South China Sea ruling sparks patriotic fever in Beijing

An international arbitration ruling against China over disputed territory in the South China Sea has sparked an outburst of nationalist fervour, with many calling for the stout defence of what they see as their reefs and islands.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on Tuesday ruled against China in a case brought by the Philippines, saying China had violated the Philippines's sovereign rights and that Beijing had wrought severe ecological damage to the coral reefs in the area by building artificial islands.

At a news conference by China’s cabinet, the state council, the government released a White Paper on the issue, which said: “The Arbitral Tribunal established at the Philippines’ unilateral request has no jurisdiction over relevant submissions, and awards rendered by it are null and void and have no binding force.”

By emphasising the need for negotiation and rejecting the international court’s findings, China appears to be trying to sidestep The Hague and defy international law, and it remains to be seen how the international community will enforce the findings from the tribunal.

The United States has urged China to stand by the decision, but Washington's comments were rejected by foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang, who accused the US of being selective when it comes to the application of international law. In 1986, Washington ignored a decision of the International Court of Justice over attacks on Nicaragua, saying the court lacked jurisdiction. China has pointed to this case on several occasions as justification for its actions.

“It keeps urging others to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) while refusing to ratify the convention to this day. What makes the United States think that it is in a position to make all these irresponsible remarks against others?” said Mr Lu.

Stir online

The release of the finding caused a major stir online, with 740 million posts related to the decision on Sina Weibo, a Chinese version of the banned Twitter, by early on Wednesday.

There were many belligerent postings as people read the finding as an attack on China, with comments such as “Fight for every inch of land” and “every grain of sand will be protected”.

Writing on the WeChat social network, Richardwlkk said: “I am very proud of my country. I just want to say that if my country needs me, I will fight for China, to beat the Yankees and the Philippine running dogs.”

The Philippine embassy remained heavily guarded on Wednesday.

Others appeared nonplussed by the whole thing and simply wanted to move on.

Brju wrote: “Generally speaking, China is not going to start any war until it is forced to the brink. Patriotism is not a sufficient reason; this is too fragile. The lack of faith and dignity makes everything a good excuse to get out.”

One web commentator called Shoushou said clearly no one, neither the Philippines nor the US, wanted a war with China and warned against stirring up nationalist fervour over the South China Sea.

“It is simply stupid that so many citizens are crazy about the idea of starting the war and protecting our “sovereignty”, which in fact never really existed. The idea of building islands out of a reef by reclaiming land in the sea is not internationally acknowledged as sovereignty. And ordinary people are not calm enough to figure it out,” Shoushou wrote.

“Of course the essence of diplomacy is compromise and negotiation, and public opinion is a very useful leverage. However, I don’t think government is vigilant enough to understand that this could be a two-sided sword. In recent years, the power to guide public opinion has been misused, and it could be dangerous.”

In an editorial in the China Daily, the tribunal’s finding was described as “an outrageously one-sided ruling”.

“The Philippines, along with some other countries, may rejoice over the tribunal’s de facto overthrowing of Beijing’s core territorial claims. But there is no moral high ground to claim here, because the ruling is inherently biased, unjust, and thus not executable,” it said.