In response to the U – shaped line viewpoint in an article of China Daily

Dịch bài viết: "Về bài báo đường lưỡi bò trên China Daily" của Vietnamnet.

Writer: Việt Long

Some Chinese specialists agreed that “In the South China Sea dispute, China hasn’t itself clear and systematical viewpoints, this damaged to Chinese prestige seriously”.

Foreword: On 31^st, Jul, 2011, Vietnam week published an article “ China equivocates the U – shaped line” to introduce an article written by Ly Quoc Cuong – a specialist of Border and History Research Center of China Social Science Institution. Although there are many articles to show unreasonableness of the U – shape line, this article should analyze subjective points of writer straightly

The U – Shaped line was declared by a diplomatic note of Chinese diplomatic delegation in United Nations to protest water territory claim of Vietnam and Malaysia. This line only existed in some arrogant Han people before and it was changed unsystematically to invade all the South China Sea. The writer explained “the U –shaped line is a maritime border of China in the South China Sea, a result of historical progress and China is the only country which performs its territory continuously in the history. So, China has the right to claim territory in all the South China Sea”. In contrast, he told that “Vietnam, Malaysia and Philippines had no idea about islands in the South China Sea until Quing dynasty and they hadn’t any proof of their history activities in the South China Sea”

Nine groundless points of the U – shaped line

Many articles analyzed equivocations of the U – shaped line. In this article, we only repeat nine groundless points.

Firstly, date to publish the U – shaped line is unclear. Sometimes, it is 1948 but other time is 1930s.

Secondly, this line was published privately. 

The nonsensical Chinese U – shaped line

Thirdly, sometimes, the line is nine – dotted line but other time, the line is eleven – dotted. They described it unsystematically without specific geographic coordinates.  

Fourthly, when the U – shaped line was drawn on a map, France had sent troops and frigates to garrison Spratlys and Paracels in 1933. These activities were accepted as an inheritance sovereignty performance from Vietnamese feudal authorities

Fifthly, San Francisco peace treaty in 1951 hadn’t any word about the U – shaped line. Majority of member rejected Soviet Foreign Minister – Gromuko’s request for accepting Chinese territory in Spartlys and Paracels. So, there weren’t any international acceptation about Chinese territory in islands in the South China Sea. And so do the U –shaped line.

Sixthly, All countries that have claim on territory in (all or a part of) Spartlys and Paracels, don’t accept the Chinese U – shaped line.  

Seventhly, Countries which are outside the dispute, even also disagree with China. The US doesn’t accept any water territory without mainland and island. Indonesia sent a diplomatic note which disagreed with the Chinese U – shaped line.

Eighthly, The U – shaped line explains what and Chinese researchers couldn’t answer it systematically. Even in the article in China Daily, the writer wrote unsystematically. He wrote “Chinese territorial waters in the South China Sea is a result of historical progress” and “Although, China possesses islands, reefs, shoals in area which were encompassed by the U – shaped line. This is not internal waters of China”.

Ninthly, the writer of China Daily tries to explain it as “historic title”. This is a distortion. Exact content in 15^th article is “where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of two States in a way which is at variance therewith.” In Conference on the Law of Sea in 1958, no document listed the South China Sea as historic waters. In UNCLOS 1982, no line described the South China Sea as historic waters.  

Even Chinese researchers admit their unsystematic viewpoints

Equivocation and unreason of the U – shaped line made foreign researchers request Chinese ones to explain it. In all the South China Sea conferences, Chinese researchers were asked to explain about the U – shaped line. In security in the South China Sea conference in Washington DC, in June, 2011, Chinese researchers didn’t have straight speeches; other specialists didn’t understand and thought that China lied. The Chinese researchers had to admit that they didn’t prepare well. To other members in conference, they thought China was wrong.[2]

Stein Tonnesson, Director of the international peace institute in Oslo (Norway), thought that all tensions in the South China Sea are resulted by the unclear U – shape line. China must show their clear viewpoints to the world and its citizens. [3]

Serious Chinese researchers have to admit that “in the South China Sea dispute, Chinese view points have been unclear, unsystematic. These have affected to international prestige of China”[4]

Trần Phả (Chen pa) in “Khai Phóng” (Kai peng) magazine in Jul, 2011 wrote “a question is how fair China draws the U – shaped line close to Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei territorial waters? If China follows UNCLOS 1982, Chinese Exclusive Economics Zone couldn’t reach to it” 

Territory must be claimed by States.

As the writer wrote, if he said China is the first nation which occupied islands in the South China Sea from Qin, Han, Jin to Ming and Quing dynasties, he should read historical official documents again.

In “Nam Châu dị vật chí” (record of strange things in South Land) written by Dương Phù and “Phù Nam truyện” (Stories in South Land) of Khang Thái in Three Kingdoms era (220 – 265) , “Vũ kinh tổng yếu” of Tăng Công Lượng (998 – 1078) and Đinh Độ (990 – 1053) in Tang dynasty, “Đảo di chí lược” written by Vương Đại Uyên in Yuan dynasty (1206 – 1368), “Đông Tây dương khảo” written by Trương Nhiếp in Ming dynasty (1368 – 1644), “Độc sử phương du kỷ yếu” written by Cổ Tổ Vũ in Qing dynasty... the South China Sea was marked as territory of far undeveloped country. All official documents (“Quỳnh Châu phủ chí” (1731), “Hoàng triều di tông tâm lĩnh” (1894), “Đại Thanh di đồ” (1905), “Trung Quốc Địa lý giao khoa thư, Thương Vụ ấn Thư Quán Thượng Hải” (1906) showed Nhai Châu (Hainan) with latitude of 18^o13’ South to be the farthest territory of China 

White book of Ministry of Foreign Affair of China in 1980 only quoted 4 paragraphs in Tang, Yuan, Ming history documents with places as “Thất Châu dương”. This place name isn’t in correlation with Spartlys and Paracels. Not only it is a distortion but also it’s not continuous activities in 2000 years. In German “Bellona” sinking case at Đá Bắc reef and Japanese “Imegi Maru” sinking case at An Vinh of Paracels in 1895 – 1896, Chinese authorizes refused to save these ships because these islands didn’t belong to China.

In 1932, a delegation of China in Paris sent a diplomatic note to claim territory in Xisha (Paracels). In fact, the writer forgot that sovereignty performance must act by State not fishermen or discovery.

Although, the writer comment arrogantly that ancient Vietnamese, Malaysian and Filipino didn’t know about the South China Sea, he forgot contents of historical books of China. In “Hải ngoại ký sự” (Haiwai jishi) written by Thích Đại Sán (Shi da shan) (a Chinese monk) in 1696 wrote: “Because of sand bank from East North to West South, if a ship collides with it, the ship will be broken. The sand bank is hundreds miles width called ten thousand mile sand. This sand is seven days travel far from Dai Viet (about seven hundred miles). Previous King often sent troops to go fishing, exploit gold, silver in sinking ships. In autumn, when the sea level fell, the flow ebbed to the East; a wave could bring a ship to a hundred mile place.

In “Hải lục” written by Vương Bính Nam in 1842, he wrote: “Ten thousand miles sand is an island in the sea, which is thousands miles in length, a frontier of An Nam (Vietnam).” Authorities of China even help members of Hoang Sa teams when they floated to Hainan. In “Đại Nam thực lục tiền biên” (1600 – 1775) in book 10, it wrote “In July, 1774, members of Hoang Sa team were floated to Quỳnh Châu (Qingzhou) by a hurricane. Qing Chinese mandarin saved and sent them back to Vietnam. The Lord of Vietnam sent a letter to thank”. It’s clearly that China knew these islands belong to Vietnam.

Finally, the writer warned that “Countries which signed UNCLOS, should know that the law is only one of international law system and they shouldn’t suspect territory of China in the South China Sea and the U – shaped line.” We can guess that China – a country approved UNCLOS, will free to obey or not obey it, although, UNCLOS is a package deal without reservation.

To stop suspicions of the world on the U – shaped line, China must explain their demand on the South China Sea with scientific and clear evidences. If they believe in the U – shaped line, let’s talk multilaterally to other countries as Philippines requests arbitrator.[5]

[1] To read more about the U – shaped line, please read http://hoangsa.org/diendan/timhieuluatbienquocte

[2] A researcher in Hong Kong criticized the U –shaped line and view points of China in the South China Sea ", http://nghiencuubiendong.vn/tin-ncbd/1842-1842- 21/7/2011”.

[3] Stein Tonnesson. "Trung Quốc cần làm rõ lập trường về đường chữ U", Liên hợp buổi sáng, Singapor, 27/7/2011. Bản dịch http://nghiencuubiendong.vn/tin-ncbd/1854-trung-quoc-can-lam-ro-lap-truong-ve-duong-chu-u

[4] "Học giả Hồng Kông chỉ trích đường chữ U và lập trường Biển Đông của Trung Quốc:, http://nghiencuubiendong.vn/tin-ncbd/1842-1842- 21/7/2011.

[5] "Philippines đề xuất tòa án LHQ xử vụ Biển Đông", Vietnam + Online 11/7/2011.