Dangerous waters

ON DISTANT SHORE|
By Val G. Abelgas 

It is becoming increasingly clear that China is not interested in a peaceful resolution to the dispute over several islets in the West Philippine Sea it is claiming along with the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.

It has blocked all efforts by the international community, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to initiate multilateral discussion of the dispute. Using Cambodia as pawn, China shot down efforts by the Philippines to include in the joint statement the fact that the dispute was discussed by the members, resulting in the non-issuance of a joint statement at the end of the Asean foreign ministers’ meeting for the first time in its 45-year history.

The Chinese are obviously aware that they cannot win a case before an international court because those islands are clearly within the country’s 200-mile economic zone and well within the Philippines’ jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They refuse to bring the case for arbitration before any international body and are insisting that the matter should be discussed only between claimants.

In the past week, China made its intentions clear when it initiated two acts that unilaterally declared that the disputed islands were theirs. First, they printed a map of China in Chinese passports that included territories under dispute with the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, Japan and India.

Both Vietnam and India refused to stamp the dubious passports, and instead placed the stamp on a separate paper that they attached to the passport. The Philippines, although lodging a formal protest with the Chinese Embassy, initially said it would honor the passports, but after media criticisms, decided to follow the responses of Vietnam and India.

And then in a move that was seen as a reckless provocation, Hainan Province in China authorized its police to board, inspect and repel foreign vessels involved in “illegal activities” within 12-nautical miles of the islands it is claiming in the South China Sea, which the Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea.

The latest action was protested by several Asean countries as it would impede freedom of navigation in the important sea lanes, where one-third of the world’s commerce pass. Singapore and Indonesia expressed alarm, and Philippine President Aquino said Manila would lodge a protest.

Asean Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan said the Chinese action could spark naval clashes and increase tensions in the region. Surin said the new policy on the disputed territories, considered to be the region’s biggest potential military flashpoint, could affect the business climate in Asia.

Aquino said the Chinese policy could speed up the filing of a formal complaint before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, which makes me wonder why the Philippines has not filed the case until now. What is the country waiting for? The sooner the Philippines internationalizes the issue, the better its chances of stopping China from occupying the islands that are clearly within the jurisdictional 200 nautical mile economic zone of the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

Amid all these provocations, the US remains vague in its position. The US Embassy in Manila said in a statement that its interest remained focus on the freedom of navigation and unimpeded flow of lawful commerce in the area, but called on all contending parties to “avoid provocative unilateral actions that raise tensions and undermines the prospects for a diplomatic or other peaceful resolution of differences.”

The US avoided a more forceful condemnation of the Chinese policy allowing the Hainan police to board, inspect and repel foreign vessels passing near the disputed islands.

Beijing Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei later said it was their “right” to impose a coastal border defense regulation.

“China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea. The Huangyan island is China’s inherent territory and there is no sovereignty dispute over it,” Hong added, which arrogantly dismissed any claim by the Philippines over the island and the nearby islets.

Obviously, China would never budge nor respect any decision that an international court may decide. In fact, by forcefully occupying the islands and the Paracel Group, which the Chinese claimed after a brief battle with Vietnames troops in 1974, China is hoping to establish its claim through actual occupation of the islands.

Surin is not alone in expressing concern that an armed conflict may soon arise in the region, with China being increasingly aggressive in forcing its claima.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) warned last month that tensions over competing claims in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) could escalate into conflict, with an arms build-up among rival nations raising the temperature.

The ICG said prospects of solving the disputes “seem to be diminishing” after a recent failure by the 10-nation Asean grouping to hammer out a “code of conduct” that would govern actions in the sea, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said.

Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has also warned that the risk of armed conflict in the South China Sea has become significant, citing the competing territorial claims, particularly over the right to exploit the region’s possibly extensive reserves of oil and gas, and conflicts over the freedom of navigation between China and the United States.

Glaser sees three possible contingencies that could potentially draw the US into using force. These are the issues over freedom of navigation where the constant interception by Chinese forces of US vessels plying the region’s waters can spark an armed clash between the two powers; the dispute between China and the Philippines over oil and gas deposits in the islands, particularly around the Reed Bank; and the dispute between China and Vietnam over seismic surveys and oil exploration being conducted by Vietnam in the area.

“With improving political and military ties between Manila and Washington, including a pending agreement to expand US access to Filipino ports and airfields to refuel and service its warships and planes, the United States would have a great deal at stake in a China-Philippines contingency. Failure to respond would not only set back US relations with the Philippines but would also potentially undermine US credibility in the region with its allies and partners more broadly. A US decision to dispatch naval ships to the area, however, would risk a US-China naval confrontation,” Glasser wrote.

The dispute over the Spratlys will eventually come to a head, hopefully not militarily. International intervention would not resolve the crisscrossing claims. Only a fair and enforceable agreement among the claimants could possibly resolve the long-standing dispute, but China doesn’t seem interested in any agreement. The government has to decide now where the Philippines stands on this, and aggressively work for such resolution before the conflict turns into an ugly military confrontation.

Likewise, the conflict between the US and China over military domination in Southeast Asia will eventually come to a head. China is obviously testing the waters in the current dispute over the Spratlys while trying to get a firm hold on the area’s oil and marine reserves. It knows it is not ready to face an armed confrontation with the US, but because of its over-aggressive behavior, it could trigger an armed conflict with either the Philippines or Vietnam that would force the Americans to come to the aid of its important allies.

It is important that the Philippine government knows where its position would be when these two events present themselves in the dangerous waters of the West Philippine Sea. Either way, it should prepare to defend its sovereignty.

(valabelgas@aol.com)