US, allies slam Chinese island-building
MANILA: The United States, Australia and Japan yesterday denounced Beijing’s islandbuilding and militarisation of the South China Sea, in contrast to the increasingly tepid response from Southeast Asian nations over the festering issue.
China claims nearly all of the sea, through which US$ 5 trillion in annual shipping trade passes and which is believed to sit atop vast oil and gas deposits.
Its sweeping claims overlap with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei – all members of the 10- nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) bloc – as well as Taiwan. But in recent years Beijing has managed to weaken regional resistance by courting some Asean members.
On Sunday Beijing scored a coup when Asean ministers issued a diluted statement on the dispute and agreed to Beijing’s terms on talks during a security forum which the bloc is hosting in Manila.
China insists that a muchdelayed code of conduct between it and Asean members over the disputed sea must not be legally binding, a demand to which Southeast Asian countries have so far acquiesced.
But in a joint statement after their foreign ministers met on the sidelines of the same gathering, the US, Japan and Australia delivered a noticeably sterner rebuke to Beijing.
Criticising ongoing “land reclamation, construction of outposts, militarisation of disputed features” in the disputed sea, the trio said any code of conduct must be “legally binding, meaningful and effective”, a demand noticeably absent from the Asean statement.
The three nations also called on China and the Philippines to respect last year’s international arbitration ruling which dismissed much of Beijing’s claim in the sea.
They oppose Beijing building giant artificial islands that could be used as military bases, fearing it will eventually establish de facto control over the waters.
China insists the three countries should stay out of what it says are purely bilateral disputes with its neighbours.
On Sunday Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned any interference from ‘outside parties’ could jeopardise negotiations over the code of conduct.