A great deal of unrealistic hope has been invested in the notion that
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will form a bulwark against
China's expansion into Southeast Asian waters.
It has been thought that braced
by China's claim of "indisputable sovereignty" over "relevant
waters" that apparently reach nearly to Singapore, ASEAN states would
articulate a common interest and draw a line that non-regional powers such as
Japan, Australia, India and in particular the United States could support.
However, ASEAN operates on the
principles of consensus and non-confrontational bargaining, in this instance a
fatal flaw. Four of its 10 members - Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand -
have consistently given priority to preserving cozy bilateral relations with
China over ASEAN unity. Thus divided, ASEAN's members have jawed endlessly in
search of a framework that will minimally satisfy Beijing's ambitions.
On this, they have gotten little
help from Beijing. China's shirked every ASEAN proposal to set up a
conflict-management scheme, including the so-called Code of Conduct in the
South China Sea. Beijing won't agree to arbitration of rival claims or even
discussions with more than one country at a time. Nor will China even deign to
clarify just what it claims in the South China Sea. And so, for two decades, innumerable
ASEAN meetings have kicked the can down the road.
Four of the 10 ASEAN states are
on the frontline of the dispute. Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Vietnam
claim sovereignty over all or parts of the Spratly islands, a host of reefs,
rocks and islets that sprawl across the southern end of the South China Sea.
Control of “land features” in turn generates claims to surrounding sea areas.
Vietnam and the Philippines additionally claim islets and reefs farther north
nearer to China.
For Hanoi, those claims include
the Paracel Archipelago, midway between Vietnam's central coast and China's
Hainan Island, islets that Beijing wrested from the dying South Vietnamese
regime in 1974 and where, early this year, Beijing set up the trappings of a
prefecture that supposedly incorporates all of its expansive South China Sea
claims. For Manila, the claims cover the Scarborough Shoal, rich fishing
grounds only 200 kilometers off the coast of Luzon where in April it came out
on the short end of a confrontation with Chinese coast guard cutters.
Not surprisingly, it is the
Philippines and Vietnam that have campaigned most vigorously for a robust
answer to Chinese pretensions to domination of the seas stretching nearly 2,000
kilometers south from Hainan Island. Manila’s and Hanoi's eagerness to engage
US naval might as a factor in the dispute has prompted tut-tutting among some
of their ASEAN brethren.
By contrast, Malaysia and Brunei
have maintained a decidedly low profile. They have sorted out their claims between
themselves and with Vietnam, relying on concepts codified in the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary international law. Both have stood
aloof from Vietnamese and Philippine efforts to defend their claims in the seas
to the north. Uncharitable though the thought may be, both Kuala Lumpur and
Bandar Seri Begawan seem to have hoped against mounting evidence that China's
appetite could be satiated short of the waters they claim.
Indonesia and Singapore also
share an interest in discouraging China from pursuing its expansive claim. The
seas within China's infamous nine-dash line overlap Indonesia's exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) in the vicinity of the Natuna Islands. Jakarta and
Singapore have until now distinguished themselves as the prime backers of an
"ASEAN solution", with Singapore as usual deferring publicly to
Indonesia's leadership.
While professing to be ready to
work things out bilaterally, China hasn't budged from its claim of historic
rights in all of the waters within the nine-dash line. Beijing is thus
asserting ownership of maritime resources in upwards of 85% of the South China
Sea, notwithstanding the UNCLOS rule that all nations have exclusive sovereign
rights to exploit adjacent seas out to 200 nautical miles from their coast, or
beyond if their continental shelf is wider, unless they abut on another
nation's EEZ. China has consistently refuted UNCLOS rules, claiming Its sailors
and fishermen have plied these seas since time immemorial.
All of the claimants can invoke
historical precedent to justify their claims. For millennia, the South China
Sea has been a global commons. Vietnam can produce stacks of 18th century maps
and decrees that demonstrate a considerably more consistent interest than China
in exercising sovereignty over various South China Sea atolls. As in China,
these yellowing documents stoke nationalist passions.
Historical argument, however,
does not offer a way out of the tangle of claims unless, as at least some
players on the Chinese side believe, it is backed up by irrefutable force.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi famously declared at an ASEAN-hosted meeting
in August 2010 that "China's a big country and other countries are small
countries and that is just a fact."
Roiled waters
For several years now, hopes of a
diplomatic breakthrough have risen in the autumn months, while the South China
Sea is roiled by monsoons. Come calmer weather, Beijing's provocations
multiply, directed in particular at harassment of Vietnamese and Filipino
fishermen and at scaring off energy companies that presume to prospect for
seabed oil and gas under licenses granted by Hanoi or Manila.
Beijing has relied on hundreds of
armed "maritime safety" and "fisheries protection" vessels
to extend its control, while over the horizon is the increasingly potent
People's Liberation Army Navy. Not surprisingly, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia
and Singapore have redoubled efforts to build up their own air and naval
strength. The Philippines is a latecomer to the South China Sea arms build-up.
Though Manila has been energized by recent clashes with China, its forces are
particularly outgunned.
It is the expected bonanza of
seabed oil and gas, encapsulated within long-frustrated resentment of foreign
affronts, that is driving China's attempt to bring the South China Sea under
its sway. The failure of ASEAN confabulations to find a way out of the growing
crisis, China's relentless application of a "talk and take" strategy,
and the consequent engagement of the US in these quarrels has driven experts to
despair.
It is apprehension of how a
revanchist China might dispose itself should it prevail in the current contest
that has roused the US. Washington is not itching to fight and it is still
unclear how the US might respond if Vietnam or the Philippines or even
Singapore were obviously slipping into a Chinese sphere of influence. There
seems little doubt, however, that Washington is determined to prevent Beijing
from controlling navigation through the South China Sea.
If ASEAN won't fill the breach,
who will? The US and the rest of the world require a solid argument to justify
sustained and effective engagement. Recently burned by the weapons of mass
destruction chimera in Iraq, the American public is wary of another foreign
military adventure. Japan is congenitally wary of an assertive posture. If they
want more from the US and its allies than expressions of determination to
uphold freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, the Southeast Asian
nations on the sea’s littoral must make a compelling case that they need and
merit assistance.
Many in the Western foreign
policy establishment believe that the US ought to make a partner of “rising
China.” Rising tensions in the South China Sea are a threat to their vision of
a peaceful and prosperous Pacific community. Ready to concede a sphere of
influence to China, they say - like ASEAN - that they won't take sides in the
dispute. Many Western "strategic thinkers" still discuss the
confrontations as though all parties are equally culpable.
This perception, however, can be
changed. All that is needed is for Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam
to negotiate a common position - which they can do by sorting out, if not
settling, their claims amongst themselves by applying the precepts of the
UNCLOS and general international law. They could also commit to arbitration of
remaining disputes. Non-claimants Indonesia and Singapore could support such an
ASEAN state process.
The immediate outcome should be
clarification of these four nations' currently overlapping claims to the
Spratly Group's islands, reefs and rocks. They could aim to agree on the
"maritime space" these land features generate, and thus establish the
geographical limits of the disputed areas. That would in turn clarify the
implications of these claims for control of surrounding seas.
Regarding claims outside of the
Spratly area, a poor bargain is arguably better than none at all. China has
controlled the Paracels for nearly four decades and now seems determined to
hold the Scarborough Shoal as well. At this point, successful assertion of
historic rights by Vietnam and the Philippines over these contested territories
seems a forlorn hope.
A pragmatic course would be to
insist on Beijing's recognition of EEZ's generated according to UNCLOS rules, a
course which if upheld may return a western slice of the Paracels to Vietnam as
well as the Scarborough Shoal to the Philippines. This much Malaysia, Brunei,
Indonesia and Singapore ought to support, though they have shied at endorsing
claims of historic right.
These steps, perhaps arrived at
after a few months of intense and secret negotiation, would establish a
foundation for peaceful resolution of what is now undeniably a crisis. It would
also give the US and its friends a sound basis for robust support, and even -
should it come to that - military intervention.
Historical baggage
China, with its leadership
renewed and set for the next several years, may by then be looking for a way
back from confrontation. Chinese spokesmen have said on occasion that claims
should be settled according to international law, and that pending such resolution
agreements on the joint exploitation of South China Sea resources can serve to
reduce tensions.
It will not be easy, however, for
China to back away from its historical claims. Such a retreat is inconceivable
unless Vietnam does the same - that is, unless Hanoi also agrees to establish
maritime boundaries based solely on UNCLOS and related principles of
international law.
Like China, Vietnam is heavily
invested in historical arguments. Indeed, some independent scholars say that
based on the historical evidence Hanoi's claim to the contested islets is
superior. It will be no easier for Vietnam to put history on the shelf; it is,
after all, a nation that has forged its identity beating off Chinese invasions
every few hundred years since 938 AD And yet, unless these ancient and
asymmetrical rivals can rise above this bitter history, there is scant chance
of a happy ending to the current South China Sea crisis.
Some will argue that dismissing
China's historical claims and putting forth a jointly established negotiating
position based on sound legal principles will simply infuriate Asia's rising
superpower. However, it is hard to imagine that failure to resist Chinese
pretensions can lead to a better result.
There is still a potentially
hopeful scenario. Motivated by a realization that time has run out, the four
ASEAN claimants work out sea boundaries amongst themselves by applying relevant
legal principles. Supported in concept by Indonesia and Singapore, if not ASEAN
collectively, they announce their readiness to enter negotiations with China on
the same basis. Instead of denouncing what's been accomplished thus far or
insisting that it will only negotiate bilaterally, China agrees to the process.
Before long a deal is hashed out that acknowledges China's mastery of most of
the Paracels and toeholds in the Spratlys.
These parties then turn to
discussion of related matters, for example a Code of Conduct. This would not be
the same watered-down document that ASEAN has discussed but a robust document
that supports the territorial accommodations discussed above. Joint
exploitation of energy resources could bind together the various elements of a
constructive future in the South China Sea. The parties could then agree to an
'open door' for entities from all the littoral nations subject to responsible
behavior.
Put another way, any regime for
governing the South China Sea cannot endure unless it assures fair access for
Chinese entities to the region's maritime resources. The other littoral states
must welcome and facilitate Chinese investment and joint ventures, including
Chinese participants to exploit seabed hydrocarbons. Fisheries could be managed
jointly and sustainably and joint patrols could enforce the agreed rules.
Finally, the littoral states and the principal maritime nations could negotiate
rules governing shipping channels, notifications and rights of navigation
within the South China Sea.
Some may protest that this happy
scenario would be fatal to the organizational principles and leadership
practices that embody the so-called "ASEAN Way." But acknowledging
that in this instance ASEAN has failed to make the consensus model work is
likely to be less corrosive of the organization's overall effectiveness than
continuing an ineffectual effort to assert ASEAN's centrality in the
intensifying disputes.
David Brown
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Healthcare and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN. Since we are currently changing the platform of www.yourvietnamexpert.com, you may contact us at: sbc.pte@gmail.com, provisionally. Many thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment