China’s State Council on Jan. 26 published a white paper, titled “China’s Arctic Policy,” in which Beijing promises to become an “active participant” in Arctic affairs and seek to establish “a community with a shared future for humankind.”
China is not a coastal state of the Arctic Ocean, so the white paper from the outset excludes existing structures, such as the Arctic Council, and declares that “there is no single mechanism for managing Arctic affairs.” It invokes the UN Charter, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the Spitsbergen Treaty, signed in 1920 and now known as the Svalbard Treaty, as laws governing Arctic affairs.
The white paper says that China as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and, based on the UN Charter, has the power to make decisions regarding matters of international security.
It says that the UNCLOS gives China the right to navigate and exploit resources in international seas. It also highlights that China is a signatory of the Spitsbergen Treaty, signed by the Republic of China’s government in 1925, as proof that it has the legal right to make use of the Arctic Ocean.
With regard to international politics, it talks about “responsibility” and calls itself a “stakeholder,” reflecting the idea proposed in 2005 by then-US deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick, that China should become “a responsible stakeholder in the international system.” The paper takes this as the theoretical basis for China’s participation in Arctic affairs.
China’s Arctic ambitions have arisen against the background of global warming. Experts estimate that by the year 2040 there will be no ice in the Arctic Ocean in summer. This will open a navigation route across the Arctic, which would be good for shipping between Europe and Asia, as the distance is only a little more than half of the traditional route via the Suez Canal and would take two-thirds the time.
Since last year, China COSCO Shipping Corp has established container terminals in Russia at Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky on the Kamchatka Peninsula and Murmansk and in Zeebrugge, Belgium, which form part of its deployment along the Arctic shipping route.
However, China does not just want a shipping route and civilian items like fishing grounds and management of Chinese travelers. The region contains one-quarter of the world’s oil reserves and and minerals such as manganese. Seen from the angle of the Spitsbergen Treaty, China would like to seize the Svalbard Islands, which form a strategic crossroads in its worldwide connections and would help it control the North Atlantic Ocean.
However, just as China’s access to the Indian Ocean goes through the Strait of Malacca, presenting it with a “Malacca dilemma,” its Arctic Ocean strategy involves a similar dilemma in that its ships must pass through straits controlled by Japan, including the La Perouse, Tsugaru, Tsushima (Eastern Channel), Osumi and Miyako.
In June 2016, Chinese naval vessels passed through Japanese territorial waters off the Tokara Islands, which China argued was actually the Osumi Strait. Apart from holding drills in the first and second island chains, this move was also directed at China’s Arctic strategy.
To wield influence, China needs at least to have the status of a coastal state of the Sea of Japan. With this in mind, China has been acting tough with North Korea and could even use military force, so that after a war it could obtain key strategic locations such as Tumangang at the mouth of the Tumen River. Such a move would be coordinated with large-scale illegal migration of Chinese into eastern Siberia.
The white paper elevates the Arctic route to the status of a “Silk Road on ice.” There would then be three silk roads surrounding the Eurasian landmass and converging in London.
All these show that China’s global strategic plans are no laughing matter.
The National Security Strategy report released by the US in December last year names China and Russia as threats to the US, and British Prime Minister Theresa May has been reluctant to sign a memorandum of understanding on China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative.
It only remains to be seen whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will sense this approaching crisis.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS