News this month that the Philippines had to halt research in the Reed Bank area just off its island of Palawan after two Chinese patrol ships threatened one of its seismic survey vessels, underscores the potential for conflict in the South China Sea.
While China’s growing assertiveness in pursuit of its claim over a major portion of the South China Sea is only to be expected, the fact that the smaller countries in the dispute—namely, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam—have neither a common voice nor collective strength, exacerbates the problem of finding a solution.
The Philippines, in particular, has made a number of strategic mistakes that all involved could learn from.
The first error came back in 2004, when the Philippines broke ranks with other countries involved and became the first to sign an agreement with China over joint seismic survey in the disputed Spratlys area. This agreement left Vietnam with no choice but to reluctantly join in, resulting in the tripartite Agreement Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) in 2005.
But the JMSU was widely criticised in the Philippines and in 2008—amid acrimonious domestic debates—the Philippines was the first country to announce that the JMSU agreement wouldn’t be renewed after its expiry. Still, in breaking ranks in 2004, the Philippines had already undermined the smaller countries’ united stance.
The second mistake came in 2009, when the Philippines failed to make a submission to the United Nations’ Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) regarding any continental shelf within the South China Sea. Vietnam made its own submission regarding an area southeast of the Paracels, and a joint one with Malaysia regarding an area southwest of the Spratlys. Vietnam and Malaysia had invited the Philippines to take part in a joint submission, but the Philippines declined.
Given China’s sweeping claim in the South China Sea with its U-shaped line, and given its overwhelming hard and soft power, smaller countries involved in the dispute need to make proper use of international law.
In the context of maritime disputes, two bodies of law are particularly important for claimant countries.
The first is the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which stipulates that claims to exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves must be derived solely from land features (i.e. not from arguments such as ‘historical sovereignty’). As a signatory to UNCLOS, China must respect this principle.
The second thing to consider is the collection of past rulings by the International Court of Justice. These have always given small islands such as the Paracels and the Spratlys EEZs and continental shelves that are insignificant compared with those given to land features with much longer coastlines. Certainly, no international court would ever give the Paracels and Spratlys EEZs and continental shelves that extend beyond the equidistant line between these islands and the South China Sea’s surrounding coastlines.
These two bodies of international law mean that the Paracel and Spratly claimants have to restrict maritime claims relating to the Spratlys and Paracels to no farther than the equidistant line between these islands and the South China Sea’s surrounding coastlines, and most likely not much farther than 12 miles from these islands. This in itself can be interpreted as meaning that China’s U-shaped line—a maritime claim that extends beyond the equidistance line—is illegitimate. In addition, the reality is that the Paracels and Spratlys are disputed territories and therefore anyway don’t necessarily belong to China. It would therefore be beneficial not only to the smaller countries in the disputes, but also to third parties with a stake in the South China Sea, for China’s U-shaped line to be ruled out.
If the Philippines had either taken part in a joint submission with Vietnam and Malaysia, or proceeded with one of its own regarding areas within the South China Sea, it would have helped to assert an UNCLOS regime for this body of water. This would in turn have helped to underscore the illegitimacy of China’s U-shaped line and, for example, would have reinforced the Philippines’ rights in the Reed Bank area. Unfortunately, the Philippines did neither.
The third mistake was the Philippines’ decision to submit protests to the CLCS against both Vietnam’s submission and Vietnam and Malaysia’s joint one. In its protests, the Philippines cited the disputes over land features, but ignored the fact that the maritime zones generated by the Spratlys, which constitute disputed maritime space, should be insignificant.
This is beneficial to China’s position in two ways.
First, China was no longer the only country that protested against Vietnam and Malaysia’s joint submission—China could have been isolated in protesting against a joint submission by Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. Instead, it was China and the Philippines protesting against Vietnam and Malaysia.
Second, the Philippines’ action meant that China was no longer the only country that ignored the fact that the EEZs and continental shelves generated by the Spratlys don’t allow any country to claim maritime space to arbitrary limits.
Interestingly, Indonesia subsequently submitted to the CLCS a note verbale criticising China’s protest. This note stated that ‘those remote or very small features in the South China Sea do not deserve special economic zone or continental shelf of their own,’ and that therefore, China’s U-shaped line ‘clearly lacks international legal basis and is tantamount to upset the UNCLOS 1982.’
Even more interesting is the fact that if the Spratlys don’t deserve EEZs and continental shelves of their own, or at least deserve little of these maritime zones, the Philippines will stand to gain the most in relation to the other countries because the overlap between the maritime zones generated by the Spratlys and those generated by the Philippines’ baselines would be reduced by the biggest amount. There would also be no legal basis for any of the Spratly claimants to dispute the Philippines’ rights in the Reed Bank area.
So what’s the best way forward for the small nations? First, the Philippines should join Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia in asserting that the Spratlys don’t deserve EEZs or continental shelves of their own, or at least deserve little of these maritime zones. Although that view wouldn’t settle the Spratlys dispute, it would mean that most of the maritime space in the South China Sea wouldn’t be subjected to that dispute, and would then belong to these countries as EEZs or continental shelves generated by the coastlines and archipelagic baselines around the South China Sea.
Second, the smaller countries in the disputes should start to exploit their numbers advantage. In particular, they should all support each other’s right to 200-mile EEZs and continental shelves generated by the coastlines and archipelagic baselines around the South China Sea.
One specific step they could take would be to all voice support for the Philippines’ rights in the Reed Bank area, for Malaysia’s rights in the James Shoal area, for Indonesia’s rights in the Natuna Sea area, and for Vietnam’s rights in the Vanguard Bank and Nam Con Son area. In each of these cases, the voice of five countries versus China’s lone voice would make it easier to convince international opinion of the merits of their case, and help prevent China from throwing its weight around.
The Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam must never forget that united they stand, divided they fall.
Huy Duong contributes articles on the South China Sea to several news outlets including the BBC and Vietnam's online publication VietNamNet.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Observer
……..”The first is the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which stipulates that claims to exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves must be derived solely from land features (i.e. not from arguments such as ‘historical sovereignty’). As a signatory to UNCLOS, China must respect this principle.”
True, a nation like China can not just bully smaller neighbors and justify its action based on some made up maps, arbitrary rules, and fairly tales. Smaller nations must unite as a team or China will divide and conquer them single hand. That is why China always want to settle the disputes by one on one instead of multi-nations negotiations.
China violates UNCLOS and they know it.
Johnny
@Observer Very well said. Philippines,malaysia,indonesia,brunei and vietnam shall stand for what is rightfully theirs and the Chinese shall realize that saying that ‘once upon a time China had this land’ is stupid. If every country starts to act like China and starts fighting with others just because ‘it once held those lands’ then there will be nothing but war. I just saw the news that China is supporting terrorists in India and then I saw how China is threatening these countries. They didn’t care when they killed 45 million Chinese for meeting their ridiculous demands (The ‘Great’ Leap) and they won’t care if they kill millions more for a petty border dispute. Asia will not know peace unless China is governed by a responsible government as dictators will always try to pick a fight to justify their rule and inflated ego.
John Chan
Indeed UNCLOS must be respected for all nations including India, Andaman and Nicobar Islands are part of Indonesian shelf, China and Indonesia must act on behalf of UN and UNCLOS to drive squatter India out of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for the defenceless natives; and send those Imperial British Empire lackey across the Bay of Bengal to where they belong.
nguyen
nice piece!
yang zi
From China’s point view, these EEZs can be negotiated. The author’s legal view is not bad at all. because if it can be enforced, it helps China in east China sea, where Japan is ignoring China’s continental shelf.
So China is ambiguous in this regard. It doesn’t want to be accused of double standard.
The best solution is to directly negotiate EEZs, not who owns what islands. after all, EEZ is the reason behind the conflict.
Steven Pham
@ John Chan & Yang Zi.
Gents, are arguments are circular and one sided. UNCLOS is a treaty, a private contract beteen counstries, in which a country may be a signatory party or it can deny being a signatory party. China, along with other nations, signed the Treaty as signatory members. As such, it is China’s and all other signatory parties to comply to its terms. Under UNCLOS, the EEZ is clearly defined as 200 nautical miles from the “baseline.” A baseline is the line from which the seaward limits of a State’s territorial sea and certain other maritime zones of jurisdiction are measured. Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line of a coastal State. When the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, “straight baselines” may be used. A straight baseline can be measured from the furthest seaward extension ONLY when there are natural shallow chanels on the coastline.
As such, China’s U-shape claim is illegal and does not meet the criteria set forth under UNCLOS. There are keep channels of water in the Pacific from China’s mainland to the Spratly and Paracel islands. As such, China cannot use the “island-jumping” approach to unilaterally creating its arbitrary map. If this technic was used, every country would have claims to all of the islands in the Pacific. Will China be extended to Australia then? Perhaps China will island-hope to Bangladesh too? Will China island-hope to take over Japan also?
No Johnny Chan, UNCLOS is not a tool but it is a contract. It is intended to reasonably establish, in as much as possible, maritime boundaries to reduce conflicts. China has no right to act in any manner that violate international law which itself is a signatory member, including harrassing ships in international water, boarding ships (an act of piracy), or land-grab based on its island-hoping method. Other than the four southeast asian countries, namely the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei, China and Taiwan has no legal claim over these islands. Ask yourself this question, even with China’s military might, excluding third party foprces, will it be able to fend-off conflicts in the north with Korea and Japan, and in the south with Vietnam, the Philippine, Malaysia, and Brunei? How would China’s belligerent action affects impic its economy?
Within this year, ExxonMobile will start drilling on Block 119. What will China do? Chase off this American giant by force or coercion (i.e. leave block 119 or we will cancel all your China contracts)? What about the exploration and possible drilling in the near future at the Reed Bank by the Philippines? China’s irresponsible actions and bully will only cause further conflicts; and this time, it will not simply be shooting at cargo ships and un-armed sailors. Chinese blood will be spilled in South China Sea (By the way, just because it is called “South China Sea” doesn’t mean all of it belongs to China). May peace be with you.
Leonard R.
Wisdom begins when one looks at a map.
Looking at a map of the PRC’s notorious “U” shaped claims in the
“South China Sea”, it’s obvious China has no claim at all for these islands.
They are much nearer to the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia & Brunei.
But by a combination of chest-thumping, bullying, harrassing, beating
and imprisoning citizens from the smaller nations, China has boot-strapped
a claim where none exists. And nations must now negotiate for their own sovereign territory.
Not only that, China has the chutzpa to claim the US Seventh Fleet is trespassing
in these waters and is designing missiles to attack US Carriers.
I suggest the time for negotiating is long past. It’s pointless to negotiate
with the PRC at any time. But it’s especially pointless now.
These problems will only be resolved by force. And the nations involved – especially the United States – needs to move to resolve them quickly.
China is the aggressor here. It is time for the US to reciprocate.
yang zi
very funny
John Chan
@Leonard R. USA is thousands miles away from Asia and on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. If you accept USA, that is not a nation of Asia, as the lord protector of Asians, China has better claim than the USA as the safe keeper for the interests of Asia for the Asian, even in the UN. The reasoning of your argument is illogical and contradictory to UNCLOS. Your argument will be defeated in the UN.
Zing Du
China has its right to claim the sea. China must stand up now or never.
Ngoa Long
That’s a very good idea! In confronting and dealing with an aggressive and ambitious hostile Communist China, ASEAN, especially those member countries with direct territorial disputes with China such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, etc. should seek other means at hand to cope with China’s absolutely ridiculous sovereignty claims on the Parcels and the Spratly Islands as well as over the whole South China Sea! Exploiting the potential of the legal aspect of these territorial disputes is also a very effective way in the multi-pronged strategy to respond to China’s expansionist and hegemonic ambitions in the Pacific-Asia! Legally, China has not had a shred of credible evidence to support its maritime claims in the South China Sea except its noisily and falsely invoking the ambiguous ancient historical traces ! In addition to the legal approach and necessary internal unity, ASEAN also needs to boost their defense capability readily to deal effectively with any military menaces from the PLA! Yes, “United we stand, divided we fall”!
Ly Le Tran Nguyen
China has no right to claim the “sea south of China” when it never had a sustained populace or administrative body exerting real control over that area. Most of the so-called “historical evidences” are frabricated and hyped up in domestically produced documents in order to “prove” that China “owned” (other peoples’ properties).
Because the “evidences” are frabricated, China never dared to let the real expert examine them. Instead, they chose the tactic of making it as arbitrary as they can and hoping over time what started out as false evidences would be believed by younger domestic audiences as the “truth”. The result would be 100 million young males in China wanting to fight to their deaths defend the fatherland. Sheeps are being molded to be sent to the slaughter -all for a higher purpose, the continuing expansion of Chinese power.
“Peaceful evolution” anyone?
Leonard R.
John Chan:
1. The US does not claim the islands.
2. The US Seventh Fleet is already in the area – at times much closer than the PRC to any of the Spratlys.
3. Good luck with the UN.
4. The US & China are already at war. It is time for the US to behave accordingly.
5. China has a geographic claim to the northern Paracels perhaps.
But that’s all. It has created a claim where none exists in the
Spratlys.
There are two modes to Chinese nationalism — boasting and whining.
When they are not boasting – they are whining. When they are not whining,
they are boasting.
I think it’s time for the US to make them whine. I think many Americans are tired of listening to them boast.
John Chan
@Leonard R. USA does not claim islands; it simply occupies them like Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Guan, Hawaii, etc. China always admires US’ way of doing business, act rather than talk, clean and swift, like bombing Libya. But recently the US seems whining more and more, such as whining about China becomes assertive, military budget is not transparent, etc. Of course USA’s lackeys like India, Japan, Vietnam, etc. all are whining boys, they even copy the way USA whines.
India loves to have the US fights its war for it. People in the US like to say “there is no free lunch”, since USA is the biggest and best bully in the world, and India claims it is wealthier than China, I guess 20 to 30 billions a year should be the right amount for India to pay.
You got it wrong, China does not whine, China only makes it clear its rights, so nobody can claim their ignorance.
Observer
@ Johnny –
China never had any possessions of Paracel Islands or Sprattly Islands until recently by bloody force and bullying. All China could provide were some made up maps and fairy tales of some ancient dynasties years ago.
Fact: China attacked and murdered Vietnamese sailors in 1974 and took Paracel Islands from Vietnam possession by brutal force. China claimed almost the whole South of China Sea as its own. Imagine India would pull a ridiculous stunt like that (claims the whole Indian Ocean as its own). China took Johnson Reef from Philippine by force in 1980s and bullied and captured/demanded ransom money from poor fishermen of other smaller nations such as Indonesia, etc.
@ John Chan –
Did India attack another country and took the islands as China did? Which country bullied its smaller neighbors? Answer = China.
@ yang zi –
Since when it is ok to negotiate with someone that took your land/property? Let Russia or Japan or US takes lands/property of China and then would that be ok with Chinese to negotiate and settle 50/50?
@ Leonard R. –
Well said. No other country in Asia behaved like China except China. Bullied and more bullied.
John Chan
The author is very skilful in using the tactic of “confusing the issue” to smear China’s legitimate assertion of the “core interest” in South China Sea. There are two separate issues in South China Sea, but the author tried to smudge sovereignty issue into just one issue of UNCLOS.
The first issue relates to sovereignty that has nothing do with UN or UNCLOS. China wants to maintain sovereignty over the islands in South China Sea inherently its. A lot of those islands are illegal occupied by Vietnam and Malaysia. China is exercising its sovereign rights over its territories as its means grow. All nations treat squatters the same way to protect the property owner’s right as matter of law and order. Squatters either leave peacefully or are evicted by law enforcers. No nation can defend itself will allow its territory subject to international scrutiny; it is the essence of sovergnty. Era of unequal treaties has long passed. But the author seems advocating such idea, China is happy to scrutinize Vietnam and Malaysia’s territories on behalf of UN.
The author is wrong and misleading the public by saying that there is an international court to sort out territory disputes. There is no such international court at all in the world. If such court exists, Vietnam would be either still belongs to France or the USA, and Malaysia and India would still belong to the British Empire. All territories are maintained by force in the eye of international law. It is yours only if you can maintain it. That’s why Andaman and Nicobar Islands belong to India not Indonesia, etc.
The second issue is interpretation and implementation of UNCLOS. Of course any nation signed and rectified the convention should observe it, any disputes should be resolved peacefully by the nations involved, not by any third party. Anyhow the US has not signed and rectified UNCLOS due to its imperial intent, it seems UNCLOS is another snake oil sold to small nations by the imperialist.
The author wishfully portraits that Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam as a group with shared interest, in fact there are fierce competing interests and suspicion among them, Vietnam probably is the most guarded one due to its bellicose past.
So what’s the best way forward for the small nations? The best approach is each nation should sort out the territory delineation with China in the South China Sea peacefully and quickly before China’s military becoming sufficient to protect its territory; then set up mechanism to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of UNCLOS. If any of these small nations try to involve non-relevant party in the process is definitely wrong way to go or as unrealistic as the author
Johnny
@John Chan Whats wrong with you? Every time an article criticizes something about China you call it a bag of lies or CIA agent/conspiracy. I mean seriously, this site has articles criticizing as well as praising all the nations. So shall we start thinking that all China favoring articles are written by propaganda ministry? No we shalln’t. Free media is all about telling the truth as it is no matter good or bad.
John Chan
@Johnny, I merely point out the misinformation in the article and let the public know the facts, only people like you so afraid of truth. If you can post any different argument then post it, stop harass other blogger with your anti-China rant.
This site is for people to exchange ideas on issues matter to humanity; ideas are different due to the bloggers’ different background and experience. We practice freedom of speech here, it is not for people like you to fight your cold war ideology battles, and trash ideas you have no capacity to accept.
If you cannot tolerate the ideas alien to you (a trait of totalitarian), you can leave and never return, you won’t be missed.
Johnny
@John Chan You weren’t reasoning. You simply are saying that since China has more firepower than these countries they should succumb to China.
Your remark that ” The author is very skilful in using the tactic of “confusing the issue” to smear China’s legitimate assertion of the “core interest” in South China Sea. There are two separate issues in South China Sea, but the author tried to smudge sovereignty issue into just one issue of UNCLOS.” is misleading as author indeed touches various aspects of the topic but the fact remains that China never had any historic right over these land and is using downright bullying to suppress small nations. Author is not smearing China as you claim he is basically stating matters as they are and he also criticizes Philippines for its wrong decisions with implications of those so why do you think that he is trying to ’smear China’ and misleading people.
I never question anyones right to argue but you always question the material first and thus try to kill whole debate. If someone cites articles you say writer is CIA agent, if someone cites wikipedia you say that wiki can’t be trusted and if some tries to debate on social changes in China as innocent as free speech you go berserk and accuse us of trying to incite ‘bloodshed’ in China.
John Chan
@Johnny, I never question anyone’s right to argue but you always question other bloggers first and thus try to kill the whole debate. Why can you post your argument about the article instead of kill other bloggers’ comments? If someone cites wikipedia you say that wiki can’t be trusted and if some tries to debate on social changes in India as innocent as free speech you go berserk and accuse us of trying to incite ‘bloodshed’ in India. Why?
Johnny
@John Chan Now you are being childish. I never said I don’t want to discuss changes in any of the democratic nations be it India or Japan or Australia or others. I never recall saying that changes will cause ‘bloodshed’? I hope you are talking of Public Welfare changes like better income/level of living etc instead of ‘Armed rebellion’ as suggested by Frank which, I needn’t say, is stupid. ;) Can you quote my comment in which I said that I don’t want to discuss changes in an allied nation by saying it will cause ‘bloodshed’? I however can atleast quote 4 of your comments in which you said that and you have habit of acting like ‘voice of entire China’ which let me tell you, you aren’t. We are all posting our personal views and you will do well tp remember that.
Ben Beo
Tell you guys a real story. I happened to know a Chinese scholar as a visiting research fellow in an US university. That guy once angrily told me that China has lost so many lands and seas and now it is time for them to get those back. He even showed me a map of the Mongol Empire, claimed that the Mongol King was also the China King at that time, so that China inherit all the historical lands and seas, from the Pacific to the Mediterranean Sea, once belonged to the Mongol empire !!!!!
I asked him in this case then it should be more rightful for the Mongolians today to claim back China and other countries they had ruled over in the past. That guy replied that Mongolian and Chinese are brother under the same roof so that they are one???? and the Outer Mongolia was only separated from China by the “betrayal” of Russia while at that time China was not powerful, unlike today.
I think you guys here can learn one or two things about those arrogant Chinois’s attitude from this story.
Ngoa long
That’s a very good idea! In confronting and dealing with an aggressive and ambitious hostile Communist China, ASEAN, especially those member countries with direct territorial disputes with China such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, etc. should seek other means at hand to cope with China’s absolutely ridiculous sovereignty claims on the Parcels and the Spratly Islands as well as over the whole South China Sea! Exploiting the potential of the legal aspect of these territorial disputes is also a very effective way in the multi-pronged strategy to respond to China’s expansionist and hegemonic ambitions in the Pacific-Asia! Legally, China has not had a shred of credible evidence to support its maritime claims in the South China Sea except its noisily and falsely invoking the ambiguous ancient historical traces ! In addition to the legal approach and necessary internal unity, ASEAN also needs to boost their defense capability readily to deal effectively with any military menaces from the PLA! Yes, “United we stand, divided we fall”!
(Try one more time!)NL
Huy Duong
In the South China Sea disputes, there are two different questions.
The first is “Which country or countries do the Paracels and Spratlys belong to?”
My article makes no assumption about the answer to this question. That is much fairer than John Chan making the assumption that the islands belong to China. And it would also be fairer than anyone making the assumption that they belong to Vietnam or the Philippines, etc.
John Chan is wrong to say that there is no international court to resolve territorial disputes. The International Court of Justice can do that, if all the claimants agree to go to Court. Unfortunately, China objects to the “internationalisation” of the disputes, which rules out the IJC.
I think all the claimants should let the IJC resolve this question. I think that is much fairer than to argue based on the assumption that the islands belong to China.
However my article is not about the first question. It is about the second one, “How much EEZ and continental shelf actually belong to the above islands and are thus part of the disputes over Paracels and Spratlys?”
