For Asian sea and peace

By Choi Yearn-hong

China and Japan are launching their own dangerous war preparations openly regarding sovereignty claims on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. Korea and Japan are escalating tensions over their claims to the Dokdo islets, which are called Takeshima in Japan. Korea and China are struggling to claim Ieodo, an underwater rock in the East China Sea between the two nations.

All these islands and rocks do not deserve or are not worth starting wars between and among neighboring nations in East Asia. They are three economic powers in the world. All Western media are seriously commenting on possible military conflicts and confrontations, or a limited war for the occupation of the Senkaku Islands and concluded that China and Japan must be cooled. Dokdo has not been often covered by the Western media as much as the Senkakus have, and Ieodo is not on the surface yet, but it has been tense since South Korea constructed its ocean research tower on it in 1995.

Professor Robert Wade of London School of Economics has proposed that China and Japan would bring the case to the International Court of Justice and many scholars have proposed a common ground of both nations for sharing underwater mineral and petroleum resources. But China has already declared not to go to a third party for the settlement, insisting on only bilateral negotiations as a means of dispute settlement. Japan does not want to go to the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, either, because of its own control of the Senkakus. But Japan wants to go to the court for its claim on Dokdo.

Various proposals for resources sharing in the East China Sea and the South China Sea had been made, but have never been seriously looked upon by the respective nations. Rising nationalist sentiments have been seen in the violent street demonstrations appealing to a war. Military leaders also want to go to war. Nationalism is the most powerful political tools from people on the street up through the echelons of political leadership. Among people in the Asian region as a whole, the rule of law or power of the courts has not been well respected by the Asian people. Moreover, the new leaders in China, Japan and Korea are fueling the nationalistic sentiments, rather than cooling them off.

At this juncture, political leaders are awakened and enlightened about humankind welfare and international peace and prosperity over national sentiment or national interest. Three leaders are new to their respective positions: Xi Jinping, Shinjo Abe and Park Geun-hye can and may declare the sea and peace agreement firmly, rejecting violence as a means of settling disputes that will help cool the rising nationalistic sentiments at a grassroots level. They are the leaders. Leadership must create a following among the people. If not, leadership is not meaningful.

In the first summit meeting of the three new leaders, they should adopt a declaration of the peaceful settlement in the East Asian region. Their firm commitment to bring peace to the turbulent waters may deserve the Nobel peace prize collectively in the fall of 2013. Such a peace prize will help guarantee peace on the sea and no interruption of communication and transportation lines at sea. Freedom of navigation should be guaranteed by all nations. This should be the axiomatic truth regarding the laws of the sea.

I also propose the following declaration to them: All uninhabited islands or rocks must belong to the nearest coastal nation. This proximity principle has been the most often cited by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. All Southeast Asian nations sharing the South China Sea like to go along with this proximity rule. This golden rule, based on good common sense is for all nations except the old colonial powers in the past centuries. Remnants of old imperialism or colonialism should be erased from modern civilization.

They should also declare conservation and protection of sea and its resources, fishing, mineral and petroleum. Sea and underwater will be the larger and deeper territory to be explored in the future by more advanced science and technology. Restraining human exploitation is badly needed for all nations. Exclusive economic zones and extended continental shelves for each costal and island nation must be limited to 200 sea miles for the expansion of humankind’s interest.

Every coastal nation attempts to expand its sea territory by extending the length of continental shelf and exclusive economic zone to the maximum possible. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has wrongly encouraged and justified the nation’s attempts to extend the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone further into the international sea, or common ocean territory. It was wrong and strange that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allowed unlimited exploration of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles up to 350 nautical miles, and 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone.

Each country has “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring… and exploiting its natural resources” within its established continental shelf (UNCLOS, Article 77 (1). Exploring and exploiting natural resources includes the “exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the continental shelf for all purposes.” (UNCLOS Article 81). Rampant exploration of deep sea for oil and gas and other precious metals has been made possible by advanced technology and endless human greed. Protection of ocean environment and conservation of resources have not been balanced or corresponded to the exploitation and exploration attempts of the deep sea resources. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has been rather condoning un-limiting the Continental Shelf, too. It is rather ridiculous because un-limiting results will be damaging the sea, common heritage of the humankind.

Beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone, a state may claim a continental shelf that is a “natural prolongation” of its territory for up to 350 nautical miles. Who knows 3,500 nautical miles will be argued in the not so distant future?

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Continental Shelf is defined as “the sea-bed and subsoil of submarine areas that extend beyond a state’s territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin.” A state’s continental shelf also includes the 12 miles of territorial waters extending from its shoreline and includes the 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.”

A new wave of political leadership and national and international movements for sea and peace is badly needed for preserving the Earth.

The writer is a retired college professor after a long teaching career in the United States and Korea. He is former assistant for environmental quality in the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense.