South China Sea disputes must be resolved through arbitration that seeks mutual benefit
Parag Khanna says China’s disputes with other powers over the South China Sea – namely the Philippines and Vietnam – have to be resolved rather than allowed to fester. Thankfully, resolutions can still be reached allowing all sides access to the waterways, as well as the resources that can be found there
Throughout Asian history, great civilisations have expanded and contracted across vast terrestrial and maritime spaces with only natural, rather than legal, borders separating them.
Amid the current military escalations and adversarial legalism clouding the maritime domain, how can the South China Sea disputeS be settled using modern tools of statecraft while reviving the region’s ancient spirit of mutuality?
Watch: China redeploys missile systems on South China Sea island
Regional governments have assembled and issued statements calling for cooperation towards peace and prosperity and avoiding confrontation by shelving sovereignty disputes. But sovereignty disputes are not solved by being put off. They are settled through creative arbitration that finds a lasting solution agreeable and even beneficial to all parties.
While these exercises signal the importance of openness and non-exclusivity of the waters, they raise the risk of inadvertent conflict in what should be a purely commercial domain.
Watch: US Navy continues South China Sea patrols despite Beijing’s protests
Overall, while all parties pledge pragmatism over intransigence, the collective outcome has been that each party is locked into its own approach, leaving little scope for consensus.
There is promise, however, in calls to share (with equal participation) rather than monopolise the rich hydrocarbon, fishery and seabed resources of the South China Sea. For China, this represents conceding that the waters cannot be exclusively controlled.
At the same time, what China might gain in return is recognition of its claims that pertain to the 12 largest Spratly Islands, giving it the requisite 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone towards the open sea while observing the equidistance line towards nearby coasts of other claimant states such as the Philippines.
By this logic, calls for joint development have been premature. Many have offered joint zonal development as an alternative to settling sovereignty, but boundary agreements are rarely perceived as fair by both parties.
A new arbitration process, equal parts political and legal, could bring about the necessary mediation, facilitation and binding resolution mechanism needed to move from militarised dispute to boundary settlement to joint development. A panel of commissioners comprised of delegates from the six claimant states plus a number of independent members would be given a time-bound mandate to produce a comprehensive solution.
A sequence such as this would bode well for pursuing other joint priorities such as fisheries conservation and environmental protection, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, and counter-piracy patrols.
If East Asia’s growing economies and vibrant societies can demonstrate the diplomatic maturity to accept the realities of the present, they have the potential to resurrect a golden age of inter-civilisational harmony.
Dr Parag Khanna is managing partner of FutureMap, a strategic advisory firm, and author of the forthcoming The Future is Asian: Commerce, Conflict & Culture in the 21st Century