美国反驳新华社社论(有关南中国海)

choi

VOA Chinese, Aug 14, 2012
www.voachinese.com/content/us-re ... 120814/1486265.html

Note:
(a) The report cites
南海局势波澜迭起 中国'组合拳'捍卫主权.  中国新闻网, Aug 9, 2012
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-08/09/c_112667948.htm
(a heading in web page 2: 美国一再插手搅局 南海地区局势存隐忧)
(b) Victoria Nuland, Daily Press Briefing. US Department of State, Aug 14, 2012.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196459.htm

Go to INDEX FOR TODAY'S BRIEFING, and
(i) view the topic "CHINA  * U/S Sherman Meetings on US-China Middle East Dialogue."  (There is no need to read the text for this section (see (ii)). U/S Sherman stands for Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Sherman
(table: Assumed office Sept 21, 2011)
(ii) view a following topic--"China" again; this time it is "CHINA  * South China Sea / ASEAN." Read the text under that topic, which is attached at the bottom.
(c) An AP report on Nuland's briefing:
Matthew Pennington, US Warns of Divisive Diplomacy in South China Sea. Associated Press, Aug 14, 2012.
hosted2.ap.org/OREUG/d0732c86f9b44a428fc30e935ef90fcf/Article_2012-08-14-US-South%20China%20Sea/id-68fd37acf4644168b9e0bc6f67d182d5

There is no need to read the text of the AP report, just the title.

`````````````````````````````````
QUESTION: South China Sea.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: The other global issues that you said Wendy Sherman discussed in Beijing, was South China Sea among them?

MS. NULAND: I have to tell you, Scott, I don’t have that affirmatively, but I cannot imagine that she would have had a conversation and it wouldn’t have come up in some capacity, because we’ve been having a continual conversation about that issue with China.

QUESTION: There was a statement earlier this month under Patrick’s name where you guys talked about the new garrison in Sansha City as running counter to collaborative diplomatic efforts to resolve the differences. On Foreign Minister Yang’s just completed trip to Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia, he seems to have made some progress in moving more toward a bilateral discussion of South China Sea. So do you think this collaborative, diplomatic efforts are still the way to go?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we need individual bilateral conversations in order to strengthen a multilateral conversation. We don’t think that this issue, as we’ve said for quite some time, can be resolved through a series of bilateral intersections. We think at the end of the day all of the claimants, all of the involved parties, are going to have to sit down in a room and come up with a code of conduct. If bilateral diplomacy can be supportive of an ultimate, multilateral framework, then that will be fine; but we don’t think that cutting deals with these countries individually is going to work, let alone be the expedient way or the best way under international law to get this done.

QUESTION: And finally for me on this, there’s an editorial in Xinhua that says that the failure at ASEAN to reach a joint statement is the result of meddling of some Western countries who are looking to divide Asia. Is that your view of what happened at ASEAN?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely not. Our view of what happened is that the ASEAN countries themselves appreciate what a crucial issue it is for them individually and for them collectively to handle this dispute in the South China Sea in a manner that protects their larger security interests, that they came at it from different perspectives, and rather than whitewashing that problem and having a weak communiqué that didn’t say much, they chose to continue to talk about it and not – and bypass a communiqué this time until such time as they can have a unified position.

We, throughout that set of meetings, as you know, and the Secretary was quite vocal about this, continued to encourage all of the stakeholders, including China and the ASEANs, to work together on a code of conduct and for all of them to commit, as soon as they can, to do that work and ideally to do it this year.

QUESTION: Why is it – why is cutting individual deals not the way to go through this? I mean, if the Chinese can work something out with each one of these claimant countries, doesn’t that ease tensions? Isn’t that in the furtherance of international maritime freedom?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, bilateral diplomacy that leads to and is supportive of an overall multilateral deal where all of the claimants are satisfied and the arrangement that emerges is supportable under international law is fine. But an effort to divide and conquer and end up with a competitive situation among the different claimants is not going to get where we need to go.

So, again, if this bilateral diplomacy is supportive of an overall regional arrangement that results in a code of conduct everybody can live with, then that’ll be a good thing. But if, in fact, it’s an effort to end up in a place where people are – where there’s more tension between the stakeholders, then that’s not going to work.

QUESTION: Right. But so your suspicion is that they’re trying to divide and conquer?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have a suspicion one way or the other. I’m simply saying that –

QUESTION: You --

MS. NULAND: What I said from the beginning was bilateral diplomacy that is supportive of a multilateral arrangement can be a good thing. We do that all the time when we’re working a large multilateral deal. We try to work with individual countries in support of that. But a divide-and-conquer strategy would not be a good thing.

QUESTION: Right. But you are concerned. I mean, that is the entire reason why you’ve been pushing for a collaborative rather than a one-on-one thing, because you think the Chinese will take advantage of the smaller – of these small countries. So more division in a divide-and-conquer way, thus increase their influence. Isn’t that correct?

MS. NULAND: Well, what we’re most concerned about at the moment is that tensions are going up among the stakeholders. So we want to see a commitment to a deal that meets the needs of all. That’s what we want to see.