Oil over troubled waters

Posted by Martyn.

china oil map.gif
This map clearly shows the areas claimed by Beijing and Tokyo and the location of the Chunxiao field.

In a rare show of military assertiveness, five Chinese PLA Navy vessels took position near the controversial Chunxiao gas field in the East China Sea last Friday morning. The fleet consisted of a “7,940-ton Sovremenny-class guided-missile destroyer, two 1,702-ton Jianghu I-class missile frigates, a 23,000-ton replenishment vessel and a 6,000-ton missile observation support ship”. Previously, Chinese PLA Navy vessels have only occasionally sailed into Japanese waters. The last incursion a few months ago ended with a quiet Chinese apology to Japan. Therefore, this current deployment is, by far, the largest display of China’s recently acquired blue water navy since military exercises in 1996 in the Taiwan Strait resulted in two US aircraft carriers being sent to the area. This great Howard French article presents an ominous picture.

The warships appeared two days before a general election in Japan, whose results could greatly influence relations between Asia’s two great powers, and weeks before China is scheduled to start producing gas in the area, despite strong Japanese protests.

Until Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi diverted Japanese voters’ attention away from Japan’s deteriorating relationship with China, the focus for several months had been on the increasing diplomatic, military and economic rivalry with China — much of it taking place in the waters between the countries. Both Japan and China are determined to wield a strong hand in the oil-rich seas and strategic shipping lanes that lie between them.

“It is like the 1930s again, when the central Pacific became a vital concern to both the United States and Japan, whose navy was expanding,” said Adm. Lang Ning-li, who until his recent retirement was Taiwan’s director of naval intelligence. “That means there could be conflict between China and Japan, which both see these seas as vital and can’t share this space.”

The territorial spat between China and Japan started in late 2003 when both governments stated their intention develop oil and gas resources in the East China Sea. China and Japan disagree wildly over the location of the maritime border between the two countries. Japan defines it as a line marking the equal distance between the two nations. China claims its sovereignty extends right to the edge of the large continental shelf, encompassing Taiwan and almost extending to Okinawa. The Chunxiao gas field borders the disputed area and Japan suspects that Chinese oil and gas fields would siphon off resources from the Japanese side. Tokyo also worries that the oceanographic data collected by Beijing would give the PLA Navy a strong advantage in any future submarine warfare. According to this Chinese source, Beijing also intends to refuse any further talks on the issue. However, the implications of this Chinese show of strength, potentially at least, extend far beyond the Chunxiao gas field:

Security experts from China, Japan, Taiwan and the United States say that all the elements are in place for a showdown over Taiwan between Beijing and Tokyo. No one is predicting war, but Taiwan poses a permanent and unpredictable potential crisis. The United States has a close alliance with Japan, security commitments with Taiwan and a complex relationship with China that mixes rivalry with extensive economic ties.

For America, whose support of either Japan or China has historically tipped the balance in the region, the implications are enormous. The recent statement by a Chinese general that his country would use nuclear weapons against the United States if the U.S. military intervened in a conflict over Taiwan was a sharp reminder that Taiwan’s fate remains one of the region’s biggest flash points. Many analysts argue that such confrontation, verbal or otherwise, could lead to a regional arms race culminating in a nuclear Japan.

Japan imports all of its oil, and because much of it passes through the seas surrounding Taiwan, it believes that its survival is dependent on keeping those seas stable. Chinese control of Taiwan could hurt Japan’s access to oil, Japan fears.

China usually accepts no compromise on its various territorial claims, most notably over the entire South China Sea. To date, China has flatly refused to work towards any kind of permanent settlement over controversial issues such as sovereignty over the Spratly Islands (or Nansha Islands as they are called in China). The disagreements have simply been postponed and replaced with a series of economic cooperation agreements and promises from all sides to resolve the dispute peacefully. Beijing has also all but banned the subject at ASEAN meetings. However, in the past China was always careful to avoid outright confrontation, especially confrontation involving the PLA Navy. Recent purchases from Russia have substantially increased China’s ability to protect its power in the South China Sea. The question is: to what extent is China prepared to use it?

The Discussion: 41 Comments

The Chinese inclination to publish maps with a big scoop that shows all of the South China Sea, clear down to the north Borneo continental shelf, as Chinese territory makes all of Southeast Asia nervous. Southeast Asians have bitter memories of Japanese occupation, and many have no love for the Japanese. But get them drunk and ask them which country they think will be a likely source of future trouble in the region and, in my experience, the answer usually isn’t Japan.

