Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Philippines-China WPS Dispute
Topic Started: Jul 15 2012, 02:28 PM (105,147 Views)
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China


China blasts US comments on island project as 'irresponsible'
AFP News - 4 hours ago


Beijing on Monday dismissed as "irresponsible" US criticism of its construction of an artificial island reportedly large enough for an airstrip in a disputed section of the South China Sea.

The statement by China's foreign ministry came after a US military spokesman urged Beijing to stop what it described as a vast land reclamation project on the Spratly Islands.


"External forces have no right to make irresponsible remarks. The construction activities China is undertaking are for the improvement of the working and living conditions of the island-stationed personnel, so that they can better fulfil their international obligations and responsibilities in search and rescue."

- Hua Chunying, foreign ministry spokeswoman


AFP / Yahoo




Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

Six Ways to Resist China's Salami-Slicing Tactics
Robert Haddick
November 24, 2014



1. Expand the presence of non-Chinese fishing fleets in the East and South China Seas:

The purpose of this initiative is to match China's civilian presence in these seas and to avoid the appearance of ceding the waters to China. An expanded fishing presence also then justifies an expanded enforcement and coast guard presence.


2. National government policies and budgets should support expanded maritime law enforcement and coast-guard capacity and presence:

Investments in "white hull" capacity should be favored since these will provide the smaller countries with the means to compete against China on more favorable terms.


3. The United States maritime services (civilian and military) and their counterparts in allied and partner countries in the region should expand information sharing, officer exchanges and multilateral training activities:

The exchange of local knowledge, operational experience, best practices and technical expertise are relatively low-cost ways of increasing maritime capacity that will yield large benefits to all participants.


4. The United States, along with allied and partner countries, should establish a formal system for sharing basic, real-time maritime intelligence:

This would allow the partner countries in the network to establish a "common maritime picture" that would facilitate multilateral responses during incidents and allow for the efficient allocation of resources during such responses.


5. Policy makers and planners from the United States and other countries in the regional maritime network should prepare multilateral crisis-response staffing procedures:

Preparing in advance for potential crises, whether natural disasters or geopolitical incidents, will allow for smoother and more effective crisis management. It will also discourage potential adversaries from using crises to create leverage.


6. Invite other interested countries in the region to join the initiatives listed above:

Expanding the list of participating countries adds resources to these initiatives, adds new knowledge for participating officials and increases the legal and moral legitimacy of the effort to protect the maritime commons and sovereign rights.


National Interest








Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pachador


as i have mentioned several times, once the ITLOS has delineated the which reefs, islands and sea areas belong to which countries, the philippines will specifically know which features it owns and it can start physically enforcing using boarding, ramming and even firing. It does not matter at all if the bully is much stronger since if the bully strikes back it will be in violation of international UN law which means it will be much, much easier for other countries to justify intervening and helping us.
The only issue which i hope the philippines will deal with in a commonsense practical way are the spratly islands it holds that are outside the 200 mile EEZ such as Pagasa island, if ever UNCLOS does not issue a specific ruling on who owns Pagasa island, and other islands that are outside the 200 mile EEZ then if the bully retaliates by seizing pagasa island because, lets say, we seized mischief reef which is within the 200 mile EEZ, then we are in gray legal territory and we cannot be sure is the US or other allies will come to our aid......What can be done with this "gray-area" reefs/islands is tell the US they can make it a US base and if they are not interested we can think of the painful option of offering it to the bully as a face-saving measure to the bully so the bully will give up their bases inside our 200 mile EEZ such as johnson reef, mischief reef and scarborough shoal. Otherwise, if we seize mischief reef, there is a good chance the bully willl retaliate by attacking pagasa island and all those other islands outside our 200 mile EEZ. its the devil and the deep blue sea. just something to think about. Bottomline is that we have to build-up our defense assets in preparation for what I anticipate as a looming clash or series of long-running clashes after the UNLOS ruling.


Edited by pachador, Nov 25 2014, 05:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

Some clarifications...

pachador
Nov 25 2014, 05:24 AM
as i have mentioned several times, once the ITLOS has delineated the which reefs, islands and sea areas belong to which countries, the philippines will specifically know which features it owns and it can start physically enforcing using boarding, ramming and even firing. It does not matter at all if the bully is much stronger since if the bully strikes back it will be in violation of international UN law which means it will be much, much easier for other countries to justify intervening and helping us.

DFA: West PHL Sea arbitration about rights, NOT 'who owns what'
July 26, 2014


Posted Image

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) arbitration case against China is "not about who owns what" but rather to make clear the entitlements due the Philippines, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said on Saturday.


"It is not about determining who owns what in the territories in the South China Sea. That is not our case. Our case is a interpretation of the law, clarification, and validation... Our aim is for the tribunal to say that the nine-dash line is without basis under UNCLOS. Once we get the ruling, we have to sit down with China. By then, we will be talking from a better position because we have the moral and legal victory. We need the rule of the court to be able to say with clarity what are our maritime entitlements."

- DFA spokesman Charles Jose
Ownership of the disputed areas is not part the arbitration, though it will delineate which areas are open for joint or exclusive development.


Edited by Hong Nam, Nov 26 2014, 02:33 PM.

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pachador


Hong,

as far as i know in practical terms, the UNLOCS is just being diplomatic about it in a "technical sense", but the practical effect of 'maritime entitlements' is you own what you are entitled to maritime-wise within the EEZ. to be specific, lets talk about the most basic of all unclos rules - the 200 mile EEZ, if there are no overlapping 200 mile EEZs then all the resources within that 200 miles are yours. in the case of the spratly issue, there are possible EEZ overlaps but that depends on whether unclos will classify those bully-controlled island or reefs as entitled to 200 mile EEZs which as far as i know is very much tipped in our favor. Then, there is the predominance of larger land mass principle of unclos(if my memory is correct) so even if taiwanese "Itu Aba" island is entitled to EEZ, it will lose to palawan by virtue of palawan's much larger land mass..I believe the taiwanese has already conceded on this recently when they publicly announced what Itu Aba is entitled to(they followed UNLOCS rules).. Now as for who has actual ownership of those "physical" islands such as pagasa island, i agree that unclos probably has no jurisdiction on that, moreso because it is outside the 200 mile EEZ so its really a problematic area, but considering the massive gas resources in reed bank which within our 200 mile EEZ, plus reed bank is very close to palawan , worrying about the status of pagasa island is the lesser of the 2 concerns in my opinion. Reed bank i believe is one of the biggest prizes if not the biggest prize in the struggle over the philippine EEZ. anothe big prize is control of the sea route used by naval and commercial shipping within our EEZ(maritime navigation routes) which follow specific routes to avoid the countless navigation hazards in the west philippine sea. thats why spratlys was called "dangerous ground" in old maps. by the way, I'm all ears for discussions of the fine print of unclos rules on a nations maritime entitlement as this takes time to read, discuss and research.....maybe others can pitch in their own research on the matter.
so going back to pagasa island, there is a risk that if we physically attack(physically enforce the unclos ruling) by occupying johnson reef and mischief reef which we will be legally justified if unclos rules in our favor(those 2 reefs are within our 200 mile EEZ), the bully might retaliate by attacking pagasa island(which is outside our EEZ), and seems to be in a legally gray area(unless UNCLOS ruling will pull a surprise) so are we ready to lose pagasa island in return for solidifying our hold on our 200 mile EEZ ? for me yes, for reed bank alone will make us very rich. reed bank gas reserves are much bigger than malampaya if i am not mistaken(anyone has the data ? )



Edited by pachador, Nov 25 2014, 12:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MSantor
Member Avatar

PDFF Mod Group
Defense News

Quote:
 
China Blasts US Comments on Spratlys Project as 'Irresponsible'
Nov. 24, 2014 - 03:00PM | By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

BEIJING — Beijing on Monday dismissed as “irresponsible” US criticism of its construction of an artificial island reportedly large enough for an airstrip in a disputed section of the South China Sea.

The statement by China’s foreign ministry came after a US military spokesman urged Beijing to stop what it described as a vast land reclamation project on the Spratly Islands.

The island chain, which the Chinese call Nansha, is also claimed in whole or part by the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and Brunei.

(...SNIPPED)

"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford

"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill


"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"- Gen. George S. Patton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

pachador
Nov 25 2014, 12:33 PM
lets talk about the most basic of all unclos rules - the 200 mile EEZ

AGAIN...

It is not about your 200nm EEZ. There is no reason to talk about "the most basic of UNCLOS rules" - although I admit that is the first time I have heard of it referred by that term. There is absolutely no debate as to what it entails as I already what I know what it is. There is nothing to argue about there.

WHY? Because that is not the issue in your country's memorial submitted to the ITLOS. We can repeatedly agree on what belongs to who "till hell freezes over" and it will be pointless as that is not what is the case is about.

It is to challenge the validity and ludicrousness of the Chinese 9-dash line. It challenges the status of the features are mere "rocks" - incapable of supporting human habitation without outside support (Itu Aba included). That is your government's stand. That is the object... nothing more, nothing less. It is just the start of a long and difficult (perhaps painful) process. Who owns what comes next and I refuse to "jump the gun" on this. Best to take things one step at a time when dealing with complex issues like this.

However you interpret it is up to you. Just be prepared for a huge disappointment if you do. Unless you make and influence your government's policy, it's best to just stick to the facts. That's the reason you hired lawyers for this.





Edited by Hong Nam, Nov 25 2014, 04:26 PM.

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pachador


Hong,

I know what you are saying but i think your not understanding my point , i have not too much time lately to expound on my points/discussions, but that is alright as we are both agreed on the ridiculous 9 dash bully claim,. thats what is important., and yes, hiring the best lawyers on maritime issues was one of the best investments the philippine govt made in regard to this issue
Edited by pachador, Nov 25 2014, 04:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

I do Mr. Pachador. Believe me I do, as the "fire" in me is with you on this.

However, I think I am just bit more reserved. Hence my calculated reluctance as compared to your more "passionate" stance - I do respect it and I do understand... Just wanted to emphasize on the extremes of the same side.

:armycheers:



Edited by Hong Nam, Nov 25 2014, 05:12 PM.

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China


Posted Image

China's Spratlys Airstrip Will Raise South China Sea Stakes

By Ankit Panda
November 25, 2014


Based on satellite imagery, Jane's reported that China was building an airstrip-capable island on Fiery Cross Reef, a group of three reefs in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

Chinese dredgers have created a land mass that is almost the entire length of the reef. Fiery Cross Reef is an underwater reef, but China is looking to develop a new island that is roughly 3 km long and 200 to 300 m wide - just wide enough for a functional airstrip. The strategic advantages of an airstrips in the middle of the South China Sea include shorter resupply routes for deployed PLAN patrols, a base for reconnaissance aircraft and unmanned system, and a potential permanent installation for anti-submarine warfare equipment including undersea radar arrays. For China, this island on Fiery Cross Reef could fulfill the strategic role of an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." As Beijing continues to raise the stakes in the South China Sea, developments such as this airstrip will cause concern among the other claimants.


The Diplomat



Edited by Hong Nam, Nov 26 2014, 02:40 PM.

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic »
Add Reply