The current situation in the South China Sea is the result of "entangling effect of the actions and reactions along multiple lines" and confrontation over the issue would benefit none, a senior Chinese diplomat said in an article.
The article, co-authored by Fu Ying, chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress of China, and Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute of the South China Sea, was published on Monday in the U.S. magazine The National Interest.
Titled "South China Sea: How We Got to This Stage," the article reviews the chain of events leading to the escalation of tensions in the South China Sea, lays out China's policy objectives and calls on relevant players to cooperate so as to seek viable solutions to the disputes.
Starting by presenting the stark differences in public opinion in both China and the United States regarding the South China Sea issue, the two authors make a convincing case that the elements that pushed the spiraling twists and turns include not only sovereignty, resources and strategic security considerations, but also tangible interests, among other factors.
The article notes that the United States as a power from outside the region has "played a major role by coming into the issue and adjusting its policies toward the region since 2009."
"The U.S. is trying to find out what China's next move will be. On the part of China, suspicion is rising about the U.S. intention. Obviously, there is a risk of escalation of tension and danger of miscalculations at strategic level," the article says.
The article explains why the Chinese people and government are very sensitive about issues related to territorial integrity.
"To observe China, one should never lose sight of the historical dimension. Though China is growing into a strong country, the painful memory of history is not long gone. The Chinese people have not forgotten that the country stumbled into the 20th century with its capital under the occupation of the imperialist armies, and for over a century before and after, China suffered the humiliation of foreign invasion and aggression."
The article also sums up China's policy objectives in the South China Sea.
First, China's fundamental policy objective for the South China Sea is to protect its sovereignty and maritime rights. Tactically, China has refrained from proactive actions and taken countermeasures only when provoked. The Chinese people will not allow any further infringement of the country's sovereignty and rights in the South China Sea, and therefore hold high expectations of the government to protect its national interests.
Second, China's policy on the South China Sea also concerns the freedom and safety of navigation.
"Being an international pathway of strategic importance, the South China Sea has the busiest commercial shipping routes, allowing 40 percent of the world's ocean freight to pass through. The freedom and safety of navigation in the area are indispensable to all major economies, China included."
Third, the "common denominator" of China and its neighbors in the South China Sea is regional peace and stability. "China does not have an agenda or motive to seek hegemony in the region. The very reason that China exercises restraint and keep the disputes and differences under control is exactly for the sake of peace in the general environment."
Fourth, China and the United States share strategic interests in maintaining the freedom and safety of navigation, and promoting stability and prosperity in the South China Sea area.
To avoid the trap of security dilemma and misunderstanding, the two countries should engage in dialogues and clarify each other's intentions, the article says.
"As China is growing into a maritime power ... China's vision will surely go beyond the South China Sea. Therefore, any speculations on its intentions based on conventional land power mentalities may not be accurate."
In conclusion, the direction of future development in the South China Sea would largely depend on the perceptions and choices of the parties involved.
"If they choose to cooperate, they may all win. If they choose to confront each other, they may only head for impasse or even conflict and no one can benefit totally," the article says.
