Dismounting China from the South China Sea

Discussion in 'China' started by Srinivas_K, Apr 26, 2014.

  1. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,355
    Dismounting China from the South China Sea
    China's growing energy needs and overlapping territorial claims place its energy security on a collision course with its smaller, weaker neighbors
    China's economy requires increased access to resources, especially when managing the needs of approximately 20% of the world's population.

    China's growing energy needs and overlapping territorial claims in the resource-rich South China Sea place their energy security on a collision course with its smaller, weaker neighbors.

    The most recent issue is China's increasingly hard-lined approach to the Scarborough Reef, approximately 4 times farther away from China than it is to the Philippines.

    Historic lens

    China backs its South China Sea claims through a Chinese map produced in 1947, Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai’s 1951 statement, and the discovery of the Belitung Wreck in 1998.

    Please make your own opinions regarding the legitimacy of a map created in 1947 citing a historical claim. Minister Zhou’s statement denounced the San Francisco Peace Treaty – as China was not invited – and further declared Chinese ownership of the Spratly, Paracel, and Pratas Islands.

    Furthermore, Beijing portrayed the Belitung Wreck as “[Tang Dynasty] artifacts at the bottom of [Indonesian coastal waters],” however failed to mention that the dhow (a lateen-rigged ship with one or two masts) was not a "Chinese vessel that had a seafaring purpose in the region," but is instead debated to have been an Arabian or Indian ship.


    Even if it was a Chinese trade ship, a sunken vessel possibly lost at sea doesn’t really pass the legitimacy test for a territorial claim.

    Legal lens

    In addition to questionable historical interpretations, China tries to strengthen its claims with outdated legal decisions.

    In 2010 and again in 2013, China attempted to gain ownership of up to two-thirds of Okinawa’s continental shelf by arguing Okinawa was a former Chinese vassal state and cited the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf Case ruling to strengthen its cause.

    However, this form of coastal delineation was superseded by the 1973 to 1982 drafting of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which replaced the natural prolongation argument with the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – as demonstrated in 1982 (Libya v. Tunisia) and again upheld in 1985 (Malta v. Libya).

    Additionally, Article 12 of UNCLOS defines islets as land masses incapable of sustaining life and therefore ineligible for EEZ status. Without this EEZ status, they cannot be used by Beijing (or any other country) to create a maritime boundary, such as Beijing’s Nine-Dash Line.

    However, when we look at the Philippines’ and other countries’ disputes with China, we start to see some legitimacy of ownership. For example – the obvious distance factor aside – some countries have had prior habitation on the islets, whereas China has not.

    Additionally, several of the claimant countries either have developed or are exploring ways to develop tourism (beaches, diving, fishing, etc), which assert possession over the area.

    Other avenues have included deploying military contingents or setting up civilian communities on these islets to demonstrate physical occupation.

    These countermeasures are in addition to the 1994 decision, determined by UNCLOS Article 121, which created international maritime boundaries – that China chooses to ignore.

    Combined, these cursory examples prove Beijing lacks solid historical, occupational, and legal claims in the region.

    Ways forward

    Beijing’s branding of the South China Sea as one of its “core interests” will only compound matters.

    Previous “core interests” include Taiwan, Tibet, and the former East Turkmenistan and generally means China will refuse to negotiate where they would need to concede territory; use force to protect their interests; and impose a regional order – an obviously bleak picture.

    Moreover, China’s modus operandi for dealing with territorial claims is a 3-pronged approach; which includes delays in dispute resolution, consolidation of claims, and preventing the opposing country from strengthening their claims.

    To many Asia-Pacific observers, Beijing’s heavy-handed approach is reminiscent of the “middle kingdom,” a time in China's imperialistic past when rulers, emboldened by the “mandate of heaven,” threatened and subdued all non-Chinese nations if they failed to pay tribute or showed deference.

    Which is why China was angered when the Philippines didn’t back down and instead filed their territorial dispute in the Permanent Court of Arbitration on March 30, 2014.

    To maintain regional stability, everyone’s motivation needs to be understood. For example, China’s hard-line approach may be rooted in the fact that it is 80 to 90% dependent on foreign oil; has a massive, growing population; and the Communist Chinese Party leadership must deliver continued high-growth to maintain its position.

