China is “strongly dissatisfied” with the mention of the East and South China Sea issues in a Group of Seven statement, and the G7 allies should stop making irresponsible remarks, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said.
China is committed to properly resolving disputes with all nations involved through negotiations while maintaining peace and stability in the East China Sea and South China Sea, spokesman Lu Kang said in a statement on Sunday.
China hopes the G7 and other nations would refrain from taking positions, fully respect the efforts of countries in the region in handling the disputes, and stop making irresponsible remarks, Lu said.
In their communique on Saturday, G7 leaders said they were concerned by the situation in the South China Sea and East China Sea. They also called for a demilitarization of “disputed features.”
China has a dispute with Japan over a group of uninhabited islets in the East China Sea.
Beijing’s extensive claims to the South China Sea are also challenged by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
The United States has criticized China’s construction of islands and build-up of military facilities in the South China Sea, concerned they could be used to restrict free movement and broaden Beijing’s strategic reach.
Earlier this week, a US navy warship conducted a so-called freedom-of-navigation drill near Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands.
Nuke China…problem solved
Hang yourself. problem gone
China is not angry. This site has for a while now disseminated predominately Western-dominated globalist postions, and the typical vocabulary that comes with it, is a tell tale sign. "Angry" is not a way to describe the disagreement in this case.
In this case, China is right — legally. There is an international convention, UN Convention on the Laws of the Seas. Once it became ratified by the majority of members, it became international law. US did not ratify the Convention, as it interferes with US strategy of controlling sea lanes in the name of "freedom of navigation". Under the Convention, the territorial waters have been augmented by an economic zone, expanding significantly the rights of states. The economic zones do not prohibit anyone from accessing it for the purposes of commercial shipping. However, military vessels need to get approval before entering. Also, commercial benefits of the areas are great — fishing, exploitation of minarals, drilling rights, use of uninhabited islands, etc. However, the exansion of the territorial waters has, totally predictably, resulted in all neighboring countries having to negotiate with each other the actual extent of their economic zones. With territorial waters — it is not a problem, as all countries have established their sea and ocean borders But now, how does the line extend? What about distant islands, do they get same rights of extended area? The Convention has set up many rules for resolving such problems — but it has squarely put the responsibility for the resolution to the countries themselves. Countries are required to negotiate, to apply the Convention rules, and in the case of dispute, submitt their arguments to the authority established BY THE CONVENTION. Such arguments and proofs include both historic rights, as well as geological data. For example, Russia has submitted geological data to prove that the North Pole floor is the extension of Lomonosov Ridge, and thus, part of Russian commercial belt. This may clash with Denmark’s rights on Greenland, and thus, both countries will need to examine the overlapping claims, and come to a consensus giving up some of their technical claims.
US tried to internationalize the South China Sea issues among neighbors. With previous Phillipines government firmly under US influence, the trully improper process has started under Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration. There are specific arbitration courts set up by parties to resolve issues, and then there is a permanent court, available to anyone without the expense of setting up a case-specific arbitration court. Phillipines, contrary to the UNCLOS, requested the court to rule on South China Sea. Arbitration DOES NOT WORK UNLESS BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO ARBITRATION. Since China did not agree, this was a complete sham, and yet another blow to the reputation of Hague courts. The Court should have never accepted the case, but by accepting it, proved itself to be a political flunkey of Western interests. Naturally, "arbitration" resulted in a favorable ruling for Phillipines, and the rest is history. The history being, that organizations such as ASEAN laughted the ruling out of its annual gathering, and did not even mention it in their final resolution. For all the disagreements that the parties have with each other on the actual delineation of their new maritime interest areas –they prefer to be guided by UNCLOS, not by a power like US that did not sign the Convention. By not signing, US has taken itself OUT of having anything to say in any future work of UNCLOS authority, as well as any arbitration among nations. This is UNCLOS rule.
China is, therefore, apsolutely right to object to the audacity of Western political gathering to include the area of negotiations that belong to the countries under the UNCLOS convention, into the list of "international problems". The problems, they presumably have the God given right to stick their noses into.
It is time to ask — has it really been beneficial to the global secuity or economic development for Western countries to intervene in Middle East, North Africa, anywhere else in Africa, Asia or Eastern Europe? All we see are endless wars, destruction, refugees, radicalization of population with no economic prospects, and the endless meddling into the vulnerable and weakened states internal affairs.
We are all well advised to learn, pay attention to the facts, and not the fantasy served regularly by the media paid for by the captains of the globalist industries. Will nations even survive under the onslaught of globalist push to destroy them, and with it, our ability to hold rulers accountable? Who knows, but we will be well advised to love our homes, our own countries, and not fall for the siren song of imperial goodness.