Monday, July 11, 2016

The Government Must Defend the U-Shaped Line to Ensure Cross-Strait Trust

The Government Must Defend the U-Shaped Line to Ensure Cross-Strait Trust
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
July 12, 2016

Executive Summary: Does the DPP have the courage to take a stand on the U-shaped line? If it does, it can ensure cross-Strait trust. Does the DPP government have the wisdom to recognize the nature of the South China Sea conflict? If it does, it must adopt a "shared sovereignty, divided jurisdictions' stance vis a vis the South China Sea. It must work with the Mainland to create prosperity. If Tsai Ing-wen has the courage and wisdom to do all of the above, she can break the cross-Strait deadlock and rebuild cross-Strait trust. That would be a blessing for people on both sides of the Strait.

Full Text Below:

In 2013, the government of the Philippines appealed to the so-called “Permanent Court of Arbitration”, over the matter of South China Sea sovereignty. The “verdict” of this body will be announced today. We call on the Tsai government to uphold the Republic of China's long held position. Taipei must not allow itself to be dragged into a rights dispute among major powers.

The Philippines appeal raised 15 issues, two of which directly impact the Republic of China government on Taiwan. The first issue is whether Taiping Island should be classified as an island or a reef. Or, does the Hague think Taiping Island has a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone along its perimeter?

The other issue concerns the legal status of the U-shaped line. Does the Hague think the U-shaped line conforms to the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", aka UNCLOS. If it does not, that constitute a major setback for the two sides in the South China Sea, and will make huge waves in the South China Sea.

Facts speak louder than words. Before leaving office, President Ma Ying-jeou personally set foot on Taiping Island. He invited reporters around the world to visit the island and familiarize themselves with its economic and living conditions. He proved that Taiping Island is not a reef. The United States has never classified Taiping Island as a reef. Therefore, unless the tribunal totally ignores the facts in order to deliver a malicious verdict, one can safely predict that the Philippines claims will not stand. It now appears the key issue will be the U-shaped line.

The Tsai Ing-wen government's position on the South China Sea issue is as follows. One. It abides by the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. Two. It upholds freedom of navigation and flight through the South China Sea. Three. It advocates the peaceful settlement of South China Sea disputes. Four. It will defend its sovereignty over South China Sea islands, including Taiping Island. The first three are consistent with US positions. The fourth continues the Ma government's position on sovereignty. So far, Tsai Ing-wen has avoided all mention of the legal status of the U-shaped line.

Will the Hague claim that that the U-shaped line is “illegal”? Will it claim that the Ma and Beijing governments' "traditional U-shaped line", "line of historic waters", "line of historic rights", "national borders", and "island lines", are meaningless? Will the Hague decide that the only issue remaining is who owns which islands and reefs in the South China Sea? Such a Hague “ruling” would mean victory for the US, and a setback for Mainland China and Taiwan.

Legally speaking, arbitration requires participation by by all of the parties named. Arbitration may not be applied to matters of territorial sovereignty. Beijing has therefore sternly rejected any arbitration “rulings”. Politically speaking, Beijing long ago concluded that so-called “arbitration” is merely the US fanning the flames of conflict. It is part of Washington's Asian-Pacific rebalancing strategy. It is an attempt to prevent Mainland China's peaceful rise. In particular, US deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) missile system in South Korea has caused extreme anxiety in Beijing.

Concern for domestic tranquility may make Beijing even less likely to cave in on South China Sea “arbitration”. Otherwise even the legitimacy of the CCP could be called into question. The Mainland conducted military exercises in the South China Sea between the 5th and 11th of this month. Its determination to defend China's sovereignty in the South China Sea is crystal clear.

South China Sea “arbitration” is a textbook case of “making trouble where none existed”. The Philippines initiated the case. Newly-elected Philippines President Duterte has changed former President Aquino's reckless pro-US policy. He seeks to improve relations with Beijing. But he cannot afford to publicly withdraw the appeal already submitted. Duterte's position is quite clear. Whatever the outcome of “arbitration”, he will engage in bilateral consultations with Beijing. His desire to maintain a low profile is abundantly clear.

The Tsai government must have wisdom. It must understand the situation in the South China Sea. If the Hague denies the legality of the U-shaped line, and the Tsai government meekly complies, it will invalidate its position and forfeit its sovereignty. The people will not stand for this. Cross-Strait tensions will skyrocket. Already chilly cross-Strait relations will reach the freezing point. This would undoubtedly be Tsai Ing-wen government's worst and most irresponsible policy decision ever.

US and Japanese incitement of South China Sea disputes mean no peace for some time to come. The Tsai Ing-wen government must not surrender sovereignty over Taiping Island. The Tsai Ing-wen government must not surrender sovereignty over Taiping Island in exchange for membership in the “US-Japan alliance of values". It must not permit US and Japanese fleets to approach Taiping Island. It must not provide them them with any assistance. If it does, it will be making a grave mistake.

The Cerulean blue South China Sea is in fact a window for cross-Strait peace, trust, and cooperation. If the DPP government chooses to follow the US and Japan in the South China Sea, it will destroy any remaining vestige of trust between the two sides and make peace impossible.

Does the DPP have the courage to take a stand on the U-shaped line? If it does, it can ensure cross-Strait trust. Does the DPP government have the wisdom to recognize the nature of the South China Sea conflict? If it does, it must adopt a "shared sovereignty, divided jurisdictions' stance vis a vis the South China Sea. It must work with the Mainland to create prosperity. If Tsai Ing-wen has the courage and wisdom to do all of the above, she can break the cross-Strait deadlock and rebuild cross-Strait trust. That would be a blessing for people on both sides of the Strait.

社論-政府應堅守U形線 保住兩岸互信
2016年07月12日 04:10 主筆室

2013年菲律賓向海牙國際法庭常設仲裁法院提出南海仲裁案,將於今天宣布裁決。我們呼籲蔡英文政府要嚴守中華民國立場,更要避免讓台灣陷入可能的大國權力衝突。

菲律賓提出的南海仲裁案包括15項請求,與我政府目前直接有關的包含兩部分。一是太平島是島還是礁的法律認定,這涉及我是否享有太平島周邊200浬專屬經濟海域的權利。

另一是U形線的法律地位認定,如果U形線被以《聯合國海洋公約》為由判定不具備法律地位,那將是兩岸在捍衛南海權益的一次重大挫折,也必然會引發南海的巨浪波濤。

事實勝於雄辯。前總統馬英九在卸任前不僅親自登上太平島,亦邀請國際傳媒登島了解其可供生活的經濟條件,以證明太平島是島不是礁。美國基本的立場也從來沒有認定太平島是礁,因此,除非仲裁庭敢完全昧於事實做出惡意的判決,我們可以大膽預測,菲律賓的主張應該不會得逞。現在看來,問題的重點在U形線,而這也正是這次仲裁案中最重要的關鍵。

蔡英文政府迄今在南海議題上的立場為:第一,依據海洋法和《聯合國海洋法公約》相關規定提出主張和立場;第二,維持南海地區航行和飛行的自由權利;第三,和平處理南海的爭議;第四、堅持對南海諸島,包括太平島的主權。前三點完全符合美國的觀點,第四點則是延續馬政府的部分立場。迄今為止,蔡英文一直迴避對U形線的法律地位表態。

如果仲裁的結果否決了U形線的法律地位,等於是馬政府與北京所主張的「傳統U形線」、「歷史性水域線」、「歷史性權利線」、「國界線」、「島嶼歸屬線」的各類說法,均將失去意義,剩下的就只是南海裡面島或礁的認定及歸屬,其結果是美國的全勝,兩岸的徹底受挫。

就法律而言,由於仲裁案必須由當事者均表同意,且不能涉及領土與主權的事物,北京因而嚴正拒絕接受仲裁及結果。就政治而言,北京已經將此仲裁案視為美國在後面煽風點火,是美國亞太再平衡戰略的一環、打亂中國大陸和平崛起的策略。特別是美國已經決定在南韓部署「薩德」(終端高空防禦系統,THAAD)飛彈,讓大陸的導彈系統受到監視,已引起北京極度的不安。

就大陸內部安全來說,北京更不可能在南海仲裁案上讓步,否則連共產黨政權的正當性都會受到質疑。大陸軍方在本月5至11日在南海進行演習,其不惜以武力捍衛南海立場的態度,已經表明無遺。

「天下本無事,庸人自擾之」是這次南海仲裁案的本質寫照。始作俑者的菲律賓,其新總統杜特蒂上任後,已經一改前任總統艾奎諾三世的親美盲動政策,期盼修改與北京的關係,只差不方便公開撤回已經交付的仲裁案。杜特蒂的立場已經很清楚,不論仲裁案結果如何,都將要與北京進行雙邊對話協商,其低姿態展現無遺。

蔡英文政府應該有足夠的智慧認清南海目前的情勢,如果仲裁法庭否定了U形線的法律地位,蔡英文政府卻予以附和,那不僅是自失立場,自動放棄主權權利,將為人民所不容,更會讓兩岸關係立刻陷入緊張,為已經暮氣沉沉的兩岸關係再雪上加霜。這毫無疑問將是蔡英文最壞,也是最不負責任的選擇。

在美國與日本的操弄下,南海不可能在短時間內風平浪靜。蔡英文政府當然不可能放棄太平島,但是如果蔡英文政府一方面主張擁有太平島的主權,但是另一方面又將太平島作為換取參與美日「價值同盟」的籌碼,或而讓美、日艦隊接近,或而提供戰略協助,這也是不智的選擇。

蔚藍的南海其實是兩岸和平、互信與合作之窗。如果民進黨政府選擇追隨美、日的南海作為,兩岸之間不僅不會有互信,甚而連和平都會沒有。

如果民進黨能夠堅持U形線的立場,還可以讓兩岸維繫一點可能的互信空間。如果民進黨政府能夠認清南海的問題本質,在南海上採行「主權共享、治權分立」的立場,共同在南海合作創造經濟效益,蔡英文將可以打開兩岸僵局,重建互信,這才是兩岸人民之福。

No comments: