Image capture of video by News Event via YouTube channel - Japan and South Korea offered low-cost products to the Philippines as alternatives to cheap China-made goods
- The two Asian countries reportedly made the offer at the sidelines of the 11th Asia-Europe Meeting held in Mongolia
- Japan and South Korea’s gestures were seen as their support to the verdict of the international tribunal regarding the territorial disputes between China and the Philippines
Japan and South Korea offered low-cost products to the Philippines should it decide to boycott goods that are made in China.
As mentioned in various social media sites such as Trending News Portal and Nations Press, the two Asian countries would make their cheap-but-quality products available to the Philippines as alternatives to Chinese-made commodities.
The offer was reportedly made at the sidelines of the 11th Asia-Europe Meeting held at Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia on July 15 and 16, 2016 attended by members of the European Union and its Commission, the 7 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations , and the individual countries of China, Japan and South Korea.
Japan and South Korea’s gestures were seen as their support to the ruling by the United Nations-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague that stated China had no historic right to almost all of the South China Sea and that it had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights to its own exclusive economic zone by preventing Filipino fishermen from fishing in those waters locally known as West Philippine Sea, and from conducting oil exploration in the region.
China did not accept the arbitral tribunal’s verdict; calling the decision null and void and has no binding force. Xi Jinping, the president of China, said the tribunal’s ruling would not influence their territorial sovereignty and interests in the region.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called the arbitration a farce. He also repeated China’s stance that the Philippines’ request for arbitration without China’s consent had been in “bad faith” and in violation of international law.
Post a Comment