The involvement of the United States (US) in the South China Sea (SCS) dispute has clearly shown the SCS’s geo-political and geo-strategic importance which goes beyond the East Asia and South East Asia regions. As a matter of fact, the SCS serves as a strategic commercial gateway for the world’s merchant shipping which has a direct impact to the world economy and trade. Many reports have also indicated that the SCS has significant reserves of oil and gas as well as rich in marine resources.
The US has critically questioned the validity of Chinese claim over majority areas of the SCS. The US argues that all parties need to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) especially on the principle of freedom of navigation. It insists on the need of upholding the freedom of navigation vis-a-vis the SCS dispute. This article will try to describe the US motive of involvement in the SCS dispute and provide recommendations.
The SCS dispute has involved several countries namely Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan and China. All of these countries have overlapping claims in the area of SCS which inter-alia include Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Pratas Islands, and the Scarborough Reef.
China has the largest claim in the SCS and based its claim on the ‘nine-dash line’ map that was published by the Chinese Ministry of the Interior in 1947. The map has formed the basis of the Chinese territorial claim to a majority of the islands in the SCS. The Chinese Government has argued that the nine-dash line map is based on historical evidence. The other claimants of the SCS dispute has rejected the said Chinese claim. They have argued that the maritime and territorial border of the SCS must be referred to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which contains a series of legal measures and laws on the economic rights of nations based on their territorial waters and continental baselines. In the mid of 2014, the China has taken step further by expanding the ten-dash line map which included the SCS and Taiwan.
Trends
As already mentioned, the US is of the view that the UNCLOS principle on the freedom of navigation should be upheld in the SCS, given the strategic importance of the SCS to the world. In pursuing its objective, the US has carried out several missions by sending military air and navy forces through the SCS water including those of the Chinese’s claim. The Chinese Government has reacted strongly against the US maneuvers. In April 2001, a dangerous incident happened when a US plane and a Chinese fighter jet collided near Hainan Island. In June 2009, the Chinese submarine collided with a US destroyer’s towed sonar array in June 2009. In 2009 another maritime incident happened involving the Chinese vessels and the US navy surveillance ships.
In such a situation, there is a high risk of a miscalculation or misunderstanding between the two sides which may result in a deadly exchange of fire. If this happens, then it may escalate to a further military escalation which is harmful to the stability and security of the SCS.
The US maintains that the UNCLOS does not forbid the right of military forces of all countries to conduct military activities in any particular Exclusive Economic Zones. The coastal state notice or consent is not needed in this regard. While the Chinese Government insists that reconnaissance activities undertaken without prior notification and without permission of the coastal state violate the Chinese domestic law and international law. China has been an UNCLOS party, while the US is a non-party in this respect.
Options:
First, the US and China are two the world’s major powers. In managing the SCS crisis, they need to enhance their trust through intensifying bilateral contacts to prevent from any possible military incidents.
Second, the US needs to become party to the UNCLOS. The US will always face a trust deficit particularly from the Chinese Government if it continues to argue on the provision of the UNCLOS’s freedom of navigation, while it is not a party to the UNCLOS. Basically the basis of the US’s international legal standing can be questioned in this matter particularly by the China.
Third, the US needs to directly engage Indonesia which has been active in facilitating the SCS dialogue and in the SCS dispute, Indonesia can be seen as an “honest broker” considering its position as a non-claimant state to the SCS.
Recommendation
This article recommends that the US needs to consider to be a party to the UNCLOS. The US needs to showcase a good practice of a super power by supporting an international law (UNCLOS) so that its credibility can be enhanced. At the same time, the US needs to engage the third party, which is Indonesia in this regard, since Indonesia has a strong influence in the ASEAN and can use its credential in encouraging a dialogue process of managing the SCS dispute.
Conclusion
The involvement of the US and China, as the world’s big powers, in the South China Sea dispute has elevated the risk of instability arising from the possible military conflicts between both parties. Through the realism perspective, the competition between the two countries in the SCS dispute may indicate that they are engaged in a process of rebalancing the balance of power so that they can achieve a relative peace and security in the end.
However, the political and military test of balance of power of both sides needs the back-up of a continued political process to show a seriousness of concerned parties in solving the crisis through peaceful means. In this regard, Indonesia may play a crucial role in a dialogue involving the US and China for the sake of managing the SCS crisis and preventing the crisis from escalating it into an open military conflict.
Jakarta, 22 April 2016
AGUNG CAHAYA SUMIRAT 