论文部分内容阅读
Every now and then， but with increasing frequency in recent times， China is engaged by its neighbors in territorial disputes regarding claims to the South China Sea. Historically， these disputes have been amicably settled between neighbors. But increasingly， questionable efforts have been made to introduce third-party involvement under the guise of mediation.
Peaceful negotiation
Lies， half-truths and twisted facts are often used to justify the pursuit of strategic ambitions. But， before swallowing these tales wholesale， one would do well to revisit history.
First of all， as China has repeatedly pointed out， the islands and reefs of the South China Sea have been part of China’s territory since time immemorial. China was the first to discover， name and exercise sustained， peaceful and effective jurisdiction over the relevant islands and reefs.
But since the 1970s， some countries have occupied a large number of China’s Nansha islands and reefs， which is the root cause of the current problems between neighbors who had always coexisted peacefully in the South China Sea.
The fact is， China and its neighbors do have an established mechanism for seeking solutions to related disputes. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations （ASEAN） initiated a dual-track approach that ensures that disputes are properly resolved through negotiations and consultations between the parties directly involved.
This approach was advocated by the regional grouping of Asian nations to ensure peace and stability in the South China Sea and is jointly maintained by China and the ASEAN countries.
This approach is not only consistent with international law and practice， but also an important consensus reached and a solemn commitment made by China and the ASEAN countries in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea （DOC）.
The DOC is also seen by ASEAN nations as the most pragmatic and effective way of properly handling the current issues involving the South China Sea.
The Philippine claim is based on its unilateral initiation of the disputed arbitration case in January 2013， which violates bilateral agreements between itself and China. It also violates the DOC agreement and violates Article 280 and Article 281 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea （UNCLOS）.
That is to say， since China and the Philippines have clearly chosen negotiation as the agreed means to resolve relevant disputes， the third-party settlement mechanism in UNCLOS is not applicable. Furthermore， China made [in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS] a declaration on optional exceptions in 2006， excluding disputes concerning maritime delimitation from such compulsory dispute-settlement procedures as arbitration.
China is therefore right when it says it refuses to accept or join in any arbitration and that it will also not acknowledge any resulting adjudication in absentia.
Unwarranted intervention
Those promoting arbitration and mediation seek to legitimize external intervention in disputes between neighbors by falsely claiming China is pursuing hegemonic ambitions.
Freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea has always been [and continues to be] enjoyed by all countries， in accordance with international law， and has never been an issue.
According to Ron Paul， a former U.S. Republican candidate for president in 2011， the United States maintains a military presence in more than 130 countries， with 900 bases around the world. Washington has also always historically found ways to latch on to every related dispute between China and its neighbors， its positions being driven by its strategic military interest in relation to the neighbors in question.
The United States hardly tries to mask its military strategy for the region with any ambiguity. The pivot-to-Asia strategy is not only about strengthening U.S. political and economic presence and influence in Asia， but also about creating new and greater strategic economic interests to provide more political justification for a stronger military presence in the name of enhancing regional security.
The U.S. insists that China is out to control all the skies and seas in the region and to construct military bases on uninhabited Chinese islands to enforce its dominance of sea and sky.
In reality， though， China has repeatedly assured that freedom of flight and navigation will not be affected by construction on some of its islands and reefs. China insists that construction in the South China Sea is within its sovereign rights， and that its activities are lawful， reasonable and justified and do not target any other country.
The recent regime change in the Philippines can again test the willingness of involved and affected neighbors to work together toward a common ASEAN solution without external intervention.
Washington will continue to press regional states that support external intervention to press for approaches that will favor its strategic military ambitions in and for the area.
But， China remains firmly against the militarization of the South China Sea and interference by any external force.
This simply means those prepared to test or challenge Beijing’s determination are only demonstrating yet again their preparedness to fan the flames of war while talking about peace and security or， in other words， to beat war drums while smoking the peace pipe！
Peaceful negotiation
Lies， half-truths and twisted facts are often used to justify the pursuit of strategic ambitions. But， before swallowing these tales wholesale， one would do well to revisit history.
First of all， as China has repeatedly pointed out， the islands and reefs of the South China Sea have been part of China’s territory since time immemorial. China was the first to discover， name and exercise sustained， peaceful and effective jurisdiction over the relevant islands and reefs.
But since the 1970s， some countries have occupied a large number of China’s Nansha islands and reefs， which is the root cause of the current problems between neighbors who had always coexisted peacefully in the South China Sea.
The fact is， China and its neighbors do have an established mechanism for seeking solutions to related disputes. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations （ASEAN） initiated a dual-track approach that ensures that disputes are properly resolved through negotiations and consultations between the parties directly involved.
This approach was advocated by the regional grouping of Asian nations to ensure peace and stability in the South China Sea and is jointly maintained by China and the ASEAN countries.
This approach is not only consistent with international law and practice， but also an important consensus reached and a solemn commitment made by China and the ASEAN countries in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea （DOC）.
The DOC is also seen by ASEAN nations as the most pragmatic and effective way of properly handling the current issues involving the South China Sea.
The Philippine claim is based on its unilateral initiation of the disputed arbitration case in January 2013， which violates bilateral agreements between itself and China. It also violates the DOC agreement and violates Article 280 and Article 281 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea （UNCLOS）.
That is to say， since China and the Philippines have clearly chosen negotiation as the agreed means to resolve relevant disputes， the third-party settlement mechanism in UNCLOS is not applicable. Furthermore， China made [in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS] a declaration on optional exceptions in 2006， excluding disputes concerning maritime delimitation from such compulsory dispute-settlement procedures as arbitration.
China is therefore right when it says it refuses to accept or join in any arbitration and that it will also not acknowledge any resulting adjudication in absentia.
Unwarranted intervention
Those promoting arbitration and mediation seek to legitimize external intervention in disputes between neighbors by falsely claiming China is pursuing hegemonic ambitions.
Freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea has always been [and continues to be] enjoyed by all countries， in accordance with international law， and has never been an issue.
According to Ron Paul， a former U.S. Republican candidate for president in 2011， the United States maintains a military presence in more than 130 countries， with 900 bases around the world. Washington has also always historically found ways to latch on to every related dispute between China and its neighbors， its positions being driven by its strategic military interest in relation to the neighbors in question.
The United States hardly tries to mask its military strategy for the region with any ambiguity. The pivot-to-Asia strategy is not only about strengthening U.S. political and economic presence and influence in Asia， but also about creating new and greater strategic economic interests to provide more political justification for a stronger military presence in the name of enhancing regional security.
The U.S. insists that China is out to control all the skies and seas in the region and to construct military bases on uninhabited Chinese islands to enforce its dominance of sea and sky.
In reality， though， China has repeatedly assured that freedom of flight and navigation will not be affected by construction on some of its islands and reefs. China insists that construction in the South China Sea is within its sovereign rights， and that its activities are lawful， reasonable and justified and do not target any other country.
The recent regime change in the Philippines can again test the willingness of involved and affected neighbors to work together toward a common ASEAN solution without external intervention.
Washington will continue to press regional states that support external intervention to press for approaches that will favor its strategic military ambitions in and for the area.
But， China remains firmly against the militarization of the South China Sea and interference by any external force.
This simply means those prepared to test or challenge Beijing’s determination are only demonstrating yet again their preparedness to fan the flames of war while talking about peace and security or， in other words， to beat war drums while smoking the peace pipe！