The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, MP, Prime Minister of Australia
The Hon. Julie Bishop, MP, Foreign Minister
The Hon. Steven Ciobo, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment
The Hon. Bill Shorten, MP, Opposition leader of Australia
Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, Shadow Foreign Minister
The Hon. Jason Clare, MP, Shadow Trade and Investment Minister
Senator the Hon. Richard Di Natale, Greens Leader
The Australian Parliament
An Open Letter to the Australian Government
RE: Australian Government’s Position on the Arbitration on the South China Sea Dispute
6th August 2016
Dear Representatives of the Australian public,
On behalf of all Chinese associations and communities in the Australian Capital Territory, we write to
express our concerns over the position of the Australian Government on the arbitration on the South
China Sea dispute.
The Arbitral Tribunal in Hague ruled that China has no legal claim to historic right in the South China
Sea on 12 July 2016 .
The Australian Government have urged claimants to the South China Sea to respect the Hague
Ruling that China has no legal basis to claim historic right over the region. Foreign Minister Julie
Bishop has recognised the ruling — a much stronger reaction than most countries while the formal
Foreign Minster Mr. Bob Carr said that Australia should not run the risk of being caught up in war
against China.
As Australian citizens of Chinese origin, we are deeply concerned with the attitude of the Australian
Government on this matter. We believe that the ruling was not made based on the fact through a
legitimate procedure. It seems that the arbitration itself was manipulated by a group of parties
which intentionally did the Philippine a favour. In this sense, the arbitration had abused the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea that was injustice and had little value in resolving the dispute.
We just want to draw your attention to a number of facts.




It is true that there is a territory dispute between China and Philippine over the South China Sea.
Both sides have their own arguments and evidence to support their claims. To resolve the
dispute a mechanism based on bilateral negotiation had already been established since 1995,
which was endorsed by both Chinese and Philippine governments.
By initiating the arbitration unilaterally the Philippines ate their own words and also against the
spirits agreed by all the parties including Philippines set in 2002, the Declaration on the Conduct
of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC 8th ASEAN Summit ).

 




The Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the territorial dispute issues, which are not subject
to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
With regard to maritime delimitation issues, China made, pursuant to article 298 of UNCLOS, a
declaration in 2006 excluding them from arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement
procedures.
Similar declarations have been made by some 30 countries, including Australia and all the
permanent members of the UN Security Council with the only exception of the United States,
which is yet to accede to UNCLOS.

We believe that the Australian media had mixed up the Arbitral Tribunal with the International Court
in Hague when reported the ruling. It is important to clarify that the ruling was made by the
Arbitral Tribunal NOT by the International Court.
We believe that the ruling was made through an illicit procedure. In arbitration, both parties must
agree on the issues, procedures and arbitrators. However, China made it very clear that it neither
agreed on the issues nor the procedures well before the Arbitration. How can an arbitration make
ruling without the agreement of both parties? Secondly, the judges in the arbitral tribunal are highly
questionable. None of the five members were appointed with the agreement of China. Four of the
five members of the arbitral tribunal on the South China Sea case were appointed by Shunji Yanai,
the former president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. He is well known to be
rightist, hawkish, close to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and unfriendly to China. One member
was designated by the Philippines. It suggests that the Chair of the arbitral tribunal, Mr Shunji Yanai,
has conflict of interest over the relationship with China in this case. In Australia, you do not call a
ruling impartial if a judge has conflict of interest with one side of the parties involved in a dispute.
Those factors have seriously undermined the legitimacy of the ruling.
Furthermore, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled that Itu Aba (Taiping Island) – along with the rest of the
Spratlys –is not an island, as it cannot sustain a human community without external aid. The island,
the largest naturally occurring feature in the Spratlys group, is occupied by Taiwan and houses a
military garrison, a hospital and a farm. Taipei strenuously argued its case that Itu Aba is capable of
sustaining human habitation, with its freshwater wells and ability to grow produce, and is thus an
island under UNCLOS. ”We absolutely will not accept [the tribunal's decision] and we maintain that
the ruling is not legally binding on the Republic of China.” The Presidential Office of Taiwan said in a
statement. The statement pointed out that the tribunal did not consult with Taiwan or invite it to
participate in the case, yet the ruling has “seriously undermined” Taiwan’s maritime rights in the
South China Sea. If the largest island (Taiping Island) was not an island, we would argue that
Australia is in the same situation because we also rely on importation of many goods from overseas
for daily life. This ruling is against the commonly accepted definition for an island and setting a
precedent for defining an island vs rock. If it were accepted by the international societies, the
impacts would have been far beyond this particular case. We believe that many countries with their
territories being affected by such a definition would not recognise and accept the ruling.
For the above reasons, we do not believe that the tribunal is capable of making an impartial decision
and ruling.

 We migrated here and made Australia home because we love Australia including its democratic
system. We believe that the political system in Australia is established based on justice, freedom and
democracy. Just a few weeks ago the Liberal-National Coalition won the election with marginal
majority. Labor’s wild Medicare scare campaign was partially blamed for the swing against the
Coalition. In response, “A furious Malcolm Turnbull yesterday launched a blistering attack on Bill
Shorten’s campaign, ordering Labor to stop calling old people at night and scaring them.”. “What
you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others”- the analects of Confucius. If you don’t want
to suffer from a politically motivated plot, please don’t do it to others.
We understand that the Australia is an US ally, but China is the number one trading partner of
Australia. Philippine already realized that they were used as cannon fodder against China and would
suffer from that. As a matter of fact, the new Philippine government is going to send an envoy to
Beijing for a bilateral negotiation. As an out-of-region country with no territory claim in the South
China Sea, it would be wise for Australia to keep in neutral in this highly politically motivated case.
Further intervention from Australia in this case would have no added value in resolving the dispute
and against Australia’s national interest.
We are proud to be Australian citizens, proud to be part of the social fabric of this country and proud
of our economic capabilities by which we can contribute to this country, yet we have strong feelings
for our traditional homeland. In fact, it is the combination of these twin factors which propels us to
express these current and urgent concerns. It hurts the feelings of the vast number of Chinese
Australians to see Australia itself on the verge of contributing to the destabilisation of the sensitive
South China Sea region, to know that our fellow citizens largely remain ignorant of the China
perspective on these matters, and it would affect us greatly if the cherished Australia-China
relationship should suffer and diminish because of an unnecessary side-track into these marginal
issues. The relationship with China is not only strategically important in the 21 century but also
pivotal to Australian’s future prosperity.
The Australian Chinese community holds great hope for the future of the Australia-China
relationship and is always very willing to contribute to its even greater success by working closely
with the Government and our fellow Australians.
This open letter from the ACT Chinese Community is viewed as the start of an open dialogue on the
position of the Australian Government on the Arbitration on the South China Sea dispute. It is a
prompt response to the Australian Government’s statement on the Hague ruling on 12 July 2016.
We hope it initiates a broader and more sustained dialogue that reaches across foreign affairs,
trading and investment, stakeholders, policy and the public.
Yours sincerely,

The Federation of the Chinese Associations of the Australia Capital Territory