US unwise to escalate South China Sea tensions over Chinese activities
Mark Valencia says US condemnation of Chinese reclamation and construction in the South China Sea is exaggerated and ignores similar transgressions by others, including its own allies
Last month, the leaders of the US Senate committees on armed services and foreign relations sent a letter to US Secretary of Defence Ash Carter and US Secretary of State John Kerry, calling for a "response" strategy regarding what they characterised as China's aggressive activities, including reclamation and construction on features in the South China and East China seas. This letter seems to have stimulated another round of public criticism of China by the US.
It was soon followed by an expression of concern from Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the US Pacific Fleet, that China would use these facilities to advance its military position, and comments last week by Carter condemning China's actions that "seriously increase tensions and reduce prospects for diplomatic solutions". These developments were reported in The New York Times and The Washington Post under alarming headlines. The same week, US President Barack Obama expressed concern that China has been "using its sheer size and muscle to force countries into subordinate positions".
Although some of this criticism of China's actions is deserved, much of it is exaggerated and unbalanced, and ignores the transgressions of other claimants and occupiers of disputed features in the South China Sea.
The Senate letter quotes US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calling the extent of China's activities, including reclamation work, "an effort to expand its presence and further consolidate policy and conduct to assert its sovereignty claims". China is indeed undertaking such activities. But the other claimants - Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines, a US ally - have also undertaken reclamation and construction, which includes building airstrips and harbours that are used by their militaries - and could in certain circumstances be used by the US. Some continue to maintain the airstrips and harbours.
Yes, China's modifications are larger than what others have done, but there are no internationally accepted rules governing the extent of such "modifications". Besides, artificially enhancing a rock or reef does not make it a legal island - if that is a US concern.
Moreover, all the sovereignty claims to the rocks and islands have serious weaknesses under modern international law, which requires continuous, effective administration and control and acquiescence by other claimants. China's sovereignty claims are just as valid or invalid as those of the other claimants.
As for the maritime sphere, China has never clarified what it claims with its nine-dashed line. It would be a big step forward towards resolution of the issues if it did. Nevertheless, some of the Spratly features are legal islands and, under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, could be the basis for claims to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles, continental shelves and extended continental shelves. Thus, quite apart from its spurious and ambiguous nine-dashed line, China may have legitimate jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea.