Why Philippines may suffer because of South China Sea case against Beijing

(From The Diplomat)

The arbitration case against China launched by the Philippines has attracted a lot of global media attention and global public opinion seems to support the Philippines’ case. However, a closer analysis reveals that the Philippines might in the end suffer from this arbitration case. How so? There are three main reasons for this.

Even if Philippines wins the case  at Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, it will lose against China in the long run

Even if Philippines wins the case at Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, it may  lose against China in the long run

First, there is no guarantee that the Philippines is going to win the arbitration case, even though media reports might suggest that it will. Actually, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague is being very careful now as it tries to determine whether it has the necessary jurisdiction in the first place. This is not good news for the Philippines. Part of the reason is that the Court understands the huge implications of its decision for not only China, but also for the international law of the sea in general. Read more



Categories: Asia Times News & Features

Tags: , , ,

  • Zhanglan

    Western audiences are being prepped for Bad News: maybe the CIA couldn’t get enough muck on the Judges to swing the decision, or maybe the case is so lame that no-one with an ounce of legal training would fall for what is clearly a political stunt

    There are 3 key issues here – none of which involve assessment of the relative merits of China’s claims in the area

    1. Whether or not any of these reefs, banks, shoals, rocks or islands are Chinese or not, they are clearly not part of the Philippines, whose 1935 Constitution and domestic RA5446 statute explicitly delimit its territory as lying East of 118 degrees E. The Court is unlikely to entertain a case brought by someone who has no locus standi in the matter: in lay terms, the Phillipines should mind its own business

    2. China – and many other nations, including the Philippines – availed itself of standard clausing available in the UNCLOS to explicitly exempt itself from binding arbitration on issues of territorial sovereignty (what with the UNCLOS relating to the Sea & all); other nations – notably the USA – have refused to sign up to UNCLOS, but don’t hesitate to refer to it to berate China. How can a Court be expected to apply a Law which, by its own standard wording, doesn’t apply? It can’t, and it won’t: it is, after all, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, not a political football, and the same law should be applied to all interested parties

    3. China’s claims – which of course predate the establishment of the Peoples Republic in 1949, and are identical to those made by the erstwhile Nationalists who are currently holed up in Taiwan – predate UNCLOS by at least several decades; as does the UK’s occupation of the Falklands, Diego Garcia and Gibraltar – all islands in distant Oceans, far away from the colonial masters but in close proximity to local neighbours who dispute Britain’s claims to Sovereignty; would the Court therefore be expected to uphold claims under UNCLOS by Argentina and Spain that these territories lie within their respective EEZ’s, and that the British consequently have no right to be there? Of course not, (albeit see this recent UN judgement http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/un-ruling-raises-hope-of-return-for-exiled-chagos-islanders ) because the UNCLOS cannot be applied to retrospectively change facts which arose before it was implemented. Maybe you drove your car at 70 in 1965, when there was no speed limit; now, in 2015, the Government imposes a 50 speed limit, and issues you a ticket for speeding all those years ago, before the limit ever existed; do you think any serious Court would uphold that kind of nonsense?

    And, in passing, who put the Chinese back in the South China Sea at the end of WW2? Few people have ever heard of the USS Embattle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Embattle_%28AM-226%29 but on 14th January 1947 this ship – given to the Chinese Nationalists by the Americans, even though it was less than 2 years old and renamed Yongxin – landed Chinese troops on the Spratlys with the full backing of the US Navy and in spite of protests from the French (who controlled Vietnam at the time). The same thing happened in December 1946 in the Paracels, using the renamed USS Decker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Decker_%28DE-47%29

    At the wartime Cairo, Potsdam and Yalta conferences the USA was quite categoric in its assertions that the Islands belonged to China. Its odd how that changed once the Nationalists lost the Civil War and the Yanks got their asses soundly kicked in Korea, but although political affiliations can change, neither laws nor facts on the ground are as easy to selectively revise http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0058

    All in all this is just puff, propaganda and posturing: there had been no major incidents in the South China Sea for 20 years before Hilary Clinton announced her “Pivot to Asia”, and all we are witnessing now is the USA and Japan seeking to goad China. In all seriousness, and given their track record during the 20th Century, does anyone really believe that all the Japanese and the Americans are doing is genuinely seeking to promote the best interests of their historic allies, the Filipinos and the Japanese? http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/U.S.Philippines.htm

  • akosipatriot

    You may look at the map and how China’s claim almost included the shorelines of other countries. If common sense is what you use, you can conclude that the 9-dash line is illegal and nonsense. You can’t use historical arguments to claim all of the South China Sea because it has the word “China” on it and your ancestors once roamed the area.

    It could also be argued that the natives of the Philippines in ancient times were fishing on the SAME AREA without the knowledge of your ancestors. So the Philippines and China are in equal footing of claiming the whole shipping lanes based on historical claims. It is up for both to produce maps and historical records of conquests of the islets.

    You want to expect other countries will bow down to China’s 9-dash claim? The question is, can you really claim the whole area using your historical arguments?

  • Zhanglan

    The Philippines Constitution (1935), domestic laws such as RA5446 http://www.gov.ph/1968/09/18/republic-act-no-5446/ and even the 1898 Treaty of Paris clearly define the Philippines territory; this is not about China, and it is certainly not about shipping lanes – Google “Dangerous Ground” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Ground_%28South_China_Sea%29 and you will find that most of the South China Sea is avoided by commercial traffic because it is full of reefs, shoals and submerged rocks – the shipping lanes are far to the East and the West of the contested area

    The first claim made by the Peoples Republic of China was in 1958; this was formally accepted by the Vietnamese (via a diplomatic note available online https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1958_diplomatic_note_from_phamvandong_to_zhouenlai.jpg ) and at the time the Philippines made no claims to sovereignty in the area. The Chinese have no active dispute with Brunei, Malaysia or Indonesia – all of whom occupy features (such as the Louisa Shoal) which lie within the 9-dashed line originally published by the Nationalists, and which still forms the basis of Taiwan’s claims in the area. It is therefore quite clear that the Peoples Republic does not rely upon the 9-dashed line (in fact, it was 11 dashes before the Chinese deleted two of them after an agreement with Vietnam in respect of the Gulf of Tonkin)

    At the present time China occupies 8 features in the Spratly’s; the Philippines 9 and Vietnam around 25, whilst the biggest island is occupied by Taiwan. If China was being so “aggressive”, how come those tinpot garrisons have not been blockaded or forcibly removed from what you assert is China’s 9-dash claim?

  • Glen Celis

    Zhanglan knows his latitude and longtitude. The guys in Beijing who drafted the 9 dash line does not. But are we not talking about UNCLOS ? That is what the case in the Hague is all about right?

  • Glen Celis

    Falklands? Gibraltar? Diego Garcia? Hello? Are you comparing these inhabited islands to the rocks and shoals in the West Philippine sea? I think you have to brush up on the meaning of islands as defined in UNCLOS.

  • Zhanglan
  • Glen Celis

    Never mind the future. Filipinos, to be specific the small fisher folks of Zambales are suffering now because Chinese vessels are harrassing them in Panatag shoal where they have been fishing for centuries. The reason why our government seeks arbitration.

  • monochrome

    Phil govt should drop its case and return to table to talk with china. Pnoy is just doing it because it is popular to pinoys. But if we only see the repercussion, we will realise its implications. Maybe we can win the case. But how long will it take before it could happen. Will it give benefit to our country assuming we able to win this case after a century. Will the natural resources sorrounding spratlys not yet deplete or run out.

  • Zhanglan

    see Point 1: the Philippines has no legal standing on which to enter such proceedings

    and the guys who drafted the 9-dash line were never based in Beijing: they were once in Nanjing but were then expelled and currently occupy Taiwan (where their first actions were to massacre the local population and impose the longest period of martial law in 20th century history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_%28Taiwan%29 )

    The n-dashed line predates the “Beijing” Peoples Republic of China by more than 2 years and was a US-inspired creation initially mooted at the Cairo, Yalta and Potsdam conferences during WW2. Unfortunately, by the time of the San Francisco Conference in 1951, the USA was being routed by China during the early stages of the Korean War, so neither Taiwan nor “Beijing” were invited, and the Americans reached a unilateral agreement with the Japanese which excluded the Chinese (who, unsurprisingly, rejected it). Zhou Enlai’s response makes interesting reading, even when mechanically translated by Google: http://tinyurl.com/olaove5 Read it & Weep (If the link doesn’t work, press the Looking Glass icon again and it will re-do the translation from the original Chinese)

  • China Lee

    What if China’s stealth fighter doesn’t feel like moving from the South China Sea?

    China’s Chengdu J-20 electro-optical distributed aperture system (DAS)
    http://i.imgur.com/dYeVeRN.jpg

  • roborat2000

    are they really stealth? Can it really fly? Stealing and copying is much different from making it work?

  • roborat2000

    so are you saying all the island building that China is doing is made up propaganda? The US Asia pivot is a response to China’s expansionism. There is only ONE country in Asia that is changing the status quo.

  • roborat2000

    your argument is ridiculous. China is building islands to expand its territory and then justify its claim to all of south china sea. Its seems you’re applying one rule for China and another for everyone else.

  • Zhanglan

    Hello roborat

    I am not saying anything about either China’s activities in the South China Sea, or about the merits of its claims (“none of [my numbered points] involve assessment of the relative merits of China’s claims in the area”) ; I am merely pointing out why the Philippines case is both hypocritical and misconceived, such that it may well get thrown out by the Court

    Many nations are changing the status quo in the South China Sea: running ships aground on reefs to stake a claim to sovereignty is one example. Changing a hitherto defense-oriented Constitution to permit out-of-region surveillance overflights in areas where Japan has no territorial claims is another; reopening Subic Bay naval base, stationing Marines in Darwin, basing Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore, trying to strong-arm Vietnam into refusing Russian aircraft refuelling facilities, deliberately flying B-52’s into an ADIZ and a CNN news crew over what is clearly contested territory are others.

    The Chinese are certainly no Angels; but Angels are hard to come by in the South China Sea, and those nations from outside the area who have since 2008 shown an increasingly intrusive and partisan interest are surely more Sinners than Saints if their conduct in South East Asia over the past century is anything to go by

    If anyone is genuinely interested in the history of the Philippines under American colonial rule, try this (and note which other country is referred to in the title) http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/franciscofirstvietnam.html To quote: “It may be necessary to kill half the Filipinos in order that the remaining half of the population may be advanced to a higher plane of life than their present semi-barbarous state affords.”

  • Zhanglan

    “Its seems you’re applying one rule for China and another for everyone else.”

    only in your dreams: I am explicitly not volunteering any opinion on the merits of China’s claims – quite the contrary, as the above comment related to the pre-Peoples Republic / Nationalist / KMT / Taiwanese position. All I was pointing out was that the Americans have been opportunistic in their approach to such claims, whilst the Peoples Republic has maintained a consistent position for almost 60 years

    The Chinese may indeed be expanding the islands and rocks which they occupy: if so, they are certainly not alone in doing so, and nor were they the first. That doesn’t render such activity either right or wrong, but it highlights the absurdity and political motivation behind trying to single China out for such criticism. What is your assessment of the presence of a boat load of Filipino Marines deliberately scuppered on one of the other reefs? – is that in your opinion either a valid or a proper way of “justifying” a claim? I suggest you may need to think this through a little before tying yourself up in contradictions and conspicuously selective memories

    [and before anyone is tempted to start with the “Commie Stooge / Wumao” nonsense, I am an Anglo Saxon Brit, by the way, currently living far far away from the area in question]

  • Zhanglan

    The title of this article is:

    Why Philippines may suffer because of South China Sea case against Beijing

    if the Chinese J-20 does or does not “work”, does that make the Philippines’ legal case more valid, or less valid? Or is it totally irrelevant and introduced to the discussion merely as a consequence of some infantile wet-dreaming?

  • roborat2000

    nonsense. Everyone in south east asia is claiming its rights within their economic exclusion zone. it is only China that has declared it wants the world to recognise the 9-dash line pipe dream by printing it on their passports and then started island building so they can pretty much claim the entire region up to everyone else shore line.

  • roborat2000

    well read the thread and respond accordingly. your response to this thread is the only one that appears irrelevant and a tad emotional. Why did the fake stealth looking fighter comment touch a nerve? Looks awfully close to the fully operational F-35 isn’t it?

  • roborat2000

    Of course you don’t wish to comment on China’s overly aggressive and illegal activities. Why, when It’s so obvious that it’s the only one building permanent military structures OUTSIDE it’s rights within the EEZ. It’s the only one redefining it’s borders with the 9-dash line printed on the passport. It’s the only one establishing early identification zones within a region it does not even own, it’s the only one extending waaaaay beyond it’s borders. It has no right to be in South East Asia. What they hell are they doing there ramming poor fishermen just trying to make a living? What is it doing within Vietnams EEZ with a drill rig? Oh, let’s not talk about China. Let’s talk about what the other little countries are trying to claim within their EEZ and say they are out of their minds to operate within their rights. Absolute utter non-sense from an obvious paid up Chinese propaganda army!

  • hwy

    Well said Zhangian

  • hwy

    F-35 is just an expensive bullshit toy.
    Google yourself to see the failure and crashes

  • hwy

    Check out first your corrupt politicians. The money they have secretly pocketed can help more you fishermen. Do your good works there first.

  • hwy

    That is why the Philippines is poor.
    Don’t have brains, don’t even know how to copy and improve. Just living by bending with the Americans and Japanese behind you?

    By the way go to youtube – see the original chinese ancient ideas and inventions, – from which the west copied from China.

  • Zhanglan

    you are quite clearly wrong – and measurably so; the 9-dashed line predates UNCLOS by precisely 35 years, and the PR China’s 1958 baselines predate it by more than 20 years. The Philippines did not contest either of these until 1971 at the earliest – quite the contrary during the “Freedomland” nonsense

    and although you refuse to acknowledge the fact, as I have stated repeatedly throughout my Comments on this article, I express no position whatsoever on the validity of Chinese claims (whether Taiwanese or PRC). My simple points are

    a. That the Philippines is on a hiding to nothing, legally and at the hands of its colonial masters

    b. The USA and Japan are stirring trouble for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimate interests of those either bordering on or transiting through the South China Sea

  • Zhanglan

    oh, I do so love ad hominem abuse – it’s the surefire marker that someone has run out of ideas and factually-based arguments, and has to revert to impotent name-calling. Grow up already!

  • Zhanglan

    roborat, you could claim that a piece of crockery looks awfully close to a fully-operational flying saucer, or that the Moon looks like it might be made of cheese, but that doesn’t make such comments either valid, relevant or in any way less banal in the context of an article about a UNCLOS lawsuit

  • akosipatriot

    I am not talking about islet occupation, what I need you to focus on is China’s 9-dash line that even taken other countries’ EEZ. In modern times, there has to be a rule of law on how the open sea is manage. And the EEZ is one of that rules. In the context of common sense and international norm, how can China’s 9-dash line be a valid claim (without citing historical claims)?

  • akosipatriot

    “Unfortunately, by the time of the San Francisco Conference in 1951, the
    USA was being routed by China during the early stages of the Korean War,”

    Unfortunately, it was the Philippines who helped defeated the Chinese during the war.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Expeditionary_Forces_to_Korea

  • akosipatriot

    The Marines stationed at the reef I believe was between Philippines EEZ. While the Chinese was busy blocking those little boats who will bring supplies to the ship.

  • CHina air

    Chinese aggression will only deplete its soft power advantage.

  • Jose Rizal

    U r absolutely clueless. Read upp.

  • Pungaw.com

    Yes china nine dash line claim predates unclos but have no legal basis even in your history…fool your self do not fool us…

  • Pungaw.com

    yeah your correct..

  • Jose Rizal

    US-inspired creation

    Liar

  • Kuratchoy

    Hahah, This Article is created by Dengdeng Chen(The Diplomat). What do you expect from that guy?

  • Kuratchoy

    Another Lame Article. Check it through TheDiplomat, and you will see How people laughing in this article.Lolz

  • Pungaw.com

    Grounding BRP Sierra madee is just a response to chinese building in mischief reef. For your information.

  • Jose Rizal

    Nah you are a wumao. Admittedly though, your English is excellent. Kudos to you.

    Check this out.

    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irasec.com%2Fdownload.php%3Ftype%3Ddocument%26id%3D40&ei=VjuSVfq8BoTLmAWs44uwDA&usg=AFQjCNHWeATg0Rxu29kqg7hUD5Ne1QHnDw&bvm=bv.96783405,d.dGY

    Now please use that intelligence of yours to expand your info on the issue before spouting nonsense that your CCP rams into your brain.

    OMG your ROC forebears didn’t even know where the F#$% the spratlys were and they have to audacity to claim it.

    Why is Robin silly. Cause Batman wears his underwear outside his pants. Yeah the CCP are like Robin who followed Batman’s fashion sense.

    The n-dashed line predates the “Beijing” Peoples Republic of China by
    more than 2 years and was a US-inspired creation initially mooted at the
    Cairo, Yalta and Potsdam conferences during WW2. – Lies, use that English of yours to construe the declarations correctly.

    The CCP is in for a rude awakening at the PCA.

  • Jose Rizal

    Silly wabbit.

  • Jose Rizal

    Yeah and Dingding is a professor with chinese characteristics. Hello????? No wonder.

