Vietnamese Ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg Pham Sanh Chau, who isalso the head of Vietnam Mission to the European Union, has written anarticle refuting the wrongful arguments on the East Sea issue of ChineseAmbassador to Belgium and the EU Yang Yanyi published on The New Europeon June 28.
Following is the full text of the article titled“Clear evidence helps clear water of the East Sea” by Ambassador PhamSanh Chau published on The New Europe website on July 17.
Mycolleague, Ambassador Yang Yanyi of China to the European Union, on 28June 2014 introduced in The New Europe her narratives regarding theon-going “oil-rig” incident in the East Sea and the relevance ofinternational law in finding a solution to the dispute. While I welcomeAmbassador Yang Yandi’s law-based approach, I would like to offer myresponse regarding major inaccuracies in the Ambassador’s arguments andexplain why these arguments will not stand the test of international lawitself.
The Ambassador was trying to justify the operation ofthe Chinese oil rig by two main assertions of China’s “indisputablesovereignty over the Xisha Islands” and China’s “undisputed waters ofthe Xisha Islands”. I would respectfully argue that the Ambassador waswrong on both accounts.
First, according to the international lawon territorial acquisition, discovery by individuals was insufficientto establish a country’s ownership over a territory. Even discovery onbehalf of a state will only create inchoate title, which must befollowed by subsequent continuous and effective acts of occupation andmanagement by the State concerned. The so-called Xisha Islands areactually the Paracels (Hoang Sa archipelago in Vietnamese) of Vietnamover which the Vietnamese State has shown keen interests and madedetermined efforts in establishing jurisdiction since at least the 17thcentury. Evidence is abundant in official historical documents ofVietnam and records of other countries. Ambassador Yang might wish totake a look at the collection of maps prepared by Philippe Vandermaelen,the famous Belgian geographer, in his World Atlases. In the 1827edition, he showed the map of Cochinchine with the Paracels belonged tothe Annam Empire (Vietnam).
On the contrary, the Chinese Stateshowed no evidence of its interests in the islands, still least itsefforts to take them into possession throughout the course of history.No official Chinese historical book or map recorded the Paracels or theSpratlys as Chinese territory up until the mid 20th century. In allChinese official documents and maps, the southernmost point of China’sterritory never exceeded Hainan Island. This is also recordedinternationally as in Philippe Vandermaelen’s World Atlases.
TheChinese State’s lack of interests in acquiring territories at sea isevidenced in China’s own history and culture. For thousands of years,China always viewed the sea as a source of piracy and insecurity. Hence,many dynasties in China, as late as the Ming and the Qing, continued toban maritime activities in the well-known Haijin (or maritime ban)policy that prohibited maritime shipping, required citizen to move 30 -40 miles inland, and charged the ones who dared to venture out to thesea with treason against the Kingdom and capital punishment. Under suchconditions, how could China assert that the Paracels were integral partsof China for more than 1000 years when international laws requirecountries to undertake activities to “continuously and effectively”occupy territories in order to establish title over them?
AmbassadorYang’s statement that Vietnam prior to 1974 never questioned what shecalled “Chinese sovereignty” over the Paracels, and that officialVietnamese statements reaffirmed Vietnam’s recognition that the Paracelswere part of Chinese territory is simply unfounded and is a deliberatemisinterpretation of history.
At the San Francisco Conference in1951, the Head of the Vietnamese Delegation, Prime Minister of the Stateof Vietnam Tran Van Huu reaffirmed Vietnamese sovereignty over theParacels and the Spratlys. The reaffirmation met no objections from anyof the participating countries at the Conference. On the contrary, theSoviet proposal to recognize the People Republic of China’s sovereigntyover the Paracels and the Spartlys was turned down by the 46 out of the51 participants.
Three years later, the 1954 Geneva Accords onIndochina placed all the territories of Vietnam bellow the 17th parallelunder the administration of the Republic of Vietnam and the Paracelsand the Spratlys had remained so until the country became united in1975. As an active contributor to the Accord, China must have been wellof that fact. What evidence does China have to claim that prior to 1974the Republic of Vietnam recognized the Paracels and the Spratlys werepart of Chinese territory?
