China
The rights and wrongs of US overflights in the South China Sea
Author: Sourabh Gupta, Samuels International
Over the past six years, unilateral and escalatory actions by claimants to territories in the South China Sea have exacerbated tensions in the region.
China has not been the precipitator of the tensions in these waters — whether it be in initiating resource exploration activities in disputed areas, introducing military vessels to enforce jurisdictional claims, or conducting land reclamation work in the adjoining waters. In each instance, other claimants were the first to roil the waters.
But China’s response to actions by other claimants has been heavy-handed, disproportionate to the provocation at hand and, at times, designed to destabilise an already-delicate situation. That said, none of the actions by claimants, China included, has violated international law — even if some of the actions have operated in grey areas where definitive rules are lacking (such as in respect of the status of maritime historic rights). The same cannot be said about recently-publicised actions by the US Navy in these contested waters.
On 20 May, a US Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft directly flew over a Chinese administered artificial island constructed atop a Spratly’s feature (the Fiery Cross Reef) in the South China Sea. The American crew insisting that it was flying through international airspace. The overflight was provocative, dangerous and inconsistent with international law. Worse, the most senior US diplomat for the East and Southeast Asia region appears not to grasp this, insisting that the flight was ‘entirely appropriate’.
International law on artificial islands, installations and structures is very clear. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea reads: ‘In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state shall have the exclusive right to construct artificial islands, installations and structures; the coastal state shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such islands; [it] may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such islands … [so long as these zones do] not exceed 500 metres around them, measured from each point of their outer edge; [all vessels] must respect these safety zones’.
China is legally entitled to reclaim and construct artificial islands and installations in the sea areas adjacent to the land features that it administers within the Spratlys chain. There is no rule in international law that bars a coastal state from undertaking this kind of reclamation at sea.
And, so long as the feature resides within the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (or median line thereof) of an ‘island’ administered by China in the Spratlys, Beijing is entitled to reclaim and build atop that land feature — even if it is submerged at high-tide. Three of Beijing’s seven administered features in the Spratlys protrude above sea level at high-tide and could comport to the technical definition of an ‘island’. If Itu Aba/Taiping Island — an ‘island’ that is administered by Taiwan — is considered to be Chinese territory as per the ‘One China’ policy, then every China-administered feature in the Spratlys chain is encompassed within this exclusive economic zone area up to the median line.
China also has the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the waters and airspace above the artificial island, out to perimeter of 500 metres from its outer edges. Establishing such a safety zone has nothing to do with unilateral enforcement of a military exclusion zone or an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) as some have claimed.
It follows that the US Navy by directly flying over the artificial island has violated Beijing’s rights. Admittedly, the US is not a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty and hence is not bound by its strictures. By the same token, the US’ customary navigation and overflight freedoms do not override the prescriptive treaty-based rights that accrue to Beijing in the airspace and adjoining waters of its artificial islands, installations and structures.
The flights are not just legally untenable and dangerously escalatory; they also have implications beyond the immediate legal infringement. Specifically, they are also a standing invitation to the Chinese to send surveillance flights through the airspace directly above the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. In November 2013, Beijing declared an ADIZ in the East China Sea, which controversially included the airspace over these disputed islands. China has until now refrained from conducting non-commercial flights through this airspace. But it would be within its rights as a claimant to take such provocative and unwise action. It is extremely unwise for Washington to lay the groundwork for such behaviour through its own errant actions in the South China Sea. To rein in its Spratlys overflights would be the sensible course.
The driver of America’s actions in the Spratlys is a growing and pervasive mind-set within the Beltway that insists that the US must ‘do something … anything’ to demonstrate active resolve in the face of regional anxiety over China’s use of military and paramilitary force to allegedly change the status quo.
If that is indeed a sensible strategic objective, US (and other claimants’) naval vessels and aircraft could operationally assert their navigational and overflight freedoms beyond the 500-metre safety zone of China’s artificial islands that are built atop low-tide elevations. Such features are not entitled to a territorial sea. Common sense would dictate that as a precaution the overflights should be kept some distance away from the 500-metre zone.
But no party in the South China Sea should engage in non-commercial passage through the airspace above an artificial island, installation or structures that they do not administer or are obliged to protect. For the United States to do so would be to violate international law; for other claimants to do so would be to engage in dangerously provocative actions.
High seas navigational and overflight freedoms in the waters adjoining the disputed land features in the South China Sea have not been violated, despite a rhetorical tendency to inflate the threat to these freedoms. The exercise of these freedoms, especially by non-claimants, should not interfere with the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of those who are claimant parties in these waters.
Sourabh Gupta is a Senior Research Associate at Samuels International Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C.
See the rest here:
The rights and wrongs of US overflights in the South China Sea
China
Is journalist Vicky Xu preparing to return to China?
Chinese social media influencers have recently claimed that prominent Chinese-born Australian journalist Vicky Xu had posted a message saying she planned to return to China.
There is no evidence for this. The source did not provide evidence to support the claim, and Xu herself later confirmed to AFCL that she has no such plans.
Currently working as an analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI, Xu has previously written for both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or ABC, and The New York Times.
A Chinese language netizen on X initially claimed on March 31 that the changing geopolitical relations between Sydney and Beijing had caused Xu to become an expendable asset and that she had posted a message expressing a strong desire to return to China. An illegible, blurred photo of the supposed message accompanied the post.
This claim was retweeted by a widely followed influencer on the popular Chinese social media site Weibo one day later, who additionally commented that Xu was a “traitor” who had been abandoned by Australian media.
Following the publication of an ASPI article in 2021 which exposed forced labor conditions in Xinjiang co-authored by Xu, the journalist was labeled “morally bankrupt” and “anti-China” by the Chinese state owned media outlet Global Times and subjected to an influx of threatening messages and digital abuse, eventually forcing her to temporarily close several of her social media accounts.
AFCL found that neither Xu’s active X nor LinkedIn account has any mention of her supposed return to China, and received the following response from Xu herself about the rumor:
“I can confirm that I don’t have plans to go back to China. I think if I do go back I’ll most definitely be detained or imprisoned – so the only career I’ll be having is probably going to be prison labor or something like that, which wouldn’t be ideal.”
Neither a keyword search nor reverse image search on the photo attached to the original X post turned up any text from Xu supporting the netizens’ claims.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Malcolm Foster.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
Read the rest of this article here >>> Is journalist Vicky Xu preparing to return to China?
China
Guide for Foreign Residents: Obtaining a Certificate of No Criminal Record in China
Foreign residents in China can request a criminal record check from their local security bureau. This certificate may be required for visa applications or job opportunities. Requirements and procedures vary by city. In Shanghai, foreigners must have lived there for 180 days with a valid visa to obtain the certificate.
Foreign residents living in China can request a criminal record check from the local security bureau in the city in which they have lived for at least 180 days. Certificates of no criminal record may be required for people leaving China, or those who are starting a new position in China and applying for a new visa or residence permit. Taking Shanghai as an example, we outline the requirements for obtaining a China criminal record check.
Securing a Certificate of No Criminal Record, often referred to as a criminal record or criminal background check, is a crucial step for various employment opportunities, as well as visa applications and residency permits in China. Nevertheless, navigating the process can be a daunting task due to bureaucratic procedures and language barriers.
In this article, we use Shanghai as an example to explore the essential information and steps required to successfully obtain a no-criminal record check. Requirements and procedures may differ in other cities and counties in China.
Note that foreigners who are not currently living in China and need a criminal record check to apply for a Chinese visa must obtain the certificate from their country of residence or nationality, and have it notarized by a Chinese embassy or consulate in that country.
Foreigners who have a valid residence permit and have lived in Shanghai for at least 180 days can request a criminal record check in the city. This means that the applicant will also need to currently have a work, study, or other form of visa or stay permit that allows them to live in China long-term.
If a foreigner has lived in another part of China and is planning to or has recently moved to Shanghai, they will need to request a criminal record check in the place where they previously spent at least 180 days.
There are two steps to obtaining a criminal record certificate in Shanghai: requesting the criminal record check from the Public Security Bureau (PSB) and getting the resulting Certificate of No Criminal Record notarized by an authorized notary agency.
This article is republished from China Briefing. Read the rest of the original article.
China Briefing is written and produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The practice assists foreign investors into China and has done since 1992 through offices in Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. Please contact the firm for assistance in China at china@dezshira.com.
China
China Unveils Plan to Upgrade Industrial Equipment
China unveiled a comprehensive action plan for upgrading industrial equipment, with a focus on driving technological innovation and economic growth. The plan, released on April 9, 2024, aims to enhance competitiveness and sustainability within the manufacturing sector through extensive investment and regulatory support.
China announced an ambitious action plan for industrial equipment upgrading, which aims to drive technological innovation and economic growth through extensive investment and regulatory support.
On April 9, 2024, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and six other departments jointly released a notice introducing the Implementation Plan for Promoting Equipment Renewal in the Industrial Sector (hereafter referred to as the “action plan”).
Finalized earlier on March 23, 2024, this comprehensive action plan addresses critical issues related to technological innovation and economic development. It reflects China’s proactive stance in enhancing competitiveness and sustainability within its manufacturing sector. The initiative underscores the recognition of industrial equipment upgrading as a top policy priority.
The scope of China’s action plan to upgrade industrial equipment in manufacturing, is extensive, covering various aspects such as:
In line with China’s ambitious goals for industrial modernization and sustainable development, the action plan outlines several key objectives aimed at driving substantial advancements in the industrial sector by 2027.
These objectives encompass a wide range of areas, from increasing investment to enhancing digitalization and promoting innovation, including:
The objectives and key actions proposed in the action plan are summarized below.
This article is republished from China Briefing. Read the rest of the original article.
China Briefing is written and produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The practice assists foreign investors into China and has done since 1992 through offices in Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. Please contact the firm for assistance in China at china@dezshira.com.
- Is journalist Vicky Xu preparing to return to China?
- Guide for Foreign Residents: Obtaining a Certificate of No Criminal Record in China
- China Unveils Plan to Upgrade Industrial Equipment
- China deepens engagement with new Indonesian president as top diplomat visits Jakarta
- New Publication: A Guide for Foreign Investors on Navigating China’s New Company Law
- Lingang New Area in Shanghai Opens First Cross-Border Data Service Center to Streamline Data Export Process
