The Guardian Publishes a Signed Article by Ambassador Liu Xiaoming Entitled China will not tolerate US military muscle-flexing off our shores
2018年6月27日,英国主流大报《卫报》网络版刊登驻英国大使刘晓明题为《中国不容美国在南海“秀肌肉”》的署名文章。全文如下:
最近,一些人热衷炒作南海“航行自由”问题。美国一边鼓噪所谓反对南海“军事化”,一边频繁派军用舰机到南海“秀肌肉”。为了拨云见日、澄清真相,我认为有必要搞清楚四个问题:
On 27 June 2018, the website of The Guardian published a signed article by Ambassador Liu Xiaoming entitled China will not tolerate US military muscle-flexing off our shores. The full text is as follows:
Amid recent hype about "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea, the US, an outspoken opponent of China's "militarisation" has been flexing its own military muscle by sending naval vessels and aircraft carriers to the region. Four questions need to be answered to clarify the the real situation.
第一,什么是航行自由?
根据包括《联合国海洋法公约》在内的国际法,一国船舶在另一国领海内行使航行自由,必须符合“无害通过(Innocent Passage)”标准,即不得使用或威胁使用武力,不得进行军事演习、搜集情报等行动。《公约》对外国军舰是否享有“无害通过”权未作明确规定,但世界上很多国家都要求外国军舰进入本国领海应获得批准或事先通知,比如中国在1992年《领海及毗连区法》就作出了相关规定。
航行自由并不是绝对的“自由航行”。美国提出的所谓“航行自由行动”与国际法上公认的航行自由不能混为一谈。“航行自由行动”是美国为其在世界各地“横行”提供的理由,这是对国际法的曲解和滥用,是彻头彻尾的“横行自由”。
First, what is freedom of navigation?
According to international law, ships navigating in the territorial waters of countries other than their own must meet the "innocent passage" requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That means not using force or threatening the use of force, and not engaging in military exercises or intelligence gathering. Although naval ships are not subject to UNCLOS provisions of innocent passage, they are required by many countries to obtain prior permission or provide advance notice to enter foreign territorial waters. Such is the provision of China's Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
So, freedom of navigation is not an absolute freedom to sail at will. The US Freedom of Navigation Programme should not be confused with freedom of navigation that is universally recognised under international law. The former is an excuse to throw America's weight about wherever it wants. It is a distortion and a downright abuse of international law into the "freedom to run amok".