Comments by "D W" (@DW-op7ly) on "South China Morning Post"
channel.
-
80
-
64
-
54
-
31
-
27
-
24
-
24
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No one accepts the 9 dash line except China and Taiwan
No one is talking 9 dash line it’s the islands in dispute
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No shame at all
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because your only other Filipino claim other than a proximity claim in 1971????
Is based on your Spanish Colonizer claim in the 1500s
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
2
-
Long version
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
2
-
2
-
2
-
Philippines under UNCLOS had every right to request a tribunal as a resolution
But
China under UNCLOS had every right not to accept the tribunal as a resolution
No one other than Taiwan accepts that 9 dash line claim.
But what the tribunal did state was ... No one exhibited continuous control over the islands, reefs, water in dispute
That means all the other countries who also have their land and water disputes including China and the Philippines
Have dug into the land and water they control. And are basically saying talk to us in few hundred years
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To me what ever it is? Rent or the Sale of the land???
Malaysia has the right to pay you Filipinos in “perpetuity”
Certainly does not give you the right to invade
As for China just because there is a change in Government does not mean the country does not exist where did you get your education
Even with that strange logic then Taiwan should control those disputed islands
And the commies in China established in 1949 still made a claim to to those islands before the Philippines did in 1971 a few years after oil was found
As for the Manchu Dynasty that only shows what has already been argued in court that China did not show continuous control over the disputed islands
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Disillusioned about China’, more Chinese aim for US via risky Darien Gap
In 2023, Chinese migrants become the largest group outside the Americas to cross the treacherous region to reach the US.
* Behind her, signs explaining the hotel prices and policies are written in Mandarin. Pots of spicy instant noodles imported from China are for sale next to bottles of water. Payments via the Chinese social media app WeChat are accepted.
* “They move along in their own separate world,” Fernandez said.
The group of middle-aged travellers, wearing hats and carrying tents and walking poles, are dressed for a trek. But not everything quite adds up. Many are wearing lightweight Crocs footwear, and their small backpacks are wrapped in plastic bags.
* Just over 25,000 of those migrants were Chinese, making them the fourth largest overall nationality and the largest outside of the Americas to making the crossing.
* Chinese migrants – unlike many of the other most common nationalities in the Darien, such as Venezuelans and Haitians – often take special “VIP” routes across the jungle that are led by guides working for the Gulf Clan, Colombia’s largest drug cartel, and are quicker and less strenuous for higher prices than the most basic routes.
Why we want to go to the United States’
* “Our requirements are very simple: We can afford medical treatment, have a place to live, our children can afford to go to school and our family can be safe.”
* Some migrants interviewed by Zhou were misled to believe they could easily get a job for $10,000 in cash a month. However, the reality is that many are struggling to get jobs because employers are fearful of hiring undocumented workers.
* “I was forced to do this,” Sheng said while sipping a cup of tea at his hotel in Necocli. “It’s really difficult for most Chinese people to apply for a visa to America. But I feel disillusioned about China. That’s why we’re here in the jungle.”
Aljazeera
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hkchinese888 I find you Hong Kongers to be Naive
Don’t like the country you live in then leave if you think life is better somewhere else
But then you are probably an Indian pretending to be a hong Konger
But then it shows how sli my you are that you are at the same level as a Indian call centre sc am mer
👇
BN(O) visa immigrants: Study reveals 50% unemployment rate among Hong Kongers under 65 in the U.K., 99% have no plans to return
2nd November 2023 – (London) A recent study conducted by the “Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers” organisation, which assists Hong Kongers who have immigrated to the U.K. through the BN(O) Visa, has shed light on the employment situation of these individuals. The study surveyed over 2,000 Hong Kong immigrants and found that only 50% of those under the age of 65 were able to secure employment, indicating a significant unemployment rate among this group. Many Hong Kongers attribute their difficulty in finding employment to factors such as a lack of recognition for their English language skills and qualifications.
The study also highlighted the educational background of BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K. It revealed that 36% of the surveyed individuals held a master’s or doctoral degree, while 23% had a postgraduate degree. These figures indicate that BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K are nearly twice as well-educated as the average UK population.
However, despite their educational qualifications, many BN(O) Hong Kongers are facing difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience. Among those surveyed who were employed, 47% felt that their job did not align with their qualifications, and 20% felt that their workload was excessive.
Dim sum daily
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Apparently Musk went to China to get that Chinese FSD data stored there by Tesla since 2021
The Chinese probably said no we can’t allow that Chinese data to go to the USA so you can type up some algorithms
But we will allow you to team up with Baidu who are already way ahead of you anyways
This will help you compete in China vs Chinese EV makers
👇
Baidu starts offering nighttime driverless taxis
December 26, 2022
Starting this week, the public can ride its robotaxis in Wuhan between 7 am and 11 pm without safety drivers behind the wheel.
Previously, its unmanned vehicles could only operate from 9 am to 5 pm in the city.
The updated scheme is expected to cover one million customers in certain areas of Wuhan, a city of more than 10 million people.
Like most autonomous vehicle startups, Baidu combines a mix of third-party cameras, radar and lidar to help its cars see better in low-visibility conditions, in contrast to Tesla’s vision-based solution.
In August, Baidu started offering fully driverless robotaxi rides, charging passengers at taxi rates.
In Q3, Apollo Go, the firm’s robotaxi hailing app, completed more than 474,000 rides, up 311% year over year.
Accumulatively, Apollo Go had exceeded 1.4 million orders as of Q3.
TC
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodneyramsay5561 I wouldn’t trust Anything Mainstream Media tells me about China
That’s the real irony people like you wouldn’t believe a single thing Mainstream Media tells you
Unless it’s about China
Here something they won’t tell you to make up for pension shortfalls in China as people move into cities. They are looking into centralizing their Pension system. In the meantime they transfer money and assets from State owned enterprises into their Pension system
They are more likely to be the ones who give a universal basic income as AI takes over their country and the world for that matter
👇
Through a central coordination mechanism, over 930 billion yuan ($147.58 billion) from the national pool went to make up for the shortfalls of local pension schemes last year alone.
China's basic old-age insurance, a key program to ensure people's well-being after retirement, has been evolving to a larger-scale management system since its establishment in the 1990s. The central coordination mechanism was set up in 2018 as the first step prior to building a national system to further address unbalanced pension burdens nationwide.
But issues deriving from disparities in regional economic development and demographic structure still exist.
"Some regions have more surpluses, while the others with older populations are under heavier pressure to make pension payments," said Qi Tao, an official from the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security.
In 2021, over 210 billion yuan from the coordination mechanism went to the central and western regions as well as the northeastern "rust belt" provinces, as a greying population weighs on their pension payments and growing labor outflows squeeze pension income.
Using a nationwide chessboard as a metaphor, the head of the China Association of Social Security Zheng Gongcheng said the new national system will make the pension benefits fairer. "People won't need to sacrifice their pensions for migrating to work, and retirees won't have to deal with the risks from local pension fund shortfalls."
Qi said a mechanism that assigns the respective expenditure responsibilities of central and local governments on pension funds will be built after the national program comes into force and the central government will not roll back its subsidy to the pension funds.
Apart from the coordination efforts and central subsidy, state assets totaling 1.68 trillion yuan from 93 centrally-administered enterprises and financial institutions have also been transferred to replenish the pension schemes.
GOV . CN
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hkchinese888 I’m not those people
Or you could go to the UK …
What ever you are Muslim, Indian, Filipino or Chinese
I know you have never been to any of our countries you think there is freedom in… they don’t like coloured people like you … only difference in the Hong Kong/Chinese people have taken over the big cities like Vancouver and Toronto and pushed the racist folks out
👇
BN(O) visa immigrants: Study reveals 50% unemployment rate among Hong Kongers under 65 in the U.K., 99% have no plans to return
* 22nd November 2023 – (London) A recent study conducted by the “Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers” organisation, which assists Hong Kongers who have immigrated to the U.K. through the BN(O) Visa, has shed light on the employment situation of these individuals. The study surveyed over 2,000 Hong Kong immigrants and found that only 50% of those under the age of 65 were able to secure employment, indicating a significant unemployment rate among this group.
The study also highlighted the educational background of BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K. It revealed that 36% of the surveyed individuals held a master’s or doctoral degree, while 23% had a postgraduate degree. These figures indicate that BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K are nearly twice as well-educated as the average UK population.
* However, despite their educational qualifications, many BN(O) Hong Kongers are facing difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience. Among those surveyed who were employed, 47% felt that their job did not align with their qualifications, and 20% felt that their workload was excessive.
DimSumDaily
1
-
1
-
China leads the world in 37 of 44 critical technologies of the future
And they are buying gold instead of US debt these days
👇
China’s Gold Reserves Unveiled: Investigating Claims of Secret Hoarding and the Alleged Discrepancy
JANUARY 9, 2024
Based on these calculations, Frisby estimates that China has at around 33,000 tons of gold, with at least half being state-owned. That state-owned portion (16,500 tons) is double what the U.S. holds.
If China admits to the U.S., “We got twice as much gold as you,’ that’s tantamount to a declaration of war,” according to Frisby. The yuan would become more valuable, gold would become more valuable, and China would become the leader of both of these assets.
OxfordGoldGroup
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Malaysia clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines (In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines off the shores of Malaysian land) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute in the SCS with China stems from the fact they made a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on those disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 bce historical claim that the Philippines formally dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal that the Filipinos unilaterally brought forth
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
@louis8743
America and it’s NATO lackeys
both Russia and Ukraine receive dual use exported goods from China
we know this because the Ukrainians started to use Chinese made retail toy store drones over US made military grade drones
😂😂😂
👇
Ukraine and Israel buying Chinese civilian drones for combat use; shun U.S military drones
Kevin Walmsley
YouTube
👇
How American Drones Failed to Turn the Tide in Ukraine
Drones from American startups have been deemed glitchy and expensive, prompting Ukraine to turn to alternatives from China
Updated April 10, 2024 at 4:56 pm ET
The Silicon Valley company Skydio sent hundreds of its best drones to Ukraine to help fight the Russians. Things didn’t go well.
WSJ
👇
Chinese UAVs ‘Outperform’ US Drones In Ukraine War; WSJ Report Calls US-Made UAVs Fragile & Ineffective
April 10, 2024
According to WSJ, most small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) developed by American firms have struggled to perform in combat scenarios.
This development blows the hopes of these companies, who anticipated that combat testing would bolster sales and attention for their products.
Moreover, it poses challenges for the Pentagon, which requires a reliable supply of thousands of small drones for various purposes. Sources cited in the report, including drone company executives, Ukrainian frontline personnel, government officials, and former US military officials, outline several key issues plaguing US-made drones.
These include exorbitant costs, technical faults, and complex repair processes. In particular, Ukrainian officials have found US-made drones to be fragile and ineffective against Russian jamming and GPS blackout technology.
Instances have been reported where these drones failed to take off, complete missions, or return safely. Moreover, they often fall short of advertised flight distances and payload capacities.
Eurasiatimesnews
👇
American drones are glitching and getting lost in Ukraine, giving way to a flood of Chinese drones
Chris Panella Apr 10, 2024, 3:44 PM ET
American-made drones haven't excelled on the battlefield, prompting Ukraine to turn to buying Chinese-made drones.
* The problems with many US-made drones, particularly some of the smaller ones, are that they often don't function as advertised or planned and easily glitch when targeted by Russian jamming, sources told The Wall Street Journal.
They are fragile and vulnerable to electronic warfare. For some of the systems that were sent to Ukraine, issues included not taking off, getting lost and not returning home, or simply failing to meet mission expectations.
* US drones are also typically far more expensive than comparable models. And at the rate Ukraine is burning through them, it wouldn't be feasible. Instead, Ukraine is turning to systems made by Chinese companies for cheaper and often more reliable alternatives.
Chinese DJI drones have long played a role in the war, with Ukraine buying many of the retail models. Ukrainian forces sometimes strap bombs directly on them for a makeshift one-way attack drone or use them to drop grenades.
BI
👇
China's trade turnover with Ukraine rises by 46.6% to $1.5 bln in January-February
18 March 2024 23:30 (UTC+04:00)
AzerNews
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most people don’t get?
Is it is US multinationals making the lion share of those profits inflating the trade deficit between China to the USA
Where Chinese companies mostly trade with their Belt and Road country partners these days
These US multinationals are the ones sending you that junk
These US multinationals are still using the same highly polluting labour intensive factories formula.
As they were using more and more illegal labour smuggled in from South East Asia.
Or more and more automation in their wholly owned factories in China these days
These are the same companies who got those trump Corporate tax cuts you for sure cheered about
Same companies based in China who derived 392 billion in sales into the Chinese domestic markets in 2018 when trump started his trade war
Same companies averaging 20 to 40% of their earnings from China whose high flying stocks are in your 401k/Pensions
Same companies who the American farmer and consumer were sacrificed. So the USA could try and get “more” or “better” access for the US multinationals, into those Chinese Domestic markets during the trade war
Same companies whose HQ is in a North American city you can easily go stand outside and protest at….
Why didn’t China pull the nuclear trade option and boot these US companies you might ask?
They don’t believe in a zero sum game type of thinking
As I can show you during the trade war.
China didn’t pull out their big trade weapons, in fact they were lowering tariffs to most countries not raising them
👇
Trump’s ‘trade war’ with China won’t be so easy to win
Having learned these value chain lessons, Beijing has worked hard to bring more of the high-value-adding parts of value chains into China, and to build hi-tech industries in which it can establish a globally competitive position.
China has successfully done this in areas like high-speed trains (CRRC), digital telecoms networks (Huawei), drones (DJI) and hi-tech batteries (BYD).
Trump’s team is not wrong to be worried about China’s competitive emergence here, and to target these new-tech sectors in the latest trade war sortie.
But here’s the problem: China exports almost none of these new-tech products to the US, making US tariff threats meaningless. Rather, they go to developing economy markets – many embraced by the Belt and Road initiative – where China has succeeded in building a hi-tech, high-value brand reputation.
As Trump’s team will quickly learn, the challenge of finding China’s pain points is bigger than expected: for a decade China’s priority has been to base growth on the domestic consumer economy and reduce reliance on the low-value-adding export processing industries (many of which are US- or Hong Kong-owned and concentrated in the Pearl River Delta)
SCMP
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dailm8056 more like 2000 years ago
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested.
The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28]
The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Malaysia clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines (In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines off the shores of Malaysian land) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute in the SCS with China stems from the fact they made a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on those disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 bce historical claim that the Philippines formally dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal that the Filipinos unilaterally brought forth
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
Philippines made a claim in 1971 a few years after oil was found
China
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Chinese were there before the Spanish
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most people don’t get?
Is it is US multinationals making the lion share of those profits inflating the trade deficit between China to the USA
Where Chinese companies mostly trade with their Belt and Road country partners these days
These US multinationals are the ones sending you that junk
These US multinationals are still using the same highly polluting labour intensive factories formula.
As they were using more and more illegal labour smuggled in from South East Asia.
Or more and more automation in their wholly owned factories in China these days
These are the same companies who got those trump Corporate tax cuts you for sure cheered about
Same companies based in China who derived 392 billion in sales into the Chinese domestic markets in 2018 when trump started his trade war
Same companies averaging 20 to 40% of their earnings from China whose high flying stocks are in your 401k/Pensions
Same companies who the American farmer and consumer were sacrificed. So the USA could try and get “more” or “better” access for the US multinationals, into those Chinese Domestic markets during the trade war
Same companies whose HQ is in a North American city you can easily go stand outside and protest at….
Why didn’t China pull the nuclear trade option and boot these US companies you might ask?
They don’t believe in a zero sum game type of thinking
As I can show you during the trade war.
China didn’t pull out their big trade weapons, in fact they were lowering tariffs to most countries not raising them
👇
Trump’s ‘trade war’ with China won’t be so easy to win
Having learned these value chain lessons, Beijing has worked hard to bring more of the high-value-adding parts of value chains into China, and to build hi-tech industries in which it can establish a globally competitive position.
China has successfully done this in areas like high-speed trains (CRRC), digital telecoms networks (Huawei), drones (DJI) and hi-tech batteries (BYD).
Trump’s team is not wrong to be worried about China’s competitive emergence here, and to target these new-tech sectors in the latest trade war sortie.
But here’s the problem: China exports almost none of these new-tech products to the US, making US tariff threats meaningless. Rather, they go to developing economy markets – many embraced by the Belt and Road initiative – where China has succeeded in building a hi-tech, high-value brand reputation.
As Trump’s team will quickly learn, the challenge of finding China’s pain points is bigger than expected: for a decade China’s priority has been to base growth on the domestic consumer economy and reduce reliance on the low-value-adding export processing industries (many of which are US- or Hong Kong-owned and concentrated in the Pearl River Delta)
SCMP
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
* About South China Morning Post's Bias Rating
South China Morning Post is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Center.
What a "Center" Rating Means
Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Center either do not show much predictable media bias, display a balance of articles with left and right biases, or equally balance left and right perspectives.
Center doesn't mean better! A Center media bias rating does not necessarily mean a source is totally unbiased, neutral, perfectly reasonable, or credible, just as Left and Right don't necessarily mean extreme, wrong, unreasonable, or not credible. AllSides encourages people to read outlets across the political spectrum.
Learn more about Center ratings
Details
* Community Feedback
Feedback does not determine ratings, but may trigger deeper review.
As of November 2023, 447 people have voted on the AllSides Media Bias Rating for South China Morning Post. On average, those who disagree with our rating think this source has a Lean Left bias.
AllSidesMedia
1
-
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AceSM18
Have you even bothered to look at a map between Philippines and Malaysia?
Putting aside your claim to Sabah
There are still Filipino claimed/controlled islands that are way closer to Malaysia
Malaysia should take the Philippines to court and make a Proximity claim
As for UNCLOS
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
1
-
1
-
@AceSM18
You Filipinos invaded Sabah and caused the demise of 71 people in 2013
And you don’t even understand the history of your own country and the historical claim you have on Sabah
The money the Malaysians pay you every year, they say it’s for the “sale” of Sabah
You Filipinos call the money they pay you every year, money for the “rental” of Sabah
Which In my opinion I agree it’s a rental and you Filipinos are the actual owners of Sabah, not Malaysia
BUT
arguing “sale” or “rental” it does not matter
The Malays have the right to pay you 5000 Malaysian Ringgit every year in perpetuity
Meaning they can pay you for ever and ever and ever for the “sale”or “rental” of Sabah 👈whatever you want to call it
Time to learn the historical facts about your own country
Also there is that issue of you Filipinos unilaterally bringing forth a proximity claim on those disputed islands you have with China
Where you went to that ICJ tribunal in 2016 dismissing “historical claim.” Where a proximity claim trumps all
The Philippines only making an official proximity claim for the first time in 1971 proximity claim on those disputed islands you have with China
So with tour very own proximity claim logic
Sabah belongs to Malaysia, along with a few islands you Filipinos now control, that are closer to Malaysia, that you no doubt bullied from Malaysia in the past
It’s really not that hard to understand unless you are a Filipino
👇
The two main sultanates in the region at the time were Sulu and Brunei. In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei gave Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu - either as a dowry or because troops from Sulu had helped him quell a rebellion.
More than 350 years later, the sultan's heirs have come to remind Malaysians that they still consider Sabah to be part of Sulu and, by extension, part of the Philippines.
"Sabah is our home," they said simply when asked why they had come.
But history is not that simple and of course Malaysia has no intention of giving up Sabah to this little band of Filipinos.
The crux of their disagreement lies in a contract made in 1878, between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company.
Under this contract known as pajak, the company could occupy Sabah in perpetuity as long as it paid a regular sum of money.
Even today, Malaysia pays about 5,000 Malaysian ringgit (£1,000, $1,500) a year to the Sultanate of Sulu.
But the British and, after that an independent Malaysia, interpreted pajak to mean sale, while the Sulu Sultanate has always maintained it means lease.
"In my opinion, this is more consistent with a lease rather than a sale, because you can't have a purchase price which is not fixed and which is payable until kingdom come," said Harry Roque, a law professor at the University of the Philippines.
BBC
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cooleyfc
Disillusioned about China’, more Chinese aim for US via risky Darien Gap
In 2023, Chinese migrants become the largest group outside the Americas to cross the treacherous region to reach the US.
* Behind her, signs explaining the hotel prices and policies are written in Mandarin. Pots of spicy instant noodles imported from China are for sale next to bottles of water. Payments via the Chinese social media app WeChat are accepted.
* “They move along in their own separate world,” Fernandez said.
The group of middle-aged travellers, wearing hats and carrying tents and walking poles, are dressed for a trek. But not everything quite adds up. Many are wearing lightweight Crocs footwear, and their small backpacks are wrapped in plastic bags.
* Just over 25,000 of those migrants were Chinese, making them the fourth largest overall nationality and the largest outside of the Americas to making the crossing.
* Chinese migrants – unlike many of the other most common nationalities in the Darien, such as Venezuelans and Haitians – often take special “VIP” routes across the jungle that are led by guides working for the Gulf Clan, Colombia’s largest drug cartel, and are quicker and less strenuous for higher prices than the most basic routes.
Why we want to go to the United States’
* “Our requirements are very simple: We can afford medical treatment, have a place to live, our children can afford to go to school and our family can be safe.”
* Some migrants interviewed by Zhou were misled to believe they could easily get a job for $10,000 in cash a month. However, the reality is that many are struggling to get jobs because employers are fearful of hiring undocumented workers.
* “I was forced to do this,” Sheng said while sipping a cup of tea at his hotel in Necocli. “It’s really difficult for most Chinese people to apply for a visa to America. But I feel disillusioned about China. That’s why we’re here in the jungle.”
Aljazeera
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most people don’t get?
Is it is US multinationals making the lion share of those profits inflating the trade deficit between China to the USA
Where Chinese companies mostly trade with their Belt and Road country partners these days
These US multinationals are the ones sending you that junk
These US multinationals are still using the same highly polluting labour intensive factories formula.
As they were using more and more illegal labour smuggled in from South East Asia.
Or more and more automation in their wholly owned factories in China these days
These are the same companies who got those trump Corporate tax cuts you for sure cheered about
Same companies based in China who derived 392 billion in sales into the Chinese domestic markets in 2018 when trump started his trade war
Same companies averaging 20 to 40% of their earnings from China whose high flying stocks are in your 401k/Pensions
Same companies who the American farmer and consumer were sacrificed. So the USA could try and get “more” or “better” access for the US multinationals, into those Chinese Domestic markets during the trade war
Same companies whose HQ is in a North American city you can easily go stand outside and protest at….
Why didn’t China pull the nuclear trade option and boot these US companies you might ask?
They don’t believe in a zero sum game type of thinking
As I can show you during the trade war.
China didn’t pull out their big trade weapons, in fact they were lowering tariffs to most countries not raising them
👇
Trump’s ‘trade war’ with China won’t be so easy to win
Having learned these value chain lessons, Beijing has worked hard to bring more of the high-value-adding parts of value chains into China, and to build hi-tech industries in which it can establish a globally competitive position.
China has successfully done this in areas like high-speed trains (CRRC), digital telecoms networks (Huawei), drones (DJI) and hi-tech batteries (BYD).
Trump’s team is not wrong to be worried about China’s competitive emergence here, and to target these new-tech sectors in the latest trade war sortie.
But here’s the problem: China exports almost none of these new-tech products to the US, making US tariff threats meaningless. Rather, they go to developing economy markets – many embraced by the Belt and Road initiative – where China has succeeded in building a hi-tech, high-value brand reputation.
As Trump’s team will quickly learn, the challenge of finding China’s pain points is bigger than expected: for a decade China’s priority has been to base growth on the domestic consumer economy and reduce reliance on the low-value-adding export processing industries (many of which are US- or Hong Kong-owned and concentrated in the Pearl River Delta)
SCMP
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankjames7272
In China in 2008 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 1st homes in their cities
By 2018 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 2nd and 3rd homes in their cities
That’s why you are hearing about problems with their property developers these days. Because back in 2010? Their Central Government started cutting of money flow to these developers.
Thus why you heard about Shadow Banks and Underground Economy back then, that their Government had to come into to shutdown or regulate.
Even then, It took them almost 14 years to get their overheated real estate under control
Heck they were about to introduce a nation wide property tax, but then trump started the trade war in 2018
Why is their Central Government doing this?
Because there are still a few hundred million poorer rural folk they still expect to move to the cities to join their more well off urban city folk countrymen.
Problem is these property developers were building higher end homes, and not building the affordable homes these rural migrants will need
In China
Owning a home in the city you migrate to? Affects your employment, health, education and even marriage prospects don’t have a house you don’t get married
Thus the common prosperity push and the crackdown on the overt displays of wealth in China
Their Government probably figured out you disenfranchise the people at the bottom of your society they are the ones most likely to act out in protest
👇
New documentary focuses on financial health in Black community | Watch 'Our America: In the Black'
In comparison, the median net worth of all U.S. households is about 7.6 times higher than black net worth.
Additionally, a startling statistic by the organization Prosperity Now and the Institute for Policy Studies, predicts that the median wealth of Black Americans "will fall to zero by 2053."
Feb 1, 2024
ABC
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mudshovel289
Disillusioned about China’, more Chinese aim for US via risky Darien Gap
In 2023, Chinese migrants become the largest group outside the Americas to cross the treacherous region to reach the US.
* Behind her, signs explaining the hotel prices and policies are written in Mandarin. Pots of spicy instant noodles imported from China are for sale next to bottles of water. Payments via the Chinese social media app WeChat are accepted.
* “They move along in their own separate world,” Fernandez said.
The group of middle-aged travellers, wearing hats and carrying tents and walking poles, are dressed for a trek. But not everything quite adds up. Many are wearing lightweight Crocs footwear, and their small backpacks are wrapped in plastic bags.
* Just over 25,000 of those migrants were Chinese, making them the fourth largest overall nationality and the largest outside of the Americas to making the crossing.
* Chinese migrants – unlike many of the other most common nationalities in the Darien, such as Venezuelans and Haitians – often take special “VIP” routes across the jungle that are led by guides working for the Gulf Clan, Colombia’s largest drug cartel, and are quicker and less strenuous for higher prices than the most basic routes.
Why we want to go to the United States’
* “Our requirements are very simple: We can afford medical treatment, have a place to live, our children can afford to go to school and our family can be safe.”
* Some migrants interviewed by Zhou were misled to believe they could easily get a job for $10,000 in cash a month. However, the reality is that many are struggling to get jobs because employers are fearful of hiring undocumented workers.
* “I was forced to do this,” Sheng said while sipping a cup of tea at his hotel in Necocli. “It’s really difficult for most Chinese people to apply for a visa to America. But I feel disillusioned about China. That’s why we’re here in the jungle.”
Aljazeera
1
-
1
-
@mudshovel289
China was doing this over 17 years ago
👇
Landless farmers urged to migrate to Africa
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 19 September, 2007, 12:00am
SCMP Reporter
Farmers forced off the land and unable to find urban jobs should consider moving to Africa to become landlords and practise their agricultural skills, the head of the Export-Import Bank
said this week.
Li Ruogu said Beijing would support farmers who migrated. Speaking at a meeting in Chongqing to address rural immigration, Mr Li said the city's planned experiment in rapid urbanisation would transform several million farmers into city residents, but finding them jobs would be a problem.
Chongqing embarked on fast-tracked urban development after the National Development and Reform Commission selected it in June to be an experimental zone for national urbanisation reform.
More than 12 million farmers will have to leave their land by 2020 under the city's plan.
'Construction of the 'experimental zone' will relocate several million
peasants,' Mr Li said, adding that Chongqing should consider organising migration to Africa.
'The bank will give full support to the farmers in terms of capital
investment, project development and product-selling channels,' he added.
SCMP
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Introduction:
Article 310 of the Convention allows States and entities to make declarations or statements regarding its application at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, which do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention.
Article 310 reads:
"Article 310. Declarations and statements "Article 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept.
Article 287, paragraph 1, reads:
"Article 287. Choice of procedure "When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein."
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
"Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
"1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a)
(i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded form such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."
PLEASE NOTE: Declarations and statements with respect to the Convention and to the Agreement on Part XI made before 31 December 1996 - upon signature, ratification or accession - have been analyzed and published in "The Law of the Sea: Declarations and statements with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.97.V.3).
UNCLOS
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Introduction:
Article 310 of the Convention allows States and entities to make declarations or statements regarding its application at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, which do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention.
Article 310 reads:
"Article 310. Declarations and statements "Article 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
@SumTingWong888
Viet cong where did you hear it was hamburger meat?
That was the Americans sprinters excuse and we believe it
👇
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
serriajohn
How Much Money Does the World Owe China?
Our research, based on a comprehensive new data set, shows that China has extended many more loans to developing countries than previously known. This systematic underreporting of Chinese loans has created a “hidden debt” problem – meaning that debtor countries and international institutions alike have an incomplete picture on how much countries around the world owe to China and under which conditions.
In total, the Chinese state and its subsidiaries have lent about $1.5 trillion in direct loans and trade credits to more than 150 countries around the globe. This has turned China into the world’s largest official creditor — surpassing traditional, official lenders such as the World Bank, the IMF, or all OECD creditor governments combined.
Despite the large size of China’s overseas lending boom, no official data exists on the resulting debt flows and stocks. China does not report on its international lending, and Chinese loans literally fall through the cracks of traditional data-gathering institutions. For example, credit rating agencies, such as Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, or data providers, such as Bloomberg, focus on private creditors, but China’s lending is state sponsored, and therefore off their radar screen. Debtor countries themselves often do not collect data on debt owed by state-owned companies, which are the main recipients of Chinese loans. In addition, China is not a member of the Paris Club (an informal group of creditor nations) or the OECD, both of which collect data on lending by official creditors.
HarvardBusinessReview
👇
What is the volume of Chinese loans in Africa?
The Chinese press agency Xinhua gives lower figures on the extent of Chinese loans: “A report published last July by the British NGO Debt Justice showed that 12 percent of the external debt of African countries is owed to Chinese lenders, compared to 35 percent to Western private lenders. The average interest rate of these private loans is 5 percent, compared with 2.7 percent for loans from Chinese public and private lenders.” Source: Xinhua, Key Facts U.S. Deliberately Ignores about African Debt, 7/02/2023.
Cadmium
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Btw same can be said about your Filipino claims to Sabah which is a historical claim
Vs their obvious proximity claim
Like I said you Filipinos are the ones who initiated that 2016 ICJ tribunal dismissing historical claim over your proximity claim
As you bully Malaysia over a historical claim
👇
The two main sultanates in the region at the time were Sulu and Brunei. In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei gave Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu - either as a dowry or because troops from Sulu had helped him quell a rebellion.
More than 350 years later, the sultan's heirs have come to remind Malaysians that they still consider Sabah to be part of Sulu and, by extension, part of the Philippines.
"Sabah is our home," they said simply when asked why they had come.
But history is not that simple and of course Malaysia has no intention of giving up Sabah to this little band of Filipinos.
The crux of their disagreement lies in a contract made in 1878, between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company.
Under this contract known as pajak, the company could occupy Sabah in perpetuity as long as it paid a regular sum of money.
Even today, Malaysia pays about 5,000 Malaysian ringgit (£1,000, $1,500) a year to the Sultanate of Sulu.
But the British and, after that an independent Malaysia, interpreted pajak to mean sale, while the Sulu Sultanate has always maintained it means lease.
"In my opinion, this is more consistent with a lease rather than a sale, because you can't have a purchase price which is not fixed and which is payable until kingdom come," said Harry Roque, a law professor at the University of the Philippines.
BBC
1
-
Philippines under UNCLOS had every right to request a tribunal as a resolution
But
China under UNCLOS had every right not to accept the tribunal as a resolution
No one other than Taiwan accepts that 9 dash line claim. Which the tribunal did rule against
The tribunal did not rule on ownership of the disputed islands or waters
But what the tribunal did state was ... No one exhibited continuous control over the islands, reefs, water in dispute
That means all the other countries who also have their land and water disputes including China and the Philippines
Have dug into the land and water they control. And are basically saying talk to us in few hundred years
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Malaysia clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines (In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines off the shores of Malaysian land) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute in the SCS with China stems from the fact they made a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on those disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 ce historical claim that the Philippines formally dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal that the Filipinos unilaterally brought forth
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
1
-
Chinese just saved Tesla again
Apparently Musk went to China to get that Chinese FSD data stored there by Tesla since 2021
The Chinese probably said no we can’t allow that Chinese data to go to the USA so you can type up some algorithms
But we will allow you to team up with Baidu who are already way ahead of you anyways
This will help you compete in China vs Chinese EV makers
👇
Baidu starts offering nighttime driverless taxis
December 26, 2022
Starting this week, the public can ride its robotaxis in Wuhan between 7 am and 11 pm without safety drivers behind the wheel.
Previously, its unmanned vehicles could only operate from 9 am to 5 pm in the city.
The updated scheme is expected to cover one million customers in certain areas of Wuhan, a city of more than 10 million people.
Like most autonomous vehicle startups, Baidu combines a mix of third-party cameras, radar and lidar to help its cars see better in low-visibility conditions, in contrast to Tesla’s vision-based solution.
In August, Baidu started offering fully driverless robotaxi rides, charging passengers at taxi rates.
In Q3, Apollo Go, the firm’s robotaxi hailing app, completed more than 474,000 rides, up 311% year over year.
Accumulatively, Apollo Go had exceeded 1.4 million orders as of Q3.
TC
1
-
1
-
@velelimaka9040
America and it’s NATO lackeys
both Russia and Ukraine receive dual use exported goods from China
we know this because the Ukrainians started to use Chinese made retail toy store drones over US made military grade drones
😂😂😂
👇
Ukraine and Israel buying Chinese civilian drones for combat use; shun U.S military drones
Kevin Walmsley
YouTube
👇
How American Drones Failed to Turn the Tide in Ukraine
Drones from American startups have been deemed glitchy and expensive, prompting Ukraine to turn to alternatives from China
Updated April 10, 2024 at 4:56 pm ET
The Silicon Valley company Skydio sent hundreds of its best drones to Ukraine to help fight the Russians. Things didn’t go well.
WSJ
👇
Chinese UAVs ‘Outperform’ US Drones In Ukraine War; WSJ Report Calls US-Made UAVs Fragile & Ineffective
April 10, 2024
According to WSJ, most small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) developed by American firms have struggled to perform in combat scenarios.
This development blows the hopes of these companies, who anticipated that combat testing would bolster sales and attention for their products.
Moreover, it poses challenges for the Pentagon, which requires a reliable supply of thousands of small drones for various purposes. Sources cited in the report, including drone company executives, Ukrainian frontline personnel, government officials, and former US military officials, outline several key issues plaguing US-made drones.
These include exorbitant costs, technical faults, and complex repair processes. In particular, Ukrainian officials have found US-made drones to be fragile and ineffective against Russian jamming and GPS blackout technology.
Instances have been reported where these drones failed to take off, complete missions, or return safely. Moreover, they often fall short of advertised flight distances and payload capacities.
Eurasiatimesnews
👇
American drones are glitching and getting lost in Ukraine, giving way to a flood of Chinese drones
Chris Panella Apr 10, 2024, 3:44 PM ET
American-made drones haven't excelled on the battlefield, prompting Ukraine to turn to buying Chinese-made drones.
* The problems with many US-made drones, particularly some of the smaller ones, are that they often don't function as advertised or planned and easily glitch when targeted by Russian jamming, sources told The Wall Street Journal.
They are fragile and vulnerable to electronic warfare. For some of the systems that were sent to Ukraine, issues included not taking off, getting lost and not returning home, or simply failing to meet mission expectations.
* US drones are also typically far more expensive than comparable models. And at the rate Ukraine is burning through them, it wouldn't be feasible. Instead, Ukraine is turning to systems made by Chinese companies for cheaper and often more reliable alternatives.
Chinese DJI drones have long played a role in the war, with Ukraine buying many of the retail models. Ukrainian forces sometimes strap bombs directly on them for a makeshift one-way attack drone or use them to drop grenades.
BI
👇
China's trade turnover with Ukraine rises by 46.6% to $1.5 bln in January-February
18 March 2024 23:30 (UTC+04:00)
AzerNews
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When the USA destabilizes Governments/Props up dictators, causes vvar or goes to vvar
Telling people the USA way of Government and life is better
Then what do you expect?
Reminds me of those Hong Kong protesters waving American flags
Thinking life is better in the west with democracy and freedoms
When we who live out west, know the real truth
👇
BN(O) visa immigrants: Study reveals 50% unemployment rate among Hong Kongers under 65 in the U.K., 99% have no plans to return
* 22nd November 2023 – (London) A recent study conducted by the “Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers” organisation, which assists Hong Kongers who have immigrated to the U.K. through the BN(O) Visa, has shed light on the employment situation of these individuals. The study surveyed over 2,000 Hong Kong immigrants and found that only 50% of those under the age of 65 were able to secure employment, indicating a significant unemployment rate among this group.
The study also highlighted the educational background of BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K. It revealed that 36% of the surveyed individuals held a master’s or doctoral degree, while 23% had a postgraduate degree. These figures indicate that BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K are nearly twice as well-educated as the average UK population.
* However, despite their educational qualifications, many BN(O) Hong Kongers are facing difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience. Among those surveyed who were employed, 47% felt that their job did not align with their qualifications, and 20% felt that their workload was excessive.
DimSumDaily
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trijalinamdar5396
what’s the point in building another Gigafactory when Chinese EVs are cheaper, better quality and more innovative
Apparently Musk went to China to get that Chinese FSD data stored there by Tesla since 2021
The Chinese probably said no we can’t allow that Chinese data to go to the USA so you can type up some algorithms
But we will allow you to team up with Baidu who are already way ahead of you anyways
This will help you compete in China vs Chinese EV makers
👇
Baidu starts offering nighttime driverless taxis
December 26, 2022
Starting this week, the public can ride its robotaxis in Wuhan between 7 am and 11 pm without safety drivers behind the wheel.
Previously, its unmanned vehicles could only operate from 9 am to 5 pm in the city.
The updated scheme is expected to cover one million customers in certain areas of Wuhan, a city of more than 10 million people.
Like most autonomous vehicle startups, Baidu combines a mix of third-party cameras, radar and lidar to help its cars see better in low-visibility conditions, in contrast to Tesla’s vision-based solution.
In August, Baidu started offering fully driverless robotaxi rides, charging passengers at taxi rates.
In Q3, Apollo Go, the firm’s robotaxi hailing app, completed more than 474,000 rides, up 311% year over year.
Accumulatively, Apollo Go had exceeded 1.4 million orders as of Q3.
TC
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TeeHee-vo1bn
Apparently Musk went to China to get that Chinese FSD data stored there by Tesla since 2021
The Chinese probably said no we can’t allow that Chinese data to go to the USA so you can type up some algorithms
But we will allow you to team up with Baidu who are already way ahead of you anyways
This will help you compete in China vs Chinese EV makers
👇
Baidu starts offering nighttime driverless taxis
December 26, 2022
Starting this week, the public can ride its robotaxis in Wuhan between 7 am and 11 pm without safety drivers behind the wheel.
Previously, its unmanned vehicles could only operate from 9 am to 5 pm in the city.
The updated scheme is expected to cover one million customers in certain areas of Wuhan, a city of more than 10 million people.
Like most autonomous vehicle startups, Baidu combines a mix of third-party cameras, radar and lidar to help its cars see better in low-visibility conditions, in contrast to Tesla’s vision-based solution.
In August, Baidu started offering fully driverless robotaxi rides, charging passengers at taxi rates.
In Q3, Apollo Go, the firm’s robotaxi hailing app, completed more than 474,000 rides, up 311% year over year.
Accumulatively, Apollo Go had exceeded 1.4 million orders as of Q3.
TC
1
-
1
-
You Filipinos say payment is for rent
Malaysians says it’s payment for sale
It does not matter under the contract they can make those payments
Whatever you want to call it rent or sale in perpetuity 👈( that means for ever and ever and ever )
But like I said in other post. The claim you Filipinos have on Sabah and some other Malaysian islands you Filipinos have taken that are closer to Malaysia
Is a historical claim… Historical claim you Filipinos dismissed as a valid claim in 2017
👇
The two main sultanates in the region at the time were Sulu and Brunei. In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei gave Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu - either as a dowry or because troops from Sulu had helped him quell a rebellion.
More than 350 years later, the sultan's heirs have come to remind Malaysians that they still consider Sabah to be part of Sulu and, by extension, part of the Philippines.
"Sabah is our home," they said simply when asked why they had come.
But history is not that simple and of course Malaysia has no intention of giving up Sabah to this little band of Filipinos.
The crux of their disagreement lies in a contract made in 1878, between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company.
Under this contract known as pajak, the company could occupy Sabah in perpetuity as long as it paid a regular sum of money.
Even today, Malaysia pays about 5,000 Malaysian ringgit (£1,000, $1,500) a year to the Sultanate of Sulu.
But the British and, after that an independent Malaysia, interpreted pajak to mean sale, while the Sulu Sultanate has always maintained it means lease.
"In my opinion, this is more consistent with a lease rather than a sale, because you can't have a purchase price which is not fixed and which is payable until kingdom come," said Harry Roque, a law professor at the University of the Philippines.
BBC
1
-
1
-
When the USA destabilizes Governments/Props up dictators, causes vvar or goes to vvar
Telling people the USA way of Government and life is better
Then what do you expect?
Reminds me of those Hong Kong protesters waving American flags
Thinking life is better in the west with democracy and freedoms
When we who live out west, know the real truth
👇
BN(O) visa immigrants: Study reveals 50% unemployment rate among Hong Kongers under 65 in the U.K., 99% have no plans to return
* 22nd November 2023 – (London) A recent study conducted by the “Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers” organisation, which assists Hong Kongers who have immigrated to the U.K. through the BN(O) Visa, has shed light on the employment situation of these individuals. The study surveyed over 2,000 Hong Kong immigrants and found that only 50% of those under the age of 65 were able to secure employment, indicating a significant unemployment rate among this group.
The study also highlighted the educational background of BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K. It revealed that 36% of the surveyed individuals held a master’s or doctoral degree, while 23% had a postgraduate degree. These figures indicate that BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K are nearly twice as well-educated as the average UK population.
* However, despite their educational qualifications, many BN(O) Hong Kongers are facing difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience. Among those surveyed who were employed, 47% felt that their job did not align with their qualifications, and 20% felt that their workload was excessive.
DimSumDaily
1
-
1
-
@andrewdubose9968
People like you are probably too brain was hed
To have a clue there is now 27 books out there in what the Chinese invented first that says we copied or stole from them first
These days????
China has been transferring its tech to Global South Countries and its Belt and Road partners countries
BTW
The western multinationals went to China at the time because of their weak labour laws, weak environmental laws, mass pool of cheap labour they could pay dollar a day wages to
And yes weak IP laws that went along with it
In exchange the western multinationals traded knowledge and investment
This was nothing new, the west goes to 3rd world or developing nation takes advantages of this country until the locals complain about wages, pollution, or environmental damages. Western multinationals pick up and run for it.
I would argue yes they expected the Chinese to buy 1 billion toothbrushes and 2 billion socks
But they didn’t expect them to enrich themselves
My evidence is even before the west pushed for Chinese WTO inclusion the Top of the food chain 1%ters and their TooBigTooFail Investment Banks worked out the worst deal ever for themselves
Where these TooBigTooFail Investments Banks got a 33% interest in a “Joint Venture Chinese Investment Banking Subsidiary.” Where the Chinese Bank got a 67%
Difference is the Chinese didn’t complain they put up with those dollar a day wages making 22 times less than what an average American worker made. Yet saved 30% of those wages over 30 plus years.
Indirectly loaning those saving to those Americans so they could spend their savings and borrow to spend some more.
While the Chinese invested or made a business with their savings
Where the Chinese lowered their standards of living while the Americans were able to raise their standards of living with those cheaper goods
If anything the Chinese were dragging their feet on the TRIPS agreement under the WTO….specifically regarding developing countries
👇
Developing countries’ transition periods Provisions for developing countries, economies in transition from central planning, and least-developed countries
Developing countries and economies in transition from central planning did not have to apply most provisions of the TRIPS Agreement until 1 January 2000.
The provisions they did have to apply deal with non-discrimination.
Article 65.2 and 65.3
Least-developed countries were given until 1 January 2006.
Article 66.1.
Members have agreed to extend the deadline to 1 July 2034, or to the date a country is no longer “least-developed”, if that is earlier.
Pursuant to the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, a separate transition period exists for pharmaceutical patents, which currently runs until 1 January 2033.
WTO
1
-
State Department cables warned of safety
issues at Wuhan lab studying bat
coronaviruses
By Josh Rogin
April 14, 2020 at 5:0
* In January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing took the unusual step of repeatedly sending U.S. science diplomats to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which had in 2015 become China’s first laboratory to achieve the highest level of international bioresearch safety (known as BSL-4). WIV issued a news release in English about the last of these visits, which occurred on March 27, 2018.
*During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” states the Jan. 19, 2018, cable, which was drafted by two officials from the embassy’s environment, science and health sections who met with the WIV scientists. (The State Department declined to comment on this and other details of the story.)
The Chinese researchers at WIV were receiving assistance from the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch and other U.S. organizations, but the Chinese requested additional help. The cables argued that the United States should give the Wuhan lab further support, mainly because its research on bat coronaviruses was important but also dangerous.
Scholar . Harvard . EDU
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1