Published on YaleGlobal Online Magazine (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu)
Home > With Tensions Rising, Asia Should Not Delay Settling South China Sea Disputes

With Tensions Rising, Asia Should Not Delay Settling South China Sea Disputes

The US military is challenging China’s claims to 90 percent of the South China Sea that includes some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. “The unpredictability of the American presidential election now heightens the risk because inevitably it will come with ramped-up anti-China campaign rhetoric,” reports BBC journalist Humphrey Hawksley. The United States and countries in Asia are divided internally over whether intervention is the correct approach considering that the nations of East Asia are tightly interconnected through trade and economic ties, and the country that instigates conflict could expect condemnation. The governments of the region could unite and take control of the matter. Hawksley notes that “A deal struck between Washington and Beijing could trample on East Asia’s more nuanced interests that might be forgotten amid horse-trading on a basket of global issues.” He points to the region’s expanding institutions and networks, and concludes that Asian leaders would display global responsibility by resolving the conflicts over maritime borders quickly, fairly and on their own, without depending on the United States as referee or enforcer. – YaleGlobal

With Tensions Rising, Asia Should Not Delay Settling South China Sea Disputes

Asian nations could unite and resolve South, East China Sea conflicts – showing they don’t need US as enforcer
Humphrey Hawksley
YaleGlobal, 9 February 2016
Unite before threat: Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung arrives in the Philippines for a state visit, top; Chinese aircraft use airstrip built on contested Fiery Cross reef

LY SON ISLAND, VIETNAM: Having moved at a snail’s pace for years, the international dispute over control of the South China Sea is reaching a new stage. The United States military is openly challenging China’s claim of some 90 percent of this 3.5 million square kilometer global trade route.

Both governments have warned of the risk of miscalculation, creating a specter of South East Asia returning to its role of half a century ago when it was combative arena for super-power rivalry.

The unpredictability of the American presidential election now heightens the risk because inevitably it will come with ramped-up anti-China campaign rhetoric. This begs the question as to whether it would be better for the East Asian region to sort out the dispute itself and ask the United States to step back.

Opposition to that concept within the United States itself comes from the criticism and perceived failure of President Barack Obama’s non-interventionist brand of foreign policy. But the testing ground for this has been in the Middle East where neither intervention nor holding back has worked well.

East Asia is very different. Having picked itself up from many wars over the past century, it has built world-class economies with strong institutions. The region has shown how trade can be used to dampen political tensions, and how dictatorships can transition peacefully to varying degrees of democracy. It has an enviable track record of prioritizing trade and the future over war and historical grievances and has earned a reputation for brave ideas – from Japan’s post-war recovery to the development of the Singaporean city-state to the economic giant that China has become.

Asian nations could shift away from the US security umbrella and solve a tough problem in-house.

This region now has a chance to shift away from the American security umbrella and mentorship that has helped it get this far and show that complex, seemingly intractable problems can be solved in-house.

It has made a start. Japan has forged stronger alliances with India and Australia and is taking a lead to balance China’s economic muscle flexing through the region in the past decade.

The Japanese focus is on infrastructure with a pledge of $110 billion over the next five years for projects such as the East-West Economic Corridor running from Vietnam, though Laos and Thailand to Myanmar. This acts as a counterweight to China’s similar investment plans which include a high-speed rail connecting China to Singapore through Laos, Thailand and Malaysia. Japan is running much of its investment through the the Asian Development Bank, modeled after the World Bank, whereas China has set up its own counterpart, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Japan has also strengthened strategic partnerships with Indonesia and Malaysia and is helping the Philippines and Vietnam – nations openly confronting China over the South China Sea – with intelligence sharing and building up their maritime patrol capability.

India, too, joined with Japan to produce a joint statement from two of Asia’s biggest hitters warning against China’s “expansionist policies” in the region. Japan and South Korea agreed to end the contentious dispute over Second World War sex slaves, enabling a move toward a strategic alliance that would impact the parallel dispute in the East China Sea over sovereignty of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

All this is useful, but it may not end up doing what needs to be done.   

So far there is no group of nations with
a position unified enough to force
Beijing to negotiate.

So far there is no group of nations with a unified enough position to force Beijing to negotiate. China is refusing outright to join any multilateral forum to find a settlement and continues to reclaim land and build strategic outposts on reefs and atolls, including a 3,000-meter-long runway on the Spratly Islands' Fiery Cross reef. Chinese vessels have also harassed Vietnamese and Filipino fishermen, and the country has announced that two aircraft carriers will soon join its expanding blue water navy.

China has also shown how events might unfold if its policy is challenged. From May to August, it has imposed a South China Sea annual fishing ban enforced with attacks on fishermen. From one community alone, Ly Son Island off the coast of central Vietnam, 20 out of the 50 boats have been targeted during the past year as they ventured towards the Paracel Islands that lie midway between the Vietnamese and Chinese coastlines.

Boats have been rammed, crew beaten and equipment and fishing catches stolen, according to the Vietnamese. Over the Spratly Islands, off the coasts of the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia, the Chinese military recently warned away a civilian aircraft chartered by the BBC.

There is no evidence that a US Navy carrier group will settle this dispute. Indeed, the challenge might make it worse, and there are signs that China is beginning to listen.

Entering office in 2012, China’s President Xi Jinping began by deepening the rift with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. He angered Vietnam by bringing an oil drilling rig into its waters and he tried to subdue the Philippines with an economic boycott as well as making a confrontational show of force along the Line of Control with India.

Now, facing multiple and simultaneous disputes with its neighbors, China appears to be cooling off. On both the maritime sovereignty issues, Beijing stands isolated. In the long term, despite economic and military power, it will have to get on with neighbors who are increasingly united and bold.

“We will keep fishing,” says Tran Ngoc Nguyen, chairman of the Ly Son Island district. “Vietnamese fishermen do not scare easily.”

There is enough common ground within East Asia to create solid multilateral alliances that, while challenging Beijing, could specifically search for a settlement allowing compromise without loss of Chinese face. The stronger the unified front, the more China must listen.

US military power might deter Chinese aggression, but takes control away from the region’s governments.

The blunt instrument of American military power on the other hand might succeed in deterring China’s excesses, but also risks wounding its dignity and taking control away from the governments of the region.

A deal struck between Washington and Beijing could trample on East Asia’s more nuanced interests that might be forgotten amid horse-trading on a basket of global issues. Washington also needs to deliver a linear and clear message to its electorate based on the paradox that an Ohio farmer seeking a better deal on grain prices can influence the deployment of US warships in faraway places.

This is not an issue forcing citizens to be either for or against Xi or a Saddam. US debate on China needs to resist such concepts.

There are massive obstacles to regional leaders grasping this opportunity and taking matters into their own hands. Japan must not be perceived as simply replacing the United States, particularly with the questionable role of its military. The South East Asian governments must make a firmer stand so they don’t feel on the one hand under the thumb of an authoritarian Greater China and on the other haunted by the 20th-century ghosts of Japanese brutality.

The region only need look at Europe’s regional challenges such as its inability to end the Bosnian war after 21 years and indecision on the refugee crisis to identify some of the difficulties ahead.

That doesn’t mean the region shouldn’t try.

It is far better for settlement to be reached within the region than be imported from Washington. Perhaps an initial deadline could be the change of US leadership on January 20th next year with a brief note to the Oval Office: “No need to spend time on this one, Mr/s President. We’ve got it covered.”


Humphrey Hawksley, a correspondent for the BBC, is the author of Dragon Strike: The Coming War with China (St. Martin’s Press) – a hypothetical account of a conflict between China and the United States in the South China Sea.

Rights:Copyright © 2016 YaleGlobal and the MacMillan Center

Comments on this Article

11 February 2016
I found Steven Stashwick/80 Percent of Zero: China's Phantom South China Sea Claim/thediplomat.com/ an interesting read.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/80-percent-of-zero-china's-phantom-south-china-sea-claim/.
I (Michi) also sent a comment, It Is Not China's Fault, Nov. 16. 2015, on Michael Pillsbury/The Hundred-Year Marathon, amazon usa. I would like you to read it if interested in any way.
-Yoshimichi Moriyama , 80 Percent of Zero
10 February 2016
This is a national security and trade issue for more than just the East Asia region. Trying to go through institutions such as ASEAN is exactly how the international community got to this point in the first place. What needs to happen is a military alliance of Asian nations like NATO in the region similar the SCO Cooperative Organization to ensure historic water trade routes remain free and open to all who wish to navigate them.
China's record for respecting the territorial integrity of SE Asian nations is not a good one. Australia, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines need US Naval support to protect their interests. Obama's national security pivot to the region has been a disaster!! A military alliance in the South China Sea among all nations who support UNCLOS is now needed.
-Ken Haumschilt , International shipping lanes
10 February 2016
It would be far better for settlement to be reached within the region, but it requires the American commitment to be continued, whoever will be the next President of the United States.
-Yoshimichi Moriyama , It would be far better for
9 February 2016
Before Japan and South Korea get involved, it would be helpful for ASEAN, which largely contains the waters in question, to have a common position. This is all but impossible due to Chinese influence in nations such as Cambodia and even Thailand. ASEAN has trouble sorting out Rohingya refugees or air pollution from forest clearing where great power interests are not involved. I see no real prospect that they will be able to fashion a stance which would be meaningful and all will agree to. China's rapid militarization has alarmed even India and would overwhelm any Asian attempt to contain it. (I accept that their military spending is low relative to that of the US, though it is much more focused.) I agree that an Asian agreement is desirable but I do not see it as feasible. China should not be forced to lose face, but it is not much concerned that the Philippines, Vietnam or Japan might lose face from their increasingly aggressive tactics. Vietnam tried to placate China and got a huge oil platform in their exclusive economic zone. Perhaps the author should ask why China is choosing to destroy its own considerable soft power and alarm its neighbors? From many Asian capitals it looks like bullying.
-David Dapice , Ability of Asia to Solve Problems