BERLIN – China has been trying to bully its way to dominance in Asia for years. And it seems that not even an international tribunal in The Hague is going to stand in its way.
China has rebuffed the landmark ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which knocked the bottom out of expansive Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea and held that some of the country’s practices were in violation of international law. Recognizing that there is no mechanism to enforce the PCA’s ruling, China does not intend to give even an inch on its claims to everything that falls within its unilaterally drawn “nine-dash line.”
Clearly, China values the territorial gains – which provide everything from major oil and gas reserves to fisheries (accounting for 12% of the global catch) to strategic depth – more than its international reputation. Unfortunately, this could mean more trouble for the region than for China itself.
China is not just aiming for uncontested control in the South China Sea; it is also working relentlessly to challenge the territorial status quo in the East China Sea and the Himalayas, and to reengineer the cross-border flows of international rivers that originate on the Tibetan Plateau. In its leaders’ view, success means reducing Southeast Asian countries to tributary status – and there seems to be little anyone can do to stop them from pursuing that outcome.
Indeed, China’s obvious disdain for international mediation, arbitration, or adjudication essentially takes peaceful dispute resolution off the table. And, because none of its regional neighbors wants to face off with the mighty China, all are vulnerable to Chinese hegemony.
To be sure, China does not seek to dominate Asia overnight. Instead, it is pursuing an incremental approach to shaping the region according to its interests. Rather than launch an old-fashioned invasion – an approach that could trigger a direct confrontation with the United States – China is creating new facts on the ground by confounding, bullying, and bribing adversaries.
To scuttle efforts to build an international consensus against its unilateralism, China initiates and maintains generous aid and investment arrangements with countries in need. In the run-up to the arbitration ruling, China used its clout to force the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to retract a joint statement critical of its role in the South China Sea.
Of course, the potential of China’s bribery and manipulation has its limits. The country has few friends in Asia, a point made by US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s warning that China is erecting a “Great Wall of Self-Isolation.” The Chinese foreign ministry responded by citing support for its positions from distant countries such as Sierra Leone and Kenya.
But in a world where domination is often conflated with leadership and where money talks, China may not have all that much to worry about. Consider how rapidly normal diplomatic relations with China were restored in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.
Already, criticism of China’s territorial grabs focuses on dissuading its leaders from further expansionary activities, rather than on forcing it to vacate the seven reefs and outcroppings it has already turned into nascent military outposts in the South China Sea. The international community may not like what China has done, but it seems willing to accept it.
That reality has not been lost on China, which was emboldened by the absence of any meaningful international pushback against two particularly audacious moves: its 2012 seizure of Scarborough Shoal, just 120 nautical miles from the Philippines, and its establishment in 2013 of an air-defense identification zone (ADIZ) over areas of the East China Sea that it does not control. Since then, China’s leaders have ramped up their island-building spree in the South China Sea considerably.
Though the Philippines did fight back, invoking the dispute-settlement provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), its efforts seem unlikely to yield much. On the contrary, China could now double down on its defiance, by establishing an ADIZ in the South China Sea – a move that would effectively prohibit flights through the region without Chinese permission. Given that China has already militarized the area, including by building radar facilities on new islets and deploying the 100-kilometer-range HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, it is well positioned to enforce such an ADIZ.
China’s defiance of the PCA’s ruling will deal a crushing blow to international law. As French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said recently, if UNCLOS is openly flouted in the South China Sea, “it will be in jeopardy in the Arctic, the Mediterranean, and elsewhere tomorrow.” Given that international law is crucial to protect smaller states by keeping major powers in check, the immediate question is what happens when simmering tensions with China’s Asian neighbors– and with the US – finally boil over.
Mao Zedong famously asserted that, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” We might like to think that we’re better than that, or that the world has progressed beyond naked coercion by great powers. But, as China’s actions suggest, the essence of geopolitics has not changed. The bullies still run the schoolyard.
Comments
Hide Comments Read Comments (6)Please log in or register to leave a comment.
Comment Commented Steve Hurst
'The bullies still run the schoolyard.'
So who do you think is the school prefect? Read more
Comment Commented Dark Chocolate
China is a bully? This is rich coming from a country that has invaded and annexed every of its neighbors land since its creation in 1947. China has settled its border with all its neighbors except India. On the other hand India has unresolved border disputes with every single of its neighbors. With the exception of China and Pakistan India dominates every of its other neighbors and yet is unable or unwilling to resolve its border disputes. Who is the bully here?
Fifteen years before Saddam Hussein rolled his column of tanks into Kuwait city and annexed Kuwait, Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi rolled her column of army trucks into Gangtok and annexed Sikkim, a fellow Himalayan kingdom next to Bhutan. In the early 1990s India repeated the same feat and tried to annex Bhutan. Thanks God it didn’t succeed that time.
Not many people know but India immediately unleashed violence on its neighbors the moment the British left the subcontinent and bequeathed the country they created to the natives. Since then India has invaded and annexed land from every single of its neighbors. To this day India has unresolved border disputes with every single of its neighbors. This fact has never been reported in the main stream media. Whether it is out of ignorance or out of geopolitics consideration I don’t know. I suspect a combination of both. No wonder Kissinger (no softie himself) said Indians are the most G*D damn aggressive people in the world.
Here is the thing. India wants to play the big brother in the neighborhood and use its bulk to intimidate its weaker neighbors. Bhutan can’t even decide which country to have diplomatic relations without going through India and India restricts Bhutan to only a few. None of the major countries are allow to have a diplomatic relationships with Bhutan. Not the US, not the UK, not France, not Germany, not China, its neighbor! A few decades ago Bhutan wants to do international tourism and India insisted Bhutan cannot accept foreign currencies other than the rupees. Two years ago Bhutan wants to build a highway in the southern part of the country and India rejected that proposal. When Bhutan prime minister met the Chinese foreign minister on an international conference India cut off its oil subsidies to send its signal of displeasure. Bhutan wants to open up its countries to foreign countries for hydroelectric infrastructure and India does not allow it, insisting that infrastructure projects in Bhutan are for the sole domain of Indian companies. And everybody knows that India sucks at infrastructure. India’s treatment of Nepal is just as disgusting. Like Bhutan Nepal is a landlocked country sandwiched between China and India. Last year Nepal has a devastating earthquake. India took advantage of this disaster and initiated a blockade on Nepal just because Nepal parliament amend its constitution not to India’s liking. Ever wonder why the Nepalese hate the Indians? Read more
Comment Commented ROBERT VESSEL
Given European and U.S. appetite for protectionism, what better way to enforce the Hague than restricting Chinese imports as punishment for bad behavior? Read more
Comment Commented Petey Bee
"China’s defiance of the PCA’s ruling will deal a crushing blow to international law."
international law has been a punching bag for this kind of "crushing blow" for as long as it has existed. GW Bush's attitude toward the ICC is a central example, if a particularly blunt one, in that President's style.
A more subtle, example is Obama's approach towards the ICC -- where The Obama State Dept. agreed to "resume cooperatation" with the ICC, after the ICC in 2010 made substantial concessions on limiting the ICC's jurisdiction over the "crime of aggression". Now, individual nationals of non-state parties to the ICC (such as the US, currently) are not subject to the ICC's jurisdiction for crimes of aggression, and if the US were to become a party to the ICC, it would retain the right to selectively opt out of the ICC's jurisdiction in matters in the category of "crimes of aggression". You can't make this stuff up. I suppose with a positive attitude, and sensitive measuring tools, one can detect an improvement in Obama's approach over Bush's.
ref: http://www.state.gov/j/gcj/us_releases/remarks/2010/143178.htm
Another example of existing international law having a tightly minimal conception of what it means to be "rules-based" is the structure of the UNSC. The P5, by their veto power, are effectively immune from any and all punitive actions (and sometimes choose to shelter their allies as well).
The sad fact is, international law has never been exclusively premised on universality or reciprocity (the basic concept that the same rules apply to everyone) -- as a matter of necessity, international law acknowledges a comfortable amount of room for the "might-makes-right" principle on which powerful states, including the guarantors of the current "international order" rely.
At the same time, Chinese claims to the South China sea are clearly maximalist in a way that is obviously intended to express regional dominance - similar to the Monroe Doctrine, perhaps.
There is no particular reason to cheer for either the US-led "international order", nor for its defiance by the Chinese. It is much the same situation as the cold war. Unclear which of the 2 main parties wins, but everyone else is likely to lose. Read more
Comment Commented Godfree Roberts
"China has been trying to bully its way to dominance in Asia for years. " Seriously? Can the good Professor give an example of Chinese 'bullying' that matches the intensity of American bullying? Anywhere? Ever?
And as the the PCA, there's something fishy going on. From the first paragraph of the Permanent Court of Arbitration's website: "The Court offers a wide range of services for the resolution of international disputes which the parties concerned have expressly agreed to submit for resolution under its auspices. Unlike the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has no sitting judges: the parties themselves select the arbitrators."
• In this South China Sea case, China has never agreed to submit the case for arbitration.
• China has never selected the arbitrators.
The well-worn doctrine of ex injuria jus non orator – legal entitlement cannot arise from an unlawful act – holds here and so does the fact that the UNCLOS does not allow initiation of Arbitration as in the Philippines' case.
Chris Whomersley, former Deputy Legal Adviser of the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said there was "no precedent for an international tribunal deciding upon the status of a maritime feature when the sovereignty… is disputed". The Philippines' initiation of the arbitration is in total disregard of international law and the spirit of UNCLOS, and undermines the authority and credibility of the Convention. Read more
Comment Commented Harsh Ray
Mr. Godfree Roberts, you don't seem to know the background (or the law) when you claim, "In this South China Sea case, China has never agreed to submit the case for arbitration. " The case was filed under UNCLOS by the Philippines. It first went to ITLOS (the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea), as mandated by UNCLOS. ITLOS set up the tribunal and appointed the judges, as per the provisions of UNCLOS. ITLOS then appointed the Permanent Court of Arbitrator (PCA) to oversee the tribunal. As the party against whom the case was filed, China did not have to volunteer to submit to arbitration proceedings. Rather, the proceedings against it were instituted automatically under the terms of UNCLOS, which China has ratified. So, please don't buy the Chinese propaganda. Kindly read the provisions of UNCLOS and the picture will be clear. Read more
Featured
What’s the Problem With Protectionism?
Barry Eichengreen says that trade tariffs could counter deflationary pressures, but are still not worth it.
The Promise of Regrexit
George Soros urges Europe's leaders to use the popular pro-EU sentiment that has followed the UK's Brexit vote.
Why ISIS Persists
Jeffrey D. Sachs blames the US and its allies for focusing on the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.