Here
and
Now

opinions

Picking sides: A world of opinions on South China Sea case

7 Comments

A case brought by U.S. ally the Philippines against China represents a diplomatic dilemma for far-flung nations as Washington and Beijing rally support for their respective positions on the use of international arbitration in South China Sea disputes.

The United States has been building diplomatic pressure in the West and in Asia on China to abide by the Hague-based tribunal's decision, which is expected soon. China, which maintains it won't be bound by the ruling, has been pushing back by building support from nations mostly in Africa and the Mideast.

The U.S. is not a party to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, under which the tribunal has been constituted, but says it wants China to play by international rules. Since there is no enforcement mechanism for the ruling, any impact will depend on how the international community reacts.

Here's a look at where dozens of countries stand:


ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS

ASEAN has been trying for years to achieve diplomatic solutions in the South China Sea, making little progress and exposing divisions in the 10-member bloc, which includes the Philippines. Reaching consensus on the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling will be tough.

When President Barack Obama met ASEAN leaders in February they agreed on "full respect for legal and diplomatic processes" in accordance with the U.N. convention, but pro-China members Cambodia and Laos nixed any mention of "arbitration."

Vietnam, which has fought China over competing South China Sea claims, has been most supportive of the Philippines' case and submitted a statement to the tribunal. Hanoi has said it supports "full compliance" to the procedures of the convention.

But other ASEAN nations are generally wary of speaking out for fear of alienating China, the region's economic heavyweight. Malaysia and Brunei have said little about the case, though they too are South China Sea claimants.

Indonesia and Singapore are not claimants but have been a bit more outspoken. Singapore's Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said last week that the ruling could have implications beyond the South China Sea and "we cannot subscribe to the principle that might is right." Indonesia's Foreign Ministry declined to say whether the ruling should be binding on both sides but said international law must be respected.

Even the Philippines' position is unpredictable as a new government takes office there June 30. President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has expressed willingness to restart bilateral negotiations with China.


RUSSIA

Moscow, which shares China's suspicion of Washington, is Beijing's most prominent supporter on the issue. On a visit to China in April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia is against any interference from outside parties in the South China Sea — a reference to the U.S. — "or any attempts to internationalize these disputes." Like China, Russia says disputes should be resolved through talks between the parties directly involved.


CHINA SUPPORTERS IN AFRICA, MIDEAST

China's state news agency Xinhua on May 20 said that more than 40 countries have expressed support for China's stance on the arbitration case. The Foreign Ministry has in recent weeks given prominent mention to support it claims to have from nations principally in Africa, the Mideast and Central Asia.

But few of those foreign governments have issued statements independently. Some, including Cambodia, Laos and Fiji, have disavowed China's description of their position.

Experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said they could confirm official statements from Afghanistan, Gambia, Niger, Sudan and Vanuatu. A Chinese statement with the 21-member Arab League supported China but it was unclear if it represented all the parties' official positions.


EUROPEAN UNION and G-7

The EU has urged all South China Sea claimants to resolve disputes through peaceful means and "pursue them in accordance with international law," including the U.N. convention. The Group of Seven wealthy nations, which comprises Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.S. and the EU, has called on all states to fully implement decisions binding on them in courts and tribunals provided under the convention.

In June, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian proposed that European navies coordinate patrols in Asian waters to reinforce a rules-based maritime order. He warned that if the laws of the sea are not respected in that region, they could also be challenged in the Arctic Ocean or Mediterranean Sea.


AUSTRALIA

In January, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the China-Philippines ruling will be "extremely important" as a statement of international principle and will "settle once and for all" whether artificial reefs are entitled to territorial waters. But Australia has been less outspoken in support of arbitration than the U.S., perhaps mindful of Australia's own resistance to arbitration to resolve its disputed maritime border with tiny East Timor.


INDIA

India has not issued a categorical position on arbitration case, but has been broadly supportive of the application of international law. India shares U.S. concerns about Beijing's rising ambitions in the seas of Asia.

India's External Affairs Ministry says that "all countries must abide by international law and norms on maritime issues." India set an example in 2014 when it accepted a decision by the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration that ruled in favor of Bangladesh in a dispute over the countries' maritime boundary.


