SPEAKING
FREELY Point of no return in the South
China Sea By Nazery Khalid
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Recent meetings on
the South China Sea in various locations suggest
that if serious actions are not taken now to
promote cooperation among the claimant states and
settle disputes among them in an amicable manner,
the 'geopolitical temperature' in this pivotal sea
will increase to even more worrying levels.
The absence of an agreed mechanism to
manage the disputes and govern the behaviors of
the claimants has contributed to the current
undesirable situation in the sea. It is feared
that the lack
of meaningful moves by
the protagonists, most notably by the regional and
external powers; to soothe the strain in the sea
will further aggravate the tension. The tense
Scarborough Shoal stand-off between China and the
Philippines that thankfully did not get out of
hand accentuated the edgy and potentially
explosive state in the sea.
At a
conference in Kuala Lumpur organized by Maritime
Institute of Malaysia (MIMA), delegates went away
feeling optimistic that good sense will eventually
prevail in the sea. However, they cautioned
against rising assertive actions and provocative
posturing among the claimant states and external
powers that can threaten peace and stability in
the sea.
Meanwhile, in a conference in
Taipei organized by National Taiwan Normal
University, the calls for claimant states of the
sea to justify their claims on legal basis and for
disputes to be resolved through international
principles and law, especially UNCLOS, resonated
loudly.
At the track one level, the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in
Vladivostok, Russia also discussed the disputes in
the sea. This reflects international concern over
the tension in the sea of immense importance to
global trade, economic and strategic interests. It
is expected that the APEC Summit will endorse the
need for a code to govern the conduct of the
claimant states in the sea and put in place a
dispute resolution mechanism ahead of the East
Asia Summit to be held in Cambodia in November
2012.
Roiling waters Several
developments have sent the level of tension in the
sea spiking recently. They centered around actions
undertaken by the two powers with interest in the
sea, namely the China and the United States.
China's actions in safeguarding its
interests in the sea have been interpreted by many
analysts as assertive. They include patrols in
contested waters, the construction of a Chinese
military garrison on Shansha Island and the
harassment and arrest of foreign fishermen in
disputed waters.
The call by the United
States for China to engage the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to settle disputes
in the sea - an approach never in favor in Beijing
- has irked China which sees it as an interference
in a regional affair. China was rattled by the
backing given by the United States to Philippines
during the Scarborough Shoal stand-off and had
expressed its displeasure at the involvement of a
non-claimant state in the disputes in the sea.
China, which describes its interest in the
South China Sea as a 'core interest', has resisted
attempts to internationalize the disputes in the
sea. When the United States declared it has
'national interest' in maintaining freedom of
navigation in the sea and seeing to the peaceful
settlement of disputes in the sea, Beijing did not
mince words in telling Washington to keep is nose
out of the affair.
China's continued
refusal to settle the disputes through a third
party such as using arbitration or mediation has
become a major impediment against moving forward
the agenda of finding durable solution to
disputes. Its insistence on discussing the issue
via bilateral means and maintaining its ambiguous
'nine dotted lines' claim of practically the
entire resource-rich sea have posed a hurdle that
makes it difficult for the parties involved in the
disputes to move forward.
The
establishment of a Declaration of Conduct of
Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002
between ASEAN and China has failed to prevent
tension from occurring and escalating. Despite
commitment by ASEAN and China to agree on a set of
guidelines to implement the DOC, a belated decade
after the DOC was signed, not many are bullish on
the political document being an effective means to
cool off tension and prevent further disputes from
occurring in the sea.
The call for a more
binding Code of Conduct (CoC) to be agreed between
ASEAN and China looks a long shot at this point in
time. Until China changes tangent and agrees to
discuss the disputes on a multilateral basis with
ASEAN, it would be hard to wager a bet on a CoC to
be agreed upon between them in the foreseeable
future.
Further complicating the situation
is China's alleged influence on Cambodia, the
current ASEAN chair. The failure of ASEAN to issue
a joint communique at the end of the ASEAN Foreign
Ministers' Meeting in Phnom Penh in July 2012 was
blamed by many on China's pressure on Cambodia to
prevent ASEAN from coming up with a statement on
the disputes in the sea.
This has caused
fear of friction among ASEAN polarized by a
powerful regional power which is also a claimant
party in the sea. The frantic effort after the
meeting in Phnom Penh by Indonesian Foreign
Minister, Marty Natalegawa to cobble up a joint
statement by ASEAN on the matter looked more like
damage control than a display of unity among the
region's nations.
It appears that the
parties involved directly and indirectly in the
disputes have reached a fork in road point where a
major decision needs to be made. The tense
situation cannot be left unattended indefinitely
as it will push an edgy situation to an unbearable
point where full-blown conflicts are inevitable.
This is something that nations in the region,
whose economic and strategic interests ride on the
sea, can ill-afford.
Balance of
power To China, it is acting reasonably in
staking its claims in the South China Sea and in
defending them. To other claimant states, China's
posturing borders on intimidating and can
undermine peace and stability in the sea and the
region. They fear that if left unchecked, China
can act without restraint in safeguarding its
interests the sea.
This lends currency to
the drawing the involvement of external power in
the disputes to create a semblance of balance of
power in the sea. Step in United States which,
despite not being a claimant state in the sea, has
described the sea as its area of strategic
interest.
In this regard, the role and
influence of the United States in the equation
should be seen in a constructive context. While it
is easy to scoff at the involvement of an outside
party in any dispute, one cannot dismiss the
powerful influence of the United States on the
region and for that matter the strategic
calculations in the sea. Underscoring its
intent to be involved, the United States, under
the President Barrack Obama administration, has
announced its intent to 'pivot to Asia' and deepen
economic and strategic ties with the region. It
has also expressed its intent to rebalance its
naval assets in the Asia Pacific that underlines
its strategic commitment to the region.
These, of course, have made China nervous.
Despite assurances by the United States that its
'pivot to Asia' policy is not out to contain
China, and its desire to remain neutral in the
disputes, China is not convinced. Beijing sees
Washington's actions such as stationing Marines in
Darwin, Australia; announcing to deploy littoral
combat ships in Singapore; and the visit by
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Cam Ranh Bay, a
former United States naval base, in June 2012 as
part of a choreographed construct to check China's
rise in the region.
All eyes on the Big
Two In the run up to the APEC Summit in
Vladivostok, United States' Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton said that the United States
believed that the nations of the region should
work together to resolve disputes "without
coercion, without intimidation, without threats
and certainly without the use of force". This
position is also advocated by China, which has
time and again expressed its desire to seek
harmonious settlement of the disputes.
In
a further attempt to diffuse the tension between
China and the United States in the sea, Secretary
Clinton expressed Washington's hope to see Beijing
playing a "positive role in navigation and
maritime security issues" and contributing to
"sustainable development for the people of the
Pacific to protect the precious environment,
including the oceans". This is consistent with
Washington's view that its involvement in the
region is fully compatible with China's rise,
which it said is attuned to the United States' own
strategic interests.
Based on the official
pronouncements of both sides, it is very clear
that both the United States and China share the
same unequivocal position of not wanting to see
conflicts breaking out in the sea. This common
position should be seized upon by both sides to
work on areas of common interests in the sea that
can lead to the nurturing of trust, understanding
and confidence between them. This will be in the
interest of the littoral nations of the South
China Sea which need nothing less than peace and
security in the sea to facilitate trade and
economic growth.
United States has
welcomed the rise of China and the two enjoy deep
economic and strategic ties. They both cherish the
same principles in the South China Sea such as
maintaining freedom of navigation, settling
disputes through diplomatic channels, and
maintaining peace, security and prosperity in the
region. As such, they must work on areas of common
interests such as maintaining navigation safety,
preventing crimes, protecting assets and lives
from natural disasters and managing fishery
resources in the sea. One can only imagine the
world of good that can come out of the two working
together in the sea and what it can do to ensure
peace, security and prosperity in the region.
