India, Japan & South Korea agreed trilateral military pact against China

Japan and South Korea on 29^th June 2012 agreed to share intelligence in their first joint military pact since World War II.

The agreement is seen as a breakthrough in ties between two neighbors with a difficult history. Japan ruled Korea as a colony for several decades until the end of World War II in 1945, and Seoul has often been wary of Japan's postwar military development, but the nations have many shared concerns, particularly North Korea and China.

Noting that the South China Sea was witnessing "competing claims", India strongly pitched for co-operation instead of competition in the seas and oceans at a trilateral meeting with Japan and South Korea.

With China's growing assertiveness in the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea), India, Japan and South Korea - Asia's three leading democracies –( June 29, 2012 )Friday held their first trilateral meeting in India and pitched for freedom of seas and expanding their multifaceted cooperation.

Asserting that India, Japan and Republic of Korea depend heavily on the Sea Lanes of Communications (SLOCs) for their energy security which are also the mainstay for trade and connectivity, Sanjay Singh, Secretary (East) in Ministry of External Affairs, said "there is indeed a compelling case for us to cooperate on maritime security."

"India has a valued geostrategic location straddling the SLOCs. The Indian Ocean Rim is characterized by large Exclusive Economic Zones and unexplored and untapped marine resources. Similar potential exists for example in the South China Sea which today is witnessing competing claims.

The three sides discussed a host of regional and global issues to cement their trilateral cooperation cutting across diverse areas, including maritime cooperation, security, terrorism, and trade and investment.

The trilateral dialogue seeks to address the three major themes - the evolving Asian security architecture, non-traditional security issues and prospects and challenges for this process.

The India-Japan-South Korea trilateral seeks to reinforce the India-Japan-US trilateral dialogue that also focuses on expanding strategic and maritime cooperation.

They identified the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA), Korea National Diplomatic Academy, and Tokyo Foundation as the three partnering institutions to carry forward the trilateral dialogue.

"Being leading democracies of the world, we share a common commitment to democratic values, open society, human rights and the rule of law," Sanjay Singh, Secretary (East) in the external affairs ministry, said while underlining a congruence of strategic interests of the three leading economies of the region.

"We seek a peaceful and secure Asia free from the threats of terrorism, proliferation, piracy and conflict between states," he said.

Although China was not mentioned explicitly, it was very much the elephant in the room, with discussions focusing on maritime cooperation and freedom of navigation in international sea lanes of communication.

"There is common commitment to maintaining freedom of the seas, combating terrorism and promoting inclusive economic growth. India, Japan and ROK depend heavily on the Sea Lanes of Communications (SLOCs) for their energy security," Singh said.

"These are also the mainstay for trade and connectivity amongst our countries and other countries in the region. India has a valued geostrategic location straddling the SLOCs," he said.

In this context, the three sides noted that like the Indian Ocean Rim, West Philippines Sea has tremendous potential for cooperation, but is "is witnessing competing claims".

"Our common objective is to see that the seas and oceans become regions of cooperation instead of competition, particularly as our energy security and trade depends on them," Singh said.

Underlining the need for maritime cooperation, the sides discussed ways to expand trilateral cooperation to deal the conventional risks associated with nuclear power and confront the risks of nuclear and missile proliferation in our neighborhoods.

"Deepening cooperation amongst our defense and security establishments will promote our mutual security," said Singh.

Beijing has yet to react to the India-Japan-South Korea trilateral, but it has been uneasy about leading democracies of the region getting together in what it sees as an exercise in encirclement of a rising China.

Trilateral Military pact

The pact establishes a framework for sharing intelligence in such areas as missile defense, North Korea's nuclear weapons program, Chinese military operations and other regional security matters.

It was previously approved by South Korea, and Japan's Cabinet gave its final approval Friday ahead of a formal signing ceremony. "Considering the security situation in east Asia, it is very significant for us to create the foundations for sharing information," said Japan's foreign minister, Koichiro Genba. "I think this is a very historic event."

