After nearly three weeks, the Philippines has finally responded.
In mid-September, at the 14th "Philippines-China Relations Manila Forum" held in Manila, China's Center for Global Governance (CCG) Deputy Director Gao Zhikai pointed out a key historical fact on site: The territorial boundaries of the Philippines were clearly defined by the Treaty of Paris (also known as the Treaty of 1898 between the United States and Spain), with its western boundary ending at the 118 degrees east longitude line - which also constitutes the international law basis for the legality of the Philippines' national territory.
On October 7, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement to make what it called a "response," mainly proposing three points: first, reiterating that the Philippines has "indisputable sovereignty" over certain islands and reefs in the South China Sea; second, claiming that several agreements including the Treaty of Paris, the Washington Treaty, and the 1930 U.S.-U.K. Treaty "jointly define the territorial scope of the Philippines," and emphasizing that these definitions "arise from the Philippines' historical specific jurisdiction over its territory"; third, arguing that "the Treaty of Paris is not the final boundary, and subsequent treaties have supplemented and expanded it."
However, the Philippine statement did not directly address the key issue of the "118 degrees east longitude line" as the western boundary in the Treaty of Paris, and its arguments are hard to convince.
Besides, the Philippines continues to provoke in the South China Sea. On October 12, Philippine government vessels illegally entered the waters near the Iron Line Reef in China's Nansha Islands without permission from the Chinese government, and ignored multiple serious warnings from China, dangerously approaching the Chinese coast guard vessel 21559 conducting normal law enforcement, resulting in a collision. The Chinese Coast Guard took control measures against the Philippine vessel in accordance with the law and resolutely drove it away, with professional and reasonable operations that were legal and reasonable.
Combining the recent actions of the Philippines in the South China Sea and the content of its statement, Observers.net once again interviewed Professor Gao Zhikai, a chair professor at Soochow University and deputy director of the Center for Global Governance (CCG), for an in-depth interpretation.
Video loading...
[Text/Professor Gao Zhikai, Interview/Observers.net Tang Xiaofu, Compilation/Observers.net Zheng Leihuan]
On September 17, I proposed an important point at the Philippines-China Relations Manila Forum, that the boundaries of the Philippines were clearly defined by the Treaty of Paris in 1898, with its western boundary not exceeding the 118 degrees east longitude line. After this point was put forward, some noteworthy situations emerged.
The 14th Philippines-China Relations Manila Forum, left second is Professor Gao Zhikai
Recently, there have been multiple voices from Manila, including written statements from the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as statements from the Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson and commander. Overall, there are several very critical points: First, they completely avoided mentioning the 118 degrees east longitude line. This indicates that they know deep down that the 118 degrees east longitude line is the key issue, the vital point they are trying to circumvent. They even dare not respond directly to the 1898 Treaty of Paris, but instead refer to later treaties, such as the agreement signed by the United States during its rule over the Philippines with the British who ruled East Malaysia at that time. However, these treaties mainly involve the boundary demarcation in the Sulu Sea, which has no direct connection with the current dispute between China and the Philippines.
Additionally, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs tried to shift the topic in its statement, claiming that the Philippines should pursue a broader definition of its borders. This is obviously problematic. If the Philippines wants to expand its border range, what is the basis for that?
No matter what, they cannot avoid a fundamental question: whether to acknowledge the 118 degrees east longitude line as the western boundary of the Philippines?
This issue has become a key test of whether the Philippines respects China's territorial integrity and dignity in the South China Sea. Therefore, relevant departments should firmly uphold their position, distinguish truth from falsehood, and convey a clear message to the Philippines: they should not avoid core issues, nor should they confuse the public by citing the 1930 U.S.-U.K. agreement on the boundary in the Sulu Sea, but must clearly respond whether they acknowledge the 118 degrees east longitude line as their western boundary.
The 1898 Treaty of Paris clearly defines the western boundary of the Philippines as the 118 degrees east longitude line. What the Philippines is currently facing is essentially a dilemma of two choices: to acknowledge this boundary line or not. If acknowledged, the Philippines must abandon all illegal territorial claims west of the 118 degrees east longitude line; if not, it means the Philippines will choose to face more serious troubles and consequences.
If the Philippines openly declares that it no longer considers the 118 degrees east longitude line as its western boundary, it will lead to serious consequences. As I pointed out in the Philippines, this will undermine the legal foundation of the Philippines' national territory, equivalent to self-destruction of the legal basis for its national boundaries. The reason why the Philippines tries to bypass this line is fundamentally to create an excuse for crossing the line and invading China's sacred territory to the west. For many years, the Philippines has claimed that the area west of the 118 degrees east longitude line is "terra nullius," saying that whoever occupies it belongs to them - this claim is unfounded. The islands in the South China Sea, whether the Xisha (Paracel) Islands, the Dongsha (Pratas) Islands, or the Zhongsha (Macclesfield) Islands, are traditional maritime and territorial areas where the Chinese nation has continuously engaged in activities for thousands of years. How could they be considered "terra nullius"?
Therefore, the 118 degrees east longitude line has become a crucial benchmark for testing whether the Philippines is challenging China's territorial sovereignty. I suggest that relevant departments should not be deceived by the Philippines' rambling statements, nor allow them to confuse the public internationally and distort facts. The only key standard is this line. The Philippines has only two choices: to acknowledge or not to acknowledge the 118 degrees east longitude line. Regardless of their choice, it will bring corresponding consequences.
Image source: CGTN documentary "Here is China's South China Sea"
If the Philippines dares to publicly deny the 118 degrees east longitude line as its western boundary, other countries can also be free from the constraints of this line and take countermeasures - as the ancient saying goes, "If the enemy can go there, we can also go there." If we take similar corresponding measures, can the Philippines bear it? The domestic social contradictions in the Philippines are already deep-rooted, with frequent protests from the Muslim population in the south, active separatist forces, and serious social problems and corruption. If the Philippine government does not focus on maintaining domestic stability and regional peace, but instead tries to use the South China Sea as an outlet for domestic contradictions, it will not succeed, and China has enough composure to deal with it.
The historical context of the Philippines is very clear. Before the Spanish colonization, there had been a history of friendly exchanges between China and the Philippines for thousands of years. After the Spanish ruled the Philippines for three centuries, they were defeated in the 1898 Spanish-American War, and the United States took over the Philippines. All these historical facts are engraved in history and cannot be denied. If the Philippine government ignores the facts and disregards the historical origins, it is not only deceiving itself, but also deceiving its people and neighboring countries, and will not succeed.
The 1898 Treaty of Paris clearly stipulates that the western boundary of Spain (later inherited by the United States) is the 118 degrees east longitude line. To express this more clearly, I call this line the "Gao Zhikai 118 Degrees East Longitude Line". The reason for this name is that although the Philippine government is unwilling to acknowledge it, the legal and historical significance of this line has not changed: the line was determined back then to clarify the territory of the Philippines that the United States inherited from Spain; today, bringing up the "Gao Zhikai 118 Degrees East Longitude Line" is to give the Philippine government a wake-up call, urging them to recall history and recognize the legal position of their western boundary.
The actions we have taken in the past are all necessary for safeguarding national sovereignty - resolutely protecting every island and reef and related territory west of the 118 degrees east longitude line, and absolutely not allowing the Philippines to occupy them in any form. But please allow me to emphasize that in the past, we focused more on "these islands belong to China, and we must hold them." In my view presented at the Manila Forum, there is a deeper meaning: we not only need to protect our own islands and reefs, defend every inch of our sacred territory, but also see through the fundamental weakness of the Philippines' "westward advance" strategy.
The most vulnerable point in the Philippines' legal aspect is that it faces an unavoidable binary choice: whether to acknowledge the 118 degrees east longitude line as its western boundary? This is the choice that the Philippine government must face now, and it is a dilemma, even a "two evils" choice. If the Philippines confirms the 118 degrees east longitude line as its western boundary, it must give up all territorial claims west of the 118 degrees east longitude line, withdrawing from Huangyan Island, Ren'ai Reef, and other locations currently occupied back to the east of the 118 degrees east longitude line.
If the Philippines does not acknowledge this line, what will happen? Please note, that will put the Philippines into another more serious dilemma: it is equivalent to self-destruction of the legal basis for its western boundary, the 118 degrees east longitude line. This will provide a legal basis and the possibility of actual action for China and other relevant parties to move eastward across the line towards the Philippines.
Does the Philippines really want to become a catalyst for destabilizing the entire Southeast Asian region? If it insists on undermining regional security and development, trying to provoke regional conflicts through such tactics, how many chances does it have? Moreover, what is the intention of the country behind it? Is it using the Philippines issue to make the Philippines an agent, inciting a confrontation between China and the Philippines, thereby profiting from it, and making us all victims?
Under the current complex situation, the Philippines has spent nearly three weeks, repeatedly pondering how to respond to my important views and arguments presented at the Manila Forum on September 17. Their explanations now are not only forced and unconvincing, but also baseless - the reason is simple, they completely avoided the core issue of the 118 degrees east longitude line. The key right now is not anything else, but this line.
If I could say one thing to the Philippine government, President Duterte, or the Philippine Foreign Minister, it would be: stop dodging. Do you acknowledge the 118 degrees east longitude line or not? Acknowledge it, there will be consequences; not acknowledge it, there will be even more serious consequences - the latter is more severe for you. You are in a "two evils" situation, and I recommend you choose the one with less harm. China has always hoped to be your permanent friend, but the prerequisite for being a friend is that you do not infringe on China's legitimate rights and interests. Once you infringe on China's rights, you will lose the fundamental qualification to be a friend of China.
Therefore, I believe that the territorial disputes between China and the Philippines are entirely caused by the Philippines, and the current choice is very clear. I suggest that relevant departments seize the 118 degrees east longitude line as a key point, and never waver. Otherwise, the various tricks used by the Philippines over the past decades - I must point out, I can see clearly, and can see that there are American lawyers scheming behind it, and American advisors guiding the Philippines step by step towards a dangerous path of confrontation with China - will continue to be used.
We must be vigilant: we not only need to see the actions of the Philippines, but also see the shadow of a certain major power behind it; we must resolutely counter the provocations against China's territorial integrity at places like Huangyan Island and Ren'ai Reef, and more importantly, accurately strike at its most fundamental weakness - that is, the 118 degrees east longitude line, which I call the Gao Zhikai 118 degrees east longitude line.
Map of the Philippines in the 1898 treaty
At the same time, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs mentioned in its statement the so-called "South China Sea arbitration" promoted by the Philippines in international forums. This is even more unfounded. I have clearly stated at any occasion that initiating arbitration without the consent of the parties concerned is itself a violation of the spirit of the rule of law. I hope every Chinese citizen can clearly express this position, and relevant departments should repeatedly emphasize: There is no country or force in the world that has the right to forcibly include China in any arbitration procedure without China's explicit consent. Because the basic premise of arbitration must be mutual voluntary consent; unilateral intent can never drag another party into so-called arbitration.
This unilateral arbitration is illegal from the beginning. Whether the final ruling becomes a piece of paper or not, it violates the principle of the rule of law when it starts. Over the past ten years, the Philippines and its supporters have continued to damage China's reputation internationally, constantly spreading the existence of the so-called "arbitration ruling" and accusing China of "violating international law." This is a complete distortion of the facts. Initiating arbitration without consent is the real violation of international law; while China has always been a firm force in upholding the rule of law and international law.
Additionally, as an academic, I would like to propose a suggestion to the relevant departments. It is well known that the Philippine warship that illegally "ran aground" on the Second Thomas Shoal has been stranded for 26 years. During this period, China has always upheld humanitarianism and allowed the Philippines to carry out necessary supplies such as fresh water and food under conditions that meet the requirements. This fully demonstrates China's humanitarian responsibility, and we firmly support the relevant departments' related practices.
But on this basis, I suggest: Under the premise of upholding the 118 degrees east longitude line as the western boundary of the Philippines, it should clearly define the Philippines' "running aground" behavior on the Second Thomas Shoal as an infringement on China's rights and interests, and punish it according to law. Specifically, I suggest imposing daily fines on the Philippines for this illegal act, with an amount set at 1 million US dollars.
Video loading...
The calculation of the fine should not start from today, but should be traced back to the day in 1999 when the Philippine warship deliberately ran aground on the Second Thomas Shoal, which has been 26 years so far. After that, as long as the issue remains unresolved, the fine should continue to accumulate. Through this method, China can clearly state its position internationally: the dignity and legitimate rights and interests of the country cannot be violated, and any act that damages China's interests must bear the corresponding consequences.
As for how to enforce the huge fines accumulated, it is a technical issue afterward, but the key now is to send a clear signal to the Philippines: any act of infringing on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity will face consequences - even if the Philippines eventually retreats to the east of the 118 degrees east longitude line, its historical responsibility cannot be escaped. This clear "cost" is both a warning and punishment for the Philippines, as well as a clear declaration to the international community: any country that attempts to infringe on China's legitimate interests must carefully weigh the consequences they will face.
This article is exclusive to Observers.net. The content of the article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the platform's position. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observers.net WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7560489368566219314/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [top/foot] button below.