China's SCS Strategy Thread

plawolf

Lieutenant General
It's not "PRC" territory but China's territory. The PRC won the mandate of heaven in 1949, and is the current custodian of China's civilization, culture, language, and lands. The mandate is always temporary, and sooner or later, the PRC will go the way of the dodo.

Other than being pointlessly inflamitory, what purpose does this random pseudo-philosophical nonsense serve to add to this subject and discussion?

While in general I admire your steadfast adherence to your own views and beliefs, your habit of randomly throwing flame bait barbs out on occasion for no apparent reason other than to goad others into respond in kind is as annoying as it is pointless and puzzling.
 

joshuatree

Captain
Other than being pointlessly inflamitory, what purpose does this random pseudo-philosophical nonsense serve to add to this subject and discussion?

While in general I admire your steadfast adherence to your own views and beliefs, your habit of randomly throwing flame bait barbs out on occasion for no apparent reason other than to goad others into respond in kind is as annoying as it is pointless and puzzling.

I don't find it inflammatory, rather, I find calling it China's territory or Chinese territory as more inclusive. Not everyone who is pro-Chinese is necessarily pro-CCP. Inclusion is more important when it comes to defending sovereignty. Otherwise, it'll just be a repeat of the early post Qing years with factionalism undermining everything.
 

Ultra

Junior Member
.



The key to all this has always been Taiping Island, which is the LARGEST island with sustainable water and life. By all definition it IS an island but due to its strategic importance US and its western allies (especially US, Japan and Philipine) would twist it and call it a rock.



south-china-sea-map-back-page%20copy_zpsykre0zlr.jpg


Taiping Island is in continous control by Taiwan (Republica of CHINA) and given no other claimant has an ISLAND to even sustain water and life naturally, it means SCS is effectively and technically Taiwan's. But because of its strategic importance they (mainly the US, Japan) will say anything, they will probably even say Taiwan is NOT a country so technically they cannot have claim to Taiping Island! LOL! But if they don't recognize Taiwan as a country then it basically means Taiwan is part of China which isn't what they want either. LOLOL.

See below, even the writer claim it is "Itu Aba" when he fully knows it is Taiping Island. The western alliance is already trying to rob Taiwan of Taiping Island and give it to Philippines.

South China Sea: Itu Aba Might Be Key to Philippines v. China
Tiny island will determine the true winner in South China Sea lawfare.

By John Ford
April 30, 2016

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The US war strategists knows in order to put China on a leash in order to control China they have to cage it at SCS, allowing the fact that Taiping is part of CHINA (regardless if it is Republic of China or People's Republic of China) is unfathomable because it voids all their accusations and puts it to the rest.

To be honest I found it super funny and sad that reflect the sad state of the world we live in, that they can bold face calling an island a rock. They might as well Taiwan a rock or reef.

So the western alliances will continue to whitewash this fact. They will do anything to deny that this is a fact. It is truely a sad state for US to stoop this low. I think they would even sell out Taiwan to get what they want by threatening Tsai Ing-wen to give up Taiping island to Philippine. Taiwan will be thrown under the bus as usual. I guarantee it.
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
It's not "PRC" territory but China's territory. The PRC won the mandate of heaven in 1949, and is the current custodian of China's civilization, culture, language, and lands. The mandate is always temporary, and sooner or later, the PRC will go the way of the dodo.

Which, given the average length of successful Chinese dynasties, would be about 200 years later.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I don't find it inflammatory, rather, I find calling it China's territory or Chinese territory as more inclusive. Not everyone who is pro-Chinese is necessarily pro-CCP. Inclusion is more important when it comes to defending sovereignty. Otherwise, it'll just be a repeat of the early post Qing years with factionalism undermining everything.

I do find the last sentence: "The mandate is always temporary, and sooner or later, the PRC will go the way of the dodo" to be pointlessly inflammatory.

The rest of the post, without it, would be fine. But with it, the tone and nature of the post changes entirely.
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source: Xinhua | 2016-06-17 13:45:59 | Editor: huaxia

HONG KONG - A Hong Kong legal organization has queried the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague to deal with an arbitration initiated unilaterally by the Philippines against China over the South China Sea disputes, citing the factual and legal errors of the case.

eca86bd9d54318cd763701.jpg
Daniel R. Fung, chairman of the Hong Kong-based Asia Pacific Institute of International Law (APIIL) receives interview by Xinhua June 16, 2016. [Photo/Xinhua]​

Daniel R. Fung, chairman of the Hong Kong-based Asia Pacific Institute of International Law (APIIL), told Xinhua on Thursday that such an arbitration involving sovereignty issues should not be handled by PCA under the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

On June 6, 2016, the APIIL submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on the arbitration initiated by the Philippines to the tribunal. The brief was endorsed by several solicitors and legal experts from China's Hong Kong, Britain and Australia.

Citing a lot of international cases, the legal document addresses two key issues: jurisdiction of PCA to determine the Philippines' 15 submissions of the arbitration and justiciability of the issues raised in the submissions.

Fung, a renowned senior counsel in China's Hong Kong, said in an interview with Xinhua on Thursday that PCA has obviously overlooked the two issues.

Fung said the South China Sea disputes should be handled through diplomatic and political negotiations rather than an arbitration, especially they should not be handled under the UNCLOS.

"As friend of the court, our motivation to intervene is to maintain the perfection of the International Law system and the perfection of the arbitration tribunal which is one of the instruments of the system," Fung said.

"We are unwilling to see the international law system being jeopardized or its reputation being damaged," he said.

According to Fung, PCA has the responsibility to respond to the amicus curiae brief and the APIIL has requested an oral argument at PCA. However, PCA has not responded to the brief.

The Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration proceedings to the Hague-based PCA against China over the South China Sea disputes in 2013. PCA ruled in 2015 that it has the jurisdiction over the case, taking up seven of the 15 submissions made by Manila.

The Chinese government has reiterated its non-acceptance and non-participation stance in the case.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in its statement issued on June 8 that China has all along stood for peacefully settling territorial and maritime delimitation disputes through negotiations with states directly concerned on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with the International law.

On issues concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, China never accepts any recourse to third party settlement, or any means of dispute settlement that is imposed on it, the statement said.

An amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court) is someone as a third party to a case and offers information that bears on the case but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. This may take the form of legal opinion or testimony and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Other than being pointlessly inflamitory, what purpose does this random pseudo-philosophical nonsense serve to add to this subject and discussion?
.

Because he feels he needs to advertise for his institutional religious propaganda or else he won't go to heaven.:p Therefore ALL of China and the rest of the world must heed to this ridiculous religion or else...sound familiar (like ISIS)? That's basically the underhanded message.
 
Top