<<< Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei (Source: fmprc.gov.cn)
BEIJING, June 8 (Xinhua) -- China on Wednesday again urged the Philippines to stop its arbitral proceedings and return to the right track of settling relevant disputes in the South China Sea through bilateral negotiation with China.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei made the comment at a routine press briefing.
The Foreign Ministry on Wednesday issued a statement saying that disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea should be settled through bilateral negotiation.
Hong said that by unilaterally initiating the arbitration in 2013, the Philippines had turned its back on the possibility of solving the issue through negotiation, leading to a dramatic deterioration of relations between China and the Philippines.
China and the Philippines have reached consensus on settling maritime disputes through bilateral negotiation in a number of bilateral documents, but the two countries have never engaged in any negotiation on the subject-matters of the arbitration, said Hong.
By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines has violated its agreement with China as well as its own solemn commitment in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), he said.
This is an abuse of the dispute settlement procedures of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and is against international law, including UNCLOS, he added.
The door of China-Philippines bilateral negotiation is always open, he said. "China will remain committed to settling through negotiation the relevant disputes with the Philippines in the South China Sea on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law."
"China urges the Philippines to immediately cease its wrongful conduct of pushing forward the arbitral proceedings, and return to the right path of settling the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through bilateral negotiation with China," Hong said. - Xinhua
BEIJING: China has urged the Philippines to “immediately cease its wrongful conduct of pushing forward the arbitral proceedings” and “return to the right path” of settling the relevant disputes in the South China Sea, through bilateral negotiation.
In an official statement released yesterday, the Foreign Ministry reaffirmed Beijing’s commitment to a settlement via two-way negotiations, rather than an arbitration unilaterally sought by Manila against China in 2013.
Ties between Beijing and Manila were sunk after the initiation of the arbitration. From the very start of the arbitral process, China has refused to accept or participate.
In the wake of recent comments made by various Chinese officials about the arbitration, the statement said “the door of China-Philippines bilateral negotiation is always open”.
Observers and the media have increasingly called on Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte and his expected administration to quit the arbitration and return to the table for two-way negotiations.
The arbitral case is still pending. Some media and observers said the expected ruling by the arbitral tribunal would be made in a few weeks.
China will remain committed to settling through negotiation the relevant disputes “on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law,” the ministry wrote.
In the past weeks, Washington has publicly pressed Beijing to accept the ruling.
That also included a call from US Defence Secretary Ash Carter on Saturday at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said although it remained to be seen if the incoming Philippine administration would quit the arbitration and return to the table for talks, “it is apparent that the arbitration – from its very beginning – has led to increasing, not decreasing, number of problems between Beijing and Manila”.
“Other regional countries will come to the conclusion that embarking on such an arbitration will obtain no benefit, not to mention resolving any of the existing disputes,” Wu said.
Jia Duqiang, a researcher of South-East Asian studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said as the arbitration process came to a critical moment, all parties knew clearly that “no good will serve any party if the big picture is damaged”.
He also said the incoming administration was re-evaluating its policies towards China. — China Daily / Asia News Network
China pushes back against US pressure
SINGAPORE: China rebuffed US pressure to curb its activity in the South China Sea today, restating its sovereignty over most of the disputed territory and saying it "has no fear of trouble".
On the last day of Asia's biggest security summit, Admiral Sun Jianguo said China will not be bullied, including over a pending international court ruling over its claims in the vital trade route.
"We do not make trouble, but we have no fear of trouble," Sun told the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, where more than 600 security, military and government delegates had gathered over three days.
"China will not bear the consequences, nor will it allow any infringement on its sovereignty and security interest, or stay indifferent to some countries creating chaos in the South China Sea."
The waterway has become a flashpoint between the United States, which increased its focus on the Asia-Pacific under President Barack Obama's "pivot", and China, which is projecting ever greater economic, political and military power in the region.
The two have traded accusations of militarising the waterway as Beijing undertakes large-scale land reclamation and construction on disputed features while Washington has increased its patrols and exercises.
On Saturday, top US officials including defence secretary Ash Carter warned China of the risk of isolating itself internationally and pledged to remain the main guarantor of Asian security for decades.
Despite repeated notes of concern from countries such as Japan, India, Vietnam and South Korea, Sun rejected the prospect of isolation, saying that many of the Asian countries at the gathering were "warmer" and "friendlier" to China than a year ago.
China had 17 bilateral meetings this year, compared with 13 in 2015.
"We were not isolated in the past, we are not isolated now and we will not be isolated in the future," Sun said.
"Actually I am worried that some people and countries are still looking at China with the Cold War mentality and prejudice. They may build a wall in their minds and end up isolating themselves."
During a visit to Mongolia today, US secretary of state John Kerry urged Beijing not to establish an air defence identification zone (Adiz) over the South China Sea.
Kerry, who will visit China next, said an Adiz would be "a provocative and destabilising act", which would question Beijing's commitment to diplomatically manage the dispute.
The South China Sea is expected to feature prominently at annual high-level China-US talks starting in Beijing on Monday, also attended by US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
US concerns about Chinese trade policy and the difficulty foreign businesses say they face operating in China will add to what will likely be difficult discussions. — Reuters
For more insights into the South China Sea issue, we have
as our studio guest Jia Xiudong, a Senior Research Fellow from the China
Institute of International Studies. Q1. China insists the Philippines
unilateral arbitration is illegal. So how much do you think the
arbitration can help solve the maritime dispute?
