You are on page 1of 173

3.

Who will most benefit if the Sabah claim is successfully negotiated between t
he Philippines and Malaysia?
Ah Ee Tan
2 months ago
I read through the comments and found reasonable facts are mentioned... like 300
year old map by Phillippine where China southern most land is Hainan, like Chin
a historical maps dating thousand years ago, like 9, dash lines drawn during Cai
ro declaration and Postdam treaty in the presence of US, Britain, France, Russia
and China....where US ships even sail around those islands helping China to cla
im them back from Japan after the world war II. Let us see How UNCLOS judges thi
s case...is it under its jurisdition? I also wander how the Judges can make deci
sion without those DOCUMENTs of WWII Postdam treaty, Cairo decraration, Japan/Ta
iwan treaty.
Never the less, China's peaful rising has benefitted most of the South China Sea
neighbouring smaller countries.
JB Ah Ee Tan 2 months ago
They are not making a judgment on that and the Philippines did not asked them to
. Because that is outside the authority of UNCLOS. The case is simple does UNCLO
S apply here and if it does what are the rights the features have under UNCLOS.
That is it no judgement on who owns what. The case is relative simple and still
profound lets see what happens
Ah Ee Tan Ah Ee Tan
2 months ago
Typo mistake " Peaceful" NOT" PEAFUL". One million apologies!
makeehsig 2 months ago
Here are "some" of the evidence of the Philippines to back up its claim. You can
also find it in the internet.
> 1636 China Veteribus Sinarum Regio Nunc Inculis Tame Dicta.
> 1662 Tabulae Indiae Orientalis
> 1744 Carta Hydrographica y Chrographica de las Yslas Filipinas
> 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino
> 1940 Philipine Islands
all these maps consistently show, from 1636 to 1940, that the disputed territori
es in the SCS are part of the Philippines. That's a period of 304 years.
Since the Song dynasty until 1946, China's official maps, its republican constit
utions, & its official statement declared to the world (1932 Note Verbale, Franc
e) has always been Hainan island as the southernmost territory. (Carpio2014)
justice_first makeehsig
2 months ago
Both the US and Spain, the previous colonial powers of the Philippines does not
recognize the SCS islands and features were part of the Philippine Islands. It w
as in 1946 that Philippines became a sovereign nation, gaining independence from
its colonial masters. It is strange for some one to say the islands and feature
s "belonged" to the Philippines before its independence.
What kind of logic is that ?
makeehsig justice_first 2 months ago
China was not even a country until the early 20th century, either. the Republic
of China was established in 1911, and the People's Republic of China 1949 right
after the Chinese civil war. Having said this, the Philippines is older than Chi
na. The remnants of the Imperial China is in Taiwan
the rightful inheritor of
the mainland. Add to that the long history of being slaves to its Mongolian Over
lords, British Masters and Japanese Emperor. - Arcane2015
can your logic accept this?
justice_first makeehsig 2 months ago
China, as an enduring empire, has written history for a long long time. The most
well known recent periods could be the Ming and Qing Dynasties, going back to t
he 1400's. The empire became a republic in 1911 under ROC, then in 1972, the PRC
took the seat of ROC at the UN. It is a long history. There is no remnants of I

mperial China in Taiwan. The status of Taiwan is clear, it is a province of Chin


a where the defeated Kumintang government resides.
makeehsig justice_first
2 months ago
did the Taiwanese agree that they are considered as just a province of china & n
ot an independent nation? "Two china, one country policy?" it s a no, right? Tai
wan rejected them.
"Your communist china has this delusion that it inherits all of Taiwan's territo
ries after the civil
war -- IT DIDN'T. Taiwan was not really defeated by your army. It merely drove t
hem out of mainland China. And right now, the Republic of China is still alive a
nd kicking in Taiwan under the protective wings of the mighty Americans."
Arcane
justice_first makeehsig 2 months ago
you still think the American is mighty? OK, you may still get to keep your illus
ion.
But, Taiwan has never declared independence from the mainland. Show me the proof
if they have done so.
It is not two China, one country, it is One China, two systems. This is clear ev
idence that you don't really know what you are talking about. You are just a con
fused mind.
makeehsig justice_first 2 months ago
yikes! okay. my bad. One china, two systems. of course, i still think the Americ
ans are mighty. you know why? they have allies. JAPAN, the UK, New Zealand, Aust
ralia, Canada, maybe India & the Philippines. china has what?
of course, Taiwan will never declare it. there are about 5,000 chinese missiles
are aimed at it by the communists. maybe dong fengs. In fact, they're very conce
rned of the growing military power of her communist neighbor. In short, all the
more reason to strengthen ties with the mighty Americans & the Japanese. And the
US is being clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the Spratlys are a disputed
region that must be resolved through the UN, and any unilateral declaration of
its ownership or to change the status quo will not be recognized. Arcane2015.
San Andreas justice_first 2 months ago
Those are not islands, those are reefs and rocks. They are part of the Philippin
e's Exclusive Economic Zone as agreed by China when it signed UNCLOS. The 9-dash
line claim was only invented by China after its failed empire was released by i
ts British and Japanese colonial Masters at the end of the World War II.
Communist China claims reefs as far as Indonesia without any proven evidence, wh
at kind of logic is that?
justice_first San Andreas 2 months ago
China, now represented by the PR of China in the UN, has historic proof that it
already owned those land features, whether they be islands, rocks, or reefs in t
he SCS. Actually the US was involved helping China, the Republic of China, to re
possess those features after the WW2 from the Japanese. It is therefore clear fr
om historic records, China owns those land features in SCS. You may like to dig
deeper into the history before 1946. As I said, Philippines did not become a sov
ereign country until independence in 1946.
makeehsig justice_first 2 months ago
Taiwan & china are not the same. don't confuse yourself. if history is to be tal
ked about, then your communist fetus eating china is out of it. the PRC only gai
ned power in 1949. The Koumintangs are in Taiwan. They are the legitimate rulers
of china. ergo, you, mao zedong, & that eunuch xi jinping are excluded.1
justice_first makeehsig 2 months ago
It is not for you to say who is the legitimate ruler of China. Only the Chinese
people can decide on this question, and most of them are living in mainland Chin
a. Even the mainland and Taiwan agrees that there is one China.

makeehsig justice_first
2 months ago
& neither do you. why don't you read all the comments here? way down below "Arca
ne" has answered all the possible queries in this issue. no need for me to repea
t.
San Andreas justice_first 2 months ago
"Historic proof" that your Communist government in China still hasnt proven unti
l this very day. You cant even determine where the 9-dash line boundaries are. L
OL. Are you guys still waiting for Chiang Kai Shek to do the job for Mao? Commun
ist China only became a despotic soverign country after 1949. Try again ;)
justice_first San Andreas 2 months ago
The PR of China, which we call China, is the legitimate sovereign representing C
hina in the UN. The nine dash lines are a set of symbols on Chinese maps. They a
re clearly not maritime delimitation. They do not have geographic coordinates, b
ecause they are symbols only. By using these lines, China is claiming all the la
nd features, including rocks, inside the lines. This is the so called historic t
itle. China is not claiming all the sea inside the lines contrary to common misc
onception.
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice_first wrote ,"The PR of China, which we call China, is the legitimate so
vereign representing China in the UN."
LOL. That's not what Taiwan says. Taiwan says that the Republic of China is the
SOLE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF ALL CHINA and the one currently in mainland is an
illegal, thieving, deceptive government.
justice_first wrote ," The nine dash lines are a set of symbols on Chinese maps.
They are clearly not maritime delimitation. They do not have geographic coordin
ates, because they are symbols only. By using these lines, China is claiming all
the land features, including rocks, inside the lines. This is the so called his
toric title."
LMAO. Historic title??? Just where the h3ll did you get that cr4p? According to
international laws, to claim an island based on history, there has to be an effe
ctive occupation and administration or sovereignty by one's government in the pa
st. In other words, the island must be claimed and administered by your ancient
government. One has to provide a solid, undeniable proof of past settlements and
administration by one's government like in the case of the British Falklands! C
hina has NO SUCH EVIDENCE to back its historical claim.
Now, to demonstrate that this is INDEED the case, I CHALLENGE you to name the Ch
inese emperor who claimed the entire South China Sea and took effective control
of that water, its islands and reefs. Can you name him??? LMAO!
I also CHALLENGE you to find the Spratleys in any of those ancient Chinese terri
torial maps created thousands of years ago. Because if China really owns the sov
ereignty rights of the entire South China Sea for thousands or milennium of year
s as your government claims, then why doesn't your ancient territorial maps show
this??? Why go all the trouble drawing all those Chinese lands, boundaries, riv
ers and waters in intricate detail and yet stop at Hainan island???
Ancient visits to places for trading, fishing and scientific purposes -- anythin
g other than to establish colonies and control -- DOES NOT constitute an effecti
ve occupation by a state that is recognized by international laws as a basis for
historical claim. Even ancient records of fishermen staying on an island for a
time doesn't count. Those private fishermen didn't claim the islands for their e
mperor for Pete's sake. So, even if your communist government has records of suc
h travels, they're not going to fly in the international arena. Do you know why?
Because if we are to accept that communist bullcr4p, then everybody owns the so
vereignty rights of everything because many countries have records of their anci
ent people's travels around the world! Italy should then own China and Mongolia
because they have historical records (documents and maps) of Marco Polo's ancien
t travels to China and Mongolia from Venice! Iran should also claim Egypt, Syria
, Iraq, Israel, Palestine and all the countries in Western and Central Asia beca
use they've been once part of the Persian Empire. At least, Iran took effective

control of those places and established colonies. Your ancient people DID NOT. A
nd what about India? Ancient India had traveled through the South China Sea, rea
ching the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and what have you. Should Ind
ia claim the South China Sea and these countries as well? LOL.
Second, China, as a country, DID NOT EVEN EXIST thousands of years ago. As I've
been saying many times over, your China, as a country, was established in the 20
th century! In fact, your ancient people didn't have the concept of a country un
til that time. They believed that the entire world belonged to their Emperors -the Sons of Heaven. That their emperors were the legitimate Supreme rulers of t
he world. So China's sovereignty was not even established or questionable prior
to 1911 when ROC was born. That's why when it lodged a protest against Germany f
or surveying the Paracel and Spratley islands in 1883, it had NO LEGAL STANDING!
Third, your government used military force in taking control of the Paracel and
Spratley islands like when your navy massacred 64 unarmed Vietnamese sailors on
Johnson South Reef in 1988 (i.e. Paracel and Spratleys). This is a grave violati
on of international laws, particularly the Declaration on Principles of Internat
ional Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accorda
nce with the Charter of the United Nations, which clearly states that, " The terri
tory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from th
e use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory
of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting fro
m the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the thre
at or use of force shall be recognized as legal.
So, if you are smarter than a 3 year old, Justice, then you know that all the is
lands that have been forcibly acquired by your communist China like those in the
Paracels and Spratleys are ALL ACQUIRED ILLEGALLY and are NOT RECOGNIZED by any
UN member state.
Fourth, China cannot claim sovereignty over shoals and rocks like those it acqui
red in the Spratleys. Shoals and rocks are NOT subject to sovereignty claims acc
ording to international laws! LMAO.
And as if the grave violations aren't enough, your d-mn communist government bui
lt artificial islands on these shoals and rocks! That is ALSO A VIOLATION of int
ernational laws as you are not allowed to do so beyond your 200 mile EEZ!
Your government has been violating the international laws left and right, and he
re you are defending your thieving government. Shame on you.
justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
we really don't have to go back thousands of years. It was after the Second Worl
d war ( after 1945) that the UN designated China (ROC) to repossess the islands
and features from the Japanese, with American assistance. The relation between T
aiwan (called ROC) and PRC is strictly an internal matter of China, because ther
e is only one China. I am not trying to defend China's claim which will ultimate
ly be negotiated with the Philippines and other claimants.
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice_first wrote, "we really don't have to go back thousands of years."
Well, then communist China shouldn't be making historical claim with its 9-dashline because it clearly has no solid historical evidence to back it up. Last tim
e I read, they said something about shaming their ancestors if they give up thei
r historical claims (LOL) when, in reality, their ancestors had neither administ
ered nor took effective control of the Spratleys or much of the South China Sea
in the past. They traveled there, yeah? But so did other ancient people in the w
orld.
And another thing to note is that Communist China has no business in using the C
airo Declaration in staking its territorial claims because China is neither a pa
rty nor mentioned in that treaty. You say that there is only one China? There's
one China the continent, but there are two Chinese governments. One is democrati
c and the other is a communist. And the Cairo Declaration specifically mentioned
the ROC -- not the communist one. So, the PRC is basically making fraudulent cl
aims and lying about its history.

justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
you have not read correctly, or understood my comment on what happened after WW2
, after 1945. China resumed sovereignty over the SCS islands, and the nine dash
lines were drawn in 1947 to mark the fact of Chinese sovereignty. Chinese sovere
ignty was based on historic titles as claimed by China. That is in fact their cl
aim. It is up to the Philippines to prove otherwise.
Within a country, there could be many governments. This is common sense.
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice_first wrote, "China resumed sovereignty over the SCS islands"
That's what China wants to believe. But that's not really the case. China hasn't
really defeated the ROC. It only drove it out from mainland China. The ROC is s
till alive and kicking in Taiwan under US protection.
justice_first wrote "and the nine dash lines were drawn in 1947 to mark the fact
of Chinese sovereignty."
Again, the PRC has no business with the 9-dash-line. This is Taiwan's. And Taiwa
n has not been aggressively pursuing this claim because it doesn't really jive w
ith the established international laws and the fact that its close ally -- the U
S -- has made it clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the Spratleys is a disp
uted region that must be resolved through the UN. And any unilateral declaration
or attempt to change the status quo will not be recognized..
justice_first wrote ,"Chinese sovereignty was based on historic titles as claime
d by China."
When you're making a claim based on "historic titles" you have to prove your his
tory, okay? And China does NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys. As I'd been saying
over and over, there were no ancient Chinese colonies in those islands, most es
pecially on those reefs (LOL). No ancient Chinese structures or outposts. No mar
kers that suggest that they were claimed by some Chinese emperors a long time ag
o. So, what solid evidence can your China provide to the international community
to back its historical claim? Answer: NOTHING. So, why is China making a histor
ical claim when it DOES NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys?
justice_first wrote ,"That is in fact their claim. It is up to the Philippines t
o prove otherwise."
The burden of proof lies on China. China has to prove its historical claim. You
can't just draw 11, 10, or 9 dashes on a map and say all the islands, reefs, sho
als and waters within those lines are yours based on non-existent history. Did C
hina effectively control or administer the entire South China Sea in ancient pas
t to make such bold claim? Of course, not. In fact, all of your ancient Chinese
maps corroborate the fact that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China for
over millenium of years. It doesn't go beyond that.
Also, do you even know the exact coordinates and size of your 9-dash-line, justi
ce, because your government doesn't know? How can you claim a territory without
knowing its size? You can't even do that to a mere residential land property. So
why is your government take the world for a fool? The 9-dash-line is already a
violation of international laws.
justice_first wrote ,"Within a country, there could be many governments. This is
common sense."
Oh, please don't take me for a fool. Where can you find a country with two presi
dents and two different opposing governments? One is a communist and the other i
s a democracy? Didn't I just tell you that Taiwan claims to be the sole legitima
te government of all China and the one in mainland is an ILLEGAL government??? L
MAO.
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
you constantly like to bring out the legitimacy of the Taiwan government as the
legitimate government of all China. This might be Taiwan's claim, but the Chines
e people don't think so. PRC is in the UN representing the Chinese people, and t
his is a fact. By taking up the seat of China, the PRC has inherited the rights
and power of a sovereign state: China, including the nine dash lines. The reason
why Taiwan, though occupying the largest island in the SCS, is not doing much t

o claim the islands and reefs, is because it is too weak to do so. Yet it is cla
iming as much as the PRC in terms of scope and substance. Why? It is because of
historic title, because they share the same history, being the same country. You
will not succeed in splitting them apart, because it is impossible to separate
Taiwan from the Mainland by way of independence, not even if the US want to. By
the way, Taiwan has declared no independence as being practical. Time is on the
side of all Chinese to solve this issue involving Taiwan, and will not be such a
big deal after all. What China and the Philippines should do now is to choose t
he wise way, the right way of building a better and more mutually beneficial rel
ation, in this century, in trades and investments, not in war. Only negotiation
can solve the dispute. War is far far too expensive for the Philippines. The US
will only push the Philippines to economic disaster, without helping the Philipp
ines economically. Whats the use of bullets if you have no food.
Arcane justice_first
2 months ago
justice wrote ,"you constantly like to bring out the legitimacy of the Taiwan go
vernment as the legitimate government of all China."
Let me remind you that the Republic of China was a sovereign and independent nat
ion when your communist party took its mainland home by force. And it is STILL a
SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT nation that is now running its government in Tapei. A
s I said, your PRC has not defeated the ROC. It only drove it out from the mainl
and. The Taiwanese are a resilient people whose government is quite capable of r
unning and defending their new home as they have demonstrated for many years.
So, again, Taiwan is an INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION. It has its own government.
Its own military. Its own economic policy, foreign policy and what have you. It
does not rely on or need China to run its country.
justice wrote ,"By taking up the seat of China, the PRC has inherited the rights
and power of a sovereign state: China, including the nine dash lines."
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a long time. Really. The UN
is just an organization made up of many countries that tackles diplomacy and var
ious issues in the world. Just because a country isn't a member or has been remo
ved from its UN membership doesn't make that country less of a sovereign nation.
Kosovo is not a UN member, but does that make that country incapable of exercis
ing its sovereignty and rights, Justice? Ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the laugh th
ere. You're funny.
China never did inherit the 9-dash-line. But since you insist, tell me which spe
cific UN resolution that states that your communist government has been given th
e full rights to the 9-dash-line claim and or the Cairo Declaration? If you can'
t even tell me this, don't even bother to bring it up again. Don't push it becau
se I will ask you the same question to back your statement and I know you can't
give me an answer, so it'll only make you a clown in this argument.
justice wrote"What China and the Philippines should do now is to choose the wise
way... Only negotiation can solve the dispute."
We tried this. Bilateral talks with your country didn't work. In fact, your gove
rnment violated its bilateral agreement by taking Mischief Reef, Scarborough Sho
al and other shoals/reefs. And our government's diplomatic protests didn't help
to stop the violations. This was the reason why the Philippines sought UN arbitr
ation in the first place because China's "bilateral talk" was PURE BULLSH-T.
justice wrote,"War is far far too expensive for the Philippines. The US will onl
y push the Philippines to economic disaster, without helping the Philippines eco
nomically. Whats the use of bullets if you have no food."
The US has nothing to do with this mess. This is China's creation. The US has be
en very clear from the get-go. It doesn't take sides, but it wants parties to re
solve the issue through international laws and not by force. It also has interes
t in the freedom of navigation in that region.
The only time the US will get involved is when the Philippines is attacked by a
hostile nation. As you know, the Philippines is not only the oldest and closest
US ally in Asia, it's also a former US colony. And because of our Mutual Defense
Treaty, an attack on the Philippines is tantamount to an attack on the US and v
ice-versa. So, it would be unwise for any state to attack a friendly small count

ry as my Philippines.
*
*
* Reply
justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
you really sound like you don't understand much. Under international law, Taiwan
cannot declare itself an independent sovereign nation. Taiwan never did. Do you
know why? A government cannot legitimately declare itself the ruler of a sovere
ign nation (China) when it has lost almost 99.9% of its territories. The Kuminta
ng government fled to Taiwan in 1949 but maintains it is the ruler of all China.
You may visit the constitution of Taiwan. This is of course illegal under inter
national law.
Another major point is international recognition. The overwhelming majority of t
he world's nations, in the UN, recognize the PRC as the legitimate government of
all China. If I cannot convince you of anything meaningful, so be it. You have
your own way of imagining things.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
The Chinese people is one and only people, and the Chinese sovereignty is one an
d only sovereignty for the governments. Taiwan is pure internal matters of China
, just like the Philippines and the Moro of Southern Philippines. It is internal
matter. Even if the ROC ( we call Taiwan ) is claiming to be the government of
all China, of all Chinese people, the Chinese people, as a whole, is the same pe
ople for both the mainland and Taiwan. This is why Taiwan is still a special dis
trict of China. Do the math yourself. As for the US, it is not protecting Taiwan
at all because Taiwan has no diplomatic relation with the US. Taiwan has no def
ense treaty with the US. Under the UN convention and international law, it is il
legal for the US to interfere, or intervene with Chinese internal matters. This
is called sovereignty in the UN Charter.
In 1972, the PRC became the ONLY legitimate government of all China, taking the
seat of the ROC.
China apparently has much more historic title, and proofs, than the Philippines,
and this is why the two countries must sit down and negotiate a way out. Going
to UNCLOS is a total waste of time because entitlement cannot solve the issue of
sovereignty.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Arcane justice_first
2 months ago
justice wrote, "The Chinese people is one and only people, and the Chinese sover
eignty is one and only sovereignty for the governments."
This is like saying that there's only one American country and the Brazilians, P
uerto Ricans, Canadians, Mexicans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Chileans, and Venezu
elans are "one people" and the American sovereignty "is one and only sovereignty
for their governments." They're all Americans, by the way, if you don't know th
at. They're all from the American continent. In fact, their people share some hi
story and even related in some cases.
But guess what??? America is comprised of many countries, each with its own pres
ident, who heads his own government that exercises sovereignty over its nation.
We could say the same thing about South and North Korea. Are you telling us now
that there's only one Korean country? Only one Korean sovereignty for both gover
nments, right? That's essentially what you're saying here and it shows complete
ignorance on your part.
Sure, the two Korean people share the same ancestry and history, but their prese
nt governments and ideologies are not the same. You cannot mix socialist ideolog
ies with those of a democratic country's. The two are at the extreme opposite en
ds of each other. And that's the same situation with China and Taiwan.
As a side note, Korea used to be one sovereign nation until your communist gover
nment came and sowed chaos and division among the Korean people. Now, look what
happened? North Korea is now being headed by a communist dictator who's both a m
enace to his own people and the world and making irrational threats of war and d
estruction from time to time. But his attitude isn't that surprising because tha
t's exactly the behavior of your great communist leader, Mao Zedong. Yeah. Remem
ber him? The man responsible for beating, starving to death and murdering 45 mil
lion of his own people in the span of 4 years??
FOUR FREAKIN' YEARS. 45 MILLION PEOPLE DEAD!
He wasn't called the GREATEST MASS MURDERER IN HUMAN HISTORY for nothing, Justic
e. And as if the murders weren't enough, your government boasted killing 300 mil
lion babies through force abortion with its Once Child Policy. And that's accord
ing to your own Ministry of Health. I could only imagine the pain and suffering
that each mother and family have to go through after the horrible ordeal. In fac
t, many Chinese families fled to other countries because of this. Some were forc
ed to hide their extra children from the authorities or sell them. You have a he
artless government.
justice wrote, "China apparently has much more historic title, and proofs, than
the Philippines, and this is why the two countries must sit down and negotiate a
way out."
Again and again, how many times does one have to tell you that when you are clai
ming "historic titles," you NEED TO HAVE HISTORY? What history does China have o
ver the Spratleys? Can you tell us? You seem so sure about this when your commun
ist government can't even provide a single solid evidence of its history in the
Spratley archipelago. So, why don't you enlighten us about your history?
The 9-dash-line was only created in the 1940s. So, clearly there's no historical
basis behind it despite the claim. Again, if you insist that China has historic
al rights over the Spratleys, then I challenge you to tell us its history.
justice wrote, "Going to UNCLOS is a total waste of time because entitlement can
not solve the issue of sovereignty."
Who are you to say that it's a waste of time? The Philippines would have been ve
ry happy to take on China on the issue of sovereignty, but since the tribunal ha
s no jurisdiction to judge over it, it adjusted its argument to entitlements. Ma
ritime entitlements are very well covered by the UNCLOS.
Scarborough Shoals are just freakin' rocks that your communist party seized by f
orce, and by international laws, rocks are not subject to sovereignty claims and
are only entitled to 12 nm of water. Beyond that is Philippine water because th
ose rocks are within the Philippine's EEZ.
Mischief and McKennan reefs are permanently submerged under water. And again, by
international laws, they're not subject to sovereignty claims and they don't ha

ve any maritime entitlements! Yet greedy China took them by force and built inst
allations over them!
How nice of your government to be violating the international laws governing lan
d and sea, justifying it with a historical bullcr4p that it could not even prove
and basing its claim from a 9-dash-line map that it didn't make or own in the f
irst place! It's crazy.
justice wrote "As for the US, it is not protecting Taiwan at all because Taiwan
has no diplomatic relation with the US. Taiwan has no defense treaty with the US
."
No diplomatic relations? Wrong.The US - as with other nations - has maintained a
diplomatic relation with Taiwan. Although unofficial, it's a diplomatic relatio
n nonetheless!
No defense treaty? LOL. You're referring to the past in 1954 when the US termina
ted its defense treaty with the ROC. But under former Pres. Reagan, the US maint
ains its security obligation for Taiwan and has since been providing military as
sets, training and services for Taiwan's defense under the 1979 Taiwan Relations
Act and the Six Assurances. Just a quick look at the military hardware and vehi
cles of Taiwan will tell you that they're mostly US-made.
Taiwan is one of the key strategic US allies in Asia and plays a critical piece
in preventing the spread of communism in Asia-Pacific, and so it is worthy of pr
otection and MUST BE DEFENDED.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
China's historic title claim is already very clear. You may get much more inform
ation from Chinese official websites. You may search the web and know the basis
of the claim, even if you disagree. China has a long written history, and its ad
ministration in the SCS can be traced back centuries. Lets see what the Philippi
nes can produce as its historic title, perhaps none. I don't remember Philippine
s ever claiming historic title, only territorial EEZ.
From US move to get closer to Vietnam, a communist dictatorship, we know how ver
y desperate the US has become. I believe it is right for the Philippines to rees
tablish a stronger relation with China, on trade and investment, rather than goi
ng back to its colonial past, relying on a frightened America, who seems to have
lost its own direction in the world.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first

2 months ago

justice wrote, "China's historic title claim is already very clear. You may get
much more information from Chinese official websites. You may search the web and
know the basis of the claim, even if you disagree. China has a long written his
tory, and its administration in the SCS can be traced back centuries."
I've read your government's historical justification behind its 9-dash-line clai
m. And none of its explanations or assertions can be used as a legitimate "histo
rical claim" under international laws. We're going to go over each of those asse
rtions later.
Also, China hasn't explained what those 9 dashes mean. We don't know if they are
a) national boundaries or b) maritime boundaries. But in any case, the 9-dash-l
ines violate the established international laws because, for one, it doesn't hav
e geographical coordinates, two, they're not continuous solid lines that clearly
outline China's boundaries from other sovereigns states and, three, they're not
stable. The 9-dash-lines have gone through a number of changes from 11 to 10 an
d then to 9 without any explanation from your government. In fact, Yink Wenqiang
, a senior Chinese government maritime law expert admitted that he didn't know t
he basis for the nine dashes!
Also, the map given by your government to the international community in 2009 is
"cartographically inconsistent" with other Chinese maps. The dashes from the 20
09 map don't appear on the same geographic locations as the dashes in the maps p
ublished between 2013 and 2014 and the ones made in the 1980s. Obviously, the ma
ps are not clearly defined and stable and thus violate international laws. Sourc
e: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
I told you that for a country to claim "historic title" it needed to have histor
y. And by history, it must prove its effective control and administration of a t
erritory for a long period of time. In fact, there are three criteria that a sta
te must meet in order for the international court to recognize its historic titl
e or claim.
1. That the state has established an effective occupation of the territory for a
long period of time.
2. That the state has continued to exercise authority of the territory.
3. That such occupation has been recognized by other foreign states; that they h
ave not protested the exercise of authority of the state over the territory.
In the case of China, your government has NOT effectively occupied or administer
ed the Spratley group of islands. In fact, it hasn't done that in much of the is
lands in the South China Sea.
The Spratley archipelago has 33,000 islands including the reefs. And many ancien
t people in the past living in close proximity to the Spratleys like in the Phil
ippine archipelago, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei had travelled to so
me of these islands and fished around them. It doesn't take a genius to know thi
s. Just look at the map. Look at how far China is to the Spratleys compared to a
ll these Southeast Asian nations.
So, to say that China has exercised exclusive sovereignty over the entire South
China Sea for thousands of years as your government claims is a BIG LIE. Your an
cient people weren't the only ones who knew how to fish and engage in interislan
d trade in Asia, you know?
Now, let's examine the so-called "evidences" or "assertions" by your government
to back its claim.
1. Chinese activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago.
China was the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources
of the South China Sea Islands and the first to continuously exercise sovereign
powers over them.
This claim has not been corroborated by any official historical document. Most o
f the historical documents your government has in its possession are just travel
records and navigation charts showing territories not only belonging to China,
but also to other nations. In fact, all of your ancient territorial maps dating
thousands of years ago consistently show that Hainan is the southernmost territo
ry of China.
Even your Gujin Tushu Jicheng (Complete Atlas on the Past and Present) that was
finished during the Qing Dynasty in 1706 showed maps of China whose southernmost

territory was Hainan. It didn't go beyond that. Those maps can be found under t
he following sections of that atlas:
a) Zhifang Dian (Dictionary of Administrative Units).
b) Zhifang Zongbutu (General Map of the Administrative Units, Number 1).
c) Guangdong Jiangyutu (Territorial Map of Guangdong, Number 157).
d) Qionzhoufu Jiangyutu (Territorial Map of Qianzhou Prefecture, Number 167).
The map created during your Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty between 1522-156
7 also depicted Hainan as China's southernmost territory.
I have written a lengthy reply to Aquarium below, sharing him all of your ancien
t Chinese territorial maps (complete with links from credible sources) beginning
from the Song Dynasty in 960 AD until the end of the Qing Dynasty -- a span of
a millennium -- that consistently show Hainan as the southernmost territory of C
hina. I want you to read my reply for him in this forum, so you can see for your
self how much of a farce PRC's 2,000 year old historical claim is.
And as late as 1932, your government (in a Note Verbale to France) has reiterate
d to the world that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan island.
Now what does this tell us, Justice? It tells us that your government has neithe
r controlled nor exercised sovereignty over the entire South China Sea for thous
ands of years DESPITE its bold claim. Otherwise, historical records would suppor
t this. But they didn't. And China would have never sent a Note Verabale to Fran
ce to reinforce the fact that Hainan is China's southernmost territory.
Ever wonder why your government hasn't been very generous in sharing maps prior
to the 9-dash-line to support its claim? Because the majority of your ancient ma
ps don't show the South China Sea as Chinese territory. The few ones that do are
just travel or trade expedition maps that also depict territories of other nati
ons and their accompanying documents corroborated this. They're not territorial
maps.
Let's examine another assertion by your government to back its historic title.
2. That their emperors in the 13th century had sent their astronomer, Guoshoujin
g, to conduct astronomical observations in many areas including the Paracel isla
nds.
This is just a science expedition. It doesn't prove effective occupation by a st
ate. If we are to take this as a basis to claim historic titles then many countr
ies whose people conducted scientific observations beyond their borders in the n
ot-too-distant past would be claiming historic titles on the places they'd been
to as well. The UK could claim historic title over the Galapagos because the lat
e Charles Darwin did a scientific expedition in those islands where his theory o
f evolution by way of natural selection was born. There were Arabs and Indians i
n the past who had traveled to many different places around the world to conduct
scientific studies as well. Should their respective countries be claiming histo
ric titles also? Let's not kid ourselves here. Unless the purpose of the expedit
ion was to permanently settle or effectively occupy a place then it cannot be us
ed to stake a historical claim according to our international laws.
Let's examine the next one.
3. . That there were archaeological evidence like ancient Chinese money and good
s to support its presence of its fishermen in the archipelagos.
Even if this was true, those Chinese fishermen acted as private individuals. The
y had not claimed the islands for their emperors, so they didn't constitute an "
effective occupation by a state" required by international laws. In fact, there
were no official historical records that any of your Chinese emperors had claime
d the South China Sea or the Spratley group of islands for that matter. If you t
hink I'm lying, prove me wrong. Name one Chinese emperor who claimed the South C
hina Sea or the Spratleys. I'm sure your government has historical records of su
ch claim if they really exist. If ancient China managed to consistently name all
their territories and drew them on their maps for thousands of years, then ther
e should be ancient records claiming the South China Sea as Chinese territories.
But the big questions are -- DO THESE HISTORICAL RECORDS EVEN EXIST? and WHY AR
E YOUR ANCIENT TERRITORIAL MAPS DON'T SHOW THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AS CHINESE TERRIT
ORY? Go figure!
Let's examine another assertion.

4. That the local government of Guangdong had protested Germany for conducting r
esearch study in the Spratleys in 1883.
Such diplomatic protest had no legal standing because China's sovereignty at tha
t time had not been established. Like I said, your people prior to the early 20t
h century had NO CONCEPT of a country because they believed that their emperors
-- the Sons of Heaven -- were the Supreme rulers of the world.
Here's an excerpt from a book "China World Politics" by Judith F. Kornberg -- De
an of the School of Continuing and Professional Studies at the Fashion Institute
of Technology -- and John R. Faust -- Professor Emeritus of Political Science E
astern Illinois University and research associate at the Eastern Illinois Public
Policy Institute:
The Chinese people call their nation the Middle Kingdom, the center of the natur
al order and the world order as they knew it for centuries. From prehistory unti
l 1911, China's emperors ruled so long as they held the Mandate of Heaven, the n
atural force that dictated whether a dynasty had sufficient rectitude to provide
moral guidance to the people. When the mandate was lost through immoral actions
, corruption, or other behavior that offended the heavens, the natural forces wo
uld show their displeasure through disasters such as floods, earthquakes, or dro
ughts. The Chinese people then would know that a change in dynasties was imminen
t. Chinese leaders did not rule on the basis of social contract with the people
or on the basis of a constitutional relationship with other political entities,
as did leaders in Western Europe and the United States. Chinese rulers were the
sons of heaven.
Source: goo(dot)gl/AfIv0C
Did you read that? It says that your emperors DID NOT RULE on the basis of "soci
al contract" or "constitutional relationship with other political entities" as d
id leaders in Europe or US.
Let's read further.
China was at the center of both heavenly forces and earthly order. Surrounded fo
r centuries by nations such as Korea and Vietnam, which sent emissaries periodic
ally to bring presents to the Chinese emperor, the Chinese people believed that
the tribute system confirmed the superiority of Chinese civilization. Relations
between China and Korea or China and Vietnam were not analogous to relations bet
ween sovereign nations in an anarchic international system or even between a col
onizing power and its colony; rather, the nations surrounding China were conside
red inferior because they were not Chinese. Only through adoption of Chinese civ
ilization, which the neighboring elites would be exposed to during their voyages
to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor, would the nations on China's borders be
accepted as anything but barbarians.
Source: goo(dot)gl/AfIv0C
Wow. So, prior to the 20th century, your people believed that China was the Midd
le Kingdom and their emperors were the legitimate leaders of the world. Non-Chin
ese were considered inferior and must give tributes!
That's why China's sovereignty in those times was questionable to civilized gove
rnments because your people actually believed their emperors owned the entire pl
anet! Crazy.
Also, I'm going to say this again. That your communist government has been using
military force in seizing control of the islands/features/water in both the Par
acel and Spratley archipelagos. That is also a violation of international laws!
In particular, it violates the Declaration on Principles of International Law Co
ncerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations, which states that "The territory of a state shal
l not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in co
ntravention of the provision of the Charter. The territory of a state shall not
be the object of acquisition by another state resulting from the threat or use o
f force. No territorial acquisition resulting from th threat or use of force sha
ll be recognized as legal."
In other words, Justice, should your communist government and other parties deci
de to bring the question of sovereignty before the UN, China cannot legitimize i
ts claim for the islands/waters/feature it acquired in the Paracel and Spratleys

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


*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
I already said that you might disagree with China's historic title. The only res
olution of the difference must be through either negotiation or the ICJ. If you
insist, through your own interpretation of international law, that China cannot
legitimize its historic title, and that the ICJ is not your venue of choice, the
n the best remaining way is negotiation. If you say you don't want to negotiate
with China, then you will have to go to war with China. The alternatives are cle
ar. But, if you don't want war, then you have to take up the almost impossible t
ask of negotiation. If you can't even win in the UNCLOS tribunal, you may not ev
en have a chance winning in the ICJ.
But, the ideal way for the Philippines is to go to the ICJ despite of what, spel
ling out its case. May be you can act as a chief counsel.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote, "I already said that you might disagree with China's historic tit
le. "
Well, yeah, base on international laws, those assertions are nothing. They're no
t going to fly in the international arena. Are you suggesting that China should
have its own international laws? China doesn't own the planet. That primitive me
ntality isn't accepted by civilized nations, especially in the 21 century. LMAO.
Anyways, I'm going to go out. I'll be back and answer some of that novel you wro
te. So, I'll see you until then.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
In the final analysis, the Philippines has to prove its case, that it owns the e
ight features in the SCS it is occupying. You can't win your case by attacking C
hina's nine dash lines. You can't prove your case by relying on the EEZ. You hav
e to prove your own worth, that you have not stolen from China, those islands Ch
ina already claimed, and repossessed after World War 2, with the help of the Ame
rican military, before Philippines even existed, and came into the picture. This
is why the Philippines do not have a historic title no matter how hard it tries
. This is simply a fact of history.
if you want to challenge China on its historic title, you have to go to the ICJ
and spell out your case why China does not have historic titles, and why the wor
ld should believe in the Philippines with Philippines history.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote, "In the final analysis, the Philippines has to prove its case, th
at it owns the eight features in the SCS it is occupying."
Oh, stop lying. Those aren't features. Those are islands. And those islands were
discovered TERRA NULLIUS, meaning no country had exercised sovereignty over the
m. They were no evidence of Chinese settlements, structures and outposts, or mar
kers that they had been claimed by China. No evidence of effective occupation by
China. China has never exercised sovereignty over those islands. And so under i
nternational laws, the Philippines has effectively occupied the islands and owne
d them. And all of those islands are well within 200 miles of the Philippine's c
oastal lines and thus they also conform to the Law of the Sea Convention. So, YE
S, those islands BELONG to the Philippines and is recognized by international la
ws.
The facts don't lie. There are 33,000 islands and reefs in the Spratley. How cou
ld China effectively occupy all 33,000 more than 200 miles from its coastal line
s of Hainan? That's crazy. The burden of proof lies on communist China for its h
istorical title. None of your Chinese historical records (i.e. documents and map
s) proved effective Chinese occupation of the Spratleys or the entire South Chin
a Sea.
justice wrote, " You can't win your case by attacking China's nine dash lines."
LOL. You keep harping your 9-dash-line bullcr4p. IT'S ILLEGAL. It violates inter
national laws. I already told you why.
And, by the way, the UNCLOS does not exempt historical claim because it doesn't
contain exceptions for such matter.
Because the Convention s provisions relating to the EEZ, continental shelf, and hi
gh seas do not contain exceptions for historic claims, the Convention s provisions
prevail over any assertion of historic claims made in those areas. The 1962 stu
dy on historic waters commissioned by the Conference that adopted the 1958 Genev
a Conventions reached this same conclusion with
respect to interpretation of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Cont
iguous Zone.64
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
o
o

o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
That is exactly a legal problem for the Philippines. To say the islands were Ter
ra Nullius, you have to submit solid proofs that they were indeed Terra Nullius.
Can you show any substantial proof that they were Terra Nullius ? I guess not.
This is total nonsense because the Chinese discovered them, named them and admin
istered them over centuries. by 1947, the Chinese publicly proclaimed ownership
of all the islands and features in the SCS. There are volumes of historic record
s to prove beyond any doubt they were not Terra Nullius. Once this is done, the
Philippines has no case.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote "That is exactly a legal problem for the Philippines. To say the i
slands were Terra Nullius, you have to submit solid proofs that they were indeed
Terra Nullius."
Do you even know what is TERRA NULLIUS? Or are you going to make up your own def
inition again?
Alright. I'll be a good guy. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself after all
the embarrassments I put you through. Define "terra nullius" for me. I just wan
t to make sure that we're on the same page. If you really knew its meaning, you
wouldn't be even telling me this.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
you are funny. Philippines have the burden of proof for alleging that it discove
red the islands in the SCS Terra Nullius. Never mind what I understand about the
term. Give me proof that the islands were Terra Nullius in accordance with inte

rnational law. If you cannot substantial it, It is not true.


We all know by now, from a historical perspective, by most knowledgeable histori
ans, the islands were not Terra Nullius because China already discovered them, c
laimed them, for a long time before the so call discovery by the Philippines.
The Philippines discovery was in fact a joke, not a fact.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote "you are funny. Philippines have the burden of proof for alleging
that it discovered the islands in the SCS Terra Nullius."
If you don't even know what "terra nullius" means then what makes you think that
you know what you're talking about? What exactly are you defending here?
I already told you the 3 criteria recognized by international laws as a basis fo
r "historic titles" and you still didn't get it.
Come on. Try it. I know you know the meaning. But you just don't want to say it
because you know your argument is weak. Do you want me to give you a little hint
? LMAO.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
you sound you are backing out, with fear. You cannot prove that the islands were
Terra Nullius. in the ICJ, you have to prove this point with concrete evidence,
because Terra Nullius is a very serious argument. There are already tons of his
toric evidence, known by many, that the islands were not Terra Nullius, and do n
ot belong to the Philippines, You cannot tell lies in the ICJ, or in any court o
f law, because you will be exposed very easily. Don't try it.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Arcane justice_first
2 months ago
justice wrote "you sound you are backing out, with fear. "
No. Not at all. I want you to define me "terra nullius." Why are you avoiding it
? Because you know it's going to demolish your argument of historic title for Ch
ina. Try me. Do you need a hint? LOL
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
Again, I have to ask you to ask the Philippines government to explain the meanin
g of Terra Nullius with supporting evidence, because they are the one making the
claim. They claim they discovered the islands Terra Nullius.
They must make sure they know what they are saying. If they are wrong, they will
have no case in the SCS. This is that serious. They will face overwhelming evid
ence from other claimants.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote, "Again, I have to ask you to ask the Philippines government to ex
plain the meaning of Terra Nullius with supporting evidence, because they are th
e one making the claim."
I don't have to ask anybody because I know its meaning. And I know you do. Just
a quick search on Google will tell you. Stop fooling around. What are you afraid
of? I'm just asking you to define it.
Or maybe you have your own definition of that word, is that why you're afraid to
write it down for me? Hahahahaha. You know very well where I'm going with this,
right? And you clearly don't want me to go there. So, I guess you're giving up.
Too bad. I just wanted to have a little fun. LOL
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*

o
o
justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
What does it matter what I know? It is your government using the excuse of Terra
Nullius for occupying the islands. The burden is on them to tell the world, why
? What do they mean by Terra Nullius?, not what I think. You know, how do you ex
pect people to defend themselves without knowing exactly what the accusation is
all about? If you occupy certain islands in the 1970's, you must clarify your gr
ound. The logic is very very clear.
You have the burden of proof.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "What does it matter what I know? It is your government using the
excuse of Terra Nullius for occupying the islands."
Alright. Since you don t want to play. I'll define it for you. This is coming stra
ight from the WORLD HERITAGE ENCYCLOPEDIA:
Terra nullius (/?t?r? n??la?.?s/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression d
eriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in i
nternational law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sover
eignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicit
ly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius m
ay be acquired through occupation,[2] though in some cases doing so would violat
e an international law or treaty.
Source: community(dot)worldheritage(dot)org/article/WHEBN0000247874/nullius
China had never exercised sovereignty over those Spratly islands because if they
had, its navy would have been able to shoo away non-Chinese from those islands.
In fact, communist China did not dare venture into the Spratleys because the ho
me of the US military was just right across in Subic, Philippines.
How do you think China backup its sovereignty claim before the international com
munity? That they had a fleeting glimpse of those islands a long, long time ago?
LMAO.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
Arcane Arcane
2 months ago
justice wrote, "In order to show you have the true version of Tibetan history, I
challenge you to show me the UN official report, written by credible sources, c

ondemning the Tibetan invasion and Chinese atrocities."


Sure thing. Here's one credible source -- the World Heritage Encyclopedia -- quo
ting the UN as it describes Chinese invasion and illegal occupation of Tibet. He
ad straight down to "Physical Abuses" Link: worldheritage(dot)org/articles/Human
_rights_in_Tibet
The United Nations had also passed several resolutions in 1959, 1961 and then in
1965. Access the link below and then click on "2079 (xx) - Question of Tibet."
Link: un(dot)org/documents/ga/res/20/ares20(dot)htm
You can also find the other two resolutions mentioned there in this link: tibetp
olicy(dot)eu/un-general-assembly-resolution-2079-xx-of-1965/
The UN General Assembly Resolutions of 1965 has this to say:
The General Assembly,
Bearing in mind the principles relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms
set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,
Reaffirming its resolutions 1353 (XIV) of 21 October 1959 and 1723 (XVI) of 20 D
ecember 1961 on the question of Tibet,
Gravely concerned at the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freed
oms of the people of Tibet and the continued suppression of their distinctive cu
ltural and religious life, as evidenced by the exodus of refugees to the neighbo
uring countries,
Deplores the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the p
eople of Tibet;
Reaffirms that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations a
nd of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution o
f a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;
Declares its conviction that the violation of human rights and fundamental freed
oms in Tibet and the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious life
of its people increase international tension and embitter relations between peop
les;
Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of all practices which deprive the Ti
betan people of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which they have always
enjoyed;
Appeals to all States to use their best endeavors to achieve the purposes of the
present resolution.
Now, here's a report from the International Commission of Jurist or ICJ. If you
don't know the ICJ, it is an international human-rights non-governmental organiz
ation. A very well-respected and credible organization. And they have this in th
eir report describing China's violations of the Universal Declaration of Human R
ights on the Tibetans that the UN described in its resolution quoted above!
The Committee found from the evidence it examined that Tibetan human rights had
been violated in respect to the following Articles of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights:
Article 3: The right to life, liberty and security of person was violated by act
s of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment.
Article 5: Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were inflicted on
the Tibetans on a large scale.
Article 9: Arbitrary arrests and detention were carried out.

Article 12: Rights of privacy, of home and family life were persistently violate
d by the forcible transfer of members of the family and by indoctrination turnin
g children against their parents. Children from infancy upwards were removed con
trary to the wishes of their parents.
Article 13: Freedom of movement within, to and from Tibet was denied by large-sc
ale deportations.
Article 16: The voluntary nature of marriage was denied by forcing monks and lam
as to marry.
Article 17: The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of private property was vio
lated by the confiscation and compulsory acquisition of private property otherwi
se than on payment of
Source: icj(dot)wpengine(dot)netdna-cdn(dot)com/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/Tibet
-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-thematic-report-1997-eng(dot)pdf
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote, "In order to show you have the true version of Tibetan history, I
challenge you to show me the UN official report, written by credible sources, c
ondemning the Tibetan invasion and Chinese atrocities."
Sure thing. Here's one credible source -- the World Heritage Encyclopedia -- quo
ting the UN as it describes Chinese invasion and illegal occupation of Tibet. He
ad straight down to "Physical Abuses" Link: worldheritage(dot)org/articles/Human
_rights_in_Tibet
The United Nations had also passed several resolutions in 1959, 1961 and then in
1965. Access the link below and then click on "2079 (xx) - Question of Tibet."
Link: un(dot)org/documents/ga/res/20/ares20(dot)htm
You can also find the other two resolutions mentioned there in this link: tibetp
olicy(dot)eu/un-general-assembly-resolution-2079-xx-of-1965/
The UN General Assembly Resolutions of 1965 has this to say:
The General Assembly,
Bearing in mind the principles relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms
set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,
Reaffirming its resolutions 1353 (XIV) of 21 October 1959 and 1723 (XVI) of 20 D
ecember 1961 on the question of Tibet,
Gravely concerned at the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freed
oms of the people of Tibet and the continued suppression of their distinctive cu
ltural and religious life, as evidenced by the exodus of refugees to the neighbo
uring countries,
Deplores the continued violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the p
eople of Tibet;

Reaffirms that respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations a
nd of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essential for the evolution o
f a peaceful world order based on the rule of law;
Declares its conviction that the violation of human rights and fundamental freed
oms in Tibet and the suppression of the distinctive cultural and religious life
of its people increase international tension and embitter relations between peop
les;
Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of all practices which deprive the Ti
betan people of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which they have always
enjoyed;
Appeals to all States to use their best endeavors to achieve the purposes of the
present resolution.
Now, here's a report from the International Commission of Jurist or ICJ. If you
don't know the ICJ, it is an international human-rights non-governmental organiz
ation. A very well-respected and credible organization. And they have this in th
eir report describing China's violations of the Universal Declaration of Human R
ights on the Tibetans that the UN described in its resolution quoted above!
The Committee found from the evidence it examined that Tibetan human rights had
been violated in respect to the following Articles of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights:
Article 3: The right to life, liberty and security of person was violated by act
s of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment.
Article 5: Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were inflicted on
the Tibetans on a large scale.
Article 9: Arbitrary arrests and detention were carried out.
Article 12: Rights of privacy, of home and family life were persistently violate
d by the forcible transfer of members of the family and by indoctrination turnin
g children against their parents. Children from infancy upwards were removed con
trary to the wishes of their parents.
Article 13: Freedom of movement within, to and from Tibet was denied by large-sc
ale deportations.
Article 16: The voluntary nature of marriage was denied by forcing monks and lam
as to marry.
Article 17: The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of private property was vio
lated by the confiscation and compulsory acquisition of private property otherwi
se than on payment of
Source: icj(dot)wpengine(dot)netdna-cdn(dot)com/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/Tibet
-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-thematic-report-1997-eng(dot)pdf
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o

justice_first Arcane
a month ago
Yes, I am not about to endorse all the so called "reports" generated by the ICJ
because of the Dalai Lama and followers' direct or indirect involvement in writi
ng those reports. There were clear political overtone, that is not neutral and n
ot objective. Hear says could never replace direct factual investigation inside
Tibet. You have to travel extensively inside Tibet to really understand what is
going on. Don't rely on the testimonies of Dalai's group of fanatics for the rig
ht information. This is a question of sourcing. Not all UN resolutions were fair
or even accurate because there were political interference from powerful countr
ies in the Assembly particularly from the US. It is now known that the CIA was i
nvolved in the rebellion in Tibet and the financial support to the Dalai Lama. W
hat justice could that be anyway? Is the ICJ ready to criticize the US extremely
inhumane drone killings? I don't think the ICJ is objective and neutral in its
standing. I don't find the PRC represented in the ICJ. What kind of UN body coul
d that be?
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
Thank you for bringing the ICJ, the Tibet human rights issue into the picture. I
am for human rights and freedom of expression. I am not even a communist as you
have accused me of. I commented on the SCS issue on basis of historic facts. I
hope both China and the Philippines will negotiate to resolve the issue, otherwi
se the only venue will be the international court of justice. This is quite clea
r by now.
Just on the sideline, I am for human rights for the people of Tibet and China.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote ,"Thank you for bringing the ICJ, the Tibet human rights issue int
o the picture. I am for human rights and freedom of expression. I am not even a
communist as you have accused me of. I commented on the SCS issue on the basis o
f historic facts."
You're very welcome. But you're flip-flopping. You're accusing the UN of being b
iased of their resolutions. In fact, you don't accept their findings that the fu
ndamental rights and liberty of the Tibetan people have been gravely violated by
China.
But you seem to agree to the findings of the ICJ (I hope). Otherwise, you won't

thank me for sharing you the report and say that you're all for human rights and
freedom of expression. Even mentioned that you're not a communist.
I'm going to drop a bombshell on you. I've intentionally didn't mention the fact
that the ICJ works mostly under the auspices of the United Nations. It's even s
afe to say that it's a branch of the UN since it reports to the UN on a regular
basis concerning human rights and rule of law around the world. In fact, its cur
rent president, Prof. Sir Nigel Rodley, is a member of the UN Human Rights Commi
ttee. Its vice president, Prof. Robert Goldman has worked for the UN Human Right
s Commission. Former president Mary Robinson was also a member of the UN High Co
mmissioner for Human Rights.
And here's another bombshell. Those UN resolutions were actually drawn from the
ICJ reports and the report from His Holiness, Dalai Lama, on the violence and de
privation of rights and liberty committed by the Chinese on the Tibetan people.
...Later that July, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) published The
Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, the first of several reports. It found th
at evidence points to a prima facie case of systematic intention to destroy in whol
e or in part the Tibetans as a separate nation and the Buddhist religion in Tibe
t. Concern by the international community finally moved the General Assembly to a
ct, and the first resolution on Tibet was passed in October of that year.
Tibet s case was bolstered by the ICJ s second report Tibet and the Chinese People s R
epublic. Upon examining Tibet s legal status, and violations of human rights there
, the report concluded that acts of genocide had been committed , and that Tibet was
at the very least a de facto independent State before its annexation by the Chin
ese government in 1951. With the support of 56 member states, Resolution 1723 (X
VI) was passed in the General Assembly on December.
By 1965 conditions in Tibet remained bleak. A third ICJ report, Continued Violat
ions of Human Rights in Tibet, was published the previous December. Based on acc
ounts from Tibetan refugees fleeing to India, the report disclosed a continuance
of ill-treatment of many monks, lamas, and other religious figures, resulting in
death through excessive torture, beatings, starvation and forced labour
Following
the report and the Dalai Lama s appeal, the issue was reintroduced at the UN yet
again by the 1961 sponsors, joined this time by Nicaragua and the Philippines.
Source: savetibet(dot)org/policy-center/united-nations/un-general-assembly-resol
utions
Having said this, are you now going to doubt the credibility of the reports of t
his highly-respected organization as you doubt the fairness of the UN resolution
s? You're just fooling yourself if you deny the horrible atrocities -- as descri
bed in the ICJ reports and in the UN resolutions -- committed by China on the Ti
betan people. That's like saying the Holocaust never happened.
Do you also doubt the credibility of the World Heritage Encyclopedia for quoting
the UN, characterizing Chinese invasion and illegal occupation of Tibet by "act
s of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment; torture and cruel, inhuman and deg
raded treatment of Tibetans on a large scale?"
And since you say you're not a communist, where are you from?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*

o
o
justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
Regarding resolution 2079 of 18 December 1965 of the General Assembly of UN, on
question of Tibet, I cannot see any wording condemning China's "invasion" of Tib
et or any alleged atrocities carried out by the Chinese. I have noted the so cal
led grave concern on the violation of human rights in Tibet without giving any s
ubstantial evidence. This resolution was adopted in 1965 when the Chinese mainla
nd government was not represented in the General Assembly debate. The PRC govern
ment was unable to defend the politically biased anti communist one sided accusa
tion of human rights violation in Tibet. This was obviously unfair judgement bec
ause the arguments from the other sides were never given a chance. There are pro
Chinese and anti Chinese arguments in the cold war era, and such one sided simp
le resolution is an example of the tremendous prejudice and bias of the time led
by the west and the US against communism and the Soviets. Therefore I cannot ri
ghtly accept this resolution as a fair piece of judgement. On the question of hu
man rights in Tibet, much has been written about the Theocratic Serfdom before t
he 1950, and the extremely cruel human condition, considered to be much much wor
se than under Chinese rule.
By the way, most of the countries today recognize Chinese SOVEREIGNTY over Tibet
, and none recognizes the rebel government in India. Tibet today has the highest
living standards in all times. That should tell you something.
I am not an expert on Tibetan history, and therefore I would pass the chance of
further discussing the subject. .
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote,"Regarding resolution 2079 of 18 December 1965 of the General Asse
mbly of UN, on question of Tibet, I cannot see any wording condemning China's "i
nvasion" of Tibet or any alleged atrocities carried out by the Chinese. I have n
oted the so called grave concern on the violation of human rights in Tibet witho
ut giving any substantial evidence."
Do you even know the meaning of the word CONDEMN, Justice?????? **bangs head on
the wall*
* Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! How old are you? Seriously, this is too funny. B
oy, you made me laughed there.
Alright. I'll give you a hint. LMAO. "Condemn" and "deplore" are synonymous. Hah
ahahahaha.
You're just trying to find a loophole. There's no loophole there, buddy. The det
ails of the atrocities committed by your people on the Tibetans are all recorded
in those ICJ reports that have been submitted to the UN. Why don't you take the
time to read it? I gave you the link of that ICJ PDF book, right? The reports a
re all described there in detail. Read it.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane
a month ago
In an effort to discredit China on the SCS issue, some countries turn to attacki
ng China on the Tibet issue. They are following US foot step of attacking China'
s human right records, and most of all China's communism. All these will be futi
le because China will continue to improve its economy, for all the mainland and
Tibet, so that its people will be enjoying better and better living standards an
d human rights, and stability. Yes, stability is important because you need stab
ility for economic growth. China knows what is far more important: to achieve it
s targets in this century. The problem is still very much with the Dalai Clique,
as some people would characterized them as clique. However they will never succ
eed in destabilizing Tibet because China will be too strong, and the Tibetan peo
ple choose growth rather than empty promises from the clique. Tibet's problem is
economical, not religious. Tibet has too much religion already, as I have perso
nally witness. They need advance education, economic development, industrial pro
gress, and increase in living standards. The Chinese government is doing fine, i
nstead of just talking. The whole Tibet is thriving. This is the best form of hu
man condition, when people has economic power.
The internal condition in Tibet is far more complex than you know, because of th
e presence of the Dalai interference with the help of the CIA.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "In an effort to discredit China on the SCS issue, some countries
turn to attacking China on the Tibet issue. They are following US foot step of a
ttacking China's human right records, and most of all China's communism. "
That's because your communist government has a history of violence in staking te
rritorial claims. China had invaded and occupied Tibet and the East Turkestan, k
illed thousands of people and subjected the survivors to cruelty. It had scuffle
d with Vietnam, India, Japan and even Russia. And now, you are here in our backy
ard, employing the same gunboat diplomacy. We're not going to take that cr4p her
e. We're going to use the laws to fight China. The Philippines may not be a powe
rful nation as your country, but we're not going to give up a fight when we know
we are on the right side of the law.
justice wrote, "The internal condition in Tibet is far more complex than you kno
w, because of the presence of the Dalai interference with the help of the CIA."
A 10 year old can make a very convincing story than that. So, please spare me yo
ur lies. No one's going to believe that if you can't even cite a credible source
to back it up.
*
*
* Reply

*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
OK, you English major. I will tell you the truth. Condemn is a much stronger wor
d in the English Language meaning something is absolutely wrong. A condemned cri
minal may suffer the death penalty. Deplore, on the other hand, is a much lighte
r weaker word meaning inferring some personal preference of not agreeing, not li
king something. They are not synonymous.
When the ICJ and Dalai Lama is apparently so close, I have doubts that it can ma
intain a neutral unbiased attitude toward the most sensitive question of Tibet.
Dalai Lama is known to be very anti China, strongly political as well as religio
us. I will not trust the ICJ in all its criticism of China on human rights viola
tion. The Dalai Lama was the head of a most brutal regime in Tibet before the 19
50. You can read a lot on that regime of Serfdom and slaves, and the cruelty was
beyond your imagination. Yet Today the Dalai Lama is criticizing China for viol
ating human rights. I strongly think he has political intention in his associati
on with the ICJ, giving prizes to its members etc. etc. The ICJ is simply not ne
utral and objective in rendering judgement in my view because of clear lack of "
first hand" knowledge and experience inside Tibet. What is the use of hear says?
One sided comment is dangerous. The west stand on the side of Dalai Lama and US
, for geopolitical purposes, when criticizing China's human rights records. We k
now now that China has roughly brought over 500 millions people out of abject po
verty in the last 30 years, to become one of the leading economy in the world. L
iteracy has shot up to over 95%. Human rights have largely been respected.
Have you been inside Tibet? You should go there before you pass any harsh judgem
ent on human rights. I have been there.
I wonder how often the ICJ criticizes the US for human rights violations. War af
ter war, drone after drone, the US killings go on and on, with innocent women an
d children unnecessarily slaughtered and sacrificed for the so called anti terro
rism What has the ICJ said about all those killings in terms of human rights for
the women and children ? If it has remained darkly silent on those killings, I
would consider it a western political puppet, not worth my time to read their op
inions, with any seriousness.
After all, I prefer to go and see for myself inside Tibet.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote ,"Condemn is a much stronger word in the English Language meaning
something is absolutely wrong. A condemned criminal may suffer the death penalty
. Deplore, on the other hand, is a much lighter weaker word meaning inferring so
me personal preference of not agreeing, not liking something. They are not synon

ymous."
Fail again. The word condemn has two different meanings depending on how you use
it.
Condemn (verb)
1. express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.
"fair-minded people declined to condemn her on mere suspicion"
synonyms: censure, criticize, denounce, revile, blame, chastise, berate, reprima
nd, rebuke, reprove, take to task, find fault with; More
2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.
"the rebels had been condemned to death"
Here's deplore:
Deplore (verb)
1. feel or express strong disapproval of (something).
"we deplore this act of violence"
synonyms: abhor, find unacceptable, frown on, disapprove of, take a dim view of,
take exception to; detest, despise; condemn, denounce
"we deplore violence"
In the context of those UN resolutions, it CLEARLY meant to express STRONG or CO
MPLETE DISAPPROVAL of the GRAVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED by the CHINESE
PEOPLE on the Tibetans. And, thus, DEPLORE is SYNONYMOUS to CONDEMN! LOL. Good
grief, Justice. In your effort to defend the wrong (China), you've become ignora
nt.
justice wrote, "When the ICJ and Dalai Lama is apparently so close, I have doubt
s that it can maintain a neutral unbiased attitude toward the most sensitive que
stion of Tibet. Dalai Lama is known to be very anti China, strongly political as
well as religious. I will not trust the ICJ in all its criticism of China on hu
man rights violation. "
The ICJ is an independent organization and its reports are UNBIASED and complete
ly INDEPENDENT from the Dala Lama's. As a leader of his people, he made an appea
l to the UN to save the Tibetans from the relentless persecution by the Chinese
OCCUPIERS.
As for the US, its military and allies didn't go to the Middle East with the goa
l of occupying another country and killing innocent people like your China did i
n Tibet and the East Turkestan territories. The US and her allies are in the Mid
dle East to fight the terrorists who have been butchering anyone who doesn't emb
race their radical beliefs.
You read too much Chinese propaganda that you're now incapable of feeling sympat
hy towards the victims of Chinese aggression in Tibet. And you claim to be all f
or human rights for the people of Tibet? Shame on you.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
For goodness sake, people don't use words by merely looking up dictionary. Words
have meanings as well as feelings attached. This is why Condemn is generally co
nsidered a much stronger harsher word than deplore. The use of words is dictated
by human feelings, not by a dictionary. You might get killed by using the wrong
word. The choice of word in a legal context, such as in a resolution, is even m
ore important. Deplore is the right word they used because of the clearly limite

d power of the UN general assembly. It is not an international court of law. The


y could not use the word condemn because it is too strong. Therefore, by practic
e, they are not the same.
China has denied very clearly some of the violation alleged by the west. The Dal
ai Lama is trying hard, with CIA help, to stir up conflict within Tibet. This mi
ght be part of the reason of strife and discord in some sector of the society th
ere. But, over-all the Chinese government has been tremendously successful in br
inging progress and prosperity to Tibet, benefiting all the people in Tibet. Dal
ai can only talk about things and instigating discord. He will not lead Tibet to
a much brighter future.
China is not occupying Tibet. Tibet is part of China since the 12th century. You
have to get this right. Even the Dalai Lama is not saying Tibet is not part of
China. There are separatists, but they will not succeed.
The US is just a hypocritical nation with double standards. It is not a member o
f UNCLOS, and yet insists other countries follow the rules. As for human rights
violation, the US has gravely violated human rights by going to war in Iraq with
out UN approval. What is this? rule based approach ?
You too have double standards, all over you, that you may not even know. That is
a pity.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "The US is just a hypocritical nation with double standards. It is
not a member of UNCLOS, and yet insists other countries to follow the rules."
Just because the US isn't an UNCLOS member doesn't entitle China to derogate fro
m its duty and back out.
The fact that China is an UNCLOS signatory doesn't exempt it from the final judg
ement of the arbitration over the issue. As an UNCLOS member, China has given co
nsent to arbitration. Even if China will not participate, the proceeding will co
ntinue as it is now and, according to Article 11 of the Convention, its arbitrat
ion award will be final and without appeal. It shall be complied by the parties
to the dispute and it will be binding.
It will not be in the best interest of China if it ignores the arbitration rulin
g because it will show that China has no respect for the very laws it ratified.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

in about 10 years, when the Chinese economy become the number one economy of the
world, the whole dynamic of the SCS will change. Japan will change. Vietnam wil
l change. The whole SCS dispute will be handled by negotiation and joint develop
ment, which incidentally can only be the only way to resolve the issue, over the
long term, on a practical level.
Nations will sit down and put their differences on the table, and jointly find s
olution together in peace. This will be a happy ending.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "China is not occupying Tibet. Tibet is part of China since the 12
th century. You have to get this right."
Not according to the Dalai Lama. And within the international laws, Tibet remain
s an independent state under ILLEGAL OCCUPATION. This is recognized by the US Co
ngress:
Whereas the United States should not condone aggression by accepting China s claim
to sovereignty over Tibet; Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the
sense of the Congress that Tibet, including those areas incorporated into the C
hinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, and Quinghai, is AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY
UNDER THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WHOSE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE
S ARE THE DALAI LAMA and the TIBETAN GOVERNMENT IN EXILE as recognized by the Ti
betan people." (Passed the Senate May 24 (legislative day, April 25) 1991).
A conference of international lawyers also recognize the illegal occupation of T
ibet by China and concluded that:
Since the military action of 1949/50 Tibet has been UNDER THE ALIEN OCCUPATION A
ND DOMINATION of the PRC and has been administered with the characteristics of a
n OPPRESSIVE COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION. (Article 5.7 Conference of International La
wyers-Self-Determination and Independence for Tibet London 6th to 10th January 19
93).
It's a shame that a person like you denies the horrible human atrocities committ
ed by your government on the Tibetan people as if China has not committed horren
dous crimes on its own people. 45 million Chinese were murdered by your great le
ader Mao Zedong. If a leader could do that to his own kind, then how much more t
o others whom he had no racial and cultural connections? 300 million babies were
forcibly aborted through your government's One Child Policy. And here you are c
laiming to be all for human rights and freedom of expression and questioning the
credibility of the ICJ reports?? Ha! You're a hypocrite. Shame on you.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote "For goodness sake, people don't use words by merely looking up di
ctionary. Words has meanings as well as feelings attached."
For Pete's sake, it doesn't remove the fact that the United Nations has expresse
d STRONG DISAPPROVAL (CONDEMNATION) of the human atrocities committed by your pe
ople on the Tibetans. IT DOES NOT MAKE THE CRIME ANY LESSER. A MURDER IS STILL A
MURDER. A RAPE IS STILL A RAPE. And besides, feelings associated with words are
subjective. What maybe a strong word to you may not be the case to others.
justice wrote ,"China has denied very clearly some of the violation alleged by t
he west. The Dalai Lama is trying hard, with CIA help, to stir up conflict withi
n Tibet."
Oh, yeah? Where did you get this information? From your barber? You think you ca
n just tell people some wild stories and expect them to believe you without back
ing them up with credible sources? Don't take people for f00ls. You have to do b
etter than that.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
The North and South Korean situation is different from China's. Both the PRC and
ROC proclaim to owning the same territories and people. There is no division of
sovereignty. This is solidly proven by their respective constitution. What is b
etween the North and South Korean is purely a matter for them to decide among th
emselves.
If the US wants to intervene in matters relating to Taiwan's independence, it ha
s to go to the security council of the UN. China has veto power. This means the
US can never legally intervene in China's internal business. This is quite clear
. Of course we have seen US attacking Russia in the UN for interfering in Ukrain
e's internal affairs.
Regarding China's historic title to the SCS, I would suggest the Philippines to
go the ICJ instead of the ITLOS, despite China's position in the ICJ, to prove t
o the world that Philippines has a case. It is most interesting to see how Phili
ppines can present its own historic title and how the law of the sea can trump t
he international laws on sovereignty. Please do it if you can. This is better th
an just attacking China's claim on historic title. Philippines strongest argumen
t is the 200 miles EEZ, a construct of the 1982 law of the sea. However it has n
ot precluded historic titles before 1982. The UNCLOS is not even a law on sovere
ignty, and therefore cannot handle historic titles and historic rights.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
Arcane justice_first
2 months ago
Hey, Justice. Check out the reaction of your President Xi when German Chancellor
Angela Merkel showed him some ancient Chinese maps showing Hainan as China's so
uthernmost territory. The maps were created by Mr. d Anville, considered as a "pro
fessional, prolific and prestigious cartographer in Europe in the 18th century."
Funny stuff. LMAO.
The map was made on the basis of combined surveys and measurements by Qing dynas
ty and French missionaries, helping Europeans fully and correctly understand ove
rall geographical features of China.
Source: southchinasea(dot)com/analysis/738-german-chancellors-map-unveils-chinas
-territories-limited-by-hainan-island(dot)html
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
No map is 100% correct. Each map may be designed to show some specific features.
Indeed, if the map in question, as presented by the German Chancellor, is for s
howing "geographical features" of old China, then its scope could have easily om
itted the administration aspects of the SCS. We can find significant amount of h
istoric records on administration, naming, and discovery form China. The fact fo
r historians to find out is not whether the SCS was included in old Chinese maps
, it is more the fact of factual administration on which the historic title was
based. Philippines has no old records of administration before 1945.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote, "We can find significant amount of historic records on administra
tion, naming, and discovery form China."
Significant amount? Hahahahaha. You don't really stop lying, do you? But that's
fine with me. It's your reputation as a poster is at stake here. LOL.
justice wrote, "The fact for historians to find out is not whether the SCS was i
ncluded in old Chinese maps, it is more the fact of factual administration on wh
ich the historic title was based."
So, basically you're saying that ancient China has been drawing all their territ
ories on their maps for thousands and thousands of years, but doesn't include th

e South China Sea despite being part of China. That's what you're saying, right?
Tell me why this isn't logical, Justice? Tell me why this isn't going to fly wi
th the international community? The historians will not believe this cr4p you ju
st posted.
Let's see. Rome had a map of all the territories they conquered in the world inc
luding waters. So did the Persians. So did the Mongols, the Turks, the French, t
he Spaniards and others. They all proudly recorded their territories on their hi
storical documents and maps. And China?
China says, "Oh! We didn't include the South China Sea in our maps because, for
us, factual administration of the SCS was more important. But we drew our mainla
nd territory, Hainan and the small bit of water surrounding it!" Hahahahahaha. L
MAO
See, Justice, this is what happens when you base your arguments on lies. You hav
e to invent something up to avoid answering directly because the real answer isn
't going to be in your favor. It's pathetic.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
It is well known, that in 1947, China diplayed the eleven dash line "symbol" to
signify its Sovereignty over the islands and features. This was in all Chinese m
aps. No one challenged China's claim at that time. Philippines claim began in th
e 1970's or around that time, much later than China's.
Philippines had no official map of the SCS islands upon its independence in 1946
, therefore has no historic title.
Chinese first discovery, first naming, and administration, based on historic evi
dence, were in fact the very basis of its historic title. This is extremely stro
ng compared to Philippines assertions in the 1970's and on the EEZ.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote ,"It is well known, that in 1947, China diplayed the eleven dash l
ine "symbol" to signify its Sovereignty over the islands and features."
No. It is NOT well-known. Stop lying. It's not cool.
Now, to prove to you that it is not well-known. I'm going to ask you a very simp
le question. When did China submit an official dash-line map to the UN?
The answer to this will only prove your lack of knowledge to the events. LOL.
justice wrote ,"Chinese first discovery, first naming, and administration, based
on historic evidence, were in fact the very basis of its historic title."

Again, no official historical documents supporting this claim. In fact, China ha


s yet to provide a convincing evidence to prove its historical claim of the enti
re South China Sea. So, try again.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
justice_first justice_first
2 months ago
Another very powerful evidence is China's repossession of the islands and featur
es in the SCS from the Japanese. All the major allies in the world did not chall
enge China's entitlement to the repossession. This is concrete and solid evidenc
e that only China has the sovereignty concerned, and the UN actually issued writ
ten authorization to China (only) to perform certain specific services and funct
ions in the SCS for the general good. The papers are kept in China's archive. Th
e US is totally aware of this fact because the US was member of the UN committee
issuing such authorization. This is why US is not about to challenge China's cl
aim in the SCS.
Now you have it, I presume.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote , "Another very powerful evidence is China's repossession of the i
slands and features in the SCS from the Japanese."
Which islands and features did they repossess after WW2? Do you know? I highly d
oubt it.
You're just generalizing as if China has occupied each of the 33,000 islands and
reefs in the Spratleys after the war. You need to be more specific. You can't j
ust say "South China Sea" or "Spratley" as if every island or reef in that regio
n has been occupied by your nation.
If China had occupied the Scarborough Shoals, Mischief Reef and others within 20
0 EEZ of the Philippines at that time, we would have known it immediately. In fa
ct, China had never dared enter the Spratleys because the US military has been p
rojecting American dominance in Asia and the Western Pacific from its home in Su
bic, Philippines. US and Philippine navies used Scarborough Shoals, which are ju
st rocks, as target practice.
justice wrote , "All the major allies in the world did not challenge China's ent
itlement to the repossession."
That's because China has never submitted an official map to the UN that time. Te
ll me when they submitted an official dash-line-map to the UN. Do you even know
this? I doubt it. But here you are giving me another bullcr4p as if it's the "Ho

ly Grail" of truth. LOL.


justice wrote ,"This is concrete and solid evidence that only China has the sove
reignty concerned, and the UN actually issued written authorization to China (on
ly) to perform certain specific services and functions in the SCS for the genera
l good. The papers are kept in China's archive."
Hahahahahaha! You really are full of it! :))))))))))))))))
The papers are kept in China's archive??? LMAO. Why??? How come China doesn't sh
are your so-called UN written authorization on their government's website or bef
ore the international media when it really matters in this time to solidify thei
r claim???
And besides the UN should have a copy of that imaginary written authorization of
yours. But the fact that many countries including Australia, UK, Canada, Japan,
Belgium, Germany, Spain, US, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Ireland, Italy
, Sweden, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia, all the European Union countri
es and the G7 countries have called on China to respect the international laws g
overning land and sea (UNCLOS) and to face the Philippines and other claimants b
efore the tribunal in settling the dispute is enough proof that no such official
document or permission has been given to China. Those countries I mentioned are
ALL MEMBERS of the United Nations. And not one of them has mentioned your so-ca
lled UN written authorization.
The truth is, Justice. The 9-dash-line violates international laws. No country b
elieves in it except your government. China is alone. It would be in the best in
terest of China and her people to heed the international call to respect the law
s and that territorial dispute must be resolved through UN arbitration-- not thr
ough bilateral negotiation because we already experienced being deceived by your
government.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
Which law in international law the nine dash lines have violated ?
China has announced recently, while doing the reclamation, the existance of UN a
uthorization for specific services such as weather reporting, navigational guida
nce, maritime rescue etc in the SCS. The US was a member of the UN committee iss
uing the authorization. I am sure the document will come out later. I have told
you all the facts you need to assess your country's position in the SCS.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first

a month ago

Justice wrote "China has announced recently, while doing the reclamation, the ex
istance of UN authorization for specific services such as weather reporting, nav
igational guidance, maritime rescue, etc in the SCS."
Where'd you get this news? From the Chinese propaganda media? LOL! I highly doub
t that such document exist. And even if it's true, I'll bet you the document doe
sn't say anything that will give validity to the 9-dash-line claim. Otherwise, C
hina would have shared it to the international media a long time ago since it's
a solid, undeniable proof of UN-backed 9-dash-line.
We're talking about the UN here, okay? The UN will not give any country the perm
ission to infringe the sovereign rights of other nations except on very special
cases. So, I just find this news from you incredibly unbelievable. If such docum
ent exist, maybe it's for humanitarian purposes like what you said "maritime res
cue" in international water and maybe even in cooperation with other sovereign s
tates close to the area, but it has nothing to do with the 9-dash-line.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
I am sure it is from a Chinese source to support the recent land reclamation on
the use of the outposts to fulfill China's "international responsibilities". The
se responsibilities, including maritime search and rescue, were assigned to Chin
a by the IMO, the International Maritime Organization of the UN, within a 1985 d
irective or determination. The US was a member, among many, of the organization.
China was the "only" country having administrative power of the SCS after WW2 t
o provide maritime services to the region NORTH OF 10 DEGREE NORTH LATITUDE, AND
WEST OF 124 DEGREE EAST LONGITUDE. The geographical location was clear and spec
ific.
China has disclose this information to provide sufficient proof that the reclama
tion is legitimate and necessary to perform the duties authorized by the UN. It
is interesting to note that China was the only country assign such duties in the
SCS after WW2. At the time, only China had legitimate outposts in the SCS.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote ,"I am sure it is from a Chinese source to support the recent land
reclamation... China has disclose this information to provide sufficient proof
that the reclamation is legitimate and necessary to perform the duties authorize
d by the UN."
You are sure? LOL. Even if it's true, it's not a permission to infringe on other

nation's sovereignty. It doesn't give validity to the 9-dash-line claim. China


needs to do better than that if it wants to convince the world of its historical
title in the South China Sea. Just the fact that it comes from the Chinese prop
aganda media is already suspect. China cannot even substantiate that news by sho
wing to the media your imaginary UN written authorization. Hahahahaha.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
Justice wrote "Which law in international law the nine dash line have violated?"
All of the features that China ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED are either submerged reefs or
rocks. For examples, McKennan Reef, Mischief Reef and Johnson South Reef are per
manently submerged features, so they don't have any maritime entitlements. And y
et China claims the reefs more than 200 nautical miles from its southernmost isl
and of Hainan and the waters surrounding them. That's is a violation of Article
13.2 of the Law of the Sea Convention.
For rocks like the Scarborough Shoal that China seized illegally they have no EE
Z or continental shelf. Yet China is claiming more than 12 nautical miles of wat
er surrounding it. It violates Article 121.3 of the Convention.
China also built artificial islands on some submerged features like the Fiery Cr
oss Reef. This is in direct violation of Article 55 and Article 56.b as you are
not allowed to build artificial islands beyond 200 nautical miles from your coas
tal baseline, which in this case, from China's southernmost territory of Hainan.
Also, artificial islands don't possess the status of islands and has no territo
rial sea but China considers them islands. That is also a violation of Article 6
0.8 of the Convention.
You should read the detailed study of China's 9-dash-lines by the US State Depar
tment. According to the study, if the 9-dash-lines represent maritime boundaries
then they are in direct violation of the Law of the Sea because those dashes ar
e more than 200 nautical miles from the Spratley islands and features being clai
med and or occupied by China. In fact, they are very close to the coastal lines
of other sovereign states.
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
China cannot use "historic titles" to justify its ridiculous claim because the C
onvention has not given exceptions for such things.
Because the Convention s provisions relating to the EEZ, continental shelf, and hi
gh seas do not contain exceptions for historic claims, the Convention s provisions
prevail over any assertion of historic claims made in those areas. The 1962 stu
dy on historic waters commissioned by the Conference that adopted the 1958 Genev
a Conventions reached this same conclusion with
respect to interpretation of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Cont
iguous Zone.
The 1982 LOS Convention continued this approach by retaining provisions related
to historic
bays and titles that are substantively identical to those contained in the 1958
Convention. Had the drafters of the LOS Convention intended to permit historic c
laims of one State to override the
expressly stated rights of other States, the Convention would have reflected thi

s intention in its
text. Instead, as with the 1958 Convention, the LOS Convention limits the releva
nce of historic
claims to bays and territorial sea delimitation.
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
Thus, those "historic title" lines are in direct violation of Article 10 and Art
icle 15 of the Law of the Sea Convention.
The argument that China's claim is made prior to UNCLOS DOES NOT give reason for
China to not uphold the Convention. The Convention was created to solve ALL the
issues of maritime boundaries among parties involved and as a signatory to the
UNCLOS, China has consented to be BOUND to its laws.
The fact that China s claims predate the LOS Convention does not provide a basis u
nder the Convention or international law for derogating from the LOS Convention.
72 The Convention s preamble states that it is intended to settle
all issues relat
ing to the law of the sea and establish a legal order that promotes stability and
peaceful uses of the seas.73 Its object and purpose is to set forth a comprehen
sive, predictable, and clear legal regime describing the rights and obligations
of States with respect to the sea. Permitting States to derogate from the provis
ions of the Convention because their claims pre-date its adoption is contrary to
and would undermine this object and purpose.
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
China has not even met the 3 criteria recognized by international laws for staki
ng a "historic title" claim.
Even assuming that a Chinese historic claim in the South China Sea were governed
by general international law rather than the Convention, the claim would still ne
ed to be justified under such law. In this regard, a Chinese historic waters cla
im in the South China Sea would not pass any element of the three-part legal tes
t described above under the Basis of Analysis:
(1) No open, notorious, and effective exercise of authority over the South China
Sea. China did not communicate the nature of its claim within the dashed line d
uring the period when China might purport to have established a historic claim;
indeed, the nature of Chinese authority claimed within the dashed line still has
not been clarified. Likewise, China has not established its claims with geograp
hical consistency and precision. As such, it cannot satisfy the open or notorious
quirements for a valid claim to historic waters.

re

(2) No continuous exercise of authority in the South China Sea. There has long b
een widespread usage of the South China Sea by other claimants in a manner that
would not be consistent with Chinese sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction. Many
islands and other features in the South China Sea are occupied not just by Chin
a, but by Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan, and the mainland marit
ime claims of Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, and Vietnam also pro
ject into the South China Sea. These countries have all undertaken activities, s
uch as fishing and hydrocarbon exploration, in their claimed maritime space that
are not consistent with effective or continuous exercise of Chinese sovereignty or
exclusive rights over that space.
(3) No acquiescence by foreign States in China s exercise of authority in the Sout
h China Sea. No State has recognized the validity of a historic claim by China t
o the area within the dashed line. Any alleged tacit acquiescence by States can
be refuted by the lack of meaningful notoriety of any historic claim by China, d
iscussed above. A claimant State therefore cannot rely on nonpublic or materiall
y ambiguous claims as the foundation for acquiescence, but must instead establis
h its claims openly and publicly, and with sufficient clarity, so that other Sta
tes may have actual knowledge of the nature and scope of those claims.69 In the
case of the dashed line, upon the first official communication of a dashed-line
map to the international community in 2009, several immediately affected countri
es formally and publicly protested.70 The practice of the United States is also

notable with respect to the lack of acquiescence. Although the U.S. Government i
s active in protesting historic claims around the world that it deems excessive,
the United States has not protested the dashed line on these grounds because it
does not believe that such a claim has been made by China. Rather, the United S
tates has requested that the Government of China clarify its claims.71
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
In conclusion, China is in the wrong side of the law. No other country has recog
nized the 9-dash-lines. The good government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) ha
s even abandoned the claim because it clearly doesn't conform to the Law of the
Sea. The international community refuses to be subjected to gunboat diplomacy an
d is calling for China to respect the international laws and settle the maritime
disputes with other claimants through the UN arbitration.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
China is not asking any country to recognize the nine dash lines. I don't know w
hy you are so concerned about this "symbol" on Chinese maps. The US don't unders
tand what the lines stand for except they are symbols for China's claim in the S
CS. They are not maritime delimitation, and therefore has nothing to do with law
of the sea. This is why the nine dash lines violate no law at all.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice ,"China is not asking any country to recognize the nine dash lines."
Then it shouldn't continue with that bogus claim. World countries are opposed to
it. Why continue?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

justice_first Arcane
a month ago
China has displayed the lines as a symbol of its sovereignty in the SCS, that wa
s the result of historic title and the second world war. The case is very strong
in terms of facts and evidence. Philippines is ignoring this claim at its own r
isks, as an outlaw. Your country will suffer the consequences of occupying Chine
se territories. China is not in a hurry to settle the issue.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "Your country will suffer the consequences of occupying Chinese te
rritories. China is not in a hurry to settle the issue."
Veiled threats of war isn't going to work on the Philippines. We're going to use
the laws to expose China of its true color. We may not have bigger guns, but th
e laws and the truth are on our side. Let's see how China can handle it.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
The Philippines is almost blind in following the American to the Tribunal arbitr
ation, which is flawed on fundamentals. Sea cannot dominate lands. That is only
a "clever" American ploy, or contraption to fool the world and establish "obstac
les" to China's development. I wonder what kind of spell is forced upon the Phil
ippines. You cannot lead your nation with half your brain intact. The American w
ill not be your protector because they have their own problems and concerns. Phi
lippines must rely on itself, not on American, or Spain again. Look at all the o
ther Asean nations. They are going forward with vigorous economic programs, unli
ke the Philippines clinging to the past, staying stagnant in almost all aspects
of its vital growth. Poverty, as China has learned, is and can be the worst form
of violation to human rights. The American is using your country to serve its g
oals because you still cannot develop the resources in the SCS. You still have n
o financing to do that. You still do not have the money to build up your militar
y. That is going to be the real costs. China do not need war to solve any proble
ms. China wil negotiate with fairness, as it has done so with 14 other countries
on border issues. The outcome is always win win.
After all, China has a solid case of history and WW2 behind its claim. When Phil
ippines claimed the Archipelago (Island state) and the surrounding waters, it us
ed the same argument of historic title. This is significant for you to remember.
*

*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "The Philippines is almost blind in following the American to the
Tribunal arbitration, which is flawed on fundamentals. Sea cannot dominate land
s. That is only a "clever" American ploy, or contraption to fool the world and e
stablish "obstacles" to China's development."
It's foolish of you to drag the Americans into this mess or to even suggest that
the Philippines is just being used by the Americans.
Your communist government is encroaching into Philippine territories as it has d
one so with her other neighbors like Vietnam, India, Japan, Russia, Tibet and th
e East Turkestan. This is OUR lands, OUR sea that China is stealing here -- NOT
the American's. We have all the right to defend what are rightfully ours in the
eyes of international laws. And we are going to use the laws against your govern
ment and put China into shame for its despicable, thieving behavior. Your govern
ment can't do anything to stop the Philippines from doing what is right.
China has no solid backing for its historical bullcr4p. Until now your governmen
t could not substantiate its claim with a tiny bit of concrete proof.
You can't even do it yourself. I challenged you to cite me one credible source t
hat would solidify China's claim. Just one freakin' source and you couldn't even
do it. LOL. What you're doing here is just lip service. It's nothing. It's all
air. Good luck fantasizing your non-existent sovereignty. LOL.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
All you can claim is the so called 200 miles EEZ under UNCLOS. I guess the dispu
te will continue, for a long long time. Remember UNCLOS is silent on sovereignty
, and that is the sad part of a legal regime that came late, approved into law o
nly in 1992. The US has not even ratified this law. We all know this law cannot
trump all the other international law on sovereignty, and therefore the dispute
is clearly unfortunate due to this "new" law of the sea.
The world is actually more unstable, not safer because of this new law, not bett
er than before 1992.
The Philippines is taking a big risk in ignoring all the other laws on sovereign
ty. You take on China because you think the US will cover your a
*
*
* Reply
*

* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
Beware of the real truth, that China possessed uncontested title and sovereignty
to the islands and feature ( shoals or reefs) clearly after WW2. You have to li
ve with fact. At the end, your country may be the biggest loser among all claima
nts, because Vietnam will surely cooperate with China and resolve the disputes.
Their case is simply too weak. The costs to your country will be huge, as I see
it. The arbitration is unwinnable because it started on the wrong foot with seri
ous flaws. Only the American can recommend such a stupid move, making money out
of a poor nation. This is truly unethical. Philippines will gain nothing except
some sympathy. America will not make Philippines rich. This is what I mean by co
nsequences: loss in opportunities for your country, while other south east Asian
s thrive.
China's position is : China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Se
a Islands (the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the
Nansha Islands) and the adjacent waters. Chinese activities in the South China S
ea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China was the first country to discover, n
ame, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea Islands and the fi
rst to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them. From the 1930s to 1940s
, Japan illegally seized some parts of the South China Sea Islands during its wa
r of aggression against China. At the end of the Second World War, the Chinese G
overnment resumed exercise of sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Mili
tary personnel and government officials were sent via naval vessels to hold resu
mption of authority ceremonies. Commemorative stone markers were erected, garris
ons stationed, and geographical surveys conducted. In 1947, China renamed the ma
ritime features of the South China Sea Islands and, in 1948, published an offici
al map which displayed a dotted line in the South China Sea. Since the founding
of the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949, the Chinese Government has
been consistently and actively maintaining its sovereignty over the South China
Sea Islands. Both the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of
China on the Territorial Sea of 1958 and the Law of the People's Republic of Chi
na on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 expressly provide that
the territory of the People's Republic of China includes, among others, the Don
gsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands. Al
l those acts affirm China's territorial sovereignty and relevant maritime rights
and interests in the South China Sea.
in simple terms, China already claimed and administered the land features in SCS
in clear terms under international law, before the Philippines "discovered" the
m. I am not saying Philippines will lose the arbitration, but the chances are re
ally really slim. The illegal occupation is not your best bet.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o

Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote, "Beware of the real truth, that China possessed uncontested title
and sovereignty to the islands and feature ( shoals or reefs) clearly after WW2
... China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands (the Don
gsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands) an
d the adjacent waters. "
Quit it, Justice. It's over. You lose. You have nothing to substantiate China's
bogus historical title over the entire South China Sea. All the things you said
here couldn't hold water in the court of law. It's all air. I rather read a bori
ng novel than your fictional stories of China's sovereignty over the SCS.
I asked you some very simple questions and you conveniently avoided them because
you knew they would expose China's lies.
1. When did China submit an official 9-dash-line map to the UN? (avoided to answ
er)
2. Can you name one Chinese emperor who had claimed sovereignty over the entire
South China Sea and effectively controlled and administered the water? (avoided
to answer)
3. How come all of your ancient Chinese territorial maps consistently show Haina
n as the southernmost territory of China? (avoided to answer)
4. Why is it that in 1932 your government sent a Note Verbale to France reiterat
ing to the world that Hainan is China's southernmost territory? (will avoid to a
nswer)
Feel free to answer these questions anytime you like. Ask your PLA propaganda of
ficer what would be a convincing answer to each of these questions. In the meant
ime, I'm going to go and read a boring novel. See you later, alligator. :)))))))
))))))))))))))
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China
after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Parac
el islands.
1898 The Philippine Islands were ceded by Spain to the United States in the Trea
ty of Paris following the Spanish American War. There was no mention of the SCS.
1946 Republic of China sent warships to claim Itu Aba, the largest of the Spratl
y Islands and renamed it Taiping Island. The Paracels and Spratlys were handed o
ver to Republic of China control from Japan after the 1945 surrender of Japan, s
ince the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surren
ders in that area. The Republic of China garrisoned at Itu Aba (Taiping) island
in 1946 posted Chinese flags and markers on it along with Woody island in the Pa
racels, France tried, but failed to make them leave Woody island.
The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims. The Republic of
China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, showing the U shaped
claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Ch
inese territory, in 1947.
Later in 1953 the People's Republic of China published the map with the 9 dash l
ines remaining.
The above selected chronology, just for your reference, may be informative on th

e origin of the nine dash lines and China's claims, before the Philippines even
declared "discovery" of some of the islands in the SCS. It would be more correct
to say China had a very real administration of the SCS for hundreds of years, a
nd then "officially" claimed the islands and reefs in 1947 through the nine dash
lines. This is what the US is asking China for an explanation of the lines.
It is then clearer to argue that China actually officially claimed the SCS in 19
47, earlier than all the other claimants, through the lines, based on historic r
elation with the SCS.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote ,"The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between F
rance and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the S
pratly and Paracel islands."
LMAO. Justice. Nice try, but nope. Try again. Try very, very hard.
Did you e-mail your PLA propaganda officer about those questions? No reponse yet
, huh? Okay. I'm just here, reading my boring novel. LMAO.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
If you still do not appreciate China's heavy historic involvements in the SCS be
fore Philippines "discovered" the occupied islands, you have only yourself to bl
ame. The US pivot to Asia has misled your country into thinking you can get what
you want.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first

a month ago

justice wrote ,"If you still do not appreciate China's heavy historic involvemen
ts in the SCS before Philippines "discovered" the occupied islands you have only
yourself to blame. The US pivot to Asia has misled your country into thinking y
ou can get what you want."
Heavy historic involvements? LMAO. Answer questions number 2, 3 and 4 above to p
rove it. If you can't answer those simple questions, beat it. Your "heavy histor
ical involvement" is a sham. Not one historical record will support that claim.
It's been three hours since I posted that comment. Still haven't got a reply fro
m your propaganda officer? Hahaha. Those are very simple questions. You should b
e able to answer them if China really has substantial evidence to back its ficti
onal sovereignty over the SCS.
I'm playing the piano right now. I expect those answers once I'm done. If you st
ill don't have those answers then what are you doing here? You're just wasting y
our time doing lip service for something you can't prove. The world will not buy
the things you've been posting here. Give us something tangible. Not air, okay?
So, try again :)))))))))))))))
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
in 1932, China had not officially included the SCS as its sovereign territories.
It was in 1947, through the nine dash lines, China effectively incorporated the
SCS, and all land features within the lines, into China's territories. This is
quite clear by now. Your question 4 is now answered. From 1947 to the 1970's, Ch
ina's sovereignty was never contested, never challenged, until the adoption of t
he law of the sea convention in 1992.
Before 1992, China was directed/assigned by the UN, through the international ma
ritime organization in 1982, to carry out certain maritime responsibilities for
the international communities in the SCS. China reestablished presence in the SC
S, at the largest island named the Taiping Island in Chinese, and other islands
and reefs, with the assistance of US military. China repossessed the islands and
reefs directly from the Japanese. All these are facts and evidence open to the
international community.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "in 1932, China had not officially included the SCS as its sovere
ign territories. It was in 1947, through the nine dash lines, China effectively
incorporated the SCS, and all land features within the lines, into China's terri

tories. This is quite clear by now. Your question 4 is now answered. From 1947 t
o the 1970's, China's sovereignty was never contested, never challenged, until t
he adoption of the law of the sea convention in 1992."
That Note Verbale to France is a strong admission by your government that China'
s southernmost territory doesn't go beyond Hainan. All its so-called "historical
evidence" prior to 1932 just go straight out of the window. That admission is t
he undeniable proof that China has neither claimed nor exercised sovereignty ove
r the entire South China Sea.
Now the reason why China's dash-line-map was uncontested from 1947 to 1970s was
quite obvious. China had never submitted an official dash-line-map to the UN dur
ing that period. In fact, the maps were only distributed domestically in China a
nd in Chinese language, so how could the world contest the maps when they hadn't
received an official copy?
I want you to ask your PLA propaganda officer what year China submitted an offic
ial 9-dash-line map to the UN because you either don't know or pretend not to kn
ow. LOL. It's recent :) And when your government did so, the world naturally rea
cted especially the Southeast Asian nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, P
hilippines, and Brunei.
So, question number 1. Answer that. LOL
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
The nine dash lines are the single most glaring and colorful historic evidence t
hat China did to show its claim in 1947 before any other claimants was able to d
o, to satisfy, in basic terms, modern international law. China was able to do th
at because of historic experience, historic influence, records, administration,
first discovery, first naming, various activities in the SCS, over hundreds of y
ears before 1947. That should support China's "historic title" to the islands an
d reefs. You may study how Philippines laid claim on the whole archipelago, and
even to the Moro Islamic states in Southern Philippines on basis of historic tit
le.
China used the nine dash lines as a symbol to declare to the world its sovereign
ty to the landed features, islands, reefs etc in the SCS. This is like placing a
rock, a cross, on an island, as a symbol of claim. The claiming was certainly l
egal in 1947 before any other nation.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first

a month ago

justice wrote "The nine dash lines are the single most glaring and colorful hist
oric evidence that China did to show its claim in 1947 before any other claimant
s was able to do, to satisfy, in basic terms, modern international law."
Again and again, you cannot claim historic titles without history. To recap befo
re I end this discussion:
1. China's 9 dash line was only created recently and it was not based on history
. It's based on an expansionist agenda.
2. The Note Verbale to France is a strong admission by China that its southernmo
st territory doesn't go beyond Hainan island. Any "historical evidence" dating t
housands of years prior to the admission in 1932 go straight out the window and
cannot be used for evidence.
3. Even if we are to use China's so-called thousand year old historical evidence
s to claim historic or sovereignty title, they don't pass the sovereignty test r
ecognized by international laws. Namely, no effective occupation, no continued e
xercise of sovereignty, and no acquiescence by foreign states in China's exercis
e of authority in the South China Sea.
3.a All of the ancient Chinese territorial maps consistently show Hainan as Chin
a's southernmost territory, and no Chinese emperors has ever claimed sovereignty
over the entire South China Sea. None of the ancient Chinese historical records
(documents and maps) ever show or mention the South China Sea as being part of
China.
3.b The so-called ancient "historical evidences" by China to stake its claim wer
e travel documents for fishing, trade and scientific observations with maps show
ing territories not only belonging to China but also to other nations. They are
not proofs of effective occupation by a state recognized by international laws t
o claim sovereignty.
4. China has never made a public notoriety of its historic claim. In fact, the d
ash-line-maps were only distributed domestically in China and in Chinese languag
e in 1947. China never submitted an official dash-line-map to the UN from 1947 u
ntil 2009!
5. The 9-dash-line map violates international laws. Particularly, Articles 10, 1
5, 13.2, 55, 56.b, 60.8 121.3 of the Law of the Sea Convention.
6. China cannot use "historic titles" to justify its claim because the Conventio
n has no exceptions for such things.
7. China could not use the argument that its claim was made prior to UNCLOS beca
use the Convention was made to solve ALL issues of maritime boundaries. And as a
signatory to the UNCLOS, China had consented to be bound to its laws.
8. The People's Republic of China was neither mentioned nor a party to the Cairo
Declaration, and thus, China could not use it for justifying its claim over the
Senkakus, the Spratley and or the entire South China Sea.
9. No other country recognizes China's ridiculous 9-dash-line map. In fact, only
China, of all the countries in the world, claims sovereignty over the entire So
uth China Sea.
10. The government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) has already abandoned the d
ash-line claim because it does not conform to international laws.
11. All the world countries including Australia, Canada, US, UK, Belgium, Japan,
Germany, Spain, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia
, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, all the European Union countrie
s and the G7 countries like France, Italy, etc have ALL called on China to respe
ct the international laws governing land and sea (UNCLOS) and to settle the terr
itorial disputes through the UN tribunal.
12. Even its closest ally, Russia, does not support China or is neutral in the S
outh China Sea dispute. Source: thediplomat(dot)com/2014/06/why-doesnt-russia-su
pport-china-in-the-south-china-sea/
13. If China and other claimants bring the question of sovereignty before the in
ternational court, China cannot legitimize its sovereignty claim because many of
the islands and or features it currently occupies have been forcibly acquired.
Like when the PLA navy massacred 64 unarmed Vietnamese sailors on Johnson South
Reef in 1988. This is in direct violation of international laws, particularly, t
he "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations

and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nati
ons."
In conclusion, China is making fraudulent claims. And as it has done so in the p
ast with Tibet, East Turkestan, Vietnam, India and Russia, it is now setting its
eyes in the Spratleys and the Senkakus, pitting against Japan, the Philippines,
Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and other nations. China employs deceptive
practices, lies and gunboat diplomacy in staking its claim. It is quite contrar
y to its slogan of a "Peaceful Rise." It is not peaceful when international laws
are disrespected.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
justice_first Arcane a month ago
You may note that the American never directly challenge China on legal ground, t
hat China has no sovereignty. It pushes Philippines to do it. The American is sm
arter. They know it will never work after 66 years. No one has filed a claim aga
inst China. Why should the Philippines succeed when no one even dare to do that?
If the court case fails, only the Philippines has to bear the blame and consequ
ences. In fact the American approach is military, as witnessed by the Pivot. How
ever military action will never help the Philippines to win a legal case, becaus
e China will never yield under force and coercion. No wonder some very smart peo
ple think Philippines has committed a very stupid strategic error, and will lose
big. After that, the Philippines will be completely at US mercy, because China
will simply leave Philippines alone. The US will again become the master of the
Philippines, even more powerful than ever before.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
justice_first Arcane a month ago
As a matter of jurisprudence, in accordance to the spirit of international law,
you or the Philippines government should have brought your case against China's
so called "fraudulent" claim to an international court of justice in 1947, or th
ere about, under protest. You should have filed your protest in 1947 over the ni
ne dash lines and China's claim over the SCS maritime features. You have waited
almost 66 years to bring on the complaint, not to an international court of just
ice, but to a maritime tribunal. So whatever reasons, or ground, you are amassin
g against China today, it is too late due to a statue of limitation (of time) to
file a case. If you have not even filed a case, your personal judgement of Chin
a violating any international law is completely useless. It is generally accepte
d that only until a judgement is passed by a court of law against China, China i

s "not" guilty of committing fraudulent claim. This is a fundamental principle o


f law. There is a very strong case of acquiescence, after 66 years. I am sure yo
u know this point of law. You are simply too late to accuse China of declaring s
overeignty on those maritime features as a fraudulent act.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote " You should have filed your protest in 1947 over the nine dash li
nes and
China's claim over the SCS maritime features. You have waited almost 66 years to
bring on the complaint, not to an international court of justice, but to a mari
time tribunal."
No one protested because your China had not officially claimed the region until
2009. The maps were only submitted in that year. As soon as your country did tha
t, it immediately faced opposition from various countries including the Philippi
nes. That's a hard fact to deny. Just ask your PLA propaganda officer if your go
vernment had publicly distributed the dash-line maps to other UN states. He woul
d tell you that the maps were only for internal distribution prior to 2009.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
The UN specifically assigned China to repossess the SCS islands and features fro
m the Japanese after the war. The US assisted China in doing so. This is a known
fact, and therefore there is no doubt nations knew about China's position after
the war. Even without the nine dash lines, nearly all nations knew what China w
as doing in 1947. You may be the only exception.
The US specifically told the Philippines after independence that the SCS islands
or features were not part of, not included in Philippines territories. This is
also a fact.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote "The UN specifically assigned China to repossess the SCS islands a
nd features from the Japanese after the war."
Stop generalizing. Which islands in the South China Sea did the UN assigned to C
hina? And show me proof of your so-called UN authorization that gave China the r
ight to infringe the sovereignty of other nations? I'm sure there is a copy onli
ne if it really exist. If it's a UN resolution or an official declaration or aut
horization, then there should be one online. If you can't even do this, then you
are just doing lip service you can't prove. Sorry.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
I am not generalizing, I am telling you facts that you don't know. After you hav
e brushed up your history of the post war Asia after 1945, you will know.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "China did not take the islands by force."
You are generalizing because when you say SCS islands, you are referring to ALL
the islands of the South China Sea, as if China has actually occupied them all w
hen that's not really the case. So, stop generalizing the entire SCS.
justice wrote, "I am telling you facts that you don't know."
Facts? And this is coming from someone who was caught fabricating stories? Hahah
aha. Okay :))))))))))))))))))
justice_first Arcane a month ago
I would sum up, for the last time, in saying that what Philippines is most afrai
d of is that China actually had historic title. This is why Philippines is doing
all it can to demolish China's history in the SCS, China's repossessing the SCS
features after 1945, China's nine dash lines set up in 1947,in order to destroy
China's claim to historic title. Philippines used historic title to gain contro
l of its Archipelago islands, including the southern Moro Islamic states, and is
lamic people. Yet it refutes China on using historic title for the SCS. Yet ther
e is so far no court ruling that China has no historic title over SCS features.

Even international law is not clear on China's case because it goes back centuri
es of intimate relation and administration over the SCS. China has plenty of evi
dence to support its claim, and no court has ever ruled against them. If China h
as historic title, which I believe it does, then the Philippines occupation in t
he 1970's was illegal, and the islands were never Terra Nullius.
China openly declared sovereignty in 1947, through the nine dash lines, to all t
he allies of WW2, to Japan and the rest of the world. There was no challenge. Th
ere were periods after 1947 that China was indeed in trouble of its civil war, u
p to the 1970's, between the mainland and Taiwan, that it was lax in "managing"
the islands. Philippines took the chance to steal the islands away from China, o
nly in the 1970's, and destroyed almost all traces of China's presence on the is
lands.
Now, China wants to have them back despite Philippines denial and teaming with a
ll the big powers to oppose China's rightful claim. This is a thieve calling out
thieve, and will not succeed in the end. Philippines will only lose out big tim
e in the end.
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote "I would sum up, for the last time, in saying that what Philippine
s is
most afraid of is that China actually had historic title."
No, not at all. The Philippines is not afraid to face China before any legal pro
ceeding. In fact, it's in the Hague right now. It is China who is afraid of the
Philippines. I don't even think China is ever going to face the Philippines or a
ny claimant before the ICJ because it cannot substantiate its historical title.
Plus the fact that it violated international laws when it took those islands/fea
tures by force. Add another fact that your government sent a Note Verbale to Fra
nce, affirming Hainan being the southernmost territory of China. Then another fa
ct that your ancient territorial maps don't show the SCS as being part of China.
Then another fact that no Chinese emperor had ever claimed or administered the
entire South China Sea, especially the Spratleys. Then the fact that many of the
Chinese names given to the Spratley islands were just translated from the Briti
sh names. And yet another fact that the Philippines and other Southeast Asian na
tions effectively occupied the islands without a sweat. And many more glaring tr
uths that demolish your government's claim over the Spratley. China has a very d
ifficult job to convince the world of its historic title because it's not backed
by history.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
you are repeating. we have already covered all the points you are raising. Compa
ritively, Philippines has the weakest claim among all claimants, because you can
't even prove your own entitlement. If you can, why are you going to the tribuna
l? It is now extremely clear, after reading your nonsense, your country has no v
alid case of ownership. You just grabbed lands from China, and that is a huge po
litical blunder. You want to challenge China, go ahead. It is clear that your co
untry wanted to expand to the SCS islands, through various illegal occupation. T
hat is not going to work for you under international law because the world knows
where Philippines territories end. Reichler cunning repackage will backfire, an
d will not win for the Philippines in the end. Justice will always be justice, a
nd stealing will not be awarded by law.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "It is now extremely clear, after reading your nonsense, your coun
try has no valid case of ownership. "
I know in your country you call facts nonsense when they don't help your case. B
ut when confronted with the truth, you resort to lying and silly comments like "
factual administration." I admit I enjoy talking to you because many of your rep
lies are out of touch from reality and funny. Thanks :)
Arcane justice_first

a month ago

justice wrote, "If you can, why are you going to the tribunal?"
Don't worry about the tribunal. We can go to the ICJ after the tribunal. But the
BIG question is -- will China ever going to face the Philippines before the ICJ
, or will it find another excuse to not attend the proceeding?
As you already know, China could not legitimize its claims under international l
aws because those islands/features were taken forcibly. So, what reason do you t
hink China will come up next time to refuse to face the Philippines before ICJ?
justice_first Arcane
a month ago
I challenge and recommend the Philippines go to the ICJ with its case. May be Re
ichler can help too.
China did not take the islands by force. China was retaking the islands from Phi
lippines illegal occupation. It is very important to know the facts.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "China did not take the islands by force."
I didn't know that using your military to harass our fishermen and our smaller n
avy wasn't an exercise of force. How about the killing of 64 unarmed Vietnamese
sailors? I guess in China they call these incidents a "peaceful re-taking." LOL.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
you do know what happened at the Scarborough Shoal? The Philippines dispatched i
ts only 2nd hand naval gun boat to harass Chinese fishermen, only to be rescued
by Chinese maritime surveillance vessels, not Chinese military ships. China is n
ow using maritime police instead of navy ships. In any case you have to be able
to distinguish between taking and retaking an island, before any meaningful conv
ersation can take place.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote ,"you do know what happened at the Scarborough Shoal? The Philippi
nes dispatched its only 2nd hand naval gun boat to harass Chinese fishermen, onl
y to be rescued by Chinese maritime surveillance vessels, not Chinese military s
hips. "
Yes, I know what happened in Scarborough Shoal. Your people were poaching endang
ered species more than 200 nautical miles from your southernmost territory of Ha
inan -- in our backyard in Scarborough Shoal. Our coastguards/navy have the righ
t to arrest your fishermen for their illegal activities.
All other Chinese fishing vessels were subsequently boarded and that they all yie
lded assorted endangered species, corals, live sharks, and other marine endanger
ed species, Pama said.
Source: globalnation(dot)inquirer(dot)net/32493/illegal-poaching-activities-of-c
hinese-vessels-cause-standoff
Check out the photos of the endangered marine species that your fishermen were i
llegally poaching in our waters from that link. Your people have been illegally
poaching in our waters for many years.
Even endangered sea turtles were hunted by your fisherfolks. 500 of them were fo
und in your people's fishing vessels at one time. Here's the news from BBC News:
A court in the Philippines has found nine Chinese fishermen guilty of poaching a
nd catching an endangered species in the South China Sea.
Police found more than 500 sea turtles on their boat when the fishermen were int
ercepted at sea in May.
Source: bbc(dot)com/news/world-asia-30173962
Here's another one from the Global News, a Canadian-based news agency.
MANILA, Philippines
The Philippines charged nine Chinese fishermen Monday with p
oaching more than 500 endangered sea turtles at a disputed South China Sea shoal
despite China s demand for them to be immediately freed.
Source: globalnews(dot)ca/news/1325136/chinese-fisherman-charged-with-poaching-5
00-endangered-sea-turtles/
Another one from Channel News Asia. This time your people were poaching hundreds

of endangered anteaters in Philippine sanctuary waters. Check out the photos of


those endangered animals.
Wildlife officials have been informed of the surprising discovery, which could l
ead to more charges for the 12 Chinese men arrested on charges including poachin
g after their boat was stranded in Tubbataha Reef last week.
"We found 400 boxes containing anteaters aboard the vessel, and we are now deter
mining where these came from," coast guard spokesman Lieutenant Commander Armand
Balilo told AFP.
According to the International Union of Conservation of Nature, all eight specie
s of the insect-eating mammals are protected by international laws around the wo
rld.
Two - the Malaysian and Chinese pangolins - are in its "red list" of endangered
species.
Pangolins are also found roaming in the wild in the western Philippine island of
Palawan, the nearest land area to Tubbataha Reef where the Chinese boat had bee
n marooned.
Source: channelnewsasia(dot)com/news/asiapacific/philippines-discovers/638838(do
t)html
So, yeah, just like your thieving government, your fishermen have no respect for
international laws. Not only they're encroaching into our waters, they are also
poaching endangered marine species. So, don't be surprised if your favorite Pan
golin and sea-turtle dish aren't on the menu today. That's just because our coas
tguards and navy are doing their job in implementing the laws by arresting your
fishermen in our waters. And they will arrest them whenever they get the chance
because 101% of the time, they are committing a crime.
But then again, as a communist yourself, you applaud your people's handiwork. In
fact, you are proud. Clap clap clap clap!
justice_first Arcane
a month ago
The question of poaching is again related to the question of territorial water.
Beijing claimed the arrests took place in Chinese water, because the land featur
es were within Chinese sovereignty. Philippines has no jurisdiction in those wat
ers. Philippines has yet to prove that those waters belong to the Philippines, a
nd the Sea Tribunal cannot solve this issue for the Philippines. If they happene
d in disputed waters, then again, the legality of Philippines court action is st
ill in question. We have to solve the question of sovereignty and territorial wa
ter "before" Philippines can rightly say the poaching took place in Philippines
waters. The fact that some species were found on board Chinese boats does not au
tomatically mean they poached because it has been well known, and in practice fo
r a long time, that they bought them from Philippines fishermen.
Another point, the use of gun boat by the Philippines violates international law
. They should only use their maritime or surveillance units instead. The use of
military force was a disastrous mistake in international policing practices.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "The fact that some species were found on board Chinese boats doe
s not automatically mean they poached because it has been well known, and in pra
ctice for a long time, that they bought them from Philippines fishermen."
Have you ever heard of the word "substantiate?" Yeah, you should look it up some
time in your dictionary. Trust me, it will help people believe your fantastic st
ories.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "The fact that some species were found on board Chinese boats doe
s not automatically mean they poached because it has been well known, and in pra
ctice for a long time, that they bought them from Philippines fishermen."

