Fluid Borders
For my first post here at the League, I’d like to start with something a little obscure, but sufficiently interesting to touch off a little discussion.
While obscured by domestic events, the year 2010 also provided an interesting example of newly emerging issues on the global stage. Conflicts in East Asia and the South China Sea regarding Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) became more than scholarly interest when China and Japan had a very vocal spat over fishing rights that led to a ban on rare earth mineral exports to the latter. While this was later papered over, it was a new escalation in EEZ disputes.
Before we begin, I will answer the question that’s on everyone’s mind: what is an Exclusive Economic Zone? An EEZ is a region of ocean 200 nautical miles away from a state’s coast where a state has exclusive rights to mineral and marine fauna extraction. In plain english, an EEZ is a piece of ocean where a country is allowed the exclusive rights to drill for oil and gas, and catch fish. The concept came about as migratory fishing disputes became more intense in the 1970s and eventually was codified into international law in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. EEZ rights also extend to mineral extraction along the continental shelf, which can extend up to 350 nautical miles off a coast.
Originally confined to conflicts over migratory stocks of fish like halibut and cod, it’s now a major issue as off-shore energy becomes a new source of quenching the insatiable appetite we humans have for power. This is particularly true in Asia. Go take a look at the map. See how there’s a criss-cross of tiny islands and the space separating coastal lines are often much less than 200 nautical miles? This, my dear reader is what we call “seeds of conflict”.
Typically border disputes between two states are considered a matter of bilateral relations. Usually they have conflicting claims over a piece of territory and eventually find some diplomatic solution. (Or if you’re Greece and Turkey, you just keep fighting over Cyprus). A problem with EEZs, however is that many overlapping claims tend to include several actors, and those that don’t usually contain a great deal of power imbalance. Look at the South China Sea. Malaysia, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, the list of claimants that have some sort of territorial dispute involving EEZs is immense.
Moreover, we’re moving into an era where most of the demand for energy consumption is shifting away from the west and into Asia. The states that have EEZ claims in the South China Sea are almost all states moving up the economic ladder. Their thirst for energy resources and mineral reserves will go up in time and as prices rise the relative attractiveness of extracting energy from the sea in the form of natural gas, methane hydrates and oil reserves will increase.
Further, as these countries grow wealthier, consumption habits are changing. Everyone seems to be developing a taste for sushi these days, and this has led to an explosion in demand for tuna and other migratory fish species. Competition for fisheries will only grow as China and other growing economies begin to construct large deep ocean trawler fleets. Already there is conflict in East Asia over fisheries rights, and it is likely to grow even worse.
The United States isn’t immune to the problems involving regional EEZs. In the Pacific the US has a number of EEZ claims ranging from the Bering Strait to the Mariana Islands. USGS surveys indicate that these same claims could yield substantial amounts of rare metal and hydrocarbon energy reserves, a valuable resource that can pay economic dividends in the future.
The Asian example of EEZs provides an interesting puzzle, because this is a region with a very weak IGO structure. ASEAN and APEC are basically little more than social club gatherings, and there is no overarching regional security framework. Most of the US alliances in the region are bilateral, and there are even very bizarre alliances like ANZUS, where for a long time treaty partners didn’t bother to speak with eachother. (ANZUS is a very interesting topic which I would like to cover at a later date)
This is complicated by the fact that the US has not actually ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 edition). The current US recognition of EEZ claims and its own EEZ declarations was done by President Reagan without the formal ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. You may recall a year or two ago that ratification of the treaty was a hot topic in Congress. (It’s also a favorite Wingnut talking point, but again, topic for another day. Can you just see the possibilities here?) The fact that the US is not a ratified signatory to the Law of the Sea (henceforth shortened to UNCLOS) makes it difficult for the US to either convincingly stand up for EEZ rights of disputed (and weaker) nations, and to enforce its own claims.
As the US looks to increase its trading presence in the region to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it should also start looking into becoming an honest broker for resolving EEZ disputes. Indeed the Chinese actions in 2010 are part of what have made Obama’s Asia “pivot” possible, by raising concerns of China’s growing strength to force its preferences on the region.
The time to create a solid framework for dealing with this issue is now. The US still has a material advantage in seapower, the disputes are still mostly theoretical and the economic development plans in their infancy. Nipping conflicts like this in the bud and creating lasting international institutions should be every good liberal’s objective. Moreover, this is an area where a free trade oriented conservative should be able to agree, peaceful economic extraction of sea resources is a good for everyone.
Edit:
An earlier version of this post claimed that the US had territorial claims in the South China Sea. This is of course incorrect. (The closest US claim to that region is the EEZ claim in the Marianas). My thanks to Kolohe for pointing this out.
Is there a map or some other visual aid to demonstrate the extent of EEZ claim conflicts?Report
Here’s a startReport
I’ve added an image commonly found online. (Still new at this, sorry. Will be sure to be more visual in the future)
Blaise’s is a great one, too.Report
Very interesting. I was vaguely aware of these issues, but you gave me a lot more context for understanding them. Russia’s claim of mineral rights in the Arctic Ocean fits into this framework, yes?Report
Yes. Essentially the concept of EEZs have helped to parcel up a lot of the Arctic between various states. The “continental shelf” provision in particular has led to what is essentially a mineral grab between Russia, Canada, Denmark and the US.Report
Hi Nob, I look forward to your posts as IR and well-structured institutions are a bit of a hobby horse of mine
Quick question; how is Denmark involved? Is this through Greenland?Report
Denmark has very large arctic claims due to the fact that they own Greenland. The possibility of oil around those parts has been a pretty big controversy within Greenland (the inhabitants of which are seeking greater autonomy from Denmark). Mineral wealth would be both a potential blessing and a curse, particularly given that Greenland is substantially poorer than mainland Denmark.Report
Unless there is oil. In which case Greenland might very well reasonably expect to become economically strong enough to claim effective independence in its upcoming referendum.Report
… and then to be invaded, in order to protect democracy.Report
I believe the official pretext for invasion will be the BLTs Greenland is secretly constructing.Report
Heh. The US should just offer Greenland statehood. I mean it’s right there!
And it’d counter-balance Alaska…Report
There’s also the controversy over who owns the straits and islets between and within Greenland and Canada, which becomes a pretty big deal if (or when) the Northwest Passage opens up.Report
The Turbot War between Canada and Spain (The Evans School of Public Affairs has a nice piece on this available at Electronic Hallway) as well as the Cod War are good examples of how the EEZ disputes used to be framed.
More modern concerns basically seem to be more about mineral rights than fisheries management, but it’s hard to tell which direction things’ll go in as tuna stocks keep depleting.Report
For a fairly good look at how EEZ works for each country, consult wiki which has all the EEZ maps. But when EEZs overlap, each country has to work out the rest.
The disputes in the South China Sea are an entirely different problem. As the map I put up reveals, China’s trying to control far more than its own EEZ territory. It’s basically laid claim to the whole South China Sea.
It gets even weirder, as I said in para 1, overlaps have to be worked out between the various countries and there are more contenders than just China in this squabble. It’s a huge mess and the next Large War is about to begin over these competing claims.Report
Yeah. I definitely think the South China Sea’s territorial claims and disputes, plus the simple mineral wealth there make for a very volatile mixture. Unfortunately there’s only really cursory attention paid to actually resolving these issues.Report
Many eyes are watching this struggle. Ambrose Bierce said Americans learn their geography from the war reporting. About the time the Chinese start up their own “Co-Prosperity Sphere”, and it’s coming, the Chinese will find discover their outmoded military is useless.
Thus we see the Chinese generals and admirals on little diplomacy tours, attempting to reassure folks as to their peaceful intentions. Nobody believes a word of it.
Report
I think the events of 2010, involving the rare earth mineral export ban were a serious eye-opener for many observers on the actual risks posed by Chinese strategic thinking. I’m not inclined to be an alarmist about China’s rise, but there’s a steep learning curve for Chinese thinkers that they’ll have to overcome. The “island chains” aren’t their property, they either need to get used to that idea, or we’re going to have some sort of armed conflict.Report
Check out this story about a Russian submarine planting a flag under the ice at the north pole. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-08-08-russia-arctic-flag_N.htmReport
Nob,
I agree. We need clearly delineated property rights of the seas and the sea floor. I think overfishing and species extinction are serious concerns. How do you suggest we address the issues without threatening force or developing a world governmental body?Report
I think my answer is predicated basically on: “What do you mean by world governmental body”?Report
In a more basic sense, I think a multilateral treaty framework, combined with new global governance structures like consumer certification systems will be an important step in fisheries management. Consumer awareness of the costs of rampant fisheries exploitation and figuring out a way to make it desirable to prevent this exploitation on a consumption level is a prerequisite to making governments and markets more responsive to the huge potential externalities.Report
Such a treaty is as unrealistic as the Kyoto Treaty, much as I hate saying it. We will never get the rogue trawler off the water, not while I’m living. The poor countries have nothing to lose.
Report
Do you have a prefered solution or are you just pessimistic about the whole thing?Report
Okay, here’s realism. Power varies as the inverse square of distance to include the power of law.That means the farther afield we do, the less authority we have. Because we have less authority we can project less power.
Now it is an unfortunate fact that the things we most despise in others were once part of our own collection of attributes. All those lovely homes on Nantucket and Cape May were built with whaling and fishing. We don’t like the rogue trawler but that’s how we fished for a long time.
What will it take to regain sustainable fisheries? What would it take for these polluters to cease polluting? Let’s begin with nomenclature, these rogue trawlers and long line boats are ecological pirates. They thrive where existing laws aren’t enforced. But who will enforce an international regulation on the harvest of tuna?
Haul in a good sized bluefin tuna and before it’s bled out and frozen in the hold, the captain has called it in and it’s already on the equivalent of the Tuna eBay and people are bidding on it. Soon enough it’s going to be elegantly sliced into toro and chu-toro for the discriminating diners of the world’s sushi bars.
See, we’re going about this all wrong. If you want to crack down on theft, go after the fence who buys his wares and charge people with the crime of possessing stolen goods. All these do-gooders who go after the Japanese whaling boats have missed the point: while minke whale sushi sells for ten dollars for a slice of meat you can almost see through, don’t expect any changes to the status quo. We have to attenuate market demand, that’s a problem we can address through land-based law.Report
Good overview. As a nitpick, the US doesn’t claim anything in the SCS. (other than our vessels can transit there anytime they want. China thinks EEZ’s also prohibit military activity but so do a lot of countries. )
And while imo, (and the US Navy ‘s) we should ratify UNCLOS – the objections to it being way overblown – as a practical matter, it’s not substantially interfering with our ‘moral authority’ to stand up for EEZ rights. For one, we buy into most of the existing framework, for two, as the first link shows, there’s lots of people that have excessive claims, and for three, it’s that self-same Navy that’s going to be the ultimate enforcement arm of any coherent regulatory framework anyway.
Report
I’m also trying to figure out from the linked map what the heck the PI owns between CNMI/Guam and the FSM.Report
Oops. My mistake on the SCS.
Ultimately on the “moral authority” issue, I think it’s more likely for people to accept the US Navy as a benevolent force rather than a potential 800 pound gorilla if the US is a signatory of UNCLOS. I take your point that the USN is likely to be the guarantor/enforcer of the framework, but it’s much easier to be an enforcer when you’re actually part of the framework.Report