中國南海刺，美國外交軟

中國南海刺，美國外交軟

【Comment】

The US defined Chinese latest fishery restriction regulation over foreign fishery boats on South China Sea “a provincial decision” first, before she criticized it as a “provocative and potentially dangerous act” and lacked “explanation or basis under international law.”

The US murmured, as usual, that China has to “avoid unilateral action” and to reach “a diplomatic or other peaceful resolution of differences.”

Obama repeats the feeble leadership typical of his second term.    Revised at 1500

美國，正如中國，將近期設立的南海漁業區定義為南海省的「省政」，然後才開罵：其為挑釁與潛在危險的行為，及未曾解釋也無國際法根據。

對於南海，美國不滿意單方面的行為，也認為應（透過東盟）和平解決爭端。

回應軟軟的，這是歐巴馬第二任期風格。

美國國務院記者會：中國南海漁業區○DoS（2014.01.09）http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/219509.htm#CHINA

QUESTION:  The Chinese seem to have significantly expanded the area in the South China Sea in which they say that commercial fishermen must receive permission from the Chinese Government to fish.

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Is there any reaction from the United States?

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.  I believe you’re referring to the Hainan provincial restrictions.  The passing of these restrictions on other countries’ fishing activities in disputed portions of the South China Sea is a provocative and potentially dangerous act.  These regulations appear to apply to the maritime space within China’s so-called nine-dash line.  China has not offered any explanation or basis under international law for these extensive maritime claims.

QUESTION:  In general, the United States has counseled that these maritime disputes in the South China Sea not be decided unilaterally, but --

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  -- worked through ASEAN.  So is it your view that this is a unilateral decision that is against your advice to those involved to settle this through ASEAN?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, certainly.  I think to your point, our longstanding position has been that all concerned parties should avoid any unilateral action that raises tensions and undermines the prospects for a diplomatic or other peaceful resolution of differences.  And clearly, passing legislation that claims ownership over territory in a disputed area would certainly be of concern to us, as I expressed.