I am proposing to research discourses on territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea because I want to find out why territory so far from the Chinese mainland (and so close to others’ borders) has stirred such heated conflict in order to help my reader understand how we might prevent the disputes from escalating into conflict. To this end, I have identified three sources which at least begin to reveal different discourses: the results of the international arbitration from the UN regarding the dispute between China and the Philippines,[1] an interview with a Chinese cartographer,[2] and the map of China in the official Chinese passport.[3]
The Court of Arbitration’s ruling is a useful source for uncovering different discourses because both the Philippines and China were forced to lay out their respective justifications for territorial control. China’s position was mostly based on historical claims emerging from a map drawn in 1947, while the Philippines argued on a more technical basis, referencing its Special Economic Zones endowed to it through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.[4] This difference in how the countries justified their claims might point to a difference in their official discourses, though I would need to investigate further before making any substantial claims.
The court’s ruling is also clearly linked to other texts through China’s invocation of the 1947 map in their justification. That map was created by the Nationalist Party during its war with the Communists but was largely neglected afterwards, with its creator even being killed for having supported the Nationalists, and it only resurfaced in 2009.[5] I know from prior studies that Maoist China erased many historical documents preceding the revolution, so it makes sense that the map was neglected for so long, but why the map recently resurfaced is still a puzzle I don’t fully understand. The relationship between the map, the discourses surrounding China’s civil war, and China’s current territorial claims would be well worth continuing to explore.
Another interesting element of the ruling was China’s contestation of the Court’s jurisdiction, in which it argued that any ruling would be invalid because China and the Philippines had agreed to settle matters of territory on a bilateral basis.[6] China’s preference for bilateral engagement, as opposed to the Philippines’ initiation of the arbitration, also reveals a difference in the way each side views the relationship between sovereignty and international institutions, a concept grounded in each state’s construction of sovereignty itself. My prior studies of China (in the interest of reflexivity) make me think that China’s preference for bilateral engagement might come from the increased privacy it affords. I would be interested to explore this direction further by investigating other primary sources.
Next, the interview with the Chinese cartographer points to an underlying discourse in two ways: through her reaction to the aforementioned arbitration decision and through her justification of the “Nine-Dash Line” that constitute China’s maritime claims. When asked about the arbitration decision, the cartographer said, “They didn’t respect history. I totally agree with the response of our government.”[7] The arbitration arguments also alluded to historical control, but I find her use of the word “respect” interesting within this context since such a word would not typically be associated with legal minutiae, especially as granular as this case’s arguments became.[8] This makes me think the text could relate to the social practice of respect and other discourses surrounding relationships to authority. The cartographer also frequently mentioned China’s benevolent intentions, even lauding China as “humanitarian” for allowing passage through waters it considered sovereign,[9] although such actions are already mandated by international law.[10] That part of the interview seems to construct China’s identity as a benevolent power besieged by those who misunderstand it, quite different from the Philippines’ construction of China in the arbitration arguments as aggressive and hegemony-seeking.
Lastly, the map on the Chinese passport invokes the discourse of territorial sovereignty because it includes on it the Nine-Dash Line demarcating its maritime claims. That the lines made it onto a document as official as a passport clearly shows these claims to be part of Chinese official discourse. What makes this text especially interesting is that it includes other areas of contested territory as well, including several regions both China and India claim as well as Taiwan.[11] This shows how this text relates the discourse on the South China Sea to other official discourses on territorial sovereignty. Another interesting element is that the dashes on the passport encompass a larger area than the original 1947 map did[12]; in other words, the government stretched even the historical interpretation’s boundaries. My intuition says this may reveal a difference between the official discourse and the academic discourse on the Chinese side, another potential area for exploration.
Notes
[1] United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration (hereafter UNPCA) Case in the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Awarded 12 July 2016 (Case Nº 2013-19), <https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf> (Accessed: 11 Nov. 2018).
[2] Hannah Beech. “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?” Time Magazine, 19 July 2016, <http://time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-south-china-sea/> (Accessed: 11 Nov. 2018).
[3] Max Fisher. “Here’s the Chinese passport map that’s infuriating much of Asia,” The Washington Post, 26 Nov. 2012, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/26/heres-the-chinese-passport-map-thats-infuriating-much-of-asia/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.050b03ab0a68> (Accessed: 11 Nov. 2018).
[4] UNPCA Case in the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.
[5] Beech, “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?”
[6] UNPCA Case in the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.
[7] Beech, “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?”
[8] One section of the arbitration regarded what constitutes an “island,” including how long it is inundated during the course of a day. The concept of respect seems rather distant from such an argument.
[9] Beech, “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?”
[10] Ibid.
[11] Fisher, “Here’s the Chinese passport map that’s infuriating much of Asia.”
[12] Ibid.
Bibliography
Beech, Hannah. “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?” Time Magazine, 19 July 2016, <http://time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-south-china-sea/> (Accessed: 11 Nov. 2018).
Fisher, Max. “Here’s the Chinese passport map that’s infuriating much of Asia,” The Washington Post, 26 Nov. 2012, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/26/heres-the-chinese-passport-map-thats-infuriating-much-of-asia/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.050b03ab0a68> (Accessed: 11 Nov. 2018).
United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration Case in the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China. Awarded 12 July 2016 (Case Nº 2013-19), <https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf> (Accessed: 11 Nov. 2018).
This is a well thought out post David! I thought your point about the Chinese’ cartographer use of the word “respect” was interesting given the that she was using it regarding a legal issue. Additionally, because you have identified different routes of analysis already, I would challenge you and ask, how do you see power being conveyed through the discourses? Has the discourse on the South China Sea become normalized through social policy (such as through the depiction of the map)? Who is left out of the conversation? I hope these questions will lead you further down the path of abductive reasoning. I look forward to seeing where your research will take you!
Overall an excellent job here David! The texts that you have found are quite promising, and I like the way that you are starting to link together the ways in which these different types of texts could be read for meaning. Hannah has offered up some excellent questions for you to consider, so be sure to start there as you continue your research.
Going forward, I would encourage you to focus even more on the meaning that are being created here. Who or what is being represented in a certain way? In this sense, the middle part of your problem statement — “…because I want to find out why territory so far from the Chinese mainland (and so close to others’ borders) has stirred such heated conflict…” — is a bit vague (and note that the texts you identify at the end of the first paragraph are texts (documents), not discourses). That is the part that should focus more directly on the particular meanings/symbols/identities (the discourses) that you have found and propose to analyze. For instance, Carabine might have written something like “I am researching social policy and lone mothers in 1830s Britain because I want to find out why lone mothers were constructed as immoral individuals in order to help my reader understand why lone mothers were stigmatized, isolated, and even institutionalized in the 1800s (and beyond).” Notice how the middle part focuses precisely on the discourses/meanings to be understood? Keep reading and researching with these things in mind and you should be in good shape!
Ah, the middle part makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for the feedback – I’ll put some thought into that middle part and the specific discourses that are at play here.