Within the South China Sea disputes, the most frequently addressed resolutions by scholars are based on the so-called international law and the law of the sea. But the question is, can the South China Sea disputes be resolved without a historical facts-based legal foundation? The answer is clearly a “No”, because no legal argument can be accepted or rejected without evidentiary facts, which can be extensively extracted from history.
Misuse of historical evidence and misconceptions of Chinese history
Worryingly, in terms of the South China Sea issue, some scholars are getting further and further away from the true historical evidence and a true Chinese history.
The Philippines has organized several exhibitions of ancient maps in the past decade to show that China has never had “historical ownership” of Scarborough Shoal, one of the maritime features in the Macclesfield Bank. The Vietnamese scholars, presented by Nguyen Nha, have widely published in international academia expressing Vietnam’s South China Sea claims based on historical sources that have only been endorsed by the Vietnamese government.
A more telling example is provided by Bill Hayton, a journalist with BBC World and analyst on China’s affairs. In his interview with The Diplomat in August, he highlights that there is nothing historic about China’s historic rights claim in the South China Sea. He views China’s historic rights claim as a poorly-researched and laughable idea based on a nationalistic and evidence-free Chinese history.
In his forthcoming book The Invention of China (Yale University Press, 2020), as his interview shows, he argues that China’s nation-building process was marked by mistakes, confusion and calculations based upon what was politically expedient at the time. As such, the origins of China’s territorial claims were full of most fraught problems, from Xinjiang, to Taiwan, to the South China Sea.
The above mentioned opinions and remarks are obviously untenable, because they are based on the misuse of historical evidence and misconceptions of Chinese history. However, these viewpoints are influential and have spread widely through many publications.
Only reliable historical evidence tells historical truths
Whether China’s historic rights claim is laughable or not does not depend on gushing drivel, but on comprehensive archival research and academic analysis. In this regard, the viewpoints of Hayton and many others cannot bear scrutiny. In fact, China’s historic claim over territory and maritime areas in the South China Sea is supported by abundant Chinese and western historical sources, which provides convincing evidence about both China’s discovery and peaceful uninterrupted control of the islands and maritime areas of the South China Sea.
According to Shen Jianming, a Chinese-American legal expert, based on an abundance of historic evidence, China was the first recorded discoverer of the Xisha, Nansha and other groups of islands in the South China Sea. These historical sources range from official chronicles of successive dynasties to folk literature.
China’s sailing, exploration, and exploitation experience the South China Sea has also been clearly recorded by historical sources of various western countries. For instance, an observation by British Military Administration Malaya has cited Chinese advantages in shipping building and sailing skills as compared with Europeans since the late in the Middle Ages, indicating the British government’s recognition of China’s ability to sail across the South China Sea region. Muhammad al-Idrisi, an Arab Muslim geographer and cartographer serving for King Roger II of Sicily, provided early recorded details of Chinese vessels carrying leather, swords, iron and silk sailing towards the West and the hunting of maritime animals in the South China Sea. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European commercial companies relied on Chinese traditional sailing routes and trading networks when operating their navigation and commerce in Asia. John Crawfurd, a Scottish colonial administrator and diplomat in the 1830s observed Chinese mariners sailing through the South China Sea to Batavia (now Jakarta), indicating the Spratly Islands has been historically known to Chinese mariners.
How did misuse and misconceptions emerge?
First, current research on South China Sea history is insufficient. The historiography shows that much study on this topic has been done by the laymen of history, like Bill Hayton. These researchers have neither received systematic training of history discipline, nor have they read archival sources about South China Sea history. Their research depends, to a large extent, on hearsays and subjective supposition.
Second, the western understanding of South China Sea history has largely depended on a first impression, which subjects to Eurocentric perspective and ideology.
Third, the western interpretation of South China Sea history is based on contemporary international law. Such a combination of historical and legal perspectives sometimes leads to a partial reflection of real history, because legal experts only accept legally oriented historical evidence and often omit fragmented but important historical segments.
Advice to improve the effectiveness of historical evidence in South China Sea issue
In this regard, for China, it is essential to pay attention to historical evidence supporting China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea. From an academic perspective, Chinese historians shall endeavour to clarify the basic and misunderstood historical facts first, then to improve the effectiveness of historical evidence extracted from archival documents.
First, more historians should be required to contribute their wisdom. History written by amateurs and non-historians such as Bill Hayton cannot tell the full story. What is worse, is that the rhetoric of a journalist may be misleading, or even deceptive for the public. It is historians’ tasks to clarify the fact and reveal the truth.
Second, the accessibility and understandability of Chinese historical sources need to be improved. Currently even Chinese historians are faced with substantial difficulty to use Chinese ancient books with reliable historical evidence, not mentioning western scholars. Translated versions in modern Chinese or English may be a long-awaited resolution to this problem. Sinologists of earlier generations have made great contributions in this regard. These efforts are admirable but insufficient.
Third, international collaboration is necessary for a clearer South China Sea history. It is widely understood that differences in historiography and historical perspectives consistently leads to misunderstanding, which could be effectively dealt with by a transnational research team.
Fourth, a legal analytical framework might be helpful. China’s historic rights claim is both historically and legally based. Although publicly available historical material overwhelmingly supports the Chinese perception, only legally acknowledged understanding of historic use may provide a foundation for resolution. Many scholars also worry that the concept of historical considerations could be seen merely as flimsy rhetoric. How should existing historic awareness and knowledge be given proper recognition? A legal analytical framework is necessary and indispensable for the useful expression of these historical sources.
(Xu Xiaodong is a Postdoctoral Researcher at National Institute for South China Studies,China)
