Asia
Banyan
The South China Sea
A sea of disputes
Feb 21st 2011, 8:44 by Banyan
TWO truths about the disputes in the South China Sea are well-recognised: they are extremely complex, and much misunderstood. An illuminating day-long conference at the Institute of South-East Asian Studies in Singapore on February 18th brought home a third. There is no realistic prospect of a settlement in the foreseeable future. The best that can be hoped is to manage the disputes without any resort to armed conflict.
Part of the difficulty is that the dispute has so many aspects—or rather there are so many separate disputes. The territorial issue that receives so much attention is itself a plethora of different and overlapping claims. China and Vietnam claim sovereignty over the Paracel island chain, from which China evicted Vietnam in 1974, in the dying days of the Vietnam war. Taiwan—because it is the “Republic of China”—mirrors China’s claim, so that huge unresolved dispute also has a bearing on this one. The same three parties also claim the Spratly archipelago, to the south. But in the south, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei also have partial claims.
Some of these arguments might in theory be soluble under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), established in 1982. Some of the parties have tried to align their claim with UNCLOS. In 2009, for example, Malaysia and Vietnam made a joint submission, showing where they thought their claims lay, based on their continental shelves. This implied that the Spratlys—a collection of reefs, rocks and tiny islands—were all too small to support human habitation and hence have their own exclusive economic zones (EEZs) under UNCLOS.
China, however, objected to that submission and tabled its own map, with nine dotted lines outlining its claim. Joined up, the dotted lines give it not just the two chains, but almost the whole sea. There seems to be no basis for this in UNCLOS. But China points to history. It says the map has been in use since the Republic of China published it in 1946, and, until quite recently, nobody minded. Indonesia, in turn, subsequently objected to China’s objection, which gave China a claim over some Indonesian waters, too. According to American officials, China has upped the ante by talking of its territorial claims in the South China Sea as a “core” national interest, on a par with Tibet and Taiwan.
There is a huge amount at stake. Besides fisheries, the sea, particularly around the Spratlys, is believed to be enormously rich in hydrocarbons. The lure of such riches ought to make it attractive to devise joint-development mechanisms so that all could benefit. In practice, the resources potentially available make it even harder for any country to moderate its claim.
The sea is also a vital shipping route, accounting for a big chunk of world trade. It is the importance of the freedom of navigation and of overflight that has given America its pretext for louder involvement. This was initially welcomed by the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations when voiced at a regional forum in Hanoi in July last year, So fiercely did China object to America’s rather disingenuous offer of “mediation”, however, that some countries may now be ruing it.
So a second related dispute is between two regional superpowers: China and America. In particular, America and China differ over whether military activities are permissible in another country's EEZ. America insists they are. China objects to them and has on occasion harassed America’s spy planes and survey ships.
A third dispute is between China and ASEAN. These two reached a common “Declaration on Conduct” (DoC) in 2002 in an attempt to minimise the risk of conflict. But efforts to turn it into a formal and binding code have got nowhere, partly because of China’s anger at ASEAN’s attempts to develop a common approach.
China argues that ASEAN has no role in territorial issues, and insists on negotiating with the other claimants bilaterally. ASEAN sees this as an effort to pick off its members one by one. It argues that its own charter forces members to consult, as they do before each working group on the code of conduct (the next one is due in March).
Optimists point out that, distant though any settlement seems to be, at least the DoC has helped keep tensions down. Indeed, since 1988, when China and Vietnam clashed near the Spratlys, there have been no serious armed flare-ups. Tension rose in 1995, when China was found to have built on Mischief Reef, claimed by the Philippines. Fishermen are sometimes locked up for encroaching in another country’s claim. But the risk of escalation into conflict has seemed limited.
It is even possible to claim that the “self-restraint” the DoC calls for is being observed, since no new uninhabited islands or rocks have been occupied. However, that may be because none of those that is left is remotely big enough, and on those that were already occupied, building has continued, in some cases as if the claimants hope to turn rocks, or even “low-tide elevations”, into real islands—a practice not recognised under UNCLOS.
In their complexity, the South China Sea disputes provide material for endless scholarly bickering. Now that America has made it a focus for its re-engagement in Asia’s seas as a superpower and guarantor of the peace, and China has made clear it resents this, they also present some serious risks.
About Banyan
In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape
Advertisement
Economist blogs
- Americas view
- Asia view
- Babbage
- Bagehot's notebook
- Banyan
- Baobab
- Blighty
- Buttonwood's notebook
- Charlemagne's notebook
- Clausewitz
- Daily chart
- Democracy in America
- Eastern approaches
- Free exchange
- Global Leadership
- Gulliver
- Johnson
- Leviathan
- Lexington's notebook
- Multimedia
- Newsbook
- Prospero
- Schumpeter's notebook
- The World in 2011: Cassandra
Most commented
- Charlemagne: No time for doubters
- Turkey and Europe: Mr Erdoğan goes to Germany
- China's foreign policy: Setting sail for Libya
- Insurance and rights: Can same-sex bathrooms be far behind?
- America’s security commitment to Taiwan: From keystone to millstone?
- Libya: The limpet's legions
- China's pre-emptive crackdown: The people doth not protest
- Oil and the economy: The 2011 oil shock
- Macedonia's ethnic disharmony: How many building booms can one city take?
- British and American: USS Ponce
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- China's pre-emptive crackdown: The people doth not protest
- China's foreign policy: Setting sail for Libya
- Turkey and Europe: Mr Erdoğan goes to Germany
- Oil and the economy: The 2011 oil shock
- Libya: The limpet's legions
- Banyan: Taiwan's commonsense consensus
- KAL's cartoon
- Psychiatry: Therapist-free therapy
- Insider trading: A tip too far?
- A special report on feeding the world: The 9 billion-people question
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
- Hong Kong too-y
- From Asia view
- Look at that
- From Babbage
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I'm looking at the map and no part of this sea touches the US shores. Why is the US involved in this dispute? This is why we're going bankrupt!
Banyan needs a vigilant sub-editor: "whether military activities are permissible in another countries EEZs" [sic]. Dispute or not, this should be "in another country's EEZ" or "in other countries' EEZs", but not as written.
As for @bailoutnation's comment, the United States, and every other major trading nation, has a vital interest in ensuring that the sea lanes in the South China Sea remain open and free of conflict. A nation's interests don't lie merely in its contiguous seas or land borders.
If/when China starts a war with its neighbors, will Americans really be willing to send their kids to die for others' freedom the way they did in WWII? It took Pearl Harbor to get America into the war against Germany.
The China threat has become simply too big. Strategic containment by China's neighbors and the free world is the only long-term answer to the threat. That means economic containment, not just military.
The only answer to Communist transgression into International Waters is to form a Security Block.
These Countries either all join NATO or Form their own Security Block with a Joint Military & Economic Group against Communist China.
This would have to include India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia/Malaysia & the Philippines at a minimum with the US as a backstop.
Communist China as clearly shown it will never negotiate "Core Issues" Tibet, South China Sea or Taiwan.
They only understand Power & Force. If one tries to appease the Dragon it will be Germany circa 1936 all over again!
It might be geo-strategically a better idea for the US to start supporting ASEAN (excluding Singapore), politically and militarily, more than it does Taiwan (China is part of Taiwan according to Taiwan and Taiwan is part of China according to China, so there!).
Most countries in ASEAN are at least aware and "wary" of becoming client-states of China because China does have a long-range strategic plan called "string of pearls" to make sure that they "rule the waves" in the Shining Shina Sea (stretching to the Persian Gulf?)
WCR, SunT, don't be paranoid.
China has claimed these islands for hundreds of years, not just since 1946. It's not a Communist plot, or a "China Threat". It's the human history of Asia for thousands of years, i.e. China is dominant, and should be by any reasonable logic. Other countries might also have claims going back centuries - the problem is that during those centuries maps may have been drawn, but nobody really cared, because those islands weren't really useful for anything. Now they are, and so there's a dispute. It doesn't get any deeper than that.
The solution should involve anything but an anti-Chinese "security bloc", since that would involve a unilateral military-backed claim to the islands, resulting in a war. That is one of the stupider possible suggestions.
A better (but unlikely) solution would be to internationalize the area among the group of relevant nations, assigning shares to each. Unlikely because proportions for shares would then be disputed. Naturally China would require at least 51%, leaving smaller shares to all other countries.
Kudos to the Economist for this well-balanced article clearly outlining the complex web of disputes without prejudice. The territorial issues involving the islands are complex by nature, as the islands are uninhabited, so any nearby country can lay a claim on them, while China bases its claim on geography and the historical dominance of its traders on the trade routes.
It's understandable that Vietnam wants to get ASEAN (and the USA) involved in its dispute with China, as it's no match for China by itself. But China's refusal to involve ASEAN is also reasonable, as the main dispute is with Vietnam alone, plus some very peripheral issues involving Malaysia and Indonesia, and it has no dispute whatsoever with the majority of ASEAN members (Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Singapore, etc). Besides, ASEAN can't even prevent a military conflict over the border between Thailand and Cambodia, two of its own members.
salkagga, you have made one of the most reasonable and intelligent posts I have ever seen done for any Economist article.
You are absolutely correct. There is no 'morality' here, no 'religion', no 'saving the world from communism', no 'freedom, democracy and human rights'. As you said, it is a simple territorial dispute with a source deep in history, and one that sure doesn't need to be politicised or militarised.
And it sure doesn't need to become one more way for the US to inflame the issue by exerting its global dominance and becoming 'the new leader of Asia' as Hillary Clinton recently suggested.
And gocanucks too. Such intelligent, clear-sighted comments.
My compliments.
Freedom of the Seas is certainly a core US interest.
This issue was largely on the fringe of everyone's attention until China began airing the idea of the SCS being a "core interest" to see the international reaction and to see if there would be any pushback. It justifiably received a strong reaction. If this is an issue it is because China made it into one.
Interesting to see the arrogance shown here by some of the Chinese apologists. China's claim is not particularly stronger than that of others—unless one counts blustering and veiled threats. Even Nazi Germany's claim to the Sudetenland was more comprehensible than China's over the SCS. The possible danger is also highlighted in that episode. Appeasement isn't an answer since it only encourages the bully to demand more and more and more.
It also seems some here are rather forgetful. Pearl Harbor happened because the Japanese were mad at the Americans for blockading them for their actions in Manchuria and the war with China. Japan miscalculated and didn't expect the U.S. would stick its nose in its business. If it wasn't for the Americans, China may have become a Japanese colony. There is something to be said for American meddling.
The USA cannot "guarentee peace" in Asia. The USA is a paper tiger. It proved this during the Viet Nam War. There was absolutely no way a country like North Viet Nam could have militarily defeated the USA, but the USA abrogated its responsibility to protect the Republic of Viet Nam from the North's invasion. The USA could have easily destroyed the North's military, but it chose not to do so (at least, the Democrats so chose).
Do not rely on anything from the Obama Regime except cowardly rhetoric.
I know all about this. Canada is in a violent dispute with Denmark over very similar issues about Han Island by Greenland.
For years their military has rowed over to the Island and replanted their flag after we rowed over and removed it. These saber rattling battles take brinkmanship to it's nerve fraying edge as the navy and seals sleuth around the icefloes.
The fear of escalation is palpable in both countries as this struggle for supremacy of claim fur das waterland continues year in and year out.
I imagine it's much the same thing. Herring tales of bravery. Never showing weakness beaver the enemy.
[SunT wrote:
Feb 21st 2011 6:19 GMT
If/when China starts a war with its neighbors, will Americans really be willing to send their kids to die for others' freedom the way they did in WWII? It took Pearl Harbor to get America into the war against Germany.
The China threat has become simply too big. Strategic containment by China's neighbors and the free world is the only long-term answer to the threat. That means economic containment, not just military.]
[Winston Churchill Rocks wrote:
Feb 21st 2011 8:01 GMT
The only answer to Communist transgression into International Waters is to form a Security Block.
These Countries either all join NATO or Form their own Security Block with a Joint Military & Economic Group against Communist China.
This would have to include India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia/Malaysia & the Philippines at a minimum with the US as a backstop.
Communist China as clearly shown it will never negotiate "Core Issues" Tibet, South China Sea or Taiwan.
They only understand Power & Force. If one tries to appease the Dragon it will be Germany circa 1936 all over again!]
Uncle has, for more than half a century, been going around the world to muddle the waters on the pretence of keep freedom and peace. The world must create a marine version of Vietnam to make it see light.
Devil's
[tocharian wrote:
Feb 21st 2011 9:06 GMT
It might be geo-strategically a better idea for the US to start supporting ASEAN (excluding Singapore), politically and militarily, more than it does Taiwan (China is part of Taiwan according to Taiwan and Taiwan is part of China according to China, so there!).
Most countries in ASEAN are at least aware and "wary" of becoming client-states of China because China does have a long-range strategic plan called "string of pearls" to make sure that they "rule the waves" in the Shining Shina Sea (stretching to the Persian Gulf?)]
And tocharian wants them to become "client-states" of Uncle instead.
Devil's
[gocanucks wrote:
Feb 21st 2011 11:54 GMT
Kudos to the Economist for this well-balanced article clearly outlining the complex web of disputes without prejudice. The territorial issues involving the islands are complex by nature, as the islands are uninhabited, so any nearby country can lay a claim on them, while China bases its claim on geography and the historical dominance of its traders on the trade routes.
It's understandable that Vietnam wants to get ASEAN (and the USA) involved in its dispute with China, as it's no match for China by itself. But China's refusal to involve ASEAN is also reasonable, as the main dispute is with Vietnam alone, plus some very peripheral issues involving Malaysia and Indonesia, and it has no dispute whatsoever with the majority of ASEAN members (Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Singapore, etc). Besides, ASEAN can't even prevent a military conflict over the border between Thailand and Cambodia, two of its own members.]
Yeah. One of the few balanced articles by Banyan on China.
Devil's
[Go Go wrote:
Feb 22nd 2011 3:44 GMT
This issue was largely on the fringe of everyone's attention until China began airing the idea of the SCS being a "core interest" to see the international reaction and to see if there would be any pushback. It justifiably received a strong reaction. If this is an issue it is because China made it into one.
Interesting to see the arrogance shown here by some of the Chinese apologists. China's claim is not particularly stronger than that of others—unless one counts blustering and veiled threats. Even Nazi Germany's claim to the Sudetenland was more comprehensible than China's over the SCS. The possible danger is also highlighted in that episode. Appeasement isn't an answer since it only encourages the bully to demand more and more and more.
It also seems some here are rather forgetful. Pearl Harbor happened because the Japanese were mad at the Americans for blockading them for their actions in Manchuria and the war with China. Japan miscalculated and didn't expect the U.S. would stick its nose in its business. If it wasn't for the Americans, China may have become a Japanese colony. There is something to be said for American meddling.]
"Even Nazi Germany's claim to the Sudetenland was more comprehensible than China's over the SCS"
"Nazi Germany's claim to the Sudetenland" was certainly a billion times stronger than the whites claims over North America and Australia.
Devil's
@DavidMacq,
What are you on about?!?!?!
The USA failed in Vietnam for two simple reasons - GUERRILLA WARFARE, and PUBLIC OPINION.
And I think its also worth noting that the Republicans were in power during the withdrawral and the taking of Saigon, not the Democrats.
Furthermore, it was Lindon Johnson, a democrat, who expanded US intervention in the war after JFKs assassination.
Also, no one can GUARANTEE peace in Asia, not even China. Too many issues in that continent, and furthermore it is a veeeery big continent.
And Obama's taken a stronger stance on China than Bush ever did.
Thanks to Philip in Zahara for his proof-reading. I have corrected the error he spotted. Sad to relate, I used to be a fairly decent sub-editor myself.
As for Salkagga's comment that "China has claimed these islands for hundreds of years, not just since 1946", he may well be right, and the article does not contradict that. But I wonder why China would have bothered, when there was no obvious competition for the islands, rocks and low-tide elevations. And I wonder why its officials and academics refer so often to the 1946 map.
@BailoutNation
"Why is the US involved in this dispute?"
Because China is one of the claimants to the resource-rich islands, and many of them strategically located.
There are also territorial disputes between Thailand and Cambodia, between Malaysia and the Philippines, between Malaysia and Brunei, between Malaysia and Indonesia, and between Malaysia and Singapore, but you don't see Uncle Sam got involved in any of these disputes.
Big Bully, small bully. My toy! No! my toy... The whole thing is so infantile. Smacks of unbridled greed & rank selfishness to boot too. Makes me wanna throw up.
I give up on us humans ever growing up..