Why China is building islands in the South China Sea

This is Fiery Cross island. It's a little more than one square mile in size and it's home to a Chinese military base. There's a 10,000 foot airstrip, an advanced radar station, a missile defense system, and about 200 troops. But the strangest thing about Fiery Cross Island is that two years ago, it didn't exist. And neither did the six other Chinese military bases that have been built on man-made islands in the South China Sea. If you look at this satellite image from 2014, you can see huge Chinese ships collecting around remote reefs in the Spratly Islands. An archipelago in the South China Sea. In this image, these ships are rapidly pumping sand and rock up onto the reef. They're building islands. And less than a year later, the Chinese had seaports air bases and buildings on their new islands and the world had taken notice. We continue our look this morning on what China does not want you to see the superpower is reclaiming land in seven spots in the South China Sea adding on average more than three-and-a-half acres everyday. With these islands times trying to lay claim to one of the most important areas of ocean in the world the South China Sea. The South China Sea is incredibly rich in natural resources 11 billion barrels of oil, 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and ten percent of the world's fisheries. Most importantly though, 30% of the world's shipping trade flows through here to the booming population centers and economic markets of Southeast Asia. It's an extremely important body of water and right now five countries lay claim to some part of it. Now, most countries base their claim off the UN Law of the Seas, which says a country's territorial waters extend 200 miles off their shore. An area called the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ. Countries have exclusive rights to all the resources and trade in there EEZ. It's their sovereign territory. So for example, any oil that's found within 200 miles off the coast of Vietnam belongs exclusively to Vietnam. But any area that isn't in an EEZ is regarded as international waters and it falls under UN maritime law which means everybody shares it. Now, every country in the South China Sea region uses this 200-mile EEZ threshold to determine its claims. All except China. China argued they have a historical claim to the South China Sea dating back to naval expeditions in the 15th century. And they mark it using a really confusing border called the nine-dash line. Following World War II, Japan who had dominated the entire region, lost all control of its surrounding seas. China used the moment to claim the South China Sea by drawing this imprecise line on the map that encompassed ninety percent of the South China Sea. It became known as the nine-dash line. When the UN established the 200-mile EEZ in 1973 China stuck to its own line, refusing to clarify its boundaries and ignoring claims by other countries. Now that brings us to the Spratly Islands. It's a remote barely inhabited cluster of islands currently claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The Spratlys are both geographically and symbolically at the heart of South China Sea. That's because any country that can claim the Spratly islands can extend their EEZs to include them and gain exclusive rights to the surrounding territory. But it's really hard to legitimately claim uninhabited piles of sand so a few nations have built small buildings and ports on their claimed islands and even stuck a few people there. But China believes all the Spratly Islands belong to them which brings us back to why they're building islands there. Installing military bases on these new artificial islands took the dispute to a whole new level showing how China's potentially willing to defend its claims with force. Now this is about when the United States took notice. While the US has no claim in the South China Sea, it is the world's lone superpower and uses its massive Navy to defend international waters. China sees the US presence in the area as an encroachment in their backyard. When a US destroyer ship sailed just 12 miles off the shore of one of China's man-made islands and the Spratlys China sent out their own destroyer and a patrol boat as a warning. China is building these islands in order to increase control around the surrounding waters. Using a strategy that they've deemed "The Cabbage Strategy". Where they surround a contested island with as many ships as possible. In May of 2013 China sent several ships to Ayungin shoal, which is just 105 nautical miles off the coast of the Philippines, well within that 200 mile EEZ. The Philippines has eight soldiers stationed there. Like wrapping leaves around a cabbage the Chinese sealed off the Philippines access to Ayungin Shoal with fishing boats, surveillance ships, and navy destroyers creating blockade so that the Filipinos can't receive shipments of food and supplies. By building their own man-made Islands China's essentially building naval bases. The more Islands they have the more ships they can support and more territory they can slowly take control of. And the Chinese cautiously use the cabbage strategy in the Spratly islands, taking over contested territory but in small steps avoiding the possibility of igniting a bigger conflict. But the disputes are intensifying. Countries are now actively arresting trespassers in waters that they claim and China could go a step further. Since 2015 they've threatened to declare an air identification zone above the South China Sea, declaring that all aircraft that fly through it would need Chinese permission. Now, publicly China insists that their intentions are not militaristic but their actions say otherwise and it's heightening tensions in the region Steve Bannon who sits on the US National Security Council and who is one of President Trump's closest advisors is almost certain that the US will go to war in the South China Sea. "We're going to war in the South China Sea, I was a sailor there, a naval officer, we're going to war the South China Sea in five to ten years aren't we?" "there's no doubt about it" But for now the disputes remain only in the legal and diplomatic realms that only occasionally break into minor clashes. In July 2016 the international court at the Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines who charged China with invading their rightful territory in the South China Sea. China dismissed the ruling and enforcement of the law doesn't seem likely. Even from the US who released a vague statement urging the two countries to "clarify their claims" and "work together to resolve their disputes" which is another way of saying "we don't really want to deal with this". In fact, as the conflict escalates and international courts get involved, the US is stuck in a tricky position. On one hand, they do not want to risk provoking a conflict with China. But on the other they want China to stop bullying their allies in the region. Up until now the US has managed the situation by continuing to patrol through the South China Sea. It's also likely that the US would fly fighter jets above the sea if China actually does declare an air identification zone. These are symbolic but effective ways of keeping Chine in check while not getting too involved in the details of the conflict. So far the disputes in the South China Sea have not become violent but countries are starting to defend their claims by increasing troop numbers, weaponizing their territory and provoking each other. It's a complex situation that will continue to gain international attention for better or for worse.

Channel: Vox

Views: 7,747,806

Rating: 4.748776 out of 5

Keywords: vox.com, vox, explain, south china sea, china, philippines, usa, trump, bannon, navy, islands, island building, pacific, asia, southeast asia, Unclos, south china, scs, eez, the south china sea, china sea, south china sea 2016, united states, indonesia, duerte, malaysia, vietnam, trade, natural resourses, man made island, chinese island, fiery cross island, 9 dash line, disputed territory, foreign policy, spratly islands, international relations, cabbage strategy

Id: luTPMHC7zHY

Length: 7min 25sec (445 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 17 2017

Reddit Comments

[u/I_H8_Y8s]

This video has a ton of inaccuracies, and I would like to address as many as I can. Additionally, the bias is very heavy in this video, from half-truths, outright lies, tonal emphases, engineered connotations, etc, I think they ought to be highlighted as well. It's going to be a long post, so it'll be split over two sections.

 

1:10 - "China is trying to lay claim to one of the most important areas of ocean in the world."

• Inaccuracy: China isn't "trying", she already made her claims before any of us were born.

• Bias: The video presents an image of China unable to make a claim but "trying" to. Connotations of weakness and panic are evoked within viewers' minds.

 

1:36 - "30% of the world's shipping trade flows through here to the booming population centres and economic markets of South East Asia"

• Inaccuracy: No direct inaccuracy, but rather an inaccuracy by omission. Most of the trade that flows through the SCS goes to China, not South East Asia. By neglecting to mention China as the primary destination and source of shipping through the SCS, an impression of China as a meddlesome not-at-risk party is created.

• Bias: See above. Inaccuracy by omission.

 

1:46 - The video shows this EEZ boundary as the extent of Vietnam's claims.

• Inaccuracy: Vietnam's actual claims are far more expansive, like so. Furthermore, the video falsely gives the impression of Vietnam's claim being based off UNCLOS-sanctioned EEZ.

• Bias: By false labeling Vietnam as adhering only to EEZ, fuel is made for the narrator to lay on charges against China in the next segment.

 

1:48 - "Most countries base their claims off the UN Law of the Seas."

• Inaccuracy: Only Malaysia and Brunei base their claim off the UNCLOS (PDF warning), specifically, the clauses regarding EEZ and continental shelves. Vietnam's claims are historical, as are China's. The Philippines' have a special claim where they assert that the islands were unclaimed when a Filipino arrived on the islands in 1956 and thus, the Philippines by merit of terrae nullius, is the owner of the Spratly Islands. I don't know how China's and Vietnam's claims abruptly got cancelled in 1956 but the Philippines insists that is the case.

  • Also, it's 200 nautical miles, not 200 miles.

• Bias: Giving a false impression of China's non-adherence to international norms (which aren't even the norms, it was twisted to being a norm by casually disregarding the ROC and Philippines, and outright lying about Vietnam and the Philippines) assist in promoting the narrative of China's being a rogue and dangerous actor.

