones, and complex words comprise combinations of different characters. Most people can read basic Chinese with about two to three thousand characters, with the maximum number of characters being roughly 50,000. Complex words are combinations of two or three characters.

Given limited sounds, tones and characters, the Chinese language is not as precise as English. A single character can have different meanings and different sounds, so that Chinese words and phrases can only be understood in context. So when I hear a Chinese speak, I often have to ask in what context is that particular sound/word being used? In other words, we have to add contextual information in order to interpret the meaning of what is being said.

Western science, following the Aristolean logic, is essentially reductionist and linear, seeking cause and effect. The language enables the conceptualisation to be precise and the logic flow to be consistent. The imprecision inherent in the Chinese language means that conceptual thinking is more organic and fluid, and subject to interpretation, including guessing.

In other words, whilst natural sciences could be more precise in communication between two machines, the communication between two human beings carry a huge amount of uncertainty. The social sciences are much more qualitative because one human being cannot by definition fully comprehend the other person’s life experience, values and preferences. Uncertainty is built into the social sciences.

Modern economics dealt with this problem by assuming perfect information, which actually assumed away uncertainty. Economic models based on such perfect information and rational players (mechanical decision-making) gave rise to precise or “optimal”, first-best outcomes. The first best ideal is then thought to be a natural outcome, and life will simply revert back to equilibrium or a stable situation.

Real life is obviously not so simple. The eight trigrams mean that in binary good and bad or black and white terms, there are eight possible outcomes in any decision: good, bad and six mixtures of good/bad. The 64 hexagrams makes life even more complicated, since black and white are only two possible manifestations of any system, the rest being 62 shades of grey (mixture of black and white).

By definition, any fundamentalist view of life is more likely to be wrong, because life is mostly shades of grey.

The best games that illustrates this difference between Western and Chinese thinking are the games of chess and Go (weiqi). Chess has defined linear moves with six types of pieces. It forces one to think logically and sequentially. Go comprises only black and white pieces, but the player has to think spatially, playing the piece in any position on the board, continually trying to outguess the other player.

Without understanding these fundamental differences in language, context and decision-making under uncertainty, it would be difficult to bridge the yawning gap between both sides of the Pacific. It also means that the Chinese approach to economics and geo-politics will be quite different than is more commonly interpreted outside China.

By Andrew Sheng, Asia News Network

The writer, a Distinguished Fellow with the Asia Global Institute, writes on global issues from an Asian perspective.

Related posts:

 

 Jul 24, 2016 When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on.right-waystan.blogspot.com


Dealing with the new abnormal negative …

Jun 15, 2016 When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on.

Mar 5, 2016 Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme! Economic
Collapse soon? Ponzi schemes and modern finance. Andrew…

Beware when elephants Trump-et! Trump victory a major …

Mar 19, 2016 When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on…

One phone to rule all; Fintech, the healthy disruptors of

Apr 16, 2016 WHO dominates the phone dominates the Internet. The whole world of information is now available in your hand, replacing your own mind as a …

Rejuvenating George Town, Penang

 Oct 30, 2010 THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG EVERY time I open my window, I see paradise – not heaven, but a neon sign for Paradise hotel in Penang …

 

‘Paper cat’ Australia will learn its lesson


3721f-papercat_aussie

Around the announcement of the arbitration tribunal over the South China Sea, Australia was one of the most delirious countries. Canberra immediately supported the arbitration result and claimed China “must” abide by it, and also signed a joint declaration with the US and Japan. Australia has inked a free trade agreement with China, its biggest trading partner, which makes its move of disturbing the South China Sea waters surprising to many.
Australia is a unique country with an inglorious history. It was at first an offshore prison of the UK and then became its colony, a source of raw materials, overseas market and land of investment. This country was established through uncivilized means, in a process filled with the tears of the aboriginals.

Even with a scarce population and vast land, Australia has disputes with other countries over territory. It claims nearly 5.9 million square meters of land in the Antarctic, accounting for 42 percent of the continent. In order to back its territorial claims, Australia even brought up the activities of the British in the Antarctic as evidence.

Since The Antarctic Treaty was signed, all territorial claims over the continent were suspended. Canberra then raised another claims to demand the Antarctic continental shelf. It cited Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to avoid a demand by arbitration by others.

Both historical rights and the exemption of arbitration as ruled in Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were denied by the arbitration tribunal. Australia showed blunt double standards as if no one had a memory of what it did and said over the Antarctic.

Australia calls itself a principled country, while its utilitarianism has been sizzling. It lauds Sino-Australian relations when China’s economic support is needed, but when it needs to please Washington, it demonstrates willingness of doing anything in a show of allegiance.

Analysts say that besides trying to please the US, it also intends to suppress China so as to gain a bargaining chip for economic interests. China must take revenge and let it know it’s wrong. Australia’s power means nothing compared to the security of China. If Australia steps into the South China Sea waters, it will be an ideal target for China to warn and strike.

Australia is not even a “paper tiger,” it’s only a “paper cat” at best. At a time when its former caretaker country the UK is dedicated to developing relations with China, and almost the whole of Europe takes a neutral position, Australia has unexpectedly made itself a pioneer of hurting China’s interest with a fiercer attitude than countries directly involved in the South China Sea dispute. But this paper cat won’t last. – Global Times

Related:

Video:

 

 

Related posts:




Curtain falls on S.China Sea arbitration farce; Tribunal manipulators will be revealed

  Foreign ministers of ASEAN member states and China at the ASEAN-China Ministerial Meeting in Vientiane, Laos. — VNA/VNS

Political manipulation violates combined concept of fairness, justice, rule, trend and direction. Congenial approach: China believes i…
Permanent Court of Arbitration clarifies role in South China Sea case THE HAGUE, July 16 (Xinhua) — The Permanent Court of Arbitration …
国际法院(ICJ)在此希望媒体和公众注意,南海仲裁案(菲律宾共和国与中华人民共和国)裁决结果由常设仲裁法院(PCA)提供秘书服务下的一个特别仲裁庭做出。相关信息请访问PCA网站( www.pca-cpa.org )。国际法院作为完全不同的另一机构,至始至终未曾参与该案…

Curtain falls on S.China Sea arbitration farce; Tribunal manipulators will be revealed


Foreign ministers of ASEAN member states and China at the ASEAN-China Ministerial Meeting in Vientiane, Laos. — VNA/VNS

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/i_J3TQKTXcc

The 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on Monday issued a joint communiqué, which didn’t breathe a word about the South China Sea arbitration, or harbor any overt criticism against China. Although the South China Sea issue was mentioned many times in the communiqué, it only gave a general overview of principles that must be stuck to. Most foreign media view the communiqué as a triumph for China’s diplomacy.

On the same day, a joint statement on how to effectively implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was issued.

The two statements reflect the consistent stand of ASEAN. Attempts at pressuring China through the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting have failed.

As the first foreign ministers’ meeting after the so-called South China Sea arbitration award was issued, the US and Japan hoped to use the meeting in Laos to solicit ASEAN’s collective support for the arbitration and impose unprecedented diplomatic pressure on China. But such expectations do not correspond with the realities in East Asia.

Hype was running high among American and Japanese media that only Cambodia was standing in the way of a joint statement that incorporates the South China Sea arbitration, and Laos as the host country didn’t voice any firm opposition.

From another perspective, only the Philippines wanted a joint statement with reference to the arbitration, and Vietnam was not so persistent in its demands. Most ASEAN countries have maintained a neutral attitude. They neither want to see a division within the bloc, nor to be dragged into a conflict with China over arbitration.

Manila compromised this time, giving consent to a communiqué without mention of the arbitration. It showed flexibility compared with 2012, when the 45th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting ended with no joint statement because the Philippines’ propositions over the South China Sea issue were firmly opposed.

