China’s path of peaceful negotiations

What about the others?

South China Sea (SCS) entanglement is the creation of some of the littoral states in the SCS to browbeat China at the behest of some western powers and take advantage of China’s policy of appeasement and settling disputes through peaceful negotiations.

SCS is the largest marginal sea in the West Pacific region, covering an area of 3.5 million square kilometers. It is located south of mainland China and the island of Taiwan, west of the Philippines, north of Kalimantan and Sumatra, and east of the Malay and Indo-China peninsulas. It connects the Pacific through the Bashi and Balintang channels in the northeast, and the Mindoro and Balabac straits in the southeast; joins the Karimata and Gaspar straits, and is linked with the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca in the southwest.

History is on the side of China as it has sovereignty over four archipelagos in the SCS, namely the Xisha, Nansha, Zhongsha and Dongsha Islands, which are indicated by the dash lines on the map drawn in 1947. The Nansha Islands (or the Spratly Islands; coordinates: 3°40′-11°55′ N; 109°33′-117° 50’ E) comprise over 230 islands, islets, sandbanks, rocks and shoals that are scattered along a 1,000 kilometer span from the southeast to the northwest of the Sea. This area in question was initially discovered and named by China as the Nansha Islands, over which China was the first to exercise sovereignty and that exercise has been ongoing. Before the 1930s, there was no dispute over China’s ownership of them, as reflected in many maps and encyclopedias published around the world.

Beginning in the 20th century, western colonial powers, including the United Kingdom, Germany and France, followed by Asia’s emerging power Japan, kept coveting the Nansha Islands as they colonized Southeast Asia and invaded China. Most of their territorial ambitions ended in failure due to strong resistance from China’s Late Qing government, the succeeding nationalist government and the general public. Japan was the first to have seized some of the islands in the SCS, including the Nansha Islands.

The Cairo Declaration of November 1943, signed by the heads of the governments of China, the United States and the United Kingdom, proclaimed that “…Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.” The Potsdam Declaration (July 26, 1945) also stipulated in its eighth article that “The Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine, as had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.” The status would have remained there but the discovery of rich fisheries resources, oil and gas reserves, which can play an important role in the economic development of the coastal countries, tempted the other littoral states to stake a claim.

China’s pursuit in the SCS has been consistently maintained. That is to safeguard national territorial integrity and maintain regional peace and tranquility. To observe China, one should take cognizance of the historical facts. Though China is growing into a strong country, the painful memory of history is not long gone. The Chinese people have not forgotten that at the dawn of the 20th century, its capital was under the occupation of the imperialists’ armies, and for over a century before and after, China suffered the humiliation of foreign invasion and aggression. That is why the Chinese people and government are very sensitive about anything that is related to territorial integrity and would never allow such recurrence even if it’s just an inch of land.

On 4 November 2002, China signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) with the Philippines and other ASEAN countries. Paragraph 4 of the DOC explicitly states that “The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means … through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).” The US on the other hand, started to meddle in the SCS with the advent of the Obama administration since 2009 as it decided to expand its arena of influence in Asia, the Indian Ocean and the SCS.

Under the goading of the US, in January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration proceedings with respect to the disputes with China in the SCS, disregarding the consensus between China and the Philippines on settling relevant disputes through negotiations and consultations, the solemn commitment of the Philippines in the DOC and the legitimate rights that China enjoys as a sovereign state and a contracting party to the UNCLOS to independently choose dispute settlement mechanisms and procedures. Now the Arbitral Tribunal has rendered the award on the matter of jurisdiction and admissibility, and finished the tribunal hearings of the substantive issues and the outstanding issue of jurisdiction. The Philippines abused the compulsory procedures for dispute settlement under the Convention in order to cover up the territorial and maritime delimitation nature of the disputes between China and the Philippines with the so-called “interpretation and application of the UNCLOS”, to use the Convention as a pretext to negate the obligation under the UN Charter to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries, and to mislead the public and defend its illegal occupation of some maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands. The act of the Philippines constitutes a grave threat to peace and stability in the region.

The essence of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is the territorial disputes caused by the illegal occupation of China’s maritime features in the Nansha Islands by the Philippines in the 1970s in violation of the UN Charter and negating China’s sovereign rights over the islands.

Since the early 1970s, the Philippines pushed for expansionism beyond its inherent territory. Hence, it gradually occupied eight maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands. In June 1978, the Philippines issued the Presidential Decree 1596, which unlawfully designated a so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” to encompass some of the maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands and claimed sovereignty over them. In 2009, the Philippines revised the Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines and blatantly listed parts of China’s Nansha Islands and Huangyan Island into its own territory in an attempt to make its illegal occupation permanent and legalized.

To deny China’s territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights and interests, the Philippines took irresponsible unilateral acts, such as illegal construction, moves aimed at stirring up trouble, oil and gas exploration and detention of Chinese fishermen, to escalate tensions and aggravate and complicate the disputes over SCS between China and the Philippines. After illegal occupation of some maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands, the Philippines sought to permanently occupy the Chinese territory and “legalize” the illegal occupation through expansion of the maritime features, construction of military facilities, ports and airports, and establishment of administrative institutions. The Philippines also attempted to further invade and occupy more maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands by bombing the signs of Chinese sovereignty and “running aground” an old naval ship at Ren’ai Jiao. The Philippines unilaterally conducted oil and gas exploitation in the disputed waters in the South China Sea and arrested, detained, abused and shot dead Chinese fishermen, in an attempt to impose its claims of maritime rights and interests on the Chinese people and government. On 10 April 2012, the Philippines sent BRP Gregorio del Pilar warship into the adjacent waters of China’s Huangyan Island, forcefully harassed the Chinese fishermen and fishing boats conducting normal operation there, treated the Chinese fishermen inhumanely like naked exposure to the scorching sun for a long time, and deliberately triggered the “Huangyan Island incident”.

The US also stepped up its intervention, buzzing over China’s island reclamation projects using rhetoric like “reaching too far and too fast” and “islands militarization” to pile pressure on China, and even sending ships to sail near the Nansha and Xisha Islands. All these were perceived in China as serious security challenges. From the perspective of many Chinese people, the US is the invisible hand behind the rising tension in the South China Sea. First, the US is increasingly targeting China as it steps up its Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy. In 2013 the US announced to reinforce its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region by deploying 60% of its fleet and 60% of its overseas air force to the region by 2020. Also, the US military has purported to be threatened by “China’s anti-access and area denial efforts”, and actively promoted some operational concepts like Air-Sea Battle, with China as a main target. These moves have undoubtedly further complicated and intensified the situation in the SCS and in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. Many Chinese observers suspect that the US may be creating illusionary threats and crises in the region which can turn into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The firm position of the Chinese government to not accept or participate in the arbitration is based on the fact that the arbitration violates basic international law, and aimed to defend and practice international rule of law.

Firstly, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the consensus between the two sides on settling disputes through negotiation and consultation and violates the basic norm of pacta sunt servanda in international law. Consensus has long been reached between China and the Philippines through bilateral documents that relevant disputes should be settled through negotiations and consultations, and the DOC also contains similar stipulations and clearly rules out other means of dispute settlement.

Secondly, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the stipulations of UNCLOS and infringes on China’s right to independently choose methods of dispute settlement. China and the Philippines have made the choice and agreed to settle their disputes through negotiations and consultations. Article 280 of UNCLOS stipulates that nothing impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice.

Thirdly, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the basic legal principles for arbitration. According to the principles of international law, arbitrations should be jointly initiated by parties involved out of their own will. China and the Philippines have already reached the consensus that disputes should be settled through negotiations and consultations and the two countries have long engaged in close communication on settlement of disputes in the South China Sea as well as management and control of the maritime situation there. The two sides have also set up work mechanisms such as the confidence-building experts’ group. In 2011, the Philippines even issued a joint statement with China in which it stated its commitment to settling disputes through negotiations and consultations. However, after just one year, the Philippines suddenly put up its disputes with China for arbitration without notifying China beforehand, let alone seeking China’s consent. This is nothing but a treacherous act.

Fourthly, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the arbitration is the continuation and development of its territorial expansion and infringes on China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime interests. By initiating the arbitration, the Philippines tries to cover up the fact that it has illegally occupied China’s islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands and attempts to legitimize its illegal occupation. This represents a further step in its infringement upon China’s territorial sovereignty.