Author: abramicus

Taiwan and Philippines Losing Control Over Spat [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-20 04:44:39 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2013-5-20 04:53

ON A GENERAL PARADIGM FOR RESOLVING BORDER DISPUTES AND EEZ DISPUTES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, AND EVEN IN THE SINO-INDIAN BORDER:

There are many possible solutions.  In the case of the overlapping EEZ's of the South China Sea, the following paradigm variation has a high probability of succeeding:

1.  Using the UNCLOS definition of EEZ as applied to both countries, divide the overlapping region right in the middle.  

2.  Where disagreement exists regarding certain points on the proposed boundary, let a randomizing device decide on where the exact points should be subject to mutually agreed restrictions, such as that the total area each side gets must equal that of the other side, and that the deviation from the proposed boundary should not go beyond certain limits on each side of the boundary.  

3.  Where the economic value of certain oil or mineral reserves are uncertain, then let there be a bidding mechanism such that the side which gets the site pays the other side what it estimates to be the value of the site.  If either side agrees to the demand of the other side in monetary terms, then the matter is resolved.  If both sides cannot agree to the offer of the other side, then a random device is used to see which side gets the site.  The "winner" gets the site, but pays the value of what it demanded for it to the "loser".  In reality, there is no winner or loser, because the side that gets the site pays the the side that does not.

This is a variation of the "Cake Cutting Paradigm" in that the side cutting the cake is not the side choosing which side it gets.  This keeps both sides honest as to the true value of the piece of cake (territory) it demands.  Thus two bids are created.  

For example, for Island X, China demands $10 B, and the Philippines demand $8 B.  If either side agrees to the price of the other, then a sale is concluded.  Say, China pays the Philippines $8 B, then the sale is consummated.  Likewise, if the Philippines pays China $10 B then the sale is consummated.  But if both were bluffing, then and neither is willing to pay the asking price of the other side, then Round-2 occurs.

A coin is tossed with the prior agreement that if it turns up heads, China must buy, and if it turns up tails, the Philippines must buy.  Thus, if head came up, China must pay the Philippines, not the amount that the Philippines asked, but instead what China demanded, which is $10 B.  And, if tails came up, the Philippines must pay China $8 B, which is what the Philippines demanded, not what China asked.  In either case, the island will be sold to one side or the other.  Sale closed.

Why do we have to do this?  Because we need to keep both sides honest as to the true value of the island to them, and without this mechanism, there is no incentive for either side to be honest.  Because the price that China demands in the first round becomes the price that China must pay in the second round, China has no incentive to inflate or deflate it.  Likewise, for the Philippines.  By forcing each other to be honest, the two sides are helping themselves agree to a fair exchange of land for money, in this instance.  Money is used in this example because it is easy to illustrate.  

But, a further variation of this could be, say that in exchange for Island X, China is demanding Islands A & B, while in exchange for Island X, the Philippines is demanding Island B & C.  Again, the logic works its effect.  In the first round if the offer of the other side is acceptable to either side, the deal is closed.  But if neither is satisfied with the deal, a Round-2 coin tossing event is employed to break the impasse.  If China wins, it will have to give up Islands A and B to the Philippines in exchange for taking over Island X.  If the Philippines wins, it will have to give up Islands B & C, and take over Island X.  Thus, there is no incentive for China to demand more in the first round than what it is willing to give up in the second round.  Likewise for the Philippines.  Thus, both sides are forced to be honest about the price they demand for Island X.  

The problem can revert to a disagreement about what islands or territories are in dispute and thus must be put up for their Cake-Cutting-Auction.  With this paradigm, the Philippines can make off like a bandit by putting all of Taiwan under dispute, for example.  In order for China to retake any part of Taiwan, it would have to pay in kind or in specie, which is impossible.  Thus, it is equally important to start with a definable boundary of the region in dispute, and a date on which such a boundary exists.  In the case of the Taiwan-Philippine dispute, the boundaries of the territory in dispute are defined by the EEZ boundaries of Taiwan that are inside the Philippines' EEZ, and the EEZ boundaries of the Philippines that are inside Taiwan's EEZ.  This area of dispute is well defined geographically, and can be date stamped to a past date, such as January 1, 2013.  In the case of the Sino-Indian Dispute, the boundaries of the territory in dispute are defined by the claims of China on territory inside India's effective line of control, and the claims of India on territory inside China's line of control, which have been presented by both sides to each other in the past, and can be dated to January 1, 2013 as well.  The territories to be put on auction do not preclude the bidder from offering other territories outside this disputed territory or monetary considerations as an exchange value, which the other side would have to pay in the first round to get the disputed area of interest, and which it would have to pay if it got the disputed area by means of a random device.  Obviously, such "other territories" must be something that belongs to the universal set of disputed territories or which ever side demanded it in the first round would not be able to pay up in the second round, but money is certainly possible as an added consideration.

Think about it.

Copyright reserved to me.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-21 09:07:04 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2013-5-21 09:14
iamwatchingyou Post time: 2013-5-20 21:08
President Ma's outburst, especially his irrational demands from the President of the Republic of the ...

Well, if you are watching me, then the more important question is, given your erratic behavior, who is watching you?  If nobody, that would probably lead to another tragedy like what happened at the Balintang Channel, where the EEZ of China/Taiwan overlapped the EEZ of the Philippines (thanks to UNCLOS), where a law-abiding, hard-working, decent fisherman from Taiwan was shot in cold blood by so-called law enforcers of the Philippine Coast Guard, using a dozen rifles and submachine guns, all because he is just a Chinese/Taiwanese.  His nationality does not carry enough weight to make you think he is human.  Bet you would not dare fire a single shot if the boat belonged to Uncle Sam?

Yes, Ma's performance is not perfect, but he had a perfect hand by which to extract justice for the poor Fisherman and His Family, starting out with your President Aquino III saying he was willing to apologize to the family, pay restitutions, and pursue justice on the fisherman's behalf.  That would have been it, finished.  But Ma has to show his separatist colors to his separatist constituency by being overly clever, to demand that the Philippine government apologize to him as President of the Republic of China, in gilded letterhead, and to then sit down with his representatives, as co-equals and co-sovereign parties, to hash out a fishing agreement that would effectively imply a Two China Policy.  In so doing, he belittled the Philippine President who could not do more than what he had promised given the constraints of the Philippines recognizing only the PRC as the sole government of China, resulting in a summary rejection of all his demands.  This result is what separatism and self-division begets the separatist administration that he has exposed to all the world.  

Fortunately, China is not angry at Taiwan, being quite sympathetic to the fisherman's family despite all these separatist maneuverings to split its national sovereignty.  Even now, the Taiwan govt has managed to make the Philippines Dept of Justice agree that both sides would be permitting each other to join in the investigation of the case as co-equals, as in diplomatic reciprocity.  The sad, sad story is how the fisherman has been made into a political pawn for the separatist agenda in Taiwan, as his life and the gross injustice done to him become a mere expedient for achieving a Two China Policy for the benefit of the politicians.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-22 13:14:57 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2013-5-22 13:26
iamwatchingyou Post time: 2013-5-21 21:15
My erratic behavior? What's erratic about telling the world the truth about Taiwan President's tru ...

AN APOLOGY FROM THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IS STILL DUE, AND OVERDUE.

Immediately, you have confirmed to the International Commuity your penchant for erratic behavior.  You start out talking about international norms of behavior, and in the same breath justify your coast guard shooting at an unarmed Chinese fishing vessel for not obeying its orders, killing the captain's father in a hail of bullets, supposedly targeting the engine, but with more than two dozen bullet holes directed at the crew's section.  

The act of shooting unarmed fishing vessels is ILLEGAL under all international conventions, regardless of where the shooting occurred.  It is called "murder" in case you may not realize the gravity of their actions.  The Taiwanese they shot at with self-righteous zeal is a HUMAN being, even if in their eyes, beinig totally brainwashed by their Western and so-called "Catholic" education, somewhere in their corrupted subconsciouis minds, Chinese/Taiwanese = Pagan/Heathen = Subhuman, who can be killed like flies.

Now, for the facts which anybody can get from Wikipedia under the caption of 2013 Guang Da Xing No. 28 Incident.

DID THE INCIDENT OCCUR WITHIN THE 200 NAUTICAL MILE EEZ OF TAIWAN?  YES, IT DID.

"The incident occurred in the high seas and the overlapping exclusive economic zones between Taiwan and the Philippines. The site was 43 nautical miles east of Balintang Island according to the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources[10] and 170 nautical miles south of Taiwan according to Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both well within the 200 nautical mile range prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[11]"

DID THE TAIWANESE BOAT RAM THE PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD VESSEL?  NO, AND ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE IT IS SLOWER AND SMALLER THAN THE PHILIPPINE VESSEL.

"The victim's son, Hung Yu-chih (洪育智), refuted the Philippine Coast Guard's claim, stating that the 15-ton Guang Da Xing No. 28 had a much lower speed compared to the 90-ton PCG vessel. He said their immediate reaction was to flee when the fishing boat encountered the armed Filipino vessel and allegations that the fishing boat had tried to ram the PCG vessel was self-serving and baseless.[17]."  (Fabricating evidence by your "law-enforcers" does not make it real.)

WAS THE KILLING OF THE TAIWANESE FISHERMAN ACCIDENTAL?  NO, NOT IN A HUNDRED YEARS.

"The Ministry of Justice published an investigation report on May 15,[18] indicating that 45 bullets hit the boat and that no signs of a collision were found on the boat, refuting the Philippine's claim that the Taiwanese boat had rammed the Filipino vessel.[19] The report further states that there were total of 59 bullet holes with at least one under the waterline and four near the cabin where the crew was hiding, inferring that the PCG intended to kill the crew. According to the voyage data recorder, the shooting occurred at 19°59'47.27"N and 122°55'41.37"E, which is outside the Philippines' territorial waters, but within the shared EEZ.[18] The report further stated that Hung Shih-cheng died of respiratory failure and hemorrhage caused by a single gunshot wound to the neck inflicted by a 7.62 mm caliber ammunition commonly used in weapons such as the M14 rifle, the M240 machine gun and the M60 machine gun. It gave his manner of death as homicide.[18]"

IF YOUR PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO APOLOGIZE TO THE FAMILY, IF NOT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PLEASE MAKE THE SUBJECT OF THE APOLOGY ACCURATE, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED SINCERE.  SINCERITY IS NOT JUST MEASURED BY THE LEVEL OF THE TAIWANESE GOVERNMENT BEING APOLOGIZED TO.  SINCERITY IS MEASURED BY TRUTH.  NO TRUTH, NO SINCERITY.  NO SINCERITY, NO APOLOGY.  THIS IS WHY WEHAVETOKEEPWATCHINGYOU.  YOUR ERRATIC ARGUMENTS HOLD NO WATER, AND IN FACT, HAVE MORE HOLES THAN THE SICKENING AND REVOLTING BULLET HOLES RIDDLING THE HUANGTAXING 28.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-22 16:56:53 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-5-22 15:57
There is an "official" line: You just copied it.

There is a Taiwanese line: We don't want to be ...

Come on, Seneca, it is getting too hot in the closet.  Bare your heart.  Just say you love Abe.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-22 21:10:22 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-5-22 17:28
Yes, it is getting hot here, but I am not in any closet. We have 32 degrees C today. Hot, isn't it ...

Only 32 C?  With you and Abe all wrapped together in the same flag, you will have a long hot summer.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-22 21:11:21 |Display all floors
Mr. iamwatchingyou, where have you been?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-22 21:16:19 |Display all floors
more than a dozen times that the FLIP (filipinos) has held taiwanese's fisherman boats for extortion, and this time the taiwanese couldnt take it anymore  {:soso_e114:}{:soso_e129:}
a man who uses his hands is a laborer. one who uses his hands and his mind is a craftsman. but he who uses his hands, his mind, and his heart, is an artist...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.