China unlikely to budge on thorny South China Sea dispute

[beijingwalker]

China unlikely to budge on thorny South China Sea dispute

By Ben Blanchard

BEIJING | Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:31am IST

(Reuters) - Pressured at home and increasingly sensing a concerted regional effort to contain its territorial claims, China will be in no mood to make concessions on vast areas of the disputed South China Sea at two key east Asian summits in Indonesia this week.

China has the most extensive historic sovereignty claims in the potentially oil and gas rich South China Sea, including uninhabited atolls near the equatorial northern coast of Borneo.

Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei are the other claimants to parts of the sea, and along with the United States and Japan, are pressuring Beijing to try and seek some way forward on the knotty issue of sovereignty, which has flared up again this year with often tense maritime stand-offs.

But China, growing in confidence and military power, will see no reason to back down, a foreign policy analyst said.

"It's pretty prominent and pretty powerful now, so why back down now?" Kerry Brown, head of the Asia Programme at Chatham House, a London foreign policy institute.

"It would be odd for it to do so when you consider how big its strategic needs are, its energy needs, and the potential that these disputed territories have to fulfil those," he added.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is attending first a summit with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), followed straight after by the East Asia Summit on Nov. 19, both on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.

The East Asia Summit has been held every year since 2005. It gathers senior officials or leaders from Southeast Asia, China, Japan, India, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand. U.S. President Barack Obama is also due to attend this year.

Diplomats say the South China Sea will most likely be raised during the two meetings.

DISPUTES

Claimants to the sea have been trying to cool tension after a series of disputes this year, including when Chinese patrol boats threatened to ram a Philippine-contracted survey ship in the Reed Bank in March.

China and Vietnam last month signed an agreement seeking to contain the dispute, but the wording was vague and contained little new that the two sides had not agreed on previously.

"It's really only a question of time before we see another incident of the kind we saw earlier this year," said Ian Storey, a fellow at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

"China opposes any discussion of the issue at these kinds of forums," he added. "It opposes the 'internationalisation' of the problem. That's a limiting factor because China is obviously the key player in all of this and if it doesn't want to talk you're not going to make much headway."

China insists the dispute can only be resolved by bilateral talks between the parties directly concerned and has reacted angrily to attempts by the United States or old enemy Japan to get involved. India too has entered the frame via an oil exploration agreement with Vietnam.

With U.S. bases to the east in Japan and South Korea, China fears its southern flank could be threatened if the United States stepped up its naval presence in the South China Sea, even if, as Washington says, it only wants to protect freedom of navigation.

Expecting ASEAN to play a role could also be wishful thinking.

"ASEAN does not even have a common stand on the South China Sea dispute and has a poor track record in settling issues like this," said Rommel Banlaoi, executive director of Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research.

PUBLIC SUPPORT IN CHINA

China's state-run press has given wide coverage to the dispute.

Last week, the overseas edition of the People's Daily warned East Asian countries against letting the United States poke its nose in prickly questions like the South China Sea.

"Everything shows that the United States will provoke the contradictions which exist between countries in this region for its own benefit," it said in a commentary.

As well, more than 80 percent of respondents to an on-line survey the Global Times' website said force should be used to resolve the issue, putting a degree of public pressure on the government not to surrender or weaken its claims.

"Whatever happens, I hope the country does not let its people lose face over this," wrote one on-line reader of the popular tabloid, run by Communist Party mouthpiece the People's Daily.

 

[Greater China]

A New Era of Gunboat Diplomacy

Navies Ramping Up: Three Contested Regions

It may seem strange in an era of cyberwarfare and drone attacks, but the newest front in the rivalry between the United States and China is a tropical sea, where the drive to tap rich offshore oil and gas reserves has set off a conflict akin to the gunboat diplomacy of the 19th century.

The Obama administration first waded into the treacherous waters of the South China Sea last year when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared, at a tense meeting of Asian countries in Hanoi, that the United States would join Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries in resisting Beijing’s efforts to dominate the sea. China, predictably, was enraged by what it viewed as American meddling.

For all its echoes of the 1800s, not to mention the cold war, the showdown in the South China Sea augurs a new type of maritime conflict — one that is playing out from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arctic Ocean, where fuel-hungry economic powers, newly accessible undersea energy riches and even changes in the earth’s climate are conspiring to create a 21st-century contest for the seas.

China is not alone in its maritime ambitions. Turkey has clashed with Cyprus and stoked tensions with Greece and Israel over natural-gas fields that lie under the eastern Mediterranean. Several powers, including Russia, Canada and the United States, are eagerly circling the Arctic, where melting polar ice is opening up new shipping routes and the tantalizing possibility of vast oil and gas deposits beneath.

“This hunt for resources is going to consume large bodies of water around the world for at least the next couple of decades,” Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview, describing a global competition that sounds like a watery Great Game.

Such tensions are sure to shadow President Obama this week, as he meets with leaders from China and other Asian countries in Honolulu and on the Indonesian island of Bali. Administration officials said they expected all sides to tamp down disagreements, though that won’t mask the coming conflicts.

“Underlying all of this is the recognition that an increasing share of oil resources is offshore,” said Daniel Yergin, an energy expert and author of a new book, “The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World.” “When you have energy resources on land,” he said, “you know where things stand. When they’re offshore, things can get murkier.”

Twenty-nine million barrels of oil a day, one-third of global production, now come from offshore fields, Mr. Yergin said, a share that will rise steadily. The South China Sea alone is estimated to have 61 billion barrels of petroleum — oil and gas — plus 54 billion yet to be discovered, while the Arctic is projected to have 238 billion barrels, with possibly twice that in undiscovered sources.

As countries race to erect drilling rigs and send oil exploration vessels to comb the seabed, conflicting maritime claims are helping to fuel a naval arms race. It is no coincidence that the countries with the fastest-growing navies are those with stakes in these energy zones.

China expanded from 2 Soviet-era destroyers in 1990 to 13 modern destroyers in 2010, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. In its drive for a blue-water navy, one that operates in the deep waters of open oceans, it is also building an aircraft carrier. Malaysia and Vietnam are beefing up their navies with frigates and submarines. India, which wants to make sure it has access to the Far East, is bulking up. And the Israeli Navy is pushing for more vessels to counter Turkish warships circling Israeli drilling rigs.

“Countries want to make sure they have the ability to develop resources and to make sure their trading routes are protected,” said David L. Goldwyn, a former special envoy for international energy affairs at the State Department.

This competition is also behind calls for the United States to bolster its naval strength, even at a time of budget cuts. Mitt Romney, considered by many the Republican front-runner in the presidential race, declared recently he would “reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.” With anemic building rates and tighter maintenance budgets, analysts say, the Navy has been forced to cope with an aging fleet that some say is not up to its challenges.

Even so, the Obama administration has been an active practitioner of gunboat diplomacy, a term that refers to achieving foreign-policy objectives through vivid displays of naval might. Last fall, Mr. Obama sent the aircraft carrier George Washington to the Yellow Sea for joint exercises with South Korea, sending a message to both North Korea and its key backer, China. The move echoed the Clinton administration’s decision in 1996 to send the Seventh Fleet to warn China against attacking Taiwan.

The United States has used gunboat diplomacy in Asia at least since 1853, when Commodore Matthew C. Perry sailed his fleet into Tokyo Bay, intimidating Japan into opening up to foreign trade. But these days, the Chinese are fashioning an Asian version of the Monroe Doctrine to press their imperial ambitions.

For Mr. Obama, whose roots in Hawaii and Indonesia have imbued him with a strong Pacific worldview, the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan gives him a good pretext to turn his gaze eastward. The United States has worked to shore up its ties to old Asian allies, like Japan and South Korea, as well as India. The goal, though administration officials are loath to say it publicly, is to assemble a coalition to counterbalance China’s growing power.

On a recent tour of Asia, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta pledged not to retreat from the region. “If anything,” he said, “we’re going to strengthen our presence in the Pacific.” This week, Mr. Obama is expected to announce an agreement with Australia for a permanent American military presence there.

On land, the race for energy supplies is not new, of course. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the United States maneuvered to keep Russia out of oil-rich Iran. Today, China is busy cutting deals in energy-rich Africa. But technology has changed the equation, putting undersea oil and gas fields into play as never before.

“At root, it’s a question of when and how you will have these conflicts,” said James B. Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state with experience in all three regions. “Will countries see these as win-win opportunities, or will they see them as zero-sum competitions?”

For China, the South China Sea has long been crucial as a supply route for oil and other raw materials to fuel its economy. China’s claims have deep historical roots, dating from the 1940s, when Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists drew a dotted line in the shape of a cow’s tongue extending south of China, embracing most the sea and two disputed island chains, the Paracels and the Spratlys.

Quarrels over these hunks of volcanic rock wouldn’t matter much, except that China, Vietnam and the Philippines are running into one another in the race for oil. Last spring, in two separate incidents, Vietnam accused Chinese vessels of deliberately cutting the seismic survey cables of an oil exploration ship. A former American official said his nightmare scenario would be a Chinese warship’s firing on an Exxon oil-drilling ship.

If the South China Sea is simmering, then the eastern Mediterranean is seething. There, claims to huge natural-gas reserves off the coast of Cyprus and Lebanon have raised tensions with Turkey, which occupies half of Cyprus, as well as with Israel. Cyprus and Israel are drilling for gas, angering Turkey. The militant Islamic group Hezbollah, in Lebanon, has threatened to attack Israeli gas rigs.

Further complicating this is the bitter rift between Turkey and Israel after the deadly Israeli commando interception of a Turkish flotilla trying to transport aid to Palestinians in Gaza last year.

“The Turks are saying, ‘The Israelis humiliated us; what can we do in return?’” said Charles K. Ebinger, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Part of it is just the greater assertiveness of Turkey’s foreign policy everywhere.”

Perhaps the least dangerous arena of competition lies in the frigid north, partly because experts believe that many of the Arctic’s mineral deposits lie within one or another of the 200-mile exclusive economic zones of the countries that ring the ocean. But even countries with no Arctic coastline, like China and South Korea, are sending icebreakers there to explore weather patterns and fish migration.

Ironically, the biggest bone of contention there is between two stalwart allies, the United States and Canada. Melting ice has opened up the fabled Northwest Passage, which runs through an archipelago of islands in northern Canada. The United States views the passage as an international waterway, giving American ships unlimited access. The Canadian government insists it is an inland waterway, meaning that foreign ships can use it only with Ottawa’s approval.

Canada and the United States are highly unlikely to go to war, of course, though the wrangling could keep maritime lawyers busy for years. As temperatures climb, officials warn, tempers may follow. “It’s a serious legal dispute,” Mr. Steinberg said. “When it is ice-free, there will be some real issues.”

New York Times

 

[Greater China]

 

[applesauce]

why is japan listed in the south china sea dispute?

 

[china hyperpower]

if chinese leaders give up any territory on the south china sea.
then i think its time for this administration to go.
they have failed to protect chinese territories.

ive said before, military force is the only option left.
if it hurts us, so be it, sacrifices must be made to protect chinese territory AT ALL COSTS!

get rid of that stupid no first use nuclear policy, what a ridiculous rule to have.
to much money buying US debt and not enough spent on the military is another issue for this administration.

time to take the hardline approach, enough diplomatic talks.

 

[isro2222]

@China hyperpower. Its time for chinese administration to go?.... Who the hell are you to say that? You going to vote against them? Oh wait you CAN'T vote.... Don't say that or else they will run tank over you like they did in past.... By the way you are right that military action is the only option. China should try that because uncle sam wants an excuse to chop china out of planet. China ain't nowhere near american military capablitys.... Even india and japan from both side is enough to eleminate china out of planet. China ain't got anyone to turn towards. Just pakistan and may be nut brain north korea might help you and thats what uncle sam wants so they can eliminate all 3 countries at same time. All countries are against china. Chinese peaceful rise went to dustbin.... They are isolated....

 

[Filmmaker]

if chinese leaders give up any territory on the south china sea.
then i think its time for this administration to go.
they have failed to protect chinese territories.

ive said before, military force is the only option left.
if it hurts us, so be it, sacrifices must be made to protect chinese territory AT ALL COSTS!

get rid of that stupid no first use nuclear policy, what a ridiculous rule to have.
to much money buying US debt and not enough spent on the military is another issue for this administration.

time to take the hardline approach, enough diplomatic talks.

So when r u going to start ur military adventure?
one request please start on weekdays so that i can enjoy without missing one shot relaxing in my bed

 

[Filmmaker]

on serious note "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way" Daniele Vare

 

[S10]

why is japan listed in the south china sea dispute?

A large percentage of goods and raw resources imported by Japan travels through SCS. Also, Japan forms part of the first island chain against China. Naturally, they want to hold firm.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

if chinese leaders give up any territory on the south china sea.
then i think its time for this administration to go.
they have failed to protect chinese territories.

ive said before, military force is the only option left.
if it hurts us, so be it, sacrifices must be made to protect chinese territory AT ALL COSTS!

get rid of that stupid no first use nuclear policy, what a ridiculous rule to have.
to much money buying US debt and not enough spent on the military is another issue for this administration.

time to take the hardline approach, enough diplomatic talks.

I see you have little understanding of military, political and economic matters. It's best that you avoid speaking.

 

[HavocHeaven]

So when r u going to start ur military adventure?
one request please start on weekdays so that i can enjoy without missing one shot relaxing in my bed

If you sent Indian oil drilling platforms to South China Sea, we would wipe them for sure.

 

[Filmmaker]

If you sent Indian oil drilling platforms to South China Sea, we would wipe them for sure.

See you then in ur so called backyard

 

[Determined Tiger]

why is japan listed in the south china sea dispute?

you just forgot the South Korea???

but anyways, be careful of some vietnamese american born sockpuppet will jump in, take down his pants himself and ask: "WHY the hell usa only have that small fleet number!?"

you know who am i talking about!?

 

[china hyperpower]

A large percentage of goods and raw resources imported by Japan travels through SCS. Also, Japan forms part of the first island chain against China. Naturally, they want to hold firm.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------


I see you have little understanding of military, political and economic matters. It's best that you avoid speaking.

yea sure, lets just give everything to india right.
lets take the qing dynasty approach and just surrender all chinese territories.

according to u, china should be taking orders from foreigners.

lets be nice with invaders, its like saying america should be nice with al qaeda.
terrorist regime like india should be dealth with ruthless military force.

no time for liberals like u when foreingers are trying to grab chinese territory like vultures.

mark my words, if china is not hardline with fascist expansionist regimes like india, then they will take over all of the south china sea.
u give an inch to fascists, they take it a mile.
indian regime is behaving identical to the nazi regime, invading on foreign territory.
fascist regimes such as india should be wiped off this map without any regard for indian life.
zero tolerance should be given to invaders.

80% of that poll agress with me.
ur in the minority.

 

[HavocHeaven]

if it is then more good coz it will bring more countries in region and if you will do so then we will wipe out your ships from the malacca since our bases are near their

Go ahead do it. Dare you to move.

 

[HavocHeaven]

See you then in ur so called backyard

say when
im gonna get some popcorn