As news comes in of Vietnamese workers rampaging through factories in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) thought (falsely) to be owned by Chinese companies, the importance of the South China Sea suddenly comes into sharper focus. This large body of water is important for three reasons:
- It is home to several groups of islands believed to possess significant oil and gas deposits;
- China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and the Philippines all have some claims to these islands;
- One third of global maritime traffic flows through the South China Sea, including two thirds of South Korea’s energy supplies, nearly 60% of Japan’s and Taiwan’s energy supplies, and 80% of China’s crude oil imports.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE CHINA SHOP
Published in April 2014, Robert D. Kaplan’s “Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific” discusses the coming conflict in this region as China seeks to spread its influence in an area it considers its own, much as the US considered the Caribbean Sea to be its own in the 19th and 20th centuries (Monroe Doctrine). Kaplan shows how the West’s preoccupation with tragic events in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and Afghanistan diverts attention away from an area of Asia where future wars may eventually erupt as small and medium sized states seek to keep Chinese imperial ambitions in check. Of course none of the countries in the region can contain China by itself so two options present themselves: an alliance with the United States and multilateral alliances between states in the region. For example, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is an economic alliance that has a larger economy than that of India’s. Could ASEAN one day become more like the EU and NATO while forming an even stronger alliance with the US? As Kaplan rightly points out, Americans are growing weary of engaging in future conflicts, having exhausted themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, while the US spends more on its military than any other country, defence spending is decreasing as attention shifts to domestic concerns. Lastly, America is located thousands of miles away from the South China Sea. China meanwhile faces it. One has the advantage of proximity. Geography, Kaplan reminds us, still matters. America, in contrast, has the luxury of distance which however makes it difficult to respond in timely fashion should conflicts arise. In any case, while America’s navy is spread throughout the world, China’s navy is concentrated in Asia. China’s concern is not so much with dominating the world as it is with reigning supreme over its region. China, Kaplan reminds us, is a great civilization going back thousands of years, and except for the last 150 years, has been a great military and economic power in its own right. Dominating the South China Sea would allow China to reassert this role as a great power and keep the West from ever again dominating the region as it did through much of the 20th century. Let’s now look at what’s at stake for every country in the region.
VIETNAM
With a population of 90 million and an economy that has been growing at an astounding rate for the past ten years, Vietnam remains China’s most formidable foe. Vietnam borders China and the two countries hostility towards one another makes US-Mexican relations look like a love fest! The fact that Vietnam even exists is a major miracle, especially when you consider that it has been invaded 17 times by China over the past few centuries. Vietnam’s principal aim then is to check Chinese expansion in the region, especially with regard to the Parcel and Spratly Islands which Vietnam claims. But for the Vietnamese the dispute in the South China Sea isn’t just about territorial disputes; it’s also about protecting global maritime commerce. The Vietnamese are a practical people as the US found out during the Vietnam War, and the Vietnamese clearly understand that keeping China at bay means entering into an alliance with the US, a former enemy with which it fought a long war. As Kaplan reminds us, winners don’t have a chip on their shoulders and since Vietnam did win that war (or at least the North Vietnamese did), the Vietnamese are not hesitant to enter into an alliance with the US. And lastly, Kaplan rightly points out that should Vietnam falter and give in to Chinese expansion, this would only encourage China to dominate the entire region regardless of International Law.
MALAYSIA
Unlike Vietnam, an ethnically homogeneous nation (except for its marginalized minorities), Malaysia is ethnically diverse and faces different challenges. The most affluent large nation in the region, Malaysia is about 60% Malay Muslim. Ethnic Chinese and Indians make up the rest of the population. Relations Between ethnic Malays (most of whom are Muslim) and the Chinese and Indian minorities are not always good, but compared to the situation in the Middle East, Malaysia like Singapore offers hope to the idea that diversity can thrive in the developing world and not lead to blood shed as we currently see in Iraq. The father of modern Malaysia is Mahathir bin Mohamad, an autocrat in power from 1981-2003. He created what could best be described as a limited democracy coupled with soft authoritarianism. It’s not Switzerland but it’s also not Iraq or Syria where sectarian violence dominates. Mahathir created a system where Muslim Malays control the bureaucracy, armed forces, judiciary, and other pillars of the state. The Chinese thrive in economic matters and remain the nation’s entrepreneurs. Unemployment remains relatively low, half the country is now middle class, and 70% of the population lives in urban areas. In addition, no communal violence between these different ethnic and religious groups has occurred over the past 40 years! Malaysia’s lack of a strong national identity means that it is not anti-Chinese to the degree that the Vietnamese with their history and strong national identity are. Nevertheless, Malaysia, after Singapore, remains America’s most reliable ally. Malaysia’s economy is based on trade and making sure that Uncle Sam sticks around to keep the sea lanes open to international trade is important to them.
SINGAPORE
A tiny city state with a population of 3.3 million, Singapore is in many ways Asia’s version of Israel. Not only is it evolving into a dynamic democracy and reliable US ally, it also has a sizeable Air Force (equivalent to Australia’s) and sees defence spending as essential to its survival. Singapore is a multiethnic meritocracy created, conceived, and built by one great visionary leader: Lee Kuan Yew. A trained lawyer, Lee Kuan was Prime Minster from 1959-1990 and instituted what Kaplan aptly describes as a system of “enlightened authoritarianism” that kept the different ethnic groups from slaughtering one another while promoting economic growth and educating its citizenry. As happens with nations possessed with few natural resources, Lee Kuan had the wisdom to develop the nation’s human resources instead. English was made the national language, thus serving to unify the country’s Chinese, Malay, and Indian communities. Think about how enlightened this policy was. Ethnic Chinese are in the majority, but Lee Kuan, an ethnic Chinese himself, understood the importance of being magnanimous and treating all groups, regardless of majority or minority status, on an equal footing. Leaders from the developing world should take note. Imagine if leaders in the Middle East were to learn from such policies! Singapore is about trade so their concern is with keeping the sea lanes open to trade and communication. This means an alliance with the US. In other words, the ever pragmatic Singaporeans understand that defending global trade means protecting the sea lanes which only the US navy can do. Singapore thus remains America’s most reliable ally in the region. And like Israel, it spends heavily on national defence so as to send a clear message to foes (China) and allies (US and other states in the region) that it takes its survival and trade interests seriously.
THE PHILIPPINES
To understand what went wrong in the Philippines, we need to review what went right in Malaysia and Singapore, for the Philippines remains economically impoverished, with corrupt and ineffective political institutions, and a population that is largely uneducated. Asian dynamism has, in other words, largely bypassed the Philippines. The Philippines is what much of the developing world is: divided between the rich and the poor with hardily a middle class to speak of. The Philippines is the most corrupt nation in the region, and has Asia’s worse economy despite having the world’s 12th largest population. What then did Malaysia and Singapore do right? Kaplan points out that both these countries had great leaders who brought order and authority to their societies while providing its citizens with sufficient food, warmth, shelter and security. As Maslow’s hierarchy of needs would suggest, basic needs must be met before individuals and societies can progress to the next stage of development. True, both Singapore and Malaysia practiced a form of soft authoritarianism. But leaders like Lee Kuan and Mahathir were different from the authoritarian brutes who ruled in much of the Middle East like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Assads in Syria. Both Asian leaders were able to plant the seeds of responsible government and civil society thus leading to what we have today: limited but effective democracy that may one day evolve into a full blown liberal democracy. This then, is what the Philippines never had: a visionary leader who could take care of the nation’s basic needs while promoting a pro-business and dynamic economy. What then to make of the Philippines? As Kaplan points out, it is the weakest of its allies in this region and by far the most vulnerable to Chinese expansion, something not lost on China’s rulers. The irony then is that the Philippines is re-establishing close military ties with the US, its former colonial ruler. In the end, that disorganized nation with claims to the Spratly islands and Scarborough Shoal is in a precarious position vis-à-vis China and can only keep the Chinese at bay through a US based alliance. This however is made difficult by that nation’s lack of political and economic development. The Philippines is, to put it charitably, a bad investment at this point in time.
TAIWAN
Taiwan is what many hope China eventually becomes: democratic and prosperous. Established in 1947 by Chiang Kai-Shek as his forces fled mainland China, Taiwan is another one of those Asian tigers with few natural resources that was wise enough to develop its human resources instead. Like Singapore and Malaysia, Taiwan was ruled by a soft authoritarian ruler but has evolved into a dynamic liberal democracy with an educated workforce that has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Taiwan is, of course, a complicated issue, as President Nixon’s trip to China in the 1970s demonstrated. Both Taiwan and China claim to be the legitimate representatives of the Chinese people, and any mention of Taiwanese independence is seen by Beijing as an attempt at secession from China. There’s also a dispute over the Pratas Islands. But Taiwan has more serious concerns: namely, that China will one day seek forced unification by militarily invading Taiwan. This island state thus remains solidly allied with the US while remaining committed to building up its military to the point where a Chinese invasion remains unthinkable.
