From the FB pages of:
Khai Beng Tan
dosteoprnS3ml030ai88mc3495at315ahl1um19tm0luacfciu95l9ul2346 ·
After World War II, the Spratly Islands were noted by the British High Commission of Singapore as territory that was returned to China. In 1971, the following statement was made: “Spratly Island was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province…and was returned to China after the war. We cannot find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China. (Far Eastern Economic Review, December 31, 1974).”
It should be noted that this was outside of any major conflict in the modern period in the South China Sea (1930–1945, 1945–1956, 1974), and made after an exhaustive study was concluded by the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It can therefore can be considered a reasoned statement of recognition made by a knowing and authoritative governmental source who was based in the Southeast Asian before and during World War II.
The consistent nature of other statements made by Britain France and Japan suggest that these nations have historically taken the same position as China, and made public statements to that effect.
For example, France occupied the Paracel Islands in the 1930s during the war between China and Japan. The occupation took place over a year after France had refused to abolish its extraterritorial rights in China, which had been held since 1844. The first official announcement concerning the seizure of the Paracel Islands was made by M. Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister at the Quay d’Orsay, stating that the islands were now occupied by two detachments of Annamite gendarmes from Vietnam in 1938. Amid the Sino-Japanese conflict, the Quai d’Orsay took the opportunity to note that “the islands have been visited by Chinese fishermen for generations” (North China Herald, July 4, 1938, June 6, 1934).
Meanwhile, the Chinese Ambassador Wellington Koo informed M. Bonnet that China continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, and Japanese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Horinouchi also made official representations “regarding the French occupation of the Paracel Islands’ (Japan Times & Mail, July 6, 1938; Portsmouth Evening News, July 7, 1938; emphasis added).
Greedy CCP ass-holes.
ReplyDeleteEverything want to Gasak
Yaloh, even yr illgotten family heirloom, for communal distribution
DeleteUNCLOS ruling Trumps All. Case Closed.
ReplyDeletePhilippines signed UNCLOS on December 10, 1982, and ratified it on May 8, 1984.
China signed UNCLOS on December 10, 1982, and ratified it on June 7, 1996.
The so called "court" was illegally and not judicially constituted and not recognised by UN, so what ruling you are talking about?
DeleteFurther US has not signed the UNCLOS thus a non member and not a party in the dispute, so who are they to meddle in the matter?
You guys just keep propagating fake accusations and demonising your own race, what a shame. You can have switch Loyalty to your residential country or dream home country, falsely and demonisingly bad mouthing your ancester race is betrayal to your grandfather!
DeleteMy ancestors race is NOT the CCP.
DeleteThe CCP is just an evil political party.
The 2016 South China Sea judgment was decided by an ad hoc arbitral tribunal constituted specifically for this dispute under Annex VII of UNCLOS.
DeleteThe ruling is legally binding under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
CCP is a party, NEVER a race. One either be a member or not. Remember that to yr grave, mfer!
DeleteDo show concrete proof that that 2016 South China Sea judgment was decided by an ad hoc arbitral tribunal constituted specifically & legally for this dispute under Annex VII of UNCLOS.
Besides, The tribunal had considered the issues related to the maritime areas in South China Sea. It declared its position on the award that:
"Nothing in this Award should be understood to comment in any way on China’s historic claim to the islands of the South China Sea."
Its position reaffirms that the tribunal's rulings do not apply to China's territorial sovereignty claims over the islands and maritime features in South China Sea, and the award would not make any implication in China's sovereignty claims.
The government of China as controlled by the CPC is supported and loved by more than 90% of the China mainland 1.4 billion population. You are insulting this more than 90% Chinese by demonising Chinese government
DeleteBeijing asserts that the ruling, which it refers to as an "award," is illegal, null, void, and non-binding .
DeleteViolation of State Consent and Prior Agreements
A core principle of international dispute resolution is that a state must consent to arbitration. China argues that the Philippines violated this principle in multiple ways:
Lack of Prior Consultations: The Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration without the necessary precondition of a thorough exchange of views with China to settle the dispute through dialogue .
Breach of Bilateral Agreements: China and the Philippines had repeatedly committed, in joint statements from 1995 to 2011 and in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) , to resolve their disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations between directly concerned states. By unilaterally filing for arbitration, China contends that the Philippines breached these agreements and the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) .
Disputes Excluded from UNCLOS Compulsory Procedures
China's primary legal argument is that the subject matter of the arbitration falls outside the jurisdiction of UNCLOS's compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms. The argument rests on two main pillars:
Sovereignty Questions are Beyond UNCLOS: The arbitration essentially concerns territorial sovereignty over maritime features in the South China Sea. China maintains that questions of land territory are not governed by UNCLOS but by customary international law, and therefore cannot be subject to arbitration under the Convention .
2006 Declaration Under Article 298: In 2006, China made a declaration pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, which allows states to exclude specific categories of disputes from compulsory arbitration. China's declaration explicitly excludes disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic titles, or military activities. China argues that the Philippines' claims are intrinsically linked to these excluded issues, particularly maritime delimitation and historic rights .
Tribunal Overreach and a "Flawed" Ruling
China further argues that the arbitral tribunal itself acted improperly, exceeding its mandate and issuing a ruling with serious errors:
Ultra Vires (Beyond Legal Power): By ruling on matters that China had explicitly excluded, the tribunal exercised jurisdiction ultra vires (beyond its legal authority). China views this as an abuse of power that undermines the integrity of UNCLOS .
Errors in Fact and Law: China points to specific findings in the ruling as evidence of its flawed nature. A key example is the tribunal's classification of Taiping Island (Itu Aba Island) —the largest natural feature in the Spratly Islands (Nansha Qundao) with an area of over 500,000 square meters—as a "rock" under Article 121(3) of UNCLOS. This classification means the island is not entitled to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf. China argues this decision contradicts both the geographical facts and the provisions of UNCLOS .
Beyond the strictly legal arguments, the entire arbitration was a political provocation rather than a genuine legal exercise. It views the case as being orchestrated and manipulated by "forces outside the region"—a clear reference to the United States and its allies—with the aim of undermining China's legitimate rights, destabilizing the South China Sea, and containing China's rise . From this perspective, the ruling is seen as a tool of "legal colonialism" that attempts to impose a Western-centric legal framework while disregarding the region's long and continuous history .
In summary, the tribunal had no jurisdiction, the process violated foundational international legal principles, and the resulting award is substantively flawed and politically motivated. Consequently, China maintains that its sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, which it asserts were established through history, remain unaffected by what it deems an illegal and null ruling
This is exactly why we keep warning about Chinese Aggression at sea. When vessels linked to the CCP can threaten cables, fisheries, and shipping lanes, it’s not just Taiwan it’s the whole region, including the West Philippine Sea.
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/talk369/status/2025943307407528381?s=20
so, mfer, how many undersea cables had been cut by Chinese vessels?
DeleteHow many fisheries kaput-ed by the Chinese vessels?
Shipping lane?
Ain't yr yankee doodle sailing their military fleets like nobody care? How many cargo ships have been hassled & prevented to use SCS?
Lagi Bulli..
ReplyDeleteOrganized violence in the #YellowSea.
Chinese fishermen formed a "Giant Fleet" to resist the South Korean Coast Guard, which asked the Chinese to leave lawful Korean waters. Chinese ships were shielded with nets, yet they used metal rods & axes on South Korean Coast Guards.
https://x.com/NguyenThih36/status/2025913592324010063?s=20
mfer, that maritime territory is under disputed & claimed by both China & SKorea.
DeleteIn the past, many fishing boats crossed the overlapped boundary line w/o issues.
Troubles began when the SKorea Coast Guards started to play taught & aggressively chasing & hassling Chinese fishing boats in the disputed area.
Mfer, know-nothing fart of lawful Korean water, as defined by u!