Power Politics At Play In South China Sea: Part 1

The rest of the claimants might not like it, but the way things have shaped up so far this year, China will likely continue pushing the envelope in the South China Sea because Beijing prioritizes the controversial territory as a must-have in terms of its long-term national security strategy.

The United States on the other hand, despite proclaiming its commitment to maritime freedom of navigation on international waters, will only respond to Chinese actions in a limited manner, thanks to China’s nuclear capabilities and Washington’s fear of escalating to situation to an all-out war. On the other hand, Japan, in spite of its concerns, won’t have a lot of say on the issue as Beijing will continue lobbying Washington to keep Japan out of the equation.

Beijing and Washington have been at each other’s throats for months, fighting a rhetorical war over Chinese territorial claims and island buildings in the contested waters of the South China Sea. Moreover, China’s Foreign Ministry has chosen not to mince words when it comes to warning the U.S. military about taking any measures that could exacerbate tensions in the area by sailing naval vessels or flying aircraft near Chinese-held islands, most of which are located in waters that are being claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.

However, the U.S. has chosen not to sit idly by, with the Pentagon countering Chinese activity by stating that its ships and aircraft will travel along all the routes international law allows them to. Moreover, it has also informed regional allies that it will start conducting routine patrols near the Chinese installations soon.

Understanding the element of water in Asian politics

Unlike Europe, water is the organizing element of the continent in Asia. The dispute between two Pacific powers has a lot of significance in Asia. Ownership of anything from an island to a reef or even a rock is more than just a question of sentimentality and is a cornerstone of many national policy strategies. Having the right to patrol, build bases and regulate trade through waterways means that a country has direct access to resources critical to that country’s economic needs and political stability.

Therefore, it is not surprising to see that both Beijing and Washington’s perspectives on the South China Sea are divergent. China believes the dispute essentially to be a question of its sovereignty, while the United States has taken a posture that for now, has everything to do with freedom of navigation.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union following the end of the Cold War, the United States had always been the preeminent power in the Pacific Rim and was constantly assisted by its allies, Japan and South Korea. However, very slowly, without making much noise, China emerged as a potential regional hegemony, which is why the dispute over the South China Sea has now become harder to ignore. The issue was always there but came to the forefront only after China had progressed to a certain degree.

For decades, U.S. national strategy has revolved around maintaining its global superiority at sea. Following the end of World War II, the U.S. had increased its naval fleets and expanded its presence to all corners of the globe and, except for a little competition from Soviet Union, no other country could match it. Controlling all major sea routes meant that the United States was able to guarantee secure movement of its goods and deploy its military power worldwide. Through this, the U.S. has been able to preserve its global economic activity while also making sure that any threat to its national security is taken care of well before it reaches its border.

Need for China to have a presence in South China Sea

Now China’s emerging regional needs have created a conflict that has already started affecting the U.S. global imperative and its hegemony in the Pacific region. From a self-sufficient behemoth, China has evolved into a major exporter, which has forced Beijing to reassess its maritime risk, vulnerabilities and shortcomings. Without being able to secure the maritime routes it needs in order to maintain trade and cater to the needs of its industrial machinery, China will not be able to protect its economy for long, which is why Beijing’s stance on the South China Sea makes a lot of sense.

For the sake of its economy, the South China Sea is a critical waterway for China. Coupled with the diverse flora and fauna and subsea resources such as natural gas, China cannot ignore the importance of the disputed waters. For this reason, Beijing has invested a lot of time, energy and money for the building, training and deployment of a stronger navy while also making sure that the region acts as a buffer along its original coastline.

This assertive ownership and control over the sea apart from its claimed exclusive economic zone gives Beijing a great sense of security. Moreover, with neighboring claimants unable to directly challenge China’s actions in the South China Sea, the United States is also not sure if using force will actually halt Chinese expansion.

In order to pursue their respective foreign policy agendas, both the United States and China have chosen to look for a different interpretation of maritime law. The detailed intricacies of landforms have become an essential part of the political discourse. Four geographic terms are at serious play: island, rock, low tide elevation and artificial island. In order to understand the complex case of this conflict, it is imperative to understand the ambiguity of each of these terms.

Interpreting the international law of the seas

International law defines an island as a naturally formed elevation that is always above the high-tide level and is habitable and/or capable of sustaining economic activity. A rock, on the other hand, is formed naturally and is above the water’s surface but does not necessarily have to be suitable for habitation or economic exploitation. A low tide elevation can be covered by water during high tides but is exposed during low tides. An artificial island is different from an island in that it is not formed naturally. Disputes are always going to be complicated when it comes to considering seamounts, submerged rocks and other subsea landforms.

According to international law of the seas, an island is granted 12 nautical miles of sea around it and a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone which can be used to delineate a continental shelf that has implications for access to subsea resources. A rock, on the other hand, is granted a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea but no exclusive economic zone. A low tide elevation is not granted a territorial sea, but it can be used as a base point in claiming territorial waters if it lies within 12 nautical miles of land. The case with an artificial island is completely different since it is granted nothing other than a 500-meter safety zone.

Conduct within another country’s exclusive economic zone is open to interpretation. For instance, the United States claims that it is within its international legal rights for it to conduct military patrols inside these exclusive economic zones, while the Chinese consider this a hostile action which is against the international law of the seas.

According to Beijing, its structures in the South China Sea are islands and are part of sovereign Chinese territory. The United States, on the other hand, says that although it has no official stance on maritime disputes, it sees the holdings as either low tide elevations or artificial islands. This particular interpretation gives U.S. vessels the right to navigate within the 12-nautical-mile limit.

The fact that both nations have opted for completely opposite interpretations of the international law of the seas means that this is always going to be a debate in which both parties will simply continue to disagree and the blaming and accusation will go on for a long time.


For exclusive info on hedge funds and the latest news from value investing world at only a few dollars a month check out ValueWalk Premium right here.

Multiple people interested? Check out our new corporate plan right here (We are currently offering a major discount)

5 Comments on "Power Politics At Play In South China Sea: Part 1"

  1. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case. The International Court of Justice (IJC) has jurisdiction, but the Philippines doesn’t have the guts to file a case.

    More info:

    “The closer one looks, the more Philippines’s arbitration looks to be more a part of a public relations stunt [19] than a sincere effort rooted in law to resolve disputes. No one should accuse China of running away from the Law; it is running away from a circus !”,

    Extracted from “On China’s 9-Dashed Line and Why the Arbitrational Tribunal in Hague Should Dismiss Philippine’s Case Against”, HIDDENHARMONIES.ORG, August 29,2014

    Even more:

    Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines


  2. Sound good … China should go to international tribunal to settle it once for all. Why bother to use forces instead of available legal means.

  3. Another stupid lengthy article from you know whom but Khan. The purpose of US war mad generals meddling in China’s South China Sea can be sum up in a few lines:
    To dupe her rogue allies akino, abe, vietnam, australia.
    To target arm sales.
    To fool US voters.
    To OVERTURN world order.
    To SCARE China.

  4. “War mad US generals playing with fire naturally will get their hair charred”,
    this is an age old Chinese wisdom Akino, Philippines, Vietnam, and
    Japan-US meddler pretend not knowing (bury their heads in the sand).
    South China Sea as an irrevocable possession of China was established
    after WW II and is recognized by all International Law, not to mention
    the many historical TRUTH in your comment.

  5. Good description of the South China Sea issue, adding a bit of history will definitely help readers to get a clear picture of the South China Sea issue:

    In the 3rd century, the local government of the Jin Dynasties (China) exercised jurisdiction over the South China Sea islands by sending patrolling naval boats to the surrounding sea areas. (Nordquist & Moore 1998, page 155)

    5th–13th centuries: Naval forces of the Song State of the Southern Dynasties (420-479 AD) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[43] In the Tang dynasty (618-907 AD), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Perfecture (now Hainan Province).[43] Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the North and South Song dynasties (970-1279).[43]

    1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.[40]

    1887 – The Convention Respecting the Delimitation of the Frontier Between China and Tonkin between France and the Qing Empire set the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Tonkin.[49][50][51] The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.[40][52]

    1898 – The Philippine Islands were ceded by Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris following the Spanish–American War. The U.S. reminded the Philippines at its independence (1946) that the Spanish-American treaty of 1898 made it clear that the western limit of the Philippines islands did not include the Spratlys (South China Sea).

    1956 – North Vietnam declares Paracel and Spratly Islands are historically Chinese territory.[63]

    1958 – The People’s Republic of China issued a declaration defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly, Paracel Islands and other islands in the South China Sea. North Vietnam’s prime minister, Pham Van Dong, sent a diplomatic note to Zhou Enlai, stating that “The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision.” The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper(Vietnam) on September 22, 1958.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.