NO.19

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Flecker: Early Voyaging in the South China Sea NSC Working Paper No. 19The Southeast Asians, in their lashed-lug ships, gained many centuries ofknowledge of the islands and reefs in the South China Sea before other seafarers venturedinto these waters. Towards the end of the first millennium, the Arabs and Indians voyagedthrough the South China Sea, probably under the guidance of Southeast Asian pilots. Itwas not until the 11 th century that Chinese junks took to the high seas to trade directlywith Southeast Asian polities.The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs cites Han and Tang dynasty texts asevidence of historical rights. 44 Chinese texts dating prior to the 11 th century cannot possiblydemonstrate any form of claim or ownership, simply because the Chinese did not voyagethrough the South China Sea in their own ships until that time. Some texts based on earlyChinese voyages may specifically mention the Paracels, but none conclusively mentionthe Spratlys. Even if they did, the reference to a place on a trade route has no bearingwhatsoever on the ownership of that place. So claims based on any ancient texts wouldseem to be irrelevant.Due to the extreme danger posed by the reefs and islands of the Spratlys, theywere avoided by ships both ancient and modern, Southeast Asian, Arab or Chinese. Still,some unfortunates wrecked there. The older wrecks tend to be on the reefs adjacent toPalawan Passage, on the eastern route. One of the wrecks found there may be a Chinesejunk. Wrecks on the western-most reefs tend to be post-18 th century and European. Thereis no evidence of any Chinese ships, or even Chinese ceramics, in this treacherous area.Regardless, shipwrecks are a result of bad luck or poor navigation. They cannot possiblybe interpreted as a claim on territory.Fishing boats have been taking advantage of the bountiful sea life in the Spratlysfor centuries. Perhaps the Chinese ventured there first, when coastal stocks provedinsufficient to feed the heavily populated hinterland. But they only visited for a couple ofmonths at a time during the best weather window. And fishermen did not claim territory,at least not until Filipino, Thomas Cloma, tried it on in the mid-20 th century.While territorial claims had been declared, the Paracels and Spratlys were effectivelyterra nullius until the early 20 th century. From that time there was a rising awareness thatoccupation was the only way to enforce a claim. Sometimes even occupation was notenough. Some features were taken by force, or trickery, from earlier occupiers.UNCLOS entered into force in 1994 having been ratified by 60 countries, includingall of the South China Sea claimants. From that moment on, unoccupied features lyingwithin the EEZ of a specific country technically belonged to that country. Where alreadyoccupied features lay within another country’s EEZ, bilateral negotiations were mooted inthe hope that production sharing arrangements would result. So far they have not.Towards the end of 1994, immediately after UNCLOS came into force, Chinaoccupied Mischief Reef, well inside the EEZ of the Philippines. In 1999, Malaysia alsobuilt structures on several of their occupied reefs, although these were within Malaysia’sself-proclaimed EEZ.The Declaration of Conduct (DOC) was signed by all claimants in 2002. It calledfor them to refrain from taking any actions that might escalate tensions. Despite signing,several claimants continued to enhance their occupied territory. China has completelyignored the DOC by blockading Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Reef, both well44 Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2000, http://fas.org/news/china/2000/china-000600.htm.48
Flecker: Early Voyaging in the South China Sea NSC Working Paper No. 19inside the EEZ of the Philippines, by deploying a drilling rig inside the EEZ of Vietnam,and by undertaking massive reclamation projects on most of its occupied territory in theSpratlys, invariably reefs that barely break (broke) the surface at high tide.The Paracels are roughly equidistant from Hainan and Vietnam. Vietnam andChina can both offer relatively recent historical evidence to bolster their respective claims,but China occupies the Paracels in their entirety and is not going to move out in theforeseeable future. Bilateral negotiations similar to those that determined the division ofthe Gulf of Tonkin would be the best way forward, for the eternal optimist.No country has demonstrated that they have historical rights to the Spratlys,simply because it is, and always has been, Dangerous Ground, a place to avoid at all costs.China’s claim to virtually all of the South China Sea does not seem to be indisputable.AdmiraltyReferences1868 China Sea Pilot, Volume II. London: Hydrographic Office.Bade, D.2013 Of Palm Wine, Women and War. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.Beckman, R.2014 ‘ASEAN and the South China Sea Dispute’, in P. Chachavalpongpun (ed.), Enteringuncharted waters?: ASEAN and the South China Sea, pp. 15–35. Singapore: ISEASPublishing.2013 ‘International Law, UNCLOS and the South China Sea’, in R. Beckman et al. (eds) BeyondTerritorial Disputes in the South China Sea: Legal Framework for the Joint Development ofHydrocarbon Resources, pp. 47–90. Singapore: NUS Centre for International Law.Blake, W., and Flecker, M.1994 ‘A Preliminary Survey of a Southeast Asian Wreck, Phu Quoc Island, Vietnam’,International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 23/2:73–91.Bronson, B.1996 ‘Chinese and Middle-Eastern Trade in Southern Thailand during the 9th Century A.D.’,Ancient Trades and Cultural Contacts in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: The Office of theNational Culture Commission.Brown, R.1989 The Ceramics of Southeast Asia—Their Dating and Identification. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.2009 The Ming Gap and Shipwreck Ceramics in Southeast Asia: Towards a Chronology of ThaiTrade Ware. Bangkok: The Siam Society.Brown, R. and Sjostrand, S.2000 Turiang: A Fourteenth Century Shipwreck in Southeast Asian Waters. Pasadena: PacificAsia Museum.2002 Maritime Archaeology and Shipwreck Ceramics in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: NationalMuseum.Christie, A.1957 ‘An obscure passage from the Periplus, kolandiophonta ta megista’, Bulletin of the Schoolof Oriental and African Studies, 19/2 (June):345–53.49
Page 1 and 2: YUSOF ISHAK NALANDA-SRIWIJAYA CENTR
Page 3 and 4: Flecker: Early Voyaging in the Sout
Page 49: Flecker: Early Voyaging in the Sout
Page 55: Flecker: Early Voyaging in the Sout

NO.19

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?