Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Builds Artificial Islands In South China Sea

Posted by samzenpus on from the mine-now-I-take-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes about a Chinese building project designed to cement claims to a disputed region of the South China Sea. Sand, cement, wood, and steel are China's weapons of choice as it asserts its claim over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Brunei have sparred for decades over ownership of the 100 islands and reefs, which measure less than 1,300 acres in total but stretch across an area about the size of Iraq. In recent months, vessels belonging to the People's Republic have been spotted ferrying construction materials to build new islands in the sea. Pasi Abdulpata, a Filipino fishing contractor who in October was plying the waters near Parola Island in the northern Spratlys, says he came across "this huge Chinese ship sucking sand and rocks from one end of the ocean and blasting it to the other using a tube."

Artificial islands could help China anchor its claim to waters that host some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The South China Sea may hold as much as 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. China has considered the Spratlys—which it calls Nansha—part of its territory since the 1940s and on occasion has used its military might to enforce its claim. In 1988 a Chinese naval attack at Johnson South Reef, in the northern portion of the archipelago, killed 64 Vietnamese border guards.

33 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. All wars ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are resource wars.

    And start out rather like this.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:All wars ... by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

      We have always been at war with East Asia.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:All wars ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly you're too young to remember the Cold War, a war of Ideology.

      So...it was a war for human resources? :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:All wars ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are resource wars.

      Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost, in defense spending and lost trade, of alienating her neighbors. In the modern world, all wars are dumb.

    4. Re:All wars ... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Technically the Cold War is so named because it was a time of hostility, but not outright and open conflict, between 2 powers. And power and influence-which is what the US and USSR were essentially fighting over(who would become the dominant superpower)-are very much types of resources.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:All wars ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> In the modern world, all wars are dumb

      Unless they lop off chunks of the Ukraine. Or depopulate chunks of rival territory in Bosnia. Or expand tribal influence over oil-rich parts of Iraq. Or...
      (Long story short, there are still some pretty evil dudes in "the modern world.")

      This essay's also a good introduction to the role of trade in precipitating war (e.g., "lost trade" doesn't necessarily reduce chances of war):
      http://www.ied.info/articles/a...

    6. Re:All wars ... by VibratoryDavid · · Score: 3

      We are now at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia

    7. Re:All wars ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The Cold War was a war to decide who gets to dominate the world. Which is basically just a fancy way of saying "control all of the world's resources".

    8. Re:All wars ... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 2

      Also the cold war was not really a war...right guys?...because hostile diplomatic relations is not actually a war?

      People above appear to have forgotten this.

      Perhaps because they come from the society that brought us the "war on"(TM) drugs, terrorism, obesity, aids, jesus, christmas, immigration, gays and a whole host of other things that are in no way at all wars.

    9. Re:All wars ... by gtall · · Score: 2

      How much is the PRC paying you to write this crap?

    10. Re:All wars ... by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      Wow. You might want to slow down on the Kool-Aid. China is making a sea grab. Do they have a moral or legal right to control of that part of the ocean? It doesn't matter, they don't care and aren't interested in the debate because nobody is going to stop them. China is using the fact that the US has spent most of it's political capital over the last decade and even if it hadn't it would be in no position for any kind of trade war and neither is the rest of the world. They are going to gradually ramp up their presence until there is nothing that can be done short of embargo or actual military conflict, which aren't going to happen. I do give them credit for creating an artificial island. That is a bit of genius. They are able to stake a claim and nobody else can claim prior possession of the land.

    11. Re:All wars ... by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      They certainly were if you look at the bigger picture. The entire Cold War and the proxy wars during that period were all about power and who's ideology would reign supreme. The whole point of becoming a superpower is control of resources. Natural resources, human resources, financial resources, etc.

      All wars are ultimately about resources. To the winner go the spoils.

    12. Re:All wars ... by imikem · · Score: 2

      It was a "Police action".

      Maybe that's why police these days are riding around in armored vehicles.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    13. Re:All wars ... by Alorelith · · Score: 2

      I can only surmise that only people with limited understandings of history, politics, self-justification, etc... would consider major conflicts such as the Korean Police Action to not be a war. Obviously a country not officially declaring a war raises some issues with _itself_ regarding legality, funding, image, and so on, but the 1000 year view of the situation is the same -- lotsa people from conflicting sides fighting and killing each other in an armed struggle. That's a war. Perhaps some of these people should go visit a "police" zone and get all intimate with the differences that they are obviously going to notice between a police action and a war/battle.

      Is it still considered war if a country declares war on someone else, yet neither side ever come to battle?

  2. Another very good reason... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...why we really need to get weaned off of fossil fuels. Otherwise it's like the next day's heroin fix, only with oil.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Another very good reason... by crioca · · Score: 2

      Uh, are you sure about that? Because the number of nuclear weapons held by China isn't known.

    2. Re:Another very good reason... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the event of a nuclear war between US and China, Russia would fetch popcorn and watch the show. It would be an epic win on all counts - the major potential adversary with a large land border and a likelihood of future conventional conflict completely annihilated, and another major potential adversary significantly weakened and likely going isolationist for decades to come to lick its wounds. Meanwhile, Eastern Europe without US as a de facto guarantor of security would be having a real fun time dealing with Russia in such a new reality.

  3. Not really by mfh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like that guy who built his house on public property, these islands will just be removed if they aren't part of China. That's kind of sociopathic of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Not really by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In most places in the US, if a building ends up being across a property line for a number of years unaposed, that amount of property becomes a deeded right of way. It used to change ownership and might still do so in some areas via squatters rights.

      These rules came abouy from problems with surveys, incorectly recorded deed maps, and the lack of zoning over history. It could come about from something like a house or out building being built on or close to the property line. It gets added on and not recorded, sold and the new owner sees they have 20 feet to the property line on the east side of the building not realizing the previous owner already used 15 feeet up. So the new owner adds on another 15 feet and not its ten foot over. Now lets say 20 years pass and the neighboring property is passed to an heir. They cannot make you tear down the building now.

      It isn't much of an issue now because zoning requires set backs and building permits and this is checked with plotting maps made from deed data. But at aone time, you could survey your property and find the survey pin was moved our something and someone's barn or house was on your property.

    2. Re:Not really by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      At least one of the smaller islands was removed; but it's pretty inefficient (see also "Project Plowshare, quiet abandonment of").

      In the case of hack-together artificial islands, though, you can often just remove a few of the structural bits that are protecting the sand from erosion and then let the ocean eat it over the next few years. Less dramatic, certainly; but unless they really went no-expense-spared on building the island in the first place, they probably cheaped out by using as much 'failed island' as they could dredge up nearby, tacked together with just enough sea wall to keep it from returning to its native habitat.

    3. Re:Not really by mikael · · Score: 2

      Neighbors have gone to war over the location of a fence. What happens is that a building company does two things; apply for planning permission and apply for change of registered land ownership. Sometimes they do one, and the paperwork fails to complete for the other. So the builder constructs a row of terraced homes and say, "Oh, by the way, a bit of your garden is owned by the residents on the other side of the fence, but they don't mind, so there really isn't anything to worry about".

      Then the ownership of the other property changes, the new owner sees a way of increasing their market value of their property as well as gain new resources, and the bulldozers move in, leading to court action and bankruptcy.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  4. The hypocrisy by Rick+in+China · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China in this instance, is so ridiculously hypocritical - their entire argument about the Senkaku(Diaoyu) islands is that Japan has only controlled them in modern times, and China has laid claim (based on little evidence, and they're uninhabited) since ancient times. Yet, here, they're claiming these islands from all these other countries, and have only laid claim since 1940 -- a claim that seemingly hasn't been supported except by China themselves. Which way they want it? All ways. China has a big 'face' problem so can't look weak to it's oppressed masses for fear of social unrest, and like Russia, thinks the whole world around it belongs to them. Really tired of this bullshit.

    1. Re:The hypocrisy by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well the problem will persist basically as long as the Chinese Communist Party does.... The CCP is deeply unpopular in pretty much every arena save for how it is handling the economy, if the economy starts to go south you may see Tienamen-like events erupting all over the country. In order to combat this the CCP has to keep the economy humming along and large #s of migrants from the countryside employed. They have done a decent job thus far, but there are some major cracks in the Chinese economy on the horizon. Long story short they copied the Japanese model, right down to the bad loans.

      If China's economy does not keep on expanding you are looking at a potential financial crisis that would make the whole Lehman thing seem tame by comparison. The reason they are getting so bold is because to the CCP, exploiting these resources may literally be a life-or-death situation, as most dictators don't tend to just end up retired in a villa somewhere, they end up with their heads being separated from their necks.

      --
      Monstar L
    2. Re:The hypocrisy by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You raise some good points and you may be right, but I wondering if this is actually a sign that the CCP is losing control over the PLA (People's Liberation Army). For years to keep the military at their beck and call, the CCP has been working the propaganda machine into overdrive. My experience is that the average Chinese person, at least those in the big cities and not rural people, doesn't really trust the government or believe everything they say, but the propaganda works really well for those who join the PLA. I feel that China's military is pretty unprofessional and looking to start trouble and this is because they've been indoctrinated to believe that everybody is against good old China because of jealousy and if China doesn't fight tooth and nail for everything, they'll wind up with nothing. Throw in a few references to treaties they don't like that were signed in the 1800s (none of which are in force today, by the way) to bolster the claim that they've always been the victim and you have a military that acts like a rabid dog. Also, it doesn't help that the constitution of China pledges the PLA to defend the CCP, not China itself. So the CCP is at once both the state and more important than the state at the same time. It may be that all these years of indoctrination are bearing their inevitable ugly fruit now and they have to keep them busy building islands so they don't try to force an invasion of Taiwan, something that would possibly result in the US and Japan attacking China over.

    3. Re:The hypocrisy by Rick+in+China · · Score: 2

      That's actually 100% correct. Ground military is specifically assigned on rotations far away from their home province. I have a little brother-in-law in the military, and I can tell you that the military is tightly under the government's control -- you see, Xi has been consolidating..not losing control of, many military/police/investigative (see, gestapo) forces under his thumb, and whereas in the past there was significant volatility between the PLA and the party (like DXP times) currently that's not the case at all. It may change, but there are no obvious signs to me or anyone I know of that being the case - it'll more likely be a party&PLA vs. migrant worker/peasant class clash, which is why China invests so heavily in a ground force to begin with.

  5. So all of South America belongs to America, right? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Or, perhaps, do you want to rethink your silly stance on "naming makes it so"?

  6. Trend by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Jeez, even islands are "Made in China"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  7. Occupation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The islands belong to whoever lives there and manages to chase others away. If China successfully put troops and guns on them, then the islands are theirs, end of story.

  8. Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's how Godzilla was born, I hope you know.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  9. Drugs might have been involved by istartedi · · Score: 2

    According to Mail Online

    It was built by Robert C Lamoureux and his company Four Twenty Corp in 2011

    I can picture this now. "Yeah dude, we like... totally surveyed the place. It's all good. You can start digging tomorrow."

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  10. Re:South CHINA sea by Rashdot · · Score: 2

    Education?

    Actually, education is part of the problem here. For generations, Chinese kids have never seen the maps that we use. World maps in Chinese schools have always included most of the region as part of China, even including several countries.

    So it will be really hard to convince them that the world is different from the world view that they've been brought up with.

    Europe and America also use different maps (traditional Europe at the center vs America at the center), but that doesn't appear to lead to major conflicts.

    --
    This is not the sig you're looking for.
  11. Re:Occupation - Invasion by object404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bullshit.

    China is in complete violation of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which China itself signed and had agreed to and ">ratified in 1996.

    China has been building structures, hunting and mass poaching endangered species and destroying coral reefs within the maritime exclusive economic zones of The Philippines and Vietnam (200 nautical miles or 370km from the coastline of those countries) while at the same time, forming naval blockades and harassing fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines in their own waters. Recently a Chinese fishing vessel was caught with the poaching and mass slaughter of over 500 endangered and protected sea turtles within Philippine waters. Pics of the slaughter.

    This article is a must-read on the behavior of the 800lb gorilla China and its bullying tactics: China's Pre-Imperial Overstretch and follow-up article: China and the Mosquitoes.

    Another must read is the NY Times article A Game of Shark And Minnow about the ragtag crew of Philippine marines stationed on a grounded derelict ship in the area as an outpost. That NY Times article has a very good diagram on the 200NM exclusive economic zones and China's ridiculous "nine-dash line" tongue-shaped delineation which claims the entirety of the area hundreds of miles away from their nearest legal territory, Hainan Island. The basis of China's 9-dash line claims? Fabricated bullshit. Pre-19th century maps show this. Even China's own historical maps contradict their absurd claims. Bullying, intimidation, violation, invasion and annexation of territories of smaller, weaker states. It's that simple. See also: Tibet.

    --
    http://twitter.com/object404
  12. China isn't called China either by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    The proper name is "Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo" or People's Republic of China in English. Of course then there's also "Zhonghu Minguo" aka The Republic of China aka Taiwan.

    Then there's the fact that not everyone calls it the "South China Sea". Vietnam calls it "Bien Dong" aka East Sea. In fact China calls it "Nan Hai" meaning South Sea.

    My point being simply that a name doesn't imply ownership under any reasonable standard. The USA is widely just called "America" but that doesn't mean that it owns the Americas. The PRC is widely called China but that doesn't mean it owns the South China Sea.