(In US-China Forum #135 there was a Chinese version of the following article. In this English translation a few details are corrected. However, the conclusions are the same.)

The US Navy patrols the South China Sea with its many reefs and tiny islands. Each year dozens of naval exercises are held there. China objects. Why?

Location

The islands form roughly a lozenge pattern in the sea south of China. The points of the lozenge are called in Chinese East, Middle, West and South Sands. East Sand (Pratas) is the top of the lozenge, about 200 miles from Hong Kong. West Sand is the Paracels, Middle Sand is a coral reef consisting of many parts, it is also called MacClesfield Bank (after a British ship that stranded there in 1804) a bit to the southeast of West Sand, and South Sand is the Spratlys. There are about 200 islands, with a total land area of only 5 square miles. The total sea area is about a million square miles.

Disputes

Many of these islands belong to China, but have been invaded and occupied by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. Taiping (one of the Spratlys) and Pratas are actually controlled by Taiwan. The Paracels have been controlled by the Mainland China since the 1950s. The Chinese consider the town of Sansha on Yongxing in the Paracels, as the administrative center of all these islands except the Pratas group. Since the 1960s the defense there has been strengthened considerably.

However, from 1975 on Vietnam has occupied 29 islands in the Spratly group. They have pumped up about 100 million tons of oil there. The Philippines claim 33 islands, actually occupy 8 and try to obtain more. For example, a Filipino vessel ran aground on the Renai Reef in 1999. Ever since then the Philippines have kept a few people aboard the wreck obstructing its removal by the Chinese. The Philippines built an airport on Zhongyeh in the Spratlys and created many more incidents, without the US ever complaining about threatening the status quo.  

Vietnamese claims

In 1956 the Republic of North Vietnam publicly declared that all these islands had been part of China in the last thousand years, and they acknowledged the Chinese claims on these islands again in 1958 and 1965. North Vietnamese textbooks showed the same.

Not so in South Vietnam. In 1950 the government of the Republic of China (ROC) had a hard time, having just moved to Taiwan. They withdrew their military from some of these islands, whereupon the French colonial regime of Vietnam took some of them. The French colonialists had occupied some others already in the 19th century. When South Vietnam gained independence, they kept the French inheritance. And when North Vietnam won the Vietnam War in 1975, they kept them too. What about their earlier solemn statements? They were invalid, they said in 1988, they were just made to keep China’s support in the war with the USA.

The Philippines claims

Before 1946 the Philippines were not independent, and no maps of its rulers (Spain and the USA) showed any part of MacClesfield Bank and the Spratlys as territories of the Philippines. Now the Philippines claim that some islands and reefs are in their economic zone and hence belong to them. But economic zones cannot include land or islands of other countries.

Ancient Chinese Claims

According to China these islands were in the territory of China since ancient times. One finds Chinese temples, stone tablets, pieces of old Chinese porcelain or earthenware and old coins in these islands. Many historical records have also recorded these islands or reefs. The oldest record mentioning them was written when Julius Caesar was a boy. In the time of the Qing Emperor Qianlong (1736-1796) there was an atlas called ‘Imperial Qing Provinces Map’, showing the Paracels and the Spratlys as Qing territory. In any country that has a decent institute of Chinese studies all these old records can be found and studied.

The 20th century

After 1911 the ROC rather than the emperors governed China. The ROC researched these islands and in the middle of the 1930s it listed 132 reefs and islands in official publications. It determined that the southernmost tip of this part of the territory is Zengmu Ansha (James Shoal). When the ROC recovered all these islands from the Japanese after World War II, they sent four ships, Zhongjian, Zhongye, Yongxing and Taiping. Four islands were named after these ships. The ROC then used a U-shaped ‘eleven-dash line’ to indicate which part of the sea contained the Chinese islands.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the mainland in 1949 the eleven dashes were changed to nine. In effect, Beijing generously gave the Gulf of Tonkin to North Vietnam. In 1956, the ROC in Taiwan was alert about the Philippine ambitions and sent troops to patrol the South China Sea and declared its sovereignty over these islands, especially the islands Taiping, Zhongye and Nanwei. Taiwan even had a garrison on Taiping thereafter. Unfortunately Zhongye has been illegally occupied by the Philippines and Nanwei is illegally occupied by Vietnam.

The 21st century

In 2002 China and ASEAN reached a ‘Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea’. Article 5 of this declaration urges every party to show self-restraint and refrain from changing the status of islands and reefs in the South China Sea. Although this Declaration has no legal effect, China has never done anything to change the status of any island or reef, but Vietnam and the Philippines continued their occupation activities. China has repeatedly said that it likes to have bilateral consultations with any disputing country and also that they can set the disputes aside so to employ and develop these places together. However, the Philippines rejected all these proposals and asked the United States to intervene in the disputes. Moreover, they have one-sidedly brought their case before the International Court of Justice. China doesn’t want to submit to this court. All this gives the United States a good excuse to use military means to balance China’s influence in Asia. The U.S. aims to send 60% of their military forces to East Asia. China knows that it acts rather late, but hopes not too late. It is now doing much on the islands or reefs that are already in Chinese control, for example building light towers, extending the area of the islands and intensifying the military defense. The Philippines protest now that China does not comply with the ‘Declaration on Conduct.’

Present military activity

The Philippines and Vietnam protest that China has recently put some advanced missiles in Yongxing and the United States criticized China again that it raised the tensions in this region. The Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou inspected the Taiping Island in early 2016, but he was also blamed by the US for doing something ‘unfavorable for peace’.

China responded to all the critics of the U.S. with the following words: ‘The United States continue to strengthen military deployment in the South China Sea, frequently dispatched military vessels and planes to enter the South China Sea, spy on the Chinese military locations with high frequency and repeatedly sent missile destroyers and strategic bombers to approach China’s Nansha Islands and reefs. With clear target in mind, the U.S. decoy or set their allies under pressure to do frequently ‘joint military exercise’ or to patrol on the South China sea in the name of ‘freedom of navigation.’’ In fact, the United States is responsible for the military tensions in this area.

It seems that the US denies China the right to increase their self-defense capacity. Maybe the US idea is that China should immediately surrender when its neighbors indulge in colonialist style land grabbing.

Foreign leaders' speech at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) are significant because CSIS is a platform for foreign leaders to declare and explain important policy statements to the American people. For example, in 2013, the Japanese Prime Minister gave his speech, which was nicknamed "Japan Is Back!"(CSIS, 2-22-2013), declared Japan's intention to return Japan to a "normal country" meaning to revise Japan's Pacifist Constitution, to enhance Japan's military strength and to be ready to engage in warfare on behalf of Japan's ally as born out later. We have commented on that speech before and the reason why Abe Shinzo's militaristic policy worries leaders in Asian countries. In this column, we review and comment on the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s speech, The Developing China and China’s Diplomacy, at CSIS on February 25, 2016. I nickname this speech as "Peaceful (Transformation and) Development in Non-Threatening Chinese (Philosophy and Style) Manner" to capture the essence of Mr. Wang's speech.

Minister Wang started his speech by acknowledging China's successful economic development but an unsustainable one calling for a transformation to take an energy efficient, environment protective, green, recyclable and sustainable path. This change has already showed some progress although unavoidably it lowers the economic growth to 6.9% in 2015 (each percentage point is equivalent to 2.6% of 2005's economy). To sustain such a growth is a challenge but China is confident that she can do it because of the following three conditions: 1. China has an enormous market potential (four times of the U.S. population), 2. China's urban development is only at 40% (developed country usually at 70%) and 3. China's service sectors are just about 50% of the total economy (developed country is above 70%). Hence China is confident in sustaining her economic growth and maintaining a great economic and trade partnership with the U.S. as well as providing opportunities to the international community.

