COMMENTARY
Is South China Sea Freedom of Navigation issue
prelude to another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?
By George Koo
July 14, 2016
http://atimes.com/2016/07/is-south-china-sea-fon-issue-prelude-to-another-gulf-of-tonkin-resolution/
W
hen the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) in Hague
announced its findings on the
dispute in South China Sea in favor of the
Philippines over China, the most jubilant party
was the United States.
State
Department
spokesperson
immediately announced that the ruling is legal
and binding on all parties henceforth and forever
more. Strange because when a PCA ruling did not
suit Washington in the past, it was simply
ignored.
dispute get to agree on the make-up of the panel
that will hear the dispute.
Since China did not agree to participate,
China obviously did not have a say in the
selection of the arbitrators.
The Hague tribunal ruling says that all of
the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands are
legally ‘rocks’ that do not generate an exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf.
Japanese influence?
China’s immediate response was
rejection of the ruling as illegal and furthermore
meaningless. Meaningless, because in any
arbitration, both parties must agree to submit to
arbitration, and China did not agree to participate.
Instead, Shunji Yanai as head of the
tribunal appointed the panel of 5 arbitrators to
hear and rule on this dispute. Yanai was formerly
Japan’s ambassador to Washington, a good friend
of Japan’s Prime Minister Abe and well known
for his extreme right wing views—not exactly a
disinterested party.
Illegal, because both countries are
signatories of the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS), and as signatories, the
legally binding agreement is that the parties
would negotiate on any matters of dispute.
Some have argued that China could see
that they would not receive a fair hearing under
the circumstances and that was one of the reasons
for declining to participate.
The US has never ratified UNCLOS, so
they were uninvited gatecrashers to the dispute.
This does not mean Uncle Sam does not
have any skin in the game. The US has been
deliberately raising the tension in South China
Sea and putting former Philippine president
Aquino up to unilaterally submitting the issue to
PCA for arbitration.
PCA is not a court of international law
and has no permanent, sitting judges. Instead, it
has a bank of arbitrators and the parties in the
The PCA panel of arbitrators not only
ruled in total favor of Philippines’ position but
also in one fell swoop ruled that Itu Aba is not an
island but a mere atoll.
Taipei’s ROC government had taken
control of Itu Aba (only it’s known as Taiping
Dao) since the handover at the end of WWII from
Japanese troops stationed there. Taiping Island
has fresh water and can and has sustained human
life even before the war. Taiwan has even built a
landing strip and a dock there. It’s everything an
island should be and not merely a piece of rock
above high tide.
The out of the blue ruling from Hague
when Taipei didn’t even know that they were a
party in the dispute was a rude slap in the face to
Tsai Ing-wen’s government and any pretension of
sovereignty.
The real cause of this controversy is the
American scheme to cast China as the aggressor
so that its flotilla of warships can parade around
the South China Seas in name of exercising and
assuring freedom of navigation.
Everyone knows that the US abetted by
Japan was behind this move to involve the
international arbitration body. The aim was to
establish a platform for all the countries around
the South China Sea to rally against China’s
claims.
It is as bald faced as pointing to the wake
left by two American carrier groups and accusing
China of roiling the waters with its island
construction — clearly a case of the bully
accusing the other of being the provocateur.
Taiwan as collateral damage
Taiwan became collateral damage in the
great powers struggle and Taiwan government is
still recovering from the shock of being betrayed
by heretofore their two “best friends” that
presumably could be counted on to safeguard
Taiwan’s interest.
Ironically, the PCA ruling has put
Taiwan solidly on the same side of the argument
as its mainland neighbor. Both sides of the
Taiwan straits based their claims in the South
China Sea on the same historic evidence and
same U-shaped dotted lines. Now they are on the
same side in defending their common claims and
both pledged to ignore the tribunal ruling.
Washington asserts the PRC activity in
land reclamation and putting airstrips in the
islands in China’s possession poses a threat to
Freedom of Navigation (FON).
Beijing’s response has been that Vietnam
and the Philippines had made similar
improvements on the islands they occupy, long
before China had done so and on many more
locations on the South China Sea. Why didn’t the
US express similar concerns before?
Beijing further pointed out that there has
not been any incidence of obstruction of
navigation before or since China began their
occupation of the islands. China has even erected
strategically located lighthouses on behalf of
maritime safety.
Casting China as aggressor
American public may remember the
infamous Gulf of Tonkin resolution that gave
President Lyndon Johnson the excuse to go to war
in Vietnam.
The Congressional resolution was based
on the allegation of acts of aggression by North
Vietnam gunboats that turned out to be
fabricated.
So it shall be as American warships
sailed in South China Sea (that when desired by
the warmongering factions in Washington), a
pretext can be created to justify another Gulf of
Tonkin resolution. Hillary Clinton was the
mastermind of this strategy while she was the
Secretary of State—it is doubtful that Donald
Trump could be as devious.
According to latest issue of China Daily
more than 70 countries have publicly expressed
agreement with China that South China Sea
disputes should be resolved by negotiation
between the parties of the dispute and not via onesided arbitration. Only four countries support the
Philippines and deem the ruling legal.
We have not seen a similar poll of
countries in Asia on whether they would feel
more secure under the umbrella of the American
armada. But as with Taiwan’s recent experience,
many must surely be wary of American perfidy.
Not everybody believes might is right
and confrontation is the best approach to
international relations. The most recent example
that comes to mind is Rodrigo Duterte, the newly
elected president of the Philippines.
He does not see the favorable tribunal
ruling as the end of the story, but sees the win as
a means of negotiating with China for long-term
economic
collaboration.
Infrastructure
improvements with China’s help such as in ports
and harbors and in high-speed rail would be far
more beneficial than the occasional sighting of
American battleships.
###
Dr. George Koo recently retired from a global
advisory services firm where he advised clients on their China
strategies and business operations. Educated at MIT,
Stevens Institute and Santa Clara University, he is the
founder and former managing director of International
Strategic Alliances. He is a member of the Committee of
100, and a director of New America Media.
The opinions expressed in this column are the
author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia
Times.
Copyright 2016 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly
registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.