South China Sea dilemma: how can the US-led movement persuade China to act fairly?

Amid anxiety about China’s bullying and US commitment, Asean and Quad nations could issue a joint statement calling out Beijing for its ‘unlawful’ activities and demanding a course correction. How China responds would be instructive

C. Uday Bhaskar

Published: 6:15am, 4 Aug, 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s July 23 speech at the Richard Nixon library in California, titled “Communist China and the free world’s future”, has been either hailed or disparaged depending on which side of the Trump divide one is positioned.

However, even the more critical commentators agree that it marks a major punctuation in the troubled US-China relationship, and that a deep policy reappraisal is now embedded in the Washington beltway which perceives Beijing as a security threat. This assessment is expected to be refined by the next White House incumbent, whoever that may be.

While Pompeo’s speech seemed to be anchored around the concept of freedom and the larger global democratic impulse, and has many ideological strands and contradictions, the one that merits scrutiny is the maritime domain – specifically the Indo-Pacific region.

In a strong indictment of China’s Communist Party, Pompeo declared: “For too long we let the [Communist Party] set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone … Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all.”

This characterisation of China’s actions in the South China Sea as unlawful is a departure from earlier US practice and follows a July 13 statement by Pompeo in which the State Department made clear that “Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.”

02:32

Washington’s hardened position on Beijing’s claims in South China Sea heightens US-China tensions

This significant statement was made around the fourth anniversary of the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague that ruled against most of Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea and upheld the Philippine position – a verdict China has never accepted.

It also followed several months of clashes in the South China Sea, with many Asean members voicing dismay at China’s assertiveness. With its statements, the US has thrown down the gauntlet in the South China Sea and extended it to the Indo-Pacific.

There is an element of irony here. The US is not a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, though it adheres to the principles and now invokes its law; even as China, which is an UNCLOS signatory, rejects The Hague award based on the same laws.

While Beijing is no doubt reviewing the challenge posed by Pompeo’s statements and calibrating its response, the regional response is instructive and points to the dilemma of dealing with China both in the maritime context and in the wider spectrum of political, security and economic bilateral relationships.

Australia was quick off the blocks in aligning with the US position, reiterating that China’s “maritime claims are not valid under international law” in an US-Australia ministerial dialogue on July 28.

Canberra also said it would work more closely with like-minded nations in groups such as the Five Eyes network, Asean, Quad (Australia, US Japan, India) and Trilateral Infrastructure Partnership, and in the East Asia Summit, to support a free and open Indo-Pacific. But it was quick also to note that the “relationship that we have with China is important” and that Australia has no intention of harming it.

Meanwhile, some Asean nations chaffing at Chinese maritime muscle-flexing have been emboldened; significantly, Indonesia conducted a four-day naval exercise in the South China Sea with 24 warships in what was clearly a show of force – albeit modest.

In the Philippines, however, President Rodrigo Duterte was candid about the power differential in the South China Sea: “China is claiming it. We are claiming it. China has the arms. We do not have it … so, it’s as simple as that. They are in possession of the property … So what can we do?”

02:23

Chinese senior military official dismisses US defence secretary’s remarks on South China Sea militarisation

China has also made some astute investments in acquiring critical “property” in the Indian Ocean. The latest China-Iran long-term cooperation blueprint envisions infrastructure development in the Iranian ports of Chabahar and Bandar-e-Jask at the mouth of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

In Pakistan, Gwadar port is a major link in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Left unchecked, Chinese maritime clout will grow not only in the South China Sea but in the north Arabian Sea, with long-term strategic implications.

This is the dilemma for all the principal interlocutors in the South China Sea and the extended maritime domain – what can the US-led “we” do to prevail upon China to act in an acceptable manner? If the objective is to encourage Beijing to join the cluster that broadly accepts the rule of law as detailed in UNCLOS, a mix of incentive and suasion is called for.

The challenge is exacerbated by the reality that while the nations concerned share an anxiety triggered by Chinese bullying or aggression, there is little agreement about how much they can commit to the Pompeo formulation and raise the ante against Beijing.

01:17

Philippine officials unveil beaching ramp on disputed South China Sea island

The unstated regional anxiety is not only about China’s bullying and territorial transgressions but also about US commitment to staying the course and compelling Beijing to comply with any consensus.

An immediate litmus test could be a joint statement from Asean and Quad nations calling out China for its “unlawful” activities and demanding a course correction. Whether China is dismissive of such a nuanced approach or engages in constructive dialogue would point to how Beijing proposes to position itself with the rest of the world.

Appeasement is a diminishing option, as the US is now conceding, in its own trajectory from presidents Richard Nixon to Donald Trump.

Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar is director of the Society for Policy Studies (SPS), an independent think tank based in New Delhi

Post