At the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian nations) Regional Forum held in Vietnam on July 23, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked at length based on the draft she had prepared beforehand. Hillary said resolving disputes over the South China Seas was "pivotal" to regional stability, and she also called for setting up an international mechanism to resolve the issue.

"The United States has a 'national interest' in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea," Hillary Clinton said at Asia's largest security dialogue.

Moreover, Mrs. Clinton noted, the United States supports all those countries that had claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea in expanding cooperation and consultations and her nation is in opposition to the use of any force and to the threat to use force.

At first glance, Hillary's remarks seem to be "ready to come to the rescue of people in distress," to maintain fairness and to speak out from a sense of justice. If mulling it over or thinking of it carefully, however, one can have another taste. Why has the United States interested itself so abruptly in the South China Sea Issue in the first place? And Hillary's reasoning is that the dispute has hindered the freedom of navigation and negatively affects regional stability.

As a matter of course, the South China Sea issue has long been in existence over the past decades, and people have never heard that the peace cruise on international waters in the region has ever been obstructed. Till today, no other country has ever said their trade navigation or shipping has ever experienced any hindrance at this sea area.

The discerning people can see some economies in the region develop very fast and seaborne trade progress day by day in recent years. As for regional stability, all people say that there is no threat whatsoever to regional peace and stability in viewing or appraising China's bilateral talks with the ASEAN nations and other countries in the region.

Concerning ways for the settlement of disputes, Hillary's prescription is to conduct multilateral consultations and cooperation and establish an international mechanism for the settlement of disputes with the American involvement and leadership.

To put it bluntly, if you want to solve the problem, the participation and assistance of more countries are needed while the United States should act as the referee. Nevertheless, Hillary is somewhat forgetful: China and ASEAN member countries signed in 2002 the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and institutionalized the joint working group meeting for consultations. These actions are in fact promoting the mutual confidence of the relevant nations and creating advantage and a good atmosphere for the eventual settlement of disputes.

As far as China is concerned, the issue on the South China Sea has not been the sole case resultant from historical factors and bilateral talks with neighbors. China had once settled numerous territorial disputes effectively and efficiently by means of bilateral negotiations with its neighboring countries. In the process of tackling these disputes, there is neither any threat to use forces, nor the imposition of any solutions onto others.

The international practices have given an eloquent proof that the best solution of this type of disputes implies direct bilateral talks, whereas the multi-lateralizing and internationalizing will only make the matter worse and solutions to them much harder and more complicated.

Asia today is definitely not Asia of the colonial age. Asian nations are now fully capable of tackling international affairs on their own and it does not need others to do any judgment or to gesticulate profusely.

Since the U.S. concern over the South China Sea dispute is groundless and Hillary Clinton's "prescription" is somewhat unwise, then people will have ample reasons to ask what she has got up her sleeves? In fact, Hillary has let out the mystery in her remarks -- that is, the settlement of disputes has something to do with the "national interest" of the United States.

In current global affairs, the "national interest" of the U.S. is an issue, which has been touched or referred to so frequently and, once the "national interest" is mentioned, the U.S. then has the right to intervene in any issues, no matter how distant and far-away the place from the U.S. and no matter whether the related country endorses or welcomes the U.S. participation, and the U.S. has always set a foot on it.