昨天在老挝首都万象结束的东盟10+5（东盟10国➕中、美、日、澳、俄）外长会议，在南海问题上出现激烈的争议和严重的分歧。会后，各方都宣布胜利。“联合公报”不提“南海仲裁”，中方认为是重大外交胜利，并且感谢柬埔寨在其中所起的作用（柬埔寨行使了否决权）。美方和若干东盟国家也同样宣布胜利，美国国务卿克里说他对公报非常满意，他认为没有提“仲裁”并不重要，重要的是各方都承诺要支持《海洋法》，要服从国际法......

虽然看起来是“一个公报，各自表述”，我认为本次会议仍然是一个有积极成果的会议，其意义不在于公报提了什么，不提什么，而在于各方充分表达了己方的立场，并且为下一步的发展取得了某种共识。

从媒体报道看，会议各方对南海争议国际仲裁的立场如下：

中国：仲裁是非法的，中国不参与，不接受。

柬埔寨：不同意把国际仲裁写进联合公报。

老挝、泰国、文莱、缅甸、俄国：中立

菲律宾、越南、马来西亚、印尼、新加坡：中国应尊重国际仲裁。

美国、日本、澳洲：仲裁是合法的，各方都应遵守。

虽然分歧很大，但是各方也达成了某种共识：要降温，冷静，克制，要通过和平方式解决争议。

下一步该怎么办？

中国：双边谈判是解决争议的唯一途径。

菲律宾：愿意和中国进行双边谈判。

美国：将鼓励菲律宾新任总统杜特尔特通过对话解决与中国的争议。

看来，下一步发展的重头戏在于中国和菲律宾的双边谈判。

中国提出的“搁置争议，共同开发”本来是个极好的建议，为什么过去没有被大家所接受？我看关键的问题在于没有真正“搁置争议”，而是继续在岛礁的主权问题上争个没完没了。有人坚持“搁置争议”的先决条件是“主权归我”。

“主权归我”并没有错，问题在于否定了“搁置争议”，走进了死胡同。

现在菲律宾愿意和中国举行双边谈判，这是一个重要的机遇。中国坚持今后双边谈判的先决条件是“不提仲裁”，我相信菲律宾会接受这个条件。国际仲裁作出判决后，中国已经在国际舆论上处于被动地位，大家心知肚明，给中国留点面子又有何妨？拿克里的话说，叫做“避免引起对抗”。

“不提仲裁”和“搁置争议”其实是一回事，中国要人家“不提仲裁”，相信也会在今后的对话中不以“主权归我”为谈判的先决条件。实际上，国际仲裁之后，菲律宾和越南等国在南海岛礁的主权争议中只会更加态度顽固，更加振振有词，要在主权问题上争出一个结果来，更加没有可能。当然，搁置主权问题的争议，不等于放弃主权。

为了突破僵局，变被动为主动，我相信中国也会在今后的谈判中放宽条件。如此看来，国际仲裁之后，实际给解决争端带来了新的机遇。如果大家都在岛礁的主权问题上“搁置争议”，把注意力集中到“共同开发，利益分享”上来，有什么问题不能解决呢？

2016年7月26日美国国务卿克里在万象记者招待会上答记者问（部分，点击这里）

QUESTION: Thank you. In this series of meetings, the dispute over South China Sea and the international arbitration ruling have turned to the biggest issue, one of the biggest issues. While ASEAN countries look divided over this dispute, Chinese foreign minister claimed that the discussion about the arbitration had been over.

So what do you think about this claim by China? And --

SECRETARY KERRY: The Chinese foreign minister claimed that what?

QUESTION: Claimed that the discussion over the arbitration have been over.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, okay, yeah. Arbitration has ended.

QUESTION: What do you think about this claim? And also I would like to ask you how do you believe that the USA can maintain its influence to keep the peace and security in this region?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, very good questions. And let me just say that on the South China Sea, I said in the room a few minutes ago that the arbitration is an arbitration that took place under international law. And it is an arbitration, the results of which, the international community, ourselves included, believe is legally binding and is a matter of law. Now, that said, that’s our position. We don’t take a position, as I said earlier, on the claimants. We take a position that rule of law must be upheld. And we believe there are obligations under it.

Now, China has a position that they say that the decision is illegitimate. So we still have a task ahead of us, a challenge, which is to try to work going forward to make sure that we are resolving the issues through diplomacy and rule of law, through the diplomatic process, but also through whatever available legal institutions there are to support a process. And China, in my meeting with the foreign minister, the foreign minister said very clearly the time has come to sort of move away from the sort of public tensions and turn the page and begin to engage in full measure of diplomacy and so forth.

Well we agree with that, if that’s the direction that people want to move, that no claimant should be acting in a way that is provocative. No claimant should take steps that wind up raising tensions. And what we would like to see is a process of dialogue. China indicated its willingness and readiness to engage in a dialogue and bilateral negotiation with the Philippines. I will be leaving for the Philippines this afternoon and meeting with President Duterte tomorrow, and I would encourage President Duterte to engage in dialogue and in negotiation.

So hopefully this can become a moment that we can all take advantage of, where we work out some of the modalities of how do you deal with fishing, how do you deal with natural resources, how do you deal with the movement of – the free movement of vessels, and protect the rights of everybody. This could be a very important moment of shifting how this discussion has taken place, and not being played out through public moves unilaterally and challenges, but in a constructive and thoughtful, engaged diplomatic manner. That would be our hope. That is what we have encouraged all the time and I hope that that could be an outcome of where we are today. Thank you all. Nice to be with you.

2016年7月27日美国国务卿克里和菲律宾外交部长在马尼拉答记者问（部分，点击这里）

QUESTION: I asked if it wasn’t really a victory for the ASEAN countries.

FOREIGN SECRETARY YASAY: Okay, I think it was a triumph for ASEAN. If you will look at the joint communique and the statement, it covers all of the elements and fundamental principles on which ASEAN is based and which justify the existence of ASEAN. They have talked about the respect for legal processes and the democratic processes in resolving this dispute. It has talked about upholding international law and the 1982 UNCLOS. It has also expressed their concerns about the actions that have been taken that destabilize such as the reclamation activities that has been undertaken, and this is very important. And more importantly, it has asked all of the parties concerned to exercise restraint and sobriety towards the peaceful settlement of their disputes.

So this to me is a triumph for ASEAN because it makes ASEAN more credible to the international community and it makes it more efficient, effective, and relevant as a regional group.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Lesley. I think that Secretary Yasay has given a very good answer. I’ll just add a couple things to it. I’d ask you to go read the communique paragraph for paragraph as I did before we approved it. And I was very satisfied that the communique clearly referenced all legal rights, all legal decisions, legal process, legal tribunal, legal decisions, without mentioning the arbitration. And sometimes, frankly, at a meeting like that and diplomacy, you don’t always have to – you don’t always have to include every single word that may, in fact, sometimes make it harder to get to the dialogue that you want to get to.

But every single principle, every single value of rule of law, was embraced in that communique. The communique said clearly that everybody supported the Law of the Sea process. Everybody supported the rule of law. Everybody thought that there must be a reduction of tension. Everybody thought that people needed to abide by what the legal requirements were under the law, and they had to be resolved by rule of law.

Now, I made it clear and I think the foreign secretary made it clear, as has everybody else, that the decision itself is a binding decision. But we’re not trying to create a confrontation. We’re trying to create a solution mindful of the rights of people that are established under the law. So whatever – as we encourage the Philippines and we encourage the Chinese and we encourage other claimants to engage in negotiations, that’s now new. I did that when I went to Beijing and China three years ago, and President Obama has said that. We are consistently, year after year, urging parties to negotiate, to work this through diplomatically, bilaterally, multilaterally, build up confidence-building measures. And when we say that we urge a negotiation, we do so obviously understanding that our friend and ally, the Philippines, can only do so on terms that are acceptable to the Government of the Philippines.

So my judgment is hopefully you shouldn’t be looking for the confrontation; you should be looking for the solution. And I believe that was a communique that helps perhaps to move people towards the kind of discussion that could bring about a conclusion. But it still is mindful of what we believe is the impact and judgment of that decision itself.

QUESTION: But Mr. Secretary, if you don’t mention the ruling publicly, if nobody admits it, then are you not afraid that it could become irrelevant?

SECRETARY KERRY: It’s impossible for it to be irrelevant. It’s legally binding and it’s obviously a decision of the court that is recognized under international law and it has to be part of the calculation. And I am confident our friends in the Philippines will make their judgments about what their negotiating position is and how they intend to proceed forward. What we want to do is urge people to not try to build up the tensions, don’t take provocative actions, leave a space here for people to be able to find a way forward that meets the needs of the region, of the nations, and also respects people’s rights and obligations.

Thank you all very much.