不要在南海玩火（双语）

主页（http://www.kuwanit.com）：不要在南海玩火（双语）

　　On 10 June 2016, the Daily Telegraph and its website published a signed article by Ambassador Liu Xiaoming entitled “Stop playing with fire in the South China Sea”. The full text is as follows:

Stop Playing with Fire in the South China Sea

不要在南海玩火

Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador to the UK

中国驻英国大使刘晓明

　　Away from Britain’s focus on the forthcoming EU referendum, a serious international situation is developing in the South China Sea region. Although little reported in the UK, there is now much discussion about whether China should accept the ruling of the South China Sea arbitration process.

　　Proponents of this idea claim that China’s rejection would “undermine” the “rule-based international system” and would put the peace and stability of the region “under immediate threat”. We disagree.

　　近来，英国公众十分关注即将举行的英欧关系公投，但南海地区形势发展同样值得关注。尽管英国公众可能对南海问题了解不深，但关于中国是否应接受菲律宾南海仲裁庭即将宣布的仲裁结果已被炒得很热。一些人称，如果中国不接受仲裁结果，就是破坏了“基于规则的国际秩序”，南海和平稳定就岌岌可危。我们绝不同意这种观点。

　　It is important to understand that this arbitration process was in fact started by the Philippines unilaterally as an attempt to legitimise their illegal occupation of the Nansha islands and reefs.

　　Unknown to most of the British public is the fact that more than 40 of China’s islands and reefs in Nansha are illegally occupied by the Philippines and some other countries, who have built airstrips and deployed weapons there. The Philippines in particular has kept provoking disputes over islands and reefs time and again by, for example, “grounding” a warship forcibly and illegally on China’s reef to lay its claim.

　　China responded with maximum self-restraint, appealing for negotiations and consultations. We have called for disputes to be shelved and for joint development pending the ultimate solution of the issue.

　　However, it now appears that the Philippines sees China’s self-restraint as being weak. It has therefore gone one step further. It not only wants Chinese islands and reefs but has also filed for arbitration to drape its illegal occupation in the cloak of law.

　　Yet the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case at all. The submissions made by the Philippines appear to be related only to the classification of maritime features and fishery disputes, but are in essence inseparable from territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

　　Territorial sovereignty is not within the scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), whose preamble states that it establishes a legal order for the seas and oceans “with due regard for the sovereignty of all States”. China made a clear declaration in 2006 in accordance with UNCLOSto exclude maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration. More than 30 other countries, including Britain, have made similar declarations.

　　Despite the fact that this tribunal has no jurisdiction over either territorial sovereignty or maritime delimitation, the Philippines has abused its right of action by knowingly initiating an unlawful case.

　　The tribunal meanwhile has abused its right of competency by knowingly accepting a case that is clearly not within its jurisdiction.

　　Tom Zwart, a law professor at Utrecht University, warned in a recent article that in East Asia, “the [arbitration] award will be widely regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and it will fail, therefore, to garner the necessary support”.

　　Such a view is shared by numerous international law experts around the world. China’s non-participation in the arbitration process upholds international law.

　　The Law of the Seaclearly provides for a bilateral approach prior to any third-party mechanism, including arbitration. Yet it is clear that bilateral options between China and the Philippines have not been exhausted. The tribunal’s imprudent decision to start the compulsory arbitration process suggests a lack of even minimal respect for the spirit and principles of the UNCLOS to say the least.

　　Would anybody go into a football match where the rival team has conspired with the referee? Of course not. The fans and audience would not accept it.