By Li Kaisheng Source:Global Times Published: 2015-6-4 23:13:01
As the territorial disputes in the South China Sea have been put in the limelight again lately, China has drawn a series of stinging rebukes. A typical opinion was delivered by US President Barack Obama when he accused China of "flexing its muscles" to advance its maritime claims against Asian neighbors.
Currently, I am in the Philippines as a visiting scholar of the Asian Center, University of the Philippines Diliman and heard very often the complaint that China is "bullying" the Philippines. Filipino scholars often ask me: Why as a signatory of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), why was China afraid of settling its disputes in the UNCLOS Arbitration Tribunal?
These accusations about China are ill-founded. In the international public opinion dominated by the Western hemisphere, China is on the defense in justifying its claims to the South China Sea. But this situation has been distorted and even turned the other way around by the US.
The latest example that indicates China's "flexing its muscles" is its reclamations of some islets and reefs that are under China's control in the South China Sea.
But it must be noted that China is not the first South China Sea claimant to build islands there. For decades, China has restrained itself by adhering to seeking common ground and shelving disagreements.
China's construction work is a signal that indicates it is about to reactivate its legitimate rights of developing its maritime territories, which, according to China's plans, will be beneficial to disaster prevention at sea and many other kinds of public good.
As one claimant, China has the right to defend its legitimate rights. Thus, scolding and complaints which deny China's legal rights are biased and have ulterior motives.
As for China's refusal to participate in the international arbitration of UNCLOS, Beijing is not to blame.
It is widely accepted in the international community that either political negotiations or international law can be used to resolve territorial disputes. In reality, because of the complicacy and sensitivity of territorial disputes, most successful solutions were achieved by political negotiations.
Although the Philippines claimed that it hasn't requested the international tribunal to demarcate the disputed area, its core and real purpose is to use the tribunal's ruling as a "lawful" challenge to weaken the legal status of the nine-dashed line claimed by China and then to jeopardize China's sovereignty in the region. Thus the arbitration will be a political matter rather than a legal case.
China has stated clearly that territorial disputes pertaining to it are not covered by the UNCLOS mechanisms, and this reservation was admitted by UNCLOS. On December, 2014, Chinese Foreign Ministry released a copy of China's position with regard to the Philippines' appeal for arbitration. This position paper has offered a justification for China's consistent stance.
So, the Philippine government has the right to appeal to the international tribunal, and China has the right to say no, which only shows different propensities to deal with territorial dispute. China has been open and pragmatic in its territorial policies. Since the founding of China, it has signed border treaties or agreements with 12 neighboring countries. 90 percent of the land border between China and its neighbors has thus been demarcated.
There is no reason to conclude that China has no intention to resolve the territorial disputes or the South China Sea issue cannot be dealt with by political negotiations.
The key is to restart direct negotiations between China and the Philippines, in case more misunderstandings and miscalculations are bred or caused due to a lack of effective communication. Verbal fights based on ill-considered accusations are of no avail. What is needed is rationality rather than emotionality, pragmatism rather than idealism, a far-sighted vision for solutions rather than a short-sighted approach to immediate interest.
The author is an associate research fellow at the Institute of International Relations, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Currently, I am in the Philippines as a visiting scholar of the Asian Center, University of the Philippines Diliman and heard very often the complaint that China is "bullying" the Philippines. Filipino scholars often ask me: Why as a signatory of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), why was China afraid of settling its disputes in the UNCLOS Arbitration Tribunal?
These accusations about China are ill-founded. In the international public opinion dominated by the Western hemisphere, China is on the defense in justifying its claims to the South China Sea. But this situation has been distorted and even turned the other way around by the US.
The latest example that indicates China's "flexing its muscles" is its reclamations of some islets and reefs that are under China's control in the South China Sea.
But it must be noted that China is not the first South China Sea claimant to build islands there. For decades, China has restrained itself by adhering to seeking common ground and shelving disagreements.
China's construction work is a signal that indicates it is about to reactivate its legitimate rights of developing its maritime territories, which, according to China's plans, will be beneficial to disaster prevention at sea and many other kinds of public good.
As one claimant, China has the right to defend its legitimate rights. Thus, scolding and complaints which deny China's legal rights are biased and have ulterior motives.
As for China's refusal to participate in the international arbitration of UNCLOS, Beijing is not to blame.
It is widely accepted in the international community that either political negotiations or international law can be used to resolve territorial disputes. In reality, because of the complicacy and sensitivity of territorial disputes, most successful solutions were achieved by political negotiations.
Although the Philippines claimed that it hasn't requested the international tribunal to demarcate the disputed area, its core and real purpose is to use the tribunal's ruling as a "lawful" challenge to weaken the legal status of the nine-dashed line claimed by China and then to jeopardize China's sovereignty in the region. Thus the arbitration will be a political matter rather than a legal case.
China has stated clearly that territorial disputes pertaining to it are not covered by the UNCLOS mechanisms, and this reservation was admitted by UNCLOS. On December, 2014, Chinese Foreign Ministry released a copy of China's position with regard to the Philippines' appeal for arbitration. This position paper has offered a justification for China's consistent stance.
So, the Philippine government has the right to appeal to the international tribunal, and China has the right to say no, which only shows different propensities to deal with territorial dispute. China has been open and pragmatic in its territorial policies. Since the founding of China, it has signed border treaties or agreements with 12 neighboring countries. 90 percent of the land border between China and its neighbors has thus been demarcated.
There is no reason to conclude that China has no intention to resolve the territorial disputes or the South China Sea issue cannot be dealt with by political negotiations.
The key is to restart direct negotiations between China and the Philippines, in case more misunderstandings and miscalculations are bred or caused due to a lack of effective communication. Verbal fights based on ill-considered accusations are of no avail. What is needed is rationality rather than emotionality, pragmatism rather than idealism, a far-sighted vision for solutions rather than a short-sighted approach to immediate interest.
The author is an associate research fellow at the Institute of International Relations, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
