China’s stake in the South China Sea
The statement of Chinese admiral comes amid media reports suggesting that the US military has stepped up patrols in the South China Sea with a claim to ensure freedom of navigation and flight — acts that China considers provocative
While world focus was shifted to Indian PM Narendra Modi’s visit to Iran and other key Gulf states, Asia’s biggest defense summit, Shangri-La Dialogue, concluded in Singapore on Sunday with China sending a clear message to all and sundry that the presence of the US warships in South China Sea won’t deter its commitment to promote peaceful coexistence; but this desire should not be taken as its weakness.
At the weekend-long moot, a Chinese military official reiterated his country’s yearning for peace and progress. The Chinese delegation was led by Admiral Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of staff of the People’s Liberation Army, who told the participants of the summit that his country wanted peace and not war.
“We do not make trouble, but we have no fear of trouble,” vowed Admiral Sun, saying China would ignore a ruling expected in next few weeks by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on a Philippines’ challenge to China’s sovereignty claim over a key sea route between the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The statement of Chinese admiral comes amid media reports suggesting that the US military has stepped up patrols in the South China Sea with a claim to ensure freedom of navigation and flight — acts that China considers provocative and targeting its sovereignty and security interests.
However, irrespective of the China’s commitment to peaceful coexistence, the US navy’s war drills in South China can become a nuclear flashpoint anytime as no one can guarantee peace with militaries from two nuclear states come face-to-face.
This is not the first time that China has expressed its reservations about US military’s presence in the South China Sea. US and China also traded harsh accusations in May with two Chinese fighter jets and a US military reconnaissance aircraft flying over the South China Sea.
China has time and again expressed its concerns over the US military’s presence in the South China waters, declaring it “unwarranted” and interpreted as “battlefield preparations”. China has said that freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is not in trouble at all. The Chinese stance on freedom of navigation, according to experts, allows China and other claimants more room to maneuver and compromise.
The China-Philippines conflict:
In order to understand the conflict, one needs to delve into the history of Nansha islands in the South China Sea which is the largest marginal Sea in the West Pacific region, covering an area of 3.5 million kilometers.
It connects the Pacific through the Bashi and Balintang channels in the northeast, the area links the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca in the southwest is rich in fisheries and oil and gas reserves, the sea play an important role in the economic development of the coastal countries.
China has sovereignty over four archipelagos in the South China Sea, namely, the Xisha, Nansha, Zhongsha and Dongsha Islands, which are indicated by the dash lines on the map drawn in 1947. The Nansha Islands or the Spratly Islands comprise over 230 islands, islets, sandbanks, rocks and shoals that are scattered along a 1,000 kilometer span from the southeast to the northwest of the Sea.
Successive Chinese government have exercised jurisdiction over these islands in the South China Sea since ancient times. The Nansha islands have been coveted by all major powers since the dawn of 20th century.
The disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea surfaced when Philippines occupied maritime features in the Nansha Islands in the 1970s in violation of the UN Charter thus occupying maritime feature of China’s Nansha Islands.
In June 1978, the Philippines issued the Presidential Decree 1596, which unlawfully designated a so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” to encompass some of the maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands and claimed sovereignty over them.
The Chinese government has been all along committed to solving disputes of overlapping claims of territorial and maritime rights through negotiation and consultation in accordance with the international law
In 2009, the Philippines revised the Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines listed Nansha Island and Huangyan and blatantly listed parts of China’s Nansha Islands and Huangyan Island into its own territory.
To deny China’s territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights and interests, the Philippines took irresponsible unilateral steps, such as illegal construction, oil and gas exploration and detention of Chinese fishermen. Philippines further eyes at ‘legalising’ the illegal occupation through expansion of maritime features and military facilities.
The bombing of the signs of Chinese sovereignty, ‘running aground’ an old naval ship, exploitation of oil and gas and arrested, abused and shot dead Chinese fishermen has escalated tensions and aggravated the disputes over the South China Sea between China and the Philippines.
The Philippines unilaterally conducted oil and gas exploitation in the disputed waters in the South China Sea and arrested, detained, abused and shot dead Chinese fishermen, in an attempt to impose its claims of maritime rights and interests on the Chinese people and government.
Philippines moves arbitration tribunal:
In January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration proceedings with respect to the disputes with China in the South China Sea.
The Philippines unilaterally initiated the arbitration, disregarding the consensus between China and the Philippines on settling relevant disputes through negotiations and consultations, the solemn commitment of the Philippines in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and the legitimate rights that China enjoys as a sovereign state and a contracting party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) to independently choose dispute settlement mechanisms and procedures.
Why China refuses to arbitrary tribunal:
The Chinese government does not accept or participate in the arbitration as it deems unilateral arbitration violates basic international law. There is long consensus between both countries that bilateral talks will be held to sort out differences. The Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the consensus between the two sides on settling disputes through negotiation and violates the basic norm of ’pacta sunt servanda’ of international law.
Article 280 of UNCLOS stipulates that nothing impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice. The true intention of the Philippines’ initiation of the arbitration is to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.
International law says arbitration should be initiated by parties involved; the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the arbitration runs counter to the basic legal principles for arbitration. In the presence of work mechanisms by both countries like confidence-building experts group in 2011, the Philippines issued a joint statement with China in which it stated its commitment to settling disputes through negotiations and consultations.
However, after just one year, the Philippines raised disputes with China for arbitration without notifying China beforehand sans China’s consent, a treacherous act indeed.
A biased trial?
The Philippines chose to launch the arbitration case when Shunji Yanai, a Japanese national with whose state China has long-standing disputes, worked as president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
According to the rules of international law and common practice in the world, Shunji Yanai should have excused himself from this case. The composition of the arbitration is clearly against procedural justice as Shunji Yanai has appointed four of the five arbitrators in the tribunal who were firmly opposed to China’s similar positions in relevant previous cases.
The arbitration tribunal has shown disdain for peaceful settlement of international disputes and reached out to matters beyond its jurisdiction and violated the rights of states. Furthermore, the tribunal acted less as a judge and more like a partner of Philippines and has made a great many factual and legal mistakes.
International response:
Shortly after taking office in January 2009, the Obama administration signaled shifting of the US’s strategic priority to the Asia-Pacific region, which obviously contributed to the confidence of the other claimants in the South China Sea to challenge China.
Of late, US warships have maintained permanent presence in the South China Sea. The military presence of China and US may threaten the peaceful environment in the region.
Xinhua, the official press agency of China, reported in May 2016 that about 40 countries had expressed their support on China’s stance on the preference for bilateral talks than arbitration. Those nations who support Chinese stance also include key regional players like Russia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
India has been making contradictory statements regarding the arbitration case, initially saying that the dispute should be settled through peaceful means. However, in year 2015, India supported Philippines’ stance to take up case to arbitration.
Later on April 13, 2016, after a trilateral communiqué by the foreign ministers of India, China, and Russia, the three countries issued a joint statement regarding the South China Sea dispute, saying it should not be “internationalised” and rather it should be resolved mutually by the parties concerned.
However, a week later, India again took another summersault, by issuing a joint statement with the United States, stating that maritime security and freedom of navigation in the region including the South China Sea should be upheld. South Korea has maintained its neutrality. Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand sent observers to the proceedings.
China’s quest for peaceful resolution of island dispute:
The Chinese government has been all along committed to solving disputes of overlapping claims of territorial and maritime rights through negotiation and consultation in accordance with the international law and on historical facts. Since the 1960s, China has settled boundary questions with 12 of its 14 land neighbours through negotiations. It is fair to say that a bilateral agreement between China and Philippines will be in line of a perfect example of how New China pursues the independent foreign policy and the policy of good neighbourliness.
On 4 November 2002, China signed the DOC with the Philippines and other ASEAN countries. Paragraph 4 of the DOC explicitly states that, “The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means … through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognised principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
Double standards on Kashmir, Palestine and South China Sea:
It is an irony that the world community observes double standards over intra-state disputes. Despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians have been blatantly killed, injured and maimed in the conflicts of Indian-Occupied Kashmir and Palestine since 1940s, the world community have time and again advised the aggressor and victim parties to have a ‘mutual dialogue’ for resolution of territorial disputes, leaving the conflicts more complicated.
But when it comes to South China Sea, it seems as if there is some other standard as provocative statements by the world powers suggest the peaceful Asia Pacific is being threatened.
