On 8 July, 2016, the Public Eye of Lesotho published an article by Ambassador Sun Xianghua: “The South China Sea Disputes Call for Honest, Sensible and Responsible Way of Settlement”. The full text is as follows:

In early June, I published the article “South China Sea: respect law and facts rather than tricks and plots” in the esteemed Basotho newspaper the Public Eye, which presented a holistic and realistic picture of the South China Sea disputes. However, after reading an article also about the South China Sea titled “Towards a rules-based regime in the South China Sea” published in the same newspaper on July 1, I decided I have to write another one, to expose and rebuke all the fallacies and fabrications in the “rules-based” article, and explain to the Basotho people why I think the government of the Philippines has not been following an honest, sensible and responsible way to solve the South China Sea disputes.

Firstly, the Philippine government has not been honest to the world about the boundary of its territory. If we do some research, we would find that the Philippine territory is defined by the 1898 Treaty of Peace Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, the 1900 Treaty Between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines, and the 1930 Convention Between the United States of America and Great Britain Delimiting the Boundary Between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo. These treaties have manifestly stipulated that the 118 degrees east longitude is the western limit of the Philippine territory. China’s islands and reefs in the South China Sea are all located west of this line. The truth is, since the early 1970s, the Philippines started encroaching upon China’s islands and reefs across the limit defined by the international treaties, incented among others by its greed for the oil and gas resources in the South China Sea. The Philippines’ illegal territorial expansion is the root causes of the South China Sea disputes. When the “Rules-based” article called for rule of law, it seems to selectively forget that the Philippines was the real breaker of the rule of law.

Secondly, the Philippine government’s decision to seek an arbitration from an Arbitration Tribunal was not a sensible way to solve the disputes. Article 280 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) says, “Nothing in this part impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice.” Article 281 says, “If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further procedure.” Article 283 says, “When a dispute arises between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, the parties to the dispute shall proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views regarding its settlement by negotiation or other peaceful means.” In a nutshell, the above-said articles strongly propose that the parties directly concerning the disputes shall exhaust all the means of settlement through peaceful consultations and negotiations.

As a matter of fact, the Philippines did reach agreement with China in their bilateral documents that the two countries should resolve relevant disputes through bilateral negotiations. In addition, Paragraph 4 of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) signed by China and ASEAN Member States, including the Philippines in 2002, also clearly states that “the parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned.” As a matter of fact, the Philippine government issued a statement jointly with China even in 2011, undertaking to resolve disputes through negotiations and consultations. Just one year later, however, the Philippines unexpectedly initiated arbitration unilaterally, without informing China in advance or acquiring China’s consent. This blatant action of dishonoring of and reneging on its own commitments can hardly be described as a sensible one.

It must also be pointed out that, the unilateral initiation of arbitration by the Philippines is a violation of the right to seeking dispute settlement of its own choices that China enjoys as a State Party to UNCLOS. The Philippines’ requests of arbitration, in essence, are about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. As a common knowledge, territorial issues are subject to general international law, not UNCLOS. On the other hand, on the maritime delimitation, China has made a declaration of optional exceptions in accordance with the Article 298 of UNCLOS, which explicitly excludes disputes concerning maritime delimitation from the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. Now it’s quite clear that the Philippines has no legal or sensible ground to stand on for its allegations.

Based on all the reasons mentioned above, the settlement procedure provided for in UNCLOS does not apply to the disputes between China and the Philippines. The Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction on this issue and its handling of the case is willful expansion and abuse of power. Therefore, China does not accept or recognize such arbitration which has been illegal from the very beginning.

Thirdly, the Philippine government’s action can hardly be seen as being a responsible one. As we say in China, “people can come and go, but neighbors stay.” This saying is especially true for a country. China has, since ancient times, adopted a good neighborly foreign policy and has settled its land boundaries with most of its neighbors in the past decades through friendly consultation and negotiations. China and the Philippines are close neighbors and have enjoyed long-time traditional friendship. China is confident that its disputes with the Philippines in the South China Sea should and can only be settled through bilateral consultation and negotiation. Only in this way, can the settlement be lasting and stand the test of times. Even though China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands and reefs in the South China Sea, bearing in mind that the two countries do have disputes on the issue, it still advocates to shelve the disputes for the time being and engage in joint development. This act of good intentions should be appreciated by the Philippines, not the contrary.

The Philippine government, on its part, should abandon its unilateral initiation of arbitration and start to engage in peaceful and sincere consultation and negotiation with China, with an aim of achieving a lasting and harmonious settlement of the disputes. It should realize that when dealing with such sensitive issues as territory and maritime delimitation, the Government should bear in mind that its action should be responsible for its whole country, whole people, and many generations of its people to come, not just for the sake of personal gains or elections, or for the interests of small interest groups, not to mention for the interest of some other countries which are not directly concerned in the South China Sea.

I believe, when honesty, sense and responsibility do become the guiding principle of the relevant decision-makers in the Philippine government in dealing with the South China Sea disputes, the day when a settlement agreed upon and accepted by both sides will not be faraway.