Australia and the ICJ could help resolve the tensions over the South China Sea. China shouldn’t fear internationalization.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard used the phrase 'Yes, we will' to launch her re-election campaign. The country could also use some of the 'Yes, we will' spirit to help improve China-US and China-Vietnam relations.
The United States and Australia both have strong maritime interests in the region, in terms of sea-based resources and also trying to ensure free sea lanes. But China is also a major maritime stakeholder, with ever-increasing sea-based interests commensurate with its rapid economic growth.
As with many powers before it, China's growing maritime interests could overlap and even conflict with others. Yet it would be more precise to say that it’s often others’ claims that have overlapped with earlier Chinese claims. For example, in 1947, the Chinese government raised a claim over the South China Sea, a claim not made by some Association of Southeast Asian Nations states until as late as the 1970s or even 1980s.
Such conflicting claims by the parties involved in disputes over the South China Sea (or elsewhere) aren’t necessarily ill-intended. But, regardless, some way needs to be found to peacefully reconcile these competing claims. For instance, China has opposed the USS George Washington's participation in drills in the Yellow Sea, a position that clashes with US interests. Such a disagreement must be settled through discussions to ensure a mutually acceptable outcome.
Of course tensions between the two are about more than the naval drills. China has also argued against US access to its Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea, while the United States for its part has refused to accept China’s understanding of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
But this issue could easily be settled by seeking an authoritative interpretation of UNCLOS through the International Court of Justice. Besides, China seems to have claimed most, if not the entire, South China Sea. All parties to the dispute, including China, should therefore abide by the Declaration on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea signed in 2002 by China and all ASEAN members, which excludes the use—or threat of the use—of force.
The US cares about freedom of navigation in the region and apparently believes that sooner or later China will too. But there’s some heavy historical baggage to bear on this issue. China feels uncomfortable with a dominant US Navy in its backyard, especially in the context of Taiwan—it is, after all, the US that has threatened mainland China's free access to the waters around Taiwan. China, in contrast, has never taken action to deny others access to the entire South China Sea, in particular in areas beyond its EEZ.
Photo Credit: US Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Sravan
China stands no match to the US Navy alone, i mean if the US navy brings every strike fleet into SCS den i mean just whoa, even if this missile China has a good success rate the US navy can still hunt out everything with a China flag on water. But can the US do it without Russia interfering, the US increasing intrest in China will alarm Moscow and where will it lead to…
This world doesnt want another war it cant handle, US should not be agressive in SCS leave it to ones who need it the US should only enter if nukes are used on either side (i pray it doesnt happen), i just saw an American support use of nukes if necessary, God forbid it Chinese should learn to respect others and leave its arrogance but not nukes never, please, even on a comments section on a website please
Solution to South China Sea
The real solution to the South China Sea based on geopolitics should be:
1)Paracel Islands belongs to China.
2)Macclesfield Bank goes to China while Scarborough Shoal goes to Phillipines.
3)China and Taiwan-province of China gives up claim of Spratly Islands to Asean countries.
SE962582C
If Dr Mahathir-bin-Mohammed cannot trust the Australians, why should the Chinese?!
GFR
China is all bluff.
The chinese government always brings up the prospect of a foreign war to distract the racist chinese people from internal problems, but this time it won’t work – the chinese people have internet access. Their population is aging and they know they can’t sustain a real war because of their “one child” policy. The first time the chinese people see chinese kids in bodybags there will be a “Tianamin Square” in every city.
china is using the old tactic of attempting to bully all their neighbours into silence, but this is not the 16th century – their neighbours know what china can and can’t do, and they know that weakness vs china will invite more agression.
china should reflect on what the Vietnamese did to them in 1979, and what the Tibetans (a nation of monks), did to them in the 1950s.
If they do not they will find themselves coming home with their noses cut off.
SE962582C
To quote quote “If they do not they will find themselves coming home with their noses cut off.” and unquote.
Would the Moderators, THE MODERATORS, please care to reconsider for consideration into the removal of the aforementioned comment due to the offending last paragraph thereof, for both being of “Hate-Speech” and for possible, POSSIBLE, incitement to physical violence; and
And thank you, and thank you very much.
LOL
being anti-Chinese does not mean hate speech…. the Chinese are so full of themselves that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is automatically anti-Chinese and promotes hate speech
pathetic
harry
USA will be fighting a war 10,000 km from home China will be fighting it at our doorstep, Chinese DF-21D ASBM famously called the air-craft carrier killer, currently usa has no weapon in its arsenal that can intercept this World only ASBM system, with saturation barrage of cruise missiles ASBMs and torpedoes american navy will count for nothing.
HOWEVER China always find a way to solve territory disputes peacefully. as of now China solved many border disputes in the past peacefully.
in May 1999 a Chinese fisherman was killed in an incident involving a Chinese fishing boat and a Filipino naval vessel; and on 19 July a Chinese fishing boat was sunk after a collision with a vessel belonging to the Philippines Navy that was trying to apprehend it.
In January 2000 the Philippines Navy apprehended and boarded two Chinese fishing boats in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal and ordered them to leave. In the following month, a Philippines patrol craft fired shots to avoid a collision with two more Chinese fishing boats attempting to avoid capture near the Shoal. In March the Philippines deployed two patrol boats to ‘persuade’ Chinese vessels to leave the Scarborough Shoal area.
In May another incident occurred, when Philippines maritime police pursued and opened fire on a Chinese fishing boat, killing one of its crew.and many more.
this is why China recently RESPONDED more actively its purely self-defense.
ASEAN
That’s a bunch of bluffing. China couldn’t and still can’t produce a workable jet engine for its copied Soviet-technology the Su-27. Childish talk about a “carrier killer” is used to scare the little kids in the neighborhood, not to someone who had a full century of blue-ocean warfare. A US aircraft carrier may be the biggest warship in the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s a harmless elephant in a China shop (ahem the punt)… Besides, when was the last time you saw a carrier travelling by itself like a lost dog? On a magazine or newspaper, perhaps?
Spectator
In case you haven’t been paying any attention to the news in the last few years America just fought 2 wars back to back almost half a globe away in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thinking that fighting several thousand kilometers from will hinder America’s ability wage war is simply an uninformed opinion. The only thing that changes from fighting in China’s doorstep is China’s ability to bring ground based weapons platforms to bear in a conflict.
The DF-21 ASBM is indeed formidable and a world first. However the missile still requires long range radar to find and target any American carrier. Until China finds a solution for beyond-the-horizon radar for target acquisition and guidance the DF-21′s utility would be strictly dictated by how America would deploy a carrier. So in the short term China has no method of guiding in its super fancy missile, and in the long term America may acquire defensive capabilities to defeat the missile.
Also please keep in mind that America has several nearby airbases located in allied countries. Just because you can keep America’s carriers at bay does not mean the airspace would be uncontested. Any attack on one of these American airbases would also constitute an attack on the host country, which will virtually guarantee additional foreign involvement.
China’s allegedly clean record of “peacefully” resolving border/territory disputes is a bit misleading. You see China has a habit of playing with labels quite often. Anytime you have something crop up on China’s fringes the issue isn’t labeled a “border” or “territory” dispute, that would imply that Beijing recognizes that there is a border or territory whose sovereignty is in question. No, in Beijing its never border or territory, its always “national interest” or an “internal affair” that the West should keep out of. So technically yes, China’s record on resolving border disputes is quite free of violence, but that is because most of the time the incidents aren’t filed under border/territory disputes.
We are seeing this again now with China’s claims over these South China Sea islands. If I recall correctly a while ago a high ranking officer in the PLAN or party official called the topic of the islands a matter of “core national interest.” In China’s mind, there is only one acceptable outcome, and that is for everyone to recognize that the islands and along with them the South China Sea is Chinese. In other words in Beijing this isn’t a border or territory dispute, this is all those pesky South-East Asian countries not recognizing what is “clearly” China’s sovereign soil. Its no longer international or even up for debate, its other countries meddling in China’s internal affairs.
Having been labeled a “core national interest” I find the idea that “…China and relevant parties have to be prepared to yield some of their physical claims…” laughable. In order to better describe reality it should be written as “…China expects relevant parties to be prepared to yield all of their physical claims…”
China’s outrage is actually quite understandable in this case, albeit in a twisted way. Chinese media can sell this as another example of nosy Western countries meddling in Chinese “internal affairs” to the populace. Meanwhile behind closed doors America’s commitment to multilateral talks over the island’s claims means that 1) China can no longer individually strong-arm their way to a “peaceful” agreement with each South China sea claimant one-by-one and that 2) China is deprived of a way to set each country against one another, thus weakening cooperation in the region, classic divide and conquer.
Leonard R.
Unlike Afghanistan, a war with China is worth fighting and long overdue.
If one of China’s ‘carrier-killer’ missiles actually work, then it will
go nuclear very fast.
China has been asking for this. America should give China exactly what it has asked for.