Talk:South China Sea Arbitration/Archives/2016/July

Botswana

The press release of this African country Boswana can be found here. I don't see any indication that this country supports the arbitration brought up by the Philippines, it made no mention of any country in the press release. If you don't agree, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Subsections

The headings are reorganized a bit. please comment if you dis/agree? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Slovenia

Before removing the following, please check if you can provide reliable source.

It was reported that Slovenia denied the Chinese foreign ministry statements.[99]

The news reporter Ben Dooley wrote for Slovenia:

EU member Slovenia quickly denied Chinese foreign ministry statements that they were backing Beijing, with Ljubljana saying: "We do not take sides on the issue."

Searching from the Internet didn't return a simple source supporting this statement.Toto11zi (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This statement indicates the Slovenian Foreign Ministry was not acquainted (informed) with the MPs position, this doesn't mean anything.

The Slovenian Foreign Ministry has said it is not acquainted with the MPs position.

here

Here's MPs position:

Mr. Sakar of Slovenia's ruling party, the Modern Center Party, said that Slovenia completely understands and supports the Chinese government's stance on the South China Sea arbitration case, and hope countries involved will peacefully resolve their disputes through negotiation.

Toto11zi (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Added more reliable information here

Kamal Shaker, Representative of the Party of Modern Centre of Slovenia who is in Beijing for the 5th China-Europe High-level Political Parties Forum, made the following statement on behalf of the ruling party and government of Slovenia when meeting the leading official of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee. He said that the Slovenian side totally understands and supports China's stance on the issue of the South China Sea arbitration, and hopes that disputes would be peacefully resolved through consultation, dialogue and negotiation.

Kamal Izidor Shaker is the Deputy of the National Assembly of Slovia, The National Assembly is the general representative body of Slovenia.

If you don't agree, discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The parliament is a legislative representative of Slovenia. The foreign ministry, the minister (Karl Erjavec of the Democratic Party of Pensioners of Slovenia), and the head of state has relevant say regarding the matter (which has been silent on the matter at least, neither deny or confirm the statement). The meeting where the statement was made was during a meeting of political parties. The statement We shouldn't assume or interpret general Slovenian foreign policy. "The Slovenian Foreign Ministry has said it is not acquainted with the MPs position." means that there has been no consensus regarding the matter neither denying or confirming Saker's statements.203.215.120.114 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read carefully, the statement says "on behalf of the ruling party and GOVERNMENT OF SLOVENIA", remember that government has more power than the foreign ministry. Again, don't interpret in your own way the statement from the Slovenian Foreign Ministry, that statement is not relevant. If you don't agree, discuss again Toto11zi (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Support for the Philippines' right to seek arbitration / Calling on China to respect the arbitration decision

Before removing this whole section, please discuss if there's reason to keep this section.

This title was added arbitrarily last week by someone with the purpose to include one or 2 countries. I would think we can just remove it. The Australia source says Australia recognizes the Philippines' right, the title says "Support for the Philippines' right", it's just misleading. The New Zealand quote is just a general quote, not related to the title at all. Again no interpretation please. Toto11zi (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The sub-heading is misleading and should be removed. STSC (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)