Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST JULY, AN international tribunal made a landmark ruling against China over their historical claim to territory in the South China Sea.
The world’s most populous nation claims sovereignty over the majority of the region east of Vietnam, north of Malaysia and west of the Philippines.
Within this territory is the island of Taiwan, as well as areas of sea claimed by China’s closest neighbours.
At the time of the ruling, China rejected the verdict from the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
Chinese state media have said Beijing will not take a “single step back” after the ruling, and President Xi Jinping said around that time that China would never compromise on sovereignty, adding: “We are not afraid of trouble.”
So where do China’s claims come from?
China’s claims to the area, called the “nine dash line”, were first enshrined in a map drawn in the 1940s with a nine-dash line stretching south from China and encircling almost all of the sea, although it says Chinese fishermen have been using it for centuries.
To bolster its position it has rapidly turned reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military planes.
It has held naval drills between the Paracels and the southern Chinese island of Hainan recent months.
A minor diplomatic incident occurred back in 2011, when an Indian naval vessel entered what the Chinese consider its national waters, with a view to exploring oil and gas exploration activities.
At the time, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said: “China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea and the island. China’s stand is based on historical facts and international law.
“China’s sovereign rights and positions are formed in the course of history and this position has been held by Chinese Government for long.
As for oil and gas exploration activities, our consistent position is that we are opposed to any country engaging in oil and gas exploration and development activities in waters under China’s jurisdiction.
Why is America involved?
Officially, the United States disagrees with China’s claims in the South China Sea, but it has maintained diplomatic ties with the country in recent decades, ever since Richard Nixon visited the communist country.
Under President Barack Obama’s administration, Washington insisted it was neutral on the question of sovereignty over the islets, reefs and shoals.
In December, Donald Trump broke a four decade stance of US policy by suggesting that Washington’s “One China” stance would be reviewed under his presidency, as well as calling the Taiwanese President to offer his support.
In recent months, Taiwan was warned its closest ally, the US, of the increasing threat of china. Last week, the Taiwanese military forces were seen conducting military exercises.
Its defence minister said: ”The threat from our enemy is increasing day by day. We need to maintain combat vigilance at any time.”
Before leaving office, however, Obama warned Trump against provoking China.
He said: “The idea of One China is at the heart of their conception as a nation.
And so if you are going to upend this understanding, you have to have thought through what the consequences are, because the Chinese will not treat that the way they’ll treat some other issues.
He warned that their actions could be “very significant”.
What happens now?
Sean Spicer may have made headlines at the weekend for his wild claims on crowd numbers at Trump’s inauguration, but the new White House press secretary expressed strong rhetoric on this issue.
This week, he said that the US “is going to make sure we protect our interests” in the South China Sea.
“If those islands are, in fact, in international waters and not part of China proper, yeah, we’ll make sure we defend international interests from being taken over by one country,” he said.
Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said last week China’s access to the islands might be blocked – raising the prospect of a military confrontation.
For its part, China was quick to hit back against this new US stance, with a foreign ministry spokesperson saying that the “United States is not a party to the South China Sea issue”.
The spokesperson said that said said China “firmly upholds freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea in accordance with international law” and urged the US to “fully respect the efforts of regional countries to safeguard peace and stability”.
This week, a leading Chinese newspaper, The Global Times, called for the country to expand its nuclear arsenal to “force the US to respect it”.
They said that Beijing’s nuclear forces “must be so strong that no country would dare launch a military showdown” with it.
With reporting from AFP.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It came to war, this is a war that the U.S. could not win. It would cost them an absolute fortune given the logistics, and their production capabilities are nowhere near what China’s are now. China is a juggernaut of heavy industry.
@Phil Magee: Hi Phil, The US armed forces vastly outnumber both China and Russia when it comes to arms several times over. The US has a massive army. No comparison. Under Obama the US had a weak commander but not now. Trump will not be pushed around by Chinese threats,
China don’t gave the immediate naval power the USA does. But USA can’t win it without nuclear weapons and China has them too
@Eye_c_u: Agree the nuclear option will cancel out any aggression but the US army dwarfs Russia/China/EU combined. It is HUGE. China are no threat to the US.
China is not threatening to attack the US. However the US is making threatening comments towards China. Threats don’t help anyone when both countries posess nuclear arms.
@Burke John: China couldn’t win away from home, but the U.S. would never conquer China, it would cost too much. If they couldn’t properly defeat Afghanistan how would they take on a country 20 times bigger with a billion inhabitants?
@Burke John: Yes, but they fail to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and the insurgents in Iraq. War is a funny old business as Napoleon and Hitler found out to their cost.
@Burke John: Also, China has almost 1 million more active servicemen than the divided states of america, they can build machines several times faster than anyone else. It would not take them long to build a bigger airforce if they wanted to.
@Phil Magee: China have been bullying their neighbours in the South China Sea for years since Obama took office. China saw Americas weakness as their opportunity. I think them days are over.