China believes that there are political motivations behind
the arbitration by the Philippines, as it is an open denial of China's
sovereignty. It brings uncertainty to how China would solve disputes
with other countries.
Analysts refute Ashton Carter's China 'self-isolation' claims
SINGAPORE - US defense secretary's China "self-isolation" claims were totally incorrect, local analysts said here on Saturday.
In a speech delivered here Saturday at the on-going Shangri-La Dialogue, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said China could end up erecting a Great Wall of self-isolation, but analysts here refuted Carter's remarks as one-sided and over-exaggerated.
As China develops, Asia-Pacific countries had built close relations with not only the United States but also China, which proves Carter's China "self-isolation" claims at best "exaggerated," said Huang Jing, Professor and Director of Center on Asia and Globalization, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
Carter's claims are misinterpreting China's policies, and are not in line with the two countries' consensus on forging new pattern of relationship, said Colonel Lu Yin, Associate Researcher from the Institute of Strategic Studies of China's National Defense University.
The colonel noted that Carter's remarks revealed logical paradoxes in the US rebalance strategy in the Asia-Pacific.
"I don't see it possible that without efforts from China, the United States can realize its rebalance strategic in the Asia-Pacific region as well as achieve common prosperity as envisioned," said Lu.
In his half-hour or so speech, the US defense secretary mentioned the word "principle" for as many as 37 times. In Professor Huang Jing's view, it is fairly disputable that the United States does faithfully stick to principle.
When asked about the fact that not only China, but countries including Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam all had similar construction actions, Carter said there are differences in the scale of such activities.
If one really sticks to principles, it doesn't matter what scale the actions might be, any construction activity is against the principle, argued Professor Huang.
On matters of navigation freedom, the professor said that navigation freedom should be guaranteed, but any country's freedom shall not be at the cost of posing threats to others.
Although tensions in the South China Sea are included in Carter's speech, analysts pointed out that the US defense secretary had also elaborated on the fact that China and the United States do have cooperation potentials over a number of international agendas. To safeguard peace and stability in Asia-Pacific, the two countries need to cooperate.
Oh Ei Sun, senior fellow with S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said that Carter actually adopted a relatively "mild" approach when addressing disputes in the Asia-Pacific and gave much emphasis on setting up security networks in the region.
William Choong, Shangri-La Dialogue Senior Fellow for Asia-Pacific Security, said he thought the US-China relations are far more inclusive.
It's a broader relationship, although they disagree on the South China Sea issue, they can agree on many other issues which are important, such as the cooperation in cyber space, the DPRK issue, and climate change, he said.
The two countries are preparing for their upcoming strategic economic dialogue as well, he noted.
"To put it very simply, even though there are tensions in the South China Sea, I think the relationship is broad enough and strong enough, and has enough institutional mechanism for both sides to avoid their differences and work on potential solutions," said the researcher.
China refutes US defense secretary's China 'self-isolation' claims
SINGAPORE - A high-ranking Chinese military official Saturday refuted US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's "self-isolation" claims about China.
"Carter's claims are incorrect and do not accord with the actual situation," Guan Youfei, director of the Office for International Military Cooperation of the Chinese Central Military Commission, told the media.
Guan's comments came after Carter's claims at the ongoing Shangri-La Dialogue that China's military activities in the South China Sea would isolate itself.
Guan said the United States should learn lessons from the wars it had waged in the Asia-Pacific region after World War II and play a constructive role in the region.
Guan urged the United States to keep its security pledges, withdraw troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible, stop arms sale to China's Taiwan and refrain from holding military drills on the Korean Peninsula.
Guan said China has made great efforts in promoting international and regional security cooperation since its reform and opening-up, and China's achievements in areas such as peacekeeping, disaster relief and naval escort missions are obvious.
China will continue to enhance cooperation with other Asia-Pacific countries under the Belt and Road initiative in various fields, the Chinese military official added.
The US defense secretary had earlier made similar accusations against China in a speech delivered at the US Naval Academy. The Chinese Foreign Ministry had responded, saying such claims reflected "American-style mentality" and "American-style hegemony."
Sources: China Daily/Asia News Network
Chinese Admiral reiterates stance on South China Sea
Despite China's strong opposition, the arbitral tribunal announced in
late October 2015 that it can judge on seven of the 15 submissions, and
linger over some other submissions.
During a 55-hour period ending Sunday, 64-year-old Admiral General
Sun Jianguo took part in a whirlwind of military diplomacy comprising 17
two-way meetings on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in
Singapore
But Carter won’t change his attitude. He represents a clique that is
eager to sustain Washington’s hegemony in the Western Pacific by
reinforcing military deployments and containing China’s peaceful rise.
China confirmed on Wednesday that it sent ships to the Wufang Jiao, an atoll of the Nansha Islands, to tow a stranded Philippine ship to ensure navigation safety and protect the marine environment.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei made the remarks at a daily press conference in response to a Philippine media report that said China's Wufang Jiao did not allow Philippine fishermen to approach it.
According to Hong, a foreign fishing boat was stranded near Wufang Jiao at the end of 2015. After several failed towing attempts, the shipowner abandoned the ship and removed all its major equipment.
To prevent the stranded ship from affecting navigation and damaging maritime environment, China's Ministry of Transportation sent salvage ships to tow the ship and dispose of it appropriately, Hong added.
During the process, China persuaded fishing boats in the operation waters to leave to ensure navigation safety and necessary operation conditions, Hong said, adding that the salvage ships had returned after the operation.
The spokesperson reaffirmed China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and its adjacent waters. China will implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) comprehensively and effectively with the members of ASEAN and jointly maintain the peace and stability of the South China Sea, Hong added.- Xinhua
No more ship-grounding tricks allowed in South China Sea
The Chinese foreign ministry confirmed Wednesday that China had towed away a foreign ship that was grounded on Wufang Jiao in the South China Sea. For safety concerns, China urged nearby fishing ships to leave.
However, Philippine media and some Western reports rendered a different picture of the same affair, saying several Chinese ships were sent to patrol the surrounding waters after a Philippine boat was grounded, and "blocked" the waterway.
In their reports, Wufang Jiao and the surrounding waters are the Philippines' "traditional fishing grounds." Due to the blockage of Chinese vessels, Philippine fishermen could not go fishing, feeling they were being bullied by China.
This is not the first time a Philippine vessel was grounded on South China Sea islands and reefs. In 1999, the Philippines sent a warship and grounded it on Renai Reef. Manila kept promising to China that it would tow it away as soon as possible, but 17 years have passed, and Manila shamelessly broke its promise, delivering provisions to the ship and reinforcing its structure, in an attempt to make it a permanent stronghold.
Philippines sent a warship and grounded it on Renai Reef
In recent years, China has taken countermeasures to prevent Philippine ships conveying construction materials to the ship, but out of humanitarian consideration, China allowed the Philippines to deliver provisions to the crew. Now the ship, a focal point of Sino-Philippine tension, is in bad condition and about to fall apart.
China will never allow Wufang Jiao to be a second Renai Reef. Towing away the grounded Philippine ship is a once-and-for-all measure to leave no troubles behind.
The Philippines is untrustworthy in the international community, often resorting to dirty tricks to deal with diplomatic issues. What it did on Renai Reef is a vivid reflection.
China has been exercising self-restraint amid fishing disputes with the Philippines in the South China Sea. However, Manila has captured and sentenced Chinese fishermen several times, and even shot Taiwanese fishermen dead. Manila's barbarity finally triggered a standoff near Huangyan Island in 2012. Since then, China has been in full control of the island.
Now, Manila hopes it can bring US troops back, like a Mafia gangster asking their "godfather" for help. The Philippines, obviously aware that international arbitration has no jurisdiction over territorial disputes, filed a petition to an international court in Hague. China's non-participation in the arbitration is protected by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the Philippines, with the support of the US, has used this chance to taint China's image internationally
All these shenanigans cannot twist the fact that it is the Philippines that breaks its promises and makes troubles over and over again. China's countermeasures are reasonable.
China has overwhelming advantages against the Philippines, but its disputes with the Philippines in the South China Sea are complicated due to the West's bias for Manila. China should be resolute in defending its legitimate rights, and be wise in dealing with the West's prejudice and US military and diplomatic interventions.
In recent years, China has gained major progress in stemming the encroachment of the Philippines in the South China Sea. Beijing is regaining strategic initiative in the region. The Philippines will have a new president this year, and Benigno Aquino III will step down. After the shift in leadership, Manila will be a spent arrow, and will have nothing left in its bag of tricks. - Global Times
China: Rejection of the Philippines' arbitration 'in line with law'
Foreign Minister Wang Yi says China's rejection of arbitration filed by the Philippines over terroritorial claims, is in line with the law. His remarks came after talks with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop in Beijing on Wednesday, as Australia called for a resolution to the South China Sea disputes through peaceful means, including arbitration.
"China is actually following international law by not accepting arbitration regarding sovereign and maritime entitlements. Because after joining the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 2006, China issued a declaration according to the rights given to China by Article 298 of the UNCLOS. We issued a government statement excluding China from being subjected to the compulsory settlement measures. The Chinese government will continue to stand by the declaration." said Wang Yi.
China in 2006 declared it would not accept arbitration of disputes concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Wang said.
"Chinese government will certainly stick to this position," Wang said, adding that more than 30 countries, including Australia, have also made similar "exclusive" declarations.
He gave a list of reasons why the Philippines' arbitration attempt is invalid and unacceptable, including unilateral moves without consulting China, which goes against international norms, as well as the common sense argument that arbitration applications are usually lodged only when all other means are depleted.
China and the Philippines have several agreements that disputes should be solved through dialogue and consultation.
The Philippines has also signed the fourth article of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), which states that disputes should be solved by those countries directly related, through negotiation and consultation.
Wang said that the Philippines' arbitration attempt violated previous agreements and raised suspicion of its complicated international background or even hidden political motives.
The minister listed reasons why the Philippines' arbitration attempt, first made in 2014 to a UN tribunal, is invalid and unacceptable. He said it was a unilateral move by the Philippines, which goes against international norms on arbitration, and that they have not yet exhausted other means to reach a resolution. Wang Yi also said any deployment of defense facilities on China's own territory would be legitimate.
Wang further said the Philippines not only violated a number of
agreements by filing arbitration without China's consent ... but also
did not follow the Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China
Sea. According to him, any arbitration should only be filed after all
possible solutions are tried and failed.
"The Philippines betrayed our trust and went against justice to file
for arbitration. That made us wonder whether they are making these
decisions following complicated international circumstances. They may
even have political purposes that they don't want to share," he said.
This was in response to western reports that an advanced surface-to-air missile system was deployed to one of the disputed islands in the South China Sea.
"I hope that media everywhere will turn their attention to the lighthouses that we have built on some of the islands in the South China Sea. They are in operation now and they have been very useful in ensuring the safety of passing ships in those waters. The meteorological forecast facilities and other facilities will provide assistance and rescue and emergency response to the fishing boats in those waters. Because I think all of those are actions China, as the biggest state in the South China Sea, has undertaken to provide more public goods and services to the international community and play a positive role there. " said Wang, " As for the limited and necessary self-defence facilities that China has built on the islands and reefs stationed by Chinese personnel, this is consistent with the self-preservation and self-protection that China is entitled to under international law. So there should be no question about that."
The Chinese Foreign Minister also stressed that demilitarization benefits all, but it can not be applied to only one country, or with double or even multiple standards. He said demilitarization in the South China Sea needs joint efforts from countries both in and outside the region. The Chinese Foreign Minister said China noticed that during the just concluded meetings between the US and ASEAN, the two pledged to achieve demilitarization in the region. He said China hopes they can keep their word. Xinhua Related posts: China responds to US's militarizing the South China Sea
It is the US that is militarizing the South China Sea
The U.S. has recently been hyping the idea that China is militarizing the South China Sea. It first criticized China for deploying missiles in Yongxing Island, then claimed in a report that China is building a radar system on islands or reefs in the Nansha Islands.
However, plenty of evidence suggests that it is the U.S. rather than China who is actually militarizing the South China Sea.
First, the U.S. is clearly “a thief calling on others to catch a thief” when accusing China of escalating militarization in the South China Sea.
It is the U.S. that has been enhancing military deployment in neighboring regions of the South China Sea.
The U.S. not only acquired access to eight military bases in the Philippines, the superpower has also continued increasing its military presence in Singapore and sent warships and aircraft to the South China Sea.
What’s more, it has repeatedly pressured its allies and partners to conduct targeted military drills and patrols to play up regional tension.
Besides selling weaponry to the Philippines, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries, the U.S. also repeatedly sent missile destroyers, strategic bombers and anti-submarine patrol aircraft to approach or even enter relevant reefs and islands, as well as the adjacent waters and air space of China’s Nansha and Xisha Islands. Such acts betray ambition to provoke China.
Secondly, the U.S. obviously has a guilty conscience when criticizing China for deploying national defense.
As islands and reefs in the South China Sea have been an indisputable part of China's territory since ancient times, China is entitled to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.
By deploying necessary defense for its own territory, China is exercising the right of self-preservation granted by international law to sovereign states. This has nothing to do with militarization and is completely legitimate.
China’s defense is not fundamentally different from the defense installation by the U.S. in Hawaii. If other countries have zero intention to threaten China’s sovereignty and security, they needn’t worry about defensive measures.
Thirdly, the U.S. revealed its double standard when criticizing China’s construction on the Nansha Islands.
Such construction falls completely within China’s sovereignty. The light houses built by China on its stationed islands and reefs, as well as the facilities for meteorological observation, emergency shelter and rescue, are public services and goods offered by China to the international community as the largest coastal state in the South China Sea.
They are by no means military facilities, but the U.S. has continued picking on China nonetheless.
In contrast, the U.S. turns a blind eye to military actions taken by the Philippines and Vietnam on the Nansha Islands, which they illegally occupy.
Lastly, so-called “safeguarding navigation freedom” is just a cover-up for the U.S. to destroy peace and stability in the South China Sea.
The U.S. military has been carrying out “navigation freedom” activities for a long time. Such activities, in essence, are challenges to other countries’ sovereignty and jurisdiction in their own waters and exclusive economic zones. The U.S. carries out these activities just to maintain its own maritime supremacy.
The freedom of navigation and flight over the South China Sea, to which all countries are entitled under international law, has never been threatened. Over 100,000 vessels from various countries pass through the region every year without a hitch.
However, the “navigation freedom” actions conducted by the U.S. destroy peace and tranquility in the South China Sea and escalate regional tensions.
Not only won’t this selfish and overbearing act help to peacefully resolve the South China Sea issue, it will further disrupt regional peace and stability.
The U.S. must realize that as a party not concerned in the South China Sea issue, it should respect the efforts of China and concerned nations to peacefully handle their own disputes and safeguard the stability of the region.
If the U.S. intends to make sincere contributions, the best way is to stop stirring up tensions through risky military actions in the South China Sea.
- By Zhang Junshe - The author is a research fellow of China's Naval Research Institute
China said on Friday that it does not intend to pursue militarization of the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea and criticized U.S. air and naval patrols in the region.
China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, adding "China is serious about its commitment not to pursue militarization of the Nansha Islands."
Hong made the remarks after U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said commercial satellite imagery suggested "very recent" placement of missiles on Yongxing Island that goes against China's pledge not to militarize the South China Sea.
"We see no indication that ... this militarization effort, has stopped. And it's doing nothing ... to make the situation there more stable and more secure," Kirby said at a regular news briefing on Thursday.
Hong said that demilitarization in the region is not a matter for just a single country. "There should not be double standards or multi-standards for demilitarization in the South China Sea, and the process requires joint efforts from countries in the region and beyond."
He said the United States is strengthening military deployment in the South China Sea and frequently sends military vessels or planes to waters in the South China Sea to conduct close-in reconnaissance against China.
He also accused the United States of sending missile destroyer and strategic bombers into waters and airspace adjacent to the Nansha Islands and had its allies hold targeted joint military exercises or joint cruises in the region.
The U.S. actions have escalated tensions in the South China Sea and constitute the militarization of the South China Sea, said Hong.
Yongxing Island, the largest island in the Xisha Islands group in the South China Sea, is an inherent part of China's territory, he said.
In 1959, the Chinese government set up an administrative office and the ensuing government facilities on the Yongxing Island.
The deployment of defense facilities on Yongxing Island amounts to China exercising its sovereignty and it has been going on for decades, he said, urging the U.S. side to learn the basic facts regarding the South China Sea before commenting on the issue.
HQ-9 missile prompted by US threat
US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday that "There is every evidence, every day that there has been an increase of militarization of one kind or another," referring to the reported Chinese deployment of missiles in the "disputed" islands in the South China Sea. He said "it's of serious concern" and the US will "have further very serious conversation" with China. The US media has responded strongly to the allegations that China has deployed HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Yongxing Island, one of the islands in the Xisha chain. US Senate Armed Forces Chairman John McCain suggested the US consider "additional options to raise the costs on Beijing's behavior."
The HQ-9 missile is a typical type of defensive weapon. The Xisha Islands are Chinese territory and have long been under China's actual control. Previous disputes in the South China Sea did not involve this area, but this time the US has targeted Yongxing Island in Xisha to attack China's "militarization" of the South China Sea. Washington intends to not only tarnish China's image, but also expand the disputes so as to contain China's activities in the Nansha Islands.
The confrontation between China and the US in the South China Sea is likely to escalate. The whole of Chinese society should be cool-minded and be prepared for long-term competition with the US.
First, we should be clear about the country's stance toward the South China Sea. We are safeguarding our legitimate rights without any radical moves. Island building in Nansha and missile deployment in Xisha are in accordance with international law.
Second, China cares about developing ties with all regional countries. The missiles in Yongxing do not target any South China Sea claimants.
Third, China should send clear messages to the outside world that its defensive deployment in Yongxing targets external military threats. The freedom of navigation in the South China Sea only applies to civilian vessels and aerial vehicles. Outside warships and jet fighters must obey the principle of "innocent passage." American warships and flights have constantly made provocations in the South China Sea. The US is bold about imposing pressure on China, and China must make an appropriate response.
Fourth, how the PLA deploys weapons and the defense levels should be determined by the threat level from external military forces. If the US military stages a real threat and a military clash is looming, the PLA may feel propelled to deploy more powerful weapons.
Fifth, China does not want to see an escalation of Sino-US frictions in the South China Sea, but it should let the US know that its every single provocative act will face countermeasures from China.
Sixth, the main risks come from the uncertainty of intensity of China-US competition. It is unrealistic for relevant countries to woo the US to balance China.
Last, China should adopt an active approach to cope with an opinion war and express its stance to the world. China holds firm strategic initiatives in the South China Sea, and the US has no actual effective tools to contain China in the waters. It is best at rhetoric offense, so we must reason with it head-on. - Global Times
Washington's destabilizing role in South China Sea
South China Sea. (Photo/Xinhua)
After failing to get its way at the first U.S.-ASEAN summit in California, Washington appears ready to grasp at anything that could be used against China.
And the media hype over China's deployment of a surface-to-air missile system in Yongxing Island, part of the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea, just provided Washington a much-needed excuse to once again criticize Beijing for its alleged role in "militarizing" the region.
For starters, China has indisputable sovereignty over the Xisha Islands and deploying limited and necessary national defense facilities on China's own territory has nothing to do with militarization in the South China Sea.
China has repeatedly made it clear that it has no intention to militarize the region. Its activities are mainly for maintenance purposes, improving the living conditions for the stationed personnel there and providing more public goods in the region.
With trillions of dollars' worth of goods traversing the patch of water every year, the South China Sea is vital both to global trade and to China's development. Beijing has no reason to disrupt one of its own crucial arteries of trade.
Meanwhile, the United States, which has become fixated on the South China Sea since Washington announced a pivot to the Asia-Pacific, has been the primary source of destabilization in the area.
It has conducted a slew of naval and air patrol trips in the vicinity of the China-owned islands, which is in clear violation of China's sovereignty, not to mention international law.
In addition, it has also reopened military bases in the Philippines, in a move widely interpreted as stirring up tension in the region.
Furthermore, some countries in the region are taking more provocative measures to press for illegitimate territorially claims ever since the U.S. put the South China Sea on its radar.
If there were a ranking for destabilizers in the South China Sea, there's no doubt Washington would top the list.
China's practices in the region are defensive in nature, and it sees direct talks between rival claimants rather than military means as the best way to resolve any dispute.
For the sake of regional stability and the common good, let's hope the United States honor its previous commitment of not taking sides on the issue or stirring up tensions. Only then can the South China Sea be home to calm waters. Xinhua
Military factors injected by US provocation in the South China Sea
In an exclusive report, Fox News claimed that it obtained civilian satellite imagery which appears to show China's HQ-9 air defense system on Yongxing Island, part of the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea. Fox News used this as evidence that China is increasingly "militarizing" its islands and "ramping up tensions in the region." Many Western media picked up the news.
They probably aren't clear about the differences between the constructed islands in Nansha Islands and Yongxing Island in Xisha. The disputes over the sovereignty of islands in Nansha are sharp, while the Xisha Islands are under the actual control of China.
China has released the baseline of the territorial sea to the Xisha Islands and their sovereignty is not disputed. Meanwhile, Yongxing is the largest of the Xisha Islands and the location of the city of Sansha. Defensive weapons were deployed on the island in the past. Even if the presence of the HQ-9 system is true as the West has claimed, it is a matter of China's sovereignty and it is fully legitimate for China to do so.
US authorities and opinion have paid particular attention to the "militarization" of the South China Sea, which shows the absurdity of US-style hegemonic mentality. The US, an outsider, has injected the most military elements in the region. It will reopen military bases in the Philippines. It also advocates its allies, Japan and Australia, to join its military navigation in the South China Sea. The biggest act of militarization is that it sent warships within 12 nautical miles of islands claimed by China.
Facing more frequent provocations from the US military, China should strengthen self-defense in the islands in the South China Sea. The deployment of defense systems is not in the domain of militarization, as militarization of islands often means they are built into a fortress to become an outpost of military contests.
Guam is a typical example of US militarization. In recent years, Guam has deployed offensive nuclear submarines and various missile systems which are aimed at deterring China, making it the new pillar of US military deterrence in the Pacific.
At least currently, China finds it does not need to militarize the islands to cope with the other South China Sea claimants. As long as Washington does not inject tensions, China has no motivation to do so. Uncertainties in the future come from the US side.
Once the US repeatedly sends warships to make provocations at Chinese islands and threatens the security of Chinese people and facilities on the islands, more military equipment should be deployed to counter US provocations. This is common in contemporary international relations.
Once the South China Sea is militarized, it will only add to China's strategic costs. Therefore, China will hardly resort to the last choice. But China is not the decisive factor, as it is propelled to react due to provocations from the US and its allies.
China is serious about ensuring stability and prosperity around the South China Sea and has invested enormous energy and resources. The region is adjacent to the route of China's "One Belt, One Road" initiative and China's efforts are eliminating vulnerability caused by a lack of security trust.
Even if the HQ-9s are deployed on South China Sea islands, regional countries would not raise much concern as these claimants have no intention to fight for air supremacy. Jet fighters from the US, an outside country, may feel uneasy when making provocative flights in the region. To us, that's a proper result. - Global Times
On issues concerning national sovereignty, the Chinese military will follow the will of its people.
Commentary: U.S. has hard time justifying criticism of China's actions in South China Sea
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. government is recently
struggling China Sea, because it is clear that it is the United States,
not China, that is the real source of militarization of the region.
China's deployment of a surface-to-air missile system on the Xisha
Islands, an inherent part of China's territory, is defensive in nature
and falls within its sovereign rights and international law.Full Story
China Voice: Provocation no good for peace in South China Sea
BEIJING, Jan. 31 (Xinhua) -- Sending a warship to another country's
territorial waters without notice is hardly the right thing to do,
regardless protocols and codes.
The Saturday maneuvers of a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer 12
nautical miles off Zhongjian Dao, Xisha Islands, was "deliberate
provocation", according to China's Defense Ministry spokesman Yang
Yujun.
It also drew angry outcry from Chinese on the Internet, with many
comments much more radical than the official response. The Chinese
people have every reason to feel offended. Full Story
Oct 28, 2015 ... By sending its warship within 12 nautical miles of China's isles in the SouthChina Sea, the United States is raising tensions in the waters and ...
Oct 29, 2015 ... If such provocations continue, China's warships will have to engage in more face-
offs with their US counterparts in the South China Sea. Beijing ...
Nov 18, 2015 ... The suspense is to what extent the US will foist the South China Sea disputes
into this .... US making trouble & provocation out of nothing; Ch..
Use the next two years to think about the TPPA and its many implications for present as well as future generations of Malaysians.
LAST week, Malaysia’s Parliament authorised the government to sign and ratify the 6350-page Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). Thankfully, as the Minister has emphasised, countries will not need to ratify the deal for about two years, and can withdraw after that, though neither option will be costless. Hence, it is important to use the next two years to have a careful consideration of the TPPA and its many implications for present as well as future generations of Malaysians.
Who gains how much?
Most people think the TTPA is about greater growth from freer trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the overly optimistic computable general equilibrium (CGE) projections, made on methodologically moot grounds, recognise that more trade does not mean more growth. After all, freer trade not only means more exports, but also more imports. Without adequate compensatory mechanisms, nothing guarantees that all will benefit.
The net gains for growth from increased trade are difficult to estimate reliably, and depend very much on crucial assumptions made for modelling. Even the CGE models used for TPPA advocacy acknowledge limited net economic benefits from trade liberalisation. Hence, while the TPPA will result in greater trade, there is no reliable basis for assuming that increased trade will improve economic welfare for all.
More production for export will partly replace production for domestic markets. Exports are less labour-intensive and use more imported inputs than production for domestic markets. Businesses become more competitive by cutting labour costs, negatively affecting income distribution, thus further weakening domestic demand.
Both the USA and Malaysia are among the world’s most open economies, with little more trade to be gained by further reducing tariffs. The TPPA does not address many non-tariff barriers, e.g. the campaign against Malaysian palm oil.
The only US government study of the TPP’s growth effects did not see much growth from increased trade. The World Bank and Peterson Institute studies claimed more significant growth gains from large, but dubious projected increases in foreign direct investment (FDI). But there is no evidence that FDI reliably increases tax revenue, especially with the generous tax incentives offered by the authorities.
Cheap labour
As a middle income country, it will be difficult for Malaysia to compete successfully with Vietnam and other such developing economies on the basis of labour costs for the labour-intensive primary commodity and export-oriented manufacturing envisaged by the TPPA. All this is likely to work to keep Malaysia stuck in the middle income trap.
Yet, despite the exaggerated claims of its advocates, the TPPA provisions for the trade in goods are probably its least dangerous aspects. For example, TPPA provisions for further liberalisation of financial services will undermine national prudential regulation, exposing Malaysia to greater vulnerability from abroad, as if we have not learnt from the 1997-98 Southeast Asian financial crisis as well as the 2008-09 financial meltdown and ensuing protracted Great Recession.
Partnership?
Many ostensible provisions and safeguards in the TPPA have asymmetric implications. For instance, compared to Malaysia, the US federal government has much less scope for discretionary spending compared to its state governments which are, in many instances, larger than many other TPPA economies. Thus, exempting state governments from TPPA provisions, e.g. on government procurement, will have very different implications in the two countries.
Instead of trade, for Malaysia, the TPPA is mainly about greatly strengthening investor rights, including intellectual property rights (IPRs). But stronger IPRs hardly promote research. Instead, most contemporary IPR regimes actually impede innovation, besides undermining public health and consumer welfare by limiting competition and raising prices. The TPPA will thus allow ‘Big Pharma’ longer monopolies on patented medicines, keep cheaper generics off the market, and block the development and availability of similar new medicines.
Corporate interests
The collective drafting of the 6350 pages of the TPPA was ‘assisted’ by over five hundred official corporate advisers to the US Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman, greatly strengthening foreign investor rights at the expense of Malaysian business and public interests.
The TPPA’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system obliges governments to compensate foreign investors for the loss of expected profits in binding private arbitration, even when profits are made by causing public harm.
US corporate interests claim that ISDS is necessary to protect property rights where the rule of law and credible courts are lacking. But instead of reforms to improve the judiciary’s performance and reputation, the TTPA will expose Malaysia to new risks and liabilities.
ISDS provisions make it hard for governments to fulfil their basic obligations such as to protect their citizens’ health and safety, to ensure economic development and stability, and to safeguard the environment.
For example, the world’s most widely used herbicide has been declared by the WHO to be carcinogenic. By banning such toxic materials, with the ISDS, the government would be liable to compensate its manufacturers not to harm our people, instead of forcing them to compensate those already harmed! Thus, the ISDS may even deter the government from banning the substance, putting people at risk.
Multilateralism
Like many other recent bilateral and plurilateral economic agreements, the TPPA has less to do with freeing trade, but instead advances the interests of powerful foreign business interests.
Concluding the TPPA before the mid-December Nairobi World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial was then used by USTR Froman to try to kill the WTO Doha Round of trade negotiations, apparently also in line with the current European Commission commissioner’s preferences. The negotiation had begun in late 2001, after 9/11, with the promise of rectifying the anti-development and food security outcomes of the previous Uruguay Round following the Seattle WTO ministerial failure.
In spite of their denials, Asean members joining the TPPA have also effectively undermined existing commitments to the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA) and Asean Economic Community (AEC).
The main US motivation for the TPPA has been to exclude China. At his State of the Union address, President Obama triumphantly announced, “With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region, we do”.
After being blocked from greater commensurate influence in the Washington-based Bretton Woods institutions, broad support for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), even from traditional US allies, was a major embarrassment to the US.
Neutrality
The political re-alignment also abandons the late Tun Razak’s commitment to make Asean a ‘zone of peace, freedom and neutrality’ (ZOPFAN), an irony for the host of the last Asean summit.
One may understand why Vietnam, at war with the US until four decades ago, is keen to join the TPPA, to strengthen its hand viz a viz China, but it too will be compelled to pay a high economic price for Uncle Sam’s ‘protection’.
Yet, despite its own problems with China, Philippine President Benigno Aquino Jr chose not to participate in the negotiations. Pre- and post-military coup Thailand, with an economy even more open than Malaysia’s, also chose to stay away. Why?
Singapore’s existing bilateral economic arrangements with the US go much further than the TPPA in line with its own unique strategic considerations. Of course, no serving government leader is going to offend the US by rejecting the TPPA outright.
Misgivings
Already, some other, mainly European governments have privately expressed their dismay at the TPPA provisions as it will weaken their own negotiating positions for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It is the US which has secured ‘first-mover’ advantage. It is unclear to most observers what great advantage Malaysia secured beyond some NEP ‘carve-outs’.
Since negotiations ended in Atlanta in October 2015, the minister in the new centrist Liberal Party Canadian government, an experienced former Financial Times editor, has already called for reconsideration of the TPPA provisions.
Australia and New Zealand, the public and parliamentarians are outraged about the onerous investment provisions of the TPPA after a 2016 World Bank report projected paltry gains for them.
Despite touting the TPP in Asia as his main foreign policy priority for 2016, Obama only spent 28 seconds of his hour-long State of the Union address on it, triumphantly announcing, "With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region, we do" (China excluded), making clearly the main US motivation while realising its widespread unpopularity with the American public, including his Democratic Party base. Even the libertarian Cato Institute has denounced the TPP as the tool of corporate lobbyists.
Caution needed
More careful consideration through more informed public discussion of the TPPA's many provisions can only help the nation.
According to a mid-2015 Pew Research survey, the strongest support for the TPP is in Vietnam, where 89% of the public backed it, while the weakest support was in Malaysia (38%) and the US (49%). The greatest outright opposition was in Canada (31%), Australia (30%) and the US (29%).
