29/11/2011
Two different approaches to the complex and difficult South China Sea issue have become clear. One, expressed consistently and strongly by the Chinese, is that the issue should be seen only as a local issue, not a global one. Beijing reacted strongly to Hillary Clinton’s expression of the US interest at the ASEAN summit in Vietnam in July 2010.[1] On his official web-site, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi reportedly warned against America’s getting involved in the issue, arguing that it would increase regional tensions. ‘What will be the consequences if this issue is turned into an international or multilateral one ? It will only make matters worse and the resolution more difficult….The consensus is to have these disputes resolved peacefully through friendly consultations in the interest of peace and stability in the South China sea and good neighbourly relations.’ [2] The South China Sea problem was a local one, and it was only up to the locals to sort it out. With so many claimants to the area, and such complex over-lapping jurisdictional issues to be resolved, the problem was already complicated and sensitive enough; why make things worse by involving other countries with no particular claim on the area ?
By way of contrast, the early 20th Century strategist Sir Halford Mackinder made many years ago what many would regard as the key point: ‘The unity of the ocean is the simple physical fact underlying the dominant value of sea-power in the modern globe-wide world.’[3]Because the sea is ‘all joined up’ external countries, outside the immediate region, have a major stake in the management and outcome of the dispute, especially if they are maritime in nature, and so should be expected to want to express their interests in it. For that basic reason, the South China Sea dispute necessarily becomes a global one and the global community has a stake in its peaceful management, and hopefully one day, resolution. ‘One measure of the strength of a community of nations, ‘ said Mrs Clinton is how it responds to threats to its members, neighbours and region.’ [4] The position that the South China Sea dispute was a global one with global implications and consequences was taken further by Robert Gates at the Shangri-La Dialogue in June 2011. As a result those implications and consequences… are seen as justifying the United States and other outside countries in seeking to maintain a role in defence of their wider interest in the area. Mr Gates was even prepared to bet $100 that for this reason, ‘five years from now the United States’s influence in this region [will be] as strong if not stronger than it is today.’ [5]
So, the question arises, why does the United States and why do other external countries take such an interest in the South China Sea issue and what is likely to be the consequence of this ?
(continuing)
Read full text of this paper here
[1] It is worth making the point, however, that many aspects of Mrs Clinton’s speech were foreshadowed in a State Department statement of 10 may 1995. Little of the speech should really have come as a surprise.
[2] ‘China Warns US to Stay Out of Islands Dispute’ New York Times, 26 July 2010.
[3] Halford Mackinder, Britain and the British Seas (London: D. Appleton & Co Ltd., 1914) p 12.
[4] ‘US takes on Maritime Spats’ Wall Street Journal 24 July 2010
[5] ‘Not Littorally Shangri-La’ The Economist 9 June 2011.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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...
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...