Oh, okay. So, Chinese fishermen get their fish from the Filipino fishermen. What
about your Chinese farmers? Do they just buy their farm products from Filipino
farmers? LMAO!
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote, "you are repeating. we have already covered all the points you ar
e raising."
Well, you keep raising the same weak arguments, so I have to reply you with the
same facts that will throw your arguments to the bin.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
First we must wait for the tribunal decision on jurisdiction. If the Tribunal is
unsure of any jurisdiction, then Philippines case may fly out of the window. Th
e case "may" have to go to the ICJ to argue for or against historic titles. We w
ill certainly expect a protracted dispute. China, having the first discovery, fi
rst naming, first administration over the islands and reefs, will not give up.
We do have a problem here. Don't you agree? it may never be resolved. The ultima
te solution is either by war or by negotiation. It may even mean a third world w
ar. Then who is right and who is wrong in the case? China is using a political s
ystem before international law existed, and the Philippines is using a conventio
n adopted only from 1992. These things are not so black or white. The US does no
t even recognize the sea convention and does not even follow the rule of law, as
in the case of Iraq. It is not surprising that we see so many wars and killings
, say by drones, all over the world. When something is unsolvable, they go to wa
r. This is sad. Territorial dispute is some of the most difficult challenges we
have, and we have to face them realistically.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "First we must wait for the tribunal decision on jurisdiction. If
the Tribunal is unsure of any jurisdiction, then Philippines case may fly out o
f the window."
The tribunal's jurisdiction on the questions being raised by the Philippines is
quite clear -- it has jurisdiction. Watch the video below. Skip to 35:00 if you
can't wait. You will hear Mr. Paul Reichler's explanation of the Philippine's ca
se before the tribunal. You will also see some of the features that your country
is illegally occupying in the Spratleys. Source: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=CCoiBS
1bdIY
justice wrote, "The case "may" have to go to the ICJ to argue for or against his
toric titles."
A historic title that has not been proven with solid evidence will not fly in th
e ICJ.
justice wrote, "We will certainly expect a protracted dispute. China, having the
first discovery, first naming, first administration over the islands and reefs,
will not give up."
There you go again with your "first discovery, first naming, first administratio
n" line. China has no concrete evidence to back this. The facts that the dash-li
ne-map is just a recent creation and the Chinese names given to the Spratley isl
ands are only translations of the British names are two of the many undeniable p
roofs that the Chinese has never been the "first" to discover, name and administ
er those islands, and its "historical title" is a sham.
justice wrote, "We do have a problem here. Don't you agree? it may never be reso
lved. The ultimate solution is either by war or by negotiation. It may even mean
a third world war."
If China decides to go to war, it will lose everything it has worked so hard for
for many, many years to achieve the economic status its people are enjoying rig
ht now. We are Southeast Asians; we will bond together with our brethren in Indo
nesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and our friends in the international community
to fight China legally through international laws. And if China becomes overly a
ggressive and uses force on any one of us at these very volatile times, we will
gladly respond in kind. China will not win in a war against a coalition of natio

ns. In fact, the war will be a perfect reason for us to breakup that communist n
ation into many independent states. We will return Tibet and the East Turkestan
to their rightful people. Our friends from Taiwan can move back in to the mainla
nd, their home, and Hong Kong and Macau can finally be free from a despotic regi
me and become their own independent countries. So, be very, very careful to sugg
est or hint of a war because that's not going to end up nice for your communist
government. It could be the greatest karma that the Dalai Lama and his people ar
e waiting to happen.
justice wrote, "The US does not even recognize the sea convention..."
Wrong. The US recognizes the Convention except for Article XI, which pertains to
deep seabed portions and mining of valuable metals. Read the statements of Roge
r Rufe, President of the Ocean Conservancy before the Senate Committee on Foreig
n Relations on October 21, 2003 here --> foreign(dot)senate(dot)gov/imo/media/do
c/RufeTestimony031021(dot)pdf
Just because the US has not ratified the Convention doesn't mean that it has ign
ored all its articles. That's a wrong assumption.
Also, China cannot use that as a reason for its government not to abide the Laws
of the Sea Convention because it is a SIGNATORY; it ratified the laws and thus
it is liable. China cannot cherry-pick the laws while other signatories have to
conform. That's not how it works, okay?
justice wrote, "It is not surprising that we see so many wars and killings, say
by drones, all over the world."
There are actually studies supporting the use of drones in military missions bec
ause they help minimize casualties both civilians and military combatants. Drone
s are capable of doing reconnaisance for hours and wait for their targets unnoti
ced. And they can be configured to carry just the right bombs for the missions.
But that's not a topic we should be talking.
justice wrote, "When something is unsolvable, they go to war. This is sad."
It is sad, indeed. But what will you do if you have a property and your neighbor
stops by and says, "That's my yard!" And he started fencing your yard. And no m
atter how much you explain to him that it is yours 'cause the law says so, he wo
n't budge. He says, "Okay, okay, let's talk about this." But he keeps building t
he fences! Meanwhile, he carries a big stick and won't let you and your family s
tep into your yard. Not even your pet. So, you went to the court and invited him
to resolve the issue. But he says, "Scr3w the court! I don't care what it says!
Let's just talk about this ourselves." And by then you feel helpless. That is w
hat China is doing to Philippines right now.
a month ago
justice_first Arcane
your analogy of a property and your neighbor is entirely inappropriate, because
you have no right to the property in the first place. Somebody already claimed t
he property long long time ago. You have to prove them wrong in court. That is y
our job, but not to a sea court. You should address the issue who owns the prope
rty, not who is entitled to using the road in front of the property. Reichler th
ought out this trick of repackaging the issue of sovereignty, and asks the tribu
nal to pass judgement confirming Philippines ownership of the properties. This i
s not a circus. This is a court of law. Law is law and it must be interpreted st
rictly to the letters. UNCLOS does not deal with sovereignty.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "your analogy of a property and your neighbor is entirely inappro
priate, because you have no right to the property in the first place. "
Oh, it's a perfect analogy because the claimant is claiming a property through f
raudulent means -- it's a bogus claim. It doesn't even have the titles to the pr
operties to show. Even his neighbors are saying that the claimant is lying and m
ust settle the dispute in the court.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
Again, about your analogy of "your" house being fenced off by a neighbor, you ha
ve to consider one very important principle. Philippines assumes everything with
in its so called 200 mile EEZ belongs to the Philippines. I hear Rosario saying
: what is mine is mine. But, this is not correct, because there were previous ow
ners of the islands and reef in SCS before the sea convention being adopted in 1

992. The sea convention does not trump other international laws on sovereignty.
This is common knowledge.
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote,"But, this is not correct, because there were previous owners of t
he islands and reef in SCS before the sea convention being adopted in 1992."
It is correct. Your so-called "previous owner" is not really previous. It's just
some greedy neighbor with an expansionist agenda. This neighbor could not even
show any document or title to the properties. It's a bogus claim:
China: I own this property!
Philippines: Okay, do you have any document to support that claim?
China: Yes
Philippines: Okay, show it to us.
China: I don't need to show it to you.
Philippines: Let's go to the court then.
China: We don't have to go to the court. I have undisputed ownership of this pro
perty.
Philippines: Umm, apparently, it's not undisputed. There are other claimants.
China: Who cares about their claims. This is my property!
Philippines: Where is your proof then?
China: I don't have to show it to you!
LMAO.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
If you want to bring the matter of title to court, bring it to the ICJ where the
y can decide whether your question of "where is your proof" is valid or not. Chi
na has a very title because no one challenged its ownership for 66 years.
You are too late to do it now.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "China has a very title because no one challenged its ownership f
or 66 years."
No one challenged because nobody knew what the heck China was claiming during th
ose times until 2009 when it finally submitted a dash-line map to the UN. Even y
our own Chinese scholars could not refute this solid fact that China's dash-line
maps prior to 2009 were only published domestically throughout China in Chinese
language. The US knows this. Everybody knows this. Even you know this but wants
to deny it. LOL.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
you must remember the nine dash lines, un-connected as they are, can only be an
abstract symbol for a claim, because they are not territorial boundary lines. Ne
arly all the countries knew the lines after WW2, may be except the Philipppines.
In fact there is absolutely no record of any country officially denying knowled
ge of the nine dash lines since 1947. Unless you can show me a proof, I cannot u
nder-estimate the intelligence of people around the world.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, " I cannot under-estimate the intelligence of people around the w
orld."
Yes, don't ever underestimate the intelligence of people around the world. And t
heir intelligence is telling them -- The 9 dash lines violate international laws
. China must respect the international laws and face the Philippines and other c
laimants before the UN tribunal to resolve the territorial dispute.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
The interesting thing is, when you think deeper, China has more respect to the l
aw of the sea than the Philippines. Why? Philippines is trying to use the law of
the sea to indirectly deal with a sovereignty issue, while China recognizes tha
t this is putting the cart in front of the horse. China is saying that if you wa
nt to use the law of the sea, you have to solve the issue of sovereignty first,
to clarify who owns what. Without getting this clarified, you cannot ask the cou
rt to rule on sea delimitation, sea boundary or entitlement. After all, it is no
t correct, not accurate, to say the nine dash lines represent any sea boundary.

China is not claiming the sea within the lines. Philippines is abusing the law o
f the sea with a hidden purpose. This is not respecting the law, and it cannot e
ven solve the dispute. If you want to solve the dispute, go to the ICJ.
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote, " After all, it is not correct, not accurate, to say the nine das
h lines represent any sea boundary. China is not claiming the sea within the lin
es. "
When did they promote you from being an Internet PLA agent to a spokesperson for
your government in maritime laws? Why I wasn't informed about this so we could
invite the experts in international laws into the forum?
justice_first Arcane a month ago
ask Reichler. The US government have been asking the Chinese government what the
lines stand for from day one. They all know those are not maritime boundary, be
cause they cannot be a boundary line. All boundary delimitation are defined by U
NCLOS, subject to determination of sovereignty.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "The interesting thing is, when you think deeper, China has more
respect to the law of the sea than the Philippines."
Do you know what's really interesting? How you see China's defiance of the Conve
ntion as "respecting the law of the sea." LOL.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
China is not defying the Convention. China is following the law to the letter, t
o the exclusion of matters of sovereignty. For sovereignty matters, you have to
go to the ICJ.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "China is not defying the Convention. China is following the law
to the letter, to the exclusion of matters of sovereignty."
If China is following the Convention then those rocks claimed by your thieving g
overnment like the Scarborough Shoal should only have 12 nautical miles of water
. But your greedy government claims the water beyond that.
And under the Convention, permanently submerged reefs have no water of their own
and cannot be claimed for sovereignty by any country except by the state whose
200 EEZ encompasses those features or the state that owns the continental shelf
(within 200 EEZ) on which those reefs are part of. But China have no respect for
the laws and violate them.
You really do have thick skin for lying all the time. But I don't really care if
you keep lying and making up stories because every time you do that, you are re
inforcing the fact that China is in the wrong side of the law :)
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "you must remember the nine dash lines, un-connected as they are,
can only be an abstract symbol for a claim, because they are not territorial bo
undary lines. "
The 9-dash-lines violate international laws, even the general international laws
prior to UNCLOS like the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Continguous
Zone (CTSCZ). Islands are only afforded 12 nautical miles of water, but China cl
aims far more beyond that. Low-tide elevation features like those submerged reef
s have no baselines. So, they cannot have water. That violates Article 4.3 of th
e CTSCZ. Baselines must also be clear, but China clearly didn't define any basel
ines with the 9 dash lines. So that violates Article 4.6 of the CTSCZ. There are
others I don't mention. But you can check them out for yourself here: goo(dot)g
l/QEnKTb
justice wrote, "Nearly all the countries knew the lines after WW2, may be except
the Philipppines."
Apparently, nobody knew except China until 2009. Otherwise, the dash-line maps w
ould not be opposed when your government finally submitted one to the UN. Like I
said, even your scholars like Bing Bing JIA, Professor of International Law, La
w School, Tsinghua University, Beijing and Haiwen Zhang, one of the vice-preside
nts of the Chinese Society of International Law admitted that the dash-line maps
(atlases) were only "circulated internally" in the 1940s -- not internationally
. This only reinforces the fact that you are a liar and is not ashamed to deny i

t.
justice_first Arcane
a month ago
You are under estimating the intelligence of all the nations after WW2. How Chin
a's maps were circulated has nothing to do with being public information. China'
s maps were public information, unless you can prove that they were state secret
.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote ,"You are under estimating the intelligence of all the nations aft
er WW2. How China's maps were circulated has nothing to do with being public inf
ormation."
LOL. Since when did "internal circulation" become "public information?" Hahahaha
. You're very funny, Justice. Too bad you're not a chic. I would have asked for
your number so we could resolve this dispute over the phone. We'll have our own
bilateral talk :D ;););););););););););)
Anyways, it is you and your government that underestimate the intelligence of th
e international community for telling them that "internal circulation" is synony
mous to "public information." LMAO!
Public only in China, but not internationally. Big difference :)
justice_first Arcane a month ago
Philippines is not helpless. you get nowhere with UNCLOS anyway. what do you get
at the end? Nothing. If you want the islands, go and fight China. Don't get lau
ghed at by the world.
The world already know the tribunal will go nowhere. Even jurisdiction is in que
stion. Can you see the problem?
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "Philippines is not helpless. you get nowhere with UNCLOS anyway.
what do you get at the end? Nothing."
Hahaha, Justice. You don't have to be shy to admit that the Chinese names given
to the Spratley islands are just translated from the original British names. Mea
ning China was not the first to discover and name those islands as claimed by yo
ur lying government. LMAO. Why are you shy? It's not like your government hasn't
lied and committed fraudulent claims before. It has done them many times. So, d
on't be shy. Be proud of your government's criminal activities.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
It is very dangerous for Reichler and the Philippines to repackage its case in s
uch as way as to blatantly fool the judges of the Tribunal into thinking the cou
rt has jurisdiction over the issue. They are not stupid. So lets wait for the ou
tcome of their first judgement.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "It is very dangerous for Reichler and the Philippines to repacka
ge its case in such as way as to blatantly fool the judges of the Tribunal into
thinking the court has jurisdiction over the issue."
Oh, when did you become an expert in international laws? That's your opinion. Be
tween you and Mr. Reichler, he has credibility, while you have none.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
Reichler and the Philippines government is playing a PR game. It is clear Reichl
er is not seeking resolution of the dispute with China, but merely clarification
on entitlement of some features in the SCS, in a veiled and indirect attack to
China's 9 dash lines. This is an enormously wasteful exercise with no concrete s
olution to the maritime dispute. This is the world's most complex maritime dispu
te involving six parties, and Philippines legal action is totally inconsequentia
l. Vietnam will never follow suit because it will soon see the futility of ITLOS
. Even international law cannot handle the complexity.
In the much longer term, the disputes can only, I repeat only, be resolved betwe
en the parties by bilateral negotiations, not by arbitration.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "In the much longer term, the disputes can only, I repeat only, b
e resolved between the parties by bilateral negotiations, not by arbitration."
Uhuh. And this is coming from someone who cannot even substantiate its governmen
t's sovereignty claim. LOL. That's just funny. Sorry, Justice. You're just dream

ing. :)))))))))))
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote, "You don't have to be expert in international law to understand t
hat Reichler is just making a living, and Philippines is paying the price."
Thanks for admitting that the Philippines has a VERY STRONG CASE against your co
untry's illegal activities in the Spratleys. You probably didn't see that coming
, huh? :) Mr. Riechler is a very intelligent and highly credible attorney, exper
t in international laws and has represented many countries in sovereignty cases.
A lawyer of his integrity and caliber will not take this job if the Philippines
doesn't have a case. You know it. Everybody knows it. Even your government know
s it. :) That's why it doesn't want to face the Philippines before the tribunal
because China has NOTHING SOLID to back its historical bullcr4p. It's just using
the excuse of "jurisdiction" to not attend the proceeding. Pathetic. But nope.
You can't fool people with kind of line. LOL.
China will not even face the Philippines before the ICJ should that time comes b
ecause it really has nothing to substantiate its bogus sovereignty. You can't ev
en do it yourself even with the help of your PLA Propaganda officer. Hahaha. Add
the fact that the PRC has forcibly acquired the islands and features it current
ly occupies in the Paracel and Spratley. This fact alone already invalidates Chi
na's claim of those territories because it violated international laws. So, I'm
sorry again, Justice. You need to do better than that to prove China's historica
l bullcr4p. LOL. You should ask your President Xi, maybe he knows something you
don't know? LMAO!
justice_first Arcane a month ago
May be Reichler is good in fighting sovereignty cases as you have said, very int
elligent, very smart. But you must know he is not fighting a sovereignty case fo
r the Philippines, he is seeking clarification of entitlement under UNCLOS, and
that is not sovereignty. He cannot win for the Philippines in sovereignty, that
those islands belong to Philippines. Don't you understand ?
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "But you must know he is not fighting a sovereignty case for the
Philippines, he is seeking clarification of entitlement under UNCLOS, and that i
s not sovereignty."
LOL. You keep throwing your "sovereignty" line, but you can't even prove this wi
th your historical records. In fact, your sovereignty/historical claim has been
demolished with the actual history that occurred. So, what sovereignty are you t
alking about? Hahaha. I challenge you to cite me a credible source that will bac
k your country's exercise of sovereignty over the Spratleys that pass the 3 sove
reignty tests required by international laws.
Also, why did China translate the British names if it was really the first count
ry to discover and name the Spratley islands? Hahahaha. I am very interested wha
t silly answer you and your PLA propaganda officer will come up for this questio
n. Oh, boy, this is going to be funny! Please entertain me. Please??? LMAO!
justice_first Arcane a month ago
The Chinese discovered the Spratly group of islands roughly in the 4th century.
The British came to the scene in the 19th century. The Spanish may be a bit earl
ier in the 18th century. In the 16th century, the Chinese had the largest fleet,
the biggest vessel in South East Asia, as was known to the world. The many huge
Chinese diaspora in South East Asia bear strong witness to the active Chinese p
resence in South East Asia, from trade to exploration. In fact the Chinese had a
much more advanced ship building capability before the 18th century, that allow
ed them to travel all over Asia and the SCS. There is a lot of history for you t
o read if you have time.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
About the British naming some of the islands or reefs, it is known that, althoug
h they came late to the scene, they are used to naming with their own names. You
remember the Senkaku? That name was a transliteration of a British name "Pinnac
al" Islands from the British Navy, meaning a spike point. Of course before that,
the Chinese had another name, at much earlier time, called the Diaoyu, dating b
ack to the 1400's. In any case the western colonial powers came to the far east

much later than the 4th century, say in the 19th and 20th century. Don't be bogg
ed down by this naming question. All you need to explore is how the Chinese firs
t name the Spratly as a group of islands in the SCS, followed by additional more
individual naming later on.
The history is there.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
you always say China translated the British names. However China named the Sprat
ley Islands as a group first, long before the British, or the French, or the Spa
nish, named them. China had its own names for the group first, and many of the m
ajor features inside the group.
If I am not the right person to show you all the detailed records, the facts sti
ll exist. China's history is still richer than the Philippines, by far.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
As far as names of the islands go, there is no doubt that China was the first to
discover, to name the groups of islands. The British and the French, including
other western colonial powers, came much later to the scene. The naming history
goes like this ( can be supported by Chinese records):
The South China Sea Islands were discussed from the 4th century BC in the Chines
e texts Yizhoushu, Classic of Poetry, Zuo Zhuan, and Guoyu, but only implicitly
as part of the "Southern Territories" (Chinese: ??; pinyin: Nn Zh?u) or "South Se
a" (??, Nn H?i). During the Qin Dynasty (221 206 BC), government administrators cal
led the South China Sea Islands the "Three Mysterious Groups of Islands" (???, S
?n Shn Sh?n). But during the Eastern Han dynasty (23-220), the South China Sea wa
s renamed "Rising Sea" (??, Zh?ng H?i), so the islands were called the "Rising S
ea Islands" (????, Zh?ngh?i Qtu). During the Jin Dynasty (265 420), they were known
as the "Coral Islands" (???, Sh?nh Zh?u). From the Tang Dynasty (618 907) to the Qi
ng Dynasty (1644 1912), various names were used for the islands, but in general Ch
angsha and permutations referred to the Paracel Islands, while Shitang referred
to the Spratly Islands. These variations included, for the Paracels: Ji?r? Luzh?u
(????), Q?zh?u Yng (???), Chngsh? (??), Qi?nl? Chngsh? (????), and Qi?nl? Shtng (???
?); for the Spratlys: Shtng (??), Shchung (??), Wnl? Shtng (????), and Wnl? Chngsh?
).[5]
During the Qing, the names Qianli Changsha and Wanli Shitang were in vogue, and
Chinese fishermen from Hainan named specific islands from within the groups, alt

hough the Qing officially named 15 large islands in 1909. During China's Republi
can era (1912-1949), the government named the Spratlys Tunsh? Qnd?o (????) and the
n Nnsh? Qnd?o (????); the Paracels were X?sh? Qnd?o (????); Republican authorities
mapped over 291 islands, reefs, and banks in surveys in 1932, 1935, and 1947. Th
e People's Republic of China has retained the Republican-era names for the islan
d groups, supplementing them with a list of 287 names for islands, reefs, banks,
and shoals in 1983.[5] From 2011-2012, China's State Oceanic Administration nam
ed 1,660 nameless islands and islets under its claimed jurisdiction; in 2012, Ch
ina announced plans to name a further 1,664 nameless features by August 2013. Th
e naming campaign is intended to consolidate China's sovereignty claim over Sans
ha (??),[6] a city which includes islands from the Xisha (Paracel), Nansha (Spra
tly) and Zhongsha (??, Zh?ngsh?; Macclesfield Bank,Scarborough Shoal, and others
) groups.
I do not pretend I can show all the historic records for all the names cited abo
ve, but this is up to the historian to further substantiate instead of layman li
ke me. It is fair to say Philippines historic title is far far weaker than China
's, to almost non-existent level. From the above naming, we can see China's long
relation and administration of the SCS. Can you make a legitimate and coherent
rebuttal to the names cited above from your Philippines records?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
You don't have to be expert in international law to understand that Reichler is
just making a living, and Philippines is paying the price. Philippines should ha
ve filed its case to the ICJ and ask China to join in. If China refuses, then Ph
ilippines can have a high moral ground to stand on. Now, in this law of the sea
court, asking for entitlement and delimitation, without first resolving the issu
e of sovereignty, Philippines will just get ridiculed. Who will respect the Phil
ippines after that?
Philippines will lose big time. This time Reichler is wrong.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
[duplicate comment removed]
*
*
* Reply
*

* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
Everyone knew about China's nine dash lines from 1947. The US knew very well abo
ut the nine dash lines. Chinese maps were public information after WW2, and it i
s not merely for internal consumtion. If China submitted a map of 1947 to the UN
, I am not aware of that. In any case, it has nothing to do with China's proving
its sovereignty in 1947 because the UN knew about China's repossessing the SCS
from the Japanese after the war. China has absolutely "no need" to "prove" anyth
ing to the UN by submitting a map of 1947. Your question number 1 is irrelevant.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "Everyone knew about China's nine dash lines from 1947."
Everyone knew? Hahaha! Another one of your fabricated stories. Sorry, Mr. China,
you need to do better than that.
justice wrote, "The US knew very well about the nine dash lines. Chinese maps we
re public information after WW2, and it is not merely for internal consumtion."
LOL. The US knew and it was public information? Is that the reason why in their
study they said that there was "(3) No acquiescence by foreign States in China s e
xercise of authority in the South China Sea?"
Any alleged tacit acquiescence by States can be refuted by the lack of meaningfu
l notoriety of any historic claim by China, discussed above. A claimant State th
erefore cannot rely on nonpublic or materially ambiguous claims as the foundatio
n for acquiescence, but must instead establish its claims openly and publicly, a
nd with sufficient clarity, so that other States may have actual knowledge of th
e nature and scope of those claims."
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
Nonpublic, ambiguous claims. Lack of meaningful notoriety. Their words. Not mine
. LOL. You're getting demolished again and again here, Justice. It's embarrassin
g. :)))))))))))))
justice wrote "If China submitted a map of 1947 to the UN, I am not aware of tha
t."
Then what in the world are you doing here defending something you barely know ab
out? Stop fooling readers with your unfounded comments. You're not helping China
's image by fabricating stories.
justice wrote "In any case, it has nothing to do with China's proving its sovere
ignty in 1947 because..."
Oh, it has. How many times does one have to tell you that to PROVE your soverieg
nty under international laws you need to pass those 3 criteria I mentioned? Chin
a had never met those. Otherwise, the Philippines would have never been able to
effectively occupy them without a sweat. Remember, the Philippines didn't use fo

rce to acquire those islands unlike what your government did to the Vietnamese i
n the Paracels. That's an undeniable proof right there that China never did admi
nister those places or exercised sovereignty. So, your argument is VERY WEAK.
justice wrote, "the UN knew about China's repossessing the SCS from the Japanese
after the war. China has absolutely "no need" to prove anything to the UN by su
bmitting a map of 1947. Your question number 1 is irrelevant."
LOL. Another one of your unsubstantiated claims. How much more lies do you have
to write to defend your thieving government? It's pathetic. But I thank you for
taking the time to reply because every lie you make here is a permanent record f
or everyone to see how much of a farce China's historical title or fictional sov
ereignty is that even its citizens cannot defend with facts. Could not even answ
er simple questions without resorting to lies and silly arguments. LMAO. So, tha
nk you! Xie xie! :))))))))))))))))))
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
justice_first Arcane a month ago
you spent most of your time criticizing instead of listening. You don't listen,
and that is why you can't really understand the truth. This is why you are defen
ding your country's most stupid act, and you will know when the judgement comes
out. I am ending my discussion with you. I have given many extremely valuable fa
cts and evidence, and you don't really appreciate my polite form of exchange. Yo
u just know how to ridicule. It is clear you don't have half a brain. Of course
the US knew about the nine dash lines. You think the CIA was dumb or doing nothi
ng!!!! They knew China's 1947 claim to the letters. They are not stupid.
They knew China repossessed the islands and reefs from the Japanese, because it
them who provided the transportation, the ships to the Chinese troops. When no o
ne contested China's claim, it was acquiescence. The lines were public informati
on like it or not.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "you spent most of your time criticizing instead of listening. You
don't listen, and that is why you can't really understand the truth."
Correction. Those are not criticisms. Those are direct rebuttals to your argumen
ts. I have provided some very strong counter-arguments that you obviously could
not refute without resorting to lies and silly comments. I pointed out those lie
s and you didn't seem to like it (LOL).
justice wrote ,"extremely valuable facts and evidence..."

No. Those are not facts and evidence. Those are just fabricated stories that you
could not substantiate with credible sources. The ones that are true aren't evi
dence to prove effective occupation by a state recognized by international laws
to stake a sovereignty or historical claim, but you keep harping them as if they
are.
I'd provided many sources to back my arguments, but none from your side. In fact
, my conversation with you had revealed that you are a liar. You're not helping
China's image by lying, by the way.
And what? I don't have "half a brain?" Yes, because I have a full brain. If you
can't even refute the facts I presented without resorting to lies and silly argu
ments then who has no brain here? Fabricating a story is quite easy that any 3-y
ear old can do.
justice wrote "Of course the US knew about the nine dash lines. You think the CI
A was dumb or doing nothing!!!! They knew China's 1947 claim to the letters. The
y are not stupid."
Uhuh. I think the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is more believable than that.
justice wrote, "I am ending my discussion with you."
Sure. No problemo. Thanks again and come back anytime :)))))))))))
justice wrote ,"The lines were public information like it or not."
Hahaha. Like it or not, huh? Funny you can't substantiate it. LOL. Bye :))))))))
)))))))))))))
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
justice_first Arcane a month ago
when you call a person a liar, you are criticizing him of not being truthful. He
may be honestly telling you what he knows, but you insist on calling him a liar
. That is a perfect way to end a conversation. Without dialogue, you learn nothi
ng except your own stubborn opinions. Many a times, you don't even make sense. B
ut, I am not here to convince you.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "when you call a person a liar, you are criticizing him of not be
ing truthful. He may be honestly telling you what he knows, but you insist on ca
lling him a liar. That is a perfect way to end a conversation."
Yes, you are a liar and you've been lying from the start. I have every right to
point them (lies) out because your intention, as a communist agent, is obviously
to sow confusion among unsuspecting readers and try to sway their opinion to su

pport your government's illegal activities in the South China Sea. And as a conc
erned citizen of the world, I feel that those lies need to be corrected.
So, let's enumerate the lies that you proudly and unashamedly posted here on thi
s forum.
*** You lied that China had inherited sovereignty of all the territories mention
ed in the Cairo Declaration (i.e. Senkakus, etc) and the dash-lines (SCS) by vir
tue of its UN membership, but when challenged to substantiate that statement by
providing a single UN resolution that explicitly gave the PRC the legitimacy and
full rights to the territories mentioned in that treaty or the dash-lines, you
ran away.
That challenge is still open for you to take. Prove me wrong that the UN had nev
er given the PRC the sovereignty rights (just by mere membership) to all the ter
ritories mentioned in the Cairo Declaration and the dash-line through any sort o
f UN declaration or resolution.
The mere fact that the PRC has gained a seat in the UN to represent China is moo
t because such recognition is not shared by all member states and can be taken a
way anytime, so it is not permanent. In fact, UN members have switched recogniti
on between the two countries from time to time. For example, Kiribati, which had
switched recognition from the PRC to the ROC on November 2003. Read the remarks
from your Chinese official when Kiribati decided to switch recognition to the R
epublic of China. Source: fmprc(dot)gov(dot)cn/ce/cecz/cze/xwyd/t127294(dot)htm
In 1989, Liberia switched recognition to the ROC from PRC, and then back to PRC
in 2003.
There are currently 22 UN countries that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign, indepe
ndent nation and they each have embassies in Taiwan!
Your government even uses its economic muscle and veto power to force other nati
ons to switch recognition to PRC. Case in point was the Republic of Macedonia, w
hich recognized the ROC in 1999, but was forced to switch after China imposed ec
onomic sanctions and used its veto power to block the UN Security Council's peac
ekeeping efforts. Dominica was another example as it ended its recognition of th
e ROC because China offered to provide $117 million over six years! And here's m
ore from the book "Taiwan Country Study Guide: Strategic Information and Develop
ment" by the International Business Publication:
In March 2004, Dominica switched recognition to the PRC in exchange for a large
aid package. However, in late 2004, Vanuatu briefly switch recognition from Beij
ing to Taipei, leading to the ousting of its Prime Minister and a return to its
recognition of Beijing. On January 20, 2005, Grenada switched its recognition fr
om Taipei to Beijing, in return for millions of aid (US $1,400 for every Grenadi
an). However, on May 14, 2005, Nauru announced the restoration of formal diploma
tic relations with Taipei after a three-year hiatus, during which it briefly rec
ognized the People's Republic of China.
Source: goo(dot)gl/PiqWBT
In short, Justice, this recognition depends on the political and economic relati
onships (plus/minus intimidation factors) between member states. It has no beari
ng on the sovereignty claims over those territories mentioned in the Cairo Decla
ration and or the 9-dash-lines. So for you to say that the UN recognizes China a
s the legitimate government of all of China is horsesh*t because, apparently, no
t all UN members recognize China.
If all you do here is just talk and talk and cannot corroborate your statements
with even one credible source when asked, you are essentially fabricating storie
s. We're both adults here, right? So, let's not kid each other.
*** You lied that the PRC has inherited the Spratleys through the dash-lines whe
n in fact the Spratleys was not even included in the Cairo Declaration among ROC
's territories. Here's the full communique of that treaty and none of the paragr
aphs has ever mentioned the Spratleys as being part of the ROC or does it mentio
n the PRC to be the legitimate successor of the South China Sea or the Spratley
for that matter should Taiwan loses its UN seat. Boooo! Source: ndl(dot)go(dot)j
p/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46shoshi(dot)html

*** You lied about Taiwan having no diplomatic relation with the US when in fact
it has one albeit unofficial. Taiwan, being a sovereign and independent country
, has both official and unofficial diplomatic relations with many nations. As I
mentioned earlier, 22 countries including the Holy See recognize Taiwan as a sov
ereign state and have embassies in Taiwan. Other countries maintain unofficial d
iplomatic relations. And however you want to call them, they are STILL "diplomat
ic relations."
*** You lied that Taiwan has no defense treaty with the US when in reality there
is one under the Taiwan Relations Act. Not only that treaty obligates the US -under Article 2 B (5) -- to provide military hardware and technology for Taiwan
's defense, it also obligates the US to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks
or invades Taiwan. So, "boooo!" again for lying.
*** You lied that the reason Taiwan did not do much to claim the islands in the
South China Sea because it was too weak to do so when in reality the ROC had giv
en up the claim because it didn't conform to international laws. In fact, it eve
n passed legislations to reinforce their new position on their South China Sea c
laim.
In 1993, Taiwan officially approved Policy Guidelines for the South China Sea, whi
ch state the view that the waters within the dashed line are its historic water l
imit within which Taiwan possesses all rights and interests. Cited in K-H. Wang, The
ROC s Maritime Claims and Practices with Special Reference to the South China Sea
, Ocean Dev t & Int l L., 41:237-252 (2010). Subsequent maritime legislation enacted
by Taiwan and subsequent public statements, however, suggests that this view may
no longer be officially held by Taiwan. See id. and Limits in the Seas No. 127:
Taiwan s Maritime Claims, U.S. Dep t. of State, Nov. 15, 2005.
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
*** You lied about "sovereignty" being a 19th or early 20th century concept to C
hina when in fact it is as old as the concepts of kings and emperors. Chinese em
perors including your Emperor Yongle had claimed sovereignty over many territori
es including Ceylon in the 1400s and demanded tributes. Some details of its hist
ory were written in the book "When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of t
he Dragon Throne" by Louise Levathes. Source: goo(dot)gl/07KvF0
So "booooo!" again for lying.
*** You lied that your ancient territorial maps didn't show the South China Sea
as part of China because your emperors only did "factual administration" when in
fact history had shown that China had consistently drew all its territories on
maps for thousands and thousands of years and all of the world's greatest empire
s had maps of their territorial conquests from the Romans, French, Mongols, to t
he Turks, Spaniards and the Sultans in Southeast Asia.
*** You lied that "there is a significant amount of historic records on administ
ration, naming and discovery from China" over the SCS when you could not even su
bstantiate this lie with credible sources. In fact, the Chinese names given to t
hose Spratley islands were just translated from the British names:
When a Chinese government committee first gave Chinese names to the islands in 1
935 all it did was either translate or transliterate the existing British names.
In the Paracels, for example, Antelope Reef became Lng yang (the Chinese word fo
r antelope) and in the Spratlys, North Danger Reef became B?i xi?n (Chinese for n
orth danger ), Spratly Island became Si-ba-la-tuo (the Chinese transliteration of
the English name). The Chinese committee simply copied the British maps, errors
and all. The names were then revised, twice. Scarborough Shoal, named after a Br
itish ship in 1748, was originally transliterated as Si ge ba luo in 1935, renam
ed Min zhu Jiao Democracy Reef by the nationalist Republic of China in 1947 and then
given the less politically-sensitive name of Huangyan (Yellow Rock) by the comm
unist People s Republic of China in 1983.
There is no archaeological evidence yet found that any Chinese ship travelled acr
oss the sea before the 10th century
Source: prospectmagazine(dot)co(dot)uk/world/chinas-false-memory-syndrome
So, what's that again? They were the first to discover and name the islands? Boo
oooooo!

*** You lied that "condemn" and "deplore" are not synonymous when in fact they a
re, depending on the context! And I showed that to you. Booooo!
*** You lied that the Spratley islands were not terra nullius when in fact, they
were when my people discovered them. If they were not terra nullius and had bee
n under Chinese administration and control or sovereignty, the Philippines would
not be able to effectively occupy those islands because your PLA would shoo the
m away from the area. In fact, my people occupied the islands without breaking a
sweat. No communist soul had ever ventured into the Spratleys that time because
the vanguards of freedom and democracy were just lounging in their home nearby
in Subic, Philippines!
*** You lied that China openly declared sovereignty in 1947 through the nine-das
h lines when those maps were only published domestically throughout China and in
Chinese language. The US State Department corroborated this very SOLID fact and
I quote:
The mere publication by China of the dashed-line map in 1947 could not have cons
tituted official notification of a maritime claim. China s Map of South China Sea I
slands made no suggestion of a maritime claim, and its DOMESTIC PUBLICATION in th
e Chinese language was NOT act of SUFFICIENT INTERNATIONAL NOTORIETY to have pro
perly alerted the international community to such a claim, even if it had assert
ed one.56 The various maps published by China also lack the precision, clarity,
and consistency that could convey the nature and scope of a maritime claim.
Source: state(dot)gov/documents/organization/234936(dot)pdf
We could go on all night, enumerating all the lies you posted here. So, YES, jus
t like your thieving, deceptive government you are a liar. A BIG FAT ONE AT THAT
. You have zero credibility as a poster. I wouldn't be surprised that you work f
or the PLA Propaganda Office because this is definitely not normal.
Don't say that you're just telling me what you honestly know. We're not kids her
e, okay? Don't play that line on me. You keep harping those lies after they have
been demolished with facts that means you're not really here seeking for the tr
uth or just innocently defending China. A normal person, upon realizing that his
argument is weak or is not supported by facts will say, "Hold on, you're right.
I don't know much about this subject for me to say this with full confidence."
But you, on the other hand, keep maintaining those lies after they have been pro
ven to be false.
Upon close examination, most of your arguments are tarnished with lies and obvio
us attempts to cover-up the truth. So, whoever you are, shame on you for defendi
ng the wrong and encouraging your government to continue breaking international
laws. Lives are at stakes here, okay? Those poor fishermen who are threatened by
your navy could no longer fish in our traditional water. China's action has sev
erely affected their livelihood and the lives of their families and children, so
shame on you for helping that. And you claim to be all for "human rights" and "
freedom of expression?" Ha! But then again, what can we expect from a person who
denies the horrendous atrocities committed by his government on the Tibetans? Y
ou're an embarrassment to the Chinese people. And you're not helping China's ima
ge with your lies. Shame.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
The UN has a voting system, not a recognition system. Majority wins. The PRC was
voted in by overwhelming majority as the sole representative of all China.
It does not matter how many countries recognize Taiwan, or the ROC, the PRC is t
he representative government of all China. under international law.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "It does not matter how many countries recognize Taiwan, or the RO
C, the PRC is the representative government of all China. under international la
w."
Sorry, it still doesn't change the realities that 1) the PRC has no business wit
h the dash-lines and the Cairo Declaration as it is not a party to that treaty a
nd that the ROC is still a functional and thriving government after the war 2) t
hat the PRC's membership in the UN isn't recognize by all UN states and at any t
ime countries can switch diplomacy and 3) that despite the majority-vote, countr
ies still maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Your argument is very weak.

justice_first Arcane
a month ago
The PRC has succeeded the ROC as the legitimate government of China, inheriting
all rights and responsibilities of China in the UN, under international law. I t
old you the sovereignty of China is intact, not split up, and is one. The UN doe
s not operate in a recognition system, that you can choose who represent China,
it is a voting system that majority wins in a resolution. The issue of the PRC b
eing admitted, replacing the ROC, into the UN was by majority vote system. Every
one with the knowledge and common sense will agree. Don't bet on the fact that t
he ROC is still the ruling government of all China, although they might still th
ink so. Your argument using the recognition of ROC by some is not going to go an
ywhere. You may try but you will not succeed in splitting China. Of course even
the Philippines does not officially recognize the ROC. I don't worry about any a
mbiquity here, because international law is clear that China is solely represent
ed by PRC alone.
You are wasting your time in such frivolous argument leading to nowhere to be an
y good to your country.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "I told you the sovereignty of China is intact, not split up, and
is one."
LOL. You start to sound like a broken record, Justice, for repeating the same no
nsense over and over again. I already told you that there is no "One Chinese Sov
ereignty," okay? The sovereignty is apparently split up. China has no authority
or control over Taiwan. And Taiwan has no authority or control over China mainla
nd. Even you cannot deny this reality because that's what's happening on the gro
und -- like it or not. The ROC still maintains official and unofficial diplomati
c relations with UN states. It has its own government, its own military, and its
own sets of domestic and foreign policies that the PRC has no control over. And
whatever decision China makes in the UN, it has no effect on Taiwan because eve
rybody knows that the PRC's sovereignty is only confined to China mainland. So,
I'm sorry. Your "one China sovereignty" is a feeble argument.
justice wrote, "Of course even the Philippines does not officially recognize the
ROC. I don't worry about any ambiquity here, because international law is clear
that China is solely represented by PRC alone."
Yeah, and the Philippines can switch recognition anytime. If push comes to shove
, the situation could force our Congress to switch as a protest. Other UN states
can follow suit, especially the other claimants. Don't ever forget that.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
Regarding your question number 2, my answer is no. There was no Chinese emperor
who claimed "Sovereignty" of the SCS. Why? This is because the very concept of s
overeignty, including maritime sovereignty, is essentially a late 19th century a
nd early 20th century western legal concept that no emperor was likely to know o
r appreciate. China established however the so called area of influence by it tr
ibutary geopolitical system when dealing with surrounding contiguous areas, or s
tates, the so called zone of influence. Remember modern international law was no
t yet in existence. It was mainly after WW2, in 1947, that China declared sovere
ignty of the land features within the nine dash lines, based on records of histo
ric influence China had on the region of SCS. China clearly, for the first time,
claimed sovereignty from 1947 onward by taking possession from the Japanese.
Regarding your question number 3, about Chinese maps. It is quite natural that C
hinese did not use maps to demonstrate sovereignty, using basically similar argu
ments as above. Map might show other features, both geographical, geopolitical a
s such, but not sovereignty or geopolitical influence of the time. China can use
its administrative realities or influence to justify its sovereignty, using the
western concept of "ownership", to declare its sovereignty of the land features
of the SCS, as it did in 1947 without contest.
All China has to present is what happened after WW2, the facts on the ground of
declaring sovereignty, of physical possession and administration, to the interna
tional community, on basis of modern international law.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote, "Regarding your question number 2, my answer is no. There was no

Chinese emperor who claimed "Sovereignty" of the SCS. Why? This is because the v
ery concept of sovereignty, including maritime sovereignty, is essentially a lat
e 19th century and early 20th century western legal concept that no emperor was
likely to know or appreciate. "
UN Tribunal Judge: Mr. China, it has been brought to our attention that no Chine
se emperor has ever claimed sovereignty to the islands in the South China Sea an
d the waters appurtenant thereto. What is then the basis of your government to c
laim sovereignty over the entire region?
justice_first: Yes, Your Honor. There was no Chinese emperor who claimed "Sovere
ignty" of the SCS because the very concept of sovereignty, including maritime so
vereignty is essentially a late 19th century and early 20th century western lega
l concept that no emperor was likely to know or appreciate. We believe that fact
ual administration is more important than recording our exercise of sovereignty
in our historical documents, Your Honor.
UN Tribunal Judge: Is your government not aware that the concept of "sovereignty
" is as old as the concepts of "kings" and "emperors?" It is not an idea born in
the 19th or early 20th century. It is much older and not exclusive to western c
ultures. In fact, historical records show that ancient Chinese emperors had clai
med and exercised sovereignty over vast tracts of lands including your emperor o
f the Ming Dynasty, Emperor Yongle, who claimed sovereignty over Ceylon in the 1
400s and demanded tributes. Ancient historical records have corroborated this in
writing. So, therefore, "sovereignty" is not a recent concept to China as you h
ave just claimed before this court.
justice_first: No, Your Honor. We are not aware of that historical fact, Your Ho
nor.
UN Judge (looking sternly): Mr. China, it is our understanding that you have bee
n fabricating stories in support of your government's claim. Are you even aware
and understand the ramifications when you lie under oath?
justice_first: Yes, Your Honor. I am aware of the consequence of lying under oat
h, Your Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LMAO. Please, Justice, why continue embarrassing yourself with more lies? I just
don't get it.
The Philippines has a very easy task against China's historical bullcr4p. It jus
t tells the TRUTH.
Your China, on the other hand, has to fabricate stories after stories like what
you're doing here. And the biggest challenge when doing that is to find historic
al records to back the lies. And those records are non-existent, so what is Chin
a going to do? Gunboat diplomacy. That's exactly what it is doing right now. And
that's contrary to what China says of a "peaceful rise." It is not peaceful whe
n you ignore international laws to solve disputes and use your military and econ
omic powers to intimidate weak countries.
So, I'm sorry, your lies will not fly with the international community. It's gam
e over. You lose.
a month ago
Arcane justice_first
justice wrote ,"Philippines is ignoring this claim at its own risks, as an outla
w."
Is that the reason why Australia, Canada, Japan, Belgium, Germany, Spain, US, th
e EU and G7 countries are supporting the Philippines in this issue? So, who's th
e outlaw now? LOL. You need to seriously quit whatever that is you're smoking be
cause you're now hallucinating.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote ," The case is very strong in terms of facts and evidence. "
What strong case are you talking about? The only facts and evidence your China i
s sharing to the world are ancient travel records of fishing, trade and scientif
ic observations -- hardly an effective occupation by a state to claim sovereignt
y as recognized by international laws.
The fact that China has never occupied most of the features that it occupied rig
ht now until recently is proof that China has never exercised sovereignty over t

hose features in the past. Historical records also corroborated this.


That's why China has never been generous to the media when it comes to proofs be
cause that's all they have -- travel records of fishing, trade and scientific ob
servations.
And to prove that this is really the case, I challenge you to post a credible on
line source that will solidify China's bogus historic titles over the Spratleys.
If you can't even do this, it's game over. You can fantasize about it though. LO
L
Arcane justice_first
a month ago
justice wrote ,"China is not asking any country to recognize the nine dash lines
. I don't know why you are so concerned about this "symbol" on Chinese maps..."
It's too late for China to be staking a claim base on historic titles when the U
NCLOS has already been ratified. The fact that it's a signatory already gives co
nsent to all the articles in the Convention. China cannot cherry-pick the laws j
ust because it has an expansionist agenda in the South China Sea. That will not
go well with the international community as we are all now witnessing as China's
defiance to the Convention continues.
No matter how hard you try to lie here or in any forums you go to, defending Chi
na's obvious violations, the people of the free world cannot be fooled.
justice_first Arcane a month ago
you are fooling yourself that UNCLOS can trump other international laws on sover
eignty. UNCLOS is silent on sovereignty, or who owns what. Your country is makin
g a bet that you will get something out of the Tribunal using ITLOS as a platfor
m, but I don't think it will succeed. Law is law, and its scope and jurisdiction
is governed by meaning, not sentiment. We yet have to hear a judgement on juris
diction. Don't celebrate too soon, if I were you. Aiming at the nine dash broken
lines is meaningless and a waste of time because the lines are not territorial
delimitation.
Arcane justice_first a month ago
justice wrote "you are fooling yourself that UNCLOS can trump other internationa
l laws on sovereignty"
Again, China has not exercised sovereignty over the Spratleys, so what sovereign
ty are you talking about? Stop fooling yourself. The fact that China hasn't effe
ctively occupied those islands/features before the UNCLOS was enough proof that
it had no basis for its sovereignty claim. You can dream about your sovereignty,
that's fine. But in the eyes of international laws, the claim is very weak.
justice_first Arcane 2 months ago
you just have to remember one point: the Chinese sovereignty is intact. Conseque
ntly, the Chinese people remain undivided as a people of China. Taiwan is not an
other country despite some administrative autonomy. It is legally a part of Chin
a, under the UN constitution. The so called Taiwan relation act is purely US int
ernal law. They have no power to interfere with Chinese internal matters, under
the UN convention, and international law. If US attack China because of Taiwan,
the US is violating international convention. China has the full legal right to
defend against such action, defending the integrity of a sovereign. US will be i
n the wrong, similar to attacking Iraq.
When people make reference to Americans, for the peoples in the Americas, it dif
fers from a reference to the Chinese for China. China is a sovereign nation, Ame
ricas is not a single sovereign. You have to know this.
By the way, Mao is not longer the leader of China today. You are probably living
in the past.
Taiwan is not a key strategic ally of the US because the US has no military pres
ence in Taiwan, and the US is not an enemy of communism anymore as witnessed by
its warm relation with Vietnam. Go and live in the present.
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote"you just have to remember one point: the Chinese sovereignty is in
tact."
I don't think you even know the meaning of that word. Sovereignty means authorit
y. And nope, Chinese sovereignty isn't intact if you're referring to both Taiwan

and China. Can Taiwan exercise authority over China mainland? Can China exercis
e authority over Taiwan? The answer to these questions are a resounding NO. So,
you cannot say Chinese sovereignty is intact because they're clearly not. In fac
t, they each maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereign nations.
justice wrote "Consequently, the Chinese people remain undivided as a people of
China."
You must be kidding. They are divided. One people embrace communism with a total
itarian government and they live in China. The other embrace democracy and free
to vote anyone they choose to run their government and they live in Taiwan.
The PRC hates the ROC. The ROC hates the PRC. In fact, they fought bloody wars b
ecause they didn't like each other. And they still don't. There have been a numb
er of times that your PRC government has called Taiwan to join them with its "Tw
o Chinas, One Country" bullcr4p and the ROC has rejected those calls. That speak
s a lot that the Taiwanese people don't want to be associated with your communis
t government.
justice wrote "Taiwan is not another country despite some administrative autonom
y."
Who are you kidding here? It is another country. Everybody knows this. Where can
you find a country that has two presidents and two different political ideologi
es? Taiwan has its own foreign and economic policies that are different from Chi
na's. LOL. How could you say they're one country? That's crazy.
justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
Sovereignty is certainly not authority. Even during the most heated period, say
in 1945, when the civil war within China was waging, sovereignty of China remain
ed intact despite a breakdown in central authority. The relation between the Chi
nese mainland and Taiwan is clear: travelling across the Taiwan Strait requires
no visa. The relation is not country to country. Both remain within one country.
You said it wrongly, it was one country two systems. This is solid evidence tha
t the sovereignty is intact, within the meaning of the UN convention.
You may find other example where civil wars exist and yet no division of soverei
gnty. What is happening in Ukraine is a good example. Here recognition by the UN
and major powers play a role. What is happening in Southern Philippines, where
the Moro people has practical independence, is another good example. You may hav
e an Islamic state there, but the Philippines sovereignty is intact. There are j
ust too many examples out there in the world. Remember Syria? Sovereignty is a l
egal status of a country under international law. Taiwan has never declared inde
pendence from the mainland, and this is a fact.
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote ,"Sovereignty is certainly not authority. "
Are you trying to make your own definition of "sovereignty" now, Justice?
Here's the definition of sovereignty on Webster:
Sovereignty (noun)
: unlimited power over a country
: a country's independent authority and the right to govern itself
Source: merriam-webster(dot)com/dictionary/sovereignty
Here's from the Oxford dictionary:
Sovereignty (noun)
1. Supreme power or authority:
the sovereignty of Parliament
1.1 The authority of a state to govern itself or another state:
"national sovereignty"
Source: oxforddictionaries(dot)com/definition/english/sovereignty
So, let's see.
"Unlimited power over a country"
"The authority of a state to govern itself or another state"
China has NO "unlimited power" over its country because it obviously cannot cont
rol Taiwan. And this is only if we take your stup1d idea that China and Taiwan a
re one country. China definitely has NO AUTHORITY to govern Taiwan. In other wor

ds, China has NO SOVEREIGNTY over Taiwan! LMAO. Don't ever lie to me because I w
ill point it out and you'll be embarrassed.
justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
unlimited power is certainly not sovereignty. This is why some people are agains
t the use of force and coercion. You cannot invade a country and then proclaim i
t yours. It has to be legal. This is what the Philippines had done in the 1970's
, usurping those islands and features from China ( China claimed them long befor
e the Philippines), removing any symbols of Chinese presence from those features
. This is also why Philippines finds it so difficult to prove its historic title
against China's claim. Philippines find it imperative to destroy China's claim
of title. But, this is lying to the world, and the US knows it. This is why the
US is not siding with the Philippines in terms of sovereignty, despite being its
ally.
Ultimately, Philippines cannot lie its way through, because the truth will come
out.
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote, "Philippines had done in the 1970's, usurping those islands and f
eatures from China ( China claimed them long before the Philippines), removing a
ny symbols of Chinese presence from those features."
You know what? Making unsubstantiated claims maybe a norm in your communist coun
try, but not in the free world. Your government has been feeding its people with
all kinds of propaganda lies for centuries and you folks have no choice but to
take them all in. In fact, I won't be surprised if you think that it's just a no
rmal thing that's why you're also doing it here in the forum, twisting facts and
lying your way out of the argument as if it's no big deal. But that's not going
fly with a lot of posters here.
You claimed that the Philippines took Chinese markers/symbols in those islands t
hen you have to PROVE IT. Don't just say this and expect everyone to buy it like
how your government expects its people to believe every lie it tells them.
Arcane justice_first 2 months ago
justice wrote "This is why some people are against the use of force and coercion
. You cannot invade a country and then proclaim it yours. It has to be legal."
Hahahahahahahahaha! You know what's hilarious about your statement? Is that it's
from coming a die-hard communist like you. Have you forgotten your history, Jus
tice? Let's talk about your history then. LMAO.
China invaded and occupied Tibet. Tibet was once an independent nation until you
r Chinese government invaded it, killing thousands of Tibetan monks and their su
pporters along the way. According to the UN, "Chinese occupation of Tibet has be
en characterized by acts of murder, rape and arbitrary imprisonment, torture and
cruel, inhuman and degraded treatment of Tibetans on a large scale." The Dalai
Lama managed to flee to India and is now running the Tibetan government in exile
. And to add insult to injury, after their hostile takeover, Chinese government
installed a fake Dalai Lama to appease the public!
The real one in India said that his country was "invaded and colonized by China!
" And according to the International Commission of Jurists, "there was a prima f
acie case of genocide committed by the Chinese upon the Tibetan nation... the gr
avest crime of which any person or nation can be accused... the intent to destro
y, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group and detail
atrocities to which Tibetans were subjected. These include public execution by
shooting, crucifixion, burning alive, drowning, vivisection, starvation, strangu
lation, hanging, scalding, being buried alive, disemboweling and beheading; impr
isonment without trial; torture; forced labor; and forcible sterilization. Many
people, including children under 15 years, disappear without trace. The United N
ations condemns Chinese atrocities." Source: icj(dot)org/new-report-the-question
-of-tibet-and-the-rule-of-law/
More than 10,000 Tibetans were killed by your China's army in the three days of
the invasion, and of the 6,000 Tibetan monasteries, only 6 remained, the rest we
re destroyed! And I've not even talked about the East Turkestan yet. This is jus
t Tibet.

So, what's that? You cannot invade a country and then proclaim it; it has to be
legal? Hahahahahahahahahahaha! I totally didn't expect that! Thanks for the laug
h, bro. :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. The Philippines invaded China in the Spratleys by kil
ling a total of ZERO Chinese and sent the survivors to hard labor camps. LMAO!
justice_first Arcane
2 months ago
In order to show you have the true version of Tibetan history, I challenge you t
o show me the UN official report, written by credible sources, condemning the Ti
betan invasion and Chinese atrocities. Only when you can produce this report, ca
n I believe what you are saying is true. Show me the UN report now. Otherwise yo
u are fabricating history. In other words, I need concrete evidence from you tha
t you are telling the truth. A UN official report is a good evidence.
ting_m_1999 San Andreas
2 months ago
China announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation fro
m WWII other victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member in that time and
didn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Lines be
long to China. UN recognized China to take over the representation and responsib
ility of KMT to represent China, The specific demarcation of the Lines have to b
e negotiated with nations around. So far no nations agree to negotiate.
makeehsig justice_first 2 months ago
China was not even a country until the early 20th century. ROC was established i
n 1911, and the Communist in 1949. the Philippines is older than ah tiong land.
ting_m_1999 makeehsig 2 months ago
UN recognized China to take over the representation and responsibility of KMT to
represent China,
makeehsig ting_m_1999 2 months ago
well if that is the case, then why don't you, ah tiongs face the Pinoys at UNCLO
S? scared?
ting_m_1999 makeehsig 2 months ago
waste of time and resources
makeehsig ting_m_1999 a month ago
oh. Is
that the reason why china is invoking UNCLOS provision in its claims of the
Senkaku Islands against Japan? Your communist China submitted a
claim of the Senkaku Islands, seeking UNCLOS rules in determining territorial
rights. you can ask Li Baodong all about it. that's a bit discriminatory, yah? u
se use bullying tactics with your fake guns & stolen technology against the weak
er Philippines, but uses UNCLOS against the "mighty" Japanese? is that it?
ting_m_1999 makeehsig a month ago
China don't invoke UNCLOS on Daioyu islands. Philippine is dumb to think it is D
avid.
makeehsig ting_m_1999 a month ago
here is the excerpt from the InterAksyon. you can google it.
Early this morning, Ambassador Li Baodong, China's Permanent Representative to th
e United
Nations, deposited the coordinates table and chart of the base points and baseli
nes of the territorial sea of China's Diaoyu/Senkaku and its affiliated islands
with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Le told an audience of scholars and expert
s."
He said the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and i
ts affiliated
islands are in line with the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territ
orial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, and consistent with relevant provisions of UN
CLOS.
"The submission to UNCLOS was announced by Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Le
Yucheng Friday during a symposium in Beijing hosted by THE China Institute of I
nternational Studies, Beijing Youth Federation, and Xinhuanet."
ting_m_1999 makeehsig a month ago

China submitted to UN Secretary and not UNCLOS. Philippine shot dead Chinese fis
hermen and China has not shot dead any Philippine fishermen. So Philippine is bu
llying and use deadly forces.
makeehsig ting_m_1999
a month ago
UN Secretary & UNCLOS are different institutions? lmao! that's new, indeed. Phil
ippine shot dead Taiwanese fishermen, not chinese. Philippine already is paying
for it. providing compensations. if china "really" has sovereignty over the Sout
h china sea then it has to prove it at UNCLOS for the world to see. stop bullyin
g weaker neighbors with guns & ships. china won't earn respect that way. prove t
o the world that china is "really" a superpower by adhering to UNCLOS of which a
h tiong land is also a signatory.
ting_m_1999 makeehsig a month ago
.They are independent institutions. Compensation doesn't erase proof of Philippi
ne's deadly bully action. Philippine recognize Taiwan as part of China; so Taiwa
nese are Chinese. Why should China be manipulated by the nonsense lawsuit of Phi
lippine. Let Philippine be the laughing stock because of its nonsense lawsuit. .
...
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
makeehsig ting_m_1999
a month ago
the Philippines a laughing stock? who said that? you & china? ha ha! yep. Taiwan
ese are also chinese but Taiwan is not china. if it is then the senkakus wouldn'
t be disputed. you call the lawsuit nonsense, & yet china filed a "nonsense" law
suit against japan.. lmao.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 makeehsig
25 days ago
So you laugh "ha ha1 yep" at Philippine ! You said Taiwanese are Chinese. They a
re in control of Taiwan. So Taiwan is China. China didn't file nay lawsuit again
st Japan.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
makeehsig ting_m_1999
lmao. if you say so.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

25 days ago

ting_m_1999 makeehsig
Keep laughing
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*

25 days ago

Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago


ting_m wrote, "waste of time and resources"
Yeah, it'll be a waste of time and resources for China because they know they'll
lose. They have nothing solid against UNCLOS.
Those artificial islands they build on those shoals are illegal. Shoals are not
subject to sovereignty claims according to international laws. Thus, their recla
mation activities are a violation of the very laws established by the internatio
nal community.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
China already have rejected any UNCLOS deliberation. Nothing to loose. Any islan
ds, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Dash Lines belong to China
o

o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "China already have rejected any UNCLOS deliberation."
Yeah, an act of a thieving government, too guilty and coward to face a small cou
ntry in a legal proceeding.
ting_m wrote, "Any islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Dash Lines belong to
China"
No other countries believe this cr4p except communist China. Name one? LOL. So,
China against the international community. Goodluck. LMAO
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
No worth to face a small country that thinks it is a superpower. No WWII victors
, including USA, protested the Dash Line when it was announced. Philippine didn'
t protest either at that time.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "No worth to face a small country that thinks it is a superpower."
This small country can kick China's butt in any UN legal proceeding.
ting_m wrote, "No WWII victors, including USA, protested the Dash Line when it w
as announced. Philippine didn't protest either at that time."
Doesn't remove the fact that NO OTHER COUNTRY BUYS IT. Name one? LOL.
So, China made a unilateral declaration that no one believed. It's pathetic. And
it's quite understandable because the claim itself is outrageous and ridiculous
.
*

*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
China steadfastly reject any UNCLOS proceeds. That renders UNCLOS's effort meani
ngless and Philippine's effort wasteful. That is Philippine is kicked in the but
t. The law is passed if no body say Nay.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "China steadfastly reject any UNCLOS proceeds. That renders UNCLOS
's effort meaningless and Philippine's effort wasteful. That is Philippine is ki
cked in the butt. The law is passed if no body say Nay."
Nope. That still doesn't remove the fact that NO OTHER COUNTRY believes in your
9-dash line. Name one if you can? LOL.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
NO OTHER COUNTRY believes the boundary of any nation.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999
2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "NO OTHER COUNTRY believes the boundary of any nation."
Uhuh, is that the reason why countries have coast guards? Silly, kid.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
So you say China is right in chasing off intruding foreign vessels inside the Da
sh Lines.. Cute baby
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
This comment was deleted.
o
o
*
*
JB Guest 2 months ago
Ok name calling makes you look small and petty so why not just keep it to facts
and leave out the redderik. UNCLOS has rules regarding any historical claims so
you could just follow the agreed up rules and see what the result will be.
But again the Philippine case is a lot smarter than most here realize and it is
not about ownership of the features but the right these features projects indepe
ndent of who owns them. Than take the delta of those rights and volia you have y
our an undisputed EEZ back .... and later you can figure out the ownership of th
e features
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*

*
cita Guest
2 months ago
You are also considered an uneducated person,you are talking about China's histo
ry?Nonsense!Just fallow the International law...that is really make sense.Law is
law,period.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Arcane Guest 2 months ago
Bernt wrote "...whereas China's territories were all set for thousands of years.
"
Thousands of years? Is that the reason why their ancient maps dating thousands o
r even millennium of years don't show the South China Sea being part of China?
Let's just say, for conversation sake, that China owns the ENTIRE South China Se
a for thousands of years. Do you
know who, among their ancient Chinese emperors, claimed the water?
Your communist government has no historical backing for their claim. It's all ba
sed on lies and deceit. Ancient Chinese travels for trade and scientific purpose
s don't give the right to sovereignty over waters or an area. So, even if they h
ave records of such travels, they're not proofs of ownership by a sovereign coun
try. Ancient records of private fishermen being on a certain island for a time d
oes not constitute an effective occupation by a state that is recognized by inte
rnational laws as a basis for historical claim. Those private individuals had no
t even claimed the islands for their Chinese emperor.
And here's another bombshell. China, as a country, did not even exist 900 years
or thousands of years ago. So, its sovereignty was not even established or quest
ionable at that time. If you know your history, Bernt, communist China, as a cou
ntry, was established in 1949, right after the Chinese civil war. That's why whe
n they lodged a protest against Germany for surveying the Paracel and Spratley i
slands in 1883, it had NO LEGAL STANDING.
And the most damning thing your Chinese government is doing right now is buildin
g artificial islands within other countries' Exclusive Economic Zone. That is an
other violation of international laws as you are not allowed to build artificial
islands more than 200 miles from your coastal lines.
So, please spare us from your lies and stup1d argument. You can't fool the peopl
e of the free world.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

ting_m_1999 Arcane
2 months ago
China announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation fro
m WWII other victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member in that time and
didn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Lines be
long to China.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
aquarium7 Arcane 2 months ago
Arcane appears to be a damn serious but half-baked legal expert! In his lengthy
and confusing tirade, on the legality of claim, not to mention the wild history, h
e conveniently ignored the feverish illegal constructions of Philippines and Vie
tnam in SCS much earlier on than China. Perhaps, in his simplistic interpretatio
n of law, form the basis of their claims. He chose to shelve the so-called discov
ery of islands by Philippines and Vietnam as recent as from seventies onwards, be
cause he could not find any credible legal documents or maps to indicate so. I b
et he is still withholding much secret information that will expose the missing
links of their claims. With legal experts of his caliber around, it sent chills
down my spine regarding the credibility of those judges in UNCLOS, particularly
when there is a hidden dark hand meddling in SCS. Even so, Arcane can rest be as
sured that the arbitration will definitely not rule in favor of Philippines, oth
erwise, UNCLOS, US, Philippines, Abe, Aquino, Carter, Russel, .... will all beco
me laughing stocks of the Just World. In the meantime,
Arcane can continue to mislead the readers in Value Walk, but if he is honest wi
th himself and seriously want to be an expert , he should study all the clauses of
UNCLOS carefully. Just for his information, the CNN spy plane could be shot down
according to UNCLOS should the need arrised.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago
aquarium wrote, "Arcane appears to be a damn serious but half-baked legal expert
... With legal experts of his caliber around..."
You're the one who called me that. And that's the funny thing. I'm not even a la
wyer, but I made you peed in your pants after I presented you the glaring facts.
How much more if China faces our multinational lawyers before the UN tribunal?
China's historical claim will be demolished BIG TIME by our REAL LEGAL EXPERTS.
I asked you some very simple questions and you could not even give me the answer
s. You ignored them and ran away. But don't worry. I wasn't surprised by this be
havior. In fact, it's quite typical. You're not the first Chinese netizen I've e

ncountered to have done this. Often times, when confronted with the truth, your
online people run away or throw me all sorts of trash that have nothing to do wi
th the discussion.
aquarium wrote, "In his lengthy and confusing tirade, on the legality of claim",
not to mention the wild history..."
I told you that the 9-dash-line was a violation of international laws. What, do
I have to spoon-feed every thing to you that this is indeed the case? Are you te
lling me now that you're incapable of doing a simple research that any 10 year o
ld child can do? Everything I said in this forum about your history and about th
e issue is verifiable anytime if you're NOT lazy.
Now, you mentioned "wild history." Which of the things I wrote sounded unbelieva
ble to you? Was it the part I said that your ancient people didn't have a concep
t of a country since they believed their Emperors -- the Sons of Heaven -- were
the legitimate Supreme rulers of the world? Are you trying to rewrite your ancie
nt history now, Aquarium, or are you trying to deny it?
Do you find it wild and unfounded the fact that all of your ancient Chinese terr
itorial maps conclusively show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of Chin
a?
Let me reiterate this. China's southernmost territories don't go beyond Hainan i
sland. So, I'm going to share you some of your ancient maps to DISPROVE your cou
ntry's ridiculous historical claim over the entire South China Sea, most especia
lly the Spratleys.
Here is a map that's engraved in stone in Fuchang in 1136 AD during the Song Dyn
asty. This map was published in 1903 by rubbing the stone engraving. It is now i
n the Forest of Stone Steles Museum in Xi'an China. The map shows that China's t
erritory doesn't go beyond Hainan island. Replace (dot) with a period from the s
ource links given) Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2002626771/
Here's another one published in 1389 during the Ming Dynasty. Again your ancient
map shows that Hainan is the southern-most territory of China! Source: commons(
dot)wikimedia(dot)org/wiki/File:Da-ming-hun-yi-tu.jpg
This one was published between 1547 and 1559 during the Ming Dynasty. Again the
map shows that Hainan island is the southern-most Chinese territory. Source: loc
(dot)gov/item/2002626776/
So, what's that again? The Spratleys have been part of China for thousands or mi
llenia of years??? Why don't your ancient maps show this??? I feel embarrassed f
or you for being exposed lying all the time, Aquarium. My conversation with you
and your friends has already revelead that you all have zero credibility as a po
ster. And that you're not here to defend the truth and justice. You are just def
ending your government even if what it's doing is wrong. This is one of the reas
ons why many netizens in any online forum you go to are opposed or angry at your
government's ridiculous claim because it is based on lies and deceit. One canno
t simply turn a lie into a truth. A lie is a lie. But we're not going to stop he
re, Aquarium. I feel that you need to be educated by your own Chinese history. S
o, I'm going to share you some more of your ancient Chinese maps because I'm a g
ood guy like that. :)
Here's another map published in 1601 also during the Ming Dynasty by a Chinese g
uy name Junheng Zuo. The map shows China in its entirety as a celestial sphere!
And guess what? It shows Hainan as its southernmost territory! Source: loc(dot)g
ov/item/2002626725/
Another one also published during the Ming Dynasty in 1602. And again Hainan is
shown as the southernmost territory of China! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/201058565
0/
Now, here's a nice looking map published in China in 1811 by your Qing Emperor J
iaqing. Tell me, Aquarium. did your emperor believe that the Spratleys were part
of China? Answer: NO. But did he believe that Hainan was China's SOUTHERNMOST T
ERRITORY? Answer: YES!!! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/gm71005018/
This map was published between the years 1814 and 1816 by Qianren Huang, and it
showed Hainan as China's southernmost territory! No surprise there. Source: loc(
dot)gov/item/gm71005060/
Let's make this interesting by playing a little geography game, Aquarium. You re

ady? Find me the Spratley's in this ancient Chinese map IF YOU CAN. This map of
China was published in 1885 during the Qing Dynasty, and, YES, it showed Hainan
as THE SOUTHERNMOST TERRITORY OF CHINA!
Source: loc(dot)gov/item/gm71005068/
Did you find the Spratleys? No? How about in this map? This was published in 189
6 in China by Peilan Li. And again and again, it is common knowlege that Hainan
island is the southernmost territory of China as this map shows! Source: loc(dot
)gov/item/gm71005083/
A map created by Hebei Sheng and Gong Shang Ting in 1929. It mentioned the treat
ies signed by China and the harbors opened to foreign powers. And, yes, you gues
sed it right! The map shows Hainan island as the southernmost territory of China
! But where's the Spratleys, Aquarium??? Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2007628129/
Let's do one more. This map was published in 1933 in China by Ya Xin Di Xue She.
Look very closely at the map and tell me if it shows the Spratley's as part of
China. Doesn't this map -- as with all other ancient Chinese maps, official and
unofficial -- clearly shows that Hainan is the SOUTHERNMOST TERRITORY OF CHINA?
China's territory doesn't go beyond Hainan island! Source: loc(dot)gov/item/2006
629696/
I have more ancient Chinese maps to share created by Chinese officials, civilian
s and foreigners. All of these maps are consistent about one thing -- that China
's southernmost territory was, is and ALWAYS be Hainan island. In fact, as late
as 1932, your government (in a Note Verbale to France) has reiterated to the wor
ld that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan Island.
As you see, since the start of the Song Dynasty in 960 AD until the end of Qing
Dynasty in 1912 (a span of a millenium), the southernmost territory of China has
always been Hainan based on all official and unofficial maps of China.
Your government officials are lying through their noses about China's historical
claim over the Spratley's or the entire South China Sea. They could not even pr
ovide one iota of proof of their historical claim. That's why they ignored the U
N and unilaterally declared the entire region (9-dash line) as Chinese territory
.
They also could not tell the world the exact coordinates and size of its 9-dashline! Can you??? That is already a VIOLATION of international laws! I asked you
this before and you ignored it. So, I'm going to ask you again. How could anyone
declare a territory without even knowing how big it is? Like I said, you can't
just simply draw 11 or 9 dashes on a map and say everything in these lines are y
ours! Do you take world governments for stup1d to actually buy that, Aquarium? Y
ou can't even do that to a mere residential land property.
If you are a person of reason, you will protest to your communist government for
their lies because they are creating tension in the region that can potentially
spark into a bloody war conflict. If your government has any sense, it should c
larify their historical position with the Philippines and other claimants before
the UN and respect whatever UN decision that might come out from that process.
aquarium wrote, "he conveniently ignored the feverish illegal constructions of P
hilippines and Vietnam in SCS much earlier on than China...He chose to shelve th
e so-called discovery of islands by Philippines and Vietnam as recent as from seve
nties onwards, because he could not find any credible legal documents or maps to
indicate so."
Do you know how many islands in the Spratley archipelago, Aquarium? 33,000 islan
ds including the reefs. The Philippines only claims 7 of them that are well with
in our EEZ -- under international law. Those islands were discovered TERRA NULLI
US, meaning no country has exercised sovereignty over these islands. They were n
o people there. No evidence of ancient Chinese colonies. No ancient Chinese ruin
s or physical structure or outpost. No markers that suggest that they've been cl
aimed by some Chinese emperor a long, long time ago. But your greedy communist g
overnment claims all 33,000 of them -- EVERYTHING -- saying that they have histo
rical basis for their ridiculous and outrageous claim. But not one proof was pre
sented to back its historical bullcr4p.
Now, this failed in comparison to the Falklands when the British GOVERNMENT -- N
OT some private individuals -- claimed the Falkland islands in the 1600s for the

