http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5237&Itemid=171
Who's Bluffing Whom in the South China Sea?
Written by Khanh Vu Duc
Friday, 08 March 2013
Steady as she goes...
The latitude for action on the part of all the parties is limited
The territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea continue to
plague and jeopardize the peace and security of the region. These disputes are
many, including the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, the Paracels, the Scarborough
Shoal, and the Spratly Islands; and although these disputes have been long
running since the end of the Second World War, the region's history and its
nations span centuries. There is and has been no shortage of conflict in the
South China Sea.
Tensions have yet to dissipate from last year's Scarborough Shoal
standoff between China and the Philippines. Where Asean remains divided and
incapable of bringing these disputes to an end, and a multilateral resolution
is merely hypothetical, it appears increasingly likely that conflict, whether
open war or, perhaps more probably, maritime skirmishes are on the horizon.
Yet, it may be that all of this talk of war is simply that: talk.
Opponents in Conflict
China is presently engaged in a series of disputes with several countries
spanning the Western Pacific, among which include Japan, the Philippines, and
Vietnam.
Japan and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, however, may prove to be an
unnecessary distraction for China's aspirations in the Pacific. Japan is too
close an ally of the US for Washington to ignore their request for assistance,
never mind the very capable Japan Self-Defense Forces. As such, it is unlikely
that the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute will amount to more than a diplomatic fuss,
something to be used to stoke the flames of nationalism in both countries.
The Philippines, similar to Japan, holds a mutual defense treaty with the
US. In addition to the Spratly dispute, the Philippines are in dispute with
China over the Scarborough Shoal, a collection of reefs, rocks, and small
islands just off the coast of the country. Yet, unlike Japan, the Philippines
do not have an equally sizeable and effective military to counter Chinese
aggression, if necessary. As such, in the event of any conflict or war between
the Philippines and China, Manila will be dependent on US assistance and
support.
That said, it remains to be seen if the US would risk military
confrontation with China, even given its treaty with the Philippines. Much will
be dependent on the circumstances of the conflict and interpretation of the
treaty by the White House. However, should Washington ignore the Philippine cry
for help, it would jeopardize current and future US strategic partnerships,
never mind the political fallout at home. The US has no desire to be lured into
a conflict not of its making or choosing, but it also cannot risk violating its
mutual defense treaty without harming the legitimacy of other defense
agreements.
Unlike Japan and the Philippines, Vietnam does not hold a defense treaty
with the US. Moreover, although Vietnam may share strategic partnerships with
several nations, it is unlikely that they will go far in aiding Vietnam in the
event of a conflict with China. In addition to the Spratlys dispute, Vietnam is
also in dispute with China over the Paracels, seized by Chinese forces in 1974
from then-South Vietnam.
Vietnam remains isolated in the world, for its only "partner" has been
China; however, should Hanoi cozy up too closely or compromise too much with
Beijing, the government's legitimacy would be called into question by its
citizens, raising and/or confirming the suspicions of those who believe the
government and Communist Party are puppets of China, and inflame nationalist
sentiments.
In the event that China should seize one or several Vietnamese-occupied
Spratly Islands, Hanoi cannot rely on foreign assistance. It cannot attack
China, even if such an attack could be argued as self-defence; but it cannot
also do nothing and allow the government to be seen as weak and ineffective by
the Vietnamese people. The options are limited for Hanoi. To say they would be
stuck between a rock and a hard place would be an understatement.
Consequences
Nevertheless, it remains unlikely that any conflict between China and
Japan, Philippines, or Vietnam will amount to more than saber rattling and
harsh words. Even a "small" police action against the Philippines or Vietnam
over the Spratly Islands, however successful for China, would have severe
consequences. Any Chinese use of force would realize the fears of every state
in the region. Moreover, Beijing's hope for a peaceful rise would be
immediately set back, if not ruined.
Presently, tensions are already running high; however, any clear displays
of Chinese aggression would simply add fuel to the fire. Countries such as the
Philippines and Vietnam would then be able to turn some of their
neighbours—previously skeptical, if not cautious, about standing in opposition
to China—and convince these states to protest openly. Any goodwill China
possessed among some of these countries would evaporate as the Philippines
and/or Vietnam make their case.
However, of all the scenarios of a conflict involving China, what can be
certain is the potential for an immediate American intervention. While it is
questionable that the US would directly intervene in any skirmish between
nations, it is likely that Washington would use the conflict as an excuse for
deploying a larger, if not more permanent, security force in Asia-Pacific.
Although an increased American footprint would not be welcomed by all in the
region, the US would prove to be an appropriate balance against China.
Conversely, China would find an increased American presence unacceptable
and a nuisance. Of course, neither country is likely to find itself staring
down the barrel of the other's gun. China's plans for the region would
undoubtedly be under greater American scrutiny if Washington decides to
allocate more assets to Asia-Pacific.
For the US, returning in force to Asia-Pacific would prove to be a costly
endeavour, resources the country may or may not be able to muster. Yet, even if
this is true, Washington's calculations may determine that the security risk
posed by China in the region outweighs whatever investment required by the US.
China's dispute with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island, however
heated, will prove to be a peripheral issue with respect to China's dispute
with the several claimant states over the Spratlys. Ultimately, it is not
improbable that China would seize one or several of the Spratlys under foreign
control as a means to demonstrate its resolve in the disputes and the region;
but to do so is to engage in unnecessary risk. The consequences stemming from
such action are too great for Beijing to ignore.
Although it is unlikely that China's neighbors would be able to mount
more than a diplomatic protest, the fuss deriving from such an incident could
prove more burdensome for China than it is willing to risk. The real
consequence for China of any and all conflict in the region is and has always
been an American intervention. As is, it would benefit Beijing to seek a
peaceful, mutually agreed upon resolution, rather than brute force.
(Khanh Vu Duc is a Vietnamese-Canadian lawyer who researches on
Vietnamese politics, international relations and international law. He is a
frequent contributor to Asia Sentinel and BBC Vietnamese Service.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
