South China Sea ruling bolsters tougher U.S.

stance
Larter 2016 (David, Staff Writer Sightline Media Group, Marketing Coordinator
for Commonwealth Partnerships Group, Reporter for Richmond BizSense,
Gannett Government Media Corporation, Staff Writer for Gannett Government
Media Corporation, Operations Specialist for the US Navy, South China Sea
ruling bolsters tougher U.S. stance, NavyTimes, July 13, 2016,
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/12/south-china-sea-rulingbolsters-tougher-us-stance/86986924/)
An international panel rejected the legality of China's expansive claims to the
South China Sea that were furthered by extensive island-building, a tactic
that has drawn the ire of U.S. leaders. The ruling Tuesday was a victory for
the Philippines, which brought the case against China to the Permanent Court
of Arbitration, and also a win for U.S. Navy leaders who have warned China
was bullying its neighbors to bolster its claims to nearly all of the South China
Sea. The panel in The Hague, Netherlands, dismissed Chinas attempt to
create legal rights for features in the Spratly Islands chain by constructing air
strips and bases there. The ruling states that piling dirt and sand on rocky
outcroppings and reefs doesn't confer additional resource rights to the waters
around it. The ruling did not, however, resolve the competing sovereignty
claims for high-tide features such as Scarborough Shoal, which the tribunal
found were entitled to 12-mile territorial seas. The court did find that none of
the contested features were entitled to the 200-mile exclusive economic
zones, because none of them could support human habitation in their natural
state. The ruling was rejected outright by China, the Foreign Ministry of which
said the court overstepped its jurisdiction by tossing aside a previous
agreement between the Philippines and China to resolve the dispute
bilaterally. China has embarked on massive island-building to bolster claims
to exclusive economic rights to much of the South China Sea, and give them
a strong hand to develop deposits of oil and gas in areas near the Spratly
Islands.

The South China Sea Is the Reason the United States Must
Ratify UNCLOS
Cardin 2016 (Ben, Ben Cardin is a United States Senator from Maryland and
the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and its
Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, The South China Sea Is the
Reason the United States Must Ratify UNCLOS, Foreign Policy, July 13, 2016,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/13/the-south-china-sea-is-the-reason-theunited-states-must-ratify-unclos/)

The July 12 ruling by a tribunal of the International Tribunal on the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS) in the case brought by the Philippines firmly rejected Chinas

expansive claims in the South China Sea. The court declared that the ninedash line, the foundation for Chinas historical claims in the region, had no
legal basis. The tribunal also determined that none of the land features in the
Spratlys, a group of contested reefs and atolls, meet the global standard for
island entitlements, and therefore neither individually nor collectively warrant
200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones (EEZ), as China asserted. The
decision is a hugely important moment for the Asia-Pacific order. Yet Beijing
has rejected this opportunity to play a more constructive role in the region,
repeatedly stating that it will not abide by the ruling. If Beijing wont be
helpful, what can the United States do to strengthen global institutions in the
region? Join the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
the international institution through which the ITLOS arbitration was
conducted. Such an action would communicate that for the United States,
resolution of maritime disputes in the South China Sea is not a question of
being for or against any particular country or its claims, but rather for being
on the side of international law, institutions and norms. The United States
played an instrumental role in forming UNCLOS in the 1970s, and in
subsequent negotiations worked to modify the treaty language to assure that
U.S. national interests were safeguarded. Yet although both Democrat and
Republican presidents have advocated its passing, the Senate has yet to
ratify it. This is regrettable. But just like when we helped forge UNCLOS more
than 40 years ago, we have much to gain from joining today. We shaped the
treaty to be very favorable to the United States: we reserved the only
permanent seat on the international council that will oversee deep seabed
mining, including potentially rich sources of untapped energy resources,
minerals, and precious metals. That permanent seat remains embarrassingly
vacant, and decisions are being made about seabed mining in international
waters without U.S. participation. Moreover, the estimated additional area the
United States could claim sovereignty under the continental shelf expansion
provisions of the treaty is an area across the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards
estimated at roughly one and a half times the size of Texas. Our failure to
ratify the treaty also undermines our ability to fully work with our allies and
partners in the South China Sea region. If we are not party to UNCLOS, it is
difficult for the United States to rely on the treaty to determine the legal
entitlements of mid-ocean features, which claims are lawful, and what exactly
constitutes the high seas. Its also harder for us to suggest it as the basis for
resolving claims and arbitrating disputes or to rely on EEZs drawn under
UNCLOSs auspices. Moreover, a broad set of stakeholders including the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, environmental organizations, the military, and
industry specific trade groups representing commercial fishing, freight
shipping and mineral extraction all support U.S. accession to the treaty.
Perhaps most importantly, our military leaders have stated that U.S.
participation will help them maintain navigational rights and with less risk
to the men and women they command. It has been long-standing policy that
the United States does not take a position on the ultimate disposition of the
competing maritime and territorial claims made by China and other countries
in the South China Sea. But we do have a position on how the claims are

adjudicated, and on how questions related to the different features reefs,

rocks, shoals and islands are classified under international law. Given our
profound national security interests in the free flow of commerce and
freedom of navigation around the world, we have a deep national security
interest in how the claims are dealt with, as well as the territorial and
economic claims that result from how high tide and low tide features are
defined. We also have a deep and abiding interest in the development of
functional problem-solving architecture and rules-based norms in the AsiaPacific region, and in its regional diplomacy. Unfortunately, China has
vociferously stated that it will disregard the tribunal ruling, repeating this
posture after the announcement of the ruling. In so doing it has elevated this
case to a test for the regional and international community: If China and other
states in the region disregard the arbitral ruling discarding UNCLOS in the
process it will be a grave blow to regional order and the international
system. Today is a day for nations to choose between continuing to build a
world of rules, law, and order, or a return to a world of growing volatility and
great power politics. I call on my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to join me in stating our commitment to ratifying this critical treaty when the
new Congress convenes in January 2017. Congressional ratification of
UNCLOS will help secure U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and will
reaffirm the principles of freedom of navigation in international waters and
airspace in accordance with international law. Few actions could be more
important as we contemplate the choppy waters we must now navigate to
secure and safeguard U.S. interests and values in the region, and as we
support our partners and allies in building a stable, prosperous rules-based
order in the Asia-Pacific.