As a growing military and economic power,
China must walk the talk and live to its
well-publicized commitment to settling disputes in
the sea amicably and of becoming a 'good friend,
good partner and good neighbor' to ASEAN
countries. It must refrain from taking any actions
that are provocative, assertive or aggressive that
can cause suspicious among its neighbors and
portray it as a 'regional bully' and a stumbling
block to regional unity. It would do well to align
its claims of the sea with legal justification to
make clear top other claimant states the nature of
its claim. Beijing's hardened stance on discussing
the disputes through bilateral means is not
helpful in breaking the impasse in the sea; it
even runs counter against the global trend of
resolving problems through multilateral mechanisms
and means.
As for the United States, it
must continue to constructively engage the
regional players and goad them to settle their
disputes through diplomatic channels. It must show
a neutral face and live up to its assertion of not
taking sides in the disputes in the sea. It must
go all out to convince China and the regional
nations that the 'pivot to Asia' policy will not
alienate China, polarize the region or upset the
regional balance of power. The United States and
China, as established and newly-minted global
powers respectively, must appreciate the fact that
ASEAN does not wish to have to choose to be
aligned to one of them at the expense of the
other.
The two powers must understand that
ASEAN is a work in progress; it has so many other
areas of priorities and faces formidable
challenges to become pursue its goal of creating
an integrated ASEAN Economic Community. As an
essentially developing area which is dependent on
international trade and foreign direct investment,
and counts both the United States and China as key
strategic and economic partners, ASEAN cannot
afford to be trampled between the fight between
two Goliaths, both of which happen to be its
important economic and political allies.
At the same time, ASEAN must up its ante
in its dealing with both powers. It must speak in
unison and show leadership on the issue of
disputes in the sea. A weak ASEAN cannot hope to
assume a central position in regional affairs. If
it cannot agree on a common position on the
disputes in the sea, it will be part of the
problem, not part of the solution. ASEAN's
weakness will result in regional and external
powers exerting their preponderance on dictating
the strategic direction in the sea. A disunited
ASEAN will be pushed to the margins instead of
being at the center of the regional strategic
architecture where it should rightfully be.
Any party taking a zero sum game approach
in the sea is bound to exacerbate the tension.
Aggressive and provocative postures in the sea
will not help in cooling the political temperature
there. However, no power should be allowed to
enjoy hegemony as it could lead to divisiveness in
the region. Seeking equilibrium is the name of the
game; a non-committal, non-interventionist stand
by one power may lead to the other power becoming
assertive and aggressive. Provocation by one may
create antagonism and invite backlash from the
other.
Disputes involving multi-parties
such a complex and vast area like the South China
Sea require all side to work together to resolve.
They must exercise utmost restraint, patience and
steadfastness to untangle the disagreements among
them in an agreeable way. However, sharp focus
will be trained on the two powers, United States
and China, whose interests clash and intertwine in
the sea. All eyes will be on them to conduct
themselves in a way that is worthy of their global
power status in handling the disputes and managing
the situation in the sea Their actions and
reactions will be crucial in shaping the course of
the disputes in this pivotal sea.
The
protagonists are inching closer to the fork in the
road in the disputes in the sea. Soon, some major
decisions will have to be made and game-changing
options selected to avert tension from worsening
and conflicts from occurring. When the time comes
to cross the rubicon to change the status quo for
the better, much will be expected from the United
States and China to lead the way towards attaining
durable peace, stability and prosperity in the
sea.
Nazery Khalid is a
Malaysian-based maritime policy analyst. He can be
contacted at nazerykhalid@gmail.com
(Copyright 2012 Nazery Khalid.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their
say.Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing. Articles submitted for this section
allow our readers to express their opinions and do
not necessarily meet the same editorial standards
of Asia Times Online's regular
contributors.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
