Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "What Filipinos Think Of The Tensions Between The US and China | Street Interview" video.

1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs. 7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH. 7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y. 7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that court you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant. 12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country (including PH) can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well. 0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country". Why is Asian Boss allowing their host to spread misinformation? No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country. And Taiwans very own constitution specifically refers to Taiwan as a province of China.
9
@k-studio8112 "Because Vietnam is not harassing Filipino fishermen. Because Vietnam is not puting nukes in their islands" So as long as theres no "harassment", one can claim anothers territory scott-free? Got it. China also isnt putting nukes on those islands. Unless you got evidence to prove it?
9
@simonriley118 "China has annexed Tibet" Tibet in modern times was never a country to begin with. They have been part of China for longer than USA has been a country. You cant "annex" whats yours to begin with. So how is China a "modern colonizer"?
6
@shinchan406 "Taiwan"? Dont further confuse the ignorant. ROC was and still claims to be the country called China.
5
@pongpong123able4 EEZ means Exclusive Economic Zone. That only means a country has special rights to exploit the economic resources there. But the area is NOT part of their sovereign territory. So how did China "illegally occupy" something thats not "owned" by any country? Just because you have special rights in exploiting resources there doesnt mean its magically part of your sovereign territory. A countrys sovereign territory only extends up to 12nm from its shoreline, not the 200nm mark for EEZ. So what did China allegedly "illegal occupy" again and from who? All these people thinking they know "international law" when the fact of the matter is there is literally no law that prevents any country from "occupying" rocks or creating artificial islands. So no, nothing "illegal" based on international law.
5
@hijodelsoldeoriente "The Philippines also claim the island, same with Vietnam and Taiwan" PH claims are set in stone to be illegitimate. Why? Because when the US transferred sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said that the transfer of sovereignty DOES NOT include the islands in the SCS. So PHs sovereign claims are illegitimate. "With that logic, any nation could literally invoke it's right to the island's EEZ as long as they prove that the island is legally part of their territory. Thats the grey area not specified in international law. And you dont need to "prove" its "legally" part of their territory. International law does not cover that. "That's where the recent court ruling enters. Historical claims by China haf been proven to have no legal basis" Correct. But not only for China, ALL the countries cant make legal claims to the islands based on "historical" claims, INCLUDING the PH. Thats international law for you.
5
@hijodelsoldeoriente The largest and only island in the entire SCS that ticks all the boxes to have its own EEZ is Chinas Taiping island. So even if China meets PH halfway in the EEZ, Chinas EEZ (from Taiping island) literally covers 99% of all the islands in the SCS that PH also claims.
4
@sakakisak5413 You do realise the whole SCS has overlapping EEZs right?
4
@malakatan3235 "UNCLOS can't settle/give disputed territories, yet they did it" What do you mean "yet they did it"? They didnt settle nor give any territories. They only ruled that China (and by extension other countries) dont have legal claims on those territories based on historical records.
3
@orangeballs4536 "why do you need a vpn to use YouTube?" Because YT refused to adhere to Chinese local laws (like censorship). Any company that refuses to adhere to local laws in ANY country will not be able to do business there. Simple as that
3
@Brydsteaxs And questions are supposedly "enlightenment" now?
3
@Hazard2005 Sooo the PH doesnt have a good understanding what the US is doing and what kind of government the US is?
3
@mara3874 "Because Vietnam isn't claiming the entirety of the south china sea" Only half of it. No biggie
3
@kujuakusg "At least people didn't claimed all the islands which belong to Philippines as China did" Who says it "belongs" to the PH? When the US handed over sovereignty to the PH, they specifically stated that the islands DID NOT belong to the PH. So tell me how it "belongs" to the PH again? Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. And more than 2 countries claim these islands.
3
Why is my main comment not showing? Is Asian Boss censoring truth comments now?
3
I said: 0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country". Why is Asian Boss allowing their host to spread misinformation? No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country. And Taiwans very own constitution specifically refers to Taiwan as a province of China. 1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs. 7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH. 7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y. 7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that court you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant. 12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country (including PH) can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
2
0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country". Why is Asian Boss allowing their host to spread misinformation? No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country. And Taiwans very own constitution specifically refers to Taiwan as a province of China. 1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs. 7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH. 7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y. 7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that court you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant. 12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country (including PH) can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
2
@rap3208 "An island can only have a territorial waters (12 miles around it), no EEZ" Wrong. You are referring to whats legally referred to as a "rock". There are many island countries in this world, they have no EEZs? If you were referring to my comment on Taiping island, Taiping island is not classified as a "rock". Its the only island in the entire SCS proven to have fresh ground water to sustain human habitation. Thats why I said that the "largest and only island in the entire SCS that ticks all the boxes to have its own EEZ is Chinas Taiping island". UNCLOS PART VIII Article121 Section 3: Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
2
@JoseMaria-dj6pc No. China did not "illegally" cease PH territory. This is how facts get misconstrued. The reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs. Also, China laid claims to the islands in the SCS in the 1940s. When did PH lay claim to those islands? In 1970s after oil was found. 3 decades after China claimed them. So who ceased whos territory?
2
0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country" shame on Asian Boss for spreading false information. No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country, and "Taiwan" doesn't even claim to be a "country" in the first place. 1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs. 7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH. 7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y. 7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that body you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant. 12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws, including the PH. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
2
@rap3208 "A rock or an island it doesn't matter, all the spratley islands are not capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of its own, only one has e fresh water supply - thus they are rocks. They don't get to have an EEZ." I never said rocks have EEZ? I said Taiping island has EEZ. Taiping island has been sustaining human habitation ever since the Chinese landed there. That by legal definition does not mean its a rock. So Im not sure what the point of your comment is.
2
@JoseMaria-dj6pc "geographically it's West phillippines sea" What kind of logics that? Why not call the East Vietnam Sea. These a East and South of PH too. Why not call that the South PH Sea and East PH Sea?
2
@@pingmeup5908 Looks like my comment was deleted.. "So how did China "illegally occupy" something thats not "owned" by any country?" Something is only "illegal" if a law states that its prohibited. There is NO law that states anything about occupying territory not owned by anyone, ESPECIALLY when China is the FIRST country in the region to lay claims on those territories in the 1940s. It was only in the 1970s when oil was found in the region that Vietnam, PH and the likes started claiming areas in the SCS. So as the first country to lay claims and was uncontested, it should be theirs imo. So again, China did not "illegal occupy" those territories. Your words are showing extreme bias. "It goes both ways as well" Where was your comment that PH was "illegally occupying" territories in the SCS too? "if this is not owned by any country but is currently being used by the said countries as an EEZ, , then why build islands and harass fishermen that is just trying to fish?" I never said its "owned" or "not owned" by any country. The territories are called "disputed territories" for a reason. YOU were the one that said China were supposedly "illegally occupying" it. Im telling now that theyre not "illegally occupying" anything. Theres NO law that prohibits buildings islands outside of another countrys sovereign territory, thus Chinas actions cant be deemed "illegal". And although I dont agree with the harassing of fisherman in the area, again, theres no laws against that in international law, so nothing can be done about that. "china does not own the place right? then why act as if they own it?" I spoke NOTHING on whether country X owns or does not own territory Z. Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many parties claim that they own the territory, including the PH. But China has the strongest claim on the area as they were the first country in the region to lay claims to the islands in the 1940s, while others made their first claim in the 1970s... "shouldnt it be joint extraction since no country owns it?" And thats not how the world works. Especially since China was the first to lay claim in the region and was uncontested. So to them its theirs, so why should they split something that they deem as theirs? If your neighbour suddenly claimed half your house 30 years after you, would you split it with them?
2
@johnwright9049 So then your logic doesnt make any sense. Dealing or not dealing with China has nothing to do with the tensions here. Let alone any "side effects"
2
@Brydsteaxs Sooo based on your logic, the only people on here are CCP bots, CIA bots and PH bots?
2
Yeh so much brainwashing and fake news spreading around. This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws, including the PH. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
2
@matthewjay660 Since you claim to be an educated American, why dont you call the sea what the educated Americans call it? You know? The South China Sea?
2
@cakeyummy6608 "China's army sucks in quality. Have you seen how terribly they faired against Indian troops during border fights for the past 3 years?" Yeh I saw. You know why they "sucked"? Because they restrained themselves. They have a no-fire-first policy. Same goes for India. So only scuffles happened. Youre going to judge an army "quality" based on scuffles? Really? Moreover, you speak about Chinese quality being bad, what about PH? Why no comment there? This comment is about CN vs PH after all. "Not to mention during the Korean War the US/allied soldiers were outnumbered over 5 to one by the Chinese/North Korean soldiers throughout the war and they still lost land" And what "technology" did this poor impoverished Chinese have compared to the US then? Is the disparity still the same in 2023? And we're talking about swords and spears here. How many years experience does China have with swords compared to America? And why you talking about US again? This is about PH. Even if there are US allies, youre comparing the Korean War where China only "helped" out with, whereas if its CN vs PH, China will use its FULL force. Compare apple with apples, not with oranges. "And despite that they still lost territory by the end of the war" Territory was more or less the same. Instead of dividing NK and SK by a straight line, its divided more practically by a river. So not sure what youre on about there. "I'm saying that if only swords and spears are used like in this guy's example, it would most likely be a win for America" The examples you gave with the Korean war etc with China losing more soldiers, that all comes down to the disparity in technology. If its swords and spear where its 1v1 for the most part, numbers and experience matter. So no, China will win there.
1
@life_is_a_myth Ahh I see
1
@sickandtired967 China didnt "invade" Tibet. Tibet was legally part of China in the beginning. It was Tibet that ILLEGAL created their own illegitimate government.
1
@ns-4438 You forgot to answer the 2nd part of the question
1
@kujuakusg No, it was not a "fact" that the islands now "belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country (including the PH) can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws. They didnt say that the islands "belong" to the PH. Thats simply fake news.
1
@johnwright9049 They would still claim the islands no?
1
@johnwright9049 Whats the unfortunate "side effect" of dealing with "Chugoku"? You mean if they didnt deal with China they wouldnt have claimed the territories?
1
@cakeyummy6608 "Um, dude? Failed Chinese invasion of Taiwan? Their army is terrible" You mean when Republic of China (ROC) retreated to Taiwan and took literally the whole country of Chinas military hardware and navy? Hows PRC meant to invade across the seas without any boats? I mean, they tried to make their own and use some old soviet boats, but you honestly comparing a government thats basically at 0 to literally the whole ROCs arsenal of navies? Really? You need to learn to compare apples with apples...And it happened half a century ago too...China 50 years ago and China now is 2 completely different Chinas... "Also when you look at the amount of land before and after the Korean War tat each side controlled, South Korea increased its size" South Korea gained a little more land, but its more or less the same. And what South Korea gained was basically unpopulated mountains and what North Korea gained was a major city Kaesong and the Han river estuary which is pretty crucial to river traffic from the ocean.
1
@cakeyummy6608 "They may have numbers, but none of those people are trained" China literally has the largest standing army in the world, that means theyre ALL trained. "Many people are also malnourished..." And I dont know what world youre living in, but soldiers are NEVER malnourished. "America has a lot of people, much bigger people, and generally stronger people" And whats this got to do with America?
1
@quadmedia Spears and swords? China will still win. They have thousands of years of experience fighting with swords and spears. They have the numbers too!
1
@JoseMaria-dj6pc Sovereignty is not decided by coastline. And heres another thing for sure, when the US handed over the sovereignty to PH, they specifically stated it DOES NOT include the outlying islands in the SCS. So no, PH does not have sovereignty over the islands. They just wish they did and made their citizens believed they did
1
@gravityissues5210 "...while ignoring China taking your territorial waters" No ones taking your "territorial waters". Territorial waters is defined by 12nm from your shoreline. Tell me one instance China even ventured within 12nm of PH territory.
1