The pact reflects deepening mutual concerns that more cooperation is needed to enhance security readiness.

The two countries are increasingly concerned by potential threats from North Korea, which is developing its long-range missile and nuclear weapons capabilities. They are also closely watching the rise of China's military.

North Korea heightened regional tensions in April with the launch of a rocket that was widely criticized as a test of long-range missile technology. The launch was of particular concern to Seoul and Tokyo because they are within reach of the North's missile arsenal.

Such fears spurred the government efforts to cooperate more closely on intelligence sharing, though the pact remains controversial among some in South Korea.

"An accord for military-information protection with Japan is necessary given the ever-growing threat from the North," South Korea's JoongAng Daily newspaper said in an editorial. "The more quality information we have about the North, the better our security."

Continue reading

COMMENTARY: Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?

BY LAWRENCE S. WITTNER

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used.  After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons.  The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon.

The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough.  Disturbed by China's growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China's claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region.  According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a Pacific power."

But need this lead to nuclear war?

Not necessarily.  And yet, there are signs that it could.  After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons.  The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China's offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu.  In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would "be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else."

Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons then.  Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate.  But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists.

Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven't been very many—at least not yet.  But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur.  Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war.  Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal.  During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan.

At the least, though, don't nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack?  Do they?  Obviously, NATO leaders didn't feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.  Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing "Star Wars" and its modern variant, national missile defense.  Why are these vastly expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might?

Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart.  Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred.  Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States.  Surely the United States would "win" any nuclear war with China.

But what would that "victory" entail?  A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning.  The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher.  Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands.  Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse.  The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States.  The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade.

To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be taken.  The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing.  The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations.  If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.

* * *

Wittner is Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is "Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement" (Stanford University Press). This commentary was distributed by PeaceVoice a program of the Oregon Peace Institute, Portland, OR.

http://www.peacevoice.info/

Continue reading

Not contented in Spratlys; China now Claim Palawan islands

During the APEC summit 2011 in Hawaii; China protest the Philippines to use its resources and explore the oils in Palawan and pronounced its claim to the Palawan Islands.

China has claimed new territory less than 50 miles (80 kilometers) from a Philippine province, boosting tensions over potentially resource-rich areas of the South China Sea, but the Philippines has dismissed the claim, an official said Monday.

Energy Undersecretary Jose Layug Jr. told The Associated Press that China protested a Philippine plan to explore for oil and gas in the area in July. It is the closest point in waters off the main Philippine islands that China has claimed in the increasingly tense territorial disputes.

Beijing has been asserting its territorial claims more aggressively as its economic and diplomatic muscle has grown. Its new claims are likely to bolster Philippine resolve to seek a U.N. ruling on the long-simmering disputes, which involve China, the Philippines and four other claimants.

Among the areas being contested is the Spratlys, a chain of up to 190 islands, reefs, coral outcrops and banks believed to be sitting atop large deposits of oil and natural gas, which many fear could be Asia's next flash point for conflict.

The issue is expected to be discussed Wednesday with visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The two new areas being claimed by China are not part of the Spratlys, Layug said.

The Chinese Embassy delivered a protest to the Philippine government on July 4 after Manila invited foreign companies to bid for the right to explore for oil and gas in 15 areas. Chinese officials opposed the inclusion of "areas 3 and 4" northwest of Palawan province, claiming they fall under Chinese sovereign territory.

"The Chinese government urges the Philippine side to immediately withdraw the bidding offer in areas 3 and 4, refrain from any action that infringes on China's sovereignty and sovereign rights," China said in a diplomatic note to Manila, adding that the Philippine action "cannot but complicate the disputes and affect stability in the South China Sea."

China told the Philippine government that the planned oil explorations violated a nonbinding 2002 accord that called on claimants to South China Sea territories to stop occupying new areas and avoid action that could spark tension.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said at a regular briefing: "We do not want foreign commerce involved in these kinds of investment and disputes over the South China Sea."

Palawan province, about 510 miles (820 kilometers) southwest of Manila, faces the South China Sea, which is claimed entirely by China.

One of the offshore areas now being claimed by Beijing lies just 49 miles (79 kilometers) northwest of Palawan, while the other is 76 miles (123 kilometers) from the western Philippine province, Layug said.

The Philippine government told China the areas are located well within Philippine waters and are far from any disputed area, officials said.

"The areas that we're offering for bidding are all within Philippine territory," Layug said. "There is no doubt about that."

The two areas are more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) from the nearest Chinese coast, Layug said.

About 50 foreign investors, including some of the world's largest oil companies, have expressed interest in exploring for oil and gas in the Philippines, half of them in the new areas being claimed by China, because of strong indications of oil there, he said.

None of the prospective foreign companies has expressed concern over the territorial disputes, Layug said.

"Of course their issue would be ensuring security and the support of the Philippine government when they are awarded the contract," he said.

In March, two Chinese vessels tried to drive away a Philippine oil exploration ship from Reed Bank, another area west of Palawan. Two Philippine air force planes were deployed, but the Chinese vessels had disappeared by the time they reached the submerged bank.

The Philippines protested the incident, which it said was one of several intrusions by China into its territorial waters in the first half of the year. Vietnam has also accused Chinese vessels of trying to sabotage oil exploration in its territorial waters this year, sparking rare anti-China protests in Vietnam.

A British company behind the exploration at Reed Bank found very strong indications of natural gas and plans to start drilling in about six months, Layug said.

President Benigno Aquino III plans to discuss a Philippine proposal at an Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit this week in Bali, Indonesia, to segregate disputed South China Sea areas so coastal states can freely make use of non-disputed areas. China has opposed the plan.

Aquino's government also plans to bring the territorial disputes before the United Nations for possible arbitration.

Continue reading

SCS South China Sea tensions rattle China's neighbors

China's growing naval power has encouraged it to be more assertive

Chinese leaders like to talk about their country's "peaceful rise" - and Europe's financial traumas are giving Beijing plenty of scope to assume the role of a benign new force on the world stage.

President Hu Jintao has presented himself as a "friend in need" during encounters with European supplicants while stopping short, for now, of committing China to a specific contribution.

But China has been showing a very different face to countries closer to home in an increasingly tense confrontation over rival claims to the resource-rich waters of the South China Sea.

It is a region where the peaceful nature of China's rise is starting to be questioned as it pushes a long-standing maritime claim that stretches deep into South East Asia.

China have threaten the 2 small neighbors that if the Philippines and Vietnam will not agree with what china's wants, then they will use force. "If these countries do not want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sound of cannons" – [published under  Global Times]

"China is becoming much more confident in the region and there are signs it is becoming giddy with success. It has become much more influential much more quickly than it expected," says Dr Kerry Brown of the Asia Programme at Chatham House in London.

Vietnam and the Philippines in recent months have seen the snarl of a resurgent regional power that is fast losing patience with the gripes of smaller neighbors over maritime borders.

"If these countries do not want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sound of cannons. It may be the only way for the dispute in the sea to be resolved," said the state run newspaper, the Global Times, in a recent editorial.

The Philippines stands remain strong as they said anytime; we are willing to defend our territory in any form of invasion.

Philippines as the highly affected country of china's warning because almost all part of the disputed in the Spratlys is within it 200 Nautical Miles Exclusive Economic Zone become immune of China's threat. They are used to as that what china did often.

If China has successfully invaded the mischief reef and adjacent reef of Mainland Palawan, a province of the Philippines then this time, it not be happen again to any other islands and reefs within 200 Nautical Miles of the County.

China successfully invaded the mischief reef in 1995 when china build a fishermen shelter in the water of the Philippines but when asked; they replied that they are building a fishermen shelter but later the converted it into a military garrison inside the Philippines' territory.

Hard power

Chinese officials have been more restrained in their comments, but foreign ministry spokesmen have issued a series of warnings about what they see as encroachments into Chinese waters.

Beijing says it does want a peaceful solution. But Vietnam and the Philippines say Chinese ships have stepped up harassment of vessels involved in oil exploration and fishing.

China's stance on the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea) is making neighbors like Vietnam worried

"The growth of Chinese military spending is beginning to translate into hard power," says John Hemmings, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.

"This is the first major sign that a more confident Chinese grand strategy is emerging. It is in the South China Sea that there is a real risk of discord between the US and China."

The disputes are about oil and gas reserves, lucrative fisheries and sea lanes that are crucial to the giant industrial economies of East Asia. But they also point to a strategic contest with the United States, which has been the dominant military power in the western Pacific since 1945.

"China is driven by a nationalistic agenda - it won't find it easy to make compromises over what are seen as crucial resources, such as energy in the South China Sea"- [Dr Kerry Brown.]

"China has a containment mindset," says Kerry Brown. "It thought that the United States was ceding influence but it sees the US is still active all around its borders from Afghanistan to Japan."

In the latest incident, Beijing responded sharply to an announcement by the American company, Exxon Mobil, of a new oil find off the coast of central Vietnam.

It appears to be well within Vietnam's 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. But China issued a now familiar warning that it has indisputable sovereignty to large parts of the sea.

"We hope foreign companies do not get involved in disputed waters for oil and gas exploration and development," said a foreign ministry spokesman. China's insecurity with US & Indian presence in the area shows it weakness and wanting to monopolize and bully the 2 small country; Philippines and Vietnam.

Vietnam vulnerable

China's maritime claim is ill-defined but it resembles a giant U shape extending for more than 1,000km (621 miles) off its southern coast and reaching into what Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei see as their own waters.

It recently warned Indian firms to stay away after they signed exploration agreements with Vietnam. India has nettled its giant neighbor by developing a "strategic partnership" with Vietnam - in China's view an intrusion into its own backyard.

Vietnam appears most vulnerable. Its leaders have been stung into an unaccustomed flurry of foreign visits as they seek help from the region and beyond.

"Vietnam feels out on a limb," says John Hemmings. "It understands that a naval conflict with China could be over very quickly. The Vietnamese are much more exposed than they first thought."

The West Philippines Sea (South China Sea) dispute raises intense passions in Vietnam.

Some believe it will be very hard for China to back down.

"China is driven by a nationalistic agenda, It won't find it easy to make compromises over what are seen as crucial resources, such as energy in the South China Sea," says Kerry Brown.

Whatever its intention, China has succeeded in frightening traditional US allies such as Japan and South Korea firmly back into the American fold, along with a host of new suitors.

US officials have tried to underline their commitment to the region, at a time when some allies are questioning Washington's staying power.

US naval might

It will be years before China's growing military power can challenge the overwhelming naval might of the United States, backed as it is by a network of military bases across Asia.

But China's development of new land based missiles designed to target aircraft carriers is a sign of its fast-growing capabilities.

"I want to make very clear that the United States is going to remain a presence in the Pacific for a long time," said the defense secretary, Leon Panetta, on an Asian visit late last month "If anything, we're going to strengthen our presence in the Pacific."

President Barack Obama is expected to underline this commitment when he hosts Asian leaders at the APEC conference in Hawaii this month.

China may have found in the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea) dispute an arena to test US resolve and attempt to nudge it out of the region.

If Washington fails to live up to its rhetoric, China's smaller neighbors will have little choice but to accept the new realities of what the US itself is calling the "Pacific Century"

Continue reading

China wary as India looks East – South China Sea

In China, smaller publications in landlocked provinces are a better guide to the actual thinking of the immense cadre of the Chinese Communist Party than the bigger media outlets, especially those in English. The latter usually give a more restrained and assessment of situations, which is why it was a surprise to South Block (home of the Prime Minister's Office and the External Affairs Ministry) to note the harsh language of even leading English-language publications in Beijing ( such as "Global Times") about India's outreach to Myanmar and Vietnam. The ire was mostly against the oil prospecting contracts signed by state-owned Indian companies with their Vietnamese counterparts.

The Chinese media saw this as "interference in the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea)", all of which is claimed by China and parts are claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam & Other ASEAN neighbors. The sea has immense deposits of hydrocarbon and other minerals essential to a fast-developing and large economy such as India; hence it is not likely that Petroleum Minister Jaipal Reddy will abandon the joint venture with Vietnam. The policy of Delhi is that the disputes between different countries in the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea) is a matter for them to settle, but that in the meantime, India will undertake commercial and other transactions with each of the governments whose territories about the sea. Beijing wants all countries to deal only with itself in any such activity; an in effect wants a monopoly over the resources of the Sea.

Apart from the vituperative articles against Vietnam, the Philippines and India written in English-language and Mandarin publications published from China, numerous China-based internet sites have gone much further in their verbal attack on the three Asian neighbors of China. Some have even alluded to the "racial inferiority" of people from India, Vietnam and the Philippines when compared to Han Chinese, and called for them to be slaughtered by military might "in the manner of roadkill" ie animals killed by vehicles while crossing a road. The overwhelming majority of the Chinese people are highly cultured, steeped as they are in a civilization which goes back 5000 years, but clearly there are some who in their thinking resemble followers of Adolf Hitler. Although such arrogant and aggressive voices are almost certainly not representative of the view of the Chinese Communist Party, yet the frequency with which they have appeared in the Chinese media have led to calls to strengthen Indian defenses on the border with China, a border which has been tranquil except for four brief instances since the 1962 war.

Since 2009, the Indian Air Force has moved a squadron of Sukhoi-35s to the China border, while the army has placed nuclear-capable missiles within easy reach of PLA fortifications and concentrations. On both sides of the border, there is hectic increase in activity relating to the creation or the strengthening of infrastructure, although as yet conditions on the Chinese side are far superior. Even in relation to equipment, PLA forces are much better off than their Indian counterparts. They have lighter bulletproof vests, better rifles and night-fighting capabilities, all of which has been documented in a recent issue of "India Today". Where India's military scores lies in the fact that it is battle-hardened. Constant sorties against hostile elements within the borders of the country has improved the fighting capacity of the Indian soldier, and made him or her better able to prevail, even against a better-equipped enemy. In this sense, even NATO soldiers are better prepared for war than troops from countries that have been at peace for long periods, such as China, which last fought a war in 1979 (against Vietnam). In the case of Pakistan as well, its soldiers are battle-hardened as well, because of action seen in numerous conflicts, some within the country.

However, this columnist is among those who believe that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party has the wisdom to avoid war. There is a huge difference between the China since the time Deng took full control of the party in 1981 and the past, when Beijing was involved in the Korean, Indian and Vietnamese conflicts, besides skirmishes across the Taiwan Straits and with (the then) USSR. There is no doubt that Deng Xiaoping was a great statesperson, who is responsible for modern China.

During his time, civilian spending was emphasized and military budgets reduced. Deng made it clear that he favored a policy of peace, and although China was a huge country, took a very conciliatory line on external disputes. He was also searching for a solution to the Sino-Indian boundary dispute when ill-health and age forced him to take a much more reduced role in governance by the start of the 1990s. While his successor Jiang Zemin occasionally adopted a tough line, General Secretary Hu Jintao has reverted to the wise policies of Deng Xiaoping, stressing the importance of harmony in relations between states. However, since China is much richer today than it was during Deng's time, Hu has presided over an immense quantitative improvement in the capabilities and provisioning of the PLA.

The rapid economic growth since China took firmly to the Path of Peace is evidence that conflict may not be the best way to promote the national interest. Those who glibly talk of going to war against Vietnam and India, for instance, ought to examine the condition of China during the 1950s or the 1960s and see it in the 21st century, the second-biggest economy in the world, with $3 trillion worth of cash reserves, almost higher than the rest of the globe combined. Indeed, Sino-Indian trade has zoomed over the past decade, now crossing $60 billion and headed to $100 billion in two years time. In fact, the prospects are for trade between India and China to cross $300 billion in ten years, providing income and employment to millions of people on both sides of the border. This prosperity would be at risk, were there to be the cataclysmic event of a fresh Sino-Indian war.

Both the leaders of India as well as China are aware of the centrality of peace and friendship to the economic health of both countries. Which is why the hotheads who write vituperative essays against the other country are ignored by the top leadership in Beijing or Delhi? Indeed, both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao are to meet in the beautiful island of Bali on November 19, when they attend the East Asia Summit. Both will also be meeting (albeit separately) with President Obama of the US. Such meetings will help ensure that temperatures remain cool and that differences over the South China Sea get resolved peacefully, and in a way that ensures access to resources and economic development for all sides.

M D Nalapat—The writer of this article is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.

Continue reading

China’s puppet Cambodia one sided to China for Spratlys

China's influence to ASEAN neighbors remains strong that make the ASEAN countries divided. Cambodia a member of the ASEAN countries shows an approval of china for in return to have a huge investment from them.

Cambodia's economy is still lagging far behind with other ASEAN countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam but the support of Cambodia for the ASEAN decision in connection with the Spratlys dispute is still important.

Cambodia's Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Hor Namhong said that the territorial dispute in the South China Sea should be solved between China and the concerned countries by complying with the Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and recent adopted guidelines.

His remarks were made during meeting with visiting Liu Zhenmin, assistant to Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, at the ministry.

"Both sides agreed that the South China Sea issues must be solved out between China and the states involved in the dispute only," Koy Kuong, spokesman for Cambodia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told reporters after the meeting.

"All concerned parties in the South China Sea have to comply with the (2002) DOC and adopted recent guidelines," Hor Namhong was quoted by Koy Kuong as saying to Liu Zhenmin.

DOC is called toothless by the DFA Secretary Del Rosario as he said even China the signatory of the DOC is violating it resulting to a heighten tension  in the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea)

DOC and UNCLOS Law will work together as both parties are member of the United Nations and inner conflict which could not be solve by the region must be push to the United Nations ITLOS.

Hor Namhong continued to say that all relevant parties in the dispute have to build mutual trust in order to solve the dispute in the spirits of mutual benefit, peace and friendship.

The Philippines have slacken off  its mutual trust with china after china invaded the Mischief reef near Palawan by building a "said" fishermen shelter then later converted into military garrison. Mischief reef is just adjacent to the Mainland Palawan and within 200 Nautical Miles Exclusive Economic Zone of Palawan, Philippines.

China and ASEAN in July adopted an agreement on the guidelines of implementing the DOC.

The guidelines include some principles that offer directions for implementing the DOC and map out procedural rules for cooperation in the future.

The oil- and gas-rich South China Sea is partially claimed by several Southeast Asian states, including the Philippines and Vietnam.

Meanwhile, Liu Zhenmin said the visit in Cambodia was to strengthen bilateral and regional cooperation in all fields with Cambodia and said China still continued its support to Cambodia in all circumstances.

Cambodia's commitment in supporting China reaped a promise of support and more investment. Cambodia's vulnerable stands for the ASEAN might lead into losing its support from its fellows when china's expansionism attitude diverts' it point to Cambodia to be the next annex state of China.

Both sides also exchanged views on the East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia later this month in order to enable the Summit to run smoothly and successfully as this year was the 20th anniversary of the establishment of China-ASEAN dialogue relations.

Liu arrived Phnom Penh on Saturday (November 5, 2011) and will leave here on Sunday.

Continue reading