28 - 5 - 2017 | 15:33
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Conferences & Seminars Third International Workshop, November 2011 South China Sea: China’s Rise and Implications for Security Cooperation, by Koichi Sato

South China Sea: China’s Rise and Implications for Security Cooperation, by Koichi Sato

E-mail Print PDF

In March 2010[1], Chinese diplomats told senior Obama administration officials that China (People’s Republic of China: PRC) would not tolerate any interference in the South China Sea, now part of China’s “core interest” of sovereignty. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) navy and the Chinese maritime security agencies have begun to deploy their battleships and patrol boats in the South China Sea. Tensions between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors are on the rise. The United States, Japan, and Australia also show concern for the security of Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) in the South China Sea. It is also said that the PLA navy has a plan to develop aircraft carriers. This paper analyzes these maritime challenges and explores implications for the security cooperation between China and its neighboring countries including Japan and the United States.

alt

 

Background of the South China Sea Conflict

There are four Island groups, namely, the Pratas Islands, the Paracel Islands, the Macclesfield Bank, and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea (See Fig-1). The Pratas Islands were occupied by Taiwan (Republic of China: ROC) in 1946, the Paracel Islands were occupied by China after the naval clash between the PLA navy and Republic of Vietnam (RVN) navy in 1974. The reefs of Macclesfield Bank are all sunken reefs with the exception of two rocks of the Scarborough Shoal being occupied by the Philippine Armed Forces.

 

The focal point is the territorial disputes over the Spratly Islands. According to Chinese sources, the sea area of the Spratly Islands is around 800,000 square kilometers, or 38% of the total sea area of the South China Sea; the area includes 230 islands, reefs, and cays[2]. All the islands, reefs, and cays are claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and some part of the islands and reefs are claimed by the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. The four claimants, namely Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam are members of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

alt

The sea area of the Spratly Islands is believed to be rich in oil and fishery resources, and this is the main reason that all claimants assert their sovereign right to the Spratly islands. But no oil detection has yet been successful, and the Japanese specialists are rather pessimistic about the oil & gas production in the sea area surrounding the Spratly Islands[3]. It is true that some oil fields and natural gas deposits were found in the South China Sea, but they are located mainly in the sedimentary basins of the coastal areas of Vietnam, Sabah and Sarawak of East Malaysia, and the Natuna Islands of Indonesia. No resources were found in the sea area surrounding the Spratly Islands, which are located in the central deep sea area of the South China Sea.

 

Regarding the fishery resources in the South China Sea including the sea area surrounding the Spratly Islands, recent statistics showed about 11.5 million tons total catch in 2001 (China: 3.4 million tons, Indonesia: 2.9 million tons, Thailand: 1.9 million tons, Vietnam: 1.5 million tons, the Philippines: 0.9 million tons, Malaysia: 0.7 million tons)[4]. The statistics show that China’s catch in 1989 was 5 million tons. If so, the fishery production capability of the South China Sea is failing[5].

 

In regard to the actual occupation of the Spratly Islands (i.e. troops stationed there), Taiwan did so in 1947, the Philippines in 1956, the Vietnamese (RVN) in 1974, and China in 1988[6]. The Chinese government asserted its sovereignty over the whole Spratly Islands group in August 1951, though the PLA navy was the latest comer among the claimants to the Spratly Islands. PLA navy Jiangdong class destroyers (displacement 2000 tons) attacked Vietnamese troopships in the sea area surrounding Johnson Reef of the Spratly Islands in March 1988, sinking two Vietnamese ships and wrecking one[7].

 

The PLA navy built a territorial marker at the Gaven Reef in July 1992, and the ASEAN foreign ministers showed their concern without naming China in the Declaration on the South China Sea[8]. The PLA navy built some military posts for stationing troops on the Mischief Reef, which was also claimed by Vietnam and the Philippines, in February 1995, and they expanded them in October 1998[9]. The ASEAN foreign ministers published the Statement on Mischief Reef in March 1995.[10]ASEAN countries couldn’t contend with China for military supremacy over the South China Sea, so they began to utilize their conference diplomacy[11] for the peaceful settlement of the South China Sea conflict.

 

The ASEAN leaders began to explore ways for the peaceful settlement of the South China Sea conflict at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) that they had begun in 1994, and ASEAN-China Summit Meetings that they had begun in 1997. They planned the Regional Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (COC) to check Chinese claims in the South China Sea[12]. They negotiated with their Chinese counterparts for some years, and finally agreed on the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) at the ASEAN-China Summit on 4 November 2002[13].

 

Regarding the actual occupation of the features of the Spratly Islands, a Philippine scholar said that “China occupies 7, Taiwan occupies 1, Vietnam occupies 21 Malaysia occupies 5, and the Philippines occupied 9 (total 43),” though the PLA officer asserted that the Vietnamese occupied 29 features, and a Chinese scholar asserted “China occupied 6 features”[14]. China delineated the broken U-shaped line in the South China Sea (See Fig-1), and the Chinese diplomats called the broken U-shaped line a boundary line of Chinese historic waters in ambiguous way and the Chinese law of the territorial waters claimed the sovereignty of all the South China Sea Islands including the Spratly Islands[15].

 

China’s claim on the Spratly Islands is very weak because it was not based on the historical inhabitation of Chinese nationals. The four ASEAN countries’ claims are also not so persuasive for the same reason. An established Japanese scholar said that no claimant can show definite evidence of an effective occupation of the Spratly Islands in pre-modern history, and every claimant has the right to join in negotiation of a settlement of the territorial issue[16].

(continuing)

 

Read full text of this paper here

[1] New York Times, 23 April 2010. “China’s core interests,” in reference to territory, usually means Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjang.

[2] Ji Guoxing, The Spratlys Disputes and Prospects for Settlement, Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia, 1992, p. 1.

[3] Akira Ishi and Kazuhiko Fuji, Sekai Wo Ugokasu Sekiyu Senryaku [World Oil Strategy], Chikuma Publishing, 2003, pp. 136-140. China’s Ministry of Land Resources has optimistically claimed that the South China Sea might hold 23-40 billion tons of oil reserve (168-220 billion barrels), and more than 2,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves, though a 1993/4 US geological survey puts the oil reserves at 28 billion barrels and the US Energy Information Administration listed proven oil reserves at just 7 billion barrels. Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: From Competition to Collaboration?Joshua Ho, ed., Realising Safe and Secure Seas for All, Select Publishing, 2009, p. 147.

[4] Guo Wenlu and Huang Shuolin, Nanhai Zhengduan Yu Nanhai Yuye Ziyuan Quyu Hezuo Guanli Yanjiu [Research of the South China Sea Conflict and the Cooperative Management of South China Sea Fishery Resources], Haijun Chubanshe, Beijing, 2007, pp. 91-104.

[5] Shigeo Hiramatsu, Chugoku No kaiyo Senryaku [China’s Naval Strategy], Keiso Shobo Publishing, 1993, p. 27.

[6] Tatsuo Urano, Nankai Shoto Kokusai Funso Shi [History of the International Conflicts over the South China Sea Islands], Tosui Shobo Publishing, 1997, Tokyo, pp. 1106-1175.

[7] Jane’s Defence Weekly, 28 May 1988, p. 1072, Shao Yonglin, Haiyang Zhanguoce [The Chinese Naval War Strategy], Shiyou Gongyue Chubanshe, 2010, p. 165. Shao Yonglin is a professor of the Second Artillery Division Academic Institute, and the PLA senior colonel.

[8] New Straits Times, 10 July 1992, Declaration on the South China Sea, ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, Manila, 22 July 1992.

[9] Far Eastern Economic Review, 23 February 1995, pp. 14-16, Straits Times, 11 November 1998.

[10] Statement by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers on the Recent Developments in the South China Sea, ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, Singapore, 18 March 1995.

[11] ASEAN ministers call their principle of conferences the “ASEAN Way,” though the rules of conferences are rather vague. Therefore this author organized the “ASEAN Way” of conference diplomacy along a set of six features. First, decision-making procedure based on consensus; second, the maintenance of dialogue takes priority over the settlement of conflicts among conference attendants; third, ASEAN takes a collective negotiation with external dialogue partners; fourth, ASEAN holds new conferences according to changes in the international environment; fifth, ASEAN reserves all or part of the right to sponsor and chair these conferences; sixth, ASEAN establishes informal meetings, including ministerial retreats. These six features of ASEAN’s conference diplomacy constitute a set of rules that this author calls the “ASEAN Regime.” Koichi Sato, “The ASEAN Regime: Its Implications for East Asian Cooperation – A Japanese View,” Tamio Nakamura ed., The Dynamics of East Asian Regionalism in Comparative Perspective, Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, 2007, pp. 19-30.

[12] Straits Times, 21 July 1999.

[13] Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, Phnom Penh, 4 November 2002.

[14] Rommel C. Banlaoi, Renewed Tensions and Continuing Maritime Security Dilemma in the South China Sea: A Philippine Perspective, Tran Truong Thuy ed., The South China Sea: Cooperation for Regional Security and Development, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, 2010, p. 148, Shao, op. cit., p. 202, Li Guojiang, Zhongguo Chugoku To Shuuhen Kokka No Kaijou Kokkyo Mondai [The Maritime Frontier Issue between China and its Neighboring Countries], Kyokai Kenkyu [Japan Border Review], No. 1, Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, p. 50.

[15] Far Eastern Economic Review, 27 April 1995, p. 28, People’s Daily, 26 February 1992.

[16] Hidekuni Takeshita, Minami Shina Kai Funso No keii To Ryouyuuken Mondai [The History of the South China Sea Conflicts and the Territorial issues], the second volume, Ajiatorendo, 1992, IV, P. 91.


Newer news items:
Older news items:

Comments  

 
0 #1 South China Sea: China’s Rise and Implications for Security Cooperation, by Koichi SatoFelipe 2017-05-08 12:56
Αsking questions arе reаlly fastidious thing if you are not understanding
anytҺing fᥙlly, except this paragraph gіves gоod understanding
еvеn.

Αlso visit mү web pɑgе http://noithatno1.com/ban-ghe-phong-khach.html: http://noithatno1.com/ban-ghe-phong-khach.html
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Can a limited purpose maritime and air defence identification zone be established over the South China Sea?, by Mary George

Can a limited purpose maritime and air defence identification zone  be established over the South China Sea?, by Mary George

To stimulate South China Sea regional security cooperation in the control of piratical attacks against ships, this paper proposes the establishment of a limited purpose maritime and air defence identification zone over the South China Sea.

Read more...

Recent Developments in the Philippine Baselines Law, by Raul C. Pangalangan

Recent Developments in the Philippine Baselines Law, by Raul C. Pangalangan

The Philippines recently passed a 2009 Baselines Law that, it was hoped, would finally confront its long-standing dilemma on whether to abandon its 1898 “treaty lines” altogether and adopt the modern rules on the Law of the Sea. That hope did not come to pass.

Read more...

International Law in the South China Sea: Does it drive or help resolve conflict?, by Stein Tønnesson

International Law in the South China Sea: Does it drive or help resolve conflict?, by Stein Tønnesson

Abstract

The interplay of power and law in the South China Sea is not well understood. To analyze the disputes over navigation rights, sovereignty to islands, and delimitation of maritime zones we need to grasp how states define and defend their geopolitical interests as well as the ways in which international law influences their claims and conflict behaviour. This paper starts with the huge difference in interpretations made by geopolitically oriented political scientists and more normatively or legally oriented scholars. Then the paper asks how developments in international law have affected the conflicts in the South China Sea historically. It establishes parallel histories of alternation between periods of conflict and détente and of legal developments, both in customary and treaty-based international law. The main emphasis is on the law of the sea. The paper concludes by establishing causal linkages between the two histories, while seeking to ascertain in what ways the law as such has influenced conflict behaviour. Has it exacerbated disputes by encouraging conflictual claims? Or has it established rules and procedures that help manage or resolve conflicts? The paper is written on the assumption that the answers we give to these questions may influence the way we see the prospects of future peace in the South China Sea.

Read more...

Where’s the Stake? U.S. Interests in the South China Sea, by Jonathan G. Odom

Where’s the Stake? U.S. Interests in the South China Sea, by  Jonathan G. Odom

Introduction

Much of the legal discussion about the ongoing situation in the South China Sea focuses upon the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[1], a convention that was concluded in 1982.  During that early 1980's timeframe, there was an iconic television commercial[2] in the United States promoting the fast-food chain of restaurants known as Wendy’s.  The commercial showed three little old ladies standing at a cash register of a fictional restaurant that was competing with Wendy’s.  Behind the ladies was a sign on the wall that read, "Home of the Big Bun."  On the countertop was a large hamburger bun with an extremely small meat patty.  Each of the old ladies stared intensely at the bun.  Two of the ladies were admiring the bun.  The middle lady said, "It certainly is a big bun. It's a very big bun. It's a big fluffy bun. It's a very big fluffy bun."  The lady on the right, however, was wholly unimpressed with the large bun.  Over and over, she kept yelling "Where's the beef?" across the counter to anyone who might listen. At the conclusion of the television commercial, as the screen faded to black, the viewer could hear the third lady doubtfully telling her colleagues, "I don't think there is anybody back there."

Read more...

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas between Vietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?, by Hai-Dang Vu

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas between Vietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?, by Hai-Dang Vu

Since 1999, China has enacted an annual fishing ban for two or three months in the summer in the North-Western part of the South China Sea. This year (2011), the ban took place from May 16th to August the 1st and in an area between the latitude 12° North to the North and longitude 113° East to the West.[1]Any fishing vessel that goes into this area during the banis subjected to fines and its catches and gear confiscated.[2]According to Chinese news and scholars, this fishing ban is necessary to protect the sustainability of marine life in this area and prevent overfishing[3] and has produced positive results[4].However, critics, including from China, question the effectiveness of this measure. Many commercially important fishes are not breeding at the time of the fishing ban. Furthermore, after a long pause due to the ban, fishing activities would increase manifold, which causes more risk of depletion of the stocks.[5]

Read more...

Regional Cooperation in the South China Sea, by Jon M. Van Dyke

Regional Cooperation in the South China Sea, by Jon M. Van Dyke

The Duty to Cooperate in Semi-Enclosed Seas

            The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea governed by Part IX of the Law of the Sea Convention,[1] which says in Article 123 that countries bordering such seas “should co-operate with each other in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their duties under this Convention”  More specifically, they are instructed to “endeavor, directly or through an appropriate regional organization (a) to co-ordinate the management, conservation, exploration, and exploitation of the living resources of the sea” and also to co-ordinate their activities “with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment.”  The countries bordering on the South China Sea have failed to create an effective regional organization, and their cooperation “directly” has been generally unsuccessful as well.  The Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) has been mostly dysfunctional and the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA)has been modest in its accomplishments.  No effective organization to manage the shared fisheries has been established. 

Read more...

Resolution to Fishery Disputes in the South China Sea through Regional Cooperation and Management, by Kuan-Hsiung Wang

Resolution to Fishery Disputes in the South China Sea through Regional Cooperation and Management, by Kuan-Hsiung Wang

The disputes in the South China Sea could be categorized into two parts: one is on the sovereignty of those island features, and the other is the maritime zones that could be claimed. It is understandable that the best way to solve the disputes might be delimiting boundaries so that the areas of sovereignty and jurisdiction could be decided. However, such situation is not always possible. It is mainly because negotiation and adoption of a maritime boundary between the related States always focused on political considerations and there are no well-established laws for making boundaries. Although it is recognized that “equitable solution” is one of the most important principles in making boundary. However, there is no definite elements which have been decided, in spite of geographical and geological factors, coastal length, traditional fishing activities, relative impact on the livelihood and economic dependency are the considerations recognized in different cases.

Read more...

The South China Sea: Cooperation for Regional Security and Development, by Hasjim Djalal

The South China Sea: Cooperation for Regional Security and Development, by Hasjim Djalal

The efforts to develop cooperation for regional security and development, so far, has involved some formal approach of ASEAN and some informal approach by academic institutions and some informal unofficial approach by some South China Sea officials in their personal capacities. The formal approach has resulted in the Declaration of Conduct by the Foreign Minister of ASEAN and China in 2002 as well as by China and the Philippines, the Philippines and the Vietnam in formulating some confidence building measures or Code of Conduct between them. The informal approach has been initiated by Indonesia through the Workshop Process on Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea since 1990. It should be noted however, that while the formal approach excludes Chinese Taipei in the process, but include Myanmar as an ASEAN Member although it is not located in the South China Sea, the second informal approach, however, includes Chinese Taipei as an “entity” in the South China Sea issues although no states around the South China Sea area has any diplomatic relations with the Chinese Taipei.

Read more...

The Internationalization of the South China Sea: Conflict prevention and management, by Leszek Buszynski

The Internationalization of the South China Sea: Conflict prevention and management, by Leszek Buszynski

Introduction

The South China Sea issue began as a territorial dispute over the sovereignty of the islands and sea territory involving China and five ASEAN countries, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.  Both China and Vietnam claim the entire area and the islands within while the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have laid claims to contiguous areas based on EEZs and continental shelves and first discovery.  Had it been just a territorial issue it could have been resolved in some way as a product of Chinese efforts to reach out to ASEAN and to forge stronger ties with the region.  Later the issue involved access to the oil and gas reserves of the sea which became critical as global demand for energy rose and claimants devised plans to exploit the hydrocarbon reserves of the area.  Disputes erupted over the competing claims, particularly between China and Vietnam, which at times threatened to escalate.  Claims to energy resources need not result in conflict, however, and can be managed on the basis of joint or multilateral development for which there are various precedents and models though none quiet as complicated as would be required for the South China Sea. 

Read more...

Straight baselines around insular formations not constituting an archipelagic state, by Erik Franckx & Marco Benatar

Straight baselines around insular formations not constituting an archipelagic state, by Erik Franckx & Marco Benatar

I. Introduction

The South China Sea (SCS) dispute has proven to be a hotbed for a variety of juridical quarrels, ranging from the extent of maritime zones[1], to territorial insular claims[2] and navigational rights.[3] One of the outlying issues that warrants closer examination concerns the baselines to be drawn around mid-ocean SCS islands.[4] As a starting position, one would surmise the applicability of the regime of normal baselines in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[5]

Read more...

UNCLOS and maritime security in the South China Sea, by Nguyen Thi Lan Anh

UNCLOS and maritime security in the South China Sea, by Nguyen Thi Lan Anh

Maritime security is a relatively new concept and there are several approaches on its definition within the overall concept of security in international relations. Maritime security is developed to emphasize the importance of maintaining good order at sea in terms of the use and management of the marine resources for human development. In a hotspot like the South China Sea, where sovereignty disputes and overlapping maritime claims are still escalating and complicated, the maintenance of maritime security is a vital issue, covering all aspects of traditional and non-traditional security. With regard to traditional security, the current tension and the modernization of army, particularly navy forces indicated that the parties had prepared for the use of force and armed conflict at regional level may occur. In non-traditional aspects, maritime and aviation safety, marine environmental protection, marine biodiversity and the maintenance of good livelihood for the people are among the fields that currently being seriously threaten. 

Read more...

Exclusive Economic Zone in Major Media and Academic Journals in 2011: South China Sea and Other Seas, by Yearn Hong Choi

Exclusive Economic Zone in Major Media and Academic Journals in 2011: South China Sea and Other Seas, by Yearn Hong Choi

Introduction

Every coastal nation attempts to expand its sea territory by extending or expanding exclusive economic zone to the maximum possible. The EEZ was a new concept and a specific legal regime in the Law of the Sea Convention, building on the “exclusive fishing zones” and “fishing conservation zones” already in existence. The EEZ regime in the Convention was primarily aimed at living resources of the waters superjacent to the seabed. Although Article 56 (1) (a) stipulates that in the EEZ, “the coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil,” Article 56 (3) affirms that the rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.” The EEZ is and must be an environmental conservation concept: However, it is  far from such a novel concept in reality. It is considered or interpreted as the coastal State’s privilege to claim its sovereign sea. Rights without obligations or duties have been claimed, rather blindly. This is something pathetically wrong or very ridiculous. Under the circumstances, 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone has been rather abused.

Read more...

Growing tension in South China Sea – Causes and Cures, by S. D. Pradhan

Growing tension in South China Sea – Causes and Cures, by S. D. Pradhan

The recent escalation in tension in South China Sea has indicated the need for objectively looking at the causes of dispute and the recent developments both negative and positive with a view to suggest measures todiffuse the situation, which according to some security experts has the potentials to escalate into an armed conflict and to help the involved nations to find a permanent solution.

Read more...

Abstract of The Risk of Applying Realpolitik in Resolving the South China Sea Dispute: Possible Implications on Regional Security. by Renato De Castro

Abstract of The Risk of Applying Realpolitik in Resolving the South China Sea Dispute: Possible Implications on Regional Security. by Renato De Castro

Located in the heart of Southeast Asia, the South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea surrounded by China and several smaller and weaker Southeast Asian powers such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.  Since the mid-1970s, these littoral states have been locked in a chronic competition as each one seek to extend its sovereignty and jurisdictional claims over more than a hundred islets, reefs, and rocks and their surrounding waters.  The biggest among the claimant states, China has shown propensity to use coercive diplomacy and even actual force to pursue its territorial claims.   In 1974, its forces drove the South Vietnamese from the Paracel Islands north of the Spratlys. Then in 1988, Chinese forces dislodged Vietnamese forces from Johnson Reef, after they sunk three Vietnamese trawlers near Fiery Cross Reef.  China’s promulgation of a territorial law claiming a large portion of the South China Sea in 1992, and Manila’s discovery of Chinese military structures on Mischief Reef in 1995 triggered a serious diplomatic row between the Philippines and China in the mid-1990s.

Read more...

South China Sea: China’s Rise and Implications for Security Cooperation, by Koichi Sato

South China Sea: China’s Rise and Implications for Security Cooperation, by Koichi Sato

In March 2010[1], Chinese diplomats told senior Obama administration officials that China (People’s Republic of China: PRC) would not tolerate any interference in the South China Sea, now part of China’s “core interest” of sovereignty. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) navy and the Chinese maritime security agencies have begun to deploy their battleships and patrol boats in the South China Sea. Tensions between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors are on the rise. The United States, Japan, and Australia also show concern for the security of Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) in the South China Sea. It is also said that the PLA navy has a plan to develop aircraft carriers. This paper analyzes these maritime challenges and explores implications for the security cooperation between China and its neighboring countries including Japan and the United States.

Read more...
More:

Language

South China Sea Studies

Joomla Slide Menu by DART Creations

Special Publication

 

Search

Login Form

Subscribe form

Top Photo Galleries

Web Links

VIETNAM MOFA SPOKESPERSON

 

NATIONAL BOUNDARIES