30/11/2011
As is known to all, China is a country with an ancient civilization, and Chinese people have been developing frontier regions and expanding boundaries, laboring and working, living and breeding in this land for thousands of years, and have, consequently, developed a historically integrated territory and institutionalized territorial management. The South China Sea is the sea area which was discovered and explored by the ancient Chinese people, and was then effectively managed by the Chinese government. Compared with its neighboring counties, China owns abundant historical records to prove its legal rights over the South China Sea and most islands in that area. Even the invasion of the countries around the South China Sea into the islands took place after the ending of World War II, which is quite feeble and frail when compared with China’s long historical evidence.
Nevertheless, those countries hold that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seasupports their claims, which means there are cognitive differences in history and law between China and other claimant countries. In order to maintain peace and security in the South China Sea, the international community should have a clear picture of historical facts, and under the guidance of the international law, fully and really understand the claims and standpoints of China and other claimant countries. Only by doing so can these countries cooperate in developing the South China Sea on the basis of mutual understanding, mutual trust, coordination and win-win, so as to lay a favorable foundation for eventually solving the South China Sea issue.
Mutual trust is the foundation for establishing friendly and cooperative relations between nations, and mutual trust is based on mutual understanding. To achieve mutual trust, we need to think and observe from the other party’s perspective. At present, there exist cognitive differences in history and law between China and nations around the South China Sea, which hinders full understanding between them and consequently has negative effects on bilateral relationship. This paper explores the cognitive differences between China and these nations concerning the South China Sea issue, and tries to put forward methods to level up the differences.
I. The historical tragedy experienced by China and other nations around the South China Sea
Rational nations and peoples should objectively acknowledge and accept history, while denying history means denying oneself. Since modern times, China and other nations surrounding the South China Sea have the similar experience of being invaded by western colonialism and imperialism, but in terms of their respective historical existence in the South China Sea, there are huge cognitive differences which requires more acknowledgment and understanding to level up.
It should be recognized that the order of the Seas of East Asia in modern times has not really been formed. Western powers fought for the seas under the logic of hegemonic marine competition. During the cold war, the US dominated the marine control. It seemed that the formation of a Western-led management was of good reason. In fact, East Asian maritime order during this period was in an unreasonable state of injustice, because it often reflected the colonial order, power politics states and hegemonic powers’ needs and interests, ignoring the real needs and interests of East Asian nations.[1]Consequently, the western powers use their own values and national interests as a standard to access the requirement of East Asian maritime security, which is not consistent with the interests of East Asian nations and management of maritime security order.[2]From East Asian nations’ view, this is a sea of disorder.[3] From the above we can see that since modern times East Asian nations and peoples have been conquered and controlled by Western colonists; and in contemporary cold war era, they have been carved up by Western hegemonic powers. Therefore, we can conclude that this part of the ocean was always controlled and dominated by Western powers. East Asian nations cannot independently handle and manage the affairs within their own region, nor can they effectively develop and explore the East Asian seas, which is a sort of “East Asia tragedy.”[4]
Like its neighboring countries, China suffered a lot from the invasion and expansion of western colonialism and imperialism. The “Opium War” broke down the Chinese national security gate, and in the following series of invasions, the then Chinese government was forced to accept the humiliating contracts to cede territory, pay indemnities and forfeit sovereignty. It was in that period that China was compelled to cede large areas of territory to western powers, and national sovereignty was greatly infringed. As a result, China was reduced to a semi-colonial society. It should be noted that the 1885 French invasion into China broke down China’s South gate and also reduced Vietnam, China’s neighbor, to French colony. After occupying Vietnam, the Frenchcolonistsbegan to expand in the South China Sea, and intruded China’s Nansha and Xisha Islands at the beginning of the 20th century. Equally noticeable is that the Japanese militarism also brought big disaster to China and other East Asian nations. Japan invaded islands in the South China Sea and China’s Taiwan, including Diaoyu Island, the negative effects of which have not been completely eliminated yet. We should realize that some of the territory conflicts between East Asian nations are just the sequel of invasion and expansion of western colonialism and imperialism.
Just like the peoples of the other claimant countries, the Chinese people can still sense the humiliation of the historical tragedy caused by the western oppression. Now China is just trying to walk out of the shadow of historical tragedy and come back to the normal state of a sovereign nation. This process, however, is regarded as “assertive” by the western countries, which is very unfair. On the contrary, the nations, which once invaded and expanded in the South China Sea, are making an attempt to interfere in the South China Sea issue again, and trying to disturb the waters of the South China Sea, so as to realize their own interests. The acts of these nations are really provocative and aggressive. The historical sequence of “East Asia Tragedy” caused by western colonialism is still exerting its potential. East Asian nations, therefore, must be on the alert for the damage of the outside nations’ interference in the South China Sea issue.
(continuing)
[1]Su Hao,From Dumbbell to Olive Community: Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation,(Cong Ya Ling Dao Gan Lan: Ya Tai An Quan He Zuo Yan Jiu), World Knowledge Press, 2003, p. 48.(苏浩《从哑铃到橄榄：亚太安全合作研究》，世界知识出版社，2003年版，第48页。)
[2]“Planning and addressing maritime security therefore require not only ongoing attention to ‘core values’ of the state but also a capacity to respond to emerging or unanticipated threats.’ (Donald R. Rothwell, “Maritime Security in the Twenty-First Century”, in Natalie Klein, Joanna Mossop, Donald R. Rothwell, eds., Maritime Security：International Law and Policy Perspectives from Australia and New Zealand, Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2009, pp. 242-243)
[3] As a consequence, we still lack good order at sea in Southeast Asia…….The region lacks good order at sea thou overlapping claims to maritime jurisdiction, uncertain maritime boundaries, differing interpretations of the law of the sea and a lack of widespread participation in key international maritime regimes. (Sam Bateman, “Building Good Order at Sea in Southeast Asia: the promise of international regime” in Kwa Kwa Chong Guanand John Skogan, eds., Maritime Security in Southeast Asia: (Routledge Security in Asia Series), Taylor & Francis, Inc., April 2007, p. 97.)
[4] Su Hao, “An Inquiry into the East Asian Maritime Security Order: Can Disorder be Turned into Order?”, http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/projekt_papiere/Su_BCAS2010_web_ks.pdf.
To stimulate South China Sea regional security cooperation in the control of piratical attacks against ships, this paper proposes the establishment of a limited purpose maritime and air defence identification zone over the South China Sea.
The Philippines recently passed a 2009 Baselines Law that, it was hoped, would finally confront its long-standing dilemma on whether to abandon its 1898 “treaty lines” altogether and adopt the modern rules on the Law of the Sea. That hope did not come to pass.
Abstract The interplay of power and law in the South China Sea is not well understood. To analyze the disputes over navigation rights, sovereignty to islands, and delimitation of maritime zones we need to grasp how states define and defend their geopolitical interests as well as the ways in which...
Introduction Much of the legal discussion about the ongoing situation in the South China Sea focuses upon the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[1], a convention that was concluded in 1982. During that early 1980's timeframe, there was an iconic television commercial[2] in...
Since 1999, China has enacted an annual fishing ban for two or three months in the summer in the North-Western part of the South China Sea. This year (2011), the ban took place from May 16th to August the 1st and in an area between the latitude 12° North to the North and longitude 113° East to the West.[1]Any...
The Duty to Cooperate in Semi-Enclosed Seas The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea governed by Part IX of the Law of the Sea Convention,[1] which says in Article 123 that countries bordering such seas “should co-operate with each other in the exercise of their rights and the performance...
---Copy.png&w=200)
