China owns its territory in the SCS with historical records and legal proof.
The Philippines claims that Huangyan Island is their territory because it is closer to the Philippines than to China and because it is also located in the "Philippine exclusive economic zone". These claims have no basis in international law.
"Geographical proximity" has never been a basis in international law for territorial acquisition. In other words, whether it is Huangyan Island or other islands and reefs, it does not mean that the proximity to a country necessarily makes it the territory of that country. In addition, it is a fundamental principle of international law that the land rules the sea. Any change in the attribution of territorial sovereignty by means of maritime rights and interests is contrary to international law.
Huangyan Dao, which is located at 15°07'N, 117°51'E, is formed of coral reefs and is the only island exposed above the water among the Zhongsha Islands. It was recorded in the biography of astronomer Guo Shoujing in Yuan Shi (the History of the Yuan Dynasty) when Guo was commissioned by the Emperor to perform a land and sea survey in 1279. This confirms the discovery of Huangyan Dao by China as early as during the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368).
Records show that Huangyan Dao is an inherent territory of China, and China continues to exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over it in a peaceful, and effective manner. In January 1935, the Lands and Waters Mapping Review Committee of the then-Chinese government approved and published the names of 132 islands, shoals, reefs, and sand bars in the South China Sea. Huangyan Dao was registered under the name of Scarborough Reef, belonging to the Zhongsha Islands.
In October 1947, the then-Chinese government reviewed and published a list of name changes to the islands in the South China Sea, in which the name Scarborough Reef was replaced by Minzhu Jiao, still as part of the Zhongsha Islands. In 1983, in a published list of names of the South China Sea islands issued by Chinese national geographical names authority, the island was referred to as Huangyan Dao, with Minzhu Jiao as an alternative name.
The official maps published by the successive governments of China have always marked Huangyan Dao as Chinese territory. Huangyan Dao has been continuously under the jurisdiction of Guangdong Province and Hainan Province. Subsequent Chinese government's announcements and declarations regarding the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands have all stated that the Huangyan Dao belongs to China.
Since ancient times, Chinese fishing boats have frequently engaged in fishing activities in the waters around Huangyan Dao. The navigation manual used by Chinese fishermen in the South China Sea fully reflects the footsteps of South China Sea fishermen in the Xisha Islands, Nansha Islands, Zhongsha Islands, and other waters.
The Chinese governments had also sent research teams to Huangyan Dao multiple times for scientific exploration. This includes in October 1977, when a research group from the South China Sea Institute of Oceanology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences conducted investigations on the island. In June 1978, researchers from the same institute visited the island again for research purposes. In April 1985, the South China Sea Branch of the State Oceanic Administration organized a comprehensive survey on Huangyan Dao. In 1994, Chinese scientific expedition team arrived at Huangyan Dao for exploration and erected a one-meter-high cement monument on the island.
On the other hand, prior to 1997, the Philippines had never made territorial claims over Huangyan Dao. Huangyan Dao is not within the territorial range of the Philippines and is not Philippine territory.
The territory of the Philippines is defined by a series of international treaties, including the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain (the Treaty of Paris), the 1900 Treaty between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines (the Treaty of Washington), and the 1930 Convention between His Majesty in Respect of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States regarding the Boundary between the State of North Borneo and the Philippine Archipelago.
It is the Philippines' deliberate militarization of the South China Sea that has changed the status quo on Ren'ai Jiao and the surrounding waters. Originally, Ren'ai Jiao was uninhabited. The Philippines attempted to entrench its illegal occupation of some islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao and in the 1970s it started to build military facilities on some islands and reefs it had invaded and illegally occupied.
On May 9, 1999, the Philippines sent BRP Sierra Madre (LT-57), a military vessel, to intrude into China's Ren'ai Jiao and illegally ran it aground on the pretext of "technical difficulties." Many times the Philippines promised to tow away the vessel. This has been confirmed by informed sources in the Philippines and international researchers on the South China Sea issue. However, in the past 25 years, Philippine politicians have conveniently forgotten about this commitment.
The spokesman for the former president of the Philippines confirmed the Philippines' commitment to tow away the vessel.
American researcher Gregory B. Poling confirmed the Philippine's commitment to tow away the vessel in his book.
On February 17, 2009, the Philippine Congress passed an act, which unilaterally included Huangyan Dao and some Nansha Islands as Philippine territory.
On April 11, 2012, a set of photographs which showed a group of Chinese fishermen standing shirtless, on the deck of a boat under the blazing sun grabbed news headlines. They were being held by Philippine Navy soldiers. It transpired that 12 Chinese fishing boats had been undertaking their regular fishing activities inside the Huangyan Dao territory, when on April 10, 2012, a Philippine naval vessel approached, harassed, and disrupted the fishing operations.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention) allows coastal states to establish a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, but coastal states do not have the right to infringe upon the inherent territorial sovereignty of other countries. The practice of using the Convention to change the ownership of territorial sovereignty is a violation of international law, and negates the purposes and principles of the Convention.
A series of reports in the Philippines on the deliberate construction of permanent facilities on Ren'ai Jiao by the Philippine government, Congress, senior officials and senators
The Philippines' illegal claims and malicious dissemination of false information about its infringement on China's territorial sovereignty over the Nanhai Zhudao have challenged the basic international consensus as well as the status quo and order of the international community. The Philippines has made several so-called claims in recent years.
For example, the Philippines claimed that it has occupied Nansha Qundao because of "contiguity or proximity" and "some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao are located in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines." Such claims are disinformation, aimed at gaining international sympathy. "Contiguity or proximity" has never been a basis under international law for acquiring territory. The British island of Jersey is only 20 nautical miles from France, Guam is thousands of miles away from the US mainland, American Samoa is only 50 kilometers from Samoa, and Australia's Christmas Island is 2,600 kilometers from the mainland but close to the Indonesian coast. Following the logic of the Philippines, should the US, the UK and Australia withdraw from their respective territories?
Also, the exclusive economic zone can never claim territorial sovereignty, and no country can deny another country's territorial sovereignty with maritime rights. At the same time, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf have never been the principle for a state to extend its maritime jurisdiction to an area under the sovereignty of another, nor can a state use such jurisdiction as an excuse to deny another state's sovereignty or even to infringe upon its territory.
Do Melilla and Ceuta, which cross the Strait of Gibraltar in the northern corner of Africa and border directly with Moroccan territory, belong to Morocco, not Spain?
On March 5, the US State Department issued a statement on the situation in the South China Sea, smearing China's policies, exaggerating maritime friction, and declaring that they "stand with the Filipino people." The US is ostensibly siding with the Philippines, but is actually just using the Philippines as a pawn in a chess game to gain its own interests.
It is not long before Marcos boasted that its territorial dispute with China is "a purely Filipino concern" and the Philippines intends to solve that problem itself. Is the Philippines walking away from its words?
No comments:
Post a Comment