Malaysians (14%) were the least supportive of closer economic relations with the US while the most support for deeper economic ties with China was in Australia (50%) and South Korea (47%). Large numbers of Malaysians (43%) and Chileans (35%) wanted stronger commercial relations with both China and the US.
The greatest opposition to the US defence pivot was in Malaysia, where 54% believed it is bad because it could lead to conflict with China.
TPPA not costless
If the TPPA is simply a trade deal, there would be less grounds for concern. Unfortunately, its other provisions will undermine Malaysian development prospects and the public interest in the longer term, with diminished ability for the Government, Parliament and the public to set things right.
Many well-intentioned Malaysians opposed to abuses of various kinds, support the TPPA, hoping that it will somehow eliminate corruption, improve governance and address other problems in the country. Unfortunately, this is merely wishful thinking. The TPPA is not a costless ‘hop-on, hop-off’ option, as some think.
By Dr Jomo Kwane Sunddaram
> Dr Jomo Kwame Sundaram was an Assistant Secretary-General in the United Nations system from 2005 to 2015 and received the 2007 Wassily Leontief Prize for advancing the frontiers of economic thought. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.
Jan 12, 2016 ... He said at the 2016 TPPA Forum organised by the Malaysian Economic
Association that gains from signing the TPPA in terms of economic ...
Apr 15, 2013 ... The successful East Asian model of 'state-driven capitalism' is being threatened
by TPPA proposals. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a ...
People pose in front of a display showing the word 'cyber' in binary code, in this picture illustration taken in Zenica December 27, 2014. [Photo/Agencies]
Security and other issues related to cyberspace have increasingly affected international relations, leading to a war of words among some major world powers. Openness and freedom are the two basic features of the Internet, through which information freely flows from one person to another and from one country to another, and that is why "freedom" is said to be the founding stone of cyberspace.
But this freedom cannot be limitless and should not challenge the normal order of cyberspace. As Lu Wei, minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China, once said, freedom is the purpose while order serves to protect it. Freedom and regulation are not mutually contradictory. Instead, they are two sides of the same coin.
Besides, since cyberspace, despite being called the virtual world, is intimately connected with the real world, chaos in the former can lead to disastrous consequences in the latter. The riots that rocked London, Birmingham and several other cities in the United Kingdom in 2011 after the death of a black UK citizen and flared up thanks to social networks are a good example of how lack of order in the virtual world can cause mayhem in the real world.
To prevent such tragedies from happening and since all freedoms come with responsibilities and limits, most countries have enacted laws to regulate cyberspace. But some countries, to fulfill their narrow interests, try to politicize the laws that other countries have implemented as a safeguard against the bedlam the misuse of cyberspace could unleash on society.
Take the US for instance. For the past several years, based on its claim that freedom of the Internet is a universal right, it has been trying to promote cyberspace as a public domain together with the Antarctica, the oceans and space, and has thus been avoiding the issue of national sovereignty.
The US' efforts reek of hegemonic philosophy. In fact, the US has been spreading its ideology in other countries through many websites and social networks, so as to trigger political disputes in societies that adhere to political philosophies other than that propounded by Washington. We should not forget that countries like Libya have become victims of the US' promotion of Western-style democracy.
Another reason for the US to talk about freedom of the Internet is to serve its trade and protectionist policies and cause trade frictions with other countries. With its modern technologies and global influence, Washington has been trying to help US-based enterprises enter other countries' markets on the pretext of defending free trade. When Google was pulled up by the Chinese government for violating the country's laws, the US government ironically accused China of not being a "free" country.
As a result, politicization of Internet freedom has become an obstacle to international cooperation. With the dispute over Internet freedom already a major international issue, countries with different understandings of cyberspace accuse each other of violating rules. Some of these differences have even led to trade frictions and protectionist measures.
Worse, other political issues are involved in the disputes over Internet freedom, which can easily turn into wider conflicts and make it more difficult for the related countries to resolve the existing issues.
Therefore, to boost global cooperation countries across the world should avoid pointing the finger against each other to prove whose Internet rules are better.
The author is a senior researcher in cybersecurity at China Center for Information Industry Development, affiliated to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
By Liu Quan (China Daily)
Related:
Internet Governance: Is it finally time to drop the training wheels?
There are increasingly strong reactions to revelations that United States agencies are spying on Internet use by Americans and foreigners as well as planning cyber actions on foreign targets. Weekend News Round-up: US ...
The first is the rise of the internet. A decade ago the internet was still a fancy reference tool and Google was still a start up. Today the internet is reorganising the world. The internet is not only spawning an entire ecosystem of ...
Spying by foreign intelligence agencies is also prevalent in Malaysia and other regional countries via the Internet or spying equipment located in embassies. SO last week it was the turn of Asians to learn that their region was ...
Tencent Holdings Ltd. (700) faces the prospect of losing its position as Asia's most-valuable Internet company this year after Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (BABA) goes public. The Shenzhen-based company isn't going to ...
Foreign tech firms pose threat on Internet; World's largest Internet hacker. Companies asked by Washington to use online services to spy on customers. Foreign technology services providers such as Google and Apple can ...
INTERNET spying by the US government became a major issue at the United Nations General Assembly last week when political leaders heard a blistering attack by the Brazilian president who was visibly angry about how ...
Studio interview: Arbitration will not solve dispute
Beijing believes Manila is politically motivated
South China Sea FAQ 2: What are China's historical claims to the South China Sea?
