| Here,in the first quarter of the twenty first century,the South China Sea has been given some special attention by governments and media outlets around the world.The general tones of many reports on the matter coming from the West have been of suspicious,accusatory and perhaps even fearful natures regarding China's recent activities in the area.A common judgment is that the activity has been conspicuously flagrant.Some go so far as to suggest these actions may represent a catalyst for a potentially impending war between established and rising powers.However,we must consider that tones and judgments of this kind are relative to perspective.There are indeed perspectives which grant rationality to these judgments.Yet,true usefulness of opinion in this case can only be derived from an objective understanding of all relative perspectives,especially the perspective of the main actor in question,China.The issue at the heart of the matter is territorial sovereignty.When this issue becomes controversial,as it is prone to,there are at least two and often three basic,primitive factors in play.The first is national interest,which every state is motivated to act in accordance with so far as its leadership can perceive it.The South China Sea being what it is;home to some of the most important and lucrative maritime trade routes in the world;a key facet of national defense strtegy for every state it boarders;a container of a vast abundance of valuable natural recourses,which state already benefiting from or with the potential to benefit from these things would not place control over the South China Sea within the scope of its national interest?The second factor is the manifestation of the first.For what good is national interest if it cannot be imposed?In the case which an actor estimates itself to have the ability to impose control over a desired territory,it would further require either a lack of foreign challenge or a might comparable to such challenge,or at least the backing of another actor with the sufficient might.It logically follows that if a challenge exists,the mightier,more determined and more capable actors will,more often than not,prevail in any such conflicts of interest one way or another.Such has been demonstrated throughout the course of human history.Now,these first two factors may very well be oversimplifications of complicated political issues in the South China Sea which could be discussed and written about ad nauseam in the fields of law and international relations.Yet it is a necessary simplification since the nuance of this paper will be focused on that previously mentioned third factor:a symbolic or justification for the territorial claim.This justification serves to rationalize the positions and actions of a polity as more than mere manifestations of pragmatic national interests,but rather as being truly rightful on a moral level.In the case of the South China Sea,these justifications take the forms of comparable physical proximity,historical inheritance,and appeals to authority and majority.China,for example,utilizes the justification of historical inheritance to rationalize the righteousness of its claim over the South China Sea and its corresponding actions there within.To explore this rationality in a useful manner,several simple questions should first be answered.What exactly is the South China Sea and how has the history of human affairs within it played out?The origin of China resting far north of the sea to its south,how and when did this sea join the Sinosphere?What exactly is it about the South China Sea which places its control within the crosshairs of national interest?Upon answering these questions and developing a thorough understanding of the South China Sea,the discussion might then turn towards the nature and righteousness of the sovereign claims placed upon it.Why exactly is China's claim perceived as particularly controversial?Are the common place critical sentiments directed towards China's claim legitimate,or is it possible to temper these sentiments with some empathy for China's perspective on the matter?... |
PDF Full Text Request