SOUTH CHINA SEA | An Emerging Conflict?

The dispute over the Spratly Islands is one of the most complex conflicts in international relations. It is also one of the most dangerous. Lying in the South China Sea, this collection of around a hundred essentially uninhabited islets, rocks, reefs and atolls are claimed, either in whole or in part, by no less than six separate actors: Brunei, the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. And there are growing fears it could lead to war. In recent months, China has increased its activity in the region, most notably warning US aircraft to leave the area and harassing and shining a military-grade laser at a Philippines naval vessel in February 2023.
All this matters because the islands are strategically significant. Indeed, they sit in the middle of one of the busiest waterways in the world. On top of this, they are also economically valuable. As well as having considerable fish stocks, they are believed to have substantial oil and gas reserves. But while competing claims to the strategically important islands date back well over a century, having been claimed by colonial Britain and France and by Imperial Japan, the dispute really took off in 1947 when Taiwan published a map - the so-called Nine-Dash Line - that showed them as a part of its territory - a claim also made by the People's Republic of China. Since then, the issue has become increasingly tense, leading to an armed confrontation between China and Vietnam in 1988. Since then, China's increasingly forceful claims have been challenged by the Philippines, which brought a case against China in 2013 before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. But while the Court ruled against China, Beijing has continued to build several bases on reclaimed land and artificial islands. For all these reasons, there are growing fears that a major war could break out in the region.
A SPECIAL THANKS TO THE CHANNEL SPONSOR
WORLD POLITICS REVIEW
Providing in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs to help make sense of the events and trends shaping our world.
Click here for your special discounted access:
wpr.pub/jkl
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay, and here I take an informed look at International Relations, conflict, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe. If you want more, including exclusive content and access to the channel Discord server, please consider becoming a Channel Member or support me through Patreon. Many thanks indeed!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE
kzbin.info...
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER
/ jameskerlindsay
JOIN MY PATREON PAGE
/ jameskerlindsay
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction and Titles
00:51 Maritime Disputes in International Relations
02:04 Spratly Islands: Their Location and Significance
03:06 A Brief History of the Spratly Islands
04:20 Competing Claims to the Spratly Islands
06:48 The Spratly Islands Case
09:40 The Militarization of the Spratly Islands
10:33 New China-Philippines Tensions over the Spratlys
11:44 Heading Towards War in the South China Sea?
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
www.un.org/depts/los/conventi...
Permanent Court of Arbitration | South China Sea
docs.pca-cpa.org/2016/07/PH-C...
Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs
dfa.gov.ph/
People's Republic of China Ministry of Foreign Affairs
www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/
Vietnam Ministry of Foreign Affairs
www.mofa.gov.vn/en
MY NEW BOOK!
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know
amzn.to/2MPY3W2
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
kit.co/JamesKerLindsay
DISCLAIMERS
- The contents of this video and any views expressed in it were not reviewed in advance nor determined by any outside persons or organisation.
- Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.
#China #SpratlyIslands #Conflict #SouthChinaSea

[@JamesKerLindsay]

While there's been growing speculation that China may be preparing to launch an invasion of Taiwan, tensions have been growing elsewhere in the region. There have been reports of increased activity around the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. So, is this really where we should be watching? Let me know your thoughts in the comment below?

[@DeutschlandVerrecke]

Hi, can you doing a video about the Koreans radical missionary movement who try to invade the world with it's Christianity.

[@terryvarta9306]

I think China's assertiveness is due to the election of Xi. I can't see Japan and the USA not taking action.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Uninhabited islands claimed by discovery are sovereign territory, but the sovereignty is defeasible by actual settlement. when actually settled the sovereignty vests. but if instead actually settled by another state the discovering state loses its claim to sovereignty. this btw is exactly what happened in the Falkland Islands. This is why China dredging, building, inhabiting was legally important.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

There is a possibility this broader South China Sea issue will be a bigger problem than threats of China to invade Taiwan. China is essentially trying to steal the South China Sea from it's neighbors. Sure, many countries make claims for a huge area of SCS but it's China's aggression with building so many artificial islands, placing large military bases, and then actually trying to prevent ships and air planes from using much of what they claim. This has potential to really boil over between China on one side and Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia on the other side. In addition, many countries in Asia and outside of Asia use the SCS which means even more countries would be affected.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@QuizmasterLaw You do understand that building artificially islands and then placing people on them doesn't automatically make it a legal part of a country? Otherwise, any government that can afford to would build islands near other countries and then claim that area.

[@lillycookie9993]

Thanks you so much america for helping the phlippines. God bless america.

[@BuenoSuertes]

If my understanding is correct, Malaysia (my country) generally compartmentalizes hot issues such as the Spratlys from our overall relationship with China, which we generally maintain at a good level. This is the general preference across the ASEAN five, as these oldest members have longstanding ties to the West that gives us a bit more confidence when dealing with China. As a result tensions have normally been much lighter in this region compared to the East China Sea side of things. That doesn't mean we are not ready to go to arms but at least we tend to keep things calm, at least until calm is no longer possible.

[@reel1tv587]

That's what China wants for you to keep calm and let them slowly take over the area island by island. Then next you realize you're encircled and suppress into submission without them having to fire a shot. Read the "The art of war".

[@irritatedanglosaxon1705]

We just considered u as our lapdogs, not less

[@GameplayTubeYT]

Sooner or Later it will blow out on your face!

[@bbrebozo6417]

Malaysia has some politicians that are eager for bribes to look the other way. The South China Sea resources Malaysia is benefiting from (oil & gas) are nearer to Borneo (east side).

[@Liboch]

And Malaysia still explores and drills oil and gas in the disputed area ignoring the harassment from the Chinese Coastal Guard. All countries do the same except for the Philippines.

[@RobOfHearts]

This video has summarised the topic fairly and concisely. Thank you very much for this. Being from the Philippines, having this unbiased presentation is truly what society needs to combat global disinformation and ignorance. I'm all up for common sense, regional stability and regulation of greed. Thank you professor 🙏

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much! Do please share it more widely if there’s anyone else who might be interested.

[@aniuge]

那我问你中业岛你们为什么1971年趁台湾守军离开才上去?仁爱礁为什么有你们一艘破旧的登陆舰?这说明什么?谁在改变地区局势?还有为什么突然给美军开放四个基地?如果你认为这是菲律宾和美国的问题，那请参考古巴导弹危机

[@RobOfHearts]

@@aniugeSpratly Islands. 🇨🇳 leader promised no further militarization but didn't follow through with that promise. You're comparing a dilapidated boat over 4 fully militarised islands? Besides, the 4 US bases are in our own soil, far from the reaches of artificially-built islands over a bunch of rocks. Let's not bring Cuba into this, unless you wanna bring in Tibet and at least 10 other countries with territorial disputes with 🇨🇳. I think those kind of disputes tell the kind of image they wish to portray.

[@aniuge]

​@@RobOfHeartsI don't know what you are talking about? What I want to say is who is changing the status quo, do you know how many islands you Philippines now actually control within the nine-dash line? Has China ever sent warships there? No, we don’t recognize it as yours, but we don’t care about your actual control. This is what China calls shelving disputes and jointly developing. But you have been trying to expand the islands you control. On January 22, 2013, you started to advance We do not accept the South China Sea arbitration case. On January 25th, we started building islands (who started it first?). In 2015, Xi Jinping visited the United States and said that the South China Sea would not be militarized (no contract was signed). In 2016, the Philippines and the United States both An aircraft carrier battle group tried to break into Huangyan Island 12 nautical miles away. In the same year, China announced the deployment of anti-aircraft missiles and the construction of airports on islands in the South China Sea...Since 1949, how many islands have you invaded in China's Jiuduan? Since 1971, you Occupying Thitu Island (formerly controlled by Taiwan), the United States bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia in 1999. On May 9 of the same year, your landing ship ran aground on Ren'ai Reef. 13 years of Huangyan Island. Who is changing the status quo, who is invading? Tell me?

[@aniuge]

​@@RobOfHeartsThis year, your Mr. President visited China and signed a cooperation agreement worth 20 billion U.S. dollars. Then US Secretary of Defense Austin visited the Philippines. You immediately opened four military bases. Why? This is why I said the Cuban missile crisis, because it threatened China. It is safe and legal, but this is an obvious provocation... Then there was a laser irradiation incident, and the Chinese coast guard and fishing boats besieged Thitu Island. Now it depends on your next choice. Every time you start to provoke, you have to Speaking of China...

[@marendradika]

I am an Indonesian, i am sure it is the act of annexation by force...

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. It is very interesting how Indonesia has taken a position on this, even though it doesn't claim the territory.

[@Ai-vq8rj]

China actualy claimed natuma sea and send chinese coastguard there, so indonesia is involved...

[@peterkops6431]

Thanks Prof. 👍🏻👍🏻

[@azurejester1520]

I know you're probably a busy guy but I wish you did more videos! I always feel like I have at least a basic and objective understanding of the topic after I watch. I really like your videos and I appreciate it! They're really good

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate the kind words and support enormously. I wish I had the time to do more. However, they already take up more time than I can really manage at the moment. (And sadly, I’m increasingly of the view that this type of content just can’t really complete with the shouty partisan material online.)

[@adamhay9208]

@Prof James Ker-Lindsay Sadly that seems to be the case. Please continue your videos when you can though. You are one of my favorite content creators. Hearing someone educated discuss topics like these is refreshing.

[@Marvin-um3sm]

@@JamesKerLindsay I understand your ‚frustration‘. If you ask me, KZbin should push people like you more than all the ‚bullshit‘ that‘s polluting our minds today. Just know that - for me and still a great deal of other people - it‘s always a pleasure to listen to you and get educated on these highly relevant (geo)political topics. You and your videos are very much appreciated! Ps: Please excuse my English, I‘m no native speaker :-)

[@wowbuthow3751]

I agree!

[@ruelvillafranca1724]

By the way Sir, you forgot to mention China's bogus 9 Dash Lines; Asserting ownership over the entire South China Sea; they've left my country, the Philippines with just its coastal waters and beaches. Even school children in the province of Palawan are now worried and stressed by the presence of numerous Chinese vessels over their own coastal waters.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I did show it. It was the 1947 map.

[@98091238]

Don't worry... The Americans will do for you what they did for the Ukrainians

[@vcqrsfdwc1987]

@@98091238 😅 you mean deliberately escalate the situation then try sucking phillipines dry by selling them useless weapons while laughing hard？ nah I don't think ppl in philippine are that ”UNWISE“

[@98091238]

@@vcqrsfdwc1987 And exhausting China in the process and justifying extensive sanctions on China by the West, yes.... thankfully, unlike us Eastern European fanatics, I have been assured East Asians are far more pragmatic

[@user-mj3wz8xd8q]

Schoolchildren will be worried because there are Chinese ships along the coast, but they will not worry that there are multiple US military bases on the country's territory. Did you know that the US military has killed thousands of times more civilians than the PLA?

[@elvirabartolome954]

Thank you professor for tackling the issue with more clarity.

[@yotk1406]

Speaking of maritime border disputes, do you have an opinion or further explain, regarding disputes between two hostile states over both their territorial waters and their exclusive economic zone such as the case with Israel and Lebanon?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Great question. I have been thinking of making a video about this. It is a really interesting case.

[@yotk1406]

@@JamesKerLindsay I'm looking forward to it!

[@joeshmoe8345]

Thanks for sharing with us big dog!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

You're welcome! :-)

[@benjauron5873]

I'd like to offer a solution to the Spratly Islands conflict: I'll take them. Nobody else has to worry, I can handle this. I'll take sovereignty over the islands and rename them "Bensylvania." There. A solution all parties can agree on.

[@seneca983]

I don't think that can be agreed on because it doesn't make sense for the name to include "sylvania" while the islands have no forests.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Haha! Well, there is that. :-)

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Are you sure you would really want them!? :-)

[@benjauron5873]

​@Prof James Ker-Lindsay I think I could handle living on a South Pacific island paradise. I don't mind roughing it.

[@TheLocalLt]

Thanks for taking a look at this professor, the Spratly Islands Dispute is one of the most unique phenomena in geopolitics, like a tropical military sandbox where all the regional powers have their own corner. Would also be interesting to see you take a look at the other South China Sea disputes, such as the Paracel Islands Dispute and “Sansha City”, as well as of course the Scarborough Shoal Dispute - particularly when Xi Jinping was first coming into power in 2012 and occupied the Scarborough Shoal, reneging on a deal he had just signed with America and the Philippines not to occupy it. I personally tend to mark this as the retrospective starting point of the new Great Power Competition between Washington and Beijing. In any case thanks as always for providing a neutral forum for a further discussion on this, cheers!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks as always Local Lt. It is such an interesting case, isn't it. It is one of the most complex disputes in the world, not just for the sheer number of countries involved, but also in terms of the exact issues at stake. Is it a territorial issue? Or is it purely a maritime one? And how do historical claims measure up against international law? And a great point about how it may mark a new era in international relations.

[@Dept246]

A few years ago the United States said that they don’t recognize the sovereignty of any country to the Scarborough shoal which pissed of the people in the Philippines. The United States never signed the 1982 UNCLOS agreement and they consider anything beyond 12 miles territorial waters to be international waters.

[@yiquny]

Xi signed a deal like you said ???

[@sassa82]

Since the "island" are very flat they will be highly impacted by sea level rise duting the coming decades.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Great point. In many ways, this gives China more of an incentive to try to reclaim land in an attempt to assert some sort of claim to the region. Without this, the claim becomes even weaker as it will become ever more governed by UNCLOS over any territorial claims it has. Already, the PCA judgement was a major blow in this regard.

[@samzhang4847]

@@JamesKerLindsay i think ppl should respect history links. unless there was occupied and residented by ppl.

[@orlock20]

There are signs that the man made islands are too unstable for construction. Just because China build things on the islands, doesn't make them livable. One direct hit by a typhoon and those islands are going to be a mess.

[@Dept246]

@@JamesKerLindsay These islands are too small to support life without external supplies. And it should be noted that it is Vietnam that occupies the most islands in the disputed Spratlys. UNCLOS is quite clear that the South China Seas is international waters belonging to no country.

[@jerrtann]

Excellently researched and presented. Thank you.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed!

[@oliverenterprises3526]

Very good explanation, most people especially here in the Philippines don't really know or understand the earlier part of the South China sea's history and their consciousness of the SCS begins at the founding of the UN and UNCLOS' EEZ concept.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. It is a really interesting situation. It is far more complex than many people may realise, even more so after the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

[@GameplayTubeYT]

There's a reason why UNCLOS created to be more civilized and prevent tensions! Unfortunately Power can sometime Make people less civilized and act like medieval people! Lee kuan Yew is right “In a world where the big fish eat small fish and the small fish eat shrimps, Singapore must become a poisonous shrimp,”

[@Ai-vq8rj]

Yes but before the eez concept was invented...ancient rules permit only 3 nautical miles of sea terittory, the unclos just merely extented it to 12 so chinas claim is still invalid...their ancient maps will never lie it specifically mentioned Hainan is the edge of china

[@Dept246]

The South China Seas is mostly international waters because the UNCLOS allows 12 miles territorial waters and a further 200 miles EEZ but a EEZ is not sovereignty. The islands in the South China Seas are disputed territory with Vietnam occupying the most islands followed by the Philippines, China, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan with their single island of Taiping.

[@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi]

​@@Ai-vq8rjThere's no such ancient 3 miles ruling. Philippines marked their territorial sea limit of 118° stipulated in the treaty of Paris. It's more than the 12 miles unclos ruling. Not to mention your 3 miles ruling. After ww2. Territorial sea were demarcated. China's 11 dash scs , after which Philippines owns the 118° meridian sea limit. Both does not conflict with each other. The fact that Philippines ratified unclos. Your territorial water shrunk to only 12 miles. But eez became 200 miles from your borders. Eez is not your territorial waters. So using EEZ to violate post ww2 world order recognised treaties and declaration to annexed China's spratlies is also violation of international law by treating Eez as Philippines sovereignty.

[@TheSwedishHistorian]

The solution is pretty clear. ASEAN solves and divides the area between themselves and blocks out chinese aggression in the area

[@kth6736]

How? They have no ability to use force with China.

[@Dushmann_]

They're trying, but it's not working. China is much, much more powerful than all ASEAN countries combined.

[@tigading2177]

even simpler, just bow to U$ and bring military arsenal into the region and increase the tensions. so long as asians bow to amerika, you will be protected from other asians.

[@aimmed7728]

China had already made military garrisons and airbases equipped with defensive batteries on many reefs near to Philippines and Vietnam. These countries arent capable of taking back these islands.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@tigading2177 Of course the aggressor would complain about other countries they are bullying accusing them of bowing to the U.S., when the U.S. just wants the status quo.

[@daveevans1236]

As always Prof James a fascinating and informative video!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much Dave. Always appreciated! Have a good weekend.

[@sawing2444]

Thank you Sir

[@dannybarrs]

Thank you for a very informative video.

[@angiemillena9384]

And king Philip discover the Philippines so does it means that the owner of the Philippines is king Philip also😂😂😂 it is baseless for china to own but Philippines has a lot of papers to show and is recognized by UN and and UNCLOS.

[@dennisancheta5185]

I share the belief that the United Nations thru unclos must handle the issue aggressively. Whichever legal basis or argument you apply with the spratlys, it is indeed The Philippines has the sovereign rights over it. It doesnt claim the area, it owns it.

[@MDBLWY]

中国出现在南海时，你们还在树上摘野果子吃呢，不要妄想得到中国南海的一寸领土，你们没那个实力，懂？

[@garysantos7053]

Thank You.

[@zacksung11]

Great video, just liked it. I find it strange, though, that while the US government is neutral on this issue (aside from defending the freedom of navigation), Hollywood seems to be pro-Beijing on this issue. I remembered reading on the BBC about some claimants like Vietnam and the Philippines banning some films like Abominable and a recent Spiderman film for depicting China's Nine Dash Line. Just wanna bring this small detail to your attention. Also, do you plan to make a video about China's BRI projects and the West's response to them? This year marks a decade since Xi Jinping first announced it and I think it's ripe for a video reflecting its impacts and consequences.

[@quackersna]

Imagine if Britain or Spain suddenly said all areas that were once under their control in distant history are still theirs. That's the same as One China claiming all lands of the Ching Dynasty are still part of China. It's absurd.

[@brucelu4782]

No, you are wrong. Britain and Spain would have no problem to claim those areas as they did before, as they came half-way around the globe to take those areas in the first place, only now they lost the ability to enforce those claims. China discovered those islands first, the train left station 1000yrs ago. The difference between China and Britain/Spain, China didn't kill to take those unpopulated/unclaimed islands.

[@quackersna]

@@brucelu4782 first and foremost, the people's republic of china did not exist 1,000 years ago. That was a totally different dynasty and country. Second, the oldest historic maps in existence clearly show these islands as part of the Philippines archipelago, not as being part of China. You can say a lie 1,000 times but that doesn't transform it into truth.

[@Dept246]

The UK’s removing the citizens of Diego Garcia in 1968 and building a naval base was ruled illegal by The Hague. The UK chose to ignore the ruling. Australia also claims nearly half of Antarctica, isn’t that absurd? The Qing Dynasty ended in 1912 so why wouldn’t Chinese like Mao, Chiang Kai Shek who were born in that era claim all the lands of the Qing Dynasty.

[@brucelu4782]

@@quackersna No, PRC is the current government of the same China existed thousands of yrs. Governing bodies of China changes over time with different dynasties, republics, today it's the PRC the linage is clearly on the record and recognized by 1.4 billion Chinese people. Who are you to say otherwise. Show your "earliest existing map".. when China recorded the discovery of NanSha islands, the Philippines didn't even exist.. For centuries the area is called South China Sea and for a good reason. It's the western MSM, weaponizes propaganda to attack China. remember WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, which is your source of "truth"

[@quackersna]

@@brucelu4782 it's like if my great, great grandfather was a championship boxer, and I tried using that as a basis for saying that I am the champ. That's the argument you are making. KZbin does not allow me to attach images to comments. I'm sure you know how to use the internet. These maps are no secret. And what do I care what a billion brainwashed people are told to believe? These same people are brainwashed to believe that the Tiananmem Square massacre never took place, but I'm old enough to have watched it live on television and know better. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that your navy may be strong enough to bully smaller countries, but we are stepping in to assure that their sovereign rights are protected, and if you think you want to take us on then we will reduce your ships to piles of scrap metal.

[@Mr13021980]

very well said

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you.

[@zoptu5608]

Unfortunately, it's only a complex problem if you have the shorter stick or the least sabers to rattle.

[@BloobleBonker]

Another excellent summary thanks.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much.

[@paul5475]

The Philippines has actually inherited all Spanish territory that also includes those islands in the West Philippines Sea.. one of them are PAG ASA ISLAND. which being inhabitated by local fishermen way back in 1975. Also during 17th century the Spanish map shown that the islands already included in the Philippines islands.

[@yogawan3805]

Lol inherit from Spanish? Look Treaty of Paris 1898.

[@maximocristobalvaldespino5408]

​@@yogawan3805 your country is like a crocodile voracious and greedy ...China the bully kid in west phil sea

[@yogawan3805]

@@maximocristobalvaldespino5408 u can't claim something its not yours. Even the tribunal not award the Spratly to Philippine. Try again

[@ferdinandpo4272]

Inherited or not. There was UNCLOS LAW OF THE SEA. EVERYNATION BIG OR SMALL SHOULD HONORED their commitments to this treaty. Othrerwise china might look less credible and un honorable nation in the eyes of the world.

[@marczapatos2229]

@@yogawan3805 really? And china has claims? Go read more books

[@omersakirkurt3957]

As far as the UNCLOS and principle of equity concerned, islands, islets cannot be considered as an extension of territorial waters, unless the littoral states concerned does not posses the status of "island country". However, islands that are claimed by littoral states may posses rights such as EEZ for a limited area by observing principle of equity. If the terriorial waters and claimed EEZ collide with islands of littoral states, median line shall be drawn from the coastlines of respective countries and islands that are concerned shall be evaded during demarcation/delimitation. Similar cases: UK v. France / Türkiye v. Greece

[@mohamedabdirahmanibrahim9135]

Our next episode may you look the restoration Saudi and Iran in the their relationship and how it will impact the region and geopolitical in the Middle East

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I might try to take a look at this. It is certainly an interesting and potentially important development in all sorts of ways.

[@jawaidiqbalkhalil]

It looks from your analysis that Philippines is the only contesting country who is actively opposing and challenging China over the issue. Why Vietnam, who is a bigger military force, is not putting up more resistance to China in this regard?

[@tantangpenn5496]

You are acting as if you are unaware of Vietnam being a part of one or another Empires north for more than a thousand years.

[@HiHi-yl9wd]

@@tantangpenn5496 Anyone who has real knowledge of the history between China and Vietnam knows that past history is only a negative factor in the relationship between China and Vietnam. A more likely reason is that Vietnam is also a communist country, so at least the government knows that they cannot totally rely on the US, otherwise, a color revolution is waiting for them.

[@orlock20]

It has since at least 2021 according to dated news reports.

[@user-mj3wz8xd8q]

The United States added 4 new military bases in the Philippines. The Philippine approach is obviously requested by the Americans. The United States wants the Philippines to become Ukraine, but this is impossible. China dare not start a war like Russia

[@user-db3gr8lp5c]

越南人比菲律宾人聪明，他们知道蚂蚁是打不过大象的

[@ceasar8679]

Sprawls islands should be divided equally between Vietnam, Malaysia and Philippines. China should be out of the equation

[@anthonytran7566]

Let's Vietnam teaches China a Great Islands Lesson !!!

[@enduser8410]

To add to the green laser incident with the PH coast guard, they also reportedly aimed their autocannon at the PH vessel which itself isn't armed except with a water cannon, and the Chinese govt later claimed the lasers fired at our vessels were small handheld rangefinders which was insulting to us. They made that excuse only after international media picked up on the incident. If they assume we as their neighbors are that stupid then it makes us wonder what they think of us overall and what designs they have. I don't hate China, but it becomes increasingly hard to excuse their actions as countermeasures against the West when they treat us, Vietnam, and the rest of ASEAN as if we have no agency as countries. China needs some new people in their PR department, because they keep making elementary insulting mistakes like this in reaction to criticism.

[@user-kc1tf7zm3b]

You have harbour some hate against your adversaries, lest the opposing side will see you as weak and ineffectual. The Philippines were total morons in demanding the United States leave Subic Bay and Clarke back in 1992. The Philippines has paid a great price ever since. The fresh February 2023 announcement of new US bases in the Philippines is an acceptance of this grave historical and geostrategic mistake.