The answer is no way near enough for China’s U-shaped-line claim to be justified by the Paracels and Spratlys disputes.
If any country drew an arbitrary line to claim most of the Mediterranean, that would be imperialism – other countries should oppose it.
If any South East Asian drew an arbitrary line to claim most of the South China Sea, that would be imperialism – other countries should oppose it.
China is drawing an arbitrary line to claim most of the South China Sea, other countries should oppose it.
Johnny
@Huy Indeed you raise a valid point. Chinese imperialism and old middle-kingdom mentality is very disturbing as it may devolve in a war. How can any semi-rational nation claim lands on the basis of middle kingdoms? It is just plain moronic. I agree that border dispuutes shall be settled in a reasonable manner instead of ‘I got gun, give me all you got!’ attitude. If other countries too start acting irresponsibly like that then human civilization will be thrown back to stone age.
About your comments regarding John Chan, well he posts Anti-USA,Anti-Australia,Anti-India,Anti-Japan,Anti-Taiwan comments and he hates USA blindly. He calls USA a monster, predator Nazi dictatorship among other ‘lovely things’.
Huy Duong
It is not only that arguments such as “The old Middle Kingdom had sovereignty over the South China Sea” do not conform to UNCLOS, the fact is that the old Middle Kingdom never had sovereignty over that Sea.
In history, the peoples of South East Asia, China, Japan, India, the Arab world and Europe have always used the South China Sea without having to be under the sovereignty of China.
The South China Sea has always been an international sea, like the Mediterranean. This was true since before the arrival of the Western colonial powers. The Western colonial powers did not change this fact.
The South China Sea should remain an international sea, like the Mediterranean, and be subjected to UNCLOS and other relevant international laws.
China’s U-shaped line, which threatens this, originated from the sentiments of a Chinese map maker in the 1940s, and was first presented by China to a UN body in 2009. Simply put, it is a desire to turn an international sea into a Chinese one, backed up by a large navy and decorated by myths.
No other country in the world has such a claim on the world’s oceans and seas.
John Chan
I am glad that the author clear up the ambiguities in the article, otherwise people would be misled to believe that UNCLOS is a tool to resolve territory disputes.
Vietnam can make moves that are advantages to it, as all states work in their own interests. The West and its lackeys are doing their utmost best to undermine China’s peaceful rise. By internationalisation China territory, Vietnam can be guaranteed to slice all China’s islands it is illegally occupying without difficulties. This is a standard procedure that the imperialists practiced on China during the era of unequal treaties. I am surprised that Vietnam resort to such imperialistic manoeuvre. China has learnt enough from the imperial West and Japan about internationalisation of its territory, there are more than a million square miles of China ancestor lands are still under foreign occupation. Enough is enough, China has done the right thing to expose such dirty trick and stopped the imperial USA and its lackeys from meddling China’s internal affairs.
Since Vietnam has been part of China few times and part of France for a while, I wonder whether Vietnam is willing to be internationalization over it territory. Or shall China simply reclaim Vietnam since China has a lot of evidence to support that claim as per Huy Duong’s logic?
Johnny
@John Chan Dear Chan, no offense but I think you didn’t read the author’s article or comment properly. He says “It is not only that arguments such as “The old Middle Kingdom had sovereignty over the South China Sea” do not conform to UNCLOS, the fact is that the old Middle Kingdom never had sovereignty over that Sea.” states that the Brunei, Indonesia,Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam are indeed right in their claims. How on the earth you concluded that he is saying China is right to force grab these lands?
He further states “In history, the peoples of South East Asia, China, Japan, India, the Arab world and Europe have always used the South China Sea without having to be under the sovereignty of China.
The South China Sea has always been an international sea, like the Mediterranean. This was true since before the arrival of the Western colonial powers. The Western colonial powers did not change this fact.
The South China Sea should remain an international sea, like the Mediterranean, and be subjected to UNCLOS and other relevant international laws.
China’s U-shaped line, which threatens this, originated from the sentiments of a Chinese map maker in the 1940s, and was first presented by China to a UN body in 2009. Simply put, it is a desire to turn an international sea into a Chinese one, backed up by a large navy and decorated by myths.
No other country in the world has such a claim on the world’s oceans and seas.”
I agree with Huy. There is absolutely no base for Chinese claim in these seas and it is trying to grab it by arm twisting and threats.