It’s in the common interests of China and ASEAN to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. But the US and Japan are willing to see conflicts between China and the Philippines and Vietnam escalate. If the arbitration leads to overall confrontation between ASEAN and China, it will fullfil the desires of the US and Japan.

ASEAN won’t be so silly as to head toward a confrontation with China. We have carried out construction activities on islands and reefs in the South China Sea, but with our utmost efforts to avoid confrontation.

The possibility of a military solution to the South China Sea dispute has become smaller and smaller. The arbitration has brought about new risks. Instead of a clash between China and the Philippines, or China and Vietnam, there are more worries about conflicts being sparked between China and the US.

Under such conditions, it could never be ASEAN’s desire to amplify the negative influences of the arbitration case. Two weeks after the arbitration result was announced, no other countries outside the region but the US, Japan and Australia have voiced support for it. The farce is coming to an end.- Global Times.

Political manipulation behind arbitral tribunal will be revealed

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/tUR7WVsmC7k

Spotlight: Chinese FM calls for end to politicization of South China Sea issue, urges parties to return to negotiations

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday that the political manipulation behind the arbitral tribunal will be revealed, in response to the comments made by some foreign ministers on the South China Sea arbitration case.

Wang expounded on China’s position when attending the 6th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers’ Meeting held in the Lao capital Vientiane.

Wang said China has not participated in the arbitration case and will not accept the so-called ruling, a position that China has made clear since day one and is supported by strong legal basis.

By adopting this position, China is safeguarding the sanctity and impartiality of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), said the Chinese foreign minister.

First, the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government violated the principle of having the consent of concerned parties as the basis of arbitration and failed to meet the prerequisite of conducting full exchange of views beforehand, thus lacking the legal conditions to be initiated.

What the former Philippine government had done also abandoned bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines and violated Article 4 of the Declaration on Conducts of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) as well as the principle of estoppel prescribed in international law, according to Wang.

Second, he said, the subject matters of the arbitration, however packaged, in fact directly concern territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation which are beyond the scope of the UNCLOS and the jurisdiction of the ad hoc tribunal. It is a typical act of overstepping the power and ultra vires as well as the abuse of dispute arbitration mechanism.

Wang said by citing a prominent legal expert from Europe that the arbitration case undoubtedly touches upon territorial sovereignty which is not governed by the UNCLOS. The tribunal’s practice of separating territorial sovereignty dispute with the status of islands and reefs is unseen in international law, which is like “putting the cart before the horse.”

Third, the ruling of the ad hoc tribunal is full of obvious mistakes, Wang said. It blatantly uses its self-invented rules to negate and deprive the lawful and legitimate territorial sovereignty, maritime rights and interests of parties concerned. In particular, it says that Taiping Dao, the largest island in the Nansha Islands with an area of 500,000 square meters, is a rock and has no relevant maritime rights.

If such a judgment can legally stand, the sea map of the world will need to be redrawn, Wang said.

Wang stressed that this ruling runs counter to the spirit of international rule of law as well as the principle and spirit of the UNCLOS.

“This arbitration is imbued with question marks and fallacies in terms of procedure, legal application, fact finding and evidence gathering,” he said.

The so-called ruling is illegal in three aspects: the initiation of the arbitration is illegal, the set-up of the tribunal is illegal, and the result of the arbitration is illegal. Therefore, China’s stance is fully legitimate which serves the purpose of upholding international equity and justice and regional peace and stability, Wang said.

The Chinese foreign minister said more and more countries have come to see the nature and danger of the arbitration case, and understand and acknowledge China’s stance to resolve disputes through direct negotiation and consultation, calling for respect to the rights of sovereign states to independently choose dispute settlement means including respecting the declaration on optional exceptions made under Article 298 of the UNCLOS.

There are also more and more legal experts around the world questioning the legality of the arbitration case and the fairness of the ruling, Wang said, noting that the illegal nature of the so-called South China Sea arbitration case and the political manipulation hidden behind the ad hoc arbitral tribunal will be further revealed. – Global Times

Related: 

JOINT COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE 49th ASEAN FOREIGN MINISTERS’ MEETING VIENTIANE, 24 JULY 2016 “TURNING …

China, US vow to boost trust

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QWWBD8osZKQ

US agrees it’s time to ‘turn the page’ on South China Sea

US Secretary of State John Kerry says in Laos that he will encourage
Manila to pursue dialogue and negotiation with Beijing on the issue.

China-ASEAN exchanges go beyond the arbitration

The communiqué issued after the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in Laos, shows the two sides want to work together for regional stability and prosperity.

 South China Sea arbitration turned a blind eye to UNCLOS, exceeded own competence and exposed tribunal’s ignorance

By now it’s a well-known fact that the South China Sea arbitration was unilaterally initiated by the[Read it]

Related posts

Political manipulation violates combined concept of fairness, justice, rule, trend and direction. Congenial approach: China believes i…
In ignoring the verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following precedents by great powers as no permanent member of the UN Securit…

Asean Foreign Ministers Meeting July 23~26, last …

Jul 16, 2016 The Asean Foreign Minsters Meeting and the Post Ministerial ConferenceLaos
should be given full support in preparing for the meetings.

South Koreans protest US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile deployment


https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/knkmDTsGTYA

  • South Koreans protest US missile deployment
  • People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. More than 2,000 people from Seongju county, where one THAAD battery will be deployed, gathered at a square in Seoul for a rally on Thursday, to protest against the deployment of THAAD. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)


    South Koreans protest US missile deployment

  • South Koreans protest US missile deployment. Thousands of South Koreans from Seongju county gathered in Seoul to protest against the government’s decision to deploy a U.S.-built THAAD missile defense unit in their home town. People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners…

“Stop the deployment! NO THAAD! NO THAAD! NO THAAD!” Protesters said.

“The way that the government made the decision completely on their own, without talking to residents first, is completely wrong. We are here to express the people’s anger living in Seongju,” Protest organiser Seok Hyeon-Cheol said.

“The missile deployment site is right in the middle of a city that has around 20,000 people. I can see it when I open the door of my house, the door of my house! And I can see it from my living room. That is why we strongly oppose the THAAD deployment. We oppose it for our children, and their children — for the future of our county, for our health, and our right to live,” Protester form Seongju County Kim An-Su said.

The protest follows a raucous standoff last week between residents and the country’s prime minister, Hwang Kyo-ahn, who was pelted with eggs and plastic bottles and trapped inside a bus for several hours when he visited the county to explain his decision to deploy the missile system there.

South Korea’s President Park Geun Hye has called for people to support the government’s plans. She said the move was “inevitable” because of a growing threat from the DPRK. South Korea’s defense ministry says the country’s THAAD missile system will become operational before the end of 2017.

A senior official of Seongju county (2nd L, front) attends a rally to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. More than 2,000 people from Seongju county, where one THAAD battery will be deployed, gathered at a square in Seoul for a rally on Thursday, to protest against the deployment of THAAD. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)

People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016.

People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)

People from Seongju county hold banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. More than 2,000 people from Seongju county, where one THAAD battery will be deployed, gathered at a square in Seoul for a rally on Thursday, to protest against the deployment of THAAD. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)

HAAD poses real threat to security of China

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/rhlxr6BRv4E

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched during a successful intercept test, in this undated handout photo provided by the US Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency. [Photo/Agencies]

What has historically been ours is ours. Even if others say it is not. That is why, annoying as it is, the Philippines-initiated South China Sea arbitration is actually not worth the limelight it is being given.

It is time for Beijing to get down to real, serious business. It has bigger issues to attend to, the most imperative of which is the anti-missile system being deployed on its doorsteps. Because, while it was coping with the worthless arbitral award from The Hague, Washington and Seoul finalized their plan for the deployment of the US’ Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system in the Republic of Korea.

The arbitral ruling, which is null and non-executable, will have little effect on China’s interests and security in the South China Sea. But not THAAD, which is a clear, present, substantive threat to China’s security interests.

The installment of the US system in the ROK should be of far greater concern to Beijing, and warrants a far stronger reaction. Or should we say retaliation?

The ROK has legitimate security concerns, especially with Pyongyang constantly threatening nuclear bombing. With that in mind, Beijing has been adamant about de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and worked closely with Seoul and Washington in implementing and upgrading United Nations sanctions, and appealed tirelessly for restarting the Six-Party Talks.

But Seoul has brushed aside Beijing’s security interests while pursuing those of its own.

Washington and Seoul did claim that THAAD would be focused “solely” on nuclear/missile threats from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and would not be directed toward any third-party nation. But THAAD far exceeds such a need. Besides the far more credible threat from Pyongyang’s artillery, short-range and lower-altitude missiles is simply beyond the system’s reach.

While it will deliver a limited security guarantee to the ROK, THAAD’s X-band radar will substantially compromise the security interests of China and Russia, no matter how the United States shrouds its purpose.

Yet having made such a beggar-thy-neighbor choice, Seoul has in effect turned its back on China. By hosting THAAD, it has presented itself as Washington’s cat’s-paw in the latter’s strategic containment of China. All rhetoric about friendship is meaningless lip service with the deployment of THAAD.

Beijing must review and readjust its Korean Peninsula strategies in accordance with the latest threat from the peninsula, including its ROK policies.

That does not mean forsaking its commitment to de-nuclearization, or UN resolutions. But Beijing must concentrate more on safeguarding its own interests, both immediate and long-term.

Source: China Daily Updated: 2016-07-15

China can counter THAAD deployment

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QTVgIJT1DaY

The US and South Korea on Friday announced their decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system on the Korean Peninsula.

Apart from monitoring missiles from North Korea, THAAD could expand South Korea’s surveillance range to China and Russia and pose serious threat to the two countries.

Though South Korea claims it can reduce the surveillance range, the country cannot make the call as the system will be controlled by US forces in South Korea, and such cheap promises mean nothing in international politics.

We recommend China to take the following countermeasures.

China should cut off economic ties with companies involved with the system and ban their products from entering the Chinese market.

It could also implement sanctions on politicians who advocated the deployment, ban their entry into China as well as their family business.

In addition, the Chinese military could come up with a solution that minimizes the threat posed by the system, such as technical disturbances and targeting missiles toward the THAAD system.

Meanwhile, China should also re-evaluate the long-term impact in Northeast Asia of the sanctions on North Korea, concerning the link between the sanctions and the imbalance after the THAAD system is deployed.

China can also consider the possibility of joint actions with Russia with countermeasures.

The deployment of THAAD will surely have a long-term and significant influence. South Korea will be further tied by its alliance with the US and lose more independence in national strategy.

North Korea’s nuclear issue has further complicated the situation on the Korean Peninsula, but the country’s possession of nuclear weapons also results from outside factors.

The biggest problem of the peninsula’s messy situation lies in US’ Cold-War strategy in Northeast Asia, and its mind-set of balancing China in the region. Neither Pyongyang nor Seoul could make their own decisions independently, as the region’s stability and development are highly related to China and the US.

The whole picture of the situation on the Korean Peninsula could not been seen merely from the view of Pyongyang and Seoul. China’s relationship with North Korea has already been affected, and ties with South Korea are unlikely to remain untouched.

China is experiencing the pains of growing up. We have to accept the status quo of “being caught in the middle.”

China should neither be too harsh on itself, nor be self-indulgent. Being true to itself, China will fear no challenges

Source: Global Times Published: 2016-7-9

Dao inhabits people’s hearts: Tribunal’s dangerous precedent in international law !


Political manipulation violates combined concept of fairness, justice, rule, trend and direction.

ON July 12, the award on the South China Sea arbitration came out. This political anti-China farce in the disguise of law, manipulated by the United States, and acted by the former Philippine Government, eventually came to an awful end.

This award caused a storm of questions and negative comments in the international community. A lot of professionals are shocked, not to speak of how ridiculous it is to define Taiping Island as a “reef”.

As Professor Tom Zwart from the Netherlands said, “In the region (East Asia), the award will be widely regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and it will fail, therefore, to garner the necessary support.”

Abraham Sofaer, former legal advisor to the US State Department, also pointed out that the arbitration had brought a lot of difficulties and anxiety, which were not good for any parties.

The US attempted to smear and “isolate” China with the arbitration, but unexpectedly received little response. China’s position of non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration has won more and more support.

Even the Philippine people realised that the arbitration is a total conspiracy of the US for its own agenda. This proves again the age old saying, “a just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause finds little support”.

Dao, a combined concept of fairness, justice, rule, trend and direction, and derived from ancient Chinese philosophy, inhabits people’s hearts. The Dao of the present world lies in peace, development and winwin cooperation, and the Dao of solving international disputes lies in fair, lawful and peaceful solutions. On the premise of peaceful settlement, international law provides the right of every state to choose the means of dispute settlement, which should be based on consent, used in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation.

China persists unswervingly in pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace; advocates the awareness about human common destiny; and opposes the Cold War mindset and zero-sum games, and the bullying of the weak by the strong.

China will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion. With regard to territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China adheres to settlement through amicable consultation and negotiation by directly concerned countries, and does not accept any means of third-party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on it.

The violation of Dao by the US lies in its “imperialist mindset” and pursuit of hegemony. After World War II, the US global strategy has always been seeking the “leadership of the world”.

In 2009, the Obama administration launched the Asia Pacific Rebalance Strategy, and took the South China Sea issue as the pivot to maintain its regional hegemony and achieve strategic containment of China.

It is obvious that during the whole process of the arbitration unilaterally initiated and pushed by the Aquino III administration, the US was deeply involved in every step. Although alleging “neutrality and non-involvement”, the US manipulated behind the scene, and tried to forge a “coalition” to hype up the issue, resulting in rise of tension in the South China Sea.

The US always regards itself as “judge of the world”, but history and reality have repeatedly shown that the US has always adopted double standards. In the eyes of the US, international law is only applicable to other countries rather than itself. It only applies the law when it is consistent with its own interest and resolutely abandons it otherwise.

For instance, while advocating “the rule of law on the sea”, it has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

While insisting that China must accept the arbitration award, it chooses to forget the Nicaragua case in which it not only withdrew from the proceedings and refused to implement the ruling, but also revoked the declaration of accepting the compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. While opposing militarisation in the South China Sea, it has been provocatively dispatching military aircraft and warships into the area, and even deploying aircraft carrier fleets to this region.

More and more countries have found out who is the biggest “trouble-maker” in the world. It is the US intervention that makes the world worse. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all fallen into its trap and are left with mess in the region. As the new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte frankly said, the root of the bloodshed in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries lies in the intervention of the US.

Furthermore, just prior to the arbitration award, the UK Iraq Inquiry published its report, stating that the decision of the US and UK to start the Iraq War was based on “flawed” intelligence. Under such circumstance, who will follow such a “leader of the world”?

The violation of Dao by the former government of the Philippines lies in breaching previous commitment and causing a lot of trouble in the shelter of a superpower.

The Philippines and China had been friendly neighbours over a long history. However, in recent years, the bilateral ties were damaged by the Philippine policy of confrontation, especially the unilateral arbitration claim.

The government of Aquino III willingly acted as the pawn of the US Rebalance Strategy and took the road to confront China. It deliberately provoked the Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) incident, unilaterally initiated and pushed the arbitration, and tried to hijack other Asean countries to smear China and benefit from the unlawful arbitration award. Its intention is vicious, and its action illegal.

First, although fully aware that territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China, the Philippines deliberately packaged the disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS.

Second, the arbitration infringes upon China’s right to choose the procedures and means for dispute settlement. In 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China declared to exclude from the compulsory procedures disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. There are over 30 countries that have made similar declaration.

Third, the unilateral arbitration broke the bilateral agreements reached between China and the Philippines over the years to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation.

Fourth, the arbitration violated the commitment jointly made by China and Asean countries, including the Philippines, in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevant disputes through negotiations by states directly concerned.

The Aquino III administration thought itself clever, but how can it deceive the whole world? As Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said, the arbitration is “the worst political collusion in the framework of international politics”, and “would bring negative impacts to Asean and peace in the region”.

Rod P. Kapunan, Philippine columnist of The Standard newspaper, pointed out that “after six years of hypocrisy and deceit, this shameless stooge (here refers to Aquino III) has brought us right into the doorstep of possible armed conflict with China all because it has chosen to pursue the US-designed policy of inciting hostility with our neighbour”.

Regarding the South China Sea situation, he wrote that “the lives of the Filipinos would be sacrificed to enforce a decision that if examined closely is a US proxy war which the Philippines would serve as cannon fodder in securing its interest in this part of the globe”.

The escalation in the South China Sea will bring enormous risks to the regional and even global security. The Philippines should recognise its mistakes and return to bilateral negotiation with China.

The violation of Dao by the arbitral tribunal lies in political manipulation, unfairness and unlawfulness. The arbitration is completely a political farce under legal pretext. The establishment of this tribunal lacks legitimacy.

The arbitrators it chose lack fairness. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and it evidently expanded, exceeded and abused its power.

The so-called “award” is even ridiculous. Experts pointed out that all the fees of the tribunal, including the huge reimbursement to the arbitrators, are borne by the Philippines alone. This has raised a lot of concerns and problems. People are asking if the Philippines “hired the judges”.

The composition of the tribunal is a result of political manipulation. Japan and Yanai Shunji, then president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, acted as the broker.

The composition of the tribunal is quite weird: four of the five arbitrators are from Europe, the fifth one is a permanent resident in Europe, and all of them lack basic understanding of Asian culture and the South China Sea issue.

One fact could better show the play under the table. When the tribunal was established in April 2013, the first president appointed by Yanai was Chris Pinto, a senior Sri Lankan diplomat. Since Pinto’s wife is Philippine, he especially asked advice from both parties to the dispute and was recognised by the Philippines.

However, when Pinto later hinted that the tribunal might not have jurisdiction over the case, it raised deep concern of the US, Japan and the Philippines. The latter asked Yanai to find somebody to replace Pinto for a so-called “just cause”. In May 2013, Pinto was forced to resign.

The tribunal abused power for its own interest. Many experts of international law believe that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Just as Sofaer said, this arbitration is related to sovereignty disputes. It shouldn’t have been started, especially when a state party has declared in writing that it does not accept compulsory procedures over such disputes as maritime delimitation according to Article 298 of UNCLOS. The tribunal’s ruling “will broadly undermine the potential utility of international adjudication”.

The tribunal disregarded the fact that the essence of the subject matter of the arbitration is the issue of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

It erroneously interprets the common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by China and the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevant commitment in the DOC, deliberately circumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China, selectively takes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of the South China Sea Islands, and subjectively and speculatively interprets and applies UNCLOS.

The conduct of the tribunal and its award seriously contravene the general practice of international arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China’s legitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful. It has set an extremely dangerous precedent in the history of international law.

The professional ethics of the arbitrators are widely criticised. All the Western arbitrators and expert witnesses played a shameful role as though they were chameleons.

They reversed their previous position as stated in published papers and even backtracked from their long-held views to make the case for the Philippines.

Arbitrator Alfred Soons had published his opinion that the status of islands was closely associated with demarcation and sovereignty issues.

However, when the tribunal ruled on jurisdiction and admissibility, he said the tribunal had the right to decide on the Philippines’ submissions concerning legal status and maritime entitlement of certain islands including Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) and Meiji Reef (Mischief Reef ), which was entirely contradictory to his previous viewpoint.

