Since 2010, the South China Sea issue has gone through complicated developments. The years-long relative stability of the South China Sea has been broken by the advancement of US Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy. Due to the number of countries involved and complicated history and reality, it is difficult to settle the disputes once they are triggered. Instigated by the US and Japan, in the past five years, the South China Sea issue has been a flashpoint. In 2016, the US has carried out more navigation moves in the South China Sea. When the result was announced by the temporary arbitration tribunal on 12 July, attention from the international media to the issue of the South China Sea hit a record high.

 

Reasons why the South China Sea issue has been a flashpoint

 

The status quo of the South China Sea issue can be attributed to multiple factors.

 

First, the advancement of US rebalance strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2011, against the background of the global financial crisis and China’s rapid growth, the US increased efforts in advancing its rebalance strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, made more strategic investment in East Asia, and strengthened its frontier military existence in this region. By consolidating its allies in the region, the US exerts more strategic pressure on China and squeezes the strategic space of China to secure its dominance in East Asia.

 

One important strategy of the US to strengthen its long-term military existence in East Asia is to manipulate regional hotspot issues. In doing so, it tries to increase regional tensions, create more demand on security protection from the US, and enhance the value of security protection in the eyes of regional allies and security friends. It also tries to make use of this opportunity to improve its military cooperation with its allies through agreements. Since 2011, the US has been more involved in issues of the South China Sea and Diaoyu Islands.

 

From this perspective, the purpose of the US interfering in hotspot issues in East Asia is not to solve the issues, but to make them endurable in a controlled manner. The existence of such issues and the absence of fundamental solutions can justify the long-term military existence of the US in this region and rationalize this form.

 

Besides, it can also be attributed to the opportunistic mentality and misjudgment of some Southeast Asian countries.

 

For a long time in the past, in order to promote East Asia cooperation, China adopts the approach of “shelving the disputes” on the issue of the South China Sea, in the hope of clearing the obstacles in the cooperation between China and Southeast Asian countries. In November 2002, China and ten ASEAN countries signed Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). The parties concerned are committed to “exercising self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability”, and they “stand ready to continue their consultations and dialogues concerning relevant issues, through modalities to be agreed by them”.

 

For a certain period, DOC has played a positive role in stabilizing the situation in the South China Sea. In 2003, as an outside big power, China joined the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) and established strategic partnership for peace and prosperity with ASEAN. In November 2002, China and ASEAN signed the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Between China and South East Asian Nations, and agreed to set up China-ASEAN Free Trade Zone by 2010. For quite a long time, China-ASEAN cooperation has harvested good result and reached a high level.

 

However, with the rise of China and continuous advancement of the US rebalance strategy in Asia Pacific, some Southeast Asian countries made some misjudgment on the level and effectiveness of the support from the US, as well as the resoluteness of China to protect its own rights. Based on the misjudgment, the US has an opportunistic mentality which makes solving the shelved issue even more difficult.

 

After 2012, faced with the strategic pressure from the US and the erosion of its own interest concerning the South China Sea by some Southeast Asian countries, especially the Philippines, China has adopted more forceful measures in preserving its interest in the South China Sea. The confrontation in Huangyan Island from April to May 2012 took back the actual control over this island. Later on, China has been continuously carrying out actions to safeguard its legitimate rights. On the Philippine side, besides landing and naming the island and strengthening administration over the island and the sea area, the Philippines submitted its arbitration application targeted at China to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in January 2013.

 

The current situation of the South China Sea is a combined result of the rise of China and the advancement of US reimbalance strategy. Under this structural background, every hotspot issue in the neighborhood of China can be fully employed by the US to form a bigger strategic hindrance. The appeal of the Philippines has reduced the possibilities and flexibilities of relevant parties on the South China Sea issue, and forced China to take more effective measures in safeguarding its rights. The proactive action of the Philippines

has made the solution of the issue even more difficult.
 
Future of the South China Sea Issue

 

The current situation of the South China Sea is a result of various factors. It is extremely difficult to address the root cause of the issue, and it can be foreseen that a fundamental solution is yet to come in a considerably long period. In order to exert the greatest pressure, the Philippines has taken some measures that leave no retreat to both the rivals and itself, such as resorting to international arbitration on the South China Sea issue. This appeal has worsened China-Philippines relations, laying obstacles in the way of settling the South China Sea dispute through dialogue and consultation.

 

After all, the South China Sea issue is likely to be resolved through diplomatic negotiation instead of military confrontation. Compared with China, the Philippines and Vietnam are weaker parties involved in the dispute. It is not a wise choice for them to adopt policies making the South China Sea issue something that can only be settled by force. China is both firm and flexible on the issue. On the one hand, we will “never sacrifice the sovereign interest of the South China Sea”, “never feel fear of any military provocation”, and “never give up the efforts for a peaceful solution to the South China Sea issue”. China’s policy and position show its resoluteness in preserving its own interest, and the self-restraint in taking aggressive actions.

It is the consensus of the parties involved to finally work out a diplomatic solution to the South China Sea issue instead of resorting to force. However, we are yet to find a satisfactory approach and specific measures. In August 2014, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that China approves and encourages “a dual-track approach” to deal with the South China Sea issue, i.e., the disputes should be settled in a peaceful way through friendly consultation by the directly involved countries, and the peace and stability of the South China Sea shall be preserved by joint efforts of China and ASEAN countries. This “dual-track approach” shows China’s policy position and proactive attitude, but the details and specific measures still need further consideration. Besides, Vietnam and the Philippines do not react in a very active way to this approach. 

 

By reviewing the gaming centered on the South China Sea in the past five to six years, the following points are gradually clear: first, it is almost impossible for China, the US or other claimant states to gain substantial material interest from the heated dispute of the South China Sea. Any further escalation of the South China Sea gaming may result in the loss and even unignorable price of multiple parties. Second, in the short term, China, the Philippines and Vietnam do not have much space for retreat on this issue, but the US is in a more flexible position. If the US takes some measures to increase the tensions of the issue, the result will not benefit China, the Philippines or Vietnam in the long run. A clear understanding of this can help boost China-Philippines relations to some extent. Since they know well the capacity, measures and will of China, the Philippines and Vietnam are clear about which choice will fit its own material interest best.

 

After the arbitration, if neither China nor the Philippines or Vietnam take any substantially aggressive policies, we will welcome a window of opportunity. At present, it is important to have a cooling-down process for the control of the situation in the South China Sea. In the short term, the countries involved do not have much space for negotiation, so the first step of the cooling-down is a political position and psychological attitude to avoid possible escalation. Besides, the countries involved can carry out functional cooperation to weaken traditional security issues, and remove the issue from the top of the agenda of this region. To some extent, this issue should be de-symbolized to be an issue left by history that requires the joint efforts of relevant countries to be solved, as well as an issue of disputes over territorial water, instead of a focus and test field for the struggle of big powers and the transition of regional order. It is advocated that countries should take a rational and practical attitude to increase their strategic patience instead of taking emotional reactions.

In terms of strategy, the countries involved should act to their own interest to reduce unconstructive interference from outside countries. For the Philippines, instead of pressing China to make a concession, its reliance on the US and Japan encourages China to strengthen its material construction with more resolution and preserve its rights in the South China Sea with more fierce measures. In recent years, one important function of the gaming in the South China Sea is to show Southeast Asian countries the policy reaction possibly brought by the logic of behavior. The understanding can help relevant countries to take a more pragmatic attitude on the South China Sea.

In the medium term, one important thing is that although the South China Sea issue is yet to be fundamentally resolved, we can see the possibility of resolving the issue through peaceful diplomatic measures when the situation is cooling down. From this perspective, if China and the Philippines can discuss cooperation possibilities in fishery and resource exploration and development with a sober mind, such cooperation is significant even if it is not of top priority and only of limited scale.
 
(Zhou Fangyin, professor of Guangdong Research Institute for International Strategies)