Challenges in South China Sea, sophisticated diplomacy needed

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Sophisticated diplomacy needed to tackle challenges in South China Sea

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III will seek the congressional approval of the proposed national budget for 2016 next week. In the budget proposal, the defense budget is $552 million, less than one 200th of China's military spending for 2015. The size of the Philippine defense budget may surprise many Chinese.

The defense spending of Vietnam is much higher than that of the Philippines. It reached $4 billion in 2014, but is still incomparable to China's. The GDP of Vietnam is less than $200 billion, much less than that of China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region which borders Vietnam. This will definitely constrain its overall scale of defense budget.

Though judging from the military spending of the Philippines and Vietnam, we can perhaps understand that the two countries won't pose a serious military threat to China in the South China Sea. But they are very likely to make a fuss and lean to external actors to intrude China's sovereignty and interests in the South China Sea.

The Philippines, facing a China with expanding maritime strength, feels anxious. But it is still greedy in its territorial claims. It holds a complex and sensitive mentality toward China.

Propaganda that China bullies small South China Sea claimants can spread easily, especially when Washington and Tokyo meddle backstage. China needs to do a lot of work to convince people of historical facts such as the origin of the nine-dashed line and that China holds sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. However, it is much easier to frame China as attempting to exert "hegemony" in the South China Sea.

China has to deal with the Philippines and Vietnam with enough patience and at the same time respond to distorted interpretations from the US and Japan about China's reef-building. The troubles are mostly caused by Manila and Hanoi, while strategic pressure mainly comes from the US.

The US and Japan have teamed up with the Philippines. China is not only facing several vessels and coast guard ships of the Philippines. Rather, China has been striving to figure out how to deal with the above issues and its own stakes in such a complicated scenario.

Obviously, China does not want to bear such reputations as "bullying small countries" or "seeking hegemony in the South China Sea." An impression of a peacefully rising China fits the country's global strategy. But if the Philippines and Vietnam, instigated by the US and Japan, cause a nuisance and step over China's red line, China will not remain restrained.

The Philippines and Vietnam are well aware of this. With China's increasing capabilities in the South China Sea, they will behave more cautiously.

The rivalry in the South China Sea is a highly technical diplomatic game and strategic contest. The public opinion should lend support, and Chinese decision-makers must be specialized diplomatic and strategic institutions. The Chinese public needs to know the real pattern of strength in the South China Sea and acknowledge that China has ample room to maneuver over the Philippines and Vietnam.

The strategy of the Philippines is to whine to the world about China's "bullying" so as to hinder China's global strategy. Hence it has formed an accord with Washington and Tokyo.

China has succeeded in its land reclamation projects on the Nansha Islands. This is an outcome of China's diplomatic specialization. It is reasonable and legitimate. The US and the Philippines can do nothing about it despite voicing objections.

The South China Sea should be an area where Chinese society can find confidence after experiencing long-time sufferings and setbacks. A big country not only owns its strength, but also has a broad mindset and wisdom to count its losses and gains.

Daniel Russel’s S.China Sea remarks absurd

US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel Tuesday criticized China's policy on the South China Sea in Washington. These comments may sound reasonable to nonprofessionals but are not even worth refuting by legal experts.

Russel claimed that China misunderstood US neutrality and stressed that Washington only maintains neutrality with regard to the competing claims in the area. But when it comes to "adhering to international law," the US will not be neutral and will "come down forcefully." The US backs the Philippines' lawsuit to the international maritime tribunal and said the arbitration will be binding for both China and the Philippines.

It is necessary for the US to elaborate what article of international law that China's land reclamation activities in the Nansha Islands have violated and what forceful coercion China's engineering ships have done to neighboring countries.

By claiming both China and the Philippines need to accept the decision of the arbitral tribunal, Russel has deliberately misguided public opinion. Despite joining the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, China submitted a declaration in 2006, stating that China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in Article 298 of the Convention, which includes territorial disputes. Thirty-six countries, including South Korea, have made similar statements.

It's perfectly legal for China not to accept the arbitral tribunal's decision; in fact, forcing China to accept or abide by the arbitration result is illegal. Russel claimed the South China Sea issue has caused serious conflict between China and the US. But it needs to be pointed out that the conflict is at China's door, which is 12 time zones away from Washington. The conflict is actually imposed by Washington on us.

There are numerous claimants to the Nansha Islands. It's impossible for China to give up its sovereign claim; however, it didn't attempt to militarily expel Manila and Hanoi from the islands they illegally occupy. The Philippines deliberately stranded an old navy ship in China's Ren'ai Reef in 1999. It initially pledged to salvage the ship, but later on rascally reneged on this by reinforcing the ship. China has exercised restraint over the years. But Washington openly supports Manila's occupation of Ren'ai Reef. Where is the justice?

Chinese people never actually bank on Washington's neutrality, which doesn't exist at all. The US's South China Sea strategy serves its geopolitical purpose. Through lending support to Manila and Hanoi, it can realize its rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. South China Sea claimants have maintained the peace despite conflicts. The future situation will depend on how Sino-US competition develops, especially what intentions the US has in the South China Sea. As long as Washington doesn't want the tension to escalate, there will be hope for peace.

Swift’s South China Sea flight can only fool Manila

During his visit to the Philippines Saturday, Scott Swift, newly appointed US commander of the Pacific Fleet, joined a surveillance mission on board a P-8A Poseidon plane to observe the aircraft's full range of capabilities in the South China Sea. The US Navy released photos of Swift taking a bird's eye view of the South China Sea, but did not mention if the aircraft had flown over disputed areas.

The Philippine side soon welcomed Swift's move, believing it was a gesture from its US ally to aid its claims to the disputed territories with China.

Swift must have felt that he was the overlord of the South China Sea, as he merely flew over the area but the flight got various interpretations from the Philippine side and regional observers. Washington is an external player that can only exert limited influence to strike a balance over the South China Sea issue. That the US could extend its authority by "inspecting" the South China Sea would only be the illusion of a small number of Americans and Filipinos.

We have noticed that the US Navy has kept much lower key than two months ago when it released details that its reconnaissance plane had approached the Chinese islands under construction. It is estimated that the US will not behave inappropriately in the South China Sea before the meeting of the US and Chinese heads of states in September. But in the long run, its competition with China in the area is unavoidable.

China is accustomed to the frequent petty actions of the US in the South China Sea and is getting itself ready for the troubles stirred up by the US there. China is also improving its abilities in coping with the issue as well.

Most observers hold that while the US wants to strengthen the allies' trust, it does not have the excuse and determination to square off with China. Hence the contradictory and chaotic messages it conveys. Most importantly, Washington does not admit the facts. China has exercised much restraint in the South China Sea and its land reclamation does not violate international law, leaving others no excuse to prevent the move. But the US puts on a posture of involvement while it can unlikely take any substantial action, putting itself in an awkward position.

Manila is even worse. How can it be possible that the Philippines' disputes with China are resolved by the US? Does Manila think that China would acknowledge its unreasonable territorial claims after Swift's flight or if the US sends more navy ships? It would be overly simplistic if Manila thinks this way.

Recently a fictional post circulating on Chinese social media reflects the mentality of the Chinese public that China will not start up conflicts with the Philippines. But if Manila oversteps the red line for any reason, Beijing will strike back regardless of Washington's attitude.

It is understandable that the US hopes to maintain its clout in the area and the Philippines wants to counter China by roping in the US. But they need to mind the boundaries. The Philippines needs to be cautious in the area, as China has been.

Sources: Global Times

China's plan to lead the globe?

As tensions in the South China Sea between the US and China continue to rise, the US Navy and Air Force are quietly gearing up to fight a war in the disputed region.

If necessary, that is. Both sides say they don’t want any military confrontation on China’s extensive coastal waters, but both are acting as if a military conflict is increasingly likely.

Optimists say that a peaceful resolution of China’s rise as a great power is achievable. The economies of the two powers are so enmeshed that a war sounds unthinkable.

Such is the thesis of an important new book just out, “The China Dream,’ by Professor General Liu Mingfu (px), a leading Chinese military thinker and commentator who speaks with the voice of China’s military.

US-China trade accounted for $579 billion last year. Beijing holds $1.2 trillion of US Treasury securities, thus financing a big part of America’s massive trade deficit. China claims its low-cost exports to the US saved American consumers $600 billion in recent years.

China only wants its place in the sun, say its strategists, using the same words as German strategists did before World War I. It’s time for a multi-polar world. The age of American world empire is over, writes Liu Mingfu, words that will not endear him to Republican hawks and neoconservatives.

Pessimists retort that Britain and Germany fought two world wars even though they were major trading partners. History is replete with examples of rising powers eventually going to war with the status quo powers resisting their rival’s economic and military growth. The Franco-British-Russian alliance against Germany prior to World War I is a perfect example.

One need not be a swami to see that China’s surging power will soon clash with that of the American hegemon. The battle lines are already drawn: China’s aggressive claims to the South China Sea – viewed by the US Navy as an American lake. Taiwan. Tensions over Burma. Korea. China’s access to the open seas.

According to Prof. General Liu, the days of America’s world domination, or hegemony, as he terms it, are just about over. By 2030, China will be the world’s largest economy in absolute terms (today it rivals the US in purchasing power parity), regaining the geopolitical primacy it formerly enjoyed until the 1500’s when it was the world’s leading economic power.

The US must find a way to accommodate China’s growing power, a point also made for many years by this writer. A policy of containment is not likely to work unless India becomes a principal participant. My first book “War at the Top of the World” deals with the scenario of a future India-China war in the Himalayas, Karakoram and Burma. India has been very cautious in joining any American-sponsored alliance against China.

Liu writes that America must quietly cede some of its power to China in the same manner that the British Empire did to the United States after 1900. The United States and China must share power and jointly rule the world as benign hegemons.

He insists that China has no territorial ambitions and never will. “China suffered 470 foreign invasions within 65 years from 1840 to 1905,” asserts Liu, though incursions would be a more accurate term. During this period, China was raped and pillaged by the western colonial powers and Japan. Hatred of Japan seethes throughout Liu’s book, as it does among most Chinese.

One could argue that China’s annexation or ‘reunification’ of Tibet and Sinkiang were aggressions. China considers them part of historical China, along with truant province Taiwan.

Liu points out that China never invaded or seized its smaller neighbors Korea, Burma, Thailand, or Laos.

Instead, China’s emperors always preferred to dominate without aggression so that its smaller neighbors respected the will of China and acted respectfully – rather as the United States in the 20th century with Latin America. China, writes Liu, wants peace and prosperity in order to keep growing its economy. China remains an inward-looking colossus, content to be the Middle Kingdom.

America, according to the undiplomatic Liu, is a paranoid giant, afraid of the outside world and addicted to the need for enemies abroad. “Americans feel lost without any enemy.” Washington’s occupation and despoliation of so many countries, notably in the Muslim world, generates endless enemies and a war psychosis. America, he claims, is a half-democracy: democratic at home but promoting dictatorships abroad. He seems to believe that China is as democratic at home as the US – a claim that defies reality.

Liu asserts that China is devoted to peaceful relations, non-interference in other nations, and the desire to help build world prosperity, not just its own power or political system. What’s more, Liu modestly asserts, China should lead world development since Chinese are more intelligent and cultured than any other people and heirs to a 5,000-year history!

Interestingly, Liu depicts the 1950 Korean War as a major victory for China because it showed that an Asian nation could fight off the world’s greatest military power. He claims that the US did not invade North Vietnam out of fear of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army after its bloody experience in Korea.

Will Washington back off and allow China to be the master of Asia? It seems highly doubtful. But unless some kind of modus vivendi is found, a military confrontation is likely to follow, one that the US might very well loose. China would be fighting virtually at home or just off its coast. The US, by contrast, would fight thousands of miles across the Pacific from its distant bases. The US might even win, but China would undoubtedly come back for more.

The “China Dream” thesis has been actively taken up by China’s communist leadership. But two things might derail China’s rise to world domination. First, China’s history is replete with example of internal strife, civil wars, and regionalism. This “Chinese curse” could come back to haunt Beijing.

Second, as I read Liu’s panegyric to Chinese greatness and peaceful humanism, I kept recalling Lord Acton’s wise maxim about absolute power corrupting absolutely. It happened in Washington, and there’s no reason why it might not occur in Beijing.

 By Eric S. Margolis who is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia. http://ericmargolis.com/

Related post:

US dangerous gamble in S. China Sea, tarnishing China’s image to scare ASEAN; S'pore PM keynote address

South China Sea Dispute: Tension escalates between China and U.S US takes dangerous gamble in S.China Sea US Defense Secretary As...

The truth about the South China Sea disputes: Vietnam and Philippine hyping up tensions

Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (left) shakes hands with Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh (right) at the Vietnamese government's guesthouse in Hanoi on Saturday. Photo: AFP

Hanoi told to halt Xisha hype

No breakthrough was made during the Wednesday meeting of Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi and Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh, but experts hope tension between the nations will at least ease up. 

At Vietnam's invitation, Yang co-hosted the chairmen's meeting of the China-Vietnam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation in Hanoi, an inter-governmental mechanism set up for coordinating bilateral relations.

He also met with Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and Communist Party of Vietnam General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong later on Wednesday.

