South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

[beijingwalker]

If China defies tribunal without tangible loss, Beijing will be the winner

• Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
  |
• Updated: Jul 12, 2016 22:24 IST

Though it lost on all legal fronts in the judgment of the international tribunal over its South China Sea claim, China may yet emerge geopolitically the winner.

The reason: if Beijing suffers no material damage from defying the tribunal’s judgment, the lesson for Southeast Asia will be that the continent’s unipolar moment has arrived – and China is atop the pole.

China’s strident denunciations of the tribunal even before the judgment indicated it knew it would lose. But for Beijing, the nine-dash line saga has been largely an expression of raw power, a signal that Beijing could lay claim to 90% of an international water body and that no one, specifically the United States, could do anything about it.

This has largely been accomplished. For nearly three years an isolationist Barack Obama administration failed to respond to China’s atoll-hopping.

Only in the past one-and-half years has the US responded with naval patrols and airpower, but none of this changes the hard reality of what China has captured on the ground.

The greatest damage has been to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a regional body of largely American allies. China’s territorial claims overlap those of five ASEAN members: the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.

But, say Vietnamese and Singaporean officials, China has been able to divide ASEAN with at least four members ensuring that the grouping has been unable to put up a common front against the nine-dash line.

“ASEAN unity is now a fiction,” a senior Singaporean diplomat said recently.

For those Southeast Asian countries which have thrown in their lot with Beijing, the inability of the US to roll back China’s actions is confirmation that they are on the winning side.

When a former Indian former secretary asked a group of eminent ASEAN people some years ago how they saw the present US-China tussle over the South China Sea, they responded with a military metaphor – “If a Chinese carrier comes our way we will look to the US. If it does not send a carrier in response, then we will welcome the Chinese carrier with open arms.”

If, as many expect, the US will do little other than attack China rhetorically after the judgment, Southeast Asians will see it as further evidence of Beijing’s ascendancy.

Privately, Indian diplomats have been critical of the US response to China’s moves. One senior official described the Chinese grab of the South China Sea as akin to Beijing’s takeover of Tibet.

The Obama administration’s back-and-forth policy on countering China and the US’s inability to get allies like Japan or Australia to join US naval incursions into Chinese maritime claim areas were key reasons India turned down US requests for joint naval patrols in the South China Sea.

“We will oppose China’s claims to the last Vietnamese or Filipino,” was how one official semi-seriously characterised India’s policy.

However, China’s continuing success in its South China Sea snatch and grab policy has been a major catalyst for India to deepen and broaden its economic and military influence among Indian Ocean states.

A policy that will only be enhanced after a tribunal judgment that China, though obligated by treaty to obey, has declared as “null and void”.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...-the-winner/story-3idpqUsleMRjs8QmeoWZCI.html

 

[Joe Shearer]

Again, hard to tell due to no tone.

I know of India's actions in the 50s. What China felt at the time was Nehru clearly felt India was the leading man in the developing world. China had other intentions. India China never had too much conflict anyways, even during the 62 war. This NSG saga is more of an Indian media created phenomenon, there isn't a strong feeling in China for or against India. On many levels I see it as not even about India.

That is not what I said. I was questioning your statement that there is some hostility you feel towards China on the part of India, and pointing out to you that this was an ironic thing for an Indian to hear given the history of India striving to bring China into the comity of nations. In case you are not aware, China, as a Communist power and as a perceived aggressive power which had just opposed the UN, and the US within the UN, and was blacklisted in every international gathering, was isolated. Chinese analysts and Chinese opinion makers have forgotten how it was for your country, when only Russia was (grudgingly) on your side, and have forgotten the jokes about the Albanians, the lone supporters of China, proclaiming that they and the Chinese were 600 million strong.

Your feeling of hostility is strange, considering that your collective memory is so short.

But I don't understand this line of questioning, I don't have a problem with what India did or didn't do, now or before. In fact, this has very little to do with India, and in a sense America. No one wants to give up power, Americans don't and I highly doubt we will welcome anyone in with open arms should we prove to be successful.

The world is what it is.

We welcomed China in with open arms. That is the difference. And it had nothing to do with Nehru's feeling about India being a leader. It had to do with morality. I am sorry to use a strange word and almost a dirty word, but there was such an element. Nothing else that anyone puts forward explains the behaviour of India towards China. And nothing explains China's behaviour towards India.

We were successful enough, and we persuaded a lot of people to talk to China. As far as Nehru feeling India was the leading man, that was his individual ego; for China to build her entire state policy around envy of an individual makes very strange reading. It would appear that Chinese policy, right from the inception of the PRC, has been one of undiluted envy of others. We belong far in the forgotten past; the current Chinese envy and nation desired to be overtaken is the US. Where does it end? Or does it never end?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

We toke the page out of American contemporary book.

Actually it was the U.S. that put a stop to nineteenth century colonialism.
You might of course argue that they replaced it with twentieth century colonialism.

 

[phancong]

Intangible gain by China on SCS with all the newly build island will only enhance China national interest, furthermore China militarize the island adding more defensive layer of maritime protection in the heart of SCS.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Are you that naive? Look at your own 200 years history under the British rule and come back talking me again.

I am more than happy to clarity for you about how the Americans think of the so-called "international ruling".

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 12, 2016

QUESTION: A follow-up. In a statement you said you ask for all parties to respect the rule of law and you support arbitration. Can you give me any example that the United States has ever complied with any of the rulings on international arbitration, particularly when it’s weighed against your interest?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, actually I think I’ve got one in here somewhere. Hang on a second. I know I’ve got one in here.

QUESTION: Don’t look in Nicaragua. (Laughter.)

Sure.

I looked at our 200 year history under British rule. What of it? What in that justifies Chinese behaviour? And what is in it that undermines the statement I made?

If you bring in America, you beg the question: are you aiming to be as hated as America is today, among certain people and in certain countries?

Actually it was the U.S. that put a stop to nineteenth century colonialism.
You might of course argue that they replaced it with twentieth century colonialism.

An excellent answer, but why did you stop where you did? The mind is drawn irresistibly to the possibility of the twenty-first century colonialism.

Are you that naive? Look at your own 200 years history under the British rule and come back talking me again.

I am more than happy to clarity for you about how the Americans think of the so-called "international ruling".

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 12, 2016

QUESTION: A follow-up. In a statement you said you ask for all parties to respect the rule of law and you support arbitration. Can you give me any example that the United States has ever complied with any of the rulings on international arbitration, particularly when it’s weighed against your interest?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, actually I think I’ve got one in here somewhere. Hang on a second. I know I’ve got one in here.

QUESTION: Don’t look in Nicaragua. (Laughter.)

@Genesis

You see the kind of abrasive behaviour that your countrymen exhibit? They cannot speak in a normal way, I suspect not even at gunpoint. They simply cannot. As the British said of the Germans a century ago, they are either at your throat or at your feet.

 

[beijingwalker]

You see the kind of abrasive behaviour that your countrymen exhibit? They cannot speak in a normal way, I suspect not even at gunpoint. They simply cannot. As the British said of the Germans a century ago, they are either at your throat or at your feet.

Maybe that's what makes Germany such a tough nation.

 

[Tiqiu]

I looked at our 200 year history under British rule. What of it? What in that justifies Chinese behaviour? And what is in it that undermines the statement I made?

China does not need any justification for self-defense. Every living thing on this earth needs to be both mentally and physically strong to earn the respect.

f you bring in America, you beg the question: are you aiming to be as hated as America is today, among certain people and in certain countries?

Since you answered my question with question, I ll do the same. Does this country list include you India?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Maybe that's what makes Germany such a tough nation.

Nice. I don't agree, but neat riposte. Appreciated.

@Genesis

Do you see the contrast between this subtle response and the ruffian-like behaviour of other posters, that I complain about?

China does not need any justification for self-defense. Every living thing on this earth needs to be both mentally and physically strong to earn the respect.

Since you answered my question with question, I ll do the same. Does this country list include you India?

Oh no, not at all. We are too humble and too meek to dare to threaten the masters of the universe.

 

[TaiShang]

Use 'peaceful' methods, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Ignore treaties and international agreements, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Draw lines on a map and insist that our point of view is the only one, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do.

Do as we say.

 

[Nilgiri]

Key points of arbitral tribunal’s verdict on PH-China dispute

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/14...nclos-arbitration-spratly-islands-scarborough

Below are five key points included in the summary statement released to the media

(1)Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’:
The Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention.

The Tribunal also noted that, although 2 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.

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’.

(2)Status of Features:
The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.

The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted.

The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.

The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.

(3)Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:
Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access.

The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.

(4)Harm to Marine Environment:
The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.

The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities

(5)Aggravation of Dispute:
Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement.

The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.

BACKSTORY: #InquirerSeven FAQ about the Philippines vs. China arbitration case

The Convention

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) a coastal state needs to have land before they can claim rights to the sea. The international treaty has been signed and ratified by both the Philippines and China.

“You need to have land before you can have rights to the sea. It’s as simple as that.You cannot just have rights to the sea without owning land,” former Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said in a forum at the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center in 2014, citing the basic principle of UNCLOS.

China asserts it has “indisputable sovereignty” and “historic rights” to over two-thirds of the 3.5 million square kilometers South China Sea using its “nine-dash line” claim that overlaps with the UNCLOS-mandated 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The line, encircling an area roughly the size of Mexico, overlaps territories claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. China argues that its historic rights justify the line. But the Philippines insists that these rights cannot be used to define sea borders.

The Philippines says since the South China Sea is mostly sea, there is no land mass or clumps of islands and rocks there large enough to generate sea borders that will span the over 2 million square kilometers China is claiming with its nine-dash line.

In recent months, China has conducted massive land reclamation activities turning submerged reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military equipment and structures.

Unclos, however, does not recognize artificial islands and states that these are not entitled to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea nor a 200 nm eez.

 

[beijingwalker]

If you want a war ,you fight it yourself, if you count on others fighting it for you. You've already lost the war.

 

[TaiShang]

Peaceful rise is hardly the phrase that comes to mind when the peaceful riser strides about the beach kicking sand in other people's faces.

That's a line with high symbolism.

Going along the same lines...

It is exactly what it means. Peaceful rise; you got to be peaceful so that we can rise. If not, we make our own peace and that may cause inconvenience for you.

 

[Tiqiu]

Oh no, not at all. We are too humble and too meek to dare to threaten the masters of the universe.

Your words do not need to travel far to piss off your own countrymen posters who were so not abrasive and so eager to teach China what it should do. China will not obey the ruling, same does Taiwan. So take it or leave it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Do as we say.

To the letter, 伟大领袖

Your words do not need to travel far to piss off your own countrymen posters who were so not abrasive and so eager to teach China what it should do. China will not obey the ruling, same does Taiwan. So take it or leave it.

Which is exactly what I expected to read. Congratulations. You are now perfectly predictable

That's a line with high symbolism.

Going along the same lines...

It is exactly what it means. Peaceful rise; you got to be peaceful so that we can rise. If not, we make our own peace and that may cause inconvenience for you.

Ah, that is so much clearer, and so much more Chinese: be peaceful or we will beat you into peacefulness.

Perfect.

 

[Tiqiu]

Which is exactly what I expected to read. Congratulations. You are now perfectly predictable

Likewise.