1. South China Sea Conflict South China Sea Conflict Ole Engelhardt & Jihoon Kim US-China Forum East Asia Institute 09 May 2016 United States and China – Quo vadis? United States and China – Quo vadis?

2. Agenda Introduction & Background Information Introduction & Background Information Status Quo Status Quo  Current U.S. Position  Current Chinese Position  Pointing out main obstacles Short Introduction into Middle Power Politics – What can be the role of South Korea? Short Introduction into Middle Power Politics – What can be the role of South Korea? Summing Up: Chances & Outlook Summing Up: Chances & Outlook Conclusion Conclusion

3. What is the conflict about? Background ‘’We don’t take a position on the individual claims in the South China Sea[…] but we have an obligation to protect freedom of navigation’’ ‘’President Xi[…] said that China will not militarize the South China Sea. But there is increasing evidence that that’ s not the case.’’ ‘’We have the advantage of not ourselves being claimants–of not having so to speak a dog in the fight of who gets what.’’ ‘’We want to see the disputes resolved peacefully, diploma -tically [...] but the US military has an obligation, a responsibility, to look after the security interests of the American people’’ ‘’ China has indisputable sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters. ’’ ‘’The flexing of military muscles and creating of tension by the US under the pretext of the free dom of navigation is the biggest cause of militarization in the South China Sea. We advise the US to stop as soon as possible’’ “It is our stance that freedom of navigation and freedom of flight should be ensured in this area, and that any conflicts be resolved according to relevant agreements and established international norms.”

4. What is the conflict about? Where is it? Where is it? Background The dispute involves two archipelagoes, Spratly and Paracel. There are 6 different countries around the body of water. When did it start? When did it start? The conflict dates back to ancient times The conflict dates back to ancient times The current debate over sovereignty however was approx. initiated in 1927 when Japan made its earliest documented claim to Paracel and Spratly Islands The current debate over sovereignty however was approx. initiated in 1927 when Japan made its earliest documented claim to Paracel and Spratly Islands The conflict heated up in post-WW II era when Japanese occupation ceased and China, Vietnam and Philippines made voiced their individual claims on the islands The conflict heated up in post-WW II era when Japanese occupation ceased and China, Vietnam and Philippines made voiced their individual claims on the islands First violent clashes began in the 1970s First violent clashes began in the 1970s

5. Stakeholders Which countries are involved? Which countries are involved? Six countries: China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippine Background Are there any external stakeholders? Are there any external stakeholders? Primarily: US, SK, J Essentially all states due to importance to world trade

6. Why get involved? 1.Territorial issue: The surface of water is around 3,500,000km^2 2.Nationalism: Defend claim in order to prove strength to external actors, but also domestic population 3.Natural resource 1.Crude Oil: 280,000,000,000~300,000,000,000 ton 2.Natural gas: 7500km^2 4.The disputed area is where the major shipping lane of Western Pacific and East Asian countries lies 1.Crude oil transaction: 60% 2.Total trade transaction: 50% Background

7. Nature of Arguments per actor 1. China/Taiwan – History 2. Vietnam – Proximity, History 3. Philippines – Proximity, effective control 4. Malaysia, Brunei – Proximity, Law of the Sea Conference UNCLOS is used by everybody as a legal authorization  every state thereby interprets UNCLOS text in its own favor ※ UNCLOS = United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea Background

8. The Stance of the United States of America US Standpoint

9. Timeline of major actions of the US 1991: US asked for the alleviation of tension in the region which Philippine welcomed. 1991: US asked for the alleviation of tension in the region which Philippine welcomed. -> the beginning of involvement 1999: US called for a multilateral meeting among the 6 claimants which China and Malaysia denied its proposal 1999: US called for a multilateral meeting among the 6 claimants which China and Malaysia denied its proposal 2001: aircraft collision between US and PRC 2001: aircraft collision between US and PRC 2009: first military standoff between US and PRC, noncombat surveillance ship was approached by frigates of PRC 2009: first military standoff between US and PRC, noncombat surveillance ship was approached by frigates of PRC 2010: US stated at ARF meeting that its national interest is involved in the region 2010: US stated at ARF meeting that its national interest is involved in the region 2011: US started the joint military exercise with Philippine around the region 2011: US started the joint military exercise with Philippine around the region 2012: Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, stated that SCS dispute should be solve in multilateral meeting 2012: Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, stated that SCS dispute should be solve in multilateral meeting 2014: US declared that it will take action according to the mutual defense agreement with Philippine when military clash takes place in the region 2014: US declared that it will take action according to the mutual defense agreement with Philippine when military clash takes place in the region 2015: US declared that it will sail and fly wherever the international law allows 2015: US declared that it will sail and fly wherever the international law allows 2016: US with the member countries of ASEAN called for a peaceful resolution of the matter 2016: US with the member countries of ASEAN called for a peaceful resolution of the matter US Standpoint

10. Why is it so important and Why is the United States involved? Freedom of navigation vs. “innocent passage” Within the territorial sea, “innocent passage” of a foreign ship (either military or civilian) is allowed -> however, whether the passage is innocent or not is defined by the coastal state. In this case, coastal state is PRC. -> it is crystal clear that PRC will hinder the sail of US ships Economic perspective Once PRC completes the militarization of the artificial land which will solidify its maritime territorial sovereignty, it will gain a control over the trade line and natural resources by exploiting its territorial right. Military perspective Military operation of the United States in the region will become less effective when protecting its allies. In worst case, it will fail to carry out its military commitment. US Standpoint

11. Mode of argumentation 1. Freedom of Navigation(FON) should not be violated 1. Freedom of Navigation(FON) should not be violated Gives entitlement for US intervention Gives entitlement for US intervention Because Because 1. the expansion of territorial water threatens the freedom of navigation that allows the free sail of US ships 1. the expansion of territorial water threatens the freedom of navigation that allows the free sail of US ships 2. SCS dispute is not a regional issue but a global issue 2. SCS dispute is not a regional issue but a global issue Since it jeopardizes the major trade line for the countries around the world Since it jeopardizes the major trade line for the countries around the world 3. PRC shall not solve the issue in bilateral meeting 3. PRC shall not solve the issue in bilateral meeting Knowing the claimants are weaker ones, PRC is intentionally bringing the issue to bilateral meeting to exploit its national power Knowing the claimants are weaker ones, PRC is intentionally bringing the issue to bilateral meeting to exploit its national power Thus, to balance off such unfairness, the issue should be handled in multinational meeting Thus, to balance off such unfairness, the issue should be handled in multinational meeting It will not only strengthens the voice of small nations, which otherwise will be silenced if brought to bilateral meeting, but also brings the global community’s attention to the issue After all, US intervention and its attempt to globalizing the issue aims to prevent expansion of influence of PRC US Standpoint

12. What is the U.S. stance? 1.Working with international community/ globalizing the issue ex) having the special US-ASEAN summit ex) having the special US-ASEAN summit criticizing PRC for exploiting bilateral relationship 2.Military approach 1. Show of force ex) 1. USS John C. Stennis sailed across South China Sea 2. continuing joint military exercise with Philippine 2. continuing joint military exercise with Philippine 2. Military alliance ex) mutual defense treaty with Philippine 3.Maintaining friendly relationship with stakeholders other than China Ex) 1. mutual defense alliance with Philippine Ex) 1. mutual defense alliance with Philippine 2. long-standing amicable relationship with Taiwan 2. long-standing amicable relationship with Taiwan 3. favorable or at least neutral relationship with other nations Brunei, Indonesia, Vietnam 3. favorable or at least neutral relationship with other nations Brunei, Indonesia, VietnamQuotes “halt “halt 1) Further reclamation, 2) New construction, 3) Militarization” 1) Further reclamation, 2) New construction, 3) Militarization” “Resolve “Resolve Peacefully through legal means Peacefully through legal means Such as under the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas” Such as under the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas” “Protect “Protect US right to operate freely in the international area” US right to operate freely in the international area” “support “support Intensified regional diplomacy, not increased tensions, Intensified regional diplomacy, not increased tensions, the threat of f orce, or unilateral changes to the status quo” US Standpoint

13. The Stance of the People’s Republic of China Chinese Standpoint

14. What is the Chinese stance? 1928: China claims Paracel island as most southern boundary of Chinese territory 1928: China claims Paracel island as most southern boundary of Chinese territory 1947: ROC issues the Southern China Sea Islands Location map  11-dotted-line compromising whole SCS 1947: ROC issues the Southern China Sea Islands Location map  11-dotted-line compromising whole SCS As from 1958:’ based on alleged historical documents China claims 90% of the South China Sea – an area that is referred to as ‘’9-dashed line’’ As from 1958:’Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on China’s territorial Sea‘  based on alleged historical documents China claims 90% of the South China Sea – an area that is referred to as ‘’9-dashed line’’ 2013: PRC adds a 10 th dash east of Taiwan to emphasis claim on Taiwan as a part of China 2013: PRC adds a 10 th dash east of Taiwan to emphasis claim on Taiwan as a part of China Chinese Standpoint

15. Mode of argumentation China adheres to their line of argumentation that there is no sovereignty dispute as China’s sovereignty ought to be clearly proven by history China adheres to their line of argumentation that there is no sovereignty dispute as China’s sovereignty ought to be clearly proven by history This serves as a legitimation for erecting various constructions on the disputed islands This serves as a legitimation for erecting various constructions on the disputed islands In the Chinese view, the sole origin of militarization lays in other nations, esp. the US, violating their 12nm territorial water In the Chinese view, the sole origin of militarization lays in other nations, esp. the US, violating their 12nm territorial water Any (unjustified) sovereignty disputes shall exclusively be solved bilaterally as agreed in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea Art.4: “ Any (unjustified) sovereignty disputes shall exclusively be solved bilaterally as agreed in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea Art.4: “The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by pea ceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations b y sovereign states directly concerned.”  Involvement of courts is therefore dismissed and any court ruling will be ignored Emphasis that China sticks to all international agreements Emphasis that China sticks to all international agreements (Declaration of Conduct, UNCLOS, ) (Declaration of Conduct, UNCLOS, Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia) Non-Participation of US in the UNCLOS is repeatedly used as a means to weaken the US credibility in solving the dispute Non-Participation of US in the UNCLOS is repeatedly used as a means to weaken the US credibility in solving the dispute Repeated attempt to portray China as a part of the harmonized East Asian community, which the US tries to divide Repeated attempt to portray China as a part of the harmonized East Asian community, which the US tries to divide Chinese Standpoint

16. Actions taken January 1974/March 1988: China defeats Vietnamese navy on Paracel Islands/ Johnson South Reef Skirmish = 36 /70 Vietnamese die January 1974/March 1988: China defeats Vietnamese navy on Paracel Islands/ Johnson South Reef Skirmish = 36 /70 Vietnamese die 1996: China joins UNCLOS 1996: China joins UNCLOS 2002: ASEAN and Chinese agreement on Code of Conduct for South China Sea  trust building; peaceful discussions; freedom of navigation 2002: ASEAN and Chinese agreement on Code of Conduct for South China Sea  trust building; peaceful discussions; freedom of navigation February and May 2011: Chinese fires at Philippine and Vietnamese fishing boats February and May 2011: Chinese fires at Philippine and Vietnamese fishing boats July 2012: China establishes the prefecture-level city of Hainan on Yongxin Island, called ‘Sansha Garrison’  administration of Paracel and Spratly Islands July 2012: China establishes the prefecture-level city of Hainan on Yongxin Island, called ‘Sansha Garrison’  administration of Paracel and Spratly Islands Since approx. 2013: China transforms Reefs into artificial islands, since they establish EEZ according to UNCLOS Since approx. 2013: China transforms Reefs into artificial islands, since they establish EEZ according to UNCLOS 2013: After Philippines call UNCLOS court in The Hague, China states it will not accept any ruling as this move violates the CoC 2013: After Philippines call UNCLOS court in The Hague, China states it will not accept any ruling as this move violates the CoC 2016: China suspects US of using the US-ASEAN summit to establish a ” 2016: China suspects US of using the US-ASEAN summit to establish a ”row between China and ASEAN and ‘’hype the disputes’’. In th e end the final communique did not name China specifically Chinese Standpoint … … = Mixture of practical and verbal actions = Mixture of practical and verbal actions

17. Obstacles Status Quo Problems Arguing in different scenarios Arguing in different scenarios Majority of arguments neither verifiable nor falsifiable as they relate to unclear ancient history Majority of arguments neither verifiable nor falsifiable as they relate to unclear ancient history Provoking actions by different parties hamper the trust building process according to the COC Provoking actions by different parties hamper the trust building process according to the COC Lack of US acknowledgement of UNCLOS Lack of US acknowledgement of UNCLOS Lack of a credible mediator that is accepted by all parties Lack of a credible mediator that is accepted by all parties

18. The (potential) Role of South Korea Korea’s Role

19. Need for a middle power? Definitions a) A Middle Power a) A Middle Power "has sufficient strength and authority to stand on its own without the need of help from others“ and “has large or moderate influence and international recognition” (Rudd, K. 2006) b) Middle-powerman-ship: “Tendency to pursue multilateral solutions to international problems, tendency to embrace compromise positions in international disputes, and tendency to embrace notions of good international citizenship” (Cooper et al. 1993) Roles and Functions Predominantly defined by its capabilities = its relative power or position between different nations Predominantly defined by its capabilities = its relative power or position between different nations Can act as a catalyst, facilitator or manager and thereby takes four possible identities: Can act as a catalyst, facilitator or manager and thereby takes four possible identities: Early mover  “leading by example” Early mover  “leading by example” Bridge  “mediating between opposing groups and seeking measures that would satisfy all parties” Bridge  “mediating between opposing groups and seeking measures that would satisfy all parties” Coalition coordinator  “building coalitions of like-minded states to advance shared interests and address common concerns” Coalition coordinator  “building coalitions of like-minded states to advance shared interests and address common concerns” Norm diffuser  “contributing to global diffusion of norms and standards” Norm diffuser  “contributing to global diffusion of norms and standards” Korea’s Role

20. What can S. Korea do in the SCS? Status Quo South Korea remained silent in the conflict, except for few comments like in November 2015 when they repeated US urges for freedom of navigation  Contrasts the aim of being a Middle Power. This desire is reflected in the initiative for MIKTA and is even clearly expressed as one of six goals in the 2014 Diplomatic White Paper: ‘’ South Korea remained silent in the conflict, except for few comments like in November 2015 when they repeated US urges for freedom of navigation  Contrasts the aim of being a Middle Power. This desire is reflected in the initiative for MIKTA and is even clearly expressed as one of six goals in the 2014 Diplomatic White Paper: ‘’Emerging as a middle power which has the trust of the international community and contributes to peace and development in the world.’’ Korea’s Role Chances South Korea has no own claim in the South China Sea dispute South Korea has no own claim in the South China Sea dispute South Korea has a long and positive relationship with both China and US and is engaged in no/minor conflicts with both sides South Korea has a long and positive relationship with both China and US and is engaged in no/minor conflicts with both sides South Korea is part of the geographic region and thus accepted by China as a legitimate stakeholder South Korea is part of the geographic region and thus accepted by China as a legitimate stakeholder South Korea’s engagement could give momentum to spur up/institutionalize the MIKTA scheme South Korea’s engagement could give momentum to spur up/institutionalize the MIKTA scheme  South Korea could most likely take the BRIDGE identity as a middle power in the SCS conflict Constraints South Korea finds itself torn between both U.S. and China: Security partnership with U.S. which is vital due to a potential North Korean attack vs. reliance on China as a) trade partner and b) facilitator in the Unification process  How to take a clear position? South Korea finds itself torn between both U.S. and China: Security partnership with U.S. which is vital due to a potential North Korean attack vs. reliance on China as a) trade partner and b) facilitator in the Unification process  How to take a clear position? South Korea and China have a separate (small) territory dispute over Socotra Rock South Korea and China have a separate (small) territory dispute over Socotra Rock

21. Opportunities Arguing in different scenarios Summing Up Find an initial point to start talks: Clarify between historical and legal dimensions U.S. should hold a comprehensive domestic discussion to clarify potential dis/advantages of UNCLOS  then potentially ratify it to gain credibility Instead of US (too alien to the region) or ASEAN (‘’problem between China and ASEAN states, not ASEAN’’), South Korea or Australia could act as a impartial mediator, using their status as a Middle Power Reach agreement on pausing naval or constructing actions in the disputed waters for the period of discussions (=“cease-fire agreement”) Multilateral discussions with an impartial mediator Lack of US acknowledgement of UNCLOS Provoking actions undermine constructive talks

22. …quo vadis? Both sides argue from the standpoint of different scenarios which does not allow a productive discussions Both sides argue from the standpoint of different scenarios which does not allow a productive discussions Based on analysis a possible ‘road map’ could look like: Based on analysis a possible ‘road map’ could look like: 1)Clarify once and for all that there is an argument, which is the question: ‘’Who has sovereignty over which islands in the disputed area?’’ 2)Mutual understanding that these questions need to be solved first 3)Pause of all actions: naval maneuvers, erecting buildings or islands 4)U.S. withdraws from talks  instead create a discussion platform involving solely immediate claimants  moderated by a credible middle power ※ The ground for our suggestion of withdraw of the US is as follows: for middle powers to be influential in the dispute, the absence of a dominant power is required as a precondition. 5)Agree on possible solution scenarios, e.g. Several bilateral agreements? Several bilateral agreements? One multilateral agreement? One multilateral agreement? Court ruling according to UNCLOS? Court ruling according to UNCLOS? Joint Sovereignty over islands = joint administration Joint Sovereignty over islands = joint administration Divide sovereignty by a certain quota Divide sovereignty by a certain quota 6) Find an agreement according to these scenarios Conclusion Conclusion

23. status quo…? Conclusion Conclusion Is that a red or a green apple?? That is my apple! I prefer Samgyeopsal anyway…