The beauty of restraint in the South China Sea
Tom Plate welcomes the toning down of rhetoric and says Beijing should now consider taking the diplomatic initiative, given the need for China and the US to break through fossilised thinking to improve relations

When feisty Chinese admirals or American generals fire off verbal macho-missiles, I either consider sliding under my earthquake-reinforced university desk or slipping over into the comfy contentment of denial that all is actually under control. And sometimes the latter is actually the case, as I hoped last week about China’s admiral, Wu Shengli (吳勝利). While informing his countrymen and women that the PLA Navy deserved their patriotic acclaim for its “enormous restraint” in the face of US provocations in the South China Sea, its commander brassily added that China’s navy would “defend our national sovereignty”. This is the large mass of ocean that Chinese cartographic experts are allegedly thinking of renaming (or so goes the rumour) “Xi’s Sea”.
READ MORE: Asean leaders raise concerns about South China Sea island-building as China tries to keep it off the table
The American side baulked, of course, but its rhetoric seemed more level-headed than boat-rocking. At one stop during his latest Asia “pivot”, President Barack Obama simply said: “For the sake of regional stability, the claimants should halt reclamation, construction and militarisation of disputed areas.” This pitch was to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes lesser powers that have been doing their own share of land reclamation in “Xi’s Sea”. But the main target of Obama’s remarks was the world leader in land, atoll and shoal reclaiming, China.
It’s possible that Beijing is starting to understand that it has pushed itself into such strong bargaining positions that it can now proceed with a newfound diplomatic amity
Even added up, these verbal shots across the bow from Wu and Obama did not sound like opening salvoes to war. It’s possible that Beijing is starting to understand that it has pushed itself into such strong bargaining positions (possession being nine-tenths of international law) that it can now artfully proceed, in the wake of its blitzkrieg build-up, with a newfound diplomatic amity.
The timing for magnanimity is good. The US public, enduring the presidential campaign, would take notice of a Chinese bid to smooth South China Sea waters; and Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic nominee and poll leader, would benefit from a silencing, however temporary, of the Republican non-lambs (Donald Trump et al).
READ MORE: South China Sea fears linger despite Beijing’s loan and aid pledges at East Asia Summit

READ MORE: Ahead of key Apec and Asean meetings, China’s attempts to soften its image have only limited success
Beijing’s top people don’t like surprises any more than America’s; behind-the-scenes choreography can work to reduce risk. The next US peacock-in-the-Pacific show is scheduled later this month; a pair of US warships will pop over to Mischief Reef to test the waters. But ask yourself: is this the best our two “bigs” can do? Whatever happened to President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) clarion call for “a new type of great power relationship”? Such a nice idea. And why not?
Sure, blame Washington, which, whether it’s under an Obama or a Bush, cannot seem to escape the Dante’s Inferno of the Middle East, so as to focus more on Asia. But the Xi administration needs to take a long look in the mirror, too. China may be destined to become the 21st-century power, but that doesn’t have to happen tomorrow. Wanting something quickly sometimes means it takes longer for it to come to pass.

READ MORE: Beijing’s reef building in South China Sea will continue
Logically, Beijing and Washington need each other and ought to do better by themselves. But how? Thinking out of the box is not easy when you are cooped up inside it. The Chinese act as if the South China Sea is their personal sandbox, triggering the inevitable US reply of “No, it’s mine, too”. Beijing takes the view that it is simply reclaiming what it used to own; Washington views the reclamation projects as archipelago empire-building. Both sides box themselves in at the very moment they need to construct a new box. Let China make the first move; showing a measure of flexibility might actually work to firm up its position, particularly in the court of world opinion. Two “rights” can make a big wrong when it comes to the bilateral relationship.