South China Sea Crisis: Invasion of Spratly Islands /
Policy Paper /
Arthur Zhu /
8/7/2013 /
Policy paper addresses the current crisis involving maritime war between two China and the Philippines. US must act efficiently to prevent the crisis from escalating violently while maintaining its own interests. The 3 policy options involves diplomatic, military and economic means of resolving the issue at hand. /
Policy Proposal: US Intervention in South China Sea Crisis.
Crisis: July 22, 2013 at 16:19 Philippines- The tensions of the territorial disputes in the South China Sea originated when China staked its land far from its shores after encountering Vietnamese forces in 1988. The staked Chinese territory extends from Hainan to beyond the Spratly Islands near the Philippines. Over the past two years there have been several events relating to territorial and maritime rights in the South China Sea. For example, scientists planted a Chinese flag on the seabed floor by a submersible vessel. In addition, fishing disagreements between China and Vietnam, and the current China and Philippine dispute over Scarborough Shoal are just some of the many conflicts.
In the response of the rise of tensions involving the territorial disputes over the South China Sea, China has deployed a substantial amount of paramilitary and naval forces into the Philippines-claimed Spratly islands where its naval forces are present. US naval forces are also patrolling the area to prevent any escalating military conflicts. However, it is reported that five at least Filipino vessels have been destroyed by the Chinese forces. The US Navy reports that the confrontation was provoked by the heavy amount of Chinese naval forces invading the Thitu Island, the second largest Spratly Island, where 200 civilians of the Philippines are located. The Filipino gave off several warnings shots against China’s forces. As a result, Chinese submarines launched several torpedoes, sinking three Filipino vessels. In addition, several Chinese identified aircrafts launched airstrikes into the base on Thitu Island, destroying the port while sending the civilians into frenzy. The Filipino forces received a radio broadcast from the Chinese Navy demanding to evacuate all Filipino civilian and to “surrender all Filipino forces”. US forces report that China is demonstrating against Filipino control of the islands to destroy Filipino morale in the territorial dispute. There are a reported number of 4 warheads, 15 vessels and 2 submarines with numbers increasing on the Chinese side. In response, The US Navy is sending large forces into the area where China’s forces are determined “hostile and dangerous.” Most of the US Navy is situated in a former US naval base in Subic Bay, just north of Manila. In addition, a former US naval and air base during the Vietnam War serves as a vital station for US naval forces to prevent any conflict from escalating
The confrontation took place about 120 miles south of China’s Hainan Island where a Chinese naval base started operating a new nuclear attack and missile submarine program. The Pentagon reported a few weeks ago that Chinese vessels have engaged in hostile behavior which includes shining high intensity spotlights onto the US vessels in the Yellow Sea against the US naval forces, after the Chinese foreign Ministry Spokesperson stated, “We hope that US respects the sovereignty of all countries involved in this dispute and we demand that they put a stop to all naval activities.” China’s course of action reflects off their frustration at US’s attempts of moderating the territorial disputes militarily.
The conflict between China and Philippines over the abundant natural gas deposits of the Spratly Islands has escalated quickly over the years. An estimated 1.2 billion US dollars of crude oil is believed to be present in these islands. In addition, Manila contracted the United Kingdom-based Forum Energy planned to drill here for oil previously this year which most likely provoked the Chinese response over the Philippines’ occupation of the islands. Manila contracted Forum Energy for offshore exploration near these islands. The Spratly Islands are within the borders of the Philippines. However, China claims it to be their islands for centuries, so this naval confrontation is the result of China’s aggravated response against the Philippines.
The US’s involvement in this conflict is vital in regaining peace in the South China Sea territorial disputes. However, with its 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty between the two countries which states, “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes,” US will have a moral obligation to quell the conflict in the South China Sea. In a press conference in May, American officials declared that the government should not take sides in this dispute and remain calm in responding to Chinese aggression in the undisputed seas.
Washington has declared that the US Navy will provide military assistance to the Philippines if China decided to attack the Spratly Islands against the Filipino forces. With the improving ties between the US and Philippines, US military forces will have access to the Filipino airfields and ports if US decides to intervene.
Annually, $5.3 trillion of trade passes through the South China Sea. U.S. trade makes up for $1.2 trillion of this total (globalnation). The crisis involving maritime war between the Philippines and China will cause the interruption of cargo ships to other routes would harm regional economies due to longer trade routes. Conflict of any scale in the South China Sea would inhibit any country from benefiting from the South China's Sea's proven and potential riches.
ASEAN Countries involved in the South China Sea view the U.S. military presence as necessary to prevent conflicts. If nations in the South China Sea lose confidence in the United States to serve as the principal regional moderator, they could become more accommodating to the demands of an economically powerful China. Failure to protect allied nations in the region could also undermine U.S. security guarantees in the broader Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, however, the US must avoid getting drawn into the territorial dispute by regional nations who seek U.S. backing to legitimize their claims.
Yet again, with the exception of China, all the claimants of the South China Sea have attempted to justify their claims based on their coastlines and the provisions of UNCLOS. China, however, relies on a mix of historic rights and legal claims, while remaining deliberately ambiguous about the meaning of the "nine-dashed line" around the sea that is drawn on Chinese maps. Failure to uphold international law could harm U.S. interests elsewhere in the region and beyond. Ensuring freedom of navigation is another critical interest of the United States and other regional states. Although China claims that it supports freedom of navigation, its insistence that foreign militaries seek advance permission to sail in its two-hundred-mile EEZ casts doubt on its stance. China's development of capabilities to deny American naval access to those waters in a conflict provides evidence of possible Chinese intentions to block freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
Policy Option #1- Military Intervention:
Side with the Philippines in reference to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty which states that both nations will support themselves if their “national sovereignties were threatened.” US naval forces will be deployed from the Subic Bay base to quell the invasion of the Spratly Islands. While it is necessary to keep ties with China, the US will intervene militarily against the “hostile and dangerous” Chinese forces as China violated the “Rules of Sea” by engaging against Filipino forces and civilians. US military will defend the Filipino civilians and military; stop any Chinese opposition while remaining neutral in the South Sea dispute as a moderator of the area. The US can also support regional actors and not directly intervene militarily. Multilateral military intervention could be taken to further enhance the capability of the Philippines military involving joint-multilateral strategies and plan to defend its territorial and maritime claims, which might deter China from taking aggressive action. Similarly, the United States could boost the maritime surveillance capabilities of Vietnam, enabling its military to more effectively pursue an anti-access and area-denial strategy. Joint naval exercises to enhance the ability of the allies to cooperate in counter-piracy, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief operations will be necessary to repel the invasion of the Spratly Islands.However, supporting the Philippines and Vietnam can challenge China and could raise those countries' expectations of the extent of U.S.’s military commitment in the area. In addition, the US will also request permission from the UN for support of the use of military force against China. The US will clarify in its respective dialogues with Manila and Hanoi the extent of the United States' obligations and commitments in the conflict between China and Philippines. Clarity is necessary both to avoid a scenario in which regional actors aggressively confront China and avert a setback to U.S. relations with the perception of unfulfilled duties.
Policy Analysis:
Militarily, Option 1 is a short term, high risk solution to the current crisis involving the invasion of the Spratly Islands. US allies involved in the South China Sea Dispute look to the United States to maintain free-trade, safe and secure sea lines of communication and overall peace and stability in the region. Claimants and nonclaimants in the South China Sea view US military presence as necessary to allow decision-making free of intimidation. If nations in the South China Sea lose confidence in the United States to serve as the principal regional security moderator, they could become more accommodating to the demands of a powerful China. Neither would be in the US interest. Failure to protect allies of the US commitments in the region could also undermine US security guarantees in the Asia- Pacific region, especially with Japan and Philippines. At the same time, however, the United States must avoid getting drawn into the territorial dispute by regional nations who seek US backing to legitimize their claims.
US military intervention is crucial in defending the Filipino military and civilians stationed in the Spratly Islands. With the Mutual Defense Treaty, US have the moral obligation as a security moderator in the dispute to prevent any conflict from escalating while keeping security in the water. The use of military, however, is a high risk solution that can provoke relations with china and elevate the tensions between both countries.
The possible and imminent coasts are of high possibility. With US defending Filipino sovereignty against Chinese forces militarily, the US will possibly strain relations between the two countries and risk losing trade agreements from China which are highly vital to the US economy. These tensions are being shaped by rising apprehensions about the growth of China’s military power and its regional intentions. China has started on a substantial modernization of its maritime paramilitary forces as well as naval capabilities to enforce its sovereignty and jurisdiction claims by force if necessary. At the same time, it is developing capabilities that would put US forces in the region at risk in a conflict, thus potentially denying access to the US Navy in the western Pacific. The United States also has an abiding interest in preserving stability in the US-China relationship so that it can continue Beijing’s cooperation on an expanding list of regional and global issues and more tightly integrate China into the prevailing international system.
In the other hand, there are several benefits in the option of military intervention. It provides a quick and effective solution to the Invasion of the Spratly Islands with hard power. By defending against Chinese forces, US will prove its responsibility in the region by abiding to the 1951 Mutual Treaty of Defense. US’s ties with other ASEAN countries will improve as military power will display the US as the principal country in the region. In addition, China will possibly have a more passive influence over the territorial settlements with its awareness of US’s dominant presence. If the US does militarily intervene in this crisis, countries will expect more of US presence and involvement in the area. Therefore, US will gain more ports and military aid in the South China Sea in the long term.
Policy Option #2- Non-Military Consequences and Diplomatic solutions with China
Deploying air and naval forces to the immediate conflict of an armed clash to defend U.S. interests and deter further escalation should always be considered an option. Such action must be balanced against the possibility that they will encourage an even stronger response from China and causing further escalation of a confrontation. A less risky option would be to threaten nonmilitary consequences like economic and diplomatic sanctions to force China from deterring into further military action. US will enforce economic sanctions including non-tariff barriers on Chinese goods imported into the US. Diplomatically, the US will withdraw from any high-level governmental visits while temporarily suspending visas from all Chinese citizens until China stops any military invasion on the Spratly Islands. Direct communication between military officials can be effective in de-escalating a crisis. The Military Maritime Consultative Agreement process should be made effective through communication. There is a pressing need for the United States and China to agree on operational safety rules to minimize the conflict at hand. US will support the setup of communication mechanisms between China and the Philippines; include provisions for both scheduled and short-notice emergency meetings, and moderate consultation during a crisis. Emergency meetings would focus on addressing the invasion of the Spratly Islands while evaluating the causes that led up to the crisis at hand. The goal would not be to resolve underlying issues, but to contain tensions in the Spratly Islands and prevent escalation. In addition, the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement process should be made effective. There is a pressing need for the United States and China to agree on operational safety rules to minimize the conflict at hand.
Policy Analysis:
Diplomatically, Option 2 is a low-risk form of soft power for influencing China into deterring the invasion of the Spratly islands. This includes enforcing economic and diplomatic sanctions onto China, which will hypothetically force China away from the conflict and agree on a mutual treaty with the US. Option 2 will be more of the initial solutions to the problem. Effective communication and agreement in this conflict is vital in stabilizing peace in the South China Sea and it provides many incentives for all countries involved in the Spratly Islands invasions. However, it poses many risks that can possibly strain ties between the US and China.
Enforcing sanctions against China ranging from export controls to prohibitions on certain imports are highly ineffective against the Chinese economy. Reports show that US sanctions have had no significant effect on China’s overall economic growth and trade between the two countries nor do they have a negative impact on producers and consumers in both markets. US economic sanctions have hindered technology transfer to China and US investment in China. In addition, US restrictions on imports from China have caused deadweight losses for the US due to higher domestic production costs for import substitutes and a reduction in consumption. US export controls hindered US exports to China but contributed a moderate trade deficit in China. The export controls could also possibly lead to losses of high-paid jobs in the United States and benefited competitors from other countries. In addition, US economic sanctions against China have had significant third-party effects. Most importantly, China’s diversification of imports to sources other than the United States may have long-term effects on US exports to China even after US economic sanctions against China are lifted.
Over the past five years, most of the growth in international enrollments has come from China, while numbers from other top-10 sending countries have remained virtually flat. There are almost 200,000 Chinese students studying in the US, representing the largest group of international students from a single country and accounting for 25.4% of all foreign students studying in the US. By implementing diplomatic sanctions on China, international students from China will be unable to obtain visas thereby prohibiting them from admissions in US colleges. Knowing that the influx of Chinese students in US colleges is vital for China’s economy, diplomatic sanctions blocking off visas from any Chinese immigrants is very effective in pressure China to stop the invasion of the Spratly Islands while maintaining peace talks in the South China Sea disputes. In addition, more effective means of communication and talks will have a possibility of de-escalating the crisis at hand in a low-risk fashion. By focusing on relieving the tensions at the crisis at hand, settlements can be made in the future regarding the territorial disputes.