CHINA
China, as Kaplan makes clear, is a complicated place. It is destined to become the world’s biggest economy and closest rival to the US in both economic and military matters. China’s defence spending has been rising significantly as it continues to spend billions on warships and submarines. But much of this spending and posturing on the South China Sea is based on continued Chinese economic growth. What happens then if China’s economic growth begins to stagnate? Is it possible China might one day implode from within? China’s rulers base their legitimacy not on spreading democracy but on providing prosperity through economic growth: jobs and prosperity in place of democracy. For Kaplan, then, it’s not clear who will eventually come ahead. It’s possible for example that China might in fact continue to prosper, and that its growing and educated middle class may demand the same democratic freedoms enjoyed by ethnic kin in Taiwan. Isn’t that what one can expect from globalization? But as Kaplan points out, more democracy can actually lead to more conflict, as the masses may be more prone to nationalism than its intellectual, business, and political elites. Already we see states in the South China Sea (except for Malaysia) playing domestic politics with their claims. The islands in this region are small, and many of the claims may seem ridiculous, but as Aristotle famously wrote, conflicts arise not over small things but from small things. In addition, neither is International Law able to solve the conflicting disputes as there is no mechanism for imposing any legal decision.
CONCLUSION
Recent headlines in the New York Times say it all: “China Flexes Its Muscles in Dispute With Vietnam” (May 8), “China’s Monroe Doctrine” (May 8), “Trouble in the South China Sea” (May 9), “Anger Grows in Vietnam Over Dispute With China” (May 14), “Anti-Foreigner Violence Turns Deadly and Spreads in Vietnam (May 15), and “Philippines Challenges China Over Disputed Atoll”.
As Kaplan’s book makes clear, foreign affairs continues to be influenced by geography and history. A country’s neighbourhood still matters as does whatever historical enmity remains between neighbouring states. Internal political and economic development also matters. Nations that are politically stable and economically prosperous with an educated workforce and a vibrant civil society based on the Rule of Law do better at protecting their interests on the international stage. Whether war breaks out in the South China Sea will depend on many factors. Will the smaller and middle states like Singapore and Malaysia continue to produce responsible leaders reluctant to give in to nationalistic feelings? Will these states continue to experience relative harmony between its various religious and ethnic communities? Will China act responsibly or throw its weight around like an Elephant in a China Shop as its economic clout continues to grow? Might China not itself become democratic like its neighbours someday? And if China does implode because of economic, political, or environmental problems, will its regions become more important at the expense of the central government in Beijing? America also has an important role to play. Will a weakened America with a poor economy and a dwindling middle class care about what happens in a far-away region, or will American voters insist that the nation become more isolationist and concentrate on domestic concerns? America also has alliances in Europe and concerns in the Middle East but defence spending is going south. Does America have the resources to be everywhere at once? Does it even want to be the world’s policeman? Just as importantly, does America have a plan for protecting its allies in the South China Sea while not unduly alienating China? America must understand that China also has legitimate interests and that it shouldn’t permit any of its allies to drag it into an unnecessary conflict. What then should be America’s role? As a country whose economy is based on capitalism, it should be to keep the sea lanes open so that global trade can continue to flow to everyone’s benefit. It should let China know that it will defend its allies if need be, but it must also let its allies understand that they are expected to behave responsibly, and that some kind of compromise has to be make with regard to the islands in dispute. Giving in to nationalism is not something that is in these countries’ self-interest. In the end, everyone has much to lose from any future conflict. This is something the Chinese need to understand. Does Beijing want China to become a respected nation or a rogue nation like Russia as Vladimir Putin seems to be intent on accomplishing? Perhaps an international conference can be held to settle the dispute over these islands, one that would show China the respect it deserves as an economic superpower while reassuring the smaller states that the Rule of Law applies with regard to their region. It may be time for the global community to understand that there’s a big problem looming and that some kind of discussion should be had at the international level before events spiral out of control. Such a conference would likely not find a definitive solution, but it would at least get the global community to pay more attention. And, it might also provide the main actors with a forum for talking to one another in an intelligent (hopefully!) manner.
Last week’s headlines in the New York Times seem to suggest that China is pursuing its own version of the Monroe Doctrine in Asia. This doctrine was formulated and used by the US to dominate the Caribbean and Latin America in the 19th century by ridding it of European influence. It would be folly for China to pursue this policy for many reasons. For starters, all these states will look to the US for assistance, and interestingly, at a time when America is seeking to reduce its overseas obligations and burdens. It would indeed be ironic if China’s actions had the adverse effect of strengthening hardliners (Republicans) in the US who believe Washington has gone too far in defence cuts. America will no doubt seriously re-think its place in the world if China begins to behave irresponsibly in the South China Sea. Secondly, China trades with its neighbours and it’s probably not a good idea to upset or destroy your client! There will be an economic price to pay should China forcibly take these disputed islands over. Thirdly, any Chinese aggression might force ASEAN to become more like NATO and the EU than a glorified Chamber of Commerce! Already other Asian countries like Japan are talking about re-interpreting its constitution so as to allow for a more aggressive show of military force, especially with regard to assisting regional allies.
In the end, it’s not in the world’s interest to have two economic giants like China and the US in conflict, especially one that might involve some kind of military confrontation. American and Chinese interests have become intertwined through trade and loans and any future military conflict would create chaos in global markets. This is something which leaders in both the US and China need to understand and explain to their citizens and allies before it’s too late.
