FORUM FOR INTERNATIONAL ISSUES

Articles

Recent Articles

Chemical Weapons Convention
THE SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC’S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS & THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION by Janet Munro-Nelson Posted: 25 September 2014...
Posted in:Countries, international law/united nations, law of armed conflict, middle east, russian federation, terrorism, united states, weapons/disarmament
Uighurs in Guantanamo Bay Prison: Innocents or Terrorists?
by Janet Munro-Nelson Posted 29 January 2010 *Updated 21 September 2014 (Download PDF) [NOTE: This overview of 22 Uighurs in...
Posted in:china, guantanemo bay, human rights, law of armed conflict, united states
Fear vs. radiation
Fear vs. radiation: The mismatch* by David Ropeik Posted December 2013 *This Opinion piece as printed here appeared in the...
Posted in:law of armed conflict, terrorism, weapons/disarmament

Articles

The Articles on THE BEACON are listed in two ways. First, Articles can be found under the main categories of either “Topics” or “Countries”. Sometimes an Article may be listed under several different headings depending on the relevancy to the subject of the Article. Second, the titles of all Articles on this website are listed below in “Summary of Articles”. One can also resort to the Search box for locating an Article.

The two main categories for Articles are:

I. TOPICS

II. COUNTRIES

The View From Here

5 November 2015

U.S. AGGRESSION AGAINST CHINA

Several days ago I returned from a trip to Shanghai, China. While I was there, the breaking news was that an American ship, initially reported as an aircraft carrier, was sailing within 12 nautical miles of the Subi Reef, a reef in the Spratly Archipelago in the South China Sea which is close to the Philippines. The action of the United States was reported as “threatening the sovereignty and safety of China and its people.” Not being able to speak or understand Mandarin, I watched the English news channel, CNN. The strong Chinese rhetoric about the United States’ aggression against China was repeated every day I was there. The newscasters always made mention of the U.S. government’s position that under international law it had a right to sail in the South China Sea waters. What the international law was or how it was applied was never discussed by the Chinese commentators.

Some days there were interviews with different individuals from other countries including Russia and Iran who denounced the actions and continued presence of the U.S. naval ship. The deputy editor of China Daily USA, Chen Weihua, wrote that the actions by the U.S. were not just bullying but also ill-advised. He wrote that such actions were “only propelling China to speed up its military modernization so it can’t be coerced by others militarily.” His view was, “Washington has been skillful in using international law as a pretext because it only applies the law to others, not itself.” After several days, I found myself wondering why the United States decided to sail a warship so close to the China coast. What business did it have there? What was the U.S. government thinking of?

During my last day in Shanghai, the specific facts of the situation became clear when I tracked down a Western newspaper, the International New York Times. I finally realized that there was a conflict between China and other Asian countries as to who had the right to own and/or control certain parts of the South China Sea. Over the past decade, China has been creatively building a number of artificial islands over different reefs and other protruding rocks. Some of the artificial islands have military capabilities. It is over these artificial land masses that China has laid claim of certain rights such as fishing, trade, oil and gas rights within the 12-mile territorial zone surrounding each island. This is contrary to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea where it specifically states that any reef or other rock protuberance that is invisible except at low tide is not entitled to a 12-mile territorial zone. China has signed this treaty, agreeing to follow its international regulations.

According to the International New York Times, China currently asserts sovereignty over 90% of the South China Sea through its use of artificial islands and other means. It is in response to the Chinese warnings over the past several years made to planes and ships not to enter the Chinese security areas that the U.S. government came up with the plan to sail one of its ships in what it considers to be international waters. The action by the United States is the strongest indication to date that it will not allow China to assert any territorial ownership or rights where these do not exist.

Last Friday, 30th October 2015, the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague published its decision that it had jurisdiction over a case brought by the Philippines against China disputing Chinese ownership and control of the South China Sea. The Court of Arbitration rejected the Chinese government’s claims that the disputes in the South China Sea were about China’s territorial sovereignty based on indisputable historical rights. After a confrontation with the Filipino Navy in 2012, China erected a barrier across the entrance of the Scarborough Shoal thus taking control of the rich fishing area lying within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. Under the Convention of the Law of the Sea, article 56 defines this zone as where the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of inter alia exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources of the waters superadjacent to the seabed up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal boundary. It is hoped that the Arbitration Court can finally address what has been happening in the South China Sea and come up with a viable solution which is fair to all the affected Asian countries.

The End