Our doughty editor at The Diplomat asks a good question: if China is confident of its “indisputable sovereignty” over the South China Sea, then what precisely is it offering to negotiate with ASEAN countries? The terms on which they conform to Chinese policy and law?
Negotiation presupposes give-and-take between two parties. But indisputable means indisputable. Sovereignty means mastery over territory. A sovereign government wields a near-monopoly on legitimate force within its territory, and it brooks few external constraints on its authority there. If the waters and land features within the nine-dashed line are China’s, and if there’s no give in China’s position, what’s left to bargain over?
‘Tis a mystery.
Turner Joy would probably chalk the dissonance up to communist negotiating tactics. Admiral Joy headed the UN delegation that dickered with North Korean and Chinese officers over an armistice terminating the Korean War. He titled his memoir of that ordeal How Communists Negotiate. It’s an entertaining read, in large part because Joy writes so vividly that the reader can picture him forcibly restraining himself from choking his Chinese interlocutors. (Assaulting fellow negotiators is bad form.)
It’s an informative read as well. Joy makes a point that bears on today’s South China Sea controversy, namely that Chinese communists try to rig the game in their favor going in. That is, they set agreeing to their bargaining positions as a condition for convening talks. If they can cajole adversaries into agreeing to China’s terms ahead of time, they will have painted the other side into a corner. Advantage: Beijing.
Today it’s the nine-dashed line; back then it was where to sketch the inter-Korean boundary on the map. The Chinese-led delegation at Kaesong (and later Panmunjom) insisted that the armistice line run along the 38th parallel, whereas the U.S.-led UN Command preferred a line that approximated that line of latitude but was militarily defensible for UN forces. Rugged natural defenses lie along the inter-Korean frontier but don’t coincide precisely with it. Geography has a way of refusing to cooperate with mapmakers. As a condition for opening negotiations, Beijing nonetheless demanded that the talks be about fixing the ceasefire line at the 38th parallel.
In short, it wanted to assume the conclusion. A nifty trick, if it works. These Korean War maneuvers presaged the rhetoric issuing from Beijing today. China again welcomes peaceful negotiation of its nonnegotiable policy. Fortunately, the other Southeast Asian claimants appear to see through this stratagem, much as Joy and his cohort did sixty years ago.
There’s a broader point here as well. Many of us, myself included, mine traditional Chinese culture for insights into Chinese political and strategic conduct. Learned writings from Confucius, Sun Tzu, and other luminaries of antiquity are staples of Western commentary on China. Beijing encourages this by opening Confucius Institutes, invoking the voyages of Zheng He, and otherwise trying to reconnect—selectively—to China’s dynastic heritage. Such inquiries are worth scholars’ while, and fascinating to boot.
But let’s not forget that the Chinese Communist Party spent decades breaking with that past. Heck, officialdom sought to destroy it during Mao Zedong’s lifetime, and to replace it with Marxist-Leninist dogma. That legacy remains part of Chinese culture. Beijing’s rhetoric hasn’t degenerated to Team America-level parody, but sometimes you hear echoes of it. It should come as little shock when Chinese Communist Party officials act like…communists.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
pubokia
Why doesn't Hawaii belong to Mexico? Hm… And Alaska to Canada?
ImperiumVita
And that my friends is the Non Sequitur, you can sleep soundly, all is right in the world.
nirvana
@pubokia,
How old are you?
Errol T
Not good analogies for the SCS. Hawaii has its own people before ending up with the United States. And Alaska was explored and claimed by Russia, before being sold to the United States also. How does these cases relate to the small bodies of land on SCS? So small that most of the hotly contested islets can't even support life?
vic
@Errol T
Fish live in water and humans want to come and claim the water. Furthermore, humans love to draw lines and zones on paper and contest each other's claims. In the sea, the big fish eats the small fish. In the jungle, the strongest and smartest wins. So either way, in land or in sea, we follow nature's way.
Errol T
And you mean that the human condition is to remain locked forever as animalistic since it's 'natural'? No aspirations to better one's self and one's community thru civilization? That's sad. You mean China's 5,000 years of glorious history is nothing but the sham of the strong overpowering the weak? So much for soft power and cultural refinements.
dan
This posturing from the CCP is simply a faceade to instal nationalistic sentiment to bolsters its weakening grip on its people. Its simply a distraction. A scared dog always knashes its teeth. the reality is it could not afford any real confrontation in the SCS, it would be pressed to hold the Japanese Navy at bay let alone a US/Nato backed Asia.
vic
@Errol T.
What you are saying is what the Chinese said to the British 150 years ago. To the civilized Christian British. The British with the rule of law. Please read Bertrand Russell's "Problem of China". The answer to your query was answered in this book published in 1922.
I sometimes wonder why educated Westerners, specially academics, ask questins about China when the answer was given in 1922.
Property Rights
Arguments over territories are usually "indisputable". When both parties claim a piece of rock and sand, you expect any position less than "negotiable"? Not unless, you are a slick conman in the first place, believing the other side is a gullible fool and sucker. Unfortunately, Beijing is not Manila;s, Hanoi;s, or Washngton's sucker. If it comes to fist fight, it will be a fist fight to settle the issue. Just lke the U.S. or "Great" Britain (the only country to unashamedly flatter itself by calling itself "Great" when nobody else does!). Touch one of their rocks and sands, or claim it as yours and you will hear the howls of shrieks and machines of war rumbling your way to evict you. What does Aquino & goons, and Hanoi's old leaders, expect from China? Get real, man.
Student-of Rights
nirvana
@Property Rights,
Err… Great Brtian is not the name of a country, but of an island. The country name is United Kingdom.
I know in history of one little country which made a blunder of calling itself "Great". It was Vietnam (Dai Viet) during the Ming. After defeating the Ming invasion army, wisely it changed its name into "An Nam" (the "peaceful South"), a name that pleased the Ming Emperor because he gave the interpretation "pacified South" to his subjects and vassals.
Keep stuying.
Cam
@student,
LOL. We all know this – empty can sounds loudest. This is your China case, student!
Try one to see if the PLA could win a first war in entire of its history.
vic
According to rumours in this blog, PLA can't fight. Therefore, there is nothing to fear about the PLA. We should welcome them as the opposing side, as we are bound to win. How weak is the PLA? We should send out our confirmed weakest army, the Filipino military, to test the Sansha administration line. The Sansha will probably use their maritime coastal forces (not the heavy PLA stuff) to defend. We send our confirmed weakest to test their weakest section. Good test, everyone? If we can't beat their maritime coastal forces, it is pointless to test the PLA.
Errol T
Keep dreaming. Our army is oriented towards COIN, not any other type of warfare. And be honest. Seriously look at our AFP's order of battle, and see if you don't laugh at how ridiculous it is. We have troops, yes, but how do they get to Sansha? What would be their objective? What would be their means of attaining said objective? Sansha is not within our EEZ, so what's the point in sending them? We Filipinos get goaded, we don't goad others.
Besides, a serious military historian may note that though the PLA has not fought any modern battles, it nonetheless has a solid record in guerilla warfare, and has proven wiilling to sacrifice thousands upon thousand of lives back in the Korean War.
So sorry, there's simply no way Filipinos will ever fire the first shot.
vic
@Errol T
Conclusion: It is thus easier to negotiate while dogs are barking instead of biting.
nirvana
@vic,
Err…We said PLA has never won. Just an example. The US army lost about 60,000 lives in Vietnam, over 10 years. PLA lost about 20,000 lives, in a month. Fight and die, for no just cause, they know how to, the brave and disciplined young PLA soldiers. BTW, the PLA generals has another military art that no other army has: that of teaching lessons.
vic
@nirvana
An old joke from the days of the Sino-Soviet border clash.
Russian General: We lost 10,000. The Chinese lost 30,000
Chinese General: We are winning, we only lost 30,000. We got the Russians on the run. At this rate, the Russians will be wiped out.
nirvana
@vic,
I see. PLA generals also like to joke about the sacrifice of their soldiers. I know that, every year, mothers are still mourning, widows are still burning incense sticks, in Yunan Martyr's Cemetery.
henry ford
This is already 21st century ! What do Hanoi and Manila expect from China ? Be civilized !
nirvana
(I HAVE A DREAM)
I have been imagining how an arbitration court (for example the ICJ) would settle the case of the Scarborough shoal, if China and the Philippines were both willing to bring their case to this court. Perhaps it would decide as follows.
The Court TAKES NOTE
- that both parties agree that the object of the disputes is a group of 5 rocks that can not sustain life. According to UNCLOS, such roks are not entitled to EEZ
- that the shoal is within the Philippines’ EEZ, calculated from its coast.
- that the shoal is not within China's EEZ calculated from its coast
- that the shoal is within China’s “dotted line” but this line is not compatible with UNCLOS
- that China claims that it discovered the shoal in the 13th century. China also claims that it has continuously administered the shoal. Such claims are disputed by the Philippines
- that China has not provided to this court satisfactory proofs of such discovery and administration.
The Court therefore DECIDES:
- that China has the obligation to clarify the meaning of its “dotted line” to UNCLOS.
- that China has the obligation to provide this court the proofs of its continuous and indisputed exercise of administration over the shoal, since discovery.
- that, until that time, the 12 nm of waters adjacent to the shoal shall be declared “disputed area”.
- that no exploitation of sea bed and fishing be allowed in this disputed area, until the case is definitively settled.
- that outisde of this area, the Philippines has the whole right over its EEZ, as accrued to it by UNCLOS
What do you think "Student of Rights"?
vic
@nirvana
Political rights grow out of the barrel of a gun.
A sovereign country does not negotiate its sovereignty in a court or panel of judges. That is strictly for the birds.
As for "rights" under English or Anglo-Saxon law, let us review the handover of Hong Kong to China. Margaret Thacher insisted to Deng Xiao-Ping that Kowloon could be handed back, but Hong Kong island itself was ceded to UK forever. To which Deng replied, my troops could march into Hong Kong island tomorrow. Yes, Hong Kong was ceded in a treaty under duress. Thacher conveniently forgot the "duress" part. A contract signed under duress is no contract. In times of weakness, China remembers – A bamboo is resilient because it bends with the wind.
nirvana
@vic,
Each of us has his dream. I dreamt about an ideal. You, about power, power growing out of a gun.
vic
@nirvana
Dreams are dreams. When dreams are realized, you have fulfillment. But, reality is all about power.
Errol T
So true. Keep that in mind when Beijing strong-arms its southern neighbors into agreeing into loopsided agreements.
And in UK's defense, it did return Hong Kong as the economic hub it is today, not the backwater fishing villages when they first got it. Not bad for 99 years of stewardship.
vic
@Errol T
Hong Kong was war booty. UK profited handsomely specially when she forced the HK colonial government to put all its financial reserves in British Pound knowing full well that the British Pound was to be devalued. Hong Kong was built on the China trade and has been successful because of it. The UK profited handsomely to the very last day. It was very easy money. Was it surprising that Jardine (the company which started opium trading) moved its headquarters out of Hong Kong before the handover?
When Hong Kong was captured, only the shp's captain and his orderlies were there to dictate terms. When Hong Kong was handed back, the whole UK cabinet was there to witness. The rise and fall of the British Empire against the fall and rise of the Chinese people. China is a marathon runner. What will tomorrow bring?
Major Lowen Gil Marquez, Phil Army
The korean war shows the example of a subject countries could not monopolized and enforce communist dictatorship, because we are human beings with free will, the south korea resist such kind of communsit dictatorship and freserved their freedom like other freeworld countries base on democracy, by doing and resisting communist dictum the south korea able to repel the communist and setablished the 38 paralel supported by the united nation, while the Western Philippine Sea the scarborough shoal and spratley were belong to the terriotory and province of the philippines.. there no such thing a 38 paralel because we are only one nation Philippines. The communist chinese were intruding our island and shoal, the communist tactics and stratagem were all illegall and out of the books of laws, procedure, and jurisprudence, the chinese base their invasion on force and hallucination propaganda of invasion over all small country in asia…
Brad
Since the internatinal system is inherrintly democratic (Every nation has a say in what happens, however some nations have more influence than others, just like in an election), politicians and leaders who are used to operating in closed systems (i.e China) are forever doomed to failure. These official think that making the demogougic statements will actually lead to something, becuase at home when they make the same kinds of hot-headed remarks people do listen.
This is one of the reasons the U.S is so effective in the international arena (of course there are some stumbles along the way). U.S leaders understand that you cannot force human nature and that not everyone is a "subject" or a "slave." Chinese leaders view other countries in the SCS the same way they view the monks of Tibet.
Jared
China's approach to the South China Sea – refusing any multilateral negotiations, third-party mediation, or efforts by ASEAN to move toward a binding Code of Conduct – certainly bear out its focus on preserving its advantages. I think that one factor, however, is too often ignored when considering China's approach: their two-pronged reliance on ambiguity and inertia. Though the famous 9-dash line is frequently cited as the embodiment of China's claim, the PRC steadfastly refuses to state the actual extent or basis of its claim. In addition, it consistently resists efforts to push through the status quo. In prolonging negotaiations, and engaging in obfuscation, China knows that it remains free to establish new facilities, and to practice the art of expansion by possession. It's worked for them quite well, thus far, and tho this point, there's been little in the way of serious consequence. Why wouldn't they continue as-is?
Tom Tran
Right on target. Strategic ambiguity serves China very well. China cannot plays all hands, knowing that it cannot enforce a claim, legally and militarily. So all what China wants is to force other countries into revealing their position first, then force those smaller countries into accepting a "bargain" with a superpower. By this logic, "everything is mine, but I will let you have a small piece of cake for complying with my demand, otherwise I will take all". Be calm, barking dog doesn't bite.
vic
Some barking dogs do bite.
Beijing now has Sansha administration. You can always test this line first. See if it bites.
Dan
Vic, If the dog bites there are plenty of sticks in the region to beat it back with its taiil between its legs. China needs to worry about the barking dogs in its own back yard before it even contemplates trying to bite anyone outside of its territory.
Oro Invictus
Personally, I've always been fascinated by the fact the PRC believes it “defeated” the Americans in the Korean War, whereas the attitude over most the world is that it either was a stalemate or a victory for the Americans; personally, I think it’s a victory in that they accomplished their initial objectives to preserve South Korea, but a stalemate in that they failed to complete their secondary objectives (which they may or may not have had all along) to utterly defeat North Korea and unify the Korean peninsula (but, compared to the infrastructure and personnel damage they inflicted upon the PRC and North Korea, one may still argue a victory). This becomes even more interesting as it offers a way for the PRC to “bow out” from its ridiculous claims and still allow the government to save face, given how they were able to turn the utter devastation of so much of its military for minimal gains during the Korean War into a PR victory for domestic audiences. If a deal could be struck which allows them some sort of mineral rights for select areas or such, the CPC may be able to spin it as a victory for themselves, meaning the PRC public is happy at its “victory” (thus removing one impediment to resolving the issue) and the rest of the region is happy because the PRC will not pursue its superfluous claims any further.
Oro Invictus
Ah, the second sentence should read: "This becomes even more interesting, when applied to the SCS, as…"
vic
@Oro
Before the Americans crossed the 38th parallel to head north, China through the Indian ambassador forwarned America not to cross. General MacArthur, believeing that China could not fight the fight headed straight to the Chinese border. Then all hell broke out. Eventually Chinese troops pushed American troops backed to the 38th parallel. China achieved its objective, hence the word 'victory' is appropriate. The big loser is Korea, it was split into two. All Koreans can do today is to dream of unification.
Oro Invcitus
@ vic
It all depends on one’s frame of reference, though one free of nationalist bias is much more desirable in forming a more objective view of the situation. For example, I’d argue it was likely not part of the PRC’s initial objectives to create a parasitic and overtly-belligerent pariah state, totally dependent on the PRC for survival while constantly complicating things for the PRC in the region, nor was it in their interests to lose more than ten times the amount of soldiers in the second phase of the war as the Americans lost in the entire war itself; indeed, if that is any sort of victory, I’d assuredly call it a Pyrrhic victory.
vic
@Oro
China was forced to enter the Korean War. She barely just announced the formation of a People's Republic on the backbone of a peasant army. Lin Piao turned down the Korean command because he thought it was extremely difficult against superior odds; it fell on Peng Deh-Huai to run the war. He had only two major elements: massive manpower and total surprise. MacArthur never expected China to enter the war; that really caused the chaotic retreat (or advance to the rear) from the Yalu River to the 38th parallel.
We can have an oxymoronic lesson: Should a US general expect the unexpected when doing his war plans?
Errol T
In military terms, both sides called it a victory, except for the NoKor faction, hence a stalemate. PVA primary goal was to push UN forces away from the Yalung river, and preseve NoKor. UN and the US primary goal was to preserve SoKor. Both objectives met, except for NoKor's objective: unification. Too many civilians died though.
ACT
@ Vic
the official reason for the PRC's entrance into the Korean conflict, an entrance which began in October of 1950, was that US bombers had somehow crossed PRC territory while bombing North Korea, which was an utter lie. Above all, Mao wanted a new vassal state, it would seem, especially considering that–for all intents and purposes–the PRC is a much modernized Chinese Empire in goals, notions of humiliation, and arrogance.
@Oro
so how do you think the Korean conflict relates to the SCS? Do you believe that the PRC is forcing others to the negotiating table on a prestated goal, or is this potentially the start of something potentially far larger, with far nastier consequences for the international community?
Oro Invictus
@ACT
My primary interest is less how the Korean War itself pertains to the SCS situation and moreso how we can use the lessons of the Korean War in resolving the SCS dispute. The Korean War showed us that the CPC is capable of, even in the face of a conflict globally considered a stalemate overall and a strategic victory for the US during its initial phases and a Pyrrhic victory/strategic loss for the PRC during its secondary phases, twisting domestic opinion to call such a war a “victory” for the PRC. This is of supreme importance as it is fear of domestic censure which is currently forcing the PRC government to continue its efforts to exercise jurisdiction in the SCS; while it may have initially been an opportunistic attempt to gain control of resources at first during the US’ recent “conciliatory” phase of foreign relations, they have now been locked into this path as turning back would ruin what little domestic credibility they have left (especially so if one of my earlier theories is correct, and they are using the SCS to distract the people of the PRC from domestic issues). If, however, it can be engineered that the PRC can achieve a tactical victory but a strategic loss/no net strategic gain in the SCS (just as was the case in Korea), we can offer the CPC the chance to pull back from its current claims while giving them a way to preserve domestic credibility (using propaganda to paint their short-term victory as achievement of their long-term goals while leaving the SCS free from their control).
PeterDownUnder
Great insight! I myself have tried to analyse the PRC through an historical prism based on their dynasties but have failed to view it in the light of them as a Communist politburo run modern state.
But maybe all dynasties were just simply a politburo different in name and thus precedance can be studied.
JohnX
I think that you are grasping at straws.
I do find it interesting that the Chinese commentators on here don't appreciate the amount of propoganda that pro-China people in other nations put out there since the 1970s, so as to change peoples attitudes towards China and investments in China.
They still return to the lowest denominator and classify ALL NON CHINESE as being an enemy, which is kind of strange if you think of it.
I find it ironic that China has become a threat to World Peace because of the economic benefits provided to it by those who promoted it as a peaceful state.
Leonard R.
@John X:
"They still return to the lowest denominator and classify ALL NON CHINESE as being an enemy, which is kind of strange if you think of it.
I find it ironic that China has become a threat to World Peace because of the economic benefits provided to it by those who promoted it as a peaceful state."
—
Exactly right.
Matt
Fantastic post. The Team America paradies are hilarious. N. Korean propaganda itself is really funny…just wish there wasn't an actual genocide going on behind it.
ImperiumVita
As far as the rhetoric goes, if they want to sound like simpletons spewing platitudes by rote, let them.
Regarding the negotiations. China has left neighboring countries no choice by to establish thier own garrisons in the sea south of China, as negotiation starting points.
nirvana
Interesting, although not exactly parallel history. The 38th parallel as a demarcation existed before. It was not a Chinese invention, and not many Chinese of that time have heard of it. It is fully determined (therefore can be a basis for bargaining, equal to equal). The “dotted line” is a pure invention. It is an indisputable undefined, pushed into the imagination of billions of Chinese as a defined expression of a vague legacy, from immemorial times.
Perhaps the problem of the US Army is that it always gave itself an objective. The PLA always fight wars without predefined objectives. The country itself does not have a fixed objective (just read the N versions of its Constitution). You think it is building socialism? Wrong. You think it is convinced of capitalism? Wrong. You think it has signed a Treaty of Friendship? Wrong. You think it doesn’t want war reparation? Wrong. You think it cherishes its ancestral culture? Wrong. You think it loves modernity? Wrong. The “dotted line” is the ultimate emanation of such a system.
An animal that adapts can be very wise (when it has an ideal) or terribly dangerous when it adapts to exterminate. Which way do you think humanity is heading?
vic
@nirvana
The US lost the Vietnam War because it had no clear objective. At the height, it had 500,000 troops in Vietnam itself. McNamara (actually a war criminal) called it " fog of war" which made things confusing. Actually he was the only one in fog; everyone else could see how stupid and inhuman the whole thing was.
nirvana
@Imperium vita,
My take for the intention behind the creation of a "prefectural city" is that China is prepaing to abandon the "dotted line" ambiguity position. A prefecture overseeing several groups of islands widely spread means that China wants to play the legal card of an archipelagic state in UNCLOS. Very aggressive move indeed.
ImperiumVita
Good luck at that China as the great majority of formations don't meat the UNCLOS definition of an island. How can you form an archipelago of no islands? I forgot, just say so in the Communist dictionary. It has always been this way
vic
@nirvana
Forget the legal stuff. It is strictly for the birds.
China is now paying close attention. It is now setting up a system to respond immediately to incursion. Note that recently every Chinese move is a response to the moves of Philippines or Vietnam. Everyone, please be careful, don't overdo it, please. I assure you, the dragon can response in ways you may not anticipate.
Errol T
I disagree. You can't establish garrisons witha snap of your fingers. That involves planning over an extended period of time. Whether we stand up or not, Beijing will take everything it can in the SCS. Case in point is Mischief reef back in the early 90's. As soon as the Americans left the Philippines, Chine started its move. Establishing a prefecture in the SCS is NOT a countermove. It was a predetermined move that Beijing will make whenver it is feasible to do so.
vic
@ErroL T
The Chinese government action is a bureaucratic move, that is, allocating resources to the right people in the right location. Weeks prior to this, in a TV talk show which I watched, there were suggestions that China must counter the moves to the Philippines setting up a school in one of the "Chinese" islands. Government action follows the clamor of the people. Very standard practice in public relations. The last thing Beijing wants to do is to set up a garrison. Well, events are now unfolding in ways that were not expected yesterday.
nirvana
Ah silly me. Forgot the "dragon".
China, the "dragon", the Godfather, the "capo di tutti capi", wants all the islands, rocks, reefs and shoals, and UNCLOS, and the dotted line (the Pacific is for discussions later with the Khalife).
You are wrong, vic. China is a nice Godfather. The capo treats its neighbors with respect. China will propose to shelve the disputes … on the "dotted line". All the waters within China's "Sansha archipelago" is Chinal's Internal sea, according to UNCLOS, right? China will share the resource in the waters between "Sansha archipelago" limit and the dotted line. How about that? Don't answer Yes, "Yes Capo". Repeat again "Yes CAPO DI TUTTI CAPI".
vic
@nirvana
The dragon can blow hot and cold. Don't annoy the dragon. Of course, in happier days, it is Puff, the Magic Dragon, lives by the sea.