China's Territorial Disputes (45 page)

It bears repeating, with regard to territorial claims, that the nature of the claim itself matters very much. Because under certain circumstances, UNCLOS

III permits a claim of a 200-mile EEZ around an island, thus a territorial claim to that island will obviously include much more than the territory of that island alone. Therefore, island claims by countries now and in the future will tend to be maximal, unlike land claims in the past in which disagreements have revolved around disputed boundary treaties, and have in a way, been restricted by them in scope. In addition, both the Diaoyu and Nansha island groups could prove to be very troublesome in future to the Chinese and other countries disputing them; the former because of historical memory, the latter because there are simply so many parties to the different overlapping claims.

Chinese leaders tend to internalize a sense of historical resentment, and expect outsiders to recognize and sympathize with their unfortunate encounter with past imperialist aggression. This resentment often translates into a claim of entitlement upon others to treat China right and affirm its self-image of a gentle giant having moral virtues in the conduct of foreign policy based not on expediency or selfinterest but rather justice and reciprocity. Relations can be cordial or even friendly if other states properly conduct themselves toward China with respect and circumspection, but if the claims are not recognized, or recognized only partially, then additional layers of Chinese resentment may build up. This hypersensitivity to perceived slights, implied criticisms of China’s internal politics, and alleged contempt for China’s territorial integrity, is manifested by the Chinese with respect to status and symbols, such as upholding China’s claims to contested territories, no less than to substantive issues like trade disputes and military threats.

China’s normal response to perceived diplomatic slights or setbacks, to quote Shi Chi-yu, is

to dramatize China’s sincerity toward a good relationship by mentioning violations but forgiving them temporarily, until the day arrives when it is politically and psychologically necessary for the relationship to blow apart so that the Chinese may avoid losing face for being inconsistent.
¹²

The inconsistency mentioned, of course, refers to the bifurcation between the realist basis of Chinese foreign policy as manifested in expediency and national interest, and the moral expressions of a great power seeking justice and equality in a peaceful world order. The Chinese are fully capable of hiding their frustrations, but a time may arrive when they finally decide that they have had enough of a neighbor who is uncooperative, unrepentant, or non-submissive. When the day comes that relations have to be breached, this could be triggered off by little more than a territorial dispute over some very tiny uninhabited island, or some of the remotest mountain peaks in the world. With the rise of China, old and new territorial disputes with its neighbors may lead to the development of a containment strategy against China, or at least an arms race in the region of East Asia. Hence for the sake of peace and prosperity in the Eastern Asia-Western Pacific region, there is a pressing need for sovereignty negotiations toward achieving comprehensive boundary settlements on outstanding territorial questions between China and the other countries, and among those other countries themselves.

8 Conclusion

1    Ronald L. Jepperson, Alexander Wendt and Peter J. Katzenstein, “Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security,” in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.)
The Culture of National Security
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), chapter 2, 52-65.

2    
Ibid.
, chapter 13, “Conclusion: National Security in a Changing World,” by Peter J. Katzenstein, 521, n59.

3    James Lilley, “China on the Move,” interview by Ed Warner, Voice of America, Washington DC,19 May 1995.

4    Wolfgang Pape (ed.)
East Asia by the Year 2000 and Beyond: Shaping Factors (A Study for the European Commission)
(New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998), 223.

5    Ronald C. Keith, “The Post-Cold War Political Symmetry of Russo-Chinese Bilateralism,”
International Journal,
autumn 1994, vol. XLIX, 772.

6    
Ibid.

7    The poll was conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Communist Youth League, and reported by the State Council Policy Research Office.
Zhengming
(Hong Kong),1 November 1998.

8    Allen S. Whiting, “ASEAN Eyes China: The Security Dimension,”
Asian Survey,
April 1997, vol. XXXVLL, no. 4, 322.

9    Jose T. Almonte, “Ensuring Security the ‘ASEAN Way’,”
Survival,
winter 1997/1998,

85.    "

10    Rosemary Foot, “Chinese-Indian Relations and the Process of Building Confidence: Implications for the Asia-Pacific,”
The Pacific Review,
1996, vol.9, no.1,59.

11    Ramses Amer, “The Territorial Disputes between China and Vietnam and Regional Stability,”
Contemporary Southeast Asia,
June 1997, vol.19, no.1,88-91,93, 96-98, 100, 105-106.

12    Shih, Chih-yu,
The Spirit of Chinese Foreign Policy
(London: Macmillan Press, 1990), 163.

Bibliography

Books

English language

Admidin, Andrei. “Utilization of Foreign Labour Force in the Russian Far East: Problems and Prospects.” Mimeo, Economic Research Institute, Khabarovsk, 1993, Table 2.

Alcock, John, Guy Arnold, Alan Day, D. S. Lewis, Lorimer Poutney, Roland Lance and D. J. Sagar.
Border and Territorial Disputes,
revised 3rd edn, London: Longman, 1992.

Aslund, Anders.
Gorbachev’s Struggle for Economic Reform,
Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Barnouin, Barbara and Yu Changgen.
Chinese Foreign Policy During the Cultural Revolution,
London: Kegan Paul, 1998.

China’s Custom Statistics.
Beijing, People’s Republic of China. 1983-1989.

Cohen, Arthur A. “The Sino-Soviet Border Crisis of 1969.” In
Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management,
ed. Alexander L. George, 269-296. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1991.

Day, Alan J. (ed.)
China and the Soviet Union 1949-84. Facts On File,
by Peter Jones and Sian Kevill. New York: Facts On File Publications, 1985.

Direction of Trade Quarterly.
Japan Import and Export Data: December 1973, June 1979, September 1991 and September 1997.

Dittmer, Lowell.
Sino-Soviet Normalization and Its International Implicatrns
，
1945-1990,
Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992.

Document of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.
China’s Indisputable Sovereignty over the Xisha and Nansha Islands,
Beijing: Foreign Languages Press,

30 January 1980.

Doolin, Dennis J.
Territorial Claims in the Sino-Soviet Dispute: Documents and Analysis
, Stanford CA: Stanford University, Hoover Institution Studies 7,1965.

Dorian, James P., David Fridley and Kristin Tressler. “Energy and Mineral Resources.” In
The Russian Far East in Transition - Opportunities for Regional Economic Cooperation
, ed. Mark J. Valencia, 87-110. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1995.

Dutt, V P.
India’s Foreign Policy,
New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1984.

Dyker, David A.
Restructuring the Soviet Economy,
London: Routledge, 1992.

Evans, Peter B. “Building an Integrative Approach to International and Domestic Politics: Reflections and Projects.” In
Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic

Politics,
eds Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson and Robert D. Putnam, 397430. Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1993.

Facts On File Yearbook,
1972-1973.

Fisher, Roger.
International Conflict for Beginners,
New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury.
Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In,
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981.

Foot, Rosemary. “From Deterrence to Reassurance?: Cooperative Security in Asia and the Chinese Response.” Unpublished manuscript based on talk given at the Center for International Studies, University of Southern California, April16,1996.

Garver, John W.
Protracted Contest: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Twentieth Century
, Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2001.

Gelman, Harry.
The Soviet Far East Buildup and Soviet Risk-taking Against China
, Santa Monica CA: Rand, 1982.

Ginsburgs, George.
The Damansky/Chenpao Island Incidents: A Case Study of Syntactic Patterns in Crisis Diplomacy
, Asian Studies: occasional paper series no. 6, 1973. Edwardsville IL: University Publications and Graphics.

Goldstein, Steven M. “Nationalism and Internationalism: Sino-Soviet Relations.” In
Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice
, ed. David Shambaugh, 224-265. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Grause,
g.
History of Economic Relations between Russia and China,
translated by M. Roublev. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translation, 1966.

Greenfield, Jeanette.
China’s Practice in the Law of the Sea,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

Griffith, William E.
The Sino-Soviet Rift,
Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1964.

Hamrin, Carol. “Domestic Component and China’s Evolving Three World Theory.” In
China and the Third World - Champion or Challenger
, eds Lillian Harris and Robert Worden, 50-51. Dover MA: Auburn House, 1986.

Harrison, Selig S.
China
，
Oil and Asia: Conflict Ahead
, New York: Columbia University Press, 1977.

Hayao, Kenji.
The Japanese Prime Minister and Public Policy,
Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993.

Hinton, Harold C.
The Bear At The Gate: Chinese Policymaking Under Soviet Pressure
, Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1971.

-
The Sino-Soviet Confrontation: Implications for the future,
New York: Crane, Russak &

Company, 1976.

Hoffman, Steven A.
India and the China Crisis
, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990.

Huth, Paul K.
Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict
, Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

Japan Forum on International Relations.
The Policy Recommendations on the Future of China in the Context of Asian Security,
Tokyo: January 1995.

Jetly, Nancy.
India-China Relatrns
，
1947-1977: A Study of Parliament's Role in the Making of Foreign Policy
, Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press, 1979.

Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.)
The Culture of National Security
, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

Khalifah, Noor Aini and Mohammad Haflah Piei, “ASEAN-China Economic Relations: Complementing or Competing.” In
China and the Asia-Pacific Economy
, eds Joseph C.H. Chai, Y.Y. Kueh and Clement A. Tisdell, 225-243. Commack NY: Nova Science Publishers, 1997.

Kirkow, Peter.
Russia’s Provinces: Authoritarian Transformation versus Local Autonomy?
New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998.

Kohno, Masaru.
Japan’s Postwar Party System
, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press,

1997.

Lamb, Alastair.
The China-India Border: The Origins of the Disputed Boundaries
, London: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Lee, Lai To.
China and the South China Sea Dialogues,
Westport CN: Praeger Publishers, 1999. Lewis, John Wilson and Xue Litai.
China’s Strategic Seapower: The Politics of Force Modernization in the Nuclear Age,
Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.

Liu, Xuecheng.
The Sino-Indian Border Dispute and Sino-Indian Relations
, Lanham MD: University Press of America, 1994.

Lo, Chi-kin.
China’s Policy Toward Territorial Disputes: The Case of the South China Sea Islands,
London: Routledge, 1989.

Ma, Ying-jeou.
Legal Problems of Seabed Boundary Delimitation in the East China Sea
, Baltimore MD: Occasional Papers/Reprint Series in Contemporary Asian Studies, 1984. McFarquhar, Roderick.
The Origins of the Cultural Revolution: The Coming of the Cataclysm 1961-1966,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.