后续：菲律宾媒体《马尼拉标准今日报》文章：黄岩岛属于 ...

菲学者论证黄岩岛属中国 不怕被骂成卖国贼(1)
2012-05-09 09:50:55 新华网 【大 中 小】
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-05/09/c_123098037.htm

    ——专访“它(黄岩岛)属于中国”作者维克托·阿齐斯

    菲律宾《马尼拉标准今日报》4月28日发表了菲律宾投资家维克托·阿齐斯的署名文章“它属于中国”。文章介绍了1279年中国元朝对黄岩岛地图标记、中国近现代科考文献对黄岩岛的记载等多个事实，论证黄岩岛确实属于中国。

    文章发表后引起了读者的广泛关注。记者就撰写此文的原因、文章在菲律宾引起的反响以及他对中菲两国如何解决黄岩岛争端等多个问题对阿齐斯先生进行了书面采访。

    “没有在中国从事商业活动”

    新华网：身为菲律宾人，您为什么要写“它属于中国”这篇文章呢？

    阿齐斯：身为个菲律宾人，我写这篇文章的目的在于告知广大读者，(在黄岩岛问题上)菲律宾当地报纸向读者展示的是谎言和扭曲的事实。

    新华网：您是一名经济学家，为什么还如此关注像领土争议这样的政治问题呢？

    阿齐斯：尽管我是一名退休的投资和商业银行家、经济学家和注册会计师，但我从1997年退休之后，就有着许许多多的兴趣爱好。除了收集邮票和钱币，我还热衷于学习历史和政治学。我经常就本国和欧美的政治经济问题发表意见，而且和菲律宾国内外的同学、以前的同事以及亲朋好友分享并积极讨论我的观点。说句不太谦虚的话，我涉猎的领域和阅读昀书籍不仅限于菲律宾国内问题，还包括亚洲其他国家和地区(例如日本、新加坡和香港)、北美(美国和加拿大)、南美(阿根廷)和欧洲(奥地利、西班牙、法国和英国)。

    新华网：您是否去过中国？如果去过的话，中国给您留下了什么印象？您个人与中国有什么商业关系吗？

    阿齐斯：从我1982年离开香港到现在，我曾多次造访中国大陆和台湾，到过北京、上海、广州、厦门和深圳等中国城市。我的妻子、女儿和我本人都喜爱中国，也经常去中国旅游，中国和中国人民都给我们留下了良好的印象。但是，我个人并没有在中国从事商业活动。

    “阿基诺狠狠地挨了一巴掌”

    新华网：您对菲律宾当局在黄岩岛问题上采取的行动作何评价？比如说要求中国上国际海洋法法庭打官司这件事？

    阿齐斯：在我看来，菲律宾政府要求中国同意将这个问题提交国际海洋法法庭仲裁的行为是不合法的。中国当年在签署批准《联合国海洋法公约》时就发表声明说，对于该公约第298条第一款列出的各类争端(这其中就包括涉及历史性海湾或所有权的争端——本网注)，中国政府不接受该公约规定的有约束力裁判的强制程序。美国之所以不批准《联合国海洋法公约》，就是因为它不愿意让自己到国际海洋法法庭打官司，接受它的仲裁。没有哪个国家能迫使其他国家到这个法庭出庭。所以，中国为什么非得同意跟菲律宾上这个法庭呢？

    新华网：您认为黄岩岛问题应该国际化吗？例如让东盟或美国居中调停？

    阿齐斯：我怀疑，在面临支持率下降和公信力消失的情况下，阿基诺政府正在采取这种秘密战术，好赢得菲律宾人民的支持。法律界——尤其是国会——之所以支持阿基诺，是为了维护自己的既得利益。他们完全是出于政治考虑，对阿基诺的行为装聋作哑。

    黄岩岛问题不需要被国际化。东盟目前仍然保持中立，美国也已经宣布不会在这个问题上选边站队。所以，游戏结束了。阿基诺狠狠地挨了一巴掌。

    新华网：黄岩岛海域的对峙事件尚未解决。在您看来，中菲两国应该如何解决这个问题？您对双方有何建议？

    阿齐斯：我建议，为了解决问题，双方应该像绅士和朋友那样坐下来谈判，而不是像小孩子那样玩打仗游戏。

    “我的立场是有事实支撑的”

    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。

    新华网：您的家人和朋友赞同您在黄岩岛问题上的观点吗？对于您勇敢地在报纸上公开发表不同见解这件事，他们是怎么看的呢？

阿齐斯：我的家人和亲朋好友都建议我要非常小心，甚至让我不要再发表这些不受欢迎的言论。尽管他们在这个很有争议的问题上同意我的观点，但他们都认为我这么做是疯了，是在自寻死路。(本网驻马尼拉记者 高飞)



菲佣媒体的良心话，请有空有能力的大大，翻译一下！

菲律宾媒体《马尼拉标准今日报》文章：黄岩岛属于中国
　　(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/April/28)

　　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?

　　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.

　　Everyman is Manila Standard Today’s new column for citizens’ commentary on pressing issues in the Philippines and in the world. Anybody who feels he or she has something of value to add to the discussion on the pertinent issue is encouraged to contribute.

