By Katya Dajani
In early 2014, IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly magazine released images of what appeared to be construction sites near the Hughes, Gaven, and Johnson South Reefs in the South China Sea. These construction sites marked the tangible beginning of China’s extensive land reclamation project in the region.
Land reclamation itself isn’t a novel concept. Other countries including the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, and South Korea have launched substantial operations of this kind in the past, with little reaction from the international community. Yet the seven new Chinese sites differ from these projects in an important respect — they are situated in heavily disputed waters.
The South China Sea, believed to possess 28 billion barrels of oil and 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas beneath its seabed, is the second busiest sea-lane on the planet. While China currently claims about 90 percent of the waters, countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Taiwan also have stakes in the area. Most of these nations maintain settlements on the sea’s contested islands and have engaged in skirmishes over territory in previous decades.
“China’s increased presence in the South China Sea in recent years is primarily related to bolstering China’s position in its territorial disputes with a number of neighboring countries over the islands, shoals, and resources,” says J. Stapleton Roy, a former U.S. Ambassador to China, Singapore, and Indonesia. “China attaches high importance to upholding its sovereignty and territorial integrity, but in this case, offensive or defensive military considerations are a secondary factor.”
Not unreasonably, China’s neighbors are growing increasingly wary of these newly crafted landmasses. Many have sought to strengthen ties with the United States, Vietnam even signing a “Joint Vision Statement.” Yet these alliances only constitute a small portion of American involvement. In recent months, U.S. officials have openly condemned the islands project, warning China that its actions will threaten regional stability and could lead to conflict. After two days of talks in Beijing, Secretary of State John Kerry commented that the United States is “concerned about the pace and scope of China's land reclamation.”
Yet there is an escalating debate over where or even whether the United States should draw a line when intervening in other nations’ conflicts. At the 2012 Shangri-La Dialogue conference in Singapore, Leon Panetta, serving as U.S. Secretary of Defense at the time, observed, “The U.S. position is clear and consistent: we call for restraint and for diplomatic resolution; we oppose provocation; we oppose coercion; and we oppose the use of force.” He added that while the United States does not take sides in “competing territorial claims,” it would like the dispute to be resolved peacefully under international law.
Unfortunately, this statement leaves much room for interpretation. Many, like Jamie Metzl, former Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, believe that America has every right to play a counter-balancing role in the region.
“[China] is very consciously putting pressure on America’s allies and friends, which is designed to weaken America’s alliance relationship in the region and ultimately push active military presence out of the Western Pacific,” says Metzl. “I think that is and should be a deep concern for the United States and for our partners, allies, and friends in Asia.”
Metzl also sees China’s territorial claims, encompassed by its “Nine-Dash Line” territorial partitioning, as groundless and in violation of international protocol. “The U.S. plays a global role with our friends and allies in supporting international norms of behavior,” says Metzl. “Under international law, the so-called Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea is absolutely ludicrous. There’s virtually no justification for the size and scope for [it]. China, frankly, doesn’t even try to make the case.”
But while China’s claims may be absurd in the eyes of others in the region, many like Metzl believe the United States must remain watchful of its military shadow or risk further escalation of the situation. Instead, the American navy seeks to sail armed vessels throughout the South China Sea under the guise of “protecting freedom of navigation” and “promoting stability.”
Moreover, naval aircraft, such as P-8A Poseidon, have conducted surveillance flights near the man-made islands. Assistant Secretary of Defense David Shear even suggested that long-range B-1 bombers be stationed in Australia—a statement he quickly retracted.
However, critics like Jeffrey Bader of the Brookings Institute believe that this projection of force may be unwarranted. “The common media meme, that the 60 percent of the world’s commerce that flows through the South China Sea is somehow threatened by China, is absurd,” says Bader. “China is at least as dependent on others for the free flow of goods, and it has taken no action to hinder it.”
Bader’s view is reinforced by William Johnson, former senior political advisor for U.S. Central Command Pacific, who wrote in a Reuters commentary that, “in order to justify an aggressive approach, the United States must determine that the creation of these islands is threatening some vital U.S. interest,” adding that “there have so far been no major military confrontations in the disputes between the five other countries that lay claims to the South China Sea.”
Clearly both sides in this debate are facing off, with the stakes growing. Alongside China’s disputed territorial claims, the U.S. justification for its focused military presence in the South China Sea is also open to question as opponents of these moves point out that China has neither attacked countries allied with the United States, nor threatened the free flow of goods through the disputed waters. The current situation is tense but stable, and whether international law has been broken remains in dispute.
U.S. officials have named China as a bully that uses its size and power to “elbow” weaker countries from the region, but the United States risks escalating tensions through unwarranted projection of force in the Western Pacific. Persuading China to revise its actions may be of utmost importance, but this task may well be accomplished without the aid of planes, boats, and talk of long-range bombers.
*****
*****
Katherine (Katya) Dajani is an editorial assistant at World Policy Journal.
[Photos courtesy of Wikimedia Commons]