[@enduser8410]

@@user-kc1tf7zm3b Hate is a strong word. I think we can arm ourselves and be respected w/o resorting to that. Govt institutions should keep it professional, even if they do not. It is less known that the US left not just because of PH demands, they were waiting for a new presidency to renegotiate, but because Pinatubo damaged the bases and they didn't have the budget post-Cold War to fix them. I'd say moreso the govt were morons for not putting manned posts on those islets as follow up. They sat on the withdrawal vacuum, and didn't try to push the issue diplomatically. The idea at the time was a military modernization would catch up by the mid-late 90s but it has been delayed up to now. In 1999 they reintroduced US force rotation with EDCA.

[@EmmaNguyen-mg5xq]

Western Propaganda

[@user-kc1tf7zm3b]

@@enduser8410 You are at it again with absurd, bizarre, and, quite frankly, idiotic Filipino thinking. And you wonder why the Philippines is forever in the political, economic and geostrategic malaise it is in. You need to accept that due to its overall apathy, nobody in the SE Asian region takes the Philippines seriously. And, why should they? The Philippines does not have a real air force, its navy is barely functional. At the end of the day, the US was not keen to leave its Philippine bases for the most obvious of reasons. Ultimately, former President Corazon Aquino demanded that the US leave its bases in December 1991. Aquino was the chief executive, so she alone bears the power and responsibility of this action.

[@enduser8410]

@@user-kc1tf7zm3b What is your point? It just seems like an excuse to insult. Are you a diasporan? We are absolutely aware of those, hence naval modernization. My point is I account for our agency and do not believe the bases are central to why many of the islands were lost. Many anti-Westerners here use that narrative to blame the US when it is our fault for not following up with simple manned posts like BRP Sierra Madre or what is on Pagasa. I bring up Pinatubo because US commitment might've not been a guarantee to keeping Mischief Reef seeing how quickly they left after Pinatubo, and Clark AF was on the list of bases to be decommissioned prior, with Subic becoming a joint base. US-China ties were strong then. Other times, we tried to buy military equipment like F-15s in the 90s up to now from the US but have repeatedly been denied. Sweden blocked offers for the Gripen until Marcos took over.

[@Kai_Squared]

The 2 final questions: -How far is China willing to go: as far as you can imagine. China will push and push as if nothing can stop it. -How far are the other countries willing to defend its position: Highly dependent on international support.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

Yes, those are two very important questions and things to look out for as we proceed. If nobody pushes hard enough back, China will just take the whole SCS. There are growing fears from many in the region about China's actions which is why many are working with the US or others in order to counter China. Vietnam has run drills with US navy. Philippines recently allowed the US military more access in their country in large part because of China's actions in the SCS. Indonesia certainly has expressed their concerns about China though I am not sure if they have gone the extra step Vietnam and Philippines have. India is very concerned and not long ago because working closer with a few other nations, the Quad. This is why it's important to keep sending ships and planes through that area to keep the freedom of navigation.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

yep! so should we.

[@SigmundJaehn]

If there’s anything to be learned with the Ukraine conflict is that Asia needs to ramp up a mutual defence organisation like nato pdq.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@QuizmasterLaw so should who do what? You’re in support of China being a danger to the world by being so aggressive?

[@yaodai2459]

Right on the point. China's military capability is greater than all those other nations' combined and is growing even faster; a collective defense organization includes the US, India, or even Japan, will be needed in the future.

[@sethgreenberg1995]

Great video as always, Professor! Do you think you’ll cover the normalizing of relations between Iran & Saudi Arabia?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Great suggestion. I was just reading the news on this. It is a really interesting development.

[@kth6736]

Hopefully this will end that horrible proxy war in Yemen.

[@skeetrix5577]

interesting video, thanks professor

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much!

[@skeetrix5577]

most definitely:) as someone who loves history, geopolitics and learning about foreign governments your videos are a must see for someone like me. it's wonderful to have a factual take on events from a person as well versed in the matter as yourself so it's a real treat that your here making content we can all learn from, so many many thanks

[@Ai-vq8rj]

You talk about 2000 years ago but You forgot to show ancient maps...Chinese ancient maps that shows Hainan island as their boundary vs Philippine ancient maps that shows spratlys.....thre is a reason why Philippines won in court ruling....and also ancient maritime rules permit only 3 nautical miles of sea terittory, so chinas claims are bogus...

[@EdMcF1]

There was a story about this dispute cropping up in the mid-1960s and the then Foreign Secretary George George-Brown held a press conference to denounce China's actions around the Spratly Islands. When he was asked where they were, he was completely non-plussed and unable to answer.

[@reintaler6355]

I doubt someone in his position today can describe where Xinjiang is either

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Haha! I can well imagine that happening! :-)

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@JamesKerLindsay Yeah? Well, I can well imagine this is an apocryphal piece of disinformation.

[@smling11]

Important points left were: 1. Japanese took over the South China Sea from Qing when they claimed so expicitly. 2. Cairo declaration on returning Japanese occupied places to the respective owner that all victorial countries had agreed to.

[@DannyChean]

Do you even have any idea where the south china sea and Japan are??

[@yogawan3805]

@@DannyChean do you even aware of history in the past?

[@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi]

Agreed. This is one of the major evidences that anti china USA propaganda omit to make china looks like an aggressor.

[@limayanon]

It is good professor but to be precise kindly include these from your research it came from reliable Chinese research ... In the Song Dynasty work Zhu fan zhi by Zhao Rugua, the name "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands" (Qianli Changsha, 千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools/Beds" (Wanli Shitang 萬里石塘, or Wanli Shichuang 萬里石床) were given, interpreted by some to refer to Paracel and Spratly respectively.[47] Wanli Shitang is also recorded in the History of Yuan to have been explored by the Chinese during the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries.[48][49][50] However, the Yuan also ruled over Korea, Outer Mongolia, and parts of modern Russia. They are also referenced, sometimes with different names, in the Ming dynasty.[51][52] For example, in the Mao Kun map dating from Zheng He's voyage of the early 15th century, Shixing Shitang (石星石塘) is taken by some to mean Spratly,[44] however different authors interpret the identities of these islands differently.[45] Another Ming text, Haiyu (海語, On the Sea), uses Wanli Changsha (萬里長沙) for Spratly and noted that it is located southeast of Wanli Shitang (Paracels).[44] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[53] 1755,[54] 1767,[55] 1810,[56] and 1817,[57] but did not officially claim jurisdiction over these Islands.

[@nalamario99]

I love your videos Professor James! Thank you so much for your objective insights!

[@VladTevez]

First like, then view

[@JamesKerLindsay]

That is the way! :-)

[@bilic8094]

James what is your approximate estimate time frame wise when China will make the move on Taiwan.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I’m not so sure that it will. It is an incredibly high-stakes decision. Unlike Ukraine, this could well be a win big or fail terribly scenario. Thus is why the focus on South China Sea might be a better option. By consolidating its position there it can still show strength at home and bids it’s time on Taiwan.

[@rogerexwood6608]

@@JamesKerLindsay Indeed, the CCP is risk averse and - although Putin will put a brave face on the eventual outcome - events in Ukraine must surely give Beijing pause for thought.

[@bilic8094]

@@JamesKerLindsay I agree I can't see China going ahead with it but it would be possible if both Russia and China escalated the situations at the same time other than that I can't see it.

[@user-mj3wz8xd8q]

China will not take action against Taiwan at all. In 10 years, the total tonnage of the PLA Navy will catch up with that of the United States. In 20 years, the combat power of the PLA will be equal to that of the US Army. It is the US that is propagating war. The US military is eager to fight the PLA. ? Time is on China's side

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@rogerexwood6608 I wouldn't call the CCP risk averse. By siding with Russia and threatening Taiwan and trying to steal the South China Sea, they have alienated most of their biggest trade partners. Their wolf warrior diplomacy also has made it worse for China. But China has learned from Russia that the west will unify around a cause. An invasion will need large mobilization which we be easily spotted by US intelligence and after Russia mobilized 150k+ troops around Ukraine and the west thought it wouldn't happen, the west will take any mobilization by China as a high likelihood of invasion so they will immediately start preparing and will start punishing China. China is not risk averse but they are not as risk takers as Putin and China learned what might happen which does suggest they are less likely to invade.

[@Billy_Almighty]

👏👏👏👏

[@sufthegoat]

Yes

[@jovimathews]

I don’t understand why SCS is still in dispute. Indonesia gained independence first in 1945, before China in 1949. Clearly, the SCS Seas belong to all southeastern nations. 🤷‍♂️

[@rainboworiental9521]

But the Republic of China was established in 1912 and got international recognition the same year and Indonesia get international recognition on December 1949. And Chinese Hainan island and Guangdong province are located on the north coast of the South China Sea, so at least China has the right to claim north part of the South China Sea even according to International Law

[@jovimathews]

@@rainboworiental9521 Didn’t I mentioned Civil War? Lol

[@rainboworiental9521]

@@jovimathews You didn't mention it, LOL.

[@jovimathews]

@@rainboworiental9521 perhaps you shouldn’t skipped historical lesson

[@jovimathews]

@@rainboworiental9521 and English lesson. Your comprehension of my first comment was really really bad. Lol

[@NNA1984]

No way China can do that. Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries are fighting back. Support from global powers like the US is welcomed.

[@neokorteks2009]

I imagine that this is the level of the briefing quality a British PM would get when comming up to speed with a topic.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you! :-) (Funnily enough, I know that some of my videos have been used by policymakers in several countries to quickly get up to speed with an issue. It's rather nice to know.)

[@johnvelllacuna]

Im from Philippines, please support us from bully china Hope our allies will help us

[@gerwinguzon2968]

WEST PHILIPPINE SEA, PHL EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE. PHILIPPINE RISE(BENHAM RISE) EAST PHILIPPINE SEA. PHILIPPINES

[@downpourmaker8058]

very clear 12nm territorial sea plus 200nm exclusive economic zone...

[@johnrexalcanar05]

Philippines visited China 1st and we taught them how to build boats. We are a naval power in SE Asia even before the Spaniards came and was doing trades in India and Egypt while the Chinese were still in the confines of their land. So how can they claim these islands when our ancestors have traveled all over the maritime domain of Asia?

[@rainboworiental9521]

I never hear any record of the Philippines teaching Chinese to build boats, could you provide some solid information about it? Around 9 centuries, Chinese merchants already have reliable abilities to trade with Arabs in Malacca. During a similar period, the Philippines only had a few small early-stage city-states.

[@johnrexalcanar05]

@@rainboworiental9521 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGq2emZtj8-jfsU and en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_(ship) Chinese southern junk actually came from Astronesian ships.

[@rainboworiental9521]

@@johnrexalcanar05 I already see the first video entirely, that is novel content about the relationship between North Song and ancient Philippines. But never infor any about boat build teaching... Actually during this period(North Song and South Song dynasty), Chinese merchants is main players in eastern part of ocean silk road, and can build more than 100 tons ships to sail beyond Singapore, That is more advanced comparing with early trible kindoms tech in Philippine...

[@kerrygraham3544]

This issue is now many decades old. It's about time it became more widely recognised other than in South East Asia, the Pacific and inc. here in Australia.

[@paulyi729]

I like the idea of which the winner by the fist takes all. Which has been historically effective. Like the case of Hawaii, Diego Garcia, Guam etc.

[@julwiezdeghorz5089]

Lol. If it serves US geopolotical interests it looks effective.

[@paulyi729]

@@julwiezdeghorz5089 Yes, why not? US are welcome too.

[@lttan2867]

Your idea will never work as it only favours the diapers producer's.

[@ionut-valerserbanat3354]

Definetly a new video about China should contain informations about what the new term(the third one) of Xi Jinping means for China and for the world. From chinese internal affairs to Taiwan and US-China relations.Keep up the good work, have a wonderful day!

[@joannesmith1175]

Basically Xi's third term is to put the new ideology of Xi jinping Thought into many government departments, especially that of education and security departments. The ideology stirs away from communism and is more of a mix of sinocentric socialism, the china dream he mentions is a rejuvenation of the Chinese culture and to be a respected country in the world, without having the same responsibilities or baggage that the US has

[@xavierscott1850]

Inland properties usually requires a title for ownerships. Jurisdiction and carefully measured area of responsibility can be used to prevent any intention and protective buffer zones. Any extension of territorial ownership should be considered as a collective agreement of other countries that has a stake over the disputed area of any space l. #2_cents

[@marsillinkow]

In 1947, the ROC was still on the mainland with the capital at Chonqqing, they only became based out of Taiwan in 1949

[@zakharov7953]

How likely is it that climate change will drown the islands and render the whole issue moot? Or will the countries involved build up their islands to keep them above sea level?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Great point! Yes, it does seem likely to make it irrelevant in many ways. Already a lot of the territory is submerged. But I suspect that China will want to make sure that this remains very much in its geostrategic control one way or another.

[@superman9772]

i always thought that the nations involved in these regional conflicts should view these conflicts as an opportunity to create a "regional identity/corporation" that would "own" the disputed resources and that the identity/corporation would, in turn, be owned by the affected nations... the identity could then utilize the resources to capitalize a bank and fund various other corporations to exploit and process those resources and the profits split among the nations/owners and/or fund specific projects within those affected nations... that way, no nation would go into debt, be sanctioned, or lose any international status... to me, it seems like a cash cow without any cost to the affected nations... making deals is so much more profitable than a war or long term conflict with your neighbor.... but then if your neighbor is a warlord then i guess you got no choice but to....?

[@bonifacioarcega3535]

Most of the previous and current wars are land-basedm this time it could be sea-based. It will be a different scenario. No tanks and drones involved. What strategy could possibly used?

[@bobprivate8575]

What makes you think drones wouldn't be useful in a naval conflict?

[@_Zaaier]

Can you make a video about the Congo (Kivu) - M23 situation? Keep it up!

[@alesh2275]

Whether the features were islands or not was the pertinent issue that ITLOS looked into, and arrived at the ruling that they weren’t. The most interesting case was the Taiwan occupied island of Thitu, which is the only island with a local, natural source of fresh water, and thus could have been the only feature potentially being considered an “island”.

[@scarletcrusade77]

Professir Linday, can you do a video on South Korea please? Its the only western aligned Asian power that seems least willing to commit to US efforts to counter China vs Japan whose more than willing to go for it. Can you explain why their foreign policy and solidarity with the West seems shaky most times and reluctant at worst? Considering they went from 2nd most troops sent to aid the USA in Vietnam to not even sanctioning Russia oddly.

[@FlamingBasketballClub]

South Korea shouldn't sanction Russia though 🌝🌚

[@jxz107]

What do you mean by not sanctioning Russia? Russia literally threatened Seoul last week because it expanded the initial sanctions it already placed on Moscow.

[@rizkyadiyanto7922]

based south korean. US and its allies isnt their master, they do the right thing.

[@ragglefraggle9111]

They sanctioned Russia, they just haven't sent lethal aid

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@rizkyadiyanto7922 Do you know what an ally is? No masters, only partnerships.

[@Magumbo58]

As a student of international relations who recently graduated, I have fallen in live with your videos. I think you are doing justice to these topics than my lecturers did. Keep the videos coming👏👏

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much! It’s always so nice to get such wonderfully positive feedback. I really appreciate it. :-)

[@jono_cc2258]

Insightful as always, thank you!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed.

[@robcameron9096]

The South China Sea Code of Conduct being negotiated between China and ASEAN should be an important step in the peaceful resolution of these disputes.

[@jeffmorris5802]

Just like the easiest, most correct way to resolve the war in Ukraine is for Russia to f*** off, the easiest and most correct way to resolve the South China Sea issue is for China to f*** off. Let's stop indulging the fantasies of imperialist dictatorships, yeah?

[@wakwakungo9693]

But china didn't say a word or even refused..as far I remember PRRD30 Also asked for joint exploration inside the Philippines EEZ near palawan In 60/40 shares but under the Philippines constitution again xi jinping not saying a word or refusing.. obviously they really wanted to have small skirmish if pH lose ,china take all the spratly island's

[@erwinmatic5062]

Its naive to think China will abide by it. They say one thing then do the opposite. Its a pattern at this point.

[@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi]

Yes but first ASEAN countries have to follow international law not to treat eez as their territory and accept China's indisputable ownership of 10 dash scs.

[@jerolvilladolid]

The righteous and weak versus the wrong and powerful. The classic match up seen throughout human history. One look at the map and even a first grader will know the spratleys are too far away from China. The fact that Beijing did not participate in the Hague arbitration means they dont even believe their own absurd nine-dash claim enough to defend it in court. But then again, the villains sometimes wins in this competition. Who between the two sides will triumph in the end?

[@aniuge]

看过世界地图也知道菲律宾离中国也不远，关岛离美国有半个地球，但是那有意义吗？你们只是把西班牙或者日本侵略者划定的地图说是你们的领土，却忘记了他们是从中国拿走的

[@Ai-vq8rj]

​@@aniuge kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHi6lJqBg7KroNE Chinas claim is fake...Chinas ancient maps doesnt lie

[@wulung5943]

Does US have the right to occupy Guam and Diego Garcia?

[@marilynquire-quire2500]

Yes .,they are

[@DoNotBeSheep4217]

Perfect opportunity for all the players to form a defensive pact against China.

[@lightsalt8279]

Professor, South China Sea is not only about Spratly Island, but also Indonesia's territory. Which China's so called "9 dash line" also breached Indonesia's EEZ in South China Sea. So if you talk about South China Sea, don't forget to include Indonesia. But if your content only talk about Spratly Island AND excluding Indonesia, I suggest you to change your title to become: "Spratly Island" to avoid confusion.

[@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi]

You should use proper interpretation. China was the first to claim and own SCS since 1947. This was the post ww2 world order. It's Indonesia that later uses new unclos eez to intrude into China's territory. Not china intrude into Indonesia eez. Eez is not Indonesia territory. It's international waters. But scs is China's territory.

[@lightsalt8279]

@@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi Nope. Indonesia got independence before China, which means all former Dutch's territorial and water is belong to Indonesia. And Indonesia have claimed Natuna Islands and surrounding waters, administratively and internationally since 1945. Even thousands years before China exist and before colonialism, Indonesian natives have used that sea. This is the first baseline for Indonesia that no one could deny. And nope, SCS is not China's territories. There's no baseline about it. While Indonesia have clear sovereignty rights over Indonesia's EEZ, under UNCLOS signed by all countries, including signed by China. This is the second strong baseline for Indonesia, that Indonesian would fight to protect with blood by blood.

[@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi]

@@lightsalt8279you need to improve your knowledge before commenting. China does not dispute Natuna islands. China owns 11 dash scs before unclos eez is established. Its Indonesia that wanted to use some of their eez inside china territory. Not the other way round. Eez is in the international waters. Not Indonesian territory to protect.

[@lightsalt8279]

@@LeeSkJohn-sv8wi You should check your eyes to doctor. I said Natuna Island AND surrounding waters. Indonesia have claim include the water routes years before China got their independence. You also need to check your eyes because I already said that China's claim "have no baseline". While Indonesia's EEZ have strong and legal baseline under international law of UNCLOS, which China also singed it. If you keep talking about China's trash line that have no baseline recognized by international law, I can also that all China Mainland is Indonesia's territories. Easy.

[@leonardmichaelmarkrandrup2375]

Indonesia and Malaysia are also claimants.

[@blafonovision4342]

PRC can grab it if it has the power to do so.

[@markdowding5737]

Hi professor, what is your opinion on the agreement for the normalization of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia? How do you think the agreement will affect the geopolitics of the Middle East and who is the biggest beneficiary of the agreement?

[@XerxesGammon200]

They only agreed to reopen their embassies as they did prior to 2016. The ramification is China becoming a major player in the middle east.

[@markdowding5737]

@@XerxesGammon200 Yes, but it might lead to a reduction in the proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran, most noticeably in Yemen. Also, Saudi Arabia might see Iran as a partner in regard to energy resources such as oil and gas.

[@XerxesGammon200]

@@markdowding5737 There were terms of non-interference into each others internal affairs which was the initial cause of the Saudi embassy being sacked in Tehran. Any further cooperation is just wishful thinking especially because of Iran's nuclear program. On top of that Iran's support for Shia fractions in Iraq, Syria and Hizbollah is never going to stop. This is entrenched in their ideology and foreign policy.

[@skeetrix5577]

I haven't heard of this. is it true they are looking to normalize relations?

[@XerxesGammon200]

@@skeetrix5577 It was in New York Times and Wall Street Journal today.

[@galleryteneuesartnouveau9353]

It is a land grabbing indeed thank you for your Brilliant insights

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks very much.

[@rcbrascan]

The video omitted important points that backs China's claim to SCS. The Cairo Communique and the Potsdam Declaration have asserted that most of the SCS belongs to China and that is the basis of international law backing China's claim and it cannot be later superseded by UNCLOS or International Courts or else all other treaties from other countries will also be voided. Also the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not a court, it is a company that uses the word “Court” in its name and it just provides paid services to parties in resolving disputes with arbitration. It rented an office in the building that houses the World Court at The Hague so that is why the pro-Philippines faction calls it the Hague ruling confusing it with the real International Court of Justice located at The Hague. When the PCA could not take the case because China refused to participate, an ad-hoc Tribunal was setup, funded by the US, to hear the case which later sided with the Philippines. The Philippines then did their own write-up of the judgement for the PCA to sign off and publish in order to confuse people that it was the PCA ruling. The Tribunal ruling is not recognized by the UN and has no legal authority.

[@johnpelar]

But the key is not about the islands but the sea. Itu Aba is not even considered an island to command an EEZ. at most a territorial 12 mile. Some like Mischief Reef can only be entitled a 500 meter territory. Land dominates the sea so Palawan is entitled 200 mile EEZ. So most of the Spratlys are owned by Palawan EEZ.

[@raymondparnell439]

I think countries need to stop being greedy, that includes us Australians we are blessed with many things . It's hard to enjoy while most of humanity is not able to live comfortably. One day hopefully.

[@user-kc1tf7zm3b]

It is time for _Operation South China Sea Freedom_ 🇺🇸 🇯🇵 🇦🇺

[@ac1455]

Ultimately a case of China trying to retrace industrial colonial efforts with a modern twist. Until oil lines with Central Asia and Russia expand, reliance on the sea presents a threat. Just as we did it in the US, they need to secure access to the malacca the same way we have security over Panama via the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and our pacific holdings.

[@edwardpi9852]

That is not enough. China discovered North America before the Europeans it should be ours too.

[@warmonger82]

The ROC did not retreat to Taiwan until 1949. The 11 dashed line map was published while the ROC was still on the Mainland.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

Okay? The video mentions the ROC in 1947 claimed those disputed islands and then mentions that ROC in 1949 also claimed it. edit: nevermind, it was the "based on the island of Taiwan" to describe ROC in 1947 that is the issue or concern.

[@warmonger82]

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson The video claims that the ROC "on Taiwan" claimed the islands in 1947. The ROC did claim those islands via the 11 dashed line but it was still based in Nanjing, NOT Taipei.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Yes. Sorry it was a clumsy editing mistake. I’ve done several videos on Taiwan. I was just trying to get the point that it was RoC, now based on Taiwan, and better known by that name, that base the original claim. And the PRC from 1949.

[@warmonger82]

@@JamesKerLindsay No worries Professor, you've got a lot on your plate and overlooking the ins and outs of the (as of yet) unfinished Chinese Civil War trip up many. Although it's interesting to note that the PRC knocked the ROC claim down to 9 dashed vs the original 11.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@warmonger82 Oh, got it. The 1947 claim of ROC and 1949 claim of PRC were correct but not where he said "based on the Island of Taiwan" to describe ROC in 1947. Though, I took that to mean ROC is based on Taiwan today not 1947 but it was unclear.

[@kfan4658]

I mean china land grab is very smart, look at Singapore it is a Malaysian land but because of han enclaves in Malaysia they manage to declare independence from Malaysia. Han have ancient wisdom of how to land grab without being noticed.

[@davepsk7334]

@kfan please learn history of formation of Malaysia before making such statement. You got it all wrong. Suspect you don't even know how Malaysia was formed.

[@ludivinapilar2032]

​@@davepsk7334 do you know that the national language of Singapore is MALAY.

[@davepsk7334]

@@ludivinapilar2032 Yes I do. But language preferation is not why it joined the federation to form Malaysia or the reason to pull out of Malaysia. Malaysia is a federation of states in the peninsula and borneo sovereign states. And still is. It's like the USA where states unite to form the United States of America. Singapore chose to join this federation to form Malaysia but later decided to opt out and go it's own way. There were provisions to opt out at the time. Besides, malay is spoken throughout these parts including brunei, indonesia and sumatra and the out lying islands since long ago. Speaking malay does not make it Malaysia. In fact there's evidence suggesting that malay was brought to then malaya from neighbouring countries.

[@yellowmixedpurple1751]

​​​@@davepsk7334 Malaysia and Singapore is not a Chinese home. You are just foreigners there. Don't forget that. You are not from there. You are from China.han people are not the true ethnic group in Singapore and malaysia. You are traders only there.

[@joseywales148]

They will… what will others do? Nothing.

[@VL-inquisitor]

Mind you that the arbitration tribunal has no significance on the dispute in South China Sea at all. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), both sides in dispute should conduct negotiations prior to filing an arbitration and both sides should participate in the formal arbitration, yet none of these did happen in the unilateral arbitration by the Philippines. Secondly, this arbitration tribunal has no jurisdiction over sovereignty and territorial disputes, as the latter fall under the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I do not make up any of these, so go and check it out yourself.

[@legpol]

V L: I am sorry, extensive prior negotiations had been conducted with settlement. And the arbitration was allowed to take place if there is only one party, according to the UNCLOS. That is, both have happened. I don't need to quote the law because of the fact that the court had arbitrated and China did not say the arbitration was illegal.

[@VL-inquisitor]

@@legpol Indeed, you should be sorry for the above spurious claims. 1) There were no prior negotiations before the ruling between the 2 parties in disputes as China had refused to participate in any of the arbitration proceedings from the get-go. (source - wikipedia - Philippines v China / South China Sea Arbitration). In fact, the only form of discussion between China and Philippines was by way of proceedings conducted via the framework of the Code of Conduct among ASEAN countries, but these dialogues did not form part of the tribunal arbitration proceedings; 2) an arbitration involving 1 party but not all the relevant parties in dispute fails to satisfy the fundamental principles of arbitration. Hence any rulings made by the tribunal are automatically invalidated. Numerous articles make a mention that China did not participate in the tribunal and hence refuse to accept its findings (source - Reuter article dated 19-Oct-2016 titled ‘Philippines’ Détente say South China Sea arbitration to take ‘back seat’. 3) According to Article 9 of Annex VII of UNCLOS, the arbitral tribunal must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded IN FACT and LAW. First, the tribunal specifically disregarded or failed to address whether any of the ‘Secondary High Tide Features’ would constitute ‘fully-fledged islands’ under continental shelf entitlements. Furthermore, the tribunal concluded that UNCLOS ‘superseded’ and thus ‘wiped out’ all (China’s) historic rights within maritime areas in Philippines’ Submission 1 and Submission 2, a claim that would have favoured the China’s position if considered. However, that conclusion is an improper one and is inconsistent with similar maritime arbitrations before. Specifically, the ‘alfa et omega’ of the international law of the sea comprises more than UNCLOS. The concept of historic rights is one which is long supported by state practice and international jurisprudence, both before and since UNCLOS. Rather, UNCLOS provides room for the continued validity and applicability of historic rights. In default proceedings involving only one party, this duty of ‘well founded in fact and law’ is particularly acute (source - A legal critique of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the matter of the South China Sea Arbitration - BRILL).

[@legpol]

@@VL-inquisitor ：1）My understanding was, if there was no prior negotiation, the court will not accept the arbitration. Therefore, for the Philippines to get the arbitration, she must show the court she did negotiate with China. Only when the court was satisfied, it could accept the job. 2) I am sure UNCLOS has provided an exception, which is, arbitration can go ahead with only one party. The fact that it did go ahead is the proof there is the exception. China did not try to stop the court from proceeding. 3) I think China did challenge the arbitral tribunal's right according to Article 9 of Annex VII and was answered by the tribunal that it did have jurisdiction over the dispute.

[@VL-inquisitor]

@@legpol I am not going to repeat my commentaries above. However, if you want to dig into the matter further, I suggest you read these documents a) A Legal Critique of the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration authored by National Institute for South China Sea Studies; b) The South China Sea Disputes : Historical, Geopolitical and Legal Studies authored by T-S Hsieh. These authors are maritime experts, whose opinions carry authority over your views and mine. That being said, you will find both documents find that the Hague Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the dispute in South China Sea.

[@legpol]

@@VL-inquisitor : I just trust the arbitrators. If they accepted the job and the money, they must know better than me. The papers you referred to me might have been already read by me when the debate was hot. I thank you for calling my attention to them. Let us say goodbye.

[@sevenpm6991]

In reality, Vietnam holds many islands inside EEZ of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. Thus, vietnam is the big colonizer among these nations. Secondly, if China was out of the picture, Taiwan could be the next aggressor, for it also claims the whole South China Sea in a similar way and its mother China. Third, the reason why china is highlighted as d bully is duly bcoz of it, the only country in d region who is militarily and economically well-off. Now, the Philippines is much in a tight situation for its frenemy (China) is close, and the reclaimed of taiwan scenario is going to be in its backyard. Philippines surely holds a key role i balancing regional power and may also be the catalyst of disaster. The Philippines has a mutual defense treaty with the US, it also allow additional 4 military site for US amry, and is now seeing the possibility of multiparty patrol in the West Philippines sea with Japan, Australi, and the US. Although the Philippines, brunei, and malaysia have conflicted claim, these countries are open for negotiation and talks as they are under ASEAN while china is delaying the MOU for its personal interest. China talks a lot but never acts on its promises. Now, only the future can tell what will happen to the region.

[@soundmind9772]

If the United States can claim Hawaii and the associated Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, then China can certainly claim the South China Sea. No State should expect any territorial dispute to be resolved in its favor unless it is willing to also advocate for Hawaii's liberation. The United States will occupy the Pacific to the detriment of itself and the rest of the world until Hawaii is set free. By ignoring the colonial situation in Hawaii, it is clear that the world supports the threat of nuclear war.

[@victoriavillanueva-tl8mr]

Expansionism greediness bullying is EVIL.

[@importantname]

It has claimed the SCS - so yes it can claim the SCS.

[@robinlee6623]

thanks for your fascinating explaination professor，but I don't agree with you to use the word ”invasion“ to describe PRCs military actions on Taiwan，because invasion means a sovereignty country send troops on another sovereign countries territory，as you mentioned the Taiwan authorities actually call themselves republic of china，so if mainland China decide to take taiwan by force ， from international law perspective，it would be civil war of China ，can't use that word

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I see your point. And I often have this discussion with people on other topics. To my mind, an invasion simply refers to a military attack against a piece of territory that a state does not control. Calling it a "peace operation" "intervention", etc seems too euphemistic. It will be an invasion. Now, whether it is legal or not is a very different question. I have actually been meaning to make a video on this very question for a while.

[@robinlee6623]

​@@JamesKerLindsay I think if beijing chose to take forceful measure they will call it “special military action” or “ non war military operation”，in the name of fight rebellion，because last year president Xi signed a paper called ”Outline of military non-war operations “，but I think it won't be happen as long as taipei not declare independence or change their “one china constitution，BTW from my point of view ，China is the state，both PRC or ROC are just governments of China ，the difference is now PRC is the legal representative of china recognized by international community，anyway thanks for your reply ，have a nice day sir

[@Dapicomp]

i think it's a translation issue: the word "invasion" does not carry so much negative tones in English as 侵略 does in Chinese. For example the landing of allied forces in Normandy during WWII is also called "invasion".

[@robinlee6623]

​@@DapicompI think you missed my point that ”invasion“ only happen between two different country , so use it to describe D day is 100% correct ， I notice recently western world use that word frequently when things about taiwan ，I believe they has a political Purpose which is making a conception that taiwan is a independence country ，create legitimacy for future legal battle to stop China‘s unity，it has nothing to do with translation issue，before 2016 ，western media barely use that word when report taiwan -mainland relationship ，but thanks to Hollywood and western media ，most Chinese are too stupid to aware that

[@shendi20ify]

The South China Sea, Islands are Chinese territory for the past ten thousand years, until European came, and set there rules. China is absolutely correct to claim it.🙏🇨🇳

[@JamesKerLindsay]

What about the countries that more closely neighbour it? Don’t they have a claim?

[@orlangatan8060]

Not according to international law those island belong to philippines

[@user-mj3wz8xd8q]

@@JamesKerLindsay Therefore, we should cooperate to develop the South China Sea, which is also advocated by China. In fact, China has the least number of Nansha islands, but it is considered the worst. In fact, the countries around the South China Sea are doing the same thing as China, portraying China as an enemy. It is a propaganda method commonly used by Western countries

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@user-mj3wz8xd8q you’re suggesting that China is cooperating when they are being very aggressive and building artificial islands and palming military on it while they attempt to block ships and planes from entering the region? And you think that’s equal to what others are doing in the South China Sea? Wow.

[@jhe3903]

The ROC was still based on the mainland in 1947

[@examples262]

I say we give them to Paraguay

[@EuroMaidanWasAnInsurrection]

If I were china I would rather try and start an alliance in the region with everyone instead of building bases and islands. Why piss the neighbors off when you can just become friends with them instead and pay to have bases on their territory instead. Bad strategy imo but I don't know enough. America just got 3 bases in Philippines a few weeks ago and didn't have to build a island lol. I get wanting to keep us Americans out of their backyard tho.

[@Kai_Squared]

Then you don't understand it's imperial ambitions. China needs only underlings, not friends. I said it before and I'll say it again, China sees itself as the new world order. China calls itself the Center country in its language. And I would say if things would go like it has in the past decades, China will surpass the US soon.

[@DemPilafian]

You're failing to think like a dictator. Democracies form mutually beneficial alliances. On the other hand, dictators will be your friend right up until the moment they stab you in the back to steal your power. The two dictators Xi and Putin are allies today, but neither one will let the other dictator get close enough to get stabbed in the back.

[@kth6736]

Because america has historic alliances with those countries. China has omly option to take the path of agression amd coercion.

[@EuroMaidanWasAnInsurrection]

@@kth6736 I definitely dont think aggression is their only path. Partnerships based off mutual interests can be beneficial instead. I'm a big fan of Chinese debt trap diplomacy also. Wish us Americans used it.

[@huas5350]

Because the Chinese know a truth: most people who play with fire will eventually be burned to death. Participating in and going into the sovereignty of other countries has positions and risks. When your country is strong, it is insignificant, but when you are not too strong, everyone will abandon you. Countries in South America and the Middle East have increasingly seen this trend.

[@peterkops6431]

I believe Xi understands that an attack on Taiwanese territory will be too dangerous in its ramifications. He does, however, need a war to boost nationalism in order to maintain power. The South China Sea presents a perfect opportunity to meet this end.

[@EmmaNguyen-mg5xq]

Western Propaganda 🤡🤡🤡

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks Peter. This is my sense as well. We are focusing on Taiwan. But this would be a hugely costly and risky war. It might be far better for Beijing to focus on the Spratlys and reinforce its position there by forcing out remaining competitors. Small scale incursions that could be contained far more easily than a high stakes Taiwan offensive that China either wins big and completely or faces humiliating defeat.

[@williamthebonquerer9181]

@@JamesKerLindsay China's population value stability, you can tell by how much Chinese people save money in property and in general, china won't benefit domestically from an attempted invasion of Taiwan (which imo it can't succeed in invading) and China's foreign policy is internally motivated rather than external like how Vietnam's or Ukraines is.

[@proxyde5353]

Taiwan is not a country not even the US accept their independence. Taiwan doesnt even have an embassy in usa. Go check out the One china policy and usa stance on it.

[@SiRasputin]

Question for you professor. What are Taiwan's (Republic of China) claim on the south China Sea?

[@lololo6345]

Professor...does the spratly islands fix the Malacca dilemma ??

[@sevenpm6991]

Not a professor, partly, yes, South China Sea is said to hold large gas reserve that can sustain china's energy hunger.

[@SwazzerProductions]

Repost for Prof Ker-Lindsay to respond to: A whole 12 minute video and you still failed to address the actual reason for China’s recent moves in the SCS. It is China’s defensive response to USA’s aggressive ‘island chain strategy’ which is designed to encircle China. But yes, it’s always China’s fault isn’t it? I’m disappointed given that your other videos are actually quite good and objective. You also conveniently forgot to mention that Vietnam (by far), Philippines and Malaysia all illegally possess more islands in the Spratly Islands than China. Not to mention the fact that China wasn’t even the first country to militarise the SCS islands (Vietnam were the first to do so). You also didn’t go into detail regarding ‘International court of justice tribunal’ which was rightly rejected not only by China, but also by Taiwan and Vietnam. This trial was a political hit job provided that there was no opposition to any of the 15 submissions that were put forward by the Philippines (an American ally) against China. Imagine the Plaintiff (Philippines) winning a court case where the Defendant (China) is not only absent, but was also presided over by a biased European/American dominated judge and jury (who all openly despise the Defendant anyway). You also conveniently forgot to mention the fact that the USA itself does not recognise/ratify the UNCLOS Laws of the Sea (which it accuses of China breaking), and yet it leads the so-called ‘international community’ to morally condemn China on the issue of the SCS.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

I would make several points in response. First, I think you’ll find that many of the commenters from other regional states would disagree strongly with your characterisation of China as the victim here. They see this as a clear attempt by Beijing to subvert international legal norms to claim control over a strategic region and its assets. Undermining the credibility of the Court, or any Court, is a standard tactic in these situations. But the Court has a long and respected history. We may not like his cases turn out, but let’s not disparage the judges and accuse them of bias or unprofessional behaviour. This is a cheap tactic. If you have specific complaints about their findings, spell them out precisely. Just saying they are biased is not an argument and doesn’t create a debate worth having. Finally, regarding your claim that this is just a response to US activity, I’d point out that China’s actions are certainly not new or a legitimate response to external forces, as you suggest. China has claimed the region since 1947. Before the US started its aggressive ‘island chain’ strategy. So, many would argue that blaming this all on US aggression - and undermining the Court - is just a convenient excuse for long-standing Chinese expansionism.

[@SwazzerProductions]

@@JamesKerLindsay thank you for your response, and I got the response from you that I was expecting. But I would like to pushback on your ‘Chinese expansionism’ point. How is China expansionist when it has since it’s founding as a republic since 1912 only ever pursued the same historical claims of territory (which include Taiwan and the Spratly Islands). If anything, that makes China irredentist and not expansionary. Also, your point regarding the legitimacy of the International court of justice is especially ironic coming from you, given that the UK till this day illegally occupies the Chagos Islands which was ruled by the very same International Court of Justice to belong to Mauritius. Furthermore, can you at least begrudgingly admit as a geopolitical/history academic that recent Chinese actions in the SCS is in part a response to US provocations in the region and not just because of so called “Chinese expansionism”. It’s the least I would expect of someone who is a geopolitical academic.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@SwazzerProductions And this is what is so profoundly depressing about online discussions. You immediately conflate my nationality with my positions and everything flows from there. As it happens, I have raised the very point about Britain and the Chagos Islands in another video kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZ6uZ4uAhNaYb6c And yet you assume you have scored sone sort of point against me and have exposed my Western hypocrisy. However, let me turn this around. As I am clearly prepared to acknowledge when Britain is in the wrong, then maybe my criticisms of those other countries that undermine international law are justified? (And in future please don’t bring nationality into debates like this. I have spent 30 years working on international conflict. I have 15 books to my name. I have earned my academic status. Have the courtesy to challenge me on my positions, not my nationality!)

[@SwazzerProductions]

@@JamesKerLindsay You have 15 books in your name and you still fail to analyse the SCS issue from the POV of all involved sides, which is the bare-minimum that is expected for a geopolitical expert. The fact that you (as a Western academic) hold the belief of China being the 'sole aggressor' and 'sole problem' in the SCS is troubling to me. Even Chinese academics as biased as they are (and I know a few), acknowledge that 'their side' China has made some mistakes in the SCS. Furthermore, you still have not responded to my rebuttal regarding 'Chinese expansionism', nor have you answered on whether you think China's actions are at least partly a response to US aggression in the region. Additionally, given that you believe China's SCS claims to be expansionist, do you then also apply this reasoning in a fair manner to Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines? I hope I don't have to remind you of their equally absurd SCS claims. Are these countries according to your reasoning therefore also expansionist? Lastly, if you re-read my comments, I never once attacked you personally, all my comments were pointing out your hypocrisy on a non-personal geopolitical level. The fact that you immediately registered my rebuttal as a personal attack reveals a whole lot about yourself. Hence, your personal opinions on the Chagos issue are just that... personal opinions... and have no relation/bearing to geopolitical reality. As of today, the UK is still ignoring the International Court of Justice ruling on Chagos which you claim to be legitimate. Therefore, on a non-personal realpolitik level, do you really think it fair for China to abide by an ICJ ruling when another great power (UK) doesn't?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@SwazzerProductions You clearly brought my nationality into it when you said that my comments were “ironic coming from you”. Why should Britain’s actions be “ironic” in the context of our exchange unless it was on the basis of my nationality, regardless of where I might actually stand on the issue. You wouldn’t cite the Chagos Islands and claim irony to a Russian. Or do the same with an American. That comment can have only one meaning in this context. In any case, I’m not going to spend any more energy on this. So, let’s leave it there. Perhaps try to be a little less confrontational in future. I’m happy to have discussions. But not like this.