Role of U.S.

and India in resolving the

South China Sea Dispute

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Avinash Samal

(Faculty Member of Political Science)

SUBMITTED BY:

Yash Dilip Wasnikar

B. A. LL. B. (Hons.) Student

Roll No. – 186 Semester – V Section – A

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

RAIPUR (C.G.)

Date of Submission- September 03, 2019

 Declaration

I, Yash Dilip Wasnikar, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, Role of U.S. and India in

resolving the South China Sea Dispute submitted to Hidayatullah National Law University,

Uparwara, New Raipur is record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Dr.

Avinash Samal, faculty member in political science in Hidayatullah National Law University,

New Raipur.

Yash Dilip Wasnikar

Semester – V

Section – A

Roll No. – 186

 Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude towards my course

teacher, Dr. Avinash Samal for his kind gesture in allotting me such a wonderful and

elucidating research topic and for giving me constant guidance and encouragement throughout

the course of the project.

I would also like to thank the University for providing me the internet and library facilities which

were indispensable for getting relevant content on the subject and were instrumental in writing

pertinent text.

Special thanks goes out to my seniors who have been relentless in their help and supporting

providing any material whenever required and my colleagues, who always stood by me,

irrespective of the decisions taken by me. Without their support this project would not have seen

the light of the day.

Yash Dilip Wasnikar

Semester – V

Section – A

Roll No. – 186

iii
 Table of Contents

Declaration......................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................iii

Introduction.................................................................................................................5-6

Objective of Research.....................................................................................................7

Research Methodology...................................................................................................8

Chapterizaion..................................................................................................................9

Chapter 1 : Territorial Disputes in South China Sea..............................................10-12

Chapter 2 : India and South China Sea Dispute..........................................................13-18

Chapter 3 :Involvement of U.S. in the Dispute.......................................................19-22

1. Conclusion............................................................................................................26-27

2. Bibliography..............................................................................................................28
 Introduction

With an extension of 3.3 million square kilometers, the South China Sea is of great importance for two
main reasons. On one hand, it possesses extensive amounts of food and a seabed that contains 11 billion
barrels of oil as well as 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But, on the other hand it has also become a
crucial route through which around a third of the world’s shipping, equivalent to a total of US$5.3
trillion in annual trade.

This explain the interest of the six Asian countries, including China, who are currently claiming the
ownership of the small land features within the south China Sea and it is why, nowadays, this sea is one
of the most dangerous hotspots in the world. However, this dispute is by no means new. The South
China Sea dispute involves a number of Nations including Brunei, China, The Republic of China
(Taiwan), Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam.

Tensions first brew up in the region in 1947, when China issued a map claiming ownership of the entire
sea, citing 2000 years of history. This was contested by Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei,
Indonesia and Taiwan. Then the presence of rival navies added to the tension. The United States is
already engaged in the region following its old treaty obligations with Taiwan and Philippines.
Moreover, the South China Sea is a critical transit route for the US Navy and oil flow. Its oil giants have
also concluded exploration agreements wit littoral governments.
India has been a neutral observer and not a direct party to the dispute.

The region holds importance for India as Indian trade and economic linkages are growing with East
Asian nations and with the Pacific Region. India also believes that the disputes between SE Asian
littoral states are a litmus test for international maritime law and that ‘Freedom of Navigation’ and
commercial access as enshrined in the UNCLOS must be ensured in the region. Through a veiled
message to China amid its growing assertiveness in resource-rich South China Sea, India recently
asserted that the dispute must be resolved through peaceful means and in accordance with principles of
international law without resorting to threat or use of force. 
Such a current rise in tensions, together with the multiplicity of actors, the importance of the natural
resource at stake and new developments in the dispute like the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration
decision to rule out china’s claims over Scarborough Shoal in favor of the Philippines in 2016 make this
a very burning issue to be addressed.

This project aims at analyzing further details about the ongoing situation and the role of US and India in
resolving this conflict in further detail.
 Objectives of the study

1. To know about the History and Origin of the South China Sea Dispute

2. To know about involvement of U.S. and India in the dispute

3. To know about the current policies of China and the parties to the dispute

4. To know about the policies of U.S and India for solving the dispute.
 Research Methodology

 Nature

The Research conducted is Descriptive in nature, data from secondary sources have been
employed to make the project.

 Sources

Secondary sources of data have been used in this study. The data have been obtained through
books, journals and internet.

 Mode of Citation

The project follows uniform mode of citation . The 19th bluebook citation for footnotes has been
followed.
Chapterization

Chapter 1 : it deals with the origin, parties and introduction of the dispute

Chapter 2 : it deals with the role of India in resolving the dispute

Chapter 3: it deals with the role of U.S. in resolving the dispute

 Chapter-1
Territorial Dispute in South China Sea
Tensions between China and both the Philippines and Vietnam have recently cooled, even as
China increased its military activity in the South China Sea by conducting a series of naval
maneuvers and exercises in March and April 2018. Meanwhile, China continues to construct
military and industrial outposts on artificial islands it has built in disputed waters.
The United States has also stepped up its military activity and naval presence in the region in
recent years, including freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in January and March 2018.
In a speech during his November 2017 visit to Southeast Asia, President Donald J. Trump
emphasized the importance of such operations, and of ensuring free and open access to the South
China Sea. Since May 2017, the United States has conducted six FONOPs in the region.

Background
China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels
of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonized competing claimants
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. As early as the 1970s,
countries began to claim islands and various zones in the South China Sea, such as the Spratly
Islands, which possess rich natural resources and fishing areas.
China maintains  that, under international law, foreign militaries are not able to conduct
intelligence-gathering activities, such as reconnaissance flights, in its exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). According to the United States, claimant countries, under UN Convention of the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS), should have freedom of navigation through EEZs in the sea and are not
required to notify claimants of military activities. In July 2016, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration at The Hague issued its ruling on a claim brought against China by the Philippines
under UNCLOS, ruling in favor of the Philippines on almost every count. While China is a
signatory to the treaty, which established the tribunal, it refuses to accept the court’s authority.
In recent years, satellite imagery has shown China’s increased efforts to reclaim land in the
South China Sea by physically increasing the size of islands or creating new islands altogether.
In addition to piling sand onto existing reefs, China has constructed ports, military installations,
and airstrips—particularly in the Paracel and Spratly Islands, where it has twenty and seven
outposts, respectively. China has militarized Woody Island by deploying fighter jets, cruise
missiles, and a radar system.
To protect its political, security, and economic interests in the region, the United States has
challenged China’s assertive territorial claims and land reclamation efforts by conducting
FONOPs and bolstering support for Southeast Asian partners. Also in response to China’s
assertive presence in the disputed territory, Japan has sold military ships and equipment to the
Philippines and Vietnam in order to improve their maritime security capacity and to deter
Chinese aggression.
Concerns

The United States, which maintains important interests in ensuring freedom of navigation and

securing sea lines of communication (SLOCs), has expressed supportfor an agreement on a
binding code of conduct and other confidence-building measures. China’s claims threaten
SLOCs, which are important maritime passages that facilitate trade and the movement of naval
forces.
The United States has a role in preventing military escalation resulting from the territorial
dispute. Washington’s defense treaty with Manila could draw the United States into a potential
China-Philippines conflict over the substantial natural gas deposits or lucrative fishing grounds
in disputed territory. The failure of Chinese and Southeast Asian leaders to resolve the disputes
by diplomatic means could also undermine international laws governing maritime disputes and
encourage destabilizing arms buildups.

Nine- Dash Line

At the heart of the South China Sea dispute is the “nine-dash line”, Beijing’s claim that encircles
as much as 90 per cent of the contested waters. The line runs as far as 2,000km from the Chinese
mainland to within a few hundred kilometers of the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. Beijing
maintains it owns any land or features contained within the line, which confers vaguely defined
“historical maritime rights”.
The Philippines is contesting the claims at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In
its submissions, Manila argues the line exceeds the limits of maritime entitlements permitted
under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

What is the origin of the line?

It appeared on a Chinese map as an 11-dash line in 1947 as the then Republic of China’s navy
took control of some islands in the South China Sea that had been occupied by Japan during the
second world war. After the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 and Kuomintang
forces fled to Taiwan, the communist government declared itself the sole legitimate
representative of China and inherited all the nation’s maritime claims in the region.

Why is the line so important?

It serves as the basis of China’s claim to “historical rights” in the region, as neither Beijing nor
Taipei ever held effective control over the entire region encompassing more than 2 million sq
km. Other claimants such as the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei root their claim in
geographical proximity, while Vietnam, which occupies the largest number of islands and reefs
in the Spratlys, at 29, stresses it actively administers the area. The Philippines is challenging the
legality of the line at the international tribunal under Unclos.
China’s Artificial Island

China has added a maritime rescue centre to its facilities on an artificial island in the South
China Sea, pressing on with plans to turn the outpost into the biggest logistics hub in the disputed
waters. The Ministry of Transport said that the centre had been built on Fiery Cross Reef to serve
the Spratly Islands, also known as the Nanshas.

The announcement comes six months after China stationed the Nanhaijiu-115 rescue ship at Subi
Reef, another artificial island in the Spratlys.

The rescue centre would provide stronger and more comprehensive support to rescue missions
and would be part of the ministry’s “South China Sea rescue bureau” , the ministry said.

“It is a measure to implement international treaties and ensure safety of navigation and transport
in the South China Sea region,” it said.

Fiery Cross has grown from a rocky outcrop a few years ago into a 2.8 sq km (692 acre) artificial
island.

Military mouthpiece The PLA Daily published a high-definition photo of the island, showing it
complete with a harbor for large ships, a lawn by the 3km (1.86 mile) runway and more than 100
buildings.
The island has a weather observatory, ocean and hydrology monitory station and coral
restoration facilities, in addition to a lighthouse and a hospital.

Previous satellite images of Fiery Cross showed domes for radar equipment, communication
facilities, hangars, missile positions, underground tunnels and high-frequency radar antennas and
other military facilities.

The island has housing for more than 1,000 troops, with fresh water supplies, solar panels, a
vegetable greenhouse and sports facilities. Yet Fiery Cross is only the third largest island that
China has built in the Spratlys – Subi and Mischief reefs are nearly double its size.

Fiery Cross is also less of a target for US “freedom of navigation” operations, with a patrol by
the USS William P. Lawrence in 2016 so far, the only incident of its kind. In addition to
mainland China, the Spratlys are claimed also by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and
Taiwan.

China claims almost the entire South China Sea, but only controls seven reefs in the Spratlys,
which were all transformed into islands through massive land reclamation between from 2014.
Beijing has been trying to establish de facto administration in the region, including providing
humanitarian help to fishing and cargo vessels passing by the busy sea route.

The Nanhaijiu-115 and its sister ship the Nanhaijiu-117, have up to 10 professional divers on
board and have saved 16 people in eight missions in the past six months, according to state news
agency Xinhua.
 Chapter -2

India and South China Sea Dispute

India's Involvement in South China Sea dispute has to be seen in the context of ‘Offensive-
Defence Strategy’ in foreign policy that is covertly being pursued by New Delhi under the
leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It serves national interest because India has
legitimate security concerns with China in several areas; be it land boundary disputes, maritime
time issues, trade and commerce, strategic perceptions, Chinese offensive postures has
menacingly threatened India’s national interests.

While China has been pursuing such ‘offensive- defensive’ strategy against India for a long time
through its policies like; 'string of pearls', one belt one road, developing China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor, increasing presence in Indian Ocean region, India so far has been reluctant
to counter such challenges. It is only recently that India has decided to act as a ‘game changer’
and adopted an ‘offensive defensive’ strategy and to counter China has got involved in the South
China Sea dispute. The South China Sea dispute involves island and maritime claims of several
sovereign states of the region who contest China's claim over such territory. This includes’
Brunei, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam that are directly involved in the
South China Sea dispute with China.

While, these countries question China’s claim of its sovereignty over the region, China does not
recognize them and claims the islands and maritime lanes are within the nine-dash line (now ten-
dash) and are a part of its own territory. China is opposed to the internationalization of the South
China Sea disputes and demand that such conflict should be resolved bilaterally without the
intervention or mediation from any other nation or multilateral institutions.

There are two prime reasons why this dispute has become a global flash point. One, if China is
allowed to control over the South China Sea, it can have direct impact on global maritime trade
that passes through the South China Sea. Second, the entire Southeast Asian region will get
destabilized and that will have chilling impact on the rest of the world.

India is not a direct party in the South China Sea dispute and in best of its interest it may like to
have an amicable relationship both with China as well as ASEAN nations. As of now India’s
official position is; South China Sea dispute should not be "internationalized" and all the parties
concerned should resolve it bilaterally. However, it’s economic, maritime and strategic interest
demands maintaining freedom of passage for maritime trade through the South China Seas. This
compels India to get involved in South China Sea dispute.

South China Sea sees a heavy percentage of world trade that passes through Malacca Strait a part
of South China Sea. India’s 55 % of trade passes through Strait of Malacca which opens into
South China Sea. If China controls the region, it will upset the global trade practices and
countries like India will directly get affected. Any belligerent action by China can hamper
India’s foreign trade passing through that region. Therefore, India has a stake in ensuring
freedom of navigation in the region. If China is successful in controlling the sea lanes, India
would lose international trade route or pay extra to China to keep it restored. India does not want
this to happen and thus it is compelled to get involved in South China Sea dispute to safeguard
its economic interests.

India has legitimate strategic concerns because any military conflict in South China Sea will
have ramification on the Indian Ocean region. It may hamper regional security situation and in
such case India’s relationship with South East Asian countries may get disrupted. So South
China Sea is very important to India from strategic point of view. India though geographically
far away from South China Sea overtly maintains a distance from any involvement in this
dispute. However, the recent developments suggest that India's interest in the South China Sea
dispute is over growing.

This is borne out from the announcement made by the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at
different platforms like ASEAN Summit and his joint statements made with several countries
like USA, Japan Philippines and Vietnam also specifically mentions South China Sea dispute.
There are few other factors that compel India to play a major role in South China Sea dispute.
One in wake of weakening American alliance in Asia, US want India to play a role in regional
security issues such as South China Sea dispute.

Second, China’s over growing ambitions has chilling effect on India’s security architecture and
New Delhi likes to counter China by getting involved in South China Sea dispute.

Third there is global maritime security interest involved in the region and many nations want
India to balance the assertive and rising China and like it to get involved in the dispute to
maintain peace and security in the region.

Fourth, India’s Act East policy necessitates economic and defense ties with Southeast Asian
countries and many of them want India to play a major role in resolving the South China Sea
dispute. It appears India is more willing to listen to its ASEAN friends by seeing its growing
involvement in the dispute.

Fifth, India having a voice in a major regional security issue confers its prestige that
commensurate with its regional power status. This has necessitated India to get involved in
shaping the security architecture of the Indo-pacific region. In such context, India along with the
U.S. and other powers is gearing to play major role as security provider in the region.

Last but not the least, India’s South China Sea policy is a test case of ‘offensive defensive;
foreign policy pursued by New Delhi. It is used for deterring China to maintain its hands off
policy towards India. As such this policy serves such limited reasons to maintain an even
relationship with China.

