Philippines violates UN Convention

The Philippines detained 11 Chinese fishermen for unverifiable crime after seizing their vessel near China's Half Moon Shoal in the South China Sea on May 6. On Monday, the Philippines defied China's demand to free the fishermen and charged nine of them with poaching more than 500 endangered sea turtles. Two fishermen, both minors, will be sent back home.

By doing so, the Philippines has violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which it has been trying to use to legalize its claim on China's islands in the South China Sea.

China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters in the South China Sea. In May 2009, Malaysia and Vietnam jointly submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf a notification of the two countries' continental shelf claims in the South China Sea, and Vietnam also unilaterally made another submission. In response, China submitted its map of the nine-dash line attached to two note verbales to the UN to refute the two countries' extended continental shelf claims. In the notes, China stated that it has the sovereignty and sovereign rights over the territorial sea and exclusive economic zones of Nansha Islands.

Since Half Moon Shoal is part of the Nansha Islands, Manila has no right to detain any vessel or fisherman fishing in its waters. By doing so, it has violated international norms for the fishing industry, as well as the UNCLOS.

China has been exercising its administrative jurisdiction over the Nansha Islands and its surrounding waters by carrying out normal maritime operations. But of late, Chinese fishermen have not been feeling safe in the South China Sea because of the belligerent attitude of some countries locked in territorial disputes with China.

According to the UNCLOS, after being authorized to fish in some exclusive economic zones, countries should abide by the laws and regulations of the coastal states when it comes to the management and conservation of resources. The coast guard of a coastal state could board and check the relevant documents of vessels fishing in the waters near its coast if they violate these laws and regulations. It could even detain the fishermen. But under no circumstances, should the fishermen (or other people on board the vessels) be subjected to corporal punishment and imprisonment.

Moreover, Manila has failed to honor the regional order. The UNCLOS says the disputing countries should resolve the issue of overlapping economic zone boundaries through agreements on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable outcome. In case the disputing countries fail to reach an agreement, they should try to work out a provisional arrangement and, during the transition stage, both sides should avoid taking unilateral actions that could hinder the possibility of a final agreement.

The Nansha Islands are within 400 nautical miles of all the countries locked in the South China Sea disputes. Since China has sovereignty over the islands, its duly exclusive economic zone overlaps with those of the other disputing countries. So it's important that Manila faces up to a sea boundary delimitation dispute with Beijing.

To maintain regional stability and to resolve the disputes in the South China Sea through peaceful means, China and ASEAN signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002. Beijing's proposal of "shelving the disputes and conducting joint exploration" got positive response from the disputing countries and praise from the international community. This could be regarded as a provisional arrangement for the ultimate resolution of the disputes.

But using its advantageous geographical position and assuming that the disputed areas are part of its territory, the Philippines has been seizing Chinese fishing vessels and detaining Chinese fishermen. Such provocative actions by the Philippines are worsening the already tense atmosphere in the region.

It should thus be clear to the international community that Manila, not Beijing, has violated the DOC and the UNCLOS, as well as further damaged the fragile Sino-Philippine relations. And justice chooses those who choose to side with it.

Contributed by Li Jieyu (China Daily)

Related posts

• Philippine police fired at Chinese fishing boat; gunmen kidnapping farm manager and tourists...

Captain recalls attack by Philippine police "They rushed toward us in a boat and fired at us," He Junting, captain of the f... 

• US hypocritically abuses principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) !

  Images for US hypocrisy US hypocritically abuses principles of UNCLOS to benefit itself The high-profile interventions by the US in t...

• US support no use for Manila to bluff South China Sea claims

The US and the Philippines began a two-week military drill on Monday. This "shoulder to shoulder" exercise is widely believed

Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?

Hilary Clinton , US Secretary of State, made a very important statement on South China Sea area. She stated on July 23, 2010 at ...

US support no use for Manila to bluff South China Sea claims

The US and the Philippines began a two-week military drill on Monday. This "shoulder to shoulder" exercise is widely believed to be targeted at China. Some US analysts even argue that Washington should adopt a national strategy oriented at South China Sea to stop China's "aggression" in this region. Without a correct understanding of China's South China Sea policy and the US role in this area, these analysts miscalculated the real Asia-Pacific geopolitics.

China is depicted by many Western media as a bully in South China Sea, but the reality is that most of the Nansha Islands are forcibly occupied by those supposedly "bullied," such as the Philippines and Vietnam.

We shouldn't draw a simple conclusion that China and the US will engage in a hot war if Washington gets fully involved in this area. It's too naïve a judgment, as what the Philippines and Japan are aiming at is to turn their conflicts with China into a direct confrontation between China and the US. Such change is unlikely to happen in post-Cold War international relations.

The islands disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea are a battle for national interests. They have led to a strategic game between China and the US, but its intensity is not high.

Where the game heads to relies on how the stakeholders, especially China and the US, interact with each other. Neither Manila nor Washington can manipulate the situation. China has more power to reshape the scenario.

Both China and the US are global powers, and the islands disputes constitute just a fraction of their bilateral relationship. Neither China can cherish illusions that the US will stay neutral in the South China Sea, nor the Philippines and Japan can indulge in a reverie that Washington would jeopardize its relationship with China for their petty interests.

China has more confidence than ever to face the US in the South China Sea chessboard. A growing US-China relationship benefits the US, which mandates that US doesn't allow its warships to be locked in a dangerous standoff with China.

What's more, China's actions have never really touched the nerve of the US. People with insight can see the restraint and prudence of China's South China Sea policy.

The other stakeholders in this area should cast away illusions that the US would be their "big daddy." Bilateral negotiations with China are the only way to address these disputes and to protect their own interests.

Washington's military deployment in Asia-Pacific can hardly be turned into real deterrence against China, but the US won't stop making mischief in this area. However, under the framework of a new type of major power relationship, China is gathering more experience to play the chess with the US.

Countries like the Philippines and Japan should better update their knowledge about China. Borrowing power from the US and scaring China reflects nothing but their short-sightedness.

Source:Global Times Published: 2014-5-7 0:33:01

Related:

Vietnam has infringed on China’s sovereignty

Yi Xianliang, deputy director-general of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of China’s For...

Related posts: 

Philippine police fired at Chinese fishing boat; gunmen kidnapping farm manager and tourists...

Captain recalls attack by Philippine police "They rushed toward us in a boat and fired at us," He Junting, captain of the f...

Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?

Hilary Clinton , US Secretary of State, made a very important statement on South China Sea area. She stated on July 23, 2010 at ...

•  US hypocritically abuses principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)...  

 The high-profile interventions by the US in the disputes between China and some of its neighbors over some islands or reefs and maritime entitlements in recent years, have seen the US frequent making use of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It seems that according to the US, China has become a violator of UNCLOS.    

Who owns Diaoyu Islands?

Historical documents dating back to the Ming Dynasty establish Diaoyu Islands as Chinese territory. The challenge to Chinese ownership came from Japanese annexation of the islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War.

TENSIONS are rising in the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands — five tiny islands and three rocks covering a mere 7sq km in the East China Sea.

It is a pity that this is happening especially when Chinese-Japanese economic ties have reached a new level since the end of last year with the two countries agreeing to use their respective currencies in their bilateral trade, instead of the US dollar.

To de-escalate tensions, Japan should make the first move. It was the Japanese government’s purchase of three of the islands from the Kurihara family on Sept 11, 2012 that ignited the present crisis. That decision should be rescinded immediately.

In fact, Japan has been upping the ante on Diaoyu — which Japan calls the Senkaku Islands — for some time now. It will be recalled that on Sept 7, 2010 when a Chinese fishing boat collided accidentally with a Japanese patrol vessel near Diaoyu, the captain and the crew of the Chinese boat were detained by the Japanese Coast Guard for a few days.

Though they were all released in the end, the incident revealed a new toughness on the part of the Japanese. The Chinese have been reacting to this and other such incidents.

What explains this new toughness? Some analysts attribute it partly to the growth of the political right in Japanese politics.

Japanese economic stagnation for more than two decades and China’s success in replacing Japan as the world’s second-most important economy have increased the influence of conservative nationalist forces in the country who are now targeting China.

Impending elections within the ruling Democratic Party and the forthcoming general election have also widened the berth for conservative politics.

It is also not a coincidence that the Japanese right-wing has become more vocal — especially vis-a-vis China — at a time when the United States is seeking to re-assert its presence and its power in the Asia-Pacific region. In the last couple of years, US political and military officials have on a number of occasions underscored the significance of US-Japan security ties.

Even on the Diaoyu dispute, the US government, while professing to remain neutral, has through the Pentagon made it clear that the Japan-US Security Treaty would come into force in the event of a military conflict between Japan and China.

This stance has to be viewed in the larger context of the US’ active military alignment with the Philippines in its recent clash with China over the Huangyan Island in the South China Sea and its support for Vietnam in its long-standing tiff with China over parts of the Spratly Islands and the Paracels.

For both Japan and the US there may also be other reasons why the Diaoyu Islands are important.

In 1968-9, a United Nations agency, it is reported, had discovered potential oil and gas reserves near Diaoyu. The US military, it is not widely known, also uses one of the five islands — Kuba — as a practice range for aircraft bombing.

Whatever the reasons for holding on to Diaoyu, Japan’s claim to ownership is weak. There are books, reports and maps from the 15th century, during the period of the Ming Dynasty, that establish in no uncertain terms that Diaoyu is Chinese territory. The books Voyage with a Tail Wind and Record of the Imperial Envoy’s Visit to Ryukyu bear testimony to this.

Even writings by Japanese scholars in the late 19th century acknowledged this fact. The challenge to Chinese ownership of Diaoyu came from Japanese annexation of the Islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War. China under the Ching Dynasty was too weak to fight back and regain lost territory. But annexation through military force does not confer legitimacy upon the act of conquest.

This is why when Japan was defeated in the Second World War the victors who included China and the US recognised that Diaoyu was Chinese territory.

Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration acknowledged this though for administrative purposes Diaoyu was placed under US control as part of its governance over the Ryukyu Islands. The US was then the occupying power in Japan following the latter’s surrender.

However, when China was taken over by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, the US changed its position and began to treat the Islands as part of Japan. The Chinese communist leadership protested vehemently.

In 1971, the US Senate returned the Diaoyu Islands, together with Okinawa, to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty. Again, the Chinese government in Beijing objected, as did the Taiwan government which also regards the islands as part of China.

Since the normalisation of relations between China and Japan in 1972, both sides have agreed to allow their fishermen to operate in the waters surrounding the islands without resolving the issue of ownership.

Of course, neither China nor Japan has relinquished even an iota of its claim in the last 40 years. Recent incidents have, however, forced this unresolved issue into the open.

Apart from taking the first step by abrogating its purchase of the islands, as we have proposed, Japan should also come to terms with undeniable historical, legal and ethical facts. It must accept the irrefutable reality that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China.

We realise that there are powerful vested interests that will not allow Japan to embrace this truth.

Nonetheless, we should all try to persuade the Japanese government and the Japanese people that it would be in their best interest to do so.

Governments in Asia should convey this message to Japanese elites through quiet diplomacy. Citizen groups throughout the continent should speak up in a firm and courteous manner.

The media too should play its role by laying out the arguments for an amicable resolution of the dispute which respects truth and justice.

Comment by CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

>Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Related posts:

Japan should drop its sense of superiority and tricks over China, Asia
 
China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands

China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan illegally purchases and nationalizes them
 
Japan's buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike back

Japan, the deputy sheriff in Asia?

Investing in better relations

China and Asean edge towards better ties, mostly because of the risk of a deteriorating relationship.

ASEAN and China made moves during the week to upgrade ties, or at least to talk about the prospect of formal deliberations to do so.

The unusually roundabout manner of this, even for Asean diplomacy, was because much of the basis for it is the highly unlikely and delicate one of contested maritime territory in the South China Sea.

All contending parties have had to tread gingerly, with fingers and toes crossed. But other events have also played a role.

Asean countries had already made clear that regardless of disputes with each other or with China, no external party should get involved. It was not difficult thus to put US diplomats on notice.

So when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toured South-East Asia this time, with an appearance at the Asean Ministerial Meeting in Phnom Penh, she talked about economic cooperation rather than a “pivot” to “rebalance” against China. It contrasts with her last foray into this region and another Asean meeting.

However, Clinton’s office also had an official announce that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands claimed by both China and Japan fell under Article 5 of the US-Japan security treaty. The official declared that the uninhabited islands were under Japan’s jurisdiction, bolstering Tokyo’s claim, and that the US was thus obliged to respond in any conflict.

That made officials in Beijing jump. It also made them seem more conciliatory on the Asean front, in a set of disputes over the Spratly Islands.

China declared on Wednesday that it wanted to strengthen “communication and cooperation” with Asean members with mutual benefit all-round. On the same day at the meeting in Phnom Penh, Thailand announced that it would not allow disputes in the South China Sea to disrupt cooperation between Asean and China.

Thailand is serving as coordinator between Asean and China over the next three years. It is not among the four Asean countries that are claimants to the Spratly Islands along with China and Taiwan.

It has been 10 years since Asean and China signed the Declaration on the Code of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), a non-binding agreement covering “soft issues” like maritime research and environmental protection.

Since then, Asean has wanted to move on to a binding Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (COC). But while China is all for the DOC, saying that it had yet to be implemented fully, it wants to move slower on the COC.

It is still unclear how far serious talks will go in creating a new status quo for the contending claims. On present form, despite all the pleasantries and avowed goodwill, any talks at all are unlikely to achieve anything substantial.

For decades, no specific talks had even been envisaged, let alone conducted satisfactorily and concluded successfully. Now differing positions are being taken over the DOC and the COC, which does not help, amid a general feel good feeling about everyone wanting to feel better, which may not get anywhere.

Prof Zhang Yunling is director of the Centre for the Study of Global Governance at Renmin University in Beijing. The following is part of an exclusive interview he gave during a recent ISIS conference in Kuala Lumpur.

Q. China’s rise has largely been economic; how else will it express its ascendancy in the region and the world?

A. China’s rise has reshaped the region’s economic structure, which has been a very positive development. It will continue to rise, and in other aspects, as well as play an important role.

Compared to the past, there are two differences today. First, it is based on an open economic structure, with close links with other countries, not top-down but in equal partnership as in production networks.

Secondly, there is institutional development, not just gestures as with the old China. There are equal rights, equal treatment of other countries, which are rules-based and multi-layered. We are moving ahead, but it also needs time.

There is greater movement of people, through travel and tourism, and people get to know each other better. There are also more projects for (international) assistance, training and capacity-building.

There is anxiety over China’s military build-up, but it is normal for China to develop its military along with its (economic) development.

One concern is a change in the existing order because China was not a player before. Japan has historical (baggage), the US has been dominant in the past, so there should be a place for China.

Another concern is over dispute settlement: previously there has been cooperative behaviour, now there are bigger armed forces. Yet no other country has so many unsettled disputes as China on both land and sea.

>How do you see China-US ties, today’s most important trans-Pacific bilateral relationship?

This is a very complex matter for China. For others, it is about how to accept a rising China and its role in a positive way.

Germany and Japan before were not bound by factors as China is today: agreements, commitments, shared interests. How China would manage these should not cause other countries to see it as a threat; it is now in a transitional period, without much experience of it.

The US is very important to China in economic terms. So China has to carefully manage relations with the US, to avoid any possible confrontation and seek any possible cooperation.

Both countries have such a close relationship which never occurred before between a rising superpower and an existing superpower. They have to live together and work together.

US technology and its economy are still dominant and important for China. But the US sees China as a threat, and ideologically wants to see China turn into a democratic country.

The US has always tried to make China more like it over the past 100 years, but not successfully – yet it is still trying. US pressure is very clear.

China wants to have its place, and the US has to prepare for that. It is trying to contain China, so China sees this as a threat.

But it’s not a zero-sum game as with the Soviet Union, because of the close interests between the US and China. The door is open, not closed.

> What is the status of China’s proposals to promote military cooperation with South-East Asian countries?

There is now no military cooperation. We should have regular defence ministers’ consultations and exchanges of military personnel.

There should be joint maritime operations for accidents at sea, for example. Also, on non-traditional threats at sea (piracy, terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics, illegal immigration).

There have been exchanges between China and Indonesia, and cooperation between China and Malaysia in producing military equipment.

> How has China’s perception of Asean changed over the years?

China sees the Asean process positively, acknowledging Asean’s role in creating a stable and cooperative region. There is the China-Asean FTA, with other cooperative projects.

All this is quite different from the past.

China hopes Asean can play a stronger role in the region for more cooperation and institution-building. Asean needs to be more united to work cooperatively towards a real Asian century.

Asean can help create a new regional institution. Asia should be a security provider, since there has been too much reliance on outside security providers.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

Related posts:
 Dawn of a new superpower