My alma mater, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, will probably revoke my degree, but…I doubt diplomatic negotiations toward a South China Sea code of conduct will pay off. ASEAN members have long sought to broker such a compact, only to be foiled by Chinese temporizing. Proponents seem to believe a code of conduct would eliminate incidents such as the recent standoff at Scarborough Shoal, when Chinese and Philippine vessels faced off for weeks over sovereignty over the atoll and adjoining waters.
This confuses tactical measures taken to ease tensions on the high seas with the resolution of political disputes that verge on insoluble. It bespeaks wishful thinking.
Officials and pundits seem to pattern their advocacy of such an accord on the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) Agreement. And to be sure, INCSEA was a code of conduct regulating the actions of U.S. and Soviet assets in international waters and skies. It prescribed certain actions American and Soviet seamen and airmen should take, or avoid taking, when they found themselves in close proximity in the global commons. Close encounters were commonplace in light of the cat-and-mouse games the two navies played during the late Cold War. Refraining from actions that could be construed as attackson the other fleet’s ships and warplanes, or that otherwise placed them in jeopardy, was central to the INCSEA philosophy.
INCSEA helped reduce the chances of accidental crises or armed conflicts that might ensue should ships or aircraft collide, weapons be flourished, or tempers flare. That was no small thing. But the agreement’s framers entertained few illusions about its capacity to bring about political concord. Again, it was tactical in nature. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union relinquished its prerogatives in the maritime domain because of INCSEA. Does anyone really believe that Beijing, which assigns its territorial claims in the South China Sea inordinate value, will sign away those claims to quell tensions it has deliberately stoked? Color me skeptical.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Tom
Cold war in SCS? no need to go to that extreme. Most if not all countries benefit hugely from regional trade and investment. US is too far and not a claimant. China is too big but it cannot afford to win by force, needless to say China has much to gain economically from the region. Small and weak countries are no match, but are driven by extreme nationalistic view such as those in the Phillipnes or Vietnam, don't expect a major compromise or giving up territory in order to get China's favor. I see no solution from this current situation, there had not been one, and there won't be one. Bringing the US in doesn't change the equation. Maybe after some 10-20 years if the balance of power shifts clearly to China, if it keeps growing at the current rate, then we woud know who has the upper hand.
Jacques de Goldfiem
Don't worry James, you are right
http://www.asiaobserver.org/category/china-hongkong-taiwan/china/china-territorial-claims
talking points
the pivot policy of US is started by an insecure woman. this will tell you what trouble you will see in the future. the new nominee of secretary of state is also a bickering woman.
not to be sexist, but american foreign policy is in trouble
God
This is how the South China Sea debacle is going to end.
The inexpereinced Chinese navy is going to get itself into a fight it cant win.
Billions of dollars of Chinese metal and countless men will go to the bottom of the ocean and then xenophobic leaders in the Chinese Army and government will cry out – "why have we been pumnping loads of money into a navy that couldn't fight, let's revert back to defending the homeland in ways we know."
And the Chinese dream of maritme supremacy will end just the same way as it has ended so many times before – trumped by xenophobia, ignorance and an over reliance to protect the core at all costs.
ACT
@"God"
it might get itself into a fight it can't win, but that assumes that it won't be fighting under the umbrella of the now massive PRC ASBM and ASCM network; the USN has the upper hand on the PLAN, but any victory would come at a massive cost, and would effectively shatter the illusion of US military predominance (our military needs that kind of wake-up call anyway).
kevinICdesigner
The sooner the Chinese engage in an ill advised confrontation the better. Lets get it over with before they start building carriers.
John Chan
The USA national debt becomes 30 trillions, the Pentagon has no money to pay qualified sailors and maintain the worships, all the ships of the 7th fleet are rusty hulls.
Japanese want to get out of the American occupation and become a member of Asia, so they incorporate China set up a trap at Diaoyu Islands, China’s ASBMs send all USA flattops to the bottom of the ocean and Japanese makes American submarines tins of sardines and China Navy air wings sinks the USA carrier escort ships like sitting ducks.
After the 7th fleet has gone to the bottom of the ocean, Americans revolts against high taxes to pay national debt burdens, they abolish the Pentagon and CIA; the grand American Isolation starts. The world celebrates on getting rid of that big bad predatory imperialist.
Leonard R.
China doesn't keep agreements. Ergo, don't make agreements with China. Beijing would play any deal to the margins. The Soviets at least, were grown-ups. You're not dealing with grown-ups in Beijing.
At any rate, Prof. Holmes' idea is unnecessary. Better and safer to view the PLAN as extremely hostile & to put them on notice. Strong fences make good neighbors.
Bankotsu
"You're not dealing with grown-ups in Beijing."
What about the U.S?
Be Way
U.S is a spoilt brat, still hallucinating that the whole world should kowtow to him.
"Either you are with us or against us". Woweeeeeeeee, very original … This is divine !!.
Tony
I agree with much of what applesauce said. INCSEA came about because the US nd USSR wanted to be able to operate in close proximity, but didn't want to accidentally stumble into WWIII over an incident at sea: they wanted to be threatening, but not TOO threatening. One perspective is that China WANTS to be threatening and wouldn't support an agreement that would reduce that ability. Another is that the US does not want to grant "superpower" status to China by entering into an agreement that they only entered into with the world's only other superpower. Still another view is that the Rules of the Road, which didn't exist when INCSEA was adopted, constitutes international law and governs how ships are supposed to behave at sea. Finally, anything that keeps us in Phase 0 (peacetime operations) is a good thing, and if a Code of Conduct/INCSEA-like agreement were to help, it should be pursued.
applesauce
the US and USSR where the superpowers of the time and while they fight proxy wars, neither wanted nor can afford to escalate to fighting directly. that is a different story with china and the SEA nations. china is far stronger than any of them or maybe even all of them together, it may not want a war but so long as the chinese werent the ones who fired first, they can certainly afford it. to look at this another way, its easy to imagine DC and moscow in ruins if the us and ussr fight, if china and the sea nations fight its difficult to see beijing occupied but its easy to see china possibly shelling hanoi .there is no pressure towards a special deal with lesser powers just as the US needs no special deal with north korea or iran on ocean oeprations. now if the US and China were to go for a deal it may be more sensible, politically speaking, and probably more useful especially in the comming years
applesauce
whoops sea=scs diplomat needs a edit button =/
Frank
If Americans want a code of conduct, they need to have neogotiate one with China first. May be use the same one they signed with Russia.
Regulating codes have to be negotiated by strong countries. It is funny to think that a strong large country wants a code promoted by tiny little ones.
ray
Why would you randomly bring up America in a dispute between China and the ASEAN countries?
applesauce
the author brought it up and its laughable to think US influence is not present in the SCS disputes
Bankotsu
If the code of conduct agreement is signed with regards to Gulf of Mexico and North American rim, I don't see why not.
Duke
You're the most foolish & stubborn commie blogger in this forum. There's been nothing to do with the Gulf of Mexico here. No nation there has complained about any kind of misconduct or misbehavior in the Gulf of Mexico, but right here, all the regional countries are crying out for help due to China's bullying & intimidation & its expansionist hegemonic ambition to dominate the whole region. Two things are for sure: Japan will rearm in some significant way in the coming days to counter an aggressive expansionist China & the USN will force to break the PLAN neck once & for all if China dares to block the freedom of navigation in SCS &ECS. Just wait & see, my commie.
Chuck Hill
The INCSEA agreement applied anywhere US and Soviet warships met, but it only prevented misusderstandings, It did not prevent deliberate provocation, which seems to have been the problem with Chinese behavior.
ray
Nope. The author brought up America in the context of the USA vs USSR cold war. You are just trying to defend the territory grab by China by trying to spin China into the victim.
Frank
You have a very good question.
Why would American want to step in a dispute between China and the ASEAN countries?
Bankotsu
"There's been nothing to do with the Gulf of Mexico here. No nation there has complained about any kind of misconduct or misbehavior in the Gulf of Mexico…"
What about Guantanamo bay and Navassa?
Haiti Disputes U.S. Claims…
http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/navassa/dispute.htm
I think African Union should back Haiti on Navassa.
Haiti joins the African Union
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2012/11/haiti-joins-the-african-union-2448162.html
Duke
My poor commie,
First, Haiti is a small island country in the Carribean where French & Haitian Creole, not English are the official languages. The Americans have left Haiti & ended the US occupation there in 1934 before WWII. As an independent nation, it can choose to join any alliance it deems fit. That's it. In the case of SCS, ECS & Tibet, it is quite different. Tibet, an independent country having been invaded & occupied by the CCP in 1950 is now desperately fighting for its own independence & freedoom against the Chinese occupiers, whereas SCS & ECS are the global commons open for all nations in the world not the private properties of any individual country even that's the US, China, or Japan, etc. Secondly, China's expansionist hegemonic ambition & its militarily aggressive posture towards its neighbors are so dangerous to the region's stability & prosperity. That's the reason why there need a Code of Conduct for all the states in the region as well as an INCSEA with the US, Japan, Russia, etc. to avoid any undesirable conflict or confrontation due to misunderstandings, misperception or miscalculation on the high seas or in the international waters. Now, you got it?
Bankotsu
"Tibet, an independent country"
Only in western propaganda has Tibet ever been an independent country. You should end your western propaganda garbage history and wake up to reality. You can't spin your BS history out of this.
Tibet has been for hundreds of years part of China. Therefore, the mere raising of an issue that sounds as if we're trying to separate a part of China creates special sensitivities. – Henry Kissinger, former U.S secretary of State
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tibet/interviews/kissinger.html
As far as Haiti is concerned, I completely support Haiti and their claims to Navassa and African Union should back Haiti in their rightful claims.
Duke
Bankotsu,
Your China'd better claim back the central Asia, Siberia, Russia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East & Eastern Europe because they once belonged to the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan ( ironically, he himself was a Mongol , not a Han Chinese!) in the 13th century. I think that's absolutely the right thing your China should do to recover all of its 'indisputable historical lost territories'! Regarding the issue of Navassa , this small uninhabited rocky island has been governed continuously by the US since 1858, thus it's American territory based on the International law. Period.