    On the other hand, as Dana Dillon suggests, China is viewed as the neighbor on the street who tries to own your yard, your driveway, and your mailbox, but allows you to keep your house.

    Mainland China should be more like Taiwan – in April 2013 Japan and Taiwan concluded a fishing agreement surrounding the disputed Senkaku islands.

    Following Taiwan's lead, Mainland China can prove that is dedicated to the Rule of Law and is not simply a reincarnation of the Middle Kingdom.

    Instead of increasing tensions with the possibility of a mistaken calculation leading to conflict, Taiwan and Japan sat down, discussed their fishing requirements, and signed an agreement.

    Their territorial dispute remains unsolved; however, both sides enjoy the new status quo and prove that even when a dispute exists, so too does an amiable solution for both sides.

    Thus, we have a golden opportunity for China and the Philippines to work together, demonstrate that they support the Rule of Law and are capable of solving problems in a legal and friendly fashion. – Rappler.com

    Dismounting China from the South China Sea
     
    EXPERT likes this.
  2.  
  3. EXPERT

    EXPERT Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    From Heart to Brain
    a very good article . . .
     
    Srinivas_K likes this.
  4. CCP

    CCP Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    193
    Location:
    school
    America is not even a member of UNCLOS.

    Those two American authors would not try to tell China how to do.
     
  5. jon88

    jon88 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    malaysia
    I don't know about this. When I first read this I thought the article had legitimacy. When I saw who the author was and how they derive to the question of what the shipwreak was, it reminded me to an article in a Philippines newspaper a few years ago suggesting that the Pinoys would like the shipwreak to be non-Chinese. It speculated that IF the shipwreak is not chinese, it would most likely be an Arabian or Indian ship.

    So, in essense these 2 authors just made an issue of contention out of an earlier article that was just meant to be a wish. And nobody can sue them either because they never really said that the shipwreak is non-Chinese. They are creating doubt when there was none. It's a very common strategy used in American legal and judicial system. Anyway, their article is then reused by others as a basis of reference of credible info... hence the saying..don't lie , or it will spread like wildfire. I am sure Srinivas_K didn't know this because even my flashback was only triggered when I read passed the shipwreak part.

    I am not saying the article is wrong but the shipwreak part is definitely wrong. Well...maybe not wrong, they never said it definitely. They just want to create a sense of doubt...which begs the question of their intent in the article. One of the author is military intelligence....fair and balanced? You decide
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2014
    J20! likes this.
  6. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,355
    Even if the shipwreck is Chinese how can China claim entire sea??

    Chinese are not know for Navy they are land based civilization who used silk route to trade purpose on land.

    Chinese are not in a position nor can explain the nine dashed line nor their claims are legitimate. This what I want to convey through this thread.

     
  7. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    here u go >>> Zheng He - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a great Chinese Mariner

     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2014
  8. CCP

    CCP Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    193
    Location:
    school
    All those counties have been colonized by Chinese. We found the first republic county in Asia Lanfang Republic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanfang_Republic
    The Lanfang Republic (Chinese: 蘭芳共和國; pinyin: Lánfāng Gònghéguó; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Lân-phang Kiōng-hô-kok) was a Chinese state in West Kalimantan in Indonesia that was established by a Hakka Chinese named Luo Fangbo (羅芳伯) in 1777, until it was ended by Dutch occupation in 1884.

    But, we were defeated by western new comers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2014
  9. J20!

    J20! Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    670
    Location:
    Some where in Li Na's imagination
    FM Zhou Enlai's 1951 statement should be remembered everytime Japanese and American politicians mention the "status quo", considering that the US created many of the current territorial disputes single-handedly through the San Fransisco Treaty.

    A treaty through which America divided Japan's war spoils amongst itself and its allies whilst denying China a say, despite many of the territories being allocated having been Chinese territory before Japan's Imperialist adventures.

    A stark example of this being the Diaoyutai/Senkaku, which were "unilaterally" given to Japan. Yet accountability on such a flammable matter of sovreignity is ever laid at the US's feet, by its politicians or its media( no suprises there).

    Imposing unequal treaties on members of the "international community" then accusing said countries of "trying to change the status quo by force" or "trying to upend the US-led international order" when challenged is about as imperialist as any hegemon preceding the States.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2014

Share This Page