I refer to the article ("Message in a battle", January 26).
You reported that the Philippines was taking China's sovereignty claim in the South China Sea to the United Nations for arbitration. You also said that Beijing had 30 days to nominate its representative to be part of a five-judge panel to hear the case and that it was unlikely Beijing would nominate a representative, and it is doubtful it would "recognise the judgment of the panel, if it is not in China's favour".
Beijing's claim in the South China Sea is based on a map issued in 1948 by the then Kuomintang government in which 11 dotted lines were marked, subsequently changed to nine dotted lines by Premier Zhou Enlai , which nearly claimed the whole of the South China Sea to be Chinese territory. Prior to that date, no such demarcation appeared in any Chinese maps.
It is doubtful that any of the countries now involved in the dispute - the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam - even knew about the existence of such a map. Neither were there any agreements nor treaties signed with the countries involved before the Chinese nationalist government decided to put the lines on its map.
If Beijing really has a strong case to prove that the claimed area belongs to China, why should it refuse arbitration by an independent panel?
On the other hand, China's claim on the Diaoyu Islands is backed by strong historical proof. Would it not be better for China to accept international arbitration on both its South China Sea and its Daioyu Islands claims? If it does that, and Japan refuses arbitration, then we will know who has a weak case.