Question mark over China’s renewed claim

What could be their end goal?

That is one question that begs an answer when attempting to explain the controversy surrounding China’s 10-dash line claim in the South China Sea.

It was around this time last year that the country published a new map laying territorial claims over disputed regions in the sea, overlapping with the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of its neighbours.

Unsurprisingly, this claim was rejected then. Earlier in 2016, an arbitral tribunal concluded that China’s claim of historic rights over the high seas holds no lawful weight due to exceeding the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

UNCLOS defines a nation’s EEZ as the area where it holds exclusive rights regarding the exploration and utilization of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind, extending up to 200 nautical miles off the coast.

This week, news surfaced about a purported protest note sent by China to the Malaysian embassy in the country, demanding Malaysia immediately cease all activities in an oil-rich area off Sarawak waters.

The document, published by a Philippine media outlet, accused Malaysia of encroaching on areas covered by the 10-dash line – China’s contentious map.

It also conveyed China’s discontent over Malaysia’s oil and gas exploration near the Luconia Shoals, approximately 100km from Sarawak and 2,000km from mainland China.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim responded cautiously, stating that the issue would be amicably discussed between both countries, affirming Malaysia’s intent to continue its oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea.

“On Wednesday, Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced its intention to file a police report and conduct an internal investigation into the leak of the classified diplomatic note.

The claim has economic implications on the operation of oil and gas fields within Malaysia’s exclusive economic zone in the sea, as well as concerns regarding the nation’s sovereignty and security, particularly in proximity to Sarawak.

International relations fall under the jurisdiction of Wisma Putra, best equipped to manage the matter, yet the dispute remains a burden on the bilateral ties of the two countries.

The people of Sarawak understandably seek a resolution to the issue. Malaysia’s response must be resolute.

For years, there has been a tendency to dismiss the claims and emphasize China’s status as a close ally of Malaysia. Perhaps a more assertive stance is warranted.

While China is respected as a friendly nation, with diplomatic ties established over 50 years ago by former Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia should not be seen as a pushover.

Malaysia’s public opposition and criticism towards the United States on the issue in Palestine should not be mistaken as blanket support for China. The two can coexist independently.

To suggest that the nation’s sovereignty is at risk is an understatement.

As for the earlier question about China’s endgame, they may be playing the ‘long game,’ as some geopolitical observers suggest.

They might be genuinely attempting to reduce their neighbours’ control over contested areas in their respective EEZs, as matching China’s maritime resources with neighbouring countries could be financially prohibitive.

It may also be that China anticipates minimal resistance due to restrained responses by neighbouring countries, who view economic ties with China as critical – essentially attempting to coerce these countries into submission.

This dynamic has been evident in the Philippines, where incidents in the contested Sabina Shoal have heightened tensions between Manila and Beijing.

Alternatively, China could be diverting attention away from its current economic challenges.

While escalations and conflicts are undesirable, Malaysians must stand firm in declaring their position.

While traditional dialogues and diplomatic channels should be pursued, China’s neighbours, including Malaysia, must collaborate to address and counter any threats of economic coercion over disputed waters.

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Sarawak Tribune.