On The Nation: Lisa Owen interviews Ambassador Wang Lutong

Youtube clips from the show are available here.

Headlines:

The Chinese Ambassador Wang Lutong says Beijing will not abide by the UN tribunal ruling on the South China Sea, calling it unjustified.

Lutong: The China-New Zealand relationship will not be damaged by this, despite defence minister Gerry Brownlee saying China should accept the decision.

The Ambassador says China has stationed some defence weapons on atolls in the South China Sea.

Ambassador Lutong will not rule out the possibility of New Zealander Peter Gardner facing the death penalty in China, after being arrested in 2014 in possession of 30 kilograms of methamphetamine.

Rival countries have been fighting over territory in the South China Sea for centuries, and the tension has only increased in recent years.

China has claimed historic rights over most of the Sea, but this week a ruling from an international tribunal in The Hague came down overwhelmingly against China, and in favour of the Philippines.

I spoke to the Chinese Ambassador Wang Lutong and asked him what China thinks of the decision.

Wang Lutong: This Tuesday the 12th of July is a black day for The Hague. The ruling just dishonours the international law and UNCLOS convention. China don’t accept the outcome of this ruling because the essence of this arbitration is very much about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. The convention has no jurisdiction over sovereignty matters and about delimitation. We’ve made an exclusive statement in 2006, as other 30 countries have done in the past, saying that we would never take part in third party arbitrations. And besides, the arbitration has no right to handle this issue without the consent of China, and the Philippines also break.

Lisa Owen: Mr Ambassador, this is a UN tribunal. How can you not accept this? China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. This is an internationally recognised organisation.

I think any sovereign nation would not accept of any outcome of any unjustified ruling.

Will you abide by this decision?

We would not abide any decision. There is no question of implementing or executing the outcome of this ruling. Let me repeat, we don’t accept the outcome of this ruling. We don’t accept any claims and action based on such unjustified ruling and China’s claim of sovereignty and maritime rights and interests over this region won’t be affected.

So, what do you think that rejecting this decision is going to do to China’s international reputation?

Well, as I said, no sovereign country would accept any outcome of unjustified ruling. China respects international law and order. The process of China’s integration with the world, with the international community, the process of China’s opening to the outside world, has always been the process of we respecting international law and order. We respect international law; that’s why we’ve solved our border disputes with 12 neighbours.

In terms of China’s reputation, Mr Ambassador, the Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop said, ‘China will face strong reputational costs if it proceeds with serious international transgression.’ It sounds like the international community believes that this will cost China – not abiding by this ruling.

This ruling is absolutely groundless and baseless. I think China is upholding the credibility and authority of the convention by saying no to this ruling, which is unjustified.

The thing is our defence minister, Gerry Brownlee, has said that China should accept this decision. So how will that affect our relationship with China, our trading relationship, when our government feels that this decision should be abided by?

Well, the South China Sea is not an issue between China and New Zealand, and we value our relationship with New Zealand.

So what is the difference of opinion between New Zealand and China over this decision? What impact is that going to have on our relationship?

I don’t think this relationship, this greater relationship, will be affected by this issue. This is not an issue between China and New Zealand, and I think it’s in the mutual interest of China and New Zealand to maintain peace and stability in this region.

But it is a direct disagreement between the two countries on where they stand here, and, in fact, when our Prime Minister visited China recently, the Chinese media warned him off mentioning the South China Sea dispute. So clearly there’s a difference of opinion there.

China and New Zealand can disagree and disagree on some of the issues, but it doesn’t necessarily affect our good relationship.

Okay. Well, China has been building on these atolls. So, just to be clear, what structures have you put on these atolls? What have you built there?

The reclamation of land, you’ve mentioned.

Yes, there were photographic analysis earlier in the year, said there was a missile launcher, runways and military installations. So what specifically has China built there?

I think it’s our own right to do anything within our own backyard. We are not doing that thing in other country’s backyard.

But, Mr Ambassador, even if you consider it your own right, I’m just wanting to be clear, what have you placed on those structures? What has China built there?

Now, China could be the last country to do something on islands. Philippines is the first country to build aircraft in those islands, in those regions, and, having said that, some people say that your reclamation is much bigger than others. But the question is not just about being big or small; it’s about being right and wrong. I could admit that the military purposes on the reclamation of the land, because we’ve got to protect our own interest and rights. Other countries have been stationing troops, tanks and weapons on islands and some other countries have been keep sending war ships and war planes to this region. We’ve got to protect our own rights and interests, but there are also other civilian uses for the reclamation of the islands, such as lighthouses. We’ve established four, altogether, four lighthouses, the maintenance centre, rescue centre.

But, Mr Ambassador, you have established military installations there. That’s what you’re saying.

We’ve stationed some defence weapons on these islands, and that’s for the defence. That’s defensive in nature. That’s to protect our own interests and rights.

Okay, well, Mr McCully, our foreign minister, has said that China should demilitarise the South China Sea. Will you do that as a sign of goodwill, given the tribunal’s decision?

It’s very in the interest of China to maintain peace and stability. We are defending ourselves to protect our own interests and rights. Why don’t you speak to some other countries, like Americans, who keep sending war ships and war planes to this region? I think this place, the South China Sea, could be much calmer and peaceful without the presence of military war ships and war planes.

So, Mr Ambassador, the military installations that you say China has placed on those atolls, would you remove them, dismantle them, in light of the decision?

We will do anything we can to protect our own interests and rights in this region.

So, what are your plans for the South China Sea now?

I think the political farce has already come to an end, and it is right for all of the parties and countries concerned to move this issue back to the correct track. China’s committed to peaceful resettlement of this issue, and before we reach the target of delimitations, before we reach that goal, we would like to call upon all the parties concerned to exercise restraint, to manage the differences wisely, and to seek joint development in this region.

Mr Ambassador, in the spirit of working together in that area, then, I just want to ask you if the Philippines or Vietnam want to fish freely within that arbitrary boundary that China has created — and that the tribunal has ruled is illegal — what would happen then, if their boats move into that area? What will happen?

The neighbour countries shouldn’t do anything to encroach or infringe upon our sovereignties. We oppose that.

Okay. Well, China has said that it hopes that countries don’t use this tribunal’s ruling to threaten China. What do you mean by that, and what would you consider a threat?

We don’t accept any claims or action based on this ruling, and this ruling won’t have any effect on our claims of sovereignty and maritime rights and interests over this region.

But China has said that it’s concerned that countries will use this ruling to threaten China. What is it that you are concerned about? What threat do you anticipate?

I won’t make any prejudgement on that. But I call upon all the parties concerned to exercise restraint and manage all these differences wisely.

All right. I want to ask you about a couple of other issues in the time that we have left. New Zealander Peter Gardner has been in jail in China since being arrested with 30 kilos of meth in 2014. Now, John Key asked President Xi Jinping to take into consideration this country’s strong opposition to the death penalty. How much weight will that carry when a punishment might be considered for this man?

I think our people in China are still working on this case, and China is a country of the rule of law. We will do anything according to the rule of law.

So can you rule out a New Zealander being killed by a firing squad in China?

You mean the death penalty?

Yes, Mr Ambassador.

We have the death penalty in China, and that’s been quite effective in fighting the crimes in China. China is a country of serious crimes. We’ve got quite a number of very serious crimes, and those death penalty measures, they’re effective fighting the crimes. But we’ve been very cautious about carrying out death penalty. The local government, the local court, couldn’t decide for the death penalty. They’ve got to submit this to what could be the Supreme Court for the final decision. There are very strict procedures to go through for the final decisions. We are doing that according to law.

But you cannot rule out, sir, that a New Zealander may face the death penalty in China?

I think our two people have been discussing on that, and I don’t think that I’m in a position to do anything before them.

Thank you so much for joining me this morning, Mr Ambassador. Appreciate your time.

Thank you, Lisa.

Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz

© Scoop Media