Candid thoughts on South China Sea disputes

General Peng Guangqian, deputy secretary-general of China's National Security Forum[Photo/China Daily]

China's claims－the dotted line

"From the perspective of foreigners, the 'dotted line' looks aggressive, even imperialistic," I said, "in that it encompasses the vast majority of the South China Sea, extending more than 1,000 kilometers from the Chinese mainland and coming within a few dozen kilometers of the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia."

Peng was philosophical.

"For several thousand years, China had fought with winds and waves, pirates and invaders, in the South China Sea. This is our family property that we have earned; it is the heritage created by our ancestors.

"It is our territory not because we are closer to it," he continued. "Territorial sovereignty does not depend on distance. Consider Guam; it is closer to Asia, yet belongs to the US. The Malvinas (Falkland Islands) are close to Argentina, very far from Britain. Why then did Britain go there to fight a war? ... The ownership of islands is not identified by distance; many historical and other factors affect it."

I had a joke that, not wanting to offend, I was reluctant to tell. But Peng's sincere mix of openness and confidence relaxed my inhibitions. "There is a joke that in Vietnam and the Philippines no one is allowed to go swimming in the ocean, because if you start to swim, you invade China's territory."

"I tell you the truth," Peng responded, all business. "I begin with Vietnam. On Sept 14, 1956, the then prime minister of Vietnam, Pham Van Dong, sent a formal note to our premier, Zhou Enlai, stating that Vietnam firmly agreed and supported China's statement on the breadth of China's territorial sea, which included coastlines and islands. As for the Philippines, a series of treaties and the Philippines Constitution indicate the sea area of the Philippines is bounded within 118 degrees east longitude. Never did it say the area to the west of this boundary was its territory."

United States declarations

I decided to repeat US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's assertion: "Now, make no mistake: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do around the world, and the South China Sea is not and will not be an exception."

Peng was not intimidated. "The truth is that the 'Free Navigation Plan' of the United States began as early as 1979, before the launch of the UNCLOS, and it is a kind of rebellion and boycott against the law. The US alleges that it is not subject to the UNCLOS; it enjoys the freedom to sail in all the waters of the world, and not a single law can restrict it. The US travels the seven continents and four oceans. It suggests that the US does not respect, even despises, international law and the UNCLOS."

"So what will China do?" I asked a bit provocatively.

"We will stand firmly against it; we will make proper response in accordance with the provisions of international law; we will react according to the existing consensus that every country recognizes. For example, if we detect a US vessel entering our monitored area, we will expel it. If you violate our sovereignty, get into our airspace or territorial sea, then it can be interpreted as a violation of our core interest. Suppose China enters Chesapeake Bay (Virginia and Maryland) in the US, or within 12 nautical miles of US territorial waters, how will the US react? We will react the same way."

"Is China prepared for military confrontation?" Everything is now on the table.

"To protect our core interests," Peng said, "China is prepared for war. China's stance on the South China Sea has become clear and resolute. Yet the Chinese government, taking stability and peace in Northeast Asia and the Northwest Pacific as its high priority, has not given a clear response as to whether it will safeguard these core interests by force."

What refreshing clarity and candor!

My next question was obvious: "Is China prepared militarily?"

Peng's answer was thoughtful. "The premise behind what you said is important: only when there is no way out for us will we be forced to do what we have to do. We will not make the first move. We will not use our power to bully others. That will not happen. But if you are driving me into a dead end (corner), we will definitely fight back. But in terms of our capability to counter, I think that depends on whom we are compared with. If with the US, then our naval force is definitely weaker. The US has 10 carrier battle groups. The capability of one US carrier battle group is equivalent to several of ours, and we only have one carrier battle group. In the future, we may establish two or three more of them. Even though we are far behind the US, I think our current naval power is sufficient for us to defend our territorial sea rights. We are confident of that."