In this case the US would not be facing China alone. Vietnam Indonesia and the Philippines are also in dispute with China. And logistics would not be a big a problem for the US as it would seem. They have naval bases in the Philippines and Japan right in the disputed zone.
As ever the U.S is the primary aggressor. John Pilger explains:
“Today, more than 400 American military bases encircle China with missiles, bombers, warships and, above all, nuclear weapons. From Australia north through the Pacific to Japan, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India, the bases form, says one US strategist, ‘the perfect noose’…….
In 2015, in high secrecy, the US staged its biggest single military exercise since the Cold War. This was Talisman Sabre; an armada of ships and long-range bombers rehearsed an ‘Air-Sea Battle Concept for China’ – ASB – blocking sea lanes in the Straits of Malacca and cutting off China’s access to oil, gas and other raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.
It is such a provocation, and the fear of a US Navy blockade, that has seen China feverishly building strategic airstrips on disputed reefs and islets in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Last July, the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against China’s claim of sovereignty over these islands. Although the action was brought by the Philippines, it was presented by leading American and British lawyers and can be traced to then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
https://newint.org/features/2016/12/01/the-coming-war-on-china/
@Burke John: I’m not sure you understand the scale here. Sure, Americas military might is greater, but they would not be able to pit all their might against China. Remember when China shot down the spy plane? G.W.Bush, who went to war because his daddy went to war, demanded the plane back, he got it back, or at least the shell of it, 6 weeks later. China does not fear America, they may not be as powerful but are powerful enough to face them down.
Patches: So China is not being aggressive laying claim to vast areas of both international and other nations territorial waters. Is that your claim?
@Mick Jordan: Naval bases in any country mean very little without the ability to protect themselves, I doubt very much that the Philippines is much more than a utility. Considering that the Australian navy is probably the biggest naval force in the West Pacific region I don’t see them getting overly concerned wirh the Chinese at present. If America is just looking for a fight they couldn’t have picked a stronger opponent than China. Trump is a fool if he thinks he can get them to back down over the South China Sea.
@Mick Jordan:
The article is by John Pilger. If you believe you know better you should contact him.
Chris. The Indonesians have the Second biggest Military in the region followed by the Vietnamese. Look at the areas that China are laying claim to. Air cover alone would be a major problem for the Chinese. Where both the US and the other nations in dispute with China are slap bang in the centre. And the US have two Carrier Battle groups in the Pacific and could move even more in from the Indian Ocean if needed. China knows if it came down to a shooting war their naval forces would get severely mauled. What they are currently doing is simple bullying it’s smaller neighbours. And like any bully if a bigger kid puts it up to them they back down
Patches. Pilger is well noted for his anti US ramblings. But it was you who posted his remarks so that would suggest you agree with them. So my question to you still stands.
@Mick Jordan:
Your question can stand and wait. There’s a good lad.
Meanwhile here’s some more context from the great war corespondent Pilger:
“Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat”. According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea”.
What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation”.
What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.”
http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence-
Patches. You seem to be a fan of Pilger. And such agree with his Anti US stance. As such you answer my question. You don’t think China is the Aggressor in this case even though the International Maritime Court and the UN disagree.
@Mick Jordan:
As you seem to believe this is a Q&A session. Tell us who you think is easily the most aggressive imperial power on the planet since WWII?
Here’s a clue for you:
“The disquieting reality of the world we live in is that American efforts to destroy democracy, even as it pretends to champion it, have left the world less peaceful, less just and less hopeful……………..
To place the coup in Ukraine in historical context, this is at least the 80th time the United States has organized a coup or a failed coup in a foreign country since 1953……………….
Noam Chomsky calls William Blum’s classic, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, “Far and away the best book on the topic.” If you’re looking for historical context for what you are reading or watching on TV about the coup in Ukraine, Killing Hope will provide it. The title has never been more apt as we watch the hopes of people from all regions of Ukraine being sacrificed on the same altar as those of people in Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011). This list does not include a roughly equal number of failed coups, nor coups in Africa and elsewhere in which a U.S. role is suspected but unproven.”
http://www.alternet.org/world/americas-coup-machine-destroying-democracy-1953
Patches. Have the US laid claim to territory since WWII? China is and so has Russia.
@Mick Jordan:
Did you always cheer for the heroic cowbows against those damn Injuns?
No. I cheer for democratic nations standing up to dictatorships that threaten or endanger other smaller nations.
@Burke John: During the Vietnam war the US lost a lot of men. The supply lines were just too long. Nothing has changed in my opinion.
@Mick Jordan: The bigger kid didn’t do so well in Vietnam. The Chinese will not back down and if anything they will break America on land and sea. Mark my words it isn’t worth the effort for Trump to send in the navy unless he is prepared to keep them there perminently. The countries are not at war with each other so best to learn to live with each other with mutual respect.
Hallelujah. That’s where you are wrong. Vietnam was a land based conflict where the North Vietnamese could depend on Southern Support. This would be a Naval conflict where the US and those other countries involved hold all the cards. The majority of the region claimed by China borders those countries and makes China’s logistics much more difficult especially the further South they go.
@hallelujah: Exactly, the Americans made a big political deal about their war dead returning home in body bags from Vietnam. While the Vietnamese just went quietly about burying theirs. A war against China would be too big a cost for America to contemplate.
Chris. Vietnam was a totally different scenario as I have outlined above.
@Mick Jordan: Actually Mick, the Vietnam war started after Vietnamese gunboats attacked a provoking American warship. The Americans just couldn’t stop themselves from getting involved thinking that it would be easy against the communist regime. Surely they must have learned some lessons from that war.
@Mick Jordan: So has Isreal….
But you are ignoring the simple fact that Vietnam was a land based war where the North had logictical support from supporters in the South. China doesn’t have that support in the disputed region, quite the opposite in fact. And as it would entail no ground forces but would be a Naval/Air war China is at a distinct disadvantage.
@Phil Magee:total BS. The US has 400 bases in that region already and money is absolutely 100% not a problem. The looting and future dominance of any of America’s targets pays dividends in the long run.
Phil the us have ring fenced China with military bases. They are not the military juggernaut a lot of people think they are.
Bless. Mick thinks the U.S is a “democratic nation”. That’s sweet:)
@Patches O Houlihan:
I saw the documentary “The Coming War on China” on ITV just before Christmas.
I disagree with John Pilger on some issues but I have a lot of respect for him. I’m aware that he exposed the US government’s policy of supporting the Khmer Rouge after it had been removed from power by the Vietnamese military.
How would you describe it the Patches?
@Mick Jordan:
An imperialistic tyrant stuck in 18th century thinking.
China has this and America has that, you lot on here expecting to get a ticket to watch the show, don’t bother you will be in it, it will effect every nation on the planet, so ye can cancel the popcorn, and take up the nuclear attack position, find a room in your house that has a good level floor, lie flat on the floor, pull both feet in until your knees is at an angle of 45% then put your your arms under your legs between the thigh muscle and calf muscle gripping both shin bones firmly, pushing as far forward as you can, and you should be able to kiss your a**e goodbye….
No fan of trump, but this is a scaremongering piece to suggest that Trump will cause a conflict over the South China Sea territory. The US under Obama has already moved massive naval assets into this sphere of the globe and he admonished Beijing a number of times in regards to this issue. In August under the Obama regime three b1 bombers were sent over the area as a show of strength, these planes are capable of carrying a nuclear payload. It’s a much more complicated mess then suggesting it’s limited to the US backing Taiwan or the one china question. Japan, the Philippines, Korea both north and south all have claims on the territory, which is currently in international waters. There have already been many clashes with Chinease naval forces in the area, much more serious than the one with the Indian naval vessel over the disputed territory. Trump may be a nut, but this has been brewing for many years, and if you are going to do a piece on this powder keg do a balanced and fair one covering all the nations and their claims rather than a puff piece to scare people about trump , you also forgot to mention the landing strips that have been built on the reefs or the the Sam missiles the Chinease have moved there already or the fact they seized the us naval drone in December
I don’t see America threatening Israel when it comes to occupying land they don’t own. America should have learned their lessons from the Vietnam war not to meddle in Asia. The Chinese won’t be pushed around by Trump and his cronies, while Russia looks on with amusement.
John Pilger released a new documentary a few months ago called the coming war on China and it’s really interesting. America has been building military bases and pointing missiles at China for years, they have totally surrounded China. The US want what’s known as total spectral dominance across the globe. It’s apparently ok if the US has ‘interest’ in any part of the world but if any other country has interest in something they need the approval from the US military. The western media are being economic with the truth about the China situation too, they won’t tell you that the US is being a bully and an aggressor in the south China Sea.
@cryptoskitzo: trailer for the documentary https://youtu.be/G3hbtM_NJ0s the full film is available on YouTube too!
Pilger. Has spewing Anti US rethoric for decades. And the only people that take him seriously are those of similar leanings.
@Mick Jordan: That are against a hegemonic tyrant raging war across the planet. Let me know when you have even one of the credentials of Pilger and maybe your ‘opinion’ might be worth one of his words.
@cryptoskitzo: Reminds me of before Japan attacked the U.S. http://www.globalresearch.ca/fall-1941-pearl-harbor-and-the-wars-of-corporate-america/28159
Surely there is a diplomatic solution available. Surely the UN or someone can come up with a solution letting everyone save face without a battle.
In Vietnam, President Johnson said in 1965- “we will not talk to North Vietnam, we will not surrendar also” and sent in the US army.
In 1968, half a million US troops later, President Johnson ” lets talk to the North Vietnamese, and try and achieve peace”
China attacks the U.S. and looses the war and then China is broken up into smaller democratic countries?
Rember the Falkland Islands .a bit similar kindda
have your say