China wants PH to drop UN suit

[jerry_tan]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/08/c_135422973.htm

China urges Philippines to immediately cease arbitral proceedings

Source: Xinhua | 2016-06-08 20:32:04 | Editor: Tian Shaohui

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei (Source: fmprc.gov.cn)

BEIJING, June 8 (Xinhua) -- China on Wednesday again urged the Philippines to stop its arbitral proceedings and return to the right track of settling relevant disputes in the South China Sea through bilateral negotiation with China.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei made the comment at a routine press briefing.

The Foreign Ministry on Wednesday issued a statement saying that disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea should be settled through bilateral negotiation.

Hong said that by unilaterally initiating the arbitration in 2013, the Philippines had turned its back on the possibility of solving the issue through negotiation, leading to a dramatic deterioration of relations between China and the Philippines.

China and the Philippines have reached consensus on settling maritime disputes through bilateral negotiation in a number of bilateral documents, but the two countries have never engaged in any negotiation on the subject-matters of the arbitration, said Hong.

By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines has violated its agreement with China as well as its own solemn commitment in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), he said.

This is an abuse of the dispute settlement procedures of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and is against international law, including UNCLOS, he added.

The door of China-Philippines bilateral negotiation is always open, he said. "China will remain committed to settling through negotiation the relevant disputes with the Philippines in the South China Sea on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law."

"China urges the Philippines to immediately cease its wrongful conduct of pushing forward the arbitral proceedings, and return to the right path of settling the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through bilateral negotiation with China," Hong said.

Related:

The Minutes of the Meeting Between Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin and US Media Delegation on the South China Sea Issue

Editor's note: On 19 May 2016, Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin met with a US media delegation that consisted of Jonathan Broder, senior writer for Newsweek, Cristi Kempf, Associate Managing Editor of Chicago Tribune, and Jon Healey, Deputy Editorial Page Editor of Los Angeles Times.

Vice Minister Liu Zhenmin spoke about the history of the South China Sea issue and the background of the Philippines' unilateral initiation of the South China Sea arbitration. He also answered questions about the US "Freedom of Navigation Program" in the South China Sea, how China would respond to the arbitration "award", and how the South China Sea issue would affect the China-US relations. Full Story

China Voice: South China Sea arbitration lacks legal basis

BEIJING, June 6 (Xinhua) -- There is a Chinese saying that goes like "the villain brings suit against his victim before he himself is prosecuted."

 

[jerry_tan]

China wants PH to drop UN suit

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140000/china-wants-ph-to-drop-un-suit


Faced with a setback in a United Nations arbitral court, China on Wednesday urged the Philippines to drop its legal tack and return to bilateral negotiation to settle their territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

China did not say, however, whether it would stop building artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago or whether it would withdraw from Panatag Shoal, which it seized from the Philippines in 2012 after a two-month standoff with the Philippine Navy, to encourage negotiations.

It was China’s seizure of Panatag Shoal, internationally known as Scarborough Shoal, that forced the Philippines to challenge China’s claim to almost all of the 3.5-million-square-kilometer South China Sea in the UN arbitration court in 2013.


The Philippines asked the court to invalidate China’s sweeping claims and declare its right to exploit resources in waters within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) be honored.

Ruling coming soon

China has refused to take part in the proceedings, but the court has heard the case and is expected to hand down a ruling in the coming weeks.

Expecting the ruling to go against it, China on Wednesday accused the Philippines of ignoring requests for dialogue about their dispute.

“China urges the Philippines to immediately cease its wrongful conduct of pushing forward the arbitral proceedings, and return to the right path of settling the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through bilateral negotiation with China,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a statement posted on his ministry’s website.

The statement, released in both Chinese and English, said the two countries agreed in 1995 to settle disputes in the South China Sea “in a peaceful and friendly manner through consultations on the basis of equity and mutual respect.”

China and the Philippines have held many rounds of talks on the proper management of maritime disputes, though they have had no negotiations designed to settle the actual disputes in the South China Sea, the Chinese foreign ministry said.

“China has on a number of occasions proposed with the Philippines the establishment of a China-Philippines regular consultation mechanism on maritime issues; however, to date, there has never been any response from the Philippine side,” it said.

The ministry did not specify how such consultations would be different from the numerous exchanges the countries have had on the dispute.

