Anthony Carty, a British scholar on international law, discovered that western history supports China's sovereignty over the disputed islands in the South China Sea after conducting rigorous research on the national archives from Britain, France and the United States.
In this episode of China Trends, Professor Carty has shared his insights on the South China Sea with our host, Tom Pauken II.
Interview: Western archives support China’s sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao: British scholar
By Zhao Yishen, Tian Ming
"History proved that the United States is the troublemaker in the disputed issue of the South China Sea. While, China's claim of sovereignty over Nansha Qundao and Xisha Qundao has legal foundation in the western archives", a British scholar told Xinhuanet during a recent exclusive interview.
Anthony Carty, British professor of international law, has unveiled the above findings in his newly published book, titled The History and Sovereignty of South China Sea, after conducting research on the national legal archives from Britain, France and the United States.
U.S. TROUBLED WATER IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
Seeking global hegemony and keeping preeminence and predominance are the real motives of the United States stoking conflict in the South China Sea, Carty noted during the interview.
Studying on the archives of John Dulles, the then U.S. Secretary of the State, which are part of the archives of the former U.S. President Eisenhower, Carty found a record of a conversation between American General Douglas MacArthur and George Kennan, indicating the U.S. motives to meddle in the South China Sea issue.
"They agreed basically on George Kennan's initiative that the western boundary of the United States had to be the eastern coastline of China,"said Carty.
General Douglas MacArthur had participated in the U.S. military activities in Asia during the Second World War. While George Kennan was a high-level U.S. diplomat who proposed the doctrine of containing the Soviet Union shortly after WWII.
When asked about U.S. policies for East Asia, Carty explained that "it is an American doctrine since the beginning of the 19th century that it must have predominance and preeminence over all other countries... So, their strategy in East Asia is to prevent any other major power from reaching preeminence. It is the reason for its hostility towards China."
Carty also took reference of a record from the U.S. State Department in the 1960s, which suggested that "under no circumstances should America tolerate the South China Sea islands (Nanhai Zhudao) coming back into the hands of the Chinese. That would not be in American strategic interest."
2016 ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL "HUMPTY DUMPTY"
Calling the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea issue a "Humpty Dumpty", Carty said the so-called tribunal "played a trick" by purposefully mis-interpreting Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Carty said, "the manner in which they interpreted the document is contrary to the literal and scientific geographical description of the Article 121. Interpreting these islands as rocks is not a geologically or grammatically credible interpretation of Articles 121(2) and 121(3). All of this is made up by the tribunal and raises questions about the integrity of the tribunal."
Refuting the U.S. claim about China not observing international law, Carty argued that "the United States has defied and ignored the International Court of Justice repeatedly. So, emotions are very high when you find major powers building alliances against China, arguing that China is not observing international law and not submitting to international adjudication when the United States itself has never been willing to do so."
WESTERN ARCHIVES BACK CHINA'S CLAIM OF NANHAI ZHUDAO
After conducting rigorous academic research on the national archives of Britain, France and the United States, Carty articulated in his book the notion that western archives had shown historical proof on China’s sovereignty over the disputed islands of Nansha Qundao and Xisha Qundao.
Referring to the documents from the British Foreign Ministry, Carty said “Britain had a clear position on the Paracell, or Xisha Qundao, from right back to the 1930s, when they were formerly claimed by the Qing Dynasty in 1909.”
"This Spratly (Nansha Qundao) question, there was an internal discussion within the Ministry after close consultation with the French Foreign Ministry. They decided that, as a legal matter, these Spratly Islands (Nansha Qundao) were Chinese and based on the records that they had collected about their own conduct and the conduct of the French and other countries since the 1890s," he said.
Calling for a peaceful solution to the South China Sea issue, Carty suggested that maritime delimitation would be up to the governments of relevant parties to draw a maritime boundary. Enditem