Top Beijing diplomat hits at US over South China Sea

tribunal : Washington accused of using legal process as
well as warships to challenge Beijing
Kynge and Mitchell 16 (James Kynge and Tom Mitchell, James Kynge is the
Principal of China Confidential and Renminbi Compass. Tom Mitchell is the
Beijing Bureau Chief at the Financial Times, Top Beijing diplomat hits at US
over South China Sea tribunal : Washington accused of using legal process as
well as warships to challenge Beijing, Financial Times, July 19, 2016,
https://next.ft.com/content/a42ed2ca-4d82-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590a)

A top Chinese diplomat has criticized the US over a politically motivated

arbitration case that dismissed Beijings claim to most of the South China
Sea, saying Washington wanted to use legal process to humiliate Beijing even
as its warships challenged Chinese sovereignty in the region. The comments
by Liu Xiaoming, Chinas ambassador to London, on Tuesday came as Admiral
John Richardson, the US Navy chief, called on Beijing and other Asian

governments to exercise thoughtfulness and restraint after last weeks

ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. There should be a
big question about US behaviour in all of thisI think this arbitration case is
politically motivated, Mr Liu said. On the one hand they [the US] send their
warships and airplanes to challenge Chinas sovereignty and on the other
they think this might be a good legal case launchedto try to humiliate
China diplomatically, to damage Chinas image and also give them a legal
basis with which to challenge China. Beijing reacted with fury to the verdict
of the international tribunal, in a suit brought by the Philippines, which found
there was no legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea for Chinas claims to more than 80 percent of the South China Sea.
Speaking in Beijing, Adm Richardson told the Financial Times: We would
expect that [China and the Philippines] would abide by the rulingthe ruling
gives all claimants to the South China Sea disputes a lot of reasons to stop
and think. His appeal for calm followed reports by the official Xinhua news
agency that construction by Beijing on man-made islands under its control
would never stop halfway. Xinhua quoted a Chinese military spokesman as
saying the air force had started regular patrols over the region. US Navy spy
aircraft have patrolled the Chinese coast for decades. In recent years the
Pentagon has launched freedom of navigation exercises that Adam
Richardson said were targeted at Chinas excessive maritime claims. But
amid its denunciations of the tribunal as illegitimate, China has signaled a
desire to manage tensions. Mr. Liu said he hoped all countries with South
China Sea coasts would come to the negotiating table and accept a Chinese,
proposal to shelve disputes and work towards joint development of the seas
resources. He added that the new government in Manila, led by Rodrigo
Duterte, had an opportunity to create a turning point in China-Philippines
relations by joining talks. However, early efforts toward such talks appeared
to hit a snag on Tuesday when Perfecto Yasay, the Philippines foreign
secretary, said he rejected any offer from China to engage in talks outside of
and in disregard of the tribunals ruling. Such a course would not be
consistent with Manilas constitution or national interest, Mr Yasay told the
ABS-CBN network.

In South China Sea Dispute, Filipinos Say U.S. Credibility

Is On The Line
Sullvian, 16 (Michael, Senior Asia Correspondent for National Public Radio,
based in Hanoi since 2003. Prior to that, Sullivan spent 6 years as the
network's South Asia correspondent. Sullivan has received awards from the
Overseas Press Club, South Asia Journalists Association, and, with Jennifer
Ludden, Loren Jenkins, and Paul Glickman, won the 1998 Robert F. Kennedy
Journalism Award for international radio, In South China Sea Dispute,
Filipinos Say U.S. Credibility Is On The Line, NPR, July 17, 2016,

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/17/486240079/in-south-china-sea-disputefilipinos-say-u-s-credibility-is-on-the-line)

An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a stinging rebuke to China

last week, ruling that China's claims to nearly the entire South China Sea
were invalid. The decision also questioned the legality of China's claim of
and construction on several reefs also claimed by the Philippines, which
brought the case. China says it won't abide by the ruling. And some in the
Philippines worry China will go ahead with building activity on Scarborough
Shoal, a section of rocks and reef which it seized in 2012. The shoal sits just
110 nautical miles from the main Philippines island of Luzon. "Every reef
they've seized they've made into an island," says Antonio Carpio, a senior
associate justice of the Philippines Supreme Court. "What makes Scarborough
Shoal exceptional? Nothing." Carpio is a vocal defender of the Philippines'
territorial claims in its dispute with China. He says a Chinese presence on
Scarborough Shoal would threaten not only the Philippines, but also U.S.
forces using Philippine bases under a new, enhanced defense cooperation
agreement. "If you have an airfield there, maybe it will take just 15 minutes
for the fighter jets there to reach Manila," he says. "And the U.S. forces using
Clark [Air Base] and Subic [naval base] are all within range." That fact is not
lost on the United States. The U.S. has consistently said it has no dog in the
fight over conflicting claims in the South China Sea. But in recent months the
U.S. has conducted a series of high-profile freedom of navigation operations
in the disputed waters, near the artificial islands China has created there.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin speaks during a conference at the
State Council Information Office on Wednesday in Beijing. In late June, two
U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups conducted joint operations in the Philippine
Sea ahead of the tribunal's decision. And U.S. warplanes based at Clark Air
Base conducted patrols near Scarborough Shoal. "Definitely the U.S. has sent
some strong signals to the Chinese that they're willing to do more than
they're used to," says Jay Batongbacal, director of the Institute for Maritime
Affairs and Law of the Sea at the University of the Philippines. Batongbacal
thinks the increased U.S. presence and the ruling of the court may force
China to hit the pause button. "Even their strategists would know, I think, that
the Scarborough Shoal would be a tipping point for the U.S. and Japan, given
how the situation has radically changed," he says. "Because it would
complete the so-called strategic triangle that could finally establish full
control over the South China Sea, and they would know that the U.S. and
Japan will not allow that to happen easily." But does the Scarborough Shoal
really represent a red line for the U.S. one worth the risk of open conflict
with China? Richard Heydarian of Manila's De La Salle University isn't so sure.
He's the author of Asia's New Battlefield: The USA, China and the struggle for
the Western Pacific. "We already heard this red line statement on Syria, and
clearly saw how [it was] not [a] red line after all," he says. He says many
Filipinos, including the new president Rodrigo Duterte, fear the same

"artificial posturing red line" on the Scarborough Shoal. Heydarian says that
mistrust of U.S. support helps explain the Philippines' tempered response to
the court's verdict. In return for "the Philippines not flaunting and taunting
the verdict," he speculates, "China will give guarantees in the short term at
least that it will not up the ante, it will not establish facilities in the
Scarborough Shoal and will actually perhaps give Filipino fishermen more
access to that area." That hasn't happened so far. Filipino fishermen who tried
this week were again turned back by Chinese vessels. But China and the
Philippines have been cautious at least with each other in their reaction
to the tribunal's ruling. There's an expectation here that this restraint will
last, at least for a few months. The softer approach, adopted by new Filipino
President Rodrigo Duterte, runs in stark contrast to the rancor that
characterized relations between China and the Philippines under his
predecessor, Benigno Aquino III. Jay Batongbacal expects the two sides to sit
down for bilateral talks on solving their dispute peacefully. "As long as they
don't make the situation any worse by taking an even harder line," he says,
or "additional unilateral action, I think there will be some room, at least, for
both parties to step back from the collision course that they seemed to be on
and work out a mutually acceptable solution." Carpio, the Supreme Court
justice, agrees that the Philippines and China will likely sit down and talk,
especially about exploiting natural resources beneath the sea. But he doesn't
expect China to compromise on Scarborough Shoal. He expects China to fill it
in and build, similar to what China did with with Spratly Islands further to the
south. The Philippines can't stop it, Carpio says. It's up to the Americans. But
how? "I don't know the answer to that, whether they can enforce that red line
or not," Carpio says. "But they will lose a lot of credibility if they say there is a
red line and the red line disappears." He says it doesn't just matter to the
Philippines. Japan, Vietnam and other countries engaged in maritime disputes
with China will take note of what Washington does next.

Chinese Official On Tribunal Ruling: 'It's Nothing But A

Scrap Of Paper'
Domonoske, 16 (Camila, Associate Producer, Digital News for NPR, Chinese
Official On Tribunal Ruling: 'It's Nothing But A Scrap Of Paper', NPR, July 13,
2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2016/07/13/485814417/chinese-official-on-tribunal-ruling-its-nothing-buta-scrap-of-paper)

After an international tribunal invalidated Beijing's claims to the South China

Sea, Chinese authorities have declared in no uncertain terms that they will be
ignoring the ruling. A U.S. Marine amphibious assault vehicle makes its way
to shore after leaving an amphibious transport dock ship during a landing
exercise on a beach at San Antonio in the Philippines' Zambales Province on

April 21, 2015. The exercise was part of annual Philippine-U.S. joint
maneuvers and took place some 137 miles east of the Scarborough Shoal in
the South China Sea. The Philippines brought the case to the Permanent
Court of Arbitration in The Hague, objecting to China's claims to maritime
rights in the disputed waters. The tribunal agreed that China had no legal
authority to claim the waters and was infringing on the sovereign rights of the
Philippines. As we reported Tuesday, the tribunal's rejection of China's "ninedash line" is legally binding, but essentially impossible to enforce. And China
certainly won't be voluntarily cooperating. "We do not claim an inch of land
that does not belong to us, but we won't give up any patch that is ours," the
official Chinese newspaper The People's Daily wrote on Wednesday. "China
will take all necessary measures to protect the inviolability of the territorial
sovereignty and maritime rights and interests." Wang Mao-lin, Taiwan's coast
guard commander for the Spratly Islands, speaks next to an image of Taiping
Island during a visit by journalists to the island on March 23. The island,
claimed by Taiwan, is one of many that are dispute in the South China Sea.
China's vice foreign minister, Liu Zhenmin, spoke even more bluntly. "The
Chinese government's stance on the ruling is clear ... it's nothing but a scrap
of paper," he said, according to the Financial Times. "It will not be enforced. "I
hope everybody puts the ruling in a paper bin or on the shelf, put it in the
archives and that's it," he said. "Eventually we need to go back to
negotiation." Liu said Beijing had the right to establish an air defense
identification zone over the disputed waters, if it so chose. He also suggested
there would be "tangible benefits" to the Philippines if the two countries sat
down at the negotiating table, The Associated Press reports. Members of the
Chinese navy stand guard on China's first aircraft carrier, Liaoning, in 2013.
Tensions in the South China Sea have grown over territorial disputes between
China, the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam and others. The president of the
Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, has not responded to China since the decision
came down, the AP reports. Meanwhile, Taiwan has objected to part of the
tribunal's decision, which declared islands claimed by Taiwan to be rocks that
can't be used to establish maritime rights. The self-governing island, which
China regards as a rogue province, will continue to conduct patrol missions
through the disputed waters in fact, a Taiwanese ship headed out on patrol
on Wednesday. Small fishing boats sit in the dock in Tanmen on Hainan Island.
The government has subsidized the upgrading of Tanmen's fishing fleet as
part of its drive to exert more control in the South China Sea. The Chinese
public are angry as well. NPR's Anthony Kuhn explained on Facebook Live on
Tuesday that China has "really talked up its position" on the South China Sea,
so that the government is now concerned about how people will respond to
the tribunal's decision. That's now playing out online, Anthony reports
Wednesday. "China's Internet users have vented anger at the ruling, some
even calling for war against the U.S. and the Philippines," Anthony reports.
"Censors have deleted many of the more strident comments."

South China Sea Ruling Deepens Tensions Between US,

China
Pennington, 16 (Matthew, Reporter, Asia-US Affairs Associated Press, South
China Sea Ruling Deepens Tensions Between US, China, ABC, Jul 12, 2016,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-china-sea-rulingdeepens-tensions-us-china-40534541)

A landmark international tribunal ruling on the South China Sea threatens to

sharpen the differences between the United States and China, highlighting a
growing gulf between the world powers. "It will certainly intensify conflict and
even confrontation," China's ambassador to the U.S., Cui Tiankai, said hours
after the Hague-based tribunal issued its decision. "In the end it will
undermine the authority and effectiveness of international law." In contrast,
U.S. officials expressed hope that Tuesday's ruling, which rejected the legal
basis of China's expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea, could
provide an impetus to diplomacy. The ruling in a case brought by the
Philippines was "an important contribution to the shared goal of a peaceful
resolution to disputes in the South China Sea," said Daniel Kritenbrink, the
White House policy director for Asia. Both he and Cui spoke at Washington's
Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, and their comments
reflected how the South China Sea is increasingly the spoiler in relations
between the U.S. and China. President Barack Obama and Chinese President
Xi Jinping have managed to cooperate on global issues such as climate
change, but tensions have grown over China's land reclamation in the South
China Sea. China has created artificial islands with military facilities, viewed
by the U.S. as an attempt to gain effective control of the area. The U.S. has
responded with more military patrols, which China views as provocative. If
first reactions to the ruling are anything to go by, the differences are set to
deepen although both sides say they don't want this issue to dominate the
relationship. Kritenbrink said the U.S. stance was not driven by any strategic
rivalry between the U.S. and China, but a desire to uphold the "rules-based
international order." He said if that broke down, and countries built up
strength and became more assertive, history shows it could lead to "tragic
outcomes." Cui reiterated Beijing's support for negotiations to resolve
territorial disputes, but said the ruling would set back the prospects of
diplomacy in the South China Sea, where six Asian governments have
competing claims. He also warned of the risk of conflict, but said it was China
that was standing up for international law, by rejecting arbitration it had not
consented to. The tribunal ruled it had jurisdiction in the case under the U.N.
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which both China and the Philippines
but not the United States are party to. To what extent the South China Sea
dominates the U.S.-China relationship may hinge on their actions. China could
assert its sovereignty claims by declaring an air defense identification zone
over the South China Sea, or starting construction on Scarborough Shoal,

where a standoff with the Philippines prompted Manila to file the arbitration
case in 2013. Amarjit Singh, a senior consultant at IHS Country Risk,
predicted that after the ruling, the U.S. would undertake so-called "freedom
of navigation" patrols and flights within the area to reinforce the tribunal's
findings that various Chinese claims there are not valid. U.S. lawmakers are
urging such action. Influential Republican Sen. John McCain was among those
calling for the U.S. to regularly challenge "China's excessive maritime
claims." Since the tribunal ruled that some of China's artificial islands are
"low tide elevations" that are not entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial
sea, the U.S. may be tempted to sail closer than it has in the past. "In theory
we could sail within 500 meters" of Mischief Reef, said Michael McDevitt, a
retired U.S. Navy rear admiral with long experience in the Pacific. The reef is
one of China's reclaimed islands, about 130 miles (210 kilometers) off the
Philippine coast. Cui said such operations are a threat to freedom of
navigation by commercial and civilian vessels. He compared Obama's
strategic pivot to boost the U.S. presence in the relatively stable Asia-Pacific
to American interventions in Middle East countries such as Iraq, Libya and
Syria implying that it could lead to turmoil.

Freedom of navigation patrols may end 'in disaster':

Chinese admiral says
Blanchard 16 (Ben, Senior Correspondent for Reuters, Freedom of navigation
patrols may end 'in disaster': Chinese admiral, Reuters, Jul 18, 2016,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-ruling-idUSKCN0ZY0FJ)

Freedom of navigation patrols carried out by foreign navies in the South

China Sea could end "in disaster", a senior Chinese admiral has said, a
warning to the United States after last week's ruling against Beijing's claims
in the area. China has refused to recognize the ruling by an arbitration court
in The Hague that invalidated its vast territorial claims in the South China
Sea, and did not take part in the proceedings brought by the Philippines. It
has reacted angrily to calls by Western countries and Japan for adherence to
the decision. China has repeatedly blamed the United States for stirring up
trouble in the South China Sea, a strategic waterway through which more
than $5 trillion of trade moves annually. China, Brunei, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam all have rival claims, of which China's is the
largest. The United States has conducted freedom of navigation patrols close
to Chinese-held islands, to Beijing's anger, while China has been bolstering its
military presence there. Speaking behind closed doors at a forum in Beijing
on Saturday evening, Sun Jianguo, an admiral and deputy chief of the Joint
Staff Department of the powerful Central Military Commission, said the
freedom of navigation issue was bogus and one that certain countries
repeatedly hyped up. "When has freedom of navigation in the South China

Sea ever been affected? It has not, whether in the past or now, and in the
future there won't be a problem as long as nobody plays tricks," he said,
according to a transcript of his comments seen by Reuters on Monday. China
is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea
and won't let anybody damage it, Sun said. "But China consistently opposes
so-called military freedom of navigation, which brings with it a military threat
and which challenges and disrespects the international law of the sea," Sun
said. "This kind of military freedom of navigation is damaging to freedom of
navigation in the South China Sea, and it could even play out in a disastrous
way," he added, without elaborating. A U.S. Defense official, speaking on
condition of anonymity, said the United States reserved the right to carry out
freedom of navigation operations and the Chinese admiral's comments would
not change that. Sun also said the court case at The Hague must be used by
China's armed forces to improve its capabilities "so that when push comes to
shove, the military can play a decisive role in the last moment to defend our
national sovereignty and interests". Despite the warnings, China and the
United States have been maintaining open lines of communication, with U.S.
Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson meeting the head of the Chinese
navy, Wu Shengli, in Beijing on Monday. "I think that you can visit China this
time at our invitation, that shows both sides attach great concern to maritime
security," Wu told Richardson in brief comments in front of reporters. In the
meeting, Wu said China would not stop building reefs and islands in the sea,
state-owned Xinhua news agency reported, with that construction also a part
of China's efforts to bolster its claims. Separately, China's Maritime Safety
Administration said on Monday that an area just off the east of the island
province of Hainan would be a no-sail zone from July 19-21 while military
drills take place. China generally describes its exercises in the South China
Sea as routine. China's air force also said on its microblog it had recently
carried out "normal battle patrols" over the South China Sea involving
bombers, spy planes and flying tankers, including over Scarborough Shoal,
which is disputed with the Philippines. Such air patrols would become "a
regular practice" in the future, Xinhua reported an air force spokesman as
saying.

China Hardens Position on South China Sea : Beijing has

moved to clarify its position, but in a direction that could
cause more friction.
Yanmei, 16 (Xie, Yanmei Xie is International Crisis Groups Senior Analyst of
Northeast Asia based in Beijing. She joined the Crisis Group in 2012, focusing
on China's foreign policy and its impact on conflict and potential conflict
situations, China Hardens Position on South China Sea, July 16, 2016,
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/china-hardens-position-on-south-china-sea/)

China has taken a leap towards clarifying its claims in the South China Sea,
but in a direction that could intensify frictions. The International Tribunal on
the Law of the Sea delivered a sweeping ruling Tuesday against China in an
arbitration case initiated by the Philippines. The result significantly limits the
size of the maritime zones and scope of maritime rights that China can
legally claim. Minutes later, the Chinese government issued a statement. In
it, China stakes claims to sovereignty over all land features in the South
China Sea, as well as entitlement to internal waters, territorial sea,
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf
based on these islands, as well as historic rights in unspecified waters.
Chinas previous position was more ambiguous. China exerts indisputable
sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters and
is entitled to relevant maritime rights and interests based on the South China
Sea Islands as well as historic rights in these waters, the foreign ministry
said a few days before the ruling. Rather than speaking of undefined rights
and interests in undefined waters, Beijing has now adopted the language of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in naming the
maritime zones it claims, although it does not plan to follow its spirit. By
claiming internal waters those within a countrys territorial sea baseline
Beijing has sent a strong signal of its intention to treat the Spratlys as an
archipelago, draw a baseline around it and claim the extended maritime
zones outward. This is not new: China had revealed its hand days before the
Tribunals verdict, when the foreign ministry said the island group, which
China calls Nansha, as a whole are entitled to territorial sea, exclusive
economic zone, continental shelf and other maritime rights and interests. A
normal baseline under UNCLOS is the low-water line along the coast. The
convention also allows archipelagic states to draw straight baselines around
the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the
archipelago that includes the main islands. Should Beijing follow through by
encircling the island chain in a straight baseline, it would directly contradict
the Tribunals conclusion that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime
zones collectively as a unit. China has already drawn a straight baseline
around the Paracel Islands, claimed also by Vietnam but controlled
exclusively by China. A Chinese baseline around the Spratlys would enclose
features occupied by other claimants. China controls seven of them; Vietnam
controls 21; the Philippines holds nine; Malaysia five; and Taiwan one.
According to UNCLOS, a state has complete sovereignty over its internal
waters. It does allow for the right to innocent passage within a straight
baseline around an archipelago. Would China, however, consider trips by
resupply ships from rival claimants to Spratlys as innocent passage, which
shall be continuous and expeditious, or would it take enforcement actions
against them in its claimed internal waters? A Chinese baseline around the
Spratlys would be challenged by the United States. Washington already
argues that Beijing may not draw an archipelagic straight baseline around the
Paracel Islands because China does not meet UNCLOSs definition of an
archipelagic state. In January 2016, the U.S. sent a warship into the Paracels
on a Freedom of Navigation operation. It would almost certainly contest a

Spratly baseline with naval vessels as well. With a baseline, China would
claim a 200-nautical mile EEZ outward from it. That large swath of water
could become a theater for dangerous encounters between the U.S. and
Chinese militaries. The U.S. holds that military forces of all nations have highseas freedom in EEZs and that prior notification or consent is not required
from the coastal state for military activities. China insists that reconnaissance
activities in its EEZ without prior notification and permission violate both
domestic and international law, and has routinely intercepted U.S.
reconnaissance flights and vessels. The different interpretations of rules have
caused multiple close calls as well as a collision in 2001 between a U.S. EP-3
reconnaissance plane and a Chinese F-8 fighter jet that killed a Chinese pilot.
In its latest rendition of South China Sea claims, Beijing has yet to specific
what constitutes its definition of historic rights or where it would claim those
rights, leaving room perhaps for negotiations. It is also unclear whether China
will claim an EEZ from the Scarborough Shoal, despite the Tribunals ruling
that it is a rock, entitled to a twelve-nautical mile territorial sea but nothing
more. China appears, however, to be hardening into a position of claiming the
Spratlys collectively as an archipelago and asserting exclusive entitlement to
the natural resources in a large area in the southern half of the South China
Sea, rich in fisheries and hydrocarbon reserves, or a basis to regulate foreign
military activities in those waters. In principle, clarity from Beijing is welcome,
but clarification can also mean calcification of positions. When China reveals
its bottom line, can the rest of the world live with it?

After South China Sea Ruling, China Censors Online Calls

for War : Beijing has fanned the flames of nationalism.
Now its struggling to contain it.
ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN, 16 (Bethany, Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian is an assistant
editor at Foreign Policy. She spent four years in China before joining Foreign
Policy and holds a master's degree in East Asian studies from Yale University,
After South China Sea Ruling, China Censors Online Calls for War : Beijing
has fanned the flames of nationalism. Now its struggling to contain it.,
Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/12/after-south-china-searuling-china-censors-online-calls-for-war-unclos-tribunal/)

July 12 was a dark day for fervent Chinese nationalists. An international court
based in the Hague issued a long-awaited ruling, rejecting many of Chinas
territorial claims in the hotly contested South China Sea, where China has
clashed with the Philippines, Vietnam, and other countries over land features
and fishing rights. After the tribunal announced its judgment at 5 pm Beijing
time, declaring that Chinas historical claims in the region have no legal
basis, a massive wave of anger erupted across Chinese social media, where
grassroots nationalism flourishes. But to the ruling Communist Party, such

sentiment is a double-edged sword: official censors moved quickly to curtail

online discussion that seemed to overstep the bounds of acceptable
nationalist discourse. Within hours of the announcement, South China Sea
arbitration was trending on Weibo, Chinas heavily filtered Twitter-like
microblogging platform, and hundreds of thousands of comments poured in.
Many expressed anger at the ruling itself, at the United States Chinas
perceived great power rival in the South China Sea and the Philippines,
which filed the case against China in 2013. One user described the tribunals
decision as waste paper and nothing else, echoing former Chinese State
Councilor Dai Bingguos comments at an event in D.C., the week before the
ruling; Beijing has repeatedly stated that it will not accept or implement the
arbitration. Struggle for every inch of land, wrote another, echoing a phrase
widely repeated online in the aftermath of the ruling. Another user called for
a boycott of the iPhone 7, presumably because it is the product of Apple, a
U.S. company. Other comments expressed anger towards the Philippines. The
tribunal did not rule on the sovereignty of land features in the sea, but rather
that land features such as reefs and atolls in the Spratlys, near the
Philippines, are not large enough to merit their own 220-mile exclusive
economic zone. The court also ruled that China had illegally blocked Filipino
fishing boats from fishing around the Spratlys. Does Philippines Island want
to become Philippines Province? challenged one Weibo commenter, who also
included an emoticon of a fist punching in the air. Those who sell bananas
should keep selling bananas, dont keep concerning yourselves with my fish,
wrote one Weibo user in a comment, referring to the common Filipino export
to China, which garnered more than 35,000 likes. Bringing the United States
with you wont work. Similar discussion dominated other online platforms.
One article called War in the South China Sea Starts Tonight received more
than 100,000 views on mobile messaging platform WeChat; similar articles
were widely shared as well. One popular meme on both Weibo and WeChat
showed a map of China with the distinctive Nine Dash Line dipping below it; a
slogan beneath the image read, China: We cant lose even one dot.
Phoenix, a Beijing-friendly media outlet based in Hong Kong, even posted
Chinese web game called South China Sea Adventure. Users play a Chinese
fisherman who gets lost in a storm in the South China Sea. Whether facing
demands from the U.S. navy or imprisonment by armed Vietnamese, players
are inevitably saved by the powerful Chinese military and its well-equipped
bases built on artificial islands in the sea. But a wave of censorship also
accompanied this outpouring of online commentary. Unsurprisingly, censors
removed Weibo posts that contradicted the party line, such as one July 12
post that read The South China Sea does not belong to China, with an
attached photo of a Filipino protesting Chinas actions in nearby waters. But,
according to information collected by anti-censorship website Freeweibo,
most deleted posts were not anti-nationalist but ultra-nationalist, calling for
military action against the United States or the Philippines to defend Chinas
territorial claims. War is finally going to break out in the South China Sea,
wrote one user, whose post was later removed. I was so damn excited last
night that I couldnt sleep! Another wrote, The South China Sea arbitration

itself is an insult to China. Why would we wait for the result for this kind of
crap? With such a large military, why dont we just go fight to get back [what
is ours]? The post that was later removed. Were definitely going to fight,
wrote another user in a deleted post. We cant lose even one dot means
that we must take back the reefs and islands that Vietnam and other
countries have occupied. How can we take them back? We can only rely on
fighting. To understand why Chinese authorities would want to suppress
speech that supports Beijings official line, its important to understand the
risks that unbridled nationalism pose to the party. Grassroots reactions
represent an opportunity and a challenge for the Chinese government, which
wants to harness public opinion but fears its power to destabilize the regime,
said Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor of government at Cornell University who
studies Chinese nationalism. The Chinese government tends to suppress
grassroots nationalism when it wants room for maneuver in handling foreign
incidents. Weiss told Foreign Policy, However tough the Chinese
governments response, it is unlikely to satisfy these ultra-nationalist
demands for war. Weiss said that censoring extreme voices is part of
Chinas risk management strategy. Beijing has made its position
uncompromisingly clear to both domestic and international audiences that
land features within the Nine Dash Line are its sovereign territory. In 2012,
China revised its passports to include a map which claimed the South China
Sea as Chinese territory. In 2014, the government issued a new vertical map
that portrayed the South China Sea as a continuous part of China, replacing
previous horizontal maps that included the sea only as a pop-out. Chinese
state media outlets have repeatedly emphasized that China has indisputable
sovereignty over islands and reefs in the South China Sea. While likely
intended to strengthen national resolve and put forward a strong face to the
outside world, this strategy is risky. If the party is unable to maintain Chinas
territorial integrity, or if it is unwilling to heed popular calls for tougher
measures, it runs the risk of being viewed as too weak to defend Chinas
national interests. Grassroots nationalists may unleash their anger against
the party itself. Beijing has often emphasized that peace in the region is vital
for prosperity, indicating that while maritime claims are important, it is
unlikely to start a war with the Philippines or the United States. But an ultranationalist populace may pressure the government to take reckless
measures. Territorial sovereignty is a highly sensitive issue in China. During
the 19th century, the ruling Qing dynasty was unable to fend off European
incursions, resulting in key territorial concessions to Britain, France, and other
countries. The Republic of China, which governed mainland China from 1912
until it retreated to Taiwan in 1949, similarly was unable to stop invading
Japanese forces in the 1930s. Many Chinese remember the weakness of the
Qing and Republicans governments with shame and derision and admire the
strength of the current government. Since the founding of the Peoples
Republic of China in 1949, a major source of legitimacy for the party has been
its ability to prevent similar territorial incursions. While extreme speech was
not completely scrubbed from Chinas online spaces, the substantial
censorship in the aftermath of the ruling serves as a reminder: Just as Chinas

internal security budget often exceeds its military spending, even in the
throes of a major territorial dispute, Beijing continues to view threats to the
country as originating more from within than from without.

Marine Biologists: Artificial Islands Devastating South

China Sea Ecosystems
Van Sant, 16 (Shannon, Reporter for VOA News, Marine Biologists: Artificial
Islands Devastating South China Sea Ecosystems, VOA News, January 28,
2016, http://www.voanews.com/content/south-china-sea-island-buildingenvironmental-damage/3166256.html)

For years, overfishing in the territorially contested South China Sea has
depleted local fish stocks. But since 2012, the controversial construction of
artificial islands has ecologically devastated the disputed water way. Recently
released satellite images show man-made scarring on at least 28 reefs. The
impact of the dredging and land reclamation projects are compounding the
pre-existing impacts of fishing, said Dr. Terry Hughes, a James Cook
University professor of Marine biology, adding that the Asian countries
building artificial islands there are having a substantial environmental impact.
Between 2012 and 2015, Chinese fishermen have used large, extended
propellers affixed to utility boats to chop the reefs and prepare for the
construction of artificial islands. Fishermen scour the ocean floor for giant
clam shells, which are prized as jewelry and luxury items that sell for up to
$150,000. According to Dr. John McManus, a University of Miami marine
biologist, while building on the reefs is not new, Chinas large-scale
construction of a military base and runways is resulting in unprecedented
environmental damage. Suddenly we have this massive situation where
large areas of coral reef are being buried," he said. "In the end it was almost
13 square kilometers 13 million square meters that was destroyed, just
in terms of being buried under these islands, and this was a huge, huge
shock. Chinas Foreign Ministry has said the artificial islands are to be used
for civilian purposes, search and rescue missions, as well as defense. In an
interview with Australian media, Wu Shicun, president of the National
Institute for South China Sea Studies, said China has been building in the sea
according to a green construction ethos, with strict ecological protection
measures guiding the construction. But Samantha Lee of the World Wildlife
Fund says any construction in the waterway risks damaging the reefs and the
already depleted fish stocks that rely on them to survive. If the sediment
concentration of the water is too high, it will block off the sunlight and which
will cause adverse impact to the growth of the coral," said Lee, a marine
conservation advocate. "And again, if the sediment content is too high, it will
block the gills of the fish. McManus has long argued for the establishment of
a peace park in the sea and the brokering of a joint resources management

agreement which would include a code of conduct and a freeze on territorial

claims. He says this would protect the vital ecosystems.

South China Sea Ruling: China Caused 'Irreparable Harm'

to Environment - The arbitral tribunal rules that
significant environmental damage has been done and
China is to blame.
Tiezzi 16 (Shannon, Shannon Tiezzi is Editor at The Diplomat. Her main focus
is on China, and she writes on Chinas foreign relations, domestic politics, and
economy. Shannon previously served as a research associate at the U.S.China Policy Foundation, South China Sea Ruling: China Caused 'Irreparable
Harm' to Environment - The arbitral tribunal rules that significant
environmental damage has been done and China is to blame, The
Diplomat, July 15, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/south-china-searuling-china-caused-irreparable-harm-to-environment/)

On July 12, an arbitral tribunal issued its ruling in Philippines vs. China, the
case brought by Manila challenging Chinas claims and actions in the South
China Sea. While much of the case dealt with the nitty-gritty details of the
status of certain features under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) or on the legal legitimacy of historic rights, one section veered
away from the legal and into the scientific. In addition to evaluating Chinas
claims, the tribunal has been asked to look at how Chinese activities had
impacted the marine environment of the South China Sea. The tribunal found
that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment,
specifically in reference to Chinas recent large-scale land reclamation and
construction of artificial islands. By undertaking such activities, the tribunal
ruled that China had violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile
ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species
and inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment. The tribunals
comments on environmental issues, like much of the rest of the ruling,
directly contradicted numerous statements from the Chinese government. On
June 16, 2015, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang told reporters,
in no uncertain terms, that Chinas construction activities on the Spratly
Islands had not and would not cause damage to the marine ecological
system and environment in the South China Sea. Earlier, on April 28, 2015,
another Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hong Lei, had rejected the notion that
Chinas island-building was harming the environment. Chinas construction
projects have gone through years of scientific assessments and rigorous
tests, and are subject to strict standards and requirements of environmental
protection, Hong said. Such projects will not damage the ecological
environment of the South China Sea. In its ruling, the tribunal noted that it
had asked China to provide its environmental assessment studies, which are

required by Article 206 of UNCLOS. China, which refused to participate in any

capacity in the case, did not comply. To date, none of the scientific
assessments referenced by numerous Chinese officials have been made
public. A year later, on May 6, 2016, Hong went into more detail about the
process. During its construction in the Spratlys, Hong explained: China takes
the approach of natural simulation which simulates the natural process of
sea storms blowing away and moving biological scraps which gradually
evolve into oasis on the sea. The impact on the ecological system of coral
reefs is limited. Once Chinas construction activities are completed, ecological
environmental protection on relevant islands and reefs will be notably
enhanced and such action stands the test of time. That explanation was flatly
rejected by John McManus, professor of marine biology and fisheries and
director of the National Center for Coral Reef Research at the University of
Miami. McManus, speaking at a conference on the South China Sea held at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)in Washington DC on
July 12, said Chinas process for constructing its islands has nothing to do
with the natural reef island building process. Between the dredging and
island building, he added, China kills basically everything. However, while
construction is a problem, it pales in comparison to the damage done by the
illegal harvesting of giant clams. As National Geographic explains, the
poachers use boat propellers to loosen the valuable bivalves in the
process destroying the coral reefs surrounding the clams. Chinas islandbuilding may have grabbed the headlines, but these illegal fishing practices
have caused more environmental destruction. According to McManus figures,
Chinese dredging and island building activities have damaged or destroyed
55 square kilometers of reef; the destructive methods of giant clam
fishermen have destroyed 104 sq km of once-living coral.

Environmental Aggression in the South China Sea

Batongbacal 15 (Jay, Jay L. Batongbacal is an associate professor at the
University of the Philippines College of Law and director of the universitys
Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea. He was a U.S.-ASEAN
Fulbright Initiative Visiting Scholar in Washington, DC, Environmental
Aggression in the South China Sea, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative,
https://amti.csis.org/environmental-aggression-in-the-south-china-sea/)

Chinas reclamation activities in the South China Sea remain a matter of

grave concern for reasons that are not solely political. The radical
transformation of major coral atolls in the regions marine ecosystem affects
far more than the already huge area physically occupied by Chinas new
islands. The biophysical impacts extend well beyond their artificial
foundations into the waters of surrounding littoral states. The Spratly Islands

region has long been known as a treasure trove of biological resources,

hosting part of Southeast Asias most productive coral reef ecosystems. Fish
breed and replenish in its reefs and migrate across vast distances to and from
littoral coasts as they follow plankton and other organisms adrift in the water.
Satellites can discern the circulation of plankton-rich seawater around the
South China Sea, indicating biological connections throughout the waters.
(Fig. 1) These Dangerous Grounds ironically are a wellspring of life that
helps sustain the marine populations of surrounding coasts. The Philippines is
particularly sensitive to these events due to heightened environmental
awareness of its coastal communities that directly depend on fishing for
subsistence. The closest province of Palawan is quite special in this regard as
the countrys final ecological frontier: its waters are its most productive
fishing ground, contributing 20% of annual fish production. Studies have also
confirmed genetic linkages and interchange of species between the Spratly
Islands region, Palawan waters, and the Sulu Sea, (Fig. 2) which in turn
connects with all other archipelagic waters and Southeast Asias Coral
Triangle. Dr. Edgardo Gomez of the Marine Science Institute, one of the mostrespected marine scientists of the region and pioneer in the scientific
cooperation activities in the 1990s, laments the destruction of 311 hectares
of precious reefs and pegs the economic losses to be worth at least 110
Million USD annually, to be surely felt as reduction in fish catch in the coming
decades. He points out that the ecological footprint of Chinas reclamation
spans more than the ground that the new islands stand on. While formerly
productive reefs have been replaced with lifeless sand and concrete, the
months of work to create each island also smothered surrounding areas
through sedimentation and turbidity produced by dumping massive amounts
of filling material. To bury the reef, these were siphoned off from surrounding
areas, indicating disturbance and destruction of benthic communities either
around the new island or elsewhere. Natural atolls will be dredged and
become artificial harbors for the many ships to be stationed in the area,
bringing with them the corresponding impact of continuous operational
marine pollution on any remaining coral. Settlement on the new islands will
bring ruin through accompanying day-to-day activities such as sewage,
garbage, anchoring, and marine debris. People will require a continuous
supply of food most likely to be harvested from nearby waters. To top this off,
China is deploying and operating its ravenous fishing fleet. Chinese fishing
has already caused the destruction of its southern coastal reefs and decline
of coastal fish stocks; no doubt it will also cause the rapid decline of these
distant fishing grounds. The impact zone of Chinas activities thus extend well
beyond the South China Sea: reefs directly destroyed, surrounding areas
damaged, fish stocks of connected waters deprived of precious breeding
grounds and habitats. The island-building spree and fishing fleet mobilization
result not only in the deliberate destruction of vital and productive commons
they also impair the long-term sustainability of the marine environment of all
the littoral States around the South China Sea. While China argues that
island-building is reasonable, understandable, and legal, the large-scale
and irreparable damage wrought contravenes the fundamental principle that

states activities should not cause trans-boundary harm to other states. This
applies not only to incidental effects like pollution, but with even more force
to activities that are purposely planned and executed, especially in areas
where disputing states are additionally obliged not cause permanent damage
pending settlement. Chinas action, undertaken on such a massive scale,
significantly damages the marine environment of the South China Sea and
surrounding waters, and heralds the further degradation and depletion of
their living resources. Chinas own marine scientists have previously called
attention to the decline of sensitive coral reefs in the South China Sea by as
much as 80% due to ravenous economic exploitation; with reclamation, the
remaining 20% stand to be lost as well. Thus, there is some truth to Chinas
claim that the reclamation activities are not directed against any state: the
long-term damage done is indiscriminate and undirected, making it much
worse. In attempting to exclusively secure and control natural resources, it is
also destroying the most fragile and sensitive marine resource base of the
South China Sea and diminishing everyone elses. It has engaged in
environmental aggression on a regional scale, and turned reclamation into a
environmental weapon of mass destruction.

China warns Australia: stay out of the South China Sea or

risk damage to bilateral relations
Carney, 16 (Matthew Carney, Reporter for ABC News, China warns Australia:
stay out of the South China Sea or risk damage to bilateral relations, ABC,
July 14, 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-15/china-tells-australiastay-out-of-the-south-china-sea/7631492)

Australia has been issued with an unusually blunt warning from China stay
out of the South China Sea or risk damage to bilateral relations. China's
Foreign Ministry has said it was shocked by remarks Foreign Minister Julie
Bishop made on AM on Wednesday, that China should abide by the UN ruling
and Australia would continue freedom of navigation exercises. China has
called the UN tribunal that ruled it has no claim over the South China Sea a
farce, an American conspiracy and the ruling a piece of waste paper. Now it
has turned its fiery rhetoric and threats towards Australia and Ms Bishop. Lu
Kang, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Ms Bishop's assertion that
China should abide by the decision and that it was final and legally binding
was wrong. "Frankly speaking, I was shocked by the remarks from the Foreign
Minister Bishop," he said. "Australia should not treat the illegal ruling from an
illegal arbitration court as international law." He warned Ms Bishop's
declaration, that Australia would continue freedom of navigation flights and
patrols in the South China Sea, would threaten bilateral relations. "Australia is
not a party to the South China Sea issue. "We hope Australia should firmly
abide by the promise not to hold a position when there is a territorial dispute.

"Carefully talk and cautiously behave. Australia should not do anything which
will damage regional peace, stability and security as well as the relations
between China and Australia." The Chinese are angered that Ms Bishop
claimed China's reputation as a rising superpower could suffer if it ignored
the decision. Mr Lu Kang warned Australia should not treat international law
as a game. "China has lodged serious representations to Australia regarding
the wrong remarks delivered by the Australian leaders," he said. "We are
firmly against this." And in more threats, China said it would decisively
respond against anyone who takes provocations against its security interests
in the South China Sea. China has said it has the right to establish an air
defence zone to protect its interests and any freedom of navigation flights or
patrols by Australia will be seen in Beijing as a direct challengse.