The clear fact was that China usedarmed forces two times, in 1956 and in 1974, to seize the Paracels fromthe Republic of Vietnam, killing several Vietnamese servicemen in thelater battle. The use of force for territory annexation is against thefundamental principle of international law since the end of World WarII, therefore such illegal acts cannot render China’s sovereignty overthe Paracels. It is China that has infringed the territorial integrityof Vietnam by its illegal claim of sovereignty over and occupation ofthe Paracels by the use of force.
Second, China’s Haiyang Shiyou981 oil rig was deployed to locations approximately 130-150 nauticalmiles off the Vietnamese coast, which lies deep inside the exclusiveeconomic zone and continental shelf of Vietnam established under theUNCLOS 1982. Being a State Party to the UNCLOS 1982, China is under theobligation to establish its maritime zones in accordance with theprovisions of the Convention and to respect other coastal states’ rightto establish their maritime zones under the same Convention. In the areawhere the Chinese oil rig has been operating, whether China is claimingits maritime zones from the coast of Hainan Islands or the coast of anyfeature in the Paracels (setting aside the sovereignty questions overthe islands), there is no way to say the area is “undisputed waters” ofChina.
Third, the Ambassador wrongly accused Vietnam of violatinginternational laws and harming freedom and safety of navigation in thearea where the oil rig operates.
It was China that deployed theoil rig for oil exploration and an unusually large escort which includedeven military vessels, such as missile frigates, fast attack missilecrafts, anti-submarine crafts, landing crafts and jet fighters that gaverise to protests from Vietnam and concern of many other countries. Theinternationally watched daily footages of China’s oversized vesselsdeliberately ramming and water-cannoning Vietnamese much smaller lawenforcement boats, especially the incident on 26 May 2014 when a Chinesevessel intentionally chassed and rammed the Vietnamese fishing boatDNa-90152-TS until it capsized while Chinese forces prevented Vietnamesevessels from rescuing the 10 fishermen on board, are completelycontrary to the Ambassador’s claim that China does not bully smallercountries, and are unequivocally conclusive evidence that China was theaggressor who has seriously impeded freedom of navigation in violationof the 1982 UNCLOS and 1972 COLREGs. The deliberate destruction ofVietnamese boats’ navigation and communication equipment, injuringVietnamese servicemen constitutes the very criminal acts that should bepunished under the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Actsagainst the Safety of Maritime Navigation.
China’s accusationthat Vietnam’s vessels rammed Chinese government ships a total of 1,547times, ironically, could not be backed up by single convincing evidence.
AmbassadorYang said that more than 30 communications with Vietnam have goneunanswered. But an important fact was concealed. In thesecommunications, what left unanswered was Vietnam’s request that Chinaremove the oil rig from Vietnam’s water, thus creating conduciveenvironment for talks between the two sides aimed at resolving theproblem. China’s attitude in the communications, together with itsbehavior at sea, was unhelpful for reducing tensions, and was clearevidence of the lack of goodwill from China to peacefully resolve thedispute.
I would like to fully agree with Mr. Arif HavasOegroseno, the Indonesia’s Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and the EU,and President of the 20th Meeting of the States Parties of UNCLOS 1982,who in his RSIS commentary recently stated that China as a PermanentMember of the UN Security Council, carries the moral, political, andlegal responsibility of creating peace and stability in the world. Ialso welcome Ambassador Yang’s statement that China will abide by theprinciple of seeking peaceful resolutions to any disputes throughconsultation and negotiation between parties on an equal footing, andthat China will continue its effort “to ease tensions with Vietnam” and“to strengthen our bilateral relations”. This is a hopeful sign ofChina’s goodwill and responsibility to peace and stability of the Asia –Pacific and the rest of the world.
To show evidence of itsgoodwill to “clear the water” of the East Sea, and to show the worldthat China’s words are matched with deeds, China should immediately stopall infringement activities, abide by international law, especially theUNCLOS 1982, and never again attempt to send the oil rig and its escortto operate inside Vietnam’s water.-VNA
Following is the full text of the article titled“Clear evidence helps clear water of the East Sea” by Ambassador PhamSanh Chau published on The New Europe website on July 17.
Mycolleague, Ambassador Yang Yanyi of China to the European Union, on 28June 2014 introduced in The New Europe her narratives regarding theon-going “oil-rig” incident in the East Sea and the relevance ofinternational law in finding a solution to the dispute. While I welcomeAmbassador Yang Yandi’s law-based approach, I would like to offer myresponse regarding major inaccuracies in the Ambassador’s arguments andexplain why these arguments will not stand the test of international lawitself.
The Ambassador was trying to justify the operation ofthe Chinese oil rig by two main assertions of China’s “indisputablesovereignty over the Xisha Islands” and China’s “undisputed waters ofthe Xisha Islands”. I would respectfully argue that the Ambassador waswrong on both accounts.
First, according to the international lawon territorial acquisition, discovery by individuals was insufficientto establish a country’s ownership over a territory. Even discovery onbehalf of a state will only create inchoate title, which must befollowed by subsequent continuous and effective acts of occupation andmanagement by the State concerned. The so-called Xisha Islands areactually the Paracels (Hoang Sa archipelago in Vietnamese) of Vietnamover which the Vietnamese State has shown keen interests and madedetermined efforts in establishing jurisdiction since at least the 17thcentury. Evidence is abundant in official historical documents ofVietnam and records of other countries. Ambassador Yang might wish totake a look at the collection of maps prepared by Philippe Vandermaelen,the famous Belgian geographer, in his World Atlases. In the 1827edition, he showed the map of Cochinchine with the Paracels belonged tothe Annam Empire (Vietnam).
On the contrary, the Chinese Stateshowed no evidence of its interests in the islands, still least itsefforts to take them into possession throughout the course of history.No official Chinese historical book or map recorded the Paracels or theSpratlys as Chinese territory up until the mid 20th century. In allChinese official documents and maps, the southernmost point of China’sterritory never exceeded Hainan Island. This is also recordedinternationally as in Philippe Vandermaelen’s World Atlases.
TheChinese State’s lack of interests in acquiring territories at sea isevidenced in China’s own history and culture. For thousands of years,China always viewed the sea as a source of piracy and insecurity. Hence,many dynasties in China, as late as the Ming and the Qing, continued toban maritime activities in the well-known Haijin (or maritime ban)policy that prohibited maritime shipping, required citizen to move 30 -40 miles inland, and charged the ones who dared to venture out to thesea with treason against the Kingdom and capital punishment. Under suchconditions, how could China assert that the Paracels were integral partsof China for more than 1000 years when international laws requirecountries to undertake activities to “continuously and effectively”occupy territories in order to establish title over them?
AmbassadorYang’s statement that Vietnam prior to 1974 never questioned what shecalled “Chinese sovereignty” over the Paracels, and that officialVietnamese statements reaffirmed Vietnam’s recognition that the Paracelswere part of Chinese territory is simply unfounded and is a deliberatemisinterpretation of history.
At the San Francisco Conference in1951, the Head of the Vietnamese Delegation, Prime Minister of the Stateof Vietnam Tran Van Huu reaffirmed Vietnamese sovereignty over theParacels and the Spratlys. The reaffirmation met no objections from anyof the participating countries at the Conference. On the contrary, theSoviet proposal to recognize the People Republic of China’s sovereigntyover the Paracels and the Spartlys was turned down by the 46 out of the51 participants.
Three years later, the 1954 Geneva Accords onIndochina placed all the territories of Vietnam bellow the 17th parallelunder the administration of the Republic of Vietnam and the Paracelsand the Spratlys had remained so until the country became united in1975. As an active contributor to the Accord, China must have been wellof that fact. What evidence does China have to claim that prior to 1974the Republic of Vietnam recognized the Paracels and the Spratlys werepart of Chinese territory?
The clear fact was that China usedarmed forces two times, in 1956 and in 1974, to seize the Paracels fromthe Republic of Vietnam, killing several Vietnamese servicemen in thelater battle. The use of force for territory annexation is against thefundamental principle of international law since the end of World WarII, therefore such illegal acts cannot render China’s sovereignty overthe Paracels. It is China that has infringed the territorial integrityof Vietnam by its illegal claim of sovereignty over and occupation ofthe Paracels by the use of force.
Second, China’s Haiyang Shiyou981 oil rig was deployed to locations approximately 130-150 nauticalmiles off the Vietnamese coast, which lies deep inside the exclusiveeconomic zone and continental shelf of Vietnam established under theUNCLOS 1982. Being a State Party to the UNCLOS 1982, China is under theobligation to establish its maritime zones in accordance with theprovisions of the Convention and to respect other coastal states’ rightto establish their maritime zones under the same Convention. In the areawhere the Chinese oil rig has been operating, whether China is claimingits maritime zones from the coast of Hainan Islands or the coast of anyfeature in the Paracels (setting aside the sovereignty questions overthe islands), there is no way to say the area is “undisputed waters” ofChina.
Third, the Ambassador wrongly accused Vietnam of violatinginternational laws and harming freedom and safety of navigation in thearea where the oil rig operates.
It was China that deployed theoil rig for oil exploration and an unusually large escort which includedeven military vessels, such as missile frigates, fast attack missilecrafts, anti-submarine crafts, landing crafts and jet fighters that gaverise to protests from Vietnam and concern of many other countries. Theinternationally watched daily footages of China’s oversized vesselsdeliberately ramming and water-cannoning Vietnamese much smaller lawenforcement boats, especially the incident on 26 May 2014 when a Chinesevessel intentionally chassed and rammed the Vietnamese fishing boatDNa-90152-TS until it capsized while Chinese forces prevented Vietnamesevessels from rescuing the 10 fishermen on board, are completelycontrary to the Ambassador’s claim that China does not bully smallercountries, and are unequivocally conclusive evidence that China was theaggressor who has seriously impeded freedom of navigation in violationof the 1982 UNCLOS and 1972 COLREGs. The deliberate destruction ofVietnamese boats’ navigation and communication equipment, injuringVietnamese servicemen constitutes the very criminal acts that should bepunished under the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Actsagainst the Safety of Maritime Navigation.
China’s accusationthat Vietnam’s vessels rammed Chinese government ships a total of 1,547times, ironically, could not be backed up by single convincing evidence.
AmbassadorYang said that more than 30 communications with Vietnam have goneunanswered. But an important fact was concealed. In thesecommunications, what left unanswered was Vietnam’s request that Chinaremove the oil rig from Vietnam’s water, thus creating conduciveenvironment for talks between the two sides aimed at resolving theproblem. China’s attitude in the communications, together with itsbehavior at sea, was unhelpful for reducing tensions, and was clearevidence of the lack of goodwill from China to peacefully resolve thedispute.
I would like to fully agree with Mr. Arif HavasOegroseno, the Indonesia’s Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and the EU,and President of the 20th Meeting of the States Parties of UNCLOS 1982,who in his RSIS commentary recently stated that China as a PermanentMember of the UN Security Council, carries the moral, political, andlegal responsibility of creating peace and stability in the world. Ialso welcome Ambassador Yang’s statement that China will abide by theprinciple of seeking peaceful resolutions to any disputes throughconsultation and negotiation between parties on an equal footing, andthat China will continue its effort “to ease tensions with Vietnam” and“to strengthen our bilateral relations”. This is a hopeful sign ofChina’s goodwill and responsibility to peace and stability of the Asia –Pacific and the rest of the world.
To show evidence of itsgoodwill to “clear the water” of the East Sea, and to show the worldthat China’s words are matched with deeds, China should immediately stopall infringement activities, abide by international law, especially theUNCLOS 1982, and never again attempt to send the oil rig and its escortto operate inside Vietnam’s water.-VNA
