China LOSES claim on South China Sea at UN-backed Tribunal, threatens WAR

[asianobserve]

Paid stooges hmmm, u must be refering to Malaysia now that she's made a strategic Malacca port available for Chinese money.

How could the Philippines hijack other ASEAN members on its own adventure? Most of them simply have no share in the disputes and would rather stay out of the imbroglios. Who wants to be PHL's pawns for free?


China, Malaysia to build third port on Malacca
July 05, 2016

(File photo of Port Klang)
China may be invited to build a third port on Malacca in cooperation with Malaysia, the Malaysian Minister of Transport has said.

According to the minister, Liow Tiong Lai, the country plans to work with China to build athird port on Carey Island, which is located between the Strait of Malacca and Port Klang,Kuala Lumpur-based Oriental Daily News reported on Sunday.

Some 70 to 80 percent of the ships passing through the Strait of Malacca come from China.The ministry is therefore encouraging China to participate in the port construction, which will stretch across 120 kilometers. The construction would be jointly funded by China and Malaysia, Liow said.

Liow has previously stated that the port administration will be entrusted to local Malaysian authorities.

The minister said China is Malaysia’s first choice for the project, as the relatively large volume of ships from China will help the port to successfully develop. He added that local port authorities hopes to attract more Chinese companies to be stationed in the free trade zone of Port Klang, Oriental Daily News reported.

Non-siquitur.

Typical Chinese, does not read or understand but has a big mouth. How is a business transaction between Malaysia and China related to this UNCLOS ruling? Territorial dispute in the SCS is not connected to business transactions, at least not yet. What is connected to the ruling is negotiations between ASEAN members (especially claimants) on a code of conduct in the disputed areas. China's nine-dash line fairy tale has been struck on the head:

"The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’," the Permanent Court of Arbitration said in a news release.

"[Although] two Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources," it added.

- See more at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...dash-line-massive-claims#sthash.C5HJoTzd.dpuf

 

[airtel]

No. India can't do what China does.

India does not sit on the United Nations Security Council. If a UN ruling or resolution comes before the UNSC, India does not have a permanent veto. Thus, China's permanent veto can stop any UN action from becoming international law. India cannot.

Secondly, China has a massive military. China's conventional army is unstoppable on land. China also has a huge thermonuclear-armed Second Artillery (e.g DF-5 A/B ICBMs, DF-31 A/B ICBMs, DF-41 ICBMs, JL-2 SLBMs, with JL-3 SLBM in development and DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicles).

In conclusion, India lacks China's political (P-5 Veto) and military power.

Try to Understand , it is Not India's war , you are fighting with NATO ...........................can you defeat forces of NATO ?? will you fight a nuclear war with USA & all of It's allies ?? No you dont have that ability ...........

without Help of Russia , your country will be divided into 30 small countries .

 

[Martian]

Try to Understand , it is Not India's war , you are fighting with NATO ...........................can you defeat forces of NATO ?? will you fight a nuclear war with USA & all of It's allies ?? No you dont have that ability ...........

without Help of Russia , your country will be divided into 30 small countries .

You are delusional.

NATO has already said it has nothing to do with the South China Sea.

----------

Nato has 'no legal platforms' to intervene militarily in South China Sea | Straits Times

"Nato will not intervene militarily in the South China Sea territorial disputes because it has 'no legal platforms' to do so, General Petr Pavel, who chairs the Nato Military Committee, said on Friday (June 3)."

 

[Indx TechStyle]

You are delusional.

NATO has already said it has nothing to do with the South China Sea.

----------

Nato has 'no legal platforms' to intervene militarily in South China Sea | Straits Times

"Nato will not intervene militarily in the South China Sea territorial disputes because it has 'no legal platforms' to do so, General Petr Pavel, who chairs the Nato Military Committee, said on Friday (June 3)."

China is itself disobeying the verdict from court and expecting others to be legally abide?

If not entire NATO, at least US has a habit to poke nose in others' issues.

Other one to possibly intervene is Japan (and too a very few degree India, we generally do not mess with buddies stronger than us but 55% of our trade goes through that route.)

Chinese are often mocked as copycats therefore just do exactly the same way as America to MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN !

Ha ha, good one indeed. :biggrin2:
@Ancient Indian @Screambowl

 

[Martian]

China is itself disobeying the verdict from court and expecting others to be legally abide?

If not entire NATO, at least US has a habit to poke nose in others' issues.

Other one to possibly intervene is Japan (and too a very few degree India, we generally do not mess with buddies stronger than us but 55% of our trade goes through that route.)

Ha ha, good one indeed. :biggrin2:
@Ancient Indian @Screambowl

It seems unfair to you, but that's the way the real world works.

Power is held by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

A UNCLOS ruling likely means it's binding on India, which is a small country.

However, a large country like China (which is the world's second-largest in land area) can veto any UN ruling that it doesn't like and this includes the stupid opinion from The Hague.
----------

Earlier, you suggested India will one day achieve a permanent veto at the UNSC. I strongly disagree.

Firstly, India has been chasing that dream for decades. To no avail.

Secondly, India needs China's approval. As you saw with the NSG, I don't think India can ever obtain China's consent. China's permanent veto at the UNSC can prevent India from ever achieving a similar veto.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Yes, China is emerging as the biggest evil of the earth having no respect for any international laws. This is beginning of its end.

 

[tarunraju]

Will western countries have the balls to enforce this verdict from outside the UN using trade-bans and embargoes against China like they did to Russia during the Crimean crisis? I don't think so.

This verdict is meant more as a dent to China's PR, its so-called "peaceful rise," and to highlight its hypocrisy. Notice how they threw the rule books at India during its NSG bid and even made a laughable "ethics" argument; and then turned around to shove rule books up their own asses just weeks later.

And that is what this verdict will achieve. It will further alienate China from most of its neighbors. China did lose something tangible yesterday. Countries with sufficient Naval power now have an "ethical" and legal basis for not recognizing China's claims, and ignoring its ADIZ.

 

[airtel]

It seems unfair to you, but that's the way the real world works.

Power is held by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

A UNCLOS ruling likely means it's binding on India, which is a small country.

However, a large country like China (which is the world's second-largest in land area) can veto any UN ruling that it doesn't like and this includes the stupid opinion from The Hague.
----------

Earlier, you suggested India will one day achieve a permanent veto at the UNSC. I strongly disagree.

Firstly, India has been chasing that dream for decades. To no avail.

Secondly, India needs China's approval. As you saw with the NSG, I don't think India can ever obtain China's consent. China's permanent veto at the UNSC can prevent India from ever achieving a similar veto.

you dont care about UN , similarly we also dont care about UN and your F*cking veto , as far as India is concerned , you cant not defeat us without destroying all of your country ..................we also have Hydrogen bombs and ICBM , so keep your mouth shut .

and as I already said earlier it is not India's war we dont care much about SCS ................but we will help USA because you are helping our enemy = pakistaan .



& yes you will not get chance to use your military power because it will be a cold war and western countries will hurt your economy .

 

[Bahamut]

It seems unfair to you, but that's the way the real world works.

Power is held by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

A UNCLOS ruling likely means it's binding on India, which is a small country.

However, a large country like China (which is the world's second-largest in land area) can veto any UN ruling that it doesn't like and this includes the stupid opinion from The Hague.
----------

Earlier, you suggested India will one day achieve a permanent veto at the UNSC. I strongly disagree.

Firstly, India has been chasing that dream for decades. To no avail.

Secondly, India needs China's approval. As you saw with the NSG, I don't think India can ever obtain China's consent. China's permanent veto at the UNSC can prevent India from ever achieving a similar veto.

It depends, China needs us for one belt infrastructure project, plus with the situation in South China Sea, if China behave like now, we can openly help ASEN country military and have limited partnership with US and create a big force on China southern border, so China will be in a isolated position, remember India is yet play it's cards. China need India more then India needs China. In a few year the way China behave with India will change and they will support us.

 

[amoy]

Non-siquitur.

Typical Chinese, does not read or understand but has a big mouth. How is a business transaction between Malaysia and China related to this UNCLOS ruling? Territorial dispute in the SCS is not connected to business transactions, at least not yet. What is connected to the ruling is negotiations between ASEAN members (especially claimants) on a code of conduct in the disputed areas. China's nine-dash line fairy tale has been struck on the head:

haha, Unlike u Chinese are no-nonsense people.

to sum up the points for your comprehension --

1) It is no more than an illusion that there's an ASEAN-vs-China scenario. Most ASEAN countries would either think the ruling or code irrelevant or pretend to be concerned.. None of their business as it's sheerly for claimants to sort it out themselves. Your so-called "paid stooges" are fully justified to act in self interest as usual.

2) No savvy mind would deem a chokepoint project as purely a biz transaction, especially when the invitation was extended at the time of the ruling thing.

3) Nine-dash is older than the Philippines state. It holds true as long as China is able to enforce it - "Truth is always in the shooting range of a cannon". The tribunal arbitration is a scrap of wastepaper, to say the least.

Cambodian premier won't back South China Sea ruling

HANOI -- Cambodia will not support any judgement by the international tribunal at The Hague over the Philippines' challenge of China's maritime claims in the South China Sea, Prime Minister Hun Sen said Monday.

 

[Oblaks]

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5

Nicaragua v. United States of America is about the military and paramilitary activites of the US in and against Nicaragua at the height of the country's civil war in the late 1970s to early 1980s.

The ICJ eventually declared that the US violated the territorial intergrity of Nicaragua and awarded it US$370.2 million in damages. But like China, the US refused to acknowledge that the court had jurisdiction over the case and initially ignored its ruling.

Nicaragua went to the UN Security Council to ask the body to enforce the ruling, but the US – which is a permanent member – vetoed it.

Nicaragua then went to the UN General Assembly to sponsor a resolution that the US must comply with international law and the ruling of the International Court of Justice.

It was put to a vote and Nicaragua won.

Still, the US remained defiant with the support of a big minority.

Every year Nicaragua, sponsored the same resolution and every year it won the vote. One by one the countries supporting the US withdrew until there was only one country left: Israel

It was costing the US tremendously in terms of reputation. It claims to be the exponent, the Number 1 advocate of the Rule of Law and yet it was glaringly in violation of international law. The world was telling the US, ‘You violated international law

The US did not pay Nicaragua the $370.2 million that the court said it should pay.
But in the end, the US gave Nicaragua half a billion dollars in economic aid in the first two years of the presidency of Victoria Chamorro.
In what was apparently a result of a compromise, Chamorro asked Nicaragua's parliament to repeal a law that required the US to pay damages.
Eventually, there was compliance in a way that saved the face of the US. The US paid and Nicaragua was happy.
Make no Mistake! CHINA WILL BOW DOWN IN DUE TIME!!!

 

[Oblaks]

Kingdom of Netherlands v Russian Federation, or the Arctic Sunrise case.

Russians seized a Greenpeace vessel and detained its crew after the environmental activistsclimbed an oil rig of Russia in protest of its oil drilling in the Arctic.

The Kingdom of Netherlands, where the Greenpeace headquarters is located, sued Russia for the detention of the crew and the vessel.

Russia also said ITLOS had no jurisdiction, but ITLOS still proceeded with the case.

ITLOS said we have jurisdiction. It gave a provisional measure: 'We order you to release the vessel and the crew.' Russia said we will not comply but the uproar in the world community was very strong

Within one year, the parliament of Russia passed a law authorizing President Vladimir Putin to pardon the crew and to release the vessel, and that’s exactly what Putin did. The crew and the vessel were released. Eventually there was compliance

Make no Mistake! CHINA WILL BOW DOWN IN DUE TIME!!!

 

[Martian]

The Hague's opinion has no effect.

The US does not recognize it, because the United States has never ratified the UNCLOS treaty.

Russia has already ignored a UNCLOS ruling on the Arctic Sunrise case in October 2013. Russia has little regard for The Hague and UNCLOS.

China has already said it does not recognize the opinion from The Hague.

Since the US, China, and Russia do not recognize the opinion from The Hague, it is a meaningless opinion.

 

[Oblaks]

The Hague's opinion has no effect.

The US does not recognize it, because the United States has never ratified the UNCLOS treaty.

Russia has already ignored a UNCLOS ruling on the Arctic Sunrise case in October 2013. Russia has little regard for The Hague and UNCLOS.

China has already said it does not recognize the opinion from The Hague.

Since the US, China, and Russia do not recognize the opinion from The Hague, it is a meaningless opinion.

Kingdom of Netherlands v Russian Federation, or the Arctic Sunrise case.

Russians seized a Greenpeace vessel and detained its crew after the environmental activistsclimbed an oil rig of Russia in protest of its oil drilling in the Arctic.

The Kingdom of Netherlands, where the Greenpeace headquarters is located, sued Russia for the detention of the crew and the vessel.

Russia also said ITLOS had no jurisdiction, but ITLOS still proceeded with the case.

ITLOS said we have jurisdiction. It gave a provisional measure: 'We order you to release the vessel and the crew.'Russia said we will not comply but the uproar in the world community was very strong

Within one year, the parliament of Russia passed a law authorizing President Vladimir Putin to pardon the crew and to release the vessel, and that’s exactly what Putin did. The crew and the vessel were released. Eventually there was compliance

Make no Mistake! CHINA WILL BOW DOWN IN DUE TIME!!!

 

[Oblaks]

The Hague's opinion has no effect.

The US does not recognize it, because the United States has never ratified the UNCLOS treaty.

Russia has already ignored a UNCLOS ruling on the Arctic Sunrise case in October 2013. Russia has little regard for The Hague and UNCLOS.

China has already said it does not recognize the opinion from The Hague.

Since the US, China, and Russia do not recognize the opinion from The Hague, it is a meaningless opinion.

You do not havr to worry about the US not rattifying the UNCLOS... It is China who should worry because they are the ones who signed the treaty!!!

Make no Mistake! CHINA WILL BOW DOWN IN DUE TIME!!

 

[spikey360]

There is no need of heeding the words of an extra-judicial world authority.
If anyone wants to take nine-dash from China, they should do it by force.

 

[Oblaks]

There is no need of heeding the words of an extra-judicial world authority.
If anyone wants to take nine-dash from China, they should do it by force.

Does that kind of policy make this world a better place???

 

[DingDong]

Does that kind of policy make this world a better place???

Unfortunately that is how the "world" functions. Might is right, but let us not misinterpret this statement casually. My interpretation of the ruling says that only few small countries favour China's stand and hence the odds are against China. If China doesn't bend then China will break.

All the CCP bravado is for domestic consumption. CCP doesn't wish to look weak in eyes of the Chinese folks, otherwise that will lead to downfall of the authoritarian regime. If China dares to ignore the ruling, then China risks becoming the victim of unilateral actions of adversaries in future.

Those few bragging about financial muscle of China ignore a basic fact: Nation States don't work like corporations. Before WW2 Germany was UK's largest trading partner. Economics won't save China. But then the regional countries which are disputing China's claim will need to take a stand on the issue before they may expect other powers to jump in on their behalf.

There is no need of heeding the words of an extra-judicial world authority.
If anyone wants to take nine-dash from China, they should do it by force.

Absolutely, countries like Philippines and Vietnam have created sufficient doubts in minds of the decision makers of US/Japan/India and it will take few bold steps on their part to allow the international community to take their side openly.

 

[amoy]

Will western countries have the balls to enforce this verdict from outside the UN using trade-bans and embargoes against China like they did to Russia during the Crimean crisis? I don't think so.

This verdict is meant more as a dent to China's PR, its so-called "peaceful rise," and to highlight its hypocrisy. Notice how they threw the rule books at India during its NSG bid and even made a laughable "ethics" argument; and then turned around to shove rule books up their own asses just weeks later.

And that is what this verdict will achieve. It will further alienate China from most of its neighbors. China did lose something tangible yesterday. Countries with sufficient Naval power now have an "ethical" and legal basis for not recognizing China's claims, and ignoring its ADIZ.

"Rise" is the end, "Peaceful" defines means. It's up to China to decide which means to be adopted. Ends always justify means.

HOw would it dent China's PR, while there're over sixty nations backing China's position over SCS to let claimants nego their own way out rather than under the tribunal jurisdiction? For rivals like India what does it matter since China's PR has never been favoured :biggrin2:

And as for NSG, there is a cohort of around 10 members in support of holding the bar for non-NPT signatories, many others only standing on the sidelines.

Regarding rules, how would it become "ethical" to accept an unilateral ruling from a body that has no jurisdiction over the matter at all?

 

[AnantS]

If you can't discuss issues in a civilized manner, you should stay in the Indian forums.

This is an Indian forum. The subsection thread Country Watch : China, is meant to monitor China. It doesn't mean just because it has China in title, hence it belongs to China