  • Jose Rizal

    PUHleease……

  • Jose Rizal

    Likewise mate. Oh there goes a rabbit. Nah won’t work here mate. Diversionary tactics is so infantile.

  • Zhanglan

    Do you also speak English, Jose, or just gibberish?

  • Zhanglan

    hello akos

    please try to pay attention and keep up; this article – and my Comments – are not about the validity or otherwise of China’s claims: they are about whether the case which the Philippines has presented to the Permanent Court of Arbitration is likely to get thrown out. That will happen not because China “wins”, but because the Philippines cannot make a valid case; perhaps someone else could, but the Philippines can’t

    here’s why: as I set out above

    1. The Philippines is legally estopped from establishing a claim, because of its own 1935 Constitution and its domestic laws such as RA5446, which explicitly restrict the geographical extent of its territory. The Chinese didn’t impose that restriction – the Philippines Government and before that the Americans and the Spanish did, and its there in Black & White for all the World to see

    2. UNCLOS – and consequently any argument based on EEZ’s – do not apply to territorial Sovereignty disputes: firstly, because it is a Law of the Sea, and is subsidiary to the Law which governs the Land – (which is Customary International Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law#Recognition_of_customary_international_law ) – and secondly because China and a number of other signatories (including the Philippines) have availed themselves of standard UNCLOS clauses which allow them to avoid binding arbitration on such matters. It’s there, written in Black & White, for all the World to see

    3.UNCLOS in any case does not apply retroactively, so as to change existing Sovereignty and established Customary Law: neither does the supposed extension of a 200 mile EEZ unilaterally override other Nations’ claims to Land features, EEZ’s and Territorial Seas. The fact that e.g. large tracts of Northern France lie within 200 NM of the South Coast of England does not imply that, as of 1982, French sovereignty over Normandy, Brittany and Paris has been revoked and the territories now belong to the UK. France was there first – as indeed was Taiwan on Ita Abu (from 1946) and the P.R. China throughout the Paracels and Spratlys from 1958 at the very latest. As is clear from e.g. RA5446 in 1968, the Philippines wasn’t. It’s there, written in Black & White, for all the World to see

    The fact that UNCLOS came along 20 or more years later doesn’t alter the situation, and, whether or not China or anyone else has a better claim, it’s quite apparent that under UNCLOS the Philippines was not miraculously “given” sovereign rights over all the features which happen to lie within 200 NM of its supposed archipelagic baselines (which are themselves open to challenge under International Law ( http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_10.1_bautista.pdf“The Philippine Treaty Limits are almost universally contested and seemingly irreconcilable with conventional and customary international law. s1, page 2)

    It is apparent that several of you don’t particularly want to entertain any contrary opinion, but I will state it for you once again, very clearly: this case does not revolve around the strength or weakness of China’s claims, but around the fact that the Philippines has no claim, and the Court appears to have neither Jurisdiction in the matter, nor any legal capacity to hear a claim from a party without locus standi.

    Furthermore, the involvement of out-of-area antagonists is neither intended nor likely to further the best interests of the Philippines, but simply to stir further trouble in the region, as has consistently been the case over the past 100 or more years. China’s conduct vis a vis the Philippines and Vietnam has been far more consistent, benign and beneficial than the USA and Japan, and, unlike the USA in particular, China is and will remain a fact of life in the region – especially on an economic level, where Japan has already been eclipsed as a major global force

    You may huff and puff and call me all the names you like, but I do not have a dog in this particular race, and the outcome will be of far greater significance to you than to me. Pretending there is not a very real issue here is not going to change anything, or make it go away, and disappointment is beckoning the Philippines like a big beckony thing

  • Zhanglan

    I wasn’t aware the Chinese were defeated; my father spent almost 2 years as a Prisoner of War in China after being captured at the Battle of the Imjin River. I may perhaps know far more – and you far less – about this than you think

  • Zhanglan

    “U r absolutely clueless. Read upp.”

    Well, Jose, I’ll let other people decide that: all I am trying to do is to set out the facts as I see them to the best of my ability, in coherent English. What’s your excuse?

  • roborat2000

    if it was a BS toy, they it makes it even more laughable that someone tries to copy it.
    Google yourself J-20 to see the failures and… oh wait, no videos, it doesn’t really work properly.

  • Zhanglan

    Hello Jose. Let me help you here: please refer to e.g. US documents T-324 (1943) and CAC 301 (1944) and CAC 308 (1945) http://tinyurl.com/oj9lk7t

    These are not lies, but facts: you may not like them, but your personal delusions are unlikely to sway an international tribunal any more than calling me a liar is going to change them

  • roborat2000

    I was responding specifically to China Lee’s J-20 comment (and picture) suggesting that China’s military will be the deciding factor on any future changes in south east asia. I made a slight comment suggesting that China’s military hardware is unproven and probably unreliable.
    Who made you the Lord Judge of what is or is not within context? I think our points of argument are valid and relevant. You on the other hand are beginning to look desperate for a discussion and insistence on your one-dimensional point about UNCLOS.

  • akosipatriot

    Please note that I am not a lawyer, nor in anyway have some knowledge in international pertaining to seas.

    I see that your point is not about China’s valid claim, but Philippines case in UNCLOS.

    The pdf you linked stated:

    “Thus, the legality of any act
    should be determined in accordance with the law of the time the act was committed, and not by reference to law as it might have become at a later
    date.”

    However, in my understanding, this should not be applied to all “acts”.
    The Philippines can claim territories considered to be part of the Philippines’ continental shelf in my opinion as we did to the Spratlys and some shoals.

    I can’t comment on point #1, need time and I am not a lawyer.

    Point #2, the Philippine side says the case is not about territorial disputes but about EEZ.

    Point #3, if at all the UNCLOS cannot be used retroactively given this specific case, it must be therefore good for China to use its muscle to destroy corals and build artificial islands on the contested waters is a friendly omen, but with the Philippines going to an international body to decide for our case is a sign of threat and only serve to magnify the tense situation in SCS? Not to mention the Scarborough shoal incident and that big Chinese ships threatening fishermen, because Chinese knew for a fact that there is no international law that will forbid them from doing this!

    I will ask your expert opinion, UN approved and recognized the sovereignty of the Philippines over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benham_Plateau
    In case China will send ships at Benham Plateau, what case we will be using against China or what international body could we count on to protect our territory?

  • akosipatriot

    I guess, if you are a lawyer, you also need to be well-versed in history. I admire

    your well-spoken English, please use it for the better.

    Of course, we do not brag our victories. Search the net, I read that one Filipino soldier who claimed he killed over two hundred, its there, but it is not written in black and white. In wikipedia, the battle at Yuldong is short and is not detailed, but the fact that the overwhelming Chinese forces(40000) was stopped by a mere 900 or 1400(Depends on the source) is really amazing. But during the war, this battle was only considered small. Filipinos at that time included the help of cooks and other utility folks in the camp just to counter the Chinese.

    http://worldnewspinoy.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-900-filipino-soldiers-fought-40t.html

    You need to verify this of course if this claim are true, search it, I have no time now.

  • akosipatriot

    Ancient Chinese is amazing, and even western people branded Marco Polo as liar, but Marco Polo was only telling them the truth.
    Chinese first noted inventions: Paper money, rocket and the use of coal.
    🙂
    However those were the days.
    We Filipinos also copied a lot, improve a lot.

  • akosipatriot

    Correct, it was said that it was defeated by the ageing F-16 in a dog fight.

  • akosipatriot

    As if the Chinese have no corrupt politicians?

  • Victor Fantastico

    The claim to Behnam Plateau was not contested by any other nation. Ever. It also appears to lie within the boundaries set out in RA5446

    Neither of these factors are true in respect of the Scarborough Shoal, and the UN clearly did not recognise any form of Sovereignty over the Benham Plateau, just economic rights over part of a continental shelf

    There is no comparison – or relevance – to the current case; neither is there any indication that China intends to operate either commercially or militarily in the seas to the East of the Phillipines.

    And as to your point about “big Chinese ships threatening fishermen” – you are surely either trying to be ironic, or you are very, very badly misguided:

    BRP Gregorio del Pilar – 3,250 tons BRP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRP_Gregorio_del_Pilar_(PF-15)

    http://www.gov.ph/images/uploads/230811_JM62.jpg

    Zhongguo Haijian 75 – 1,149 tons http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/details/ships/shipid:542762/mmsi:412473820/imo:9591791/vessel:ZHONG_GUO_HAI_JIAN_75

    http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/photos/of/ships/shipid:542762/ship_name:ZHONG%20GUO%20HAI%20JIAN%2075#1612190

    Zhongguo Haijian 84 -1,819 tons http://maritime-connector.com/ship/zhong-guo-hai-jian-84-9599107/

    (i.e. the Phillipines ship was larger than both the Chinese coastguard vessels added together)

    and it was the Phillipines’ BRP Gregorio del Pilar which sparked the incident by trying to interdict Chinese fishermen operating inside the shoal

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal_standoff#Overview

  • monochrome

    What’s your point? Instead of speculating why don’t you just share your own opinion. Why don’t you state you point how the pinoys will benefit in the case before the hague.

  • roborat2000

    Let us look at the glass house you’re standing in.

    1. you say I have ran out of ideas when it is in fact your last post above did not contain any points of argument. It has contributed nothing to this forum. Have you ran out of ideas to “cut and paste” from the official party line?
    2. you call ad hominem when it was you who started it. You may want to go back and read all your comments for yourself. Good luck though because you have written a lot and most of it I have found to be regurgitated claims proven to be unsubstantiated time and time again, I don’t get why you keep bringing them up.
    3. You started the name calling, I rose above it and ignored it. I say something that points to a possible bias in your arguments, you called it “abuse”. When you said I should “Grow up”, was that therefore an unconscious misdirection intended for your own insecure self?

  • Victor Fantastico

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River

    27,000 Chinese troops vs just over 800 British: 141 Gloster Regiment troops killed; 15,000 Chinese dead

    The Regiment received an Official Citation from US President Truman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River#Unit_citations

  • Victor Fantastico

    this article is about maritime law, not childish fantasies about toy aircraft

  • roborat2000

    ” China’s conduct vis a vis the Philippines and Vietnam has been far more consistent, benign and beneficial than the USA and Japan, and, unlike the USA in particular, China is and will remain a fact of life in the region – especially on an economic level, where Japan has already been eclipsed as a major global force”
    And there it is. The official Chinese propaganda finally comes out after all the “cut and paste” argument posts.
    China is consistent? That is so laughable. What about the aggressive island building? New and illegal Identification zones? Drilling in agreed shared resource areas? The only thing you can rightfully claim to be consistent is the acceleration of China’s aggression and plans to own the entire SEA with a permanent military base. You know what’s cheaper to run than an aircraft carrier? Take a guess.
    The fact of the matter is, small SEA countries would rather have the aircraft carrier from a democratic country than a permanent military base right in the middle of south china sea ran buy a small elite ruling dictators from a communist regime.

  • roborat2000

    If I was like you I would have joined this conversation and say “you could claim that your father spend 2 years as an elite member of the Communist Party to another 2 years as an Army General subjugating Tibetans, or that the Moon looks like it is also Chinese territory, but that doesn’t make such comments either valid, relevant or in any way less banal in the context of an article about a UNCLOS lawsuit” . But I won’t because unlike you I am not desperate for an argument about UNCLOS, nor am I paid to spread propaganda. I just understand common decency.

  • Victor Fantastico

    were you born a Troll, roborat, or did you have to study for it?

  • Glen Celis

    I checked and found out the Chinese government is more corrupt. I am not surprised though because of it is inherent in the the communist system.

  • Glen Celis

    Wow. This is like bargaining with a bully. What do you expect to get? Crumbs!

