Written Piece by,

Zaidey, Billy, Yong Sheng, Chi Hau, Zamri

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background of the South China Sea Crisis

The South China Sea Crisis is an overlapping claims of areas by several countries near the sea
such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, Taiwan and China. All of these claimant
countries each has their respective claim on the sea particularly at the Paracel Islands and Spratyl
Islands. But the most notorious 臭名昭著 claim is by China which claim almost the whole South China
Sea on the basis of its 9 dash line claim. Due to the importance of the South China Sea as an important
global trading route it is no surprise that the area is being claimed by various countries. It is reported
that the South China Sea trading route amounted to 5.3 billion U.S Dollar of goods which represent 30%
of the world maritime 海上 trade (Fisher, 2016).

In recent years, the crisis has escalated into military tensions as China in particular has increased
its military presence at the South China Sea particularly on the Spratyl Islands. China and Philippines
has clashed several times in the disputed areas 有争议的地区 as what happened in 2015 where
Philippines claimed that Chinese vessel 船只 has rammed 夯 three of its fishing boats near the
overlapping claim 重叠索赔 of Scarborough Shoal area 浅滩地区 (Mogato, 2015). China in particular
has send its own naval assets to the disputed areas to patrol the islands that it claimed.

It can be concluded that the ongoing South China Sea crisis happened due to each claimant
countries pursuing their own interest of claiming the disputed areas. This has resulted instability in the
disputed areas which may harm the trading route 交易路线 in the South China Sea and diplomatic ties
between all claimant countries.

1.2 The China’ s Claims and Justification

The China’s claims on the South China Sea has always been on the basis of the 9 dash line. The
basis of the 9 dash line was first introduced in 1947 where it comprises of area across 1,800 kilometres
stretching from Hainan Island to the waters near Borneo Island (Pesek, 2017). China claimed that since
the blueprint of the cartographic denotation 制图指示 of the 9 dash line has been developed since the
1940s it has a strong case to push forward to claim the area stated in the blueprint (Schoenbaum, 2016).
This justification is backed by China when they claimed that since 1950s the country has been asserting
声称 that the blueprint is a proof to show its territory 领土 on the South China Sea which showed it
sovereignty 主权 and historical rights 历史权利 in claiming the majority of the South China Sea areas.
However, this justification is strongly opposed 反对 by other claimants in the disputed areas in the
South China Sea especially Philippines which has put its own case by justifying its own claim through
a tribunal 法庭 at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague.

Not only opposed by the other claimant countries but according to international law, China’s 9
dash line claim is without any basis and cannot be recognise. Under the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it was concluded that the China’s 9 dash line claim was incompatible
不相容 with some of the clauses 条款 stated in UNCLOS (Schoenbaum, 2016). Moreover the claim
has far exceeded China’s maritime 海上 zones thus it carries no legal significance for China to claim
that majority of the South China Sea belong to the country as some of the areas claim are within the
Exclusive Economic Zone of some of the claimant countries such as Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei,

1
Indonesia and Malaysia (Schoenbaum, 2016).

2
2.0 Review of Recent Development

2.1 China’s Strategies

Expanding Military Might

Despite losing in the lawsuit 诉讼 against the Philippines in the Permanent Court of Arbitration
in The Hague. China’s ambition in claiming the South China Sea as their own has never been stopped.
China has been turning reef into island after that, they turned the disputed area into military bases 军事
基地. This move not only strengthens their military forces in the South China Sea, it also appears to
strengthen China claim on the South China Sea as they are the party that developed the area. According
to Michael & Jane in 2016, China has been building artificial islands 人工岛屿 atop coral reefs in the
Spratlys as early as in year 2014 and the event accelerated in the year 2015, and China also built deep
water harbours 深水港 and long runways 长跑道 suitable for warships and fighter jets. Although the
fortifications 筑城 do not pose much threat to the U.S military, however, if it let undisturbed, it will
continue to expand and someday might lead to conflict.

By expanding military might in the area, it ensures that China has a better control over the South
China Sea as that move aims for China to implement delaying strategy while continuing to strengthen
its naval capabilities 海军能力 to project power over the Spratly Islands (Fravel, 2011). This further
consolidate 巩固 China claim on the South China Sea and strengthen its control over the entire region.
整个地区

This allows China to demonstrate and dominate over the South China Sea. This is further proven
when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy is methodically preparing itself for the next phase of
power projection in the South China Sea (Damen, 2017) by further growing Yulin-East, one of the most
vital military bases in the Asia-Pacific. This shows that despite losing the lawsuit, China still want to
make the South China Sea as their own by expanding their military might. 军事力量

2.2 US Responses and International Ruling

U.S Responses

U.S Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOPS) has been initiated by the U.S. government
since year 1979. The operation has been carried out around the South China Sea to prevent China from
continuing their island-building activities and expanding their military power. It is a clear signal that
U.S. government would not step out of the South China Sea affair 不会走出南海事务. Ships, fighter
jets and submarines have been sent by U.S. in response to China military prowess 实力 in the South
China Sea. Not only that, but U.S have also tested the launch of nuclear-capable missiles 发射具有核
能力的导弹. The U.S. Navy sent the destroyer USS Stethem within 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres)
of Triton Island which was not authorized to be publicly inform (Dexheimer, 2017). Mischief Reef
where China has built an artificial outpost equipped with an airfield has also been patrolled by the
guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey. “This operation is carried out after experts in the South China
Sea and maritime law recommended the U.S step up FONOPS and include allies like Japan” (Standifer,
2017). However, China does not buy it and react angrily to the FONOPS as China foreign ministry
spokesperson said that the operation has violated the Chinese law and relevant international law,
infringed upon China’s sovereignty, disrupted peace, security and order of the relevant waters and put in
3
jeopardy the facilities and personnel on the Chinese islands, and thus constitutes a serious political and
military provocation.

4
 The Chinese side is dissatisfied with and opposed to the relevant behaviour of the U.S side
(Panda, 2017). “China reaction is likely due to the FONOPS which is likely to be join by another three
countries which are France, Japan, and Britain” (Mourdoukoutas , 2017) and lose in the appeal in the
Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague where the decision is hugely in favour of Philippines.
Although FONOPS will not have direct power in determining the status quo of South China Sea but it
send a clear signal that U.S. government would not be chased out of the area.

International ruling

On 12 July 2016, Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has made a decision that hugely
in favour of Philippines which China has rejected the claims. The court concluded that Beijing's claims
of historical rights to the region were not founded on evidence and were not in accordance to
international law and that the specific portion of the South China Sea claimed by both China and the
Philippines belongs to the Philippines alone. China action on creating man-made islands on top of atolls
and reefs, as well as its large-scale fishing in the disputed areas, are illegal and unlawful (Rosenfeld,
2016).

The tribunal decision in The Hague is hugely backed by G7 ministers (ministers of Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States). The G7 ministers have
considered the July 12, 2016, award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal 仲裁庭 under the UNCLOS as
a useful basis for further efforts to peacefully resolve disputes in the South China Sea (Viray, 2017).
However, due to lack of means to enforce the rule, experts in the South China Sea and maritime law
recommended the U.S. to step the FONOPS with ally such as Japan. Asian countries such as South
Korea supports FONOPS in the South China Sea, hope to solve this issue in a peaceful manner
according to international law. Japan also urged China to comply 执行 with the decision made by
Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Thus, by if China can comply with the decision made by
Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and not cause a fuss about it. The issue that has been
revolving in the South China Sea for decades can come to an end.

2.3 ASEAN’s Stand on the Issue

ASEAN as a group has taken more of a soft approach in tackling the crisis where just recently
all the ASEAN members agreed on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea or
DOC with China (Aubrey, 2017). This DOC promotes peaceful talks to solve the crisis in accordance
with the UNCLOS. Philippines as the current chairman of ASEAN has voiced out that it was pointless
to discuss China aggression in the South China Sea but the chairman also pointed out the need for all
claimant countries to abide to all the legal and diplomatic process in resolving the crisis (Mogato, 2017).

However, each individual claimant countries still have their own stand on the issue. Malaysia
in particular has opted for a soft approach as well where both of its Foreign and Defence Ministers have
been asserting the importance of peaceful negotiations between all claimant countries to ensure the
stability in the region. But in contrast, Vietnam has been giving out stern warning to China on it claims
especially at the Paracel Islands. “Vietnam has asked China to stop running cruise ship trips to the
Paracel Islands” (Nguyen, 2017). Philippines initally has also set somewhat the same tone as Vietnam
regarding the issue where its President has issued an order back in April 2017 for the Philippines
military to occupy the islands they claimed and raised the country flag in response to China escalating
aggression in the disputed area (Villamor, 2017). But since then, the Philippines’s President has opted
选择 for soft approach as the country much like Malaysia is vying for more investment from China.
This is proven when China navy vessels has been granted visit to the country.

5
6
3.0 Critical Review

3.1 Malaysia’s Maneuver

Malaysia and United States (U.S) relationship over the years has been on the basis of trade
and security. But in particular the relationship has focus more on the security co-operation where over
the years especially during President Barack Obama administration, Malaysia and U.S has worked
together to address the issue of terrorism especially on the threat of the Islamic State in the Middle East.
However, in the new U.S administration of President Donald Trump both countries have focused more
on the joint military exercises and co-operation which focuses more on the ongoing dispute in the South
China Sea.

Since the middle of 2016 to present, Malaysia has conducted several military exercises with
U.S. This is proven when until recently on 18th September 2017, both countries conducted joint military
exercises at the Lumut Naval Base (Parameswaran, 2017). Notably also the U.S has intensified its
Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOPS) especially in the South China Sea to ensure that all
claimants in the disputed areas will not breach the international law based on the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In this matter, Malaysia has played it role by asserting
the importance of the FONOPS to maintain stability in the South China Sea through the response by
the Malaysian Defence Minister in 2016. In response to the operation, Malaysia has assisted the U.S in
conducting the operation by granting permission to the U.S Navy Ships to dock in its naval port namely
in Sabah (Geraldine, 2017).

As for Malaysia, although it has agreed to the military exercises and assisting U.S FONOPS
operation, the foreign policies for Malaysian administration on the South China Sea issue has always
been to maintain order and to ensure there is an amicable approach which promotes peaceful dialogues
among all the claimant countries of the disputed areas. This is in contrast with U.S approach where the
country prefer a more confrontational approach towards the issue. This is proven when Malaysian
Foreign Minister has asserted Malaysia stance to peaceful solution towards the issue by calling all
claimant countries to uphold the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea or DOC
(Aubrey, 2017).

Malaysia and China relationship over the recent years has been mainly on the basis of trade
where China has become Malaysia largest trading partner since year 2009. This relationship is good in
the economic perspective but politically it cannot be denied that China will have some influence in how
Malaysia reacts towards the South China Sea crisis. Prior to 2016, Malaysia did broke it soft approach
on the crisis where China continued aggression in the disputed areas has made Malaysia demand an
explanation from China on the incident where the Chinese navy ships have been accused 被告 of
intrusion 侵扰in the Malaysian waters.

But since the middle of 2016, trade between the countries has intensified after the state visit by
the Malaysian Prime Minister to China in November 2016. The visit has brought in a whopping 33.6
billion U.S Dollar worth of investment to Malaysia (Zhai & Chong, 2017). However, the main
agreement reached during the visit was a co-operation on military exercise which Malaysia agreed to
perform with China on the basis of maintaining stability and building trust between the both countries.
The details of the agreement were not specified but both countries agreed on naval co-operation in the
South China Sea. The relationship between the two countries has also moved towards trade in military

7
assets as Malaysia has agreed to buy such assets from China (Parameswaran, 2017). The shifts in the
relationship of Malaysia and China towards the defence and security measures is an indication of
Malaysia willingness to work with both U.S and China to maintain the stability in the South China Sea
crisis by relying on the military prowess of both of the superpowers.

In another perspective, the economic clout China has on Malaysia currently will surely have an
impact on the political decision Malaysia going to make in the South China crisis. The dependency of
Malaysia towards the investment from China will force Malaysia to maintain its soft approach on the
crisis without angering China which could have a devastating effect on the economy of Malaysia. All
in all, it can be seen that Malaysia international relation has undergone some realignment since middle
of 2016 where Malaysia continued to pursue military co-operation with U.S but distant itself from the
confrontational approach promoted by U.S to tackle the crisis. On the other hand, Malaysia inked a deal
with China for their first major defence and security co-operation to maintain the stability in the South
China Sea a shift from their usual trading in goods and services only.

3.2 Overall Conclusion

All in all, the South China Sea crisis is a testament of the rising influence of China in the world
particularly in this crisis the South East Asia. China has demonstrated its assertiveness in pursuing it
claims on the South China Sea till to the extend of disregarding the decision by the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in Hague to acknowledge all claims made by the Philippines. This stand will have an impact
on the diplomatic ties between ASEAN and China particular. Although there have been some progress
in reaching a Code of Conduct (COC) to maintain stability in the South China Sea but till now the COC
is not legally binding and still in the framework stage. Thus this would not be able to control China’s
efforts to expand it military presence in the disputed areas and also would not prevent other claimant
countries to react independently towards the aggression pose by China.

Hence, future clash between any of the claimant countries especially in terms of military would
happen and this could further deteriorate the efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis. U.S
presence in the disputed areas could also pose a threat on continued China aggression as China would
not be willing to be bully in dropping their claim based on the 9 dash line.

Resolution to the crisis would be to have all claimant countries of the disputed areas in the
South China Sea to ink an agreement which will be legally binding. This is to ensure that there is no
more military tensions in the area before a formal agreement on settling the overlapping claim in the
area. Although it would take years for all the claimant countries to drop or even settle for the area that
they can claim in the disputed areas but diplomatic and legal process during the negotiation should be
respected by all the claimant countries.

Apart from that, U.S and China should conduct a formal talk between them to resolve the crisis
as recent events have shown particularly after President Trump assumed power that both countries
relationship has been strained. This talk between these two superpowers is pivotal as rising tension
between them could prompt a war in the South China Sea area.

Other than the negotiation conducted in the ASEAN level, a formal body of negotiation should
be form among all the claimant countries in ASEAN with China and U.S to kick start a formal
negotiation to settle the overlapping claims between all the claimant countries. This body of negotiation
would serve as dialogue between all the claimant countries to reach settlement through mutual
agreement which could lead to the end of the crisis.