¡@
Standoff in the South China Sea
By Mark Valencia
Tuesday, Aug 17, 2010, Page 8
Now that the most recent wave of China-threat editorials in
the Western media has passed, it is time to separate substance from
atmospherics. Most of these media pieces were triggered by US Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton¡¦s statements at last month¡¦s ASEAN Regional Forum in
Hanoi ¡Xincluding a US offer to mediate the South China Sea disputes ¡X and
China¡¦s angry response.
The US has cleverly conflated some ASEAN countries¡¦ fears of China¡¦s
aggressiveness regarding their conflicting claims to various features and ocean
space in the South China Sea with its own concerns regarding freedom of
navigation. However, as the US knows, or should know, China¡¦s objections to
certain US military-intelligence gathering activities in its exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) have little or nothing to do with its purported claim to much of the
South China Sea. Indeed, China is not challenging freedom of navigation itself,
but US abuse of this right.
The activities of the US EP-3 planes and Navy ships, the Bowditch and the
Impeccable, probably collectively, have included the active ¡§tickling¡¨ of
China¡¦s coastal defenses to provoke and observe a response, interference with
shore-to-ship and submarine communications, ¡§preparation of the battlefield,¡¨
using legal subterfuge to evade the consent regime and tracking China¡¦s new
nuclear submarines for potential targeting as they enter and exit their base.
Few countries would tolerate such provocative activities by a potential enemy
without responding in some fashion. These are not passive intelligence
collection activities commonly undertaken and usually tolerated by most states,
but are intrusive and controversial practices that China regards as a threat of
the use of force.
A threat of force is a violation of the UN Charter, let alone the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea. These activities should be carefully examined
and adjudicated by a neutral body to determine if they are ¡§legal¡¨ or not.
However, such an inquiry would risk making Clinton¡¦s statement that the US
¡§opposes the use or threat of force¡¨ by any claimant seem a bit hypocritical.
Moreover if the ASEAN claimants ¡X Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam
¡X think that the recent US statements favor their claims, they may need to think
again. Clinton said that the ¡§United States has a national interest in freedom
of navigation, open access to Asia¡¦s maritime commons and respect for
international law in the South China Sea,¡¨ but just what international law is
that?
This statement is a bit odd coming from the only major country that has not
ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea which governs such claims and
activities at sea.
Nevertheless, claims by the Philippines to a large swathe of features and the
sea as as part of its Kalayaan municipality and that of Malaysia to various
features because they lie on its claimed continental shelf are as spurious and
weak as China¡¦s historic ¡§nine-dashed line¡¨ claim. Vietnam and Indonesia (which
has also objected to Beijing¡¦s South China Sea claim) ¡X contrary to the 1982
convention they have ratified ¡X do not allow innocent passage of foreign
warships in their territorial seas without their consent, while Malaysia does
not allow foreign military exercises in its claimed EEZ.
Knowing ASEAN claimants¡¦ concerns and desiring to give China ¡§comeuppance¡¨
regarding its lack of cooperation in punishing North Korea after the Cheonan
sinking, the US verbally ambushed and embarrassed China in front of an Asian
audience in its sometime nemesis, Vietnam.
However, despite US arrogance, offering to ¡§facilitate¡¨ multilateral talks on
the South China Sea disputes ¡X which is what really infuriated Beijing ¡X it is
clear that China has been its own worst enemy in this matter. It refused to file
a joint claim with Malaysia and Vietnam to the continental shelf in the South
China Sea. It then filed an objection to their claim, and attached a map with
its nine-dash line ambiguously claiming most of the sea.
It publicly categorized the South China sea as a ¡§core interest¡¨ akin to Tibet
and Taiwan, ie something it would fight over, and allowed its Ministry of
Defense spokesperson Geng Yansheng (¯Õ¶¥Í) to say ¡§China has indisputable
sovereignty of the South Sea and China has sufficient historical and legal
backing¡¨ to underpin its claims.
These actions and accompanying large military exercises in the area provided a
diplomatic opportunity for the US and pushed the ASEAN countries into the US
corner.
However, it is still not clear whether China¡¦s claim is to the features (and
their territorial seas) or to the sea as well. To ameliorate ASEAN fears, China
should immediately clarify exactly what it claims and why within the context of
the 1982 convention.
Beijing should also elaborate in contemporary and understandable ¡§legalese¡¨ its
objections to US military intelligence gathering activities in its EEZ. To
counter the US diplomatic advantage, China should agree with ASEAN on a formal
code of conduct for the South China Sea. If this transpires, then the US ploy
will have helped to tone down disputes over claims.
However, the cost will be high. China is unlikely to forgive or forget the fact
and especially the manner of US interference. If anything, it may have convinced
Beijing that the die is cast. It could confirm its worst fears, that the US is
stealthily trying to draw ASEAN or some of its members together with Australia,
Japan and South Korea into a soft alliance to constrain, if not contain, China.
Beijing¡¦s struggle to break out of these constrants, politically and militarily,
will set the stage for rivalry and tension in the years ahead.
Mark Valencia is a research associate in the National Asia
Research Program.
¡@
|