Taiwan lawmakers and fishermen head to South China Sea’s Taiping Island to declare sovereignty and f

[uawchild]

Source: South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)

Taiwan lawmakers and fishermen head to South China Sea’s Taiping Island to declare sovereignty and fishing rights

Twenty Taiwanese lawmakers and fishermen departed for Taiping Island in the South China Sea on Wednesday to declare Taiwan’s sovereignty and fishing rights in the area.

The moves come after an international tribunal in the Hague on July 12 rejected Taipei’s right to an exclusive economic zone around Taiping.

Eight lawmakers from Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party and opposition Kuomintang (KMT) flew from Pingtung county to Taiping Island to declare Taipei’s sovereignty over the island.
Twelve fishermen set off in a five-boat flotilla at noon on Wednesday from southern Pingtung to Taiping to uphold what they say are Taiwan’s fishing rights to the waters.

The delegation of politicians, led by KMT lawmaker Chiang Chi-chen, boarded a military aircraft from
Pingtung at 7.20am and was expected to land on the island at 10.50 am, the official China News Agency said.
Chiang criticised Taiwan’s government for not taking substantial action to defend the island’s sovereignty in the region.

Read more: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1992173/taiwan-lawmakers-and-fishermen-head-south-china-seas

[uawchild]

1. Taiwan and the Peoples Republic of China (aka China) both oppose the ruling

"Taiwan and Beijing are certain to unite indirectly in protest if a Hague tribunal deems there are no land formations in the disputed waters"
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988597/46-hectares-south-china-sea-could-change-cross-strait

[jybarz]

2. The PCA has already ruled that Taiping and all of China's fake islands are not islands

The PCA has already ruled that Taiping and all of China's fake islands are not islands by definition under the UNCLOS because they cannot support human habitation without external support. Therefore, they all are just rocks and some, if not most, are only low tide elevation (meaning submerged reefs or rocks during high tides).

Furthermore, it was ruled that China illegally built the fake islands within the Philippines 200nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in contravention of the UNCLOS.

The most significant part of the PCA's decision is that China's nine dash line claim of more than 80% of the South china Sea based on historical sovereignty rights has no legal basis and not compatible with the UNCLOS which both China & the Philippines signed and ratified. This ruling will also benefit Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Japan who have similar dispute with thief, fraud and bully China.

China's fraudulent claim is finally ruled invalid and illegal.

China was also found to have wantonly destroyed marine environment during the process of constructing it's fake islands through dredging the reefs and seabed.

China was also found to have illegally prevented Filipino fishermen from enjoyment of the fish, marine, oil and gas resources within the Philippines EEZ by force using its fleet of coast guards. Also, that China knowingly allowed and encouraged Chinese fishermen to fish illegally and abuse the waters that rightfully belong to the Philippines EEZ.

In summary, China is a dirty criminal communist country!

[uawchild]

3. Yes the PCA has ruled that

China and Taiwan seem to disagree with sone of those rulings.

So is Taiwan also a dirty criminal country as well? Just curious.

[LanternWaste]

4. I don't think a singular and spurious agreement is indicative of a "dirty criminal country,

I don't think a singular and spurious agreement is indicative of a "dirty criminal country," regardless of the bias that compels anyone to infer it.




Rationalization to follow, I imagine...

[uawchild]

7. I will put you down for a "no" then.

Lantern Waste: votes no, Taiwan is not also a dirty criminal country.

Thanks for voting.

I will wait and see if the OP author also responds.

[uawchild]

5. PCA ruled "they cannot support human habitation without external support"

Does the UNCLOS treaty specify how much human habitation must be supported?

No, it does not. It just has that vague phrase.

Want an example of an island with a tiny population that has an exclusive economic zone?

Here is one, Pitcairn island.

The Pitcairn Islands (/ˈpɪtkɛərn/;[6] Pitkern: Pitkern Ailen), officially Pitcairn,[7] form a group of four volcanic islands in the southern Pacific Ocean that form the last British Overseas Territory in the Pacific. The four islands – Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno – are spread over several hundred miles of ocean and have a total land area of about 47 square kilometres (18 sq mi). Only Pitcairn, the second-largest island that measures about 3.6 kilometres (2.2 mi) from east to west, is inhabited.

The islands are inhabited mostly by descendants of the Bounty mutineers and the Tahitians (or Polynesians) who accompanied them, an event retold in numerous books and films. This history is still apparent in the surnames of many of the islanders. With only about 56 inhabitants, originating from four main families, Pitcairn is the least populous national jurisdiction in the world.[2][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands

Hmmm. 56 inhabitants, who, of course do receive outside help. Looking at Taiping Island, I bet it could support the habitation of 56 people also. 56 people just isn't a lot of people.

[uawchild]

6. "The most significant part of the PCA's decision is that China's nine dash line claim..."

You do realize that the nine dash line claim is also the claim Taiwan makes over territory in the South China Sea? In fact the nine dash line map comes from the eleven dash line map that Taiwan drew up in, what, 1947.

The nine-dash line, previously the "eleven-dash line", is the demarcation line used initially by the government of the Republic of China (ROC / Taiwan) and subsequently also by the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), for their claims of the major part of the South China Sea.[1][2] The contested area in the South China Sea includes the Paracel Islands,[3] the Spratly Islands,[4][5] and various other areas including the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line


After evacuating to Taiwan, the Republic of China has continued its claims, and the nine-dash line remains as the rationale for Taiwan's claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#Ongoing_disputes

So, both Taiwan and China are essentially making the same claims in the South China Sea.

Why then do people call it "China's fraudulent claim", as you did in your OP, when in reality it Is Taiwan's and China's claim?

[uawchild]

8. The PCA has already ruled that Taiping and all of China's fake islands are not islands by definition

Fake islands, so, we agree they should not be allowed to extend sovereignty claims and get exclusive economic zones? Good.

Consider this story then:

How The Hague ruling against China could spell trouble for Japan

Japan has built structures on uninhabited rocks 1,740 km from Tokyo to mark its territory – just like China has done in the South China Sea.

Tokyo has been quick to applaud the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on Beijing’s claims to reefs and atolls in the South China Sea, but experts warn that the ruling could come back to haunt Japan.

Of particular concern, they point out, should be the court’s ruling that the “islands” are little more than rocks that cannot support human habitation and economic life and cannot therefore be used to extend China’s control over the region.
Japan spends millions building structures on uninhabited rocks 1,740 km from Tokyo to mark its territory

Beijing arguably learned the tactic of enlarging rocks that would otherwise be submerged at high tide from Japan, which has spent billions of yen on reinforcing and enlarging Okinotorishima. This tiny atoll, 1,740 km south of Tokyo extends Japan’s exclusive economic zone over some 400,000 square km of the Pacific Ocean - larger than Japan’s total land area.
“The Hague ruling completely delegitimises Japan’s claim to those waters,” said Stephen Nagy, an associate professor of politics at Tokyo’s International Christian University."
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/1989782/how-hague-ruling-against-china-could-spell-trouble-japan

Huh, go figure. Why then isn't Japan held to the same standard the PCA wants to apply to China now? China says it is because the tribunal was biased from the get go.