HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Foreign Affairs (Group) » China calls for 'basic et...

Tue May 4, 2021, 03:26 PM

China calls for 'basic etiquette' after Philippine outburst

BEIJING (Reuters) - China urged the Philippines on Tuesday to observe "basic etiquette" and eschew megaphone diplomacy after the southeast Asian nation's foreign minister used an expletive-laced Twitter message to demand that China's vessels leave disputed waters.

The comments by Teodoro Locsin, known for occasional blunt remarks, follow Manila's protests over what it calls the illegal presence of hundreds of Chinese boats inside the Philippines' 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

In a statement, China's foreign ministry urged the Philippines to respect the nation's sovereignty and jurisdiction and stop taking actions that complicate the situation.

"Facts have repeatedly proved that microphone diplomacy cannot change the facts, but can only undermine mutual trust," it said.


Some Trumpian style projection on the part of the Chinese.

3 replies, 546 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply China calls for 'basic etiquette' after Philippine outburst (Original post)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 4 OP
abqtommy May 4 #1
Irish_Dem May 4 #2
soryang May 5 #3

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Tue May 4, 2021, 04:02 PM

1. What this Chinese diplomatic-speak means is "Do it my way or hit the highway". I know

Last edited Tue May 4, 2021, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

that when I was told the same thing the highway started lookin' pretty good. I kinda know
where The Phillipines goes from here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to abqtommy (Reply #1)

Tue May 4, 2021, 09:44 PM

2. Yes it is a quite humorous statement.

Beijing lecturing others on proper decorum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed May 5, 2021, 07:13 PM

3. "disputed waters?"

They are international waters. there is no territorial claim associated with a reef beyond the national territorial boundary. The claims in dispute are EEZ claims which do not affect navigable waters. They affect marine resources.

Preexisting disputes are not determined by UNCLOS. China made this clear when they signed UNCLOS, that they took exception to preexisting disputes. There is therefore, no jurisdiction for an arbitration. The island of Taiping is occupied by Taiwan in the Spratleys. This island is not a "rock" as the ITLOS decision determined to wish away the Chinese claims to the EEZ associated with it. Both Taiwan and the PRC dispute the arbitration. Taiping is closer to Whitsun Reef than the Philippine coast. China never consented to the arbitration nor did it ever waive the tribunal's complete lack of jurisdiction.

The bottom line is there is no PCA/ITLOS jurisdiction over Chinese sovereignty claims:

…The overall obligation to submit to a compulsory conciliation procedure under 298(1)(a)(i) will however not apply in respect of a maritime boundary dispute which “necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over the continental shelf or insular territory”.21 In other words, obligation contained in article 298(1)(a)(i) to submit a conciliation procedure is subject to three conditions: (i) the dispute should have arisen after the Convention entered into force; (ii) no agreement could be reached between the parties settling the dispute within a reasonable period of time; and (iii) that the dispute did not involve “the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental shelf or insular land territory”.*
*The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju Author
Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2016, Pages 265–307, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019
Published: 20 June 2016 https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

The PCA decision proceeds from a Philippine admission arguendo on the jurisdictional exclusion for territorial claims to a complete rejection of Chinese EEZ claims in the Spratley’s (and the Paracels by western operational extension).

“73…To this extent there is obvious contradiction or lack of consistency in the position of the Tribunal. On the one hand, it declares that it is not empowered to deal with issues of sovereignty and maritime delimitation in view of the Chinese Declaration pertaining to the disputes under the UNCLOS but, on the other hand, it declares itself competent to examine “the source of maritime entitlements of China in the South China Sea”. In that sense, the position of the Tribunal is manifestly self-contradictory.”*
*Id., https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread