uawchild
uawchild's JournalTaipei to hasten frigate patrol for Taiping Island in wake of South China Sea ruling
Source: South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
Ruling, especially regarding Taiwan-occupied island, will never be accepted, says presidential office
Taipei will bring forward plans to send a frigate to patrol waters near the biggest land feature in the Spratlys after a Hague tribunal ruled on Tuesday that Taipei-controlled Taiping Island was a “rock” that conferred no exclusive maritime rights.
Taiwanese Foreign Minister David Lee said President Tsai Ing-wen was expected to take “action” on Wednesday after top-level national security meeting on Tuesday on the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling. Lee refused to specify the action but local news media said Tsai was likely to board a La Fayette-class frigate to boost the crew’s morale before the vessel set off for Taiping.
An emergency response centre has also been set up at the defence ministry.
The ruling ... has seriously hurt our rights over the islands in the South China Sea, and we can never accept itTAIWAN PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE
Although the ruling was a result of a dispute between Beijing and Manila over claims to disputed land formations and waters, Taipei found the tribunal’s reference of Taiping unacceptable, saying Taiwan has long considered the 46 hectare feature an island.
“The ruling, especially the part involving Taiping Island, has seriously hurt our rights over the islands in the South China Sea, and we can never accept it,” the Presidential Office said.
It added that the ruling was not legally binding, and it would do all it could to uphold Taiwan’s sovereignty claims to “various islets” and their surrounding territorial waters.
Read more: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1989118/taipei-hasten-frigate-patrol-taiping-island
There are NO ISLANDS AT ALL in the Spratly Islands, UNCLOS tribunal rules!
And I don't mean just the artificial islands. The ruling has stated that there are simply NO naturally occurring islands in the Spratly Islands.
They just declared the largest natural island, Taiping Island, which by the way is controlled by Taiwan, to be a ROCK. LOL this "rock" has lush vegitation, is tree covered and has an airstrip. But according to the ruling Taiping Island is now a rock and not entitled to a 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Go figure.
That's right, this Taiping Island, the LARGEST island in the Spratly Islands is not an island but a rock, according to the tribunal.
Taipeng Island, some rock!
Generations of cartographers apparently had it all wrong, the Spratly Islands do not exist, according to this ruling. They are merely the Spratly "Rocks". lol
Honestly, is it at all surprising that China is saying THE FIX WAS IN, and that they will ignore the ruling, when the tribunal labels an obvious island a rock?
I thought the international tribunal was going to give a common sense ruling that brushed aside China's more absurd claims, but recognize their legitimate ones and the Philippines' too. Instead, we get handed what seems to be an equally absurd claim that the LARGEST ISLAND in the Spratly Islands is not an island at all. It's simply insanity.
How can they expect China to abide by this ruling in light of this bitch-slap to reality? Look at the picture! It's and ISLAND, for god's sake. But, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, "Who are you going to believe? Your own eyes or the international tribunal?" lol
So the question I am asking in this discussion is this:
Is Taiping Island really not an island, despite all appearances, but a "rock"?
No islands in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea? That would be a stunning court decision.
South China Morning Post, Hong Kong
Taiwan and Beijing are certain to unite indirectly in protest if a Hague tribunal deems there are no land formations in the disputed waters.
The imminent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on the South China Sea territorial dispute will indirectly unite Taiwan and Beijing over a land feature controlled by Taipei, analysts say.
If the court rules that no land formations in the disputed South China Sea – including Taipei-controlled Taiping in the Spratlys – can be deemed islands, then both Taiwan and Beijing are certain to voice protests before ignoring the decision, the analysts say.
However, the chance of the tribunal making such a decision was slim, they said, given that Taiping, which extended across 46 hectares, was an island.
Taiwan controlled Taiping Island
The Philippines filed the arbitration case with the tribunal challenging Beijing’s claims to most of the South China Sea in 2013.
Manila also argued later that no feature in the disputed Spratly archipelago could be legally considered an island because they lacked the ability to sustain human habitation or economic life.
...
Although the US has no claim to any of the archipelago, Washington has been highly vocal and sympathetic to other claimants in disputes, due to its concerns that Beijing’s expansion of power in the South China Sea will undermine US interests in the region.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988597/46-hectares-south-china-sea-could-change-cross-strait
--------------
Well, Taiping Island sure doesn't look like a "rock" to me, but what do I know.
If the UNCLOS based international tribunal rules that there are NO islands in the Spratly Islands chain but only rocks, that will be a stunner. China would have a right to say the fix was in if THAT happens.
Under the UNCLOS an island is entitled to a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, and Taiping Island is, I believe, about 137 miles off the Philippines. It's a VERY significant island for that reason.
And is this assertion by the Philippines moving the goal posts -- "Manila also argued later that no feature in the disputed Spratly archipelago could be legally considered an island because they lacked the ability to sustain human habitation or economic life."?
Hey, plant some sweet potatoes, raise a few pigs, collect rainwater, heck, I think I could retire to Taiping Island. If I didn't mind all the freedom of navigation task forces sailing by all the time. lol
'Gorgeous, legendary': Black woman in flowing dress facing police in Baton Rouge wows social media
Source: Russia Today
A demonstrator protesting the shooting death of Alton Sterling is detained by law enforcement near the headquarters of the Baton Rouge Police Department in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S. July 9, 2016. © Jonathan Bachman / Reuters
A picture of an unarmed young black woman in a long dress, standing calmly in front of two police officers in full riot gear who arrest her during a Black Lives Matter protest has awed social media. Users called the image “legendary” and “symbolic.”
The powerful photo was taken by Reuters photographer Jonathan Bachman during the Black Lives Matter rally in the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. People had gathered to protest police brutality following the shooting of African-American Alton Sterling.
The picture was reportedly shot near police headquarters – the woman in floating dress stands right in front of two police officers in full gear. She looks calm and peaceful confronting the men who are approaching to arrest her.
Read more: https://www.rt.com/usa/350626-woman-dress-baton-rouge/
Why can we support rebels in Syria and Russia can't support rebels in the Ukraine?
This topic cane up down thread in another post, and I thought it would be interesting to explore on its own.
We are arming rebels in Syria and invoke the Responsibility-to-Protect principle as justification.
The responsibility to protect principle obligates nations as follow:
1.The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement.
2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
3.The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
So, failing to protect your own citizens from war crimes , crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing would leave you open to international armed intervention. Pretty clear.
So the US CAN arm rebels in Syria since the Syrian regime is guilty of all those crimes.
Can the case be made that Russia can invoke the Responsibilty to Protect in a similar manner in the Donbas rebel territory?
The Ukraine government forces have turned to self formed ultranationalist battalions that have been since incorporated into their National Guard to fight the rebels.
Consider one such group, The Azov Battalion:
--------------------
Azov battalion has been connected in OHCHR reports to such violations of conduct of war as mass looting, use of torture and abduction of journalists[52][53] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated During the reporting period, OHCHR collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February 2015[54] Another OHCHR report noted use of rape and torture writing: A man with a mental disability was subject to cruel treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence by eight to 10 members of the ‘Azov’ and ‘Donbas’ battalions in August-September 2014. The victim’s health subsequently deteriorated and he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital[55]
Azov members have been also accused by OHCHR of using torture and beatings to force confession out of detained civilian, including use of electricity and water-boarding[56]
he unit was described as having connections to neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia; the unit has neo-Nazis among its ranks. German ZDF television observed Azov battalion fighters wearing helmets with swastikas and "the 'SS runes' of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps", and on other occasions some of the soldiers have been reported to have SS tattoos.[57][58][59]
In writing about the battalion's ideology, Richard Sakwa states that its founding member Andryi Biletsky (leader of the Social-National Assembly) made statements about "historic mission" to lead "White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival ... a crusade against the Semite-led untermenschen"; according to Sakwa, this ideology has its root in national integralism of 1920s and 30s.[60]
Ivan Katchanovski in an interview with Radio Sweden described the ideology of the battalion in the following words: "The SNA/PU advocate a neo-Nazi ideology along with ultranationalism and racism. The same applies to the SNA/PU commanders and members of the Azov battalion and many football ultras and others who serve in this formation. Biletsky is called the 'White Leader'."[61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Human_rights_violations_and_war_crimes
--------------------
So.... in light of Ukraine's use of ultranationalistic neo-nazi forces, like the Azov Battalion,who were/are committing war crimes that the Ukrainian government was/is not stopping, why doesn't Russia have the right to arm the rebels under the principle of Responsibility to Protect?
Is there a double standard here in objecting to Russia arming rebels in the Donbas and not the US arming rebels in Syria?
China and US in silent fight for supremacy beneath waves of South China Sea
by The South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
The PLA Navy has dramatically extended the reach of its submarines in the contested waters, raising the risk to US warships, experts say.
As the world focuses on the war of words between China and the US over the militarisation of the disputed South China Sea, a silent, underwater fight for supremacy between the two countries is heating up.
US Defence Secretary Ash Carter said in a speech in New York in April that the US would spend more than US$8 billion next year to ensure it had “the most lethal and most advanced undersea and anti-submarine force in the world”. That budget – a roughly 14 per cent increase – will include spending on the development of undersea drones.
PLAN subs can operate more regularly with the facilities in the South China Sea, such as Fiery Cross, and they will be in a better position to monitor US naval movementsCOLLIN KOH SWEE LEAN, NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Two months earlier, Admiral Harry Harris, the head of the US Pacific Command, complained to lawmakers in Washington that “I don’t have the submarines that I feel I need” to counter Chinese militarisation of the South China Sea.
The People’s Liberation Army Navy now has about 70 submarines – very close to the US’ total – with 16 of them nuclear-powered, according to the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress last year on China’s military and security development. Fifteen of China’s non-nuclear submarines are stealthy, equipped with quiet Stirling air-independent propulsion (AIP) engines that also allow them to stay submerged for longer.
The US Navy operated 75 nuclear-powered submarines in 2014, with around 15 being the more modern Virginia or Seawolf-class designs, according to the World Nuclear Association. However, it deploys just four Los Angeles-class submarines in the Asia-Pacific region, operating out of its naval base in Guam.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1985071/china-and-us-silent-fight-supremacy-beneath-waves-south
Key rulings to watch out for in South China Sea case
by South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
Key points to watch out for in July 12’srulings by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague and what they might imply.
Will Taiping Island be downgraded to a “rock”?
If the PCA mentions Taiping, or Itu Aba, in its final award, and furthermore concludes it is a “rock”, it will mean there is hardly a single “island” among the more than 100 land features in the Spratly Islands archipelago. Does that mean they should be renamed the Spratly Rocks?
Taiping is the largest natural feature in the Spratlys, with an area of about half a square kilometre. It has been occupied by the Republic of China (ROC) government, based in Taipei, since 1956, while also being claimed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government in Beijing, the Philippines and Vietnam.
A maritime feature classified as a rock carries with it entitlement to a territorial sea extending out 12 nautical miles, but does not get an exclusive economic zone (EEZ), with a radius of 200 nautical miles, or further rights.
If no feature in the Spratlys is entitled to an EEZ, the surrounding countries – the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam – could each simply draw EEZ lines from their own major islands or coasts into that part of the South China Sea and claim the respective rights. But if Taiping is considered an island, the ROC and PRC, which inherited the ROC’s territorial claims in 1949, would enjoy EEZ rights around it, giving them overlapping EEZ claims in the South China Sea with the Philippines and other claimants.
Taiping is occupied by the ROC, which is not recognised as sovereign country by the United Nations, the PCA, or either of the parties involved in the case. They all consider Taiwan part of the PRC, so even without physically occupying Taiping, Beijing could still claim its EEZ.
Indeed, in its official response to the case brought by the Philippines, Beijing said in 2014 that Manila had violated the “one China” principle by deliberately excluding Taiping from “Chinese occupied or controlled” islands in its requests to the PCA.
Taiping is only 199 nautical miles from the Philippines’ Palawan Island but the Taiping issue was not included in the first Philippine submissions and was instead raised in merit hearings late last year, after the release of Beijing’s 2014 position paper.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1987129/key-rulings-watch-out-south-china-sea-case
PLA warships carry out biggest live-fire drills yet in South China Sea
Source: South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
The PLA Navy has carried out its largest live-fire drill yet in the South China Sea, ahead of a ruling by an international tribunal on a dispute with the Philippines over claims to the strategic waters.
Warships from the north and east fleets joined the south fleet in the drills, the army mouthpiece PLA Daily said on its website.
They focused on “air control operations, sea battles and anti-submarine warfare”, it said.
The exercise was also significant because it brought together top generals in a joint command scenario. Navy chief General Wu Shengli joined leaders from the powerful Central Military Commission’s Joint Staff Department, Training Management and the South Theatre Command for the for the exercise.
“The drill focused on air control operations, sea battles and anti-submarine warfare,” said the Daily, whose article was also reposted on the defence ministry website. The Daily insisted the exercises were “routine” and unrelated to the ruling.
But Antony Wong Dong, a Macau-based military observer, said the prominence of the south fleet was noteworthy.
“The PLA has always said its drills do not target a third party. But warships from the South Sea Fleet are playing key roles in the drills, and commanders on-site are all top leaders in the army, hinting that the US Navy was the imagined target,” Wong said.
Read more: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1987620/pla-warships-carry-out-biggest-live-fire-drills-yet
"Decadence of western elites threatening world peace", a scary Euromaidan "View"
Euromaidan Press
News and Views from Ukraine
...
"The usual strategy of western elites has been ignoring or downplaying crucial problems. But it is not only Russia, and “happy-talking” is connected to more topics, such as the failure of the Schengen treaty in connection with mass migration to western EU countries, the failure of the Euro in Greece and the future of the EU in general.
There are roughly two categories:
1. Regarding internal EU problems such as the energy market, mass migration and political Islam the strategy has been to suppress inconvenient facts if they run counter to what has been established as a „correct“ view of the issue, focusing on the positive sides which however do not turn out too positive if analyzed thoroughly, leading to many questions instead. Few of them are discussed seriously.
2. On the international stage „diplomacy“ has been given supremacy, underlined regularly by western political leaders with the “there is no military solution” statement. However diplomacy so far has not solved a single of the big geopolitical problems. Instead, it developed to a tool in order to mask the lack of transparency and openness, and to sell political solutions the majority of citizens might not consent with (see for example the Iran-deal in the US). One effect of “diplomacy” is surely the strange „objectivity“-paradigm establishing as essential all sides can voice their opinions as long as there is no “evidence”, and media or political representatives have no moral concerns to give military aggressors (especially Russia) sufficient space for their truth.
Such behavior has serious consequences as it means to give up own values and arguments – and therefore can also be termed a decadence of western elites.
The most important is surely that the West has given up on the idea and its philosophical tradition that there can be only one truth which can be established by simple reasoning. This breaks down further in giving up on other rules that have been proved crucial for European welfare and security such as being convinced borders and national identities do no longer matter."
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/06/08/decadence-of-western-elites-threatening-world-peace/
______________________________
Woah. That is some scary stuff from the Euromaidan Press in Ukraine.
This quote sent shivers up my spine: "However diplomacy so far has not solved a single of the big geopolitical problems."
So the alternative to diplomacy is what? War? Ah. I see.
This one is hardcore too: "This breaks down further in giving up on other rules that have been proved crucial for European welfare and security such as being convinced borders and national identities do no longer matter." Sounds like a call for rampant nationalism, doesn't it? Shiver.
And this bit sounds flat out racsist: "Regarding internal EU problems such as the energy market, mass migration and political Islam the strategy has been to suppress inconvenient facts if they run counter to what has been established as a „correct“ view of the issue"
Good lord, this Euromaidan Press sounds like a bunch of fascists. What is going on in Ukraine that this BS is mainstream there?
"Euromaidan Press is an online newspaper founded in 2014. As a media outlet, EP focuses on news and events in and relating to Ukraine, and is driven by articles both from professionals and experts, as well as volunteer contributions. Specializing in translations of local Ukrainian news outlets, EP strives to be the go-to bridge between Ukraine and the English-speaking world."
A more populous country trying to claim islands offshore of a weaker country is wrong, right?
Especially when that more populous country is so much further away from that island than the weaker nation. Just because the more populous nation is militarily much stronger and could dominate the weaker country economically, that gives it no right to grab land off the shore of the much weaker nation, right? And the more populous country should not get its way just because it has nuclear weapons and the weaker nation does not, right?
Oh, sure, the usual apologists will claim the more populous country has so called "historic claims", but we all know that is just a flimsy excuse to justify its land grab.
So, I am sure that we all are outrage at this more populous country's outrageous behavior and that its well past time for France to give the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon to Canada.
Miquelon
A Corner of North America That Is Forever France. “Sixteen miles off the coast of Newfoundland and just 800 miles from Boston lie the tiny islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, the last vestiges of the colonial empire of New France.
St-Pierre and Miquelon – Where France meets North America
www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com
lol
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Oct 7, 2015, 08:51 AMNumber of posts: 2,208
