Daily Times

In the midst of so many crisis points in the world, the potential of a sudden flare-up in the South China Sea is not as seriously recognised as it should be. This flash point arises from China’s sovereignty claims to a cluster of Islands in the South China Sea and the waters surrounding them, with some regional countries, like the Philippines and Vietnam, contesting these claims. China says that this region has always belonged to it historically, and hence it is not subject to any kind of negotiations, international arbitration or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. And the islands and much of the South China Sea being China’s sovereign territory and waters, it has the right to build up military bases and structures on these and other artificial islands/reefs it has dredged up.

Beijing particularly objects to US military involvement in the region by strengthening its security ties with other countries that contest and challenge China’s sovereignty claims. Washington, on the other hand, claims a legitimate role in the region arising from significant economic, political and strategic interests in the region, and is worried about China’s destabilising and threatening role. It, therefore, favours a peaceful negotiated settlement of the disputed issues between concerned countries based on international law to ensure a stable regional environment. It has security treaties with some of the regional states, and is developing still closer relations with others. It is against China unilaterally declaring the South China Sea islands and waters around them as its sovereign territory, giving it the authority and power, if it chooses to do so, to restrict freedom of navigation through these waters. About five trillion dollars worth of international trade is carried through South China Sea lanes –not to speak of naval movements through these international waters. And the US is not going to let China restrict passage through theses waters, and has sought to assert this right by sending a ship or two through, what China regards as, its sovereign territory. Beijing regards this as provocative.

Lately, there has been an uptake in regional tensions with the strengthening of the US-Philippines security ties, including joint naval and air patrols and stationing of US military assets in the Philippines. During his recent visit to the Philippines, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, reportedly said that the initial US air contingent will “conduct flight operations in the area, including the South China Sea, and lay the foundation for joint air patrols to complement ongoing maritime patrols.” The US will also establish a command-and-control centre in the Philippines to coordinate the joint operations.

China hasn’t taken kindly to it. Reacting to it, China’s defence ministry said that, “A strengthening of the US-Philippine military alliance is a manifestation of the Cold War mentality and is not conducive to peace and stability in the South China Sea.” And it added: “The Chinese army will monitor this trend closely, and will resolutely safeguard China’s territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights and interests.”

President Barack Obama announced the US’s “pivot” to Asia policy in November 2011 during his Australia visit. In the decade before that the US had been engaged militarily with two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and was now seeking to disengage from that region. With the US occupied in the Middle East, China was successfully expanding its political, economic and military space in the Asia Pacific region. It had never made secret of its sovereign claims in the region but, under President Xi Jinping’s regime, a process of assertive control of the South China Sea area by way of building artificial islands and military structures was put in place to test, as if, the limits of US power in the region. And that now is happening seriously, as indicated by the upgrading of the US-Philippines military ties.

The US has other friends and allies in the region. Among them, Australia is one of its most loyal allies going back to the WWII. Therefore, the choice of Canberra to announce the pivot to Asia seemed deliberate to assure Australia and others in the region of Washington’s resolve to stay engaged and not leave China to do as it pleased. It was followed up with a further upgrading of US-Australia security ties with the announcement of rotation of US troops through northern Australia and access to other facilities. China reacted strongly to this, and Canberra’s criticism of its South China policy. Beijing claims that the region has historically been part of China. And in any case, Australia is not a disputant and should stay out of it.

Australia, more or less, follows the US position that Beijing’s actions are destabilising the region, and that it is against China’s own interests, because a stable Asia Pacific region in the last few decades has worked to its advantage by fostering its economic growth. Hence, it is in China’s interest to work through these issues peacefully with its regional neighbours within the framework of international law. China finds these arguments, by its proponents, self-serving to perpetuate status quo designed to contain China’s rise. And it apparently wants to break through this ‘containment’ ring.

During his recent high-powered visit to China, with a large delegation of business people, Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, repeated the usual message of the need for peaceful resolution of the sovereignty issue in the South China Sea, while emphasising the importance of their bilateral economic relationship. China is now Australia’s largest trading partner with a healthy trade balance in Australia’s favour. However, Beijing is unhappy about Australia’s even stronger strategic nexus with the US against the backdrop of tensions in the South China Sea, attributed to China’s muscular policy. But Beijing apparently believes that its increasing economic leverage from Australia’s dependent trade relationship would dent this nexus, which is also worrying some in the US as well as Australia’s strategic community invested in the US-Australia security alliance. Canberra, on the other hand, is equally hopeful that it can continue to have the best of both worlds — an expanding trade relationship with China as well as the security umbrella of the US alliance.

In a recent column in the Sydney Morning Herald, its international editor, Peter Hartcher, was pleased with the way Canberra has so far successfully done this balancing act. He, however, acknowledged, “It is possible that Australia could one day be forced to choose, but only if China and the US break out into open war.” And that doesn’t bear thinking but the way things are going, there is always a danger of things just getting out of control.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au