Maritime Disputes With China In Asia-Pacific: An Analysis

Paracels Islands

Paracels islands (called Xisha Islands by China) have been a source of conflict among China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Currently it is under Chinese control. However in the past it became the cause of the Paracel war between China and Vietnam. But due to Chinese military superiority China won the war, and Vietnam was driven out of the Paracels islands in the war, but tension still exists among the trio of nations.

Spratly Islands

Spratly islands (also called Nansha Islands) include a group of more than 100 islands. Countries like Brunei, China, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam claim their rights over these islands because of its mineral importance. Various oil and gas fields have been estimated to be under these islands. A few countries have deployed their military troops to establish a strong foothold over their part of the islands. Among them Philippines and US alliance seem to prove a game changer.

Scarborough Shoal

The shoal is named after British East India tea trading ship which collided with a rock and sank in 1784. As compared to the issue of Spratly and Paracel islands the issue of the shoal (known as Huanuyan Islands in China) is of lesser magnitude. However it is also territory claimed by China, Taiwan, and Philippines (Singh, 2011).

Senkaku Island

This involves a maritime territorial dispute between two gigantic Asian powers i.e. China and Japan. The dispute between both countries arose due to different interpretations of the United Nations Convention on Law of Seas (UNCLOS), by both parties. Japan claims its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is defined by median lines whereas, China interprets the principle of EEZ, as having sole control over the entire East China Sea which is unacceptable to Japan (Zhou, 2015).

Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC)

China maintains her sovereign claims over Spratly Islands with the historical occupation by the Han Dynasty nearly 2100 years ago. In addition to that China considers Paracel Islands as part of her Hainan Province. There are multiple historical records which have hinted of Chinese occupation over these areas. Whether it may be the Han Dynasty or Ming Dynasty or occupation by fisherman or traders, archaeological evidence have proven Chinese presence since olden times. It was during the second World War when Japan claimed her right over the islands but China reaffirmed its claim over the whole territory encompassed by its nine-dotted lined map created in 1947. In 1992 China reasserted her rights in South China Sea, and currently she enjoys control over the whole territory in the South China Sea.

Taiwan

Claims by Taiwan are more or less a mirror image of Chinese claims. However, the issue is that Taiwan is yet to be recognised as an independent state in the community of nations so, her claim is not that clear despite the fact that the Prata Islands in the Spratlys islands are occupied by Taiwan.

Vietnam

Vietnam also uses historical evidence to prove its claims over Spratly and Paracels Islands in the South China Sea. She claims the Spratly Islands as a part of the Vietnamese province of Khanh Hoa though the historical records for that claim are weak. She has fought a war with China in 1974, but China succeeded in seizing control of the territory. However, in future the issue may lead to either betterment or worsening of bilateral relations between China and Vietnam.

Philippines

Unlike China and Vietnam, the Philippines claim is a recent one. It was maintained in the backdrop of the discovery of islands by a Philippines’ businessman Thomas Cloma in 1957 which he named Kalyan but which was not recognised by the government at that time. In 1970s it was recognised by the succeeding government, not only that the airspace and continental shelf of the said area was also proclaimed as part of the Philippines.

Malaysia

The claim by Malaysia over Spratly islands is also recent. She believes in the principle of continental shelf and recent discovery which she has maintained in her 1979 map.

Brunei

Among all the contenders which have maintained their respective territorial rights in the South China Sea, Brunei is a unique case. She physically does not possess control over any part of the Spratly Islands, but maintains her territorial claim (EEZ) based on the principle of UNCLOS (Gjetnes, 2000).

Japan

The row between Japan and China over Senkaku islands is recent receiving fresh impetus in 1970s. Since then two countries have enhanced naval surveillance in the East China Sea. The root cause of the tension is regional history. It is much believed that “as China and Japan attempted to modernize in order to protect themselves from the West, the rivalry with each other came to focus on an old age issue: the control of Korea” (Dreyer 2016, p.43). Each country has strong historical and nationalistic pride, which has resulted in formulation of anti-state attitude by the public of both countries towards each other. In addition the US alliance with Japan has further aggravated the situation. Tension could be lessened with the US assurance of performing a mediating role in diminishing the tensions while maintaining her complete neutrality (Zhao, 2013). Thus, new dimensions are required to explore in the similar context (Rothman, Vyas and‎ Sato 2017, pp.93-94).

Power Resources

As mentioned earlier both the South China and East China Seas possess plenty of natural resources; the most valuable being reserves of oil and natural gas. Recent technological developments have aided the potential of countries to extract more and more important minerals for the progress and development of country’s infrastructure. Keeping in mind this fact the sovereignty claims of China in the South and East China Seas would put China in a better position. Additionally Chinese claims to EEZ would contribute positively to boost Chinese energy needs.

National Pride

China has maintained her territorial rights in East and South China Seas (Spangler, & Karalekas, 2017) on historical evidences due to its long cherished history of nationalistic attitude. Not only that the Chinese public is proud and ambitious about their history, hence claiming their rights on the said territory with nationalistic zeal. Any claim except China’s is unacceptable to the Chinese leadership as well as the Chinese public. They are adamant in protecting their rights in this regard. It is also stated that “over the past 30 years, the Chinese development clock has run three to four times as fast as those other economies” (Fels, Enrico and Truong-Minh Vu 2016, p.7).

Fishing Rights

Unlike other coastal areas of the world, the waters of the South and East China Seas are an important source of sea food for the inhabitants of the region. It provides a vast supply of ready protein not only for the people of the region but also the trans-pacific. Depletion of near shore fish has encouraged nations to move off shore for catches. That is why nations are eager to claim their sovereignty rights in the islands in these seas. Furthermore the concept of EEZ would permit China to legally materialize her sovereign rights over some of those fishing grounds in the said area.

Sea Lanes

Since time immemorial, sea lanes have been source of trade and commerce activities in the world. Similarly the region under review has also helped the transfer of a great fraction of world seaborne trade. Currently a bulk of world oil is shipped through this area starting from the Persian Gulf to China, Japan and other countries of the region. Besides that, 80% of oil imports in China flow through these sea lanes. Chinese sovereignty over these islands would help China maintain control and monitor the movement of shipping which would leverage great strategic benefits to China in times of peace as well as crisis.

Security from State Interventions

China holds the view that she has the right under UNCLOS to monitor foreign ships which sail in her EEZ. However this interpretation is against the spirit of International Law. If it happens that China succeeds in establishing her sovereign rights in the islands of the South and East China Seas then it would naturally enhance China’s security position in the waters of the said Seas. It would declare the waters near its 12 nautical miles of territory as having legal Chinese rights, and from there up to 200 nautical miles as EEZ. It would put China in an advantageous position to monitor US naval ships stationed in the adjacent region and also help protect the Chinese mainland from aggression of foreign ships (Rourke, 2012). But on the other end, “the ratification of UNCLOS in 1982 weakened Beijing’s claim to sovereignty over the entire South China Sea. According to the convention the only basis for a lawful claim to the continental shelf at the South China Sea’s centre was to possess one of the Spratly Islands” (Jenner & Thuy 2016, p.305)

Territorial Seas

Under UNCLOS states have right to control international waters up to 12 nautical miles of coastline of the states’ territory. This is a very clear and unproblematic provision of the treaty which allows other states to enjoy the right of innocent passage subject to law of the state in question.

Contiguous Zone

Under UNCLOS states are also entitled to enjoy their sovereign rights up to additional 12 nautical miles from their territorial seas. Influence under this zone provides states an opportunity to safeguard their coastal rights, where no other state is entitled to infringe upon the customs, fiscal, sanitary, and other traditions, and related laws of the coastal state in question. Failing to do so would render the offending state liable to be punished according to internal law.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

EEZ is the most important provision of UNCLOS. In Part V of the convention it is clearly stated that states are at liberty to establish the Exclusive Economic Right up to 200 nautical miles from baselines of the territorial sea. In this particular area states enjoy various economic rights, ranging from exploitation and preservation of natural resources whether living or non-living along with that establishment of artificial features and installation of scientific facilities under state jurisdiction.

The issue which is currently challenging is the unequal distribution or natural resources, and asymmetry of distance between states’ distance from one coast to another and distance between two islands. Every maritime state does not have a distance of 400 nautical miles which equally distributes EEZ area between two coastal states. The same rule is applied to the continental shelf though the prescribed limit which in this case is 350 nautical miles. In order to resolve the issues of such nature the final authority rests with sovereign states. It depends upon the attitude of the states as to how they want to behave in international politics. No doubt UNCLOS has provided mechanisms or cooperation and confidence building measures, but the practices of individual states occur over and above those mechanisms.

Continental Shelf

Under UNCLOS states are given some additional economic rights which extend beyond EEZ up to a limit of 350 nautical miles. In that area states are authorised to maintain as well as regulate drilling activities for all purposes. Article 77 clearly states that in case a state is not carrying out exploration activities no other state has the right to operate in that area of influence without prior permission of the state concerned. “ Moreover, the right of the coastal states over continental do not depend on occupation, effective, or notional or any express proclamation ”.

Besides these principles UNCLOS also discusses the traditional rights of non-littoral states, foreign vessels, and naval ships. The right of innocent passage is guaranteed to foreign ships which sail from the transitional belt of 12 nautical miles. However convention never allows for the military use of the sea beyond territorial seas, commonly known as the “high seas”. In the light of this provision China has no right to demand monitoring or foreign warships or US navy in the South China Sea. That is the issue which China is contending at international level, as against the wishes of international community (Cronin, 2012).

China in the South China Sea

The history of China has witnessed that the mainland China has always faced threats from the sea. Since the mid-19^th century securing sea lanes has been an important military pursuit of Chinese naval forces. Due to the wide spread strategic importance of the sea, Chinese strategists have followed the theory of “sea power” presented by Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan. In order to enable China fulfil her long cherished aspirations of becoming a naval power she has emphasised the stationing of military as well as paramilitary forces in the waters of the South China Sea for her greater benefit to secure her greater maritime, economic, and national interests. “Apart from threats to the marine environment and resources, the South China Sea is also vulnerable to other threats such as piracy and maritime crimes” (Wu and Zou 2016, p.4). While speaking at a collective study session Xi Jinping insisted on the need for military preparedness to cope with hardships and emergency situations. He also reiterated the need to safeguard maritime rights and interests. Alluding to China’s territorial disputes, he emphasized the need to safeguard “national sovereignty” and “core interests” (Zhang, 2015).

China and ASEAN

China’s leadership has not lagged in initiating a positive agenda vis-a-vis their neighbours. Believing in democratic norms and principles of peaceful coexistence Chinese foreign policy makers have enunciated more a proactive neighbouring policy. At the Politburo address Xi Jinping expressed the utmost resolve in resolving maritime territorial disputes by peaceful means and through negotiations. He also hoped for “shelving disputes and carrying out joint development for areas over which China has sovereign rights”. This policy of peacefully resolving issues of mutual concern, with neighbouring countries is in fact a reaffirmation of Deng Xiapong’s guidelines for handling territorial disputes through cooperation and peaceful means. This policy initiative in essence is the rejection of tougher nationalistic rhetoric which stresses on giving a tough time to neighbouring countries (Fravel, 2013). Not only that Chinese leadership established a milestone development when it launched consultations on the Code of Conduct with ASEAN countries. Similarly the idea of opening a Maritime Silk Road with Indonesia was another development of significance in the China’s relationship with ASEAN countries. The idea was highlighted by the then Chinese premier while speaking to the Indonesian parliament during his visit. During the occasion Li Keqiang also mooted the possibility of future China-ASEAN cooperation and outlined a plan to establish an Asian infrastructure bank.

China in the East China Sea

China’s relationship with her counterpart in East Asia is another story altogether. The Chinese view their relationship with Japan as a unique case unlike that of ASEAN nations. China is of the view that Japan should toe Chinese lines of actions, with regard to the fate of Senkaku islands. Japan disowns of islands China’s claim over these islands and claims her unconditional rights over the territory of said islands. China insists on her territorial rights over the islands on the argument that the islands are located only 12 nautical miles northeast of Taiwan, are part of the province of Taiwan and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Post 1970s the territoriality of these islands have been an issue of concern between these two states. However, tension between the two escalated in 2005 when China started drilling to extract natural gas from the waters around the islands some 3 miles from the Japanese median line. Tokyo reciprocated by starting her own drilling expedition resulting in increasing hostile relations of both the parties. But in that scenario Chinese assertiveness remained more prominent because China multiplied her military manoeuvres, and accused Japan of violating Chinese territory.

Later on in September of 2010 Japanese coast guards arrested Chinese fishing boats that resulted in a major diplomatic row between the two parties. It led Beijing to adopt a hostile posture towards Japan involving propagation of anti-Japanese sentiments in China, holding protest demonstrations, asking tourists not to visit Japan, halting exports of rare minerals to Japan coupled with Japan bashing media activities. This aggressive behaviour on the part of China promoted a US backlash which came to aid of its allies in the region. In her comment secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Beijing in the following words: “Let me say clearly again the Senkaku fall within the scope of Article 5 of 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security” (Charichael, 2010).

Thus, it can be clearly seen that China is bent upon pursuing an offensive military strategy in the region while at the same time implementing conflict avoidance measures with selected countries. Her Salami-Slicing tactics to advance her military activities in the international waters and her use of the EEZ, is against the spirit of international law, as well as international traditions (Cronin, 2012).