Finally, even though India is not a party to the South China Sea dispute it has all the reasons to
maintain peace in its backyard. This has compelled India to get involved in South China Sea
dispute primarily for three reasons; one to maintain maritime security, second to develop close
ties with ASEAN countries to fulfill its Act East policy and third to counter China in the Indian
Ocean region.
Last, India as neutral observer can assert its weight on the region in partnership with several
other nations to resolve the South China Sea dispute. In such endeavor India’s offensive
defensive strategy appears to serve its purpose without souring India-China relationship.
 Chapter-3
Involvement of U.S in the Dispute
From the British’s colonization of the region to the nuclear explosions over Japan to the Khmer
Rouge’s ethnic cleansing, the South China Sea has experienced some of the world’s deadliest
conflicts. This region was been a bloody battleground for centuries.

Countries in the South China Sea have gone through invasion, colonization, liberation multiple
times over. Elected presidents imprisoned and ruthless dictators dethroned, the world as we
know it has changed because of revolutions and civil wars that have occurred here. Divided
countries are in a constant state of saber rattling. This region has both rising democracies and
dying nations, along with being home to both monarchs and dictators alike. To control ever
dwindling resources, both state-led and free-market economies compete.

The permanent state of affairs in the South China Sea has been continual discord, since countries
here do not make the best neighbors. Now is as good a time for investors to predict how this
four-dimensional game of chess will take place, as tensions here are growing again and funds
that are worth trillions of dollars are at stake.

Before we can understand the present and take advantage of the future, we need to know about
the region’s history. In 1949, one of the bloodiest battles in the South China Sea took place.
Chairman Mao, leader of the Chinese communists, ousted the nationalist Kuomintang from the
mainland. They retreated to Taiwan. Eight million lives were lost because of this conflict, while
two million were driven out of their homes. Taiwan is overshadowed by one of the world’s
largest and toughest countries, which also has an unquenchable desire to control the region along
with its resources. American troops landed on Inchon port around the same time. Korea had been
ruled by foreigners for many years. From 1910 to 1945, Imperial Japan controlled this peninsula.
Afterwards, this country was divided, where the North was backed by China and the South by
the U.S.

To this day, conflict between these two countries had killed a million people. World peace is at
stake since international leaders have very little patience while North Korea’s unstable regime
keeps on testing nuclear weapons. But compared to the Vietnam War, the Korean War was just a
small skirmish. Having claimed nearly four million lives, the Vietnam War is one of the
bloodiest military conflicts in modern history.

The South China Sea is undoubtedly the one of the bloodiest regions on this planet.

Countries in the area have been either allies or enemies for hundreds of years, while other
countries around the world are ‘nosey’ about this region. And the main player of recent major
regional conflicts here, whether it was behind the scenes or on the frontlines, has been the U.S.
There were two main pacts from several decades ago: China (and formerly the USSR) and the
U.S. In Europe, old foes may become fast friends. But in the South China Sea, this attitude is
rarely if ever seen, and so a regional arms race was initiated. Defense spending skyrocketed,
where over 500,000 military personnel in the Asia-Pacific is from the U.S. alone.

When you station over half a million soldiers thousands of miles away, spending is hefty. But
what is the U.S.’s goal? Since the end of the Second World War, this country is informally
regarded as the ‘world police’ helping maintain the peace in this erratic region. Peacekeeping is
not necessarily a charity. Armed conflict during the Cold War was a moneymaking business.
New jobs, new industries and new technologies were created, since governments had incentive to
spend on research and development.

As a result, not only demand during economic downturns but also consumer confidence was
enhanced. The benefits of increased spending spread to other sectors and industries like a
domino effect. The Vietnam war alone brought US$130 billion to the U.S.’s GDP. This is called
“wartime economy”.

But trade in the Asia-Pacific region is deemed more important to the U.S. Not only does this
region provides cheap resources and labor that the U.S. needs (to ensure prices for U.S.
consumers are low), but it also accounts for 30% of the total U.S. exports. China produces 70%
of Walmart’s goods. Out of 10 top major trading partners for the U.S., 6 belong to the South
China Sea region.

Meanwhile, the U.S. cannot escape all of its defense treaties made with various nations within
the region. Those treaties can drag the U.S. to conflict with China in case of war. If that happens,
then the consequences to regional trade and investment will be massive.

Profits in the defense sector, specifically return on equity and revenue per share, has increased.
In other words, defense companies are earning lots of profit. But because countries want to have
an edge against regional rivals, they invest more on researching and developing their
competitiveness, which raises operating costs.

Breakout of War
Although the South China Sea’s long and bloodied history was a thing in the past, this scenario
can potentially occur again. Despite being more connected via international capital, over US$5
billion worth of trade can disappear if military conflict falls onto the region.

If war breaks out, then not only will there be bodies lying on the streets, globally, jobs, markets
and investments will be affected as well. But the race to war can be profitable if an investor can
choose the right firms in the right markets that are gaining the most from massive state spending.
Since 2014, the dispute in the South China Sea began to escalate, revenues from major defense
and aerospace companies.
US Secretary of Defence James Mattis asserted that China’s “militarisation” of its occupied
features in the South China Sea is “for the purposes of intimidation and coercion”. Indeed, it
seems the US has decided to step up pressure in the South China Sea. However, this policy shift
is based in part on misperceptions that could easily lead to conflict.

This new US hard line towards China was officially manifested in its December 2017 National
Security Strategy that declared China a “strategic competitor” and “revisionist” nation regarding
the existing international order. On May 23, the Pentagon announced it had withdrawn its
invitation to China to participate in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) – the
world’s largest multinational military exercise. It said “China’s behaviour [in the South China
Sea] is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the RIMPAC exercise.”

The problem is that the US has conflated freedom of commercial navigation with a military
priority – freedom of navigation for its military intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
probes, making frequent reference to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which it has not
even ratified. China indeed objects to what it perceives as US abuse of “freedom of navigation”
and “intimidation and coercion” in enforcing its interpretation.

“Militarisation” also means different things to China and the US. To China, the placement of
“defensive” weapons constitutes an exercise of its right to self-defence. In Beijing’s view, the US
has clearly militarised the region with its forward-deployed troops, assets and patrols, bolstered
by the “rebalance” of its defence forces.

The centrality of international law in addressing the problems in the South China Sea is the focal
point of U.S. policy. Over the past four to five years, U.S. official statements have stressed the
need for the contending claimants to follow the rules established by international law. Based on
public statements and Congressional testimony from serving U.S. officials, U.S. policy consists
of the following elements.

 No use of force or coercion by any of the claimants to resolve sovereignty disputes or change
the status-quo of disputed South China Sea features.

 Freedom of navigation, which includes unimpeded lawful navigation for commercial, private
and military vessels and aircraft. Coastal states must respect the UNCLOS language that all
“high seas freedoms,” including peaceful military operations, are applicable in the EEZs of
coastal states.

 All maritime entitlements to any of the waters of the South China Sea must be based on
international law and must be derived from land features in the South China Sea. China’s nine-
dash line does not meet these criteria. In short, only land (islands and rocks) generate maritime
zones, not vice versa.

 The United States takes no position on the relative merits of competing sovereignty claims. It
does not choose sides; nor does it favor one country’s claim over another’s.
  An effective Code of Conduct that would promote a rules-based framework for managing and
regulating the behaviour of relevant countries in the South China Sea is essential. A key part of
such a document would be mechanisms such as hotlines and emergency procedures for
preventing incidents in sensitive areas and managing them when they do occur in ways that
prevent disputes from escalating.

 The United States supports internationally recognized dispute resolution mechanisms,

including those provided for in the UNCLOS treaty.

 Washington will respond positively to small South China Sea littoral countries that are U.S.
allies, officially designated “strategic partners,” or “comprehensive partners,” who want to
improve their ability to patrol and monitor their own territorial waters and EEZs

Existing U.S. policy is sensible, relatively comprehensive and proportionate to the U.S. interests
involved. It is primarily diplomatic but not entirely so. It focuses on creating stability by
exhorting all the parties to follow the rules of international law; it explicitly defines how
Washington would like conflicts to be solved; and it includes hard-power initiatives aimed at
redressing some of the power imbalance between the Philippines, Vietnam, and China. Finally, it
incorporates an element of deterrence by not ignoring America’s security alliance with the
Philippines as well as providing for access of U.S. naval and air forces in the Singapore and the
Philippines.

 Overarching policy guidelines should include the following principles:

- The South China Sea is not the central strategic element in the overall U.S.- China relationship.

- The South China Sea is an issue to be managed; a permanent solution is not likely in the near
term.

- There is no one preferred format for negotiated outcomes. Bilateral negotiations should not be
dismissed or portrayed as less desirable. The viii reality is that because of overlapping claims,
solutions that are negotiated directly by the claimants are inevitable.

- Policy should not be overwhelmingly anti-Chinese. The United States should criticize Chinese
behavior along with the behavior of American friends and allies when warranted, but keep in
mind China may have the best legal claim to all the land features, although that will never
become legal certainty unless Beijing is willing to agree to arbitration.

- The U.S. government should remain sensitive to the efforts of littoral states to involve the
United States more deeply in supporting their claims in order to balance against China. o In this
regard, the State Department should conduct a legal analysis of the Philippine claims. If this
analysis reaches the same conclusions as the analysis prepared for this project, Manila should be
quietly informed of Washington’s opinion of its claims; particularly in the Spratlys.
 - Washington should not announce policies that engage credibility in a way it is not prepared to
back-up.
 Conclusion

With an eye on China and the disputes in the South China Sea, India and the US today called for
freedom of navigation and resolving of territorial and maritime disputes peacefully in accordance
with international law.

"In the Indo-Pacific region, in order to maintain peace, stability and prosperity in the region, this is also
another objective of our strategic cooperation," Prime Minister Narendra Modi told reporters at the Rose
Garden of the White House after his maiden meeting with President Donald Trump.

Later, a India-US joint statement on the meeting said as responsible stewards in the Indo-Pacific
region, Trump and Modi agreed that a close partnership between the United States and India is
central to peace and stability in the region.

"Recognising the significant progress achieved in these endeavours, the leaders agreed to take
further measures to strengthen their partnership," the joint statement said. 

In accordance with the tenets outlined in the UN Charter, they committed to a set of common
principles for the region, according to which sovereignty and international law are respected and
every country can prosper, the statement said.

To this end, Trump and Modi reiterated the importance of respecting freedom of navigation,
overflight, and commerce throughout the region, it said.
The statement comes amid China being engaged in hotly contested territorial disputes in both the
South China Sea and the East China Sea. Beijing has built up and militarised many of the islands
and reefs it controls in the region. China claims sovereignty over all of the South China Sea.
Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Taiwan have counter claims.

Modi and Trump called upon all nations to resolve territorial and maritime disputes peacefully
and in accordance with international law.
They also called for support in bolstering regional economic connectivity through the transparent
development of infrastructure and the use of responsible debt financing practices, while ensuring
respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law, and the environment.
Modi and Trump urged other nations in the region to adhere to these principles, the statement
said.

They strongly condemned continued provocations by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK), emphasizing that its destabilizing pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile programmes
poses a grave threat to regional security and global peace. 

"Working together, I truly believe our two countries can set an example for many other nations,
make great strides in defeating common threats, and make great progress in unleashing amazing
prosperity and growth," Trump said. 
 Bibliography

 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/resolve-south-china-sea-dispute-
without-use-of-force-india-indonesia/articleshow/55947649.cms

 https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2167175/growing-us-presence-south-
china-sea-threatens-accide

 "South China Sea – Analysis". U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 7

February 2013. Retrieved 11 December2016.

 https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/growing-us-role-south-china-sea

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterpham/2017/12/15/what-is-the-united-states-doing-in-
the-south-china-sea/#7eb326ac1a9e

 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-us-call-for-freedom-of-
navigation-amid-south-china-sea-disputes/articleshow/593

  US seeking stronger trade ties with Asean, Inquirer Global Nation], 17 February 2016

 https://www.civilserviceindia.com/current-affairs/articles/india-and-south-china-sea-
dispute.html