Beijing claims sovereignty over 90 per cent of the waters, and its so-called nine-dash line demarcating its claims overlaps with the exclusive economic zones of Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Taiwan.

The smaller countries’ chief contention is that China is unilaterally altering the status quo in the waters while talks are ongoing, by constructing artificial islands and positioning government vessels that more than occasionally interrupt innocent passage of civilian vessels.

Vietnam in its white paper used particularly strong language to describe the situation in the waters, which it calls the East Sea.

Tensions between Hanoi and Beijing over the dispute heightened this year as a Chinese seismic survey vessel stayed within Vietnamese waters for months, disrupting oil-exploration activities.

In South China Sea, Asean has a choice: ‘Asian values’ or rule of law?

The Vietnamese white paper deplored what it called “new developments” in the waters, including “unilateral actions, power-based coercion, violation of international law, militarisation, change in the status quo, and infringement upon Vietnam’s sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction as provided in international law”.

These activities “undermined the interests of nations concerned and threatened peace, stability, security, safety, and freedom of navigation and overflight in the region”, the document said.

In a commentary this week, Huong Le Thu of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said the white paper “not only clearly spells out Hanoi’s position, but also endeavours to distinguish Vietnam from those who do not contribute to the preservation of peace”.

Thayer said comments by Vietnam’s Deputy Defence Minister Nguyen Chi Vinh at the launch of the white paper on November 26 made it clear Hanoi was sharpening its public stance on the dispute.

Nguyen told local media the country believed in “frankly pointing out differences between us and other countries so as to seek appropriate approaches to settle the issue and protect our national interests”.

“We will uncompromisingly struggle against anything that harms our national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and political system,” he said.

LESS SCATHING

Malaysia’s white paper offered a less scathing indictment of the state of affairs in the South China Sea.

In spelling out the cause of tensions in the waters, it identified both China and the US military, which has routinely conducted “freedom of navigation operations” (FONOPs) by having navy vessels and air force jets traverse disputed areas claimed by China.

Washington says these actions assert the right under international law for foreign vessels and planes to make innocent passage through the area.

‘Malaysia must prepare navy for possible conflict in South China Sea’

China’s “occupation, militarisation and other activities” in the waters, along with the US Navy’s FONOPs meant the sea dispute had gone from being a matter of regional rivalry to one of “great-power rivalry”, the Malaysian white paper said.

One area in which the analysts said they had hoped for more transparency was in the two countries’ defence spending plans.

In a footnote, the Vietnamese white paper said defence spending amounted to 2.36 per cent of GDP last year. Mohamad Sabu, the Malaysian defence minister, said he hoped his cash-strapped administration – in power since a shock election victory last year – would allocate at least one per cent of GDP to defence annually.

While some Malaysian defence watchers lamented that Malaysia was unlikely to come close to spending that kind of money – especially with Mahathir pinching pennies because of the large sovereign-debt headache left over by his predecessor Najib Razak – another concern voiced by commentators was the lack of accountability.

Can Beijing and Hanoi overcome their latest South China Sea flashpoint?

Kua Kia Soong, head of the Malaysian civil society group that blew the whistle on a scandal over the procurement of French Scorpene submarines when Najib was defence minister in the 2000s, said while he was happy that the new government had published its inaugural defence white paper, the “devil is in the details of procurement”.

“In 2012, Transparency International found that two-thirds of parliaments and legislatures around the world failed to exercise sufficient control over their ministry of defence and the armed forces, and 70 per cent of these largest arms importers left the door open to corruption,” Kua said.

“Parliamentarians should push for greater transparency in defence ministry arms procurements and seriously debate the defence budget and monitor the procurement process to prevent the repetition of the scandals of the past.” ■