正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

China has started building structures at the Scarborough Shoal. Soon, these small structures will turn into runways, missile silos, naval dockyard etc. This is exactly how China converted Mischief Reef into a massive military base. Now it's Scarborough Shoal. Wake Up, World!

45,475 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Can anybody from the Senate media ask Sen. Padilla what is the basis of his statement that we lost Scarborough during PNoy admin? Because these are the facts: 1. There are no Chinese ships INSIDE Scarborough shoal. 2. There is no Chinese reclamation or base on Scarborough shoal. Simply put, there is no physical occupation by China on Scarborough. The media can verify and confirm these facts with the Ph Navy and PCG. 3. The Philippine Baselines Law, which I principally authored, is the official Ph claim for Scarborough Shoal and the KIG. Our claims were acknowledged as compliant when the baseline coordinates and regime of islands claims as stated in the said law were formally submitted to the UNCLOS secretariat in 2009. 4. The Arbitral Tribunal ruling in 2016 debunked the 9-dash line claim of Ch over Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys. Therefore, Ph has a much stronger legal claim over Scarborough than Ch. So, if there is no physical occupation by Ch and there are much stronger legal Ph claims, what is now the basis of this oft repeated lie that we lost Scarborough during PNoy admin? WALA! When I researched on this, the first person who said that we lost Scarborough without any factual and legal basis at all is Mr. Harry Roque (paulit-ulit ding sinabi ito ni Duterte during the 2016 campaign and thereafter). So, as then Chairman of the Committee on National Defense and Security, I conducted hearings in 2013 and 2015 where I asked the Ph Defense officials then if we indeed lose Scarborough and they categorically said: "NO, WE DID NOT LOSE SCARBOROUGH." I even invited Mr. Roque in the 2015 hearing so that he could hear it himself. (See video below) These are all in the Senate records. To the Ph media, next time a resource person says that we lost Scarborough during the PNoy admin, can you ask that person what is his basis for saying so? I assure you, hindi nya masasagot ito. Kasi nga walang basehan. You need to ask this because every time a Filipino resource person says this baseless statement, he is not only unwittingly weakening our position as regards Scarborough but also basically conceding our sovereignty to Ch. Such would be a very unpatriotic thing to do. Finally, to Senator Robin Padilla, my unsolicited advice sayo ay magresearch o magtanong sa iyong mga advisers o staff bago magsalita tungkol sa mga importanteng bagay. Bilang isang halal na Senador, ikaw ay kumakatawan di lang ng pula o green, kundi kasama na rin ang mga yellow, pink at ang mga hindi bumoto sayo. Senador ka naming lahat na Pilipino.

Sonny Trillanes IV

471,842 次观看 • 2 年前

The US is playing a very dangerous game in the South China Sea, where instead of trying to appease tensions like a responsible power should do, it backs maximalist claims that violate International Law, and lies egregiously for that purpose. Here is Nicholas Burns, the US ambassador to China, saying in an interview 2 weeks ago ( “You've seen over the last couple of months some 10 standoffs between Filipino naval forces and both Chinese coastguards and Chinese military vessels at a place called Second Thomas Shoal and also in Scarborough Shoal. Now it's important for everybody on this zoomcast to understand that the International Court of Justice, which is the relevant legal body, ruled in July 2016 decisively in favour of the Philippines. And so that that territory is the sovereign territory of the Philippines and that China’s legal claim to it has no basis in international law. All the rest of the world understands that and recognises that this is sovereign Filipino territory.” This is absolutely packed with lies. First of all, it was NOT the International Court of Justice (ICJ) but the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that made the July 2016 ruling ( This is a very important distinction because rulings by the PCA - unlike rulings by the ICJ - do NOT carry the weight of international law. Furthermore, in this case, China declined to participate in the arbitration. Secondly the PCA ruling in question absolutely does NOT confirm the Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal as "sovereign Filipino territory". For the simple reason that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which is the international law framework the PCA was asked to arbitrate under, “does not address the sovereignty of states over land territory”. In fact the PCA, in its ruling, specifically said that it had “not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which state enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands [where the Second Thomas Shoal is] or Scarborough Shoal”! This is all the more ironic because the US is one of the rare countries out there that refused to sign or ratify UNCLOS, contrary to China... What the ruling DID say with regards to the Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal is as follows: - For the Scarborough Shoal, it ruled that they are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, do not generate an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf entitlements beyond their 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. It also ruled that both Chinese and Filipino fishermen, among others, had traditional fishing rights in the area and that no party should prevent the other from exercising these rights. - For the Second Thomas Shoal, the ruling declared that it is a "low-tide elevation", that "does not generate entitlements to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, or continental shelf" but that it is "within the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines", with the consequence that the Philippines have rights over the resources in these areas. That's it, it's a ruling about maritime entitlements under UNCLOS, not about the sovereignty over these territories. Thirdly, Burns’ statement that “all the rest of the world understands that and recognises that this is sovereign Philippine territory” is even more egregious. This is patently untrue, even for US allies. For instance Britain, France and Germany in their 2020 "note verbale" to the UN on the matter ( specifically wrote that they “take no position” over the “disputed territorial sovereignty to naturally formed land features and to areas of the continental shelf in the South China Sea”. In fact, until this declaration by Burns, this would have been untrue for the US themselves! Their position so far had been that - just like Britain, France and Germany - they did not take a position on the sovereignty claims themselves. The main reason is because these claims do not only involve the PRC and the Philippines but also the ROC (Taiwan), who also claim both the Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal, as well as Vietnam and Malaysia who have also made claims over other parts of the Spratly Islands archipelago (of which the Second Thomas Shoal is part of). As such, unilaterally siding with one of the claimants over the others is a rather bizarre position for Washington. Lastly, if the US wanted to be constructive here, instead of backing one state or the other in its maximalist claims in order to fuel conflict, it should encourage the negotiation of the Code of Conduct (CoC) for the South China Sea that's currently being discussed between ASEAN countries and China. This is a diplomatic effort to end disputes. Why not support that instead of siding with one party against others, which can only fuel the disputes? The answer is simple: this is part of a broader and immensely worrying trend which we see in U.S. conduct generally (be it in Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, etc.) where the U.S. 1) jumps on all opportunities to sabotage diplomacy and fan the flames of conflict and war and 2) support the arbitrary and ever-changing self-interested rules of its "rules-based order" in opposition of International Law. Why do they do that? I genuinely think we need to seriously ask ourselves if the U.S. doesn't want to recreate a WW2-type scenario where the whole world is in flames and the U.S., protected by its immensely favorable geography, ends up reaping the benefits. If there's a "great reset" initiative going on, that might be the one. WW2 placed the U.S. at the top of the global pecking order: at a time when this "leadership" is crumbling down, it's not inconceivable that they wouldn't mind a remake...

Arnaud Bertrand

411,023 次观看 • 2 年前

🚨 EMERGENCY POD: Why Should We Care About the Shocking Chinese Ship Collision at Scarborough Shoal? In this special episode, we dive into the dramatic South China Sea incident this week near Scarborough Shoal. Fresh from Manila, Ray Powell takes the "guest" seat to unpack the events with co-host Jim Carouso. The discussion highlights the escalating 🇨🇳China-🇵🇭Philippines tensions, with its implications for regional stability and 🇺🇸US alliances. Our hosts describe how a Chinese destroyer slammed into a China Coast Guard vessel while pursuing the much smaller Philippine Coast Guard ship BRP Suluan near Scarborough Shoal on August 11, 2025. The collision crumpled the Coast Guard ship's bow and likely caused casualties. Ray notes the Suluan got within 10.5 nautical miles of the shoal, closer than any Philippine vessel in over a year, which challenged China's undeclared exclusion zone around the contested feature in a way that drew an unexpected military response. Providing context, Ray traces the shoal's history: China's 2012 seizure, the 2016 arbitral ruling affirming traditional fishing rights for all nations (including the Philippines), and recent escalations. Since spring 2024, China has enforced a 25-30 nautical mile exclusion zone, blocking Philippine government vessels and fishermen alike in defiance of the arbitral award. The Philippines’ “Kadiwa” mission involved five vessels to provide direct aid to fishermen now forced to operate in exposed waters due to China's denial of the shoal. The hosts analyze the game-changer: the People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) destroyer's direct involvement. This military escalation risked crossing red lines, like President Marcos's 2024 Shangri-La Dialogue statement that a Filipino sailor's death could invoke the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty. Ray speculates the destroyer aimed to intimidate (not ram) the Philippine ship, but that a misjudgement in the other direction could have resulted in a catastrophe in the diplomatic, as well as the maritime, sense. Broader implications emerge: Ray evaluates China's increased presence amid new laws allowing 60-day detentions and new straight-baseline claims around the shoal. Jim and Ray try to separate how this incident relates to Beijing’s direct confrontation with Manila versus its indirect contest with the Philippines’ ally, the United States. Jim and Ray discuss other dramatic events around Scarborough Shoal this week: a Philippine Coast Guard aircraft faced Chinese fighter jet harassment, and the U.S. Navy conducted its own freedom of navigation operation (FONOP). They also ponder tactical coordination failures between China's navy and coast guard; discuss how Beijing’s lionization of the fighter pilot who died during the 2001 EP-3 incident may inspire recklessness; and what it all may mean for a future Taiwan contingency. Wrapping up, they urge reflection on abyss-peering scenarios: What if the collision had sunk the Philippine ship or killed Filipinos? It could trigger a diplomatic crisis and White House treaty decisions, testing US deterrence. For Filipinos, all this took place near an extremely important fishing ground within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. A potential silver lining? The mishap exposes China's vulnerabilities, and could deter future rash actions–but only if Beijing learns the right lessons. Its recent history, its state media’s unwillingness to even acknowledge the mishap, and its blame-shifting suggest it may elect a more confrontational path. 👉 Links to the full episode in the comments below.

Why Should We Care: Indo-Pacific Pod

86,351 次观看 • 1 年前