JAPAN

Japan was an early supporter of the Philippines' pursuit of arbitration and says both China and the Philippines should abide by the outcome. Japan sees that as upholding international law, but it also reflects concern that historic rival China seeks strategic control of vital sea lanes in the South China Sea that carry 80 percent of Japan's crude oil imports.

Japan's support of third-party dispute resolution is not universal. While it has sought to take its dispute with South Korea over the South Korean-held Dokdo or Takeshima islands to the International Court of Justice, it says no such action is needed in its dispute with China over the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands, which are administered by Japan.


SOUTH KOREA

Like Japan, South Korea is heavily dependent on fuel imports that pass through the South China Sea, but it has closer ties with China and has been less inclined to speak out. The Foreign Ministry says South China Sea disputes should be resolved under internationally established regulations and that it is "looking with interest" at the Philippine-China arbitration case.


TAIWAN

Taiwan has complained that the tribunal has not solicited its views. While Taipei officially exercises the same nine-dash line claim as Beijing in the South China Sea, it is primarily concerned about Taiping island in the Spratlys. Taiwan administers that remote land feature and is concerned it could be designated as a rock without the rights granted to islands.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

7 Comments
Login to comment

The U.S. is not a party to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, under which the tribunal has been constituted, but says it wants China to play by international rules.

Well, it's pretty hard to get by that US hypocrisy. It certainly doesn't help the cause of resisting this imperialism with Chinese characteristics.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

China... has been pushing back by building support from nations mostly in Africa and the Mideast.

All nations that have nothing to do with the region under dispute. This typifies why the UN doesn't work. Votes are bought. Nothing to do with "international justice." It's who has the most money or power to throw around and use to buy support. That was the US. Now, increasingly, it's China.

African and Middle East opinions on the South China Sea should not be given any weight at all. Yet, thanks to the UN, they are.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's who has the most money or power to throw around and use to buy support. That was the US. Now, increasingly, it's China.

African and Middle East opinions on the South China Sea should not be given any weight at all. Yet, thanks to the UN, they are.

Now now, let's not forget that the G-7 countries' opinions should not be given any weight on this matter either, since they have nothing to do with the dispute, right? If you look at the quote below:

Like China, Russia says disputes should be resolved through talks between the parties directly involved.

I'd guess you'd be supportive of that? It seems to me that it actually wasn't China that wanted to bring in the UN in this dispute in the first place.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

All nations that have nothing to do with the region under dispute

Middle Eastern and African nations, among others, have ports and pipelines financed by China and stand to gain by continuing to trade their resources, especially hydrocarbons, and minerals, with China. Why shouldn't they be given 'weight'? The Indian and Pacific Oceans include the most important trade routes now that China has become a world power. Nations in those areas should have say - and weight.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Now now, let's not forget that the G-7 countries' opinions should not be given any weight on this matter either, since they have nothing to do with the dispute, right?

You have a point. Except most G-7 countries are democracies (more or less). The opinions from Africa and the Middle East represent the opinions of dictators in many cases. Dictators telling democracies such as Taiwan, Korea and Japan what how they should bow to a dictator and surrender their marine rights.

Simply because a country ships good through a region doesn't give them the right to say who should own the water rights in that region. That's the way the US government thinks. A great excuse to start a war.

The Indian and Pacific Oceans include the most important trade routes now that China has become a world power. Nations in those areas should have say - and weight.

Very few of these disputes involve the Indian Ocean, and those that do are far removed from Africa and the Middle East.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan’s support of third-party dispute resolution is not universal. While it has sought to take its dispute with South Korea over the South Korean-held Dokdo or Takeshima islands to the International Court of Justice, it says no such action is needed in its dispute with China over the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands, which are administered by Japan.

I think what Matt is saying here is that Japan has had a double standard on issues. He's right. If Japan would take BOTH Takeshima and Senkaku to the ICJ then Japan would have some credibility.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

4 out of 5 arbitrators were selected by Japan while the last one was selected by Japan's ally the Philippines. So why would anyone be interested in a Japan controlled tribunal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites