On Sunday China takes back the last imperial enclave:
Portuguese Macao. What then will be Beijing's next
quest? Taiwan? A hard nut to swallow. How 'bout the
more-easily digestible raisins of the Spratlys, the
supposedly oil-rich islands scattered through the
South China Sea?
There has been a flurry of diplomatic activity over
the Spratlys as China's premier, Zhu Rongji, works his
way around the neighboring countries that also lay
claim to them. The trip was only a partial success.
Zhu did his best to give the impression that China is
more interested in conciliation than conflict, but his
spokesman indicated that China is not prepared to
modify its total and exclusive claim to ``the historic
waters'' of the South China Sea.

Even in recent months, there have been clashes or near
clashes between China and the Philippines -- and also
between Malaysia and the Philippines and Vietnam and
the Philippines. All of the smaller countries are
united in believing that the threat from China will
hang over them until there is a binding legal document
settling the respective rights of each.

In the annals of international law -- particularly in
the relatively recent, U.N.-brokered Law of the Sea --
China knows full well it has a weak case.

In August 1990, China's then-premier Li Peng announced
in Singapore that China was prepared to put aside the
question of sovereignty and develop the Spratly
Islands jointly with neighboring countries. Coming
soon after a clash with Vietnam over the occupation of
one of the reefs, in which 77 Vietnamese sailors died,
the announcement had the look of a significant
volte-face. China's deeds failed to match its words.

Soon after, China gave the Crestone Oil Company an oil
concession on the continental shelf that's claimed by
Vietnam and said it would protect the company with
force.

Again in 1995 the Chinese foreign minister said China
was prepared to use the Law of the Sea as a basis for
negotiations. Trouble is, as Mark Valencia, an expert
at the International Institute of Strategic Studies,
observes: ``The Spratly archipelago has been part of
the motherland since ancient times and is embedded in
the Chinese national psyche.''

Just as China's claim to Taiwan is ambiguous, its
claim to the totality of the Spratlys, in any common
interpretation of international law, is exceedingly
flimsy. The islands are largely uninhabitable, and the
Law of the Sea is clear: Rocks that cannot sustain
human habitation or an economic life of their own
cannot generate exclusive economic zones or
continental shelf claims.

U.S. policy has been to stay out of the South China
Sea dispute. This makes good sense, but it would be
useful if the United States would sign and ratify the
Law of the Sea -- as all its European allies have
done. It is bottled up in Jesse Helms's Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, and President Clinton has shown
little interest battling Helms over it.
MAKE PEACE NOW

Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Singapore have
ratified it. But China -- taking its cue, or its
excuse, from the United States -- has not. 

Without doubt, the Law of the Sea is the key to ending
the Spratly dispute. This would allow for a regional
``common heritage'' area, encouraging cooperative
management of semi-enclosed seas. 

China would gain much: legitimacy for at least part of
its rather-weak claim and the stabilization of a
dispute that it could settle only by force, putting it
in perpetual conflict with most of its neighbors.

The time to make peace is now, while there is still
peace.
©1999 Jonathan Power




=====
Pedro M. Calmon
PO BOX 2248
Thibodaux, LA 70310
USA
PHONE (504)449-1682
FAX   (209)755-5642
ICQ: 48463895
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
==============================================
Lista naval
Para sair desta lista mande mensagem para:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
sem nada no Subject
e com o comando a seguir no corpo da msg:
"unsubscribe naval" (sem aspas)
==============================================

Responder a