Before US 'pivot', it was a calm sea

Editor's note: Chinese Ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming gave an interview to Reuters' global news editor Alessandra Galloni, business and news investigation editor Simon Robinson, Breakingviews' editor John Foley, European politics and economics editor Mark John and Asia Top News editor Mike Collett-White on June 9. Here is the abstract of the interview. See the full version on chinadaily.com.cn

Alessandra Galloni: Could you tell us where we are now in terms of what your position is vis-a-vis the ruling that is about to happen?

Ambassador Liu: Our position had been reaffirmed by the statement just issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding this arbitration initiated by the Philippines: China will not participate in the arbitration. From day one, China strongly opposed this arbitration case. We believe it is illegal for a tribunal to handle this case.

First of all, the Philippines' arbitration case is against UNCLOS, because sovereignty and territorial disputes are not under the jurisdiction of UNCLOS.

Second, Philippines' case is also related to maritime delimitation. China, like 30 other countries, made a declaration in 2006, that China will not take part in third party arbitration when it comes to maritime delimitation. The UK is one of the 30 countries. UNCLOS provides that sovereign countries have their sovereign right to make these declarations on optional exceptions.

Third, China has always been calling for bilateral consultation and negotiations with neighboring countries, including the Philippines, when it comes to maritime disputes. And a series of documents show that the Philippines agree to this practice. There are a series of statements between China and the Philippines on how to resolve disputes. It wasn't until 2013 that they submitted this arbitration case. In our view, the Philippines have turned their back on their promise and that is against international practice. Once agreed, you have to follow your commitment.

It is also part of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) reached by China and the ASEAN countries that disputes should be resolved by peaceful means through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned. The Philippines agreed to it but turned their back on it.

Fourth, this arbitration, according to UNCLOS, is only a supplementary means to resolve disputes. A bilateral channel is regarded as the main means to resolve a dispute between countries. The Philippines has never come to China to talk about this arbitration. And China and the Philippines have never had serious negotiations on this subject back then. That means the main channel has never been used, to say nothing about being exhausted before the Philippines went to arbitration. That is against the spirit of UNCLOS.

So we have many reasons to oppose this arbitration case. We also hold the position that if this arbitration goes through, it will set a very bad example. That concern has been expressed not only by Chinese legal experts, but also by British and Dutch experts on the Law of the Sea. China's position has been supported and appreciated by many countries and international organizations, many legal experts, not only in China, in Asia, but also in Europe and America. That is our basic position.

Some people will try to label China as not respecting international law if we reject this arbitration. But that is totally wrong. What China is doing is exactly safeguarding the authority and seriousness of international law, safeguarding the letter and spirit of UNCLOS. We do not know and do not care when this arbitration decision will be made. No matter what decision this tribunal is going to make, we think it is totally wrong. It has no impact on China and China's sovereignty over these islands and reefs will not be bound by it. It will set a serious, wrong, and bad example. We will not fight in the court, but we will certainly fight for our sovereignty.

Alessandra Galloni: You mention that there are countries supporting China's position. How many countries are on your side on this matter?

Ambassador Liu: There are many. Some countries issue statements. During China-Russia-India Foreign Ministers Meeting, a joint statement was published, endorsing China's position. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization supported China's position. Some ASEAN countries, African countries, European countries, dozens of them - quite a few countries appreciate China's position.

Mike Collett-White: When you talk about support for China's position, you mean the position that this arbitration process is not legitimate?

Ambassador Liu: In different countries, they focus on different parts of this case. But on the whole, they appreciate and support China's position that this should be resolved through bilateral channels rather than put up for arbitration by the tribunal. Because according to international law, that tribunal cannot handle that case without the consent of both sides of the dispute. The Philippines unilaterally submitted this case to the tribunal. They never consulted with China before they submitted it to the so-called tribunal. They did it at our surprise. They did it to the expense of China's national interests. It is a serious damage to the national interest of China. So China is fighting for its sovereignty and its national interests. What is more, we are fighting for justice. In terms of essence and procedure, it is wrong for the tribunal to handle this case.

