adminLovemore Chikova in Beijing, China
So, the world is now divided over the South China Sea, with peace-loving countries baffled by the arbitral ruling, while those spoiling for a fight want it immediately enforced.
It is now a clear case of warmongers having their weird intentions being endorsed by an equally contested tribunal over the South China Sea dispute.
Well, this is how best to describe the effect of the international tribunal ruling on the South China Sea dispute issued on Tuesday.
The ruling in the case brought by the Philippines over maritime rights in this part of the sea went against China. As was widely expected.
But that does not necessarily mean that China is guilty.
Instead, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague deliberately ignored the historical facts with regards to the claims being made by several countries to portions of the sea.
In just a moment, the international tribunal turned a deaf ear to loud calls for a peaceful resolution of the dispute in the South China Sea.
Instead, by choosing to endorse the demands of the Philippines, the arbitral court sided with conflict-seeking and warmongering countries, which hope the dispute spills into military confrontation.
Fair-minded people the world over had expected the arbitration court to weigh the consequences of its ruling against the desire to maintain world peace.
China has not provoked any country within the region with regards to the South China Sea.
The Asian economic giant has only been asserting its sovereignty in the area, pursuing its programmes on the territory which historically and undoubtedly belongs to it.
But the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei have of late been laying claims to the same swathe of the sea waters and islands.
China made it clear that it wants peace with its neighbours and the best way forward is to negotiate an amicable solution.
And far more countries have been supporting China’s stance for a peaceful solution, instead of resorting to conflict.
Then entered the United States.
The US’ stance on the South China Sea has been confrontational and poised to spoil the peaceful resolution being sought by so many other countries.
The US has been sending its warships and aircraft to the South China Sea, obviously in preparation for military conflict with China.
The action is being done in supposed support of the Philippines with which the US has a defence pact.
But the truth is that the US is targeting China and would want to provoke the Asian country to a military confrontation.
Well, China is the second largest economic powerhouse in the world after the US and pundits envisage the Asian country taking over the first spot in a few years.
This progress by China has not gone down well with the US for obvious reasons.
This explains why the US is seeking an opportunity for a confrontation with China as a way of retarding further development by the Asian economic giant.
And the South China Sea dispute provided an opportunity for stirring up such a conflict.
So, instead of calling for a peaceful resolution to the dispute, the international tribunal has ruled in favour of the aggressors, in the process promoting further conflict in the region.
China has rejected not only the ruling, but the tribunal itself, saying it is not covered under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Many other countries, including some permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, support China on the matter.
And it was clear from the start that the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction over the matter.
There was also no doubt from the start that the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the arbitration violated UNCLOS and international practice.
Instead of calling for an amicable end to the South China Sea, the arbitration sought to stoke fires.
And the warmongers have been waiting for such an opportunity, already threatening China even before the arbitration tribunal made its ruling.
The threats escalated soon after the ruling was made, clearly indicating that the tribunal was not really about bringing an end to the dispute.
The arbitration was meant to be used an instrument to force China either out of the South China Sea or into military conflict with the Philippines, and the US by extension.
The tribunal concluded that “there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the nine-dash line”.
The Chinese government officially announced the “nine-dash line” defining the South China Sea in 1948 and reasserted its sovereignty and other relevant rights in the area.
The disputed area has been within the Chinese territory since ancient times.
In fact, China was the first country in history that founded and named the islands, as well as constantly exercised jurisdiction over them through administrative management.
And for a long period after the Second World War, major countries including the US itself, the Soviet Union, Japan and France acknowledged that the disputed Nansha Islands belonged to China, not the Philippines.
China has always argued that the inherent Philippine territory was clearly defined by three international treaties – Treaty of Paris concluded between the US and Spain in 1898, Treaty between the Kingdom of Spain and the US for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines in 1900 and the Convention between the US and Great Britain delimiting the boundary between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo in 1930.
All these did not indicate that the Nansha Islands were part of the Philippines.
So, the world is now divided over the South China Sea, with peace-loving countries baffled by the arbitral ruling, while those spoiling for a fight want it immediately enforced.
Russia has made its position clear, that it is against third parties interfering in the South China Sea dispute as that will cause more conflict.
What is most preferred in the region, Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavlov said, is to solve the dispute through talks between parties directly involved.
The African Union has also, through its Commission deputy chairperson Mr Erastus Mwencha, urged countries directly concerned to embrace dialogue and peacefully resolve their disputes.
This position was supported by almost all African countries including Zimbabwe, Angola, Kenya, Malawi, Guinea Bissau, Tanzania, Zambia, Mauritania, Cameroon and Ethiopia.
Many other countries in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia have supported a peaceful solution to the South China Sea through negotiations and mutual understanding.
India urged the countries involved in the South China Sea to resolve the dispute peacefully and “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability”.
In comparison to the stance from the above-mentioned regions and countries, the arbitral tribunal has given interventionists the impetus for conflict in the South China Sea.
Australia called for China to respect the ruling, a senior White House official in the US stressed the importance of upholding the order and France adopted the same stance.
Vietnam, which also has claims in the sea, also supported the ruling, while Japan said it was “final and legally binding”.
In a statement issued after the ruling, China made it clear that the ruling was “null and avoid and has no binding force”.
The Asian country said it neither accepts nor recognises it.
It is clear that the arbitral ruling has divided the world into two camps with conflictingt opinions and there is need for a sober reflection for the situation to remain stable in the region.
Countries like the US, which are trying to use the Philippines as pawns for their inherent intention to militarily confront China, have to reflect hard on the consequences of their intentions.
Online Reporter