Reef grabbing

It blamed the Philippines for the dramatic worsening in the two countries’ relations and in peace and stability in the South China Sea, but did not mention its actions that forced Manila to go to the United Nations for a peaceful settlement of the dispute.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) declined to comment.

A department official familiar with the arbitration case said Manila was expecting the tribunal to hand down a ruling this month and it would rather remain quiet until then.

In 1995, despite its proposal for talks, China seized Panganiban Reef (Mischief Reef), a reef 250 km west of Palawan province, and developed it into a shelter purportedly for fishermen.

The Philippines protested China’s actions and when Beijing went on developing Mischief Reef, Manila grounded a rusting hospital ship on Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) to mark Philippine territory in the Spratly archipelago.

A small Marine garrison is stationed on the vessel, the BRP Sierra Madre, which is restocked regularly using private supply ships protected by US warplanes.

Competing claims

Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan have competing claims in the South China Sea, and they could benefit from the ruling of the UN arbitral court.

China, however, has been building artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago to bolster its claim to the strategic waterway, which is crisscrossed by vital sea-lanes through which about $5 trillion in global shipborne trade passes every year and where islets, reefs and atolls are believed to be sitting atop vast energy reserves.

Although saying it is not taking sides in the disputes, the United States has challenged China’s claims, sending warships and spy planes near the artificial islands in so-called freedom of navigation operations.

At the end of security talks in Beijing on Tuesday, China told the United States it should play a constructive role in safeguarding peace in the South China Sea, as US Secretary of State John Kerry called for talks and a peaceful resolution.

Comments both by Kerry and his Chinese counterpart, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, suggested that their governments remained far apart on the South China Sea disputes.

“I reiterated America’s fundamental support for negotiations, and a peaceful resolution based on the rule of law, as well as, obviously, our concern about any unilateral steps by anyone, whichever country, to alter the status quo,” Kerry said during a joint appearance with Chinese officials in the Great Hall of the People.

Yang, who steers Chinese foreign policy and is senior to the foreign minister, said China remained adamantly opposed to an arbitration case brought by the Philippines to assert its claims in the South China Sea.

“This has not changed and will not change,” Yang said, repeating China’s position that it is willing to negotiate over the disputes, but only with each individual country holding a rival claim, rather than collectively.

No enforcement powers

Also on Tuesday, Australian security policy expert Christopher Roberts said the UN court’s ruling was expected to be in favor of the Philippines, but Manila needed its allies and friends to help enforce the ruling.

The UN arbitral court has no powers to enforce its rulings, which have been ignored not a few times.

Roberts, speaking at the South China Sea forum at the DFA, said a bilateral approach might not work to temper the “very disconcerting and assertive behavior of China” in the settlement of disputes.

President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has said he is open to bilateral negotiations with China to solve the dispute, but is waiting for the UN tribunal’s ruling.

“China is the elephant in the room. Taking a multilayered approach at diplomatic level could bring a collection of willing states to signal to China that there are the options available and it should decide on both economic and political gains and losses,” Roberts said in an interview after the forum.

Wang, in the foreign ministry statement, said China “never accepts any recourse to third-party settlement, or any means of dispute settlement that is imposed on it.”

He insisted that territorial sovereignty issues were not subject to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

“It is not only the Chinese government’s consistent policy, but also a clear agreement reached between China and the Philippines, to settle their relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation,” Wang said. With reports from the wires


Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140000/china-wants-ph-to-drop-un-suit#ixzz4B2DPIiEs
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

China urges Philippines to immediately cease arbitral proceedings

@jerry_tan

what China stand to lose regarding the arbitration? we offer a good will gesture as we can escalate to reclaim Scarborough Shoa l, nothing you Pinoy can do about it.

 

[JayMandan]

@jerry_tan

what China stand to lose regarding the arbitration? we offer a good will gesture as we can escalate to reclaim Scarborough Shoa l, nothing you Pinoy can do about it.

For a few Billion dollars for our infrastructures, sure.

 

[Post Colonnial]

why are some Chinese so insult Filipinos? Philippines is economicall below China but socially better developed. No need to look down upon the poor. After all even in China there are very large poor sections

 

[mehboobkz]

UNCLOS is a UNO arm wherein the China maintains its Veto.

What has Philippine's recourse here?
Practically nothing.

 

[21stCentury]

It's the best offer Philippines will get from China. It is a good will gesture.

1. Doesn't matter what the verdict is--China did not participate in the rulings, nor will China acknowledge the outcome.

2. China will not cede an inch of territory or anything to the Philippines. It will not happen, wake up.

3. Philippines is so weak, it has absolutely no way to steal away any territory from China. If it tries, you will have the PLA to answer to.

 

[mehboobkz]

.........China does not have veto power on UNCLOS, veto power only concern the UNSC decision, where UNCLOS parental organisation is UNGA (United Nation General Assembly), none of the 5 UN Permeant Member in the security council have veto power on UNGA issue. You only need a majority to pass on a UNGA decision.



lol, he is a Chinese, you can look at how he post and compare them to some American member here, many Chinese poster here have an American flag but know nothing about current affair in America, most of them have a VPN that route to the US and by-passing the great firewall of China, they aren't actually American, and most of them aren't even in America to begin with.

Any potential Philippine claim/reward. Who will enforce it?

Read US vs Nicaragua at Hague = ICJ, wherein the US lost its case. Later Nicaragua brought the matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States vetoed such resolution.

Ultimately THIS imbroglio will too end up in the UN subsequently, where China will have to Veto, like the US did.

 

[William Hung]

Any potential Philippine claim/reward. Who will enforce it?

Read US vs Nicaragua at Hague = ICJ, wherein the US lost its case. Later Nicaragua brought the matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States vetoed such resolution.

Ultimately THIS imbroglio will too end up in the UN subsequently, where China will have to Veto, like the US did.

Nicaragua vs. US is a UNCLOS arbitration?

 

[William Hung]

@jerry_tan

what China stand to lose regarding the arbitration? we offer a good will gesture as we can escalate to reclaim Scarborough Shoa l, nothing you Pinoy can do about it.

The Ah Q spirit is too strong in this thread. This request from China shows that the PRC govt is scared of the arbitration but people with Ah Q mentality will deceive themselves into thinking that it is just a good will gesture towards the Philippines.

 

[jhungary]

Any potential Philippine claim/reward. Who will enforce it?

Read US vs Nicaragua at Hague = ICJ, wherein the US lost its case. Later Nicaragua brought the matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States vetoed such resolution.

Ultimately THIS imbroglio will too end up in the UN subsequently, where China will have to Veto, like the US did.

That's another question, different than what you said. You said China have the right to veto on UNCLOS and ICJ (Both under UNGA) decision, I am telling you no.

Now you are talking about enforcement. Ok, let's talk about Enforcement of the decision on ICJ/PAC, ICJ/PAC enforcement can be in many form, only military conflict in the name of UN would require a UNSC approval. However, every other enforcement of ICC/PAC decision can be carried out by regional alliance Such as NATO, ASEAN or CSTO) you do not need UNSC approval to enforce ICC/PAC decision, the UN can delegate this responsibility to local alliance, would the local alliance took responsibility, that would be another question.

So, no, UN do not need China permission or any of the P5 to delegate the matter of enforcement to local alliance

Now, going back to your Nicaragua v US case, do you think beside UN, are there any organisation in this world can enforce an ICJ order (Which US is not part of) on America? Would ABC Nations (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) think, yeah, let's go enforce this on America on behalf of the Nicaragua?



.

 

[mehboobkz]

Nicaragua vs. US is a UNCLOS arbitration?

It does not have to be.
It was International Court of Justice at Hague.

The issue here is to implement the UNCLOS decision in fav of Philippines if any.

China wont cede control, hence the Philippines would end up at the UN.

That's another question, different than what you said. You said China have the right to veto on UNCLOS and ICJ (Both under UNGA) decision, I am telling you no.

Now you are talking about enforcement. Ok, let's talk about Enforcement of the decision on ICJ/PAC, ICJ/PAC enforcement can be in many form, only military conflict in the name of UN would require a UNSC approval. However, every other enforcement of ICC/PAC decision can be carried out by regional alliance Such as NATO, ASEAN or CSTO) you do not need UNSC approval to enforce ICC/PAC decision, the UN can delegate this responsibility to local alliance, would the local alliance took responsibility, that would be another question.

So, no, UN do not need China permission or any of the P5 to delegate the matter of enforcement to local alliance.

I do not have to write 1000 words. All I am asking is this:

After the Philippines is awarded the verdict, and China does not cede.

What would be the Philippines recourse?

Which is the crux of the matter.

Now, going back to your Nicaragua v US case, do you think beside UN, are there any organisation in this world can enforce an ICJ order (Which US is not part of) on America? Would ABC Nations (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) think, yeah, let's go enforce this on America on behalf of the Nicaragua?

Same situation would be waiting for Philippines, if China wont comply.
Ending up at UN.

 

[jhungary]

I do not have to write 1000 words. All I am asking is this:

After the Philippines is awarded the verdict, and China does not cede.

What would be the Philippines recourse?

Which is the crux of the matter.

Now, going back to your Nicaragua v US case, do you think beside UN, are there any organisation in this world can enforce an ICJ order (Which US is not part of) on America? Would ABC Nations (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) think, yeah, let's go enforce this on America on behalf of the Nicaragua?

Same situation would be waiting for Philippines, if China wont comply.
Ending up at UN.

Again, I am merely providing a clause to your point, I never said or try to guess what Philippine want to do or willing to do after they have won the arbitration. Let me recap what you asked.

First, you said this

UNCLOS is a UNO arm wherein the China maintains its Veto.

What has Philippine's recourse here?
Practically nothing.

My answer to you is that no, UNCLOS is not an UNO (There are no UNO arm, by the way, only UNSC and UNGA), and China does not have power to veto on UNCLOS decision

Then you done a 180 and asked this

Any potential Philippine claim/reward. Who will enforce it?

Read US vs Nicaragua at Hague = ICJ, wherein the US lost its case. Later Nicaragua brought the matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States vetoed such resolution.

Ultimately THIS imbroglio will too end up in the UN subsequently, where China will have to Veto, like the US did.

My answer is, enforcement does not and/or may not need UN intervention. So no, China does not have the right to veto any enforcement option as long as the Philippine are using outside UN intervention.

Philippine could have asked the US, NATO, ASEAN, or any of the organisation to enforce the law, US alone would be more than enough to enforce the law on China, So, no, even tho I do not know what Filipino want to do when they won, nor would I know or care will they win, the answer to your question is no, and seeing that US and UK invaded Iraq in single-handedly without the UN. China can veto nothing unless Philippine decided to take it to UN, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A MUST

 

[mehboobkz]

Again, I am merely providing a clause to your point, I never said or try to guess what Philippine want to do or willing to do after they have won the arbitration. Let me recap what you asked.

First, you said this



My answer to you is that no, UNCLOS is not an UNO (There are no UNO arm, by the way, only UNSC and UNGA), and China does not have power to veto on UNCLOS decision

Then you done a 180 and asked this



My answer is, enforcement does not and/or may not need UN intervention. So no, China does not have the right to veto any enforcement option as long as the Philippine are using outside UN intervention.

Philippine could have asked the US, NATO, ASEAN, or any of the organisation to enforce the law, US alone would be more than enough to enforce the law on China, So, no, even tho I do not know what Filipino want to do when they won, nor would I know or care will they win, the answer to your question is no, and seeing that US and UK invaded Iraq in single-handedly without the UN. China can veto nothing unless Philippine decided to take it to UN, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A MUST

To enforce a arbitration verdict, you want NATO to be involved?

To do what?
Start a war?

Other than the war, what mechanism or the laws (involved therein) exist under NATO - A military alliance?
Is there any such NATO precedent?

 

[jhungary]

To enforce a arbitration verdict, you want NATO to be involved?

To do what?
Start a war?

Other than the war, what mechanism or the laws (involved therein) exist under NATO - A military alliance?
Is there any such NATO precedent?

Dude, do you even know what are you talking about??

You are saying in the end Philippine have to go to UN to enforce ICC arbitration, then what and why would Philippine go to UN for? UNSC only approach military/peacekeeping related issue, If you got that, you will know why they can approach NATO for the same stuff. NATO is an military organisation but not all decision are involving military action, go read NATO Charter article 2 and 4.

Essentially, it would be like NATO involvement in Libya and Iraq in 1991. NATO itself does not have any interest nor was it harmful to NATO member parties in any way (Hence cannot invoke Article 5), but NATO take up the responsibility from UN in both occasion.

Also, I do not say NATO specifically, more than Likely Philippine would approach ASEAN for that matter.