Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
 Forum IndexHome
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]

Google Search
US hypocrisy looms over the South China Sea arbitration.

Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Posts: 1180

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:22 am    Post subject: US hypocrisy looms over the South China Sea arbitration. Reply with quote

USA is full of evil and full of hypocrisy throughout its history. It is through its hypocrisy in dealing with the various self-governing Native American Indian tribes and through insidious plots, intrigues , subterfuge and treason that USA is able to extend its original territory of about Six Hundred Thousand Square miles of the thirteen states during the year of Independence from England in July 4th 1775, to the present day of Three million Seven Hundred Thousand Square miles , all at the expense of the native American Indians and the Mexicans. ( USA through brute military might forcefully and illegally acquired one milliom six hundred and fifty thousand square miles of land from Mexico in the years between 1840s to 1890s ). In 1905 USA deposed the queen of Hawaii and conquered Hawaii, after its army brutally brought down the government of the queen of Hawaii with the slaughter of more than two hundred thousand of the patriotic Hawaiian resistant fighters USA always twist international laws, dishonour treaties and twist human rights to suit its own agenda. Below is an article from China Daily on the hypocrisy of USA regarding the South China Sea issue and the comments from its readers.

US history of hypocrisy looms over South China Sea arbitration
By Zhu Junqing Source:Xinhua Published: 2016-7-10 19:08:01

The US-led Western countries have been good at maximizing their private interests and committing illegal acts through implementing double standards under the cover of international law and regulations.

The recently-released British Iraq War Inquiry Report found out that there was "no imminent threat" from Saddam Hussein in March 2003, who the US claimed possessed weapons of mass destruction that have still not been found to this day.

Though the report sidestepped defining the nature of the war, the US-led invasion of Iraq is widely considered to have been an illegal and unjust war that circumnavigated the United Nations (UN) and overturned a sovereign nation by a unilateral military action.

Such behavior should be criticized, condemned and eliminated as international law and the UN authority should never be toyed with and peace and stability should never be sacrificed to serve some groups' interests.

The US has always been hypocritical when talking about international law. The global superpower is skilled at intentionally applying and misinterpreting international law and norms to attack its "rivals," while it gives itself the right to choose whether or not to resort to international law.

Examples abound. In 1986, the International Court of Justice ruled that the US had violated international law by supporting the Contras rebels against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. However, the US refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, leading to its termination. Recently, Washington used international law as a "knife" to attack Russia over the Ukraine crisis.

In the South China Sea dispute, the US not only instigated the Philippines to submit an arbitration application to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, but at the same time it also smeared China's law-abiding image and sowed discord between China and its neighbors.

China has reiterated that the arbitration goes against international law for the following reasons.

The Philippines' unilateral initiation of the arbitration violates its agreement with China to resolve any dispute through bilateral negotiations; the unilateral initiation violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); the Philippines' unilateral act violated the right that China enjoys as a party to the UNCLOS to seek dispute settlements of its own choosing, and undermined the UNCLOS' authority and integrity; the Arbitral Tribunal has violated the UNCLOS and abused its power by hearing the case.

Obviously, the US, a self-proclaimed "international attorney," is an expert in jurisprudence, but to maintain its dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, Washington chose to ignore facts and engage in mud-slinging against China.

It is advisable for Washington to readjust its attitude toward China, as China will firmly safeguard its own territorial sovereignty and legitimate maritime rights as well as peace and stability in the South China Sea.

The author is a writer with the Xinhua News Agency.

Posted by Southernglory1

Below are some comments from netizens of China Daily

When one tends to see a country as individual, USA is definitely a teenage psychopath who's robbing and killing and lying all over

French philosopher Clotaire Rapallie says: "These levels (i.e. imprints have to happen as a child) are very different from one culture to another. Some cultures are very reptilian, which means very basic instinct. American culture is a very basic instinct: I want to be reached now; let's do it. There's a bias for action. Just now, America is very adolescent when other cultures are more cortex, very control, control, control." (His interview with PBS in 2004.)

Michiko Ray

Hillary Clinton kind of awful woman is really "American" in this definition, except her age.
So having her as President is the best match to America.

FACTS: Since the sixties the US has sanctioned Cuba for daring to throw out Bautista and his US gangsters and repel the US sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion there by humiliating America, something it can't forgive.

The Us invaded Vietnam at a cost of 58 thousand US soldiers and 3.5 million Vietnamese lives, left in disgrace leaving a destroyed society behind.

Invaded Afghanistan creating a dysfunctional society after 13 years with the Taliban again encroaching

The us invaded Iraq on the basis of a lie creating a completely dysfunctional society after the deaths of over a million and eventually leading to the rise of Isis.

The US and the west in general sponsoring and helping rebels including Neo Nazis in Ukraine to topple
a democratically elected government killing hundreds and then trying to shift the blame on Russia when the Crimean parliament allowed a vote by the population as to whether or not it wanted to rejoin Russia. The results were to rejoin Russia (91%) PS: there was no loss of life just a civilised transition. America howled it was illegal. Wow!!

Their only success seems to be their invasion of Panama to capture the drug runner Manuel Noriega.It was a near thing but the Americans persevered and finally got him: all 5 ft.4 in. of him.

Now the west is bombing Iraq and Syria without UN authority and is again on a killing spree. And we wonder
why these people hate the west?

The US has done nothing but screw up one country after another and has learned nothing except how to kill and to be a bully. They do the same thing over and over. Who or what is in charge? Anyone?


The American lawyers and politicians depend on dumb silly Asians who buy their lies. They cleverly package white lies, make deliberate omissions of their own violation of international law. Only foolish idiot Asians buy US lies. This show many of them are still third world mentality with no brains even as they improve their economic status. When people like Hillary talk of Rule of Law, she mean it does not apply to US but only to others.

China should sue PCA for breaking international laws in its dealing in Scs and intruding without all parties consent and for not doing due diligence and for acting In an interested and biased way if provisions are there in icj.


Fool! It will be a Slap Down for PH. If PCA is fair, it will kick the complaint PH filed within her 200 NM EEZ to the ICJ for further deliberation. Remember, Land Over Sea mantra. This is how it works in international law where maritime law depends on land sovereignty settlement First. As for Nine Dash Line, totally kicked out as PCA will find PH have no locus standee.


China will soon sue PCA for intruding and breaking international laws and acting in an interested and biased manner.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14427
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

South China Sea – An alignment of forces for domination and control
There are good and bad things coming out from this Hague circus and its South China Sea show. Let me start with the bad stuff first. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, an international institution created to uphold justice and peace, has unfortunately allowed itself to be embroiled in a power struggle for hegemony in the South China Sea. It is in the deep end, having sank into the quagmire for the last few years and unable to extricate itself to come up clean from the mud of infamy. Its decision is likely to compromise the good name and reputation of the institution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the judges involved. At worst, it will destroy the very reason for the existence of such an international body, a highly respectable, neutral and legal institution to arbitrate and resolve international disputes.
And here is the good outcome from the pronouncement by the Court. I would not call it a legal and enforceable judgment. It is not and it will not be legal but a political statement from an institution that has lost its credibility as an independent and impartial world body. The good outcome will come about when countries with vested interests start to make their stand public to reveal their private agenda. China would then know who are friends and who are foes. There will be no need to hide behind a mask anymore.
There will be a new alignment of forces for control of the South China Sea, politically and militarily. The risk of war is real and eminent as the main protagonist will have the countries in the region fighting among themselves, leaving the main protagonists safe and sound from afar. The announcement by the Court would also make China’s choices and options easier. To borrow a phrase from George Bush Jr, it is either with me or against me. There is no need for pretences and speaking in fork tongues. Asean countries will take their chosen places on both sides of the divide.
China does not need to be diplomatic anymore to appease the hegemon and think the problems of an open military confrontation will go away. China would have to take sides and close ranks with its friends against its foes. It is crisis time and China cannot afford to compromise its position and security to side with the hegemon and its foes against its friends. China must take decisive decision to part ways with the hegemon bent on confrontation. China would have to be resolute and firm and review all its policies vis a vis the hegemon and be prepared to take sides against the hegemon and its allies or be left to stand up against the hegemon and its allies, alone.
The Hague pronouncement is like D Day with the battle line drawn up. There is no more grey area, no more superficial friendship. The forces of the two sides will stand up to be counted and all policies must be realigned to face this new and risky challenge to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the South China Sea.
A new and dangerous chapter in the story of the South China Sea is about to be written. The way forward is military confrontation with the hegemon and its allies upping the stakes in a winner take all gambit. China’s appeasement policies to avoid war are not working. War is coming to China and the earlier China makes up its mind the better. It is a critical moment in history when China would have to call on all its friends and allies to act together to face the combined forces of the hegemon and its allies.
The only hope for avoiding a nasty confrontation is for the new President of the Philippines to break ranks and to start negotiation with China, to seek for a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution for both countries. Such a decision by the Philippines would be the only way to scuttle the aggressive intent of the hegemon, to give it no reason and justification to push for a nasty and explosive solution in open warfare in the South China Sea.
Would there be wisdom within the Asean ranks, especially those that have no conflicting claims in the South China Sea, to call out and walk away from the battle field drawn up by the hegemon? Or would they be dragged by the less enlightened Asean states into a war that has nothing to do with them and nor to their national interests?
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14427
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the Permanent Court of Arbitration?
By Chua Chin Leng ( 2016-07-14 16:04
Wikipedia has this to say about the PCA.‘The PCA is not a “court" in the conventional understanding of that term but an administrative organization with the object of having permanent and readily available means to serve as the registry for purposes of international arbitration and other related procedures, including commissions of enquiry and conciliation. The judges or arbitrators that hear cases are officially called "Members" of the Court.
The public at large is usually more familiar with the International Court of Justice than with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, partly because of the closed nature of cases handled by the PCA and also the small number of cases dealt with between 1946 and 1990. Sometimes even the decision itself is kept confidential at the request of the parties.’
To simplify, this is a private entity established to facilitate arbitration by member states on a willing buyer willing seller basis. It is quite like a commercial establishment, any member state can come to seek help to arbitrate their disputes. It is not a court! It is not a world body like the UN or sanctioned by the UN. Its jurisdiction and ruling are as good as the disputing parties want it to be. It has no authority and no legal status if a disputing party is not willing to subject itself to its arbitration. The closest example of such a court is the international court in Tanjong Pagar in Singapore, a convenient store for customers to avail themselves of its facilities.
I hope this is clear and no one should go on to believe that it is akin to the International Court of Justice, a UN organization. This South China Sea dispute that the PCA was hearing has no credibility and legal standing as the other party did not oblige or agree to the arbitration. What China said, that it is piece of waste paper is as good as it could be.
The Americans and its allies have tried to deceive the world that the PCA’s rulings on the Philippines submission are binding and legal. This is hogwash. How could it be when it is not a court of law? How could it be when it is a tribunal for willing parties to seek arbitration when there is an unwilling party (China) that refused to participate and did not even make any representation on the case?
Having established the basis and nature of the PCA, it would be interesting if the Philippines would to file another case to claim the state of Sabah as part of the Philippines. And it is expected that Malaysia would object and would decline to participate in such a trial settlement. But given the support of the Americans, the PCA could go ahead to appoint a panel of judges without the consent of Malaysia and come out with a judgment in favor of the Philippines. And the PCA could then declare that its ‘judgment’ is final and binding on Malaysia.
Would Malaysia agree to the judgment, would it be legal and binding on Malaysia? Many similar cases and judgments could be brought to and decided by the PCA which the Americans would like the world to believe is a world body with the authority to impose its judgment on unwilling nation states and expect them to abide by it.
The most dangerous implications arising from this precedent, if it can be called a precedent, would be on countries agreeing to the Trans Pacific Pact (TPP) that the Americans are proposing. The members of this TPP would come under the jurisdiction of the PCA for obvious reasons and they have no rights to be excluded from its judgment, and its decision would be final and binding.
This could be a test case and a precedent that the Americans are trying to set to impose on the members of the TPP with the PCA doing its bidding like in this South China Sea case. Can members of the TPP and members of the PCA expect a fair hearing when they can be put on trial against their objections? Would any country be willing to be ruled by an organization like the PCA to determine the fate of their disputes, even their sovereignty without their consent?
The PCA cannot be seen to be an authority or a court to rule over nation states. It is a miscarriage of justice and an attempt to usurp the rights of a nation state in matters of the state and sovereignty if the PCA, a commercial organization, is deemed to have such authority.
Can a commercial tribunal rule over nation states and its judgment be binding against the objection of nation states?
The author is a political observer from Singapore.
PS. There have been many comments and discussions and opinions on this PCA rulings by all and sundry, including academics and the untrustworthy politicians. Even in a Channel News Asia programme the presenter was saying that the PCA was a UN backed arbitration court which is furthest from the truth.
In brief, the discussions and comments can be summarised like people arguing why 1 + 1 = 4 and not 3. To some it should be 3 and to others it should be 4. They forgot to go back to first base to question why 1 + 1 is 3 in the first place. This boils down to a lack of understanding of what this PCA is all about. It is like a private school or university, uncredited, unrated commercial setup unlike a govt or established and recognised public university. The private school would take in any candidate who is willing to pay the tuition fee and may even freely award first class honours to the highest bidder to increase its revenue.
The PCA has nothing to do with the UN or approved by the UN. It is NOT a court but a tribunal for willing parties to seek an arbitration ruling applicable and binding only to the consenting parties. How on earth would academics forget this critical distinction, and for politicians to call a non participating litigant to respect its ruling, that its ruling is binding? They totally forgot to dispute that fact that 1 +1 is not equal to 3 but 2. They start to argue from a wrong basis, that a private school has so much credibility that its degrees must be recognised at all cost.
Get my point?
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14427
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The kangaroo court rules in favour of the Philippines

The rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration came as expected. The rulings were as good as a done deal from the day the case was filed by the Philippines with the connivance of the Americans and the Japanese as the President of the PCA. What can China or Taiwan expect from the rulings of a kangaroo court that predetermined and prejudged the case, decided who are the judges, what they want to judge, how they want to judge and how they want to interpret the laws to achieve what they want to achieve? Does anyone in his right mind really believe that this was a fair trial based on legal principles?

No international body shall be given so much power and authority to decide on the issue of sovereignty of any country without the consent of that country. This carnal principle cannot be violated at the peril of small states. Only a kangaroo court would have the arrogance to rule on sovereignty issues and declare that its decision is final and binding. When an international institution has abused its authority and power, it loses its right of existence, the very reason for its creation. China and Taiwan and other sovereign states that feared being bulldozed by such arbitrary rulings against their national interests without their consent, should walk out and quit the organization. China should rally its allies like Russia, North Korea, Iran and the central Asian states to leave the UNCLOS and close the door behind them. Let UNCLOS and the Permanent Court of Arbitration continue with their mischief, to rule against other hapless small countries.

With China and Russia joining the USA as non members of UNCLOS, the organization will become a meaningless lame duck. There is now no reason or benefits for China and its allies to be a member of an organization that has undone the goodwill and respect that it deserved, as a neutral, fair and just international body.

China must behave like a super power and stop being bullied by farcical institutions pretending to be world bodies and have power over countries without respecting their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is good that the PCA rulings came to expose the hypocrisy of what it is instead of what it was supposed to be.

China should leave these theatrical rulings behind and move on. The immediate task is to strengthen its military deployments in its islands, reinforce the weapons system in anticipation of a military assault by an American led joint military force.

The PCA rulings would also be an opportunity for China to see through the façade of hypocrisy of some Asean states, to know who they really are. Some Asean states would be compelled by these rulings and by the Americans to make a stand. China too should take a clear stand, to review all its agreements with the Americans done under the policy of appeasement, believing that the Americans would reciprocate goodwill with generosity. The truth is that the Americans have never been sincere in wanting to work and cooperate with China and have been treating China as their arch foe.

This is a wake up call for China, to identify friends or foes. China should no longer deceive itself that appeasing the Americans, trying to work with the Americans would be appreciated. It is a moment to be firm and resolute, to take a stand against this international conspiracy to violate China’s sovereignty and to contain China from expanding and developing its own islands in the South China Sea.

China must close ranks with its allies, especially with Russia, North Korea and Iran and the central Asia and African nation states. There is clear and present danger and unity is strength. The Americans and their allies have declared war on China. The days of trying to sleep with the devil are over. The devil will never change its evil ways.

The kangaroo court’s decision is the clearest sign of what’s more to come and China either stands and fights or would lose everything it has built for the last 40 years. The smaller states and those fence sitters would be watching how China stood up to this international bullying. Any weakness shown by China would only drive them quickly to the camps of the Americans. China must pick up the gauntlet and stare at the enemies with the nerve of steel, that it is not going to be pushed over.

Yes, D Day is here for China. This day would change the course of history and how the world would be going forward. The moment has come for China to take its place as a super power in the world stage and rebuild a New World Order that is fair to all countries big and small.
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14427
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mischievous rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration exposed

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is an independent judicial body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention. The Tribunal is composed of 21 independent members, elected from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the law of the sea.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, and over all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal (Statute, article 21)….
The mechanism established by the Convention provides for four alternative means for the settlement of disputes: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention, and a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII to the Convention.
A State Party is free to choose one or more of these means by a written declaration to be made under article 287 of the Convention and deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations (declarations made by States Parties under article 287).
If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same settlement procedure, the dispute may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree….
The Tribunal has jurisdiction over all disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, subject to the provisions of article 297 and to the declarations made in accordance with article 298 of the Convention.
Article 297 and declarations made under article 298 of the Convention do not prevent parties from agreeing to submit to the Tribunal a dispute otherwise excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under these provisions (Convention, article 299).
The above are text in the official site for the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea.
Li Jinming, a professor of international maritime law at Xiamen University, pointed out that the use of terms such “UN tribunal” or “UN-backed tribunal” – frequently reported by Western media – is incorrect, as they confuse the PCA with the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Read more:

So far the UN has never stood up to claim any relationship with the Permanent Court of Arbitration and it is puzzling why countries and reputable academics and even the crafty politicians would claim that this PCA is an UN institution or backed by the UN. What is obviously a glaring question now is that why would the Philippines, with its backers in the US and Japan, chose to go to the PCA and not the ITLOS? The distinction and authority of the two institutions are blinding. One is an official institution of the UN and the other is a private institution that has nothing to do with the UN.

The value of the PCA and its judgement is clearly a case of two willing parties agreeing to seek its arbitration. It is totally irrelevant and meaningless when another party refused to be arbitrated by the PCA. A one sided arbitration and judgment by the PCA is as good a piece of waste paper to an unwilling party. How silly it is for the Philippines and those calling for China to abide by a nothing more than a back lane commercial institution ruling is hilarious. The PCA’s ruling has no credibility and legal standing to an unwilling party. Period.

Again, why did the Philippines go the PCA and not the ITLOS? Base on the issues raised, the ITLOS would have thrown out the case as inadmissible. The ITLOS would abide by the provisions of UNCLOS, article 298, that forbid it to judge over an issue of territorial claims. And the Philippines and its backers, the Americans and Japanese knew very well that they did not have a prima facie case to start with.

More questions. For objectivity, fairness and justice, the provisions of the ITLOS are very specific, from the appointment of neutral judges to the consent of both litigants are spelt clearly. It does not arrogate itself to judge on territorial disputes without the consent of both parties. It has a panel of independent judges to hear the case, not judges to be appointed at the whims and fancies of interested parties and not judges that are paid by the interested parties as in this ICA case.

In this South China Sea dispute, it is obvious who foot the bills of the judges, the court and the legal counsels, and who did not. How could this be a fair trial conducted by disinterested parties? And what authority has a private institution, a ‘back lane’ tribunal has on sovereign states to demand that sovereign states respect and accept its judgment?

The Americans, the Japanese and the Philippines would want the rest of the world to believe that the PCA is an authoritative body, an international body sanctioned by the UN and has the jurisdiction and power to decide the fate of nation states and to delineate their territorial space, that its decision is final and binding and to disregard them is to ignore international laws and order.

How convenient to take such a stand with the western media and cronies singing the same tune, that the PCA represents the international law and order. What a joke. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people of the world and sovereign states to think they could pull wool over their eyes. The PCA is a private institution whose judgment is only as good as willing litigants want it to be, nothing more, nothing less. It has no legal status and has no jurisdiction over national territorial issues.

In this South China Sea ruling it is as good as a farce, totally devoid of credibility and legal standing. It is a political and mischievous act to deceive the world that it is legal and binding on China. Anyone that believes the PCA ruling is a legal and binding judgment must be an idiot whose intellect is next to zero. The Americans, Japanese and the Philippines must be laughing themselves silly that there are so many simpletons in the world that could be so easily duped by such an amateurist ploy.

PS. It is important to enlighten the masses that did not have the full facts of the case and did not know what the Permanent Court of Arbitration is all about. Even main stream media are in a daze and telling its readers that the PCA is an UN backed institution. Did they do their homework, done their due diligence? They are supposed to be professional news makers, to check and double check their facts before putting it out as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

How many main stream media are worthy and reliable in this regard? How many are plain stooges, paid by the Americans and Japanese to take a false stand? For sure they are not paid by the Pinoys as the Pinoys could not afford such wasteful paychecks. I am very sure that the judges in the PCA are not paid by the Pinoys. You know who were the paymasters? No prizes for the right answers.
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions