Assignment

Global Event:” South China Sea Dispute”

The regions of contention are the Spratly Island, the Paracel Island, maritime
boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin, and other places. Waters near the Indonesian
Natuna Islands are also disputed. The reason why these areas are disputed
and of interest to the concerned nations is the acquisition of fishing areas
around the two archipelagos; suspected crude oil and natural gas in different
parts of the South China Sea; and the control of strategically important
shipping lanes.

History of South China Sea Territorial Dispute

At the height of World War II, the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy had used
several islands for military reasons and stated that these islands were
unclaimed, despite historical records that showed that France had controlled
some of those islands before their colonial possessions fell into the hands of the
Japanese. Upon the end of the war, the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco forced
Imperial Japan into giving up any territory they had conquered during the war.
The People’s Republic of China made various claims to the islands during the
1951 treaty negotiations.

Chinese claims in the South China Sea are described in part by the nine-dash
line. Originally an “eleven-dashed-line,” this line was first indicated by the
Kuomintang government of the Republic of China in 1947, for its claims to the
South China Sea. When the Communist Party of China took over mainland
China and formed the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the line was adopted
and revised to nine dashes/dots, as endorsed by Zhou Enlai. China’s 1958
declaration described China’s claims in the South China Sea islands based on
the nine-dotted line map. The legacy of the nine-dash line is viewed by some
PRC government officials, and by the PRC military, as providing historical
support for their claims to the South China Sea.

The Geneva Accords of 1954, which ended the First Indochina War, gave South
Vietnam control of the Vietnamese territories south of the 17th Parallel, which
included the islands in the Paracels and Spratlys. Two years later the North
Vietnamese government claimed that the People’s Republic of China was the
lawful claimant of the islands, while South Vietnam took control of the Paracel
Islands.

Countries Involved in the South China Sea Dispute

Modern International laws and proofs from history explain how the different
territories are raising their concerns and claims on the Sea regions. Given
below are the various claims raised by the different countries involved in the
dispute:

1. China: The country claims that ancient history records show that China
held control over the entire waterway and it was only during the modern
era that the dispute began. China also raises legal concerns and rights
over the Sea. However, China has not been successful in proving its
claim over the region.
2. Vietnam: The country raises its claims based on inheritance grounds. It
was only in the 1970s that Vietnam raised its claim after its relations
with China deteriorated.
3. Malaysia: The country claims the feature in the southern Spratley falls
inside the border of Malaysia’s continent which makes their claim
acceptable on legal grounds.
4. Indonesia: The country claims only the part of the sea that comes under
its exclusive special economic zones.
5. Philippines: The country bases its claims on historical grounds. They
only demand the part that comes under their exclusive economic zone.
6. Brunei: Its claims are based on EEZ as mentioned by the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Socio-Cultural Implications of the South China Sea Dispute

The Anti-Chinese sentiment in the Philippines is one of the many socio-cultural
effects of the South China Sea dispute. In its animus against China’s behavior
on the SCS, some members of the public appear to be tapping into a deeper
anti-Chinese sentiment or Sinophobia that has roused latent racial prejudice
against the Chinese-Filipino community. Two reasons may account for this:

First, some Filipinos, like in many other countries, still find it difficult to
distinguish between ethnic Chinese Filipinos and mainland Chinese. A recent
example of this was when, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Filipinos of
Chinese descent were profiled as possible carriers of the virus largely because
of their physical appearance and names. This was not unlike what has
happened in many other countries, notably the US, where reports of hate
crimes against Asian Americans have increased sharply.

Second, the allegiance of ethnic Chinese Filipinos has come under question,
with some among the public claiming that the community has remained silent
on the SCS issue. The accusation is that Chinese Filipinos will not fight a war
for the Philippines and that they consider themselves Chinese first and Filipino
second. Other negative narratives have also done the rounds – one contending
that Chinese Filipinos tend to marry only within their ethnic group.

In response, the Chinese-Filipino community, led by the Federation of Filipino-

Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, has stressed their historical
role during the Philippine wars of liberation against Spain, the US, and
Imperial Japan, and their economic and philanthropic contributions to the
nation through their businesses and foundations. This contribution is the
result of their harmonious integration into Philippine society.

Among the Chinese-Filipino community, there is a broadly accepted belief that

a constructive rather than confrontational approach in managing differences
with China is the way forward, which is why many members choose to act as
bridges between the Philippines and China, facilitating cooperation including
commercial deals and people-to-people exchanges. Chinese-Filipino business
groups have also extended humanitarian and financial assistance to Filipino
fishermen who survived a boat collision incident in 2019 involving a Chinese
fishing vessel.

By supporting better economic and social relations, many in the Chinese-

Filipino community recognize that such efforts would generate more economic
opportunities for Filipinos and foster better understanding between Filipinos
and Chinese, which in turn, could contribute to improved bilateral ties and
mitigate political risk for companies doing business between the two countries.

The Chinese-Filipino community, however, while influential, is a small fraction

(1.5 percent) of the population. The majority of Filipinos tend to have a great
affinity for the US and confidence in the American geopolitical position and
strategy. Philippine social attitudes on the SCS issue escalated during the
presidency of Benigno Aquino III from 2010 to 2016 when anti-China protests
were staged in the Philippines and by Filipino communities around the world
because of heightened tensions over the SCS. A 2016 ruling by the tribunal
sitting in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague rejected China’s
claims in the SCS, supporting the case made by Manila. Beijing has refused to
recognize the judgment.

During the Aquino administration, there were alleged plots to bomb the
Chinese embassy and a construction company that employs Chinese workers,
with the plotters supposedly wanting to defend Philippine sovereignty.
Members of the public also vented their frustrations by denouncing what they
viewed as the monopolistic business practices of Chinese-Filipino companies.
In 2014, the Chinese embassy even issued a travel warning to Chinese citizens
due to threats to their safety and that of their businesses.

To be sure, anti-Chinese sentiment has simmered in the Philippines since the

Spanish colonial period when the native commercial classes regarded ethnic
Chinese merchants and traders as threats to their economic livelihood and
social mobility. At times, the Chinese were prevented from owning land and
were “steered” to reside in certain districts of Manila, which developed into a
Chinatown. While there have been racial tensions in the past (though generally
not to the same magnitude as in Indonesia or Malaysia), the situation now is
different, as the central driver of disaffection among Filipinos for ethnic
Chinese fellow citizens has been the SCS issue. Worsening matters is the
widespread but erroneous perception that the emergence of “Philippine offshore
gaming operations” or online gambling catering largely to Chinese customers is
an attempt by China to add dominance to the economy and society on top of its
maritime ambitions.

Political Implications of the South China Sea Dispute

International arbitrations have been done yet the dispute between countries’
claims on the South China Sea still continues. Rulings and decisions were
made after the Philippines filed cases against the Chinese government for
harassing Filipino military maritime troops passing the conflicted sea
territories. Amidst continuous mutual agreements between these two countries
that are both aggressive and persistent with their territorial claims, crucial
political implications are still on the rise. International relations of both
countries are critical as the process of mitigating disputes is on-going.
These harassments of the Chinese military vessels continue to spark political
protest from the Philippine government. These actions from the Chinese
maritime forces may further complicate unilateral efforts to settle disputes of
territory in the South Chine Sea.

Economic Implications of the South China Sea Dispute

A military conflict in the South China Sea would force most shipping from
Europe, the Middle East, and Africa destined for Asia and the US west coast to
be diverted around the south of Australia. The additional shipping cost would
bring reductions in economic activity around the world, but with dire effects on
countries at the epicenter, according to a study published by the US National
Bureau of Economic Research. About 80% of global trade is carried by sea, and
estimates of the volume carried through the South China Sea range from 20%
to 33%.
The area is subject of numerous overlapping territorial disputes involving
China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei, while China’s
construction of artificial islands with military installations has made it a focus
of tension with the United States.
It would not be practicable to reroute shipping through the Torres Strait to the
north of Australia because coral reefs and shallow depths make it too
hazardous for large vessels
Facing a total freeze on international shipping, Taiwan’s economy would
contract by a third, while Singapore’s economy would fall by 22%, according to
the baseline estimate. Hong Kong, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia
would suffer falls of between 10% and 15%. China’s economy would only face a
loss of 0.7% because it has huge domestic markets and ports outside the
potential conflict zone.
While the authors comment that conflict would carry real costs for China, they
note that the much larger burden on others in the region demonstrates ‘the
possibility of a large country maintaining control over the region by imposing
substantial costs on smaller countries’.
The modeling exercise shows Australia would suffer a drop of between 1.9%
and 3.1%. The economies of Japan and South Korea would fall by between 2%
and 3%. The economists emphasize that their exercise looks only at the impact
of raised shipping costs on the total trade of each country and is a simplified
model. The real consequences of interruptions to trade in some essential goods
and services could be much greater.