Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
THE VIETNAMESE AGREEMENT THAT LED TO THE CHANGE FROM THE 11-DASH LINE TO THE 9-DASH LINE
With several countries having overlapping territorial claims, the South China Sea has long been a controversial area. China’s claim lies at the centre of these conflicts; historically, it has been marked by what was first called the “11-dash line,” which was later changed to the “9-dash line.” Even though this change only eliminates two dashes, it has important geopolitical ramifications. The mid-1900s geopolitical manoeuvres between China and Vietnam are responsible for the change from the 11-dash to the 9-dash line.
Background of the 11-Dash Line
When the Kuomintang administration ruled the Republic of China in the early 1900s, that is when the 11-dash line first appeared. An 11-dash line, sometimes referred to as the “U-shaped line,” that surrounded the majority of the South China Sea was depicted on a map published by the Chinese government in 1947. This line of demarcation established Chinese authority over a huge area of the sea, encompassing a number of islands, reefs, and atolls—some of which were also claimed by neighbouring nations like Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
The 11-dash line was rooted in China’s historical claims, which were based on maps, and the principle of “discovery and control” (UNCLOS, 2016). However, these claims were not internationally recognized and remained a point of contention among the nations bordering the South China Sea.
The Transition to the 9-Dash Line
The geopolitical environment of Southeast Asia was changing, and this was reflected in the shift from the 11-dash to the 9-dash line. Following the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s establishment in 1949 by the Chinese Communist Party, China started to reevaluate its foreign policy and territorial claims in the 1950s.
Resolving the wars in Korea and Indochina was one of the main goals of the 1954 Geneva Conference, which had a significant impact on this change. The conference produced the Geneva Accords, which split Vietnam temporarily at the 17th parallel, putting a pro-Western government in the South and communist rule in the North.
China aspired to forge closer relations with the newly established communist regime in North Vietnam as it worked to increase its influence in the area. China also attempted to ease relations with its neighbours at this time in order to concentrate on its own growth and oppose the US influence in Asia.
The Chinese government, under the leadership of Premier Zhou Enlai, decided to change the 11-dash line in 1953, right before the Geneva Conference, by eliminating two dashes that were situated in the Gulf of Tonkin, close to Vietnam’s shore. The 9-dash line is the product of this modification. (Hayton, 2014)
Motivations Behind the Change
Eliminating the two dashes was a major diplomatic move toward Vietnam as well as a simple cartography correction. China indicated its readiness to recognize Vietnam’s maritime claims in the Gulf of Tonkin by removing the dashes there. This was especially significant since China aimed to maintain positive ties with North Vietnam, which was essential for the expansion of communism throughout Southeast Asia.
Furthermore, China made the modification as a calculated strategic decision to reduce the likelihood of confrontation with Vietnam, which was waging war first against American forces and then against French colonial forces. China made this offer in an effort to win over Vietnam’s cooperation and prevent tensions between the two communist allies from developing over territory.
Implications of the 9-Dash Line
The 9-dash line overlapped with the claims of other Southeast Asian countries and still covered a sizable portion of the South China Sea after the alteration. The core elements of China’s vast maritime claims, which remained a source of conflict in the area, remained unchanged despite the reduction from 11 to 9 dashes.
China’s South China Sea policy has been cantered around the 9-dash line, which has been mentioned in a number of diplomatic and military moves made in the area. China has invoked this line to defend its reclamation of sovereignty over disputed waters, the building of military installations, and the creation of artificial islands.
Vietnam has continued to strongly oppose the 9-dash line, especially since China has been re-entering the South China Sea. Numerous conflicts have resulted in clashes between China and Vietnam as well as other nations in the area. The demarcation covers areas also claimed by Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, leading to regional tensions and international challenges to its legality.
Conclusion
China’s shift from the original 11-dash line to the 9-dash line in 1953 did not limit its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly Islands. By reducing two dashes, China aimed to simplify its claim without relinquishing its historical assertions over these areas. This ambiguous demarcation allowed flexibility for potential expansion, as China continued to claim “historical rights” over the waters and islands within the line, despite competing claims from neighbouring countries. The 9-dash line remains strategically vague, enabling China to assert control over maritime features like the Paracels and Spratly’s while sidestepping international legal constraints.
China purposefully changed the line from the 11-dash to the 9-dash in order to fortify its ties with Vietnam at a pivotal juncture in the mid-20th century. China’s vast territorial claims in the South China Sea remain a hotspot in regional geopolitics, despite the fact that the shift marked a diplomatic compromise to Vietnam. The aftermath of this change highlights how intricately historical claims, diplomatic manoeuvres, and modern international politics interact in the area.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.