United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 13, 2016
Executive Summary: Five judges handed down an obtuse and unjust “ruling” that ignored historical facts and international realities. The tribunal pandered to US hegemony, revealed flagrant favoritism, and attempted to change the existing order in the South China Sea by decree. The tribunal was simultaneously delusional and naive. Most regrettably, the new government remains oblivious about these developments. As a result the entire nation was stunned by the outcome. How can one not be distraught?
Full Text Below:
Yesterday the Hague “Permanent Court of Arbitration” ruled that the PRC has no legal basis for its nine-dotted line claim, and that the ROC's Taiping Island is a "reef" that lacks an Exclusive Economic Zone, rather than an "island". This ruling is categorically unacceptable to both Taipei and Beijing. The tribunal ignored facts, revealed its bias, and demonstrated its obtuseness. Its myopia is certain to provoke even more disputes in the South China Sea.
First, in order to grant the Philippines a favorable ruling, the “Permanent Court of Arbitration” classified all islands in the South China Sea as “reefs”, including Nansha Island. It even classified Taiping Island, the largest island in the region, which belongs to the ROC and is clearly an island suitable for human habitation, as a "reef". This, as the Chinese expression goes, is “pointing to a deer and calling it a horse”. The “ruling” ignores reality, has zero credibility, and does the ROC a gross injustice. In response, the president has issued a statement protesting the tribunal, which never invited the ROC to participate, and which has trampled over our rights in the South China Sea. We will never accept the outcome of this arbitration. We support the government's position, and call on the ruling and opposition parties to back the government on this issue.
Second, the tribunal alleged that the Mainland's nine-dotted line was illegal, thereby trampling over the Mainland's rights. The United States, Japan and other countries claim that the Mainland, as a party to the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", must accept binding arbitration. But Beijing long ago announced that it “would not accept, would not participate in, and would not recognize" any “rulings” by the tribunal. Mainland Foreign Affairs Office Chief Executive Dai Bingguo was even more blunt. Dai dismissed the ruling as "nothing more than a piece of scrap paper". Clearly any attempt to change the situation in the South China Sea by the tribunal is futile.
In fact, the arbitrary and biased “ruling” may well lead to even more disputes. For example, the tribunal first ruled that Huangyan Island was a reef. It then ruled that Huangyan Island was part of the Exclusive Economic Zone of Luzon, and that the Philippines could engage in fishing, oil and gas exploration, mining, and scientific research in the island's waters. But Huangyan Island is currently occupied by the Mainland. Beijing is not about to simply hand it over. The “ruling” may force the Mainland to engage in even more aggressive land reclamation efforts. When Philippine fishing or research boats attempt to enter, even more violent conflicts could occur.
Furthermore, the “ruling” may force Beijing to escalate foreign policy confrontation. Beijing has long regarded the area within the nine-dotted line as China's territorial waters. Some in Beijing even propose the establishment of a South China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone to defend its sovereignty. Given nationalist sentiment on the mainland, Beijing is concerned about popular sentiment. It has instructed relevant agencies to maintain an around the clock state of wartime alert to deal with unexpected eventualities.
Before the “rulings” were announced, the United States was worried the PLA would move against disputed islands and reefs, including Renai Reef and Huangyan Island. The United States felt the need to preempt with military deterrence. It dispatched aircraft carriers and cruisers to the South China Sea. Beijing was worried that once the “ruling” was announced, the US military would invade nine islands and reefs occupied by Mainland ships. It felt the need to mobilize three fleets consisting of hundreds of warships and hundreds of warplanes to the North China Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea. It held live fire exercises to forestall any unexpected developments. The two sides maneuvered back and forth through the region, but without any immediate risk of conflict. For now at least, both Mainland and US actions were limited to demonstrations, not provocations.
The United States and the Chinese mainland confronted each other in the South China Sea, without actually clashing. The “ruling” was the worst possible outcome. But both Beijing and Taipei were losers. Therefore it did not lead to further deterioration in cross-Strait relations. Recently, rumors emerged that the DPP government was prepared to "fine tune" its South China Sea sovereignty claims. Rumors were that it might forsake the Kuomintang government's claims regarding "inherent territory", “historical sovereignty", and the “eleven-dotted line". Its motive? To ensure that the international community did not perceive Taiwan and the Mainland as acting in concert. Now the “Permanent Court of Arbitration” in the Hague has ruled that Taiping Island is not an island. How can Taipei acquiesce to the Hague “ruling” on the "nine-dotted line"? The “ruling” has ironically put Taipei and Beijing on the same side of the South China Sea battle line.
The Presidential Office issued a statement yesterday. She reiterated that the "South China Sea islands and their waters belong to the Republic of China. This is the Republic of China's position. We intend to defend the territory and sovereignty of our country". Such a statement ought not provoke the Mainland or the US. This is the key to the controversy over the “ruling”.
Five judges handed down an obtuse and unjust “ruling” that ignored historical facts and international realities. The tribunal pandered to US hegemony, revealed flagrant favoritism, and attempted to change the existing order in the South China Sea by decree. The tribunal was simultaneously delusional and naive. Most regrettably, the new government remains oblivious about these developments. As a result the entire nation was stunned by the outcome. How can one not be distraught?
南海仲裁是荒腔走板的不智判決
2016-07-13 聯合報
海牙國際法庭常設仲裁法院昨天作出裁決，認定中國大陸主張的九段線並無法律基礎，我國擁有的太平島則被認定為「礁岩」而非「島嶼」，不可主張專屬經濟海域。這一裁決，對兩岸來說都是不可接受的結果，仲裁法庭不僅昧於事實，且偏頗不智，勢必治絲益棼，引發南海更多爭端。
首先，仲裁法院為了作出有利菲律賓的判決，將南沙群島所有島礁皆認定為「礁岩」，連我國所有之面積最大且適於人居的太平島都被貶抑為「礁」，這完全是「指鹿為馬」的行徑，昧於既存事實，且毫無公信可言，且對台灣極端不公。對此，總統府已發表聲明，抗議仲裁庭從未邀請我國參與，現在又嚴重損害我在南海諸島的權利，我方絕不接受此一仲裁結果。我們支持政府的立場，也呼籲朝野團結一致作政府的後盾。
其次，仲裁否定中國大陸主張的九段線之合法基礎，嚴重損害大陸的權益。儘管美、日等國均認為，中國作為《聯合國海洋法公約》的締約國，必須接受仲裁的約束；但北京早已宣布了三不「不接受、不參與、不承認」，外事辦主任戴秉國更直指仲裁「不過是廢紙一張」。可見，想要藉一次仲裁改變南海現狀，絕無可能。
事實上，仲裁法院的武斷及偏頗，可能會引發更多的紛爭。例如，認定「黃岩島」為礁岩，即將它歸屬為呂宋島的專屬經濟區，菲國可在該島附近海域捕魚、探採油氣及進行科學研究。但目前黃岩島由大陸占領，中共絕不可能退讓；判決一出，可能促使大陸更積極填島造陸，菲國漁船或科學船若企圖進入，可能引爆更多、更大的衝突。
進一步看，裁決引發的對峙，可能將北京的外交政策激化到新的高點。中共長久以來一直將九段線的歷史水域視為領海，更有人提出要設置南海防空識別區，以捍衛主權。目前大陸民族主義情緒高漲，北京擔心民間出現過激行為，特指示各有關單位進入「戰時狀態」，全天候應對突發狀況。
仲裁宣布前，美國擔心解放軍會對有爭議的島礁——如仁愛礁、黃岩島採取進一步行動，美國必須先一步展現軍力嚇阻；因此，出動了航空母艦及巡洋艦等在南海巡弋。中共方面則擔心，仲裁出爐後，美軍船艦將趁勢入侵中方占據的九個島礁，因而必須加強戒備；所以調動北海、東海、南海三個艦隊上百艘艦艇和戰機，舉行實兵實彈對抗演習，目的即為阻止突發狀況發生。雙方雖你來我往，但並無立即衝突之險；至少目前看來，美中雙方的行動均止於示威而非挑釁的程度。
如果說美中兩國在南海是「鬥而不破」，對兩岸而言，這次仲裁雖出現最壞的結果，但由於兩岸同屬「輸家」，倒反而避免了兩岸關係的進一步惡化。日前，一度傳出民進黨政府準備「微調」對南海主權的論述，可能不再重複過去國民黨政府強調的「固有疆域」或「十一段線」的歷史主權說，以免讓國際社會誤認為台灣與大陸「聯手」。如今，既然海牙仲裁法院否定太平島為島，台灣如何可能苟同它對「九段線」的判決？如此一來，反而在南海問題上將兩岸推向同一陣線。
總統府昨天的聲明重申：「南海諸島及其相關海域主權屬於中華民國所有，這是中華民國的立場與堅持，我們絕對會捍衛國家的領土與主權。」這樣的陳述，應不致被認為挑釁大陸或倒向美國的立場；這也是這場仲裁敏感而關鍵之處。
五名仲裁法官，作出如此昧於歷史事實及國際現實的判決，可謂既不明智，亦不公平。而如果仲裁者一味為了迎合某方霸權，甚至是心存偏私，卻妄想藉此改變南海既有的複雜秩序，恐怕太過天真。而令人遺憾的是，新政府事前對事態的發展缺乏掌握，以致舉國倉皇迎來如此讓人錯愕的結局，能不令人扼腕？
No comments:
Post a Comment