Signs visible for Spratly solution

By Eichi Furukawa

JAKARTA (JP): The Spratly Islands issue is regularly mentioned by the press. They are always described as "oil rich" and hence the six surrounding countries are wrangling for territorial rights over the islands. China is describes as having expansionist ambitions and is seeking to establish its hegemony in the South China Sea.

According to Ryo Kambara, senior specialist of the Japan Institute of Energy Economics, however, all this is not true. He says that "there is no prospect of oil and natural gas resources in the South China Sea". The islands consist of pinnacle coral reefs which were exposed to a temperature of zero degree Fahrenheit at the surface. In order to transform organic materials to oil and gas, a temperature of 150 degrees Fahrenheit is required. Such transformation is only possible on a continental shelf.

Kambara says that the above view is common among geologists and is supported by a report issued in 1972 by the Coordinating Committee of the Coastal and Offshore Geological Survey in East and Southeast Asia from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific based in Bangkok, and report from American geological surveys.

In view of this, the keen interests of the surrounding countries in the territorial rights over the Spratly Islands is likely to recede and the disputes over the islands may disappear. This view was presented by Kambara at an international conference held in Kuala Lumpur in June.

In February 1992, China promulgated a territorial and adjacent water act declaring its territorial rights over all the areas of the Spratly Islands and their adjacent waters, including the exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles from the rock islands of the Spratlys. The declaration has been considered an extravagant demand, showing that China has expansionist ambitions in the South China Sea.

However, according to China, the Spratly Islands were owned by Japan before the end of World War II. Japan renounced its territorial rights over the islands in accordance with the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. The islands were taken over by the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and was then considered by the Beijing government as a part of its territory in accordance with the One China policy which was recognized by the United States and Japan in 1972. If this is true, the declaration may not be considered particularly outrageous.

On the other hand, according to international law, the claim of a country on territorial rights over areas can not be recognized by other countries or the international community at large, unless the country in question establishes effective control by stationing government agents or military units in the areas. China has not actually established effective control of islands controlled by countries like Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Interestingly, China has not complained about or intervened in the control of those areas by other countries. China is implicitly recognizing the effective control of Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines and even assured Ali Alatas, the foreign minister of Indonesia, in July that China would respect Indonesia control of the Natuna Islands off of Kalimantan. These areas include the continental shelves extending from the mainlands of those countries where production of oil and natural gas resources are being undertaken. These are the Sabah and Sarawak of Malaysia, Brunei and the Natuna Islands.

These is no territorial dispute between China and Malaysia, Brunei or Indonesia. Furthermore, there is no dispute among Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines over the overlapping areas claimed by each country.

Vietnam is now negotiating territorial questions with China, which has suspended drilling on the continental shelf near the Spratly Islands that extends from mainland Vietnam. The concession for drilling was awarded in 1992 to an American company called Creston Energy Inc.

In February, President Ramos of the Philippines announced that the Philippine army discovered several buildings on the Mischief Reef, which China claimed were for fishing activities. The rocks are within an area claimed by both sides but are under the effective control of neither party. Geographically, the rocks are located near the Palawan Island of the Philippines (170 nautical miles from the island), but far from China. China constructed the buildings without consulting the Philippines, which discovered the buildings several months after their construction.

The question is whether any one party can construct buildings for fishing activities unilaterally. Tension arose and the issue has become the focus of attention. However, at the end of the second senior officials meeting between China and the Philippines, held in Manila on Aug. 10-11, the two sides agreed among other things that the territorial disputes should not affect the normal development of the relations between the two countries, that the disputes shall be settled in accordance with the recognized principles of international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and that the talks should adopt a gradual and progressive process with a view to eventually negotiating a settlement of the territorial disputes.

The agreement was based on the dispassionate assessment of the overall factors surrounding the Spratly Islands issue. It was significant since this was the first time that the surrounding countries concerned other than Vietnam agreed to hold bilateral negotiations on the Spratlys and that China agreed to hold consultations on the question with ASEAN.

It is now much to be hoped that the Spratlys question, which is considered as one of three destabilizing factors in East Asia, will be solved through talks between the countries concerned and among the countries in East Asia.

The writer is executive director at the Japan Center for International Strategies, Tokyo.