美国新闻发言人在新闻发布会上被问及对南海仲裁案的看法，该发言人认为既然菲律宾与中国是联合国海洋公约的签署国（美国不是联合国海洋公约的签署国），就应该遵守仲裁决定。

然后记者问，如果中国不遵守那又怎么办？

该新闻发言人称：判决下来了，责任在他们（中国与菲律宾）。仲裁书有500页，我们也没看完。

记者问，如果中国不遵守仲裁决定，是否违背国际法。

美国发言人称：是。

然后记者问：能不能问下，美国在什么时候遵守过对自己不利的判决？

美国发言人说：我找找。

记者道：不要去找尼加拉瓜（大笑）。

这位美国发言人说：你看来往前面翻了。我找找。找到了（一个美国与加拿大争端的例子）。

关于尼加拉瓜，发言人说，后来两国之间解决了。再说，他（发言人）不是律师，历史学的也一般。美国在各自争端上不站立场。

记者又问道对太平岛被裁决为“石块”的看法，是否会影响美国与台湾的关系。

发言人（不知是否知道太平岛）称不管怎样，不影响美国的一个中国政策。

Daily Press Briefing - July 12, 2016 (1)-1.mp4

MR KIRBY: -- will abide by its legally binding obligations under this decision. So it just got rendered. Let’s see where we go from here.

QUESTION: And last one from me on this. Since foreign policy is more than hopes and expectations --

MR KIRBY: Should be, yeah.

QUESTION: -- how do you plan to ensure that China will indeed abide by this ruling? Or are you just --

MR KIRBY: Well, look, as I --

QUESTION: -- just going to hope for that? Or --

MR KIRBY: As I said in my opening comments, the onus is on them. The decision has been rendered. For our part it’s some 500 pages. We’re still going through it so we can better understand it here. I suspect that the claimants are probably still reading through it, as it is pretty lengthy. But the onus is on them now. The tribunal has spoken, and it’s up to the parties now to abide by their legally binding obligations in there.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: If China fails to abide by the ruling, then it will be in breach of international law?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: A follow-up. In a statement you said you ask for all parties to respect the rule of law and you support arbitration. Can you give me any example that the United States has ever complied with any of the rulings on international arbitration, particularly when it’s weighed against your interest?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, actually I think I’ve got one in here somewhere. Hang on a second. I know I’ve got one in here.

QUESTION: Don’t look in Nicaragua. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: You’ve been reading ahead, haven’t you? Ah, where is it? Here we go. I knew I’d find it.

So we believe an example can be found in the resolution of a contentious and long-disputed maritime boundary between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine. To resolve that dispute, the U.S. and Canada brought the legal question to third-party dispute settlement before a chamber of the International Court of Justice and argued the case on its merits and complied with the decision. So we have – we’ve done this ourselves.

QUESTION: But you know, as Brad just mentioned, there are other cases that you didn’t really complying with the ruling. And there was this article yesterday written by the Harvard professor Graham Allison. Actually, he pointed out that none of the UN security permanent members, none of them has ever applied by the ruling of the permanent court of arbitration when it comes to the issue about their sovereignty or the Law of the Sea.

MR KIRBY: That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a legally binding decision. That might – that’s very interesting. I’m not a lawyer, but it doesn’t seem relevant to the fact that this tribunal decision is legally binding.

And on Nicaragua, so I’m told – or at least I have here – that this case was over 30 years ago in which the U.S. participated at a jurisdictional stage. The U.S. and Nicaragua ultimately resolved this case bilaterally, which Nicaragua withdrew their position voluntarily. So just so you know I got that in there.

But again, to your – I haven’t read this gentleman’s argument, and I’m no lawyer. I was barely a good history student, so – what I can tell you, though, is that this is a legally binding decision and it’s our expectation – and, oh – and frankly, it’s the world’s expectation. This is – it’s not just the United States. The world is watching now to see what these claimants will do. The world is watching to see if China is really the global power it professes itself to be and the responsible power that it professes itself to be. The world’s watching this.

QUESTION: Yes. Just to follow up on that, other great powers before – as I mentioned, the UN Security Council members, they haven’t even complied with their ruling before. So how would you expect China to comply with the ruling?

MR KIRBY: Again, I think that’s an interesting case that’s not relevant. I mean, your argument is not relevant. This is a – I can’t speak for every other member of the UN Security Council. I gave you two examples where the United States worked these kinds of things out peacefully, one through arbitration. It is a legally – there’s no dispute here. I understand that the Chinese have made an argument that they’re not going to abide by it. I’ve heard that loud and clear, okay. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a legally binding obligation. And it’s the world’s expectation that China will abide by its obligations under this legally binding decision.

QUESTION: What if China doesn’t?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. China should care about abiding by it, because China should care about the fact that the entire world is watching what they’ll do now, in this – in the event of the tribunal’s decision.

QUESTION: And the final one. In a statement, you also mentioned you – we are still studying the decision and have no comment on the merits of the case. Does that mean you may not necessarily agree with all the rulings? Because one of that Taiwan actually objected was the island Taiwan controlled called Taiping Island and the arbitration ruling said it’s a rock instead of island.

MR KIRBY: I’m – what I’m – my comment stands. We’re – it’s a 500-page decision. We’re still working our way through it; it just got rendered today. And so I’m not going to make any specific comment on this particular case.

QUESTION: But if you haven’t studied – if you haven’t finished studying it, how can you support everything the --

MR KIRBY: We certainly – we are certainly familiar enough with the decision and the components of it to say what we say before it got rendered, which is it will be legally binding. I’ve said the same thing for a matter of days now, even before we knew what it was – that it was going to be legally binding and that the expectation would be that all claimants would abide by their responsibilities under it. That point hasn’t changed since before the decision got rendered, and it’s certainly not going to change now.

I’m not going to talk about the specifics of the case, as you – as I’ve said also many times, the United States isn’t taking a position on individual claims. We do take a position on coercion and the use of force or military pressure to try to change or to try to affect the outcome on these claims. We’ve long said that we want these disputes resolved peacefully, in accordance with international law. This tribunal decision represents that law and, again, it’s our expectation that all sides are going to abide by it. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask – just following up on this – I mean --

MR KIRBY: Who are you?

QUESTION: Nick Wadhams from Bloomberg.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: So China already responded to your statement, filing a solemn representation, basically protesting it. We had Senator Dan Sullivan today calling for a review of U.S. force posture in Asia, possibly considering putting a second aircraft carrier strike group in the region in response to this ruling. So what is the next step for the U.S.? It was totally anticipated that China would reject this ruling. They’ve now done so. Aside from urging them to adhere to a ruling that we already knew they were not going to respect, what is your next step?

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s day one. And the next steps are for the parties to determine, not for the United States to determine. As I said, the onus is on them now to abide by the obligations set forth in the decision. It’s day one, so let’s see where it goes. And I’m not going to get --

QUESTION: But --

MR KIRBY: Wait a second. I’m not going to get ahead of hypothetical situations of what the United States will or won’t do. We – our expectation, the world’s expectation is that all claimants – both claimants in this case – are going to abide by their obligations. So let’s see if that actually happens.

And then I’m certainly not going to speak to hypothetical military movements one way or the other. We have a strong presence in the Asia Pacific, not – for a variety of reasons, not aimed at any one country. And I don’t see any change to that presence. In fact, it’s all part of the President’s rebalance to the Asia Pacific, where you have a majority of the U.S. Navy out there as well as many assets from other of the services.

Now we’re – we – five of our seven – five of our seven security alliances are in the Pacific region. We have enormous commitments from a security perspective that we absolutely will abide by. But I’m not going to speculate one way or the other about intransigence on this and what that might mean for military posture going forward.

QUESTION: Now, given that China has now basically made this a bilateral issue by directly protesting your statement, I mean, does the Secretary have any plan for contact with Wang Yi again? Are there any channels that you guys are going to open up with the Chinese about – I mean, it seems like we’ve now moved pretty far beyond both sides calling for abstaining from provocative statements. I mean, we’ve now got pretty provocative statements on both sides.

MR KIRBY: It doesn’t mean that we’re going to stop urging restraint and calm and sensibility and a sense of maturity and leadership in the wake of this decision. Those are still required.

Number two, as I mentioned, he did speak to Foreign Minister Wang Yi before – obviously a few days ago – before the decision. I don’t have any future phone calls to announce today or to speak to, but he routinely speaks to his Chinese counterpart on a range of issues, and I suspect those conversations are going to continue.

And as for opening up new channels, there’s no need to do that. We have lots of communication channels open with the Chinese here at the State Department, the Defense Department as well, and of course, the President also has a way of communicating with President Xi. So there’s lots of ways that we will continue to stay in touch with China going forward.

QUESTION: John, can I follow up on Itu Aba?

MR KIRBY: On what?

QUESTION: Itu Aba, the Taiping Island in the South China Sea. Can I follow up on that quickly?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: I’m not going to quiz you on 500-page details of the ruling. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Good.

QUESTION: Itu Aba – some called Taiping Island – is the largest land feature in the Spratlys chain. And so today’s ruling, to some of the legal experts, a little bit surprising because it was defined as rock, not island. Given the fact that Taiwan has about 200 people post in Taiping or Itu Aba, what role does the United States want Taiwan to play going forward?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, again, I’m not going to speak to the specifics of this case, as I said at the outset. Nothing’s changed about our “one China” policy and our desire to see cross-strait relations be productive and peaceful. But other than that, I’m not going to comment.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t Taiwan be – does the United States consider bringing Taiwan to a negotiation table to – when trying to find a peaceful and diplomatic way to solve the disputes?

MR KIRBY: I know of no such plans. Again, nothing’s changed about our “one China” policy, nothing.

Barbara.

QUESTION: In March, the Chinese pulled back from what looked like land reclamation plans for the Scarborough Shoal, reportedly under U.S. pressure. Just wondered if you were confident that they would keep that stance after this ruling or whether there was sort of diplomatic exchanges or urges from here that they don’t take that action.

MR KIRBY: We have been nothing but consistent for many months about our concerns about militarization of features in the South China Sea. President Xi, when he was here standing next to President Obama, made clear that they weren’t going to do that. We have seen some signs in recent weeks that some of that activity continues, and we have been, again, very consistent, very clear with our Chinese counterparts about our ongoing concern with – in that regard, and that’s not going to change.

Now, I can’t possibly speculate what China may or may not do going forward after this decision, but they themselves have committed to not militarizing features, and that’s our expectation. And frankly, that’s the expectation of plenty of countries there in the region and many countries around the world.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. Kirby, very quickly, you said you are consistently concerned about land reclamation activities by China. Some people in China point out that, in fact, China is hardly the first country to do so. Vietnam, the Philippines did that in past, but in those cases the U.S. was not so eager to project their anger or protest. Is there a double standard here?

MR KIRBY: Look, I’m not going – again, we’re not taking individual positions on individual claims, but I think it’s a far cry and a stretch to compare what China has done in just recent months and certainly over the last year or so with land reclamation and militarization with any such potential like situations from other countries in the region. There’s absolutely no way to compare the scope and the size and the character of it.

QUESTION: But from your statement this afternoon, it seems that Washington can imply, if not dictate, what countries in the region in South China Sea should or should not do based on a piece of treaty, UNCLOS – which, of course, the U.S. did not ratify. This Administration, along with others --

MR KIRBY: And we continue to urge the Senate to --

QUESTION: -- tried to push for it, but you never get the two-third majority of the Senate.

MR KIRBY: We continue to urge the Senate to ratify. We’ve --

QUESTION: Do you think the U.S. --

MR KIRBY: This Administration has been very, very clear about that. But we still abide by the central tenets of it, even though we aren’t a signer.

QUESTION: But when you abide by the central tenets, do you think the U.S. loses kind of the moral authority to do that when it does not ratify it?

MR KIRBY: This isn’t about expressing moral authority, and I kind of reject the implication in the question. This isn’t about the United States projecting moral authority. This is an international tribunal which came up with a legally binding decision that the United States didn’t influence. We said before that they reached it that it would be legally binding; so did the world. Now they’ve reached it; it’s still legally binding, and the world is going to be watching what both claimants do in terms of meeting their obligations on this.

As I said at the outset, the United States doesn’t take a position on individual claims. We do take a position on coercion, and part of coercion is the potential militarization of land features that appear to have only one outcome in mind, and that is to press, potentially through force, these claims when those claims ought to be settled through exactly this kind of a process.

QUESTION: And finally, do you think the U.S. in any ways contributed to the rising of tensions, militarization in South China Sea when they send bombers and cruisers, frigates in the region so often?

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t, and here’s why: The United States military has a presence in the Pacific. We are a Pacific power. Five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Pacific. We have enormous security commitments in the region. And when we operate our ships and our aircraft, we do so in international airspace and international maritime space, and we train with our allies and our partners. And those are serious obligations, because our military has an – has a responsibility to protect and defend the United States national security interests. And we’ve been doing that for a long time, well before these issues in the South China Sea came up. So the short answer is, no, I don’t.

Said.

QUESTION: Can we move to a new topic?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are we done?

QUESTION: Just follow on that point – in the statement, you asked for all claimants to avoid provocative actions and rhetorics. Does that also include United States?

MR KIRBY: The United States isn’t committing provocative rhetoric or actions. I’ve said, again, we don’t take a position on these claims, and our military operations in the region are 100 percent aligned --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: Listen, now, I know where you’re going here. I get that you don’t like this, but that doesn’t make it less true, that our military operations in the region are designed to look after U.S. national security interests, including the interests of five of our seven treaty alliances. We have enormous responsibilities. We have been and remain and will remain a Pacific power. And so as the Secretary of Defense has said, we’re going to fly, sail, and operate in accordance with international law where we need to to protect those interests. That is not something new. That is something that the United States military takes very seriously, and has for decades – well before this discussion was even being had about the South China Sea.

Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Today --

MR KIRBY: I can’t believe I’m actually glad to move on to Syria. (Laughter.)