Thread: China 'building runway in disputed South China Sea island'

Originally Posted by OhOh

You posted:



You replied:





ameristan did not read the ICJ Charter. Both sides have to agree to be judged. One country didn't which made the award meaningless.

But what's new about ameristan ignoring lawful agreements and purporting to uphold an "International Law" they didn't ratify.

Facts matter to some.



You introduced the "tangent" not I.

I think your dementia might perhaps be advancing quicker than you thought.

I made a comparison a two year old could understand that saying China has a right to the seas around the Paracels is like saying America owns the moon.

Is that a bit too difficult for you to understand?

If China or anyone else wants ownership, they need to stake their claim in the ICJ, and until they do it belongs to none of them.

So I hope the US keep sailing around it just to get you and them all wound up.

Originally Posted by OhOh

You posted:
ameristan did not read the Permanent Court of Arbitration Rules, which was where the ameristani,then vassal, "won" a judgement" which was promptly diplomatically replied too and ignored:

America has no dog in the Paracels fight, so what are you waffling on about now?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they need to stake their claim in the ICJ

Why, they were awarded the islands and more as WWII booty, same as others took their own booty. If China is obliged to give the booty up, so must the others, yes?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

America has no dog in the Paracels fight

Probably not now, but when the fight was instigated?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Why, they were awarded the islands and more as WWII booty, same as others took their own booty. If China is obliged to give the booty up, so must the others, yes?

Where does it say they were "awarded the islands"?

Originally Posted by OhOh

One of my previous posts you obviously failed to read.

In addition:

"It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. "

Cairo Conference

Where does it say they were awarded the PARACELS then if you're going to be obtuse.

^Clarity in your posts will ensure clarity in mine.

What the documents say is all territories stolen from China. Which was indicated as by use of the "such as " words, xxx + the named territories. Then as now China claimed the Paracels, see their 7 dashed line and multiple others in this thread.

Which returns us to today situation.

Philippines Building Lighthouses in South China Sea: National Security Adviser

The Philippines is constructing lighthouses in areas it controls in the disputed South China Sea, officials said Wednesday as they denied persistent claims that Manila had been quiet in the face of Chinese military expansionism in the region.


Manila would “not abandon” a 2016 finding by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which ruled in favor of the Philippines after it questioned China’s encroachment in Scarborough Shoal, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon said.

The shoal lies west of the main Philippine island of Luzon and is clearly within the country’s exclusive economic zone.


Esperon said the ruling was “merely set aside” in line with President Rodrigo Duterte’s policy of keeping cordial relations with countries that have varying claims to the South China Sea, or the West Philippine Sea, as Manila calls it.


“At the proper time, we will take full advantage of the tribunal ruling, even as China refuses to recognize this, to serve as basis for the country’s exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction over features that are in the Philippine territorial waters,” Esperon said.


While the government appeared to be keeping silent, he said, it was continuously monitoring actions in the sea region. In particular, the government noted “with serious concern the growing militarization in the area, such as the deployment of military assets” on Chinese-held islands near Philippine territory.


“In response to these actions, the Philippine government has not been remiss in undertaking diplomatic actions against any nation,” Esperon said, adding that the foreign office had already made representations through a bilateral consultation mechanism between the Philippines and China.



And to dispel public fears that the country was not doing anything amid the Chinese movements, Esperon said the government was presently upgrading port and airstrip facilities on Pag-asa island (Thitu island), where about 100 or so civilians live.


“This is necessary for trade, the preservation of the livelihood of the fisher folk, and the timely delivery of basic necessities of the community in the Municipality of Pag-asa,” Esperon said.


“Lighthouses are also now being constructed on features held by the Philippines to ensure safety of navigation,” as provided for under international conventions to provide navigational safety for all international vessels transmitting the sea region, he said.


Chinese weaponry
This month, China raised concerns in the region after it landed long-range bomber planes such as the H-6K, which is capable of carrying air-launched cruise missiles, on one of its occupied islands for the first time as part of training exercises.


It also reportedly installed anti-ship cruise missile and surface-to-air missile systems on three islands in the Spratlys, a disputed group of atolls and isles in the South China Sea. Apart from the Philippines and China, the mineral-rich region is also contested by Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan.


The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), a think-tank, also released satellite photographs of the Chinese activities, including what appeared to be Chinese surveillance planes.


The Philippine has largely kept quiet on the issue, but the government released a statement last week reiterating its commitment to protect “every inch” of its territory, even as it said it had no clear evidence of the Chinese buildup.


President Rodrigo Duterte has also taken pains against antagonizing China, which he has called a friend and rich source of development aid.


Speaking at a congressional hearing on the issue Wednesday, Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano defended the government’s apparent silence on the matter, saying there was no need to publicize every action that the government took.


He said the goal of protecting the country’s “territorial integrity” remained the same “but the approach or the underlying result of such approach is different."


“The past administration chose the approach of being loud, resulting in us losing control of a very important area in our national territory. Yes, there were gains, there were several gains, but there were also major losses,” he said.
Duterte, according to Cayetano, was “prudent, patient and pragmatic.”


“This approach has produced major results. It changed the momentum towards stability, peace and cooperation,” Cayetano argued, adding that not only had it brought stability but had led to cooperation with Beijing in the fields of defense, labor, trade and anti-terrorism.



Ayungin Shoal


But Rep. Gary Alejano, a former Marine captain, said Chinese harassment in the sea region had not stopped even as the country was putting on a friendlier diplomatic face.


Early this month, he said, a Philippine Navy vessel was “challenged” by a Chinese coast guard vessel during a mission to resupply a small contingent in Ayuning Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal).


Lying west of the Philippine island of Palawan, the shoal is guarded by a tiny contingent of Filipino Marines stationed at a dilapidated Navy vessel that was marooned there as the country’s outpost.


“When the Philippine Navy ship launched a rubber boat to resupply BRP Sierra Madre, a chopper of PLAN (the People’s Liberation Army Navy) hovered in a close and dangerous distance. The PLAN chopper was so close that sea water splash entered the rubber boat,” Alejano said, citing military and foreign office sources.


The Chinese forces were aboard Chinese Coast Guard vessel with bow number 3368 and a PLAN ship with bow number 549.


“Before, it was only CCG that was challenging and harassing our troops. Now, the CCG was already accompanied by the PLAN,” he said. “This is a clear threat to our security forces by no less than the Chinese Coast Guard and Navy which obviously requires condemnation from our end.”


He chided Cayetano for not speaking out on the issue, even as he said he has been appraised of the alleged intimidation and threats.


“Secretary Cayetano should not feign ignorance and act clueless as if his office is not receiving pertinent information,” he said.


During the House hearing Wednesday, according to Alejano, Cayetano acknowledged that the incident had indeed occurred in Ayungin Shoal. But he did not give a clear answer when asked whether Manila was going to protest this.


“As usual, the Duterte administration gives us the same general statements that they are discussing the matter and will be taking action, but the public is still being left in the dark. If the Duterte administration wants the public to trust its approach in the West Philippine Sea, certain details meant for public consumption should be released,” Alejano said.


On Monday, Cayetano said in a speech that Duterte had warned he would go to war against Beijing if it broke the "red lines" his administration had set in dealing with the South China Sea dispute.


The red lines would include construction activities and extraction of oil and gas in the West Philippine Sea, the local name of the waters within the Philippines' 370-kilometer (231-mile) exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea.


“The President has said that. If anyone gets the natural resources in the West Philippine Sea, he will go to war,” Cayetano said in his speech, an official transcription of which was provided to reporters by his office.


https://www.benarnews.org/english/ne...018093724.html

The Paracel Islands are an archipelago of about 130 small coral islands and reefs, surrounded by productive fishing grounds and by potential oil and gas reserves. In 1932, French Indochina annexed the islands and set up a weather station on Pattle Island; maintenance was continued by its successor, Vietnam. China has occupied all the Paracel Islands since 1974, when its troops seized a South Vietnamese garrison occupying the western islands.

The Battle of the Paracel Islands was a military engagement between the naval forces of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and South Vietnam in the Paracel Islands on January 19, 1974. The battle was an attempt by the South Vietnamese navy to expel the Chinese navy from the vicinity.

As a result of the battle, the PRC established de facto control over the Paracels.

The islands also are claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.

Originally Posted by misskit

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

Another transparently ameristani institution.

Two Philippine politicians arguing, in the correct manner, in debate of the "House", surely a good thing.

Originally Posted by OhOh

^Clarity in your posts will ensure clarity in mine.

What the documents say is all territories stolen from China. Which was indicated as by use of the "such as " words, xxx + the named territories. Then as now China claimed the Paracels, see their 7 dashed line and multiple others in this thread.

Which returns us to today situation.

They never owned them, so how the fuck could they have been stolen from them?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

The Paracel Islands are an archipelago of about 130 small coral islands and reefs, surrounded by productive fishing grounds and by potential oil and gas reserves. In 1932, French Indochina annexed the islands and set up a weather station on Pattle Island; maintenance was continued by its successor, Vietnam. China has occupied all the Paracel Islands since 1974, when its troops seized a South Vietnamese garrison occupying the western islands.

The Battle of the Paracel Islands was a military engagement between the naval forces of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and South Vietnam in the Paracel Islands on January 19, 1974. The battle was an attempt by the South Vietnamese navy to expel the Chinese navy from the vicinity.

As a result of the battle, the PRC established de facto control over the Paracels.

The islands also are claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.

Perhaps you could explain to OhOh that "de facto control" does not equate to ownership.

Unless, of course, he agrees on that basis that Israel "owns" the Golan Heights.

South China Sea dispute: Mattis says China 'intimidating neighbours'

China is deploying missiles in the disputed South China Sea to intimidate and coerce its neighbours, US Defence Secretary James Mattis has said.



Speaking in Singapore, General Mattis said Beijing's actions called into question its broader goals.

He also said the issue of US troops in South Korea was "not on the table" at this month's summit between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un.

The US wanted complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, he added.

South Korean Defence Minister Song Young-moo also told the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit that US forces in South Korea was a "separate issue from North Korea's nuclear issue".

There are currently about 28,500 US troops based in South Korea.

Trump says summit with Kim is back on
What does Kim Jong-un really want?
The political gamble of the 21st Century

Mr Mattis told the security summit that Beijing had deployed military hardware including anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles and electronic jammers to locations across the South China Sea.

"Despite China's claims to the contrary, the placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion," Gen Mattis said.

Why is the South China Sea contentious?
China's 'globalised' military power

Gen Mattis said the Trump administration wanted a constructive relationship with China but would compete vigorously if necessary.

He also said the US recognised that China had a role to play in the region.

The South China Sea, a key trade route, is subject to overlapping claims by six countries.

China has been building small islands and other maritime features into military facilities there.

Last month China said it had for the first time landed bombers on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands, prompting US warnings that it was destabilising the region.

What does disputed Paracel island look like?

Woody Island, which China calls Yongxing, is also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.
The South China Sea dispute
Media captionRupert Wingfield-Hayes says China is determined to assert its control

Sovereignty over two largely uninhabited island chains, the Paracels and the Spratlys, is disputed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan and Malaysia
China claims the largest portion of territory, saying its rights go back centuries - in 1947 it issued a map detailing its claims
The area is a major shipping route, and a rich fishing ground, and is thought to have abundant oil and gas reserves

South China Sea dispute: Mattis says China 'intimidating neighbours' - BBC News

Last month China said it had for the first time landed bombers on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands

Well it's not Sputnik, but I'm pretty sure our resident drone will struggle to contradict that puppy.

China says it has landed long-range bombers for the first time on an island in the South China Sea, the latest in a series of maneuvers putting Beijing at odds with its neighbors and Washington over China's growing military presence around disputed islands.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) announced on Friday it successfully organized the takeoff and landing of several bombers, including the nuclear-capable H-6K, on an unspecified island. The PLA claimed the mission was a part of China's aim to achieve a broader regional reach, quicker mobilization, and greater strike capabilities.
"The islands in the South China Sea are China's territory," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said in a statement Monday. "The relevant military activities are normal trainings and other parties shouldn't over-interpret them."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/20/a...ntl/index.html

Translation: "You're not allowed to moan at us for militarising islands we don't own, but if you sail a ship near them we will squeal like little chinese schoolgirls".

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Well it's not Sputnik,

Ok the BBC and CNN parrot the same source, does that mean it's 200% true. Did they have reporters on the island, film crews on the island or flying around the island? No. The only published fact/source is a Chinese researcher.

The PLAAF, If you actually look back a few pages here, where I clarified this point/the link on the official PLAAF site, reports a "researcher" at a Chinese institution. No Chinese PLAAF source, no Chinese Government Officer source.

In addition the only video, published in a Chinese news site, of the alleged landings shows the bombers descending to the airstrip, flying along, above, the airstrip and climbing away from the airstrip. No video of the bombers actually landing/touching down, taxiing, refuelling or re-arming. The types of things some might wish to practice prior to signing off that the airfield was useful as place to base bombers on for real active service.

In the weeks since there have been no further revelations and no further evidence published. As I suggested earlier I believe the "landing" was not completed, not even a touch and go exercise.

But if you can prove otherwise I will gladly apologise here.

Originally Posted by OhOh

of the alleged landings shows the bombers descending to the airstrip, flying along, above, the airstrip and climbing away from the airstrip

Yes, they flew a stack of strategic bombers all the way down there, tested out the ground effect from an altitude of 5 metres and flew back again without touching down!

So that means that those islands are not military installations after all!!

Oh noes some major egg on face to be cleaned off for the West thinking that they were military installations!!!

Maybe the J-11 (cheap Su-27 knock-off) interceptor pictured on the runway got lost in bad weather and just had to land there, on that civilian defo non-military airstrip!!

Originally Posted by OhOh

As I suggested earlier I believe the "landing" was not completed, not even a touch and go exercise.

It's funny, you seem convinced that if you "believe" something didn't happen, then it didn't.

But if Sputnik or RT say it happened, then you're convinced.

You really are rather odd.

Who is going to stop China doing what they want to do..? Nobody.

Originally Posted by Looper

Maybe the J-11 (cheap Su-27 knock-off)

Not I believe, classified as a strategic, nuclear capable, bomber.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You really are rather odd.

You are incapable of proving any landing took place. Which is the subtopic we are discussing, I believe.

Not my oddness, although some might believe it is worth a separate topic, maybe a poll. Start one and if you consider it successful maybe a new subsection on the forum to be added where all can discuss the "oddness" of all TD members.

Originally Posted by OhOh

You are incapable of proving any landing took place. Which is the subtopic we are discussing, I believe.

Are you accusing the Chinese of lying?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Are you accusing the Chinese of lying?

Chinese lie whatever next. Everybody lies, what is important is, do you believe the lies?

What I have stated clearly that all sources originally, and I suspect even today nobody has come up with any other source, quoted an unknown source on the China Daily web site. Their source was the PLAAF page. The link is in one of my previous posts.

The PLAAF page was edited in a matter of hours and modified, to name the source and state his position as a "researcher". It may have been modified again go see report back from the original source . Or continue to spread fake news , one of probably now, hundreds of western sources.

Is the researcher a credible source, is he a government officer, is he a government minister or does he have an ulterior motive. Do you know, I don't.

What I have also posted here previously, is my source scoring formulae. Top position is a Named Government minister's official web page, second is a named government official, third is a named credible reporter, fourth is a credible publisher. Other's here, including yourself, accept unnamed sources on known biased sites, as gospel, I don't.

We are different people, you and me, we have different reasons to post here. Some are concerned if egg sticks on their faces, some act like 8 year olds and state they "own the page", some spread reds and greens to belong to the favoured groups, some even publish their stars as badges of honour to reinforce their assumed popularity. I don't. If someone makes me chuckle or stronger I will green them. If someone makes a mistake I tease them.

This is just mild amusement for me, nobody so far, has threatened to kill me, no mod has told me to cool it. So I continue.

Please let me know when you find a source of stature, if I am wrong I will admit it, as I always do in all my life.

Originally Posted by OhOh

This is just mild amusement for me, nobody so far, has threatened to kill me

Speaking for a number of people here : we'd really appreciate it if you did it yourself.

Originally Posted by OhOh

sted here previously, is my source scoring formulae. Top position is a Named Government minister's official web page, second is a named government official, third is a named credible reporter, fourth is a credible publisher.

Ironic, because when Sputnik publish some fucking rubbish story about how (pick a name), a senior spokesman for the Ministry of some Russian fucking bullshit has said that Russia did/did not do something, you crow about it as if you have indisputable facts at your fingertips.

Fucking hell you are funny.