You are not alone if you did not know Miss Ho Yik King because I didn't know her either and neither did any of my friends. However her suicide in the United Kingdom on November 2022 suddenly pushed her to the headline and many were compelled to read about her and to determine what it was that drove her to end her life in the manner it did.
Miss Ho was an intelligent 27 year old HongKong girl who achieved a degree from a HongKong university in 2017 and a master degree from Switzerland in 2019. A bright future was before her had she stayed on as a normal citizen of HongKong.
But youth and wisdom are at times not packaged together and she fatally follows her rebellious nature to confront the Authorities in HongKong on human rights and the Extradition laws etc. Most of her university mates were doing it and so why not her.
Swept along by the reckless HongKong student movement and a constant stream of propaganda from the West on human rights, democracy and freedom she "marched" with the rebels and determinedly wrecked HongKong whilst demanding for independence. For months and years the Western media portrayed them as freedom fighters and as heroes whilst denouncing the Authorities and China as evil.
They destroyed malls, train stations, shops and banks. By engaging hit and run tactics they successfully disrupted airport activities and brought the city centre to a stand still.
With funds and supplies from the West they relentlessly pursued their destructive activities. They used knives, paved stones , arrows, Molotov bombs as weapons . They even killed an innocent citizen through their projectiles, stabbed one on the neck and engulfed another in flame.
The United Kingdom fueled the mind boggling chaos by offering British national overseas visas to the activists which encouraged them to march with extra vigor . But this was only a visa and one that is tailored for HongKong citizens who were bent on leaving HongKong albeit with lots of money in their suitcases.
But the students were blind to the British visa nuance and to the cost of living in the UK . They stayed on the course of destruction . On paper the visa offered them a choice of escape from HongKong but they did not read the fine prints if they ever existed. Remember the saying " the devil is in the details".
Finally the HongKong Authority had enough of the student movement and chaos and issued the New Security Law in 2022 .Those who had a reason and the means to leave HongKong did so by way of the British magical visa.
Miss Ho was one of them. She sold everything and left HongKong and took the flight into the safe arms of Britain in April 2022 . She envisaged starting life afresh , getting a good job, getting married and all of her dreams would be fulfilled because she would be a British subject after five years of stay and she would qualify for social benefits that come with citizenship.
No, that dream didn't work out! Instead her real nightmare just started.
For whatever the reason she found difficulty in opening a bank account upon arrival. Her British visa did not qualify her to open one. She allegedly found out she needed a UK identification card number which she didn't have.
Next, she found out that house rental in Britain was not only prohibitively expensive but that she was regarded by astute landlords with suspicion. Of course they would . Why would a British landlord accept a Chinese girl as tenant when her name was associated with a notoriously rebellious history. Eventually she lived in a modest flat in Richmond that came with a shared and unhygienic toilet.
Miss Ho was a picture of delusion. Britain was not meeting her minimum expectations. With limited funds she was allegedly often surviving on one meal a day . She needed help but found the visit to a psychologist was too exorbitant.
Finally , when living costs soared due to rising cost for food and heating, Miss Ho , with nowhere to turn to, decided to end her life in her rented flat. Days later her lifeless body was discovered along with a suicide note .
When alive she was regarded by the British as an unwanted immigrant and she lived a miserable life in Britain but when she died the coroner was full of praise for her. He said " Fion is an excellent example of the high calibre of person who is so welcome in England..."
This is the reality. Fiona's destiny was potentially one of distinction until she joined the band of delusional activists of HongKong who believed in western propaganda only to find out the dream was nothing but a damning mirage.
Hopefully there is a lesson here for the Taiwanese, the Philippines, the Japanese and the South Koreans. If the lesson is learnt then Fion's life story and death will not have gone to waste.
Schoolchildren wave the national flags of the Philippines and China
along the route of Chinese President Xi Jinping's convoy at the
Malacanang palace grounds in Manila on Tuesday. Photo: AFP
Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to the Philippines from Tuesday to Wednesday has caught international attention.