　　Articles must be between 600 and 800 words. Please send them in MS Word or any compatible format to adellechua@gmail.com or mst.lettertotheeditor@gmail.com

菲学者论证黄岩岛属中国 不怕被骂成卖国贼(1)
2012-05-09 09:50:55 新华网 【大 中 小】
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-05/09/c_123098037.htm

    ——专访“它(黄岩岛)属于中国”作者维克托·阿齐斯

    菲律宾《马尼拉标准今日报》4月28日发表了菲律宾投资家维克托·阿齐斯的署名文章“它属于中国”。文章介绍了1279年中国元朝对黄岩岛地图标记、中国近现代科考文献对黄岩岛的记载等多个事实，论证黄岩岛确实属于中国。

    文章发表后引起了读者的广泛关注。记者就撰写此文的原因、文章在菲律宾引起的反响以及他对中菲两国如何解决黄岩岛争端等多个问题对阿齐斯先生进行了书面采访。

    “没有在中国从事商业活动”

    新华网：身为菲律宾人，您为什么要写“它属于中国”这篇文章呢？

    阿齐斯：身为个菲律宾人，我写这篇文章的目的在于告知广大读者，(在黄岩岛问题上)菲律宾当地报纸向读者展示的是谎言和扭曲的事实。

    新华网：您是一名经济学家，为什么还如此关注像领土争议这样的政治问题呢？

    阿齐斯：尽管我是一名退休的投资和商业银行家、经济学家和注册会计师，但我从1997年退休之后，就有着许许多多的兴趣爱好。除了收集邮票和钱币，我还热衷于学习历史和政治学。我经常就本国和欧美的政治经济问题发表意见，而且和菲律宾国内外的同学、以前的同事以及亲朋好友分享并积极讨论我的观点。说句不太谦虚的话，我涉猎的领域和阅读昀书籍不仅限于菲律宾国内问题，还包括亚洲其他国家和地区(例如日本、新加坡和香港)、北美(美国和加拿大)、南美(阿根廷)和欧洲(奥地利、西班牙、法国和英国)。

    新华网：您是否去过中国？如果去过的话，中国给您留下了什么印象？您个人与中国有什么商业关系吗？

    阿齐斯：从我1982年离开香港到现在，我曾多次造访中国大陆和台湾，到过北京、上海、广州、厦门和深圳等中国城市。我的妻子、女儿和我本人都喜爱中国，也经常去中国旅游，中国和中国人民都给我们留下了良好的印象。但是，我个人并没有在中国从事商业活动。

    “阿基诺狠狠地挨了一巴掌”

    新华网：您对菲律宾当局在黄岩岛问题上采取的行动作何评价？比如说要求中国上国际海洋法法庭打官司这件事？

    阿齐斯：在我看来，菲律宾政府要求中国同意将这个问题提交国际海洋法法庭仲裁的行为是不合法的。中国当年在签署批准《联合国海洋法公约》时就发表声明说，对于该公约第298条第一款列出的各类争端(这其中就包括涉及历史性海湾或所有权的争端——本网注)，中国政府不接受该公约规定的有约束力裁判的强制程序。美国之所以不批准《联合国海洋法公约》，就是因为它不愿意让自己到国际海洋法法庭打官司，接受它的仲裁。没有哪个国家能迫使其他国家到这个法庭出庭。所以，中国为什么非得同意跟菲律宾上这个法庭呢？

    新华网：您认为黄岩岛问题应该国际化吗？例如让东盟或美国居中调停？

    阿齐斯：我怀疑，在面临支持率下降和公信力消失的情况下，阿基诺政府正在采取这种秘密战术，好赢得菲律宾人民的支持。法律界——尤其是国会——之所以支持阿基诺，是为了维护自己的既得利益。他们完全是出于政治考虑，对阿基诺的行为装聋作哑。

    黄岩岛问题不需要被国际化。东盟目前仍然保持中立，美国也已经宣布不会在这个问题上选边站队。所以，游戏结束了。阿基诺狠狠地挨了一巴掌。

    新华网：黄岩岛海域的对峙事件尚未解决。在您看来，中菲两国应该如何解决这个问题？您对双方有何建议？

    阿齐斯：我建议，为了解决问题，双方应该像绅士和朋友那样坐下来谈判，而不是像小孩子那样玩打仗游戏。

    “我的立场是有事实支撑的”

    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。

    新华网：您的家人和朋友赞同您在黄岩岛问题上的观点吗？对于您勇敢地在报纸上公开发表不同见解这件事，他们是怎么看的呢？

阿齐斯：我的家人和亲朋好友都建议我要非常小心，甚至让我不要再发表这些不受欢迎的言论。尽管他们在这个很有争议的问题上同意我的观点，但他们都认为我这么做是疯了，是在自寻死路。(本网驻马尼拉记者 高飞)



菲佣媒体的良心话，请有空有能力的大大，翻译一下！

菲律宾媒体《马尼拉标准今日报》文章：黄岩岛属于中国
　　(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/April/28)

　　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?

　　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.

　　Everyman is Manila Standard Today’s new column for citizens’ commentary on pressing issues in the Philippines and in the world. Anybody who feels he or she has something of value to add to the discussion on the pertinent issue is encouraged to contribute.

　　Articles must be between 600 and 800 words. Please send them in MS Word or any compatible format to adellechua@gmail.com or mst.lettertotheeditor@gmail.com