Expert witness Clive Schofield also changed his views at the proceedings. On the same subject, using the same materials, he drew totally different conclusions in and out of the tribunal.

People must be wondering: how could they discard professional ethics to serve the interests of those who pay them?

Facts speak louder than words. The unilateral arbitration initiated by the Aquino III administration violates international law.

The tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. The award of the tribunal is null and void. China’s position is justified and lawful.

It is time to put an end to the arbitration on the South China Sea. Consultation is the right way to settle disputes between states.

China will continue to work together with the Asean countries to implement the DOC comprehensively and effectively, promote the consultation on a code of conduct in the South China Sea, manage and control relevant disputes properly and explore maritime cooperation, in order to build the South China Sea into a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation.

by Huang Huikang The Star Malaysia 20 Jul 2016

The writer is a member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations and the Chinese Ambassador to Malaysia. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

 

Related:

South China Sea arbitration:

Who are the arbitrators?

 https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/j3VsgQQJNZQ

The Xinhua news agency has accused the US government, the Philippines, the arbitration panel and Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe of collusion in the recently concluded South China Sea arbitration case.

Four of the five arbitrators of the temporary tribunal were appointed by Shunji Yanai, the former president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The former Japanese diplomat’s political stance and speeches went against the principles of the independence of the international judiciary. Shunji Yanai served the Japanese Foreign Ministry for 40 years from 1961. He has been involved in controversial issues, including Japan’s 2015 security bill, and the Diaoyu Islands dispute with China. He has a close relationship with Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.

The fairness of the tribunal’s operations was called into question by the personal wishes of Shunji Yanai. The Xinhua news agency commented that it was not surprising that Yanai generally chose arbitrators who were biased against China.

In addition, an American legal team provided help in drafting thousands of pages of legal documents, representing the Philippines presenting arguments to the tribunal. American lawyer Bernard Oxman, who represented the Philippines, had worked with most of the arbitrators and Yanai. He attended the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea as a representative for United States government. Based on the principles of independence of the international judiciary, the impartiality of a judge can be questioned if there are any links to a party involved in a case. Despite that, Oxman was still involved.

There is no doubt the close relationship between Oxman and US government, the Philippines government, arbitrators, Yanai and Abe. These links form a complex network of special political interests. The Xinhua news agency says they took advantage of legal platform and after three years they issued their pre-arranged ruling and finished their political farce.

Telegraph.co.uk – 

The so-called award made by the South China Sea arbitral tribunal attracted wide attention.

 

Related posts:

PLA Air Force conducts combat air patrol in South China SeaUndated photo shows a Chinese H-6K bomber patrolling islands and reefs including Huangyan Dao in the South China Sea. The People’s Li…
In ignoring the verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following precedents by great powers as no permanent member of the UN Securit…
China issues white paper on settling disputes with Philippines in South China Sea China is committed to upholding
Permanent Court of Arbitration clarifies role in South China Sea case THE HAGUE, July 16 (Xinhua) — The Permanent Court of Arbitration …
国际法院(ICJ)在此希望媒体和公众注意,南海仲裁案(菲律宾共和国与中华人民共和国)裁决结果由常设仲裁法院(PCA)提供秘书服务下的一个特别仲裁庭做出。相关信息请访问PCA网站( www.pca-cpa.org )。国际法院作为完全不同的另一机构,至始至终未曾参与该案…

 

Dialogue 07/10/2016 Differing views on South China Sea   China enhances maritime law enforcement China established Sansha City
four…

Notorious Philippines’s Abu Sayyaf & Law-abusing tribunal on South China Sea

Foreign captives: A file picture showing hostages Hall (right) and Sekkingstad in the southern Philippines. — Reuters Abu Sayyaf Milita…

“Who is the real saboteur of international law?” the editorial outlined the history and legal basis involved in the issue. The award of …
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,249 other followers

%d bloggers like this: