The three tests powers must pass to avoid Asian tragedy

The three powers via for influence in our region – the US, Asean and China – are now entangled in the South China Sea territory disputes one way or another. Four Asean members have overlapping sovereignty claims among themselves and also with China. The claims cover hundreds of tiny islands, islets, rocks and even reefs and sandbanks as well as the maritime projection of those tiny features, which under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) are either owned by countries whose 12 nautical miles of territorial water they fall within or are not owned at all due to their natural state as submerged features.

While the US is not a party to the dispute, it has economic and strategic interests in the region, and it could be drawn into an open conflict since its treaty partner the Philippines has a sovereignty dispute with China.

The South China Sea dispute is now the focal point of competition for regional influence between the US and China, with analysts drawing comparisons with of the Peloponnesian war, where the rising power of Athens created fear in the dominant power of Sparta. 

The global economic chaos that would be created by a war in East and Southeast Asia, a region through which more than 50 per cent of world trade passes, is simply unimaginable. And a possible “side show” of a nuclear launch by North Korea would bring decades of human tragedy.

Concerns over the rise of China ignore the fact that a powerful Middle Kingdom is actually good for the world. It has the capacity to hold North Korea at bay, to fight transnational organised crime, to combat pandemic disease and to address global climate change. 

China is, after all, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It needs power commensurate with its challenges and responsibilities, while the international community wants a China that rises peacefully and responsibly. Hence, containment is the wrong strategy.

On the other hand, calls for the US to leave Asia and tend to its own backyard as a declining superpower, ring hollow. The US is in Asia not only because of economic and strategic interests, but also because of its treaty obligations. It is difficult to imagine that a country with such a strong legal culture, armed with 1.3 million lawyers, would abandon its legal obligations simply because it has less firepower.

 

 

 

The South China Sea dispute poses three tests that this trio of powers must pass if we are to avoid catastrophic open conflict. These are a test of rules and norms, of resource management and of maritime operations.

The rules and norms test requires that China respect international law in addressing the dispute. As a peace-loving and responsible permanent member of the Security Council whose judges sit on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), China must not use threat or force in the resolution of the overlapping sovereignty or the management of the disputes itself. The world needs to be convinced that the newly built islands in the disputed area of the South China Sea are not militarised or used for power projection in the region.

The US is promoting freedom of navigation and adherence to global norms. It must now lead by example by ratifying UNCLOS. Washington’s credibility in pushing nations all over the globe to abide by the principle of freedom of navigation and maritime law is actually reduced when the US itself refuses to ratify UNCLOS. 

The current situation in the South China Sea should serve as momentum for the US to get its act together.

Asean member countries in the dispute need to streamline their claims under international law. They must state clearly the names and exact location of features they claim and the legal basis of those claims. And practices incompatible with UNCLOS, such as Vietnam’s excessive baselines, need to be ended. 

And if all of the claimants are confident with their claims and that they want to contribute to lasting peace by removing the most recalcitrant problem, they should muster enough political will to bring the dispute to a settlement through a mediator or a third party of their choice.

The resource management test requires that claimants themselves, Asean and possibly the US, collaborate on the conservation of live marine resources in the South China Sea. The non-existence of a regional fisheries management organisation covering the disputed area means there is no information on the depletion of fish stocks and the health of the sea. This could lead to food insecurity, growing poverty of coastal communities and increasing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. 

While the idea of joint mineral development is wishful thinking, the six countries of the Coral Triangle Initiative have demonstrated that collaboration to manage the health of the largest coral reef on Earth is possible without having settled maritime boundaries. 

The organisational test requires that the US, Asean and China devise a mechanism to reduce the risk of collision or conflict at sea. The Asean Defence Ministers Meeting provides an excellent platform to establish a practical mechanism aimed at defusing tensions, preventing escalation, managing maritime emergencies and increasing operational safety. 

The three powers could establish sub-regional naval collaboration for joint exercises and joint operations other than war, to create, strengthen and maintain trust. Regional maritime law enforcement and the sharing of experience could bolster trust.

The tests require that the three powers act responsibly in order to avoid what would be an Asian tragedy should South China Sea disputes end in bloody conflict.

 

Arif Havas Oegroseno was Indonesia’s Deputy Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Resources, and Indonesian ambassador to the EU from 2010 to 2015.