Maybe Italy can claim all of Europe since it used to be apart of the Roman Empire and use historical claim.
@jayson8825
Ай бұрын
Exactlty😂
@ujugamestudio
Ай бұрын
Maybe China can claim Taiwan than? Or otherway around, Japan claims China than? Nor of these. The case is, those citizens in the islands can't get under other countries either. Moreover, U.S. is again disturbing in Asia about Taiwan with military aggression as it always been doing since 19's. His territory conflicts must be way beyond thousands of kilometers away from even Japan.
@user-wy7qz7hz6s
Ай бұрын
中国就像一只贪婪的昆虫,霸占了整个农场,尽管还有许多动物需要这些资源来生存。 China is like an insect that greedily claims the entire farm, even though there are many animals that need the resources for their survival.
@Wumao50c
Ай бұрын
@@ujugamestudio China can not claim Taiwan if base on history. Native people of Taiwan are Austronesian not Han Chinese.
@ujugamestudio
Ай бұрын
@@Wumao50c What? Put simply, Taiwan Taiwan is China, they don't even look Austronesian. Never heared of it. They speak pure Chinese Mandarin, even some Taiwanese/Chinese (Indegenous not including in Taiwanese) still claim to be part of mainland China. Not Japan, nor Korea. And Minority doesn't matter. Example - Indian minority has, Tripuras, Shiks doesn't means India isn't claimed by the Majority Hindus. Thus, Taiwan's minority includes Austronesian doesn't means it's not about Taiwan doesn't belongs to the majority called Chinese there. Simple logic, but complicated news in BBC.
@mudshovel289
Ай бұрын
Just look at that pic. It just looks ridiculous. Their claim goes right next to the beach of other countries.
@ericpoochie
Ай бұрын
😂😂so crazy cummunist Chinese 😂
@830mm
Ай бұрын
If you dig up the history books of Britain and France 200 years ago, this region has always belonged to China. Why can the United States have Hawaii, which is far away from itself? And China cannot have the ocean right at its doorstep?
@SmartBearTeacher
Ай бұрын
Yep. China has less than a handful of overseas bases, none of which are located in South China Sea. Whereas the United States has over 400+ overseas military bases, in Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc, surrounding China. "Any country that host a military base with US forces is a vassal state. No matter how independent their government is. Foreign forces in your territory are a declaration of submission and dependency." -Cristian A. Rodriguez
@ericpoochie
Ай бұрын
@@SmartBearTeacher 😆😆 whatever Chinese cummunist is greedy
@mudshovel289
Ай бұрын
@@SmartBearTeacherFor bases that don’t have the consent of the host nation, I agree with you, unless they are vital to the security of the United States like the one in Syria which is used for drone strikes on ISIS. But other bases like the countries you mentioned are totally fine because those countries gave permission to the United States, and they don’t care if some overseas chanfei calls them vassals.
@sunnyzc8545
Ай бұрын
You realise Russia does not recognise China's claims on the South China Sea....they have just agreed to help Vietnam build oil platforms on the disputed sea.
@oceanwave4502
Ай бұрын
Sacrificing the whole lifeline (China) for a small entity (Vietnam), what is Russia's rationale here? 🤨
@AAAAAA-tj1nq
Ай бұрын
@sunnyzc you do realise that what you said is false. Russia is dependent on China more than ever now
@BroJohana
Ай бұрын
China is an entirely different society with the past barbaric history of Slavery, Colonialism, Colonization, Imperialism, etc. 🤷
@Bubba-q2b
Ай бұрын
@@BroJohana You mean all those dynasties of emperors and warlords.
@AAAAAA-tj1nq
Ай бұрын
@@BroJohana you confusing that with western countries you gen deer liquid
@wynn3077
Ай бұрын
There’s always one neighbour who keeps causing trouble.
Yeah, and that neighbour is everywhere on the globe with their military bases: USA.
@markmaras7970
Ай бұрын
@@user-pt6hq7ky7t bro he didn't even State what country it was!! You got hit by that words!!. Your self, itself know country is that, and it's yours. In PH we says it in a way " Bato-Bato sa langit matamaan wag magalit". And you got hit by it.
@markmaras7970
Ай бұрын
@@kremigmitsahne7197 bro don't cry.😂😂
@kremigmitsahne7197
Ай бұрын
@@markmaras7970 no need to cry, but to celebrate and to be positive. I'm very happy with all the big changes that are happening globally. The constant meltdowns and hysteria we see from western media is a sign that history is progressing into the right direction. You should be celebrating too.
@necouhgr
Ай бұрын
most of the south china sea aint even close to china🤣
@M3.Lorenzo
Ай бұрын
Neither was Philippines close to Washington D.C., when it became a US colony. 🤣
@necouhgr
Ай бұрын
@@M3.Lorenzo womp womp, sounds like skill diff maybe the Philippines should just get gud
@zellls-nk5bb
Ай бұрын
你们离中国也不远
@conti-vl6tx
Ай бұрын
Well, in fact in international law, neither continuity nor proximity is the basis under international law for acquiring territory. In fact, many countries have territories far away from their mainland and their metropolitan areas but also in some cases very close to other shores of other countries. The Ren'ai Jiao has always been part of China's Nansha Qundao and China has been making territory claims to the entire Nansha Qundao including Ren'ai Jiao and their claim is also recognized by many countries in the whole world. Actually for the Philippines since the 1970's, they tried to invaded and illegally occupied by force and on some of the features of China's Nansha Qundao. Philippines actions, illegal actions, cause many troubles ever since.
@Russkie-f8p
Ай бұрын
so what?
@user-ey3lo1vy4d
Ай бұрын
What national integrity you have said - China has no rights on their overlapping claims in the South China Sea and overlapping the EEZ of the other country including the Philippines EEZ ‼️
@yerri5567
Ай бұрын
@user-ey3lo1vy4d They have sovereign rights. They claim sovereignty over the islands/reefs/shoals etc
@TasteBudTreasures-hq2nw
Ай бұрын
@@yerri5567 just because you claim it does not mean you have rights-that is just gunboat diplomacy. Imagine your coast guard guarding reefs inside the EEZ of other countries.
@fungj4126
Ай бұрын
@@yerri5567 Taiwan is a country, but Taiwan has no right in Philippine economic zone.
@jasonjean2901
Ай бұрын
@@TasteBudTreasures-hq2nw China's 9-dash line is as old as the Philippines itself. Both came into existence in 1946. UNCLOS only came into existence in 1982. Also, the 2016 tribunal had no legal basis; China opted out of third-party arbitration, as per UNCLOS, in 2006. Worse, the Philippines also opted out of third-party arbitration in UNCLOS just like China did, making them hypocrites as well as liars.
@user-my2bc8cs4d
Ай бұрын
中国有主权的时候你们还是殖民地
@Susspect69
Ай бұрын
China has territorial disputes with all its neighbors lol and if south china sea belongs to china then according to that logic all of indian ocean belongs to india...
@thela255
Ай бұрын
india quite literally have no historical claim to the ocean unlike China who used to control these from piracy. It was the Europeans who named it indian ocean
@japjungho4645
Ай бұрын
You need strength to be assertive at your dispute. That's something India doesn't have.
@lifesjourney0919
Ай бұрын
just because china had strong military they can claim what ever they want?
@user-go2fl1ow2k
Ай бұрын
Indian ocean has little to do with India (British Raj)
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@japjungho4645 you missed the point….. India does NOT own the entire Indian Ocean. Bangladesh does NOT own the entire Bay of Bengal. Mexico does NOT own the entire Mexican Gulf. Just because it was named after you doesn’t mean it’s for you to own
@reggie2261
Ай бұрын
Northeastern Asians again going south to Malay waters claiming ownership, they don’t learn the first time
@mudshovel289
Ай бұрын
I feel like Northeast Asians are those Siberian natives, Koreans, Japanese, and maybe some parts of China? But the whole China is too big to simply be called northeast Asian. They also border Vietnam.
@aungkyawhtet4175
Ай бұрын
Because Xi Jing Ping thinks he is Aquman😂
@SmartBearTeacher
Ай бұрын
Aye. China has less than a handful of overseas bases, none of which are located in South China Sea. Whereas the United States has over 400+ overseas military bases, in Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc, surrounding China. "Any country that host a military base with US forces is a vassal state. No matter how independent their government is. Foreign forces in your territory are a declaration of submission and dependency." -Cristian A. Rodriguez
@halhal-my4pt
Ай бұрын
He offered Obama to demilitarize the area if USA would do the same. Obama said no. parrot!
@enpi-me
Ай бұрын
And what is Joe Biden thinking ? Nothing : he can't anymore ! Opps sorry : can't be mocking the elders 🤭
@villiamfangy6205
Ай бұрын
You can sit there crying, but it's not gonna change the fact that china got control over these islands.
@da5families
Ай бұрын
Are you a bot!?🤖
@jaker3151
Ай бұрын
I've drawn a nine dash line around the moon, now it belongs to me. Ridiculous?... exactly.
@williamMaezawa
Ай бұрын
Yeah exactly but that's China point of view. If they say a dog is a cat then it's a cat!
@MarkYeung1
Ай бұрын
That's why China has such a poor reputation.
@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi
Ай бұрын
You need to improve your knowledge instead of just assuming according to your idea.
@shkunwen
Ай бұрын
Attacking China with false lies
@zzZHua
Ай бұрын
When your country has the ability to go up there, it's yours
@Purowalangkwenta
Ай бұрын
One country here is greedy. And you know who.
@user-rj9mj7nq3u
Ай бұрын
China
@abbasganesan
Ай бұрын
USA
@Justsaying-cg2nz
Ай бұрын
@@abbasganesan They are capable not greedy.
@jmchng9662
Ай бұрын
By invoking international law, the United States has officially expanded its geographical territory by one million square kilometers - an area nearly 60 percent the size of Alaska. And the best part the vile US still refuses to rectify UNCLOS.
@beanmanbutchina
Ай бұрын
@@Justsaying-cg2nzYeah there was definitely no greed involved in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, South America, Vietnam or Korea!
@Pinoy.Potential
Ай бұрын
I am from the Philippines. When I was young, our school used to teach us the great story of the "Battle of Yultong." The story depicts how brave the Filipino soldiers were 900 Filipino soldiers faced off against an entire army of 50,000 PLA soldiers and won. But now as I get older and witness it with my own eyes, I see the complete opposite. What I see now is the Filipino navy and coast guard running away, waving the white flag or not even showing up when a PLA coast guard (Not even the PLA Navy that is a million times stronger) enters the Philippines' exclusive zone to steals oil, gas, resources, and fish, while harassing Filipino fishermen. It's truly shameful and contrary to the fairytale of the "Battle of Yultong."
@Internalview44
Ай бұрын
Ja es ist rechtig
@Hkchinese888
Ай бұрын
Your teacher failed you, pitiful
@misterbig9025.
Ай бұрын
Another cheenk bot from shitguo 🇨🇳
@Budywieser
Ай бұрын
How much is your master the CCP paid you, pinoy Cowards? 😂
@earthwormsally2075
Ай бұрын
You don't need to disguise yourself West Taiwanese.
@JA-pn4ji
Ай бұрын
Firstly, the SCMP interlocutor interjects his words on China with, “Harping on …”, and “… the psyche….” Indicating a lack of neutrality and where his views lie. Secondly, the background commentator ‘highlights in yellow’ parts of the arbitration conclusion that, “China’s claims to historic rights or other sovereign rights … are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect …” to reach his view that the arbitration ruling concluded that, “China’s historic claims were insufficient to claim sovereignty over SCS Islands.” A proper reading, with text that wasn’t highlighted, would reveal what the arbitration Tribunal actually said; “China’s claims to historic rights or other sovereign rights … *with respect to maritime areas* of the SCS encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’… are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect …” The ruling is qualified, it does not say, “China’s historic claims were insufficient to claim sovereignty over SCS Islands.” as the SCMP background commentator will have us believe. It addresses only maritime areas. After making this deceit the commentator then segways into the truth about the arbitration ruling on, “rocks and EEZ, then he segways into another lie by misinterpreting this truth His technique is to deceive with an incomplete truth and use it to back up the lie he wants to broadcast. *My media disinformation is bigger than yours* The Philippine's claims are well-publicized in the West, it essentially bases its claims on UNCLOS. It is important to state that this organisation came into being in 1982 before which Taiwan (as the ROC), Vietnam, and the Philippines had militarily occupied Islands in the SCS in the 1970s[1]. Clashes between Taiwan (ROC) and the previous Marcos-ruled Philippines occurred in the 1970s. In 1993, in my view, to boost its membership UNCLOS introduced the concept of the EEZ. This rule provided legitimacy for Philippines's expansion of its territorial ambitions into the SCS. Prior to this Philippine sovereignty was delimited by the then International rule of ‘12nm territorial Seas’ and also the terms of its Independence treaty which relinquished U.S. sovereignty over the Philippines and recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines[2] (signed by the United States and Philippines) and contained in the 1946 Treaty of Manila which inter alia enshrined recognition of the 1898 Treaty of Paris[3], that in turn provided precise geographical coordinates for the US colony of the Philippines[4]. Philippine arguments against this constraint claim the subsequent 1900 Treaty of Washington expanded the US-controlled areas of the Philippine archipelago. *Yankee doodle dandy* However, the Treaty of Washington[5] only addressed in-name territories marking the Northern and Southern boundary of US-controlled Philippines while incorporating the catchall of “to any and all islands belonging to the Philippines archipelago lying outside the lines described in Article III[Treaty of Paris] and particularly to the islands of Cagayan Sulu and Sibutu … agrees shall be comprehended in the cessation as fully as if … expressly included in those lines”, making the matter subject to interpretation. Is the South China Sea part of the Philippines archipelago? Did the US recognise this as so at the time? And, if the US drafters of the Cessation Treaty considered it so, why didn’t they establish sovereign and administrative control in the area which would have grounded US claims in the area and seen off competing claims? The latter point is important because the Japanese would invade the area in 1938[6], and clearly an invasion of US territory would amount to a declaration of war in 1938. The US would remain neutral and not declare war on Japan until the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack. We can rightfully discern that the US did not consider this area as part of its Treaty rights from either the Treaties of Paris or Washington. CONTD in Replies
@JA-pn4ji
Ай бұрын
Part II *Spain: Philippines, I’m not your daddy* The second Philippines historical claim is easily dismissed. The Philippines attempts to assert historical title in the SCS through the 1734 Murillo Velarde map. The history of this map creates uncertainty as to its provenance. The copper plates used to engrave the maps were allegedly captured by the British and taken to London where copies were made. The copper plates themselves were destroyed effectively eliminating its unimpeachable provenance. The map itself is vague and imprecise and does not clearly identify disputed South China Sea Islands as Spanish possessions. Nevertheless, the Philippines did not obtain its sovereignty and independence from Spain. It obtained it from the United States, and the United States in turn obtained title over the Philippines through the 1898 Treaty of Paris. There was and is no transfer [document or verbal] of Spanish territory to the modern state of the Philippines, destroying claims of succession to Spanish territory. *No man’s land* The third Philippines claim is through an exploration in the 1950s and a Presidential Decree, promulgated in 1971, claiming the Kalayaan group of islands under the doctrine of Res nullius (ineffective sovereignty). Clearly, there were other independent states with an interest in those islands predating the 1950s, not least China which as the PRC lacked the then naval means to assert its sovereignty. There were however clashes between Taiwan (ROC) and the Philippines in 1971 establishing effective sovereignty from the former. *I heard it from ‘Treaty’ vine* Taiwan maintains the same claims as the PRC, like China, Taiwan still claims the whole of the South China Sea, the Spratlys and Paracels, and deploys its military to occupy the largest land mass in the Spratlys. Taiwan’s claims are historical and underpinned by its arguable view that it is the successor state to the ROC, and treaty rights [Japanese surrender document[7] and Potsdam Declaration[8] (enshrines Cairo declaration[9])] from WW2 assigned the ROC the responsibility of receiving Japanese surrenders in that area. In effect, transferring sovereignty back to China. The US (then occupying the Philippines at the time) again raised no objections. China’s claim mirrors Taiwan's except that China asserts that it is the treaty successor to the ROC as the island of Taiwan was not incorporated into the ROC until the Treaty of Taipei in 1951, by which time the ROC had expired as a territorial concept. China’s one billion+ people cannot be denied their ‘historical rights’ through the Western-backed ‘sovereign succession’ counterclaims of Taiwan and its 22 million people - bearing in mind Taiwan was a Japanese colony and not a part of the ROC at the signing of the relevant treaties. This assertion also finds authority in the 1971 UN recognition of China (PRC), an explicit authoritative ‘sovereign succession’ recognition ignored by the tribunal’s line of reasoning. *My Tribunal or your Tribunal, we gonna set the world on fire … iko iko ani* The Philippines filed a suit at UNCLOS in 2013. China raised jurisdictional objections on the basis that the matter was territorial sovereignty outside the scope of UNCLOS, and declined to participate. To escape the jurisdictional challenge from China, both the Tribunal and the claimant (the Philippines) purported to not deal with issues delimiting maritime boundaries nor delve into questions of sovereignty. This was declared by the tribunal in a preamble setting forth the scope of the tribunal’s deliberation. China specifically made a declaration in 2006 to exclude maritime boundary delimitation from its acceptance of compulsory dispute settlement, and it “has purported to not deal with delimiting maritime boundaries”. China argued that the essence of the subject matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over the relevant maritime features in the South China Sea[10]. And that, both China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the SCS, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations i.e. Both parties were already engaged in bilateral mediation and there was no need or cause for another venue of arbitration. The Philippines[11] in turn stated that it, “does not seek in this arbitration a determination of which Party enjoys sovereignty over the islands claimed by both of them. Nor does it request a delimitation of any maritime boundaries.” Pursuant to this, the Tribunal issued its ‘Award on Jurisdiction’. This was a very clever ruse to bypass jurisdictional issues which would then be revisited substantively by the Tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal, proceeding with the first two submissions made by the Philippines, considered the validity of China’s claim to historic rights in the maritime region of the South China Sea and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’[12]. “The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.[13]” However, the Tribunal also concluded - retracing its steps, that its jurisdiction was limited to the claims of historic rights on the maritime region and not to the land masses in the South China Sea[14]. This is important because the latter [on Convention superseding historic rights] becomes an opinion (legal phrase: Obiter dicta) and not part of its ruling. The other way to interpret the Tribunal’s logic is that it was deductively asserting its interpretation of, “… the Convention superseded any historic rights …” as the foundation on which it builds its final ruling. This is also flawed and transfers flawed logic into its ruling. Why? Because the customary practice of nation-state members of UNCLOS has been [like the French below] to incorporate exceptions to UNCLOS rules on geographic and historical grounds. If UNCLOS superseded all [particularly historical] rights then why does the Convention allow for these exceptions? The tribunal hedges its bet on this matter by ending, " ... in excess of the limits imposed therein." This catch-all, addresses limitations imposed by the Convention on itself, including nation-state's right to create exceptions, and makes this "deductive assertion" an irrelevant restatement deceptively disguised as an authoritative legal principle [for the Case or on which the Case stands], and thus 'obiter dicta'.
@JA-pn4ji
Ай бұрын
Part III *I say, old chap, that's just not cricket* Next, the Tribunal looked at the Philippines’ submissions concerning the nature of the features in the South China Sea. According to the Tribunal, “This is not a dispute concerning sovereignty over the features... Nor is this a dispute concerning sea boundary delimitation.”[15] Again the tribunal upholds that parties (China and others) can have sovereignty over sea features with 12nm territorial sea delimitations. Indeed, on Jan. 4th, 2021, British patrol vessels expelled an Irish fishing trawler[20] within 12 nautical miles of the 'sea feature' [in the North Sea] Rockall. By exercising territorial sea control, the British have established that 'sea features' can be sovereign territory and exert at least a 12-nautical mile territorial sea exclusion. On the substantive matter, the Tribunal concluded that “rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and so have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” *Quelle catastrophe* However, French claims to islets [Juan de Nova, Bassas da India, and Tromelin, the latter off the Mauritian coast] in the Madagascan channel refute adherence to this ruling. France bases its claims to these islets on historical title and its argument mirrors that of China in the SCS namely that, French “acts of sovereignty and administration over this islet... even before the independence of Mauritius [in 1968] ... without UK [the previous Mauritian colonising authority] protest”. Relevantly, France established in 1976 [16](see Decree no. 78-146 of 3 February 1978, establishing, pursuant to the Act of 16 July 1976, an economic zone[17] off the coasts of the islands of Tromelin, Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa, and Bassas da India. Furthermore, France, upon ratifying UNCLOS in 1996, declared that it does not accept any of the dispute settlement procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, of UNCLOS with respect inter alia to “[d]isputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles”[18] The opinion of the Philippines SCS case, viewed from within a historical global context, appears to suggest that historic rights can only be enjoyed by post-colonising European states, and also ironically negates Philippine claims to Sabah. *Historical claims: To be or not to be* The British [historic] claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is based on the argument that “Britain has “continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered” the Islands since 1833. It also bases its case on the principle of self-determination, that people of territories such as the Falklands have the right to choose their own future and status. Chinese claims are also grounded in the ‘Consolidated Map of Territories, Geography, and Capitals of Past Dynasties’ prepared in 1402 by Li Hui and Quan Jin of the Ming Dynasty. The South China Sea islands were all included within the boundary of China. It is the U-shaped delineations on this map that gave rise to the controversial nine-dash line. The dashes represented the maximum extent of historical claims to land territory [and modern-day sea features] in the area. It represents part but not the entirety of the basis for China’s claims in the SCS. It is encapsulated in the words ‘9-dash line’, and, regarding historic title, the British 'Falklands' argument is no different from the French argument above and the Chinese '9-dash' argument that they exercised control before the independence of the modern nation-states of Argentina, Madagascar/Mauritius, and the Philippines. The tribunal calls into question their claims to maritime regions in their respective territories. The Tribunal erred in ruling that the ‘9-dash’ line had no basis in law because to assert so, is to overrule all other historical claims [to maritime regions] as having no basis in law. Secondly, the all-encompassing manner and the textual content with which the Tribunal announced this decision was designed to give the many interested legal laypersons a false impression [many, especially in the Philippines and with the help of the media, read it as an affirmation of their sovereign territorial claims in the SCS, and a repudiation of China's] outside the jurisdictional context of the Tribunal's authority. Thus, it is important to reiterate that the Tribunal decision (and indeed its jurisdiction) was restricted to maritime regions. It questioned China’s claim to maritime historical rights[19] in the region, and established that China’s state practice does not show that China had been enjoying any historical rights in the South China Sea; rather, it was enjoying the freedom of the high seas and since it did not create bar to other states’ usage of the same, it could not be understood as being a historical right. The tribunal muddied the water, and attempts to confuse the reader. It implicitly distinguishes between the historical-PRC and historical-ROC, by claiming that undisclosed evidence, “does not show [PRC] China had been enjoying any historical rights in the South China Sea”, and the Tribunal did not consider or provide supplementary historical/archaeological evidence to contradict China’s historical evidence [of the fishing and mapping of the area] to the contrary view. In short, with its 'historical rights' conclusion, it deliberately treated China's history as beginning with the PRC.
@JA-pn4ji
Ай бұрын
Part IV *Running in the Family* I stated earlier, that China considers itself the successor state to the ROC [See *I heard it from ‘Treaty’ vine* Paragraph 3]. This fact has internal territorial (since 1949) recognition and since 1971 has been an external multilateral fact. The fact that the ROC received the surrender of Japanese troops in the SCS in 1945, including the surrender of Japanese naval ships and submarine bases that exercised maritime control in the SCS [without objections from the US], establishes by successorship that China had rights in the SCS; what 'better bar to other states', than to receive both naval and military surrender of an occupying power that exercised maritime control in the area. To ignore this historical fact (and others) - as the Tribunal did, is to assert that China (PRC) lacks ‘sovereign succession’ legitimacy to historical acts of sovereignty by prior rulers of mainland China. If a father validly owns/claims a piece of territory [through historical rights or acts] and dies; to deny his only son ownership rights/claims is to either strike out ownership rights/claims [through historical rights or acts] in the entirety or implicitly disinherit and thus deny the son’s legitimate progeny. It is the Tribunal’s inconsistency in this regard, that I address by commenting: providing examples from the territorial assertions of the British, French, and indeed the Philippines. As well as providing the SCS background history and addressing the rampant media disinformation on the Tribunal’s ruling. Finally, China has valid analogical arguments, that the customary territorial behaviour of Western states across the world legitimizes its claims, which is a powerful rebuttal of the Philippine Tribunal decision. A law [ruling] that is not obeyed is no law at all. *REFERENCES* [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea Paragraph 4 [2] en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Manila_(1946) Article I [3] en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Manila_(1946) Article VII [4] digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc276267/m1/6/ Article III [5] maint.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/b-es-ust000011-0623.pdf Sole Article [6] www.cfr.org/timeline/chinas-maritime-disputes#:~:text=Japan%20Invades%20South%20China%20Sea%20Islands,-Japanese%20troops%20marching&text=After%20claiming%20exclusive%20rights%20over,Hainan%20Island%20the%20following%20February. Paragraph 1 [7] www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/surrender-of-japan#:~:text=On%20September%202%2C%201945%2C%20Japanese,the%20complete%20capitulation%20of%20Japan.Article of Surrender, Paragraph 6 [8] www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html Paragraph 8 [9] digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/cairo-declaration Paragraph 3 [10] rsilpak.org/2017/case-brief-on-the-south-china-sea-arbitration/#_ftnref8 Paragraph 8 [11] rsilpak.org/2017/case-brief-on-the-south-china-sea-arbitration/#_ftnref8 Paragraph 9 [12]Ibid, Paragraph 11 [13]Ibid, Paragraph 12 [14]Ibid, Paragraph 12 [15]Ibid, Paragraph 14 [16] www.ejiltalk.org/the-south-china-sea-moves-to-the-indian-ocean-conflicting-claims-over-the-tromelin-islet-and-its-maritime-entitlements/ Paragraph 5 [17] www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/01/18/qu-est-ce-que-cette-ile-de-tromelin-qui-fait-autant-reagir_5064820_4355770.html Paragraph 2 (See main picture) [18] www.ejiltalk.org/the-south-china-sea-moves-to-the-indian-ocean-conflicting-claims-over-the-tromelin-islet-and-its-maritime-entitlements/ Paragraph 8 [19] rsilpak.org/2017/case-brief-on-the-south-china-sea-arbitration/#_ftnref8 Paragraph 11 [20] euroweeklynews.com/2021/01/06/irish-fishing-boat-boarded/
@eatingbatsoupforaliving7872
Ай бұрын
So much yapping for a wumao bot that has no legal access to KZitem, let alone comment here
@rcbrascan
Ай бұрын
The Tribunal invalidated China's 9-dash line but it also invalidated Philippines' SCS claim on the Kalayaan Island Group based on the same reasoning. So the PH government did not accept the Tribunal ruling but made it sound to its people that they won.
@deltaboss1190
Ай бұрын
I wonder why many SEA nations have not criticised China as much as The West. Plus, western countries have been making more efforts in countering piracy and improving our waterways. While SEA nations have been plagued with corruption and mismanagement in turn, we couldn't afford the best military assets and improve technologically, educationally, and especially economically. We truly have wasted our years when China was a weak country and did not pose a threat to our waters now we pay the price.
@conti-vl6tx
Ай бұрын
Do you know why all SEA countries work and cooperate well with China except the Philippines? I'll tell you if you don't know why
@niphanif
Ай бұрын
Yeah same as Malaysian Muslims never condemn China just because of China sided with Palestine..
@deltaboss1190
Ай бұрын
@@conti-vl6tx Ok, tell me why. If you know so much about it.
@lvjinbin28
Ай бұрын
OK, let me tell you why. First of all, ROC was the largest contributor during World War II. KMT and CCP eliminated more Japanese fascists, while all Southeast Asian countries were all Western colonies during World War II, and the local Western colonial armies surrendered to Japan in 1942, and later Japan surrendered because of the Allied force counterattack, Therefore, the West and the Soviet Union let the ROC navy take over the South China Sea in 1946, not French Indochina or the American Philippines, and only the victors could divide the spoils. The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty signed in 1952 Article 2 It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.
If the United States 🇺🇸 does not acknowledge Taiwan as independent, it should not provide military resources, it is only internal affair of China, the U.S🇺🇸 is in no position to interfere. 👎🇺🇸
@conti-vl6tx
Ай бұрын
US arms sales to Taiwan region seriously violate the One-China Principle and the three China-US joint communiques, especially the August 17 Communique. Lately the US and the Taiwan authorities have been stepping up military collusion. A delegation of 25 US arms dealers swarmed to the island and held with the Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities the "defense forum". It is further proof that the US is turning Taiwan into a "powder keg" which only spells trouble for Taiwan compatriots. And they have made clear their position. As the "forum" was being held, people from all walks of life gathered nearby to protest the warmongers peddling conflict, oppose those soliciting US support for independence and opening the door to the devil, call on young people in Taiwan to refuse to be enlisted, and voice support for one China on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and cross-Strait peace. The DPP authorities need to hear these voices and immediately stop trading on Taiwan compatriots' fundamental interests for selfish gains. US should abide by the one-China Principle and the three China-US joint communiques, stop arms sales to and military contact with Taiwan, and stop creating factors that could cause tensions in the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese will take strong and resolute measures to firmly defend their sovereignty and security interests. Any external forces that interfere in China's internal affairs and undermine peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait will bear the consequences and pay for the erroneous acts.
@ronaldlalisan5592
Ай бұрын
Philippines has been fishing in SCS for 2000 yrs as well only difference is china has been rule by chinese dynasty while Filipino are scatter tribes which no sign of unity. If they had such evidence why didn't show in UNCLOS? Aren't a china signatory as well.
@rob3539
Ай бұрын
You conveniently ignore the fact that its all about the international economic zone/ territory rights that the dispute is mostly about and a country having a dynasty as opposed to localized tribal rights has no relevance to that at all.
@ronaldlalisan5592
Ай бұрын
@@rob3539 so you're saying that people their who fish and sailing in those waters has no legal right because they only a local tribes because they weren't a country yet? That's you're logic in those times. Then what gives china the right now to militarize the illegal occupy spartly islands and stopping fisher folk just because they base their claim in ancient times. They haven't show a single map in UNCLOS to prove SCS belongs to them. Just because china sailing or passing or fishing in international waters doesn't mean it belongs to them, other countries too who's also been sailing and fishing near china EEZ in ancient times but they never claim it.
@Silent_Assasin
Ай бұрын
@@ronaldlalisan5592Exactly and the funny part is this Chinese bot account keep saying that china already a country thousand of years ago when in the reality there's no co called Chinese state back then.
@M_Jono
Ай бұрын
any documented paper ? no
@roadblocker2024
Ай бұрын
China told Philippines they only put shelter for their fisherfolks for these reef that's why Philippines agreed but later they made it militarized.
@pushslice
Ай бұрын
Horrific, bullying activities the eerie parallels & similarities to the destructive behavior of 1930s imperial Japan now being seen CLEARLY by anyone worldwide who comprehends history. It appears that Beijing is dead-set the history books shall forget others before them , and instead imprint THEM as Asian history’s all-time great hated pariah. Seems it’s a quest that's working out quite well...
@shkunwen
Ай бұрын
Your hatred and attacks are useless! Territorial disputes exist everywhere in the world! It is ridiculous to compare China with Japan in 1937! Japan invaded China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and merged with South Korea after 1937, and massacred local residents! China only has maritime disputes with Southeast Asian countries! So it is wrong for you to make terrorist remarks! On the contrary, the Philippines has a record of massacring fishermen in maritime disputes. On May 10, 2013, Filipinos shot and killed Taiwanese fishermen.
@pushslice
Ай бұрын
@@shkunwen Uhhh…not ridiculous. at all. not remotely even. It’s …all there, for all peace-loving, free & democra people of the world to see. And..? they’ve agreed. But You must not be one of those, along with having a very weak grasp of history. Pity. sorry…that’s on YOU, not on us. Do better !!
@shkunwen
Ай бұрын
@@pushslice You repeat the false information three times, and what you say is still false! You numb yourself with false information every day! What I said is the fact that it happened! China has never started a war in the past 30 years! Some democratic countries have started countless wars on this earth in the past 30 years! Repeat again that Japan, the fascist axis power in World War II, launched a massacre in Asia!
@andricrypto2852
Ай бұрын
@@shkunwen why so triggered? lol China is only "disputing" for now because US presence in the area acts as a balancing power, same case with Taiwan. Even right now they are building military bases in disputed islands. If the US suddenly collapses. I assure you that China will invade Taiwan and brazenly escalate the dispute or even land troops in SE Asian countries. China is just waiting for the perfect opportunity.
@lvjinbin28
Ай бұрын
@@pushslice OK, 11dashline is WWII order, ROC got it because ROC was biggest contributor in Asia in WWII, that's why both West and Soviet let ROC navy to control South China Sea after Japan withdrew, do you want to rewrite WWII order by talk? The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty signed in 1952 Article 2 It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.
@user-hc6df8bc4j
Ай бұрын
Next china claim thepacific ocean because of history 😂😂😂
@rob3539
Ай бұрын
It will claim Australia as there is some evidence that Chinese fishing boats went as far as southern Australia in centuries past.
@PainkillerChinese
Ай бұрын
咳咳,如果太平洋是我们中国的 那么你的国家就是属于我们中国的啦,多去读读书😂😂😂
@PainkillerChinese
Ай бұрын
@@rob3539咳咳,你真的是一点都不聪明,我相信我们中国的船一定到过你的国家,所以你的国家是属于中国。多读点书,I want to ask online.😂😂
@linhkienmaytinh
Ай бұрын
The moon might be the next
@PainkillerChinese
Ай бұрын
@@user-hc6df8bc4j you are so stuiped。
@RoadRage62
Ай бұрын
Aquaman should act now 😂😂😂
@lyttlebee
Ай бұрын
You may want to find out why KMT or ROC claimed the 11 dash line years before PRC did too. It made sense that PRC simply succeeds what ROC claimed to be its territory and waters, including South China Sea and Taiwan, as the civil war resulted in an ultimate change of regime.
@shundi4264
Ай бұрын
Philippines claiming a disputed island with a rusty ship is hardly any international order.
@littlesenorita1488
Ай бұрын
It's not just tge rusty ship. They have a treaty to prove it. Not like China with only imaginary line 😂
@shundi4264
Ай бұрын
@@littlesenorita1488 Spanish-American Treaty clearly specified Philippines limits and did not include Nansha islands in South China Sea.
@littlesenorita1488
Ай бұрын
@@shundi4264 it was included in Treaty of Washington in 1900. The treaty amended the 1898 Treaty of Paris by including several islands outside of the bounds of the 1898 treaty still under Spanish possession, citing three maps published during the Spanish colonial era which included the two disputed areas (spratly islands and scarboroagh shoal) as part of the Philippine territory. That's why PH win in the unlos 2016. You didn't know that? Your historical education in China must have been selective.
@shundi4264
Ай бұрын
@@littlesenorita1488 When China claimed sovereignty over those reefs, Philippines was still not a country. Moreover, Spain or the US, which colonized the Philippines at that time, also had never claimed sovereignty over those reefs. In international law, the sovereignty over uninhabited island belongs to whoever first discovers and declares it.
@shundi4264
Ай бұрын
@@littlesenorita1488 In 1946 upon the declaration of Philippines independence, the United States reminded the Philippines that the Nansha Islands (Spratly) territory belongs to China.
@nguyentandat2001
23 күн бұрын
Some ignorant Chinese are trying to create stories and lies about the situation in the SCS. They deliberately condemn Vietnam, the Philippines and some other countries for their ridiculous sovereignty claims, this is an argument to distract public opinion by Beijing to limit the international community from criticizing them. But everyone should know one thing that the sovereignty disputes that Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia declare are all disputes over the continental shelf or extended territorial sea, this dispute area is not large and ASEAN countries still negotiating. We don't dispute each other over the EEZ, an important area of each country's security. It's China that is the aggressor and ridiculously claims unreasonable sovereignty over the entire the SCS and right next to the doorstep of ASEAN countries.
@taiwanstillisntacountry
Ай бұрын
The only 3 independent countries during WW2 were, Thailand, China amd JPN. The South China Sea was claimed by the Qing-Goverment, the Republic of China and now by the PRC.
@Johntor8888
Ай бұрын
Republic of China still claimed and they put their base at the biggest Island which International Court said only Rock...
@hortn123
Ай бұрын
They were wrong then...and still wrong today
@GrandTerr
Ай бұрын
Thank you Chinese bot for propaganda. Very useful.
@abysmal_wolf
Ай бұрын
Chinese propaganda on mainstream lol
@taiwanstillisntacountry
Ай бұрын
Oh look, 3 little-D-boi's from scam-center Mumbai-Dharavi. So how is life in Mumbai-Dahravi? Still no🚽🚽🚽?
@830mm
Ай бұрын
According to IMF, Taiwan is (Taiwan, Province of China). According to United Nations, Taiwan is (China, Taiwan Province of China). According to World Bank, Taiwan is (Taiwan, China). According to World Health Organization, Taiwan is (Taipei and Environs, China). According to World Trade Organization, Taiwan is (Chinese Taipei). According to OECD, Taiwan is (Chinese Taipei). According to WIPO, Taiwan is (Taiwan Province of China). According to APEC, Taiwan is (Chinese Taipei). According to the Olympics, Taiwan is (Chinese Taipei). The list goes on and on for all international organizations. fool:taiwan is taiwan ,china is China
@desiguy55
Ай бұрын
and mainland chine is taken over by a military dictator and does not represent the Chinese citizens.
@rickace132
Ай бұрын
I mean, the US is illegally occupying the Diego Garcia island. Same with the UK. What's the big deal?
@matthewadrian6497
Ай бұрын
if you need to compare your action to US and UK, you already admit US and UK are the righteous nation in the world who always act right.
@0O0OllI5
Ай бұрын
But why Taiwan didn't?
@yeah2011bb
Ай бұрын
@@matthewadrian6497lol, yes the most righteous in all of world history and if anyone says or even thinks otherwise they deserve a little more “democracy” and “freedom” and employees from our department/ministry of Defence (and peace-making) will visit you soon to convince you of this and to ensure that your “human (last) rights” are assured and your natural resources (and national treasure) protected.
@alphillips5478
Ай бұрын
CLOWN! EEZ = 200Nm; not over 1000Nm under UNCLOS which China signed in 1982
@nonayabusiness6170
Ай бұрын
You're comparing an island occupied vs a country claiming an entire ocean that's shared by multiple countries as well. There's a difference. Have you not seen the video how much China is claiming?
@hehahihiheha1331
Ай бұрын
I really do not know what is with this news, which country in south china sea do not claimed a part of it? which country do not wan to claim any if they can? which neighbour country is not?
@rubenreyes4477
Ай бұрын
China May in the future will also claim the moon and say it is part of China. It causes chaos every neighbor that China has near.. 😮😮😢😂
@rob3539
Ай бұрын
Pretty sure there is a Chinese flag on the dark side already... along with dotted lines in the dirt.
@rubenreyes4477
Ай бұрын
@@rob3539- 9 dash line you mean? 😮😮😅
@jzeng2022
Ай бұрын
China's claim to the South China Sea is first based on the claim of the former Republic of China government. The nine-dash line was drawn by officials of the Republic of China government on US warships after the end of World War II in 1945. Why didn't the Philippines and Vietnam claim sovereignty at that time? China cares about the freedom of sea routes, not the resources in the South China Sea. The South China Sea is almost the lifeline of China's maritime trade. China needs freedom of navigation in the South China Sea too much! Once the Philippines, a US lackey country on these routes, occupies the South China Sea passage, China's sea passage will be blocked.
@phuongtra7488
Ай бұрын
mày nên học thêm về lịch sử các nước có tranh chấp. ai là người không tuyên bố. Trung quốc tham lam
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
Wdym? Both VN and PH already claimed that it was part of their territory even before the colonial times. They just never had the proper resource to reinforce it.
@hortn123
Ай бұрын
No one can claim the seas as their sovereign territory. But they have exclusive rights to the resources within their Exclusive Economic Zone under UNCLOS which China is ALSO a signatory.
@rcbrascan
Ай бұрын
@@tremplearsen9938 Wrong, during colonial times, they were not countries to be able claim anything. Their colonial masters made the decisions and for PH, the US acknowledged that territory belongs to China and it is written in The Treaty of Paris.
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@@rcbrascan I am correct. The Treaty of Paris ceded all the PH territory from Spain to the US. The US NEVER acknowledged that it belonged to China. They acknowledged that it belonged to Spain and have been given to them. It was formally finalized in 1902 Treaty of Washington. You're facts are all wrong
@alphillips5478
Ай бұрын
EEZ = 200Nm or have you forgotten China? You signed UNCLOS in 1982 Or have you forgotten that too!?
@COMPLAINS_NOT_CHANGE_ANYTHING
Ай бұрын
They definitely desperate since their near shore territory was already over fishing and not enough fish to feed all of Chinese 😂
@villiamfangy6205
Ай бұрын
they're adhering to the UNCLOS borders that Mao had hand drawn.
@yerri5567
Ай бұрын
@alphillips5478 Except all the incidents with PH all happened within 12nm of territorial waters of islands/shoals/reefs that China claims as their sovereign territory that PH has no business in.
@alphillips5478
Ай бұрын
@@yerri5567China has no rights to those islands in the first place!
@yerri5567
Ай бұрын
@@alphillips5478 Theyre literally the first claimant in the region. When they claimed it, it wasnt claimed by anyone else. Thats their "right".
@OnGuard.
Ай бұрын
After the discovery of oil in 2011, the Philippines started to claim sovereignty over SCS by calling it the West Philippine Sea. Before that, Filipinos called it Dagat Timog Tsina (SCS)
@abysmal_wolf
Ай бұрын
You're wrong. The WPS is only their EEZ zone to assert their rights on part of the sea. The SCS does not belong completely to China. The name came from western power for simplicity, not because it is owned by China. Before any discovery, we are already calling the islands as part of the Philippine sovereignty. So regardless of any discovery, the Philippines always had the claim to those islands.
@YangLeeZhao251
Ай бұрын
@abysmal_wolf he's a point you know, Philippines only asserted its claims to the SCS by law passed by the its congress after the 2011 discovery of oil 😂😂😂😂
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@@YangLeeZhao251 You're WRONG. He as NO point. The Philippines has that territory there since the early 1900s. We ALREADY have an oil field built in 1989. The Malampaya Oil Field existed BEFORE 2011. It was there since 1989
@hijodelsoldeoriente
29 күн бұрын
@@OnGuard. is that what CCP propaganda is telling you? The Philippine claim over certain parts of the Spratlys and the Scarborough dates back from the Spanish-era Manila. The Philippines were the first to measure the metes and bounds of the shoals, rocks, and islands there complete with their names. They were included in an official map from the 1700s, to the Carta General del Archipielago Filipino, and as reiterated during the US colonial era. The Philippine claim did not arise during the Marvos era contrary to popular belief. It didn't arise because of Tomas Cloma's joke of a claim. What you're daying were used against the Philippines claim in the Hague Tribunal and The Philippines countered and had already rebutted that and won. Question is. Why don't the CCP file a case against The Philippines in the first place? Yumou know why? Cause your overlords know that they will lose since your claims dates back from the CCP which is just a decades old. Historically-speaking, based on your ancient maps as used as evidence against The Philippine claim. The southern most part province if China is Hainan. Not Spratlys.
@holycow343
Ай бұрын
3:57 that Chinese regime was KMT aka Taiwan. Funny they don't dare to say the actual name of the government and left it very vague. :3
@chenghonggoh4746
Ай бұрын
Awkward. The PRC is not a recognised state until the 70s. The SEA claimants were already independent then. Clearly then, the SEA claimants would have better claims than PRC to SCS. Moreover, PRC claims follow that from the ROC as a successor state. However ROC still exists so where is the basis as a successor state claims? There is no legitimacy to PRC's claims. 😂
@thuankhong
Ай бұрын
KMT fabricated the 9-dash line. They are all the same no matter what name they have CCP or KMT
@da5families
Ай бұрын
Are you bot 🤖 😊
@rob3539
Ай бұрын
I guess they have the decency not to hurt your feelings.
@louis8743
Ай бұрын
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST slowly introducing it's channel for China's propaganda of course.😂😂😂
@myhappyfarmtv9208
6 күн бұрын
Move your South China Sea near your Coast China.Not in the ASEAN waters.
@err6857
Ай бұрын
China's multiple constitutions state that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan island so Scarborough shoal and spratlys islands are not part of chinas because they are way below Hainan island
@hahawa-g9v
Ай бұрын
😂中国最南方的领土是曾母暗沙 没文化真可怕
@captives6479
20 күн бұрын
When the colonizer Spain sold Philippines to the colonizer USA for whatever amount of pesos, the transaction never included any island/reef/shoal in the South China Sea. 😝 Ming dynasty navy had already navigated and mapped South China Sea almost a century before the Spaniards arrived in Asia to plunder. 🤣
@SmartBearTeacher
Ай бұрын
6:53 Well explained. China is doing it for defending against external threats. China has less than a handful of overseas bases, none of which are located in South China Sea. Whereas the United States has over 400+ overseas military bases, in Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc, surrounding China. "Any country that host a military base with US forces is a vassal state. No matter how independent their government is. Foreign forces in your territory are a declaration of submission and dependency." -Cristian A. Rodriguez
@accelerometer-ns3qb
Ай бұрын
Professor Anthony Kati, an authoritative figure in the international legal community, has published a new book titled 'History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea', which strongly proves that the South China Sea belongs to China.
@AhmetTekin101
Ай бұрын
There's nothing else for the Philippines 🇵🇭 to settle with China. Hague Tribunal already settled it by its ruling in 2016. - Whether China likes it or not, the ruling is *final and legally binding.*
@astroch
Ай бұрын
Yes, the ruling says south China sea is not chinese/Taiwanese. But also not Philippino, and not Vietnamese. So Philippines has nothing to settle to begin witj
@Ausf
Ай бұрын
Nothing is final. If it's not enforced, then it's irrelevant. All that matters is who controls it.
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@astroch the ruling stated that the within the 200 NM of the Ph territory within the South China Sea is solely for PH EEZ
@user-sm8gs8ji8r
Ай бұрын
Borrowing comments from friends upstairs, improve your intelligence The South China Sea arbitration case was organized by a non-UN private court, which is invalid. On July 13, 2016, the United Nations issued a statement on its official Weibo, stating that the Permanent Court of Arbitration has no relationship with the United Nations. The International Court of Justice issued a statement on its official website. The statement stated that "the award in the South China Sea Arbitration was made by a special arbitral tribunal under the Permanent Court of Arbitration. As a completely different institution, the International Court of Justice has never participated in the arbitration case." On July 15, 2016, Benjamin Benilschke, press officer of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, stated that International Tribunal for the law of the Sea has neither played any role in the arbitration case. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has no relationship with the South China Sea Arbitration Trinunal.
@user-sm8gs8ji8r
Ай бұрын
So, what Filipinos get by bribing judges is just a piece of paper. And you're like a monkey showing off with banana peels, go back to the banana tree and find some bananas to eat
@brut9999
6 күн бұрын
You are explaining as if China has the right to own the South China Sea. Do whatever you like as long as it is according to international law. As per UNCLOS 200 miles from Philippine baseline is its exclusive economic zone and China has no right to exploit its resources.
@Hkchinese888
Ай бұрын
Someone should observe the ruling of the International Maritime Court on South Sea Disputes.😂
@jzeng2022
Ай бұрын
Hahaha, that maritime court is a joke. Ask the United States whether it will abide by its ruling? It is just a court put together by several countries, not an agency of the United Nations. How can it constrain China! ?
@supremewhip
Ай бұрын
Why don’t you bend over and take this fat American hot dog. 🌭
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@@ToiChutGongWu China should do what's right. And the right thing to do is to apologize and leave those islands to the countries that truly owns it.
@wynn3077
Ай бұрын
@@ToiChutGongWu Boo now run away Wubot 😂
@Hkchinese888
Ай бұрын
@@wynn3077 Se7en is gone again😂
@user-gp9mk7wm1s
Ай бұрын
China should control SCS for its national security. What's the big deal if 200 Pinoy fishermen are denied access. Have they heard about the fate of BIKINI islanders because of US National security concern against USSR
@carribyanadventures
Ай бұрын
CCP CAN TRY AMIGO......BUT I KNOW THEY WOULDN'T 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 KEEP ON FLEXING THE MANY WAR TOYS OF CCP AND PLA.....compare that to more than what they can produce from the MULTIPLE NATIONS AGAINST CCP..... the game isn't about the number of toys china can produce. It is about TEAM PLAY and strategy.
@shqip_sumejja
Ай бұрын
Borders along seas are hard to maintain and protect, clearly there is a strong power (China) who has the money to defend theirs and dominate
@TacticalMayo
Ай бұрын
And because of that we will clash.
@MayOdinGuideYou
Ай бұрын
Spot on, mate.. China is an entirely different society under the dictator Xi and authoritarian CCP .. [For honest truths, pls read the informative and insightful, multi-page comment by 'Mister Lianghui' at, "The Coming War on China": kzitem.info/news/bejne/t2posaiJnqFkqH4si=gaElCf8Iekxh8yiB].. Clearly a strong power China who has the money to defend theirs and dominate. 🤷 Attachments area
@MayOdinGuideYou
Ай бұрын
Spot on, mate.. China is an entirely different society under the dictator Xi and authoritarian CCP .. [For honest truths, pls read the informative and insightful, multi-page comment by 'Mister Lianghui' at, "The Coming War on China (Military Power Documentary/Real Stories)", on KZitem]. Clearly a strong power China who has the money to defend theirs and dominate. 🤷
@Wumao50c
Ай бұрын
@@shqip_sumejja unfortunately for china the world has changed. We now live in a modern world where laws are imposed to protect peace.
@abysmal_wolf
Ай бұрын
@@Wumao50cChina wants to make the same mistakes in the past.
@captives6479
20 күн бұрын
What are you smoking? Philippines and Vietnam each possesses more islands/reefs/shoals than China does.
@sanzhang-tx1zm
Ай бұрын
History is always surprisingly similar The current state of the United States is very similar to the declining U.K.empire. The loss of industrial hegemony was followed by the loss of economic hegemony, and finally a war (perhaps the next Middle East war) completely told the world what a paper tiger the United States was. In the end, just like Britain back then, she finally understood herself through World War I and World War II.
@misterbig9025.
Ай бұрын
cheenk from shitguo 🇨🇳 are desperately illegally immigrating to usa
@abysmal_wolf
Ай бұрын
Yea and China is next to an error.
@sibaraku2023
Ай бұрын
@@abysmal_wolfOf course, no empire could last forever. always have their up and down. America is falling now. When China raised to its peak, it will start to fall as well like it has done many times in the history. However, it will always come back again, greater and greater.
@Wumao50c
Ай бұрын
@@sanzhang-tx1zm all these propaganda spread by CCP is very dangerous. Now ordinary Chinese thinks they can take on US head on. That is why they are provoking US into war by harassing its neighbors.
@Justsaying-cg2nz
Ай бұрын
Continue to sleep on ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
@nonamelenina1046
Ай бұрын
Well that's quite an extensive claim...
@M3.Lorenzo
Ай бұрын
The Chinese took over the South China Sea islands from the defeated Imperial Japan in 1945 as part of Japan's surrender agreement with the Allied Powers (US, UK, USSR and China) to end WW2. It's really no different from how the Americans took over many Pacific Islands such as Northern Mariana Islands or the how Russians took over Kuril Islands from Japan. The interesting thing is that, when WW2 ended nearly all of the Southeastern Asian countries today, such as Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, were still colonies of Western powers themselves and not yet sovereign states, and at that time the Western colonial masters of these countries never claimed South China Sea islands as part of their colonial territory and neither did they challenge China's claim to South China Sea islands. So regardless whatever happened before 1900s... the real question of the South China Sea islands is still a legacy from WW2, and as China one of the victors, which sacrificed millions of lives in defeating Japan, seems unlikely to easily let go of any of those strategic islands in favor of fishing rights argument from Philippines since the 1980s...
@chenghonggoh4746
Ай бұрын
@@M3.LorenzoThe Chinese meaning the ROC. The PRC is not a recognised state until the 70s. The SEA claimants were already independent then. Clearly then, the SEA claimants would have better claims than PRC to SCS. Moreover, PRC claims follow that from the ROC as a successor state. However ROC still exists so where is the basis as a successor state claims? There is no legitimacy to PRC's claims. 😂
@charliemarkovic4301
Ай бұрын
@@M3.Lorenzocommunists didn’t defeat Japan. The US and the KMT did.
@Wumao50c
Ай бұрын
@@M3.Lorenzo Philippines territory was well established when it was under the Spain regime. The map used to determine the territory is still preserved that predates the imaginary dash lines.
@M3.Lorenzo
Ай бұрын
@@Wumao50c I'm talking about modern sovereign claims in the current global system. Not some vague historical claims in 1700s, which the Chinese has also referred to. But still, the Spanish government never once made any statement to back up Philippine's claims, both current or historical claims included. I find it interesting how Philippine government today in 2024 is trying to make statements on behalf of the Spanish government related to 1700s Spanish colonial territory without any consent from the Spanish government.... It's the same with the US government. They never made any type of official claim to include South China Sea islands into the US Constitutional territory during their whole time governing Philippines.
@peterlongland6862
Ай бұрын
The ccp itself denounced any ownership of Taiwan. They did so under Mao during the cultural evolution. During this event they denounced old traditions and old thinking. As Taiwan was only ever under imperial China's control, owning Taiwan was old thinking, which Mao clearly denounced! Also another country claimed humiliation and that was During the 1930s, yup Hitler's Germany! Can you see the comparisons?
@rob3539
Ай бұрын
Modern day CCP feels humiliated that its predecessors obliterated Chinese culture from the country and that it only survived in Taiwan, Hong Kong and overseas ethnic Chinese communities who kept the old Chinese knowledge and cultural practices going. The modern day revival of its culture has been retrieved from all these places. I suspect a certain Mr Xi welcomed that as he wants to claim his place in China's history as a modern day Emperor. Unfortunately, he has stuffed up the Chinese economy so badly that the average Chinese worker is going to have to endure so much suffering and they may not like the idea of him being exalted in that way.
@peterlongland6862
Ай бұрын
@rob3539 True, but remember Mao massacred between 60 to 90 million Chinese during his reign of terror, yet he his celebrated on the Chinese currency. The ccp are able to spin a positive story out Mao, they can do the same for Xi (sadly)
@richardbuan5519
Ай бұрын
greedines
@viewingdeck88
4 күн бұрын
Taiwan is an independent country!
@user-zs9ek1bx5z
Ай бұрын
One word - GREED 💔💔💔
@jinalexia
Ай бұрын
South China sea in the past called “Champa sea “ it’s meaning belongs to Vietnam 🇻🇳because Champa kingdom defeated by Vietnamese dynasty
@LokiTheGodofMischief
Ай бұрын
So the US has never claimed man-inhabited islands? But building on uninhabited islands is somehow unlawful?
@TacticalMayo
Ай бұрын
Like always, another axis of evil promoter bringing up the United States when they weren't even part of the conversation 🤣
@jasonjean2901
Ай бұрын
Building islands isn't unlawful. However, UNCLOS doesn't allow the standard 12-mile sovereign waters and the 200-mile EEZ to apply to artificial islands.
@LokiTheGodofMischief
Ай бұрын
@@jasonjean2901 are coup detats illegal?
@LokiTheGodofMischief
Ай бұрын
@@jasonjean2901 Cause I can assure you from Cuba to hawaii it's been carried out and I haven't even gotten to latin america, middle east or africa yet
@ryanspinoza6586
Ай бұрын
They build and militarize artificial islands WITHIN disputed territories and the EEZ of another country which is illegal. This is an international law that they themselves agreed to sign.
@ngockhoanguyen272
Ай бұрын
Tell me, what is the logic and geographical position of these dash lines. It looks like a pencil drawing by a child, please try to use your brain and be authentic !
@DavidJuan-uk2pu
Ай бұрын
Propaganda pa more
@rock3times
Ай бұрын
You forget Taiwan claims in the South China Sea albeit it is only one, the biggest island Taiping.
@loneranger114
Ай бұрын
Russia 🇷🇺 is partnering China 🇨🇳 in its patroling on the South China Sea. Both nations warships are keeping the South China Sea safe for navigation.
@yonghoongwhye1405
Ай бұрын
A long time ago, the western countries name the open sea as South China Sea for navigation purposes. At that time, China had closed their door 🚪 to the outside world 🌎🌍, especially during the Ching dynasty. The open sea 🌊🌊🌊 do not belong to any countries. 👌
@asterinycht5438
Ай бұрын
original text that claim 9 dash line even never say where the exact location is.. CCP jut loosly interpreted it for political
@grvc44
Ай бұрын
The Answer is Greed.
@ba-gg6jo
Ай бұрын
Are there large hidden deposits of tofu in the area?
@RochellOfalla
Ай бұрын
Ivam Filipino, I do not like American militaries, roaming around in these area of Asia. I don't like them warmongering here, playing savior of democracy but bringing hardship and worries to the Filipinos. Their militarization is cheap, we dont need them. We need prosperity in agriculture, manufacturing businesses, jobs, infrastructures, transportation convenience, and many more only China has offered us before. Stop US warmongering and disinformations of American tyrants here. Philippines did not improve much due to our colonial mentality to USA. I see how many homeless and hungry people are in USA in the many videos here in KZitem, and see the truth about China's BRIs. We in tje Philippines will be poorer because of US warmongering here. There were many prospects of China's help to the Philippines by China that were cancelled just because of US being here. Poor Philippines, you should see how USA uses us.
@alexanderdantonio8999
Ай бұрын
You're Filipino like xi is an actual pooh bear. How to say you're a little pink without saying you're a little pink 😂
@fukinyouup
Ай бұрын
@@alexanderdantonio8999 The comment was obviously typed by a mandarin speaker. "Disinformations" is a common mistake mandarin speakers make since Chinese doesn't differentiate between singular and plural. Tagalog has a marker for plural and most Filipinos speak proper English. Same for "infrastructures" and "militaries."
@Herbridge
Ай бұрын
Despite I fully support Philipines claim, the nine dot line was initiated bt current Tainwanese Govertment years ago before CCP ruled China Mainland This misinformation conducted by SCMP is very disappointd😢
@pomaret69
Ай бұрын
i mean it is called the south china sea for a reason....
@MithunOnTheNet
Ай бұрын
And that reason is, it is SOUTH of China's borders. Indian Ocean doesn't all belong to India. Neither does Sea of Japan all belong to Japan.
@hyperspaceexplorer5594
Ай бұрын
@@MithunOnTheNet No use explaining to a little pink. You are just wasting your time.
@pomaret69
Ай бұрын
@@MithunOnTheNet facts
@pomaret69
Ай бұрын
meanie :(((
@Maximus0187
Ай бұрын
President Xi said anyone sail passby South China Sea must pay toll fee to China. Fee pay to my Xi bank account. 🤣😂
@wynn3077
Ай бұрын
He doesn’t need the money because he’s worth almost two billion dollars now.
@peter-rice
Ай бұрын
No need to get the money.He possesses the whole country😅
@thuankhong
Ай бұрын
China is a coward, only bullying small countries and not daring to confront big countries.
@thuankhong
Ай бұрын
@@wynn3077 Looking at Chinese tourists fighting over food abroad, you can see what kind of Chinese politicians they are.They are all the same
@user-sm8gs8ji8r
Ай бұрын
Oh, this comment reminds me of a little story. The beggars were discussing what the emperor ate for lunch, but their poor imagination was limited to meat Mantou
@bat__man__.w
Ай бұрын
Maybe india can claim whole subcontinent and 2nd biggest ocean in world because of chola empire which able to conquer philliphine indonesia singapore
@M3.Lorenzo
Ай бұрын
The Chinese took over the South China Sea islands from the defeated Imperial Japan in 1945 as part of Japan's surrender agreement with the Allied Powers (US, UK, USSR and China) to end WW2. It's really no different from how the Americans took over many Pacific Islands such as Northern Mariana Islands or the how Russians took over Kuril Islands from Japan. The interesting thing is that, *when WW2 ended nearly all of the Southeastern Asian countries today, such as Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, were still colonies of Western powers themselves and not yet sovereign states, and at that time the Western colonial masters of these countries never claimed South China Sea islands as part of their colonial territory and and neither did they challenge China's claim to South China Sea islands* So regardless whatever happened before 1900s... the real question of the South China Sea islands is still a legacy from WW2, and as China one of the victors, which sacrificed millions of lives in defeating Japan, seems unlikely to easily let go of any of those strategic islands in favor of fishing rights argument from Philippines since the 1980s...
@chenghonggoh4746
Ай бұрын
Awkward. The PRC is not a recognised state until the 70s. The SEA claimants were already independent then. Clearly then, the SEA claimants would have better claims than PRC to SCS. Moreover, PRC claims follow that from the ROC as a successor state. However ROC still exists so where is the basis as a successor state claims? There is no legitimacy to PRC's claims. 😂
@err6857
Ай бұрын
Japan-Republic of China Treaty of 1952 The April 28, 1952 Japan-Republic of China (Taipei) Treaty, ending the War in the Pacific, merely reiterated the 1951 San Francisco Treaty. Article 2 of the Taipei Treaty states: “It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the City of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951, Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.” There is nothing in the Taipei Treaty that awards the Paracels or the Spratlys to China. Japan merely renounced any claim to these islands without stating to whom the islands belonged. The Taipei Treaty expressly “recognized” Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty, whose framers categorically refused to award the Spratlys and the Paracels to China. Go back to China. We don't need you here in my country
@M3.Lorenzo
Ай бұрын
@@err6857 You're just being silly ..... because you apparently did not even know the basic fact that all of the South China Sea islands were administered under Taiwan before and during WW2 for decades during the Japanese rule. And as you correctly specified, Taiwan, along with the South China Sea islands, had been returned to China by specific written accords whereas Japan also renounced all of its sovereignty claims in Taiwan, Penghu, Spratlys and Parcels.😂 And what kind of evidence is there for your empty claim: 'framers of San Francisco Treaty categorically refused' ?? 😅 And beyond such vague description, do you have any actual evidence that the San Francisco Treaty has any written records of 'opposing China's claim in South China Sea'? Or any actual legal documents by either US, UK or USSR (the rest of the Allied Powers) expressing their oppositions? ZERO. Total nonsense. As matter of fact, the San Francisco Treaty also made clear mention of the Kurile Islands, which Japan also renounced all of its sovereign claims, in the exact same way as written in the treaty as South China Sea islands. And today, Kurile Islands are still Russia's sovereign territory, which it inherited from the Soviet Union as the result of the WW2. How do you even think you could nullify either USSR/Russia or China's sovereign claims on such territories, which were once colonial possessions of Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers as a the actual military outcome of World War 2?? Especially when the United States nor the United Kingdom, who were also Allied Powers in the war against Japan, never officially denied such sovereign claims.
@M3.Lorenzo
Ай бұрын
@@err6857 Where's your evidence? 'framers of San Francisco Treaty categorically refused' China's claim in South China Sea? Let me make it easier for you. What specific evidence do you have from any written provisions in the San Francisco Treaty that clearly 'challenges' or 'deny' Chinese claim in Taiwan and/or in South China Sea islands? If not, what actual evidence do you have even? What's your logic?😅A treaty that demands defeated Japan renounces all rights has no conflict with the reality that China took over Taiwan and South China Sea islands from Japan. In fact, why would such a treaty aimed to constrain Japan has anything to do with China, one of the Four Allied Powers against Japan in WW2, making its own claims based on its own Constitution? 🤣 China did it the same way as how US took over a numerous Pacific islands from Japan, USSR took over Kurile islands from Japan, which are all done in accordance with all of the post-war settlements. If you want to protest such claims, you'd better find some super powerful evidence that somehow challenges the entire post-WW2 international order, including the UN Security Council.😅
@M3.Lorenzo
Ай бұрын
@@err6857 Mongolia... Sure. Why don't you ask the Mongolian government to make such claim over all of China. And see what happens? 🤣 If not, then why are you referring to an imaginary situation to boost your weak statement?? it's kinda funny you did that...
@aarnkgnar986
29 күн бұрын
China should be under mongolia! Same logic. Chinese cede your lands to mongolia ASAP.
@Jin-e7q
Ай бұрын
If it is your territory, of course ot is important to China. China's claim is with basis, unlike Philippines.
@jm97117
Ай бұрын
If it's with basis then why not settle it in court, oops it's already ruled by the 2016 Arbitral Ruling 😂😂😂
@BabaYaga826
Ай бұрын
@@jm97117 Arbitral Ruling not acknowledge by UN. 🤣🤣🤣
@Jin-e7q
Ай бұрын
@@jm97117 the tribunal has no jurisdiction on the territory. Read the tribunal paper and you ll understand.
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
Philippines ACTUALLY HAS BASIS. It’s literally China that has ZERO basis. That’s why Ch lost in the ruling
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@BabaYaga826 FYI the ruling is actually RECOGNIZED by the UN. The ruling is based on the UNCLOS. The majority of the UN bodies assembly already voted for in favor of the ruling
@Revante.
Ай бұрын
So basically, China vs Taiwan, USA, ASEAN, Japan, S.Korea, India, Australia,...etc?
@Monde1988
Ай бұрын
That area belong to philippines e.e.z
@conti-vl6tx
Ай бұрын
EEZ is not sovereignty, it prescribes the max limit from sovereignty territory. EEZs overlap. China has claimed those uninhabited shoal as sovereign territory since time immemorial when it was sole super power. Despite being weak in the late 1800s and subjected to foreign invasion, China never ceded SCS. Only Imperial Japan took possession in WWII but were forced to relinquish them in post war treaty to China, ie the claim is continuous. Philippines was a Spainish colony which didn't include claims to those shoals. Philippines claims were made in late 20th century after it became a country.
@fkoff7649
Ай бұрын
@@conti-vl6tx IF PHILIPPINES DOESNT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A TERRITORY CLOSEST TO IT, ALL THE MORE CHINA HAS NO RIGHT TO ACT AS IF IT OWNS IT. DUH HAVE COMMON SENSE. FKYOU! WE ARE NOT ONLY TALKING PROXIMITY HERE OR GEOGRAPHICAL BASES BUT ALSO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BASES. EARLY 1900 CHINESE MAPS SHOW THAT HAINAN WAS D SOUTHERNMOST PART OF CHINA, NOT WEST PHIL SEA, NOT SOUTH CHINA SEA, NOT EVEN TAIWAN WHILE 17TH CENTURY PH AND EUROPEAN MAPS SHOW THEY'RE PART OF THE PH. GEOGRAPHICALLY, HISTORICALLY & LEGALLY, CHINA THE THIEF HAS NO BUSINESS IN PH WATERS. CHINA'S TERRITORIAL CLAIMS OF WEST PH SEA ALONG WITH OTHER ASIAN TERRITORIES ARE AS FAKE AS THEIR MAN MADE ISLANDS BUILT IN PH WATERS. CHINA'S CLAIMS ARE AS UNRELIABLE AS THEIR WORLD FAMOUS, POOR QUALITY MADE IN CHINA PRODUCTS. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, CHINA HAS NO LEGAL, HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL BASES IN PH WATERS. WE HAVE KICKED OUT SPANISH, AMERICAN AND JAPANESE COLONIZERS BEFORE, CHINA THE THIEF IS NOT AN EXCEPTION. DOES WANT ANOTHER CENTURY OF HUMILIATION???
@fkoff7649
Ай бұрын
@@conti-vl6tx EARLY 1900 CHINESE MAPS SHOW THAT HAINAN WAS D SOUTHRNMOST PART OF CHINA, NOT WEST PHIL SEA, NOT SOUTH CHINA SEA, NOT EVEN TAIWAN WHILE 17TH CENTURY PH AND EUROPEAN MAPS SHOW THEY'RE PART OF THE PH. GEOGRAPHICALLY, HISTORICALLY& LEGALLY, CHINA D THIEF HASNO BUSINESS IN PH WATERS. CHINA'S TERRITORIAL CLAIMS OF WEST PH SEA ALONG WITH OTHER ASIAN TERRITORIES ARE AS FAKE AS THEIR MAN MADE ISLANDS BUILT IN PH WATERS. CHINA'S CLAIMS ARE AS UNRELIABLE AS THEIR WORLD FAMOUS, POOR QUALITY MADE IN CHINA PRODUCTS.
@conti-vl6tx
Ай бұрын
@fkoff7649 Proximity does not equal sovereignty. Just because something is close to you, does not mean it's part of your country. The Philippines never had control over these reefs and islands, and it was never recognized by any other country. The territory of the Philippines has clearly been delimited by Spain and the US. The Philippines should stop being surprised that China does not accept its territory from being stolen by them. There is nothing else for China to settle with Philippines. China and Taiwan ownership had already been determined after ww2 through internationally recognised treaties claim and declaration as post ww2 world order before unclos even existed. Whether Philippines likes it or not, SCS indisputably belongs to China and Taiwan.
@fkoff7649
Ай бұрын
@@conti-vl6tx FKYOU! WE ARE NOT ONLY TALKING PROXIMITY HERE OR GEOGRAPHICAL BASES BUT ALSO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BASES. EARLY 1900 CHINESE MAPS SHOW THAT HAINAN WAS D SOUTHERNMOST PART OF CHINA, NOT WEST PHIL SEA, NOT SOUTH CHINA SEA, NOT EVEN TAIWAN WHILE 17TH CENTURY PH AND EUROPEAN MAPS SHOW THEY'RE PART OF THE PH. GEOGRAPHICALLY, HISTORICALLY & LEGALLY, CHINA THE THIEF HAS NO BUSINESS IN PH WATERS. CHINA'S TERRITORIAL CLAIMS OF WEST PH SEA ALONG WITH OTHER ASIAN TERRITORIES ARE AS FAKE AS THEIR MAN MADE ISLANDS BUILT IN PH WATERS. CHINA'S CLAIMS ARE AS UNRELIABLE AS THEIR WORLD FAMOUS, POOR QUALITY MADE IN CHINA PRODUCTS. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, CHINA HAS NO LEGAL, HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL BASES IN PH WATERS. WE HAVE KICKED OUT SPANISH, AMERICAN AND JAPANESE COLONIZERS BEFORE, CHINA THE THIEF IS NOT AN EXCEPTION. DOES WANT ANOTHER CENTURY OF HUMILIATION???
@joeylim7473
Ай бұрын
Why call it South China Sea ? call it Malaysia sea, Philipine sea or Indonesia sea.
@Monde1988
Ай бұрын
We stand with the philippines
@rexteo8062
Ай бұрын
Malaysia submarines fleet is not agree within the North Malaysia Sea Economic Zone. Malaysia Royal Melayu Regiments, Royal Ranger Regiments, Royal Special Forces, Watanish Regiments.
@JBear-in1ql
Ай бұрын
Common sense will tell you that it’s China that is worried about freedom of navigation and national security in the South China Sea, and it really should not be a concern of the US who are on the other side of the globe. Without the threatening US military presence and provocations, it would be interesting to see if China could negotiate a peaceful settlement on how to resolve the claims with the neighbouring countries.
@jasonjean2901
Ай бұрын
80% of the trade passing through the South China Sea goes to and from China. Of course they have the biggest interest in freedom of navigation. What is never discussed by SCMP or by other western media is what the other claimant states are doing in the South China Sea. China has 7 disputed islands (which they artificially created); the Philippines has militarily occupied 35+ disputed islands; and Vietnam has militarily occupied 33+ disputed islands. In other words, China is among the least provocative of claimant states to the South China Sea. Being the most powerful, they could simply take what they want, but they allow tiny countries with tiny militaries, such as the Philippines, to beach ships and then they attempt to negotiate with them, only using force when they attempt to build more on disputed territory.
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@jasonjean2951 the Philippines has 35 militarily occupied island? 😂 you might want to get your facts straight because those are ABSOLUTELY False. China actually occupies MORE THAN SEVEN. Plus hundreds more reef and banks. China is thE MOST PROVOCATIVE AND AGGRESSIVE. PH is the LEAST. They barely have the funds to patrol the area. Much less occupy “militarily”
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@@jasonjean2901 WRONG. Philippines does NOT occupy 35 disputed islands. They ONLY occupy 8 islands, 2 Reef and 1 Shoal. That's a total of ONLY ELEVEN (11). They NEVER reached 37. PRC occupies reef that they made into islands and then enforce it as their territory. That CLEARLY states that they are the bullies. It's like taking a vacant lot and illegally building a house and then claim it like it's theirs. That's called squatting
@chrysllerryu4171
Ай бұрын
too much greed because of their uncontrollable population instead of cooperating with their neighbor and share the area instead
@boonsuanteck4684
Ай бұрын
when a chinese business man earns enough he wants power.... it's a chinese DNA.
@guillerbacocanag7217
Ай бұрын
SWAPANG COUNTRY
@SeanHogan_frijole
Ай бұрын
Hey SCMP, i dare you to correct the error of your map. Taiwan isn’t RED, but HK lol.
@Russkie-f8p
Ай бұрын
Hey loser, Taiwan is whatever color China wants it to be,lol🤣
@rock3times
Ай бұрын
China always dreams of hegemony. It confers the prestige,the chauvinism and power...in addition, China is hungry for fish, minerals and oil and gas, needed to expand her economy .
@Jef-Chen
Ай бұрын
The Philippine government is now begging Japan and the US to fund 2 railway projects, after Chinese investors pulled out.
@abysmal_wolf
Ай бұрын
More like cooperation and cut off China investors. And what do you even care? The more ties with Japan and the US will even scare more China you know lol
@Cipher422
Ай бұрын
That is much better than fall victim to PRC debt-trap
@YangLeeZhao251
Ай бұрын
@@Cipher422 debt-trap is always better than poverty-trap 😂😂😂😂 enjoy the remittances from your mama and sistas working as domestic helpers abroad 😂😂😂😂
@ronaldlalisan5592
Ай бұрын
@@YangLeeZhao251that's rich on chinese declining population 😂😂 high rate on jobless
@RV-qd8zg
Ай бұрын
@@YangLeeZhao251debt trap means China will own everything and wants control....and there are also plenty of chinese moving out from China to work abroad.
@katmandu0
Ай бұрын
Nepal Stands with China.We can share gorkhas and chinese technology with each others.China will need Gorkhas for capturing the flag in taiwan
@abysmal_wolf
Ай бұрын
Chinese bots are being funny these days 😂
@ensiyeitu1012
Ай бұрын
@@abysmal_wolfHow sure are we that you ain't a bot yourself? Brainless mf.
@user-mx9fo8wv1w
11 күн бұрын
Says american bot @@abysmal_wolf
@कॉम्पिटिशन_एग्जाम
28 күн бұрын
America will cry now
@Ame_no-seirei
Ай бұрын
This comment section os flooded by Chinese bots
@eddyevodius
Ай бұрын
So do Western bots
@Sebstian342
Ай бұрын
You do see that most of these top comments are written by bots from the West?
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
@@Sebstian342 nope. A lot of them are pro PRC
@mike-xd4ih
Ай бұрын
because of greed that's all...
@shundi4264
Ай бұрын
It is Philippines, influenced by the US, who violated other countries territory and undermined regional stability and peace.
@Wumao50c
Ай бұрын
@@shundi4264 only china and my fellow wumaos think like this
@shundi4264
Ай бұрын
@@Wumao50c Malaysia also opposes Philippines continental shelf claim.
@shundi4264
Ай бұрын
@@Wumao50c Philippines is acting like a non-sovereign country under occupation by the US military and does not earn its neighbours' respect.
@ronaldlalisan5592
Ай бұрын
@@shundi4264malaysia is pro china so it's expected.
@jw999
Ай бұрын
In the natural course of things, a large country and its smaller rival would reach an equilibrium. For example, the former gets more than the latter, and both accept that as a fact of life. Nowadays, due to western countries' non-stop interference in lands faraway, China and Philippines are stuck in an escalating cycle of tension with no solution in sight.
@yerri5567
Ай бұрын
China made their first modern sovereign claims over the island/reefs/shoals etc in the 1940s. Vietnam and PH made their first modern sovereign claims in the 1970s 3 decades later after oil was found. Whos trying to steal whos land? Let that sink in. In before people say Vietnam or PH made claims hundreds of years ago. The UN arbitration court ruled that territory cannot be claimed based on historical rights, so China, and by extension other countries like Vietnam and PH also cant make claims based on historical rights from centuries/millenniums ago.
@TacticalMayo
Ай бұрын
Go earn your $0.50 somewhere else.
@luonggiaphat7946
Ай бұрын
First off, hose islands were already part of Vietnamese territories before 1940s, all the way to at least the 17th century, and when Vietnam was incorporated into French Indochina, the French also incorporated those island into the colony. Secondly, after Vietnam regained independence from France in 1945, and after defeating them in 1954, those islands were territories of South Vietnam, which was attacked by China in 1974, and later, after North Vietnam reunified Vietnam, in the 1980s, China began escalating tension and asserting their dominance more agressively, including attacks on those territories. Also, historically, China has rarely, if ever expanded its maritime borders beyond Hainan island, so those islands probably belonged to Champa and other South East Asian maritime kingdoms before they come into Vietnamese possessions. Therefore, China has no legal claim over them.
@fungj4126
Ай бұрын
Taiwan is a country
@luonggiaphat7946
Ай бұрын
@@fungj4126 It's contested, but seeing how developed, prospering and fully functioning Taiwan is. Yes, it should be.
@jasonjean2901
Ай бұрын
@@TacticalMayo Someone doesn't like logic....
@patrickmayran
Ай бұрын
That is not yours period
@user-gp7zr3ei4z
Ай бұрын
Go CHINA!
@misterbig9025.
Ай бұрын
🏳1937🏳
@luonggiaphat7946
Ай бұрын
China should get off my country's maritime territories. Those are Vietnamese water they are messing with. We don't want any escalation, but further provokation from China may lead to...unrecoverable consequences for them.
@TacticalMayo
Ай бұрын
USA 🇺🇸 USA 🇺🇸 USA 🇺🇸
@fungj4126
Ай бұрын
Go home, China
@fungj4126
Ай бұрын
gohome
@pbworld7858
Ай бұрын
Funny how USA's terrtories extends throughout the whole of the Pacific. Give Hawaii, Guam and Saipan its independence again. WHile they're at it give Japan, South Korea and the Philippines their independence too.
@thuankhong
Ай бұрын
Shut your mouth. Where were you before Qin Shi Huang annexed the South of the one you call Baiyue?
@jacksonkao9643
Ай бұрын
South China Sea is Chinese sea
@LantangKaturay
28 күн бұрын
Delusional nonsense!
@user-mx9fo8wv1w
11 күн бұрын
Get lost imbecile @@LantangKaturay
@teammaglulupa6186
Ай бұрын
maybe dinausars is chinese historical pet base on history ... and chinese even own the moon base on historical rights
@wesleyclayton1168
Ай бұрын
It had sovereignty over it since ancient times...
@tremplearsen9938
Ай бұрын
Not really…
@Tommyy8417
Ай бұрын
Yeah so with that logic Italy should claim Europe because of its roman legacy.
@cinnamondan4984
Ай бұрын
Sitting in Shanghai on a bus adjacent to a 麦当劳 watching the staff off having a staff meeting late after the restaurant is closed. They are so young and look like they are having fun. Comrades. To be young is fun regardless of the wages.
Пікірлер: 1 М.