Beijing names islands in disputed South China Sea | Inquirer News

Beijing names islands in disputed South China Sea

/ 03:45 PM April 22, 2020
Beijing names islands in disputed South China Sea

This photo taken on May 5, 2016 shows crew members of China’s South Sea Fleet taking part in a drill in the Xisha Islands, or the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. – Beijing claims sovereignty over almost the whole of the South China Sea, on the basis of a segmented line that first appeared on Chinese maps in the 1940s, pitting it against several neighbors. (Photo by STR / AFP FILE)

BEIJING — China on Tuesday defended its naming of 80 islands and other geographical features in the South China Sea in a move likely to anger neighbors as the country asserts its territorial claims.

A joint announcement of the names on Sunday from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Civil Affairs came a day after China established new administrative districts for the contested Spratly and Paracel island chains.

ADVERTISEMENT

The notice listed the Chinese names and coordinates of 80 islands, reefs, seamounts, shoals and ridges, 55 of them submerged in water.

China last released such a list in 1983 when it named 287 geographical features across the disputed waterway.

FEATURED STORIES

Beijing has repeatedly asserted its sovereignty in the sea despite rival claims by Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and other nations.

“No state can claim sovereignty over underwater features unless they are within 12 nautical miles of land. So is China ignorant of this or deliberately trying to overturn international law?” said Bill Hayton, an associate fellow at British think tank Chatham House.

“China has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which is very clear on what states can and cannot claim as territory. Yet China seems to be going against UNCLOS by asserting sovereignty in very far away places.”

Beijing names islands in disputed South China Sea

An aerial view of Qilianyu islands in the Paracel chain, which China considers part of Hainan province on August 10, 2018. (AFP FILE/ China OUT)

In recent years, Beijing has stepped up its territorial claims in the South China Sea by building artificial islands and a heavy military presence, making it a flashpoint for geopolitical tensions.

China angered Vietnam after announcing at the weekend that the Paracel and Spratly islands, the Macclesfield Bank and their surrounding waters would be administered under two new districts of Sansha city, which China created on nearby Woody Island in 2012.

Vietnam claimed the move “seriously violated” its territorial sovereignty in the area.

In response, China’s foreign ministry said Tuesday the Spratly and Paracel islands are its “innate territories” and that Vietnam’s claims are “illegal”.

ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier this month Vietnam lodged an official complaint with China and the UN saying Beijing illegally sank a fishing trawler near the Paracel Islands, killing eight people on board.

As a result, the United States warned China not to take advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to assert itself in the South China Sea.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Read Next
Don't miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

TAGS: Beijing, China, Diplomacy, Malaysia, maritime row, Military, News, Philippines, sea dispute, Taiwan, Vietnam, world, world news
For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.



© Copyright 1997-2023 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.