Wow for the Month of May 2014 - President Barack Obama Visits the PH "Quotes"





US President Barack Obama arrived in the Philippines on Monday, April 28, and disembarked from Air Force One at 1:41 pm at AGES Aviation Center, Balagbag Ramp in Pasay City.



At a joint press conference in Manila, President Obama insisted the deal was not about thwarting China’s rise.

“Our goal is not to counter China. Our goal is not to contain China. Our goal is to make sure international rules and norms are respected, and that includes in the area of international disputes,”  he said.

"The goal for this agreement is to build Philippine capacity to engage in training, engage in coordination, not simply to deal with issues of maritime security, but also to enhance our capabilities so that if there is a natural disaster that takes place we can respond quickly," Obama told a joint news conference in Manila after talks with President Benigno Aquino.

“Our commitment to defend the Philippines is ironclad and the United States will keep that commitment, because allies never stand alone,”

 Obama told Philippine and US troops at a packed military gymnasium in Fort Bonifacio, as a multiethnic backdrop of camouflaged soldiers stood behind him on stage.

“Through our treaty alliance, the United States has an ironclad commitment to defend you, your security and your independence,”

Obama told an audience of dignitaries in the presidential palace, including President Benigno Aquino III, referring to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty between the two nations.



"Let me be absolutely clear. For more than 60 years, the United States and the Philippines have been bound by a mutual defense treaty. And this treaty means our two nations pledge—and I’m quoting—our ‘common determination to defend themselves against external armed attacks, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone," he said

"Deepening our alliance is part of our broader vision for the Asia Pacific,

 We believe that nations and peoples have the right to live in security and peace, and to have their sovereignty and territorial integrity respected.”  Obama said.

"We believe that international law must be upheld, that freedom of navigation must be preserved and commerce must not be impeded. We believe that disputes must be resolved peacefully and not by intimidation or force. That’s what our nations stand for. That’s the future we’re working for,” Obama said.

“Along with your civilian partners, you rushed into the disaster zone, pulled people from the rubble, delivered food and medicine. You showed what friends can do when we take care of each other,” he said.

“Sadly, the proud service of many of these Filipino veterans was never fully recognized by the United States,” he said. “It was an injustice.”

It was during Obama’s administration that a law was passed the provided compensation to nearly 20,000 Filipino veterans from World War II and their families.

“It was the right thing to do,” Obama said.

Toolbox 14- Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS)




Objective:
To understand risk of tractor overturns, and the effectiveness of the proper use of ROPS.

Trainer's Note:

Discuss safe driving practices for farm tractors and machinery. Focus on the following safety precautions in preventing rollovers.

Background

Tractor rollovers account for 50% of tractor related fatalities in the United States. Distracted operators, speed, and rough or uneven ground are leading causes of tractor rollover. Rollover protective structures (ROPS ) became available for tractors in the mid 1960's and were not available for all new tractors until the mid-70's. However, they were not standard equipment on new tractors until 1985. Many tractors built before that time are still in use and they contribute to the tractor fatality rate because they are not ROPS and seat belt equipped. Use of ROPS and seatbelt are 99.9% effective in preventing deaths due to tractor overturns.

OSHA requires ROPS and seatbelts to be installed on all tractors operated by employees.

For tractors that are not equipped with a ROPS, check with the manufacturer or dealer for the Trainer's Note: Discuss safe driving practices for farm tractors and machinery. Focus on the following safety precautions in preventing rollovers. availability of ROPS retrofit kits. If they are available, the tractor should be retrofitted. Install and use seat belts on tractors with ROPS. Seatbelts ensure that the operator stays within the "zone of protection" offered by the ROPS during a tractor mishap. Seatbelts should not be used on tractors without ROPS. Rollover protective structures do not prevent rollovers, but 99.9% effective in preventing death or serious injury. Distracted operators, speed, slopes, and uneven ground are leading causes of tractor rollover.

There are two types of rollover protective structures:

• Rollover Protective Frame
• Rollover Protective Enclosure

Rollover Protective Frame

These are either two or four post frames which are securely mounted to the main body of the tractor. Use the provided seat belt to keep the operator within the protected area.
Rollover Protective Enclosure
A rollover protective enclosure utilizes the protective frame, but totally encloses the frame with metal and glass. Seat belts are provided and must be used to contain the operator within the protected area. In addition, this cab enclosure gives protection from weather, dust, noise and vibration.

Enclosures on older tractors were designed for operator comfort not for rollover protection and they are not considered ROPS. ROPS must meet regulations and standards that certify that they provide adequate protection in a tractor rollover. To find out if a frame or enclosure is certified, look for a certification label, contact the manufacturer, or check for the presence of a manufacturer installed seatbelt.

Reducing the risk of a side rollover:

• Set wheels as far apart as possible.
• Lock the brake pedals together before high speed road travel.
• Match speed to operating conditions and loads. Do not let the front wheels bounce.
• Slow down before turning.
• Use engine braking when going downhill.
• Avoid crossing steep slopes. Watch for depressions on the downhill side and bumps on the uphill side. Turn downhill, not uphill, if stability becomes a problem.
• Stay at least as far from ditches and rivers as banks are deep.
• Keep front-end loader buckets as low as possible when moving.
• If right front tire goes off the road into the ditch--turn downward rather than attempting to turn back onto the roadway.

Reducing the risk for rear overturn:

• Always hitch loads at the drawbar.
• Use front weights to increase tractor stability.
• Start forward motion slowly and change speed gradually.
• If possible, avoid backing downhill.
• Drive around ditches.
• Back out or be towed out of ditches or mud.

Review the Following Points

• Install and use seat belts on tractors with ROPS.
• ROPS do not prevent rollovers from occurring.
• Most rollovers involve tractor speed, operator error, or unsafe driving conditions.
• Follow safety steps to prevent rollovers.

Boycott Products “Made In China”

Posted on August 20, 2012 by pinoytekkie

Let us export globally our damnation of China’s expansionist ambitions in southeast Asia. Send emails to all people you know about the several instances of China bullying (namely the Spratlys Islands and Scarborough Shoal) and encourage them to avoid buying China products especially the Chinese brands. They are just copycats and questionable reliability made by hands of underpaid and overworked Chinese masses.

A China products boycott will be symbolic since our economy is dominated by Chinese products, as well as Chinese and “Chinoy” businessmen. Come to think of it, why not boycott also Chinoy producers who would not sign a “Defend Philippine sovereignty and ASEAN Seas zone of peace and security”?
There are three types of Chinese government bullying:
1) encroachment on our territorial land or waters;
2) encroachment on our EEZ; and
3) encroachment on areas where we have a claim but which may not yet be part of our internationally-recognized territory.

All forms of bullying must be resisted but the forms of resistance should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense. Further, the fight against the Chinese government bully is not only our fight. China’s claim on the SEA sea lanes is an affront not only to the Philippines but to the world. Thus, we must enlist the participation of the international community in condemning Chinese bully tactics in the SEA seas. This fight is not only our fight but the fight of all people of the world against the Chinese government bully.
China’s attempt to restrain us through bilateralism as a divide-and-rule tactic is an attempt to bully each SEA country one by one. Multilateralism is the best way: resolve the dispute through international law and the international courts, that the solution must be through the United Nations because China’s claims also involve claims on the world’s common sea lanes and, thus, every country of the world is a stakeholder.

A bilateral solution to the problem is not possible. Several years of experience on how China have dealt with the Philippines have shown that China has been bullying our country. We have to face China with the other nations of the world and use international laws and courts. China has massacred their Vietnamese proletarian brothers several years ago. There is no basis at all that they would be kinder to the Philippines. In 1988 the Chinese used battleships for firing with 37-mm anti-aircraft guns directly at the unarmed and light armed Vietnamese sailors and engineers on a reef in the Spratly Islands. Sixty four were killed. They have threatened to launch “small-scale war” against the Philippines. They have also bullied and continue to bully Vietnam even today, extending to areas outside of Paracel Islands. It is really a mistaken view that our conflict with China can be settled by a mere chit-chat between the two countries even if I also believe that the chit-chat can still continue while multilateral measures are also executed.
It is like a muscular husband bullying his petite young wife, using force, intimidation, deception, and ruse. Dialogues between the husband and the wife are no longer adequate. We must avail the international courts, international law, and the United Nations as a collective. Call for a bilateral dialogue is Chinese ruse and we have learned that for several years that the Chinese has been using tricks on us.

Among the possible deterrents of a Chinese attack are strong expression of support by all countries of the world and we should welcome all those who provide strong messages of support in our favor. We need not be afraid of an American bully if we are appealing to ALL nations of the world.
China and the Philippines and third parties especially the UN should at least agree to a common monitoring system through which actual situations at the disputed waters are observed in real time on satellite videos, so that the actions of opposing forces at sea are directly controlled in real time by their respective top commands. This may prevent accidents and miscalculations, if this is not yet already being done, imho.
Let us work on this or popularize the call “”Enjoin all country claimants to solve territorial disputes through peaceful means and through the international courts such as the ITLOS/UNCLOS, advance a United Nations co-implemented Code of Conduct in the SEA seas in the interim!” in which what you are saying just now are some of the concrete details.

The key question is: how do we compel or force China to sit at the negotiating table? Their strategy had been to deal with us individually, knowing that they do not have the moral ascendancy to face a multilateral group, either an ad hoc or the UN itself. Notice that China had repeatedly declared that it does not, it would not, recognize UNCLOS, neither any international court, neither the UN brokered arbitration, and I am sure neither any group of countries e.g., Japan, US, Australia, or Indonesia. (In fact, I doubt whether Australia would even lift a finger). It is not to say that we should not push for them. I am just saying that we ought to prepare for something beyond.
I say we intensify our criticism of the expansionist/bully policies of that government, call on the world to exercise various types of pressure on the country (such as boycott of their goods), paint a brutally frank picture of their government domestically and abroad, and call on all Chinese to realize democracy in their country and end bullyism in Asia. That is probably one of the best way to end Chinese bullyism. Otherwise, the other possible scenario is ala Libya scenario for China. Thus, let us reach out to the Chinese people!
I think that the boycott would do some good. The ASEAN Code of Conduct would add pressure on China, and it would be good. I think the US would not be in any position to pressure China at this point, unless and until some violence would have occurred.
The boycott can be done simultaneously. The boycott is okay (It may or may not provide the punch but, at minimum, a boycott it will promote awareness and resolve among the population. If you notice, the call “Enjoin all country claimants to solve territorial disputes through peaceful means and through the international courts such as the ITLOS/UNCLOS, advance a United Nations co-implemented Code of Conduct in the SEA seas in the interim!” is also a DIPLOMATIC cum people’s organization’s call. I did not add the boycott in the calls because my intent is to communicate the call to the diplomatic community (our side and third parties). However, people’s organizations can combine the call with a call for boycott of Chinese goods.

We do advocate a peaceful resolution to the dispute with China, it is the best and only way we can fight for our right on these islands, China openly harass our people and our government by showing what they can do and how powerful they are, with their military and economic power, this bullying may have been the rule before or in ancient times, but in these modern times, maybe now, we’re in an entirely different ballgame. We now have to make use of our Filipino Chinese community, to call on their friends in mainland China to respect our sovereignty, and we do understand, this is not an easy task, as this will need some sacrifices, yes, but It seems this is the best time for them to prove that they are worthy of their being truly Filipinos with Chinese descents.
I hope the powerful think twice to bully the small and helpless countries. When the smaller countries speak, their combined voices are loud and clear. It is powerful! We must continue our protest as loud as we can so that everybody can help us and reverberate all the way to China so they can get the message!

China Products Are Cheap but Inferior Anyway

A few years ago, China made it to the world headlines a number of times courtesy of their substandard and contaminated products. Products ranging from lead-painted toys, toxic toothpaste, chemical-laden seafood, fake eggs, fake rice, unsafe tires, and counterfeited medicines among others were have to be recalled because of the risks they pose to their consumer’s health and welfare.
And this year, China have once again proved to the world that it’s really a headline superstar when it comes to unsafe products, thanks to its Melamine tainted milk that has already killed a number of babies and hospitalized thousands more.
Want to avoid food poisoned with Melamine?http://www.beaconoftruth.com/melamine.htm
The alternative to boycotting China http://globalnation.inquirer.net/47001/the-alternative-to-boycotting-china

Panawagan:

Mga kapwa Pilipino, ito ang dapat tiyakin natin, kahit na may mga simbolikong aksiyon na dapat tayong ilunsad (halimbawa: maaring umabot sa pagyurak sa kanilang bandila): Hinding-hindi at kailanman hindi tayo bababa at dapat magpatupad tayo ng disiplina sa ating hanay, hindi tayo magrara-RIOT at hindi tayo mananakit ng sibilyang Tsino sa ating bayan. Dapat tiyakin natin ang kaligtasan ng mga INOSENTE. Ang kaaway natin ay ang gobyernong Tsino, ang gobyerno ng bagong imperyalismo sa Asya at hindi ang sibilyang mamamayang Tsino!

Japan voices support as Philippines stake claim on territory vs. China

by: Japan Daily Press- John Hofilena 02 April 2014

Japanese Destroyer JS Shirane dock at Manila South Harbor for joint naval exercise 02 Abril 2014 ~ Photo credit to Alexis Romero

Japan has declared its support for the Philippines as it strengthens its claim on territory that is also claimed by China. The Southeast Asian nation had recently filed a 4,000-page claim document – backed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – before an international tribunal. Japan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement of support, saying that Manila had Tokyo’s support in its claim for disputed territories in the South China Sea. Japan is also in a long-term dispute with China over the sovereignty of an uninhabited island chain in the East China Sea.

On Monday, Japan’s Foreign Ministry released a statement saying that the Philippines’ move to strengthen its claim is a step towards stability in the region. “The issue with regard to the South China Sea is directly related to the peace and stability of the region and is a common concern of the international community as a whole since the issue influences the international maritime order,” Japan pointed out in its statement. It also emphasized the Japanese government’s support towards the Philippines. “The Government of Japan supports the Philippines’ use of procedures under the UNCLOS aiming at peaceful settlement of disputes on the basis of international law, as such an action contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the international order in the region based on the rule of law,” the statement declared.



2 big ships of Chinese Coast Guard within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone on a cat and mouse chase of a Philippine Navy Vessel AM 700. The latter successfully scaped and managed to docked beside the stranded BRP Sierra Madre WWII war ship to supplies fresh Philippine Marine troops on disputed Ayungin Shoal .

The move from Manila is most likely a response to actions that happened on Saturday, when two Chinese Coast Guard vessels blocked a Philippine civilian ship en route to bring supplies and troops to one of the disputed areas. Recently, there have been some confrontations that have observers concerned that the area might become a flash point in the region. Early this year, a number of confrontations between Chinese military vessels and the Japanese Coast Guard in and around the area of the Senkaku Islands sparked the same feelings of concern in the region.

The Philippine Star- Obama visit to Phl, Asia seen as counterweight to China

By Elaine Kurtenbach (Associated Press) | Updated April 23, 2014 - 8:46am





FILE - In this Sept. 24, 2010 file photo, U.S. President Barack Obama, left, greets ASEAN leaders, Philippines President Benigno Aquino III, center, and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak before a luncheon in New York. As the U.S. shifts more of its military assets into the Pacific region under new defense guidelines, it is stepping up cooperation with many Southeast Asian nations, including Malaysia. AP/Susan Walsh, File



TOKYO — President Barack Obama's travels through Asia in coming days aim to reassure partners about the renewed U.S. commitment to the region, with an eye both to China's rising assertiveness and the fast-growing markets that are the center of gravity for global growth.

The question: Will it be enough?

Nearly seven months after he cancelled an Asian tour due to the U.S. government shutdown, Obama's failure to prevent Russia from annexing Crimea has sharpened concerns that America lacks the will or wherewithal to follow through on its much-touted "pivot" to the Asia-Pacific.

"Words come easy," said Philippine political analyst Ramon Casiple. "But U.S. allies would want to know what help they can get when things reach a point of no return."

The United States has been stepping up regional military deployments, but has made less progress on rebalancing through broader diplomatic and economic initiatives, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a Pacific Rim free trade agreement.

Obama arrives in Tokyo on Wednesday for the first state visit to America's closest ally in Asia by a U.S. president since Bill and Hillary Clinton came in 1996. He will be the first sitting U.S. president to visit Malaysia since Lyndon Johnson in 1966. Allies South Korea and the Philippines, the two other stops on his agenda, are also keen to shore up security ties.

U.S. allies wonder if America has adequate capability to back them up in territorial rifts with China, Caspile says, given Washington's budget problems and preoccupation with crises elsewhere.

"The American objective is to reassure countries that ... America is here to stay and is going to keep a strong interest in dealing with China together with those countries," said Koichi Nakano, a political science professor at Tokyo's Sophia University.

A report released last week by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged that more effort and money be devoted to upgrading alliances in the Asia-Pacific. "A successful rebalance must underscore the strategic message that the policy represents an enduring U.S. commitment to the region, assuring our partners that we are in it for the long haul," it said.

Striving to allay Japan's worries over its territorial dispute with China and missile launches by North Korea, during a recent Asian tour U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pledged two more ballistic missile defense destroyers for Japan by 2017. In a further show of solidarity, Hagel rebuked Beijing for escalating its territorial dispute with Tokyo over Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea that Japan calls the Senkaku islands and China calls the Diaoyu islands.

The U.S. is obligated to protect Japan from attack, but has sought to avoid taking a stand on sovereignty over the islands. Tokyo is hoping for more in the way of confidence building, says Hitoshi Tanaka, chairman of the Institute for International Strategy in Tokyo.

"We would like to see the president make a strong, clear statement about the Senkaku," said Tanaka. "There is a need for Japan and the U.S. to work to improve the security situation in East Asia."

Obama's two-night stay in Tokyo — just enough for the state visit the Japanese had pushed for — in itself sends a good message, said Matake Kamiya, a professor at the National Defense Academy in Yokosuka, near Tokyo.

"It's important not only for the psychology of the Japanese but also for the impression given to the Chinese and North Koreans," he said.

The U.S. has 50,000 troops in Japan and about 28,500 deployed in South Korea, where it just concluded joint U.S.-South Korean exercises. But Tokyo and Seoul remain at odds over a separate territorial dispute and lingering Korean resentment of Japanese aggression before and during World War II.

Getting an early start on fence-mending, Obama brought Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye together for their first face-to-face meeting since they both took office over a year ago, on the sidelines of a recent nuclear security summit in The Hague.

A visit by Abe in December to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines 14 convicted war criminals among 2.5 million war dead, irked the U.S. and angered both South Korea and China.

At least two members of Abe's Cabinet, and dozens of other lawmakers, paid respects at the shrine just days before Obama's arrival in visits the South Korean side described as "deplorable." But the leaders' attention may well be diverted by a tragic ferry sinking, which left more than 300 missing or dead, most of them teenagers.

The United States already has a free-trade agreement with South Korea, which is likely to eventually join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both the U.S. and Japan had hoped to announce "substantial progress" on the pact by the time of Obama's visit despite conflicts over tariffs on farm products and automobiles. Officials signaled Tuesday that a breakthrough was unlikely.

A TPP deal with Japan is vital for making headway with the other 10 countries in the trade bloc, which includes Malaysia, the third stop on Obama's swing through Asia, the market for about 60 percent of U.S. exports.

"Obama has two main agendas on this trip, which are to reaffirm the U.S. 'pivot' policy on Asia and to close the final hurdles for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement," said James Chin, a political analyst with Monash University in Malaysia.

As the U.S. shifts more of its military assets into the Pacific region under new defense guidelines, it is stepping up cooperation with many Southeast Asian nations, including Malaysia.

Though Kuala Lumpur's treatment of opposition politicians is complicating matters, Washington wants improved ties with Malaysia, whose majority Muslims adhere to a moderate form of Islam. The U.S. has taken a leading role in the Indian Ocean hunt for the Malaysia Airlines jet that vanished on March 8 with 239 people on board.

Chinese naval exercises near the James Shoal, just 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of Malaysia's Sarawak state, have strained Malaysia's resolve to avoid confrontation over territorial disputes.

Both the U.S. and Japan have stepped up support for the Philippines, the last stop on Obama's eight-day journey, with Tokyo offering retired coast guard cutters to help fend off intrusions by Chinese naval vessels near still other disputed islands in the South China Sea.

The Philippines is negotiating with Washington for a beefed up security agreement to allow more access for U.S. troops, ships and aircraft to detect and deter such incursions. U.S. bases in the Philippines closed when the country ended their leases in 1992, though the two sides have an agreement allowing limited U.S. troop visits, mainly in the south where Filipino troops are battling militants.

China’s 9-dash line has no legal basis: int’l experts

tuoitrenews

Updated : 11/28/2012 15:00 GMT + 7

Many French and European experts in foreign policies and politics have said that the "U-shaped line", also known as nine-dotted or nine-dash line, drawn by China over the East Sea has no legal basis, according to a conference in France last month.

It would be a serious mistake to assume that the conflicts in the East Sea just involve regional countries. It has the potential to be a world-scale conflict, said researcher Patrice Jorland, a veteran expert on Southeast Asia.
The event, organized by the Institute for International and Strategic Relations (IRIS) and Gabriel Peri Foundation, a reputable research organization specializing in political issues in France, attracted leading experts in France and Europe.
The conflicts in the East Sea have long been simmering, but became intensified in 2009.
"The sea and land areas around the East Sea has now become a new El Dorado with huge economic potentials for maritime fisheries and mining industries with rare minerals such as rare earths and gas, not to mention huge biological resources from marine flora and fauna, said Cyrille P. Coutansais, deputy of maritime law office of the General Staff of the French Navy.
“As above-ground resources are being depleted, regional countries are heading towards the sea, which has yet to be exploited,” he added.
“So as not to let such a resource-rich area fall into the hands of the mightier, there must be law and conventions defining the rules of the game there," Coutansais said, citing the 1958 Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS).
"Only international laws can resolve all the related disputes in a fair, sustainable, and respectable manner by all involving parties,” he added.

Why call it “South China Sea”?

As a guide to the debate, researcher Patrice Jorland, collaborator of International Research Journal of France, emphasized the way the Western world called the East Sea as "South China Sea" or “China Sea" has created misunderstandings and a source of conflict.
“This name was given by European cartographers and navigators centuries ago during their expeditions to discover new land.”
“It is ambiguous. This term does not match the current geopolitical situation and creates the impression that this maritime area belongs to China. But such impression is completely wrong.”
Even though the name of a territory may contain a word relating to a certain country, it does not mean this territory belongs to that country, explained Patrice Jorland.
“Everyone knows it, except perhaps China. Thus, in 2009, China showed their "U-shaped line" map to the United Nations.
The U-shaped map "in any case cannot constitute the legal evidence for sovereignty," said Prof. Erik Franckx of the Department of International and European Law from the Vrije Universiteit Brussels.
"Regarding law, it is not enough to declare state sovereignty over any piece of land or territories with any maps or names provided by a country,” he said.
"The reference authority of the UN, the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), finds no hydrographic and scientific symbol on the map provided by China, he said, referring to the map of the East Sea that China provided to the UN in 2009.
“According to IHO as well as my personal point of view, China's U-shaped map is ambiguous, lacks the technical accuracy and therefore has no legal basis."
Concurring with the opinions of other legal experts at the workshop criticizing China's claims, law professor David Scott of Brunel University (UK) said: "When presenting the U-shaped map to the United Nations, China wants to formalize and legitimize” its sea demands.
“But at the same time China refused to give technical evidence for the maps, refused to comply with UNCLOS and do not want to bring the disputes with neighboring countries to any international arbitration institution.”

“We will never provide any specific evidence”

The observation of David Scott is echoed by the analysis of Prof. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, a specialist in public law and political science at the University Paris Diderot.
She recalled a meeting in Beijing with senior Chinese officials three years ago when they told her: "We will never provide any specific evidence [about the U-shaped map] and we will never go to court for it! The waters are ours, why must we demonstrate or prove it?"
Prof. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau admitted she was then "shocked" at the disrespectful attitude to the international rights and agreements to which China is a signatory.
“China cannot provide any scientific evidence for what they claim because they have nothing in their hands," she said.
In the case of territorial claims in modern times, the current settlement is based on what is known as "customary law".
China only referred to the islands in the East Sea “in a document dating back to 1930, while the emperors of Annam [the precursor of Vietnam] already draw cadastral maps of the Paracel and Spratly archipelagoes from the 17th century.”
“That means in terms of legal and verifiable evidence, the documents given by Vietnam are much older. Therefore, China does not want any international court of arbitration to step into the disputes”.

Let’s bring the case to the Hague

Prof. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau and Mr. Cyril P. Coutansais said that China is implementing a strategy called "I am already there, so I stay", or more precisely, “establishing the fact, step by step".
This strategy has happened with a number of other countries which are getting tired of such disputes and will be ready to sign bilateral agreements beneficial to China.
"China believes that other countries involved in the dispute with it will finally be economically and financially exhausted in trying to modernize their army, and then they will let it go" said David Scott of the Brunel University.
Resolving the dispute through bilateral negotiations and settlement is the "secret" weapon of China.
As a result, Professor Franckx said that "if countries like the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries want to protect their territory, they must jointly bring China to international institutions to handle those disputes in multilateral manner. Bilateral negotiations and settlement only result in losses ".
Experts at the conference said that the proper and sustainable solution is to bring the case to the International Court of the Hague.

"As Vietnam and the Philippines also have territorial disputes with each other and with China, if Vietnam and the Philippines agree to bring the matter to an international court, China must also participate whether it likes it or not. In the current situation, maybe that's the best way to proceed. “ ~said Cyril P. Coutansais

China's "peaceful rise" - Suspicions about its super power ambitions

"China is the only major Asian country that has fought wars with all its land neighbours and claims to have done so in self-defence."

By Gurmeet Kanwal

China has inaugurated its rail link to Lhasa with pomp and show. It is undoubtedly a technological marvel, though one that will be difficult to maintain over the long term. The new railway line is ostensibly designed to open up Tibet to the world. It will also help the ruling Communist Party in China to substantially increase the number of Han Chinese that it settles every year in Tibet to change its demography.

Another cause for concern is China’s increased logistics capability to build up and sustain over a longer duration a much larger number of People’s Liberation Army divisions in Tibet. These extra divisions could be employed to further subdue the Tibetan people during peacetime and will be readily available in case of another border skirmish with India. Very few people realise that another incident like the limited fighting at Nathu La in 1967 and the Wang Dung stand-off in 1986 can lead to a border war as a result of the undemarcated Line of Actual Control.

China has termed its ongoing quest for a super power status a “peaceful rise”. However, China has never hesitated to employ military power to settle territorial and boundary disputes. It is the only major Asian country that has fought wars with all its land neighbours and claims to have done so in self-defence. China was involved in a vicious war in Korea in the 1950s. In 1962 China fought a border war with India that shattered the illusions of peaceful co-existence in Asia. It fought with Russia over a disputed island in the Assuri river. It invaded Vietnam to teach it a lesson and withdrew with a bloody nose.

China always speaks of its intentions for the peaceful re-unification of Taiwan with the mainland but does not hesitate to issue dire threats at the smallest sign of Taiwan’s quest for self-determination. It has fired surface-to-surface missiles into the Taiwan Straits and regularly practices amphibious landings. China has taken physical possession of some of the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea even though several other nations have much stronger claims. China was the world’s leading proliferator of nuclear weapons till A.Q. Khan’s antics propelled Pakistan to the top. Therefore, China’s emerging military capabilities must be seen in the light of its likely intentions in future.

It would be wrong to deduce that China is concentrating exclusively on enhancing its military power, which is now only one element of a nation’s ability to influence and shape the international environment. The Chinese leaders have for long propounded the concept of “comprehensive national power”. The Chinese are acutely conscious of the fact that they cannot hope to match the military muscle of the West for many more decades. They have been quick to realise that in future, as the world becomes increasingly globalised, interdependent and wired economic power will be the predominant determinant of a nation’s global status and its relative weight in the new world order. That is why the Chinese are working assiduously towards becoming an economic super power.

Simultaneously, China is modernising its armed forces to prepare for an option of the last resort, should Taiwan suddenly declare independence. In particular, the Chinese are acquiring offensive capabilities, including rapid reaction forces. The Chinese are unlikely to either invade Taiwan to secure its merger with the mainland or launch even missile and air strikes, as such action will have huge economic repercussions. New FDI will almost certainly stop; projects in the pipeline will be put on hold; some MNCs may even pull out; and the stock market will inevitably crash.

However, a naval and air blockade of Taiwan, though likely to invite UN sanctions, may appear attractive to the Chinese leadership. Cyber attacks, for which China has been preparing since the first Gulf War in 1991, are even more likely as these can completely disrupt the economy and provide inherent deniability.

Though Russia is the foremost supplier of military hardware to China, there has been no major military and strategic cooperation between the two countries. The relationship is basically a patron-client, buyer-seller relationship with limited transfer of technology to manufacture under license. It will be recalled that the Chinese had debunked former Russian Prime Minister Primakov’s proposal of a China-Russia-India triangle. However, the probability of a real convergence in the Chinese and Russian worldviews cannot be discounted. An overly pro-active US response will definitely ensure that the relationship graduates to a more meaningful strategic partnership, even if not a military alliance. Excessive US pressure will only drive the Chinese to up the ante a couple of notches in their rhetoric as well as their military preparations for the reunification of Taiwan.

Post-Cold War geopolitics is still in a state of flux. In the emerging poly-centric world order, new great powers will seek to counter US economic and military predominance. It will be prudent for the US to accommodate the new powers rather than confront them. At the same time, the US is unlikely to be overwhelmed either by the ongoing transition in power-politics or by the use of asymmetric warfare to counter its superior military power. The US can and must continue to utilise its economic clout and military muscle to exercise a stabilising international influence for the common good while dealing firmly with the so-called “states of concern” that threaten world peace and stability through WMD proliferation and international terrorism.

The emerging economic powerhouses like China and India will inevitably rise to take their rightful place as global players. Analysts in the West view China’s self-professed “peaceful rise” with suspicion and recommend a closer strategic partnership with India as a way of hedging US bets to counter-balance China’s influence in Asia. The best policy at present would be to continue to engage China as it integrates itself with the international economic order while keeping a close watch on its military ambitions and preparations.

The writer is Senior Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi.

The Tribune, India July 18, 2006