 |
| Photo from: CNN Philippines |
Joel Rocamora wrote an article in Rappler about Duterte's "pivot to China." He panned Duterte's alignment with China - and Russia. He questioned its strategic value - or lack of it, and declared that Duterte is "incompetent." The gist of Rocamora's article can just be reduced into his two scathing rhetorical questions: "Does he even know the meaning and the repercussions of his anti-US and pro-China statements? Does he realize that the only thing standing in the way of China’s ambitions in Southeast Asia is American military might?" Rocamora's analysis is all shine but wanting in substance. It dismisses Duterte's strategic move as hogwash but fails to demonstrate that this strategic move is the least desirable option given the current geopolitical situation. What ultimately weakened Rocamora's analysis is his questionable appreciation of facts, events, current political economic reality, and US interests.
Rocamora said that US military projection in the South China Sea "is in support of freedom of navigation and international rules on territorial claims (UNCLOS), in this case represented by the decision of an arbitral tribunal in The Hague."
The UN Convention on Laws of the Seas (UNCLOS) is NOT a rule on territorial claim. As the preamble of UNCLOS says, this treaty aims to establish
"a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilisation of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment."
The decision of the arbitral tribunal here in The Hague made this clear, UNCLOS "does not address the sovereignty of States over land territory." Because of this, the arbitral tribunal cannot "make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal." Furthermore, as the arbitral decision has confirmed, UNCLOS doesn't also "contain provisions concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries."
Rocamora isn't being transparent about what kind of navigation the United States is trying to protect in the South China Sea: commercial or military? At one point, it seems that he meant commercial navigation. China, according to Rocamora, would "want military control over vital sea lanes through which US$5 trillion in trade pass per year." This would be an existential threat to Japan, Rocamora warned. However, this could only be a threat to Japan if 1) the commercial trade passing through the South China Sea is mostly going to Japan; and 2) that Japan's trade partners depend on the South China Sea. Considering the two conditions exposes the weakness of Rocamora's argument.
Most of the trade (60%) passing through the South China Sea are going to China. Because of this, one can reasonably argue that any military projection of China in the South China Sea is meant to secure that trade route through which its export-oriented economy largely depends. Furthermore, China's maritime assertiveness is rooted in its own history of being attacked by European and Japanese powers via the sea. As Michael McDevitt and Frederic Velluci Jr said in The Evolution of the People's Liberation Army: The Twin Missions of Area-Denial and Peacetime Operations:
'Vulnerability to attack from the sea has been a problem for Beijing since at least 1842, when the Treaty of Nanking ended the First Opium War. This three-year conflict with Great Britain exposed imperial china's military weakness to attacks from the sea and ushered in the so-called century of humiliation triggering a sequence of military and diplomatic humiliations perpetrated by Westerners and the Japanese that came primarily from the sea."
Learning from its painful experience, China aims to strengthen its maritime defense in order to stem the repeat of that history. Or as Dr Abud Ruff puts it: "What China is trying to do is to gain control of its own commerce or to be better able to defend against any US aggression."
The South China Sea is Japan's major energy supply route. According to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, "oil still accounts for about 40% of Japan’s primary energy supply, and more than 80% of imported oil comes from the politically unstable Middle East." But Japan is already diversifiying its energy sources. For example, Japan's deepening bilateral relations with Russia is largely energy-related. The Ukraine crisis induced Russia to pivot to the East, while the Fukushima disaster spurred Japan to warm up to Russia. As Wrenn Yennie Lindgren said, these events
"...paved the way for a longer-term deepening of bilateral energy relations and also provided a quick fix to Japan’s precarious energy position in the wake of the disaster. Russia swiftly promised supplies of LNG, oil, coal and electricity and worked to accommodate Japan’s high LNG demand. Further, joint working groups on issues such as oil and gas were created."
According to the CIA's World Factbook, as of 2015 Japan's top import partners are "China 24.8%, US 10.5%, Australia 5.4%, South Korea 4.1%; while its top export partners are US 20.2%, China 17.5%, South Korea 7.1%, Hong Kong 5.6%, Thailand 4.5%." China is the #1 trading partner of Japan, and the economic relationship between Japan, China, and South Korea is set to intensify because they have signed a trilateral landmark "free trade agreement" in June 2015. Given these facts, why did Rocamora say that China's presence in the South China Sea would be an existential threat to Japan whose #1 trade partner is China, with whom Japan signed a trilateral free trade agreement with South Korea? Why would China choke Japan's economy while at the same time deepen its economic relations with it? It doesn't make any sense -- perhaps it does in Rocamora's universe.
So, are the freedom of navigation operations conducted by the United States really intended to secure that trade route? Well, yes, if its aim is to help make the maritime trade to China more secure. Obviously, that's not the intention of the US. Is it to secure maritime trade going to the United States? China is its #1 maritime trading partner! So, the United States isn't there to secure the freedom of commercial navigation, but freedom of navigation for military purposes.
So what if it's for military purposes? some might ask. They might also echo Rocamora's statement disguised as a question that "the only thing standing in the way of China’s ambitions in Southeast Asia is American military might." Yet hasn't it occurred to Rocamora that the ever intensifying US military presence in the South China Sea is also provoking China to enlarge its military footprint? Has Rocamora forgotten the security dilemma, i.e. a situation in which the action of one State to make itself secure by beefing up its military or by entering and deepening military alliances provokes another State into doing the same, escalating tensions to a level ripe for an armed conflict? What happened in the South China Sea during Aquino's regime was a manifestation of the security dilemma. And as Rocamoro most probably know, one of the crucial ways to mitigate the security dilemma is by building trust and entering into mutually beneficial relationship with the other State. And what could be the ambitions Rocamora is referring to? Is he trying to hint that China might pull off a Japan and colonise South East Asian countries? That's strategically stupid for China to do! At this current stage of the world's political economy, it's way more efficient to establish deep economic and diplomatic ties than to colonise other countries. The only ambition that I can see China intends to accomplish is to displace the United States economically in the region and in the world.
The eagle and the dragon are engaged in a battle for economic dominance. According to Bloomberg, US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) are considered the “symbols of an historic battle: the contest between the U.S. and China for control of the trade and finance that form the foundation of today’s global economy."
TPP is a free trade agreement; BBC tagged it as “the most ambitious free trade agreement ever signed.” It aims to deepen economic ties among 12 countries: US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru. AIIB is a multilateral investment bank, rivalling the US-led World Bank, that aims to finance infrastructure development in Asia. The TPP is now declared dead, while AIIB is alive and kicking.
President Xi Jinping launched the AIIB in January 2016 in Beijing. Its members include US allies, such as “Australia, Britain, German, Italy, the Philippines and South Korea.” The AIIB has 31 members, a combination of Asian, European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Only 10 of these members, which includes the Philippines, have not ratified the treaty. Its establishment was called by Lawrence Summers, Obama’s former economic adviser, “the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system."
A day after the decision on the arbitration case was released, the European Union (EU) and China “moved their comprehensive strategic partnership forward". The EU also expressed intention “to connect the European Fund for Strategic Investments with China's “One Belt, One Road” project. And despite sluggishness in its local economy, in March 2016, China’s “state-owned and private businesses invested an unprecedented $23bn in Europe."
In January 2016, China announced “$55 billion in aid and [gave] a speech to the Arab League in which he vowed not to seek proxies, a thinly veiled jab at U.S. history in the region." In April 2016, China’s direct investment in the US is expected to reach a record high of “$20 billion to $30 billion."
On top of them is China’s well-entrenched economic presence in Africa. The 21st century is increasingly becoming to look like China’s century. Just like for most of world history, most of the land and maritime trade routes are now going to and coming from China.
In this transformation, the US would be inevitably bypassed, just like it was for most of the world’s economic history. The US is not within most of the land and maritime trade routes going to and coming from China. Certainly, the US will remain an important market; but as time unfolds, it runs the risk of becoming irrelevant as China reclaims its pivotal role in the economic history of the world. And the South China Sea will regain its historical central role in world economy. As Robert Kaplan said, “the South China Sea functions as the throat of the Western Pacific and Indian oceans — the mass of connective economic tissue where global sea routes coalesce." America’s military presence in the South China Sea, enabled by the 2014 PH-US Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, positions the US right at that throat, and that gives the Americans leverage against the Chinese.
I would like to conclude with the conversation I had with the European husband of my friend over brunch. He asked me to help him make sense of what's going on diplomatically with our president. I told him: What's there to explain? Duterte is simply doing what Europeans did to the US. Except the curses, the deeds are the same. The US urged European countries to not join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. But what did EU countries do? They defied the United States. EU countries are courting Chinese investments. The Dutch king and queen even visited China last year! Why can't the Philippines do the same thing as EU countries are doing? My country just wants a share of the Chinese mooncake you guys have been eating. For Rocamora, we are the laughing stock of the world for doing exactly what the rest of the world is doing: deepening their economic ties and forming strategic partnerships with China to the chagrin of the United States.