"The difficulties China and Vietnam face at the moment are because Vietnam has continually illegally harassed Chinese drilling operations in the waters near the Xisha Islands for more than a month," Yang said during the meeting with Minh.

 FM releases photos of Vietnam ship hitting Chinese patrol vessel

Yang stressed that the Xisha Islands are inherent territory of China and there are no disputes in this area. "The most urgent thing is for Vietnam to stop its interference and harassment, stop hyping up the issue and stop whipping up disagreement to create new disputes, and properly deal with the aftermath of the recent serious incidents of violence," Yang said.

No progress was made during the discussion, as the two sides insisted on their opposing positions, an anonymous Vietnamese official familiar with the talks was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.

Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Hainan Province, told the Global Times that it is predictable that Vietnam would insist on its stance as it claimed sovereignty over the Xisha Islands in a law passed in 2012.

"This one-time meeting alone can't solve all the problems the two countries face. However, the fact that these annual meetings have continued in spite of the South China Sea tension is already a good sign. It proves that both sides have a friendly intention to solve the dispute," said Gu Xiaosong, an expert on Southeast Asian studies at the Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences.

These are the highest-level talks between China and Vietnam after relations began to sour over the vessel ramming around the Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig in May.

Vietnamese protests against the oil rig worsened into violent riots against Chinese nationals and businesses in southern and central Vietnam, which led to the deaths of four Chinese nationals. China has since announced the suspension of some bilateral exchange plans.

China's foreign ministry released substantial evidence earlier this month, including an official note from Vietnam's then-premier Pham Van Dong in 1958, to prove that Vietnam acknowledged China's sovereignty over the Xisha Islands and the Nansha Islands at the time. Vietnam later reneged on its words.

Vietnamese Prime Minister Dung said last month that Vietnam was considering legal action against China over the disputed waters.

"Vietnam needs to assess the impact on itself if they sue China, as the [previous] evidence will prove China's claim. Vietnam stands more to lose in a bitter bilateral relationship with China. It should remain calm and exercise restraint to solve the disputes via negotiations," Wu noted.  - Global Times

Vietnam says it has evidence to prove its claim in South China Sea but is ignoring own historical documents that vindicate China's position

Vietnam has been using China-Vietnam clashes in the South China Sea, and distorting facts, fanning passions and playing up the "China threat" theory, to vilify China. Ignoring the overall development of Beijing-Hanoi relationship, Vietnam is pretending to be a "victim" in the South China Sea dispute, saying it is prepared to seek international arbitration on the issue.

Vietnamese leaders have said that they have enough historical evidence to justify Vietnam's sovereignty over "Huangsha" and "Changsha" islands, claiming that Vietnam has been the "master" of the two islands since the 17th century. It seems like they have lifted their remarks straight out of a white paper "Truth of China-Vietnam Relationship over 30 Years", issued by the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry in 1979 when bilateral ties were not normal. Worse, almost all the arguments in that 1979 document were copied from a "white paper" issued by the Saigon-based puppet South Vietnam regime (or the Republic of Vietnam) in February 1974.

Now the Vietnamese leaders, using the so-called historical documents, are trying to claim that Vietnam's "Huangsha" and "Changsha" islands are actually China's Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands. The fact is that, the islands recorded in Vietnamese documents refer to some other islands surrounding Vietnam instead of the Xisha and Nansha islands.

To encroach on China's territory in the 1970s, the South Vietnam regime distorted historical facts, which were adopted by later Vietnamese leaders for political purposes. This has complicated the issue and caused serious damage to Sino-Vietnamese ties.

A look at the evidence presented in China's diplomatic documents in the late 1970s and early 1980s will reveal the truth. In fact, even some Vietnamese scholars have said that the documents cited by Vietnam to claim sovereignty over the Xisha and Nansha islands are not genuine historical records but edited versions of originals, confirming China's sovereignty over the islands.

Vietnamese leaders said China forcibly occupied the entire "Huangsha Islands" in 1974, which were then controlled by the Saigon regime. The Saigon regime had kicked up a row over the naval battle that broke out in 1974 in the waters around China's Xisha Islands and sought military support from its ally, the United States, and requested the UN Security Council's intervention. But neither the US nor the UN Security Council acceded to the Saigon regime's request. This means the international community, including the US, has never believed in Vietnam's complaints or claims.

On Sept 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh announced the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi. In January 1950, the People's Republic of China became the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Ho Chi Minh-led Vietnam. For China and a vast majority of the other countries, the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (later the Socialist Republic of Vietnam), was (and has been) the only legitimate government of Vietnam, and the government of South Vietnam, a puppet regime installed by French colonialists and American imperialists.

So now, about 39 years after defeating the Americans, why does the Socialist Republic of Vietnam want to use the Saigon regime's claim to create trouble in the South China Sea? Aren't the current Vietnamese leaders betraying Ho Chi Minh and other freedom fighters, profaning the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of their compatriots who laid down their lives to resist foreign aggressors, and negating the valued support of their allies in the battle against colonialism by citing the comprador Saigon regime's claim?

The Vietnamese government must not violate the principle of estoppel in the Xisha and Nansha islands' sovereignty issue. Vietnamese leaders claim that no country recognizes that the Xisha and Nansha islands belong to China. This is a brazen lie, because the Democratic Republic of Vietnam topped the list of countries that accepted China's sovereignty over the islands.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's position was unequivocal in the 1950s and 1960s. The position remained unchanged even after the death of Ho Chi Minh and the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Documents with the Chinese Foreign Ministry from the 1970s and 1980s show the position of the Ho Chi Minh-led Vietnamese Communist Party on the Xisha and Nansha islands. The most important of these documents is a note given by former Vietnamese premier Pham Van Dong to Zhou Enlai and the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1965.

On Sept 4, 1958, the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China said that the breadth of the territorial sea of the country shall be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the PRC, including all the islands in the South China Sea. On Sept 14, 1958, Pham Van Dong solemnly stated in his note to Zhou Enlai that Vietnam recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the PRC on the country's territorial sea. On Sept 22, 1958, the diplomatic note was publicly published in Nhan Dan, the official newspaper of the Vietnamese Communist Party.

On May 9, 1965, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam issued a statement on the US' definition on the "theater of war" in Vietnam. The statement said that by defining the whole of Vietnam and the waters up to 100 nautical miles off its coast as well as part of the territorial sea of China's Xisha Islands as the operational area of the US armed forces, Lyndon Johnson, then US president, has directly threatened the security of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and its neighbors.

In recent years, however, some Vietnamese government officials and "scholars" have tried to "reinterpret" the two government documents, only to end up making fools of themselves. And after their attempts failed, the Vietnamese government started pretending as if the two documents never existed.

Vietnam has said that it is fully prepared with historical and legal evidence to prove its claim in the South China Sea, and it is waiting for the appropriate time to take China to the international court of justice. If that is so, then Vietnam should not forget to attach Pham Van Dong's note and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's statement, as well as the maps and textbooks published by Vietnam before 1975, with its complaint.

By Ling Dequan (China Daily), a researcher with the Research Center of World Issues, affiliated to Xinhua News Agency

Related:  China blasts comments on S China Sea controversy

Chinese envoy rebuts Vietnamese, Philippine accusations over South China Sea

Wang Min (L Front), China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, addresses the meeting of state parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) at the UN headquarters in New York June 13, 2014. Wang Min on Friday forcefully refuted accusations made by Vietnam and the Philippines against China over the South China Sea situation, holding the two countries responsible for any disputes. He slammed Vietnam and the Philippines for infringing upon Chinese territories. (Xinhua/Niu Xiaolei)

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese envoy on Friday forcefully refuted accusations made by Vietnam and the Philippines against China over the South China Sea situation, holding the two countries responsible for any disputes.

At the meeting of state parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) held here, Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, slammed Vietname and the Philippines for infringing upon Chinese territory.

Wang said that on May 2, a Chinese company's HYSY 981 drilling rig started its drilling operation inside the contiguous zone of China's Xisha Islands for oil and gas exploration. Vietnam sent a large number of vessels, including armed ones, to the site, illegally and forcefully disrupting the Chinese operation for over 1,400 times so far.

"What Vietnam did seriously infringed upon China's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction, grossly violated relevant international laws, including the UNCLOS, undermined the freedom and safety of navigation in the related waters, and damaged regional peace and stability," said Wang, who also heads the Chinese delegation to the meeting.

In mid-May, with the connivance of the Vietnamese government, thousands of Vietnamese outlaws committed sabotage against foreign companies, including Chinese ones, in Vietnam, brutally killing four Chinese nationals, injuring over 300 others and causing heavy property losses, Wang added.

"Till now, Vietnam still has not responded to our legitimate demand," he noted.

The envoy pointed out that lies can never eclipse truth, nor can publicity stunts provide a legal cloak for illegal actions.

"What Vietnam needs to do now is to respect China's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction, immediately stop all forms of disruptions of the Chinese operation and withdraw all vessels and personnel from the site, so as to ease the tension and restore tranquility on the sea as early as possible," Wang said.

He reiterated that Xisha Islands are an inherent part of China's territory, and are under effective jurisdiction of the Chinese government.

"There's no dispute about them," he said, pointing to the fact that all the successive Vietnamese governments prior to 1974 had formally acknowledged Xisha islands as part of China's territory since ancient times.

"Now the Vietnamese government is going back on its word and making territorial claims over China's Xisha Islands," Wang said, noting that Vietnam is reneging on its own promises, saying one thing today and denying it tomorrow.

"Our ancestors told us, trustworthiness is of paramount importance in state-to-state relations," he quoted.

"We would like to ask: how could Vietnam be trusted by the international community and how could Vietnam's international commitments be taken seriously in the future?" Wang said, referring to Vietnam's action as a violation of estoppel, a basic principle in the international law.

With regard to all the false accusations made by the Philippines against China, Wang pointed out the root cause of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is the Philippines' illegal occupation of some islands and reefs belonging to China's Nansha islands.

"The Philippines attempts to legalize its infringements and provocations by dragging China into arbitral proceedings," he said. "The Philippines is also trying to win international sympathy and support through deception. This is what the problem is in essence."

The ambassador noted that pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS, the Chinese government made a declaration in 2006, excluding disputes over maritime delimitation and territorial sovereignty from compulsory dispute settlement procedures.

"As a sovereign state and a state party to UNCLOS, China has the right under international law to do this. China does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines," Wang said, stressing that China's position based on the provisions of the international law will not change.

"China appreciates the efforts made by the majority of ASEAN countries to preserve regional peace and stability," he said. "We will continue working with ASEAN countries to strictly act on the DOC (the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea), promote practical cooperation, enhance mutual trust and jointly uphold peace and stability in the South China Sea."

Source: Xinhuanet

Related:

The Operation of the HYSY 981 Drilling Rig: Vietnam's Provocation and China's Position

Video: History of Chinese sovereignty over the Xisha Islands

HYSY 981 Drilling Rig: Vietnam's Provocation and China's Position

BEIJING, June 8 (Xinhua) -- China's Foreign Ministry released an article about the HYSY 981 drilling rig in the Xisha Islands on its website on Sunday. The full text is as follows:  Full story

China sends note to UN chief to clarify Xisha situation

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese envoy on Monday sent a note to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting documents making clear Vietnam's provocation and China's stance regarding the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea.

In the note, Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, also asked Ban to circulate the documents, as UN General Assembly documents, among all UN member states.  Full story

• Giving shape to Asia's new order

America wants to preserve the status quo in which its leading position remains the keystone of the regional order, and the Chinese acceptance of US leadership is the basis of US-China relationship.

• Region needs new security set-up

We should promote overall security in the Asia-Pacific, work tirelessly to expand the scope of security cooperation, enrich its concept, deepen its level and establish a new security cooperation mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region.

Related posts:

• China turns to UN to set record straight in row with Vietnam over oil rig

• China rejects arbitration tribunal South China Sea ruling; history backs China sea disputes.

China turns to UN to set record straight in row with Vietnam over oil rig

Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, speaks during a meeting to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the enforcement of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, at the UN headquarters in New York, on June 9, 2014. (Xinhua/Niu Xiaolei)

China sends note to UN chief to clarify Xisha situation

China has presented documents to the United Nations, proving its sovereignty over the Xisha Islands ...

Beijing’s efforts to garner support at the United Nations in its territorial row with Hanoi reflect its maturing diplomacy as well as its determination to clarify facts and defend interests, observers said.

In a rare move, Wang Min, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, handed a position paper to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday.

Wang asked Ban to circulate the paper, which includes an article from the Foreign Ministry detailing its stance, among all 193 members of the General Assembly.

“Previously, we seldom take maritime territorial rows to the international arena, but this time, China is determined to make the facts clear,” said Luo Yongkun, a researcher on South-East Asian studies with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.

He added that Beijing’s efforts to take the row to the UN are a signal of “its diplomacy getting mature”.

“We have strong proof of sovereignty over the region and have done a lot benefiting countries in the region. However, we seldom talk about that on international sites, as some countries do, so few are aware of that,” he said. “It’s not only about the row with Vietnam, but also about defending China’s national image.”

Vietnam has sent notes to the UN about the dispute, harshly criticising China and hinting at the possibility of seeking international arbitration, which Beijing said it would never accept.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying said on Tuesday that she hoped the news media can understand the aim of Hanoi in hyping the row.

The Chinese note handed to the UN accused Vietnam of ramming Chinese vessels more than 1,400 times near a Chinese oil rig in the South China Sea recently.

It said China National Offshore Oil Corp has been conducting seismic operations and well site surveys in the area for the past 10 years, and the drilling operation “is a continuation of the routine process of exploration and falls well within China’s sovereignty and jurisdiction”.

The operation area is 31km from the baseline of the territorial waters of China’s Xisha Islands, and between 246 and 289km from the coast of Vietnam.

“Vietnam also sent frogmen and other underwater agents to the area, and dropped large numbers of obstacles, including fishing nets and floating objects, in the waters,” the paper said.

It said Vietnam’s actions violated China’s sovereignty, posed “grave threats” to Chinese personnel on the rig and violated international laws including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

“China sent the note to tell the international community the truth and set straight their understanding on the issue,” Wang said after delivering the position paper.

However, he called for maritime disputes to be settled through negotiation between the parties directly involved.

Chen Xiangyang, another researcher at the China Institute of Contem­porary International Rela­tions, said Beijing’s move is a “justifiable defence” against Hanoi’s provocation at the UN.

He said that on this issue, China also has to fight the biased reports of Western media and some countries taking sides with Vietnam regardless of the history and facts. — China Daily / Asia News Network

Related:

• Vietnam fooling no one

• China defends legitimacy of oil rig in S. China Sea

  

  In an article posted on its Foreign Ministry website, China has defended the legitimacy of its oil d...

• History of Chinese sovereignty over the Xisha Islands

For decades, Chinese official statements and legal documents have again and again reaffirmed China’s...

• • China urges settling maritime disputes through negotiation

    A Chinese envoy said China attaches high importance to maritime affairs at a meeting to commemorate ...

Time to reset East Asia

It has been a week full of dire implications for regional relations, even if nobody wants to admit it.

WHAT do Philippine-US joint naval exercises, a visiting Japanese Defence Minister and the World Peace Forum at Beijing’s prestigious Tsinghua University in recent days have in common?

Answer: disputed territorial claims in East Asian waters. More specifically, these events during the week have resonated particularly with disputed maritime claims involving China.

Although each of these occasions has had motivations of its own, maritime disputes as a recurrent theme makes them seem larger than intended. That illustrates the pervasive nature of territorial disputes in the region.

When politicians and diplomats wish to make a point beyond a standard statement, they look for opportune moments on which to frame that point. The week had provided three occasions for that: joint war games, a minister’s visit(s) and an international peace conference.

These events need not have anything to do with each other, even if they all kicked off on Thursday. But as it happened, the common theme linking them was unmistakable.

This year’s two-day World Peace Forum (WPF) at Tsinghua is only the second in an annual series, and already it is more ambitious in scope and attendance than last year’s. Among the assembled scholars and public intellectuals were a virtual who’s who of former national leaders from around the world.

June 27, 2013: Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao addresses the Opening Ceremony of the World Peace Forum 2013 in Beijing, capital of China. (Xinhua/Xie Huanchi)

The WPF is a joint initiative between Tsinghua University and the China Institute of Foreign Affairs. It is described as China’s first high-level security forum for in-depth discussion on regional security issues.

Tsinghua, of course, is the alma mater of several Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping. The WPF’s Secretary-General is prominent Chinese academic and internationally respected intellectual Yan Xuetong, who is articulate in both Chinese and English.

Given its brief but impressive record, there is little doubt that the WPF will establish itself as the region’s leading security forum. This year’s theme was said to span innovative approaches to, and possible areas for, international security cooperation.

But however laudable these aims may be, they would have to wait. The value-added in the intended theme would have to come privately from researchers and scholars in due course, because the professional politicians and diplomats have so far produced little that is new.

Being from the host country, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Vice-President Li Yuanchao were among the few serving officials in attendance. They combined reassurances of China’s commitment to peace with firm warnings against rival claims to disputed territories.

Former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, a delegate at the forum, caused a stir in Japan with a post-conference Beijing interview quoting him as saying that China’s disputed territorial claims were “inevitable”.

China and Japan remain locked in dispute over the Pinnacle Islands, which China calls Diaoyu and Japan calls Senkaku.

Hatoyama later clarified his comments by saying that he meant China’s claims were “understandable”, adding that he “won’t deny China’s position”. That only added to the furore in Tokyo.

Hatoyama is known to favour a more Asia-centric Japan over the country’s post-war Western-centrism. China has in turn looked to him to facilitate closer bilateral relations.

At the same time, Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera visited Manila for two-day talks on regional security issues. The focus of discussions was understood to be China’s recent assertiveness in regional waters.

Besides the Spratly Islands, the Philippines and China both claim sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, which the Philippines calls Panatag Shoal and China calls Huangyan Island. That produced a months-long standoff between the two claimants last year, which technically remains today.

Philippine warships withdrew one year ago this month owing to bad weather, but Chinese naval vessels remained. The standoff has not been resolved and still appears to defy resolution.

Both countries also claim Second Thomas Shoal, which the Philippines calls Ayungin Shoal and China calls Ren’ai Jiao. Even the names of seas are in disagreement: the Philippines has taken to calling the South China Sea the West Philippine Sea.

Onodera’s visit can be seen in context when viewed together with events that follow. He continued his travel to Hawaii to discuss regional security issues with his US counterparts this weekend, as Asean Foreign Ministers met in Brunei last week

Meanwhile, the Philippines also launched joint military exercises with the US on Thursday. The six-day Carat (Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training) 2013 war games cover a wide range of contingency functions, including interoperability between the Philippine and US navies.

US destroyer USS Fitzgerald arrives at the former US naval base in Subic Bay, Olongapo City, north of Manila on June 27, 2013, to join the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercises close to a flashpoint area of the South China Sea.

Manila is also considering allowing the US “and other allies” (principally, Japan) to use Philippine bases in case of military challenges over disputed territory from China.

The Philippine Constitution has since 1987 barred foreign military bases on Philippine soil. This includes the military bases of countries considered allies.

However, the Philippine government is currently tweaking all three words “foreign”, “military” and “bases” to allow what would functionally amount to foreign military bases in the country.

Foreign military forces may be permitted to enter Philippine military facilities with their vessels, equipment (including weapons and weapon systems) and troops. They may be permitted to stay for the duration of their needs, which cover repair, refuelling and re-supply.

There are no time limits for fulfilling these needs. So, in practice, ally countries may station their forces in the Philippines indefinitely.

In addition, US military forces including aircraft carrier fleets would be able to remain in and operate from adjacent waters. The option of foreign military “places, not bases” would continue, plus the use of “Philippine” military bases in the Philippines.

For Manila, all that would serve as a deterrent against any untoward challenges from Beijing. Neither the Philippines nor anyone else can imagine a straightforward one-on-one faceoff with China for any extended period, given the huge disparities between the two countries’ capacities.

But while on the surface tugging at big brother’s (US’ and/or Japan’s) coat sleeves may seem like a solution for Philippine policymakers, there are some serious problems with such an assumption.

How far can the Philippines expect a major power acting as patron to come to its aid as and when needed? Such a service, even if available, will exact a price that Filipinos may not find acceptable.

To what extent can such an obliging major power, if one exists, restrain provocative Philippine actions that invite retaliation? Would Manila be prepared to submit to such restraints?

And when push comes to shove, would any major power back Philippine actions to the hilt against China? The US and Japan have important economic and other ties to China they would be loath to jeopardise for a third party.

Adding to Manila’s anxieties is the Philippine uniqueness of having borders that are more amorphous and disputed than virtually any other country. It is something Philippine officials “understand” more than they care to admit, given the implications for foreign relations.

The 1987 Constitution tries to address the issue by limiting national territory to areas currently occupied by the national administration. But that has not stopped different interpretations of what constitutes “current occupation”.

Philippine officials are still working out the terms of an “access agreement” for its military bases with big-power allies, which would be consistent with the Constitution and the existing Visiting Forces Agreement. To be workable, the new agreement would also have to be consistent with reality.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES BY BUNN NAGARA

> Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at ISIS (Institute of Strategic and International Studies) Malaysia.
  
Related posts:
Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world ... 
 Chinese Navy defends South China Sea
China's warns US of Confrontation over South China Sea
Restoring unity at South China Sea 
No one can stop China in South China Sea but China ... 
Who owns Diaoyu Islands? 
China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan ... 
Japanese right-wingers seek political gains landed on Diaoyu Islands 
Japan's strategic offensive, from Diaoyu Islands to Nay ... 
Japan stole Diaoyu Islands 
Japan's buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike ...
China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands
China sends fighters to counter Japan's war planes 
Dispute with China takes toll on Japan