Also your comment that “Since Vietnam has been part of China few times and part of France for a while, I wonder whether Vietnam is willing to be internationalization over it territory. Or shall China simply reclaim Vietnam since China has a lot of evidence to support that claim as per Huy Duong’s logic?” is very very flawed as if every nation starts to attack others because that ‘has been part of them for a while’ then all nations will be at war. What you don’t understand Mr.Chan that almost everyone has disputes but most nations are trying to put less emphasis on them and focus on mutual growth, just look at Europe, while China is trying to bully its neighbors. So obviously people will raise voice against it. No one like wars and these types of little matters slowly devolve into war. So when China threatens Japan of sever consequences because of a simple fishing boat incidence then people are right to question the so called ‘Peaceful rise’ you claim of.
And let me ask you a simple question- If it was China’s land being grabbed by a stronger power would you happily bow down to them and give away your territory?
Ngoa long
There’s no need to have any serious debate or argument with people engulfed in a ‘pre-historic caveman’s mentality’!Hope this reflects just the tiny marginal not the mainstream Chinese perspective on foreign policy !The best way for ASEAN to cope with an ambitious hostile China disrepecting and disregarding any bit of international law and norms as well as the current world order is get ready militarily, unite in a common front (with the US, Japan, India, Australia, etc.) against any kind of expansionism, adventurism, and regional hegemony !Pursuing a multi-pronged strategy(legally,economically,diplomatically, etc.)to counter an aggressive and assertive China is the most effective way to contain, isolate and neutralize a dangerous imminent cancerous menace to the world’s peaceful stability and security !
John Chan
@Ngoa long, Vietnam is the one that everyone in SE Asia afraid of, its warring records in the last few decades scared hell out of everybody including China, and its bellicose nature is no different from the biggest bully in the world. If people in Vietnam like you when they cannot win by evidence then resort to fabricating facts, distorting words, twisting truth and calling names, then it is real sad, Vietnam has to be dealt with the only way they understand.
If you are treating this site as shouting match stage, then you are doing a great deal of disservice to this site, as well as degrading yourself by blogging here. I just wonder who is blockheaded, when one could not tolerate opinions different from his, and started to label people presenting different point of view from his, this kind of totalitarian behaviour reflects Vietnamese poorly.
John Chan
@Johnny, you totally missed the point, you are mixing sovergnty issue with UNCLOS. Huy Duong and Ngoa long are calling all people to gang up against China and forcing China to make concession on territory. Unless sovergnty issues are settled, talking UNCLOS is putting cart in front of the horse.
Your argument akin to blaming the victim, and try to confuse the issue. China only tries to defend its territory under overwhelming odds imposed by the imperialist West and its lackeys. This situation happened before during the era of unequal treaties, the aggressors had all the justification regardless the truth, justice, and everything China said is invalid and flawed. Your presentation is merely repeating what the aggressors said during that time. Situation is getting worse, even Vietnam is copying those dirty tricks and waving its blade now. The US is the root of instability in Asia, therefore Vietnam is playing ruthless political cards with the backing of USA, if China cannot deal with Vietnam properly in South China Sea, then it is most likely the beginning of the replay of era of unequal treaties. Johnny, you better persuade Ngoa long to face reality, before it is too late.
Ngoa long
Quick question for you, John Chan! Who and what gave you the right to claim the whole South China Sea as your ‘ national core interest’ or put plainly ‘your own lake’?! What ‘kind of international law’ or what ‘version of history’ granted you that sort of ’special privileges’ over other countries in the region and in the world?
You really think the world will stand by and let you do anything you want without any grave consequences for China? Mark my words, John Chan! China will implode economically and collapse within this decade!Beware of it! Your dream to rule the world will never come true!
Huy Duong
Please allow me to point out that in the article I wrote
“In the context of maritime disputes, two bodies of law are particularly important for claimant countries.
The first is the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),…”
and
“So what’s the best way forward for the small nations? First, the Philippines should join Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia in asserting that the Spratlys don’t deserve EEZs or continental shelves of their own, or at least deserve little of these maritime zones. Although that view wouldn’t settle the Spratlys dispute,…”
so there is no ambiguity or misinformation or misleading people into believing that UNCLOS is a tool for resolving the island disputes.
John Chan
You are trying to smudge the sovergnty and UNCLOS issues again. Unless the Sovergnty issues are settled, UNCLOS is irreverent.
At the same time you are trying to divert the discussion away from your article, which is calling everybody to gang up against China, you are trying to create hostility between china and its neighbours in SE Asia to benefit Vietnam, because Vietnam’s conspiracy to undermine China’s effort to settle disputes with other SE Asian nations is failing.
Huy Duong
Of course UNCLOS still applies to the South China Sea even if the Paracels and Spratlys are disputed.
And of course China’s U-shaped line claim is a complete disregard for UNCLOS. As Indonesia rightly said in its note verbale to the UN, China’s U-shaped line “clearly lacks international legal basis and is tantamount to upset the UNCLOS 1982″.
Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the US realise this and have been citing UNCLOS in order to defend their rights and interests against China’s U-shaped line.
The Reed Bank incidence underlines the need for the Philippines to do the same.
John Chan
@Ngoa long, Vietnam is the squatter of those islands in South China Sea. Squatter either can leave peacefully on its own, or be evicted by law enforcer. China is only protecting its territory.
Observer
@ John Chan
Squatters? You must be talking about Chinese forces that are currently squatting/invading in Tibet, Xinjinang, Inner Mongolia, and so on? Squatters like China either can leave peacefully on its own, or be evicted by law enforcer such as the international community.
Johnny
@JOhn Chan So Vietnam is ‘the biggest bully in the world’??? WOW!
and you said ‘If people in Vietnam like you when they cannot win by evidence then resort to fabricating facts, distorting words, twisting truth and calling names, then it is real sad, Vietnam has to be dealt with the only way they understand.’
We all can see who is incapable of posting facts and thus is using name calling and fabricating facts.
I recommend readers a simple corrigendum replace ‘Vietnam’ by ‘China’ in Mr. Chan’s comment and it starts to make perfect sense!
Observer
Wow, John Chan is running his propaganda again. Here are the undeniable historic facts.
FACT = China is the one with a long history of invasions and enslavement of Vietnam for over 1000 years, yes, over 10 centuries of occupation of Vietnam. When was the last time Vietnam attacked and enslaved Chinese people?
FACT = Since the creation of communist China in 1949, China attacked and occupied Tibet, Xinjinang, Inner Mongolia, part of India. China also attacked and beaten by Vietnam in 1979.
FACT = China attacked and murdered Vietnamese sailors then took the Paracel Islands by bloody force in 1974.
FACT = China is a big bully with a long history of invasions and annexations of smaller neighbors.
One question for you (I am paraphrasing). Since China has been part of Mongolia, Japan, Britain, et al a few times, I wonder whether China is willing to be internationalization over it territory. Or shall Mongolia, Japan, Britain, et al simply reclaim China since Mongolia, Japan, Britain, et al has a lot of evidence to support that claim as per John Chan’s logic? What do you say?
Mr. John Chan, you need to learn some history lessons before spewing out nonsense and inaccurate bables. You make Chinese people look bad, very bad in front of everyone in the world.
John Chan
@Observer, you need to learn some history lessons before spewing out nonsense and inaccurate bables. You make Indian people look bad, very bad in front of everyone in the world, nobody likes Indian people.
Johnny
@Observer Very nicely played. If by Mr. Chan’s twisted logic a country has claim over a land simply by ‘occupying it for a while’ then it means that Japan has legal right over most of the China.
Though ofcourse, he will respond in only way he can i.e. by talking shit about USA,S.Korea,India,Australia,Japan,Vietnam and other nations :(
Ly Tran Le Nguyen
We all know that the bully here is China and that John Chan is just a handler spouting propaganda and misinformation. China never had any jurisdiction over the sea south of China and that’s a FACT. No matter what they called it, it is still a blatant attempt of territorial grabbing with the use of force. It’s a classic case of neighborhood bully.
Doehomey
Very insightful and logical article! The South China Sea is different from Tibet, Xinjinang, and Inner Mongolia. It is the most important trade route in the world (especially with the rise of Asia). It is an international issue since it affects all countries whose ships use this route. The USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, and South Korea (and all countries whose ships use this route) will not let China grab the South China Sea because their access to this important route can be denied by China at any time. That is why Clinton came out so strongly last July. China may have bitten more then they can chew this time. It might be a gambit to claim everything so that when the dust settles, they can keep more than they legally could claim. Let us all hope that the issue can be settle through international laws and not bloodshed.
Henry
@ Chan:
China invated Vietnam, Vietnam belong to Vietnamese. It mean that Vietnam is not part of China. Your statement like China is part of Japan as Japan did rule China for many year. The invader is not good, they kill people, they are not human being, if you consider invading Vietnam as some previous Chiness emperors did is normal, what human being are you? Viet nam is never be part of China, just you guys consider it, I am very proud that we did beat China many times to regain independence,
Chinese guy
John, you did very poor job here as you can not show any valid evidents and points for such issue. You only said like your newspaper- People Daily.This is not about win or lost in this argument here, but that only showed how you are here in this web