Policy Brief: The China South Sea Dispute

Answer

Policy Brief: The China South Sea Dispute

Title: The China Border Conflict

To: The Minister of Foreign Affairs

From: Head Analyst for Foreign Affairs to China

Situation:

            The dispute over the Island and maritime territories on the South China Sea rages on. The People’s Republic of China, Brunei, Republic of China, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines are the participants in the contention (Wilson, 2016).

We are currently conducting freedom of navigation to ensure that the region under controversy remains international waters.  Given the approximated three trillion dollars’ worth of businesses that pass through the south part of the China Sea, our presence is necessary.

Significance

            China is the primary antagonist as it claims that more than 80% of the South China Sea is within their territory (Wilson, 2016).  The PRC, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and the Philippines agreed on some guidelines which would help resolve the dispute On 20 July 2011, but it seems the problem of natural gas and oil drilling remains unresolved (Atanasova, 2015).

            There is heavy military presence in the area, by china and they continue with developmental projects on the islands under disagreement regardless of agreeing to talks and negotiations. Our primary concern stems from our duty to fair trade of all nations on these international waters and safeguarding our economic interests that facilitate trade between the U.S. and China. If there were to be an altercation that involves the military between any two or more countries involved in this dispute, it would be a global catastrophe. This demands the world’s attention and mediation, with the U.S. at the forefront.

Analysis

            The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which is an arbitrary tribunal under Annex VII,  ruled against china’s claims of ownership of the land and maritime under dispute in 2016 (United Nations, 1987).  The People’s Republic of China ignored the ruling and refused to adhere to it, stating that the only way to solve the matter was through negotiations with the other countries claiming ownership.

            It is not only the waters that are an area of contention but also islands, and various places along the Gulf of Tonkin. The dispute goes further down near the Natuna Islands that have always been claimed to be part of Indonesia, as the claimants want to retain rights to fishing and possible natural gas and crude oil exploitation.

            There are signs of an approaching war based on China’s temperament and lack of patience and tolerance momentarily. Considering the estimated 5 billion dollar trade claims it could be profiting from, if it continued reserving the area for itself, highlights itself as the biggest motivation for the determination by all parties to hold on strongly to the area. Moreover, ambition and national pride are also prevailing factors in the staunch resolutions to stay put in the area of dispute. The collective nations in the midst of this discord have always had amicable relations on trade and other things but at the recent Association of Southeast Asian Nations meeting in Manila, tensions were high, providing even further tell-tale signs of a regional economical war.

The History of the Dispute

            Text book territory dispute patterns can be marked in the South China Sea situation. Asia is rooted in colonial history dating back centuries, according to Beijing, and the tales of land divisions prior to independence are governing what PRC are morphing into law. (William, 2015) In 1947, Beijing outlined about 1,800 kilometers of land and sea territory, the “nine-dash line,” from equatorial Borneo to Hainan Island. That is the prototype map being currently used to claim the waters under dispute (William, 2015).

            The former President Benigno Aquino, of the Philippines, in 2013, sued Beijing effectively, through a United Nations tribunal, alleging that there had been violation of sovereign rights. The Philippines won this case. China however did not uphold the ruling and continued to dominate and claim the territory under contention (Stamlin, 2013).

Current Situation

            China has a few allies in the matter including Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippine president who has since partnered with Beijing, undermining Manila’s previous success. Additionally, Cambodia recently tried to downplay the harsh criticism China was receiving over their apparent dishonor to any agreements or rulings made regarding the area s of dispute (Stamlin, 2013).

            Vietnam is, however, pushing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to advocate for the nations involved in the dispute to restore adherence to agreements. This led to the Chinese minister cancelling a meeting with his Vietnamese counterpart recently. This must have been propelled further by the memory of China seizing land in Vietnam in 1974, killing about 70 Vietnamese soldiers. In 1988, they also clashed with Vietnam losing a further 60 soldiers (Stamlin, 2013), and in 2012, there were massive anti-China protests in Vietnam due to unclear navy intrusion. The war between China and Vietnam is deep seated in historic events and the dispute on the South China Sea definitely catapults it further into the wrong direction (Stamlin, 2013).

            China is unhappy with the U.S. presence claiming that is imposing their naval and military troops into the areas of dispute. The U.S., however, claims that it has recently been reported that China had deployed a missile on one of the contested islands (Zhuplev, 2008) and they therefore feel responsible for upholding international law, justifying our presence.

            Australia, the Philippines and Vietnam are concurrently expressing their concerns about all this military movements. However, China has dismissed these claims and said that they are adhering to the international law with which they are protecting themselves (Stamlin, 2013).

            China has found support and alliance in Cambodia in meeting with ASEAN, consequently preventing a consensus towards unified action. This might be due to Cambodia’s anti-Vietnam approach to the whole situation that was triggered by a different land dispute between the two prior (Stamlin, 2013).

            Indonesia does not claim any of the islands in the middle of the squabble and purports the positon of neutrality. This is regardless of the ‘nine dash line ’territory clearly going through some of its exclusive economic areas. China claims to recognize those areas as having sovereignty over those areas, they nonetheless claim them as their traditional fishing grounds. China has repeatedly been reported to have intruded into Indonesian water but always deny the accusations.  Indonesia seems uninterested or is too intimidated by China in being part of the ongoing disputes but claim that they are seriously protecting their sovereignty (Stamlin, 2013).

            Singapore is also claiming neutrality in the affair and stating that they are not part pf the claimants of the South China Sea. They however hope that China will obey international law and are encouraging dialogue amongst concerned parties (Stamlin, 2013).

Thailand seems to be taking a similar stance.

Current United States-China Relations

The United States is currently in disagreement with China in regards to the South China Sea. The fact that the US is not a member of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) further catalyzes the situation as the US has very little legal influence (United Nations, 1998).

            Nevertheless, the US is diplomatically trading the stalemate by proclaiming peaceful surveillance of the said region under the freedom of navigation act of international borders law (United States, 1969). Clinton’s comments about China not respecting international law in the dispute upset Beijing, and China viewed it as an attack on the. However, this has not yet deterred China and the US to continue to enjoy mutual economic interests. 

            The U.S. is interested in building an all-inclusive partnership with China by discussing key issues in the areas of climate changes, rule of law and human rights, helping Tibetan communities and pandemic diseases in an amicable manner. We are also interested in helping china integrate into global trading systems. Trade between the two has increased rapidly, especially in goods and services to $648 billion. It is the third largest exporter to the US market.

Possible Resolutions

In 1971, The People's Republic joined the United Nations in 1971, in Taiwan’s stead, as a permanent member of Security Council (United Nations, 1971). China is very active in multilateral proceedings since. Suggestions from some countries are that China should parley the Association of South East Asian Nations regarding the territories in dispute because they are smaller nations and lack the power, influence and clout that China has and is assumed to put them in an advantageous position. China however, prefers bilateral negotiations regardless of these reservations.

Conclusion

            China’s position on these maritime claims as per UNCLOS are not clearly defined, especially with the nine dash map. Originally, at the precipice of the whole dispute, china was adhering to international law but as time progressed, they have expanded their supposed territories; China is claiming sovereignty over all of the maritime space prompting their neighbors to cry foul.  Legally, their claims are invalid because they are based on the inconclusive historical claims. Given the ambiguity of these claims, the problem might not be solved very soon.

Ramifications

            Both China and the United States are informed enough to not prompt a war. It would be heavily consequential to both parties.

Under President Donald Trump, we have had repeated threats to stop Beijing from continuing to take control over islands on the South China Sea.  China on the other hand, is determined to claim, own and develop the said islands. The US claims that China has no right to have military presence at this area of the sea and is determined to stop China. This would mean that there.

Recommendations

            The US needs to steer clear of any military provocation they should continue to carry out their freedom of navigation to ensure that it remains a neutral territory of international trade as long as possible.

            ASEAN need to have a meeting where a discussion of China’s respect of international law should be highlighted. There should be consequences if these laws are broken. China has not shown any visible aggression towards ASEAN even though they were showing signs of breaking up. Even though Beijing has disregarded several rulings against their actions on the China South Sea matter, it still maintains its interest in maintaining amicable relations with other members of ASEAN, especially because they have open lines of trade that have, over time, proved beneficial to all of them. This is quite encouraging as it shows that China is open to working relations with concerned countries.

            Our presence on the international waters will remain useful o the smaller countries in the dispute, up until otherwise determined by international law. The issues going on at the China South Sea are worth global attention because the consequences of any unrest or war would have adverse global ramification.