This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
China-Vietnam Conflict in The South China Sea
By EconMatters
China is on a roll upsetting neighbors from all directions in its aggressive stance towards territorial claims.
East China Sea
In the East China Sea, tension and hostility from the row with Japan over a group of uninhabited islands, (known as Diaoyu in China, Senkaku in Japan, Diaoyutai in Taiwan) has dialed up:
- Last November, China created a new air-defense identification zone to include Diaoyu, and would require any aircraft in the zone to comply with rules set by Beijing.
- In May 2014, Tokyo reportedly is planning to set up 3 military outposts near the islands to boost Japan’s defense of ‘its outlying islands’.
- A close call to blows about two weeks ago when China scrambled four fighter jets to deter Japanese aircrafts in the disputed water where China just carried out joint maritime exercises with Russia.
South China Sea
Tension has been rising in the South China Sea since May 1 after China’s state oil company CNOOC mobilized a deepwater semi-sub rig HD-981 drilling near the Paracel Islands (known to China and Taiwan as the Xisha Islands), close to the Vietnam coastline and also claimed by Vietnam. In response, Vietnam dispatched some 40-vessel coast guard fleet to the rig location, but only to be outgunned and outnumbered by China’s fleet of some 60 vessels (including Navy warships, and fishing boats) and fighter jets escorting the $1-billion rig. According to Vietnam, China has since upped the fleet around the rig to 90 vessels
That big oil rig has sparked anti-China protests and riots in Vietnam. China had to send ships to evacuate Chinese workers after some Chinese nationals were killed, and 400+ Chinese factories were burnt down during the riot.
Reportedly, China Oilfield Services Ltd., a unit of CNOOC operating the deep-water rig, already mobilized the rig last week about 20 nautical miles to the east, but drilling exploration was expected to continue until mid-August. Hanoi said the rig still remains in Vietnam's exclusive economic zone as defined by the United Nations. While the rig is still sitting right in Hanoi’s face, the latest drama came this Tuesday after the two navies almost came to blows beyond water cannons.
Separately, China is also having disputes with the Philippines which claims part of the Spratly Islands in the region. Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan all claiming parts of the South China Sea are also rejecting China’s claim.
China ‘9-dash Line’ for Decades
Citing 2,000 years of history where the Paracel (and Spratly island chains) were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation, China has for decades claimed a U-shaped ‘9-dash line’ of the South China Sea (see graph below). This is nothing new and has long been disputed and protested by the neighboring countries including Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. ( Taiwan , which considers itself the only legitimate democratic government of China, has a similar claim to Beijing’s.)
|
|
|
Map Source: WSJ |
Potential Rich Oil and Gas Deposits
Everything got much more intense after it was discovered that the South China Sea (as well as the East China Sea) could have rich oil and gas deposits. This is part of the reason for the U.S. involvement and energy-hungry China flexing its new and improved maritime and economic muscle to assert and defend its claims and sovereign rights as perceived by Beijing.
U.S. Butting In
The U.S. even though officially indicated not taking a position on these territorial disputes, but as Obama re-pivots to Asia to counter-balance China’s increasing influence in the region, countries like Vietnam, Philippines and Japan are looking to the U.S. to essentially back them up when push comes to shove going against China.
To put it another way, when you look at the map comparing the size of Vietnam or even Japan, for example, to China, before even taking into account the respective GDP size, trade volume and relations, what do you think has bolstered the ‘confidence’ of Vietnam and Japan to confront China in such assertive manner, including allowing the anti-China riot to take place? Remember, Vietnam is a communist country similar to China in that public demonstration does not ever occur without official sanctions. The same behind-the-scene U.S. support is also evident in the case of the China-Japan island row in the East China Sea.
China, Vietnam, Philippines in International Mediation
Vietnam is now preparing to sue China in an international court, while the Philippines say it will take China to a UN tribunal. Nevertheless, experts believe the attempts by Philippines and Vietnam to pursue China via international mediation would be futile as China would not be obliged to abide by the ruling.
U.S. Re-pivoting China To Russia
With the U.S. eager to demonstrate goodwill gesture and support to the region, the re-pivoting to Asia campaign by the U.S. is actually re-pivoting China towards Russia. China and Russia just completed a joint naval exercise last month where both Putin and Xi Jinping attended the opening ceremony. According to Taiwan media, as part of the exercise, China and Russia exchanged closely-guarded military and communication system intelligence which signals an unprecedented level of cooperation between the two. Furthermore, in exchange for signing the $400Bn and 30-year gas deal, China will be gaining some much needed invaluable top military technology know-how’s from Russia.
China Calling Obama’s Bluff
Territorial disputes (land or sea) among Asian countries are as old as history itself. Countries usually worked things out eventually or keep status quo. The situation in the East and South China Sea would not have escalated to the current state without U.S. trying to play all sides.
China is basically calling Obama’s bluff that the U.S. will not be able to walk the talk. Frankly, it’d be very imprudent of U.S. to really go against China by taking side in these regional squabbles and risks China and Russia re-acquainting into BFFs again.
CNOOC Chairman Wang Yilin once said,
"Large-scale deep-water rigs are our mobile national territory and a strategic weapon".
So China is unlikely to show weakness losing face in front of the international community, while it is too late in the game for Vietnam or even the U.S. to back out of the situation, even if they want to. Since Vietnam spent $714 million last year on Russian military kit, it’d also be interesting to see Russia’s reaction to the new ties between Vietnam and U.S.
© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | Post Alert | Kindle
»
- advertisements -
That's not a chance China will fight Vietnam. The Vietnamese are extremely tough people. Chinese...mmm..not so tough these days. They are more interested in buying an aprtment, finding a chick, driving a fancy car, etc.
Anybody see the video of Obama hitting the gym in Europe? It was not intimidating and he looked like a girl.
I dont think China has anything to worry about.
No foreign entanglements.
Fire Wolfawitz and Brezinski AND their policies: they are perverted, paranoid, and incendiary.
Like a cat playing with its captured prey, China is just toying, probing, the DC US to see how bankrupt and beholden they are.
Vietnam and the rest will back off when they realize how prostrate the DC US really is.
Ultimately, there will be energy production in the waters of Southeast Asia, but it won't be western companies doing the extracting.
DC US is done, stick a fork it.
GE capital can lease some retired US carriers to Vietnam Coast Guard for target hitting.
Let us examine the so-called "Japan-China islands" dispute.
The Econmatters article creates a false context with deceitful and myopic chronology, omitting Japan's provocative occupation and first declaration of a military 'defense' zone.
And by a larger omission, creates a false impression that China has no legitimate claim and is the one stirring up trouble.
The "China-Japan" dispute is not simply about some small islands, nor is it mostly even a dispute between Japan and China.
1) The dispute is about the US-promoted remilitarization of Japan.
2) The dispute is about globalist US plans to control resources, manipulate finances,
and aggressively "contain" China economically and militarily.
3) The dispute is about Obama's so-called Asian Pivot.
The US did not return the islands after WW2 because the US wants to control them:
(a) initially outright (because of their geographic strategic location) as part of its Cold War containment against “Red China”
(b) and afterwards, through its proxy, militarily occupied Japan. Hence, the US government has pledged to “defend” the islands against China.
In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, the United States, United Kingdom, and China stated it to be their purpose that "all the territories that Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Formosa and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." On 26 July 1945, the three governments issued the Potsdam Declaration, declaring that "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out."
The islands dispute could be settled if the US and its proxy Japan were willing to submit the matter to the ICJ (International Court of Justice).
The other matters behind the dispute cannot be resolved so easily.
"International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world court that handles international boundary disputes at The Hague. The ICJ requires sovereign parties involved in the dispute to accept the court’s jurisdiction and abide by its ruling. Japan’s rejection of an ICJ case therefore indicates serious weaknesses in its territorial claims under existing international law."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-japanese-militarism-and-chinas-air-defen...
"We don't have to refer the matter to a third party for adjudication because the islands indisputably belong to Japan both legally and in actuality," the official said, adding there is no basis for China's claims to the uninhabited islands. [A most convenient belief for US-Japan.]
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2013/09/246239.html
This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling.
http://www.kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-b...
["China" acquiesced between 1945 and 1970? The NY Times must be instead referring to Taiwan, since the US did not officially recognize China until Nixon's visit.]. Even Japan has conceded that islands (the Pescadores) seized from China in 1895 had to be returned.
Japan’s claim is that the islands are not part of the Pescadores, but are islands that Japan subsequently “discovered” and laid claim.
However, the islands were governed by China for hundreds of years before Japan “discovered” them.
You make several very good points. Thanks for the toughts. I wanted to learn more about this dispute. I read some Chinese cartographer right after WWII drew a comprehensive map of who owned what but I have no details except his map included China's ownership of much of the disputed area and no one [namely other countries] disputed him at the time.
obamas pivot is a piroette in a shabby tutu
Also
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-military-pivot-to-asia-obama-wants...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/dangerous-crossroads-us-japan-talks-escalat...
USA and Viet Nam have always been allies, Winston.
I always heard in the 60s that oil and gas was the reason for americas involvement in the war guess they were right go figure
Sadly the catalyst for war has not been diminished as many people have hoped it would once the world matured. National pride, political agendas, religious and ethnic hatreds are some of the biggest roadblocks to world peace. Often we seem to forget as we look back to World War II and past a dozen "lesser Conflicts" peace has been the exception rather then the rule for hundreds and thousands of years.
The true reality is that across the world few mothers want to see their children killed and most farmers want to be left along to raise their crops and earn a living. More on the subject of war as a solution to conflict in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/05/war-and-what-is-it-good-for.html
china be all like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJYiuZkRXw#t=21
Always hated Queen.
How can you hate "Fat Bottom Girls" ?? ........... that's good eatin'