By Robert Lawrence Kuhn，a public intellectual, political/economics commentator, and international corporate strategist，the host of Closer To China with R.L. Kuhn on CCTV News

Some foreign analysts call China's rejection of the recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on matters of dispute in the South China Sea "China's first international test" as an emerging power. Some foreign media wonder whether a resurgent China will uphold the international order. Will fears of a "China Threat" now increase?

 
Underlying all these issues is what China calls its "core interests". What are China's core interests? Do they include the "Dotted Line" (often called the "Nine-Dash Line"), which defines China's claim of sovereignty in the South China Sea?

These matters are sufficiently serious to warrant sophisticated understanding of China's position. What are China's claims and arguments? What will happen now?

To understand China's position and way of thinking, I sat down for a two-hour, in-depth discussion with General Peng Guangqian, a PLA major general and military strategist; he is deputy secretary-general of China's National Security Forum and has been focusing on South China Sea issues.We broadcast highlights on "Closer To China with R.L.Kuhn", our weekly CCTV News show on China politics economics and society featuring China's thought leaders. See http://cctv.cntv.cn/lm/closertochina/.)

The ground rules were simple: I would ask General Peng the tough questions. General Peng told me he would answer my questions directly and candidly, stressing that he would express his own personal ideas; he was not representing official positions of the Chinese government or the PLA. I was impressed by his knowledge and candor. To me, the issue is not so much who is right and who is wrong – human groups often disagree – but rather recognizing that only through open and honest communications can misunderstandings be minimized and inadvertent confrontations avoided.

Sovereignty and Core Interests

While the ruling did not determine sovereignty — because the UN Law of the Sea cannot rule on sovereignty — it did seek to adjudicate territorial and economic zones from maritime features such as islands, rocks and reefs. China asserts this is distinction without a difference, in that sovereignty is indeed the underlying issue and therefore the Court did not have jurisdiction, and China is not about to bargain away its sovereignty. Thus my first question to General Peng.

"Why was the ruling so unfavorable to China, especially given that the Court said it was not addressing issues of sovereignty, which was not in its jurisdiction?"

"The Philippines and the Permanent Court of Arbitration played a trick," General Peng said, "but not a wise one. They disguised the territorial entitlement of the disputed islands and reefs as well as the maritime rights and interests as an interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea… The South China Sea issue is the first ‘test’ for China on the path of the great rejuvenation of the nation. We should adhere to our principles and express our solemn position to the international community."

"Is the South China Sea a ‘core interest’ of China’s sovereignty on a par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang?" I asked.

"Let me give you a metaphor," General Peng responded. "All human beings have ten fingers. As a Chinese saying goes, the nerves of the fingertips are linked with the heart, which means every finger is closely bound up with one's whole life and we cannot cut off any finger. We attach equal importance to Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, Hainan… Any part of China is an indispensable ‘core interest’ for China's survival and development. It's a reality that some of our islands and waters have been occupied by other countries and China’s resources have been plundered. We have every confidence of recovering them. But we still advocate a peaceful settlement through negotiation and consultation. Before this issue is settled, we can shelve differences and seek joint development, which fully demonstrates our sincerity. But there is no doubt that the South China Sea is very much a part of China’s ‘core interests’."
   
Timing and Costs

"Why only recently has China attached such importance to the South China Sea?" I continued.

"[Your question] does not accord with the facts," General Peng answered quickly. "We have long attached importance and shown a tough attitude towards the South China Sea. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, China has stressed China's territorial integrity and sovereignty, including our maritime rights and interests over the Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands. China has consistently reiterated solemnly that the integrity of China's territorial sovereignty is inalienable and inviolable, including maritime rights and interests….Due to China's domestic situation, including the disruption of the Cultural Revolution, China could not attend to international politics nor could it construct a Chinese navy. Since the 1970s, neighboring countries plundered China's Nansha Islands and territorial waters. South China Sea disputes became more heated after 2009… What becomes clear to all is China will stand its ground."

"What about the costs to China?"

"The cost is to strain China-U.S. relations and relations between China and some Southeast Asian countries. It demonstrates that China regards the South China Sea as its core interests, even if they intensify disputes between China and related countries."

China's Claims – The Dotted (Nine-Dash) Line

"From the perspective of foreigners, the ‘Nine-Dash Line’ looks aggressive, even imperialistic," I said, "in that it encompasses the vast majority of the South China Sea, extending more than 1000 kilometers from Chinese Mainland and coming within a few dozen kilometers of the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia."

General Peng was philosophical; he also knew world geography. "For several thousand years, China had fought with winds and waves, pirates and invaders, in the South China Sea. This is our family property that we have earned; it is the heritage created by our ancestors."

"It is our territory not because we are closer to it," he continued. "Territorial sovereignty does not depend on distance. Consider Guam; it is closer to Asia, yet belongs to the U.S. The Malvinas [Falkland Islands] are close to Argentina, very far from Britain. Why then did Britain go there to fight a war?...The ownership of islands is not identified by distance; many historical and other factors affect it."

General Peng would not relent – I liked that. "China did not gain its sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands by stealing firstly, robbing secondly, cheating thirdly or grabbing through wars fourthly. We developed them; we gained the fruits with blood and sweat by working diligently and conscientiously. How could it be possible for us to divide them by distance and give them to you because you are closer to them? I can also say the Philippines is close to China. So, is the Philippines within Chinese territory?"

I had a joke that, not wanting to offend, I was reluctant to tell. But General Peng's sincere mix of openness and confidence relaxed my inhibitions. "There is a joke that in Vietnam and the Philippines no one is allowed to go swimming in the ocean, because if you start to swim, you invade China’s territory."

"I tell you the truth," General Peng responded, all business. "I begin with Vietnam. On September 14, 1956, the then prime minister of Vietnam, Pham Van Dong, sent a formal note to our prime minister, Zhou Enlai, stating that Vietnam firmly agreed and supported China's statement on the breadth of China's territorial sea, which included coastlines and islands. As for the Philippines, a series of treaties and the Philippines Constitution indicate the sea area of the Philippines is bounded within east longitude 118. Never did it say the area to the west of this boundary was its territory."
   
United States Declarations

I decided to repeat US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's assertion: "Now, make no mistake: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do around the world, and the South China Sea is not and will not be an exception."

General Peng was not intimidated. "The truth is that the ‘Free Navigation Plan’ of the United States began as early as 1979, before the launch of the UN Law of the Sea, and is a kind of rebellion and boycott against the Law. The US alleges that it is not subject to the UN Law of the Sea; it enjoys the freedom to sail in all the waters of the world, and not a single law can restrict it. The U.S. travels the seven continents and four oceans. It suggests that the US does not respect, even despises, international law and the UN Law of the Sea."

"But the US Navy sails only in international waters," I added.

General Peng responded that U.S. actions weren't limited to the high seas. "US B-52 bombers have flown through our territorial sky, within 12 nautical miles. US aircraft carriers have arrived within our jurisdiction, which means they have entered our territory. Freedom of navigation is about civil aviation, featuring ‘harmless passage and peaceful use’."

"‘International waters’ and ‘international airspace’ is a concept that the US coined by itself," General Peng continued. "The UN Law of the Sea divides territorial seas into territorial waters, high seas, exclusive economic zones, continental shelves and inland waters. There are no ‘international waters’; it is not a concept of the UN Law of the Sea, nor is it a legal formality; it is coined by the US for the purpose of ignoring the sovereignty of other countries."

What Will China Do?

"So what will China do?" I asked a bit provocatively.

"We will stand firmly against it; we will make proper response in accordance with the provisions of international law; we will react according to the existing consensus that every country recognizes. For example, if we detect that a US vessel enters our monitored area, we will expel it. If you violate our sovereignty, get into our airspace or territorial sea, then it can be interpreted as a violation of our core interest. Suppose China enters Chesapeake Bay [Virginia and Maryland] in the U.S., or within 12 nautical miles of US territorial waters, how will the US react? We will react the same way."

"Is China prepared for military confrontation?" Everything is now on the table.

"To protect our core interests," General Peng stated, "China is prepared for war. China's stance on the South China Sea has become clear and resolute. Yet, the Chinese government, taking stability and peace in Northeast Asia and the Northwest Pacific as its high priority, has not given a clear response as to whether it will safeguard these core interests by force."

What refreshingly clarity and candor! No obfuscation. Not only was I impressed with General Peng's analysis, I was starting to like him as a person. We are beginning to become friends, I thought.

"Assuming China is resolute on its far-reaching sovereignty, what will China do about other countries – Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia - continuing to occupy what China claims to be its islands and reefs?"

General Peng does not shrink back. "To realize China's sovereignty over these islands and reefs, China has to drive these countries away from them. There are two methods. First, encourage them to withdraw voluntarily. However, it seems impossible that the pressure of China's diplomacy will be sufficient. Second, threaten those countries by the use of force. The aim of China's expansion of islands - the Chinese government may not describe it like this - is to gradually strengthen China’s military power over the South China Sea. The ultimate aims of China are as follows: first, to reduce and even deny the freedom of military navigation of the U.S. on China’s borders, and second, to make those countries that have occupied China's Nansha Islands and other reefs and islands withdraw in the face of China's military power. Yet, overall, the Chinese government states that the aim of expanding the islands is to realize peace and not militarization. However, it is still very difficult to convince the international community. It is better to state clearly that China will never give up its islands and reefs as well as its sovereignty over territorial waters. To safeguard these rights, China has to increase its military presence in the South China Sea."

China's Military Capabilities in the Region

My next question was obvious: "Is China prepared militarily?"

General Peng's answer was thoughtful. "The premise behind what you said is important: only when there is no way out for us, will we be forced to do what we have to do.  We will not make the first move. We will not use our power to bully others. That will not happen. But if you are driving me into a dead end [corner], we will definitely fight back. But in terms of our capability to counter, I think that depends on whom we are compared with. If with the U.S., then our naval force is definitely weaker. The U.S.has ten carrier battle groups. The capability of one U.S., carrier battle group is equivalent to several of ours, and we only have one carrier battle group. In the future, we may establish two or three more of them. Even though we are left far behind the U.S., I think our current naval power is sufficient for us to defend our territorial sea rights. We are confident of that."

I seized on General Peng's comment about China's plans for additional aircraft carriers. I expected an evasive answer. I got clarity.

"How many aircraft carriers does China need?"

"Theoretically speaking, a country should have at least three aircraft carriers: one ‘being repaired’ at home, one ‘on duty' at home, and one ‘on patrol’ in our waters. Only in this way can we form a continuous fighting capacity. From my perspective, China can have another two, which means three to five, a minimum of three and a maximum of five. Remember, we are not implementing a global strategy — we don't need to disperse aircraft carriers all over the world. We are just guarding our front door."

I probed ‘militarization’. "Haven’t Chinese officials said they will not militarize the South China Sea?"

"That depends on the definition of the ‘militarization’," General Peng responded matter of factly. "Militarization does not mean putting a weapon or a missile in the region. We are eligible to set them on our own reef, because we have the right to fully dominate the reef. We have constructed civilian infrastructure, including some scientific research facilities. We have also deployed some defense facilities at the same time — that is for sure, but that does not mean that we are militarizing the region. The U.S. also deploys military equipment in Guam and Hawaii, and their intensity far exceeds ours in the South China Sea. Is it fair to call our action ‘militarization’, if theirs is not? The U.S. has sailed their aircraft carriers and flown their strategic bombers into China's territory — isn't that militarization?"

Can China and the U.S. Avoid Collision?

It was time for get General Peng's overarching philosophy of China-US relations. "You have written eloquently how the U.S. and China can avoid the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’, where the rise of a new power usually ends up in war with the existing power."

General Peng was pleased to present his grand vision. "What I want to stress is that while China and the U.S. are indeed a developing power and a developed power, this does not necessarily mean that these two countries will finish on the path of head-on collision. They can transcend the trap of collision, too often repeated in human history. I have two theories. First, China is not an ‘emerging power’ because China is a big country with a 5,000 year civilization. These two great powers definitely have different historical backgrounds, but that doesn't mean they will collide. Why? Because in history, the rising power and the ruling power had divided or mutually contradictory interests. However, nowadays, the interests of China and the U.S. are increasingly interdependent, mutually linked to each other. The second reason is that with military power today, no one, except lunatics, would wage unlimited, mutually fatal wars. I am confident that China and the U.S. will avoid the trap."

Personal Reflections

After speaking with General Peng, I reflected on what he said. I'm told here in China, at all levels, that country's peaceful rise will not change; conflicts are temporary. As an ancient civilization, China says it has learned lessons from history.

China has a massive stake in upholding the international order. Of all major economies, China is most dependent on global trade for which maritime stability is essential. That said, after a century of national humiliation when China's sovereignty was trampled repeatedly and wantonly, China today is not about to compromise its national rights.

Can China make a legitimate case in its historical claims in the South China Sea? Of course it can. But all the claimants claim the same. That's the nature of border disputes everywhere in the world. Who can untangle the twisted threads of competing claims? Not I. Personally, I believe that the wealth of nations in the 21st Century is more the generation of knowledge than the ownership of rocks, but I cannot deny that sovereignty is among the most basic and emotional of human group instincts. Maritime boundaries, like national borders, were not dictated by God or set by the Big Bang when the universe began.

We must deal with current realities. To appreciate China's position does not mean agreeing with it. It does mean that to manage our world it is vital to understand opposing views — and this means understanding China’s.

No party benefits from blow up. In a globalized world, China and the U.S. will flourish together or flounder together. A temporary solution is simply to maintain the status quo, let time work its magic. Candid communications are vital. That's why I appreciate General Peng Guangqian, my new friend.

 Robert Lawrence Kuhn，a public intellectual, political/economics commentator, and international corporate strategist，the host of Closer To China with R.L. Kuhn on CCTV News

( The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Panview or CCTV.com. )

Panview offers an alternative angle on China and the rest of the world through the analyses and opinions of experts. We also welcome outside submissions, so feel free to send in your own editorials to "globalopinion@vip.cntv.cn" for consideration.