The South China Sea conflict

By Noralyn Dudt

A Bump here and there can become SERIOUS COLLISIONS.

Geographic coordinates 8 38N, 111 55E are the Spratly Islands, roughly midway between the Philippines and South Vietnam. Named after the 19th-century British whaling captain Richard Spratly who sighted the islands in 1843, Spratly is composed of islands,  islets, cays,  and more than a hundred reefs, sometimes grouped in submerged old atolls. While it is largely uninhabited,  it offers rich fishing grounds and may contain significant oil and natural gas reserves which are vital to the countries filing claims in their attempts to establish international boundaries. The Philippines,  Malaysia,  Vietnam,  China, Taiwan and Brunei have all laid claim. Nautical charts bear the notation "dangerous ground" on some areas that are not well sounded in the South China Sea. More recently, a "dangerous ground" designation has risen from the disputes that is becoming an international crisis as China aggressively pushes its claims.

The following is to highlight essential and previously neglected dynamics of the dispute. A dispute that has become a conflict because of increased violent confrontation.

The Philippines claims the northeastern section of the Spratly Islands as the Kalayaan Island Group, in addition to the Scarborough Shoal, which it calls the Bajo de Masinloc. The Philippines claims that title to the Scarborough Shoal  passed from Spain to the United States in 1898 along with other maritime features surrounding the Philippine archipelago.  Following the independence from the United  States, the Philippines inherited the title to the Scarborough Shoal.  Moreover, the Philippine claim is also backed by international law through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Philippines refers to the UNCLOS ' concept of a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone ( EEZ) when justifying its claims. Most of the Filipino-claimed islands and reefs thus fall within the Philippines' EEZ. 

Malaysia claims part of the Kalayaan Island, while China and Taiwan claim the entirety of the island group. Since 1985, Brunei has claimed a continental shelf that overlaps a southern reef but has not made any formal claim to the reef. Brunei claims an exclusive economic zone over this area. In the 1970s, South Vietnam occupied three of the Spratly Islands (including Spratly island itself) to forestall Chinese occupation. Troops from Taiwan remained on Itu Aba. The Philippines then moved forces onto seven of the remaining islets and built an airstrip in 1976 on Pag-asa Island.

China asserts that its claim to the Spratlys dates back centuries,  basing its claim on historical evidence of Chinese presence on some of the islands back to the Xia Dynasty (21st 16th centuries B.C.) It claims that the Chinese were the first to "name, map, study, use and patrol the South China Sea and the islands therein and that they have found Chinese coins on the island. To fortify that claim, China was rapidly constructing an airfield on Fiery Cross Reef while continuing its land reclamation activities at other sites, according to a 2015 satellite imagery.  Since 2014, tiny reefs and sandbars have been built up into artificial islands heavily fortified with missiles, runways and weapons systems. China's dredging activities drew increased international attention amidst speculation it was planning to further develop its military presence in the area. China's military maneuvers in the Spratlys have been escalating in just the past few weeks. A Chinese warplane fired flares in front of a Canadian military helicopter over International waters of the South China Sea last Sunday, October 29th, an operation that Canadian military officers said was reckless and could have resulted in the downing of the aircraft. The incident was the second of two encounters the Ottawa's helicopter had with the Chinese People's Liberation Army  Navy J-11 fighter jets over international waters.

And just recently the intentional bumping of Chinese ships into Philippine vessels has alarmed not only the United States, Japan, and South Korea but also the European Union. A Philippine supply boat collided with a China Coast Guard vessel attempting to block it during an operation to supply the grounded LST BRP Sierra Madre ( LS57) at Second Thomas Shoal. Additionally,  a Philippine Coast Guard patrol vessel was also bumped by a Chinese Maritime Militia during the mission,  according to a statement from the Philippines National Task Force for the West Philippine Sea. "The provocative, irresponsible,  and illegal action of CCGV 5203 imperiled the safety of the crew of Unaiza May 2," read the statement.

Ambassadors to the Philippines from the US, Japan,  Germany, and the United Kingdom, voiced their concerns on social media on the incident. A most recent incident was a Chinese fighter jet coming within 10 feet of B-52 bomber over South China Sea.

The Chinese Communist Party-controlled Global Times is already forecasting "more serious collisions." In the near term, the risk of China damaging a Philippine Coast Guard vessel or sinking one of the small Philippine government-chartered vessels is high. This escalating tension had prompted  Australia to offer help with Philippine ships patrolling in the area. To date, Japan is sending its latest/newest amphibious vessels to aid the Philippine Navy and reconnaissance/radar equipment to the Philippine Air Force in the South China Sea.

Many are asking, why are a number of a tiny reefs and islands that are almost uninhabitable disputed by six different nations? And why are major powers joining the fray? The existing literature tends to focus on two main reasons for the dispute: resources and strategic concerns.

The South China Sea,  with the Strait of Malacca forms the main transport route between the Pacific and Indian oceans, and the East China Sea serves as the main shipping route from the South China Sea to Japanese and other North Pacific ports. Generally, oil and minerals move north, and food and manufactured goods move south. The 1.3- mile-square-mile waterway is vital to International trade, with an estimated third of global shipping worth trillions of dollars passing through each year. It's also home to vast fertile fishing grounds upon which many lives and livelihoods depend. Major western powers frequently conduct passage across the sea to assert that the region is international waters. A military presence such as an airfield located in the Spratlys could effectively halt all shipping in the event of a conflict. It would certainly create a global economic crisis.

One major definitional issue impacts the dispute; what constitutes an island? According to UNCLOS, an island has an EEZ of its own,  while rocks and reefs do not. UNCLOS' article 121 defines an island as a "naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. Rocks which can not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf". China claims that all of its occupied features are islands with individual EEZs, despite not all of them being naturally above sea level at high tide.

In 2016, an international tribunal in the Hague concluded that China had  no legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea. With China's recent military maneuvers—clashes with the Philippine Navy, U.S. B-52, and a Canadian helicopter—is China intentionally ignoring the Hague  ruling? 

The historical, political, and economic reasons behind these countries’ territorial claims over the Spratly Islands all seem reasonable. Ideally, the Spratlys should go to the country that is most equipped and most qualified to sustainably develop the islands' resources and protect their diverse marine ecosystems; however,  that is no small feat as none of the five countries involved in the territorial dispute are known for their green technology. Some have called for military intervention by the United States. Smaller countries such as the Philippines,  Malaysia and Vietnam have been fighting China's military intimidation for the past 20 years (Lohman 2009). China's historical claim to the islands is weak.  However, its strong military intimidation has kept it a key player in the Spratly Islands dispute.

Some argue that the Philippines should take sovereignty over the islands because it has had the most success and experience with maintaining marine ecosystems,  plus the islands are well within the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The Philippines has almost 10% of the world's marine protected areas (MPAs), which were created in response to the country's rampant cyanide and dynamite fishing in  the 1970s and 1980s ( Yan 2012). No one can pass through,  fish or dive in MPAs except to conduct scientific research.  With more than 500 MPA sites within Philippine waters, the government as well as the military is highly experienced in dealing with marine ecosystems and management. Furthermore,  the MPAs have shown signs of great success in conservation.

In contrast, China's use of dredged sand and coral to build artificial islands harms reefs systems; illegal fishing practices indiscriminately harvest endangered species,  including sea turtles and giant clams.

China with a land mass of 9.6 million square kilometers (3.7 million  square miles) has an economy that has grown to one of the largest and most powerful in the world over the past few decades. Instead of employing systematic efforts to refine method of converting economic influence into economic coercion throughout the Asia-Pacific and beyond, the world hopes that China reconciles  itself to a supporting role in the liberal international order.

A subtext in President Biden's speech, "countries seeking to be leaders need to be demonstrably influential," is so appropriate in this South China Sea conflict.

 

Noralyn Onto Dudt  whose write-ups on the Coronavirus and vaccines during the Covid-19 period, is now focusing her attention to current events.