Competing territorial and jurisdictional claims in the resource-rich South China Sea have once again brought states in the region into direct confrontation. Maritime tensions have spilled over into broader regional interactions, injecting new frictions into relations among ASEAN members.
China’s substantial maritime claims in the resource-rich waters put it at the center of these disputes. Beijing’s claims overlap extensively with those of Vietnam, while the Philippines and several other states ringing the South China Sea have competing claims as well. In recent years, more assertive action by claimants, including China, to promote or reinforce their maritime stakes has increased the risk of conflict emerging that could destabilize the region.
Yet, regional stability is vital to sustaining the vibrancy of the Chinese and regional economies. In an era of international uncertainty and global security challenges, it is in China’s interest to take steps to prevent further militarization of these disputes. Beijing should take steps to foster cooperation with neighbors with which it has maritime disputes.
Tensions Ramp Up
After years of relative calm, claimants in the South China Sea have intensified efforts to assert their interests through official statements, new domestic policies, and more frequent and intrusive patrols. These actions and others have brought China head-to-head with both the Philippines and Vietnam at the same time that a dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea has erupted into risky displays of force.
Beijing contends that its actions in the South China Sea are reactive rather than deliberately escalatory, undertaken to defend its position against challenges to its sovereignty claims and related maritime interests. It has repeatedly conveyed its commitment to an approach to relations with ASEAN member states that promotes peace, stability, and prosperity in the region, including where territorial disputes are concerned.
Nonetheless, some of what Beijing has done, such as the announcement in 2012 by the China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) of a vast sweep of new exploration blocks, has confused this message and reinforced regional concerns that China is prepared to use its superior capabilities to assert its claims. CNOOC’s announcement, for example, set back what had been improving relations with Vietnam at the time.
Meanwhile, Washington’s pivot—or rebalance—to Asia, rolled out during the Obama administration’s first term, reinforced the U.S. commitment to a strengthened forward military presence in the region that focused on supporting its allies and strategic partners. These military measures were complemented by so-called “forward-deployed diplomacy,” marked by a revitalized American presence in regional forums.
The U.S. pivot provoked a positive reaction among some countries, but it aggravated Chinese suspicions of U.S. objectives in the region. Beijing saw the pivot as a zero-sum game in which the United States sought to accrue more relative power in the Asia-Pacific, in part by disrupting relations between China and its neighbors.
In its second term, the Obama administration appears to be trying to improve the atmosphere. Washington has attempted to make clear that it takes no position on the outcome of competing territorial claims. Its interests lie in encouraging restraint by all parties in support of a peaceful resolution of these disputes.
Reassurance From China Requires Clarity on Its Claims
For Beijing, finding a way forward that assures the region that China is committed to remaining a good neighbor while upholding its interests in the South China Sea is challenging but not impossible. A key step would be for China to clarify the extent of its maritime claims in the South China Sea.
The Chinese government has never asserted a claim to the entire South China Sea; however, official maps include a nine-dashed line encompassing much of the sea’s waters. China should clarify that its claims apply to certain land features and that the maritime sovereignty and jurisdictional control it seeks to exert, while extensive, is consistent with the limits permitted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to which it is party. This would help ease regional (and international) concerns about the scope of its ambitions in the South China Sea.
China should also identify and institutionalize processes for cooperating with other claimants. It should actively pursue a legally binding code of conduct in the sea that at minimum restrains the use of force to resolve maritime disputes and provides a framework for confidence-building measures in the contested waters.
The April 2013 ASEAN summit illustrated the breadth of consensus among member countries in favor of such a binding code of conduct. Historically, progress in this direction has been stalled partly due to the negotiation process. Most ASEAN members prefer a multilateral approach whereas China favors bilateral negotiations. However, at the April summit, China expressed an interest in holding special consultations on a code of conduct with a group of high-level ASEAN representatives. Meanwhile, Hanoi has also engaged directly with Beijing about the South China Sea in the context of a broader dialogue on bilateral cooperation. This suggests that disagreements over how negotiations should proceed are not insurmountable.
China should also pursue agreements with its neighbors on mutual commercial exploitation of resources in disputed regions. These can be crafted so that none of the claims of participating parties are disregarded or considered waived. An example of a successful scheme along these lines is the Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone, which allows both countries to exploit oil in the disputed area under a joint-operating agreement.
China already has a similar agreement with Japan for developing a gas field in the East China Sea, although it has yet to be utilized. Pursuit of comparable arrangements in the South China Sea would only enhance the credibility of China’s statements that defending its maritime interests does not exclude the possibility that claimants can cooperate within disputed areas to achieve such common regional goals. Such goals include improved energy security and sustainable development.
Measures like joint-operating agreements will bolster mutually beneficial cooperation in the disputed areas. Combined with a binding code of conduct and Beijing’s clarification of its maritime claims, these steps offer an increasingly powerful China an opportunity to reassure all states in the region that it will remain a good neighbor. They will also help mitigate the potential for conflicting claims in the South China Sea to spark wider military conflict.
Carla Freeman is an associate research professor at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, where she also serves as the associate director of the China Studies Program and executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute.
Comments(8)
Remember China is a big country and Australia and everyone else are small. Chinese will get what its wants whether you like it or not and does not need to convinced anyone about its intention. Australia and Russia Siberia belong to China in acient time and will return to China by force if necessary.
I totally agree with Carla Freeman’s view that China needs to clarify its substantial claims. It is interesting to know how China presented its evidence of ownership. Its current “Chinese fishermen were there from the antiquity” is far too simple a method of claim. I also agree that it is China’s interest to resolve the maritime disputes peacefully. To date, China has not had any intention to resolve the disputes fairly and openly with other claimants. Rather, China would prefer to settle the issues on a one on one basis. In this way, it could use its military, political, and economic power to intimidate its weaker counterparts. Hung Ky Nguyen, Australia
It is no doubt to the international community that China is pursuing a strategy of de facto occupation in the South China Sea. Sending hundreds of fishing boats in "fleet formation" to intimidate and bully other countries' fishermen is part of this strategy. The ongoing presence of the so-called "China Maritime Surveillance" ships (which are disguised lightweight warships) in the dispute water is also another gesture of its "goodwill" towards peace! As if not enough, China also wants to show off its naval force to warn other rival countries. The refusal to resolve its dispute with The Philippines in relation to the sovereignty over Scarborough shoal at a UN tribunal also proves its unwillingness to produce convincing evidence before international justice. One cannot both play the role of a pirate and that of a peace keeper at the same time in the disputed sea. Indeed, China's actions say much louder than what it is trying to convince the international community!
It belongs to China by Victor N. Arches II Whom are we fooling? The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983). By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China. But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that? So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air? In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997. All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim. Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories. To be continued
This is very impossible to happen because Chinese (China) are narrow minded. They are exceptional in interpreting international laws that applies to all...anything that favors them is the right law.
China will never clarify its substantial claims. The reason is simple. Almost all the islands China claims in South China Sea are currently occupied by Vietnam and the Philippines. In 1970s when Vietnam and the Philippines started the military intrusion, Taiwan responded poorly. It only hold on to the biggest island and lost all the rest. China was able to take several islands/rocks back in the last 30 years, but not a lot. To clarify the claims would only reveal the inability of Chinese government to protect its own country. It will call for war. By the way, why the world care about those tiny rocks? I am puzzled that many pinoys call for American occupation of their whole country in order to grab some rocks barely above the water.
But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich. On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively. Whom are we fooling? Mr. Arches is from San Juan City. He is a retired investment and merchant banker, a retired Certified Public Accountant, and a retired economist who loves to dabble in history and political science, among many other interests.
Whom do you think you are 22 years after collapse of USSR, US already missed the chance of becoming real world power . Doing anything just for the interest of US and not for the interest of the world as a whole will never let US become a real world power!! Deep inside everybody knows what is right and what is wrong ,only US don't know because US put it's interest in the first place! When you are an interested party, you are not suitable to be a facilitator. So whom do you think you are. Do something good for the peace of the world while US still have the ability to do so. If you do love and care for everybody regardless of black or white,rich or poor,Christian or Muslim,then everybody ( even your so call enemy )will love you and take care of your interest . US is the only country with the ability to make the world a peaceful place BUT ONLY WHEN US can set aside it's interest totally and unconditionally.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.