As the Philippines has lately encroached Chinese islands and reefs on Chinese side of the U-shaped lines, it has already undermined Chinese sovereignty in the region. For such legal disputes, it is the International Court of Justice that must deal with issues of sovereignty. When this is settled, it is then the International Tribunal's role to tackle the overlapped economic interests. But clearly, the International Tribunal isn't the right place to tackle disputes over economic rights which root at the dispute over sovereignty.

China fully respects international law and global governance, but it is up to China and the Philippines to settle their territorial dispute in the first place. With the Philippines tacitly still admitting Chinese territorial claims until some two decades ago, Manila is apparently weak on the root cause of its dispute with China. To avoid an "all lose, all win" scenario, China has long suggested launching bilateral negotiations with the Philippines for all such territorial and economic rights. However, it is Manila that has negated its earlier virtual admission of Chinese sovereignty, taken military action to encroach Chinese islands and reefs, refused to talk but approached the wrong court.

The US position on this matter is not only full of multiple standards but misleading. At an earlier stage, America has claimed its neutrality, taking no side between China and the Philippines. Presently, the US is asking both claimants to respect the UNCLOS and International Tribunal, which is looks neutral. However, in the name of observing international law, i.e. the UNCLOS, the US has intentionally ignored the Philippines' violation of the UN Charter by intruding on Chinese sovereignty and subsequently denying Chinese maritime economic rights associated with its maritime sovereignty.

Therefore, Assistant Secretary Russel is indeed telling the truth that the US is not neutral when it comes to adhering to international law. A further scrutiny of US history would lead to more disturbing suggestions that America may seldom care about international law. Its "annexation", if not aggression, of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 was based on no international law at all. Despite its recognition of Taiwan as a part of China when it normalized relations with the People's Republic in 1979, the US has kept selling weapons to the renegade island province in accordance with American domestic law, The Taiwan Relations Act, rather than any international law. When Washington launched its war on Iraq in the name of pre-emption in 2003, it had neither received UN endorsement nor acquired any evidence to beef up the legitimacy of its assertions.

The US has broken its neutrality in the name of impartiality, though that is never new to anyone. Contrary to its professed purpose of "rebalancing", Washington is raising the temperature in South China Sea and could eventually face a more undesirable situation in the region.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/shendingli.htm

This article was first published at Chinausfocus.com To see the original version please visit http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/breaking-neutrality-in-the-name-of-impartiality/

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.