China Coast Guard’s arbitrary rules in disputed waters bound to fail

China’s appetite for imposing unscrupulous regulations with regard to the South China Sea (SCS) is one for “Ripley’s Believe It or Not.” For instance, its publicized rule authorizing its coast guard to arrest and detain up to 60 days without the benefit of a trial anyone caught “trespassing” at the SCS, whether a person, vessel, or aircraft, was generally received with deep skepticism.

The rule, set to take effect on June 15, only demonstrates the proclivity of a nondemocratic state to lay down rules as it pleases. It can be recalled that China came out with this new regulation a day after Atin Ito, a civilian-led coalition, had a successful resupply mission delivering food and fuel to fisher folks at the Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, during which it laid symbolic buoy markers at the West Philippine Sea (WPS) near the Philippines’ 200-nautical mile limit. This action was similar to what it did when it unilaterally declared a potential air defense identification zone (ADIZ) covering the entirety of the SCS after the Permanent Court of Arbitration upheld on July 12, 2016, the Philippine position on the SCS and invalidated China’s sweeping nine-dash claim (which later became 10 dashes).

China’s arbitrary regulations cover a broad swath of the SCS, overlapping the airspace of coastal states and encroaching on their territorial seas and exclusive economic zone (EEZ). As pointed out in The Diplomat shortly after China came out with the announcement, “ADIZ can only be legally applied in relation to preventing the unauthorized entry of aircraft into the national airspace.” The journal added, “ADIZs cannot be used to control foreign aircraft not intending to enter the national airspace. States only enjoy exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory, a right which ends at the 12-nautical mile border of the territorial sea. Beyond this territorial belt, all states enjoy the high seas freedoms, including freedom of overflight, a customary principle memorialized in [the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea].”

As if adding insult to injury, China did not stop its provocative actions with the ADIZ and coast guard rules. It imposed a fishing ban on the entire SCS that, like its outrageous airspace and maritime responses, overlaps the Philippines’ 12-nautical mile territorial sea where it exercises sovereignty, and the 200-nautical mile EEZ where the country enjoys sovereign rights to, among others, exclusively exploit marine resources.

While bearing China’s name, the SCS is not owned, much less, controlled by it. If names automatically confer vested right, India, too, might get emboldened to claim ownership of the Indian Ocean and declare prohibitive and self-serving rules over its entirety. Other states might follow suit thereby sparking dispute and driving global peace at the edge of the precipice. President Marcos was on point when he said at the recent Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore that the SCS issue is a “world issue,” in much the same way that Ukraine’s and Israel’s wars are.

In this age of intercontinental, ballistic, and long-range weaponry, these issues are no longer a mere spat between neighbors. China risks painting an image of a crabby neighborhood toughie, a recidivist, or a laughingstock if it keeps coming out with rules it cannot muster international support for, and legally enforce. Establishing rules and regulations, especially if these will adversely affect other sovereign nations, have to have prior consultation, and often starts with consensus building to avoid a diplomatic backlash. But China, when it comes to the WPS and SCS, keeps coming up with bizarre rules that extend way beyond its legal border and seem meant to project its supremacy agenda which, in today’s global context, are far from being open and transparent.

If anything positive has come out of these obscene actions, it is that they only serve to galvanize the Filipinos’ stand against China’s incessant harassment and intimidation. And at the rate that nations condemn and ignore, though implicitly for some, China’s deplorable actions in the SCS, those regulations and any more that will follow, would just be “all sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Ted P. Penaflor II,
[email protected]