Years of school-taught nationalism has complicated efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the South China Sea dispute. Time to try the legal route.
The recent APEC and ASEAN summits in Honolulu and Bali, respectively, saw renewed efforts to solve the South China Sea issue using a regional diplomacy-based approach. Tensions around the conflicting claims over various islands and maritime space have grown since 2009, when China, Vietnam and Malaysia formally submitted their claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
China’s apparent willingness last year to use new naval and air assets to demonstrate support for its claims – and the reaction this sparked from claimants Vietnam and the Philippines – has pushed regional tensions to new heights. Yet the limited diplomatic gains of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation and Association of Southeast Asian Nations summits in tackling this issue underscore the shortcomings of the strategies employed by regional states.
Broadly speaking, there have been four main strategies:
The first has been to attempt to negotiate at the bilateral level. China has repeatedly indicated its preference for this method, but disparities in size and economic influence mean that this approach is widely seen as heavily weighted in Beijing’s favor by the other claimants. Furthermore, there are suspicions that China’s intention is merely to negotiate a freeze on resource development in contested oil fields, rather than to compromise on sovereignty issues. On the other hand, the bilateral channel has been used to good effect to reduce bilateral tensions, as seen by Vietnam’s recent six-point agreement with China, which established a few new mechanisms for consulting on border issues.
The second strategy has been to try take the issue to a variety of regional fora and solve it at a multilateral level, where states feel China’s advantages of scale are more muted. ASEAN has been the main organization chosen, and for many in the region, this is one of its most formidable tests of whether it can handle regional security issues. But the diversity of interests, the strength of the ASEAN way, and the fact that only four ASEAN states out of ten are involved in the South China Sea issue has meant that an ASEAN solution remains – as yet – out of reach. China’s ability to detach Burma, Laos, and at times, Indonesia from Vietnamese and Philippine positions reveals the weakness of such an approach.
A third strategy has been to develop closer diplomatic and military relations with the United States. With 36 attack submarines and six carrier groups in the Pacific, the United States remains the predominant military force in the region, and states like Vietnam and the Philippines have sought strategic reassurance through new or renewed military agreements with Washington. Vietnam’s nuclear and military medical agreements are largely seen in this light, as is Clinton’s visit to Manila following the APEC summit, where she reaffirmed the U.S. defense commitment to the Philippines in the Manila Declaration and announced the delivery of another coast guard cutter to the Philippine navy.
Moving away from its previous position of non-involvement over the issue, the United States has increased engagement with both states, for a number of reasons. First, the U.S. is concerned with the larger implications on international maritime law of China’s claims, particularly the “U-shaped line.” Second, the prospect of potential Chinese control over these vital sea lanes of communication (SLOC) for North East Asian allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea makes U.S. policy makers uneasy. China’s willingness to block resources as part of political pressure has already been demonstrated during the Senkaku fishing boat incident in September 2010. For Manila and Hanoi, these new ties with the United States are simultaneously a hedge against Chinese military assertiveness as well as a form of pressure on Beijing to compromise at the diplomatic fora.
But as Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s speech to ASEAN leaders at Bali indicates, China has recently adopted a softer tone, indicating that it’s willing to seek a peaceful resolution to the disputes, promising massive investment to the region. Still, Wen also warned against involving foreign powers in the disputes. While this is widely read to mean the United States, it’s also meant to include other powers.
For ASEAN powers have also used a fourth strategy – internationalizing the issue by involving non-regional states like India and European powers in the exploitation of carbon energy resources in disputed waters. India’s recent agreement with Vietnam to carry out joint development of a gas field in Chinese-Vietnamese disputed waters falls into this category, and India’s state owned ONGC joins a number of other foreign companies already involved in Vietnam including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP and Zarubezhneft.
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
silaokoi
Someday I hope that the chinese people would be free… free from propaganda, free to think without coercion, free to choose and free from oppression. I am a filipino chinese and unlike the mainlanders, we know our history… its written in our bloodlines….
we chinese did not come to the philippines as conquerors, we came here as traders, exiles and refugees (from all the wars, pogroms, ethnic conflicts, utter poverty, abuse and oppression of the mandarins and the emperors from the mainland)
Why the philippines? because its an open and accepting country… we got the same opportunities and are treated the same as everyone else (for good or for bad)..
China has never exercised sovereignty over these islands,that's why pirates like lim ahong went here… those little islands you call huangyan is not an island – its a rock… the spratly's are not imperial china's… the emperors have never sent a fleet there….
there were chinese vessels and fishermen who passed by there but those were my trading ancestors who went for trade and not conquest…..
the confucian traditions of what is right and proper has been reinterpreted b the communist party… the imperialism and aggressive violence of today's mainlander generation is a sign of china's unraveling social fabric and is indicative of the fractures within chinese society…
one can only imagine the effects of having a population which is highly male and dominated by single children… if single children have been proven to be more aggressive — what happens if you if you have a population full of them?
the mainlanders of today are not the chinese of before.. you and I are separated not only by distance but by generations and by a gulf of difference in values..
I am proud of my ancestry not because my ancestors were chinese…. I am proud because they were men of reason, order and of peace…
to the chinese in the mainland – read a history book or two (not from the CCP)… chinese of the mainland unite… you have nothing to lose. The CCP and the corrupt elite owns you in mind, body and soul… free yourself and join the community of nations in peace.
and p.s. I don't care much for giving a reasoned debate here since mainlanders like john chan – clearly can't…
we shouldnt waste our time reasoning with people who clearly can't see reason.
DN
@siloakoi
Thank you for your post, I was starting to develop a racist view that ALL Chinese think like John Chan and Liang1a.
Major Lowen Gil Marquez, Phil Army
The problem in the Western Philippine on Spratley claimants could be solved over the cup of coffee in the conference table.
The Spratley Island were under the territory of the Philippines and it is locate at western Philippine sea and it can be trace on Philippine territorial map.
The Spratley island was a fishing ground of the Pilipino fisherman before it was discovered by a pilipino mariner from Visayas Island.
The other claimant countries were always on negotiation mode, unlike the Chinese wanted to claim all the island by military invasion as what they did in Vietnam were they massacre more-than 100 Vietnamese in a little shoal in
spratley..
The Chinese do not wanted to adhere in international Laws of Sea because they see it as unfavorable to their interest.
This Chinese were also a creeping invader in the group of Island, So they have no authority to bully other little nations specially the legal owner of the Spratley group of Island. . .
This concerned of different can be solved when everyone is open to a negotiation and reality acceptance. .
Don_5th Marines (USA)
China has hoisted itself on its own petard. By cultivating a spirit of nationalism to distract its citizens from the abuses of the “CCP”, and by its claims to the South China Sea territory, it cannot be seen by the radicalized Chinese citizenry to negotiate or “back down” in any sense, except as a ploy to deceive the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Taiwan. China’s goal is hegemony over the western Pacific and southeast Asia. They may exercise patience if required, but hegemony is the path they have chosen and will not divert from.
Liang1a
Huy Duong wrote:
November 27, 2011 at 9:42 am
Liang1a,
You have shown that China’s positions in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea are lawless and are based on complete disregard for other countries.
———————————
Liang’s response:
I have shown China’s positions everywhere are based on generosity, historical transmissions, international law, etc. China had generously given Bach Long Vi to Vietnam. China had adhered to its historical sea boundaries demarcated by the 9-Dotted Line Map. China had adhered to the UNCLOS provisions of continental shelf in ECS. China only demand justice while giving all reasonable regard for other countries. The fact that China had persistently invited the invaders to set aside dispute and cooperate in joint development is good evidence of China’s generosity and regard for the welfare of its neighbors. Unfortunately, China’s generosity and regard for its neighbors have been misinterpreted as weakness and have invited heinous aggressions that increase every day. It is time for China to stop being so generous and take military action to exert its rightful sovereignty.
==================================
Huy Duong wrote:
The only thing that they are based on is imperialism and the threat of violence.
You and others like you should realize that the days of imperialism are over.
If you are not able to realize that, be reminded by the long history between us: that it’s always you who threaten us, it’s always you who choose war, it’s always you who try to take out land, this time it’s no different.
So you can take your arrogant imperialism and threat of violence and put it back where you took it out from.
———————————
Liang’s response:
I hope the Chinese people and Chinese government will take notice of this arrogant hostility. China had never killed the Vietnamese by the millions such as the French, the Japanese and the Americans had done. And yet the Vietnamese are coddling up to these former butchers of their people. China had given protection to the Vietnamese people for thousands of years. Vietnam had prospered under the Chinese protection. Vietnam had copied China’s advanced culture. China had given huge amounts of aids to Vietnam during the Vietnam War against America. It is only due to China’s protection that America did not invade North Vietnam. What Vietnam is doing now is the height of ingratitude. But in the end it is Vietnam who will suffer destruction.
Ghet Tau
South China Sea is not Chinese lake. Historically, China has acted as a big bully against smaller neighboring states. Chinese navy vessels camouflaged as civilian fishing boats attacked Vietnamese and Filipino fishermen. It is also noted that Chinese hegemonic policies has caused territorial disputes with other countries such as: Korea, Japan, India.
It’s time for all countries to unite to fight against this arrogant bully. China is big and can beat any smaller country. But if all countries unite and fight against China in all fronts, the big bully would be in deep trouble.
I can’t wait to see the day the middle kingdom would be imploded by civil domestic unrests and broken up into pieces. Tibet would regain her independence. Taiwan would become the legitimate government of China. Vietnam and the Phillipines would retake the islands in the South China Sea. All countries would live peacefully.
Cyrus14
We take what we have claimed as ours not the entire Spratley but only a few of its Islands. Also we are willing to share the Spratley with ASEAN.