美國防部長信件曝光 承認台灣為南海主權聲索國之一○自由(2016.01.08)

【Comment】

反正日本是放棄西沙與南沙，此處地位一樣不明。

台灣（卡特沒有講中華民國）與越南、菲律賓、中國一樣地位。

但是，報紙爽太快了。

卡特說，這是2011年之後的第7次，加上並未挑戰主權，只是堅持航行自由，意即卡特在說「沒事沒事」。

但這封信怪的地方在其他。

美國防部長信件曝光 承認台灣為南海主權聲索國之一○自由(2016.01.08)

〔即時新聞／綜合報導〕美國海軍飛彈驅逐艦「拉森號」（USS Lassen）去年10月行經中國的南海人造島12浬海域，表明是航行於國際法允許的地方，引發中方嚴正抗議；美國國防部長卡特（Ashton Carter）回覆聯邦參議院軍事委員會主席馬侃（John McCain）信件日前曝光，卡特指出，拉森號行經中國、台灣、越南與菲律賓宣稱擁有主權之海域，卡特此舉也承認了台灣為南海主權聲索（claim）國之一。

據美國《海軍學院新聞》（Navy Institution News）報導，針對美國海軍去年10月27日派遣驅逐艦拉森號進入中國南海人造島12浬海域行動中，卡特回覆給馬侃的信件曝光，信中針對該行動說明，並指「行動合乎國際法規定，是一般的例行性任務」。

卡特表示，拉森號行經中國、台灣、越南與菲律賓宣示的5個南海島礁，美方在行動前並未提前通知任何國家。此為卡特首度說明拉森號任務細節，並首次提到驅逐艦也經過台灣在南海的島嶼。

卡特信上並指出5個島礁的名稱，分別是渚碧礁（Subi Reef）、北子礁（Northeast Cay）、南子礁（Southwest Cay）、奈羅礁（South Reef）、以及敦謙沙洲（Sandy Cay）。

據悉，拉森號並未行經中華民國行使主權的太平島，而中華民國所主張的南沙及其周遭水域，卡特信上稱「which are claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines」（此海域被中國、台灣、越南、菲律賓均宣稱擁有主權），顯示美國承認台灣的聲索國地位。

Document: SECDEF Carter Letter to McCain On South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operation○USNI News(2016.01.05)

The following is the Dec. 22, 2015 letter from Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) outlining the U.S. Oct., 27 2015 freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your November 9, 2015, letter regarding U.S. military operations in the South China Sea.

As you know, our Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) are conducted in full accordance with international law.  They are one aspect of our broader strategy to support an open and inclusive international security architecture founded on international law and standards.  This system has benefited all nations in the Asia Pacific for decades and will be critical to maintaining regional stability and prosperity for the foreseeable future.

On October 27, 2015, the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Lassen (DDG-82) conducted a FONOP in the South China Sea by transiting inside 12 nautical miles of five maritime features in the Spratly Islands — Subi Reef, Northeast Cay, Southwest Cay, South Reef, and Sandy Cay — which are claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.  No claimants were notified prior to the transit, which is consistent with our normal processes and with international law.

The operation was part of an ongoing practice of FONOPs that we have conducted around the world and will continue to conduct in the future.  It was the seventh FONOP we have conducted in the South China Sea since 2011 and one of many that we have conducted around the world in the past year.  In that sense, it was a normal and routine operation.

The United States does not take a position on which nation has the superior sovereignty claims over each land feature in the Spratly Islands.  Thus, the operation did not challenge any country’s claims of sovereignty over land features, as that is not the purpose or function of a FONOP.  Rather, this FONOP challenged attempts by claimants to restrict navigation rights and freedoms around features they claim, including policies by some claimants requiring prior permission or notification of transits within territorial seas.  Such restrictions contravene the rights and freedoms afforded all countries under international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention, and the FONOP demonstrated that we will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.

The FONOP involved a continuous and expeditious transit that is consistent with both the right of innocent passage, which only applies in a territorial sea, and with the high seas freedom of navigation that applies beyond any territorial sea. With respect to Subi Reef, the claimants have not clarified whether they believe a territorial sea surrounds it, but one thing is clear: under the law of the sea, China’s land reclamation cannot create a legal entitlement to a territorial sea, and does not change our legal ability to navigate near it in this manner.  We believe that Subi Reef, before China turned it into an artificial island, was a low-tide elevation and that it therefore cannot generate its own entitlement to a territorial sea.  However, if it is located within 12 nautical miles of another geographic feature that is entitled to a territorial sea – as might be the case with Sandy Cay – then the low-water line on Subi Reef could be used as the baseline for measuring Sandy Cay’s territorial sea.  In other words, in those circumstances, Subi Reef could be surrounded by a 12-nautical mile-territorial sea despite being submerged at high tide in its natural state.  Given the factual uncertainty, we conducted the FONOP in a manner that is lawful under all possible scenarios to preserve U.S. options should the factual ambiguities be resolved, disputes settled, and clarity on maritime claims reached.

The specific excessive maritime claims challenged in this case are less important than the need to demonstrate that countries cannot restrict navigational rights and freedoms around islands and reclaimed features contrary to international law as reflected in the LOS Convention.  We will continue to demonstrate as much by exercising the rights, freedoms and lawful uses of the seas all around the world, and the South China Sea will be no exception.

I welcome your keen interest in this and other key issues in the Asia-Pacific.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Ash Carter