Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Why doesn't China understand that calling disputed waters “law enforcement” doesn't make them its own? China cannot unilaterally turn the Second Thomas Shoal into its jurisdiction. Maritime disputes should be settled under international law, not by force or repeated patrols.

NguyenThih36's profile picture

Nguyen Thi hong

7,853 subscribers

16,533 views • 2 days ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“Your country is different from mine!” Panama's foreign minister shouted at China at OAS summit. This is the funniest part of Panama's whining: it violated commercial trust, tore up a 30-year port concession, targeted a Chinese-linked company, then hid the whole dirty performance under “sovereignty,” “constitution,” and “rule of law.” As if only Panama has sovereignty. As if only Panama has constitutional duties. As if China inspecting Panama-flagged vessels involved in repeated incidents in Chinese waters is not also an exercise of sovereignty, law enforcement, and responsibility for maritime safety. Yes, Panama is different from China. China does not turn its sovereignty and constitution into tools for Washington to destroy its own credibility and commercial environment. China’s law protects fair business, lawful cooperation, maritime safety, and good-faith investors. It is not a stage prop for small countries that target Chinese interests under U.S. pressure, then scream “bullying” when China stops playing along. Panama wanted to weaponize law against Chinese investors. China answered with law. That is why Panama is angry. Not because China broke the rules. Because China made Panama live under them.
4:51

“Your country is different from mine!” Panama's foreign minister shouted at China at OAS summit. This is the funniest part of Panama's whining: it violated commercial trust, tore up a 30-year port concession, targeted a Chinese-linked company, then hid the whole dirty performance under “sovereignty,” “constitution,” and “rule of law.” As if only Panama has sovereignty. As if only Panama has constitutional duties. As if China inspecting Panama-flagged vessels involved in repeated incidents in Chinese waters is not also an exercise of sovereignty, law enforcement, and responsibility for maritime safety. Yes, Panama is different from China. China does not turn its sovereignty and constitution into tools for Washington to destroy its own credibility and commercial environment. China’s law protects fair business, lawful cooperation, maritime safety, and good-faith investors. It is not a stage prop for small countries that target Chinese interests under U.S. pressure, then scream “bullying” when China stops playing along. Panama wanted to weaponize law against Chinese investors. China answered with law. That is why Panama is angry. Not because China broke the rules. Because China made Panama live under them.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

84,677 views • 1 month ago

The People's Republic of China has no jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc, which is classified as a rock under the 2016 Arbitral Award and Article 121 of UNCLOS. The Philippines has sovereignty over it, including its territorial sea. The waters beyond Bajo de Masinloc's 12-nautical-mile territorial sea fall within the Philippine EEZ, measured from Luzon's baseline. Consequently, the PCG and BFAR vessels are legitimately patrolling our waters, while it is China that is encroaching upon them and militarizing the area by deploying PLA Navy vessels to shadow PCG operations. The dangerous maneuvers and water cannon harassment by the CCG are not standard law enforcement actions; rather, should be interpreted as unlawful aggression by international law violators.
0:39

The People's Republic of China has no jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc, which is classified as a rock under the 2016 Arbitral Award and Article 121 of UNCLOS. The Philippines has sovereignty over it, including its territorial sea. The waters beyond Bajo de Masinloc's 12-nautical-mile territorial sea fall within the Philippine EEZ, measured from Luzon's baseline. Consequently, the PCG and BFAR vessels are legitimately patrolling our waters, while it is China that is encroaching upon them and militarizing the area by deploying PLA Navy vessels to shadow PCG operations. The dangerous maneuvers and water cannon harassment by the CCG are not standard law enforcement actions; rather, should be interpreted as unlawful aggression by international law violators.

Jay Tarriela

37,449 views • 1 year ago

Calling immigration enforcement “tyranny” is dishonest. Enforcing laws passed by the people through a democratic process is literally the rule of law. A country that cannot enforce its own borders is not compassionate. It’s unserious.
2:44

Calling immigration enforcement “tyranny” is dishonest. Enforcing laws passed by the people through a democratic process is literally the rule of law. A country that cannot enforce its own borders is not compassionate. It’s unserious.

Jeffery Mead

44,394 views • 6 months ago

Fourteen countries accused China of violating international law on the 10th anniversary of the so-called South China Sea arbitral award. Interestingly, only one of those 14 countries is located in the region. Even other claimant states in the South China Sea did not support the statement. Why? The simple truth is that the award itself is not international law. An insightful report offers an academic perspective on the issue. Here are the key takeaways: • International law is much broader than UNCLOS. Yet the tribunal relied solely on UNCLOS to rule on issues beyond its proper scope. • The tribunal was constituted without China's participation, and none of its five arbitrators came from Asia, even though the dispute was rooted in the region. • China's position is that international adjudication must be based on state consent and that a tribunal cannot create jurisdiction for itself by separating maritime questions from the underlying disputes over territory and sovereignty. The United States repeatedly demands that China comply with UNCLOS, even though Washington itself has never ratified the convention. If the United States wants to lecture other countries about compliance, perhaps it should ratify the convention first. Otherwise, its position looks less like a principled defense of international law and more like selective enforcement, hypocrisy, and double standards. #SouthChinaSea #MediaUnlocked
2:46

Fourteen countries accused China of violating international law on the 10th anniversary of the so-called South China Sea arbitral award. Interestingly, only one of those 14 countries is located in the region. Even other claimant states in the South China Sea did not support the statement. Why? The simple truth is that the award itself is not international law. An insightful report offers an academic perspective on the issue. Here are the key takeaways: • International law is much broader than UNCLOS. Yet the tribunal relied solely on UNCLOS to rule on issues beyond its proper scope. • The tribunal was constituted without China's participation, and none of its five arbitrators came from Asia, even though the dispute was rooted in the region. • China's position is that international adjudication must be based on state consent and that a tribunal cannot create jurisdiction for itself by separating maritime questions from the underlying disputes over territory and sovereignty. The United States repeatedly demands that China comply with UNCLOS, even though Washington itself has never ratified the convention. If the United States wants to lecture other countries about compliance, perhaps it should ratify the convention first. Otherwise, its position looks less like a principled defense of international law and more like selective enforcement, hypocrisy, and double standards. #SouthChinaSea #MediaUnlocked

MediaUnlocked

10,756 views • 1 month ago

Statement by Spokesperson for the China Coast Guard on Philippine Public Vessels' Intrusion into the Waters under China's Jurisdiction at Huangyan Dao Jiang Lue, spokesperson for the China Coast Guard (CCG), stated that on July 23, two Philippine public vessels (MMOV 3012 and MMOV 3018) ignored repeated dissuasion and warnings from the Chinese side and obstinately intruded into the waters under China's jurisdiction at Huangyan Dao. The CCG took necessary countermeasures in accordance with the law to track, monitor and block the Philippine vessels, compelling them to leave the area. The on-site operations by the Chinese side were professional, standardized, legitimate and lawful. Huangyan Dao is China's inherent territory. We urge the Philippine side to immediately stop rights-violation and provocations. The CCG will, in accordance with the law, continue to carry out rights-protection and law-enforcement operations in the waters of China's Huangyan Dao and resolutely safeguard China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.
0:52

Statement by Spokesperson for the China Coast Guard on Philippine Public Vessels' Intrusion into the Waters under China's Jurisdiction at Huangyan Dao Jiang Lue, spokesperson for the China Coast Guard (CCG), stated that on July 23, two Philippine public vessels (MMOV 3012 and MMOV 3018) ignored repeated dissuasion and warnings from the Chinese side and obstinately intruded into the waters under China's jurisdiction at Huangyan Dao. The CCG took necessary countermeasures in accordance with the law to track, monitor and block the Philippine vessels, compelling them to leave the area. The on-site operations by the Chinese side were professional, standardized, legitimate and lawful. Huangyan Dao is China's inherent territory. We urge the Philippine side to immediately stop rights-violation and provocations. The CCG will, in accordance with the law, continue to carry out rights-protection and law-enforcement operations in the waters of China's Huangyan Dao and resolutely safeguard China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.

Ministry of National Defense of China

19,813 views • 24 days ago

It in intriguing that within just 24 hours, the Chinese Coast Guard has revised the script for its English radio challenge. The new message focuses solely on law enforcement patrols in the maritime areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, urging the PCG not to interfere with their operations and to maintain a safe distance from CCG-5303. I am curious as to why they have chosen to omit their previous claims of indisputable sovereignty in today's radio challenge. 🤔
1:01

It in intriguing that within just 24 hours, the Chinese Coast Guard has revised the script for its English radio challenge. The new message focuses solely on law enforcement patrols in the maritime areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, urging the PCG not to interfere with their operations and to maintain a safe distance from CCG-5303. I am curious as to why they have chosen to omit their previous claims of indisputable sovereignty in today's radio challenge. 🤔

Jay Tarriela

21,940 views • 1 year ago

UAE has reiterated that it did not engage in the conflict, nor did it allow its territory, territorial waters, or airspace to be used in any attack against Iran. However, it affirmed its right to self-defense as guaranteed under international law and UN Charter. #EmiratesNews
1:13

UAE has reiterated that it did not engage in the conflict, nor did it allow its territory, territorial waters, or airspace to be used in any attack against Iran. However, it affirmed its right to self-defense as guaranteed under international law and UN Charter. #EmiratesNews

Emirates News

23,808 views • 5 months ago

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...
1:07

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 views • 2 years ago

China’s Foreign Ministry responded coldly to Trump’s threats: China opposes unilateral sanctions that have no basis in international law or authorization from the UN Security Council. In other words: China is not South Korea, Japan, or a pack of NATO clients trained to bark on command. Washington has spent years confusing its own coercive toolkit with global consensus, only to discover that most of the world has no interest in setting its economy on fire just to satisfy American geopolitical theater. Russia did not collapse the way they fantasized. And China is not Russia. China’s economic scale, industrial depth, trade networks, and strategic resilience are in a completely different category. Trump already lost this fight twice. Now the more Washington threatens, the more it pushes China to decouple on its own terms. This is the real source of American hysteria: it cannot win fairly, it cannot compel obedience indefinitely, and it cannot force a sovereign China to kneel. That is why the tantrums keep escalating. Because China is too large to bully, too industrialized to strangle, and too sovereign to kneel.
0:26

China’s Foreign Ministry responded coldly to Trump’s threats: China opposes unilateral sanctions that have no basis in international law or authorization from the UN Security Council. In other words: China is not South Korea, Japan, or a pack of NATO clients trained to bark on command. Washington has spent years confusing its own coercive toolkit with global consensus, only to discover that most of the world has no interest in setting its economy on fire just to satisfy American geopolitical theater. Russia did not collapse the way they fantasized. And China is not Russia. China’s economic scale, industrial depth, trade networks, and strategic resilience are in a completely different category. Trump already lost this fight twice. Now the more Washington threatens, the more it pushes China to decouple on its own terms. This is the real source of American hysteria: it cannot win fairly, it cannot compel obedience indefinitely, and it cannot force a sovereign China to kneel. That is why the tantrums keep escalating. Because China is too large to bully, too industrialized to strangle, and too sovereign to kneel.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

33,808 views • 4 months ago

Statement of the National Task Force-West Philippine Sea December 10, 2023, Manila, Philippines Today, 10 December 2023, China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese Maritime Militia (CMM) vessels harassed, blocked, and executed dangerous maneuvers on Philippine civilian supply vessels, in another attempt to illegally impede or obstruct a routine resupply and rotation mission (RORE) to BRP SIERRA MADRE (LS 57) at Avungin Shoal. CCG vessel 5204 deployed a water cannon against the Philippine supply vessels causing severe damage to M/L Kalavaan's engines, disabling the vessel and seriously endangering the lives of its crew. Currently, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessel BRP Sindangan (MRRV-4407) is safely towing M/ Kalavaan back to Ulugan Bay, Palawan. Additionally, BRP Cabra (MRRV-4409) suffered damage to its mast after being directly targeted by the full strength of the water cannon of the China Coast Guard. The PCG vessels and the resupply boats Unaizah Mae 1 (UM1) and M/L Kalayaan were subjected to reckless and dangerous harassment at close range by CCG and Chinese Maritime Militia vessels on their approach to Avungin Shoal. Contrary to China Coast Guard disinformation, UM1 was rammed by CCG 21556. Despite these extreme and reckless actions, UM1 successfully reached BRP Sierra Madre, and resupply is ongoing as of this writing. The Task Force reiterates that Avungin Shoal is a low-tide elevation within the Philippine's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, in accordance with UNCLOS and as upheld by the 2016 Arbitral Award. The Philippines exercises sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the feature. As a low tide elevation, Avungin Shoal can neither be the subject of a sovereignty claim nor is it capable of appropriation under international law. China cannot lawfully exercise sovereignty over it. In this regard, the assertion of China that its actions in the vicinity of Avungin Shoal are a legitimate exercise of law enforcement measures, has no basis in international law. Further, we express grave concern over the deliberate disinformation conducted through official channels, that distort facts on the ground. We condemn, once again, China's latest unprovoked acts of coercion and dangerous maneuvers against a legitimate and routine Philippine rotation and resupply mission to Avungin Shoal that has put the lives of our people at risk. The systematic and consistent manner in which the People's Republic of China carries out these illegal and irresponsible actions puts into question and significant doubt the sincerity of its calls for peaceful dialogue. Peace and stability cannot be achieved without due regard for the legitimate, well-established, and legally settled rights of others. We demand that China demonstrate that it is a responsible and trustworthy member of the international community. The Philippines continues to act in accordance with international law, particularly UNCLOS and the 2016 Arbitral Award. The Philippines will not be deterred from exercising our legal rights over our maritime zones, including Akungin Shoal which forms part of our EEZ and continental shelf.
0:23

Statement of the National Task Force-West Philippine Sea December 10, 2023, Manila, Philippines Today, 10 December 2023, China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese Maritime Militia (CMM) vessels harassed, blocked, and executed dangerous maneuvers on Philippine civilian supply vessels, in another attempt to illegally impede or obstruct a routine resupply and rotation mission (RORE) to BRP SIERRA MADRE (LS 57) at Avungin Shoal. CCG vessel 5204 deployed a water cannon against the Philippine supply vessels causing severe damage to M/L Kalavaan's engines, disabling the vessel and seriously endangering the lives of its crew. Currently, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessel BRP Sindangan (MRRV-4407) is safely towing M/ Kalavaan back to Ulugan Bay, Palawan. Additionally, BRP Cabra (MRRV-4409) suffered damage to its mast after being directly targeted by the full strength of the water cannon of the China Coast Guard. The PCG vessels and the resupply boats Unaizah Mae 1 (UM1) and M/L Kalayaan were subjected to reckless and dangerous harassment at close range by CCG and Chinese Maritime Militia vessels on their approach to Avungin Shoal. Contrary to China Coast Guard disinformation, UM1 was rammed by CCG 21556. Despite these extreme and reckless actions, UM1 successfully reached BRP Sierra Madre, and resupply is ongoing as of this writing. The Task Force reiterates that Avungin Shoal is a low-tide elevation within the Philippine's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, in accordance with UNCLOS and as upheld by the 2016 Arbitral Award. The Philippines exercises sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the feature. As a low tide elevation, Avungin Shoal can neither be the subject of a sovereignty claim nor is it capable of appropriation under international law. China cannot lawfully exercise sovereignty over it. In this regard, the assertion of China that its actions in the vicinity of Avungin Shoal are a legitimate exercise of law enforcement measures, has no basis in international law. Further, we express grave concern over the deliberate disinformation conducted through official channels, that distort facts on the ground. We condemn, once again, China's latest unprovoked acts of coercion and dangerous maneuvers against a legitimate and routine Philippine rotation and resupply mission to Avungin Shoal that has put the lives of our people at risk. The systematic and consistent manner in which the People's Republic of China carries out these illegal and irresponsible actions puts into question and significant doubt the sincerity of its calls for peaceful dialogue. Peace and stability cannot be achieved without due regard for the legitimate, well-established, and legally settled rights of others. We demand that China demonstrate that it is a responsible and trustworthy member of the international community. The Philippines continues to act in accordance with international law, particularly UNCLOS and the 2016 Arbitral Award. The Philippines will not be deterred from exercising our legal rights over our maritime zones, including Akungin Shoal which forms part of our EEZ and continental shelf.

Jay Tarriela

417,437 views • 2 years ago

Philippine Coast Guard Continues Vigilant Patrols in Zambales Against Illegal Patrols of China Coast Guard Today, the Philippine Coast Guard vessel, BRP Cabra, under the command of LCDR Hanna Yanez, a female skipper, is actively patrolling off the coast of Zambales to thwart attempts by the China Coast Guard to normalize their illegal patrols within the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Despite the BRP Cabra being smaller in length compared to the Chinese Coast Guard vessels, PCG Commandant Admiral Ronnie Gil Gavan asserts that international law empowers our vessel to operate without intimidation. This confidence allows the BRP Cabra to challenge the China Coast Guard, thereby exposing their unruly behavior and bullying tactics to the international community. The Philippine Coast Guard conducts its maritime patrols in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 2016 Arbitral Award, and the Philippine Maritime Zones Act. Yesterday, during an engagement with CCG-21612 in the vicinity of 132.97 WSW off Capon Grande, Zambales, or approximately 36.35 S off BDM, the Chinese Coast Guard increased its speed and maneuvered past the port side of the BRP Cabra, dangerously blocking its navigation route. This incident highlights the CCG's non-compliance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) and reflects a blatant disregard for safety at sea. While coast guards are typically recognized as enforcers of maritime safety and humanitarian organizations, the actions of the People's Republic of China diverge from these norms. Their illegal patrols jeopardize the lives of fishermen and legitimate law enforcement agencies alike. The Philippine Coast Guard remains committed to supporting the policy direction of President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. that is to assert our rights and jurisdiction while ensuring that we do not act as an agent of escalation in the West Philippine Sea.
0:30

Philippine Coast Guard Continues Vigilant Patrols in Zambales Against Illegal Patrols of China Coast Guard Today, the Philippine Coast Guard vessel, BRP Cabra, under the command of LCDR Hanna Yanez, a female skipper, is actively patrolling off the coast of Zambales to thwart attempts by the China Coast Guard to normalize their illegal patrols within the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Despite the BRP Cabra being smaller in length compared to the Chinese Coast Guard vessels, PCG Commandant Admiral Ronnie Gil Gavan asserts that international law empowers our vessel to operate without intimidation. This confidence allows the BRP Cabra to challenge the China Coast Guard, thereby exposing their unruly behavior and bullying tactics to the international community. The Philippine Coast Guard conducts its maritime patrols in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 2016 Arbitral Award, and the Philippine Maritime Zones Act. Yesterday, during an engagement with CCG-21612 in the vicinity of 132.97 WSW off Capon Grande, Zambales, or approximately 36.35 S off BDM, the Chinese Coast Guard increased its speed and maneuvered past the port side of the BRP Cabra, dangerously blocking its navigation route. This incident highlights the CCG's non-compliance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) and reflects a blatant disregard for safety at sea. While coast guards are typically recognized as enforcers of maritime safety and humanitarian organizations, the actions of the People's Republic of China diverge from these norms. Their illegal patrols jeopardize the lives of fishermen and legitimate law enforcement agencies alike. The Philippine Coast Guard remains committed to supporting the policy direction of President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. that is to assert our rights and jurisdiction while ensuring that we do not act as an agent of escalation in the West Philippine Sea.

Jay Tarriela

14,641 views • 1 year ago

BREAKING: CNN reports that the U.S. military is holding two survivors aboard a Navy ship after a Thursday strike on an alleged “drug boat” in the Caribbean. It's the sixth such strike under Trump’s operation, but the first where anyone lived. The attack hasn’t been publicly acknowledged by the White House, and officials say it’s unclear what will happen to the survivors now in U.S. custody. Legally, the U.S. can’t just hold them indefinitely at sea. International law, including the Geneva Conventions and maritime law. These require that detainees be given a clear legal status: 1) either turned over to law enforcement and charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act,or 2) repatriated to their home country if no charges are filed. If these survivors are neither charged nor released soon, the U.S. risks violating both international human rights law and its own due process obligations.
0:25

BREAKING: CNN reports that the U.S. military is holding two survivors aboard a Navy ship after a Thursday strike on an alleged “drug boat” in the Caribbean. It's the sixth such strike under Trump’s operation, but the first where anyone lived. The attack hasn’t been publicly acknowledged by the White House, and officials say it’s unclear what will happen to the survivors now in U.S. custody. Legally, the U.S. can’t just hold them indefinitely at sea. International law, including the Geneva Conventions and maritime law. These require that detainees be given a clear legal status: 1) either turned over to law enforcement and charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act,or 2) repatriated to their home country if no charges are filed. If these survivors are neither charged nor released soon, the U.S. risks violating both international human rights law and its own due process obligations.

Ed Krassenstein

634,334 views • 10 months ago

“Why doesn't Google DeepMind or Anthropic go lobby the government hard and be like, hey, take our internal voluntary commitments and turn them into binding US law? They're not doing that… and maybe it's because there's some level of bullshit going on here.” —Max Tegmark
3:58

“Why doesn't Google DeepMind or Anthropic go lobby the government hard and be like, hey, take our internal voluntary commitments and turn them into binding US law? They're not doing that… and maybe it's because there's some level of bullshit going on here.” —Max Tegmark

Liron Shapira

23,322 views • 11 months ago

This is yet another attempt by the People’s Republic of China to undermine the final and binding 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea. China’s claim that the award is invalid because it did not participate in the proceedings is baseless under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China is a party. The arbitral tribunal, constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS, directly addressed this argument in its 2015 jurisdictional ruling and 2016 merits award, emphasizing robust procedural safeguards to ensure fairness. Under Article 286 of UNCLOS, states parties are obliged to settle disputes through peaceful means, including binding arbitration under Part XV. By ratifying UNCLOS in 1996, China accepted these compulsory procedures. Article 287 permits states to choose a forum, but in the absence of such a choice, arbitration under Annex VII applies—a basis invoked by the Philippines in its 2013 notification. The tribunal confirmed jurisdiction over the Philippines’ submissions, clarifying that China’s objections did not bar it from ruling on maritime entitlements under UNCLOS. UNCLOS provides that non-appearance does not halt proceedings. Instead, it imposes a “special responsibility” on the tribunal to ensure claims are well founded in fact and law. The tribunal discharged this duty by: -Continuously notifying China of developments and sharing transcripts of hearings; -Repeatedly inviting China to participate or submit evidence; -Treating China’s 2014 Position Paper as a formal jurisdictional submission; and -Examining extensive documentary evidence, expert reports, and historical records. The tribunal concluded that China’s absence did not prevent proceedings from going forward, consistent with broader principles of international law, including Article 53 of the ICJ Statute. Article 296 of UNCLOS makes clear that arbitral awards are “final and binding” on the parties concerned. The award binds China and the Philippines and carefully avoided adjudicating sovereignty disputes or third-party rights. China’s policy of “four no’s”—no acceptance, participation, recognition, or implementation—does not alter these legal realities. International law is clear: non-participation is not a veto. Precedent, including the 1999 Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration, confirms that tribunals proceed even when a party refuses to appear. For China, the path forward lies not in rejecting a treaty it helped shape, but in RECOMMITTING TO UNCLOS. China was a leader during UNCLOS negotiation. China should lead in preserving it for world peace and stability, not in undermining it for selfish and illegal claims.
1:35

This is yet another attempt by the People’s Republic of China to undermine the final and binding 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea. China’s claim that the award is invalid because it did not participate in the proceedings is baseless under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China is a party. The arbitral tribunal, constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS, directly addressed this argument in its 2015 jurisdictional ruling and 2016 merits award, emphasizing robust procedural safeguards to ensure fairness. Under Article 286 of UNCLOS, states parties are obliged to settle disputes through peaceful means, including binding arbitration under Part XV. By ratifying UNCLOS in 1996, China accepted these compulsory procedures. Article 287 permits states to choose a forum, but in the absence of such a choice, arbitration under Annex VII applies—a basis invoked by the Philippines in its 2013 notification. The tribunal confirmed jurisdiction over the Philippines’ submissions, clarifying that China’s objections did not bar it from ruling on maritime entitlements under UNCLOS. UNCLOS provides that non-appearance does not halt proceedings. Instead, it imposes a “special responsibility” on the tribunal to ensure claims are well founded in fact and law. The tribunal discharged this duty by: -Continuously notifying China of developments and sharing transcripts of hearings; -Repeatedly inviting China to participate or submit evidence; -Treating China’s 2014 Position Paper as a formal jurisdictional submission; and -Examining extensive documentary evidence, expert reports, and historical records. The tribunal concluded that China’s absence did not prevent proceedings from going forward, consistent with broader principles of international law, including Article 53 of the ICJ Statute. Article 296 of UNCLOS makes clear that arbitral awards are “final and binding” on the parties concerned. The award binds China and the Philippines and carefully avoided adjudicating sovereignty disputes or third-party rights. China’s policy of “four no’s”—no acceptance, participation, recognition, or implementation—does not alter these legal realities. International law is clear: non-participation is not a veto. Precedent, including the 1999 Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration, confirms that tribunals proceed even when a party refuses to appear. For China, the path forward lies not in rejecting a treaty it helped shape, but in RECOMMITTING TO UNCLOS. China was a leader during UNCLOS negotiation. China should lead in preserving it for world peace and stability, not in undermining it for selfish and illegal claims.

Jay Tarriela

130,908 views • 10 months ago

The message from China is simple: Enter once, get expelled once. Bringing CNN aboard does not turn an intrusion into legality. It only proves the provocation was staged for cameras. And dragging Trump into it changes nothing. Huangyan Dao is Chinese territory. Philippine vessels intruded. China removed them. Manila keeps calling its master as though sovereignty can be outsourced to Washington. But who exactly is Trump here—and why should China care what he intends to “raise”? A trespasser does not become lawful because it brings reporters. A client does not acquire sovereignty because its master complains. China does not check who owns the leash before throwing the dogs out.
2:36

The message from China is simple: Enter once, get expelled once. Bringing CNN aboard does not turn an intrusion into legality. It only proves the provocation was staged for cameras. And dragging Trump into it changes nothing. Huangyan Dao is Chinese territory. Philippine vessels intruded. China removed them. Manila keeps calling its master as though sovereignty can be outsourced to Washington. But who exactly is Trump here—and why should China care what he intends to “raise”? A trespasser does not become lawful because it brings reporters. A client does not acquire sovereignty because its master complains. China does not check who owns the leash before throwing the dogs out.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

16,106 views • 24 days ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On Tibetan Government leaders condemning China’s Ethnic Unity & Progress Promotion Law, RSS leader Indresh Kumar says, "Any attempts by China to occupy Tibet is inhumane and unconstitutional. Tibet was never a part and parcel of China. Both China and the world know this. So, any attack by China on Tibet's culture, education and character are not appropriate. So, I would like to say that China should speak with Tibetans, its Govt in Exile and resolve the issue. They should not adopt any measure which would be inhumane and unconstitutional..."
1:24

#WATCH | Delhi: On Tibetan Government leaders condemning China’s Ethnic Unity & Progress Promotion Law, RSS leader Indresh Kumar says, "Any attempts by China to occupy Tibet is inhumane and unconstitutional. Tibet was never a part and parcel of China. Both China and the world know this. So, any attack by China on Tibet's culture, education and character are not appropriate. So, I would like to say that China should speak with Tibetans, its Govt in Exile and resolve the issue. They should not adopt any measure which would be inhumane and unconstitutional..."

ANI

26,895 views • 1 month ago

🇨🇳 China is pushing harder to complete its Iron Triangle in the South China Sea: the Paracel Islands, the Spratlys, and Scarborough Shoal. It already controls the Paracels and has a major air base there. In the Spratlys, China built seven bases years ago, but other countries still hold their own outposts. At Second Thomas Shoal, Chinese Coast Guard ships recently clashed with Philippine sailors near the grounded warship Manila uses to keep troops there. The confrontation got so physical that both sides were swinging poles and oars. Scarborough Shoal is the remaining weak point: China patrols it, but it still doesn’t have a base there. Obama once warned Xi Jinping that building one would cross a red line. Whether that warning still means anything under Trump is unclear. These skirmishes are becoming a live test of how far the U.S. is willing to go when one of its allies gets pushed. Source: The Economist YT / Writer: Sol
2:13

🇨🇳 China is pushing harder to complete its Iron Triangle in the South China Sea: the Paracel Islands, the Spratlys, and Scarborough Shoal. It already controls the Paracels and has a major air base there. In the Spratlys, China built seven bases years ago, but other countries still hold their own outposts. At Second Thomas Shoal, Chinese Coast Guard ships recently clashed with Philippine sailors near the grounded warship Manila uses to keep troops there. The confrontation got so physical that both sides were swinging poles and oars. Scarborough Shoal is the remaining weak point: China patrols it, but it still doesn’t have a base there. Obama once warned Xi Jinping that building one would cross a red line. Whether that warning still means anything under Trump is unclear. These skirmishes are becoming a live test of how far the U.S. is willing to go when one of its allies gets pushed. Source: The Economist YT / Writer: Sol

Mario Nawfal

27,077 views • 7 days ago