The South China Sea dispute is based on both maritime as well as territorial claims. The Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, Macclesfield Bank and Scarborough Shoal, and the Pratas Islands are the four contested geographic features in the South China Sea, with the Paracel Islands, claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the Spratly Islands, claimed in their entirety by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in part by the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei being the most hotly contested. This maritime dispute has at its roots in Beijing’s contentious ‘nine-dash line’, that was Beijing’s cartographic assertion submitted to the UN in 2009. The controversial line lays claims on the maritime and territorial features that are in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, its bully-like actions have led to discord in the region. There have been overlapping claims in the South China Sea with China seeking to become the hegemon in the disputed regional topography.

The South China Sea Arbitration

There are six nations that contest all or parts of the oil and gas rich South China Sea, which has led to a series of confrontations between the Dragon and others over the competing claims.

The Philippines in January 2013 put forth a case against China’s belligerent activities and expansive claims in the SCS. An arbitral tribunal was constituted for the hearing of the case under the UNCLOS and final decision in 2016 was in Philippines’ favour; the resource rights in the South China Sea had to be clarified. China’s contentious nine-dash line became the subject of disapproval and the tribunal ruled against it, clearly stating that China was claiming historic rights to the resources within the jurisdiction of its aforementioned nine-dash but in actuality, these claims were nullified with China becoming a signatory of the UNCLOS in 1996 due to its discordancy with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other coastal states.

The tribunal also ruled that the 200-nautical-mile EEZ entitlements of the Philippines and, by conclusion, the other coastal states in the region, are unfettered by the nine-dash line or any claimed EEZ in the Spratly Islands.

China denounced the decision as “null and void” having “no binding force,” it largely kept to its letter if not its spirit in the first year after the award. The United States and its allies, members of ASEAN and India directly or indirectly pressured Beijing to accept the ruling and comply with the UNCLOS. Another reason could have been China’s disinterest in direct confrontation in the region.

China’s Outright Claims Over the South China Sea

Beijing’s venture into the disputed South China Sea has been a part and parcel of its long-term strategy to establish its hegemony over the near and far regions and expand and deepen its sphere of influence, both overland and in the seas. Recently, the dragon’s firing of medium-range missiles into the SCS and its ever-increasing military exercises is an avowal in order to show its sovereignty over the disputed waters.

Even though its untoward claims have no legal basis, as pointed out by Hague Tribunal, which is by and large ignored and disobeyed by China, does not stop it from emerging as a formidable trouble-fomenting power in the South China Sea. What started in the guise of a cooperative mechanism for engaging with the countries in the periphery of the disputed SCS has turned into brazen bullying by Beijing.

Historically, post one-year anniversary of the UNCLOS tribunal’s ruling, as international attention faded, China started strengthening its claims and encroaching upon the EEZs of the coastal states; deepening the purview of its maritime claims and increasing its military and naval presence apart from objecting to the presence of US navigation and laws of free movement. It was greatly engaged in consolidating its grand and objectionable territorial claims engaging in reclamation of physical geographical features on which lay its belligerent claims. Its militarisation of the region and installations at Mischief Reef through naval and aerial facilities and setting up of artificial islands has been a well-known factor.

Beijing has been an aggressive bully in the region trying to establish rules and laws that favour its grandiose plans. It has always maintained that it has full control over the region and has stakes and claims, as in the case of its assertion on a recent White Paper – “China exercises its national sovereignty to build infrastructure and deploy necessary defensive capabilities on the islands and reefs in the South China Sea.”

Conclusion

Beijing through its deplorable actions has been able to outrightly build a forceful maritime presence in the South China Sea, strengthening its surveillance and intelligence capabilities; its aerial capabilities have also helped it to gain a strong foothold over the region, thus, bringing it closer to the realisation of its broad strategic goals of hegemony of the region, sans any respect for the laws of the sea or the international rules-based order. The other adversaries have also been subdued by China’s overwhelming presence in the region and even, the US credibility, action and capability has been undermined with Chinese sovereign control over the contested territory being somewhat fait accompli. Chinese downright assertions over the South China Sea have antagonised the neighbouring states with the ASEAN being virtually helpless in the face of adversity that Beijing has thrown on to them. Moreover, in the present scenario in a world ravaged by COVID-19, it is difficult to control the bully and prevent it from infringing on the rights of other rightful contenders of the South China Sea resources.

References:

Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea. Council on Foreign Relations.

Kumar, A., & Chari, S. (2020, September 6). China creating a flashpoint in South China Sea. Sunday Guardian Live.

Kuok, L. (2019). How China’s actions in the South China Sea undermine the Rule of Law. Global China.

Tsirbas, M. (2016, June 2). What Does the Nine-Dash Line Actually Mean? The Diplomat.

The post IN PURSUIT OF ESTABLISHING HEGEMONY OVER SOUTH CHINA SEA appeared first on WISER WORLD.

About the New Law

The new security law came into force on 30th June 2020. It contains 66 Articles that deal with subversion, secession, terrorism and collusion with external forces. Although the law covers the aforementioned laws, their definitions can be interpreted broadly to cover various types of speech and forms of organizing. Life imprisonment can be awarded for calling on foreign governments or publishing views which are considered anti-Beijing. So, can be awarded for making statements undermining the ruling authority. 

Some of the key provisions under the law are-

1. To vandalize public property would be considered terrorism;
2. Breaking away from the country, colliding with foreign governments, using violence against persons or property, going against the central government is punishable with life imprisonment at maximum;
3. Beijing would establish a new security office in Hong Kong which won’t be under the local jurisdiction;
4. Those convicted under this law won’t be allowed to stand for public offices;
5. Companies can be fined if found guilty;
6. The new security office can transfer cases to mainland china for trials;
7. Neither the judicial offices nor the public bodies would have the authority to interpret the law, the power rests with Beijing authorities when the law conflicts with any Hong Kong law;
8. People can be wire-trapped and put in surveillance if authorities suspect them for breaking the law;
9. Trials can take place behind closed doors;
10. The law would also apply to outsiders

A Threat to Hong Kong?

The people of Hong Kong are afraid of their freedom under the law. Beijing has said that people should protect their rights and liberties while safeguarding the nation’s authority. Reports show that the people have started deleting posts from the fear of being prosecuted under the new law. The city is the only common law jurisdiction in China, but now it is feared that it won’t be independent anymore and would look like Mainland China.

On 1st July, Hong Kong completed 23 years of Handover by Britain to China. Usually observed by a long march, thousands of people gathered to protest and were arrested for crimes that did not exist a day before. Around 370 people were arrested, out of which 10 were arrested for the new law which protects Beijing from challenging political activities. The law threatens the cultural scene and civil liberty that exists in Hong Kong which makes it different from the rest of China. 

Many people from Hong Kong wish to emigrate, a task which was promised to be made easier by Britain. The British government informed that some Hong Kongers would be allowed to live in Britain for five years and then would be allowed to apply for citizenship. Not only the citizens but international organizations are also evaluating their future in the city because the new law said that the government would strengthen the management of foreign NGOs and news agencies. Many Activists have deleted their accounts from social media platforms like twitter and telegram fearing their past activities might lend them in trouble. 

Joshua Wong, who is perhaps the best-known activist, announced that he is quitting from his youth political group named Demosisto which was founded in the year 2016, citing concerns for his safety. After that, three other leading members left the group leading to an announcement of the disbanding of the group altogether. News agencies have been asked by authors to take down their posts. The central government assured that the law is to bring stability but chaos seems to be all around the place.

What is the Motive of China?

Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997 over a small agreement- a mini-constitution for Hong Kong called the basic law and a ‘one country, two systems’ principle. They are supposed to protect certain freedoms of Hong Kong which no other part of China has. Under Article 23 of the basic law, Hong Kong was supposed to enact a security law that did not happen. 

Last year, Protests over an extradition law turned violent and resulted in an anti-China movement. China does not wish to have it again. The law punishes protestors to protect the authority. 

India’s Stand on the Law

Amid the ongoing tensions on borders with China, India on Wednesday made statements stating that it hoped that the relevant parties would address the concerns “properly, seriously and objectively” while not naming china. The statement was made by India’s representative at the ongoing UN human rights council in Geneva. India urged the security council to seriously address the matter of recent developments in Hong Kong, as it is home to substantial Indian Community.

 Standing up for Hong Kong is in India’s interest both diplomatically and politically because as per sources Hong Kong is India’s top trading partner as opposed to China and India shares a history with Hong Kong since the early 19th century- be it, Indian soldiers, fighting for the city or entrepreneurs adding to the dynamics of their market.

China and India are currently amid a military stand-off on borders in 45 years. India lost 20 soldiers last month, in a clash with the Chinese troops. India has remained silent over protests at Hong Kong over several years, so a statement by India is significant.

Last Friday, the UN independent experts in a joint statement asked the human rights council to hold a session to monitor abuses like “Moves against people of Hong Kong”.

Conclusion

The new law introduced by China to protect the government in power is being demonstrated as an end of Hong Kong by the critics. It increases Beijing’s power on the city-state threatening freedom of people residing in Hong Kong. Arrests under the new law have been made on grounds that did not exist until a few days ago, forcing citizens, multinational organizations, news forces etc to ponder over their future. Even if China claims the new law’s power to bring back stability, the current situation seems to be creating fear while dominating the rights the city enjoys. 

The post HONG KONG’S NEW SECURITY LAW- THE END OF HONG KONG? appeared first on WISER WORLD.