US Unveils New South China Sea Strategy

Posted By: Brinda BanerjeePosted date:  August 29, 2015 07:30:07 AMIn: Politics64 Comments

The United States has launched its new Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy. The South China Sea issue serves as a cornerstone for the new Asia-Pacific naval security agenda, with the strategy looking to focus on three areas of maritime concern that have been identified as previously lacking: “to safeguard the freedom of the seas; deter conflict and coercion; and promote adherence to international law and standards.”

South China Sea Issue

The South China Sea issue is a geopolitical conflict that has existed for several years, but gained notable traction over the past year after China started building artificial islands and news broke of the country installing a military base close to one of the Spratly archipelagos. Other claimants in the territorial dispute include Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. The conflict is over the different countries laying a stake in the islands and the maritime waters in the South China Sea.

The United States has taken an interest in the South China Sea issue in a bid to stabilize the regional balance of power and prevent China from expanding its territorial claims to the region. The new Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy has been clearly been inspired by recent developments in the South China Sea issue.

The New Agenda: Tackling Tensions In The South China Sea

Given that the South China Sea issue has dominated international geopolitical debates for the better part of a year, the new strategy is being welcomed as something of a much-needed exercise to even the geopolitical landscape of the region.

Since the South China Sea conduit serves as one of the busiest and most lucrative trade waterways in the world, control over the region effectively guarantees control over a staggering amount of the world’s commercial and economic activity. The Spratly Islands, which are also at the heart of the South China Sea conflict, are known to be rich in energy resources and offer several industrial opportunities.

The Obama administration has clearly understood that the need of the hour is to revisit its old policies on the Asia-Pacific region in general and the South China Sea issue in particular and formulate a new security policy that addresses the same. The new strategy aims to promote the international law on maritime conduct and guarantee that no singular state establishes complete control over an international water body or asserts its jurisdiction outside of its designated territorial waters.

Washington Moves Against Artificial Land-building

China has built more artificial islands in the South China Sea in the past year alone than all the other claimants have over the last four decades. In doing so, the country has added 2,900 acres of constructed land to the South China Sea and is responsible for as much as 95% of the total land in the Spratly Islands. The new maritime security document highlights that claimants can only claim ownership rights over natural, existing land formations.

More Than Just Territory; South China Sea Is Where The Money's At

The South China Sea owes part of its importance to the fact that it is a significant trade and shipping route. The Asia-Pacific waterways amount for two-thirds of the entire international oil shipments. Eight of the world’s ten most-used international vessel ports are in the Asia-Pacific region. The South China Sea route in particular accounts for 10% of the world’s fisheries industry production and is estimated to hold oil deposits to the tune of 11 billion barrels and natural gas in the range of 190 trillion cubic feet. A whopping 30% of the annual international maritime commercial transport occurs via the South China Sea.

US Looks To Contain Beijing’s Military Might In The South China Sea Region

The United States is looking to contain China’s influence in the South China Sea region for obvious reasons: Chinese domination over the area could not only tip the geopolitical balance completely in China’s favor, it would also deal a severe blow to the Obama government’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy. If China were to assert sovereignty over the South China Sea it would effectively wield influence over all trade, passage, transport, industrial and military activity, telecommunications and research and development in the region.

At present China boasts of 205 maritime law enforcement ships- a mammoth figure compared to the 147 vessels belonging to all the other nations out together. This figure does not take into account the vessels acquired and operated by China’s Maritime Militia, which is distinct from its regular naval forces. China also employs 303 naval combat and patrol vessels, which is a number that far outstrips the 202 vessels owned by Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam combined.

The US hopes to move a significant portion of its naval and overseas air fleet- as much as 60%- to the Pacific in the coming five years. There are plans to deploy several of the latest aircraft, an amphibious assault ship, an attack submarine, two Aegis-capable destroyers, and three stealth destroyers. The US is also investing heavily into deploying 386,000 personnel in the Asia-Pacific region to even out the South China Sea playing field. Washington is also working with other states invested in the South China Sea issue to work on drills, capacity-building and regional cooperation.

By formally introducing the South China Sea matter to policy updates and increasing American presence in the area, the US is looking to prevent the formation of a Chinese hegemony in the region.

The Pentagon Refrains From Antagonizing China

Washington has chosen to err on the side of caution when it comes to assigning blame in the South China Sea conflict, and has not come out and laid it squarely at Beijing’s doorstep, as many would expect. The policy briefing does list that China is responsible for the greatest number of unwanted actions and international law violations when it comes to the South China Sea issue. However, many have critiqued the agenda for playing it safe and perhaps being ‘too fair’ by shying away from criticizing China strongly enough.

The document does not make provisions for any sanctions to be imposed should any of the stakeholders continue island building or resort to violence or aggression as a means of establishing primacy in the South China Sea dispute.

Conflict De-escalation Is The Priority

By increasing and cementing its presence in the South China Sea, the US aims to send a clear message to all the parties involved that the use of force or any threat thereof will not be tolerated. American presence in the region is intended to restore the power balance in the region and prevent the Chinese from monopolizing the South China Sea, and it is also to act as a deterrent to keep the conflict from escalating. The new policy document emphasizes the importance of “reducing risk” and as such, it is clear that the Pentagon’s prerogative is to diffuse tensions and keep the conflict from coming to a head.

Experts Suggest Need For Greater Strictness

While there is no doubt at all that the new strategic agenda marks a step forward on part of the Obama administrationtowards solving the South China Sea issue and establishing an American presence to counteract China’s monopoly, there are those who will criticize the policy for not doing and being enough.

There is no denying the fact that China’s advancement in the region has been rampant, and Beijing is known to follow a no-holds-barred approach to achieving goals; as such, it would be prudent for the United States to introduce greater checks and balances in place before the need for them arises.

Writing for the online edition of The Wall Street Journal, Andrew Erickson suggests three ways in which the new Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy could be enhanced for greater security in the South China Sea:

• Penalize Undesirable/ Unlawful Actions

China has repeatedly been warned against attempts to monopolize the South China Sea region, and until recently the state did not show an inclination towards heeding the international community’s requests. Even though China has currently halted island-building in the South China Sea waters, experts believe that the United States should consider introducing formal sanctions and punitive measures should the People’s Republic move to upset peace and security in the region. It must be noted, though, that it is both in China’s and the US’ interest to maintain diplomatic relations and as such, it is not likely that Washington will feel the need to act against Beijing anytime soon.

• Introduce An Enhanced Asia-Pacific Strategy

The recently introduced policy document does not exhaustively explain the background in which it has been introduced, and is also somewhat limited in terms of the United States’ scope to act in the South China Sea region. The Pentagon should look into crafting a more advanced maritime strategy document that discusses these issues in detail. It will also prove useful for the United States if it formally announced the participation and support of all the executive branch parties involved in the formulation and adoption of the new policy.

• Warn China Against Using Non-traditional Militia

Chinese President Xi Jinping has directed the Chinese military to craft a greater number of maritime militia forces; it is understood that a part of these forces are intended for deployment in the South China Sea territories. If this is indeed allowed to happen it will augment China’s already all-too-powerful military presence in the region. It is of the essence that there is no hindrance to international freedom of movement in the South China Sea and no country should enjoy unprecedented military monopoly over the region. The United States might want to issue a note to China regarding the same.

It is also worth noting that the new security document understands freedom of navigation in the South China Sea as a standard in itself; in fact, one would argue that freedom of movement is a non-negotiable prerequisite for several other important pursuits and essentials such as regional access, economic growth, political stability, military capacity and industrial advancement. By limiting its policy potential, the document might just have played into reinforcing some of the very structural problems it hopes to address.