Explorations of a gas field in the East China Sea by both China and Japan have strained relations between these two superpowers. The dispute only highlights the level of tension between Taiwan, Japan and China over their overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZs), fishing rights, oil and natural gas resources. For the time being, there is no permanent solution to resolve the conflict that currently looms in the East China Sea.
Last year, to temporarily put aside the dispute, Beijing came up with a proposal to jointly develop natural gas fields in the region with Japan. However, Tokyo did not react enthusiastically, for it had only intended to explore for oil in the EEZ that it deems belongs to Japan. With regard to the progress made in the exploration of oil fields in the disputed region, Japan is actually trailing behind China. Thus, further disputes are to be expected if China begins petroleum production in the next two months in the area within China's EEZ, 5km from the center line between each country's coast.
In contrast, the situation in the South China Sea seems calmer, as there was a substantial change in the dispute over the Spratly Islands. Petroleum companies from three countries -- China, Vietnam and the Philippines -- including China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil and Gas Corp and Philippine Oil Co, signed a joint exploration agreement to probe for oil in the Spratly Islands and agreed to conduct a seismic survey program in the region over the course of three years.
In addition to these three countries, there are another three countries involved in the dispute over the Spratly Islands: Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. However as only three countries participated in the negotiations, this indicates a strategy to achieve a partial resolution to the dispute. Because of such strategic concerns, the content of the contract has yet to be made public and only the three nations are engaged in the cooperation project.
On the day of the signing of the agreement, China, Vietnam and the Philippines made a brief statement, only mentioning that the petroleum survey would cover an area of about 143,000km2, but not specifying the precise location. The furtive manner of the announcement has sparked suspicion, causing the rest of the nations involved to wonder about the real scope of cooperation.
In the statement, the three signatories affirmed they would abide by the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea and the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. Clearly, the three nations are resolved to transform the South China Sea into a peaceful, stable and cooperative region, and agree not to challenge the basic positions of the other signatories regarding the disputed area in the South China Sea. Additionally, these nations would also, according to the principle of equality, proceed with the research project and establish a committee to negotiate issues related to the exploration, with each nation sharing the expenditure for the survey. The budget for the first phase will be US$15 million.
Although the content of the agreement has yet to be made public, we can still speculate over the range of the cooperation from a remark by Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo that "if oil reserves were discovered outside the municipal waters of Kalayaan in the Spratlys, the national government would have exclusive rights to its revenue earnings. The so-called Kalayaan Islands are the part of the Spratlys claimed by the Philippines.
Judging from Arroyo's remark, the scope of the survey would probably include two parts. One is within the Kalayaan Islands while the other is beyond the range of the Kalayaan Islands.
In 1992, China formed a collaboration with Denver-based Crestone Energy to explore the Wan'an North-21 block in the southwest of the Spratlys, only to learn that Vietnam had given an overlapping contract to ConocoPhilips. The agreement allowed Crestone Energy Corp to conduct a drilling and a seismic study at depths of 300m to 700m below sea level. Part of "WanAn North-21" overlapped Vietnam's No. 133 and No. 134 mining sites. Thus, Vietnam protested against China's decision to recruit energy companies to explore the "Wan'An North-21" and coaxed Crestone Energy into giving up the site by offering it a mining area in Vietnam in return. Very probably because of lobbying by Vietnam, Crestone Energy eventually failed to complete the survey. Nevertheless, China extended its contract with Crestone in 1999. What is suspicious is that if China does not make concessions, it will be impossible for it to convince Vietnam to take part in the joint investigation. Therefore, China might propose including part of the Wan'an North-21 in the joint survey.
Although Taiwan still claims sovereignty over the Spratlys, it was not invited to participate in the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. Additionally, when signing the agreement, China, Vietnam and the Philippines did not inform Taiwan of their intentions to jointly conduct a survey. Nor did these three countries reveal the coordinates of the location of the survey. This furtive action has already violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the principle of transparency.
In view of this, the government should seek to ask these three countries to make public the details of the agreement they have signed.
Chen Hurng-yu is the professor of history at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS