The South China Sea disputes: some practical thinking from Australia

Parliament house flag post

The South China Sea disputes: some practical thinking from Australia

Posted 25/09/2012 by Cameron Hill

 

 Growing hostility between China and the Philippines, the failure of ASEAN Foreign Ministers to agree on a joint statement at their July meeting in Phnom Penh, and anti-China protests on the streets of Hanoi have re-focused international attention on long-standing maritime and territorial disputes in the South China Sea over the last several months. While issues like North Korea’s nuclear program and the China–Taiwan dispute have tended to dominate discussions of regional security over the last decade, one prominent Australian foreign policy analyst has argued recently that ‘it is in the South China Sea that the components of Asia’s changing power dynamics are most concentrated and on display’.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) has labelled the disputes ‘a major flashpoint for potential conflict between China and some South East Asian countries as well as the US’. The South China Sea disputes are separate from the maritime disputes involving China and Japan and Japan and South Korea, which have also intensified recently. The ICG report contains a more detailed map and a list of the conflicting claims (see Appendices).

The waters and seabeds of sections of the South China Sea are subject to opposing claims by six governments—China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines. While the scope of its claims remain ambiguous, China claims around 80 per cent of the disputed areas on the basis of historical rights and Beijing has used force against Vietnam twice in the past, once in 1974 (against South Vietnam) and again in 1988. The disputed areas—including the Spratly and Paracel island chains—contain many small islands and islets, are a significant source of regional fish stocks, and, most importantly, are thought to be rich in untapped oil and gas reserves. They also happen to straddle some of the world’s busiest international shipping and trade routes.

In 2002, the ASEAN states and China agreed to develop a ‘code of conduct’ (CoC) for managing tensions over the disputed areas. While a set of ‘implementation guidelines’ were agreed in 2011, the CoC itself has yet to eventuate. Differences both between some ASEAN states and China and within ASEAN itself were brought into stark relief at the 2012 ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting in Phnom Penh in July where, for the first time in its 45–year history, its members were unable to agree on a joint communiqué. Subsequently, Indonesia, ASEAN’s largest member, worked behind the scenes with other members to produce the ‘six point principles’. These reiterate ASEAN’s adherence to the 2002 declaration and call for the application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in peacefully resolving the disputes. Indonesia also continues to play an important role in fostering ‘track two’ dialogues on the dispute. Nevertheless, China, the Philippines and Vietnam have all moved to harden their positions through a series of assertive measures and counter-measures.

In line with its so-called strategic ‘pivot’ to the Asia-Pacific, the US has taken a much stronger interest in the disputes over the last couple of years. While maintaining that the US does not take sides in the dispute, at the ASEAN Regional Forum meetings in Hanoi in 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared for the first time that the resolution of the competing claims was a US ‘national interest’. In response to the recent increase in hostilities, the US has stated that it ‘believes nations of the region should work collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and certainly without the use of force’. During a recent visit to Indonesia, Secretary Clinton urged ASEAN and China to make ‘meaningful progress’ towards drafting the CoC. Some commentators, including Australia’s former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, have argued, however, that America’s emphasis on the need to apply international law is undermined by the fact that it has not ratified UNCLOS.

Australia’s position on the disputes has continued to emphasise the need for a peaceful resolution, through the ASEAN process and based on the application of international law. In 2002, the then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, welcomed ASEAN’s declaration on the South China Sea, noting that it included several ideas which had been suggested by Australia. More recently, Dr Michael Wesley has asserted that Australia should play a more activist role, based on the proposition that, as a regional middle power with significant interests in but not party to the dispute, Australia is well-placed to directly broker a solution. Former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has argued that ASEAN, through the 18 member East Asia Summit (EAS) process, should play a much more active and formal role in helping diffuse ongoing territorial disputes in East Asia, including the South China Sea. This would include the development of hotlines between national security agencies, joint maritime exercises, detailed protocols for managing incidents at sea and, over time, increased transparency of military budgets.

While rejecting the idea of a direct brokering role for Australia, the current Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr, has recently proposed two practical models that could potentially help resolve the disputes peacefully:

the South China Sea isn't the only place where there have been complex and overlapping territorial and maritime claims. To advance, it can often be better for parties to 'agree to disagree' about who owns what and to focus on how all parties can benefit. I want to mention two relevant models that can be adopted for countries to successfully manage competing interests.
The first is the Antarctic Treaty system. The Treaty came into force in June 1961 after ratification by 12 countries then active in Antarctic science. Its objectives are:
  • to demilitarise Antarctica, establish it as a zone free of nuclear tests and the disposal of radioactive waste, and to ensure that it is used for peaceful purposes only
  • to promote international scientific cooperation in Antarctica and, 
  • to set aside disputes over territorial sovereignty.
Under the Treaty, countries have for more than 50 years put aside their differences over sovereignty and cooperated to promote peace and science. Members of the Antarctic treaty system have worked together to conserve and manage Antarctica's living marine resources, including through sustainable fisheries and by combating illegal fishing. The Treaty works. Australia, an initial signatory, played a key role in the negotiation and development of the treaty system. And we hosted the 35th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Hobart in June.
The second relevant model is that of joint development zones. Joint development zones are designed to facilitate equitable and mutually beneficial development – a concept that is expressly provided for in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The zones are operating successfully around the world, including in South East Asia, Africa, northern Europe and the Caribbean.

In our region, Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam were early participants in joint development zones. Thailand and Malaysia entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on joint development of seabed resources in the Gulf of Thailand in February 1979. Cambodia and Vietnam concluded an agreement in July 1982 over disputed waters – which placed a maritime area under a "joint utilisation regime." Before Thailand and Vietnam concluded an agreement on maritime boundaries in August 1997, they discussed the potential joint development of an overlapping area. In June 1992, Vietnam and Malaysia applied the same principles in their Memorandum of Understanding – set in place to jointly exploit a "Defined Area" in the Gulf of Thailand. In 1999, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia also agreed on joint development of an 800 square kilometre zone. With our neighbours, East Timor, we are jointly developing Timor Sea petroleum resources for the mutual benefit of both countries – based on groundwork laid with Indonesia.

I'm not saying that joint development zones or an Antarctic Treaty-style system will provide all the answers in the South China Sea. But thinking creatively and constructively and examining models like these provide a path that deserves to be explored.
As the Foreign Minister points out, the ASEAN states have had direct experience in the application of these models, although not with China. In the likely absence of any other breakthroughs and in the face of escalating tensions and rhetoric, the November 2012 EAS meetings—which will bring together all the ASEAN countries plus China and the US (and others, including Australia)—present a potential opportunity to advance this kind of practical thinking.


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Indigenous Australians Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment taxation Sport illicit drugs Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force welfare policy Asia income management Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States higher education people trafficking school education aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA United Nations federal budget health financing emissions trading gambling Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Industrial Relations dental health National Disability Insurance Scheme forced labour Senate election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service International Women's Day corruption Fair Work Act child protection people smuggling debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Australian Crime Commission Newstart Parenting Payment 43rd Parliament slavery by-election political parties Census constitution High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Afghanistan Higher Education Loan Program HECS youth Aviation environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs poker machines doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform politics banking firearms public policy mental health China ADRV terrorism social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation governance public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing paid parental leave European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas planning United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing election timetable citizenship Productivity asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Population Financial sector national security fuel violence against women domestic violence disability employment Tasmania integrity science research and development Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia accountability housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation family assistance expertise Senators and Members climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets health reform Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration health system Australia Greens money laundering servitude Special Rapporteur Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days baby bonus DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking federal election 2010 workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions

Show all
Show less
Back to top