A Chinese military official on Thursday, April 25, insisted that the Philippines really had no historical claims over the West Philippine Sea, unlike China.
Wu Qian, spokesman for China's Defense Ministry, claimed that the Philippines knows "very well" that the scope of its territory is only defined by the following:
- 1898 Treaty of Peace Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain (Treaty of Paris),
- 1900 Treaty Between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines (Treaty of Washington)
- 1930 Convention Between the United States of America and Great Britain Delimiting the Boundary Between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo (1930 Convention between the US and UK)
The Nansha Qundao and Huangyan Dao—known in the Philippines as Ayungin and Scarborough Shoals, respectively—"are far beyond the scope of Philippine territory defined by the above-mentioned treaties," Wu said.
The Chinese official said that it is rather China that has a long claim over islands in the West Philippine Sea.
He said they were even "first discovered, named and exploited by China and had long been under China's jurisdiction since the early years of the Ming Dynasty."
"Japan had stolen Diaoyu Dao during the Sino-Japanese War. In accordance with such international legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, Diaoyu Dao was returned to China in terms of international law," he added.
Wu said that such is a fact supposedly recognized by the international community.
"It's a pure wishful thinking of the Japanese side to stir up disputes over the sovereignty of Diaoyu Dao and fish in troubled waters," he added.
Wu then dismissed the arbitral award on the South China Sea, which is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that China also ratified.
He said the award "is nothing more than a piece of waste paper," and that the tribunal "violated the principle of state consent, exercised its jurisdiction ultra vires, and rendered an award in disregard of the law."
"The arbitration violates UNCLOS and general international law. The rendered award is illegal, null and void," he claimed, adding that "China does not accept or recognize the award."