ir Queen and actually occupied and established permanent settlements! Your ancie
nt people DID NOT! That's the reason why the Falklands is BRITISH TERRITORY desp
ite it being within Argentina's EEZ.
Remember this because this is important --> The UN does recognize territorial cl
aims with historical basis over EEZ (case in point: Falklands). So, if your gove
rnment really has a solid evidence to back its historical claim, why can't they
present it? But they won't. Don't even want to face the Philippines before the i
nternational/UN court to clarify its position. Do you know why? I'll answer this
for you. Because China has NO HISTORY in the Spratleys and its bullcr4p histori
cal claim cannot stand a chance against UNCLOS.
aquarium wrote, "Perhaps, in his simplistic interpretation of law, form the basi
s of their claims."
This is pure nonsense. Not worth answering.
aquarium wrote, "I bet he is still withholding much secret information that will
expose the missing link of their claims."
Another trash. So, ignoring.
aquarium wrote, "Even so, Arcane can rest be assured that the arbitration will d
efinitely not rule in favor of Philippines, otherwise..."
This is purely your speculation. You and I both know that speculations don't rea
lly mean a thing. And as my good friend, Reality, used to say, "Who's to say tha
t it will or won't happen? No one owns the future!"
aquarium wrote, "In the meantime, Arcane can continue to mislead the readers in
Value Walk."
Between you and I, Aquarium, you're the one misleading the readers. They can alw
ays verify all the facts I wrote here. You don't have to make up stories just be
cause you can't refute the undeniable facts I've presented.
Oh, and one more thing. Did you find the Spratleys in those ancient maps yet? Le
t me know 'cause I'm having a hard time finding it myself. Okay? LOL! :)
2 months ago
aquarium7 Arcane
Arcane should be very authoritative in matter pertaining to territorial claim by
Philippines and should have all the time and resources to back up such claim. T
hat being the case, there should not be any obstacle for him to peruse every sin
gle clause, every single word written in UNCLOS, and then present any clause(s)
that lend support to Philippines claim, to the readers of Value Walk. If he is wi
lling to do that, he might help to stem the many highly provocative, senseless,
racist, Chinese-hate, threat comments from presumably many Filipinos, and also t
he anti-Chinese campaign in Philippines.
Of course, war should be the last option in any conflict, but there should not b
e any fear from the US led coalition taking on China militarily. Arcane should hav
e known it is never the policy of China to fire the first shot and the no first
strike nuclear deterrence strategy different from US and Russia, but if it has t
o come down to that stage, rest be assured China, and for that matter Russia, ar
e ready to usher front seats to any trouble makers.
makeehsig aquarium7
2 months ago
ha ha! any answers to arcane's comments?
Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago
aquarium wrote "Arcane should be very authoritative in matter pertaining to terr
itorial claim by Philippines and should have all the time and resources to back
up such claim...."
Well, thank you for affirming that China really has no evidence to back its hist
orical claim over the Spratleys and is currently violating the international law
s. The fact that you don't bother -- as always -- to refute the facts I've prese
nted means that you really have nothing to say against them because YOU KNOW the
y're true. But you prefer spreading lies instead and that speaks alot about your
character.
You're always welcome to refute those facts anytime, by the way. If you think I
lied and just made those stories up myself, point them out. Prove me wrong. Emba
rrass me.
aquarium wrote "If he is willing to do that, he might help to stem the many high
ly provocative...from presumably many Filipinos, and also the the anti-Chinese c

ampaign in Philippines."
Oh, please don't even go there. Like I said, I don't hate the Chinese people. Ju
st your government. I'm not racist. In fact, I have Chinese blood myself. My gra
ndma's parents from my mother's side immigrated from mainland China to a beautif
ul island of Cebu, Philippines a long, long time ago.
I won't be surprised that many of the Filipinos you encounter here online have s
ome connection to China or have Chinese blood. And there's no anti-Chinese campa
ign in the Philippines. Perhaps you read from some people online about boycottin
g Chinese products, but that's about it. The Philippines is a very tolerant nati
on. We're a democracy. This is a country whose greatest hero -- Dr. Jose P. Riza
l -- has Chinese ancestry. And back in the days when your great leader Mao Zedon
g was killing his own people, thousands of Chinese refugees fled to our country
and were welcomed with open arms.
Many of us -- myself included -- understand that not all Chinese support what th
eir government is doing in the Spratleys or the South China Sea and would like C
hina to take the legal proceeding with the Philippines and other claimants to re
solve the dispute. I know this because I have talked to some in person. Yeah. On
ly problem is that in China, your people have no voice. They cannot vote. You're
stuck with this one party government and anyone who opposes its policies will b
e meted with harsh punishment or death.
aquarium wrote "Of course, war should be the last option in any conflict.."
The Philippines took a very sensible approach to the conflict. Bilateral talks w
ith your government weren't fruitful, so we went to the UN. We didn't go ramming
the Chinese navies or coastguards in the seas like what the Vietnamese did, tho
ugh I would have preferred it that way because it seemed more effective in keepi
ng China at bay while the issue was being resolved behind closed doors. But we d
idn't. Our government took the legal and peaceful route despite China's continue
d illegal reclamation activities in the Spratleys.
aquarium wrote "Arcane should have known it is never the policy of China to fire
the first shot..."
That's not what history says. Like when your Chinese navy shot dead 64 unarmed V
ietnamese sailors in Johnson Reef back in 1988. And those poor Tibetan monks and
Uygurs who were mercilessly killed by your communist military during its invasi
on.
But I can assure you that if China does that to our people, especially those liv
ing in the Spratleys, there will be war. H3ll will be on Earth once again. And s
ince China is making more enemies than friends, it will be facing against a coal
tion of nations. Countries with weak military like my Philippines will suffer he
avy casualties. But I will tell you this now before it's too late -- after the g
uns have been fired and the smoke cleared -- China will never come out victoriou
s. Its greedy ambitions in the South China Sea will be met with angry nations wh
o are fed up with China's aggression and have formed alliances. Your government
has been doing this with her neighbors. India. Vietnam. Japan. And even Russia.
Now, the Philippines. World countries are not really happy about it. So, an atta
ck from China on the Philippines will not have a good outcome for your communist
government. I can assure you that.
Well, I guess you're done with me. So, that's it. Thanks anyways for replying.
2 months ago
aquarium7 Arcane
It is not finished. My conviction was correct. What we have here is just a bias
pseudo scholar easily lose his cool head, and showing his ugly head as well with
threat. Shame and damn!
Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago
aquarium wrote "It is not finished. My conviction was correct. What we have here
is just a bias pseudo scholar easily lose his cool head, and showing his ugly h
ead as well with threat. Shame and damn!"
I never threatened you at all. I'm just simply replying to your allusion that Ch
ina's military is powerful, which is true, by the way, and can easily take on th
e Philippines and allied nations. And the possible outcome of a war (God forbids

). And if you think I'm bias, like I said, prove my statements wrong.
aquarium7 Arcane
2 months ago
But with all fairness, I commend Arcane's lengthy discussion and contribution to
this forum. On that note, I wish him a good day.
Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago
I commend aquarium, too, for his excellent counter-argument during the discussio
n. Good day to you as well. :)
Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago
[duplicate comment removed]
Ros Feliciano
2 months ago
The Chinese Communists claim that they have a continuous civilization
for over 5000 years.Well, the Iranians have as well continuous
civilization for over 5,000 years; they just changed their country's
name to Iran from Persia. Partly true for China interrupted only during
the WWII. However, like the Iran, China continues to be a nation. China
is notorious for her stubborn character and this is why everywhere they
go they cannot assimilate the culture of the host country and so they
are allowed to stay in seclusion known throughout the world as China
town. Is this true of not or simply a crap?
San Andreas Ros Feliciano
2 months ago
China was conquered by its Mongolian Masters, British Masters and Japanese Maste
rs throughout history and its borders changes variably, losing control and owner
ship of lands in the process. The only time it gained more territory what when i
t illegally occupied Xinjiang and Tibet, and now its doing the same in the South
East Asian seas. Never trust a communist.
Ros Feliciano 2 months ago
The Chinese from the mainland don't listen to anyone including the United Nation
, and if they listen they just pretend to do so as their taught travel far from
the conversation. However, in a group of hundred of them talking at the same tim
e, surprisingly still they understand each other and this is why they continue b
uilding artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea, which is part of the Sout
h China. This is a proof that they don't listen to anyone. They just wish to set
example the colonial powers of the past century that simply because, as they sa
y, their ancestors roam around the area for over centuries then they owned the a
rea. They want Spain to follow their notorious character so in this way Spain wi
ll be encouraged to claim the whole South American Continent and even parts of t
he USA for that matter.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Guest
2 months ago
LOL. Commie propaganda.
*
*
* Reply

*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
cita Guest 2 months ago
Nonsense!The main topic here is about the South China sea.Any country around the
globe has their follies.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
China Lee Ros Feliciano
2 months ago
Get a clue. Spain doesn't have thermonuclear weapons.
Spain doesn't sit on the UN Security Council with a permanent veto.
Spain is smaller than a Chinese province. China is continent-size and the thirdlargest country in the world.
China is a superpower. Spain is a weakling.
What's your point in trying to draw an analogy between the two? It doesn't make
any sense.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas China Lee
2 months ago
LOL. Britain is so much smaller than China but it kicks Communists' butt. Commun
ist China had never won wars except those in the mass killings in Xinjiang and T
ibet. Its even funnier because Japan is smaller than a Chinese province yet Japa
n easily conquered the Chinese empire, with millions of Chinese ending up as Jap
an's slaves during the World War. No wonder they're so bitter about their Japane
se Masters.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*

*
*
*
*
o
o
cimatar
2 months ago
Chinese owns the MOON because they celebrate Moon cake festival! All Chinese peo
ple know this... its a part of their History! They will show you the 9-dash line
drawing in the moon as proof..LOL
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
San Andreas cimatar
2 months ago
They also own the China Town in San Francisco because its called China. Communis
t logic!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
cimatar 2 months ago
Chinese owns the MOOn because they celebrate Moon cake festival! All Chinese peo
ple know this... its a part of their History! They will show you the 9-dash line
drawing in the moon as proof..LOL
o 2
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*

*
San Andreas Guest
2 months ago
They also own the China Town in San Francisco because its called China. Commie l
ogic!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
aquarium7 2 months ago
How hilarious!! Obama said to Trong the South China Sea dispute needed to be res
olved using International
Rules , but his body language and mild trembling tone gave him away (not the first
time). Forget about US a non-signatory country of UNCLOS, forget about US not b
eing a party involved in, IF there is any, dispute in South China Sea since the
Yuan Dynasty, forget about US not taking side in, IF there is, any territorial d
ispute in South China Sea and in East China Sea, forget about that freedom of nav
igation concern (so far only ONE reported dead related to navigation!!!),
...... need I waste more space to reveal the true credibility, true color of thi
s world hegemony?? Even Abe and his right wing government, the German, the Briti
sh, the French now have second thought .....
o 1
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Guest
2 months ago
Neutral countries, world bodies and international organizations condemn Communis
t China for its pirate-like attitude in the seas and for bullying smaller, weake
r nations around to get its illegal ways. They have no shame and not in the mora
l ground to make fair judgment against those countries.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*

*
*
*
o
o
Guest
2 months ago
No, China will not abide to unfair UN ruling. Where was the UN at the Vietnam, K
orean, Aghanistan and Iraq war? China have had an experience war against US coal
iation with the UN in Korean War. She prevailed to thwart back the coalition at
38th parallel line. It was then China was weak and poor, yet they were at victor
y to defend the North Korea. Now the situation is reversed, where China is at he
r golden age of prosperity and her navy is yet rising to a mightier state.
The UN is useless organization abused by the Americans. It is time to refurbish
it.
o 3
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
San Andreas Guest
2 months ago
The golden age of China was 3000 years ago, long gone and dead. Communist China
is but a trickle of its supposedly glorious past, thats why it always invokes it
s history because it cant stand on its own. It persecutes its own people and jus
t recently announced sweeping changes to its laws giving the authoritarian Commu
nist Party more power to abuse its own citizen-slaves who have no rights of thei
r own.
China had a taste of its long list of humiliating defeats during the Opium Wars
against Western Coalitions, at a time when it consider itself powerful and might
y, like today. During the Korean War, US was not interested in defeating an alre
ady decapitated China so its aim is to merely stop it from conquering Korea, and
the US succeeded. Now thanks to Communist China, North Korea is poorer than the
rats the Chinese serves in their meals everyday.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Guest

2 months ago

Did you complain when UN declared the pyramids a heritage site when it was built
by slaves? Or the Imperialist China's Forbidden City when in fact its a promote
r of racial and social segregation?
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Guest Guest
2 months ago
Good idea. However, all those high ranking chiefs at the UN hierarchy are held b
y American, British or the proven loyal outstandingly to US gov. They dictate wh
o will be chief or agenda, what will be the mission task and which country will
be the target.The main key position holders have never deviated from Anglo-Ameri
can interests.
Been there and done that.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Arcane Guest 2 months ago
Alex wrote, "The UN is useless organization abused by the Americans. It is time
to refurbish it."
The UN is useless you say? Is that the reason why they are invoking UNCLOS provi
sion in its claims of the Senkaku Islands against Japan? Yeah, minor. Your commu
nist China submitted a claim of the Senkaku Islands, seeking UNCLOS rules in det
ermining territorial rights. So, before you write another stup1d statement like
that and make a clown of yourself -- KNOW YOUR HISTORY.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*

*
Arcane Guest
2 months ago
Bernt wrote "Senkaku is not Japan's and most Japanese know it incl. many histori
cal evidence. "
It doesn't remove the fact that communist China -- the People's Republic of Chin
a -- has no business in claiming the island for itself using the Cairo Declarati
on. It was neither a party nor mentioned in that treaty. Meaning China wants the
island based on false claims. That's just fraud.
Bernt wrote "Abe is using this as a way to booster its military and then kick th
e useless American occupying troops out of Japan."
And how did you manage to know this intimate details of Abe's plan? Are you his
best buddy for him to tell you this? In other words, it's just your unproven opi
nion. And it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Guest Arcane 2 months ago
Senkaku/Diosan has confirmed China expectation that the UN is useless. China, Ru
ssia, the non-block and Islam countries might as well start to set up a NEW UNIT
ED NATION.
China AIIB is a proof that she is leaving World Bank, a UN most prominent main-c
ore organization. Bye bye UNCLOS, China bid you farewell!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Guest
2 months ago
It would be funny if China can actually sustain its fantasy AIIB when their stoc
k markets are starting to CRASH DOWN like mahjong blocks. Soon, its economic bub
ble and its real-estate boom will explode once the Communist lockdown on free in
formation sets loose.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
San Andreas Guest
2 months ago
The laws of the peace-loving nations making up the UN is useless to rogue nation
s like China Russia, North Korea and other authoritarian despotic regimes, so it
s expected theyll call it useless. If Nazi Germany was still around, it would pr
obably call UN useless too.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
harold Guest 2 months ago
"China AIIB is a *prove* that she is leaving ...." = *PROOF
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
maxuout0143
What Case?
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o

2 months ago

China Lee 2 months ago


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

n
S
o
o
o
o
o
*
*
*
o
o
*
*

the Arctic Sunrise case. The precedents show that no major country takes UNCLO
seriously.
6
Reply
Share

San Andreas China Lee


2 months ago
Communist China is asking for the impossible because could it NOT prove its clai
ms for historical rights and the legality of its 9-dash line invention. Until no
w, China cant show a single proof.
While UNCLOS has no enforcement capacity over its rules, it will certainly bring
the big bully China down with less respect and prestige it so wanted for so lon
g. Imagine, a big bad bully China gets lawfully defeated by a weaker, smaller na
tion! Thats so shameful youll be disowned by your ancestors.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
JB China Lee 2 months ago
Regarding the second one UNCLOS is not an advisory opinion but a binding decisio
n. Now you are correct they have no way inforse it but that does not make it les
s binding.
Now the majority of its decisions are being followed one of the latest one was I
ndia against Bangladesh and India lost (also a very large country vs a small cou
ntry) but India has said they will follow the ruling.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Emily Han China Lee
2 months ago
Who talks about seizing Chinese territory? In fact, China is the only claimant t
hat seized others territories by violent means and for your record, China actual
ly, owned nothing in 1947 when the map was drawn.

* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
China Lee Guest
2 months ago
The nine-dash-line map was drawn in 1947 by the Republic of China, a democracy.
When the People's Republic of China won the civil war, it inherited the nine-das
h-line map.
By the way, the Republic of China still exists on the island of Taiwan. Also, th
e Republic of China adheres to its original nine-dash-line map.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas China Lee
2 months ago
Thanks for the confirmation
the 9-dash line claim is an invention only made in t
he 1940s :)
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RobRoyston China Lee 2 months ago
guys, just stop replying to this china lee. hes just an absolute waste of time.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Emily Han China Lee
2 months ago
The original was 11 dashed map just in case your accuracy and Chinese "indisputa
ble history" need reminding!
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
China Lee wrote "When the People's Republic of China won the civil war, it inher
ited the nine-dash-line map."
What a loaded bull of cr4p. Communist China has never inherited the nine-dash-li
ne, though it likes to think so. Communist China has not completely defeated Tai
wan. It only drove it out from the mainland. The Republic of China is still aliv
e and kicking in Taiwan under the protective wings of the great American bald ea
gle.
But this is the kind of lies China's been doing all the time. It also claims the
Senkaku Islands using the same bullcr4p that it inherited it after defeating Ta
iwan. Basically using the Cairo Declaration as its justification to claim the Se
nkakus. Now, why would China -- the People's Republic of China -- used the Cairo
Declaration in claiming the Senkaku Islands when it was neither a party (co-sig
ner) nor mentioned in that treaty? That's just crazy.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
UN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Taiwan to represen
t China in all respect.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999
2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "UN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Tai
wan to represent China in all respect."
Uhuh, and who do you think you're lying here?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
If you don't know it, that means you are ignorant.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "If you don't know it, that means you are ignorant."
Who you're trying to fool here? You're lying plain and simple. Shame on you.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
You're trying to fool yourself. Acknowledging your own ignorance. Shame on you!
*
*
* Reply

*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "You're trying to fool yourself. Acknowledging your own ignorance.
Shame on you!"
I AM 1000% SURE THAT YOU'RE LYING. You're a pathological liar. I think this is t
he result of many years of communist indoctrination by your government.
Communist China has this delusion that it owns Taiwan when the ROC clearly doesn
't want to be associated with your crazy communist government. LOL.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
You have a pathological symptom that you are intensely indoctrinating yourself w
ith untruths. Whether ROC want to be unified with China or not is not for them t
o decide. It is decided by 14 billions Chinese.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "You have a pathological symptom that you are intensely indoctrina
ting yourself with untruths. Whether ROC want to be unified with China or not is
not for them to decide. It is decided by 14 billions Chinese."
14 billion Chinese? I didn't know that your country's population was twice as mu
ch as the total population of the world of 7 billion. Are some of them living un
derground, ting_m? That's amazing. In other words, it is time for you to take yo
ur psychotropic meds.
And what's that? It's not for them to decide? You sounded just like your leader
Mao Zedong. You really are a scary person.
*
*
* Reply

*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
So you are afraid of me because I said 14 billion! but I'm a kind person.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "So you are afraid of me because I said 14 billion! but I'm a kind
person."
You sounded like your crazy dictator. That's what scary about you.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
I thought you are brave enough not to be afraid of dictator. Don't be timid, Sta
nd on your feet. Walk tall.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ansong2 China Lee
2 months ago
The Philippines has a map that dates back 350 years or so ago. And this map has

been submitted to UNCLOS. Vietnam also has a map a few centuries old. These two
maps show China's southernmost boundary is Hainan - 600 miles north of Spratly.
Now, when did you say, your mickey mouse map (9-dash line) was drawn, 1947?
Never trust China. It's the land of thieves, liars, and cheaters.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Ansong2
2 months ago
The 350 years old Philippine map was not an official government map. So it is no
t legal
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ansong2 ting_m_1999
2 months ago
The 350-year old map of the Philippines which includes the Spratlys and Bajo de
Masinloc is an official map that is recognized by western nations. The Chinese m
ap, on the other hand, made by the Chinese government, is fake like everything el
se made in China. Never trust China! It's a nation of thieves, liars and cheater
s!
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Ansong2
2 months ago
Not by its colonial master Holland and USA
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
China Lee Ansong2
2 months ago
Your claim is not true.
The Philippines wasn't even a country until 1899. Since the Philippines has been
a country for only 116 years, you are making a ridiculous claim.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas China Lee
2 months ago
Communist China isnt even a country until after World War II. The remnants of th
e Imperial China is in Taiwan
the rightful inheritor of the mainland.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ansong2 China Lee
2 months ago
The Philippines then was ruled by Rajahs, Datus, & Sultans. Have you heard any o
f the Rajahs? Soliman? Have you heard of the Madjapahit Empire? I doubt it. You
just believe what is fed to you by your commie bosses. Never trust a slit-eyed c
ommie! They are thieves, liars and cheaters.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*

*
*
China Lee Guest
2 months ago
I reported your racist post.
* 3
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
China Lee wrote "The Philippines wasn't even a country until 1899. "
LOL. And China was not even a country until the early 20th century. If you remem
ber your history, Lee, the Republic of China was established in 1911, and the Pe
ople's Republic of China? 1949 right after the Chinese civil war! Having said th
is, the Philippines is older than your China.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
UN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Taiwan to represen
t China in all respect.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane ting_m_1999 2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "UN recognized China to take over the responsibility of KMT in Tai
wan to represent China in all respect."
That's a lie. I've talked to you before in another forum, and you've been lying
all the time. You have no credibility as a poster. Shame on you to come here and
post this cr4p.
*

*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
China Lee Arcane 2 months ago
You are wrong.
China has been a continuous civilization for 5,000 years. Each successor Chinese
government inherits the rights and responsibilities of the previous Chinese gov
ernment.
The Philippines cannot claim to be a continuous civilization from their Spanish
overlords. Spaniards are white people. Philippines are not white people. Hence,
the Philippines is not a continuous civilization.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas China Lee
2 months ago
Communist China isnt even a country until after World War II. The remnants of th
e Imperial China is in Taiwan
the rightful inheritor of the mainland. Add to tha
t the long history of being slaves to its Mongolian Overlords, British Masters a
nd Japanese Emperor.
The Philippines as an independent country is even older than the Communist China
LOL.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Emily Han China Lee
2 months ago
So what happened when Mongolia rules China for hundreds of years and/or some sma
ll European countries sliced and diced China into pieces that they each liked an
d spited out the rest that they did not care for? All China has was a continuous
5,000 years of self-deceits thinking strong but really a weakling of Asia. That
reflects in talking tough and parading warships over small neighbors but runs f
or cover when the US raises its voice "the US can patrol SCS but Japan can't..."

,..
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
makeehsig China Lee
2 months ago
here are some Chinese maps that "prove" China doesn't own those islands. All ava
ilable in Google.
1389 "Da Ming Hun Yi Tu"
1601 "Tian Di Tu"
1811 "Da Qing Wan Nian Yi Tong Tian Xia Quan Tu"
1896 "Huang Chao Zhi Sheng Yu Di Quan Tu"
1933 "Zhonghua Min Guo Fen Sheng Xin Tu"
All these maps show Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. "No Paracels
nor Bajo De Masinloc (Spratlys)".
China's One Million Dashed Lies was only drawn in 1947 by the Communists after t
he Koumintangs have been expelled.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas makeehsig
2 months ago
The Philippines have actual proofs Communist China have ZERO. No wonder nobody b
elieves China other than its paid 50 Cent Party.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
Ros Feliciano China Lee
2 months ago
The Iranians have as well continuous civilization for over 5,000 years; they jus
t changed their country's name to Iran from Persia. Partly true for China interr
upted only during the WWII. However, like the Iran, China continues to be a nati
on. China is notorious for her stubborn character and this is why everywhere the

y go they cannot assimilate the culture of the host country and so they are allo
wed to stay in seclusion known throughout the world as China town. Is this true
of not or simply a crap?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
LOL. You changed it to Spanish overlords now. LMAO! Pathetic. That's like how yo
ur government changes things like the 9-dash line. First it was 11, then 10, and
finally 9. Ha ha ha ha ha.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
China Lee Arcane 2 months ago
I corrected it two minutes after my original post when I proof-read it. It's nor
mal.
* 3
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
China Lee wrote "I corrected it two minutes after my original post when I proofread it. It's normal."
It's normal? If it was a typo or grammatical error, I would have understood, but
you did mention France twice in that paragraph. What were you thinking at that
time? You must had thought the Philippines and Vietnam were one country. LMAO.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share

*
*
*
o
*
*
*
Arcane China Lee
2 months ago
China Lee wrote "You are wrong. China has been a continuous civilization for 5,0
00 years. The Philippines cannot claim to be a continuous civilization from thei
r French overlords. French are white people. Philippines are not white people. H
ence, the Philippines is not a continuous civilization."
The French? The French had never administered the Philippines in ancient past. L
MAO. This is proof right here that you don't know squat about history. That spea
ks volumes as to how little you know about the history of China.
Yeah, China as a country DID NOT EXIST thousands of years ago. If you read your
history, your people didn't have a concept of a country until the 20th century.
They believed the entire world belonged to their emperors, the Sons of Heaven!
This established the fact that Japan, as a nation-state, had first control of th
e Senkaku Islands -- uninhabited at that time -- before China, as a country, did
. Second, even during the dynastic times in your part of Asia, no physical struc
tures were erected or people living permanently in those islands -- INCLUDING TH
E SPRATLEYS -- to prove that they had been under the control of some Chinese emp
eror. Compare that to the Romans who managed to build structures or outposts in
all their colonies like Egypt.
Are you telling us now that it's okay for Iran to declare that Egypt, Iraq, Syri
a, Israel, Palestine, and all these countries in Western and Central Asia as Ira
nian territories since they have been under the Persian Empire?? Don't you reali
ze how absurd and ridiculous you sound?
Communist China -- as a country -- DID NOT even exist 900 years ago when its socalled map was made. Again, this is like saying that Iran should claim her old t
erritories based on a map dating back to the Persian Empire. They do have a real
map showing that. The big difference between the Persian Empire and your people
's ancient empire was that the former actually administered and took control of
their territories, building structures and outposts and engaging with the locals
-- your people DID NOT. But they saw those islands, yeah?
Is your government going to claim the Americas, too, because there was a recent
article, proving that people from your part of Asia had first discovered America
s long before Columbus did? What about the Moon? Are your people going to claim
the Moon, saying they first saw it? Please stop embarrassing yourself further wi
th this nonsense.
see more
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months ago
In the world map, there is no such country as communist China. There is always a
CHINA!. The world recognise only ONE CHINA! It is currently governed by COMMUNI
ST Party of China, which was previously governed by Democratic party of Chiang K

ai Sek...currently becomes Democratic Taiwan. Nowaday, Taiwan admits they are pa


rt of China state., cannot gain independence by itself! By the way, the real Sou
th China Sea maps dating back thousand years ago are still with 1800 Britanica w
orld Atlas and New Britainica world maps. All other maps are merely drawing with
out proper cordinats of longitutes and latitudes. Nevertheless, Cairo treaty and
Postdam proclamation after WWII done by the 5 alliance countries US, RUSSIA, CH
INA, BRITAINand FRANCE are very important for Sovereighty clarification. This ca
n only overide by WORLD WAR III, and Not by UNCLOS!..the ultimate motive of this
case is SOVEREIGHTY.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months ago
Ah Ee Tan wrote "In the world map, there is no such country as communist China.
There is always a CHINA!. The world recognise only ONE CHINA!"
That still doesn't remove the fact that China -- as a country -- was established
in the 20th century. 1911 when the Republic of China (Taiwan) was born. 1949 wh
en your communist People's Republic of China (China) was established.
Ah Ee Tan wrote " By the way, the real South China Sea maps dating back thousand
years ago are still with 1800 Britanica world Atlas and New Britainica world ma
ps."
The real maps? Are you saying that those official and unofficial Chinese territo
rial maps dated thousands and even millenia of years ago used by your ancient pe
ople and emperors are NOT REAL??? Even your Qing Emperor Jiaqing made a map of C
hina's entire territory in the 1800s, showing that China's southernmost territor
y doesn't go beyond Hainan island. Are you telling us now that his map is FAKE?
You must be joking.
Ah Ee Tan wrote "This can only overide by WORLD WAR III, and Not by UNCLOS!"
And how do you know this for sure? Is war the only thing you communist people kn
ow how to resolve disputes?
Also, no other country in the world believes in this 9-dash-line cr4p. I challen
ge you to name one country besides Taiwan who believes in it.
As I've been saying, your 9-dash-line is already a violation of international la
ws. Your government could not even tell the world its exact coordinates and how
big that is. Do you know how big your 9-dash-line is, Tan? How can you declare a
territory without knowing its exact coordinates and measurements? You can't jus
t draw 11, 10 or 9 dashes on a map and say that everything in those lines are yo
urs. World governments aren't that stup1d to fall for that. Can you even do that
to a residential land property, of course not! So, why is your communist govern
ment take the world for a fool?
Ah Ee Tan wrote "..the ultimate motive of this case is SOVEREIGHTY."
That's right. And you cannot claim sovereignty rights over an area without a sol
id historical backing. And China lacks the historical backing when it comes to t
he Spratleys. Because if your country has solid evidence to back its historical
claim of the Spratley, then it shouldn't have to worry facing the Philippines be
fore any UN legal proceeding because the UN does recognize historical basis in c
laiming territories like in the case of the British Falklands.
o
o
o Reply

o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
ting_m_1999 Arcane 2 months ago
China announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation fro
m WWII other victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member in that time and
didn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the Lines be
long to China.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months ago
You tend to avoid the facts established after WWII, Japan returened all the isla
nds they occupied in the Spratleys to China under the noses and eyes of US, Russ
ia, Britain, China and France as Cairo declaratiosn and Postdam proclaimation, p
lus Japan and Taiwan treaty. All these changed hand after WWII when Japan was de
feated. There are documents..very solid documents on these!..very solid historic
al documents. I can say here unless there is WWIII, and China loss the war. OK,
some other alliance country will claim them . I can feel Japan has the potential
...if US back them up .I do not think US will fight for Phillippine, they are ne
ver in the history that those islands are Phillipines. Post WWII, they are Japne
se's islands. OK, now Japan is coming back, and we shall have a good WATCH!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months ago
Ah Ee Tan wrote ,"You tend to avoid the facts established after WWII, Japan retu
rened all the islands they occupied in the Spratleys to China under the noses...
as Cairo declaratiosn"
Well, didn't you get the memo? Communist China was neither mentioned nor part of
that treaty!
So, why is your government using the Cairo Declaration to justify its ridiculous
claim when it was NOT a party of that treaty agreement? That's just crazy.

Your communist state has this delusion that it inherits all of Taiwan's territor
ies after the civil war -- IT DIDN'T. Taiwan was not really defeated by your arm
y. It merely drove them out of mainland China. And right now, the Republic of Ch
ina is still alive and kicking in Taiwan under the protective wings of the great
American bald eagle.
Second, Taiwan is not making a BIG FUZZ over this treaty because at this very mo
ment 5,000 Chinese missiles are aimed at it by your communist government. In fac
t, they're very concerned of the growing military power of her communist neighbo
r. In other words, Tan, all the more reason for Taiwan to strengthen its allianc
e with the US. And the US is being clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the S
pratleys is a disputed region that must be resolved through the UN, and any unil
ateral declaration of its ownership or to change the status quo will not be reco
gnized.
And despite numerous calls by your communist party for Taiwan to join with them
and form a "Two China, One Country", Taiwan rejected them. That speaks VOLUMES o
f how the Taiwanese people despise your communist regime. The Taiwanese love the
ir freedom and democracy. Their forefathers fought and died for this freedom and
they're not going to give that away easily.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months ago
As far the current and historical world order is concernt, Taiwan and China is o
ne China ....be it governed by communist party or democratic party..the same CHI
NA is there since 5000 years ago, it is their internal politics, unless it was c
onquered and torn by other countries, like situation of Hong Kong, Macau and now
, Taiwan. Why hype' COMMUNIST' of China? They are more and better decratic syst
ems then other democratic countries which are more corrupt and moneytocratic.The
ir people are welcomeby many democratic countries as tourists and areprovided wi
th previlage entry VISA. They grow all the way up from 30 years ago when they we
tre damn poor...like current Phillippine. It is better Phillippine learn and coo
perate with China to rib themselves out of poverty.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months ago
Ah Ee Tan wrote "As far the current and historical world order is concernt, Taiw
an and China is one China ....be it governed by communist party or democratic pa
rty.."
However you want to say it, it still doesn't remove the reality that the People'

s Republic of China is NOT a party of the Cairo Declaration. And that it has NO
BUSINESS in meddling with Taiwan's affairs because Taiwan has its own government
that is very much capable of running its own country, and clearly doesn't want
to be associated with your communist state.
We're talking about governments here -- not China the continent. Okay, so don't
get mixed up. If you want to say that there's only one China, doesn't matter bec
ause they are two different governments. And the Cairo Declaration doesn't invol
ved your communist government. Having said this, your communist China really has
no business in the Spratleys and the Senkakus. Full stop.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months ago
So, are you saying the UNCLOS LAW requires Taiwan government to rule China, then
Cairo Declaration and Postdam proclamation are valid? By the way, the real fact
is, Phillipines was not mentioned in these Documents. Can you see the internati
onal politics....under the game of play,.Phillipines stir first...alliance drums
up...finally the WWII loser shows up..ultimate motives to rewrite world boundar
ies and history...this time cairo declaration and Postdam proclamation will be o
verwriten, and new treaty will most likely be done in the HAGUE. By this time, t
he whole world will suffer serious economic showdown..and worst countries will b
e in the ASIA! Do not hype peaceful rising of CHINA...try to ride on their risin
g wagon to sell Phillipine coconut oils ( extremely healthy), sea foods, agricul
ture products..the next few years, your citizens will be very thankful to your w
ise politic...
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months ago
Ah Ee Tan wrote,"So, are you saying the UNCLOS LAW requires Taiwan government to
rule China, then Cairo Declaration and Postdam proclamation are valid? By the w
ay, the real fact is, Phillipines was not mentioned in these Documents."
You don't really get it. LOL. UNCLOS has nothing to do with ruling China mainlan
d! UNCLOS are a set of laws that govern the rights of nations with respect to th
e ocean! Okay, so don't wander off our current topic here, which is the CAIRO DE
CLARATION. Now, in that treaty, it specifically mentioned the REPUBLIC OF CHINA
-- NOT your PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. They're not one government. One is democ
ractic and the other is communist. One is a party to the Cairo Declaration, and
the other is NOT.
I'll give you a very simple analogy that any 10 year old can understand. A guy n

amed Rocky had a house with a big lot. He owned the titles to his properties (ho
use and lot) all under his name. It so happened that his cousin, Precy, also liv
ed with him in that same house. But Precy wasn't really a good fella because he
wanted the house all for himself. So, he started fighting Rocky and because he w
as stronger and bigger, he managed to kick Rocky out of the house. Rocky now liv
ed in his barn nearby that was also on that same lot. And if it weren't for his
good neighbor, Uzzy, who intervened the physical altercation, Precy would have c
ompletely kicked Rocky out of his land.
Now, here's a big QUESTION for you. Does the incident make Precy owns the titles
of Rocky's house and lot? Of course, not! Just because Precy managed to kick hi
s cousin out doesn't make him the legitimate owner of the properties. LMAO!
But Crazy Precy is claiming that he owns the house, the lot, and the barn using
the titles that are all under Rocky's name! Now if that's not crazy for you, wha
t is??? LMAO.
It should be very clear who is who in this very simple analogy I shared you. Pre
cy is the People's Republic of China (PRC), Rocky is the Republic of China (ROC)
and Uzzy is the United States (US).
There's no way in heaven that Rocky will forgive Precy for his violent, thieving
, lying and deceptive behavior. In fact, the Taiwanese government says that it i
s the sole legitimate government of all China! And the one that is currently liv
ing and breathing in China mainland is an illegal government.
Now, if you still don't get it from this grade-school level analogy then I'm ver
y sorry to tell you -- I can't help dumb people.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months ago
You cannot twist words and truth under Cairo declaration and Postdam proclamatio
n that Phillippine was not a party. Now, I do not know who is dumb? There was ro
ck truth that PRC and ROC fight together as one CHINA! against Japanese intruder
s during WWII. PRC and ROC were China internal political problem..and not for ou
tside world to meddle with.Same also on issue of South China Sea....
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ah Ee Tan Arcane 2 months ago
Again, I must stress that in the WORLD, or the world map, there is only one Chin
a since 5000 years ago..it may be ruled by Emperor, Democratic party, socialist
party or now, communist party, it is still China....DNA of China.
*

*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane Ah Ee Tan 2 months ago
Ah Ee Tan wrote "Again, I must stress that in the WORLD, or the world map, there
is only one China since 5000 years ago..."
That's like saying there's only one American continent in the world map. But Ame
rica is comprised of many different countries and governments. There's Canada, t
here's the United States, and if you go down south, you have Brazil, Argentina,
and what have you.
Like I said, don't get mixed up. Sure, there's one China the continent. But ther
e are two Chinese governments (Taiwan isn't even part of that continent). And on
e of them was NOT involved in the Cairo treaty!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ah Ee Tan Ah Ee Tan
2 months ago
sorry again typo grammer error!' PRE WWII'
Not' post wwII'
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Guest Arcane 2 months ago
China Lee is right.The French colonialized Vietnam and took over Spratly.
The more you write, the more you are in delusional of your thought that China is
making groundless claim.
Why don't you type the word " China history" in Google and start learning about
your adversary?
Or you might as well declare since Philippine is a Christian State, therefore wh
atever She does and claims are by her virtue is true, as the Bible said. Since y
ou are the descendant of Abraham, so is Spratly by virtue is yours, by the help

of Christian guardian The USA


*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane Guest 2 months ago
Alex wrote, "The French colonialized Vietnam and took over Philippine."
France took over the Philippines? Ha ha ha ha. Oh, God, please help these people
. And what's that? Colonialized? LMAO! You never fail to make me laugh, Alex. Yo
u're such a funny clown. :)))))))))))))))))))))))
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Guest Arcane 2 months ago
Oh God, please guide these senseless people as not to trespass China water, or e
lse bullets shall welcome their ignorants life. Amien
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane Guest 2 months ago
Alex wrote, "Oh God, please guide these senseless people as not to trespass Chin
a water, or else bullets shall welcome their ignorants life. Amien"
Ignorants and amien? Ha ha ha ha ha. You're very funny, minor. LMAO!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*

*
o
*
*
Guest Arcane
2 months ago
Read it again. Hahaha!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane Guest 2 months ago
Alex wrote, "Read it again. Hahaha!"
I did. You're so dumb and funny! :))))))))))))))
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RobRoyston China Lee 2 months ago
i have a parcel of land, and i have specific boundaries complete with exact coor
dinates. this tells my neighbors where my property end and where their property
begins. this way ownership is legally and formally recognised.
if this 9dash line is a legal & formal claim can you provide specific coordinate
s to specify the limits of this claim? if you cannot provide specific coordinate
s (eg, precise points on the map complete with latitude / longitude) then it can
not be considered as a legal claim.
it is a mickey mouse claim, thats what it is.
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
China Lee RobRoyston 2 months ago
Your claim is not true.

Only new modern territorial claims are subject to such exacting standards.
China's maritime territory in the South China Sea (as demarcated by its nine-das
h-line map) is a formalization of China's two-thousand-year-old first-discovery
and claim of the South China Sea.
Ancient territorial claims need not meet modern specifications.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RobRoyston China Lee 2 months ago
let me ask for it again... your coordonates please... ?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ros Feliciano China
China Lee tell your
dants, the Portugal
at nations on earth
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Lee
2 months ago
story to the Romans, Spaniards, iranians, Gengis Khan descen
people, the descendants of Alexander the Great and other gre
and we'll wait their responses.

JB China Lee 2 months ago


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

rrect me if I am wrong.
See independent of the ownership of the features there is a case to make for the
waters surrounding it and that is what this case is about.
* 3
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
The demarcation of the Lines were not specified because of the interruption of t
he Chinese civil war. Also the Lines have to be negotiated with neighboring nati
ons. Those nations refuse to negotiate. The Lines consists originally 11 lines.
Two of the 11 lines were peacefully settled between China and Vietnam in the Ton
kin Gulf region. There remain 9 lines.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
China Lee JB 2 months ago
Reliable GPS coordinates were not available until satellite technology was devel
oped.
China's nine-dash-line map was the gold standard in ancient territorial demarcat
ion.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RobRoyston China Lee 2 months ago
without specific coordinates, how will one know where chinese waters end and whe
re phil waters begin?
in practical terms how will a ship captain know if he is still sailing in chines
e waters or in phil waters. how does chinese and philippine coast guards know th
e limits of the seas they cover w/o defined coordinates??
thats not a golden standard!! instead it is a standard for confusion & conflict!

!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 RobRoyston 2 months ago
The Lines were not initially specified is because the demarcation of the Lines w
ere not specified because of the interruption of the Chinese civil war. Also the
Lines have to be negotiated with neighboring nations. Those nations refuse to n
egotiate. The Lines consists originally 11 lines. Two of the 11 lines were peace
fully settled between China and Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf region. There remain
9 lines.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
RobRoyston China Lee 2 months ago
my parcel of land was originally titled in the 1920s (before your 9dash line was
published) and the limits of my property is complete with coorfinates. there wa
s no GPS in the 1920s but a latitude / londitude syst already existed.
GOLD STANDARD !!??!! what kind of medication are you on??
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB China Lee 2 months ago
LOL we are not talking about GPS my friend but detailed coordinates have been ar
ound for centuries. And as I said they were formalized/standardized in 1884.
The nine dash is not even close to a gold standard in 1947 I can show you maps o
f the 16th century that have 100 times more details than the nine dash line. Plu
s 1947 is not considered ancient we were already in the industrial revolution ge
tting close to the information age.
* 1

*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
China Lee wrote "China's nine-dash-line map was the gold standard in ancient ter
ritorial demarcation."
It's the golden standard? LMAO! Only China believes this cr4p. Here's a little c
hallenge for you. Name one country other than China/Taiwan that believes in your
golden 9-dash-line. This is going to be funny. LOL!
* 3
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
China Lee wrote "...formalization of China's two-thousand-year-old first-discove
ry and claim of the South China Sea."
2,000 year old first discovery? Hahahaha. How do you think your government justi
fies its claim before the world? That they have a fleeting glimpse of those isla
nds 2,000 years ago? LMAO! That's just communist idiocy right there.
Okay, you mentioned first discovery and claim thousands of years ago. Do you kno
w who, among your ancient Chinese emperors, claimed those islands? LMAO.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dart Revan China Lee 2 months ago
Your ancient maps shows hainan as the southernmost part of china. Your nine dash
line is nothing but a hoax.malayan polynesian had discovered the seas long befo
re the chinese did.
* 1
*
* Reply
*

* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
China Lee Dart Revan 2 months ago
No. Ancient maps do not demarcate all of China's vast territories.
For example, most US maps do not show Guam, Midway, or US Virgin Islands. Yet, a
ll of those islands belong to the US. Similarly, the South China Sea islands bel
ong to China. However, they may not be depicted in all Chinese maps.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
Lee wrote "For example, most US maps do not show Guam, Midway, or US Virgin Isla
nds. Yet, all of those islands belong to the US. Similarly, the South China Sea
islands belong to China. However, they may not be depicted in all Chinese maps."
You can't claim something without any history and without even administering it.
Your communist China has been saying that they have historical basis to support
their claim of the ENTIRE South China Sea, which includes the Spratleys. What h
istorical basis are they talking about when there are no ancient Chinese colonie
s in those islands, most especially on those shoals or reefs (LMAO)? There were
no ancient structures or outposts. No markers that suggest that they'd been clai
med by some Chinese emperor thousands of years ago? Can you tell us?
And you have the nerve to compare this to Guam, Midway or the US Virgin Islands
when the Americans actually established colonies in those places! No. They're NO
T the same.
Also, the 9-dash-line is already a violation of international laws. You can't ju
st draw 11 or 9 dashes on a map and expect world countries to believe that you o
wn the sovereignty rights of all the islands, reefs and shoals within those line
s. Do you even know the exact coordinates or how big this 9-dash-line is, Lee, b
ecause your communist government doesn't even know? So, how could you claim some
thing without even knowing how big it is? H3ck, you can't even do that with simp
le residential land properties. So, don't take people for fools because we're no
t.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
ting_m_1999 Arcane
2 months ago
The Chinese civil war prevented The demarcation of the Lines. Also the Lines hav
e to be negotiated with neighboring nations. Those nations refuse to negotiate.
The Lines consists originally 11 lines. Two of the 11 lines were peacefully sett
led between China and Vietnam in the Tonkin Gulf region. There remain 9 lines.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
China Lee Arcane 2 months ago
Don't change the subject.
My point about a map not showing all of a country's vast territories is correct.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
Arcane China Lee 2 months ago
China Lee wrote "Don't change the subject. My point about a map not showing all
of a country's vast territories is correct."
LOL. Are you trying to be funny now? Your government claims that it owns the ENT
IRE South China Sea for thousands of years yet its ancient territorial maps don'
t show this. And we're talking about territorial maps, both official and unoffic
ial, dating thousands or even millennium of years ago beginning from the Song Dy
nasty. In fact, as late as 1932, your government (in a Note Verbale to France) h
as reiterated to the world that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan Is
land.
So, are you telling us now that ancient China owns the region for thousands of y
ears, but it just doesn't want to include it in its maps? Why go all the trouble
drawing all those Chinese lands and boundaries in intricate details but stop at
Hainan island? That's hilarious.
Please don't think you can get away with this lie. It's pathetic. Really. But le
t's just say, for the sake of conversation, that ancient China really does own t
he entire South China Sea, who, among your ancient Chinese emperors, claimed the
water? Do you know? LMAO.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*

*
*
o
*
o
o
Chinese stink
2 months ago
Chinese Xi made up stories, excuses. Hope UNCLOS punish thief China Xi. Bombed i
slands. Solved. Peace.
o 2
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
Chinese stink
2 months ago
Chinese thief stop stealing, invading Vn and Philip seas.
o 2
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
jim okay 2 months ago
This is the funniest thing I have ever read.Tthe Philippines tries to entertain
the world again, but sarcastically. One of the items in the case the Philippines
says they are claiming the islands around its 200 nautical miles of its EEZ is
based on the Principle of Res nullius, which means that an object is ownerless a
nd free to be owned. In other words, the Philippines says, "What the heck, I dec
lare (to myself), hey I assume no body owns these islands, so I'm owning them."
What they said before that those islands were discovered by Tomas Cloma is now f
alse. Now they want to say that since no body owns those islands, so I want to o
wn them. President Marcos when he annexed them to the Filipino map in 1978, he d
idn't say that. So what is true? When the Filipinos knowingly understand that th
e Chinese always claim those islands, and they are now telling the judges of the
Permanent Court of Justice in The Hague that nobody/country owns them, so they
want to own them. This is not only a joke, but a flat lie! This is also clearly
about sovereignty, which the PCJ in The Hague has no jurisdiction. Do you all se
e how dumb the Filipinos are in this case? They try to use moron logic to talk t
o a group of talented judges. Good luck!!
Another funny thing in the case is that the Philippines says that all the island
s fall within its 200 nm EEZ. It is either the lawyers in this case who have not
really read or understood the text in the UNCLOS, or that Aquino tells them to
include this item in the case, anyway. It is quite understandable that not only
the mainland of a coastal country has a 200 nm EEZ, but all islands enjoy a 200

nm of EEZ. If the two EEZs overlap, then it is up to


esolve the issue.
So far, the Philippines has a very weak case against
Aquino spent so many millions of dollars and put up
t China while thousands of Filipinos are starving at
o 6
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*

the countries involved to r


China. I can't believe that
such as scrappy case agains
home.

JB jim okay
2 months ago
I do have to agree with some of the other comments here that I do not think you
know what the case is about.
You state:
"and they are now telling the judges of the Permanent Court of Justice in The Ha
gue that nobody/country owns them, so they want to own them"
No where in the case is there anything about ownership of features since UNCLOS
does not have the authority to rule on that and the Philippines is not asking fo
r it.
The case is about defining what rights any of these features have and most will
have nothing or just a 12 mile zone independent of who owns them.
You state:
"So far, the Philippines has a very weak case against China"
I can not concur based on UNCLOS it is unlikely that China would be able to clai
m all the features and the waters in between plus all of the rest of the South C
hina sea. Now will the Philippines get all features defined as they want probabl
y not but there are quite a few no brainers like the Scarborough shoal that will
not have an EEZ and beyond the 12miles zone it would become Philippine EEZ and
that would be a win for the Philippines.
This case is a lot smarter and at the end it would only take that one win (out o
f several hundreds) to break the claim of the nine dash line. While China would
have to win all of them with a 200mile EEZ and could still not claim the full so
uth China Sea based on coverage
So only if they decide that UNCLOS does not apply we would have a draw and that
would be the best outcome China could ask for.
See you can make a case based on facts and analysis and no need call the other s
ide lairs, jokers or degrade them in anyway because that does show you as a smal
l minded petty person so please stop doing that
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Ansong2 jim okay

2 months ago

Very soon, the world will find out what China is all about. It's a land of thiev
es, liars, and cheaters.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
gordon jim okay
2 months ago
Actually you are forgetting Vietnam's claim. Admittedly the Philippines claim is
based on possession through invasion but the PRC claim is complicated by the fa
ct it is the same mainly as Taiwan which may or may not be a province of China d
epening on ones standpoint. Sovereignty issues would come under the remit of the
ICJ and both parties have to agree to arbitration.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
Ansong2 Guest
Very soon, the
es, liars, and
us bring down
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*

2 months ago
world will find out what China is all about. It's a land of thiev
cheaters. Stop buying low-quality products made in China and help
this troublemaker to its knees.

This comment was deleted.


*
*
*
*

jim okay Guest


2 months ago
You just trash too much. Most Filipinos are just like you, cannot comment to the
issues. Hopeless for the Philippines.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
Ansong2 Guest
2 months ago
The Philippines has a map that dates back 350 years or so ago which show that Ch
ina's southernmost boundary is Hainan. This map was submitted to UNCLOS.
Very soon, the world will find out what China is all about. It's a land of thiev
es, liars, and cheaters.
Help us bring down this troublemaker to its knees by boycotting made in China pr
oducts.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
jim okay jim okay
2 months ago
As I said in other websites, the case that the Philippines took China to the PCJ
is going to no where. Today, when I see it as presented, it is one of the moron
ic cases ever filed. the judges will throw out most of the case. Most of the ite
ms in the case have nothing to do with UNCLOS. In order to rule on the maritime
benefits for any coastal country, they must decide on the sovereignty. Without k
nowing who own what, how do you decide where does the 200 nm EEZ start?
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
JB jim okay
2 months ago
What kind of claims a feature has (eg 10 miles, 200 Miles or nothing ) has nothi
ng to do with who owns it it has to certain rules. Like is it above water both i
n high and low tide, can it sustain life, what continental plateau etc. The clai
ms the feature has would be the same if it was owned by China, Philippines or an
y other country. And that is exactly what this case is about the philippines is
asking the status of all the features independent of the ownership
The only other thing they ask is to see if UNCLOS has jurisdiction.
So please point out what is moronic about the case and what parts of the case ha
s nothing to do with UNCLOSE
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
jim okay Guest 2 months ago
You're not responding to the issue. You're just trashing. That's most Filipinos
know how to do, and nothing else.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ansong2 jim okay 2 months ago
The issue is that China is a nation of thieves, liars, and cheaters.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*

Vir jim okay


2 months ago
Your comment is the most stupid I've ever read. Why don't you start opening your
eyes and read the real and true history and not your made up Chinese version. D
o you even know what's UNCLOS?! I doubt it, stupid jerk!
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JESUSPACQUING Vir
2 months ago
I AGREE ANOTHER STUPIDITY..!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
jim okay Vir 2 months ago
Can you tell me what is "made up" in my comments. Don't talk trash here. Of cour
se I know the UNCLOS. What do you know about the UNCLOS?
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Vir jim okay 2 months ago
Hahaha DON'T TRASH TALK?! THEN DON'T TRASH YOUR ALREADY RIDICULOUS BRAIN! UNITED
NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA WHICH YOUR CHINA DOES NOT RESPECT AT A
LL! GO FIGURE WHY! OHHH, EVERYONE KNOWS WHY EXCEPT YOU, YOU GUYS BEEN SUPRESSED
FOR YEARS! YOUR GOVT. WILL ONLY ALLOW NEWS THAT'S PLEASING TO THEIR EYES & TICKL
ES THEIR BRAIN! SO SAD. YOU ARE A VICTIM OF YOUR COMMUNIST COUNTRY. :( BOOOOHHH
:(
*
*
* Reply
*

* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
Ros Feliciano
2 months ago
Fifty percent of us Filipinos have Chinese blood in us and this cannot
be denied. In the event of conflict with China of course we remains citizens of
the Philippines. However, the truth is Chinese cannot easily assimilate
the culture of their host countries from generation to many generations
and this is why they are allowed to settle in one community in a country
where their ancestors migrated and they called the community China
town; in Manila, New York and in many other countries as well. For this reason,
I am absolutely doubtful about the loyalty of the Chinese Filipinos if they favo
rs China or the Philippines. Among us
two peoples we remain friends with each other as we want to avoid war.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
jim okay Ros Feliciano 2 months ago
Well, you are deviating from the issue. Look, the Philippines is trying to ask t
he court to decide the islands the Philippines now occupies since 1978 were actu
ally Res nullius, meaning that they did not have owner and the Philippines claim
s ownership of them. While the Philippines knows it damn well that the islands h
ave claimed by China since ancient time and all the way into modern time (look a
t the map of China published in 1948 and everymap since then that it clearly dis
plays both in English and Chinese the names of those islands), how can the islan
ds be Res nullius? The real issue is that the Filipinos are greed people and the
y are stealing property from China. Are telling me that the Chinese Filipinos in
the Philippines need to be greedy and to agree with the 100 percent pure blood
Filipinos that stealing others property is right?
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ros Feliciano jim okay
Who believe this crap?

2 months ago

*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Totoy Ros Feliciano
2 months ago
Fifty % of us Filipinos have Chinese blood in us? Where did you get that info?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ros Feliciano Totoy
2 months ago
Well, this is just an educated guess because in Luzon almost haft of the populat
ion are mongoloid in appearance.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JESUSPACQUING Totoy
2 months ago
ANOTHER STUPID ASSUMPTION , CHINESE FILIPINO ARE LOYAL THE PHILIPPINES, WHY? CHI
NESE FROM CHINA IMMIGRATED TO THE PHILIPPINES BECAUSE OF DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM FROM
CONTROL SUCH BUSHINESS ETC. AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW, THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY ,CHI
NA CONTROLS HIS OWN
PEOPLE..!!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
gordon JESUSPACQUING
2 months ago
Chines emigration to the area called the Philippine's occurred long before the P
RC existed and also before the Philippines did.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
GAGO333 2 months ago
Philippines already won this case by default, since commie China failed to atten
d.
o 7
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Sam Gu GAGO333 a month ago
It is not true.
if one side is absent in this court the arbitration is not valid^
Court has no power to enforce its judgment^
Many countries including United States do not recognize this court.
Your conclusion is incorrect.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
San Andreas GAGO333
2 months ago
They decided not to attend and hide behind the cloak of 9-dash line because they
know they will never win.
* 1
*
* Reply

*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
LAM GIANG 2 months ago
All the country like Tibet and other Viet countries should show the proofs of ch
ina invaded their countries and took away a lot of land thousand year ago . Now
it is time to get back those land.
o 4
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
Duetto 2 months ago
The Philippines said it will honor whatever the decision. Let's see if China doe
s too.
o 4
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
San Andreas Duetto 2 months ago
China wont. Communists are not known to follow the rule of law. They have no hon
or.
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
gordon Duetto

2 months ago

so the kingdoms of Mercia etc. should take back their land form Wessex and Engla
nd does not exist. Mexico should take back its lands from the USA, Hawaii should
also be independent.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Duetto gordon
2 months ago
Your point being?
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Duetto Duetto
2 months ago
Yeah just as I had suspected. Gordon is a big Nimrod who can't back up what he s
ays. It's all cool. Just STFU if you can't rebut. You're doing the right thing.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Duetto 2 months ago
Haha! The 50-Cent Party paid commenters have lost its train of thought. What the
heck was that guy talking about anyway LOL
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*

o
o
JJXKing
2 months ago
Let's wait and see.
o 1
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Pepot JJXKing
2 months ago
Yes. Philippines honors commitments like a KNIGHT.Preserving Honor at this time
is very important to show your integrity and credibility. Not on paper but doing
the opposite.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
NO MADE IN CHINA 2 months ago
NO DOGS, NO CHINESE, NO MADE IN CHINA.
o 9
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
JESUSPACQUING NO MADE IN CHINA
AGREED..!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*

2 months ago

*
o
*
*
Mixa. NO MADE IN CHINA
2 months ago

???????? US is a bastion of idiocy. ????????


*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
Mixa. 2 months ago
?????China ????? can smash America without problem,Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T 50 fi
ghter are much faster and more maneuverable than American F-35 US air force or F
22 Raptor and other technologically obsolete American airplanes... China invests
more and more to the armies, and the Americans cut their budget, right now must
dump american dollar and then the america becomes bankrupt
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
San Andreas Mixa.
2 months ago
Smash with what? Replicas of old-tech Russian planes? Rusting naval ships it bou
ght from USSR? Oh how about the poor copy of jump jets it stole from the US thro
ugh hacking? Maybe your Chinese Junks will finally be useful against its enemies
. Communist China cant even invent a single thing.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
marley Mixa.
mixa,

2 months ago

look who's talking!!!! keep your illusion high, if you, chinese are tough enough
all you have to do is shot the US recon plane flying above your manmade island.
will see how far you guys could go.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
PINOY Mixa.
2 months ago
Mixa,and then you and your cousin don't have any more to copy from .
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
JB Mixa. 2 months ago
Not a very useful or even correct remark regarding It is of the subject so why b
other posting it. I could go into an analysis on why your statements are incorre
ct but I am sure it would be fruitless so I am not going to bother.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Wilson Wazu Escalona Mixa. 2 months ago
Very true Mixa. ! also, you forgot to mention that the earth is the center of th
e universe ^_^
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*

*
o
*
*
Duetto Mixa.
2 months ago
The way I see it here now, China needs to invest more in English education.
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
aquarium7 2 months ago
There are many inaccuracies in this article. For one, there has never been any t
erritorial dispute in South China Sea since the Ming Dynasty. Aquino's WILD inte
rpretation of UNCLOS in regard to his claim in South China Sea is a fiasco, a la
ughing stock that is backed ONLY by US for obvious reason to contain China. If A
quino s logic stands, then, he could also have challenged US to an International C
ourt for the many imagine or real disputes in America. New Mexico belongs to
Mexico, Alaska belongs to the Eskimos, Hawaii belongs to the Hawaiian natives. I
n fact, the entire America belongs to the native Indian just over 200 years ago!
That is how WILD Aquino and Philippines can become if they CHOSE to.
South China Sea ONLY became disputed when Hillary Clinton fumbled upon that freed
om of navigation lie, gold mine that she used to meddled in South China Sea. Later,
Carter, Russel, Biden, .... , Abe and Aquino, even the CNN spy plane all join t
he bandwagon. Funny though, that freedom of navigation lie is rarely heard lately,
it must be one more LIE of US has been exposed. Of course, it is not impossible
for UNCLOS to rule in favor of Philippines if the judges adopt the AMERICAN VER
SION of international law!!!!
In any case, US and her watch dogs Japan, Philippines, Vietnam must not have any i
llusion that China will forego even half an inch of soil she rightly own. The mo
re they meddle, the tighter the noose around Vietnam and Philippine will become.
History, legality and time are on China s side. History also shows that evil deal
ings always failed. You see in Hitler and Japs Fascist in WW II. You will see in
scheming US, Abe and Aquino. Damn all the liars.
o 1
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
San Andreas aquarium7
2 months ago
There was never a territorial dispute in the South East Asian seas in the Ming D
ynasty because they dont even know there were reefs that exists there. The Chine
se claim to those reefs was only invented in 1940s.

* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Ansong2 aquarium7
2 months ago
Very soon, the world will find out what China is all about: It's the land of thi
eves, liars, and cheaters. Shameless breed!
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
marley aquarium7 2 months ago
aqua, i believe your brain and thinking is no longer functioning normally due to
excessive inhalation of toxic plus the daily brainwashing.
your argument is very shallow, using USA/ UNCLOS judges is a chinese tactics of
eluding a peaceful resolution. LOL china's shouting around the world that CHINA
IS A PEACEFUL LOVING NATION. i doubt if someone is buying it, when in fact the i
nternational community are becoming hostile against chinese bcoz of your greedin
ess and uncivilized thinking. the latest one in turkey where mistaken korean as
chinese was get hurt by the demonstrator, in thailand where you shown your unciv
ilized behavior, france where one of your kind urinating right across public res
troom. your overwhelming stealing of other countries high tech, researches, busi
ness trade information, as well poaching of endanger species around the world.
china's image as stinks it sounds, it is your own fault to blame.
my advice have a plastic surgeries to alter your mongoloid looks to more sociall
y acceptable looks, do not use your chinese passport, learn to act civilized, ta
ke good care of your personal hygiene. may be by then you'll be welcome.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
aquarium7 marley 2 months ago
Marley sounds like an absolute noble and a perfect human species! Maybe he is ab

ove God. For one, his


description does not suit me a bit, of course hypocrite like him will never admi
t. Tell me which country, which race does not have less civil citizens, your stu
pid brothers and sisters idiots perhaps. If I CHOSE to, I can use 1000 extreme w
ords to describe people like you and many Pinoys in this forum, starting with ra
cist, chauvinists, terrorist, murderous, subhuman, Chinese hater, stupid, greedy
, beggar, ..... The whole point is it is bad to use thoughtless terms to denigra
te anyone including you. You mean you can simply murder people just like Hitler
and his adopted son Abee do. Filipinos cannot take on the whole world just because
of their failed leaders, failed government and failed country.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Vir aquarium7
2 months ago
CHINA CAN'T MAKE THEIR OWN SOVEREIGNTY, HISTORY & MAKE THEIR OWN MAP! CHINA DOES
N'T WANT TO SEND ANY REPRESENTATIVE IN TRIBUNAL COURT BECAUSE THEY DON'T RESPECT
ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE FACT THAT THEY WILL LOST THE CASE. STUPID CHINA EVER
YTHING IS FAKE! DOES NOT RESPECT ANY TRADEMARK, PATENT, FAKING EVERYTHING INCLUD
ING DISNEYLAND, LAS VEGAS, EGYPT, ETC. ETC. ETC.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
gnak Guest 2 months ago
It would be stupid of japan to take on a continental power
The same fate will befall them again.How stupid can you get taking
on the americans, russians and now,chinese
once there is maritime blockade, Japan is finished.China, on the other
hand, does not have this problem
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*

*
*
o
*
*
PINOY aquarium7
2 months ago
Let me tell you something aquarium, You and your cousins alike, are the known li
ars, the thieves,cheaters, and fakers of everything i can think off. The inch of
soil you are talking about is already 2000 acres . So you know what it means no
w . Give her an inch , she will take 90% of what is West Philippine sea .
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
gnak PINOY 2 months ago
philippines already lost. all possible outcomes Checkmated!
Will have to beg the chinese to renegotiate
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
jim okay PINOY 2 months ago
@Pinoy, no matter how many inches of soil does matter. What matter is the Philip
pines has no legal basis to claim any territory in the South China Sea.
* 3
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Vir jim okay 2 months ago
Jim you are a complete Moron! And what's you and your Chinese govt. basis? NONE!
YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR OWN SOVEREIGNTY!
*

*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Tao of Lepton aquarium7
Full of lies
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*

2 months ago

Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago


aquarium wrote "Aquino's WILD interpretation of UNCLOS in regard to his claim in
South China Sea is a fiasco, a laughing stock that is backed ONLY by US for obv
ious reason to contain China."
Is that the reason why Australia, Canada, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Spain, US and
the UK are ALL calling for China to respect the international laws governing la
nd and sea (UNCLOS) and to face the Philippines before the UN tribunal? The G7 c
ountries have also expressed serious concern of China's thieving activities in t
he Spratley in violation of international laws.
In fact, only China in the WHOLE world stup1dly claims the ENTIRE South China Se
a. No other UN country believes this as the 9 dash line is a VIOLATION of intern
ational laws. Do you even know the coordinates of this 9 dash line, aquarium? Ho
w big is this 9 dash line that China is claiming sovereignty over? Do you know?
Of course, not. Even your government doesn't know. LMAO.
How can anyone declare sovereignty over an area without even knowing its coordin
ates or how big it is? Surely you don't take world governments for fools that yo
u can just draw 11 or 9 dashes on a map and expect them to believe that the isla
nds, shoals, reefs and waters within those lines are all yours?
Communist China does not own squat in the Spratley! They're saying that they hav
e historical basis for their claim. What historical basis are they talking about
because until now they have not provided even a single iota of proof to back th
is claim? There were no evidence of ancient Chinese colonies in those islands, m
ost especially on those shoals or reefs (LMAO). There were no ancient Chinese st
ructures or outposts. No markers that suggest that they've been claimed by some
Chinese emperor a long, long time ago. So, how can they say that they have histo
rical basis for their claim when they have NO HISTORY in the region? Why don't y
ou enlighten us because you seem to know a lot? LMAO.
* 3
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
aquarium7 Arcane
2 months ago
First, I respect your opinion, but you fail to see my logic. If you scratch peopl
e s back, people will also scratch your back. Whether there is dispute in US is immat
erial. Surely, people of your intellectual capability cannot fail or pretend not
to see the real purpose of that re-balancing policy ! You must have heard, includi
ng from experts around the world it is to contain China. That is the ROOT CAUSE
of
the dispute in South China Sea.
I have said this before and I tell you now. You can t point finger at A a terrorist
and then B is not because it doesn t serve the interest of US. You can t keep a blind
eye to Philippines and Vietnam s theft rampage in South China Sea and then DEMAND C
hina to stop constructions in her OWN territories. You cannot keep
quiet about lack of democracy in Arab countries because they are allies of US bu
t trumpeting about China not democratic. That is the kind of double standard tha
t world police is preaching you must agree.
Surely you know when a country use EEZ to claim territories, immediately the act
is illegal. Just to quote one case, this particular claimant country occupies a
n island during the 80 s she now call hers, what is your expert opinion on this? D
o you mean to say that, up till then, there were not any owner, and it was for g
rab, your expert opinion really mean it???? You can t be joking!
There is no need to go back to prehistoric days, the nine dash line first appear
ed seventy years ago. Mao proclaimed it again in the Fifties. The then Vietnames
e government recognized it. There are tons
of other documents to support China s claim only so-called experts like you preten
d not to acknowledge for simple incorrigible, bias, chauvinistic, sick westerner
mentality that often scrutinies for every fault with China. Hopeless Chinese ha
ter that is.
Last but not least, your allies countries from around the world didn t jump up and
down then. Now that was CLEAR admission of China's RIGHT in South China Sea you
cannot deny! Damn.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago
aquarium wrote "Surely, people of your intellectual capability cannot fail or pr
etend not to see the real purpose of that re-balancing policy ! You must have heard
, including from experts around the world it is to contain China. That is the ro
ot cause of the dispute in South China Sea."
Sure, the US is realigning its military power to Asia, but it has nothing to do
with the territorial disputes. Don't mix the two things.
To put the blame on the US pivot to Asia for the mess China is creating in the S
outh China Sea is downright malicious because your communist government has a hi
story of bloody incursions with her neighbors even after international laws were

established (by the UN that your country is a party of) to prevent conflicts ov
er territories. Let me refresh your memory because you seem to have an amnesia.
March 1979, China invaded Vietnam and captured some of the bordering cities, but
was forced to retreat. January 1988, Chinese navy gunned down 64 unarmed Vietna
mese sailors on Johnson South Reef and occupied the island. March 1969, China in
vaded Russian borders and a war between the two countries erupted before a resol
ution was made at a cost of unnecessary lost of lives! October 1962, China invad
ed Indian borders, capturing Rezang la, Chushul in the west and Tawang in the ea
st. China declared a ceasefire in November and withdrawn from the areas. And let
's not forget 1949, when China invaded and occupied the East Turkestan's territo
ries. You can tell that the locals -- the Uyghurs -- were not very happy with th
e occupation as they staged countless uprisings against the Chinese occupiers! I
n fact, they had successfully setup an independent republic twice -- one in 1933
and another in 1944. And, of course, how can we forget Tibet, when your Chinese
army invaded and occupied that peaceful nation, killing thousands of defenseles
s Tibetan monks along the way.
I would not mention the ones that happened during the dynastic eras because comm
unist China DID NOT even exist until the early 20th century. As we all know, the
People's Republic of China was established in 1949 right after the civil war! I
t would be like blaming Iran for the invasion and murders that occurred during t
he Persian Empire. In other words, it's stup1d and ridiculous.
But now, presently, China is stealing Philippine waters or in disputed water. BI
G MISTAKE by China. Because the Philippines is not just the OLDEST and CLOSEST A
merican ally in Asia, it's a former U.S. colony. In other words, you mess with t
he Philippines, you mess with Uncle Sam. And this whole thing happens during a t
ime when US is doing a pivot to Asia. Plus, there is a fine line for the interna
tional community to say that they have had enough. China had crossed that line.
That's why you're seeing all these negative reactions from the international com
munity -- not just from the US and Philippines but around the globe -- against C
hina. The sentiments of the majority of people from all over in every online for
um you go to is already a testament to that. But don't get us wrong though. We d
on't really hate the Chinese people. We just don't like your communist governmen
t and those who support its behavior. If China wants to be respected in the worl
d stage, then it should respect her smaller neighbors and not use its economic a
nd military power to brush off their territorial claims. In fact, the Philippine
government took a very sensible and peaceful approach to the problem. First, th
e Philippines agreed to have a bilateral talk with China. In that talk, they agr
eed to stir clear from the region until the matter was resolved bilaterally. The
Philippines halted all repair works in the Spratleys and removed its small navy
, believing that China would do the same. But your government was very sly. They
started barricading some of the Spratley reefs (i.e. Mischief Reef, etc) and se
nt in more ships. China violated its own bilateral agreement with the Philippine
s and its diplomatic protests were no help to stop the violations. This was the
reason why Filpino government sought UN arbitration because China's "bilateral t
alk" was PURE B-LLSH*T.
aquarium wrote "I have said this before and I tell you now. You can t point finger
at A a terrorist and then B is not because it doesn t serve the interest of US. You c
an t keep a blind eye to Philippines and Vietnam s theft rampage in South China Sea a
nd then DEMAND China to stop constructions in her OWN territories."
Well, you only have your communist government to blame for why many people aroun
d the world labelled China a threat, or countries calling China to respect the i
nternational laws and settle the dispute through the UN. This wouldn't have happ
ened if China took the time to sincerely talk the issue with other claimants. An
d not deceived them by saying one thing, but doing another.
What will you do if you have a property and your neighbor stops by and says, "Th
at's my yard!" And he started fencing your yard. And no matter how much you expl
ain to him that it is yours 'cause the law says so, he won't budge. He says, "Ok
ay, okay, let's talk about this." But he keeps building the fences! Meanwhile, h
e carries a big stick and won't let you and your family step into your yard. Not
even your pet. So, you went to the court and invited him to resolve the issue.

But he says, "Scr3w the court! I don't care what it says! Let's just talk about
this ourselves." And by then you feel helpless. That is what China is doing to P
hilippines right now.
There comes a time when your patience runs out, when enough is enough and drasti
c measures have to be taken. And you can't blame all these countries coming forw
ard and strengthening their alliances because they're all feeling the tension -the heat -- that China is creating in the region. And if they are pushed furthe
r to the wall, we don't know what will happen. The situation could spark and lea
d to something that we all fear.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
PINOY aquarium7
2 months ago
y o u are full of it . you think you know that much . china did not want to part
icipate , because they know they will not be able to prove anything . That is wh
y china instead offered the Philippines of bilateral talks to settle the dispute
altogether . Everything they have are all fabricated and made in china includin
g the map . There are just places on Earth people wanted it untouch of the natur
e it self . Not modernized like beijing and full of pollution .
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
Arcane aquarium7 2 months ago
aquarium wrote "There are many inaccuracies in this article. For one, there has
never been any territorial dispute in South China Sea since the Ming Dynasty."
Ming Dynasty??? That's funny. First of all, China, as a country, DID NOT EVEN EX
IST in the 12th century or even 900 or thousands of years ago. You're telling us
that the Spratley and the Senkaku islands have been part of China for thousands
of years since the Chinese have been there first and have an old map to prove i
t. That's bullish! Because if you read your history, you'd know that your people
didn't have the concept of a country until the 20th century. They believed the
entire world belonged to their emperors, the Sons of Heaven!
This established the fact that Japan, as a nation-state, had first control of th
e Senkaku Islands -- uninhabited at that time -- before China, as a country, did
. Second, even during the dynastic times in your part of Asia, no physical struc
tures were erected or people living permanently in those islands -- INCLUDING TH
E SPRATLEYS -- to prove that they had been under the control of some Chinese emp
eror. Compare that to the Romans who managed to build structures or outposts in
all their colonies like Egypt.
Are you telling us now that it's okay for Iran to declare that Egypt, Iraq, Syri

a, Israel, Palestine, and all these countries in Western and Central Asia as Ira
nian territories since they have been under the Persian Empire?? Don't you reali
ze how absurd and ridiculous you sound?
Let me remind you of your history, aquarium. The People's Republic of China, tha
t's right, your COMMUNIST China was established in 1949, right after the Chinese
civil war! It has no rights over Senkaku and the Spratley islands. That's even
worst than if Iran reclaims its former territories under the Persian Empire. At
least, Iran managed to build structures and or outposts in those territories.
China never did administer and control those islands. They saw them, yeah. But n
ot a single structure or outpost was built to claim those islands for their empe
rors. What happened was, your ancestors -- as with other ancient people in the w
orld -- had been trading around the globe including that part of Asia. They drew
a map as a guide for their own people and named the places whatever. But the na
tives living in close proximity to those islands like in the Philippine archipel
ago, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei (the Southeast Asian countries) had kn
own about these islands and had been fishing around them long before your ancest
ors did. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. Just look at the freak
in' map, aquarium. Look at how far China is to the Spratleys compared to these o
ther nations.
Communist China -- as a country -- DID NOT even exist 900 years ago when its socalled map was made. Again, this is like saying that Iran should claim her old t
erritories based on a map dating back to the Persian Empire. They do have a real
map showing that. The big difference between the Persian Empire and your people
's ancient empire was that the former actually administered and took control of
their territories, building structures and outposts and engaging with the locals
-- your people DID NOT. But they saw those islands, yeah?
Is your government going to claim the Americas, too, because there was a recent
article, proving that people from your part of Asia had first discovered America
s long before Columbus did? What about the Moon? Are your people going to claim
the Moon, saying they first saw it? Please stop embarrassing yourself further wi
th this nonsense.
Furthermore, all of your ancient Chinese territorial maps that are created since
the Song Dynasty in 1136 AD conclusively show that Hainan is the southernmost t
erritory of China. It doesn't go beyond that. If you think I'm joking, try me. I
'll share you all your ancient Chinese maps anytime of day to prove how much of
a farce your government's historical claim over the Spratley or the entire South
China Sea really is.
* 3
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
PINOY Arcane 2 months ago
May God Bless Japan, the Philippines and of course the USA .
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*

*
*
o
o
Katch Alvarez Sevilla
2 months ago
China and it's citizen's should man-up and get the Spratly Islands and other chi
nes claims out of the way by following International Law and settle their claims
in Arbitration at the world court, instead of china trying to re-write Internat
ional Law in it's favor.
China is trying to deceive International community to justify behavior in sea.
o 3
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Mixa. Katch Alvarez Sevilla
2 months ago
USA is the warmonger of the world and the world will never be at peace as long a
s the US keeps meddling.
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Mixa.
2 months ago
China is the warmonger in the Asian region starting from mass killings in Xinjia
ng, invasion of Tibet, political terrorism in Hong Kong and now land grabbing in
the South East Asian seas! Never trust a communist.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*

*
Mixa. Guest
2 months ago
Right now the U.S. strategic grain reserve contains only enough wheat to make ha
lf a loaf of bread for each of the approximately 300 million people in the Unite
d States. How long do you think that is going to last? Now is the time to get re
ady. Now is the time to prepare. The United States economy is going to collapse
and incredibly hard times are coming. Will you be able to survive when it happen
s?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Mixa.
2 months ago
Right now, with a population of 1.4 billion, Communist China cant afford to feed
its own people. It started creating fake noodles, fake rice and fake eggs only
to feed them. And now China's stock markets are crashing SO BAD and its real-est
ate is putting China in deep debts.
Now is the time to get ready. Now is the time to prepare. China's economy is goi
ng to collapse and incredibly hard times are coming for the Communist Chinese. W
ill you be able to survive when it happens?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Tao of Lepton Mixa.
2 months ago
USA isn't creating artificial islands in the Philippine's EEZ
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*

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

Communist China

JB Guest 2 months ago


I assume you are referring to the Paris treaty and if I remember correctly that
defines what is being transferred from Spain to the US not what defines the Phil
ippines.
But again independent of who owns the island (not part of this case) it is more
about the water in between all of the island. Even if China has a full claim on
all the island, reefs, banks (not say they are) their status most likely will on
ly provide limited rights to the waters surrounding it. So they get a 10 mile zo
ne and any space outside it would go to international waters or the EEZ of the c
ountry closed.
Now the US follows international law it is a signatory of and it is not a signat
ory of UNCLOS but even then they indirectly follow it.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Katch Alvarez Sevilla Guest
2 months ago
Indisputable claim by china ?...hahahahahahah, not one chines Law Scholar can ar
gue in chines favor !...... USA is very smart that they didn't join UNCLOS, but
china did join UNCLOS and that is your weakness, any country that signed UNCLOS
have enjoyed their 2oo nautical Ml. territory including the resources within the
200 N Mlle China's ancient map territory stops at the Hainan Island and their r
espective 200 N Mile.
Angela Merkel of Germany handed an old map of china dated 1697-1782 to your pres
ident Xi that show's the farthest territory of china end's in Hainan Island and
even Tibet, Lower Mongolia, Manchuria,,Taiwan, Spratly Island, and Scarborough S
hoal is not included in old china's map....
So quit your LIE'S of indisputable and historical claims and you world war II de
claration cause it's not going to work.
what china is doing is making your ancestors look really B A D ......
* 3
*

* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
David William Phillips 2 months ago
Based on historial precedent, then this area should belong to Taiwan--as it is t
he rightful ruling party of all of China. The cowardly Communist Chinese refused
to help fight Japan during WWII, running away from most battles so that they co
uld keep their strength--while the legititimate government soldiers fought brave
ly. After the war was won, the Chinese communists cowards then attacked the righ
tful Chinese government and they ended up in Taiwan. If going by laws, China sig
ned UNCLOS agreement in 1980s and should abide by it. Either way shows China is
just stealing from its neighbors and is not in the right--why they are afraid to
bring their case to the court.
o 4
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
San Andreas Guest
2 months ago
As ridiculous as the Communists' standard revised history and invented claims in
the South East Asian seas.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
tkell31 2 months ago
Some similarities between China and Nazi Germany. Pick disputes with tiny countr
ies that cant oppose you and bank on the US not getting involved.
o 1
o

o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
ting_m_1999
2 months ago
If China is not entitled to exercise historic rights over the region, then China h
as no right to the land territory in the Asia continent, and other nations don't
have the right too, specially America. China announced the nine Dash Lines righ
t after WWII without receiving any renunciation from other WWII victors who set
the world order at that time. So the islands, shoals, reefs within the Lines bel
ong to China and China has the sovereign right to so whatever is appropriate on
them. China does not claims all of the South China Sea. It claims the Dash Lines
as the base for negotiation to the settlement of territorial water. The Preambl
e of UNCLOS specifically say that ii only considers matters with due regard to s
overeignty and nowhere it says it has jurisdiction on sovereign issues.
o 1
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
This comment was deleted.
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Guest
2 months ago
F Texan Rock so vulgar
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
The more comments I read on this subject the more it is clear most people do not
understand what this case it about. The case is NOT about sovereignty of the te
rritory it will make no judgement on who owns what. The case is about the follow
ing:

1) Does UNCLOS apply to the region ?


2) If it does that second part of the request is to identify the status of all t
he objects in the territory (eg what are they rocks, islands etc)
Now the second part is independent on who owns or occupies it at the moment. But
what it does do is define the rights that belong to the island. Now this where
it gets interested. If it gets to part 2 than the rights are defined (independen
t who owns them) and if they are defined as rocks, reefs, stand banks unsustaina
ble islands then they might just have a 10 miles zone and it would mean the spac
e outside that zone would belong to international waters or the 200 miles zone o
f the nearest country. So even do the Philippines does not have possession of th
e island they could benefit from this by at least getting the rights beyond the
10 mile zone. Scarborough Shoal would be a good example it is nothing more than
a bunch of rocks and reefs it can not sustain any life so the best would be it h
as a 10 zone so any space outside that 10 mile zone would be part of the Philipp
ines 200 EEZ
Now regarding the historical claims let's make it clear there are strict interna
tional rules on what it contains. Never before has an open water been assigned t
hat way. Some of the rules are (and I am pretty sure I am not complete) that the
water has to be surrounded by land on three sides of in this case China, been i
n control during the historical period and a few more. So it usually applies to
inland waters or bays and not open seas. So the case would be very weak and unli
kely to succeed. Specially since the nine dash line has never been officially cl
aimed as far as I know there are no coordinates associated to it.
Now to the legal and binding part both the Philippines and China are signatories
to UNCLOS and it is binding even do China is not participating. Now the UN has
no way to enforce it so China can ignore it but there would be major political a
nd diplomatic pressure to follow them. Even in the past when the US lost against
I think it was Nicaragua. Following that it congress who indirectly forced the
US to mostly comply and even more surprising the US it NOT a signatory of UNCLOS
like China.
see more
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
1) UNCLOS applies to territorial water issues that border sovereign territory. I
t has no jurisdiction on sovereign issues. 2) Because of 1) , there is no issues
. China announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation
from the other WWII victors including USA. That means the islands. shoals, reefs
, rocks within the Lines belong to China and China can do whatever is appropriat
e on them.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*

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

ting_m_1999 JB
2 months ago
China claim the features and their associated right.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Correct they do and so do others but that is not what this case is about. So thi
nk about it like this if UNCLOS applies and I do not see why not than you have t
he following situation and lets take scarborough shoal as an example. At best it
would get a 10 mile zone (might not even get that). So in that case whoever own
s scarborough shoal would have the complete rights to that and the 10 miles arou
nd it. But beyond that 10 miles you would not have any rights so in this case sc
arborough shoal is within the 200 miles EEZ of the philippines and all rights of
those waters would go to the Philippines.
See and is what this case is about not to determine who has jurisdiction of all
the features because that is outside of the power of UNCLOS but to define what a
ll the rights are for all the features so no other rights can be claimed beyond
that point. So I keep reading that it is some kind of moron claim but if you und
erstand what it is you will see that it is a lot smarter. They do not argue owne
rship of the features but define and limit the rights of the features and what i
s left is EEZ or international waters. They might be able to get 90% of their 20
0 Miles EEZ back without even determining who has the rightful claims to the fea
tures.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
The Scarborough island can have its own EEZ just like any other archipelago isla
nds as defined in UNCLOS, such as Philippine.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
Arcane ting_m_1999
2 months ago
ting_m wrote, "The Scarborough island can have its own EEZ just like any other a
rchipelago islands as defined in UNCLOS, such as Philippine."
Since when did the Scarborough Shoal become an island? LMAO. You're such a liar.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Lets be radical and use the UNCLOS text I know something really unique. But here
it goes it states:
Article 121 Regime of Island
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own sha
ll have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Scarborough Shoal (not island) forms a triangle-shaped chain of reefs and rocks
and just so I do get into ownership here is a picture of it with the Chinese fla
g before they started construction.
http://static.rappler.com/imag...
Scarborough Shoal is really a no brainier it a bunch of rocks and reefs with wat
er in between. It can not sustain life it does not have an EEZ
Now the same article also states
Article 121 Regime of Island
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is a
bove water at high tide.
So in case of all the artificial buildup in both Scarborough Shoal and Spratley
they do not create rights
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
Tell that to Vietnam and Japan. China own Taiping (Itu Aba) island which is the
largest enough island to support human life and so can have an EEZ
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o

o
*
*
o
o
JB ting_m_1999
2 months ago
Plus that is one of the disputed island if I remember correctly and the whole po
int of this case is not to determine ownership. So you have to look at independ
of who owns it. And rights will be determined Independed of who is supposed to o
wn it.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
Can the land of America be settled in the way you say.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
You are really Getting of the point . UNCLOS is not about land. Most of America'
s EEZ were determined at the creation of it.
Could you please stay to this case and do not throw up random stuff
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Ok unrelated to this discussions stay to the point but do you now understand tha
t the philipines case is not that crazy. And if not please use facts related to
UNCLOS why it is not.

Ps just because you are a bigger island does not always means you get your own E
EZ. If I remember correctly an island like Aruba does not have an EEZ. But is th
ere are issues you can bring it too UNCLOS That what it is for
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
Vietnam and Philippine don't bring their EEZ to UNCLOS for approval, If Aruba is
land is not qualified to have EEZ, why Philippine isalnd is qualified to have EE
Z?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
If Aruba island is not qualified to have EEZ , what qualifies Philippine island
to have EEZ?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
I do not know all the rules but I think it is partly related to the continual pl
ateau they are on. I know some of the same rules would apply to spratleys.
But you did not answer at this point does it not seem it that the case the Phili
ppines has brought is reasonable
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB
2 months ago
EEZ depends on sovereignty. If sovereignty is not settled, EEZ cannot be determi
ned and settled
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
No that is nonsense. Sovereignty has nothing to do with the rights of a feature.
It is independent of ownership. Show me the article that show ownership is a de
termining factor. The ones I showed were independent.
But you still do not answer the question is the case reasonable.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
According to the Preamble of UNCLOS:
"Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention,
with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas an
d
oceans ..." Sovereignty is ahead of all issues in connection with seas and ocean
s.
The case is not reasonable because it doesn't satisfy the requirement of soverei
gnty as stated above.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
JB ting_m_1999
2 months ago
While going through the 21 mentions of sovereignty in UNCLOSE I also noticed thi
s article
"Article 89 Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its soverei
gnty."
Does this mean that nobody could claim the South China Sea beyond the EEZ??
Now I went through the 21 mentioned and the only one that would apply is article
73 but that is an optional one and China has previously opted out of compulsory
dispute settlement under UNCLOS so it does not apply
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
The full text is:
"Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention,
with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas an
d
oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote
the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilizatio
n
of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study,
protection and preservation of the marine environment,"
This not an article (eg law) just preamble (eg introduction) and it has nothing
to do with the that the sovereignty of the features has to be determined for the
m to do their work just that it respects the sovereignty of all the member state
s and it is trying create a structure between them to figure out everything peac
efully
Where does it states that sovereignty is ahead of all issues just because it is
at the beginning of the document but that is because it is part of the intro
So if this is the best you can come up with I would say the the case is valid (n
ow keep in mind I keep saying this, I do not say they will win just that it is a
valid case)
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB

2 months ago

"With DUE regard for the sovereignty of all States" is ahead of all issues that
follow. That is the frame work of UNCLOS
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Yes repeating it does not make it different it is not a law just part of the int
roduction (not law) and as It does NOT say anything that sovereignty has to be d
etermined before they can do their work. It even states that there are other UN
processes to deal with that china has previously opted out compulsory dispute se
ttlement under UNCLOS. This was part of resolution III article 73. That unlike t
he others members have the option to opt out.
All of this makes it clear that there is enough doubt that there is a case and r
eading all of the comments I have not seen any facts just emotional rambling tha
t says the opposite. So let leave it to that and see what the first verdict will
be in 90 days and if that will result in dealing with part 2
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
The UNCLOS is a legal document. So anything in it has legal sense, including the
Preamble. The Preamble is signed by the participants, making it a legal documen
t.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2
Legal "sense" does
You clearly do not
you are from) but

months ago
not make it legal same as gold "like" does not make it gold
understand legal documents(or maybe that is how it works were
not in this case. Just let it go you keep repeating the same

thing. The truth will come out when the judges will or will not accept the case
and if they do not why they would not.
And watch the video i suggested and just call this discussion closed
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
What the Supreme Court justices say is not legal either because what they say is
not law.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
You are correct the Supreme Court does not make laws they validate it against th
e constitution at least in the US ( for one reason I think you assume I am from
the US but that is not correct I am not)
But the SC does provide validation against the constitution (see if it is not in
conflict with it) and explanation/interpretation in case it is not clear.
Now see my other post and you see the legal explanation of Preamble and it show
it is NOT legal.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
What make the SC decision legal since what they say is not law and, therefore, n
ot legal and need not be obeyed.
*
*
* Reply
*

* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Even in China the judges do not write the law they uphold it and judge according
the laws. Now their interpretation of the law stand but they do not write new o
nes. Separation of power that is valid in most western countries.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
So the Preamble is not a law but uphold the UNCLOS laws and judge according the
laws.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereignty. Therefore it cannot enact laws on sov
ereignty but that doesn't mean it disregard any law in regards to sovereignty. T
he Preamble defines the scope of work, intention, goal and framework for UNCLOS
and is written by lawyers. So the Preamble has a lawful sense. It defines the pr
ocess on how UNCLOS functions. It says " ...due regard for the sovereignty of al
l States, a legal order... " meaning whenever it considers issues, it pay attent
ion to sovereignty first, then a legal order will be issued as required. The Ame
rican president is the president; he doesn't enact any law. Congress enact laws.
That doesn't mean the president has nothing to do with the law.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*

o
o
*
*
JB ting_m_1999
2 months ago
"UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereignty"
Correct
"Therefore it cannot enact laws on sovereignty but that doesn't mean it disregar
d any law in regards to sovereignty"
Sure it even directs you to UN processes to resolve it
"So the Preamble has a lawful sense"
Might have a sense but is NOT a Law
If it was required there would be articles defining that sovereignty had to be r
esolved before they could proceed and I could not find one. There are articles r
eferring to other UN processes but not state it has to be resolved first
Now your example seems off the wall and yes the president has several roles in t
he law he has to sign it and he like anybody has to follow it. How does that com
pare
Now I would post a link to some legal explanation on youtube but if I do my comm
ent will go in pending state for several days so I skip that part but looks them
up (look for seminars not news there are a few that are an hour or longer with
great explanations) search google for "Recent Trends in the South China Sea and
U.S. Policy: Day 2 Welcome and Keynote" and start watching at like min 35 great
explanations
Now going through the articles I did run into this one
"Article 89
Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its
sovereignty."
Definition of High Sea: The open part of the sea or ocean especially outside ter
ritorial water
So does that mean China can not claim the compete south China Sea??
You seem so desperate to find reason that there is not case but with all the dou
bt here it does not seems clear cut so I would say arbitration would be valid. N
ow again I do not say who will win but there is a case. Can you atleast agree wi
th that?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
It direct to UN to process but not mandatory. The Preamble has a lawful sense in
that regard to sovereignty must be DUELY Regarded when considering issues. if t
he president like anybody has to follow the law, the Preamble likes the UNCLOS a
rbitrators to follow its guidance. Since the Lines are not precisely defined by
China, that means they are up for negotiation under the UNCLOS guidance. Yet no
other nations want to negotiate.
*
*
* Reply

*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Ting ... Really preamble is not the law just an introduction so do not make it l
ike one the articles are the laws. So stop trying to make it ... And even if it
was it doesn't not say that it has to be resolved first
Lol on negotiating with China it has been going on for a long time but they are
no real negotiation since China keep using the stand it is indisputable ours so
accept it and that is it. Did not work one on one and they refuse to do as part
ASEAN. But China has been bullying using its economic and military power to push
smaller countries around. So this would be the best approach an objective arbit
ration
Did you watch the video about the legal analys of this case ?
Ps I saw you have several thousand of posts all pro China so are you being paid
for this as part of the 50 cent brigade .... Nobody is ever that pro on anything
specially not on China
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary preamble means
": a statement that is made at the beginning of something (such as a legal docum
ent) and usually gives the reasons for the parts that follow
: something that comes before and leads to something else"
UNCLOS is a legal document. So the Preamble is also a legal document and so lawf
ully and legally defines the tasks of UNCLOS to pay DUE REGARD when performing i
ts tasks. There are over 149 countries in the world. Each country can harass Chi
na by bringing unjustifiable issues to court. Therefore China will not play the
game.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

JB ting_m_1999
2 months ago
Ok last time here is the Legal dictionary Q&A
Q56. "Is the Preamble considered law?"
A. No. In that it grants no power, nor restricts anyone. It only provides contex
t for the original version.
And here is another definition:
"Preamble
A clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute explaining the reasons fo
r its enactment and the objectives it seeks to attain.
Generally a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of the reasons for the
passage of the statute, and it aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities wit
hin the statute to which it is prefixed. It has been held, however, that a pream
ble is NOT an essential part of an act, and it NEITHER enlarges NOR CONFERS powe
rs.
West's Encyclopedia of Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All r
ights reserved."
As I said many times it NOT the law
There is a tendency for China to describe anything that is not to their liking a
s unjust but let the court decide on that.
I know China has a problem with courts that it can not control but for smaller c
ountries that do not have the economical or military power to bully. But China i
s afraid it has a desperate need to be a superpower and if it is seen by the int
ernational community that it can not be trusted in international affairs its sta
nding will drop considerably.
Now I understand you work for the Chinese government on the propaganda side so y
ou have no option to agree with any of this but time will tell. If China can not
learn play nice with its neighbours and learn to accept that it is not always r
ight than this will escalate ...
PS do you really get paid 50 cents per post ... if so I want my cut :)
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
The Preamble is a legal document defining the authority, scope of work, function
of UNCLOS, guidance on the enactment and applicability of UNCLOS laws. Without
it, UNCLOS doesn't exist and its laws are void and null. So it is the most impor
tant document and that is why it is signed by all participants and more importan
t than the laws that UNCLOS enacted. It manages the UNCLOS laws. According to yo
u new definition of preamble: ".....the reasons for the passage of the statute,
and it aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which
it is prefixed...." meaning the reasons of the preamble are the foundation of t
he statute and the interpretation the statute. Without the reasons of the preamb
le, the statute would not have been passed and no interpretation can be given. T
hat is the statute is under the supervision of the preamble and is more powerful
than the laws of the statute.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999
2 months ago
We are done no reasonable facts will change your preset mind plus you are select
ive in your responses so this is it hope you made a few bucks out if this
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
My mind set follows your definition of Preamble. Can you argue your points based
on your definition?
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
Arcane JB 2 months ago
JB wrote ,"We are done no reasonable facts will change your preset mind plus you
are selective in your responses so this is it hope you made a few bucks out if
this"
The guy doesn't get it. You explained it in a manner that any 10 year old could
understand. The Philippines doesn't question the ownership of those shoals/rocks
before the tribunal, but whether those features are even entitled an EEZ. But h
e's too dumb to get it. Good job on demolishing his weak argument.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o

JB Arcane
2 months ago
Thanks Arcane I thought I was logical and not emotional about it. It did gave me
a chance to read up on some if the detail in the articles. And I liked some of
the explanation found on youtube as part of the seminars by few lawyers. I am lo
oking forward to hear the initial verdict if UNCLOS applies then I think the phi
lippines will get some of the features defined their way. Let's wait and see.
o 1
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Arcane JB 2 months ago
JB wrote ," I am looking forward to hear the initial verdict if UNCLOS applies t
hen I think the philippines will get some of the features defined their way."
The questions raised by our government are completely covered by UNCLOS. Does Ch
ina have legal maritime entitlements beyond its 200 EEZ? In the case of Scarboro
ugh Shoal, which are just rocks, by the Convention, its maritime entitlement onl
y extends to 12 miles -- not beyond. So, whoever owns those rocks is only entitl
ed 12 miles around them. Beyond that is Philippine water since the Scarborough S
hoal is within our country's 200 EEZ.
That kid (ting_m) couldn't understand even if you explain it to him in Mandarin.
In the case of Mischef Reef, it's a completely submerged reef. And China built a
n installation over it. Submerged features or those that are submerged during hi
gh tide have no legal maritime entitlements according to the Convention. Same wi
th McKennan Reef and the Johnson South Reef where China illegally seized and bui
lt installations. All submerged and within Philippine's 200 mile exclusive zone.
Now, China's argument that the tribunal has no jurisdiction will not fly because
the questions of how much legal maritime entitlements does an island, a shoal,
or a reef has is regulated by specific provisions of the Convention. So, the tri
bunal has jurisdiction.
Second, China refused to attend the tribunal by invoking Article 298. That artic
le only provides exclusion from the arbitral tribunal of CERTAIN DISPUTES and ON
LY for those disputes that are mentioned in that article. Article 298 only deals
with the delimitation of sea boundaries, but our government is not asking about
the delimitation of sea boundaries; it's asking about maritime entitlements!
By delimitation, if two countries have overlapping waters, then they split it in
half. But there are no overlapping claims between China and the Philippines sin
ce there's more than 500 miles of water between them (LOL). So, China is still l
egally bound by the laws stipulated in the Convention.
China isn't the only country that filed a declaration when ratifying the UNCLOS.
Japan and South Korea have done it. Our country as well. And I quote:
Understanding made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratifica
tion (8 May 1984) 8/ 9/
1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philip
pines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Re
public of the Philippines under and arising from the Constitution of the Philipp
ines.
2. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the Repub
lic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America, under and a

rising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America
of 10 December 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the United States of
America and Great Britain of 2 January 1930.
3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner affect the rights and obliga
tions of the contracting parties under the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Phi
lippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951 and its related inte
rpretative instruments; nor those under any other pertinent bilateral or multila
teral treaty or agreement to which the Philippines is a party.
4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of t
he Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovere
ign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto.
5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent
laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippine
s; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the
right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamation
s pursuant to the provisions of the Philippines Constitution.
6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do
not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic Sta
te over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to
protect its sovereignty, independence and security.
7.
rs
se
to

The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal wate


under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting the
waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels
transit passage for international navigation.

8. The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peacef
ul resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disput
es under article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippines sove
reignty.
Source: goo(dot)gl/bnMTzI
It is very clear that our Philippine government subscribes to the UNCLOS with th
e understanding that it doesn't impair our claim to sovereignty in the South Chi
na Sea.
And lastly, China cannot use history to stake its claim because they have not ef
fectively control or administer the islands in the past as required by internati
onal law to recognize a historical claim. No ancient Chinese settlements, especi
ally on those submerged reefs (LMAO). The islands and or the entire South China
Sea were not even claimed by their Chinese emperors. No historical records of su
ch claim had been made. All their ancient Chinese territorial maps corroborate t
his fact.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
The Preamble was signed by the UNCLOS participants. What the participants agreed

to is the binding power governing the various functions of UNCLOS and the scope
s of various other laws that follows. It is the law that requires the signed par
ticipants to obey. If the Preamble is not an important part of the UNCLOS docume
nt, why it is signed by the participants. You mean the signatures are for ceremo
ny only. Then no participants are required to follow the UNCLOS laws. That is, U
NCLOS's other laws are under the confines of the Preamble. Whether you call it i
s law or not, it has the authority to define the authority of UNCLOS and validit
y of UNCLOS's products. As your definition says: the passage of the statute and
the interpretation within the statute must follow the guidelines of the reasons.
That is , the reasons are the foundation of the passage and interpretation. If
it is not an essential part, there is no reason for it to be included. The other
you say are rubbish.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
I am sorry you can not handle definitions or explanations of definitions and see
m to not understand the construction of a law. There are parts of the law that i
s there to help like the introduction, table of content, glossary etc They are p
art of a law and get signed too they are NOT the legal binding parts. Please wat
ch the video and do not bother responding until you do.
The rest is Rubbish sure. Having lived in 6 different countries, worked in 30 an
d visited over 100 and that include both China and the Philippines I have see th
e attitude towards China and the mistrust countries have so yes for China to bec
ome world leader beyond an economic power. I just came back from Africa and I sa
w in a number of countries how the people and government hate the blackmail appr
oach the Chinese government has toward investing there.
You have to stop believing the propaganda and see for your self and yes I know y
ou are being paid to say these things I hope in your heart you do not believe th
em yourself. So lets just leave this this discussion because it will not get any
where since you are trumping the party line.
I wish you a nice day and all the best
Cheers .
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
UNCLOS has no jurisdiction to enact laws on sovereign matters So UNCLOS has no l
aw on sovereignty. Mentioning "DUE regard for the sovereignty of all states" is
lawful enough to say UNCLOS respect sovereign right and any matters considered w

ill be done with DUE regard to sovereignty as stated in the Preamble. That is so
vereignty must be known and settled first with respect to matters involved. I ho
pe you understand what the lawful meaning of "due" in legal usage. The "introduc
tion" specifies what must be done in the subject matter. The Preamble is the fra
mework, intention, goal of UNCLOS and UNCLOS functions under that framework, goa
l and intention. The Preamble was written by lawyers and is, therefore, has a la
wful sense.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
A habitable island is entitled to have its own EEZ. If Aruba is not qualified to
have a EEZ, why Philippine island can have EEZ? Vietnam and Philippine don't br
ing theirs to UNCLOS for approval.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Now it still has a 12 miles zone but not necessary a EEZ. But you just made the
case the Philippines did take it to UNCLOS to get it rights resolved. Now it cov
ers only the the ones in the philipines area but if successful it probably would
result in other countries doing to same.
But you did not respond to the what I asked do you now see that it is a reasonab
le case to bring.now I do not say they will win but there is a pretty good chang
e they get most of what the request. If part one passes.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
Japan is an island country too. It has never submitted to UNCLOS for its EZZ. Wh

at makes Japan different? What about Britain?


*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Ok now you are getting just silly only when there are conflict there is arbitrat
ion and there are many cases between different countries go look them up. But pl
ease stay to the point now you are arguing why some country have an EEZ. From th
at point why does China have an EEZ...
At the original creation most were determined look them up there were resolution
s in case of conflict. And there still a number of open Including the South Chin
a Sea.
But if you can a not answer the question I have asked now 5 times I will stop be
cause you just throw up random statements
Do you think that the Philippine case is reasonable and if not show based on UNC
LOS why that is not the case.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB JB 2 months ago
Sorry I posted the same comment 4 times but it was in pending state for 2 days a
nd I did not know so I tried again
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
ting_m_1999 JB 2 months ago
The Philippine case is not reasonable because it has to do with the sovereignty
of the islands involved and UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on settling sovereignty d
ispute
o

o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
Ariel Abella ting_m_1999 2 months ago
Bring your own case to UNCLOS and explain your side, if you had enough knowledge
to counter the Philippines file vise china, then face them, team Philippines is
waiting for you to answer your arguments..
* 6
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months ago
UNCLOS has not jurisdiction on the sovereign issues of South China Sea dispute.
So China need not bring anything to UNCLOS. Philippine was a UN members when Chi
na announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and at the door step of Philippine.
If Philippine didn't protest then, it is too for them now.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
gnak Ariel Abella
2 months ago
no need to.just wait for the tribunal to rule first
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
aquarium7 Ariel Abella
2 months ago
I have said this to crack-scull Aquino before and I say the same to you. If begg
ar Aquino challenge you to a court to vacate your backyard to him, you won't giv
e a damn to him, unless you yourself is a crack-scull! China is facing not only
a hooligan country, but also a sinister US! Obviously shallow scull also like yo
u can never understand.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB aquarium7 2 months ago
This is emotional rambling not based on any facts. But if a country is not willi
ng to play by internationally agreed rules it can and will never be a major play
er in the world.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ariel Abella aquarium7 2 months ago
the world is waiting for final judgement, let see what happens next, I guess chi
na could turn back to nothing...
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months ago
UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereign issues. So China need not submit a case.
* 1
*
* Reply
*

* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ariel Abella ting_m_1999 2 months ago
what kind of sovereign china had? china is a member of UN the creator of UNCLOS,
china signed the UNCLOS, so UNCLOS had jurisdiction to settle the issue, china
should respect the law that she signed before. enough eating fetus, it's poisone
d your mind... (-____-)
* 2
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months ago
China announced the Dash Lines right after WWII and received no renunciation fro
m other WWII victors including USA. Philippine was a UN member at that time but
didn't protest. That means the islands, shoals, reefs, rocks within the lines be
long to China and China has the sovereign right to do whatever is appropriate on
them. For other nations to interfere with China's sovereign action will endange
r the peace, stability, security, freedom of navigation, and prosperity in the r
egion. I repeat UNCLOS has no jurisdiction on sovereign issues. So China need no
t submit a case. The dispute in the South China Sea is about sovereignty.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
yesman ting_m_1999
Lol
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*

2 months ago

*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella
2 months ago
UNCLOS has no authority to settle sovereign dispute. China announced the Dash Li
nes before the establishment of UNCLOS
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ariel Abella ting_m_1999 2 months ago
UNCLOS had jurisdiction and authority to settle dispute, if you not follow the r
ules, go away and move to other planet, bring your 1.4 billion chinese mongoloid
, I suggest the sun is the perfect planet for chinese mongoloid..
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ting_m_1999 Ariel Abella 2 months ago
Sorry to say that your pig face indicates you are ignorant on the functions of U
NCLOS that it has no jurisdiction of sovereign issues.
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
aquarium7 ting_m_1999
2 months ago
But US does not know that. This alone is enough to throw the Philippines claim l
ies along with US into rubbish bin
*
*
* Reply
*

* Share
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
dave ford 2 months ago
philippine,, only way ur going to win is if you bribe the judges more than what
the chinese are going to do.
o
o
o Reply
o
o Share
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
aj dave ford 2 months ago
Philippines already win this case cause china refused to clarify its claim on IC
J....chinese claims have no basis only imaginary line drawn by communist china t
hat's why they keep ignoring the case filed by Philippines....
* 6
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JB aj 2 months ago
Unfortunately not correct China does not have to participate but it could still
win. The best scenario for China would be that UNCLOS does not have jurisdiction
. I do not suspect that will happen but it is possible
*
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
wenn aj

2 months ago

Not by the communist China, but by the KMT China after WWII
* 1
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
JB dave ford 2 months ago
Really is that a useful remark. You are dealing with a court in the Netherlands
which is one of the least corrupt countries in the world and has very strict ant
i corruption laws so not a very likely scenario.
* 4
*
* Reply
*
* Share
*
*
*
*
justice_first wrote, "China resumed sovereignty over the SCS islands"
That's what China wants to believe. But that's not really the case. China hasn't
really defeated the ROC. It only drove it out from mainland China. The ROC is s
till alive and kicking in Taiwan under US protection.
justice_first wrote "and the nine dash lines were drawn in 1947 to mark the fact
of Chinese sovereignty."
Again, the PRC has no business with the 9-dash-line. This is Taiwan's. And Taiwa
n has not been aggressively pursuing this claim because it doesn't really jive w
ith the established international laws and the fact that its close ally -- the U
S -- has made it clear that the Senkakus are Japan's and the Spratleys is a disp
uted region that must be resolved through the UN. And any unilateral declaration
or attempt to change the status quo will not be recognized..
justice_first wrote ,"Chinese sovereignty was based on historic titles as claime
d by China."
When you're making a claim based on "historic titles" you have to prove your his
tory, okay? And China does NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys. As I'd been saying
over and over, there were no ancient Chinese colonies in those islands, most es
pecially on those reefs (LOL). No ancient Chinese structures or outposts. No mar
kers that suggest that they were claimed by some Chinese emperors a long time ag
o. So, what solid evidence can your China provide to the international community
to back its historical claim? Answer: NOTHING. So, why is China making a histor
ical claim when it DOES NOT HAVE HISTORY in the Spratleys?
justice_first wrote ,"That is in fact their claim. It is up to the Philippines t
o prove otherwise."

The burden of proof lies on China. China has to prove its historical claim. You
can't just draw 11, 10, or 9 dashes on a map and say all the islands, reefs, sho
als and waters within those lines are yours based on non-existent history. Did C
hina effectively control or administer the entire South China Sea in ancient pas
t to make such bold claim? Of course, not. In fact, all of your ancient Chinese
maps corroborate the fact that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China for
over millenium of years. It doesn't go beyond that.
Also, do you even know the exact coordinates and size of your 9-dash-line, justi
ce, because your government doesn't know? How can you claim a territory without
knowing its size? You can't even do that to a mere residential land property. So
why is your government take the world for a fool? The 9-dash-line is already a
violation of international laws.
justice_first wrote ,"Within a country, there could be many governments. This is
common sense."
Oh, please don't take me for a fool. Where can you find a country with two presi
dents and two different opposing governments? One is a communist and the other i
s a democracy? Didn't I just tell you that Taiwan claims to be the sole legitima
te government of all China and the one in mainland is an ILLEGAL government??? L
MAO.

You might also like