Australia and the ICJ could help resolve the tensions over the South China Sea. China shouldn’t fear internationalization.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard used the phrase 'Yes, we will' to launch her re-election campaign. The country could also use some of the 'Yes, we will' spirit to help improve China-US and China-Vietnam relations.
The United States and Australia both have strong maritime interests in the region, in terms of sea-based resources and also trying to ensure free sea lanes. But China is also a major maritime stakeholder, with ever-increasing sea-based interests commensurate with its rapid economic growth.
As with many powers before it, China's growing maritime interests could overlap and even conflict with others. Yet it would be more precise to say that it’s often others’ claims that have overlapped with earlier Chinese claims. For example, in 1947, the Chinese government raised a claim over the South China Sea, a claim not made by some Association of Southeast Asian Nations states until as late as the 1970s or even 1980s.
Such conflicting claims by the parties involved in disputes over the South China Sea (or elsewhere) aren’t necessarily ill-intended. But, regardless, some way needs to be found to peacefully reconcile these competing claims. For instance, China has opposed the USS George Washington's participation in drills in the Yellow Sea, a position that clashes with US interests. Such a disagreement must be settled through discussions to ensure a mutually acceptable outcome.
Of course tensions between the two are about more than the naval drills. China has also argued against US access to its Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea, while the United States for its part has refused to accept China’s understanding of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
But this issue could easily be settled by seeking an authoritative interpretation of UNCLOS through the International Court of Justice. Besides, China seems to have claimed most, if not the entire, South China Sea. All parties to the dispute, including China, should therefore abide by the Declaration on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea signed in 2002 by China and all ASEAN members, which excludes the use—or threat of the use—of force.
The US cares about freedom of navigation in the region and apparently believes that sooner or later China will too. But there’s some heavy historical baggage to bear on this issue. China feels uncomfortable with a dominant US Navy in its backyard, especially in the context of Taiwan—it is, after all, the US that has threatened mainland China's free access to the waters around Taiwan. China, in contrast, has never taken action to deny others access to the entire South China Sea, in particular in areas beyond its EEZ.
Photo Credit: US Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Solution to South China Sea
The real solution to the South China Sea based on geopolitics should be:
1)Paracel Islands belongs to China.
2)Macclesfield Bank goes to China while Scarborough Shoal goes to Phillipines.
3)China and Taiwan-province of China gives up claim of Spratly Islands to Asean countries.
SE962582C
If Dr Mahathir-bin-Mohammed cannot trust the Australians, why should the Chinese?!
GFR
China is all bluff.
The chinese government always brings up the prospect of a foreign war to distract the racist chinese people from internal problems, but this time it won’t work – the chinese people have internet access. Their population is aging and they know they can’t sustain a real war because of their “one child” policy. The first time the chinese people see chinese kids in bodybags there will be a “Tianamin Square” in every city.
china is using the old tactic of attempting to bully all their neighbours into silence, but this is not the 16th century – their neighbours know what china can and can’t do, and they know that weakness vs china will invite more agression.
china should reflect on what the Vietnamese did to them in 1979, and what the Tibetans (a nation of monks), did to them in the 1950s.
If they do not they will find themselves coming home with their noses cut off.
SE962582C
To quote quote “If they do not they will find themselves coming home with their noses cut off.” and unquote.
Would the Moderators, THE MODERATORS, please care to reconsider for consideration into the removal of the aforementioned comment due to the offending last paragraph thereof, for both being of “Hate-Speech” and for possible, POSSIBLE, incitement to physical violence; and
And thank you, and thank you very much.
LOL
being anti-Chinese does not mean hate speech…. the Chinese are so full of themselves that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is automatically anti-Chinese and promotes hate speech
pathetic
harry
USA will be fighting a war 10,000 km from home China will be fighting it at our doorstep, Chinese DF-21D ASBM famously called the air-craft carrier killer, currently usa has no weapon in its arsenal that can intercept this World only ASBM system, with saturation barrage of cruise missiles ASBMs and torpedoes american navy will count for nothing.
HOWEVER China always find a way to solve territory disputes peacefully. as of now China solved many border disputes in the past peacefully.
in May 1999 a Chinese fisherman was killed in an incident involving a Chinese fishing boat and a Filipino naval vessel; and on 19 July a Chinese fishing boat was sunk after a collision with a vessel belonging to the Philippines Navy that was trying to apprehend it.
In January 2000 the Philippines Navy apprehended and boarded two Chinese fishing boats in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal and ordered them to leave. In the following month, a Philippines patrol craft fired shots to avoid a collision with two more Chinese fishing boats attempting to avoid capture near the Shoal. In March the Philippines deployed two patrol boats to ‘persuade’ Chinese vessels to leave the Scarborough Shoal area.
In May another incident occurred, when Philippines maritime police pursued and opened fire on a Chinese fishing boat, killing one of its crew.and many more.
this is why China recently RESPONDED more actively its purely self-defense.
ASEAN
That’s a bunch of bluffing. China couldn’t and still can’t produce a workable jet engine for its copied Soviet-technology the Su-27. Childish talk about a “carrier killer” is used to scare the little kids in the neighborhood, not to someone who had a full century of blue-ocean warfare. A US aircraft carrier may be the biggest warship in the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s a harmless elephant in a China shop (ahem the punt)… Besides, when was the last time you saw a carrier travelling by itself like a lost dog? On a magazine or newspaper, perhaps?
Spectator
In case you haven’t been paying any attention to the news in the last few years America just fought 2 wars back to back almost half a globe away in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thinking that fighting several thousand kilometers from will hinder America’s ability wage war is simply an uninformed opinion. The only thing that changes from fighting in China’s doorstep is China’s ability to bring ground based weapons platforms to bear in a conflict.
The DF-21 ASBM is indeed formidable and a world first. However the missile still requires long range radar to find and target any American carrier. Until China finds a solution for beyond-the-horizon radar for target acquisition and guidance the DF-21’s utility would be strictly dictated by how America would deploy a carrier. So in the short term China has no method of guiding in its super fancy missile, and in the long term America may acquire defensive capabilities to defeat the missile.
Also please keep in mind that America has several nearby airbases located in allied countries. Just because you can keep America’s carriers at bay does not mean the airspace would be uncontested. Any attack on one of these American airbases would also constitute an attack on the host country, which will virtually guarantee additional foreign involvement.
China’s allegedly clean record of “peacefully” resolving border/territory disputes is a bit misleading. You see China has a habit of playing with labels quite often. Anytime you have something crop up on China’s fringes the issue isn’t labeled a “border” or “territory” dispute, that would imply that Beijing recognizes that there is a border or territory whose sovereignty is in question. No, in Beijing its never border or territory, its always “national interest” or an “internal affair” that the West should keep out of. So technically yes, China’s record on resolving border disputes is quite free of violence, but that is because most of the time the incidents aren’t filed under border/territory disputes.
We are seeing this again now with China’s claims over these South China Sea islands. If I recall correctly a while ago a high ranking officer in the PLAN or party official called the topic of the islands a matter of “core national interest.” In China’s mind, there is only one acceptable outcome, and that is for everyone to recognize that the islands and along with them the South China Sea is Chinese. In other words in Beijing this isn’t a border or territory dispute, this is all those pesky South-East Asian countries not recognizing what is “clearly” China’s sovereign soil. Its no longer international or even up for debate, its other countries meddling in China’s internal affairs.
Having been labeled a “core national interest” I find the idea that “…China and relevant parties have to be prepared to yield some of their physical claims…” laughable. In order to better describe reality it should be written as “…China expects relevant parties to be prepared to yield all of their physical claims…”
China’s outrage is actually quite understandable in this case, albeit in a twisted way. Chinese media can sell this as another example of nosy Western countries meddling in Chinese “internal affairs” to the populace. Meanwhile behind closed doors America’s commitment to multilateral talks over the island’s claims means that 1) China can no longer individually strong-arm their way to a “peaceful” agreement with each South China sea claimant one-by-one and that 2) China is deprived of a way to set each country against one another, thus weakening cooperation in the region, classic divide and conquer.
Leonard R.
Unlike Afghanistan, a war with China is worth fighting and long overdue.
If one of China’s ‘carrier-killer’ missiles actually work, then it will
go nuclear very fast.
China has been asking for this. America should give China exactly what it has asked for.
harry
ASEAN
Chinese have landed and claimed the Spratly island since 2BC during Han dynasty, ancient Chinese also included and claimed the islands in Yuan dynasty, Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty and also ROC.
Chinese also have right to claim Paracel islands, There are some Chinese cultural relics in the Paracel islands dating from the Tang and Song dynasty eras, and there is some evidence of Chinese habitation on the islands in these periods.According to the Wujing Zongyao, a book published in the Northern Song dynasty in 1044, the Song government then included the Islands in the patrol areas of the Navy of the Court.
In 1279, the Yuan Dynasty emperor sent the famous high-level official and astronomer, Guo Shoujing, to the South China Sea to survey and measure the islands and the surrounding sea area. Guo’s base of survey was exactly located in the Paracel Islands. His activities were well recorded in Yuan Shi, or History of Yuan. According to Yuan Shi, the South China Sea islands were within the boundary of the Yuan Dynasty. Maps published in the Yuan era invariably included the Changsha (the Paracels) and the Shitang (the Spratlys) within the domain of Yuan.
Relevant local annals and other historic materials of the Ming (1368~1644) and the Qing (1644~1912) dynasties continued to contain references to the South China Sea islands as China’s territory. The Qiongzhou Prefecture (the highest administrative authority in Hainan) exercised jurisdiction over the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. In 1883, the Qing government lodged strong protests against Germany when the Germans were conducting survey activities in the Paracel and Spratly areas; as a result of such protests, the Germans had to terminate their survey activities. The Sino-French treaty of 1887 between Qing China and France, who had occupied Indochina by that time, expressly provided that the islands east of a delimitation line, known as the Sino-Tonkin delimitation line, should belong to China, whereas the Paracel and Spratly Islands are located east of the delimitation line. In 1910, the Qing government decided to invite Chinese merchants to contract for the administration of the development affairs of the South China Sea islands, and demanded that officials shall provide protection and maintenance in order to highlight Chinese territory and protect its titles and interests.
China has sovereignty over the South CHINA sea. the late comers are the south east asian countries and america.
ASEAN
Yeah yeah… That’s a lot of mumbo jumbo…
There is no real evidence of any of your claims except for China’s doctored maps that were called “historical maps”. The same maps that other countries have showed nothing indicating those islands as belonged to an ancient China. China can fool its domestic audience and use them as a tool to promote nationalism, but nobody in the region buys that kind of BS.
Mr Obvious
Let’s talk facts.
1. For this article, how can someone reason with China or a Chinese nationalist when all they know is what China’s news agencies such as Xinhua and others throw out. They only know of China’s outrageous viewpoints.
2. China is not innocent and is not on a peaceful rise. Examples are the Paracel and Spratly islands that Vietnam held and governed. China attacks South Vietnam on the Paracel Islands and they claim they are innocent and then occupies them. China kills innocent Vietnamese in the Spratly’s and they claim they are innocent.
3. China always uses their historic claims to the South China Sea and all the islands. You guys better find a better way to explain these outrageous claims. That’s exactly saying the Romans (Italians) own all of Europe and the middle east or that Mr. G Khan owns all of China or that China claims all of Vietnam. I don’t understand how a so called middle kingdom is peaceful? China occupied Vietnam for millenia and they mine as well claim all of Vietnam too.
4. How can you arrest innocent Vietnamese fisherman and hold them for ransom? This is not peaceful, this is bullying. This is not innocent, this is cowboyish.
5. Stop saying Westerners weakened China. If it wasn’t for the British, Hong Kong would be a dump. If it isn’t for the US, Taiwan would be a dump. Both of these territories would not be where they are today. If it wasn’t for western counties, China would have no customers, very low GDP, little FDI, and no IP to steal from.
I have many more points to mention, but I find that a Chinese national will come back and start spitting out more outrageous claims.
The bully can push around the smaller, weaker ASEAN counties until they stand up and respond. And when this happens, China will play innocent once more and turn around bully some more.
asean_united
you are delusional. The seas around south east asia were navigated by the Malays/austronesians long before the Hans of the yellow river valley reached the southern coast of what is now China. You don’t know your own history . Huge Malay ships called Jongs united the disparate islands of peninsular and insular south east asia. Our ancestors navigated these seas for trade ,food and exploration long before Admiral Zheng He ! island south east asia was populated by migrations through this sea. The arrogance of the Chinese is telling in your post when you fail to note this historical facts. We are a maritime people whose influence extends today through Madagascar whose language is Malay/austronesian through Polynesia. Please dump this ignorance somewhere else. The independent and democratic nations of ASEAN would never let communist imperial China strike a dagger into the very heart of south east asia. Go back to the main land!
John Samford
What the First Advisor is overlooking is that the USA has NEVER ratified any treaty that covers the South China Sea. So we can do as we please there. If China wants war, then bring it on. Just pack a lot of body bags. China has no Navy. It has the PLA Navy, which is NOT the same thing as a real Navy. The US Navy is the best in the world. By a large margin. Stronger then ALL the other Navies in the world combined.
Bring it on.
Aj
@John Samford
“The US Navy is the best in the world. By a large margin. Stronger then ALL the other Navies in the world combined.”
No arguments there. However, I hope you do realize that it doesn’t even have to be stronger than ALL other navies combined. Most Navies in the region will be sailing as US allies if it comes to that.
SE962582C
The real, REAL, and the true, TRUE, soldiers of warriors, such as the Chinese, the Korean and the Koreans, and the Japanese, do not, NOT, require body-bags or coffins for that matter;
Do forgive him for having no access to the information in the Written form of the Han Chinese language, but none, NONE, of the Chinese Fallen back in the Korean War, e.g., for example, were, or are, allowed to or permitted to be let to be repatriated to be re-interred back into China or into the Chinese Manchuria.
Only the American and the Americans, with the never-ending obsession with the Human Sexuality, even into areas such as Enlisting and as Commissioning, or the Cowards, would concern himself, herself and themselves so much with the nonsense with the non-Essential items such as this.
John Samford
The US Senate has NOT ratified LOST ( Law of the Seas Treaty). It never will. So the USA will never be a party to LOST. So what LOST says doesn’t matter.
SE962582C
The United States, and the American and Americans, are still bound by, amongst other things, the Laws of Nature, including the Laws of Physics, and the Laws of Economics, ECONOMICS, etc., and the Laws of Reality, whether you and they liked it and them or not or else.
Neither the Bill of Rights of the, nor the Constitution, of the United States would protect neither the United States, nor the American and Americans, from, e.g., for example, the Law of “E = M*C*C”, or the Law of E equals to M plus C-Square.
The logic behind de-facto subsidising in cash and in monies a foreign, FOREIGN, Power, a formally-allied one or not or else, including Viêt-Nam, and thereby further increasing the Balance of Deficit in the Balance of the Current Accounts of the United States, is quite and rather puzzling and beyond me and one indeed.