 

2:00 - "Countries have exclusive rights to all resources and trade in their EEZ, it's their sovereign territory."

• Inaccuracy: EEZ is not full sovereign territory. Coastal nations only have sovereign rights to certain aspects of their EEZ.

• Bias: The forceful tone and factual diction used in the narration implies that, 1) EEZs have already being settled and delineated, and the matter is final, and 2), EEZs have more power than actually prescribed by the UNCLOS. Both implications are false. Until terrestrial disputes are settled, no one knows who actually owns the EEZ nor how the EEZ is meant to be drawn up. Furthermore, EEZs cannot be used to claim terrestrial territory, as land dominates the sea (PDF warning, page 61, paragraph 185). Only land may be used to claim EEZ, not the other way around. The assertion that EEZs are sovereign territory is so very, very misleading as EEZs are completely overruled by another type of sovereign territory called land. And that's what the dispute is about; land, specifically, islands.

 

2:20 - "Every country in the South China Sea region uses this 200 mile EEZ threshold to determine its claims."

• Inaccuracy: The PRC, ROC, Philippines and Vietnam do not use such a threshold. I've stated this multiple times.

• Bias: Similar to previous note. The overemphasis of the role EEZ plays, in addition to the lies that Philippines and Vietnam abides solely to their EEZ, in further addition to disregarding the ROC's stance, paints an image of China's acting out of line.

 

2:29 - "China argues they have a historical claim to the South China Sea."

• Inaccuracy: No direct inaccuracy, but inaccuracy by omission. Vietnam's claims are also historical and, yet, this wasn't mentioned at all throughout the entire video. Not a single time.

• Bias: Again, singling China out for having historical claims paint the image of China's acting out of line, never mind that three of the six parties to the dispute have historical claims and not EEZ/continental shelf-based claims plus that single 'special' claim.

 

2:32 - "Dating back to naval expeditions in the 15th century."

• Inaccuracy: China's claims go waaaaay further back than merely the 15th century.

 

2:45 - "China used the moment to claim the South China Sea by drawing this imprecise line."

• Inaccuracy: Inaccuracy by omission, again. The Cairo Declaration in 1943 stated in very certain terms that Japan was to be defeated, stripped of her illegal conquests, and have all of her conquered territories returned to their former owners. China, in her own view, were the previous owners of the SCS islands and thus, in the aftermath of Japan's defeat, and in accordance with the Declaration, resumed jurisdiction over the SCS islands.

• Bias: The scenario portrayed in the video is that China was an opportunistic land-grabber, taking advantage of another country's (Japan) misfortune to lay claim to swaths of land. So yeah, was this part of the script written by the Netouyo?

 

2:59 - "China stuck to its own line, refusing to clarify its boundaries and ignoring claims by other countries."

• Inaccuracy: China's and Vietnam's boundaries and their clarifications thereof are irrelevant to the UNCLOS, especially in 1973 when neither China nor Vietnam signed the UNCLOS. Furthermore, later at the time of signing, China, as allowed for by the convention, stated that China's historical claims are not to be overruled by UNCLOS. Indeed, a provision in UNCLOS allows for member states to opt out of compulsory arbitration regarding matters pertaining to historical claims, which China exercised. In short, China is allowed to stick to her own line. So is Vietnam, for that matter, and yes, they are also sticking to their historical claim line. But, as expected, not a single peep from the video regarding Vietnam's position and actions. Clarification of the 9-Dash Line can be read here, written by one far more studious than I. And no, China isn't ignoring the other claimants; especially when she's the one seeking negotiations and talks with other claimants.

• Bias: Nothing new, just singling China out. Rinse and repeat.  

3:21 - "Any country that can claim the Spratly Islands can extend their EEZs to include them, and gain exclusive rights to the surrounding territory"

• Inaccuracy: NO, a country cannot gain exclusive rights to surrounding territory, only surrounding waters, and only up to the median between that country's coastline and another country's coastline, or 200 nautical miles, whichever comes first.

 

3:38 - "China believes all the Spratly Islands belong to them."

• Inaccuracy: Potentially inaccurate as new interpretations of statements released by the MFA suggest that China may only be claiming islands that were close to the islands for which they proof of early Chinese exploitation, and not the entirety of the Spratly Archipelago (21/7 Update). Additionally, inaccuracy by omission; Vietnam claims the majority of the Spratlys as well, but raising that issue is beating a dead horse.

• Bias: The ominous tone of the statement compounds the 'China threat' narrative built up over the course of the video.

 

Continued in next comment

[u/PLArealtalk]

I mean, it's definitely short, and I suppose it could be considered insightful for those who are new to the issue, but some of it is either wrong or dubious -- for example, China has yet to install any actual missile systems on the reclaimed islands in the SCS, despite what the AMTI's satellite images claim. The only weapons installations on the reclaimed islands are a few 76mm turrets and HMGs.

They did temporarily deploy missiles on Yingxing island, but that is quite a separate category of island to the reclaimed ones that make the news in the media.

The video tries to take the "sovereignty/history" tack to try and explain the question of "why" China is building those islands, and as I've written before, that is one of the important reasons. But there are two other very important reasons as well, one of which is the proximity and intensity of US presence in the SCS relating to China's very important SSBN base at Hainan which threatens the credibility and sustainability of China's nuclear arsenal, and the other of which relates to China's need to be able to secure the safe passage of its trade vessels and routes in the SCS which over the last decade or so have been perceived to be seen as under threat by the US military's significant presence in the area.

Put all that together, and you begin to see why the SCS is so important to China, and what purpose the islands serve. Not only do they act as a way of asserting sovereignty and creating facts on the ground, but they also act as listening posts for US surveillance and spy aircraft and ships that may want to listen up on Hainan island, and they also can be heavily militarized in time of war to support aircraft and naval ships to help protect China's trade route in the SCS from the US.

I don't blame Vox or Sam Ellis (the creator of the video) for this, because I'm sure he only took sources from mainstream western media sources which are rarely able to look at the perspective of things from China's point of view.

[u/umarb]

There are two perspectives on the South China Sea. The first is the Western perspective which is emphasized and portrayed by this video, that being that China is attempting to establish a military hegemony in South-East Asia and is acting as an aggressive expansionist state actor.

An alternative perspective, which has been largely ignored by this video, is that of China which is currently witnessing a period of American expansionism in South-East Asia. America has been patrolling Chinese waters for a number of years now, in what it claims is for the protection of smaller Asian states, but what China sees as intimidation and encirclement. China has responded to American expansionist attempts in Asia by defensively building a "buffer zone" of sorts between American influenced states. This video has ignored the fact that America has been also been attempting to build naval bases in South-East Asia. While the Western view on South China Sea may have some credence, it is important to recognize the reason why China has even attempted to build naval bases on such islands in the first place.

[u/bigodiel]

Over 70% of China's maritime trade flows through the region. That is the main reason for China's claim.

How the video keeps playing down China's presence by presenting overall Asian data, disregarding the fact that China represents over 60% of every single number (population, fishery, trade).

While not fake news, it is presented in an extremely biased manner.

[u/voidvector]

This is one thing that's peculiar to me:

Even though EEZ / UNCLOS was created to demarcate ocean boundaries based on each's land and island possessions, countries are instead using it to justify their island possessions.

I guess whatever that helps them draw a line is a tool that they would use, not unlike China's 9 dashed line.

[u/[deleted]]

This video is a bit one sided. I can't believe that it makes absolutely zero mention of the fact that the United States literally arms pretty much every surrounding country (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia) and is in a position to exert a naval blockade on a country whose economy is really export dependent.

Hopefully Beitbart's position isn't a strategically significant one, war with China could very likely lead humanity to a nuclear dark age.

[u/Grantnw]

Trivial compared to the US colonisation of Hawaii and much of the Pacific

[u/dieyoufool3]

Please remember to leave a submission statement. Thanks

[u/dabderax]

One of his earlier interviews, Bannon spoke about generational crises and the role of war in the resolution of crises.

Considering his ascend to power, certain things just doesn't add up. on one hand preparing for the war, and on the other hand undermining NATO is either stupid or malice, and he certainly doesn't seems as superficial and myopic as his boss...

another factor that kicks in, Russia - China animosity in a long run. besides Russia-China having singed 2001 mutual friendship, they did had border clashes several times in the past century, some of them lasted months, though never reach the level of declaration of the war between the 2 countries. but still, it doesn't makes sense why one would undermine the NATO.