Retired General: U.S. slaps itself on South China Sea issue

Source: China Military OnlineEditor: Zhang Tao
2016-07-14 17:25

BEIJING, July 14 (ChinaMil) -- After the South China Sea arbitration award, the United States, the farce’s backstage planner, eventually jumped to the stage as if it was the international military police and asked China to accept the arbitration award.

Does the U.S. have the right to intervene in the South China Sea issue? The U.S. has completely forgotten its previous statement on the South China Sea issue and is slapping itself on this issue, said Luo Yuan, a retired general, currently the executive vice president and secretary general of China Strategy Culture Promotion Association (CSCPA).

First, the U.S. knows very well the development history of the South China Sea issue.

The U.S. was the main party to sign the “Cairo Declaration” and the “Potsdam Proclamation”. In 1946, it was exactly the U.S. warships that the Chinese government dispatched to recover the islands in the South China Sea, which were occupied by Japan. In the Mutual Defense Treaty signed between the U.S. and the Philippines in 1951, the scope of defense doesn’t include the Xisha Islands and the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea.

The Xisha Islands and the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea are delimited into China’s traditional territorial waters line in the 1961-version Columbia Lippincott Gazetteer of the World, the 1963-version Worldmark Encyclopedia of The Nations and the 1971-version Encyclopedia of the Nations.

Once a colony of the United States, the territory of Philippines was determined according to the Treaty of Paris signed between the U.S. and Spain in 1898, the Treaty of Washington signed between the U.S. and Spain in 1900, and the Convention Between the United States and Great Britain of 1930.

The western territory of the Philippines has never exceeded 118 degrees east longitude. But the disputed waters and islands between China and the Philippines are all located to the west of the 118 degrees east longitude, which the U.S. should clearly understand.

The U.S. said it “adopts the neutral stance” and doesn’t “take sides” on territorial disputes in the South China Sea, which is actually shifting from its former stance of recognizing China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea islands.

There is a basic principle in the international law, which is called “estoppel”, and the U.S. practice of breaking its own promise is the flagrant violation of the international law, Luo Yuan analyzed.

Second, the U.S. amnesia and blindness on the South China Sea issue is to meet its hegemonic requirement.

There are three goals for the U.S. to intervene in the South China Sea disputes: the first goal is to showcase the unchallengeable maritime hegemony order formulated and led by the United States; the second goal is to stick to its undisturbed tyrannous maritime “freedom”; and the third goal is to prevent its hegemony military alliance from being threatened.

The U.S. accused China of changing the South China Sea’s current status and its islands’ geographical appearance out of its hegemonic idea. It simply ignored that some other countries, including the Philippines and Vietnam, occupied China’s islands and reefs, and constructed military facilities and airport runways on them. It slandered China to militarize the South China Sea, but turned a blind eye to its own aircraft carriers and strategic bombers dispatched to the South China Sea, which is completely the hegemony and gangster thinking, Luo Yuan stressed.

Third, the U.S. has adopted the double standards in requesting China to accept the so-called arbitration outcome on the South China Sea disputes.

It must not forget its own practice of refusing to accept the arbitration outcome from the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding Nicaragua’s accusation against the U.S. infringement of its sovereignty in 1986.

China has the right to reject the arbitration award on the South China Sea dispute as China is safeguarding the integrity, fairness and authority of the Convention on the Law of the Sea by performing its exclusive right stipulated in Article 298 of the convention, as China holds that the arbitral tribunal has no right to make judgment on territory and sovereignty disputes. Therefore, China has the right to reject the temporary arbitration tribunal’s award, Luo Yuan explained.

If the U.S. had forgotten the above-mentioned historical facts, then, it is necessary to remind it that China has never submitted to any form of threat after the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, let alone the pressure!

Next page