China-Philippines relations have been one of the most vacillating connections among China and its neighboring countries. During the rule of Benigno Aquino III, bilateral relations were at a low ebb due to frictions over the South China Sea. Incumbent President Rodrigo Duterte changed the Philippines' diplomatic course and brought ties with China back to the right track.
Last year, China surpassed Japan and became the largest trading partner of the Philippines. The two are conducting negotiations over the possible joint exploration of oil and gas in the disputed waters. If they reach an agreement, it could serve as an exemplary model for South China Sea claimant countries.
However, not everybody is happy to see Beijing and Manila set aside disputes and develop friendly ties. Besides obstruction from pro-US factions within the Philippines, some US and Western forces do not want to see rapprochement between China and the Philippines and even pressure the Duterte government to cut relations.
Recently, some Western media claimed that most of the assistance and investment that China promised to the Philippines was never fulfilled. Such tone maliciously aims to drive a wedge between Beijing and Manila.
In recent years, China has been advancing its Belt and Road initiative in Southeast Asia and has no reason to skip the Philippines when seeking investment and cooperation. In fact, relevant departments of the two countries have been working to push forward the implementation of cooperation projects.
The West has been accusing China's Belt and Road initiative of locking some countries into a debt trap. However, when it comes to the Philippines, the West criticized China for not fulfilling its promises. Behind such hypocritical words lie the West's deep-seated prejudice and hostility against China.
When the US strategically targets China, it is difficult for the Philippines - geographically adjacent to China while closely watched by the US - to keep independent strategic thinking and remain firm-minded.
But independent thinking and strong political determination are essential for every country. When Duterte first thought about mending ties with Beijing, independent thinking prompted Manila to face the question: What advantages can the country gain from enmity with China, if any? Will the Philippines benefit from it or will it be exploited by external forces?
The whole region should keep alert to whom will benefit from confrontation among South China Sea stakeholders. As one of the US' allies in Southeast Asia, the Philippines will always be a tool of the West to instigate provocations in the waters. After twists and turns, Philippine society will form its own judgment.
Many Philippine elite might have thought that their country and the entirety of Southeast Asia could rely only on the US and the West before China's rise, yet most regional countries did not achieve modernization. China offers more options for the Philippines, and because of China's rise, the Philippines and Southeast Asia have gained more attention. Compared with the Aquino era, the Philippines under Duterte has acquired more strategic initiatives without becoming overly dependent on other countries.
China-Philippines friendly cooperation has changed the strategic position of the Philippines and brought about a new pattern for its development. It is expected that Xi's visit will accelerate bilateral cooperation.
Newspaper headline: Xi, Duterte upgrade ties, Xi’s Philippine visit a ‘milestone’ event, Improved relations help keep stability in S.China Sea: expert
https://youtu.be/Nu0q5wraLGQ
As cooperation and political trust improve, China and the Philippines agreed on Tuesday to lift ties to a comprehensive strategic cooperation relations while stressing the need to manage disputes in the South China Sea through "friendly negotiations."
The decision was announced after visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping's meeting with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday in Manila, the Xinhua News Agency reported.
Chinese experts stressed that the visit is a milestone event in the development of bilateral relations and the two countries will pursue greater cooperation under the framework of the China-proposed Belt and Road initiative (BRI) in the coming years.
As friendly neighbors across the sea, China and the Philippines enjoy geographic proximity and a strong bond that links the two peoples and cultures, Xi said, Xinhua reported on Tuesday.
Since Duterte took office, China and the Philippines have reopened the door of friendship and cooperation to each other, bringing real benefits to the two peoples and making important contributions to regional peace, stability and prosperity, Xi noted.
Xi's visit will largely promote bilateral relations as the visit shows that China values friendly relations with the Philippines, Gu Xiaosong, a research fellow on Southeast Asian studies at the Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Tuesday.
"It is a milestone event in the development of bilateral relations," Gu remarked.
Glenn Penaranda, commercial counselor of the Philippine Embassy in China, told the Global Times on Tuesday that "Xi's visit is vital in highlighting the significant relationship between our two countries, particularly in trade and investments. The visit will encourage more and deeper engagements."
Improved China-Philippines relations will also play an important role in maintaining the stability of the South China Sea, experts noted.
"If China and the Philippines can reach an agreement on the exploration and development of oil and gas resources in the South China Sea, it will be a breakthrough in economic cooperation in the region and will largely promote the safety of the Asia-Pacific," Gu said.
Growth prospects
The prospects for economic and trade relations between the two countries are very bright as Philippine priorities are aligned with the key directions for industrial capacity cooperation under BRI, in sectors such as infrastructure, construction and building materials, chemicals and manufacturing, Penaranda said.
Gu agrees, saying that bilateral economic and trade ties will be further enhanced to a higher level, and the two countries will pursue more cooperation under the BRI.
As a developing country with more than 100 million people, the Philippines needs to improve its infrastructure and enhance the growth of its industrial enterprises, Gu noted.
"We need to better understand the opportunities for bilateral cooperation through increased engagements by enterprises," Penaranda said, noting that it is important that the frequent reciprocal visits of officials and business delegations continue.
Experts said China is committed to advancing the development with other countries and the Belt and Road initiative will bring greater growth to other developing countries and promote the economic integration of the Asia-Pacific region.
The two countries have conducted broad cooperation in transportation infrastructure and industrial parks and energy, and China is the Philippines' largest trading partner.
Trade between China and the Philippines increased 8.5 percent year-on-year to $51.28 billion, according to information released by China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on Thursday.
As of the end of September, China's investment in the Philippines was $1.25 billion and the Philippines' investment in the Chinese market reached $3.33 billion, according to the MOFCOM.
Experts said cultural and educational exchanges between the two countries also see a huge potential.
The hospitality toward Chinese people is easily felt among the Philippine public.
The Chinese and Philippine flags were placed along Roxas Boulevard in Manila a week ago. Many Chinese who live and study in Manila waited along the boulevard on Tuesday to welcome Xi.
"We're so excited that President Xi has come to Manila. We hope the two countries could strengthen cultural exchanges in the future," Kui Jiangong, a PhD candidate from China who studies at Adamson University in Manila, told the Global Times on Tuesday.
"I have met many locals who like to discuss Chinese culture with me as they want to know more about China," he said. - Global Times
Foreign ministers of ASEAN member states and China at the ASEAN-China Ministerial Meeting in Vientiane, Laos. — VNA/VNS
https://youtu.be/i_J3TQKTXcc
The 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting on Monday issued a joint communiqué, which didn't breathe a word about the South China Sea arbitration, or harbor any overt criticism against China. Although the South China Sea issue was mentioned many times in the communiqué, it only gave a general overview of principles that must be stuck to. Most foreign media view the communiqué as a triumph for China's diplomacy.
On the same day, a joint statement on how to effectively implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was issued.
The two statements reflect the consistent stand of ASEAN. Attempts at pressuring China through the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting have failed.
As the first foreign ministers' meeting after the so-called South China Sea arbitration award was issued, the US and Japan hoped to use the meeting in Laos to solicit ASEAN's collective support for the arbitration and impose unprecedented diplomatic pressure on China. But such expectations do not correspond with the realities in East Asia.
Hype was running high among American and Japanese media that only Cambodia was standing in the way of a joint statement that incorporates the South China Sea arbitration, and Laos as the host country didn't voice any firm opposition.
From another perspective, only the Philippines wanted a joint statement with reference to the arbitration, and Vietnam was not so persistent in its demands. Most ASEAN countries have maintained a neutral attitude. They neither want to see a division within the bloc, nor to be dragged into a conflict with China over arbitration.
Manila compromised this time, giving consent to a communiqué without mention of the arbitration. It showed flexibility compared with 2012, when the 45th ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting ended with no joint statement because the Philippines' propositions over the South China Sea issue were firmly opposed.
It's in the common interests of China and ASEAN to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. But the US and Japan are willing to see conflicts between China and the Philippines and Vietnam escalate. If the arbitration leads to overall confrontation between ASEAN and China, it will fullfil the desires of the US and Japan.
ASEAN won't be so silly as to head toward a confrontation with China. We have carried out construction activities on islands and reefs in the South China Sea, but with our utmost efforts to avoid confrontation.
The possibility of a military solution to the South China Sea dispute has become smaller and smaller. The arbitration has brought about new risks. Instead of a clash between China and the Philippines, or China and Vietnam, there are more worries about conflicts being sparked between China and the US.
Under such conditions, it could never be ASEAN's desire to amplify the negative influences of the arbitration case. Two weeks after the arbitration result was announced, no other countries outside the region but the US, Japan and Australia have voiced support for it. The farce is coming to an end.- Global Times.
Political manipulation behind arbitral tribunal will be revealed
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday that the political manipulation behind the arbitral tribunal will be revealed, in response to the comments made by some foreign ministers on the South China Sea arbitration case.
Wang expounded on China's position when attending the 6th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers' Meeting held in the Lao capital Vientiane.
Wang said China has not participated in the arbitration case and will not accept the so-called ruling, a position that China has made clear since day one and is supported by strong legal basis.
By adopting this position, China is safeguarding the sanctity and impartiality of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), said the Chinese foreign minister.
First, the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government violated the principle of having the consent of concerned parties as the basis of arbitration and failed to meet the prerequisite of conducting full exchange of views beforehand, thus lacking the legal conditions to be initiated.
What the former Philippine government had done also abandoned bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines and violated Article 4 of the Declaration on Conducts of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) as well as the principle of estoppel prescribed in international law, according to Wang.
Second, he said, the subject matters of the arbitration, however packaged, in fact directly concern territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation which are beyond the scope of the UNCLOS and the jurisdiction of the ad hoc tribunal. It is a typical act of overstepping the power and ultra vires as well as the abuse of dispute arbitration mechanism.
Wang said by citing a prominent legal expert from Europe that the arbitration case undoubtedly touches upon territorial sovereignty which is not governed by the UNCLOS. The tribunal's practice of separating territorial sovereignty dispute with the status of islands and reefs is unseen in international law, which is like "putting the cart before the horse."
Third, the ruling of the ad hoc tribunal is full of obvious mistakes, Wang said. It blatantly uses its self-invented rules to negate and deprive the lawful and legitimate territorial sovereignty, maritime rights and interests of parties concerned. In particular, it says that Taiping Dao, the largest island in the Nansha Islands with an area of 500,000 square meters, is a rock and has no relevant maritime rights.
If such a judgment can legally stand, the sea map of the world will need to be redrawn, Wang said.
Wang stressed that this ruling runs counter to the spirit of international rule of law as well as the principle and spirit of the UNCLOS.
"This arbitration is imbued with question marks and fallacies in terms of procedure, legal application, fact finding and evidence gathering," he said.
The so-called ruling is illegal in three aspects: the initiation of the arbitration is illegal, the set-up of the tribunal is illegal, and the result of the arbitration is illegal. Therefore, China's stance is fully legitimate which serves the purpose of upholding international equity and justice and regional peace and stability, Wang said.
The Chinese foreign minister said more and more countries have come to see the nature and danger of the arbitration case, and understand and acknowledge China's stance to resolve disputes through direct negotiation and consultation, calling for respect to the rights of sovereign states to independently choose dispute settlement means including respecting the declaration on optional exceptions made under Article 298 of the UNCLOS.
There are also more and more legal experts around the world questioning the legality of the arbitration case and the fairness of the ruling, Wang said, noting that the illegal nature of the so-called South China Sea arbitration case and the political manipulation hidden behind the ad hoc arbitral tribunal will be further revealed. - Global Times
The communiqué issued after the ASEAN foreign ministers' meeting in
Laos, shows the two sides want to work together for regional stability
and prosperity.
Jul 16, 2016 ... The Asean Foreign Minsters Meeting and the Post Ministerial Conference ... Laos
should be given full support in preparing for the meetings.
ON July 12, the award on the South China Sea arbitration came out. This political anti-China farce in the disguise of law, manipulated by the United States, and acted by the former Philippine Government, eventually came to an awful end.
This award caused a storm of questions and negative comments in the international community. A lot of professionals are shocked, not to speak of how ridiculous it is to define Taiping Island as a “reef”.
As Professor Tom Zwart from the Netherlands said, “In the region (East Asia), the award will be widely regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and it will fail, therefore, to garner the necessary support.”
Abraham Sofaer, former legal advisor to the US State Department, also pointed out that the arbitration had brought a lot of difficulties and anxiety, which were not good for any parties.
The US attempted to smear and “isolate” China with the arbitration, but unexpectedly received little response. China’s position of non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration has won more and more support.
Even the Philippine people realised that the arbitration is a total conspiracy of the US for its own agenda. This proves again the age old saying, “a just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause finds little support”.
Dao, a combined concept of fairness, justice, rule, trend and direction, and derived from ancient Chinese philosophy, inhabits people’s hearts. The Dao of the present world lies in peace, development and winwin cooperation, and the Dao of solving international disputes lies in fair, lawful and peaceful solutions. On the premise of peaceful settlement, international law provides the right of every state to choose the means of dispute settlement, which should be based on consent, used in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation.
China persists unswervingly in pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace; advocates the awareness about human common destiny; and opposes the Cold War mindset and zero-sum games, and the bullying of the weak by the strong.
China will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion. With regard to territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China adheres to settlement through amicable consultation and negotiation by directly concerned countries, and does not accept any means of third-party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on it.
The violation of Dao by the US lies in its “imperialist mindset” and pursuit of hegemony. After World War II, the US global strategy has always been seeking the “leadership of the world”.
In 2009, the Obama administration launched the Asia Pacific Rebalance Strategy, and took the South China Sea issue as the pivot to maintain its regional hegemony and achieve strategic containment of China.
It is obvious that during the whole process of the arbitration unilaterally initiated and pushed by the Aquino III administration, the US was deeply involved in every step. Although alleging “neutrality and non-involvement”, the US manipulated behind the scene, and tried to forge a “coalition” to hype up the issue, resulting in rise of tension in the South China Sea.
The US always regards itself as “judge of the world”, but history and reality have repeatedly shown that the US has always adopted double standards. In the eyes of the US, international law is only applicable to other countries rather than itself. It only applies the law when it is consistent with its own interest and resolutely abandons it otherwise.
For instance, while advocating “the rule of law on the sea”, it has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
While insisting that China must accept the arbitration award, it chooses to forget the Nicaragua case in which it not only withdrew from the proceedings and refused to implement the ruling, but also revoked the declaration of accepting the compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. While opposing militarisation in the South China Sea, it has been provocatively dispatching military aircraft and warships into the area, and even deploying aircraft carrier fleets to this region.
More and more countries have found out who is the biggest “trouble-maker” in the world. It is the US intervention that makes the world worse. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all fallen into its trap and are left with mess in the region. As the new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte frankly said, the root of the bloodshed in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries lies in the intervention of the US.
Furthermore, just prior to the arbitration award, the UK Iraq Inquiry published its report, stating that the decision of the US and UK to start the Iraq War was based on “flawed” intelligence. Under such circumstance, who will follow such a “leader of the world”?
The violation of Dao by the former government of the Philippines lies in breaching previous commitment and causing a lot of trouble in the shelter of a superpower.
The Philippines and China had been friendly neighbours over a long history. However, in recent years, the bilateral ties were damaged by the Philippine policy of confrontation, especially the unilateral arbitration claim.
The government of Aquino III willingly acted as the pawn of the US Rebalance Strategy and took the road to confront China. It deliberately provoked the Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) incident, unilaterally initiated and pushed the arbitration, and tried to hijack other Asean countries to smear China and benefit from the unlawful arbitration award. Its intention is vicious, and its action illegal.
First, although fully aware that territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China, the Philippines deliberately packaged the disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS.
Second, the arbitration infringes upon China’s right to choose the procedures and means for dispute settlement. In 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China declared to exclude from the compulsory procedures disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. There are over 30 countries that have made similar declaration.
Third, the unilateral arbitration broke the bilateral agreements reached between China and the Philippines over the years to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation.
Fourth, the arbitration violated the commitment jointly made by China and Asean countries, including the Philippines, in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevant disputes through negotiations by states directly concerned.
The Aquino III administration thought itself clever, but how can it deceive the whole world? As Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said, the arbitration is “the worst political collusion in the framework of international politics”, and “would bring negative impacts to Asean and peace in the region”.
Rod P. Kapunan, Philippine columnist of The Standard newspaper, pointed out that “after six years of hypocrisy and deceit, this shameless stooge (here refers to Aquino III) has brought us right into the doorstep of possible armed conflict with China all because it has chosen to pursue the US-designed policy of inciting hostility with our neighbour”.
Regarding the South China Sea situation, he wrote that “the lives of the Filipinos would be sacrificed to enforce a decision that if examined closely is a US proxy war which the Philippines would serve as cannon fodder in securing its interest in this part of the globe”.
The escalation in the South China Sea will bring enormous risks to the regional and even global security. The Philippines should recognise its mistakes and return to bilateral negotiation with China.
The violation of Dao by the arbitral tribunal lies in political manipulation, unfairness and unlawfulness. The arbitration is completely a political farce under legal pretext. The establishment of this tribunal lacks legitimacy.
The arbitrators it chose lack fairness. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and it evidently expanded, exceeded and abused its power.
The so-called “award” is even ridiculous. Experts pointed out that all the fees of the tribunal, including the huge reimbursement to the arbitrators, are borne by the Philippines alone. This has raised a lot of concerns and problems. People are asking if the Philippines “hired the judges”.
The composition of the tribunal is a result of political manipulation. Japan and Yanai Shunji, then president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, acted as the broker.
The composition of the tribunal is quite weird: four of the five arbitrators are from Europe, the fifth one is a permanent resident in Europe, and all of them lack basic understanding of Asian culture and the South China Sea issue.
One fact could better show the play under the table. When the tribunal was established in April 2013, the first president appointed by Yanai was Chris Pinto, a senior Sri Lankan diplomat. Since Pinto’s wife is Philippine, he especially asked advice from both parties to the dispute and was recognised by the Philippines.
However, when Pinto later hinted that the tribunal might not have jurisdiction over the case, it raised deep concern of the US, Japan and the Philippines. The latter asked Yanai to find somebody to replace Pinto for a so-called “just cause”. In May 2013, Pinto was forced to resign.
The tribunal abused power for its own interest. Many experts of international law believe that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Just as Sofaer said, this arbitration is related to sovereignty disputes. It shouldn’t have been started, especially when a state party has declared in writing that it does not accept compulsory procedures over such disputes as maritime delimitation according to Article 298 of UNCLOS. The tribunal’s ruling “will broadly undermine the potential utility of international adjudication”.
The tribunal disregarded the fact that the essence of the subject matter of the arbitration is the issue of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.
It erroneously interprets the common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by China and the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevant commitment in the DOC, deliberately circumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China, selectively takes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of the South China Sea Islands, and subjectively and speculatively interprets and applies UNCLOS.
The conduct of the tribunal and its award seriously contravene the general practice of international arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China’s legitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful. It has set an extremely dangerous precedent in the history of international law.
The professional ethics of the arbitrators are widely criticised. All the Western arbitrators and expert witnesses played a shameful role as though they were chameleons.
They reversed their previous position as stated in published papers and even backtracked from their long-held views to make the case for the Philippines.
Arbitrator Alfred Soons had published his opinion that the status of islands was closely associated with demarcation and sovereignty issues.
However, when the tribunal ruled on jurisdiction and admissibility, he said the tribunal had the right to decide on the Philippines’ submissions concerning legal status and maritime entitlement of certain islands including Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) and Meiji Reef (Mischief Reef ), which was entirely contradictory to his previous viewpoint.
Expert witness Clive Schofield also changed his views at the proceedings. On the same subject, using the same materials, he drew totally different conclusions in and out of the tribunal.
People must be wondering: how could they discard professional ethics to serve the interests of those who pay them?
Facts speak louder than words. The unilateral arbitration initiated by the Aquino III administration violates international law.
The tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. The award of the tribunal is null and void. China’s position is justified and lawful.
It is time to put an end to the arbitration on the South China Sea. Consultation is the right way to settle disputes between states.
China will continue to work together with the Asean countries to implement the DOC comprehensively and effectively, promote the consultation on a code of conduct in the South China Sea, manage and control relevant disputes properly and explore maritime cooperation, in order to build the South China Sea into a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation.
by Huang Huikang The Star Malaysia
The writer is a member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations and the Chinese Ambassador to Malaysia. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
The Xinhua news agency has accused the US government, the Philippines, the arbitration panel and Japan's prime minister Shinzo Abe of collusion in the recently concluded South China Sea arbitration case.
Four of the five arbitrators of the temporary tribunal were appointed by Shunji Yanai, the former president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The former Japanese diplomat's political stance and speeches went against the principles of the independence of the international judiciary. Shunji Yanai served the Japanese Foreign Ministry for 40 years from 1961. He has been involved in controversial issues, including Japan's 2015 security bill, and the Diaoyu Islands dispute with China. He has a close relationship with Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.
The fairness of the tribunal's operations was called into question by the personal wishes of Shunji Yanai. The Xinhua news agency commented that it was not surprising that Yanai generally chose arbitrators who were biased against China.
In addition, an American legal team provided help in drafting thousands of pages of legal documents, representing the Philippines presenting arguments to the tribunal. American lawyer Bernard Oxman, who represented the Philippines, had worked with most of the arbitrators and Yanai. He attended the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea as a representative for United States government. Based on the principles of independence of the international judiciary, the impartiality of a judge can be questioned if there are any links to a party involved in a case. Despite that, Oxman was still involved.
There is no doubt the close relationship between Oxman and US government, the Philippines government, arbitrators, Yanai and Abe. These links form a complex network of special political interests. The Xinhua news agency says they took advantage of legal platform and after three years they issued their pre-arranged ruling and finished their political farce.
In ignoring the verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following precedents by great powers as no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal on an issue involving the Law of the Sea.
Arbitration award
CHINA’S resolve on its sovereign claim to most of the South China Sea appears to harden after an international tribunal ruled against this new superpower in Asia. On Tuesday, the international arbitratry at the Hague backed the Philippines’ argument that there was no legal basis for Beijing’s maritime claims. The tribunal dismissed China’s vast claims in the vital waters, known to have vast oil and gas deposits. From the start, China has insisted that it will ignore the tribunal decision. It has also warned that increasing pressure on the issue could turn the resource-rich waters into a “cradle of war”.
Three days following the tribunal’s ruling, China’s state media reported that China may build mobile nuclear power plants in the South China Sea.
“China will soon start assembling its first maritime nuclear power platform and is expected to build 20 floating nuclear power stations in the future, which will largely beef up the power and water supplies on the South China Sea islands,” reported Global Times on Friday, citing China National Nuclear Cooperation (CNNC). (http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/994578.shtml)
The state-owned Global Times added that “marine nuclear power platforms will be used” in the islands and reefs of the Spratly chain in the internationally contested sea.
And two days before the tribunal announcement, China had enhanced its military presence under the directive of President Xi Jinping.
Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that Tokyo should stop “hyping up and interfering” in the South China Sea issue, according to the official Xinhua News Agency.
Japan is not a state directly involved in the South China Sea issue, and thus should “exercise caution in its own words and deeds, and stop hyping up and interfering” in the issue, said Li.
Commenting on the decision of the tribunal in Hong Kong on Friday, a judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said the award on the South China Sea arbitration had the effect of “pouring fuel on the flame”. Xue Hanqin, while addressing a colloquium in Hong Kong, said: “Anyone can easily tell that this award will certainly aggregate the dispute between China and the Philippines, aggregate the current military tension between China and the US and definitely aggregate tension in the region.”
Indeed, countries in this region are keeping a close watch on the situation – paying particular attention to the actions of the United States, Japan and China.
The ruling of the tribunal – the legality and decision which has been questioned by academics from the East and West, has indeed caused an unprecedented level of tension in this part of the world since the Second World War.
This is despite the repeated assurance by China that it still prefers to resolve the disputes in the South China Sea via consultation and peaceful talks among the parties laying claims to the islands – which include Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan.
To many analysts, the United States and Japan cannot turn away from the responsibility of instilling instability as both have in recent years provoked disputes with Beijing and challenged China’s sovereign claims to the South China Sea waters.
Indeed, China’s stand on not recognising the tribunal’s decision has won resounding support from commentators who know the history of the region.
China’s sovereignty over the islands and reefs in the South China Sea has been established in the course of history.
Until the 1930s, the United States had never regarded the South China Sea as part of the territory of the Philippines, according to professor of Political Science Peter Li of the University of Houston.
Li sees the tribunal’s award as “null and void”.
China’s rejection of and non-participation in the arbitration proceedings are in compliance with UNCLOS, which, adopted in the early 1980s, was not designed to settle territorial disputes. Hence, arbitration over matters concerning the delineation of maritime boundaries is beyond the scope of the convention, Li opined. The impartiality of the tribunal, headed by a Japanese, has also been questioned as it was biased from the start three years ago, he added.
https://youtu.be/yeXCM7WcFxo
https://youtu.be/xBt7QizIAGg
The professor blamed the award for “putting regional peace at risk” as it will encourage other parties to the dispute to seek a similar approach to buttress their claims to the South China Sea. “A worse scenario is that countries from outside the region (the US) shall impose themselves on the region, thus making a peaceful resolution of the dispute even more remote.” And according to The Diplomat, in ignoring the verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following precedents by great powers as no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the Tribunal on an issue involving the Law of the Sea. Graham Allison, director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, noted in his writing: “In fact, none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests. Thus, when China rejects the tribunal’s decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done.” Amid all the tension, what is important is that China has issued a long white paper that essentially reiterates its aspiration to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.
The United States and Britain have criticised Beijing on this issue, but they had forgotten the precedents they have set. In the 1980s when Nicaragua sued Washington for mining its harbours, the United States argued that the ICJ did not have the authority to hear Nicaragua’s case. When the court ruled in favour of Nicaragua and ordered the United States to pay reparations, the United States refused, and vetoed six UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to comply with the court’s ruling, according to The Diplomat. Just last year the tribunal ruled that Britain had violated the Law of the Sea by unilaterally establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Islands. The British government disregarded the ruling, and remains in the Marine Protected Area. In its commentary on Friday, Xinhua said the South China Sea arbitration “is just a start key for the United States having ulterior motives to agitate the South China Sea situation to reinforce its hegemony”.
“The superpower has always been trying to turn the western Pacific Ocean into its own sphere of influence, dreaming to turn the South China Sea into the Caribbean where its warships patrol at will.” To increase its dominance in the Asia-Pacific region in the face of China’s growing economy and increasing influence, the United States has since 2009 began a rebalancing strategy to the Asia Pacific to contain China’s rise, exerts Xinhua. The South China Sea arbitration is another plot hatched by the US government, as Alberto Encomienda, former secretary-general of Maritime and Ocean Affairs Center of the Philippine Foreign Affairs Department, had said the United States has instigated his country to initiate the arbitration. But to the credit of the Philippines, its government under a newly elected president is adopting a softer and conciliatory line towards China as it calls for more economic cooperation with Beijing. This floats the prospects of cutting down conflict in future. Amid all the tension, what is important is that China has issued a long white paper that essentially reiterates its aspiration to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, jointly with Asean member countries.
On July 12th, an arbitral tribunal in The Hague made an
award in the South China Sea territorial dispute case filed by the
Philippines. The tribunal itself and its subsequent award, have many
points which have raised more questions than answers.
China has just released a white paper which reiterates the
country's position on resolving territorial disputes in the South China
Sea through dialogue and negotiation. According to the white paper,
China and the Philippines reached consensus in the past on resolving the
relevant disputes that way.
Congenial approach: China believes in settling territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes through amicable consultation and negotiation by directly concerned countries. In March 2005, national oil companies from China, the Philippines and Vietnam signed the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea.
