Introduction
The South China
Sea is an area in south east Asia which has caused contempt within the
region. This area specifically covers
the geographic location 12.5° N, 115° E.
There are disputes with regards to territory. China,
Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam all have claims to this area. Specifically, with relation to the
Philippines, there was a dispute against China with relation to the territory
surrounding the Spratly Islands which Philippines considers is part of
Palawan. The Chinese have increased
military presence within the region.
They have built artificial islands in the hopes to convert them to
military bases. According to the
article, The South China Sea and U.S.‐China Rivalry, “Since December 2013,
Beijing has embarked on a massive program of land reclamation—a total of more
than 2,900 acres have been added to seven of China's eight occupied formations
in the Spratly Islands archipelago[1].” This displays the aggressive nature of
China. And although an international
tribunal ruled in 2016 that China does not have any legal basis to the claim of
historic rights on the bulk of the South China Sea, they still persist in their
development of the contested area.
Case Study Topic Summary
The Law of the
Sea is a conventional law that are upheld via customs. It is the law that determines how natural
resources of the oceans should be handled.
It defines rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to ocean
territory. It specifies that, “each
country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles
(22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of innocent
passage through this zone[2].”
China militarizing and its usage of the
South China Sea directly goes against this convention. There are many resources in the South China
Sea of which include 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas[3]. Moreover 3.37 trillion dollars passed through
this geographical area in 2016[4]. This has resulted in disputes with China who
seek to claim the territory for themselves.
There was a
dispute between China and the Philippines on 12 day of July, 2016. This dispute resulted in the Philippines
besting China on their argued use of the Spratley Islands. The convention specified that China didn’t
have a legal claim on the historic use of the area. China argued that on one of their historical
maps a, “nine dash line,” indicated that China had legal use of this area since
1952[5]. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague
ruled that China had “no legal basis” for maritime claims. This caused Philippines to win the case
however, the court also clarified that it has no powers of enforcement. This caused China to deem the case null and
void. Taiwan also agreed with China in
the matter. Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam
also have their own claims subject to this dispute. Therefore, China continues
to maintain sovereignty, “over 80 percent of the South China Sea, as defined by
a nine-dash line[6]”.
The USA’s
government is organized according to its constitution. This matter is an international issue which
means that the president has jurisdiction in this. Article 2 specifies the presidential power
wherein the president shall be the commander in chief of the army and the navy
of the USA. This power is granted
provided that the president seek the advice from the senate to make treaties
wherein two thirds must concur[7].
Major Issues
The USA is a major
trade partner with the Philippines however, as a result of their lack of
support in its matters, the Philippine government has begun to severe ties with
the Americans. So much so that the
President of the country has told the USA that military cooperation with the
USA are to cease. This is an indication
that perhaps the USA has neglected to see Philippines as a more beneficial
partner than that of China. Export with
China is 133 Bn[8]
which is one of the countries that purchases the most from the US while Philippines
does not even come close. Therefore, one
can safely guess that the USA sees China as a more beneficial partner when it
relates to matters pertinent to trade.
Furthermore, the Philippines, does not have the capacity to be able to
have the production capacity that China does.
Therefore, most USA goods are produced within regions of China for very
cheap labor.
If we look at
trade with ASEAN countries and China, we will see that China is a main trade
partner to each and every ASEAN member state.
The Philippines 20 Bn;
Malaysia 42.5 Bn; Brunei 649 Mn; and; Vietnam 70.6 Bn[9]. As one can see, each of these member
countries that have claims to the South China Sea are trading with China and
are very dependent on it for income. This
also means that these countries are competing against each other for China’s
money which could very well explain the lack of mobilization when it comes to
the South China Sea matter.
Now, in comparison, the USA trade in
the South China Sea is much less.
Philippines exports to the USA were at 13 Bn. Malaysia comes in at 33.1 Bn. Brunei however is at 261 Mn. Lastly Vietnam at 46.2 Bn[10]. It then becomes increasingly evident that
these ASEAN countries are larger trade partners with China than the USA. This is as a result of the geographic
location of their countries as the South China Sea serves as a major trade
route. This is where China’s sphere of
influence can be measured. Sphere of
influence refers to a countries ability to have specific knowledge on a certain
subject matter[11]. China’s sphere of influence is very evident
here in this region as these countries are major trade partners with her. It will be difficult for the USA to have any
significant impact especially when these countries are major trade partners
with China.
The USA is a major trading partner
with China. They currently export 133 Bn
to the country. Furthermore, they import
136 Bn from China[12]. This means that American companies are very
dependent on Chinese goods. The US
economy needs China for cheap labor and affordable commodities. Therefore, as it pertains to the matter in
the South China Sea, it becomes evident that America is for America before
being for other nations. Which evidently
makes sense, one should care for themselves before caring for others.
The USA and the
Philippines have a military alliance wherein US bases are permitted in
Philippines soil. This has been called
into question by the most recent president of the Philippines. The military Pact with the USA gives the
Philippines, “$200 million in aid, including military assistance and financial
grants[13].” It is evident that this military alliance is
weakening because the Duterte referred to the Visiting Forces Agreement as,
“that son of a b***h” that he would terminate if the U.S. did not “correct” the
revoked diplomatic visa of Senator Bato Dela Rosa.” This individual is a Philippine National
Police who was integral to the brutal anti-drug initiative of the
president. It seems that both countries
are having a difference in opinion with matters pertinent to the culture human
rights, a fundamental pillar of the new world.
To add insult to injury, the USA’s strategy is not assertive enough to
enforce the ruling made by the United Nations court therefore, the integrity of
the Visiting Forces Agreement is called into question. And evidently the USA/ Philippines alliance
is deteriorating. The USA’s stance on
the South China Sea is to, “defend freedom of navigation in the South China Sea
without challenging the Chinese presence there[14].” This is most likely a result of the fact of
the matter that the USA is also a major trade partner of China. The USA are perpetually taking a stance that
is less aggressive because their interest in trade is higher. This is an example of realism. The USA seeks its national interest before
the interest of others. However, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines have the
law on their side. Isn’t the interest of
the United Nations far greater than the interest of any one country? The task of the hegemon is to ensure cohesion
of the international establishments that govern countries. Without the adherence to international law,
what is the United Nations? It seems
that based on the events surrounding the Spratley Islands and how it has been
dealt with by all countries involved, that the consensus is capitalism first
and rule of law second.
Pros and Cons
The fact that
countries are opting to support trade before the international institutions is
very concerning. International
institutions such as the United Nations are put in place to enforce order. The integrity of these institutions are only
as great as the adherence of countries to it are. Therefore, countries supporting trade above
the decision pertinent to the Sprately Islands reveals that this institution is
not as valid as it seems. Thus, China
deciding to not abide could potentially result in a domino effect wherein other
countries opt to ignore such institution.
This therefore sets a precedent which can cause others to be
disobedient. As according to the journal
article, GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT STRATEGY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA": WHAT
ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED TO COMPEL A NEW U.S. STRATEGY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA?,
China’s disobedience “threaten[s] the rules-based international order and pose
political, economic, and potentially military threats to U.S[15].”
The trade with
China is causing countries that have claims to the South China Sea to compete
with one another. As specified, these
countries are major trade partners with China.
This causes a question of national interest. These countries first prioritize their profit
above their interest in the South China Sea which is evident what with the lack
of alliances pertaining to the subject matter.
The USA’s stance
of defending freedom of navigation without impeding on China’s presence is
indicative of the interest of the United States. As what was stated, realism is being
implemented here as China is a major trade partner with the USA. The USA is a major supporter of capitalism and
has defended it against socialism and communism. The question here is, is Capitalism more
important than rule of law. It seems
that America’s stance on the Sprately Islands gives clues as to its priority
and the USA’s values. Based on the
action in the South China Sea it is likely that the USA supports Capitalism
before rule of law as it failed to back the enforcement of the ruling
pertaining to the Spratly Islands. This
then calls into question other concepts such as democracy, and human
rights. Would the USA then still support
Capitalism over these?
As China refuses the ruling made by
the United Nations court, it calls into question the validity of such
agency. Through their refusal to adhere
they are implicating the pillars of the new world which are as follows; rule of
law, globalization and free trade, rules based organization and human rights
culture[16]. Specifically, they are violating rule of
law. Through their refusal to adhere to
the ruling, they have essentially violated the Law of the Sea of which
they are a signatory. This is not only a
violation to the Philippines but also the entire United Nations. Therefore, the need for a world military or
police force is necessary to enforce law to unabating countries[17].
China’s
militarized presence in the South China Sea is also concerning. There are at least seven other countries that
have claims to this area. China controls
above 80 percent as mentioned earlier.
These countries should have the agency to band together to combat such
aggression. It is evident that they have
not done so because they are major trade partners with China. This causes implications to the integrity of
the countries surrounding the South China Sea.
Without their allied support of each other, they render their own sovereignty
in the area null and void themselves.
There is a question of India. India is a major country in this region, and
it is also the second largest in the world next to China. India is not a major trade partner with the
ASEAN countries it becomes clear that India lacks the specific sphere of
influence that China has in this region.
However, these ASEAN nations can reduce trade with China and opt to
increase trade with India thereby increasing its sphere of influence. Since Malaysia and Singapore already have
some cultural ties to India, the ASEAN countries could utilize this to their
advantage.
Position
It
is my opinion that the countries that have claims to the South China Sea namely
Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines, use ASEAN to enforce their
sovereignty against China. Using ASEAN
as an apparatus for enforcing rule of law in the region could have many
benefits to its practical validity.
ASEAN is a coalition and should therefore recognize that they are a
force of influence in that area. Through
using this institution they could validate their sphere of influence, which is
much needed to support the integrity of their region. China’s authoritative and aggressive nature
to these countries should not be tolerated.
There needs to be a polar force to subdue and restrain their
actions. This is where ASEAN can
succeed.
I
also believe that India could become a greater trade partner with these
countries as dependence on China’s money would only lead to oppression and
domination. Through Malaysia and
Singapore, both of which already have cultural similarities, these countries
could band together to increase trade with this country.
The
United States stance on the subject matter is very typical of
self-interest. However, they need to
promote the global institutions that they themselves created. Their action with pertinence to the Spratley
Islands reveals that perhaps these international institutions are not as valid
as it seems. In their decision, which is
a difficult one, they decided to balance their national interest with the international
institution that rendered the judgement.
This evidently caused a lack of integrity of the specific institution
that ruled the judgement which then could cause less cohesion. This could cause a domino effect. Is capitalism really more important than the
rule of law? From the perspective of the
wealthiest nation on earth, it is, based on what has transpired. Therefore, a need for a United Nations
military is more urgent than it seems as the country that created the United
Nations can’t even enforce adherence to conventional law. Furthermore, the USA government and
especially the president as per article 2 of the USA constitution has the
ability to act on this matter but have not done so because of trade
issues. Therefore, the power of China
has trumped the power of the USA, sad but true.
Conclusion
The
dispute in the Sprately Islands is a hot topic within the south maritime
countries of the South China Sea. There are multiple countries that have claims
to this area. China commands more than
80 percent of this geographic location.
Trade is a major issue that coerces countries to act in the manner that
they do. Through the interest group
theory of politics, we could see that trade is impacting mobilization in the
area. Therefore, the question of the
validity of the Law of the Sea is paramount. Is capitalism more important than the
rule of law? What then does this say
about the validity of such institutions that rendered the judgement in
Philippines v. China regarding the Sprately Islands? It becomes clear that these institutions lack
the power to enforce such decisions.
Therefore, what’s the point of such institution?.
[1] Andrew
Scobell, “The South China Sea and U.S.‐China Rivalry,” Political Science
Quarterly, Vol 133, Issue 2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12772
[2] Robin
R. Churchill, “Law of the Sea,” Britannica, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Law-of-the-Sea
[3]
Ross Pink, “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen
Polytechnic University, 2020, Poli 3150
[4] Ross Pink, “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen
Polytechnic University, 2020, Poli 3150
[5] Hanna
Beech, “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line
From?,” Time, 2016, https://time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-south-china-sea/
[6] Manila
Bulletin, “Our claims in the South China Sea,” Manila Bulletin, 2018, https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/04/16/our-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/
[7]
Ross Pink, “American Foreign
Policy,” Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020, Poli 3150
[8] Alexander
Simoes , “Specific Country,” Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2020, https://oec.world/en/profile/country
[9] Alexander
Simoes , “Specific Country,” Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2020, https://oec.world/en/profile/country
[10] Alexander
Simoes , “Specific Country,” Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2020, https://oec.world/en/profile/country
[11] Ross
Pink, “American Foreign Policy,” POLI 3150.
Surrey: Kwantlen Polytechnic
University, 2020
[12] Alexander
Simoes , “Specific Country,” Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2020, https://oec.world/en/profile/country
[13] James
Patterson, “Duterte Orders End to Military Pact With US, Despite Looming China
Threat,” International Business Times, 2020, https://www.ibtimes.com/duterte-orders-end-military-pact-us-despite-looming-china-threat-2918257
[14] Leszek
Buszynski, “Why is the South China Sea so important to the US?,” Huff Post,
2018, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-is-the-south-china-se_b_14255194
[15] Stashwick,
Steven, “GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT STRATEGY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA": WHAT
ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED TO COMPEL A NEW U.S. STRATEGY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA?,”
ProQuest, Vol 71, Issue 4, 2018, https://ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/docview/2109282629?accountid=35875
[16] Ross Pink, “American Foreign
Policy,” POLI 3150. Surrey: Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020
[17]
Brian Mcgarry, “Enforcing an Unenforceable Ruling in the South China Sea,” The
Diplomat, 2016, https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/enforcing-an-unenforceable-ruling-in-the-south-china-sea/
No comments:
Post a Comment