September 12, 2005 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

An now that JK has won a nice little mandate in Japan, tensions in Japan can start heading back in the way of China. One thing that amazes me over and over again is China’s “shows of force.” Such tactics help nothing. Positioning ships near the boundary certainly won’t make the Japanese happy. And it certainly will not make them more inclined to see things China’s way in regards to Taiwan.

September 12, 2005 @ 11:09 pm | Comment

Speaking of oil in China, here’s an amusing aside. (BBC story; hope it can be read in Nanny Land.)

September 12, 2005 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

As I said, China takes a very hardline towards its territorial disputes. It definitely seems a case of ‘do nothing now and wait until we’re powerful enough to force our terms’ approach by the Chinese side so far.

To be fair though, there has been an increasingly hardline approach taken by both China and Japan on many bilateral issues lately. However, China is definitely upping the anti by sending a guided-missile destroyer and four other vessels to area around Chunxiao and a couple of other gas fields.

The only thing that I can think of that’s changed lately is that drilling is about to begin on the Chinese side and Japanese companies are preparing to do the same on their side.

China’s obviously giving Japan a clear warning not to interfere.

September 12, 2005 @ 11:45 pm | Comment

You’re joking Richard. The BBC is ‘super-blocked’ here. That means it’s a lot more difficult to access than, say, blogspot sites and the like.

Hadn’t you heard? The BBC is anti-China.

September 12, 2005 @ 11:47 pm | Comment

Here’s the copy:

Farmers in the poor Chinese province of Shaanxi have been stealing oil from a state-owned pipeline, and carrying it off in large plastic bags.

The state controlled China Daily said farmers were making $1,000 a month from the scam, which is partly being driven by China’s rocketing demand for fuel.

The farmers, based near Yan’an and Yulin cities, have been selling the stolen oil to small refineries.

The paper said their plastic bags, when full, weighed 50kg (8 stone).

One of the farmers involved told the paper that local people had not benefited from the region’s recent oil development.

“Because of a decrease in our farmland, we have no land for crops and have no way to get money out of the land,” he said.

Bingfeng, the link is provided above. 🙂 (See the China Daily thread for context.)

September 12, 2005 @ 11:49 pm | Comment

Daily linklets 13th September

Cruel and unusual punishment Hong Kong style. Sun Bin on Taiwan’s defence options in the case of a war. There is no Chinese culture now. Beijing by the numbers. The PBoC’s forex steriliastions have slowed dramatically. Christy Chung isn’t a state secr…

September 13, 2005 @ 1:10 am | Comment

As I contemplate the fact that a single intrepid Japanese Yuushio class submarine could have taken that flotilla out with little problem (4 of the 5 ships lacked a credible ASW or point-defense system) I am reminded for some reason of Germany’s unopposed march into the Rhineland, taking it with a mere three battalions of light infantry. Anyway, the timing could not have been worse. Koizumi has made it clear following the election that Japan will re-arm, and now China will shoulder the blame for the Japan’s return to the ranks of the world’s military powers.

September 13, 2005 @ 7:23 am | Comment

The Japanese can pry the oil (natural gas in this case) from my cold dead hands! Might makes right. The drilling in this case is happening in Chinese waters according to either EEZ definitions and if the Japanese want to complain about slant drilling, they can sob some more.

September 13, 2005 @ 9:47 am | Comment

Hate to rain on the parade here, but this is a case of the mouse that roared.

The Japanese Navy is far superior to anything the Chinese currently have. I seriously doubt they are intimidated.

China has LOOOOOONG way to go before it catches up with the Japanese Navy, which is basically second behind the US.

September 13, 2005 @ 10:13 am | Comment

Indeed the Japanese Navy is very sophisticated. The PLAN would have a tough time of it if there was no air support.

September 13, 2005 @ 10:21 am | Comment

Apparently David, Gordon, and Raj all agree that military power is the ultimate justice. Not surprising though typical Western mindset.

September 13, 2005 @ 11:05 am | Comment

Sign me up as one of those with the typical (hegemoniacal imperialistic) western mindset. Never let it be said that I am one to shy away from Machtpolitik, but in all seriousness, this latest developement is hardly the prelude to a shooting war. It will take far more than this slight provocation for the situation to go that far. Which is altogether not a bad thing, as it allows China more time to further modernize its naval assets. The J”SD”F presently holds the clear advantage now, but it won’t neccessarily the case 10 or 15 years down the line. The pace of modernization is definetly in the PLAN’s favour.

September 13, 2005 @ 11:21 am | Comment

If Mainland even dares to breathe on Japan’s neck, it’ll be met with the rage of the entire Free World! Japan’s fleet is enough to wipe out the entire Mainland in 40 mins, even without our American and European allies. So warning to CCP, if you want peace, don’t threaten Japan. If you want war, Japan will make every Mainlainder evaporate.

September 13, 2005 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

Some website you run, Mr. Yasukuni.

September 13, 2005 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

Haha, wipe out? Let evaporate?

How big is Japan? How dense is your population? You think your people is STILL sustainable in the 2nd nuclear war?

Before you start wiping out, you will get it!Don’t you want it? Don’t you know China got a crazy general called Zhu Chenghu?

Nuke again? Oh, No! I like Japanese people! At least your woman legistrators elected this time are beautiful. Let us wait until everything’s peacefully solved….

East Asia should unite, don’t you remember? Westerners are our enemy:P

September 13, 2005 @ 5:49 pm | Comment

I mean legislator, not legis traitor:)

September 13, 2005 @ 5:52 pm | Comment

Speaking in the here and now, yes of course, Japan’s Naval Defence Force is highly sophisticated. It’s also online with US Navy equipment which allows both allies to fight in tandem, much like the British Army is capable of fighting as a smaller branch of the US Army by having the same hig-tech equipment.

However, the PLA Navy is modernizing at a brisk pace. It’s debatable whether they will ever reach the level of sophistication that the US/Japan is able to reach via annual defence bugdets of US billions but it’s going at a fair clip.

Part of the problem is that, as a rising power, China finds its international space in Asia growing far too small for its increasing size. The US/Japan want to maintain the current balance of power, which remains in their favour.

As time goes on this balance of power will continue to be challenged by China. It’s merely speculation what will happen in the furture but it’s certainly heading in that direction.

September 14, 2005 @ 3:43 am | Comment

On a wider scale, China presents a new problem to Asia and the world as China hardly existed 20-30 years ago. Now, China is pulling itself into the international community and it, obviously, has its own ambitions, challenges and agenda that don’t necessarily comply with the current status quo.

Most recently, Japan upped the anti by coming under the US missile defence shield (scheduled for 2006) and outwardly coming out and supporting Taiwan (in a joint US-Japan Communique) and labelling China as a threat in passing.

Obviously, this is seen as threatening behaviour in Beijing.

As Jing says, the Chunxiao field is not in disputed territory. However, Japan intends to drill in maritime territory claimed by China. This drilling is imminent.

It’ll be interesting how things continue to progress but, for the moment, this current deployment of the PLA Navy is just another step in the tit-for-tat and ongoing game between China-Japan.

It’s almost become the only line of communication open to the two sides as previously all talks on the maritime boundary only consisted of reading pre-written official statements. I.e. neither side is willing to back down.

September 14, 2005 @ 3:54 am | Comment

A bit late for this comment thread, but we should also note that at the same time this is happening, China’s suddenly making nice with all its border disputes with India.

September 14, 2005 @ 8:13 am | Comment

Martyn,
I don’t have time to answer your post in detail yesterday, but seems that you are still active in the comment window. Ok, hope you will read it. Could you tell where did you get that map? I actually have a little doubt on the line that was said claimed by China.

Martyn, you have totally underestimated the willing of cooperation and compromise of the Chinese government. It is amazing that you did not report the ongoing cooperation among China, Vietnam and Philippine for sharing the oil resources in South China Sea. The oil companies of these three countries have set up a joint venture to investigate the geographic nature of South China Sea. The first agreement was signed in this March for collecting the earthquake data near the oil field. The job will cost $16 million. The cost will be shared by 3 parties. China oilfield service limited, a branch of CNOOC, finally won the bid for this job only half month ago. (I briefly copied that news on my blog several weeks ago, but in Chinese)
Martyn,
I don’t have time to answer your post in detail yesterday, but seems that you are still active in the comment window. Ok, hope you will read it. Could you tell where did you get that map? I actually have a little doubt on the line that was said claimed by China.

Martyn, you have totally underestimated the willing of cooperation and compromise of the Chinese government. It is amazing that you did not report the ongoing cooperation among China, Vietnam and Philippine for sharing the oil resources in South China Sea. The oil companies of these three countries have set up a joint venture to investigate the geographic nature of South China Sea. The first agreement was signed in this March for collecting the earthquake data near the oil field. The job will cost $16 million. The cost will be shared by 3 parties. China oilfield service limited, a branch of CNOOC, finally won the bid for this job only half month ago. (I briefly copied that news on my blog several weeks ago, but in Chinese)
However Chinese government takes a different stand on the issue of Chunxiao oil field, and I do think they have the right reason to be angry because the dispute raised by Japanese is totally ridiculous. Siphon off resources from the Japanese side? Is it the exactly same excuse which has been used by Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1991? Not to mention, according the UN convention on the law of the sea, that side can not be called Japanese side at all!

The so called median line claimed by Japan is only applicable to the delimitation of territorial sea, which is generally 12 miles from the land. The delimitation of economic zone is decided according to the continental shelf conventionally, as China claims. If median line is overwhelmingly used for exclusive economic zone, the continental countries will be at the huge disadvantage compared with countries surrounded by the sea. That’s why it’s not adopted in the UN convention on the delimitation of EEZ. No doubt if Japan grabs the permanent seat in UN Security Council, it will try to change that. Just for this issue, China shouldn’t support Japan’s bid for the seat.

Now we should know that basically what China is doing now is nothing to do with the resources of Japan. There is no dispute at all for Chunxiao field, which totally locates inside the exclusive economic zone of China, no matter how you draw the line. If there is, the dispute is about so called “Japanese side” according to the UN convention. However, as usual, China is always the object who is constantly blamed by international community…more accurately, you guys, the most educated and biased bystanders from the western world. More specific at Pekingduck, it’s Marytn.

Nevertheless, I still believe that China and Japan will cooperate to drill the oil from the disputable economic zone eventually. (Nothing to do with Chunxiao, Ok?) However, there might have no economic plan for now. So we should wait. If Japan starts drilling the oil from that side by themselves, they will violently break the international convention. China will be forced to handle that. There are many solutions to handle this situation, which at least enough to make drilling unprofitable.

However Chinese government takes a different stand on the issue of Chunxiao oil field, and I do think they have the right reason to be angry because the dispute raised by Japanese is totally ridiculous. Siphon off resources from the Japanese side? Is it the exactly same excuse which has been used by Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1991? Not to mention, according the UN convention on the law of the sea, that side can not be called Japanese side at all!

The so called median line claimed by Japan is only applicable to the delimitation of territorial sea, which is generally 12 miles from the land. The delimitation of economic zone is decided according to the continental shelf conventionally, as China claims. If median line is overwhelmingly used for exclusive economic zone, the continental countries will be at the huge disadvantage compared with countries surrounded by the sea. That’s why it’s not adopted in the UN convention on the delimitation of EEZ. No doubt if Japan grabs the permanent seat in UN Security Council, it will try to change that. Just for this issue, China shouldn’t support Japan’s bid for the seat.

Now we should know that basically what China is doing now is nothing to do with the resources of Japan. There is no dispute at all for Chunxiao field, which totally locates inside the exclusive economic zone of China, no matter how you draw the line. If there is, the dispute is about so called “Japanese side” according to the UN convention. However, as usual, China is always the object who is constantly blamed by international community…more accurately, you guys, the most educated and biased bystanders from the western world. More specific at Pekingduck, it’s Marytn.

Nevertheless, I still believe that China and Japan will cooperate to drill the oil from the disputable economic zone eventually. (Nothing to do with Chunxiao, Ok?) However, there might have no economic plan for now. So we should wait. If Japan starts drilling the oil from that side by themselves, they will violently break the international convention. China will be forced to handle that. There are many solutions to handle this situation, which at least enough to make drilling unprofitable.

However Chinese government takes a different stand on the issue of Chunxiao oil field, and I do think they have the right reason to be angry because the dispute raised by Japanese is totally ridiculous. Siphon off resources from the Japanese side? Is it the exactly same excuse which has been used by Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1991? Not to mention, according the UN convention on the law of the sea, that side can not be called Japanese side at all!

The so called median line claimed by Japan is only applicable to the delimitation of territorial sea, which is generally 12 miles from the land. The delimitation of economic zone is decided according to the continental shelf conventionally, as China claims. If median line is overwhelmingly used for exclusive economic zone, the continental countries will be at the huge disadvantage compared with countries surrounded by the sea. That’s why it’s not adopted in the UN convention on the delimitation of EEZ. No doubt if Japan grabs the permanent seat in UN Security Council, it will try to change that. Just for this issue, China shouldn’t support Japan’s bid for the seat.

Now we should know that basically what China is doing now is nothing to do with the resources of Japan. There is no dispute at all for Chunxiao field, which totally locates inside the exclusive economic zone of China, no matter how you draw the line. If there is, the dispute is about so called “Japanese side” according to the UN convention. However, as usual, China is always the object who is constantly blamed by international community…more accurately, you guys, the most educated and biased bystanders from the western world. More specific at Pekingduck, it’s Marytn.

Nevertheless, I still believe that China and Japan will cooperate to drill the oil from the disputable economic zone eventually. (Nothing to do with Chunxiao, Ok?) However, there might have no economic plan for now. So we should wait. If Japan starts drilling the oil from that side by themselves, they will violently break the international convention. China will be forced to handle that. There are many solutions to handle this situation, which at least enough to make the drilling unprofitable.

September 14, 2005 @ 3:46 pm | Comment

the same map was also show in timesonline (google it), so it is accurate, i believe.

there is a good introduction about the legitimacy of the dispute in IHT
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/10/news/japan.php

apparently Japan’s claim is based on two pieces of small rocks and China argues it is not an island

September 14, 2005 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

Sun bin,
I believe these are 2 different issues.

Strange, my post repeats itself for several times. Perhaps I messed up when I was trying to insert my blog link to the post. Sorry, it looks terrible. I have put a corrected version on my blog.

September 14, 2005 @ 10:40 pm | Comment

lin,

you are right. i found the map and the rock is between guam, taiwan and iwo jima.

September 15, 2005 @ 1:35 am | Comment

click “this map” under the map for the link.

also google timesonline, “naval class looms in row with china”, apr 14 2005.

the computer forbid me from posting the link, saying the content is ‘questionable’ 🙂

September 15, 2005 @ 1:44 am | Comment

Sun Bin,

I thought that EEZ’s stretched for 200 miles from the coast of the country out into the sea unless there was land closer than that? Your idea of a coastal shelf was, I believe, advocated by President Truman, but I dont’ think it was ever implemented.

Here is a map of Japan’s EEZ:
http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/un-seahorse/images/eez.gif

September 15, 2005 @ 3:26 am | Comment

The US was the first nation I believe, to use the continental shelf theory in order to extend its EEZ all the way to the edge of the continental shelf in the Pacific. This was a relatively unopposed and was easy thing to do for the US, since there were no bordering claims in the Pacific Ocean.

In international law per UNCLOS, the continental shelf theory is valid, but there are other theories of delineating the extent of the EEZ, such as the regular shoreline approach. EEZs for islands are a related matter, but figuring out the EEZ in that case is pretty complex I believe.

Problems arise when the extent of the EEZ overlaps with the EEZ borders of other claimants. When borders overlap, usual precedent is to negotiate bilaterally between the two states to fix a line somewhere (usually equidistant) between the two claims.

I believe both countries’ claims are substantiated by international law. The continental shelf theory supports China’s claims, but must be adjusted to the valid claims of other neighbors. Japan’s claims are based on its islands, including its claim to the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands (which depends on other international law concepts such as prescription). I’m not sure if the Japanese demarcation is the equidistant point between the land masses, the shorelines, the overlapping EEZ claims, or what. However, the existing EEZ line claims of both countries seem to reflect each party’s absolute claim, they do not seem to reflect or adjust to the other’s claim at all. The final demarcation will probably end up reflecting a compromise between the two.

The UN is supposed to rule on all outstanding sea disputes by 2009. In international law, in regards to border or territorial claims, a major consideration is whether the claim is substantiated by sustained exercises of sovereignty. A claim based on little or no acts evincing sovereignty is weak. It may be that the recent tensions and disputes are purposefully aimed at cementing each countries’ demarcation line ahead of 2009. Many countries have been making pretty large claims as well for the same purpose. I believe Denmark is claiming all of the North Sea to stake out as large an EEZ claim as it can. Since all countries have in practice adhered to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, maybe after 2009, bilateral tensions will decrease?

Regarding the dispute concerning siphoning off of natural gas resources straddling the Japanese demarcated line. Correct me if I’m wrong, but domestically, surface and subsurface land use rights are generally different matters, granted to different parties by the state. But in the sea, the EEZ grants both surface and subsurface rights to the state, up to the extent of the EEZ. Ideally if the resources were solid and not capable of being siphoned, the resources would probably have to be shared in accordance to what is taken beyond one’s own EEZ. This being natural gas, one cannot do that. To the extent that if Japan’s demarcation is deemed fair, China would potentially be siphoning off Japanese resources. Of course, we can’t be sure until 2009. In the meantime, both countries will huff and puff to back up their future claims.

September 15, 2005 @ 4:00 am | Comment

Cooperating with Vietnam and the Phillipines over oil in the South China Sea is one thing. Cooperating with Japan over … well, pretty much anything, is an entirely different cup of tea.

September 15, 2005 @ 10:52 am | Comment

However, the existing EEZ line claims of both countries seem to reflect each party’s absolute claim, they do not seem to reflect or adjust to the other’s claim at all. The final demarcation will probably end up reflecting a compromise between the two.

Everlasting, yes, I think up to this point, you understand the situation very well. However,

China would potentially be siphoning off Japanese resources

First of all, you have to have the solid scientific evidence to support this claim, while Japan don’t, which makes them look exactly like Saddam.

Even if you have solid scientific evidence to support this claim, you still have to go back to look at the first quote block written by you, apparently only if the absolute claim by Japan is totally supported by law and agreed by China, that side can be called Japanese side. Otherwise, in the worst scenario, Japan and China will equally divide the disputed area. Then the west half of that side is still belong to China.

The fact is just that simple. Chunxiao oil field has nothing to do with the resources of Japan, period.

September 15, 2005 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

lin,

The Japanese foreign ministry kept requesting in vain, for a year or two, to the Chinese government to share the data with regard to the actual location of the natural gass which they are trying to siphon out.

The Japanese naturally suspect that the location actually belong to the disputed zone, otherwise China wouldn’t have chosen the point of drilling so far away from the continent and so close to the disputed zone because it does not make sense economically.

While ingnoring the request for clarification, China kept carrying out her drilling plan as scheduled. The Chinese government did not give the Japanese government a choice but to launch its own exploration. The exploartion was not suddenly permitted by the Japanese government. There was a long waiting period, waiting for a response from the Chinese governent.

September 15, 2005 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

Lin,

I’m not so sure the case are simple. Certainly, regarding EEZ zones and territorial disputes, the facts have never been very straightforward, but are rather complex and confusing.

As I stated, if assuming that Japan’s demarcation line has some merit, the complaint regarding siphoning off of subsurface resources is valid. In property law, this is a pretty contentious issue that often arises in mining cases; although not a common type of complaint, it isn’t new. Up until the granting of rights to develop in the disputed area (this may have been done simply to assert an act of sovereignty, and not solely for actual development), what Japan did was fairly reasonable. This is a disputed area, and the Japanese government itself cannot conduct onsite investigations without causing a negative reaction from China. Since its hands are tied there, it has to ask China for information. This information was denied, so to keep its claim alive, it asserted its claim indirectly by granting rights to a domestic company. Public relations wise this wasn’t a good move.

What is difficult are the facts of this case. What is the ultimate demarcation line (it probably is neither exactly China’s nor Japan’s claim)? How large are the deposits, how far do they reach? Either way, I would approach this as being simply a resource dispute between two countries: a common type of international dispute that should be peacefully resolved. Of course we are dealing with Sino-Japanese ties. People will use everything from history, politics, racism, to the kitchen sink to interpret the course of events.

September 15, 2005 @ 4:37 pm | Comment

soudenjapan:
Again, you use “siphon out”, which makes you guys exactly like Saddam, and makes the world nervous. Do you have any scientific evidence, or law to suppost your claim of “siphon out” resource from that side?
Not to mention that side is not decisively Japanese side yet.
Do you think Saddam was justified back in 1991? Answer this question, please.

Furthermore, why should China report anything to Japan while drilling oil&gas from its own undisputed EEZ? I guess it’s highly abnormal for Chinese or any government to report that to any other foreign government. Not to mention China has paid a fortune to collect those data. I have mentioned before that the cost for the report of earthquake data near the oil fields in south China sea will be $16 million.

However Japanese are bold, and you are always bold. you want to drill in the highly DISPUTED EEZ!!! which is a big problem here. I don’t even think you can find an example that use median line between small islands and a massive continent to seperate EEZ in the history.

In terms of the actual location of Chunxiao, I guess you were joking. You guys got very advanced satellites which can position Chinese oil field in meters. If you say Japan don’t have precise location and want to know that from China, it is purly an excuse! Ok, let me leak the secret, the Chunxiao is 150ish N miles from Chinese continent, and 170ish N miles from Ningbo city.

You mentioned it’s highly suspicious for China to drill oil so far from the mainland, so near from the median line, etc. But the location is not controlled by China government, Ok? Nature does it. If China can decide where has oil or gas, I won’t be here talking.

Finally it’s economical, at least for China with cheap labers and equipments. Big shanghai area will rely on it for the future development.

Everlasting, I admire your knowledge, but if Japan is asking data for undisputed exclusive economic zone of China, it’s highly despicable behavior, no matter how polite they were. It is a hell of joke in foreign affair history.
For disputed area, I personally support negotiations.

Again, I guess many people here use double standards. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, everybody treat the “siphoning” theory as a joke. Now everybody suddenly gets serious.

I personally think China should conduct the Nuclear tests under the East China Sea once Japanese company start drilling in the disputed area without negotiation with Chinese government.

September 16, 2005 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

Lin, I think you are getting too emotional.

As I stated before, from a legal standpoint, this isn’t new. It’s a common problem when dealing with oil or gas deposits that potentially stretch over a vast area, and there have been past cases dealing with issues similar to this. In the US, when a party has reason to believe its subsurface rights are being infringed, it can go to court to get an temporary injunction halting any further mining operations. Depending on the burden of proof required under the circumstances, it can even get the court to force the other party to submit certain information to the court (which is not revealed to the public), such as previous studies conducted in the area revealing the extent of subsurface resources. In the case of hard minerals and such, if the other party was found to have been taking minerals beyond the extent of the subsurface rights, they would have to return whatever profit according to the royalty cost, prevailing market price, or even market price and extraction costs.

But this is not a national case, it is an international dispute. There is no ultimate authority to turn to for adjudication. However, there are various courts, such as the International Court of Justice (which requires both parties submit to the final ruling), and there are various arbitration organizations (which are not binding) which could be turned to. China is very averse to utilizing these options however, as its legal regime is still very hostile to international law, and for sovereignty reasons, its government does not want to be bound by an extra-national ruling.

The Saddam analogy is too emotional and doesn’t fit this case. Iraq did not try for any discussions, it simply invaded Kuwait. The siphoning argument was not the actual issue in the first Gulf War, rather it was the pretext for a full scale invasion of Kuwait. The international community saw through this façade.

Under the circumstances I do not understand why China would not reveal its information. If the subsurface gas deposits do not encompass the disputed area, then Japan’s suspicions are moot. But only China’s information could lead to this conclusion; that is if the information corroborates this fact pattern. Instead, China does not reveal the information, creating a suspicion that their information does show that gas deposits straddle the disputed area. If I were Japan, I would take China’s refusal to share the information as a rebuttable presumption that this reality exists.

However following this fact pattern, if assuming that gas deposits cover the disputed area, then whatever rights to them should be shared, and this would mean that joint development is the ideal solution to the problem. In regards to the Chunxiao area (since it is so near to the disputed area) Japan should pursue joint development with China. Japan has conditioned this upon China first revealing its information. But this sort of seems redundant, if one assumes what has just been discussed.

Where are the problems? The larger issue involves EEZ rights in the disputed area, and not specifically the area near the Chunxiao fields. In the background is the UN, which will decide on all such international maritime disputes around 2009. Thus, within 4 years a major portion of the issue will resolved. In the meantime, to back up their claims, many countries are taking a “for everything” approach, while others are negotiating and modifying their claims. China has done the smart with regards to Vietnam and the Philippines. By negotiating joint exploration rights (joint development rights have not yet been agreed upon, but may appear in the future), China provides these poorer countries with capital to investigate the disputed gas reserves. Consequently, even if China’s claims to these areas were to fail, it seems that a prior commitment to joint exploration would nonetheless secure China’s interests in sharing some of the bounty.

I am not so sure joint exploration with Japan would work, since both governments are hobbled by their now freezing-cold political relationship. Looking at the situation w/o emotion, both parties could share the very high costs of exploiting resources so far out at sea, and reap sizable benefits from the gas, all the while mutually benefiting and reinforcing each others economies with a secure source of fuel. But of course, as I mentioned in my former post, certain groups will not look at the issue logically, but rather see suspicion and intrigue at every corner. Nationalistically, one can argue for an “all or nothing approach,” which means you could either get a whole lot, or lose a whole lot. Regardless you lose a whole lot in terms of bilateral relations. In contrast, keeping bilateral relations in mind, you could share, and gain more than what you could have gotten, or lose some of what you could have gotten. Regardless you still stand to gain something positive in terms of resources, and importantly you gain better bilateral relations.

So far due to underlying disputes, it doesn’t seem that clearer heads will prevail any time soon.

September 16, 2005 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

Well, points taken, everlasting, but…
as I mentioned before the data which Japan requested consist of core business secrets that may worth millions or billions of dollars and years of inverstigation. How would you compensate that? Not to mention Chunxiao is dozens miles from the median line claimed by Japan.

Asia program of willson center recently has an great review on this issue…
currentlythe major problem is: China only wants to talk about the disputed area which lies between the median line and the end of continental shelf. I think it’s reasonable, as you mentioned, and most of experts agreed that both the claim, either the median line or the nature prolongation of continental shelf have certain merit. Then we can make some compromise on that. Not to mention UN’s convention is more inclined to continental shelf theory.
However Japan insist that
if China wants to share resouces east of the median line, she shall also share resouces west of median line, which I don’t really understand and consider it as a ridiculous request. In whatever case, whatever law, whatever convention, whatever story you make, Japan shouldn’t have rights to ask our side of resouces and take it as a stake in the negotiation.

September 17, 2005 @ 12:40 am | Comment

i think everlasting gave a rational and professional view on the matter. i tend to agree with most of what you said.

i would just like to add a couple points.
1) if china believes the disputed area belongs to china, then there is no reason to share info with japan
2) even if it were not, isn’t japan asking china to prove it is not guilty? while in common law the burden of proof is with the prosecutor?
therefore, i think japan was being unreasonable to ask for china sharing data.
the site is in disputed area, this is bad luck for japan. it should not fault china for that.
if chunxiao lies on the other side of the disputed area, then bad luck to china.
3) i wouldn’t use the word ‘hostile’ to describe china’s attitude to Hague. i would rather say distrust (and knowing that it is less competent in such legal battle). and it is a fair appraoch and attitude for them. because fair law does not always yield fair verdict (e.g., OJ Simpson), it inclines to the side with better lawyers. in addition, i am not sure if japan likes to put this to Hague either.

September 17, 2005 @ 12:57 am | Comment

…it tilts to the side with better lawyers. in addition, i am not sure if japan likes to put this to Hague either.

September 17, 2005 @ 1:00 am | Comment

I didn’t realise this thread was still active.

Great debate people. A very interesting read.

Lin

I’m amazed that you didn’t notice the link in the last paragraph of the post to an article describing in detail the economic cooperation over the Spratlys.

Also, I’m not going to defend having an opinion. We all do. However, I do try to cover all sides of an issue when I write posts. Whether I’m successful or not it up to you to decide.

September 18, 2005 @ 5:07 am | Comment

Lin

As has already been pointed out to you above, you’re confusing economic cooperation with matters of sovereignty. If, for example, the Philippines told Beijing that they interpreted the economic cooperation as China’s willingness to compromise on its territorial claim to the entire South China Sea/Spratlys, Beijing would have a fit.

No, the cooperation is Realpolitik. China does not/will not compromise on its claim over the South China Sea. All matters pertaining to sovereignty are quashed by China. No one is allowed to talk about it.

September 18, 2005 @ 5:12 am | Comment

Should Prime Minister Koizumi send China a thank-you note?

Japanese journalist Yoichi Funabashi (h/t Simon) provocatively writes that Prime Minister Koizumi’s resounding victory in Japan’s September 11 poll may be less a case of successful political rebranding of the LDP as a “reform party&#…

September 18, 2005 @ 9:20 am | Comment

martyn,

that is the official tone. however, china was willing to talk with russia and india on sovereignty, yielding most of the disputed arunachal, and giving up its (hopeless claim) of outer machuria.

so you are right. it is realpolitik, even for the sovereignty talk in some cases.

September 18, 2005 @ 6:19 pm | Comment

The cost of not being a “democracy”

When there is a dispute between Japan and China on the East China Sea EEZ, the West blames China for aggression, regardless of the fact that China has legitimate claim based on UN LOS, or that Japan’s claim in based on a disputable claim on another pie…

September 20, 2005 @ 6:55 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.