SCHOLAR: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY ON THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

Introduction

               The South China Sea is an issue of contention for American Foreign policy.  It’s location is 12.5° N, 115° E.  This area has $3.37 trillion of trade that occurred in 2016[1].  America has several allies in this area of which it is bound to protect them.  These allies include Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Philippines.  The American presence in this area serves to reduce China’s sphere of influence.  Sphere of influence can be defined as a country or state’s specific line of expertise when compared to other countries[2].  With pertinence to the matter at hand, regarding the South China Sea, the USA’s main push for democracy and the elements of capitalism, free trade and globalization with its allies in the area are America’s sphere of influence.  China has been making aggressive moves in the area as of recent history.  They have proceeded to build artificial islands in various parts of the South China Sea.  These became military bases.  Further, China constantly patrols this body of water with its war ships, serving as a threat to these island nations.  China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines all have claims to parts of the South China Sea.  With Biden in office, it remains to be seen if America will continue its obligation to the South Asian nations.  Regardless, the contention in this area can spark conflict in which America and China are at odds.  With this in mind, those involved must act with caution as a possible Cold War could loom and brew. 

Case Study Topic Summary

               In this modern age there is a significant competition between the USA and China and they are major trade partners.  This competition resulted in an agreement that occurred within the Trump presidency.  The specifics of the agreement involved reducing IP theft, fixing trade imbalances, technology transfer and addressing currency manipulation[3].  China is considered the origin for goods that do not fall in line with the provisions of the World Trade Organization.  More than 80% of seizures originate in that country[4].  As mentioned, the South China Sea is home to major trade routes that promotes commerce within the region as goods are transferred within China to neighboring countries and potentially abroad.  Furthermore, 40% of global liquified natural gas was traded in the South China Sea in 2017[5].  It is also a source of food for China and these island states.  As it becomes evident, the South China Sea is a source of wealth for countries that surround it.  China serves as a major trade partner for all countries in the ASEAN area.  Any interference by the USA on the matters pertinent to the South China Sea and the countries surrounding it is met with retaliation by the Chinese. Both countries are nuclear equipped, and both are members of the Security Council.  If enough turmoil occurs, there is potentially a risk of escalation as a Cold War brews.  In order to understand America’s foreign policy objective in this part of the globe, it if first necessary to identify the facts related to each countries claims to the South China Sea.  But, before proceeding it is important to cover the laws that pertain to how natural resources and oceans should be handled by the international community.  Conventional law dictates how customs are upheld in the region.  The Law of the Sea determines how natural resources of the oceans should be handled.  In this law, it specifies the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to ocean territory.  It says, ““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[6].”  The militarizing of the zone by China is clearly a contravention to this law.  The South China Sea contains resources such as 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas[7].  The resources therein has resulted in disputes with China. China claims historic, “rights over a vast sea area within …. “nine-dash line” that stretches up to 2,000km[8].”  Vietnam on the other hand, “has established 49 outposts spread across 27 features in the Spratly Islands[9]”  Taiwan claims within the “South China Sea, Itu Aba,[10]”  Which is a small strip of land that is currently occupied by the respective state.  Malaysia is the claimant for, “the waters and seabed that extend 200 nautical miles from its coast[11].”  Furthermore, Brunei argues that It has rights to, “Louisa Reef, Owen Shoal and Rifleman Bank, all of which [it] declared in 1984[12]”  Lastly, the Philippines sought action against China in their dispute against the contested territories of the Spratley Islands and won by virtue of the Hague a neutral party to the subject matter.  With each countries claims noted, it then becomes clear to mention the role of the allies of the South Asian nations Japan and South Korea.  Japan seeks to secure trade routes and resources within the South China Sea”. The contention has forced “Japan's militarization and the expansion in its periphery[13].”  And Finally, South Korea was summoned by the USA government to uphold the Law of the Sea within the region.  Through this, South Korea, a middle power, serves as an honest broker pertaining to the matters in the region.  It becomes increasingly evident that the issue in the South China Sea involves many parties and each has their own plan for the region.  Further, the trade generated in the region is quite substantial and many of these countries largest trading partner is China.  With all of this contention, the USA is protecting the interest of the Law of the Sea and the interest of Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines.  From a US foreign policy perspective this can be explained because these countries serve as strategic location whereby trade and military can hamper Chinese interest.  Furthermore, it serves as a way to counteract the Belt and Road Initiative by China.  Through implicating the initiative, China is then surrounded by hostility when in relation to the South China Sea as a result of the USA.  This then serves as a benefit to America maintaining security ties with the South Asian Nations.  In addition, it reduces China’s sphere of influence on their own territory which would then allow America to exploit military vulnerabilities in the area.  

 Major Issues

America’s current strategy is to protect its sphere of influence, the pillars of the New World Order.  These pillars and the how the situation in the South China Sea cause major issues is to be explained bellow, and they are as follows; Pillar I rule of law and global cooperation; Pillar II globalization and free trade; Pillar III rules based organization and; Pillar IV human rights culture[14]. 

The issues that have arisen in the South China Sea, question Americas manifest destiny as an arbiter of world conflict.  There is currently a trade war going on with the USA and China and the issue in the South China Sea can worsen the situation for the American citizen.  The fundamental proponents of free trade come into question as possible tariffs can be implemented as US- SINO negotiations escalate.  Capitalism is also a factor that is to be considered as goods manufactured in China for cheaper prices would affect prices and their availability in foreign markets such as the USA.  As mentioned, a large amount of world trade passes through the South China Sea.  If the situation is not rectified in a peaceful manner, it could mean rising prices.  Globalization is the idea where, “transnational interactions [intensify] dramatically[15].”  As with the contention in the South China Sea, global cooperation a result of globalization, is hampered and can force countries to take sides leading to a domino effect in which the world stands divided on whether to uphold such important concepts as the rule of law.  Various countries have shown disregard for a rules-based order.  In the situation on hand, China are not implementing decisions set forth by the Hague and the UN convention.  This shows their lack of concern for such institutions as the United Nations which serves as a mechanism for world peace.  Their refusal to accept the decision thus causes integrity problems with the UN.  Lastly, human rights are affected by the issue in the South China Sea.   There is a looming threat to global peace and safety with all these nations claiming the same territory.  This could result in blood shed and a Cold War.  The maintenance of democratic values, justice, democracy and law should be of utmost priority. 

Before explaining America’s foreign policy towards the South China Sea, it is first important to identify that China is a UN security threat to community and politics.  It is a threat to community because their claims on the region serve to divide and conquer ASEAN states and evidently the peace in the region.  China is also viewed as a country that violates human rights as is the case with Hong Kong.  They are a political threat because their ideology is communist in nature.  This communist ideology is repressive and oppressive.  A domino effect can compel nations to follow commencing from China’s disobedience to the UN. 

The United Nations Security Council is designed in such a way as to balance nuclear power to create a bipolar and multipolar political community.  China and the USA are at odds with one another serving as rivals by which China seeks to ascertain hegemony.  Despite this however, agreements such as NAFTA serve to strengthen America’s position throughout the globe regardless.  With China being a nuclear force, they certainly are a threat however the no first strike doctrine acts as a form of deterrence wherein nuclear bearing powers do not strike first in conflict[16].  Further, the proponents of MAD- mutually assured destruction ensures that nuclear powers won’t attack one another.  This means America’s decision to act in the South China Sea is based on “diplomacy, behaviours, and decisions calculated to avoid a catastrophic event[17] [of nuclear war.]”  Nevertheless, there is still a possibility that China and the USA conflict will commence as a Cold War.  The foregoing are the considerations America notes when actioning foreign policy in relation to the issue in the South China Sea.  With that explained, America’s current foreign policy strategy on the matter as according to NBC News is very stern.  They provide insight by saying that, “U.S. has long opposed China's expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea, [with the USA] regularly sending Navy patrols through the strategic waterways to demonstrate freedom of navigation there[18].” With consideration of the foregoing, America is clearly aligning itself with the ASEAN nations.  Beijing on the other hand accuses Washington that it is interfering and escalating the situation in the region.  The USA has made it clear that they are promoting the Law of the Sea within the contested region.  America seeks to maintain its realist interest to capitalism by acting in a way that is very cautious and the contention in the area is evidence of this as it serves as a large trade route by which it can benefit. 

Pros and Cons

               Countries involved in contention within the South China Sea are trading partners.  In fact, many of the ASEAN countries biggest trading partner is China.  As mentioned earlier, a lot of trade passes through this area.  It is highly possible that these countries are trying to not push boundaries as it would directly restrict trade.  Regardless of the realist interest of these countries what remains is the fact that they shouldn’t let their national interest deter from their duty to maintain global cooperation.  For example, institutions such as the United Nations are in place to act as neutral parties in maintaining the peace throughout the globe.  The integrity of these institutions must be adhered to and the fact that an amicable solution to the Spratley Islands by the Hague was not followed through shows both China and ASEAN preference their national interest over global cooperation.  China’s decision to not adhere to the Hague could result in a domino effect.  China’s situation with the Philippines can serves as a precedent for deviance with the United Nations.  China poses many implications for a rules-based order.  The very order in which all civil society is functioned.      

The USA is clearly trying to maintain a balance between its national interest and its trade with China via the Trump era trade deal.  This is a very delicate situation as it involves many considerations such as the maintenance of bipolarity and nuclear force.  USA if it isn’t evident, is a major trading partner with China similar to the ASEAN countries.  By negotiating properly with China, and through diplomacy and consideration, America has ascertained a position where China cooperates for a situation that seeks to maintain the current state in the region.  However, this maintenance can only last so long.  It remains to be seen how China’s slow increase in aggression in the area is to be tolerated by ASEAN states in the future.

The USA’s sphere of influence involves the spreading of liberty, justice and freedom.  It has worked and strived hard to protect other states from going socialist and or communist.  Another negative here is, why is America not pushing the decision of the Hague regarding the Spratley Islands.  By not aiming to enforce this, the United Nations is being exploited for its deficiency such as lacking the power to compel states to follow through with its decisions.  Through not acting on this decision, it becomes clear that America is not taking the initiative as per its manifest destiny.  Without the right arbiter with the right force, the United Nations is an institution devoid of its authority.  Especially if countries such as China do not adhere as is the case with breaches to the Law of the Sea by China.  A situation such as this certainly has the power to create a movement by states in which they slowly become repressive and oppressive regimes brought about by continuous oppositional force against such institutions as the United Nations.   By questioning the validity of the United Nations, China can be considered to be testing the institutions integrity and limits.  Therefore, the need for a United Nations militia is crucial going forward.

A positive that comes of this is that ASEAN countries involved in the contention have options.  The biggest ally available to them in that region is none other than India.  They offer a comparative advantage to China via population and affordable labour.  A comparative advantage can be defined as, “the idea that different countries …. will have different advantages in the production of different goods and services, which form the basis for gains from trade[19].”  India can therefore act as a manufacturing powerhouse in the absence of partnership with China.  Although China is a very large economy, the direct polar axis by which law and order can be maintained in Asia is India.  India, is a source of authority by which ASEAN nations could align with.  India is the largest democracy in the world however, its not as developed as some of the western nations.  Regardless, India’s economy is one of the top in the world, only lagging behind countries such as Germany, Japan, China and the USA.  India’s nominal GDP is at $2.87 compared to China’s at $14.34 both in trillions[20].  Despite the significantly lower GDP to its main competitor, India has a lot of potential to grow especially with the aid of the ASEAN countries.  And further, they have strengths in several manufacturing industries such as automotive, software, pharmaceuticals and textile industries.  In fact, an Indian company, Tata Group, owns Jaguar and Land Rover.  Tetley Tea is also owned by an Indian company.  They also have a large presence in the digital world.  With all this, India serves as a valuable partner to the USA and the ASEAN nations in the expansion of capitalism and democracy as it is the largest in the world. 

The fact that USA sends its naval ships and that it sought the assistance of Japan and South Korea shows that the USA does have some initiative to maintain peace in the region and throughout the world.  By allowing these warships to freely navigate the South China Sea, it serves as a method whereby China’s aggressive oppressive regime are prevented from proliferating the West and its allies thus protecting human rights as is the case with Hong Kong.  However, more can be done especially since there is not a UN military.  Perhaps the USA can rally the Security Council to uphold conventional law such as the Law of the Sea.  By involving members of the Security Council, America validates that these institutions are necessary for the maintenance of peace throughout the globe. 

Position

From the perspective of each country, it becomes evident that there seems to be not a consensus on America’s approach to the South China Sea.  This means that countries such as the Philippines are being overpowered and disregarded although the United Nations at the Hague has been called upon to help solve the matter.  The fundamental principles of the New World Order as per the American sphere of influence, specifically global cooperation is not being maintained in such institutions as the UN of which America is the primary force.  Therefore, what is the point of this institution if countries seek their realist views in the face of complicated international relations.  In this case the realist view of America is capitalism and cheap goods and labour.  Furthermore, China’s large population is enticing to American companies who seek to expand.  Technology transfer agreements with domestic Chinese companies allow American companies to penetrate the Chinese economy however, the cost is a potential reduction of America’s sphere of influence and the loss of the fundamental beliefs and ideology which bring about collective peace amongst the western nations such as freedom, justice and liberty amongst others.  Thus, a UN military should be assembled to enforce compliance however this military should only have the jurisdiction of international matters so as to not impede on each state’s domestic issues. 

India is the second largest in population next to China.  By reducing trade and moving operations from China to India, both the USA and the ASEAN countries can start to build a future wherein they are not dependent of the repressive regime of the Chinese Communist Party.  Companies based in these countries can increase revenue by penetrating then proliferating the Indian market.  It is also common knowledge that India’s labour cost is very competitive to China’s.  Therefore, India can serve as a polar force to counteract the Chinese and its oppressive and repressive Chinese Communist Party. 

The threat within the South China Sea is that China is a nuclear power and further they are a member of the Security Counsel.  There will come a time where the ASEAN nations won’t be able to push the envelope anymore and this could potentially start a Cold War.  The fact that the Philippines involved the Hague is a symbol of the growing force ASEAN nations have.  It is proof that these nations stand strong irrespective of the foreign force of the Chinese Communist Party.  The fact that the Philippines confronted this means that ASEAN respects law and order and serves to maintain peace throughout the world.  Afterall, there is no United Nations military to enforce such conventional law on states.   Which results in the fact that the means by which nations negotiate are unbound as the unfortunate truth in the matter here is that China continues to enforce its will in the region.  Therefore, America should not combat China with nuclear war in the event of turmoil but rather buy time and assist the ASEAN nations to develop until they become a force by which China can no longer repress and oppress them.  This can be done by supporting these countries with economic incentives and financial aid.  Further, agreements can be maintained and updated as necessary. 

Conclusion

The turmoil brewing in the South China Sea is a matter that involves the foreign policy of the USA.  This area has many resources which surrounding states dispute about.  China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines all have conflicting claims on the area.  First, ASEAN states should band together to collectively force China into abiding by the Law of the Sea and second America should rally the Security Council on this matter.  To counteract China, the polar force in Asia, India serves as a valuable ally by which China’s repressive and oppressive nature can be subdued.  The development of ASEAN nations should be the priority of American foreign policy.  Through their development, retaliation by nuclear means can be alleviated.  With this in mind, caution must be exercised.

---

[1] Ross Pink. “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020.  Poli 3150

[2] Ross Pink. “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020.  Poli 3150

[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] Ross Pink. “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020.  Poli 3150

[6]  Robin R. Churchill, “Law of the Sea,” Britannica, 2020.  Retrieved from:   https://www.britannica.com/topic/Law-of-the-Sea

[7]   Ross Pink, “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020.  Poli 3150

[8] Zhangh, R.  “South China Sea: what are rival claimants building on islands and reefs?”  South China Morning Post, 2021.  Retrieved from:  https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3124309/south-china-sea-what-are-rival-claimants-building-islands-and

[9] Zhangh, R.  “South China Sea: what are rival claimants building on islands and reefs?”  South China Morning Post, 2021.  Retrieved from:  https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3124309/south-china-sea-what-are-rival-claimants-building-islands-and

[10] Myers, S.  "Island or Rock? Taiwan Defends Its Claim in South China Sea.”  The New York Times 2018.  Retrieved from:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/world/asia/china-taiwan-island-south-sea.html#:~:text=Taiwan%20Defends%20Its%20Claim%20in%20South%20China%20Sea,Chinese%20is%20Taiping,%20which%20means%20peaceful%20or%20tranquil.

[11] Sukumaran, T.  “How will Malaysia and China’s maritime consultation mechanism affect the South China Sea dispute?”  South China Morning Post, 2019.  Retrieved from:  https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/explained/article/3029732/how-will-malaysia-and-chinas-maritime-consultation-mechanism

[12] Espana J, et al.  “Brunei, ASEAN and the South China Sea” | The Interpreter 2020.  Retrieved from:  https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/brunei-asean-and-south-china-sea#:~:text=Brunei%20has%20claims%20to%20Louisa,Exclusive%20Economic%20Zone%20(EEZ).&text=The%20British%20presence%20in%20Brunei,in%20the%20South%20China%20Sea.

[13] Stratfor.  “Japan Taking a New Role in the South China Sea?”  2011.  Retrieved from:  https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/japan-taking-new-role-south-china-sea#:~:text=Japan%20has%20been%20active%20in%20the%20South%20China,to%20Japan's%20militarization%20and%20expansion%20in%20its%20periphery.

[14] Ross Pink. “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020.  Poli 3150

[15] Santos, B.  “Globalizations,” Sage Journals, Vol.  23, Is 2 – 3.   (2006).  Retrieved from:  https://doi-org.ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/10.1177/026327640602300268

[16] Ross Pink. “American Foreign Policy,” Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020.  Poli 3150

[17] Gillies, J.  “Time to re-assess mutually assured destruction,” ProQuest, Vol.  359.  (2017).  Retrieved from:  Time to re-assess mutually assured destruction - ProQuest (kpu.ca).

[18] Suliman, A, et al.  “U.S. says most of China's claims in South China Sea are unlawful.” NBC News, 2020.  Retrieved from:  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-says-most-china-s-claims-south-china-sea-n1233745China's claims in South China Sea are unlawful (nbcnews.com)

[19] Dickovick, T.  “Comparative Politics.”  Oxford.  2016. 

[20] Silver, C.  “The Top 25 Economies in the World.”  Investopedia, 2020.  Retrieved from:  Countries by GDP: The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)