主题：中国驻菲使馆已经发出在菲人员出行预警了 -- 葡萄

秦宏

《人民日报》海外版2012年5月8日

上世纪90年代初，国际风云剧变。面对严峻形势，邓小平同志在总结历史经验的基础上，高瞻远瞩地提出了“韬光养晦，有所作为”的战略思想。20多年来，相对于某些国家四面出击，透支实力，把自己拖入困境，我们牢牢把握战略机遇期，坚定贯彻执行这一战略方针，不扛旗、不当头、不懈怠、不折腾，聚精会神搞建设，一心一意谋发展，经济总量翻了两番，成为世界第二大经济体，国际地位得到显著提高，在国际事务中发挥着越来越重要的作用。宁静方能致远，成就证明了方针的正确性。我们必须坚定不移地沿着这条道路走下去，尤其是当前我国正处于结构调整和社会转型的关键时期，更要把握住这一方针不动摇。

正所谓“木秀于林，风必摧之”，树欲静而风不止。一些人对我们快速发展的势头、“排行老二”的经济规模感到不舒服，明里暗里折腾、遏制我们。更有甚者，诸如菲律宾，自以为中国不愿生事，大势可借，公然违反《南海各方行为宣言》精神，在南海问题上挑起争端。先是派军舰袭扰我在黄岩岛正常作业的渔船，严重侵犯我领土主权及渔民和船只安全。在我通过外交途径做了大量工作之后，仍一味示强，不断进逼，在军事上强化对黄岩岛海域部署，法理上提出要将黄岩岛归属提交国际仲裁，外交上寻求美国和东盟干预介入，更有菲高层人士发表不负责言论，将事态扩大的责任归咎于中国驻菲大使和大使馆，态度不可不谓嚣张。

在这个问题上，菲律宾至少有三件事没看清楚：一是主权和领土完整是中国的核心利益，中国不会在这个问题上有丝毫让步。二是和谐稳定是中国要维系的大局，中国会尽一切可能排除各种各样的来自内部和外部的干扰，谁想对中国玩弄内困外引、转嫁矛盾的伎俩是不可能得逞的。三是高手斗力也斗智。国家间有竞争、角力乃至“暗战”不假，但在全球化深入发展、各方利益深度融合的今天，无人会做引火上身、赤膊上阵、两败俱伤的事。最近美宣称在南海问题上不持立场，谨慎选择相对“中立”，东盟无人出来“站台”，态度一目了然。

“韬光养晦”和“有所作为”相辅相成，是积极的策略而不是消极的策略。我们不会自己折腾自己，我们需要专心致志，发展自己。但是当别人折腾我们，尤其是在事关领土完整、民族尊严和社会稳定的问题上折腾我们的时候，我们理当有所作为，打掉这股“歪风邪火”，为自己赢得一个和谐稳定的环境。

应该说，通过直接谈判和友好协商处理争议，仍是当前解决黄岩岛问题的最佳路径，我们要尽一切可能将这种努力进行到最后一刻。但菲方不能将中国的善意视为软弱可欺。仁至亦有义尽的时候，忍无可忍，就无须再忍，真到那个时候，我们不会介意和菲方共同创造一个“黄岩岛模式”。应该说，面对这样的对手，我们有足够的智慧，也有足够的手段，能够不战而屈人之兵，让对方收手。

虽然通过和平手段解决争端是我们的一贯立场，但是忘战必危，在事关国家核心利益的问题上，我们没有打不还手的雅兴。我们要做好充分准备，去威慑住各种武力挑衅，哪怕是狐假虎威式的武力挑衅。引而不发、示而不用是让问题回到和平途径的最好办法。

新华网：在您的文章发表之后，您感受到来自菲律宾政府或社会的压力吗？

阿齐斯：是的。从人们对文章的评论看，很明显许多菲律宾人无法接受我的观点和立场。实际上，我被他们骂成卖国贼、懦夫和叛徒，此外还有许多不宜公开的骂名。但是，我并不害怕政府；我的立场是有事实支撑的，我不过是把明明白白的事实讲出来。我担心的是，有人会发动一场我们赢不了的愚蠢战争。

By Victor N. Arches II

Mr. Arches is from San Juan City. He is a retired investment and merchant banker, a retired Certified Public Accountant, and a retired economist who loves to dabble in history and political science, among many other interests.

The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983).

By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.

But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that?

So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air?

In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.

All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim. Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories.

But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich.

On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.

Whom are we fooling?