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 —including a US offer to mediate the South China Sea disputes — 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 — Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam — 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) — contrary to the 1982 convention they have ratified — 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 — which is what really infuriated Beijing — 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 (耿雁生) 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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS