南海研究论坛

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

查看: 11920|回复: 14
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[美国] U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
1#
发表于 2020-7-17 20:07 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 Damein 于 2020-7-19 18:15 编辑 " g' J' ?# _) N( Y: U

0 U; `) y1 ~  b& Z$ d# D* y# ^U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea( j1 \6 }6 R7 O( R9 b0 C
PRESS STATEMENT
+ l. o* e$ U8 M; _; ?
. _/ g  l: J: L4 |MICHAEL R. POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE) R5 V+ {5 M2 z) o9 r- a& `- U

/ a" w# [" e) g% ^: G  `. p9 dJULY 13, 2020" ~' Z0 S  M6 \" O, I3 o
! J! a5 P' c4 G) b! I5 S
The United States champions a free and open Indo-Pacific. Today we are strengthening U.S. policy in a vital, contentious part of that region — the South China Sea. We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.
, ^& q3 K  C+ Z, x9 A+ z: u4 t3 G2 R) n9 R: p' l  J
In the South China Sea, we seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce, and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes. We share these deep and abiding interests with our many allies and partners who have long endorsed a rules-based international order.! \2 m, z* c" c6 ~% \3 x) u
1 `/ u: n& V) v% C
These shared interests have come under unprecedented threat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Beijing uses intimidation to undermine the sovereign rights of Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea, bully them out of offshore resources, assert unilateral dominion, and replace international law with “might makes right.” Beijing’s approach has been clear for years. In 2010, then-PRC Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told his ASEAN counterparts that “China is a big country and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.” The PRC’s predatory world view has no place in the 21st century.8 S: E/ T4 I; @$ ^  ^4 D
- ~+ d2 F7 y+ L# R% o
The PRC has no legal grounds to unilaterally impose its will on the region. Beijing has offered no coherent legal basis for its “Nine-Dashed Line” claim in the South China Sea since formally announcing it in 2009. In a unanimous decision on July 12, 2016, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention – to which the PRC is a state party – rejected the PRC’s maritime claims as having no basis in international law. The Tribunal sided squarely with the Philippines, which brought the arbitration case, on almost all claims.
3 E- L6 Z* H' G) {4 z% @( N0 t  r# L/ f" q4 s  Q
As the United States has previously stated, and as specifically provided in the Convention, the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both parties. Today we are aligning the U.S. position on the PRC’s maritime claims in the SCS with the Tribunal’s decision. Specifically:
: g; X" u: x+ S5 G2 O4 S2 \/ v
  • The PRC cannot lawfully assert a maritime claim – including any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims derived from Scarborough Reef and the Spratly Islands – vis-a-vis the Philippines in areas that the Tribunal found to be in the Philippines’ EEZ or on its continental shelf. Beijing’s harassment of Philippine fisheries and offshore energy development within those areas is unlawful, as are any unilateral PRC actions to exploit those resources. In line with the Tribunal’s legally binding decision, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, both of which fall fully under the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction, nor does Beijing have any territorial or maritime claims generated from these features.
  • As Beijing has failed to put forth a lawful, coherent maritime claim in the South China Sea, the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12-nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands (without prejudice to other states’ sovereignty claims over such islands). As such, the United States rejects any PRC maritime claim in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), waters in Brunei’s EEZ, and Natuna Besar (off Indonesia). Any PRC action to harass other states’ fishing or hydrocarbon development in these waters – or to carry out such activities unilaterally – is unlawful.
  • The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the “southernmost territory of China.” International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.
    9 c% z! @0 o( j9 v7 p" @* w% _0 G/ Y
, f0 `% r6 [( a5 K7 L+ G
The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire. America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law. We stand with the international community in defense of freedom of the seas and respect for sovereignty and reject any push to impose “might makes right” in the South China Sea or the wider region.% m' ^" v7 z" }, L5 z6 p

3 ?  I1 B0 R/ ]7 D9 dhttps://www.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/
) k. q! A  l9 M0 Y1 y. B/ Q
& d& s9 v* Z& M, i美国国务院" e& N# _, j( \5 A$ U
( V, h+ P9 Z/ M4 ~8 K
发言人办公室0 O2 K8 A+ ]% h# r; S" _# A+ k: G
* P' |/ \8 J1 \( S' i1 B
华盛顿哥伦比亚特区(Washington, D.C.)
4 N/ [7 W1 z! b0 p# ~" D' G- K, }4 W* k! K/ I& q. L
2020年 7月 13日- ~: P6 b4 G1 V6 ?. r
& g3 ?0 e9 f$ H7 U/ i5 y* b
国务卿迈克尔·蓬佩奥(MICHAEL R. POMPEO)发表声明
) D4 l2 A% d: p# K- j
  a$ N$ d9 d  X7 f& R关于美国对中国在南中国海海事索求的立场
* g6 j- H) B% S! s3 O" f
: A' M2 N; m, p2 k, P美国历来倡导印度-太平洋(Indo-Pacific)的自由和开放。今天,我们正在加强美国对该地区一个重要的、存在争议的地区——南中国海(South China Sea)的政策。我们明确表示:北京对南中国海大多数地区离岸资源的索求完全不合法,与其为控制这些资源采取的霸道行为如出一辙。
, U9 N0 D0 G* n# g4 F4 Y, Z9 ]% {6 a( ?! }+ k
在南中国海,我们要求维护和平与稳定,坚持按照国际法实现海上自由,保障商业往来不受阻碍,反对任何采取胁迫或强制手段解决争端的意图。我们与我们众多的盟国和伙伴长期坚持有章可循的国际秩序,共同维护这些深远和永恒的利益。1 i! m9 Y/ q: t: M# @1 h2 M

7 z1 F' B$ M% \' M0 ~这些共同利益已受到来自中华人民共和国前所未有的威胁。北京采取恐吓手段破坏东南亚地区南中国海沿岸国家的主权,逼迫他们放弃离岸资源,单方面声称拥有管辖权,以“强权即公理”的法则代替国际法。北京多年来采取的手段已昭然若揭。2010年,时任中华人民共和国外交部长的杨洁篪对东盟(ASEAN)有关官员说,“中国是大国,其他国家是小国。这只是一个事实。” 在21世纪,中华人民共和国掠夺性的世界观已毫无立足之地。; N6 N3 g* [$ g5 q) D1 g

4 i3 v% Z, C! n中华人民共和国没有任何合法的理由对该地区单方面强加自己的意志。北京自2009年正式宣布南中国海 “九段线”的主张以来,始终未提出任何明确的法律依据。2016年7月12日,根据1982年海洋法公约(Law of the Sea Convention)成立的仲裁法庭(Arbitral Tribunal)——中华人民共和国也是缔约国之一——一致裁决,中华人民共和国提出的海事索求没有任何国际法依据,应予以否决。冲裁法庭明确支持作为诉方的菲律宾提交的几乎所有的诉案。
6 M1 X, R3 {3 q/ Y; [
; ?5 z3 N0 U( J; N: u3 ]美国曾发表声明,且如公约特定条款之规定,仲裁法庭的裁决属最终裁决,对当事双方均具有法律约束力。今天,对于中华人民共和国在南中国海的海事索求,美国采取与仲裁法庭的裁决一致的立场。具体如下:6 |2 V  ]( E8 D* p* c

4 _8 a" P: ?- l/ v  o7 T8 Q
  • 对于菲律宾一方提出的已被仲裁法庭裁决位于菲律宾专属经济区或其大陆架内的区域,中华人民共和国没有合法的海事索求权,其中包括对产生于斯卡伯勒礁(Scarborough Reef)和斯普拉特利群島(Spratly Islands)的专属经济区(Exclusive Economic Zone)的任何索求。北京在这些区域对菲律宾捕捞活动和离岸能源开发的骚扰属于非法,中华人民共和国任何单方面染指这些资源的行动亦属非法。根据仲裁法庭具有法律约束力的裁决,中华人民共和国对美济礁(Mischief Reef)或仁爱礁(Second Thomas Shoal)没有合法的领土或海事索求权。两者均完全属于菲律宾的主权和管辖权。北京也不拥有涉及这些地物的领土或海事索求权。
  • 鉴于北京未能对南中国海提出合法的、明确的海事索求,美国否定中华人民共和国关于产生于斯普拉特利群島各岛礁超过12海哩领海水域的任何索求。(其他国家就这类岛屿提出的索求不受影响)。为此,美国否定中华人民共和国对万安滩(Vanguard Bank)(位于越南外海)、卢科尼亚暗沙(Luconia Shoals)(马来西亚外海)、文莱的专属经济区海域和纳土纳群岛(Natuna Besar)(印度尼西亚外海)周围海域提出的任何海事索求。中华人民共和国骚扰其他国家在这些海域从事的捕捞或碳氢化合物开发活动的任何行动,或者单方面进行这类活动,均属非法。
  • 中华人民共和国对詹姆斯暗沙(James Shoal)(或产生于詹姆斯沙之事项)没有任何合法的领土或海事索求。该地完全属于距马来西亚仅50海哩的水下地物,而距离中国海岸达1,000海哩。根据中华人民共和国的宣传,詹姆斯暗沙往往被称为“中国最南端的领土”。国际法明确指出:詹姆斯暗沙等水下地物都不属任何国家的索求范围,不产生任何海事区域。詹姆斯暗沙(位于表面以下约20公尺处)从来不属于中华人民共和国的领土,北京也不能因此声称具有任何合法的海事权。. D8 X: m/ L4 t% w' V

2 a' G2 d4 c- d/ c全世界不允许北京将南中国海作为其海洋帝国。美国支持我们的东南亚盟国和伙伴保护各自对离岸资源拥有的主权,尊重他们根据国际法拥有的权利和义务。我们支持国际社会捍卫海上自由和尊重主权,拒不接受在南中国海或更广泛的地区推行“强权即公理”的任何行为。
$ Q* `! N5 o% H5 l5 q. I$ g( l1 G4 T- h& g$ F% }" D

0 \, A, v' u3 ]) t7 ?0 Qhttps://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/zh/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/
7 h6 V: F8 \1 X! V* y! j0 {
回复

使用道具 举报

2#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-17 20:09 | 只看该作者
中国驻美国使馆发言人就美国国务院涉南海声明发表谈话- K4 S/ w; \6 p0 z) ^

9 G, M) ^" p1 i2 \1 u' y( Q/ Lhttp://www.china-embassy.org/chn/zmgx/t1797516.htm" r6 A$ Y+ E7 T3 Z2 T  ~- E5 `0 Z
1 E: S" H! Y% f; J% j
  7月13日,美国国务院发表声明,无视中国和东盟地区国家维护南海和平稳定的努力,肆意歪曲南海有关客观事实和《联合国海洋法公约》等国际法,渲染南海地区紧张局势,挑拨中国与地区国家关系,对中方进行无理指责。中方对此坚决反对。
: S0 b) }4 ^/ \; D9 I- F, u# ]8 D% B; P
  中方在南海问题上的立场和主张是一贯的、明确的。中方坚决维护中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益,坚持与有关直接当事方通过谈判协商和平解决争议,坚持通过规则机制管控分歧,坚持通过互利合作实现共赢。! X& R9 a) l4 Z2 V0 l7 `
; l) M1 [+ a/ k- u3 ?. q, }- @6 ^
  当前,南海形势总体和平稳定并持续向好发展。中国与有关沿岸国通过海上问题磋商机制保持对话沟通,促进涉海领域合作。中国与东盟国家在全面有效落实《南海各方行为宣言》框架下,积极推进“南海行为准则”磋商,并不断取得重要进展。
$ n- M- T8 Q6 d$ l9 ^! O+ D: ?
+ |6 ~  [& v% V# j  美国不是南海有关争议当事方,却频频插手南海问题,打着维护南海稳定的幌子,在地区炫耀武力、渲染紧张、鼓动对抗;打着维护规则的幌子,自己未批准《联合国海洋法公约》,却拿《公约》说事;打着“维护航行与飞越自由”的幌子,大肆侵犯他国领海领空,在世界各大海洋横行霸道。中方敦促美方切实恪守在南海领土主权问题上不持立场的承诺,尊重地区国家维护南海和平稳定的努力,不要再做地区和平稳定的干扰者、破坏者和搅局者。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

3#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-17 20:12 | 只看该作者
2020年7月14日外交部发言人赵立坚主持例行记者会
' h+ h# \5 F7 H  a' c6 n& j6 z- U* x6 e. {& D) R* f8 V
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/fyrbt_673021/t1797678.shtml1 \- ~3 A* @6 h8 p
1 [( c% s% K* r' z% I: U6 l
澳门月刊记者:当地时间7月13日,美国务卿蓬佩奥发表声明称,中国在南海许多主张没有国际法依据。美方敦促相关国家反对中国的海洋权利主张。南海仲裁案裁决对中菲均有法律约束力。中方对此有何评论?
2 V3 }8 I9 C$ I( B  ^! g4 y* O2 x' \# m, A7 ?/ \
  赵立坚:美方声明罔顾南海问题的历史经纬和客观事实,违背美国政府在南海主权问题上不持立场的公开承诺,违反和歪曲国际法,蓄意挑动领土海洋争端,破坏地区和平稳定,是不负责任的做法。& i2 }, M* i; g4 G9 F! Z/ u+ J

) T$ [* y4 [2 ?! l. N1 P+ z  美方在声明中称中国于2009年才正式宣布南海断续线,这完全不符合事实。中国在南海的主权和权益是在长期历史过程中形成的。中国对南海有关岛礁和相关海域行使有效管辖已达上千年。早在1948年,中国政府就正式公布了南海断续线,在很长时间里没有受到任何国家质疑。中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益有充分历史和法理依据,符合有关国际法和国际实践。, `- b3 s9 P% H* j& h7 l5 q

/ S  F( M$ I/ t. ]4 x: s/ x, ?  中方从来不谋求在南海建立“海洋帝国”,始终平等对待南海周边国家,在维护南海主权和权益方面始终保持着最大克制。与此相反,美国拒绝加入《联合国海洋法公约》,在国际上频频“毁约退群”,对国际法合则用不合则弃,频繁派遣大规模先进军舰军机在南海大搞军事化,推行强权逻辑和霸道做法,美国才是本地区和平稳定的破坏者和麻烦制造者,国际社会看得十分清楚。) Y5 _& o9 ^) e

8 y) @/ s( B" h3 G( Q: V6 C: z  中方在南海仲裁案及其所谓裁决上的立场是一贯的、明确的、坚定的。仲裁庭违背“国家同意”原则越权审理,在事实认定和法律适用上有明显错误,很多国家都提出质疑。美方借炒作仲裁案来服务自身政治目的,是对国际海洋法的滥用,中方绝不接受。4 u; {& A( @" K7 Z1 M& o- I# V
: u0 u4 X8 [5 ?* f  z5 O* @# w
  根据中国和东盟国家2002年达成的《南海各方行为宣言》,中国始终致力于同直接相关的主权国家通过谈判磋商解决有关领土和管辖权争议,致力于同东盟国家共同维护南海和平稳定。当前,在中国和东盟国家共同努力下,南海局势总体稳定。中国和东盟各国不仅遵守《南海各方行为宣言》,而且正在加紧商谈更有约束力的“南海行为准则”,共同维护南海和平稳定和航行自由,相关磋商取得积极进展。中国与东盟国家关系在防疫抗疫合作中进一步得到巩固和发展。
& M, c% V+ c2 d* K
- [! I- j; q& B  f4 r  美国作为域外国家,出于一己私利,唯恐南海不乱,千方百计在南海挑动是非,兴风作浪,离间地区国家同中国的关系,干扰破坏中国与东盟国家维护南海和平稳定的努力。美方声明还刻意歪曲出席2010年东盟地区论坛外长会中国代表发言。事实是,中国代表在会上表示,中方始终主张国家不分大小一律平等,有关争议的解决应根据是非曲直,由直接当事方通过谈判磋商和平解决。美方挑拨离间的图谋绝不会得逞。; X* i, |' @4 Q) V3 i3 k

. E4 f3 K& s' H7 z; b2 f5 ?  我们对美方的错误行径表示强烈不满、坚决反对,敦促美方停止在南海问题上制造事端,不要在错误道路上越走越远。中方将继续坚定依法维护自己的主权和安全,坚定维护与地区国家的友好合作关系,坚定维护南海的和平稳定。
! V: Q) `/ i% \; }! B1 s
" \) a) b4 }2 R) \* M+ }  法新社记者:关于南海问题追问。中方是否会对蓬佩奥国务卿的声明作出进一步回应?是否采取进一步措施?
7 m; |5 ^' R) P9 F  h% A' o- `" r
9 k3 x, ]& t: e  赵立坚:关于第一个问题,我刚才已经清楚地表明了中方立场。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

4#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-17 20:29 | 只看该作者
Phát biểu của Người phát ngôn Bộ Ngoại giao Lê Thị Thu Hằng liên quan đến Tuyên bố của Ngoại trưởng Hoa Kỳ Mike Pompeo về Lập trường của Hoa Kỳ đối với các yêu sách biển ở Biển Đông7 s7 c8 j5 F6 U: J- k2 x( D

6 O5 d$ I  ^" }& p, ehttp://www.mofa.gov.vn/vi/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns200715174718% I. M! ^/ p- }
  g) K. e: J7 |1 A, K4 o$ ]1 N
(MOFA) - Ngày 15/07/2020, liên quan đến Tuyên bố của Ngoại trưởng Hoa Kỳ Mike Pompeo về Lập trường của Hoa Kỳ đối với các yêu sách biển ở Biển Đông, Người Phát ngôn Bộ Ngoại giao Việt Nam Lê Thị Thu Hằng nêu rõ:1 p7 u% C( _( z( y, y
- g- C1 E6 M+ {! E2 _3 {
Hoà bình, ổn định, hợp tác và phát triển tại Biển Đông là nguyện vọng và mục tiêu chung của các nước ở Biển Đông, khu vực và cộng đồng quốc tế.8 U: p- z5 o. P5 j$ u

+ e$ O4 w, e' y  {% k# u7 ~/ TViệc tôn trọng trật tự pháp lý trên biển và thực thi đầy đủ, thiện chí, trách nhiệm Công ước của Liên hợp quốc về Luật Biển năm 1982 có ý nghĩa quan trọng để thực hiện các mục tiêu đó.5 C$ K8 f' q) q1 s2 O
+ x' ?- _, ], k
Việt Nam hoan nghênh lập trường của các nước về vấn đề Biển Đông phù hợp với luật pháp quốc tế và chia sẻ quan điểm, như đã nêu trong tuyên bố dịp Hội nghị cấp cao ASEAN 36, rằng Công ước của Liên hợp quốc về Luật Biển năm 1982 là khuôn khổ pháp lý điều chỉnh mọi hoạt động trên biển và đại dương.. |2 b  Q  _# w
# }6 y( l- d1 q$ u) w
Việt Nam mong rằng các nước sẽ nỗ lực đóng góp vào việc duy trì hoà bình, ổn định, hợp tác tại Biển Đông và giải quyết các tranh chấp thông qua đối thoại cùng các biện pháp hoà bình khác theo luật pháp quốc tế vì lợi ích chung, phù hợp với nguyện vọng của các nước trong khu vực và cộng đồng quốc tế. Việt Nam luôn đóng góp tích cực và có trách nhiệm vào quá trình này./.1 i6 N% ]! t3 S! y

' ?8 x' d$ S. T0 T& ^; h& o越南欢迎各国在南海问题上符合国际法的立场
8 x$ ]+ B( H5 |$ r' \+ Lhttps://cn.qdnd.vn/cid-7267/7268/nid-573310.html; `; ]% T9 f8 c& @
- S; S1 Y! \8 R0 B- D5 v' w* f* T
越南外交部发言人黎秋姮于2020年7月15日就美国国务卿蓬佩奥发表有关南海主权声索的声明阐明该国立场之后如是强调。
2 z% N( {  k' N% X9 f' t+ B) B- m8 E- f& |1 c3 P
黎秋姮重申,越南欢迎各国符合国际法的有关南海问题的立场,同时再次重申了越南在第36届东盟峰会期间阐明的立场,即1982年联合国海洋法公约是调整海上所有活动的唯一法律框架。, c4 A( Z. O- A' \

9 H5 ^5 {: ?' L% z) `# I. G黎秋姮强调,越南希望各国为维护南海和平、稳定与合作环境,在国际法的基础上通过对话和其他和平措施解决争端,致力于各国共同利益,符合地区各国和国际社会的共同愿望等作出努力。越南一向愿意为该进程作出积极且负责任的贡献。
+ J; F' e( }2 q  L& c$ u注:原文内容“东海”均改为“南海”。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

5#
发表于 2020-7-18 00:59 | 只看该作者
早在1948年,中国政府就正式公布了南海断续线,在很长时间里没有受到任何国家质疑。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

6#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-19 18:10 | 只看该作者
https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-significant-new-us-south-china-sea-policy
* E3 i) g0 f5 a2 y) W. dHow Significant Is the New U.S. South China Sea Policy?
8 A% b: W$ ?0 G- z  B2 |
5 ^* e( W/ |+ fJuly 14, 2020
- T- x4 ~+ n- c8 b+ F( h9 b+ `3 ~5 W' m$ u, c9 v3 q! C6 ~- k/ \9 O6 H3 T
Yesterday, July 13, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced an important shift in U.S. declaratory policy on the South China Sea. This morning, Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell elaborated further during remarks at CSIS’s annual South China Sea Conference. The press statement from Pompeo listed specific Chinese maritime claims the United States considers illegal. The statement marks a significant clarification of prior U.S. positions but not a radical break from past policy. It makes explicit things that had been implied by previous administrations. And in that, it sets the stage for more effective diplomatic messaging and stronger responses to China’s harassment of its neighbors. U.S. partners and allies in the region were seemingly briefed in advance—the Philippine defense secretary, for instance, was ready with a positive statement within hours. And the new policy sparked excited, and often hyperbolic, coverage in the press and social media.
, I6 _$ t5 k' g5 ?8 e+ s
$ R  Z7 B6 a7 |/ C) K8 LQ1: What is the new U.S. position?% M+ I$ N! W- V& ?. m& N0 j
" C! u7 e) w1 @- M+ R
A1: Pompeo’s statement does not alter U.S. neutrality on the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Washington still has no interest in wading into the historical morass of which country has sovereignty over each of the Spratly and Paracel Islands. But it does now explicitly take a position on the maritime disputes over water and seabed rights. The opening paragraph says, “We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.” The remainder of the statement explains what exactly that means.& V4 ~# Q( Z; E$ O: ?7 J& r
7 `8 o# Z: ^: t
The United States is more firmly endorsing the substance of a 2016 ruling by a tribunal convened under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That tribunal had ruled overwhelmingly in favor of Manila’s case against Beijing. It found that China has no basis to assert “historic rights” or make any other claims beyond those permitted by UNCLOS. This nullified the so-called “nine-dash line” as a claim to maritime space. The tribunal then determined that none of the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal are entitled to their own exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf. They are legally “rocks” incapable of supporting human habitation or independent economic life. And as such, they only generate 12-nautical-mile territorial seas.
" W- e) x' G) j1 E' D% e& [& ]
# f) l1 T% P9 c9 A$ ~) j" S4 ~The new U.S. position follows this ruling to its logical conclusion. China may claim the resources of the EEZ and continental shelf from its southern coast and perhaps in similar zones generated by the Paracel Islands, which were not covered by the 2016 award. It may also claim rights within 12 nautical miles of rocks in the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal (and so can other claimants). But China has no claim to any other areas. Most of the resources of the South China Sea therefore belong to the nearest coastal state (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, or Vietnam). The United States is now explicitly declaring it illegal for China to engage in fishing, oil and gas exploration, or other economic activities in those areas, or to interfere with its neighbors’ rights to do so.
# ]' H7 @9 @9 h0 ~9 u/ ?/ D5 u
( I+ y9 f0 P7 u) Y! T  X$ ZThe 2016 arbitral award also found that several of the features claimed by China, including Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Reed Bank, are naturally underwater and therefore not subject to any claim of sovereignty. The tribunal ruled that they are all part of the continental shelf of the Philippines, as the nearest coastal state, and that Manila has sole rights to their resources. The new U.S. policy explicitly endorses this and applies it to other underwater features claimed by China: Luconia and James Shoals off Malaysia and Vanguard Bank off Vietnam. This means the United States considers the entire Chinese base on Mischief Reef illegal. And it considers Chinese efforts to assert sovereignty over these other locations baseless.
, G0 @4 y& M& H$ F7 I* z$ q
. `# d4 [, J+ Z. ~# f- k- kFinally, Pompeo’s statement declares Chinese interference with Filipino fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal illegal. Even though that feature is entitled to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea, the 2016 arbitral award declared that both China and the Philippines are entitled to traditional fishing rights within it. So again, the United States has not modified its position on territorial sovereignty but is taking a more explicit position on maritime rights.
; l% G* v( D3 O7 B6 x6 [7 |: n; T2 ^  S, ~& M( B: H+ x
Q2: How different is this position?% p: ^7 E: J# n
9 K$ O+ p% W' a/ a- m8 e7 h
A2: The Obama administration had strongly endorsed the Philippines’ right to take China to arbitration. It then noted that the ruling was binding according to UNCLOS and called on both parties to comply. But it also couched its responses in careful legalese. Within hours of the ruling, the State Department declared it “final and legally binding on both China and the Philippines.” But it also noted, “We are still studying the decision and have no comment on the merits of the case.” At the East Asia Summit in Vientiane later that month, and afterward during a stop in Manila, Secretary of State John Kerry repeated that the award was legally binding and called for compliance. And he repeatedly voiced support for international law and maritime freedoms in general. But neither he nor any other U.S. official, either in the previous administration or the first three years of this one, explicitly endorsed the substance of the ruling. It was a subtle but deliberate choice.
6 b" Z; c( f$ g  c) s5 ^# X; ~& y4 m' ~) w( `8 K+ d! Q
By joining UNCLOS, countries agree to be legally bound by the outcome of any arbitration they take part in. But that doesn’t automatically give the arbitral award the weight of customary international law. And it doesn’t mean other states have to agree that the judges got it right or follow the precedents they set. This is how all arbitration works, whether between states, companies, or individuals. As a result, U.S. officials have called on China to comply with the ruling, but they have also avoided calling specific Chinese actions that violate it “illegal.” Washington has saved that term for the smaller subset of Chinese claims that directly infringe on U.S. navigational freedoms under customary law. These include China’s straight baselines around the Paracel Islands, its demand for prior notification for innocent passage through the territorial sea, and its attempts to regulate navigation and overflight around underwater Mischief Reef. While the United States has often criticized China’s fishing, oil and gas exploration, and harassment of its neighbors in their EEZs as “destabilizing” or “aggressive,” it has avoided labelling them “illegal.”% i8 v2 T/ [  k  @% e/ N0 b) E3 l

8 a, Y& s- r$ D% PThis fed a narrative in Southeast Asia that the United States prioritized its own “freedom of navigation,” which many interpreted as only covering U.S. military operations but not their “freedom of the seas,” which includes their economic rights as guaranteed by international law. Did prior U.S. administrations consider China’s actions in its neighbors’ EEZs and continental shelves illegal? Almost certainly. But they would not come out and say so until now.
9 m  Z9 h9 J* R0 l% i& _+ l. a5 e" h8 Q
Q3: What impact will this have?
$ x+ m8 C! E4 \! ~$ w2 U1 Y, e% ^4 q/ }. O8 W' Z  h5 i) z6 w
A3: This new rhetorical position won’t have much effect by itself. But as the opening gambit in a long-term effort to impose cost on China and rally support for U.S. partners, it could be significant. The most immediate effect of this policy change will be on the diplomatic front. It is much easier to rally international support against “illegal” activity than against actions that are merely distasteful or destabilizing. It is also much more damaging to a country that aspires to global leadership to be accused of gross violations of international law. U.S. officials will likely begin working this stronger language into statements at international forums and putting pressure on partners and allies to do the same. This can be expected not just at regional meetings like the East Asia Summit, but in bodies like the Quad, the Group of Seven, and various bilateral and trilateral meetings. This might also encourage Southeast Asian claimants, particularly Vietnam and the Philippines, to advocate for themselves more forcefully. The next time a China Coast Guard ship plays chicken with an oil rig off Vietnam or a flotilla of Chinse fishing boats appears in Indonesian waters, the United States will likely speak up more forcefully to decry the illegal action. And that will have a proportionately greater effect on China’s international reputation. This approach will likely extend beyond November, as any future administration will find it difficult to walk back this new rhetorical position., c# T/ c/ ~- Y2 i) g
# H$ N' p; ^1 q& c! K. Y
Economic costs for China might also follow from this policy. By declaring so much of China’s maritime activities illegal, the administration has provided a justification for potential sanctions against Chinese companies and entities that conduct them. This would involve a much wider and timelier set of potential targets than previously mooted U.S. sanctions legislation. Bills introduced in the Congress in 2017 and 2019 for example focused more narrowly on dredging, construction, and other activities on Chinese artificial islands. During his remarks at CSIS, Stilwell specifically directed attention at the role of Chinese state-owned enterprises engaged in illegal maritime activity. He declared, “We should also shine light on how these companies operate around the world, including across Southeast Asia and in the United States. In all our societies, citizens deserve to know the differences between commercial enterprises and instruments of foreign state power.” And when asked whether the new U.S. position might lead to sanctions against Chinese entities, the assistant secretary said that option is “on the table.” There is significant congressional support for the new policy. Within hours of its release, the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a bipartisan statement endorsing the administration’s position.
: n. {, ?) X) p* F$ ^$ v' u/ Q
! q# J* u& H$ B+ r0 HOf course, there will also be downsides to this policy. It will raise tensions between Beijing and Washington in the short term. The next time China does engage in illegal harassment of its neighbors within their EEZs, a more forceful U.S. response might lead China to double down out of a sense of nationalism. This seems especially likely amid the current pandemic, which has led Chinese diplomats to favor chest-thumping nationalism over de-escalation with its neighbors. But in the long term, if successfully couched within a broader policy combining pressure on Beijing and greater international coalition building to support Southeast Asian parties, it could help steer China toward a compromise that the international community could live with. And that ultimately is the best chance to peacefully manage the South China Sea disputes.! H) ^; b$ `- e1 y  j
, B7 N+ L% z- N' G$ q& l. t- r: X
Gregory B. Poling is senior fellow for Southeast Asia and director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.3 W' ]  ]7 C( q: p$ l9 ^

) j2 ^5 }! a# V2 m4 j: O0 c2 oCritical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
# y4 ]; i5 N7 v+ q, k! K& A' Y4 }# [' y( {
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

7#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-19 18:13 | 只看该作者
葛红亮:美国的南中国海声明及其企图
, Q! Y8 z4 ~1 c, k5 d
: N  S0 M/ [" Y" i( f' r! N3 Ohttp://www.uzaobao.com/mon/keji/20200717/74923.html! E. v9 _4 m  S8 `* _: J6 a
( L$ e% C2 R  v& z% S8 A* q
葛红亮
, n; y8 K' [! U) f' l% ]( n3 X9 ?& O
5 C  c# \1 i& A7 H/ V6 W) b当地时间7月13日,美国国务卿蓬佩奥就南中国海议题发表了一份新闻声明,分析并加以说明特朗普政府最新的南中国海政策。美国首次否认中国在南中国海“九段线”主张,蓬佩奥表示,中国在南中国海的领土声索“完全不合法”。 
0 D' D+ E2 F$ c
; m8 Z7 p6 r% U  b0 s, @5 N这是特朗普政府第一次系统地就南中国海议题阐述政策主张,从历史上来看有其逻辑一致性,但也有政策升级的特征;而从发布的时间与背景来看,除了推动印度洋-太平洋战略(简称“印太战略”)外,其针对南中国海局势及对华政策方面,都有难以掩饰的企图。/ O6 e+ z/ Y9 X5 Q

* Z3 h; |" J! R" M* h在内容上,蓬佩奥所发布的南中国海声明主体包括四个部分。其一是基于“印太战略”价值观,对中国的南中国海主张与相关行为进行指责。蓬佩奥在这一部分,首先再度阐述了特朗普政府“印太战略”的“自由”与“开放”核心价值观,而具体来看则包括维护地区和平与稳定、基于国际法下的“航行自由”、商业与投资往来自由及反对以武力或恫吓手段解决争端等;其次,蓬佩奥将矛头指向中国,认为中国的南中国海权利主张和行为,破坏了东南亚有关国家的相关主张及有关海域权益,并指责中国以地区“强权”来取代国际法。2 u, b% _: ]5 p) @

; `7 r' G  o& c. R/ W其二,基于所谓中菲“南中国海仲裁”,否定中国的南中国海“断续线”主张,一方面再度强调这一“仲裁”结果应该得到遵守,另一方面则以此彻底否定了中国的权利主张,认为中国以“断续线”来单方面进行权利主张,与采取单方面的举措,毫无法律依据。
4 n. Z4 m5 i* `5 o, N
5 h3 p6 W3 ~  v4 h) C, G其三,基于南中国海权利纷争的主要敏感关系与争议海域,赤裸裸地表明了特朗普政府的立场。
& k$ i5 b, j0 U' Z8 J5 X) M
7 U( Q: \1 G% z! p& c蓬佩奥在这一部分,不仅指责中国在相关岛礁及周边海域没有权力划定专属经济区,而且针对中国、菲律宾、马来西亚、越南等南中国海主要纷争国家,重点以美济礁与黄岩岛、万安滩、南北康暗沙、曾母暗沙等为例,表明美国对中国主张和油气勘探、渔业等活动的否定,及对东南亚有关争端方的明确支持立场。
8 ?4 W8 M8 i' |" a6 n& s- m
3 C; ]6 X& }2 ?6 v; R" E5 c其四,基于霸权与冷战的思维,一以贯之地认为中国正谋求在南中国海打造“海上帝国”,而在形塑中国地区“霸权国”形象的同时,不自觉地将美国与东南亚国家的利益进行捆绑。
8 b5 U, U7 b6 ]4 `0 m0 A1 t+ I/ K7 p7 r- `' m0 T
从历史上来看,这是后冷战时代,美国针对南中国海议题所发布的最新声明,既有对以往政策声明的延续和继承,又有在政策层面显著的升级和变化。1995年,克林顿政府在中菲“美济礁事件”后,发表了美国在两极格局结束后,第一份关于南中国海的声明。彼时克林顿政府在“中立”政策的伪装下,将指责的矛头指向中国,认为中国的行为危害地区局势安全。4 ?4 n' ~! o% H8 Y  R1 C, }- u

) @! u, U* F, f# q$ ^因此,美国的南中国海政策以此出现了从“中立”到“介入”的转变。在小布什政府时期,中美在南中国海发生撞机事件,美国当时更是借助反恐的名义,在东南亚-南中国海地区广泛扩大军事存在与影响力。随着奥巴马政府2009年“重返”东南亚,以时任国务卿希拉莉和国防部长盖茨关于南中国海议题的讲话为标志,美国南中国海政策实现了由“介入”到“深度介入”的转变。在奥巴马政府后期,美国甚而在南中国海不仅保持着大规模的军事前沿存在,而且以“航行自由行动”和一系列试探性的军事动作站在了最前线。8 R# |4 E( U* S% D9 Q2 ~8 A

: u2 L$ }6 \# b$ P, d% h特朗普政府执政以来,虽然亚太“再平衡”政策名义上消亡,但在“印太战略”下所推行的地区安全政策,却也只是“新瓶旧酒”,更多的美国军事力量聚集南中国海及亚太地区,已经成为美国南中国海政策的一项突出工具。在这一情势下,美国在南中国海尽管一如既往地表达着价值观层面的论述,但更多地以军事化举措,来挑战中国的南中国海权利主张,及在中国与东南亚有关南中国海纷争国之间,进行赤裸裸的选边站。+ M9 q& J2 w6 t! G* ^
4 x" `, n, J. P: h
因而我们可以看出,蓬佩奥南中国海声明在政策层面出现了明显的升级。一来,声明表明在南中国海议题上“逢中必反”的态度,美国与中国在南中国海议题上的对抗态度也就更趋明显;二来,声明意味着美国在强调所谓“仲裁”结果的同时,将采取更多的举措来强行推动结果的落实;三来,声明赤裸裸展示了美国在南中国海议题上的“选边站”态度,而这体现在政治、国际法与军事等多个层面。
2 J% o. j4 i$ e6 E: |5 T3 s5 t# I( v9 x9 p9 S( v
随着美国南中国海政策的升级,其中内在的对抗色彩显著提升,政治上对抗、军事上挑战与法律上否定,俨然成为当下美国南中国海政策的主要特征。4 d7 L2 l) R9 s3 ?9 g; H/ H$ k' J

* [9 |; m2 T5 H0 E( I蓬佩奥南中国海声明的发布,有两个非常关键的即时背景,一是美国派多艘航母和多架次侦察机,在南中国海开展军事化行动;二是中菲“南中国海仲裁案”结果公布四周年。以此,美国这份声明的企图是难以掩饰的。
$ t. D5 m9 b8 x* B1 b' G( }( P) N$ U! n6 ^/ D/ F* T
首先,这符合美国在南中国海议题上惯常使用的组合拳策略。美国任何一次在南中国海的军事化动作,从来都伴随着美国在国际舆论场上的对华攻势。其次,将舆论场上对美国与东南亚有关国家,在全球多边主义立场上存在间隙的指责全然“推回去”,而在南中国海议题上连番提起“仲裁”及赤裸裸的选边站,实则在于挑动中国与东南亚有关国家最为敏感的神经,进而破坏中国与亚细安国家经由“双轨政策”,在南中国海纷争与南中国海地区局势、秩序层面的努力。再者,声明与美国眼下的对华政策定位相匹配,这也是特朗普政府将中国定位为全面战略竞争者角色后,所采取的对华全方位竞争政策的一部分。4 S) i5 x, l# B) O' O) ?+ j
  g( L% |* Z, J2 F/ m
因而,蓬佩奥南中国海声明是危险的,其不可掩饰的企图也是路人皆知。东南亚国家对此不仅应该明白,而且应采取有利于有效解决南中国海纷争,和共同维护地区安全的正确态度与举措。2 `$ P. M1 e/ _$ z9 t) R7 o

& d' J6 J7 ?& G" ?( h作者是中国察哈尔学会高级研究员
. U# _8 F3 h2 A$ `  C
( c8 I! I/ ?2 C4 b广西民族大学中国-东盟海上安全研究中心主任 
# ~% _) n& d; h% v
1 e& M6 H* S% H! C随着美国南中国海政策的升级,其中内在的对抗色彩显著提升,政治上对抗、军事上挑战与法律上否定,俨然成为当下美国南中国海政策的主要特征。* W  w& F4 k1 {# F1 `# a
0 w$ }% \8 I0 ~  }# _+ a: d) k
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

8#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-19 22:52 | 只看该作者
India has abiding interest in stability of disputed region of South China Sea
% l$ x9 _6 {' c3 S5 b' X
. _5 N% z. u% K% g7 l# C+ @https://www.livemint.com/news/in ... 11594916648169.html
3 i& c8 ~+ a% f5 D$ q( r  M& z
- B2 v& Y2 N" ]0 L6 k$ gTopics
& A! v+ b$ m0 P! i7 ZSouth China Sea0 h5 l" h2 H! [: @8 I9 T" F1 G
NEW DELHI: India on Thursday said it was firmly supportive of unimpeded freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea area where China is locked in territorial disputes with its smaller neighbours.
) Y+ r# S7 {$ g3 {) `
! G2 q3 g7 L1 Q7 l5 jIndian foreign ministry spokesman Anurag Srivastava said that the South China Sea was “part of global commons and India has an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region."7 ?1 g% A4 Y5 t9 |5 _: @

  S& x2 c5 h) E/ qHe was responding to questions on how India viewed recent comments by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in which Pompeo had said that Beijing’s claims to large portions of the South China was “completely unlawful."
' f4 r7 M% B0 P. k& n: u0 E0 X- \# O' ]% m, o4 W7 \
“We firmly stand for the freedom of navigation and overflight and unimpeded lawful commerce in these international waterways, in accordance with international law, notably UNCLOS," Srivastava told reporters in what can be seen as comments tacitly backing the US position. “India also believes that any differences be resolved peacefully by respecting the legal and diplomatic processes and without resorting to threat or use of force," he added.
! H3 D* o5 ~9 Z4 V+ C! N! c
/ ~4 s" f% f/ h& WThe comments by India on the South China Sea come in the midst of tensions between New Delhi and Beijing along their common border. Since May, tensions have been high following China massing troops along their common border and making deep inroads into Indian territory. A violent clash between troops of the two countries on 15 June left 20 Indian army personnel and an undeclared number of Chinese troops dead. It was seen as the worst incident along their common borders in 45 years.
* F! L! ~0 O. B1 y, v) J8 H
  d# }) t  H$ ~& CNew Delhi previously made similar remarks in May.# J9 E& K# S" l; a# \( f: X9 h
' k! e# E; q6 c3 R4 _
On Monday, in what many see as the strongest statement by Washington on the South China Sea dispute, Pompeo said : “We are making clear: Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them."- I  F$ o1 G9 N7 A2 c' E) J
" ^, d7 m7 X2 y1 S# s
"The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire," Pompeo said in a statement posted on the US State Department website.
0 W, [+ ^. t2 {# p5 j
- X) k: ^5 s0 j7 JChina and five other countries have competing claims to land features in the South China Sea, and China has also come into conflict with Indonesia over Chinese activity in waters by that large archipelago nation. China delineates its claims to the South China Sea with what it calls “a nine-dash line," a boundary that demarcates almost the whole of the South China Sea. The area has potentially rich oil and gas resources, and governments often sign contracts with companies that do exploration and drilling in the region. There are also abundant fisheries. Fishing boats and coast guard vessels from various nations have clashed repeatedly in recent years across the sea.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

9#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-21 14:39 | 只看该作者
台湾当局:; S5 x8 C+ c0 a2 {2 q! J1 K9 E
有關我國對南海諸島主權立場事,外交部說明如下:, k$ k; ]7 R/ q% A
2020/07/14
8 _! J' p" h: W8 u  G7 u+ `, |$ G! r. @
一、南海諸島屬於中華民國領土,中華民國對南海諸島及其相關海域享有國際法及海洋法上的權利,不容置疑。蔡英文總統於2016年7月19日提出「四點原則」及「五項做法」,與國際社會共同處理南海議題。外交部重申四點原則:
! P, H5 E! K4 x6 |% y2 I3 z(一) 南海爭端應依據國際法及海洋法,包括聯合國海洋法公約,以和平方式解決;
3 C& d1 Q0 h. g( d(二) 臺灣應納入多邊爭端解決機制;+ @# q) o9 o8 i5 u- g. G5 V
(三) 相關國家有義務維護南海航行和飛越自由;
& X5 l0 q. l1 x5 ~& z+ e, S(四) 中華民國主張應以「擱置爭議、共同開發」方式處理南海爭端,且願在平等協商基礎上,和相關國家共同促進南海區域之和平與穩定,並共同保護及開發南海資源。
! `" H+ a9 J+ m9 X) u7 y' Q( Z
二、我們對南海諸島主權立場從未動搖,堅守以和平解決爭端的原則也從未改變。我國反對任何聲索國企圖使用恐嚇、脅迫或武力方式解決南海爭議。. {5 K- Q- Z; `4 Q- i0 k

2 V5 z# q7 V0 T. g7 A- J; K, u三、對於相關國家聲明各國對南海的主張應符合國際法規範,包括1982年「聯合國海洋法公約」,以及不承認與國際法相悖的主張,外交部對此表示歡迎,也促請相關國家將臺灣納入多邊爭端解決機制,以共同維護區域和平與穩定。
* n4 j2 A! y& Q4 S1 i& a. i
! g$ ~$ O9 n" a5 D- G" I$ {, S  X4 C# C1 Shttps://www.mofa.gov.tw/News_Con ... ;s=D0E506023ABB4B5E
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

10#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-21 14:45 | 只看该作者
Damein 发表于 2020-7-21 14:39
! Y3 g: Q: k" V- [) O) E7 Z' X, g, u台湾当局:  P/ R4 D1 \4 k
有關我國對南海諸島主權立場事,外交部說明如下:' O! A# D6 M$ Y( E: K  |2 g
2020/07/14
% w9 l, w3 Y+ Q
国台办:两岸同属一中,应共同维护国家主权和领土完整9 a& P% o6 F8 R8 L4 Z! [/ u) H
: [3 w/ P0 b4 M2 C9 N
http://www.gwytb.gov.cn/wyly/202007/t20200716_12286544.htm2 D1 j+ W+ s2 l0 _
8 P$ _8 j" ?+ z* z0 ?) H9 n: O
  新华社北京7月16日电 国台办发言人朱凤莲16日应询表示,中国对南海诸岛及其附近海域拥有无可争辩的主权。针对美方错误言论,外交部已多次阐明立场、进行批驳。两岸同属一个中国,应共同维护国家主权和领土完整,维护中华民族的整体和根本利益。
6 h" B6 ~6 I& A3 k3 X, c  N) Z/ v4 e2 Y
  有记者问:针对美国务卿蓬佩奥有关南海问题的声明,台对外交往部门声称,其对南海诸岛及其相关海域享有国际法及海洋法上的权利。对此有何评论?朱凤莲作了上述表示。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

11#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-21 14:47 | 只看该作者
https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20200715005392-262105?chdtv& `2 {( Y+ t& z( Q

- x# S  X! B0 g6 R; |日前,美國務卿蓬佩奧選在「南海仲裁案」裁決公布滿4周年的時間點發布「美國南海海洋主張立場」聲明,表示中國大陸在南海許多主張沒有國際法依據,敦促相關國家反對中國大陸的海洋權利主張,並重申「南海仲裁案」的裁決對中國大陸具法律約束力。0 y6 r+ ?$ \8 S
: Y8 i$ ?4 E2 n
聲明發布次日,美國務院東亞暨太平洋事務助理國務卿史達偉在華府出席「戰略與國際研究中心」所主辦之第十屆南海會議當中表示,中國大陸在南海作為如流氓,美方不排除制裁相關中國大陸官員與國有企業。% ?) b4 e/ |$ I! m( P# }
. W5 e! p2 A9 v
細讀國務院之聲明,可以發現蓬佩奧並沒有提出美國新的南海論述,只是釐清美國有關南海特定海洋主張之政策立場。美國沒有改變針對南海領土主權爭端持中立的一貫立場。
- n! N! `6 m( F9 E- Q# U8 ~& l% b% m
如果要說有新意,那就是針對南海的歷史性權利、海域 (領海、專屬經濟海域、大陸礁層)、海洋地物之法律地位 (曾母暗沙)、海域內有關資源開發之主權權利和管轄權、以及中國大陸的作為提出更明確、更強硬的立場。此將加劇美中南海博弈,增加擦槍走火,爆發武裝衝突的風險。
. x" {& T/ d3 {- j; [$ n7 }
  C! v$ M2 G) s聲明明確表示,中國大陸在菲律賓、馬來西亞、越南、以及汶萊於南海所主張之專屬經濟海域和大陸礁層上所進行有關漁業、油氣資源、以及其他經濟開發的活動是非法。此外,美國拉攏東協聲索國在南海對抗中國大陸的戰略意圖格外明顯。美國呼籲東南亞盟邦與夥伴國,以及國際社會成員捍衛航行自由,反對任何試圖在南海或更廣大區域採取「強權就是公理」的作為。$ O2 j: E6 j9 z& @
+ ]% d. u4 T6 ^9 p1 _8 o
雖然聲明中指的是中國大陸,但在世界各角落,尤其涉及航行自由與飛越、領海無害通過、領海直線基線劃法、專屬經濟海域內進行軍事操作等爭議,採取最多「強權就是公理」作法的國家就是美國。+ y4 m, J" P$ O8 b
) \$ w6 s4 G) M9 h3 \3 F* |
美國至今仍非《聯合國海洋法公約》的締約國,但一再援引此公約規定對公約締約國的海洋主張與作為「說三道四」,評論沿海國的海洋主張是如何與公約相違。美國的實際作法可查隸屬美國國務院「海洋與國際環境和科學事務局」之下的「海洋與極區事務辦公室」所發布的「海洋界限」分析報告,以及美國政府透過國務院進行外交磋商和海洋立場陳述,並由國防部派遣軍機、軍艦所執行的「航行自由行動」(FONOPs)的年度報告。% s. `4 _+ C  e# s  e. u: M
  F% o# S- |- e+ _+ ^7 {* V
美國對「航行自由行動」所下之定義是「以實際行動挑戰過度(或越權)的海洋主張」。自2016年7月「南海仲裁案」裁決公布至今,美國已派遣軍艦在南海執行20多次以上的「航行自由行動」,挑戰美國片面所認定中國大陸在南海的「越權海洋主張」。有國外學者指出,美國在南海所強力執行的「航行自由行動」衍生違反《聯合國憲章》與國際法有關禁止使用或不威脅使用武力解決國際爭段的強制法規定之嫌。
  d6 ], G. B- X, ~0 ~1 I
# }( W3 W' o4 P蓬佩奧的聲明與上月初美國駐聯合國大使凱莉‧克拉夫特向聯合國秘書長辦公室遞交的外交照會是一致的,主要指控中國大陸在南海所提出的海洋主張與國際法相抵觸。但中國大陸針對克拉夫特與蓬佩奧所提出的海洋論述立馬做出回應,表示「中國在南海的領土主權和海洋權益是在長期歷史過程中形成的,符合包括《聯合國憲章》、《公約》在內的國際法。」北京表示無法接受美國肆意歪曲南海有關客觀事實和包括《聯合國海洋法公約》等國際法的規定,擴大渲染南海地區緊張局勢,挑撥離間中國大陸與東協會員國關係的作法。8 J  m* \" B! F6 w" j' Z/ j6 @

, J; j) f3 ?9 }; G5 j* `國務院的聲明剛發布不久,就聽到我外交部發言人對美國此聲明表示「委婉歡迎」。雖然台灣應該重視與美國發展友好關係,但是否要表態歡迎美國支持南沙所有島礁,包括太平島,並非全權島嶼,因此無權主張專屬經濟海域和大陸礁層的立場?美國的聲明又將如何減損我在南海的海洋權益?我政府相關單位應再深思。, N% w2 H8 I: R$ b) o- R3 P& o0 K8 M6 V

- o+ m2 n9 \& r$ F+ T1 n/ [0 H(作者為中研院歐美所研究員)
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

12#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-21 14:50 | 只看该作者
 【环球时报记者 李司坤】美国国务卿蓬佩奥13日发表声明,就南海问题以强硬的措辞对中国指手画脚。讽刺的是,美方声明宣称中国在南海的许多主张“非法”,而美国却连《国际海洋法公约》签署国都不是;声明称不允许中国在南海建“海洋帝国”,但时不时派军舰跋涉万里到南海炫耀武力的却是美国自己。不少分析称,这是美国政府首次正式拒绝中国就南海问题提出的具体主张,改变了过去的立场,后续影响值得关注。蓬佩奥声明中具体有哪些谬误和误导性言论?美国政策变化背后的动机是什么?15日,《环球时报》记者在北京对中国南海研究院院长吴士存进行了专访。
' ^. C6 @5 L' V+ g
" w& A; M3 ]6 O* K  声明反映出蓬佩奥的无知. v7 p/ ?: k* M; ^5 ^4 D7 J2 h, K
2 t, j2 P1 O$ N
  环球时报:蓬佩奥在声明中称,中国一直没有为南海“九段线”主张提供连贯的法律依据。这一说法属实吗?+ t; y3 h0 v: j1 A# g8 R4 Y
% x2 ~% o5 w, k7 u
  吴士存:这反映出蓬佩奥的无知。稍微有一点历史常识就知道,“九段线”(我们一般称“断续线”)不是新中国政府宣布的。1946年民国政府从日本人手中接收西沙、南沙和东沙群岛后,绘制了《中华民国行政区区划图》,附有南海诸岛位置图。1946年版本的地图上是“八段线”,1947年是“十段线”,到了1948年,民国政府正式向国际社会公布的是“十一段线”。台湾当局至今还沿用“十一段线”。  R: c  q7 R4 K1 e
# C, z4 O7 V) ~( N8 N
  新中国成立后继承了“断续线”。当时国际社会都是接受的。有很多地图,像苏联出版的一些官方地图,包括美国一些民间出版社出版的地图都有引用,还把西沙和南沙群岛的名称用汉语拼音标注,用括号标注“属于中国”。
5 w8 D, X$ Y* j) Y. X  r. S# s% Z6 S: f, i7 I
  环球时报:对于蓬佩奥所称的所谓黄岩岛及南沙群岛为菲律宾专属经济区或在其大陆架上的区域,以及认为美济礁和仁爱礁完全在菲律宾的主权权利和管辖范围之内的说法,您有何评价?& P, u$ ~- X& N1 l4 c$ O# J7 o

/ e' \7 J* M8 r9 b& {  吴士存:蓬佩奥这一说法是错误的。首先,他这时候把南海仲裁案的裁决结果拿出来跟中国说事,以所谓仲裁庭的裁决为依据,但对于仲裁结果,中国的立场很清楚,我们自始至终没有接受,也没有参与。同时中国也不接受任何基于裁决的行动和主张。在中国眼里,这个仲裁裁决是无效、非法的。
& i7 N2 M% P% d$ \$ O, u4 I5 N1 T/ a
  中国对黄岩岛通过最先发现建立起来的主权是有历史文字记载的,追溯历史,中国最早在元代就发现黄岩岛了。菲律宾在上世纪90年代曾试图非法占有黄岩岛,2012年5月中菲发生黄岩岛对峙事件之后,菲律宾被迫退出黄岩岛及其附近海域,我们从此对黄岩岛及其附近海域实施了完全的实际管辖和控制。
8 A0 u. B1 `: {) `; g4 I# b5 U5 @: c- F
# e5 q2 K3 F8 K; T9 w% M  中国对南沙群岛的主权拥有充分的历史和法理依据,南沙群岛作为一个独立的政治和地理单元是不可分割的,我们从未说过南沙群岛里的这个岛是我的,那个礁是你的。中国主张的是对南沙群岛的整体享有主权和管辖权,不管是美济礁还是仁爱礁,都是南沙群岛不可分割的组成部分。. k3 p% Y- F2 s
5 Q" F: Y$ _7 D  @5 m
  回顾历史,菲律宾从上世纪70年代初开始,先后通过5次军事行动侵占中国南沙包括费信岛、中业岛、马欢岛等8个岛礁。当时中国因“文革”内乱,海上力量有限,无暇顾及,这是事实。% l( e$ k  @7 X0 I* o9 b$ l+ q" Z

7 L7 G/ L- v$ ~% s4 f, t1 ~5 A. A# m3 g  O  蓬佩奥说仁爱礁是菲律宾的,那菲律宾为什么不堂而皇之地进行驻守呢?为什么要装模作样地弄一艘二战时期的坦克登陆舰开到那里坐滩,然后赖在那里不走了?这证明菲律宾在仁爱礁问题上做贼心虚,也证明这是中国的地盘,是南沙群岛的一部分。
( f! R. X3 ]  _* {3 h6 t8 }/ L  J/ f7 b9 B4 g, `" F* R+ s
  美国撕下了所谓中立的“遮羞布”; ~# n' Y3 E. @* j; q- @' Q
5 {+ f  {- i( f( P* {$ m
  环球时报:美国拒绝接受中国对南沙群岛岛礁12海里领海以外海域提出的主张,声称曾母暗沙现在不是、也从来都不是中国领土。您对这些说法怎么看?9 t! N( A2 n( v- J

: g# T4 _9 n0 X- u) Y- ?* W  吴士存:这份声明里的上述表态基本上和仲裁裁决如出一辙,都是仲裁庭的观点,没什么新意。南海仲裁案实际上是美国人一手导演的,完全是按照美国人的意愿作出的裁决,百分之百地否定了中国的合法正当权利和主张。$ q7 b4 A! n5 C) M+ H% O3 [! @  {& W' r
3 ]! B( w1 e0 V+ h5 a4 u
  这是蓬佩奥的问题所在,完全引用中国不接受、不承认的仲裁裁决,重弹仲裁庭裁决的老调,完全站在菲律宾等国的立场上,不折不扣地选边站,完全放弃了它一贯的所谓“中立”立场。
* b5 S% f9 r7 c* K
6 A4 n7 Y' O4 V* e  环球时报:美国方面的声明被认为是其在南海问题上立场的重要转变,过去美国的基本立场和政策是什么?$ S- f1 [! r& X3 o, d6 m5 c0 f
9 x" |& b# b$ J  Z! g9 }6 d/ G
  吴士存:美国的南海政策有一个演变过程。发生于1995年的“美济礁事件”是一个节点,在该事件之前,美国的南海政策确实是保持中立的,而在美济礁事件后,美国的南海政策由中立转变为有限介入。在2010年召开的东盟外长系列会议上,当时的美国务卿希拉里发表了一个演讲,声称美国在南海拥有重要利益,主张建立多边机制来解决南海争议。从2010年开始,美国的南海政策由有限介入转变为积极介入。0 N& t( i! A) d. w' P$ G' x. U
7 P+ C/ h, W. ?
  蓬佩奥的声明是美国南海政策最新的转折点,表明美国完全在南海问题上放弃了中立政策。美国原来还有一块遮羞布,尽管其主张所谓的“中立”,但实际上已经选边站了,这一次完全变了,美国在南海问题上已经完全站到其他争端国一边,与中国唱反调。
& N* @9 Y9 j' Q7 l$ d; x9 u& `' ^) w2 s1 v. t* y- K
  把这件事放到中美关系目前的整体态势中来看,就不觉得美国这么做奇怪了,这也是迟早的事。中美关系现在已经由领域对抗转向全面对抗,美国在涉华问题上是“逢中必反”。美国现在仍然是独一无二的超级海上霸权,它不会接受南海将来可能由中国人说了算、美国势力被驱赶出去的结果。因此,在目前中国在南海还不具备压倒性战略优势的情况下,美国人绝对要在这个地方搞事情、做文章。除了这次外交声明,两国军事领域的博弈还会继续下去。- y2 u6 I  t% W) Q) V

* q! t2 Y# Q" @; u# H  环球时报:7月12日是南海仲裁案四周年的日子,菲律宾外长当天发表了声明,紧接着蓬佩奥发表声明。他们选在这个时间接连发声有怎样的考量?: P- X5 j: O. {( N0 |4 ]7 r" J
  `' }, Q% T) S9 L; r/ G( U& o$ U
  吴士存:首先,美国并不甘心中国把仲裁裁决视为一张废纸。美国看到中国现在在南海的岛礁建设及相关的设施部署不断完善,海上力量不断增强,它进入南海的代价和成本也在相应提高。中国当前和东盟的合作势头不断向好发展,南海问题相对平静下来,美国将来要在南海挑衅中国,难度将会越来越大,这是美国所不能接受的。所以美国必须在这个时候重新把仲裁裁决拿出来,告诉这些南海周边国家,在仲裁裁决问题上美国是它们的“后台老板”。
& u# e6 {" [+ W: e% B% J5 O' J  z. D! r3 b
  再看菲律宾,虽然裁决出炉后中菲两国达成了不以裁决为基础、通过双边途径处理两国间争议的共识,但事实上菲律宾从来没有放弃以仲裁裁决为基础的有关南海权利和主张,其在南海问题上的小动作基本没有停止过。菲律宾国内还有一批反华亲美的政客和学者,一直对总统杜特尔特把仲裁结果搁在一边心怀不满。现在杜特尔特已经进入执政后期,多种因素促使菲外长在这个时候高调作出这么一个看似滑稽的表态。+ U5 o/ b5 }, s! d) T+ s5 V8 f
, E) d+ I& ~7 U) b4 B
  周边国家清楚美中此消彼长的态势2 e- k% H, H, l9 S  t. D

2 H  D9 \9 b) C, O  环球时报:在您看来,美国政府这一最新举动会产生什么样的直接影响?美国方面想借此取得什么样的效果?6 K8 ]+ j* n7 s# b
! j4 z  e. w, l& Q4 [, j
  吴士存:美国在声明中的一些表态实际上没有多大作用。比如,越南如果在万安滩实施单边钻探,中国采取反制行动,美国会派军舰保护越南吗?我认为美国人不会,也不敢这么干。在这方面美国只是说说,这些国家也不要太天真,以为美国人会来给它们的冒险性行动提供保护,因而就可以铤而走险。
) G4 n- b% S" M* s: v$ y* d: g- I, Z/ k; e' \& C% |4 ?7 K9 ?4 K
  但有一些其他方面的表态,我们不能低估。美国此举释放了一个错误的信号,尤其是对越南、菲律宾等国。尽管如此,这些国家可能会信以为真,美国的声明也给了这些国家一把“尚方宝剑”。至少在这些国家看来,中国今后要制止它们在争议海域的单边行为时,可能会掂量一下。  f: M  w; x2 a3 m

; K/ k4 W1 j) K8 Y: T0 Z  环球时报:蓬佩奥在声明中说,美国与东南亚盟国及伙伴站在一起。据您观察,东盟国家的态度如何?
3 o+ X- P! I0 e5 d/ Q
: c; @" |$ g. G& o- [8 A0 @  吴士存:这些国家还是很清楚目前美中之间竞争此消彼长的态势的。此外,中国毕竟就在它们家门口,还有经济利益上的考量,要放弃和中国的互利合作谈何容易。所以这些国家是不愿意在中美之间选边站的。这些国家也知道,美国人不可能真正站在它们那边,一旦在南海问题上侵犯中国的核心利益,中国的反制措施是它们难以承受的。这就是为什么美国务院发表声明后,越南、菲律宾、马来西亚等国,包括东盟都没有表态支持美国的原因。- q, p0 }) M7 a' A4 l% R9 t, M
& O: N' K6 Q/ g' f% ^2 \" _- }
  环球时报:面对美国最近在南海的挑衅,中方可以采取什么反制措施?中国会在南海启动防空识别区吗?
: L( K* M. U: [8 A( p! g
+ Y7 A8 q% g! |2 n* J  吴士存:我个人认为,虽然是否宣布南海防空识别区是中国主权范围内的事,但目前这样做未必能打痛美国,反而可能伤及某些东盟国家,影响中国-东盟关系,这件事是否紧迫需要评估。2 b) Y. u8 ]& R" |: Q( i8 A
$ ?: v; j. i0 G& V
  确实,在南海问题上,美国人的牌还是有的,但我们现在在南海方向和南海问题上的优势也很明显。美国在南海的影响力以及既有优势是在逐步丧失的,这也是美国人要在这个时候利用仲裁问题和我们较劲的主要考量。
* u2 l/ |' l& g* w8 E& U8 @
$ j& I* z7 G  t$ {, r' ]( ]; B  所以,我们要保持定力,不能乱、急不得。有些事我们要看明白,美国在实质性行动上不会有太多新招数。此外,我们要整合现有海上力量,着眼未来海上战争形态的变化,做好南海形势变坏的准备,致力于通过能力建设形成威慑力,以达到“不战而屈人之兵”的目的。# \9 {" y. E+ F/ `# I: Y) [) }
http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2020/07-16/9239552.shtml
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

13#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-21 14:53 | 只看该作者
美国可能制裁与南海问题相关的中国官员和企业--美外交官
9 A6 {! M- B9 L& ]
) w6 O3 D' d; R9 [- F' p. G路透华盛顿7月14日 - 美国负责东亚事务的最高外交官周二表示,美国可能制裁与南海威压行动有关的中国官员和企业,作为对中国在该区域行动的回应,此前美国针对中国在南海大部分地区海上资源权益主张的立场变得更加强硬。$ W8 z; L% O; y. b: e0 ]' W
3 Y0 E3 L4 O7 P9 B
“没有什么是不可能的……有这样做的空间,“当被问及制裁是否是美国对中国行动可能的回应时,美国国务院主管亚太事务助理国务卿史达伟(David Stilwell)对华盛顿一家智库表示。
  N6 w/ L0 b7 r" ^
: r- F2 [* u$ {: U% I1 r0 a2 g% M史达伟发表上述言论的前一天,美国拒绝承认中国对南海大部分海域海上资源的主张,称其"完全不合法"。北京对美国的这一立场进行谴责。6 H' H( k  m; a* ~1 y1 J

& Z! Q, T1 _/ u0 Q华盛顿长期以来一直反对中国在南海的扩张性领土主张,并定期派遣军舰通过这条具有战略意义的水道,以展示那里的航行自由。每年通过这些海域的贸易额约为3万亿美元。
& k' P  R, }0 ]6 {" V5 N8 k* v# n- O
但周一的声明是美国第一次宣布中国的主权主张不合法。  S; x6 |' D8 g0 k8 d, y
. p# K4 R) B# b. p0 q+ C" x( i
中国声称拥有南海90%海域的主权,但文莱、马来西亚、菲律宾、台湾和越南也声称拥有部分海域的主权,北京方面在该海域的环礁上建设基地,但称是出于和平意图。
$ S; }( ]0 T5 S9 [9 L- _
9 N  [2 d+ O4 n/ a美国国际战略研究中心(Center for Strategic and International Studies)的南海问题专家Greg Poling说,宣布中国的主权主张非法,为美国采取制裁等更强硬的回应铺路,还可能导致美国海军采取更多行动。
- X1 S# o! U/ J# m: K/ e, h/ |6 ?# k- \; i
4 B, M; G: V' Q% |& P$ R6 F/ y周二稍早,中国外交部发言人赵立坚谴责美国涉南海声明,指美国蓄意挑动领土海洋争端,破坏地区和平稳定,是不负责任的做法。# M  N! p. T2 H8 P/ E# y

6 z) p8 H9 M7 o0 S近期,中美关系在多个问题上变得越来越紧张,包括中国对新型冠状病毒的处理,以及收紧对香港的控制等。
! c! ~% M% g3 a8 ^1 f' ?& A; ~9 s% `5 f, y) I- ]* a* \5 m
史达伟说,美国的强硬立场意味着“我们不再说我们在这些海洋问题上保持中立”。
1 `5 H/ x- {4 N
2 k. w) M5 g; c7 u他说:“当(中国)钻井平台在越南或马来西亚水域作业时,我们将能够发表积极的声明。”
% r) L. W6 a9 f, M( u: i8 O" E" N$ p  X2 n
史达伟对黄岩岛发出了特别警告。中国和菲律宾都宣称对其拥有主权,2012年被中国占领。黄岩岛距离菲律宾200公里,具有重要的战略地位。
, f5 v2 U- y" R- ]7 Z, ^+ W! L9 @6 K) r/ J9 b# u+ z
“中国对黄岩岛的任何实际占领、收复或军事化的举动都是危险的……这将对中国和美国以及整个地区的关系产生持久和严重的后果。” (完)0 [" S8 s. x4 x
1 _* G3 {/ D8 V0 j
编译 刘静;审校 母红
% S, p; ~4 q/ z" j, o
( y8 |% Z  ]' e% S6 Y9 U7 Shttps://cn.reuters.com/article/u ... 714-t-idCNKCS24G02U
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

14#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-24 21:59 | 只看该作者
WHAT OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA?. ^. a' ]$ X/ h2 z
9 \+ G0 j( V: A: x+ T1 U, B
https://warontherocks.com/2020/0 ... he-south-china-sea/4 r; F9 q! X% M& l7 Q1 ?
* e, K5 l# w! f; r' }- K6 S- V
U.S. policy in the South China Sea hasn’t dented Chinese coercion against its neighbors, so the Trump administration is upping the ante. Last Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo decried China’s “campaign of bullying” in the South China Sea and pledged that the United States would “not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire.” The next day, Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell asserted that the United States is “no longer going to say we are neutral on these maritime issues” and warned “nothing is off the table.” The spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, called the comments “very pathetic” and cautioned, “If the US wants to make a storm, then just let the storm rage with greater force.” Matching its words with deeds, China then sent military aircraft to Woody Island, including at least eight fighter jets, four of which were anti-ship fighter-bombers. Meanwhile, two U.S. aircraft carriers and their strike groups were sailing in the South China Sea. Is the change in Trump administration’s South China Sea policy significant? What additional measures might be on the table as a result?
6 `, i- d$ ~3 ]. D' ?% c* Y  r+ ?9 R: D
Small Clarifications, Big Implications0 [7 _! s0 t7 A( N1 p
. ]* U' D2 j8 [6 U6 w4 j
On July 13, the State Department clarified that “the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12-nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands.” This more closely  aligns U.S. policy with a July 2016 decision by an arbitral tribunal that there was “no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.” Specifically, U.S. policy now matches the tribunal’s finding that “none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones” and that “the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.” As a result, China has no legal basis to claim most of the South China Sea, nor to challenge fishing or oil and gas exploitation by other claimants within their rightful exclusive economic zones.
2 F/ v6 M7 [# z* A" b, N  K  J) h% {3 q0 k
In response, Beijing advised Washington against “taking sides on the issue of territorial sovereignty.” But the Trump administration has done nothing of the sort. It is critical to understand the difference between the territorial and the maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The administration wisely left Washington’s neutrality on sovereignty over rocks, reefs, and islets in place. Instead, the administration focused on the illegitimacy of China’s claims to both the water extending beyond 12 nautical miles from land features and to other features that are submerged, and therefore are not entitled to a territorial sea or exclusive economic zone.
) S* V7 n/ W. {, I* T% P4 j! I6 W+ t- _: N; X* j8 |7 l
Washington is not taking sides in the long-standing territorial disputes. Rather, it is explicitly declaring that China’s harassment of other states’ fishing and hydrocarbon development is illegal. This move is long overdue. Arcane debates over international law and the fact that the United States is not a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea delayed unqualified and explicit backing of the 2016 ruling. Doing so now clears the path for U.S. policies to support allies and partners in their efforts to rebuff Beijing’s coercive maritime practices.
. W% i/ ^9 b- ?! {# F7 [; Q7 N* W, B& _
Although some observers will frame the administration’s policy shift as a politically motivated step to bolster President Donald Trump’s claims to be tough on China, it is mainly focused on supporting regional states. In announcing the change, Pompeo asserted, “America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources.” A year earlier, the State Department called out “China’s repeated provocative actions aimed at the offshore oil and gas development,” but did not say they were illegal and took no position on the respective maritime claims. Now, Stilwell has declared that the United States is “no longer going to say we are neutral on these maritime issues.”4 g4 m) M# x/ T  c. n" b- Y

: e) Y6 ~! E; U3 S& nPreviously the Trump administration opposed Chinese coercion but refrained from backing the legality of other countries’ exclusive rights to resources in waters that are rightfully theirs under the Law of the Sea. Now the administration can take further steps in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), Natuna Besar (off Indonesia), and Brunei’s exclusive economic zone. Furthermore, this clarification means that China “has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal,” which are part of the Philippine exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. American policy already suggested this was the case, but these clear statements in support of U.S. allies and partners, and the application of international law, will be welcomed in Southeast Asia.
9 c4 j' t& @* p& J& }" q4 @$ N4 E& t" i  \6 W. Q
Although these changes were somewhat technical, they have significant implications. By making this position explicit, U.S. leaders can stand firmly behind the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and even Indonesia. Stilwell downplayed the shift, calling it “housekeeping… we are simply making words and deeds match.” Yet, the administration should get credit for this smart and carefully crafted move. Indeed, leading Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate have already heralded the decision. The policy shift has already been applauded by leaders in the Philippines, who were no doubt heartened by Stilwell’s warning that “any move to occupy Scarborough Shoal would be a dangerous move.”+ z. @& x! T/ B/ Q( V

$ t- ]3 U: |0 o" l: wIf “Nothing Is Off the Table,” What Might Come Next?) H( l4 A! {" m" l0 O6 d

1 _# F; ]1 n+ C: ~0 i7 GWith its new policy position, the United States will come under pressure to demonstrate that it is willing to punish actions by China that it deems illegal. Asked about the potential for U.S. sanctions on Chinese entities, Stilwell insisted “nothing is off the table.” Among the measures Washington might consider are economic sanctions, more military patrols, direct support, capacity building, and tougher multi-lateral diplomacy.# m7 z" R% m2 b, i% Z
% T, G( }: a2 O4 D+ U# H
Economic Sanctions- A" n9 j# t" y* i

# k  h5 q' W. A+ O: NThe United States could sanction Chinese companies operating illegally in other countries’ exclusive economic zones. The most obvious targets for sanctions would be Chinese state-run companies that own vessels that illegally conduct fishing, surveys, or oil and gas exploration in the exclusive economic zones of China’s neighbors. Sanctions could also target Chinese marine scientific research vessels or individuals associated with the China coast guard or maritime militia that repeatedly operate within other claimants’ exclusive economic zones without permission.
7 U: ]' m' n1 d% _
  `: E4 t+ p6 A& Q) V4 \Increased Patrols
, \- @* E+ V- ?7 i0 r' V) G6 k  S  Y& }* v- m, h( I
Washington could also conduct patrols to challenge or expel fishing boats or oil and gas exploration vessels operating without permission in other states’ exclusive economic zones. To embolden claimants to defend their rights, which U.S. officials have stated is one of their objectives, the United States could provide video surveillance to highlight China’s coercive behavior and intelligence to help regional claimants respond more effectively.
; i) M4 b$ s# e& }! `9 A/ ]) H: W3 }' X3 [6 }& u
Direct Support
: o5 W, @2 r" z' K$ s+ w
. |' R' |: E, |+ M( K3 @American leaders might also consider providing more direct support to ally and partner forces. The United States has provided overwatch for previous resupply efforts by the Philippines at Second Thomas Shoal. Now the United States might also use its own vessels for these purposes, raising the bar for a Chinese escalation. U.S. leaders set a precedent for this action in May when they deployed the USS Gabrielle Giffords near the West Capella drillship, operated by Malaysia’s state-run oil company, to signal concern about harassment by a Chinese state-owned research vessel, armed Chinese coast guard ships, and China maritime militia vessels.
5 [5 P" i+ U4 Y8 E/ V+ j4 Y
4 z  L# _8 ~$ T( \# D( ~Capacity Building1 _' C, f! R/ d% ?7 a" Y

6 M( Z! z: X) p  {4 ]American leaders might also look to help regional allies and partners build their own capabilities to resist coercion. Key leaders in the U.S. Congress are already pushing to devote more resources to deterrence and reassurance efforts with friends in the Indo-Pacific. Working with Japan, Australia, and other countries, the United States could seek to further enhance the ability of states in the region to defend their own maritime rights and resist Chinese coercion. American leaders might also explore ways to help regional states impose penalties on China for causing severe harm to the coral reef environment and violating its obligation under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitats of endangered species.
0 X4 A! E' z/ r0 C7 w
. \! {% s4 J0 S7 A* _5 DCollective Statements. D, I; \2 ]: |7 y: l; i

5 @$ Y8 `- V! d1 {) o( l, c: [Finally, U.S. leaders could seek to issue joint statements with allies and like-minded partners in support of the legal rights of the South China Sea’s other claimants. The G7 (or the expanded D10) provides a potential platform for more forceful statements in support of enforcing the arbitral tribunal’s ruling. In addition, U.S. leaders might urge Taiwan to make public its extensive historical archives on the origins of the eleven-dash line, the precursor to the nine-dash line which was established by the Republic of China, and ask Taiwan to issue a revised claim that is consistent with international law. These efforts are unlikely to reverse Chinese behavior, but Beijing has often been sensitive to regional pressure and as Stilwell noted, “words are powerful.”$ d5 i- u& J4 k9 h5 m' o% R
7 T7 \8 v! n* F" r' t& x
A Smart Move% N/ i5 D% A$ @  T4 z/ A8 m$ }

& q' v2 ]/ {' Y6 T4 W' LAll these possible actions carry increased risk. But the United States cannot prevent China from dominating the South China Sea and undermining the application of rules and norms in Asia’s maritime littorals without accepting more risk. By carefully manipulating risk, the United States may also embolden other countries to hazard Chinese displeasure by criticizing destabilizing policies more sharply and challenging coercive behavior more directly.
% p4 T/ ~- i) O, e5 z
/ }; y9 F' e1 V$ c5 QMany experts, to include both of us, have at times been critical of the Trump administration’s heavy-handed approach to China. But this was a smart move. It seems to have been carefully calibrated to reinforce international law and to align U.S. policy more closely with the interests of America’s allies and partners in Southeast Asia. And it focuses on the rights of regional states — namely the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia — to the oil, gas, and fish within their rightful exclusive economic zones. By doing so, U.S. policy has wisely moved beyond simply protecting freedom of navigation to defending freedom of the seas and the maritime rights of all nations in the South China Sea.
" I( |) s0 {" y: U! T9 r# c% S+ m+ A5 d5 C; ]* W0 T- V. j
Zack Cooper is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co-host of the Net Assessment podcast at War on the Rocks.
: b: g# ^7 O, K& a, J) ^6 g
* C- `+ D$ x$ YBonnie S. Glaser is senior adviser for Asia and director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

15#
 楼主| 发表于 2020-7-24 22:44 | 只看该作者
KUALA LUMPUR: Matters relating to the South China Sea must be resolved peacefully based on the universally recognised principles of international law.! k) h# l! I8 v9 J$ R! c7 a  W
- T# G" k1 T0 i6 X2 I2 }$ y# k
Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said this must also be based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.( q' b0 F* p/ W5 v+ C7 {" j

& A7 D1 ]0 h1 w- rIn a statement today, Hishammuddin said Malaysia maintains its position that all parties must work together to ensure peace, security and stability in the South China Sea.
( m' S, {7 f8 D5 Z* S; ~6 ~/ o+ c, w' n" h( O+ ~+ J0 b
"Malaysia looks forward to continuing the discussions to conclude an effective and substantive Code of Conduct in the South China Sea that would encompass elements which reflect the rights and interests of all parties.& S& H1 Z# ~8 z. ?
/ r0 o- Y/ P, H+ r2 j; \
"As a claimant state, Malaysia has always been consistent in our stand, firm in our commitment to safeguard our sovereignty, sovereign rights and interests in the South China Sea.6 r9 e) }5 D& ?+ M8 S9 H, ^

" G/ c' s1 q0 S9 f' E4 }: \"Malaysia's national interests remain paramount."4 y, [& ?  N" y# X+ }

' b$ F" B( W5 ?/ U# c( @. qHe added that Malaysia would also continue to play an active role in ensuring that the South China Sea remained a sea of peace and trade.
8 V  W! D' e! [) c+ x% R  P; Y" T8 L8 D3 O7 W
Hishammuddin's comments came amid growing tension between the United States and China over Beijing's claims to most of the South China Sea, which is a major trade route.7 a+ F; D  K5 y0 {/ e- I  E$ ]3 u

" x1 v8 F# P9 X& [US secretary of State Mike Pompeo had rejected Beijing's claims in the disputed waters, describing it as "completely unlawful"./ {. U/ d3 Y2 ?& G

- x) f9 G5 O$ h7 C* a3 E0 |1 FBeijing claims the majority of the South China Sea through the so-called nine-dash line, a vague delineation based on maps from the 1940s when the Republic of China snapped up islands from Japanese control.) t. O% C' _$ x3 x2 U# @' o

- k; @# U/ ~1 `5 f6 ?Meanwhile, in response to former foreign minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman's criticisms, Hishammuddin said Malaysia's position on the South China Sea had not changed from the time Anifah led the ministry." p6 l/ @5 f4 X3 h* y- B! b5 l

+ d9 j$ @' j9 A  A"I spoke in the context of the reaction to West Capella activities where a Chinese survey vessel, the accompanying Chinese Coast Guard and fishing militia were present in our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from April to May.
4 w0 p2 F- L  p+ C5 Y& B4 D: [* j2 u; v
"This was managed during my first 100 days in the ministry and those vessels left our EEZ after intensive diplomatic efforts.9 o5 V. N0 O' o
& S& R& u& \! e  u) W% Z5 C$ o
"If he (Anifah) knew the context of my statement yesterday regarding West Capella activities as clarified, I am certain he would not have misunderstood and reacted the way he did," he added./ o9 [; z/ R& B( ~& u

% |& l( x1 b% d( iOn Wednesday, Hishammuddin had said that there were no Chinese coast guard and navy ships in Malaysian waters.9 r2 ?% C& p+ U) J+ Z  j
0 s# i) l2 A1 ~; C6 A3 f3 J
Anifah had criticised Hishammuddin's claims, and said the latter was either "in denial or ignorant of the facts".
& F1 s. z- J5 }  Z, I' d' J& M) e0 ]: T3 m' Z- P* M# l
https://www.nst.com.my/news/nati ... peaceful-resolution
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

小黑屋|手机版|南海研究论坛 ( 辽ICP备12011429号|辽公安备21091102000117 )

GMT+8, 2020-11-27 22:50 , Processed in 0.204697 second(s), 18 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表