On Foreign policy, Minister Wang was modest in characterizing China's steady development and success in foreign relations but emphasized that China's foreign policy is the extension of her domestic policy under a vision advanced by President Xi Jinping, "the Chinese Dream" - bringing Chinese citizens to a middle class standard of living. China's foreign policy is directed to help fulfilling the Chinese dream by developing steady and friendly external environment and attracting external resources. Since Xi Jinping assumed the leadership, China's foreign policy is guided by three principles, protecting justified national interest, fulfilling obligated international responsibilities and developing friendly and mutually beneficial (win-win) international relations. Wang said, looking forward, China has five missions in foreign affairs: 

1. Make more nations and their people understand the Chinese style (manner) development, her chosen socialist system and development path. Regardless one's background, every Chinese citizen shall be offered opportunity to develop one's dream through one's own effort. China has no intention of exporting the Chinese system or style of development but China is confident that her 86,000,000 party members can accomplish any goal they set their mind to. (Referenced Xi 's book on governance in China, widely reprinted 5 million copies)

2. Maintain and support the international order established after the end of WW II, a peaceful condition earned with 35 million Chinese lives. China, as the first signed member of the United Nations, will not create an alternative order, rather she will fully support the UN mission and responsibility in maintaining world order. Wang urged the development of an open and free international trade system and extending to investment as advocated by APEC rather than having regional restrictive agreements. Wang further explained the purpose of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) supported by 57 nations for supplementing the investment needs in infrastructure development in Asia.

3. Actively promote China's development and her joint development with partners, a focused mission to assist the fulfillment of the "one belt one road" project proposed by China. The project needs three pillars; the first is infrastructure connections between the participating nations. The second is collaboration in manufacturing and energy supply among nations with mutual dependency. The third is cultural exchange and mutual absorption leading to advances in human civilization.

4. Maintain and protect China's oversea investments and enterprises, ensuring their safety and security. China now has more than 30,000 companies and several million Chinese people living overseas, 120 million traveling abroad each year and non-financial direct investment reaching over $1.2 trillion in 2015. The Chinese government has obligation to protect these legal interests, however, with limited organizations and resources, the foreign ministry must work hard in cooperation with foreign countries to protect and promote these investments and enterprises.

5. Participate and resolve hotspot issues in the world, constructively solving international problems. China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is obligated to maintain international peace and harmony. Solving hotspot issues provides healthy conditions for world development such as the one belt on road project. China has participated in resolving South Sudan's crisis, Afghanistan's issue, Myanmar's problem, and Syria's battles. 

Minister Wang particularly pointed out the common concern about North Korea's nuclear weapon development and declared China's three principles regarding the nuclear threat, 1. N. Korea must not develop nuclear weapon, 2. Korea Peninsula must not have military conflict, and 3. Any action in the Korea peninsula must not harm Chinese security and interest. Following Wang’s meeting with John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State and his CSIS speech, the UN Security council just unanimously passed on 3-3-2016 a resolution placing strict sanctions against N. Korea. This is a clear example that the U.S. and China can work together through the UN to find solution to a hotspot problem.

Minister Wang also made a clear statement regarding the South China Sea concern. First, there is no real problem with freedom of navigation. Although China has lost 42 small islands and rocks to squatters, China still insists settlement through negotiation according to the DOC agreement China and ten ASEAN members have signed which specifies that disputes are to be resolved through negotiation. Second, China urges non-claimant neighboring nations to help maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. Third, external nations should support and make the disputing parties to resolve the issues by negotiation. Under these three conditions, China and the ASEAN nations will be completely capable of maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Finally, Wang addressed the US-China relation, emphasizing that a collaborative win-win relationship is beneficial to the world. President Xi has suggested the U.S. and China to establish a new great nation relationship. China is cooperating with the U.S. moving in that direction by having more dialogs and increasing mutual understanding. Wang rejected the notion that China will be the ultimate opponent of the U.S. as a non-existing issue. China is still a developing country. For a long time forward China must focus on her own development; China will not compete against anyone nor intend to replace anyone. China and the U.S. have become two closely mutually dependent nations with $558 billion trades and 4.75 million people visiting each other every year (more than 10,000 people flying each day). It is inconceivable that the U.S. and China will have irresolvable differences. China will not be another U.S. China has no aggression in her DNA or much desire to be the world’s guardian savior. Even one day China has grown stronger with bigger GDP than the U.S., China will still have her oriental philosophy and tolerance to deal with other nations and at that time, the cooperation between the U.S. and China will be even deeper. What is needed today is to increase the two nations’ mutual understanding.  
​
Comparing Wang's speech with Abe Shinzo's speech, one cannot help but conclude that the U.S. has no justification to side with Japan to target China as the eventual enemy. It would be far easier to solve world issues by working with the rising China than treating China as an enemy. Wang in his final words on the CSIS speech was trying to get this message across to the American people.
 

Color revolution and independence movement involving protesting citizens are very different issues from territory disputes where there is no unrest of residents. For example, Okinawa islands in the East China Sea were arbitrarily given to Japan for administration by the U.S. post WW II in 1972. According to history, Okinawa was an independent sovereignty with diplomatic tie with and protection from China for centuries until her kingdom was toppled by Japan (1872) and her anti-Japanese resistance was further weakened when Imperial Japan defeated China in the Sino-Japan war (1894). To this day, there are still residents on the island longing for independence and many residents oppose the U.S. having a large military base there. In this case, the ultimate status of Okinawa should be determined by the Okinawans.

The recent disputes about the South China Sea (SCS) islands are entirely different matters. Most SCS islands are uninhabitable and never have had natives. A few large islands now with people came from China or Taiwan. Why is the Chinese claim of sovereignty rights over the SCS islands an issue then? It shouldn’t really be. The sovereignty issue on the SCS islands should be resolved by establishing the historical facts such as i. Which people from where came first (usually fisherman), ii. Historical claims made by government and iii.

International recognition made by other governments. These historical facts supported with documents, maps and governmental announcements should constitute solid proofs of sovereignty. As for the definition of island versus reef and their rights associated with economic zone versus security zone, they are defined by UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) signed and agreed by international members. Not all nations ratified the UNCLOS, China did and the U.S. did not.

Not surprisingly, there will be disputes on SCS islands as contemporary fishermen desire to catch fish wherever and however far they can reach, but it is surprising that the disputes are elevated to high tension under the issue of maritime freedom. After all the SCS islands are small compared to the vast seas and there were never any incidence of obstruction of maritime freedom. Rather, when the mighty naval ships came from afar to patrol the SCS, the tension rose. Should these naval vessels make their frequent presence in SCS? Why and What for? If it was for island disputes, shouldn’t we let the disputing parties to resolve the disputes according to the historical facts they can present and resolving any rights issue by bilateral negotiation? For helping world citizens (especially Americans) to understand the SCS island dispute issues, the following discussion referencing two articles in the Observer Magazine (Cheng Hai Ling, British Navy Records Prove That China Has Sovereignty over SCS, 3-19-2016 and Chang Chien Fong, Taiping Island Is Not An Abandoned Island Governed by Jungle Rule, 3-20-2016) would shed some light on the issue.
​
China, in her long history, has ample records documenting the historical facts related to every dynasty and every emperor. Many of these records include sovereignty matters including territories extending into the seas from shore. However, these Chinese documents tend to be ignored by the West partly due to language difficulties and partly due to prejudice. Regarding SCS, as early as Han Dynasty (206BCE-220CE), a geography book (Han Book Geography) recorded since Qin (221-206BCE) and Han, Chinese had sailed to SCS with Map (called Needle Map) and discovered the SCS islands. Tang Dynasty (618-906) included SCS in her sovereignty map. Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) famous for sending Cheng Ho out for seven sea fares to explore the world and one of his missions was to inspect the SCS islands. However, these historical records did not have as much impact on the West’s understanding os SCS as the western records. 

Through scholars’ research, it was found that British ships had reached Canton, China in 1637 and since then the British had cumulated lots of maritime records including SCS confirming that only the Chinese fishermen were ever present in the SCS centuries ago. A more recent reference from the British Royal Navy, ‘the Chinese Sea Directory’ (1879), had plenty vivid descriptions about the Chinese fishermen working and living on the SCS islands taking advantage of seasonal wind to go there, sending supplies and returning with sea cucumbers and sea turtle shells items only Chinese people valued them. In volume II of this 1879 book, numerous pages were devoted to SCS, mentioning “Tizard Bank and Reefs” (Chinese fishermen settled there and trade sea products with Hainan boats carrying rice), “Huba Island” (Named Taiping Island today governed by Republic of China where the drinking water quality was noted to be better), “Thi-Tu Reefs and Island” (Zhong Ye Island, now squatted by the Philippines, where Chinese fishermen from Hainan were found getting drinking water from north east part of the island. There was no mention at all any presence of the Filipinos) and “Lan-Keeam Cay”  is a name from Hainan Chinese not a Filipino name.

The British Royal Navy record described how the Hainan fishermen went to the South Sea of China Sea (i.e. SCS) to practice seasonal fishing, harvesting sea cucumbers, turtle shells and fish fins. One sea route was described that Hainan people in March would go to SCS dropping supplies and a few fishermen there to work and sailed on to Borneo then came back in June to collect the fishermen with their sea goods, apparently taking advantage of the weather and ocean wind. In this directory, it also made reference to Daniel Ross’s comments (1817) on Hainan’s fishing boats being solid and fast (made of special hard wood) and they could sail 700-800 miles. Another British publication, Nautica Magazine and Navel Chronicle (1842) even mentioned that the Chinese fishermen had reached the Indian Ocean.

In addition to British and French archives about SCS, Japanese had records as well. China lost in the Sino-France war (1884-85) and let France colonized Indochina, but France clearly recognized China’s sovereignty over SCS. In 1933, France seized Spratly and Paracel islands but then in1938 lost them to Japan. Japan renamed them New South Islands and later assigned to be part of KaoHsiung (Taiwan’s largest southern city) expecting to permanently occupy them all. When WW II ended in 1945, Japan surrendered unconditionally and, per Potsdam Declaration and San Francisco Treaty, Japan had to renounce all her illegally captured territories including Taiwan and SCS islands which should be returned to China. 

Japan not willing to share her relevant official government records on SCS is easily understandable (damaging to her ambition to occupy China’s Diaoyu Island in the East China Sea), but there are some civilian records available. For example, a Japanese book, Hurrican Islands (published in 1940, JPNo. 46072746 and NDC 292.24, written by a retired Japanese Navy Lt. Colonel, 1890-, 小倉, 卯之助), describing his sea adventure from Okinawa to Taiwan and SCS. He traveled to Taiping Island on 1-13-1919, upon landing discovering that Chinese had been living there. He found a shrine with plaque written in Chinese with Chinese date, Year Seven of Republic of China (1918). In addition, there is government document from Vietnam officially recognizing China’s U shaped SCS boundary.

The above and much more foreign documents and numerous Chinese ancient and modern history books and maps prove without doubt that SCS islands belong to China. Both PRC and ROC governments are united on this position, that is why President Ma Ying-Jeou had flown to Taiping island on 1-28-2016 and showed the world with his presence that Taiping is not only habitable (discredit Philippine’s false claim) but is established with school, bank, hospital and sea and air ports. As an American, it is really puzzling to see the U.S. siding with the Philippines and hyping the SCS situation to a world crisis. Wouldn’t the stability of SCS be far more important to China for her trades and security than to the U.S.? Are we playing an honest game?