CHINESE Embassy Deputy Spokesman Guo Wei recently issued a statement on his Facebook page, the salient points of which follow:
“... The activities of the Chinese people in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China is the first to have discovered, named and explored and exploited Nanhai Zhudao and relevant waters, and the first to have continuously, peacefully and effectively exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over them.
“... The Chinese government has stated on many occasions that China has territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, including, inter alia: i. China has sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao, consisting of Dongsha Qundao, Xisha Qundao, Zhongsha Qundao and Nansha Qundao; ii. China has internal waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone, based on Nanhai Zhudao; iii. China has an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, based on Nanhai Zhudao; iv. China has historic rights in the South China Sea.
“... [I]t is not China, but the Philippines, that has illegally occupied Nansha Qundao and Huangyan Dao. The territory of the Philippines is defined by a series of international treaties, including the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the 1900 Treaty between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines (the Treaty of Washington) and the 1930 Convention between His Majesty in Respect of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States regarding the Boundary between the State of North Borneo and the Philippine Archipelago. China’s Nansha Qundao and Huangyan Dao are not within Philippine territory. Official maps published by the Philippines in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 all marked Huangyan Dao as being outside Philippine territory.
“Starting in the 1970s, the Philippines invaded and illegally occupied by force some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao and raised illegal territorial claims. The Philippines invaded and illegally occupied Mahuan Dao and Feixin Dao in August and September 1970, Nanyao Dao and Zhongye Dao in April 1971, Xiyue Dao and Beizi Dao in July 1971, Shuanghuang Shazhou in March 1978 and Siling Jiao in July 1980. On 10 April 2012, the Philippines’ naval vessel BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15) intruded into the adjacent waters of China’s Huangyan Dao, illegally seized Chinese fishermen and fishing boats operating there and treated the fishermen in a grossly inhumane manner, thus deliberately causing the Huangyan Dao Incident.
“... Currently available statistics show that from 1989 to 2015, 97 incidents occurred in which the Philippines infringed upon the safety, life and property of Chinese fishermen: [eight] involving shooting, 34 assault and robbery, 40 capture and detention, and 15 chasing. These incidents brought adverse consequences to close to 200 Chinese fishing vessels and over 1,000 Chinese fishermen.
“... [O]n 27 April 2006, one armed Philippine fishing vessel intruded into Nanfang Qiantan of China’s Nansha Qundao and attacked Chinese fishing boat Qiongqionghai 03012, killing Chen Yichao and three other Chinese fishermen on the spot, severely wounding two others and causing minor injuries to another. Subsequently a total of 13 gunmen forced their way onboard the Chinese fishing boat and seized satellite navigation and communication equipment, fishing equipment and harvests and other items...
“... As a responsible major country, China has always acted to promote peace, stability and prosperity in the South China Sea, showing goodwill and tolerance. If it were other countries whose islands were occupied and resources plundered, they might not show the same restraint that China has consistently exercised.”
This statement is undoubtedly the Chinese position and necessarily throws back to the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) awards that touch upon the issues raised above by Guo Wei.
In this regard, the book “The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study,” published by the Chinese Society of International Law, is highly recommended. It details all aspects of the arbitral proceedings, leaving no room for any possibility that a serious reader would miss an important point. It even contains a wealth of references from which readers may gain a deeper understanding of the issues tackled in the arbitration and their ramifications.
Particularly on the Philippines being upheld as the winner over China in the proceedings, not even an iota of such an idea is mentioned in the ruling. In the Philippines’ very submissions, nothing is mentioned on the question of sovereignty. How can the Philippines claim victory on that issue when a ruling on sovereignty is not prayed for in the country’s submissions?
In fact, in those submissions, the Philippines explicitly declares that it is not seeking a ruling on sovereignty. If it did, that would have invalidated the Philippines’ case outright, with sovereignty issues not being within the jurisdiction of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) arbitral proceedings. What the Philippines prayed for is a clear-cut delineation of its exclusive economic zone. In this regard, the people need to be enlightened that compulsory arbitration between parties is allowed by Unclos for its members only in cases where the protagonists have not yet undergone a similar process (Part XV of Amendment VII). In the case of China and the Philippines, they are bound by the Declaration of Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea, under which Southeast Asian nations and China agree to settle their disputes only among themselves, without any external interference. At the time of the Philippines’ filing of the arbitration case, its case against China in the same regard was already in progress through the DOC. The application of the Unclos rule is effectively preempted by the DOC proceedings. But at the urging of the US, the Philippines initiated the PCA arbitration case, which ultimately came up with the questionable awards.
First of these awards was the one on jurisdiction. This was necessary for the arbitration to proceed. What the PCA did was supply arguments not contained in the Philippine submissions. As the book puts it, this was in violation of the well-established “non ultra petita” rule on arbitral decision-making and/or Article 10 of Annex VII prohibiting the act on pain of having its awards assessed as invalid for “exces de pouvoir,” or as made without jurisdiction.
So from the very beginning, the PCA arbitration was wrong and did not have any power to proceed, much less to issue awards.
Note that China did not participate in the PCA proceedings and made it clear it was not accepting their results.
What Unclos provision are you talking about now, what 2016 arbitral ruling you brag as forming part of international law justifying your incursions into China’s domain?
To begin with, why isn’t the US the one striving to implement the PCA ruling? It is a powerful member of the UN Security Council and has the leverage to exact punishment for what it calls China’s aggression in the South China Sea. But no, it delegates that task to lowly subalterns whose only expertise is pretentious, cowardly rhetoric.
Who is the victim of such an ugly gambit?
Sadly, but by the official Chinese statement in the opening, the Philippines.
This column had pointed out long ago that the Philippines is not just its government. The Philippines is, above, all its people. And what is causing China trouble in the South China Sea are not the Filipino people, but the small exclusive circle of stooges mindlessly stepping to the marching orders of the US.
If war is what US underlings ceaselessly agitate against China in the South China Sea, then China, bring it on to America, not the Philippines.
