美助卿：美国在南中国海原则问题上绝不 '中立'

choi

VOA Chinese, July 22, 2015
www.voachinese.com/content/russe ... 150721/2872873.html
("关于南中国海问题，当涉及到国际法的遵守问题时，美国非但不会 '恪守中立，' 相反还会立场鲜明地站在制度的一边。他重申美国只是在主权声索问题上不选边站。 * * * 美国主管东亚和太平洋事务的助理国务卿拉塞尔星期二在华盛顿智库战略与国际研究中心（CSIS）举行的 '南中国海年度会议' 上发表主旨演讲。 * * * 他说，美国支持菲律宾通过国际仲裁解决争端")

My comment:
(a) I read the VOA report which uses 声索国 many a time. I was confused what he referred to: China, some ASEAN nations, or both (maybe Taiwan, too).  For that, We have to read the primary material. See next.
(b) Daniel R Russel, Remarks at the Fifth Annual South China Sea Conference. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), July 21, 2015.
http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2015/07/245142.htm

The transcript is lengthy. To save your time, there is no need to read the rest.


Quote:

“Now, the US is not a claimant. As I’ve said here at CSIS, these maritime and territorial disputes are not intrinsically a US-China issue. The issue is between China and its neighbors and – ultimately – it’s an issue of what kind of power China will become. But for a variety of reasons, the competing claims and problematic behavior in the South China Sea have emerged as a serious area of friction in the US-China relationship.

"There are no angels here. The occupation of land features in this contested space over the years looked a lot like 'squatters’ rights.'  But that is something that in 2002 the claimants agreed to stop doing.  In that year, all the claimants (and the ASEAN states) signed a Declaration of Conduct. In it, and on other occasions, they have committed 'to exercise self-restraint * * *

"While China’s statement on June 16 that it would stop reclamation work 'soon' was presumably intended to reassure, its effect was in fact alarming since the statement went on to warn that China would construct military facilities on these reclaimed outposts.

"When it comes to competing claims, two of the main peaceful paths available to claimants are [direct or through a third party] negotiations and arbitration. * * * Just a few examples: Indonesia and the Philippines recently agreed on their maritime boundary; Malaysia and Singapore used international court and tribunal proceedings to resolve disputes concerning the Singapore Strait; and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea delimited the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Burma.  A common thread runs through the maritime boundary disputes that have been resolved peacefully: the parties asserted maritime claims based on land features, and were prepared to resolve those disputes in accordance with international law.  This is why we’ve consistently called on all claimants to clarify the scope of their claims in the South China Sea, in accordance with international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. Doing so would narrow the differences and offer the basis for negotiations and cooperative solutions.  Regrettably, I don’t know anyone in the region who believes that a negotiated settlement between China and other claimants is attainable in the current atmosphere.

"And then there is the absolutist political position taken by some claimants [alluding to China]  who insist that their own claims are 'indisputable' and represent territory – however distant from their shores – that was 'entrusted to them by ancestors' and who vow never to relinquish 'one inch.'

"But when they became parties [by signing and then ratifying]  to the [1982 Law of the Sea] Convention, both the Philippines and China agreed to its compulsory dispute settlement regime.

(i) It is clear that 声索国 is a claimant. So all are 声索国, including Taiwan.
(ii) I do not know what "squatters’ rights" Mr Russel alludes to (except emphasis on "squatter" as opposed to "rights"). There is none under common law, because a squatter is deemed a trespasser.
(c) The entire transcript does not have the word "neutral," which comports with the VOA report which states that the topic arose in the Q&A session:

"在被问到美国最近在南中国海问题的一系列动作是否代表美国已经改变 '中立' 立场时，他这样回答：'当涉及到国际法的遵守问题时，我们不中立，而且我们非常明确地站在制度的一边。'