On June 14, the German-Southeast Asian Center of Excellence for Public Policy and Good Governance (CPG) presented a special seminar about an issue greatly affecting the ASEAN region. The international seminar held at the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, was entitled A Hotbed for Crises: Increasing Stakes and Growing Tensions in the South China Sea. As all Thais know, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei have been competing over the South China Sea for many years, although it seems that disagreements have been more frequent in recent years. A BBC News analysis described the situation:

There are fears that the area is becoming a flashpoint, with potentially serious global consequences. What is the argument about? It is a dispute over territory and sovereignty over ocean areas, and the Paracels and the Spratlys – two island chains claimed in whole or in part by a number of countries. Alongside the fully fledged islands, there are dozens of rocky outcrops, atolls, sandbanks and reefs, such as the Scarborough Shoal. Why are they worth arguing over? The sea is a major shipping route and home to fishing grounds that supply the livelihoods of people across the region Although largely uninhabited, the Paracels and the Spratlys may have reserves of natural resources around them. There has been little detailed exploration of the area, so estimates are largely extrapolated from the mineral wealth of neighbouring areas. The sea is also a major shipping route and home to fishing grounds that supply the livelihoods of people across the region.

While China claims rights to the largest territory, Vietnam disagrees, stating that while Vietnam has governed the islands in question since the 1600s, China has only claimed ownership since the 1940s. The Philippines also makes separate claims on Scarborough Shoal, or what is known as Huangyan Island in China, which also claims it. Malaysia and Brunei have also declared ownership of territory in the area. Starting in the 1970s, there were some violent confrontations between China and Vietnam, and in 2012 there was tension between China and the Philippines. When China should negotiate a compromise with the ASEAN community is a matter of disagreement. Last year, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague, following the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS), ruled that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights, but China refused to accept this decision. There was also concern that the Chinese policy of island-building to increase their claims in the area was causing environmental problems. By building islands, China has damaged coral reefs and marine life in the South China Sea. Citing Articles 192 and 194 of UNCLOS, the court declared that China has caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation . . . to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.

The seminar on June 14 began with welcoming words from Dr. Kittisak Prokati, assistant professor of comparative law, civil law and philosophy of law at the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University. Dr. Kittisak pointed out that the South China Sea region offered rather more volatility than stability. This was a good reason for having a seminar to better understand the issues involved, to study the current situation and possibilities for future development. Mr. Karl Peter Schönfisch, director of the Laos/Thailand office of the Hanns Seidel Foundation (HSF) Thailand, the seminar’s cohost, added that in the South China Seas, the crisis is ongoing, as we all know. Among the many interesting speakers for the occasion was Dr. Kevin Downey, lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University. Dr. Downey explained that he would not be talking about the conflict itself, but rather what the conflict means. Among the authors he cited was John Ikenberry, a theorist of international relations and United States foreign policy and professor of politics and international affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, United States of America. The TU Libraries own a number of books written and edited or coedited by Professor Ikenberry, including International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific; America, China, and the Struggle for World Order: Ideas, Traditions, Historical Legacies, and Global Visions; American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays; Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition: Essays on American Power and World Politics; Power, Order, and Change in World Politics; and After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars.

Dr. Downey suggested:

China has made an effort to be a fair and reasonable partner in the region. But what has been going on over the past five years seems to break with that… These are highly contested waters…[China’s actions are a] diagnostic exercise to see what the rest of the world is willing to allow China to do… China typically acts rationally within rule regimes. At the same time, China has acted in a way that potentially alienates ASEAN neighbors. China’s behavior is derailing what it is trying to do with its other activities.

By testing the waters in the South China Sea, Dr. Downey concluded, China has been taking advantage of a situation in a way that has long been traditional:

Opportunism is a feature that the Chinese have historically been very good at… I think they are being very clever… This is one way of explaining why they are doing things that do not seem to make sense.

By understanding why China does what it is doing, new strategies may be devised about how to deal with the resulting challenges. Another speaker working to make sense of the situation was Dr. Jean-Jonathan Bogais, an adjunct associate professor  at the School of Social and Political Sciences – University of Sydney, Australia. Dr. Bogais is a psycho-sociologist specializing in political sociology and social/intercultural psychology, as well as being a specialist in foreign affairs and strategic advisor. In an essay posted last year on the website of the Middle East Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based institution, Dr. Bogais concluded with some theoretical questions related to ongoing disagreements over the South China Sea:

The Asia/Pacific region has experienced a considerable economic and political transformation in the last decades, following years of upheaval marked by sporadic violence, conflicts, and genocide. Unlike in the Middle East, regional Asian and Pacific states have successfully developed a wide range of transnational administrative and diplomatic mechanisms to address economic and cooperation issues. Non-interference in each other’s internal political affairs has been accepted as a rule. Despite authoritarianism, human rights abuses, inequality, discrimination, and poverty—features that appear in most countries in the region—people continue to live together relatively peacefully, which has never happened before. This represents a significant difference between the Asia/Pacific region and the Middle East. Yet, in this time of relative peace, the Asia/Pacific region is experiencing the highest level of militarization since the Second World War, as the fear of a possible conflict is repeatedly impressed on people by the leaders of the mighty states. Regional states are now committing to unrealistic defense expenditures instead of addressing two of most important catalysts of conflict: inequality and poverty. This account raises an important question: how is it possible that interventionism in the name of national interest by international actors who obviously cannot submit to the standard of a peaceful social and political life, which is the standard of contemporary civilization, still exist in the 21st Century, especially looking back into the previous century?

(All images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)