By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:46:14 +0000

This piece has undoubtedly been written by an academic as opposed to a journalist with its predominantly measured undertone, not designed to illicit an emotional response through any overtly controversial or provocative views. Upon further reading, however, it is clear where the author’s sympathies lie. As the article is from the Asia & The Pacific Policy Society, its audience is far narrower than major media outlets and readers are likely educated with an interest in international relations in Asia. Any author must know their audience, as required by their editor or publisher, in order to write an article that readers would want to read.

Marina outlines the findings from the PCA on the SCS matter of factly but when she highlights the impacts, though she takes a predominantly neutral position, there are some biases. She rightly hypothesises that the potential for China to withdraw from UNCLOS would not benefit anyone but continues with ‘Those of us who believe in a rules-based order, and not just the right of might or the ability to reinforce right with might, need to get behind the ruling’ [emphasis added]. She is pitching an ‘us against them’ mentality which is no way to approach Julie Bishop’s call for stakeholders to re-engage in negotiations, while simultaneously accusing China of being ‘right by might’.
She does make an interesting point, however, that maybe it’s time for the US to ratify UNCLOS if it wants maintain a rules-based order and avoid a Chinese withdrawal. She offers some alternative solutions for China which sound reasonable to an Australian audience but probably not a Chinese one. Yet her suggestion for bilateral negotiations is exactly in line with how China wishes to pursue the SCS dispute.

The Chinese Ambassador’s address to the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) in July 2016, stressed China’s desire for bilateral negotiations with its regional partners without interference from tribunals or other parties such as the United States. He said the proceedings were not entered into with a spirit of ‘good faith’, contrary to the UN charter; or with mutual understanding and cooperation, contrary to UNCLOS. Furthermore, the US conducting patrols and exercising its freedom of navigation using military vessels would not help the process. (Commentators feel that the US may use its influence more constructively if it were use its resources to focus on regional cooperation).

The Ambassador went on to highlighted China’s ‘excellent’ record in negotiations having already resolved 12 disputes with its neighbours. However, if we are going to bring up China’s record on territorial disputes Tibet and many SE Asian nations may have a different account. The Ambassador’s insistence that China is open to bilateral negotiations while true, is undermined, to take an analogy, by the fact that it is building extensions on its house on the very land that is disputed over.

Reference

China’s Response to the South China Sea Arbitration Ruling 2016, Center for Strategic & International Studies, YouTube, viewed 23 June 2017, .

Comments on: Ruling the South China Sea

By: Rebecca