Mike Collett-White: If diplomatic machinery is used and does not produce agreement, what is the correct mechanism for reaching consensus?

Ambassador Liu: If you have not tried diplomatic negotiations, how can you prejudge the outcome? You know, we have differences with several neighboring countries. For example, China has 14 neighbors. We reached treaty and agreements on the border arrangements with 12 of them. That means diplomatic negotiations are effective, and we can resolve disputes through bilateral negotiations. China has disputes with Vietnam, yet through friendly and time-consuming process of negotiation, we reached an agreement with Vietnam on the Beibu Gulf, with regard to maritime delimitation and how to manage disputes. China has been working for peaceful settlement of disputes.

We understand these are difficult issues, as different countries have different claims. But first of all, we should make it clear that it is not that China is claiming these islands now; China was the very first country to name the islands, to develop the islands and to manage the islands. Before the 1970s, of all the neighboring countries, no one had challenged China's sovereignty over those islands. Only when oil and resources were found did they start to scramble to claim rights. Up to now, 42 islands and reefs have been illegally occupied by Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. We are not going to war with these countries. We do not want to have a fight with them, but we stand firm with regard to China's sovereignty over these islands. We believe what they are doing is illegal occupation of the islands.

And we propose that we can shelve the disputes. We can have negotiations to try to find a solution as to how to handle the disputes. At the same time, we can have joint development. So our position is: shelving disputes and common development. So that has been our position all along and is still our position.

Alessandra Galloni: And this will count for the Philippines' claims as well, in other words to jointly develop...

Ambassador Liu: Yes, of course. You know, we are open to negotiations. The Philippines, they can put forward their proposals. And we can have our proposals and we'll meet half way. Any negotiation is a process of compromise. And the statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Ministry yesterday is still calling for negotiations with the Philippines. Now they have elected a new government. We do hope that they will change their course, return to the negotiation table, return to bilateral talks with China. The door is always open.

Alessandra Galloni: Has there been any indication from the new Philippine government that they would like to return to the table?

Ambassador Liu: We do not have specifics with regard to their response regarding the arbitration case, but we read some positive signal from the Philippine government that they want to have good relations with China; they still believe good relations between China and the Philippines is in the Philippines' interest and they would like to have friendly discussions with us, but so far we haven't heard anything about their official position on the arbitration, or any change of their position on the arbitration case.

Simon Robinson: There are very strong arguments why China would have the claim to those islands and why the process that's going through in The Hague is not right. Why do many parts of the world still see China as the "bad player" in this?

Ambassador Liu: When you say "many", I'm not so sure about "many". I've been very straight forward in my Q&A at IISS not long ago. I think before America's so-called "rebalancing in the Asia Pacific", the South China Sea was very quiet, very peaceful. China was talking to the neighboring countries. We had a Declaration of Conduct. And the Philippines was talking to us. Once the Americans came in, so-called "rebalancing", things changed dramatically. The Vietnamese changed their position with regard to talking to China. The Philippines changed their position. I think the American move in the Asia Pacific emboldened those countries to change the traditional channel of negotiation with China. And they probably believe that they have the Americans behind them, and they can get a better deal with China. So I'm very suspicious of American motives.

America openly supports the Philippines in this case. And they got Japan. America is the superpower. America has some allies. I don't know what kind of influence they try to exert on their allies. So we've heard this chorus of countries, but I don't think there are many. There are some. They might be the minority but they can make a big noise. I heard that the G7 made a noise, but the G7 is not the world. I think the G7 should realize their influence on world affairs is history or yesterday's story. But they still believe they are the most influential power in today's world. We are strongly opposed to the statement by the G7 with regard to the South China Sea issue, with regard to the tribunal case. We don't think they are on the right side of the arguments.

(China Daily European Weekly 07/08/2016 page8)