ヨウ

1. CLAIM: "China claims the whole of the South China Seas." DATA: Not true at all. Look at the official statements. "China has never claimed that the whole of the South China Sea belongs to it.” (China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, March 2024). (More on this below.) . 2. CLAIM: "The PRC drew up a line of dashes which covers the entire area so they can claim it." DATA: Not true at all. The RoC government (now associated with the KMT on the island of Taiwan) drew up the line of dashes, first publishing it in December of 1946. China's position is that it doesn't claim "the whole of the South China Sea" but wants to RETAIN sovereignty of land over which it already has recognized legal sovereignty—which is the default position of all nations. That’s a vital difference. . 3. CLAIM: "The Philippines fought a 2016 case at the United Nations court and won sovereignty." DATA: Not true at all. A case was heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a legal group which is NOT a United Nations body, nor is it part of the UN system. . 4. CLAIM: Under UNCLOS, the convention on the sea, the Philippines won sovereignty over the southern waters and islands. DATA: Again, not true. UNCLOS contains NO provision for altering any state’s land territorial sovereignty, nor does it confer any country a right to claim another’s territory on the basis of its EEZ (exclusive economic zone). Read it. The documents are admirably clear about this. . 5. CLAIM: Anyway, China lost that case against the Philippines, whoever heard it. DATA: Not true. China did not fight the case, so you can count that as a "technical" loss, if you like. But before the hearing, the PCA tribunal said it would NOT discuss matters of sovereignty, after which China said that in that case it would not attend. The tribunal repeatedly said it was NOT ruling on sovereignty of the region. For example, ruling paragraph 267 says: "…the Tribunal is not addressing questions of sovereignty…" You can’t get clearer than that. . 6. CLAIM: The judges at the hearing ruled in favor of the Philippines on the technical points, anyway. DATA: Yes. But this is interesting. Consider this. China was not present. Arguments were presented on one side only! Literally. One of the five judges on the bench was nominated by the Philippines. In that situation, a total and comprehensive judgement in favor of the Philippines was expected by all parties. However, even with the hearing totally sewn up, Manila failed to win five of the 20 points listed. Their arguments were so weak, the judges could not accept them. . 7. CLAIM: The Philippines does have sovereignty over the Spratly/ Nansha Islands, anyway. DATA: Not true. Here's a list of governments which have officially agreed in the past that the Spratly/ Nansha Islands BELONGED TO CHINA. (i) The US. (ii) China. (iii) The UK. (iv) The governors of Taiwan. (v) The Philippines. All were absolutely clear, in writing, that the islands belonged to China. (You can check with historians.) So why the dispute? When signs emerged of possible oil deposits near the islands in the late 1970s, the first President Marcos changed his position. Also, Western politicians and media favor conflict, if it can be used to demonize China. (You know them by now.) Especially as China is now viewed as the number one threat to western supremacy. . 8. CLAIM: But Chinese boats have been extremely aggressive against ships from the Philippines for years, right? DATA: No, not at all. Chinese ships are always portrayed as "the aggressor" but this is not supported by evidence. There are certainly two sides to this dispute, and incidents should be reviewed case by case. We can go through the cases one by one, but an easier answer is to simply consider the following: The present series of "incidents of friction" between vessels from the two countries is very recent. They stem from the date Bongbong Marcos took the presidency in 2022 and met Biden in the spring of 2023. Even the western mainstream media acknowledges his fulsome allegiance to Washington DC. Under the previous leader, Rodrigo Duterte, the waters were relatively peaceful. Washington is behind the sudden eruption of conflicts in the South China Seas. . 9. CLAIM: Yes, but before that, the Chinese tried for decades to aggressively grab the whole area, right? DATA: Also not true. The Chinese wanted to take time grow a positive friendship over the issue through friendly trade, which is its normal system. It persuaded the Manila govt in 1995 to sign a joint deal which proposed that “a gradual and progressive process of cooperation shall be adopted with a view to eventually negotiating a settlement of the bilateral disputes”. Those were the ACTUAL WORDS. Read them again: “a gradual and progressive process of cooperation”. But it was this attitude which worried Washington. The west and its allies FEAR the idea of peace in Asia more than anything. . 10. CLAIM: Still, it is clear that China is the problem in Asia, right? DATA: Absolutely not. As mentioned above, the west and its allies dislike the gradual growth of friendships between Mainland China and other communities in Asia, and sponsor destabilization operations to create polarization. For example, when a million Hong Kong people and two million people from Taiwan started working and living in mainland China in 2017/ 2018, the west desperately needed to stir up problems—and that's what they did. And blamed Beijing. Same with the Philippines. Duterte brought peace. So he's in jail, Marcos is in, and conflict is back. Also, consider this: Which country is doing the most to reclaim land in the waters near the Philippines? Not China, but Vietnam. But you won’t read about that. The west is very, very good at manipulating narratives. The good news: Western politicians and mainstream media are losing credibility day by day. Not before time. Don't be fooled. Stay smart. .