From China’s official Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)
website: Spokesperson Geng Shuang's Regular Press
Conference, April 20, 2020 https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1771576.shtml
Pete
[Question]
Reuters [journalist asks]: Vietnam has said China's claim to have established
administrative units on islands in the South China Sea seriously violates
Vietnam's sovereignty. What's your comment on this?
[Answer
from] Geng Shuang: Following the approval of the State Council, Sansha City of
Hainan Province has established two districts, Xisha District [Paracel Islands] and Nansha
District [Spratly Islands]. This is China making administrative division adjustment within the
scope of its sovereignty. It is conducive to improving and enhancing Sansha
City's administrative management and promoting the coordinated development of
the city's economic growth and environment protection.
China
has sovereignty over the Xisha and Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters,
and sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters and the seabed
and subsoil thereof. In accordance with domestic laws and regulations, the
Chinese government has selected and published the names of some islands and
reefs of the Xisha and Nansha Islands as well as the seabed of waters under its
jurisdiction. This is what we do regularly in accordance with law to improve
marine management, which also accords with international law and international
practices.
China
firmly opposes Vietnam's words and actions that undermine China's sovereignty
and rights and interests in the South China Sea, and will continue to take
necessary measures to firmly safeguard China's sovereignty and rights and
interests.
The Sansha City capital, on Woody Island, is marked, as well as the Spratlys and Paracels - all claimed by China and US supported Taiwan.
------------
------------
Nine-Dash Line illustrated by red line covering most of the South China Sea, is claimed by China and Taiwan. But only China has the strategic power, allied with infrastructue capability, to enforce the claim. (Map courtesy Voice of America, 2012)
------
------
THE TERM NINE-DASH LINE - ORIGINATED WITH US SUPPORTED ROC/TAIWAN
The term
nine-dash line - at various times also referred to as the ten-dash line
and the eleven-dash line – was used initially by the Republic of China
(ROC, 1912–1949) and subsequently by Taiwan and China, for their claims of the major
part of the South China Sea.
Taiwan has
continued its claims, and the nine-dash line remains as the rationale for
Taiwan's claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands.
-----------------------------------
SANSHA CITY
Sansha is a prefecture-level city of China’s Hainan province.
Sansha City capital is located on Woody Island and administers (actually or nominally) several island
groups and undersea atolls in the South
China Sea including the Spratly
Islands, the Paracel
Islands, Macclesfield
Bank, Scarborough
Shoal, and a number of other ungrouped maritime features.
In November 2016, the Hainan
government started to allow large companies to register themselves in Sansha,
by providing extensive tax benefits to them. This resulted in 157 large
national and multinational companies registering themselves in Sansha.
In 2016, a government school and a
public library were opened in the island, primarily for children of the
islanders. In the same year, a desalinating plant was established to provide
drinking water to the island's residents.
Airports are built on several islands
in Sansha City, including Yongxing Island (Woody Island), Meiji Island (Mischief Reef,
Spratlys), Yongshu Island (Fiery Cross Reef,
Spratlys) and Zhubi Island (Subi Reef, Spratlys),
all of which are theoretically capable of landing Boeing 777s as diversion
airports. In practice, only Woody
Island has scheduled commercial services, with a Boeing 737 operated by
Hainan Airlines.
Sansha City capital, Woody Island above (with critical installations above - courtesy Digital Globe) and clear overhead photo of Woody Island, with later land reclamation work for civilian/naval harbours (below).
Pete
15 comments:
two wrongs don't make a right. KMT's Chiang Kai Shek's claim on behalf of the RoC or Taiwan is as wrong as the arrogant irredentist claim of the prc
There is no way they can justify claims to Spratly islands that are closer to philippines and indonesia... considering their long memories about ill treatment by foreigners...i find it amusing that china demands asean accepts their brazen land grab as fait accompli...
not to mention plain old theft of oil and gas reserves from what is rightfully vietnam, philippines and indonesia's share...
rolling out foreign office parrots to trot out the rote memorized lines on claims in the region remains just that...actions of a malevolent uncivilized state...
These are not defensible bases more lines in the sand (circles in the coral!).
Hope we have enough TLAM.
I believe there is ongoing stability problems with many of these man made or extended islands. You can’t just dredge up sand & a few rocks (or rather you can - just won’t last). Island building in this style requires considerable research before you even start & the answers will be different for each site. A few more typhoons in the right place may make things interesting.
Hi GhalibKabir [at April 23, 2020 at 9:14 PM]
Looks like China is practicing its own version of America's ongoing Monroe Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine . America's Monroe Doctrine (MD) permits the US to be security guarantor not only of North America, Central America and the Caribbean Islands but also South Ameriica - all adding up to the "Western Hemisphere". The Monroe Doctrine specifically objected to European governments exerting their power in the Western Hemisphere. Russian style European power is the latest iteration.
So MD permits US invasions of Grenada, Panama, covert actions in Nicaragua and more recently the US as an arbiter of Venezuelan government and ongoing Cuban performance.
China, as a rising super power (already in economic terms but soon military) follows the same American exceptionalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism might makes right ideas.
Living in Australia, China's ability to "Finlandize" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization Australia is a threat.
So while I don't support China exerting power far from its shores it is worthwhile shedding light on, and discussing, the Chinese foreign and defense policy mindset.
Regards
Pete
Hi steve and Anonymous
China's islands of sand are indeed built on shaky physical/no weather proof and strategic foundations.
It might be useful to see those islands and the air/sea bases on Hainan as mutually supporting static naval bases/carriers
It remains to be seen whether China can make base deals with the Philippines in the same way the US had long term Subic Bay Naval and Clark Air bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Bases_era_(1947%E2%80%9391)
China's longer term base "debt trap" strategy further afield might include:
- the PNG, Solomons, Vanuatu and Fiji in the Southern Pacific Ocean and
- Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean.
The US has been "floating" even more than a land based Tomahawk TLAM response, more like MRBMs on US island bases and in Australia. But the response has been lukewarm "don't want to offend China" or to raise the strategic stakes.
Cheers
Pete
discussion is certainly needed. However, while the US had a sort of natural 'cordon sanitaire' thanks to North America being geographically 'Woop Woop' (to borrow that delightful Aussie Slang)... (not to mention the pompous Monroe Doctrine was pretty stupid too, in hindsight, the sort of dumb idea that has afflicted men like mental polio since the ancient times)
au contraire, the crowded SCS is anything but Woop Woop and 2 billion people depend on the fisheries from China and ASEAN.
This utterly uncivilized and bullying behavior might be part of the long line of ignominious records set by colonial powers starting with portuguese to the english and practiced in modernity by the US...it is not edifying and china is merely slated to wax and wane with time (with others struggling from the impact and suffering humiliation)
it is a pity ...what else is there to say.
Hi GhalibKabir [at April 25, 2020 at 9:07 PM]
I've responded to your comments at the new website "Beijing Spread" that I've created today - see https://beijingspread.blogspot.com/2020/04/china-emulating-us-strategies.html
The site is a bit bare now, but I'll steadily build it up.
Cheers
Pete
The 9 dash line did not originate with Taiwan. Taiwan was part of the Japanese empire when the KMT made the claim. When the Nationalists Chinese were defeated in the Chinese Civil War, they retreated to Taiwan. The US allowed them to settle in Taiwan as a prize for being victors against Japan. The new KMT occupiers of Taiwan conducted white terror and a massacre in February 1947. This was not a welcome to the "return of Chinese rule" in Taiwan.
Additionally, as long as Taiwan exists with the official title of "Republic of China" then that old 9 dash line claim will continue. I think it is quite likely that if Taiwan changed its official name to just "Taiwan" or "Republic of Taiwan" then their 9 dash line claim may very well disappear, although they may stay maintain claim on the one island called Itu Aba.
But whenever Taiwan makes motions of declaring independence from China, or more specifically stated as independence from being part of an entity called "China", then the PRC makes massive threats on Taiwan to not do so and the PRC says that they will defend the integrity of their territory.
So Taiwan is literally stuck being called "Republic of China" and that title was forced upon them shortly after WW2.
So in order to untie this whole knotty situation, the PRC needs to give up its claim on Taiwan and peacefully accept Taiwan changing its official status as "Taiwan" or "Republic of Taiwan" and accept Taiwan as a country like any other as a member of the WHO and a member of the UN. Then from that point on, Taiwan should be pressured into giving up the 9 dash line if it doesn't do so on its own. But as long as the PRC maintains a grip on Taiwan keeping its name as "Republic of China" then there's no reason for ROC to give up the China-made 9 dash line claim.
Hi Anonymous [at May 3, 2020 at 10:51 PM]
Yes the 9 dash line concept is very vague, political and symbolic whatever country or party claims it as justification of owning the Soouth China Sea.
I agree Taiwan should drop the "Republic of China" title as it is extremely unlikely Taiwan's rulers can ever reclaim Mainland China.
But of course US backed Taiwan does not want to lose the 9 dash line presumption as this would remove any residual US Navy assumption that the US (and its bilateral allies in the Western Pacific) have no legitimate rival in the South China Sea.
Overall US isolationism, Trump and poor COVID-19 reaction have weakened US "hard" and soft power in the Indo-Pacific Region.
Regards
Pete
Hello Pete,
Thank you for replying to my post about Taiwan.
The 9 dash line situation is complicated and vague because of other party countries. That is true. Vietnam certainly seems quite adamant on their claim. I have a gut feeling that if the situation was workable with the PRC and Vietnam, then the Philippines would be flexible. However, there is a realpolitik reality about this that I think makes it unwise to view all claimants as equal. The PRC is far more powerful and could one day exercise that power on controlling those waters. No one is going to worry about Vietnam or the Philippines. Even though the claims in the South China Sea go back several decades, it was never an important global agenda because all the powers involved back then were very weak and were relatively dormant in exercising their claims. One other factor that the 9 dash line is more violating than the claims by the other countries is that the 9 dash line violates the EEZ of together countries by a large margin. The claims by the other claimants do not cross over the EEZs of other countries. Furthermore on that point, as you may know, the PRC made three large military air bases in the Spratly island group. But one thing that may have gone unnoticed by many is that one of these very large military airbases that the PRC constructed is within the EEZ of the Philippines, on Mischief Reef. The Philippines maybe should raise a louder international voice and attention on this reality but the Philippines did try to take they case to the UN tribunal in 2015, to which the PRC stated through the whole process that they would not participate. The ruling was made in July 2016 but had no binding impact and thus entirely empty.
On your second point that you agreed with me on, I have to point out that the original point was the PRC dropping the claim on Taiwan. I do not see it possible for Taiwan to change its name on its own without enough international support to back it from PRC reaction. Taiwan had a 2016 presidential election, in which the winning candidate of the DDP won. This party leans towards independence, and the candidate, Tsai, won on a platform gearing towards independence and Taiwanese identity while still wanting to keep friendly relations with the PRC. But pragmatism meant she fell short on that agenda. The PRC responded to her independence agenda with economic stress. The economic penalty saw her support rating drop because even though Taiwan took economic damage, the independence agenda was still cut short. So Taiwan really needs a lot of international support. The PRC also applies military threat on Taiwan on the message of independence. Consider that in 2015, the PLA armed forces conducted training on a mock city resembling Taipei with buildings looking exactly like the Taiwan's capital building and such.
https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/satellite-imagery-from-china-suggests-mock-invasion-of-taiwan/
Here's a video of the training. So the PRC was not shy about showing that military demonstration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=84&v=qRwj3jRgTOI&feature=emb_logo
This is not a military exercise with a message of retaliation should Taiwan continue a claim on the mainland. It is a military exercise threatening Taiwan to not declare independence.
Consider at the start of 2019, President Xi of the PRC included a stern message in the a new year speech saying Taiwan was going to be unified with the PRC one way or the other. The PRC is not letting go of its claim on Taiwan.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201901/02/WS5c2c1ad2a310d91214052069.html
I'm sorry for such a long post that is more politically heavy than submarine related but felt the need to take the opportunity made possible by you to expand on these points on your blog.
I do agree that US soft power and even US hard power had taken a back step for the reasons you say. But contrary to those things, the US military is still very active here.
Thank you for your time.
Hi Anonymous [at May 6, 2020 at 1:05 AM]
Yes only China has the military power to defend its 9 dash line claim covering most of the South China Sea. All other claimants are vastly inferior in combat power.
However the US system of bilateral alliances can represent the claims of others - even Taiwan's 9 dash line claim.
I note that Taiwan's relationship with China seems ambiguous. This is because there are approximately one million Taiwanese working in China - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-14/nearly-one-million-expatriate-taiwanese-in-china-to-forgo-vote/7089800
The one million gives China political and economic leverage in Taiwan that is quite outside the more usual concept of Taiwan's military defences against China.
One million Taiwanese working in China also means some Taiwanese citizens can be pressured by Chinese intelligence before those Taiwanese return to Taiwan. Also Chinese can pressure those Taiwanese who have family remaining in China. All this:
- would tend to give China very broad human and technical intelligence access to Taiwan's military, political and economic secrets.
- Also this would tend to give China access to sensitive US miltary technology that the US supplies to Taiwan, like
: the F-16 fighter and US missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Air_Force#Foreign_procurement
: the submarine launched Harpoon missile, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hai_Lung-class_submarine and
: in future Mark 48 torpedoes Taiwan has been seeking from the US
Regards
Pete
Hello again Pete.
The US may very well use the claims by other countries as a means to push back on China in an unofficial way. I think that is a dynamic that the South East Asia countries in general are aware of and try so sort of learn towards a balancing between China and the US. If the US uses Taiwan's claim in that way as well, it still falls short of supporting Taiwan to the extent of enabling it to declare independence. Taiwan's defense capabilities rely much on the FSA by the US.
The number of Taiwanese workers in the PRC has decreased tremendously since 2016. Currently at around 400,000.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3839550
The rise to 1,000,000 coincides with Taiwanese president Ma who had a pro-China policy approach. He was president from 2008 to 2016, winning a second term. But China in that period was still a question mark in the geopolitical sense. Many other countries have been expanding trade with China at that time as well, including Australia. Even though in 2008, the Charter 08 by Chinese intellectuals was shot down by the CCP and democracy advocate Liu Xiaobo was arrested, Beijing has the 2008 Olympics. The general mood internationally was "if China develops a middle class, they wil naturally evolve into greater openness and democracy". So its kind of hard to hold Taiwan to account in increasing workers in the PRC in these years. The US let the PRC onto the WTO around year 2000. So the gates of open market/economy forces were opened. And the PRC will naturally try to carrot Taiwan into unification sentiments under CCP rule. Additionally, even US military equipment include parts from Taiwan, if I recall correctly, Taiwanese bits are in the Patriot 3 missile system. Some computer chips of Chinese origin are used in other US military equipment. Its a questionable knotty mess. But instead of having that be used as a point to discredit efforts within Taiwan to keep unofficial independence and to discredit Taiwan's efforts to achieve official nation status, it should be a point used to reduce the interlocking of parts and businesses in the PRC-Taiwan-US supply lines. But later, PRC activities around the Senkaku islands and Sarborough Shoal around 2012 and then later with the Hong Kong umbrella movement in 2014, and the beginning of the massive island making in the Spratly island group in 2014/2015, Liu Xiaobo remaining in prison up until his death in July 2017, the PRC buying an old aircraft carrier from the Ukraine on the basis of "turning it into a floating casino" in 1998 instead becoming a fully operational carrier with fighter jets setting sail as a carrier group with recently mass produced frigates and destroyers by 2016. Obviously the sentiment surrounding the Beijing Olympics in 2008 has proven to be wrong. And Taiwan has responded, electing Tsai in 2016 and reelecting her in 2020.
Thanks Anonymous [at May 9, 2020 at 1:01 PM]
I have turned your long, interesting comment into an article "Some Comments on Taiwan's Political and Strategic Environment" of May 11, 2020 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/05/some-comments-on-taiwans-political-and.html
I have added many links to help readers.
Regards
Pete
Hello Pete,
Thank you for taking interest in my post and the exchanges.
Entice is indeed the meaning behind carrot in that sentence.
My pleasure Anonymous [at May 12, 2020 at 10:26 AM]
I've put in Entice at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/05/some-comments-on-taiwans-political-and.html accordingly.
Cheers
Pete
Post a Comment