Won't be surprise if China annex natunas one day like Crimea, It's full of ethnic Chinese and preempt choking near Malacca strait choke point.
The friction is about the fishing rights around the islands where there may be a degree of overlap with the nine dash line and the Natuna's EEZ.
So is China now claiming waters beside islands?
I have no idea, but it appears that is where the friction has been arising -- in our previous discussions I've also said I would like China to clarify its claims in a clearer fashion, if only so we can have more proper discussions regarding it on forums.
But I think what isn't in much dispute is that China accepts that the Natuna island features are Indonesia's, and I don't imagine that stance will be changing any time soon.
China not clarifying their SCS claims, especially the hated 9-dash line, is the reason I say it is the biggest obstacle to sovereignty resolution, because how can the disputes be resolved if no one knows for certain who claims what?I have no idea, but it appears that is where the friction has been arising -- in our previous discussions I've also said I would like China to clarify its claims in a clearer fashion, if only so we can have more proper discussions regarding it on forums.
But I think what isn't in much dispute is that China accepts that the Natuna island features are Indonesia's, and I don't imagine that stance will be changing any time soon.
The way I read it is that China has not figured out how to deal with the waters adjacent to the Natuna islands. Maritime zones can only be generated from land territories and any claims on waters only (if based on nine dash) would go against traditional principle of "the land dominates the sea".
China not clarifying their SCS claims, especially the hated 9-dash line, is the reason I say it is the biggest obstacle to sovereignty resolution, because how can the disputes be resolved if no one knows for certain who claims what?
If China claims all the waters inside the 9DL, then say so; it's a silly claim, but at least there's a base for diplomacy or even voluntary arbitration through international courts. And if parties don't trust the ICJ or the Permanent Arbitration Court, then Asian countries can set up their own just and fair courts. The bottom line is at the end of the day, the disputes can only move forward by the claimants and not by third parties with their own agendas.
That's how I see it too (waters next to Natuna). I also get the sense China might, MIGHT, be willing to accept some kind of face saving reset; the 9-dash line has created more trouble than its worth, and it's an absolute impediment to amicable settlements. China should look to how the US managed its dominant role in the Greater Caribbean, and understand it doesn't need to own the SCS waters or even most of the land features to have near absolute maritime security.The way I read it is that China has not figured out how to deal with the waters adjacent to the Natuna islands. Maritime zones can only be generated from land territories and any claims on waters only (if based on nine dash) would go against traditional principle of "the land dominates the sea".
9-dash line ambiguity might have been useful at one time, but it has passed the "use by" date. At the pace of China's economic development and military modernization, it no longer needs to 'own' the SCS to dominate it and have its own version of the Monroe Doctrine. In fact, it should look at how US manages the Greater Caribbean to see how it's done.No disagreement from me -- but China seems to believe maintaining strategic ambiguity around the issue is in their interests... so go figure.