  • hwy

    No doubt the chinese officials are also corrupted but the have no chinese grumbling about what is happening in SCS. Where as PH officials are pocketing under the table like European officials from the US to perform task not absolutely to the wish of the majority. They have something which the NSA can reveal against them. Without a choice, why pocket the money too? Sheeple !! Too naive.

  • hwy

    Absolutely not.
    Which rabbit kid tries to bring in the fishermen?
    Trying to use emotional guilt to move people’s emotions.
    Beggars trick. Why the country is poor.

  • roborat2000

    this article is about maritime law, not childish fantasies about toy aircraft . No kidding? And your contribution to this forum besides stating the obvious is what?

  • Jose Rizal

    Thanks for the referral. Ok, but what are you trying to point out. That a bunch of map makers drew a line and that gives china “indisputable sovereignty”. How does that work. The link I pasted is facts as well.

    What do you mean sway the tribunal. I or the Ph does not need to sway the tribunal. We just present the facts. The documents you referred to do not in any way support china’s position, in fact it lays bare that china’s unilateral claim has no basis at all. Oooops I might put your $.50 in jeopardy….sorry about that, it is not my intention.

    “Why did the Chinese government change the scope of its territory so dramatically between
    1933 and 1934? Since 1931, the territorial integrity of China had been threatened. In 1931,
    Manchuria was annexed by the Japanese. In 1932, the French government was claiming, for the
    first time, the Paracel Islands as part of Annam (Vietnam).56 Moreover, as we have said above, the
    French government made a second claim, in July 1933, this time on the Spratly Islands. This last
    claim was made just two months after the Chinese committee on national territory began its work.
    These two claims of the French government confused the minds of not only of the Chinese public
    and the media, but also the official authorities like the military and the politicians in Guangdong
    Province and Beijing. In fact, the Chinese believed that the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands or
    Xisha were exactly the same group, but that the French had just changed the name as a trick to
    confuse the Chinese government. To ascertain the position of the Spratly Islands, the Chinese
    Consul in Manila, Mr. Kwong, went, on July 26, 1933, to the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and
    discovered, with surprise, that the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands were different and far
    apart.57 This big blunder, showing a complete lack of knowledge about the Spratly Islands, was recognized by the Chinese authorities in their internal documents. For example, the director of the
    influential newspaper, the Peiping News, Mr. Wang Gong Da, wrote to the Foreign Affairs
    Secretary, Mr Luo:
    “The Spokesperson of the Foreign Affairs said that a protest was prepared if
    [emphasis mine] it was proven that the nine islands [Spratlys] were part of Xisha [the
    Paracels]. Don’t make a diplomatic blunder; these islands are not part of Xisha. Triton
    Island [in Xisha] is the southernmost part of our territory. South of Triton Island, there
    is no connection with the Chinese territory. Our so-called experts, geographers, Navy
    representatives, etc., are a shame to our country”.” –

    This was in 1933………Like I said they didn’t know where it was.

    And well including it in a drawing does not make it the property of china. Geeezzz any 12 year old will tell you that, how much more a tribunal. Oh yes, all of these will be presented. China made a blunder by not appearing or actually they know their claim does not hold water……so same difference.

  • hwy

    If you are not backward, educate yourself. Read what the Germans knows about technology.

    http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/kampfjet-ohne-kampfkraft-flugzeugexperte-amerikas-neue-wunderwaffe-f-35-ist-unglaublich-ineffizient_id_4332996.html

    Read the also the UK Daily – F35 can’t even fight the old 1970 F16

  • MGM555

    A great read http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/fact-fiction-south-china-sea/

    I just want to highlight.

    Chinese Assertion: I protested and therefore I claim the Spratlys.

    Such protests are FAIRY TALEsssss.
    1. Year 1883.
    According to Chinese scholars,
    Qing government protested a German expedition to the Spratlys .
    But the Germans surveyors mapped the Paracels (not the Spratlys).

    2. Year 1933.
    According to Chinese scholars,
    Roc made a formal protest to the French annexation of some features in the Spratlys.
    American records show, Chinese government asked Manila consul, Mr. Kuan-ling Kwong, to ask the American colonial authorities FOR A MAP showing the Spratlys location. When Nanjing realized the Spratlys are not the Paracels, they did NOT issue a formal protest.

    From the minutes …. ROC Military Council on September 1, 1933.
    ” All our professional geographers say that Triton Island ( in the Paracels) is the southernmost island of our territory.”

    Yes, Nanjing had to ask for a map to realize that Spratlys is not the Paracels.

    They were not there, just copying British names into Chinese.They even called James Shoal as Zengmu Tan = means sandbank, when the shoal is underwater.

  • Jose Rizal

    None of you will ever see an F35 coming from the PH. And hey guess what, it has Beijing in its range from the Ph. Make your move or start wagging your tail.

  • hwy

    Russian, German and Swiss Jews are often the best inventors.

  • roborat2000

    Ouch! someone called me a troll *sob. For your own benefit let me just say that your statement is a complete waste of time to everyone especially yourself. Obviously, it doesn’t add to the conversation and if your only intention for writing it is to possibly hurt my feelings then you’re clearly mistaken. You incorrectly thought that I care about what you think. Not even the slightest bit. In fact, I find it hard to imagine why someone with a brain would even think of posting such comments. And if there were such a comment that says more about the writer, your post would have been the best example. Sorry, truth is you need to do a lot better that one sentence clichés.

  • Jose Rizal

    Hahahahaha, we are close to 100 million. How many hundred million chinese are poor? Poor rebuttal from a poor intellect.

  • Jose Rizal

    For your information, it is called sarcasm, which i used to bring to light a lame diversionary tactic. Hwy’s post is almost incoherent but smacks of wumao directives.

    I speak multiple languages, mostly southeast asian ones, and english as well. Do you know any other European language? If not, well you know what i am thinking.

  • hwy

    There are , of course, even more in Russia – but their people are living in better standards than before.
    But the Philippines have only done better in exporting only more maids to be abused in many foreign countries. PH women suffers having to abandon their beloved children for months and years. Are Philippine men left with oversized heads and mouth and tiny balls ?
    Your first priority is fight for your women and not rocks. Pride cannot fill your stomach.

  • hwy

    Your GDP or non existent foreign reserve is derived from what? You are just a pimp living from the suffering of the mothers-maids exported abroad. You are profiting from the work of your women being abused abroad to keep your money value from crashing.
    Big head, big mouth – living from women’s money -PIMP

    What reserves do you have compared to China’s USD 3.6 trillion?
    PH external debt is between USD 130bn to 160bn. Foreign reserve is about USD 80bn. Do the math yourself.

  • roborat2000

    Yep, I just read what the Germans said about the J-20. It wasn’t stealthy, it flies slow, it’s radar and targeting system is 40 years old… they destroyed it pretty much. My point exactly. Thanks.

  • hwy

    Just more bullshit from you!! If most people from PH resembles you, that explains why the country is in such deplorable stage having to live from exporting it’s women. A brainless Spanish bull. Head blown up with air!!
    If you have the slightest intelligence, you could at least think of using google translate. Stop making a clown out of yourself and bring more shame to your people.

    It starts with saying the F35 is VERY VERY LOUSY !! Unbelievably Inefficient. Fighter jet without fighting power. It ends with saying European, Russian and Chinese jets are much better than the F35

    For others reading this, this is the text in German.
    Kampfjet ohne Kampfkraft
    Flugzeugexperte: “Amerikas neue Wunderwaffe F-35 ist unglaublich ineffizient”
    “Sehr, sehr schlecht”, “völlig ungeeignet”: Der Flugzeugexperte Pierre Sprey übt harte Kritik an Amerikas neuem Vorzeige-Kampfjet F-35.
    Der F-35, Ergebnis des derzeit teuersten Rüstungsprojekts der Welt, sei
    deutlich schlechter als die Konkurrenz.
    Mit dem Kampfjet F35 wollen die USA ab 2016 eine neue Wunderwaffe im Luftkrieg einsetzen. 3000 Maschinen werden produziert. Es ist das derzeit teuerste Rüstungsprogramm der Welt. Doch der
    Flugzeugexperte Pierre Sprey übt harte Kritik an dem Jet: „Der F35 ist unglaublich ineffizient, ein sehr, sehr schlechtes Flugzeug. Es ist träge, schlecht zu manövrieren, für den Luftkampf völlig ungeeignet.”
    Eine Erklärung dafür hat Sprey auch: „Der Kampfjet wird seit den 80er-Jahren geplant. Er ist einfach überholt. Europäische, russische und chinesische Jets sind viel besser.“

  • hwy

    It is not sarcasm. It’s using emotional guilt trying to influence opinions involving the fishermen.
    Anyway nothing to boast with your multiple languages. That certainly is a lame diversionary tactic, incoherent but smacks of wumao directives. Infantile !
    Educate yourself first if you want to boast. Learn first the 2 most important European languages. French and German.

  • Jose Rizal

    Ah sorry you’re way off here.

  • Jose Rizal

    Yeah 2-3 hundred million poor. That is math….duh. Pimp aye? At least we don’t steal….period. Stealing IP and counterfeiting…..no wonder…….hey do you understand the word “cheating”. I read a news article once where 3 children committed suicide coz they had nothing and their parents were constantly gone for months looking for work. Both countries have definitely problems….but hey math is math right.

  • hwy

    Your response shows only you have brains anywhere except in your head. It’s a pity that you can only copy the bad traits of your ex Spanish master. Only exporting it’s people to do cleaning and low jobs that our central and our north Europeans don’t want to touch. Why are Malaysians, Singaporeans or Hong Kong Chinese better off than PH? Why are non Hispanic North American countries better off than South Hispanic America? Spain is the next Greece, even worst! No matter how much air a frog try to blow itself big, it’s still empty.

  • Jose Rizal

    If so, then the brain in my dick still managed to hit a mark aye. The hispanic nations you speak about do not worship money dude. That is probably why. We do not need to be rich, it does not define success to us. So moot point in your argument.

  • hwy

    You finally got it pimp. Because you live on the expense of women exported and you care less except your dick. You are a parasite living on handouts. It’s not that other Asean nations worship money, but rather they care enough for their women and children to come first place. Look they use their brains. Pride and dick leads you not far.

  • Jose Rizal

    OMG killing millions of your own people isn’t worse than parasitic? Seriously were you abused as a child? Hahahahaha, nope your attempt at an insult is worthless and imbecilic. Shit gotta work, guess you are right now aye (working)? See ya….. don’t quit your day job mate.

  • bystander

    Zhanglan’s piece is well conveyed with facts and logic. He writes like an experienced lawyer who has done his home work to prepare for a court fight. So why you folks arguing with him just behave the way he did, do some home work, gather some facts. So I can be educated by your side of the story as well.

    Let your brain rule your heart. Not the other way around.

    The case is about the validity for Philippine to go through the international court. Many of you are actually arguing whether China or Philippine has got a claim. I believe you have landed in the wrong court room (perhaps like Philippine did). The judge may end up kick you out.

  • hwy

    See how idiotic and stupid you are! The total population over here is only 6.5 millions. How and when have we killed our own by millions? Seems PH is allowing internet access for patients from mental asylums. Thanks to give me the thought that you had been abused before. I will leave you to work on your shit as you broadcasted above. By the way I am over retirement age. My country pays me USD 3500.- per month for pension.

  • roborat2000

    You need to know something about your Chinese version of Google – it isn’t the same for us in the free world. Try Googling Tiananmen Square massacre as see what comes up.

    Here’s a better link for you with any need for google translation. http://www.janes.com/article/52715/jpo-counters-media-report-that-f-35-cannot-dogfight
    I didn’t know you cared about this too much. Maybe this will shut you up about planes I have no interest in. Lesson number one for you today – not everything that is written is true.
    Oh an one more thing. I am European living in the UK. So I think you should save your racist insults for someone else. Personally I don’t think anyone can win an argument using people’s struggles against them. It only shows lack of intelligence, desperation and lack of common decency. It’s not a wise basis for insult as situations change.
    Lesson number two: If you were to generalise at least be better at it. Strike at what is at the core and inherently wrong. That would be me characterising the Chinese population as heartless and materialistic when that little girl was ran over by a van and no one helped or when Chinese teenagers go and sell their organs for iPhones.
    Did you get that? Now let’s see if your little brain can come up with a better response.

  • Qiaobao

    Yep, I just read what the Germans said about the F35, according to hwy’s link: “Fighter without Fighting Power: The wonder-weapon F35 is incredibly inefficient”. No need for Google to translate

  • hwy

    You are just brainless to assume that I am a Chinese citizen. Being an European living in the UK implies just the stronger possibility of belonging to one of those G7 debtor countries nothing to be proud of – a gastarbeiter – what we call here in Switzerland – mostly from the south. Escaping the poverty from your home country? Your nonsense of Tienanmen square has nothing to do with my reply – neither about that girl or van bullshit. Look, eat it yourself. Switzerland never interfere in other countries politics. Part of my tax money does my good deeds through the Red Cross and other charity channel. Switzerland never massacre South American like the Spanish, never killed Africans like the French, never killed North Americans like the British never touched it›s neighbour like Hitler, never stole Hong Kong using opium tricks ….etc

    Your first lesson – not everything written is true.
    If there is anything additional to be learned is….better through an example.
    A proud guy trying to lift his status trying to impress others wrote to some people he met. I am working with the government at the parliament. What he didn’t say more is that he is cleaning the toilets there.
    You know what a lot of Germans thinks about the Greeks, Spanish and certain other Europeans alike? You know what the English thinks of the Irish? Or the French look at ……etc? Sorry, Europe is a racialist continent. Not being just European can lift one s status.
    A pig is a pig even with lipsticks – that is what the royal family thinks.
    Other than this above, Swiss educates the kids from secondary school upwards to question everything and not to accept it at face value. Too bad. Probably you learn it late. Go to Zurich Uni and polytechnic. Ask why foreign students tries so hard to get a place in there. Principle of Einstein – believe it s true, you stopped there. You learn no more.
    Try harder if you want to teach. I play chess not checkers. I know well and apply Tsun Tse’s art. Philippine and Asean are just ponds in the US-CHINA-RUSSIA chess game. I know well the US dirty hidden agenda.

    Lesson 2.
    I replied to your comments on planes. Now you wrote
    «Maybe this will shut you up about planes I have no interest in»
    You contradict yourself. Brainless or uneducated? or Both?
    I pasted a German link Focus that talk about plane.
    You pretended you understood – read your reply – but that was not what focus said.
    Lesson learned – just realised that I am conversing with a full blown headed idiot.

    Let me state the obvious – teach only yourself – stop teaching others – the world need no more duplicates of idiot like you. Keep further replies to yourself.

  • roborat2000

    Oh Mr Yu, you are a Chinese citizen – a student living in Switzerland. It doesn’t take much to figure you out. I was hoping for a better response from you, but you disappoint me.
    Oh and did I say I was from the UK, I lied, I am an American. See Lesson 1 again. We now have evidence you are a very slow learner.
    You’re fast getting tiresome and if it wasn’t for your racist and ill-tempered view of every other country besides China, I wouldn’t find this amusing.
    Oh and for your information, where do you think all the dictators including the Nazi’s hid all their ill-gotten wealth? You have much to learn Mr Yu. So much to learn.

  • roborat2000

    Oh another bright boy all the way from China. Maybe you need to google “pulling my leg” and then you can begin to realise that you have wasted your time.

  • hwy

    If you are an American then it s certainly a real dumb one. Where and when did I say you are from the UK? You see how low your education is? With that kind of level you want to teach others !! OMG ! As and American, you are still from the debtor club of the G7.- nothing to be proud of. You lied saying you are an European and now being an American liar. On the next reply you will say you are an asshole? Probably that will be closer to the truth.
    We believe in innocence until proven guilty. When head of states are legally proven guilty, their swiss bank account are frozen until that country request how they want the money sent back. Another dumb and lame comment from an idiot.
    Racism is even worst in US than in EU – anyway.
    Which ever low moral creature you are, you can t force the China citizenship on me. I stand holding to the truth. Other than Taiwan and Hong Kong which I visited on 2 business trips, I had NEVER been to China.
    You first attempt trying to label me along with Tienanmen failed. Now you tried with hook and crooks. Unfortunately this only shows your inner dictatorship instinct and sinful nature through outright lying. As I understand what Jesus said, demons stick in legions. Lying demon is just the tip of the iceberg. One can never converse with demon possessed creature. It will only twist and turn using all the dirty tricks available.

    To others reading the Atimes – I favour more China. It is because I educated myself. I understand the need of debt in banking. To get countries indebted, the right hand cause chaos to other countries bringing wars or revolutions and after destroying a country the left hand ( IMF ) dress in sheep skin comes in. The country signs with the IMF and the years of unending slavery begins. Under the petrodollar domination, money is created from thin air and get paid interest.
    Emerging China threatens this petrodollar domination. Saddam and Iran wanted to move away from the dollar and use euros. We all saw the result. China and Russia are promoting dedollarisation, To stop that Washington is using the countries surrounding China to create trouble. The smart do the talking and the stupid shed it s blood.Through deceit and media propaganda and buying corrupt head of state Washington makes these brainwashed nations to go against China . Through the NGO – NED, the CIA the cook up troubles within the population. Sad – the ponds has no mind of its own!

    Pity this site has got such self proclaim teaching idiots and self proclaim. liars. Or is this a Philipino disease?