DOCSLIB.ORG

China-Malaysia Relations: Navigating a Complex Geopolitical Sea Part Two: the South China Sea Issue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
China-Malaysia Relations: Navigating a Complex Geopolitical Sea Part Two: the South China Sea Issue December 2014 5 September 2017 China-Malaysia Relations: Navigating a Complex Geopolitical Sea Part Two: The South China Sea Issue Professor Vivian Louis Forbes FDI Associate Key Points Although not terrestrial neighbours, China and Malaysia have a potential maritime boundary to be negotiated in the South China Sea. Negotiations to delimit the maritime boundary are dependent upon many factors, including the other claimant states in the South China Sea. Malaysia will increasingly be confronted by the uncomfortable prospect that its main economic partner may also become a growing security threat. Trade and financial considerations mean that Malaysia may find its hands tied on the South China Sea issue. Summary The Government of Malaysia has stated on several occasions that it would not compromise on its claims in the South China Sea. The Government of China is on record that its sovereignty over all the features within what is now a 10-Dash Line is indisputable. That intractability, combined with large and growing trading links, as discussed in Part One of this analysis, has the potential to place Malaysia in an awkward situation whereby its security, if not territorial integrity, is actively compromised by its primary economic partner. Analysis Malaysia was the fifth claimant state to join the territorial fray in the South China Sea, which came to international focus in December 1979, with the publication of a map that delineated the outer limits of Malaysia’s continental shelf with terminal and turning points, the 84 geographical co-ordinates of which were listed on the map. Within that defined continental shelf limit, a number of the marine features were shown as Malaysian territory. Included were Amboyna Cay (Pulau Kecil Amboyna) Commodore Reef (Terumbu Laksamana) and Swallow Reef (Terumbu Layang-Layang; its status was subsequently amended to Pulau [Island] Layang-Layang). The islands, reefs and other bathymetric features are all located on the continental shelf of the east Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak. China and Malaysia have yet to delimit their maritime boundary and delineate zones of maritime jurisdiction in the South China Sea basin. In particular, all claimant states must negotiate permanent boundaries in the vicinity of the Spratly Group, which includes insular features scattered over an area of 240,000km2. Determining the sovereignty over these hotly disputed islands, islets, reefs, rocks and sand cays is the first step in resolving this complex border problem.1 Since 12 July 2016, the international community has been aware that none of the insular features of the Spratly Group in the South China Sea are entitled to generate an Exclusive Economic Zone or legal continental shelf. Some of the features may only be permitted to accrue a Territorial Sea of 12 nautical miles width. The width of such a zone may, in any case, may be restricted in the permissible limits due to the proximity of neighbouring claimants. The Government of Malaysia has stated on several occasions that it would not compromise on its claims in the South China Sea. The Government of China is on record that its sovereignty over all the features within the 10-Dash Line is indisputable. Yes, the map now depicts a 10-Dash Line. On this fact alone, China stands firm. It is, however, committed to further advance the proper settlement of the South China Sea issue through bilateral channels. On 9 May 2009, China issued a protest to the joint submission made by Malaysia and Vietnam for extended continental shelf rights to the Commission on the Legal Continental Shelf, in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.2 For China, control of the South China Sea is a critical objective towards ensuring the economic and political survival of the Communist Party Government and having surety that the Straits of Malacca and Singapore will continue to offer safety of navigation at all times. A Subtle (or Blatant) Sovereignty Stance Since 2012, the PLA (Navy) has been periodically laying steel sovereignty markers on the seabed of James Shoal at a depth of 22 metres. Responses, such as that from the Malaysian Government, that it would be ‘taking diplomatic action’, have been muted. In 2013, China “seized” Luconia Shoal, which is about 84 nautical miles north off the coast of Sarawak and 1 Forbes, V.L., ‘China and Malaysia: Promoting Economic Growth Overshadows Sovereignty Dispute’, in Elleman et al (2013). See also, Forbes, V.L., ‘Artificial Islands in the South China Sea: Rationale for Terrestrial Increase, Incremental Maritime Jurisdictional Creep and Military Bases’, Journal of Defence and Security, Vol. 6, № 1, 2015, pp. 30-55. 2 Forbes, V.L., ‘Geopolitics, Energy Security and ‘Soft-Shoe Diplomacy in the South China Sea’, Journal of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, July 2015. See also the Joint Submission of Malaysia and Vietnam and the subsequent note verbale, available on the website of the UN Division of Law and Oceans Affairs. Page 2 of 7 on Malaysia’s natural continental shelf. It is alleged that a Chinese coast guard ship was anchored on the shoals from April 2013 until 2015. Luconia Shoal is thought to be rich in hydrocarbon deposits. On 26 January 2014, a Chinese taskforce of three warships from the South China Sea fleet held a sovereignty oath-swearing ceremony at James Shoal. The feature is a mere 43 nautical miles from the coast of Sarawak. Figure 1 (below) illustrates the extent of the various claims and important insular features. After the publication of the PCA’s Ruling on the South China Sea case on 12 July 2016, an unwritten edict from Malaysian officials inferred that the sovereignty issue should not be mentioned. No clarification was offered by the officials. Such a response only produces more queries, given that the territorial claim by China, as portrayed on its authorised maps depicting Dash Line 4 of the 2009 version, of the official map (shown in red, Figure 3, below) is relatively close to the Malaysian coast, perhaps too close for comfort. The line is not coincident with a 1984 version, which was based on the map published circa 1947 by the Nationalist government of the Republic of China. Those lines are shown in Figures 2 and 3, below; both illustrations are taken from a study undertaken by the US Department of State Page 3 of 7 that was published on 5 December 2014. The study observed that the version of 2009 was cartographically inconsistent with other maps produced by the Government of China.3 Additionally, the dashes on the 2009 map do not appear to be in identical geographical locations as the dashes on the 2013-14 maps published by SINOMAPS and those of its predecessor, Cartographic Publishing House, dating back to 1984. 3 ‘China: Maritime Claims in the South China Sea’, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Limits in the Seas № 143, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State: Washington DC, 5 December 2014. Page 4 of 7 There were again muted protests by successive Malaysian Governments over the actions taken by China and, in particular, by the PLA (Navy) at James and Luconia Shoals and in its Notice to Mariners, which inferred that platforms may be erected at six locations (the geographical co-ordinates of which were listed), in the vicinity of Brunei and Malaysia.4 Points to Ponder From December 2014 to the present day, many questions have been raised by the Malaysian media as international relations and geo-strategic analysts focussed their research and studies on China and the South-East Asian region. For example: What are the benefits for China and Malaysia of joint military exercises? Can China rebuild its “special relationship” with Malaysia? Did Chinese naval vessels encroach into Malaysian “waters”? The Defence Minister appears to contradict official reports in initial reaction. Is there – and should there be – a Malaysian “pushback” against China in the South China Sea? Will the sovereignty dispute disrupt the Belt and Road Initiative? Is China now Malaysia’s largest investor? Is Malaysia’s outreach to China a threat to its ties with the US? What can be read into the reactions of Indonesia and Singapore to perceived attention given to China by Malaysia and the Maritime Silk Road and related port developments? China has long realised that it faced a “Malacca Dilemma”, a concern for the security of its hydrocarbon imports using the sea lanes of South-East Asia, in particular, the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.5 Malaysia, too, now faces a dilemma: reconciling the deepening relationship with its largest trading partner with the uncomfortable reality that that same partner is also a growing security threat. This is an intractable political and strategic conundrum that Malaysia — and most ASEAN member states, especially the South China Sea claimant states — will have to address sooner rather than later. Picking up on that predicament, celebrated Malaysian cartoonist Zunar offers a graphic which portrays, in Figure 4 (below), a perception of Malaysia (as “Malayxia”) forming a part of “greater (wilayah) China”. 4 ‘Notice to Mariners’, PLA (Navy), November 2014. See also Hussein, H.T., ‘Malaysia’s Defence and Security Policies’, Journal of Defence and Security, Vol. 6, № 1, 2015, pp. 1-10. 5 The Malacca Dilemma prompted the MoU of 2011. See Gong, L., ‘Protecting Our Seas: China’s Efforts to Protect the Seas’, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, RSIS Commentary № 123, 22 June 2017, and Grant, S., ‘Water Wars: Tugs-of- War, Figurative and Literal’, 30 June 2017. Page 5 of 7 Certainly, there are concerns in Malaysia, and perhaps elsewhere in the region, of the possible consequences of closer ties with China and the deepening economic and political pressure that may ensue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • China Versus Vietnam: an Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China Sea Raul (Pete) Pedrozo
    A CNA Occasional Paper China versus Vietnam: An Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China Sea Raul (Pete) Pedrozo With a Foreword by CNA Senior Fellow Michael McDevitt August 2014 Unlimited distribution Distribution unlimited. for public release This document contains the best opinion of the authors at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsor. Cover Photo: South China Sea Claims and Agreements. Source: U.S. Department of Defense’s Annual Report on China to Congress, 2012. Distribution Distribution unlimited. Specific authority contracting number: E13PC00009. Copyright © 2014 CNA This work was created in the performance of Contract Number 2013-9114. Any copyright in this work is subject to the Government's Unlimited Rights license as defined in FAR 52-227.14. The reproduction of this work for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. Nongovernmental users may copy and distribute this document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this copyright notice is reproduced in all copies. Nongovernmental users may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies they make or distribute. Nongovernmental users may not accept compensation of any manner in exchange for copies. All other rights reserved. This project was made possible by a generous grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation Approved by: August 2014 Ken E. Gause, Director International Affairs Group Center for Strategic Studies Copyright © 2014 CNA FOREWORD This legal analysis was commissioned as part of a project entitled, “U.S. policy options in the South China Sea.” The objective in asking experienced U.S international lawyers, such as Captain Raul “Pete” Pedrozo, USN, Judge Advocate Corps (ret.),1 the author of this analysis, is to provide U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Malaysia's Claims and Positions Over Maritime Features in the South
    Malaysia’s Claims and Positions over Maritime Features In the South China Sea Jalila Abdul Jalil, Senior Researcher, MIMA 10th South China Sea Conference Cooperation for Regional Security and Development Da Nang City, Viet Nam Thursday, 8 November1 2018 Disclaimer The information contained in this presentation reflects the personal views of the presenter 2 Outline of Presentation • Introduction • Malaysia’s claims in the South China Sea • Malaysia’s position in the South China Sea • Extended continental shelf claim in the Defined Area in the South China Sea • Lessons from Philippines Arbitration relating to Malaysia’s Claim in the South China: Possible Consideration 3 Malaysia’s Claims in the South China Sea 4 Map showing the aerial view of the South China Sea Source: Malaysia Airport Berhad 6 Source: Forbes and Basiron, (2008) Malaysia’s Maritime Realm Atlas • This map shows in general the overlapping claims in the South China Sea Map of the Competing Claims of the South China Sea by Arsana and Schofield, 2012 from Agora: South China Sea (2013), Vol. 107:95, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) . 8 Malaysia’s claims in the South China Sea • Malaysia’s claim are encapsulated in Malaysia’s Peta Baru 1979. • The Map was drawn based on the 1958 Geneva Convention, bilateral treaties and customary international law • Malaysia’s claim is based on the fact that the features are part of its continental shelf and thus entitles Malaysia to an extended continental shelf based on the natural prolongation of the continental shelf. • Malaysia can claims the respective maritime zones namely territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf.
    [Show full text]
  • The South China Sea Arbitration Case Filed by the Philippines Against China: Arguments Concerning Low Tide Elevations, Rocks, and Islands
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Xiamen University Institutional Repository 322 China Oceans Law Review (Vol. 2015 No. 1) The South China Sea Arbitration Case Filed by the Philippines against China: Arguments concerning Low Tide Elevations, Rocks, and Islands Yann-huei SONG* Abstract: On March 30, 2014, the Philippines submitted its Memorial to the Arbitral Tribunal, which presents the country’s case on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the merits of its claims. In the Memorial, the Philippines argues that Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, Subi Reef, Gaven Reef, McKennan Reef, Hughes Reef are low-tide elevations, and that Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are “rocks”, therefore these land features cannot generate entitlement to a 200-nautical-mile EEZ or continental shelf. This paper discusses if the claims made by the Philippines are well founded in fact and law. It concludes that it would be difficult for the Tribunal to rule in favor of the Philippines’ claims. Key Words: Arbitration; South China Sea; China; The Philippines; Low tide elevation; Island; Rock; UNCLOS I. Introduction On January 22, 2013, the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter “the Philippines”) initiated arbitral proceedings against the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China” or “PRC”) when it presented a Note Verbale1 to the Chinese * Yann-huie Song, Professor, Institute of Marine Affairs, College of Marine Sciences, Sun- yet Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan and Research Fellow, Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Spratly Islands Administered by the Individual States of the Region and the Boundaries of Claims Versus the Exclusive Econom
    The Spratly Islands administered by the individual states of the region and the boundaries of claims versus the exclusive economic zones and the boundaries of the continental shelf 0 25 50 75 100 km 0 25 50 75 100 NM 2009 VIETNAM 1974 Northeast Cay Southwest Cay Block Claim Vietnam Petroleum South Reef West York Island Thitu Island Subi Reef Irving Reef Flat Island Loaita Cay Nanshan Island Lankiam Cay Loaita Island a e Centre Cay Petley Reef S Itu Aba Island Sand Cay Gaven Reef a Namyit Island n i Discovery Great Reef 1979 Hughes Reef Mischief Reef h Sin Cowe Island C (Union Banks) Grierson Reef Collins Reef Higgens Reef Second Lansdowne Reef Thomas Shoal h Johnson South Reef t u Fiery Cross Reef First o Bombay Castle S Thomas Shoal 2009 2009 (London Reefs) PHILIPPINES Central Reef Pearson Reef Pigeon Reef 1979 West Reef Cuarteron Reef East Reef Alison Reef Ladd Reef Cornwallis South Reef Spratly Island Commodore Reef Prince of Wales Bank Barque Canada Reef Erica Reef Investigator Shoal Alexandra Bank Mariveles Reef Prince Consort Bank Amboyna Cay Grainger Bank Rifleman Bank Ardasier Reef Vanguard Bank Swallow Reef 1979 1979 The boundaries of the claims in the South China Sea have not been precisely delimited. This is their approximate location, presented for illustrative purposes only. for illustrative location, presented delimited. This is their approximate precisely not been Sea have the claims in the South China The boundaries of : MALAYSIA © / Reservation LEGEND Areas of land (islands, cays, reefs, rocks): Submerged areas and areas only partly above water: Boundaries of claims submitted by: Boundaries of the exclusive economic zones delimited pursuant to the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued in 2016 (case number 2013–19) and in line with the UNCLOS, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Vietnam Want from the US in the South China Sea?
    DIPLOMAT 4 January 2021 What Does Vietnam Want from the US in the South China Sea? Despite seeking a balance between the superpowers, Vietnam desires more robust security ties with Washington. By Derek Grossman As the incoming Biden administration formulates its South China Sea strategy, one regional partner that looms large is Vietnam. Over the last few years, tensions between China and Vietnam in the South China Sea have remained high, impacting fishing and natural resource exploration in disputed waters. While the Biden administration is likely to continue the positive momentum in bilateral ties, it is less clear what specifically Hanoi seeks from Washington to help it effectively deter Beijing. This is wholly understandable. As I have recently examined at length in a RAND research report, Vietnam is doubling-down on its delicate balancing act as U.S.-China competition throughout the Indo-Pacific dramatically heats up. Although Hanoi feels compelled to counter China’s bad behavior in the South China Sea, it also understands that its future is inextricably tied to peaceful relations with Beijing. Thus, Hanoi typically avoids publicly airing policy preferences, and even privately, the Vietnamese are notoriously subtle and difficult to read. That leaves Washington in the dark most of the time. But through my research and discussions with Vietnamese interlocutors over the years, a few policy preferences have become apparent. First, Vietnam was quite pleased with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement on July 13 in which he announced the U.S. would not respect Beijing’s maritime claims derived from disputed features in the Spratly Islands, Scarborough Shoal, Luconia Shoals, and Natuna Besar.
    [Show full text]
  • US-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas
    U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 8, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42784 U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas Summary Over the past several years, the South China Sea (SCS) has emerged as an arena of U.S.-China strategic competition. China’s actions in the SCS—including extensive island-building and base- construction activities at sites that it occupies in the Spratly Islands, as well as actions by its maritime forces to assert China’s claims against competing claims by regional neighbors such as the Philippines and Vietnam—have heightened concerns among U.S. observers that China is gaining effective control of the SCS, an area of strategic, political, and economic importance to the United States and its allies and partners. Actions by China’s maritime forces at the Japan- administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea (ECS) are another concern for U.S. observers. Chinese domination of China’s near-seas region—meaning the SCS and ECS, along with the Yellow Sea—could substantially affect U.S. strategic, political, and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere. Potential general U.S. goals for U.S.-China strategic competition in the SCS and ECS include but are not necessarily limited to the following: fulfilling U.S. security commitments in the Western Pacific, including treaty commitments to Japan and the Philippines; maintaining and enhancing the U.S.-led security architecture in the Western Pacific, including U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Malaysia and Brunei: an Analysis of Their Claims in the South China Sea J
    A CNA Occasional Paper Malaysia and Brunei: An Analysis of their Claims in the South China Sea J. Ashley Roach With a Foreword by CNA Senior Fellow Michael McDevitt August 2014 Unlimited distribution Cleared for public release This document contains the best opinion of the authors at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsor. Cover Photo: South China Sea Claims and Agreements. Source: U.S. Department of Defense’s Annual Report on China to Congress, 2012. Distribution Distribution unlimited. Specific authority contracting number: E13PC00009. Copyright © 2014 CNA This work was created in the performance of Contract Number 2013-9114. Any copyright in this work is subject to the Government's Unlimited Rights license as defined in FAR 52-227.14. The reproduction of this work for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. Nongovernmental users may copy and distribute this document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this copyright notice is reproduced in all copies. Nongovernmental users may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies they make or distribute. Nongovernmental users may not accept compensation of any manner in exchange for copies. All other rights reserved. This project was made possible by a generous grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation Approved by: August 2014 Ken E. Gause, Director International Affairs Group Center for Strategic Studies Copyright © 2014 CNA Foreword This is the second of three legal analyses commissioned as part of a project entitled, “U.S. Policy Options in the South China Sea.” The objective in asking experienced U.S international lawyers, such as Captain J.
    [Show full text]
  • Spratly Islands
    R i 120 110 u T4-Y5 o Ganzhou Fuqing n h Chenzhou g Haitan S T2- J o Dao Daojiang g T3 S i a n Putian a i a n X g i Chi-lung- Chuxiong g n J 21 T6 D Kunming a i Xingyi Chang’an o Licheng Xiuyu Sha Lung shih O J a T n Guilin T O N pa Longyan T7 Keelung n Qinglanshan H Na N Lecheng T8 T1 - S A an A p Quanzhou 22 T'ao-yüan Taipei M an T22 I L Ji S H Zhongshu a * h South China Sea ng Hechi Lo-tung Yonaguni- I MIYAKO-RETTO S K Hsin-chu- m c Yuxi Shaoguan i jima S A T21 a I n shih Suao l ) Zhangzhou Xiamen c e T20 n r g e Liuzhou Babu s a n U T Taichung e a Quemoy p i Meizhou n i Y o J YAEYAMA-RETTO a h J t n J i Taiwan C L Yingcheng K China a a Sui'an ( o i 23 n g u H U h g n g Fuxing T'ai- a s e i n Strait Claimed Straight Baselines Kaiyuan H ia Hua-lien Y - Claims in the Paracel and Spratly Islands Bose J Mai-Liao chung-shih i Q J R i Maritime Lines u i g T9 Y h e n e o s ia o Dongshan CHINA u g B D s Tropic of Cancer J Hon n Qingyuan Tropic of Cancer Established maritime boundary ian J Chaozhou Makung n Declaration of the People’s Republic of China on the Baseline of the Territorial Sea, May 15, 1996 g i Pingnan Heyuan PESCADORES Taiwan a Xicheng an Wuzhou 21 25° 25.8' 00" N 119° 56.3' 00" E 31 21° 27.7' 00" N 112° 21.5' 00" E 41 18° 14.6' 00" N 109° 07.6' 00" E While Bandar Seri Begawan has not articulated claims to reefs in the South g Jieyang Chaozhou 24 T19 N BRUNEI Claim line Kaihua T10- Hsi-yü-p’ing Chia-i 22 24° 58.6' 00" N 119° 28.7' 00" E 32 19° 58.5' 00" N 111° 16.4' 00" E 42 18° 19.3' 00" N 108° 57.1' 00" E China Sea (SCS), since 1985 the Sultanate has claimed a continental shelf Xinjing Guiping Xu Shantou T11 Yü Luxu n Jiang T12 23 24° 09.7' 00" N 118° 14.2' 00" E 33 19° 53.0' 00" N 111° 12.8' 00" E 43 18° 30.2' 00" N 108° 41.3' 00" E X Puning T13 that extends beyond these features to a hypothetical median with Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law Rules and Historical Evidences Supporting China's Title to the South China Sea Islands Jianming Shen
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 21 Article 1 Number 1 Fall 1997 1-1-1997 International Law Rules and Historical Evidences Supporting China's Title to the South China Sea Islands Jianming Shen Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Jianming Shen, International Law Rules and Historical Evidences Supporting China's Title to the South China Sea Islands, 21 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol21/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. International Law Rules and Historical Evidences Supporting China's Title to the South China Sea Islands By JIANMING SHEN, S.J.D. * Table of Contents I. Introduction .........................................................................................2 Il. Rules of Title Applicable to Barely Inhabitable Territories ................. 7 A. General Modes of Territorial Acquisition .................................... 7 B. Criteria for Sovereignty over Uninhabitable Islands ......................... 10 III. China's Historic Title to the Xisha and Nansha Islands ...................... 15 A. Discovery and Expeditions Prior to the Han Dynasty .................. 15 B. Chinese Activities between the Han and Song Dynasties ............ 17 C. The Qian Li Changsha and Wanli Shitang of the Song Dynasty ...... 21 D. Chinese Activities in the Yuan Dynasty .................................... 27 E. Chinese Activities During the Ming and Qing Dynasties ...........
    [Show full text]
  • South China Sea: How We Got to This Stage
    South China Sea: How We Got to This Stage By Fu Ying and Wu Shicun May 9, 2016 Understanding the source of the tension The South China Sea issue has become one of the major irritants in the China-US relations in recent years, over which the public opinion in the two countries are very critical of each other. There are even frictions in the sea between the two navies. The South China Sea seems like an outlet for the rivalry and confrontation that are building up of late between China and the US. As a result, the two sides seem to be reassessing each other’s intentions on a strategic level. The latest rhetoric is about “militarizing the South China Sea”, and on the part of the US, announcements to carry out “freedom of navigation operational assertions”. Hawkish voices are growing louder in both sides of the Pacific. Such frictions surrounding the South China Sea are leading to further strategic mistrust and hostility. The American scholar David M. Lampton was straightforward when he observed worriedly in reference to the existing situation, “A tipping point in the U.S.-China relations is upon us”. It is obvious that the South China Sea issue is a major catalyst for the troubled China-US relations, if not the key contributing factor. Opinions diverge in both countries on what has led to the current situation in the South China Sea. In China, it is widely believed that it is the US’s Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy, its taking sides on disputes in the South China Sea, and its direct intervention that have escalated the tensions and made the issue more complicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill No. ___ an ACT IDENTIFYING the PHILIPPINE MARITIME
    Bill No. ___ AN ACT IDENTIFYING THE PHILIPPINE MARITIME FEATURES OF THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA, DEFINING THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICABLE BASELINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES* EXPLANATORY NOTE In a few weeks, the country will mark the 5th year of the Philippines’ victory against China in the South China Sea (SCS) Arbitration. The Arbitral Award declared that China's Nine-Dash Line claim violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).1 It declared that the Philippines has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf (CS) in the areas of Panganiban (Mischief) Reef, Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal and Recto (Reed) Bank, and that Filipino fishermen have traditional fishing rights, in common with Chinese and Vietnamese fishermen, in the Territorial Sea (TS) of Bajo de Masinloc. Yet, the Philippines has remained unable to translate its victory into actual exercise of exclusive sovereign rights over fishing and resource exploitation in its recognized EEZ and CS and traditional fishing rights in the TS of Bajo de Masinloc. This proposed new baselines law seeks to break that impasse Firstly, it identifies by name and coordinates at least 100 features being claimed and occupied by the Philippines. This is an exercise of acts of sovereignty pertaining to each and every feature, consistent with the requirements of international law on the establishment and maintenance of territorial title. Secondly, it adopts normal baselines around each feature that qualifies as a high- tide elevation. This is to delineate the TS of each of said feature. Thirdly, it reiterates continuing Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction, as appropriate, over these features.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Wrong with the Status Quo in the South China Sea?
    What’s wrong with the status quo in the South China Sea? Bill Hayton Author – South China Sea: the struggle for power in Asia Associate Fellow, Chatham House @bill_hayton WHAT IS THE STATUS QUO? PRC occupies all Paracels plus 7 features in Spratlys. Taiwan occupies Itu Aba Vietnam occupies 21 features in Spratlys plus 6 underwater banks Philippines occupies 9/10 features in Spratlys; Malaysia occupies 5 reefs WHAT WOULD PEACE LOOK LIKE? • Does China intend to occupy every single feature within the U-shaped line? • Or does China accept that any agreement will have to involve compromise on territorial claims? • Does China agree that UNCLOS sets the rules for resource allocation and maritime rules everywhere? • Are the claimants prepared to accept the use of critical historical evidence in resolving the disputes? WHERE DO THREATS COME FROM? 1. Claimant states that refuse to accept compromise on territorial claims 2. Claimant states that deny the role of UNCLOS in the South China Sea 3. Specifically, claims to ‘historic rights’ are a clear threat to peace VIETNAM’S TROUBLES… Repsol drilled appraisal well in Block 136-03 in June 2017 General Fan Changlong visited Madrid and Hanoi to order the drilling to stop General Fan threatened attacks on Vietnamese positions on Vanguard Bank INDONESIA’S TROUBLES… Atlas found aboard Chinese fishing boat Gui Bei Yu in May 2016 Published by a state-owned publishing house Blatant violation of UNCLOS – yet standard issue for Chinese fishing boats MALAYSIA’S TROUBLES Chinese vessels on station at Luconia Shoals
    [Show full text]