The historical and legal truth of the South China Sea will become clearer with more debates

As of July 12 this year, it has been eight years since the illegal and invalid "South China Sea Arbitration" ruling was issued. The Philippines is still dreaming of being the so-called "winner of the ruling" and is obsessed with the illusion of "dealing with the South China Sea issue based on the ruling as a premise and basis", going further and further on the wrong path of infringing on China's territorial sovereignty, undermining regional peace and stability, and impacting the international order based on international law.

Since 2016, the Philippines and some Western countries such as the United States have been quite excited at this time, and have made continuous moves in terms of politics, diplomacy and international public opinion. Their impatient clamor and restlessness are all under the banner of so-called "international law". Whether it is official statements advocating the "validity of the ruling" or political shows in "academic cloaks", they all try to inject lies into the South China Sea narrative to cover up historical and legal facts, raise the tone of the "China threat theory" to deceive international cognition, and stir up the "South China Sea Arbitration" to tie China's hands and feet.

In terms of safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea, China's capabilities are growing day by day and its will is as firm as a rock. The countermeasures and prices incurred by the Philippines fully prove that it is nothing but a foolish dream to force China to accept a unilateral solution that is completely without fairness, justice and legitimacy through comprehensive pressure on the South China Sea issue, and to force China to swallow the bitter fruit of damaging its own interests on the fundamental issue of safeguarding its territorial sovereignty.

In the long course of history, China has gradually established its historical ownership of the South China Sea islands and its historical rights in the South China Sea, but has never used the South China Sea and its national strength to threaten the development of surrounding areas. More than a century of modern times has brought China the historical memory of the wanton violation of its territorial sovereignty. With such a memory, China has never "bullied the small with the big", but it will never let the Philippines repeat this memory in the South China Sea in a local way by "deceiving the big with the small".

The truth can break all fabricated illusions. Neither the international treaties that established the territorial scope of the Philippines nor the Philippine Constitution before 1997 included the Nansha Islands and Huangyan Island in the territory of the Philippines. For a long period of time after the end of World War II, the United States, as an ally of the Philippines, recognized China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands through diplomatic correspondence, application for measurement, and notification of navigation and overflight plans. Maps and books published in the United States during the same period, such as the 1961 edition of Columbia Lippincott's Gazetteer of the World, the 1963 edition of Worldmark's Encyclopedia of Nations, and the 1971 edition of Encyclopedia of Regional Divisions of the World, all confirmed China's sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands.

The history is still there, and the evidence is as solid as a mountain. A ruling cannot legalize the Philippines' illegal gains in the South China Sea, but instead further exposes the Philippines' rogue logic of crying thief. The Philippines endorsed the arbitration award, used the self-esteem of a foreign country, frequently reversed black and white, and confused right and wrong. The United States fanned the flames and even taught the Philippines "hand in hand". This is the crux of the phased escalation of the situation in the South China Sea.

The Philippines and the United States continue to hype the arbitration award, which just shows that the "South China Sea Arbitration Case" was a "game" instigated and manipulated by the United States, led by the Philippines, and cooperated by the arbitration tribunal. The many fallacies in the arbitration award regarding treaty interpretation, fact finding and evidence acceptance have been questioned and criticized, and the author will not elaborate on them. In addition, there are many things in the "South China Sea Arbitration Case" that go against common sense, which makes people involuntarily think of four words-"political farce".

For example, the views held by some arbitrators on key issues in the South China Sea case are completely opposite to the academic views they have long adhered to. This "reversal" may not be understood simply from an academic perspective. This "self-denial" that has no signs in international judicial and arbitration institutions and even disregards personal academic ethics is enough to let the international community see how fair the arbitration tribunal is.

For another example, in response to the Philippines' claim for marine environmental protection, the three experts appointed by the arbitral tribunal hastily produced a so-called "expert report" with questionable reliability and scientificity in just 17 days for a complex issue such as "South China Sea marine environmental assessment" that requires a lot of scientific support. The arbitral tribunal did not even conduct an inquiry and review in accordance with the usual practice of international judicial and arbitration institutions, but directly accepted and gave the report a significant "provable value".

For another example, the Australian expert witness invited by the Philippines once wrote that there are at least more than a dozen "fully meaningful" islands in the Nansha Islands. However, during the hearing of the arbitral tribunal, the expert witness said that there is no island or reef in the Nansha Islands that can claim an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

An unfair judgment is more harmful than multiple unfair actions. Unfair actions pollute the water flow, while unfair judgments corrupt the water source. The illegal arbitration award will not have any substantial impact on China's legitimate rights and interests in the South China Sea, but it will squeeze the political space for the parties concerned to resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation, interfere with maritime cooperation, crisis management and rule-making, and shake the confidence of the contracting parties that the dispute settlement mechanism of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will not be abused in practice. In this regard, there is still a long way to go to get to the bottom of the matter, but if we keep going, we will get there. The historical and legal truth about the South China Sea will only become clearer as we debate it.