China’s Asserted Sovereignty in South China Sea Troubles US

United States is in both an economic and rhetorical war with China, which could precipitously dissolve into military action

Collected sources–DiMarkco Chandler:

In the complex world of foreign politics, the United States is presently in heated debate with China on many fronts. A comprehensive understanding of these tense disagreements will unsettle most Americans and reveal our troubling predicament in international Asian affairs. In fact, several areas of disagreement are so strained one could perceive that at any moment their provocative rhetoric could very well turn to blows. And with stakes as high as they could be, America would be remiss if their conflicting issues didn’t take priority in our national dialogue. To put it simply, we wouldn’t know what hit us. You see, most of us are consumed with stories exploiting the affairs of Hollywood celebrities. Not a wise use of time when our very way of life is coming unraveled at the seams both domestically and internationally.  It’s my hope that this brief overview of the tensions between U.S. and China, which appears to be on a collision cause, will motivate us to start paying a bit more attention to our foreign relations with China.

While there are many concerns that trouble our government over recent positions, rhetoric, and actions by China, the Beijing government has equally expressed strong disapproval of American positions, rhetoric and behavior. Among our concerns stand four very serious issues worth mentioning in this article, however, I am only able to adequately cover two. Hence, I will briefly discuss China’s currency manipulation as I quickly transition to our primary topic of the day which it China’s recent stance and actions is the South China Sea. The topic is extremely volatile and should be discussed often in order to be mentally prepared us all in the event our negotiable disagreements precipitously dissolve into military action.

Before we get into the South China Sea controversy, let’s first highlight U.S. concerns over the Chinese government’s deliberate manipulation of its currency, which consequently makes their exports less expensive. Instead of competing in the world market, China has resorted to cheating. As a result, American companies are forced out of business, because U.S. exports are more expensive, while cheap imports pervade  our market; kissing goodbye any chance for us to revive our manufacturing industry. A report released last year estimated that our trade deficit with China, exacerbated by Chinese currency manipulation, has caused the loss of more than 2.8 million American jobs since 2001—including more than 1.9 manufacturing jobs. Ohio alone has lost more than 100,000 of those manufacturing jobs.

According to Fred Bergsten of Peterson Institute, Currency manipulation provides an unfair subsidy to Chinese exports—of up to 40 percent. You see, when American manufacturers try to sell their products to China—our nation’s fastest growing export market—they are hit with the same percentage in what amounts to an unfair tariff; thus, the cost advantages enjoyed by Chinese manufactures cost American jobs.

No matter how you look at our present relationship with China, the manipulation of their currency is clearly an egregious step that provide them with a significant unfair advantage and our lawmakers seemed paralyzed to do anything about what could be characterized at aggression and leave us resolute as Americans to demand our legislators to stop their unproductive pretense and start managing America’s most paramount affairs.

Now this brings us to a situation that is currently of imminent importance concerning China’s apparent implied sovereignty in the South China Sea.

Specifically, Beijing is presently embroiled in a dangerous dispute with their Asian Pacific neighbors over the South China Sea. In recent hours China’s rhetoric directed at a recent State Department Press Release has tensions dangerously high. The Asia-Pacific website, ft.com, reporting just hours ago that “China and the US stepped up their war of words over territorial deputes in the South China Sea… with the Chinese foreign ministry calling in senior US diplomat to protest [recent] remarks by the US state department.

Reuter’s reported that Beijing determined that statements made by the U.S. in the press were disappointing. The news agency specifically said that the State Department finds “that China’s establishing of a military garrison for the area runs ‘counter to collaborative diplomatic efforts to resolve differences and risk further escalating tensions in the region.’”

Reuter’s reports that China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Kunshung “summoned the U.S. Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission, Robert Wang” to inform him that the State Department’s Press Release “Disregarded the facts, confused right with wrong, sent a seriously wrong signal and did not help with efforts by relevant parties to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea or the Asia Pacific…. China expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition, urges the U.S. side to immediately mend the error of its ways, earnestly respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and do more to genuinely benefit stability and prosperity in the Asia Pacific.

Clearly, China’s rhetoric is quite aggressive and perhaps only an incident or two away from being able to retract. What makes their acrimonious behavior more alarming is can be seen as you peruse through a history of two decades in which Beijing has pursued a consistent policy in the South China Sea composed of two main elements: gradually strengthening the country’s territorial and jurisdictional claims while at the same time endeavoring to assure Southeast Asian countries of its peaceful intentions. Recent moves by China to bolster its maritime claims have brought the first element into sharp relief, while reassurances of benign intent have, however, been in short supply. Indeed, far from assuaging Southeast Asian concerns regarding its assertive behavior, China has fuelled them by brazenly exploiting divisions within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to further its own national interests. This was evident when

Commentaries in China’s state-run media analyzing the South China Sea issue have become markedly less conciliatory. Opinion pieces highlight several new themes in China’s official line. One theme is that China’s territory, sovereignty as well as its maritime rights and interests increasingly are being challenged by Southeast Asian nations and Japan in the South and East China Seas. China’s response, it is argued, should be to uphold its claims more vigorously, increase its military presence in contested waters, and, if necessary, be prepared to implement coercive measures against other countries. As one commentary notes “Cooperation must be in good faith, competition must be strong, and confrontation must be resolute” (Caixin, July 13).

Another theme is that, while China has shown restraint, countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam have been pursuing provocative and illegal actions in a bid to “plunder” maritime resources such as hydrocarbons and fisheries which China regards as its own (China Daily, July 30).

A third theme is that Manila and Hanoi continue to encourage U.S. “meddling” in the South China Sea and that the United States uses the dispute as a pretext to “pivot” its military forces toward Asia (Global Times, July 11). To reverse these negative trends, Chinese commentators have urged the government to adopt more resolute measures toward disputed territories and maritime boundaries. Nationalist sentiment, they argue, demands no less.

Recent measures undertaken by the Chinese authorities do indeed suggest a more hard-line position. Ominously, some of the initiatives have included a strong military element, presumably as a warning to the other claimants that China is ready to play hardball.

Perhaps the most noteworthy attempt by China to bolster its jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea was the raising of the administrative status of Sansha from county to prefecture level in June. Sansha originally was established in 2007 as an administrative mechanism to “govern” the Paracel Islands, Macclesfield Bank and the Spratly Islands. Sansha’s elevation was an immediate response to a law passed on June 21  by Vietnam’s national assembly, which reiterated Hanoi’s sovereignty claims to the Paracels and Spratlys. Both Vietnam and China protested the other’s move as a violation of their sovereignty (Bloomberg, June 21). Less than a month later, Sansha’s municipal authorities elected a mayor and three deputy mayors and China’s Central Military Commission authorized the establishment of a garrison for “managing the city’s national defense mobilization, military reserves and carrying out military operations (Xinhua, July 20).

Earlier, in late June, China’s Defense Ministry announced it had begun “combat ready” patrols in the Spratly Islands to “protect national sovereignty and [China’s] security development interests” (Reuters, June 28). Embarrassingly for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy, however, on July 13, one of its frigates ran aground on Half Moon Shoal, 70 miles west of the Philippine island of Palawan and within the Philippines 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The frigate was refloated within 24 hours, suggesting that other PLA Navy vessels were nearby when the incident occurred. These developments provide further evidence of the growing militarization of the dispute.

China also has moved to undercut the claims and commercial activities of the Philippines and Vietnam in the South China Sea in other ways.

In June, the state-run China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) invited foreign energy companies to bid for exploration rights in nine blocks in the South China Sea. The blocks lie completely within Vietnam’s EEZ and overlap with those offered for development to foreign energy corporations by state-owned Petro Vietnam. Accordingly, Hanoi vigorously protested CNOOC’s tender (Bloomberg, June 27). More importantly the blocks are located at the edge of China’s nine-dash line map and seem to support the argument that Beijing interprets the dashes as representing the outermost limits of its “historic rights” in the South China Sea. Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), however, coastal states are not entitled to “historic rights” on the high seas. It is therefore unlikely that any of the major energy giants will bid for CNOOC’s blocks—although smaller companies may do so if only to curry favor with Beijing with a view to landing more lucrative contracts down the road. If, however, exploration does move forward in any of the nine blocks, a clash between Vietnamese and Chinese coast guard vessels will become a very real possibility.

On the issue of ownership of Scarborough Shoal, scene of a tense standoff between Chinese and Philippines fishery protection vessels in May-June, China position remains uncompromising. At the annual ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in July, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi restated China’s sovereignty claims to the shoal, rejected the notion that it was disputed and accused Manila of “making trouble” (Xinhua, July 13). According to the Philippine foreign ministry, Chinese trawlers―protected by Chinese paramilitary vessels—continue to fish in waters close to Scarborough Shoal in contravention of a bilateral accord whereby both sides agreed to withdraw their vessels [1].

Following the ARF, China kept up the pressure on the Philippines. In mid-July, it dispatched a flotilla of 30 fishing trawlers to the Spratlys escorted by the 3,000-ton fisheries administration vessel Yuzheng 310 (Xinhua, July 15). The trawlers collected coral and fished near Philippine-controlled Pag-asa Island and Chinese-controlled Mischief and Subi Reefs (Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 27). The Philippine authorities monitored the situation but took no action.

In the past, after China has undertaken assertive actions in the South China Sea it has tried to calm Southeast Asia’s jangled nerves. At the series of ASEAN-led meetings in Phnom Penh in mid-July, however, Chinese officials offered virtually no reassurances to their Southeast Asian counterparts. Worse still, China seems to have utilized its influence with Cambodia to scupper attempts by ASEAN to address the problem, causing a breakdown in ASEAN unity.

In the final stages of the annual meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers (known as the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting or AMM), the Philippines and Vietnam wanted the final communiqué to reflect their serious concerns regarding the Scarborough Shoal incident and the CNOOC tender. They were supported by Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand who felt that ASEAN should speak with one voice. Cambodia—which holds the rotating chairmanship of ASEAN and has close political and economic ties with China— objected because, in the words of Foreign Minister Hor Namhong, “ASEAN cannot be used as a tribunal for bilateral disputes” (Straits Times, July 22). Attempts by Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to reach a compromise on the wording were unsuccessful and for the first time in its 45-year history the AMM did not issue a final communiqué.

The fallout from the AMM was immediate and ugly. Natalegawa labelled ASEAN’s failure to reach agreement “irresponsible” and that the organization’s centrality in the building of the regional security architecture had been put at risk (Straits Times, July 16). Singapore’s Foreign Minister, K. Shanmugam described the fiasco as a “sever dent” in ASEAN’s credibility (Straits Times, July 14). Cambodia and the Philippines blamed the failure on each other. Cambodia was pilloried by the regional press for its lack of leadership and for putting its bilateral relationship with China before the overall interests of ASEAN. One analyst alleged  Cambodian officials had consulted with their Chinese counterparts during the final stages of talks to reach an agreement on the communiqué [2]. China’s Global Times characterized the outcome of the AMM as a victory for China, which does not think ASEAN is an appropriate venue to discuss the dispute, and a defeat for the Philippines and Vietnam (Global Times, July 16).

A few days after the AMM, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dispatched his foreign minister to five Southeast Asian capitals in an effort to restore ASEAN unity. Natalegawa’s shuttle diplomacy resulted in an ASEAN foreign minister’s statement of July 20 on “ASEAN’s Six-Point Principles on the South China Sea” [3]. The six points, however, broke no new ground and merely reaffirmed ASEAN’s bottom line consensus on the South China Sea. In response to the joint statement, China’s Foreign Ministry said it would work with ASEAN to implement the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC) (Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 21).

One of the six points calls for the early conclusion of a code of conduct (CoC) for the South China Sea, but the Phnom Penh debacle has made that target highly doubtful.

Although China agreed to discuss a CoC with ASEAN in November 2011, Beijing always has been lukewarm about such an agreement, preferring instead to focus on implementing the DoC. Undeterred, earlier this year ASEAN began drawing up guiding principles for a code and in June agreed on a set of “proposed elements.” While much of the document is standard boiler plate, there are two aspects worthy of attention.

The first is that ASEAN calls for a “comprehensive and durable” settlement of the dispute, a phrase that seems to repudiate Deng Xiaoping’s proposal that the parties should shelve their sovereignty claims and jointly develop maritime resources. Clearly, the four ASEAN claimants have rejected Deng’s formula as it would be tantamount to recognizing China’s “indisputable sovereignty” over the South China Sea atolls.

The second interesting aspect concerns mechanisms for resolving disputes arising from violations or interpretations of the proposed code. The document suggests that disputing parties turn to the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) or dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS. Neither, however, would be of much utility. While the TAC does provide for a dispute resolution mechanism in the form of an ASEAN High Council, this clause has never been invoked due to the highly politicized nature of the High Council and the fact that it cannot issue binding rulings. Moreover, although China acceded to the TAC in 2003, Beijing almost certainly would oppose discussion of the South China Sea at the High Council because it would be outnumbered 10 to 1.

UNCLOS does provide for binding dispute resolution mechanisms, including the submission of disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). China always has rejected a role for the ICJ in resolving the territorial disputes in the South China Sea and, in 2006, China exercised its right to opt out of ITLOS procedures concerning maritime boundary delimitation and military activities.

On July 9, Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying had indicated to ASEAN foreign ministers that China was willing to start talks on a CoC in September. Two days later, however, as ASEAN wrangled over their final communiqué, Foreign Minister Yang seemed to rule this out when he stated discussions could only take place “when the time was ripe” (Straits Times, July 11). At present ASEAN and China are not scheduled to hold any meetings on the CoC, though officials currently are discussing joint cooperative projects under the DoC.

If and when the two sides do sit down to discuss the CoC, it is probable that Beijing will demand all reference to dispute resolution be removed on the grounds that the proposed code is designed to manage tensions only and that the dispute can only be resolved between China and each of the other claimants on a one-on-one basis. Taken together, these developments have dimmed seriously the prospect of China and ASEAN reaching agreement on a viable code of conduct for the South China Sea any time soon. As such, the status quo will continue for the foreseeable future.

China’s position does not appear to be changing when it comes to this particular disputed territory. And it is causing everyone in the region to feel uncomfortable which could lead to instability, especially since the sea handles more than $50 trillion of the world’s export and import market.

I will next visit China’s rhetoric with Iran in my follow up article and it is certainly a subject you won’t want to miss.

6 Responses to "China’s Asserted Sovereignty in South China Sea Troubles US"

  1. pulu   August 17, 2012 at 3:52 am

    this article in not true. it is one sided living the report in chinas advantage. should get more facts than fictions. youre just getting your info in chinas daily news. no wonder why you reported just like this one. you should use fair journalism.

    Reply
  2. mergui1223   August 6, 2012 at 1:31 am

    “The manipulation of their currency is clearly an egregious step that provide them with a significant unfair advantage ”
    Even if the currency rate become 1:1,made in china is still cheaper than made in USA.The price is not only depend upon exchange rate but also on the minimum wages and employee benefits etc.Almost all asian countries including Korea,Japan and Taiwan manipulate currency.US also manipulate currency by pouring trillions of dollars into world market.Trade imbalance will continue until minimum wage and living standard in developing countries particularly China and India equal to that of US.

    Reply
  3. Ferolaine Cuyos Roxas   August 6, 2012 at 1:09 am

    In the side of sovereignty in the side of state royal minority ,neither USA nor China war prognosis is acceptable. We all knew that USA is playing the games of trickery with other Asians nations at their best of political interest. China maybe a political hardliner during the Florentine of its communism – an advantage ally of Germany. Those were the time but no longer that China as of today. And After The Fall of Berlin.

    I can say that my Statute grand father Emperor Henry deManchu was neither a weak Emperor or a very tight Comte of Paris. But this times Chinese insistent of sovereignty is actually paying its retributive unresolved past crimes against its royal family.

    For China to insist further a sovereignty nearly a hundred years of political prodigal governance…is the absolute possibility of CHINA MAY BE DELETED FROM WORLD MAP.

    Reply
    • mergui1223   August 6, 2012 at 1:43 am

      Before the US China war begin world stock market will plummet endlessly, world economy will collapse, inflation will skyrocket and everybody’s life will be in hell. The world is moving closer to the brink of extermination! God save who save himself.

      Reply
  4. mergui1223   August 6, 2012 at 1:00 am

    It is causing everyone in the region to feel uncomfortable which could lead to instability, especially since the sea handles more than $50 trillion of the world’s export and import market.
    Don’t forget that China’s trade with the countries of the world accounted for the vast majority of trade handle at south china sea.That’s why China is showing restrain in territory dispute.
    War is inevitable if any country including US use territory dispute to contain China.

    Reply
  5. Lost mind   August 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    this is really nonsense and nobody knows what he is talking about, why the US cares and why it is related with us, his mind is a mess and he has departed from any clue

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.