For the last few years, dissension about the maritime demarcation in the South China Sea, especially between China and the United States, has become one of the key issues of discussion in the realm of international relations. A series of negotiations on the issue among the contending parties in a number of regional and international forums have not been fruitful so far.
It is important to analyse the history of the conflict first in order to understand the interests and ideas of the major parties involved. South China Sea dispute dates back to the early twentieth century. In 1939, Japan, for the first time, invaded some of the islands in the South China Sea. After the defeat of Japan in the Second World War, several international peace treaties, including the Cairo Declaration of November 1943 and the Potsdam Declaration of July 1945, clearly stipulated the restoration of these islands to China. In 1947, the then Chinese Nationalist Government officially included a total of 159 islands, islets and sandbanks in South China Sea into its own jurisdiction. The USA at that time made no objection to such an initiative.
In the face of the spate of Cold War, however, the USA and its new regional ally, Japan, stepped back from their promises of the post-war declarations, and in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco of 1951 Japan was allowed once more to make claim over some major islands of the South China Sea, which were already taken over by China five years before.
In the late 1960s, a number of surveys by the United Nations and the USA discovered a large amount of oil and gas reserves on the continental shelves of the South China Sea, which suddenly escalated the contention among the state parties over the possession of the islands there. In the mid-1970s, for example, Vietnam and the Philippines occupied more than two dozen islands in South China Sea, while the USA and Japan remained silent spectators to the development.
After the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, a series of dialogues was held between China and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member-countries on the sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea. Alongside these bilateral dialogues, China and Southeast Asian countries pursued 'setting aside disputes' and 'joint-development' strategies throughout the 1990s and 2000s, which largely masked their livid contention over the Sea. For instance, China became ASEAN's full dialogue partner in 1996, and its role as a dependable partner during the 1997 Financial Crisis was recognised by the Southeast Asian countries.
As a result of the incessant dialogues between China and ASEAN over the South China Sea, a plan of action, titled 'Hanoi Plan of Action' adopted at the 1998 ASEAN Summit,' was proposed with a view to establishing a regional code of conduct in the South China Sea among the parties directly concerned. In due course, a major development took place when the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) was jointly signed by the parties at the eighth ASEAN Summit in November 2002, which reaffirmed the peaceful settlement of the disputes in accordance with the universally recognised principles of international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982. However, by the end of 2000s, three ASEAN member countries - Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines - clearly violated DOC by sending naval ships to the area, which was later capitalised by the USA.
In 2009, the USA signalled its rebalance strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, which further escalated the existing conflict over the South China Sea. As for example, there were at least five confrontational incidents in the Sea between the US and the Chinese naval ships. In 2012, USA announced to deploy more than 60 per cent of its naval strength in the Asia-Pacific region and stationed Marines in Australia. The USA also grouped up its old regional allies, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. The Philippines and Vietnam, for instance, agreed on joint military exercise and maritime border patrol in South China Sea in March 2012. In the very next month, twelve Chinese fishing vessels working in the sea were raided by Philippino warships. Vietnam, on the other hand, adopted its domestic Maritime Law in June the same year, which refers to legalising its territorial claims over the South China Sea.
Moreover, the Philippines started an arbitral proceeding against China at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which was strongly rejected and criticised by China. Later on, the USA started its direct intervention in the dispute in 2014 through facilitating direct military assistance to its regional allies while accusing China, in chorus, for building new islands and developing military facilities in the South China Sea. China rejected such allegations and reaffirmed its official position of protecting territorial integrity and ensuring national security. A number of recent offensive postures by the US military forces targeting China in the South China Sea have heightened the tensions again. Two US strategic bombers flew near the Chinese islands in November 2015, and, in April 2016, the US and the Philippines carried out a joint military exercise in South China Sea.
Containing China, therefore, has become the key element of America's Rebalance Strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. Alongside the old regional allies, the USA is now trying to enlarge its group of supporters by involving extra-regional powers, such as Australia and India, with a view to strengthening its position in the global platform. However, emerging global powers like India will consider their current economic and strategic partnership with China before grouping with the USA. The staggering cost of the European powers which allied with the USA in their Middle East adventures, will also be taken into account by the which are being wooed. The USA should think twice before going for another adventure in Asia - and this time with China.
The writer is a Research Associate at Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs (BILIA).
nmsrdu@gmail.com.
Â
China\'s territorial integrity vs. America\'s Rebalance strategy
Noor Mohammad Sarker | Published: June 08, 2016 21:14:28 | Updated: October 18, 2017 00:40:05
China\'s territorial integrity vs. America\'s Rebalance strategy
Share if you like