• Wed
  • Sep 3, 2014
  • Updated: 12:42pm

No compromise on disputed islands, says foreign minister Wang Yi

Foreign minister says China will engage in dialogue not bullying, but will not back down in its rows with Tokyo and Manila

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 09 March, 2014, 5:51am
UPDATED : Sunday, 09 March, 2014, 6:58am

China will never bully its neighbours but will not compromise over unreasonable demands in territorial disputes, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.

Beijing would resolve such disputes through peaceful negotiations, but would "defend every inch of territory that belongs to us", Wang said at a press conference on the sidelines of the annual National People's Congress session yesterday. He appeared to be referring to the Philippines and other claimants to territory in the South China Sea.

The remarks came as the Philippines said it had rejected a Chinese offer to withdraw its ships from the Scarborough Shoal if Manila delayed filing its arbitration case over the matter with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Beijing has denied making such an offer to Manila.

Referring to a similar dispute with Japan over a cluster of islands in the East China Sea, Wang said "there is no room for compromise in territorial and historical issues".

China and Japan have exchanged increasingly harsh rhetoric over their claims to the Diaoyu Islands, which Japan controls and calls the Senkakus.

China claims ownership of the islands, and relations soured when Tokyo said it had purchased the Senkakus from private owners last year. China and South Korea were also incensed when Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Yasukuni Shrine housing the remains of 14 leading second world war criminals.

The acrimonious Sino-Japanese relationship has heightened fears of a military confrontation between the countries.

Following Abe's visit, which Japan has defended as a domestic matter, Beijing accused Tokyo of returning to its militaristic past. Tokyo countered that their relationship now looked more like it did before the first world war a century ago.

Wang rejected the comparison, saying Japan should learn from Germany's contrition over its wartime aggression.

The moves by Japanese leaders had "betrayed the spirit of the normalisation of China-Japanese ties in 1972, and damaged the foundation of the Sino-Japanese relationship", Wang said.

"Only by making a clean break with the past and not going back on their own words can the relationship between the two nations emerge from the current deadlock and have a future," he said.

Wang also called on the US to respect China's core interests and territorial sovereignty as Washington continued to rebuild its military and diplomatic presence in its so-called pivot to Asia.

"The Asia-Pacific region should be a testing ground for China and the US to build a new model of 'major power relationships' [a phrase coined by President Xi Jinping ], instead of becoming a ground for competition," he said.

Wrapping up China's diplomacy last year, Wang said Beijing had been more proactive on major international issues, saying it had helped resolved the crisis in Syria and the Iranian nuclear issue.

"We will take an active part in international and regional affairs, put forward more Chinese proposals and play a bigger role in helping resolve all kinds of global issues," he said.

He added that the relationship between China and Russia had reached a "historic peak", with a high degree of mutual political trust. He called on the two nations to deepen co-operation and commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of second world war next year.

On Ukraine, Wang said the crisis there, which erupted after violent protests that led to the overthrow of its president, Viktor Yanukovych, should be resolved through political dialogue.

"The priority now should be exercising calm and restraint, and preventing further escalation of the situation," he said.

He also called on parties involved in the six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear programme to enhance political trust before they resume.


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

OK great. Then its all settled.....
Since when did china start using inches?
Something marvelous I learned today:
First recorded use was back in Zhou Dynasty circa 1050 BC, a rather common system of measurement in East Asia then. Beside being a unit of measurement in ancient times, the word was also used in literature sometimes as a literary device.
In English we use to say every inch of territory, not every cm of territory.
Beijing has repeatedly stated that bilateral dialog is the best way to solve territorial disputes with its neighbors. What's the use of dialog without negotiation or compromise? That is why China's neighbors want to look to third-partys to solve the ongoing disputes.
That's because the typical CCP negotiating tactic is to premise the negotiations on first requiring agreement to one of the primary issues of disagreement that would be the subject of the negotiations. That is to say, will will negotiate with Taiwan, but only if you agree there is only one China, That is the PRC and Taiwan is part of it......really a waste of everybody's time.
regarding your point on negotiating tactic, each party has it own tactic whether you agree or not, and in order to be able to begin a genuine discussion on a set of differences, there must be at least some common premises on which both sides can agree. In the case of China and Japan, the common premise is that there is a dispute on the question of sovereignty with the islands.
With respect to the situation between Taiwan and Mainland China, the common premise is there is one China because it is not an international issue betweent the two sides, it is a domestic issue within one China. Even within the US, secession (by one state) is not permitted without a national referendum, and there is only one USA.
Compromise is a result of negotiation, not the other way round.
Any party to a negotiation may begin with a position of "no compromise" and that is not important to the negotiation itself if both are willing to talk and examine their respective position.
Only when there is absolutely no way that they will come to a conclusion (an agreement), a third party may be necessary to break the deadlock.


SCMP.com Account