In the midst of so many crisis points in the world, the potential for a sudden flare-up in the South China Sea has not been as seriously recognized as it should be. This flashpoint arises from China’s claims to a cluster of islands and the waters surrounding them, with some countries, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, contesting these claims.
China says that this region has historically belonged to it and hence it is not subject to any kind of negotiations, international arbitration or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It says that as the islands and much of the South China Sea are its sovereign territory and waters, and that it has the right to build military bases and structures on these and other artificial islands or reefs it has dredged up.
Beijing particularly objects to US military involvement in the region by strengthening US security ties with other nations that contest and challenge China’s claims.
Washington claims a legitimate role in the region arising from significant economic, political and strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and is worried about China’s destabilizing and threatening role in it, therefore, Washington favors a peaceful negotiated settlement of the disputed issues between concerned nations based on international law to ensure a stable regional environment.
Washington has security treaties with some of the nations and is developing closer relations with others. The US is against China unilaterally declaring the South China Sea islands and waters around them as its sovereign territory, giving it the authority and power, if it chooses to do so, to restrict freedom of navigation through these waters.
About US$5 trillion worth of international trade is carried through South China Sea lanes — not to speak of naval movements through these international waters. The US is not going to let China restrict passage through these waters and has sought to assert this right by sending a ship or two through what China sees as its sovereign territory. Beijing regards this as provocative.
Lately, there has been an uptake in regional tensions due to the strengthening of the US-Philippines security ties, including joint naval and air patrols and stationing of US military assets in the Philippines.
During his recent visit to the Philippines, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter was quoted as saying that an initial US air contingent to that nation would “conduct flight operations in the area, including the South China Sea, and lay the foundation for joint air patrols to complement ongoing maritime patrols.”
The US also plans to establish a command-and-control center in the Philippines to coordinate the joint operations.
China has not taken kindly to these developments. The Chinese Ministry of National Defense said “a strengthening of the US-Philippine military alliance — is a manifestation of the Cold War mentality and is not conducive to peace and stability in the South China Sea … the Chinese army will monitor this trend closely, and will resolutely safeguard China’s territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights and interests.”
US President Barack Obama announced a “pivot” to Asia during a visit to Australia in November 2011. In the previous decade the US had been engaged with two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and was seeking to disengage from that region. With the US occupied in the Middle East, China had been expanding its political, economic and military space in the Asia-Pacific region.
Beijing had never made a secret of its sovereign claims in the region, but under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) regime, a process of assertive control of the South China Sea area by way of building artificial islands and military structures was put in place as if to test the limits of US power in the region. That now is happening seriously, as indicated by the upgrading of the US-Philippines military ties.
The US has other friends and allies in the region. Australia is one of its most loyal, going back to World War II. Therefore, the choice of Canberra to announce the “pivot” seemed deliberate, to assure Australia and others in the region of Washington’s resolve to stay engaged and not leave China to do as it pleased.
Obama’s announcement was followed by a further upgrading of US-Australia security ties with the announcement of rotation of US troops through northern Australia and access to other facilities.
China reacted strongly to this, and Canberra’s criticism of its South China policy. In addition to reiterating its historical claims, Beijing said Australia is not a disputant and should stay out of it.
Australia, more or less, follows the US position that Beijing’s actions are destabilizing the region and that it is against China’s own interests, because a stable Asia-Pacific region in the last few decades has worked to its advantage by fostering its economic growth.
Hence, it is in China’s interest to work through these issues peacefully with its regional neighbors within the framework of international law.
China finds these arguments self-serving and aimed at perpetuating the “status quo” designed to contain China’s rise. It apparently wants to break through this “containment” ring.
During his recent visit to China with a large delegation of businesspeople, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull repeated the usual message of the need for peaceful resolution of the South China Sea sovereignty issue, while emphasizing the importance of the two nation’s bilateral economic relationship.
China is Australia’s largest trading partner, with a healthy trade balance in Australia’s favor.
However, Beijing is unhappy about Australia’s even stronger strategic nexus with the US against the backdrop of tensions in the South China Sea, attributed to China’s muscular policy. It apparently believes that its increasing economic leverage from Australia’s dependent trade relationship would dent this nexus, which is also worrying some in the US, as well as Australia’s strategic community invested in the US-Australia security alliance.
Canberra is equally hopeful that it can continue to have the best of both worlds — an expanding trade relationship with China as well as the security umbrella of the US alliance.
In a recent column in the Sydney Morning Herald, the paper’s international editor, Peter Hartcher, was pleased with the way Canberra has so far done this balancing act. However, he said that “it is possible that Australia could one day be forced to choose, but only if China and the US break out into open war.”
That does not bear thinking, but the way things are going, there is always a danger of things just getting out of control.
Sushil Seth is a commentator in Australia.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS