YOURSAY | It's called diplomacy with China, Muhyiddin

 

YOURSAY | ‘It does not mean we have conceded our sovereignty.’

Muhyiddin chides Anwar’s ‘careless’ remarks on South China Sea dispute

Unspin: You go to China on a trade mission to invite Chinese investments into Malaysia. Since there is no free lunch, China took the opportunity to voice its disapproval of Petronas’ operations in the South China Sea.

What did you expect Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to do? Argue with President Xi Jinping? Anwar’s answer was as diplomatic as possible, but it does not mean that we have conceded our sovereignty.

For a small country that has inferior military assets, we should not be so arrogant as former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin suggested.

The sooner the Perikatan Nasional (PN) politicians realise that the ketuanan (supremacist) concept is irrelevant outside our country, the better for all of us, because we need to revive our economy, pronto.

Spinnot: There are overlapping claims over the islands and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the South China Sea. I believe Anwar was talking about Petronas projects in Malaysia’s EEZ (200 nautical miles) and not territorial waters (12NM).

The disputes should be resolved peacefully through negotiations. This is how two nuclear powers China and Russia settled their border disputes in 2003 - after many years of negotiations.

The overlapping claims over the EEZ involve China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. China published an 11-dash line in 1947 (nine-dash since 1952) which overlaps with the EEZ.

Malaysia also has disputes with the Philippines over the EEZ north of Sabah which arise from the Philippines’ claim over part of Sabah, and over the extended continental shelf claim off Sabah’s northern coast.

Asean under Indonesia’s chairpersonship this year is planning to step up negotiations on a code of conduct on the South China Sea to manage the disputes.

Cheong Sai Fah: This is a tricky issue. In the past, the nation with the most powerful navy like Great Britain and the Dutch claimed countries that its navy can reach and subject those countries as their colonies. No questions were asked.

The US claims the whole of Latin America as its backyard. Hence the Monroe Doctrine applies. The US has invaded many countries citing that doctrine. Not much has been made of it.

Does that make China right in claiming most of the South China Sea? No! But at least it is prepared to negotiate a code of conduct.

Eventually, the country with the technology to exploit will claim its resources. Perhaps, Malaysia should negotiate with China in areas further out from our shores.

Cynical: Under international law, a country’s territorial waters which form part of your territory are 12 miles from your coastline.

The next 12 miles is called the contiguous zone which, although is not your territory, international law allows enforcement of your country’s laws.

Then you have the 200 miles EEZ from your coastline which is not your territory but, under UNCLOS, you have the exclusive right to its resources like fish, minerals, and oils. The EEZ could be extended to the continental shelf of your country.

If there are a series of islands like the Philippines or Indonesia, the 200 miles will be measured in a straight line drawn between the two ends of the islands.

However, these are still international waterways that all ships and planes can sail or fly over without restrictions.

Trouble arises when more than one country’s EEZ overlaps. The norm is the middle or median line would be the demarcation of the EEZ.

So when China claims the Spratly and Paracel Islands as its territory as does Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, and occupies one or more islands, it is a fight over the demarcation of EEZ calculated from the shores of the islands they occupy.

That is why negotiations and talks are necessary to avoid war.

Fisher: Muhyiddin’s opinion would seem a lightweight remark considering and comparing his carelessness while in office. The abuse and misuse of the sea lanes in question have been consequential for millions of deaths in World War Two.

Not to ignore the dropping of atomic destruction on Japan by the then-dominant Western powers. Surrendering it to any power is foolhardy. The US seems to make its own claims to residual dominance. The Chinese seem bent on testing the US resolve.

It’s perhaps best for the nations concerned about these threats to security and peace to seek some acceptable form of internationalisation.

Perhaps our PM’s comprehensive reference was inadequately covered. Let’s hope this prompts meaningful dialogue. - Mkini