As I keep track of the South China Sea disputes between ten states I remain constantly amazed at the Chinese rhetoric regarding territorial sovereignty. The latest statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry claim "irrefutable sovereignty"* over the Spratly Islands. For my two cents a slight problem exists with this statement by the Chinese government.
*China's Foreign Ministry repeated that it had irrefutable sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, where most of the competing claims overlap, and that China continued to demand the immediate withdrawal of personnel and equipment of countries which were "illegally occupying" China's islands.
Can any sovereignty over territory exist in an "irrefutable state" if other Westphalian recognizable entities make claim on the same territory? Legal equality of sovereigns (states) dictates that states are able to govern without interference over the population within the territory recognized as belonging to the population being governed. I have always favored the recognition of that idea of sovereignty as I would not like foreign governments dictating to my own government how to govern my behavior. In fact, the thought of most European governments actions toward their own citizens and control over their citizens' behaviors makes me cringe, and these are considered democratic governments. But who recognizes states and the territory over which a state is sovereign? The simple answer is other states.
If other states do not recognize a state's right to rule over the population in a certain territory is the sovereignty irrefutable? The Philippine government can make the same claim as the Chinese government as can the Vietnamese government as can the Sultan of Brunei (and I could go on here with the list). So, obviously the sovereignty is not irrefutable and Chinese rhetoric on the issue is not going to help settle the issue. Continued unilateral attempts to settle the issue can only be based on coercive action. Will non-regional states allow coercive action to settle the issue of sovereignty over the South China Sea? China is also telling the non-regional actors to stay out.*
*China "hopes that countries outside the region strictly maintain their neutrality, clearly distinguish right from wrong and earnestly respect the joint efforts of countries in the region to maintain regional peace and stability"...
This last statement leaves me confused. Apparently non-regional states are supposed to be neutral. What does that mean about the actual regional claimants to the territory? This statement means regional actors are not expected to be neutral, and that fact belies the Chinese claim of irrefutable sovereignty.
*China's Foreign Ministry repeated that it had irrefutable sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, where most of the competing claims overlap, and that China continued to demand the immediate withdrawal of personnel and equipment of countries which were "illegally occupying" China's islands.
Can any sovereignty over territory exist in an "irrefutable state" if other Westphalian recognizable entities make claim on the same territory? Legal equality of sovereigns (states) dictates that states are able to govern without interference over the population within the territory recognized as belonging to the population being governed. I have always favored the recognition of that idea of sovereignty as I would not like foreign governments dictating to my own government how to govern my behavior. In fact, the thought of most European governments actions toward their own citizens and control over their citizens' behaviors makes me cringe, and these are considered democratic governments. But who recognizes states and the territory over which a state is sovereign? The simple answer is other states.
If other states do not recognize a state's right to rule over the population in a certain territory is the sovereignty irrefutable? The Philippine government can make the same claim as the Chinese government as can the Vietnamese government as can the Sultan of Brunei (and I could go on here with the list). So, obviously the sovereignty is not irrefutable and Chinese rhetoric on the issue is not going to help settle the issue. Continued unilateral attempts to settle the issue can only be based on coercive action. Will non-regional states allow coercive action to settle the issue of sovereignty over the South China Sea? China is also telling the non-regional actors to stay out.*
*China "hopes that countries outside the region strictly maintain their neutrality, clearly distinguish right from wrong and earnestly respect the joint efforts of countries in the region to maintain regional peace and stability"...
This last statement leaves me confused. Apparently non-regional states are supposed to be neutral. What does that mean about the actual regional claimants to the territory? This statement means regional actors are not expected to be neutral, and that fact belies the Chinese claim of irrefutable sovereignty.
No comments:
Post a Comment