Will China revisit South China Sea policy as Washington reaches out to Asean?
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's statement on Washington's opposition to Beijing's expansive claims in the South China Sea goes beyond its traditional assertions of navigational and overflight freedoms.
By showing its support for international law, notably a 2016 ruling by an arbitral tribunal convened under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it adds a new dimension in the United States' efforts to push back against China's attempts to consolidate its hold over the strategic waterway. Last month, the US also issued a diplomatic note referencing the ruling.
Pompeo's statement gives full play to a growing range of tools " military, diplomatic and legal " that Washington is putting to bear to oppose what it sees as Chinese attempts to undermine a rules-based maritime order.
Last May, the US signalled its intention to put muscle in its Indo-Pacific strategy by reinvesting in key military capabilities to deter China. Funding for a proposed Pacific Deterrence Initiative will enhance the US defence posture in an area where Beijing has been steadily making inroads in recent years.
However, it remains to be seen how this can be carried out given the constraints and distractions of an election year. As great power competition intensifies in the run-up to a possible leadership change in November, a tougher policy against China is expected.
The South China Sea happens to be just one in a long laundry list of issues where the US and China find themselves on opposite sides. But because rivalry in this critical maritime domain provides the two the opportunity to field in their naval hardware, the risk of a possible mishap is high.
A crewman from the Vietnamese coastguard ship looks out at sea as Chinese vessels tail Vietnamese ships that came close to a Chinese oil rig in the South China Sea on July 15, 2014. File photo: Reuters
The US announcement struck a chord with Southeast Asian nations irked by Beijing's recent moves in contested waters. Having neither the naval assets nor the ambitions to ply the sea's vastness to fend off China's attempts at disrupting fishing and offshore hydrocarbon activities carried out within theilarr maritime zones, Southeast Asian countries privately welcome the US naval presence.
China, for instance, dispatched patrols to warn Malaysia and Vietnam from exploring oil and gas within their exclusive economic zones, while Chinese fishing boats have regularly encroached into Indonesian waters that border the edge of the South China Sea. Fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines also protest Beijing's annual unilateral fishing ban.
It is one thing for China not to accept the tribunal award, but it is another to actively undermine its substance by establishing new administrative entities to govern its sweeping claims. It is one thing to respond to US freedom of navigation operations, but it is another to harass routine patrols and frustrate marine economic activities of its coastal neighbours amid a health crisis.
While hawks in China may sweep Pompeo's statement under the rug as another case of stirring tensions, Beijing should reflect on why Washington's overtures are increasingly receiving an audience within its immediate neighbours.
Nonetheless, Asean nations are unlikely to publicly side with the US as they try to keep in good standing with China, their largest trade partner. Also, Washington's framing of its contest with China as a choice between free and repressive global visions is not something that regional nations necessarily agree with.
Overlapping claims in the South China Sea by the Philippines and China. Graphic: SCMP
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has not acted on the 2016 arbitration ruling. But in a statement commemorating the fourth year anniversary of the milestone case, his top diplomat, Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jnr, reaffirmed the country's "adherence to the award and its enforcement without any possibility of compromise or change", saying that it is "non-negotiable".
The 2016 ruling has in recent months also been cited multiple times in diplomatic notes issued by the Philippines' neighbours, who have been similarly opposed to China's maritime claims.
The ruling repudiated the claim of historic rights to the waters made by China. It said these were superseded by UNCLOS, and clarified that coastal states can only claim sovereign rights within the bounds provided for by this constitution of the oceans. By making clear that none of the Spratly Island features qualifies as a true island capable of generating extended maritime zones, it effectively diminished overlaps. Discrediting nebulous claims, it reduced jurisdiction over surrounding waters of occupied features to a maximum of 12 nautical miles.
By extension, the ruling's logic also disallowed drawing baselines from occupied features " whether as an individual rock or a collective unit " as the basis for projecting extended maritime claims.
Furthermore, while the ruling did cite traditional fishing rights that can justify continued Chinese access to fishing grounds closer to the Philippines' shores, it barred Beijing from further interference in Manila's economic activities within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
Vietnam has indicated it could challenge China before an international legal body, which the Chinese have warned against. The precedent set by the ruling could provide useful jurisprudence that Hanoi can cite for its case.
Given this, the onus is now on Beijing to revisit its South China Sea policy. While Southeast Asia's considerations will be shaped by factors such as economic interdependence with China more so than the reliability of Washington's resolve in the disputed waters, Beijing should realise that its continued assertiveness will roll back gains made through confidence-building and consultation mechanisms set up over the years. Pressure is building on China as it ponders next steps.
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).
Copyright (c) 2020. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
