Conflicts and disputes in regard to territorial claims of the South China Sea are working to divide the region, while keeping the world on its toes. This seemingly inconspicuous stretch of sea is a hotspot of disagreement. Claimed by six surrounding countries, China, The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Brunei, and carefully watched by countries around the world, most notably the United States, it is no wonder tensions run high when discussing the area. What draws so much attention to the area falls into two primary categories, being resources, and trade. The chance to have power over both of these is what drives each countries interest in claiming, and gaining control of the area. With an estimated 7 billion barrels worth of oil, 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, plentiful fishing, and annual trade through the area amounting to around $5 trillion, it makes sense that this region is so sought after. Fortunately, there have yet to be any extreme outbreaks of violence in the area, but the possibility does exist, and if no compromise or agreement is made, the chance of war continues. In order to come to some kind of solution, I believe that aspects of liberal theory will need to go into play. It will be vital for there to be some kind of direction given by outside institutions because as of now each country directly involved is more or less interested in what will benefit them the most. My proposal is that control of the area is divided between each country, in regards to said country’s size. Their control will continue, assuming they are able to responsibly and effectively control their space, based on a collection of rules put in place by an outside institution and agreed upon by all parties involved.
Despite recent increases in tension and flare-ups of dispute in the South China Sea, the conflict here is nothing new. In fact, it is an issue that has been ongoing for many decades. The conflict in the South China Sea as we know it today really began to unfold following World War II. Until this period not much attention was given to the area, and even in the years following, there seemed to be a lack of concern, as there were other conflicts preoccupying the claimants. During this time China began establishing military powers on isles in the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands. This is also when China published the Nine-Dash Line, in 1947 to be exact, but again this was not given much concern at the time.
The 1950s saw an increase in interest in the area, as the end of the First Indochina War brought to the world a split Vietnam. South Vietnam was to inherit everything below the 17th Parallel, where both the Paracel and Spratly Islands are located. Although there was no official word that this meant the islands belonged to South Vietnam, in 1956 they reopened a French camp in the Paracels and stated they had taken control of both groups of islands. Some time after, China published a document officially declaring what the Nine-Dash Line was about. After this, there was another relatively relaxed span of about a decade, one which was broken after oil was found in the region in 1969.
The discovery of oil under the sea floor started a kind of race to claim parts of the area. The Philippines claimed adjacent islands in the Spratlys, and eventually the majority of the Spratly Islands. South Vietnam enforced its rule by sending their people to the islands, but this was met with force from China, who successfully defeated the Vietnamese, and was able to take control of the Paracel Islands. In 1979 a now unified Vietnam laid claim to all islands in the South China Sea, which was met with protest from many of the other claimants. In 1999 Taiwan stated that in every way, all of the South China Sea belonged to Taiwan. They disregarded any actions taken by others, and this move put them in parallel with China’s claims. These similar claims have lead to cooperation between the two countries in regards to this situation. These sort of “claim wars” have been happening in one way or another for much of the recent history of the region, and will continue a solution is found.
It seems as though during this period of time, the claimant countries began to realize the importance of populating the islands, in order to solidify the legitimacy of their claims. While they can say this or that belongs to them all they want, it became clear that being able to prove an ability to physically rule the space was vital in advancing their control of the region. Chas Freeman, a former U.S. Ambassador and China expert stated in 2015 that the claimants “have correctly understood that the key to sovereignty is not legal arguments but physical possession and control – a continuous human presence” (Tiezzi). Although this is a somewhat recent quote, I feel that it sums up much of the motivation for many of the actions taken by the countries claiming area in the South China Sea. As history turns to the present it is time to begin analysis of the current conflict, and what is behind the disagreements and tensions faced today.
While the current conflict in the South China Sea obviously impacts those who claim the area, it also reaches far outside the region. The popularity of this region, and what fuels much of the conflict falls into two categories, resources, and control of trade. A third reason which could be argued is historical rights, but this is primarily used as a means of persuasion, in order to claim the space, and exploit the first two reasons. The claimants involved are taking numerous actions in hopes to solidify their claims to the region, including building new islands, inhabiting pre-existing ones, and intervening in one-another’s attempts to do the same. Thankfully violent outbreaks have been near non-existent in recent history, but this doesn’t mean that things are going to stay peaceful. If tensions surrounding this conflict continue, the results may be crippling, for those in the vicinity, as well as the majority of the world, in one way or another.
The South China Sea has for centuries been a hotspot for fishermen, from small time villagers, to major international corporations. Fishing in the area has been an important financial outlet for these people, with the value on the open market in 2012 sitting at around $22 billion (Moss). This is impressive, but it is not without consequences. Since the 1950s the fish stocks have declined between 70% and 95%, and if nothing is changed in the fishing practices they will decline another 59% by 2020 (Moss). While this is cause for concern in its own regard, since the discovery of oil and natural gasses in the late 1960s the real conflicts have been concerning who is going to reap those benefits. With an estimated $700 billion worth of oil and $9 trillion worth of natural gas (Creehan) it is really no wonder that the claimant countries are willing to put so much energy and resources towards controlling the region. For smaller countries involved, including the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, these resources offer unimaginable potential for economic improvement. Although China has a much larger economy than these countries, the gains would still be highly beneficial.
Trade throughout the South China Sea is what is garnering the attention of the rest of the world. While the use of natural resources would have some impact on the international economy, the possible disruption of trade passing through would have major consequences. In 2016 alone $3.37 trillion worth of the worlds trade goods passed through the South China Sea (Global), with $1.2 trillion of that being U.S. traded goods (Ma). If a claimant is able to get some kind of control over the entire region, and for any reason begins restricting trade or reducing the freedom to pass through the area, the economic impacts will be astronomical. This is what has primarily lead the United States to get involved. This involvement has lead to increased tensions in the region including an incident in October of 2015. A U.S. guided missile destroyer sailed near on of China’s artificial islands, and China responded by stating it would “take any measures necessary to safeguard [its] security” (Ma). The United States then announced it would continue similar operations in an effort to ensure international freedom of navigation. It is clear that the United States is taking the side of the international community, which includes themselves, in an attempt to prevent any chance of disruption of the worlds trading system.
The last few years have only seen China’s intentions and aggression increase in attempts to gain control of the area. The country is not only sending out threats to those they see as opponents, but they are engaging in efforts to physically claim more of the area. 2012 saw China going against a mutually agreed upon withdrawal brokered by Washington DC, when the country forcibly seized control of the Scarborough Reef (Glaser). In May 2014, a 73 day conflict was started, involving China placing a deep-sea oil rig. This was met with ramming of ships among other clashes, until the oil rig was removed (Glaser). These events were between China and the Philippines, and Vietnam, respectively, and both show cases of China trying to use its immense presence and power to almost bully the smaller claimants involved. They also show a lack of fear from these smaller countries though, as they are not quick to just roll over and let China do as it wishes. Much of what has been occurring, I believe can be explained through the use of the theory of Realism.
The theory of Realism stems from the idea that states are all rational actors, working in an anarchical world. It is believed that there is no sovereign ruler, and because of this states act in ways that benefit them, primarily with a desire for military power and security. While there are criticisms, such as its focus on states as the only actors, and that it looks at international relations only in terms of maximizing power, I feel that even with these taken into consideration it is the most appropriate way of understanding what is happening in the South China Sea. Each claimant involved in this conflict is interested in preserving what they believe to be their rights to the region. As well as gaining control of the area they want, an ability to successfully take over a part of the South China Sea shows that countries power to the rest of the world, increasing their position as force to be reckoned with. Although this conflict is understood through the lens of a realist, I believe that its solution is best found within the theory of Liberalism.
The theory of Liberalism focuses on the idea that states are able to work together in order to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict. There is also a strong concentration on the importance of institutions. In the case of the South China Sea I see two actors that can work as institutions, the ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations), and the UN. Understanding the practices of liberalism is something that will be vital in finding any kind of solution to the current conflict in the South China Sea, as there are so many individual states involved. Being able to find a way to get each of these states to cooperate does pose a challenge, but not one that I see going unsolved.
What is it exactly that we are trying to achieve through the use of liberal practices though? My proposal is to implement a division of the South China Sea based on the size of each of the claimants countries, and their ability to effectively oversee their allotted space. The control of their space will continue as long as they are able to abide by and fulfill a set of rules put in place by an outside institution, and agreed upon by all claimants. I understand that similar attempts have been made, and in most cases simply looked passed, but with an strictly enforced, mutually agreed upon decision, all parties will be appreciative of what they gain.
I propose this is achieved is through a two part system. The initial agreement will created from drafts proposed by each of the claimants. There will then be meetings to discuss all aspects and disagreements in regards to the drafts, and to make any revisions until a final draft is agreed upon, with the ASEAN representing all claimants other than China. This is in an effort to give the smaller countries a bigger voice in regards to the finalization of this agreement. It has been observed in the past that China has preferred bilateral negotiations (“Why is…”), but using this approach China will have a more difficult time using its power to intimidate. The second part to my proposal is that once the agreement is put into action, its statements will be upheld through threat of punishment from the UN. There will obviously be varying degrees of actions taken, depending on what is under investigation, but all in all there will be consequences for any disregarding of the agreement. These two broad steps in creating and enforcing a solution, will encourage the acceptance and implementation of this agreement in each of the claimants countries.