The South China Sea issue involves China’s sovereignty disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines; at the same time, it also includes China’s sea disputes with the U.S.. The conflicts are different in nature but China has been trapped into strategic passivity.
To extricate itself from this difficult position, China should separate the conflicts and rank them in order of importance. Such sovereignty disputes are very difficult to resolve and there is little room for compromise. So China should employ as much wisdom as possible in seeking solutions. Comparatively speaking, maritime disputes with the U.S. threaten China both in terms of its relations with its neighbors and in terms of its national security. While there is room for compromise it is possible that unforeseen events will happen to throw this conflict into a serious stage. Therefore, it is strategically necessary to persuade the U.S. to take a neutral stance.
To extricate itself from this difficult position, China should separate the conflicts and rank them in order of importance. Such sovereignty disputes are very difficult to resolve and there is little room for compromise. So China should employ as much wisdom as possible in seeking solutions. Comparatively speaking, maritime disputes with the U.S. threaten China both in terms of its relations with its neighbors and in terms of its national security. While there is room for compromise it is possible that unforeseen events will happen to throw this conflict into a serious stage. Therefore, it is strategically necessary to persuade the U.S. to take a neutral stance.
Firstly, the U.S. has no territorial interests in the South China Sea, and there are no sovereignty disputes between the U.S. and China. This could help achieve neutrality from Washington. However, the U.S. does desire a leading role in the Asia-Pacific region and has wished to contain China in every dispute which has caused some conflict with Beijing. But as U.S. political rulers have repeatedly emphasized, Washington welcomes a peaceful and stronger China that is an Asian power or even a world power. Chinese leaders have also said that they want the U.S. to play a constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region. This also includes the South China Sea. The Pacific Ocean is big enough to hold both the U.S. and China. Both countries are now seeking peaceful coexistence through high-level dialogue, consultation mechanisms on Asia-Pacific affairs and cooperation.
Secondly, despite clashes between the U.S. and China over the South China Sea issue, there is enough space for compromise and cooperation. Top U.S. officials have made several statements on the South China Sea. They can be summarized as follows: no sovereignty appeal; neutral stand on sovereignty dispute; support of multilateral negotiations to resolve disputes; opposition to military measures and armed threats to dispute settlement; the urging of both sides to respect international law including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; freedom of navigation and entrance; making sure commercial interests are not affected; the providing of allies with necessary safety guarantees and maintaining Asia-Pacific marine security and trade order.
Secondly, despite clashes between the U.S. and China over the South China Sea issue, there is enough space for compromise and cooperation. Top U.S. officials have made several statements on the South China Sea. They can be summarized as follows: no sovereignty appeal; neutral stand on sovereignty dispute; support of multilateral negotiations to resolve disputes; opposition to military measures and armed threats to dispute settlement; the urging of both sides to respect international law including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; freedom of navigation and entrance; making sure commercial interests are not affected; the providing of allies with necessary safety guarantees and maintaining Asia-Pacific marine security and trade order.
These policies clash with China’s interests in three respects. First: freedom of navigation. The U.S. stresses that it has the right to conduct any activities, including military reconnaissance, freely within China’s exclusive economic zones on the high seas. China does not oppose freedom of navigation but rather the U.S.’s hostile military operations. Secondly, the U.S. suggests that China resolve sovereignty disputes through multilateral dialogue and has urged China to sign the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. But China prefers bilateral settlement, not only because they have worked successfully in the past but also that for certain disputes, bilateral settlements are simply more practical. Third, China opposes military interference. The U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 provides the U.S. with a legal basis to interfere in Sino-Philippines territorial disputes and both China and the U.S. must face the problem that if a military conflict breaks out between China and the Philippines, whether, when and how the U.S. itself gets involved.
So far, multilateral settlement has been the only proposal put forward by the U.S. However, recent U.S. statements have tended to be tougher. The spokeswoman of the State Council, Victoria Nuland, warned that an effort to divide and conquer will not be constructive for the U.S., and such open criticism of China’s efforts at bilateral settlement will further destabilize efforts to resolve the dispute. But on the whole, U.S.’ urging for multilateral settlement neither has substantial meaning nor any force behind it. It will be a strong test whether nations can use diplomatic channels to resolve this dispute. Of those three clashes, the U.S.’s military interference is the most dangerous. The U.S.-Philippines alliance and U.S. internal political pressure could mean that the U.S. interferes militarily in the sovereignty dispute over the Huangyan Island, but current U.S. attitudes seem to point to an unwillingness to do this. In the medium-to long-term, direct military confrontation with China is not in accord with U.S. strategic interests. So although this issue is still serious, it is more urgent for China to explore bilateral solutions to prevent any crisis flaring up and the development of China’s military power.
So far, multilateral settlement has been the only proposal put forward by the U.S. However, recent U.S. statements have tended to be tougher. The spokeswoman of the State Council, Victoria Nuland, warned that an effort to divide and conquer will not be constructive for the U.S., and such open criticism of China’s efforts at bilateral settlement will further destabilize efforts to resolve the dispute. But on the whole, U.S.’ urging for multilateral settlement neither has substantial meaning nor any force behind it. It will be a strong test whether nations can use diplomatic channels to resolve this dispute. Of those three clashes, the U.S.’s military interference is the most dangerous. The U.S.-Philippines alliance and U.S. internal political pressure could mean that the U.S. interferes militarily in the sovereignty dispute over the Huangyan Island, but current U.S. attitudes seem to point to an unwillingness to do this. In the medium-to long-term, direct military confrontation with China is not in accord with U.S. strategic interests. So although this issue is still serious, it is more urgent for China to explore bilateral solutions to prevent any crisis flaring up and the development of China’s military power.
The key conflict is over freedom of navigation. In recent years, Sino-U.S. clashes have been over South China Sea issues like the Hainan Island Spy Plane Incident and the USNS Impeccable Incident and they have been related to the freedom of navigation. As a matter of fact, both sides are not diametrically opposite each other. China’s military regards U.S. military reconnaissance inside China’s exclusive economic zones as one of three obstacles to bilateral military exchanges, yet the U.S.’ side considers that it has the right under international law. China is not opposed to freedom of navigation or military activities, but rather it is opposed to the U.S.’s frequent and multi-level military reconnaissance and the strategic hostility behind them. The U.S. has said that it welcomes Chinese warships into its exclusive economic zone. It also alleges that Chinese warships will sail onto the world stage sooner or later and China will face the same problems that the U.S. faces now so China should be more flexible over this issue. While these opinions appear reasonable, they ignore the fact that China is determined to achieve peaceful development. Even if China’s navy sails onto world stage in the future, it will not conduct endless military reconnaissance and especially not in other countries’ exclusive economic zones. Consequently, both sides should make joint efforts to support freedom of navigation and discuss between themselves how to define this as well as conduct joint military drills.
Finally, both the U.S. and China have agreed to jointly build a new type of big power relationship. At present, the U.S.’ goal is to dominate the Asia-Pacific order from the West Pacific to the Indian Ocean. China is only part of its focus, and thus it is quite a different situation from the containment policy against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. Similarly, China is not interested in excluding the U.S. from the Asia-Pacific region. Rather it seeks a harmonious Asia-Pacific community with every country including the U.S. Washington and Beijing should work more closely together and create a new Sino-U.S. big power relationship for a peaceful Asia-Pacific. If the U.S. can remain neutral over the South China Sea issue this will show that it is sincere in building a new order in the Asia-Pacific region with China and other countries.
Finally, both the U.S. and China have agreed to jointly build a new type of big power relationship. At present, the U.S.’ goal is to dominate the Asia-Pacific order from the West Pacific to the Indian Ocean. China is only part of its focus, and thus it is quite a different situation from the containment policy against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. Similarly, China is not interested in excluding the U.S. from the Asia-Pacific region. Rather it seeks a harmonious Asia-Pacific community with every country including the U.S. Washington and Beijing should work more closely together and create a new Sino-U.S. big power relationship for a peaceful Asia-Pacific. If the U.S. can remain neutral over the South China Sea issue this will show that it is sincere in building a new order in the Asia-Pacific region with China and other countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment