Challenges in South China Sea, sophisticated diplomacy needed

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Sophisticated diplomacy needed to tackle challenges in South China Sea

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III will seek the congressional approval of the proposed national budget for 2016 next week. In the budget proposal, the defense budget is $552 million, less than one 200th of China's military spending for 2015. The size of the Philippine defense budget may surprise many Chinese.

The defense spending of Vietnam is much higher than that of the Philippines. It reached $4 billion in 2014, but is still incomparable to China's. The GDP of Vietnam is less than $200 billion, much less than that of China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region which borders Vietnam. This will definitely constrain its overall scale of defense budget.

Though judging from the military spending of the Philippines and Vietnam, we can perhaps understand that the two countries won't pose a serious military threat to China in the South China Sea. But they are very likely to make a fuss and lean to external actors to intrude China's sovereignty and interests in the South China Sea.

The Philippines, facing a China with expanding maritime strength, feels anxious. But it is still greedy in its territorial claims. It holds a complex and sensitive mentality toward China.

Propaganda that China bullies small South China Sea claimants can spread easily, especially when Washington and Tokyo meddle backstage. China needs to do a lot of work to convince people of historical facts such as the origin of the nine-dashed line and that China holds sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. However, it is much easier to frame China as attempting to exert "hegemony" in the South China Sea.

China has to deal with the Philippines and Vietnam with enough patience and at the same time respond to distorted interpretations from the US and Japan about China's reef-building. The troubles are mostly caused by Manila and Hanoi, while strategic pressure mainly comes from the US.

The US and Japan have teamed up with the Philippines. China is not only facing several vessels and coast guard ships of the Philippines. Rather, China has been striving to figure out how to deal with the above issues and its own stakes in such a complicated scenario.

Obviously, China does not want to bear such reputations as "bullying small countries" or "seeking hegemony in the South China Sea." An impression of a peacefully rising China fits the country's global strategy. But if the Philippines and Vietnam, instigated by the US and Japan, cause a nuisance and step over China's red line, China will not remain restrained.

The Philippines and Vietnam are well aware of this. With China's increasing capabilities in the South China Sea, they will behave more cautiously.

The rivalry in the South China Sea is a highly technical diplomatic game and strategic contest. The public opinion should lend support, and Chinese decision-makers must be specialized diplomatic and strategic institutions. The Chinese public needs to know the real pattern of strength in the South China Sea and acknowledge that China has ample room to maneuver over the Philippines and Vietnam.

The strategy of the Philippines is to whine to the world about China's "bullying" so as to hinder China's global strategy. Hence it has formed an accord with Washington and Tokyo.

China has succeeded in its land reclamation projects on the Nansha Islands. This is an outcome of China's diplomatic specialization. It is reasonable and legitimate. The US and the Philippines can do nothing about it despite voicing objections.

The South China Sea should be an area where Chinese society can find confidence after experiencing long-time sufferings and setbacks. A big country not only owns its strength, but also has a broad mindset and wisdom to count its losses and gains.

Daniel Russel’s S.China Sea remarks absurd

US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel Tuesday criticized China's policy on the South China Sea in Washington. These comments may sound reasonable to nonprofessionals but are not even worth refuting by legal experts.

Russel claimed that China misunderstood US neutrality and stressed that Washington only maintains neutrality with regard to the competing claims in the area. But when it comes to "adhering to international law," the US will not be neutral and will "come down forcefully." The US backs the Philippines' lawsuit to the international maritime tribunal and said the arbitration will be binding for both China and the Philippines.

It is necessary for the US to elaborate what article of international law that China's land reclamation activities in the Nansha Islands have violated and what forceful coercion China's engineering ships have done to neighboring countries.

By claiming both China and the Philippines need to accept the decision of the arbitral tribunal, Russel has deliberately misguided public opinion. Despite joining the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, China submitted a declaration in 2006, stating that China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in Article 298 of the Convention, which includes territorial disputes. Thirty-six countries, including South Korea, have made similar statements.

It's perfectly legal for China not to accept the arbitral tribunal's decision; in fact, forcing China to accept or abide by the arbitration result is illegal. Russel claimed the South China Sea issue has caused serious conflict between China and the US. But it needs to be pointed out that the conflict is at China's door, which is 12 time zones away from Washington. The conflict is actually imposed by Washington on us.

There are numerous claimants to the Nansha Islands. It's impossible for China to give up its sovereign claim; however, it didn't attempt to militarily expel Manila and Hanoi from the islands they illegally occupy. The Philippines deliberately stranded an old navy ship in China's Ren'ai Reef in 1999. It initially pledged to salvage the ship, but later on rascally reneged on this by reinforcing the ship. China has exercised restraint over the years. But Washington openly supports Manila's occupation of Ren'ai Reef. Where is the justice?

Chinese people never actually bank on Washington's neutrality, which doesn't exist at all. The US's South China Sea strategy serves its geopolitical purpose. Through lending support to Manila and Hanoi, it can realize its rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. South China Sea claimants have maintained the peace despite conflicts. The future situation will depend on how Sino-US competition develops, especially what intentions the US has in the South China Sea. As long as Washington doesn't want the tension to escalate, there will be hope for peace.

Swift’s South China Sea flight can only fool Manila

During his visit to the Philippines Saturday, Scott Swift, newly appointed US commander of the Pacific Fleet, joined a surveillance mission on board a P-8A Poseidon plane to observe the aircraft's full range of capabilities in the South China Sea. The US Navy released photos of Swift taking a bird's eye view of the South China Sea, but did not mention if the aircraft had flown over disputed areas.

The Philippine side soon welcomed Swift's move, believing it was a gesture from its US ally to aid its claims to the disputed territories with China.

Swift must have felt that he was the overlord of the South China Sea, as he merely flew over the area but the flight got various interpretations from the Philippine side and regional observers. Washington is an external player that can only exert limited influence to strike a balance over the South China Sea issue. That the US could extend its authority by "inspecting" the South China Sea would only be the illusion of a small number of Americans and Filipinos.

We have noticed that the US Navy has kept much lower key than two months ago when it released details that its reconnaissance plane had approached the Chinese islands under construction. It is estimated that the US will not behave inappropriately in the South China Sea before the meeting of the US and Chinese heads of states in September. But in the long run, its competition with China in the area is unavoidable.

China is accustomed to the frequent petty actions of the US in the South China Sea and is getting itself ready for the troubles stirred up by the US there. China is also improving its abilities in coping with the issue as well.

Most observers hold that while the US wants to strengthen the allies' trust, it does not have the excuse and determination to square off with China. Hence the contradictory and chaotic messages it conveys. Most importantly, Washington does not admit the facts. China has exercised much restraint in the South China Sea and its land reclamation does not violate international law, leaving others no excuse to prevent the move. But the US puts on a posture of involvement while it can unlikely take any substantial action, putting itself in an awkward position.

Manila is even worse. How can it be possible that the Philippines' disputes with China are resolved by the US? Does Manila think that China would acknowledge its unreasonable territorial claims after Swift's flight or if the US sends more navy ships? It would be overly simplistic if Manila thinks this way.

Recently a fictional post circulating on Chinese social media reflects the mentality of the Chinese public that China will not start up conflicts with the Philippines. But if Manila oversteps the red line for any reason, Beijing will strike back regardless of Washington's attitude.

It is understandable that the US hopes to maintain its clout in the area and the Philippines wants to counter China by roping in the US. But they need to mind the boundaries. The Philippines needs to be cautious in the area, as China has been.

Sources: Global Times

The truth about the South China Sea disputes: Vietnam and Philippine hyping up tensions

Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (left) shakes hands with Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh (right) at the Vietnamese government's guesthouse in Hanoi on Saturday. Photo: AFP

Hanoi told to halt Xisha hype

No breakthrough was made during the Wednesday meeting of Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi and Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh, but experts hope tension between the nations will at least ease up. 

At Vietnam's invitation, Yang co-hosted the chairmen's meeting of the China-Vietnam Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation in Hanoi, an inter-governmental mechanism set up for coordinating bilateral relations.

He also met with Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and Communist Party of Vietnam General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong later on Wednesday.

"The difficulties China and Vietnam face at the moment are because Vietnam has continually illegally harassed Chinese drilling operations in the waters near the Xisha Islands for more than a month," Yang said during the meeting with Minh.

 FM releases photos of Vietnam ship hitting Chinese patrol vessel

Yang stressed that the Xisha Islands are inherent territory of China and there are no disputes in this area. "The most urgent thing is for Vietnam to stop its interference and harassment, stop hyping up the issue and stop whipping up disagreement to create new disputes, and properly deal with the aftermath of the recent serious incidents of violence," Yang said.

No progress was made during the discussion, as the two sides insisted on their opposing positions, an anonymous Vietnamese official familiar with the talks was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.

Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Hainan Province, told the Global Times that it is predictable that Vietnam would insist on its stance as it claimed sovereignty over the Xisha Islands in a law passed in 2012.

"This one-time meeting alone can't solve all the problems the two countries face. However, the fact that these annual meetings have continued in spite of the South China Sea tension is already a good sign. It proves that both sides have a friendly intention to solve the dispute," said Gu Xiaosong, an expert on Southeast Asian studies at the Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences.

These are the highest-level talks between China and Vietnam after relations began to sour over the vessel ramming around the Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig in May.

Vietnamese protests against the oil rig worsened into violent riots against Chinese nationals and businesses in southern and central Vietnam, which led to the deaths of four Chinese nationals. China has since announced the suspension of some bilateral exchange plans.

China's foreign ministry released substantial evidence earlier this month, including an official note from Vietnam's then-premier Pham Van Dong in 1958, to prove that Vietnam acknowledged China's sovereignty over the Xisha Islands and the Nansha Islands at the time. Vietnam later reneged on its words.

Vietnamese Prime Minister Dung said last month that Vietnam was considering legal action against China over the disputed waters.

"Vietnam needs to assess the impact on itself if they sue China, as the [previous] evidence will prove China's claim. Vietnam stands more to lose in a bitter bilateral relationship with China. It should remain calm and exercise restraint to solve the disputes via negotiations," Wu noted.  - Global Times

Vietnam says it has evidence to prove its claim in South China Sea but is ignoring own historical documents that vindicate China's position

Vietnam has been using China-Vietnam clashes in the South China Sea, and distorting facts, fanning passions and playing up the "China threat" theory, to vilify China. Ignoring the overall development of Beijing-Hanoi relationship, Vietnam is pretending to be a "victim" in the South China Sea dispute, saying it is prepared to seek international arbitration on the issue.

Vietnamese leaders have said that they have enough historical evidence to justify Vietnam's sovereignty over "Huangsha" and "Changsha" islands, claiming that Vietnam has been the "master" of the two islands since the 17th century. It seems like they have lifted their remarks straight out of a white paper "Truth of China-Vietnam Relationship over 30 Years", issued by the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry in 1979 when bilateral ties were not normal. Worse, almost all the arguments in that 1979 document were copied from a "white paper" issued by the Saigon-based puppet South Vietnam regime (or the Republic of Vietnam) in February 1974.

Now the Vietnamese leaders, using the so-called historical documents, are trying to claim that Vietnam's "Huangsha" and "Changsha" islands are actually China's Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands. The fact is that, the islands recorded in Vietnamese documents refer to some other islands surrounding Vietnam instead of the Xisha and Nansha islands.

To encroach on China's territory in the 1970s, the South Vietnam regime distorted historical facts, which were adopted by later Vietnamese leaders for political purposes. This has complicated the issue and caused serious damage to Sino-Vietnamese ties.

A look at the evidence presented in China's diplomatic documents in the late 1970s and early 1980s will reveal the truth. In fact, even some Vietnamese scholars have said that the documents cited by Vietnam to claim sovereignty over the Xisha and Nansha islands are not genuine historical records but edited versions of originals, confirming China's sovereignty over the islands.

Vietnamese leaders said China forcibly occupied the entire "Huangsha Islands" in 1974, which were then controlled by the Saigon regime. The Saigon regime had kicked up a row over the naval battle that broke out in 1974 in the waters around China's Xisha Islands and sought military support from its ally, the United States, and requested the UN Security Council's intervention. But neither the US nor the UN Security Council acceded to the Saigon regime's request. This means the international community, including the US, has never believed in Vietnam's complaints or claims.

On Sept 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh announced the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi. In January 1950, the People's Republic of China became the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Ho Chi Minh-led Vietnam. For China and a vast majority of the other countries, the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (later the Socialist Republic of Vietnam), was (and has been) the only legitimate government of Vietnam, and the government of South Vietnam, a puppet regime installed by French colonialists and American imperialists.

So now, about 39 years after defeating the Americans, why does the Socialist Republic of Vietnam want to use the Saigon regime's claim to create trouble in the South China Sea? Aren't the current Vietnamese leaders betraying Ho Chi Minh and other freedom fighters, profaning the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of their compatriots who laid down their lives to resist foreign aggressors, and negating the valued support of their allies in the battle against colonialism by citing the comprador Saigon regime's claim?

The Vietnamese government must not violate the principle of estoppel in the Xisha and Nansha islands' sovereignty issue. Vietnamese leaders claim that no country recognizes that the Xisha and Nansha islands belong to China. This is a brazen lie, because the Democratic Republic of Vietnam topped the list of countries that accepted China's sovereignty over the islands.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's position was unequivocal in the 1950s and 1960s. The position remained unchanged even after the death of Ho Chi Minh and the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Documents with the Chinese Foreign Ministry from the 1970s and 1980s show the position of the Ho Chi Minh-led Vietnamese Communist Party on the Xisha and Nansha islands. The most important of these documents is a note given by former Vietnamese premier Pham Van Dong to Zhou Enlai and the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1965.

On Sept 4, 1958, the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China said that the breadth of the territorial sea of the country shall be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the PRC, including all the islands in the South China Sea. On Sept 14, 1958, Pham Van Dong solemnly stated in his note to Zhou Enlai that Vietnam recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the PRC on the country's territorial sea. On Sept 22, 1958, the diplomatic note was publicly published in Nhan Dan, the official newspaper of the Vietnamese Communist Party.

On May 9, 1965, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam issued a statement on the US' definition on the "theater of war" in Vietnam. The statement said that by defining the whole of Vietnam and the waters up to 100 nautical miles off its coast as well as part of the territorial sea of China's Xisha Islands as the operational area of the US armed forces, Lyndon Johnson, then US president, has directly threatened the security of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and its neighbors.

In recent years, however, some Vietnamese government officials and "scholars" have tried to "reinterpret" the two government documents, only to end up making fools of themselves. And after their attempts failed, the Vietnamese government started pretending as if the two documents never existed.

Vietnam has said that it is fully prepared with historical and legal evidence to prove its claim in the South China Sea, and it is waiting for the appropriate time to take China to the international court of justice. If that is so, then Vietnam should not forget to attach Pham Van Dong's note and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's statement, as well as the maps and textbooks published by Vietnam before 1975, with its complaint.

By Ling Dequan (China Daily), a researcher with the Research Center of World Issues, affiliated to Xinhua News Agency

Related:  China blasts comments on S China Sea controversy

Chinese envoy rebuts Vietnamese, Philippine accusations over South China Sea

Wang Min (L Front), China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, addresses the meeting of state parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) at the UN headquarters in New York June 13, 2014. Wang Min on Friday forcefully refuted accusations made by Vietnam and the Philippines against China over the South China Sea situation, holding the two countries responsible for any disputes. He slammed Vietnam and the Philippines for infringing upon Chinese territories. (Xinhua/Niu Xiaolei)

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese envoy on Friday forcefully refuted accusations made by Vietnam and the Philippines against China over the South China Sea situation, holding the two countries responsible for any disputes.

At the meeting of state parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) held here, Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, slammed Vietname and the Philippines for infringing upon Chinese territory.

Wang said that on May 2, a Chinese company's HYSY 981 drilling rig started its drilling operation inside the contiguous zone of China's Xisha Islands for oil and gas exploration. Vietnam sent a large number of vessels, including armed ones, to the site, illegally and forcefully disrupting the Chinese operation for over 1,400 times so far.

"What Vietnam did seriously infringed upon China's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction, grossly violated relevant international laws, including the UNCLOS, undermined the freedom and safety of navigation in the related waters, and damaged regional peace and stability," said Wang, who also heads the Chinese delegation to the meeting.

In mid-May, with the connivance of the Vietnamese government, thousands of Vietnamese outlaws committed sabotage against foreign companies, including Chinese ones, in Vietnam, brutally killing four Chinese nationals, injuring over 300 others and causing heavy property losses, Wang added.

"Till now, Vietnam still has not responded to our legitimate demand," he noted.

The envoy pointed out that lies can never eclipse truth, nor can publicity stunts provide a legal cloak for illegal actions.

"What Vietnam needs to do now is to respect China's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction, immediately stop all forms of disruptions of the Chinese operation and withdraw all vessels and personnel from the site, so as to ease the tension and restore tranquility on the sea as early as possible," Wang said.

He reiterated that Xisha Islands are an inherent part of China's territory, and are under effective jurisdiction of the Chinese government.

"There's no dispute about them," he said, pointing to the fact that all the successive Vietnamese governments prior to 1974 had formally acknowledged Xisha islands as part of China's territory since ancient times.

"Now the Vietnamese government is going back on its word and making territorial claims over China's Xisha Islands," Wang said, noting that Vietnam is reneging on its own promises, saying one thing today and denying it tomorrow.

"Our ancestors told us, trustworthiness is of paramount importance in state-to-state relations," he quoted.

"We would like to ask: how could Vietnam be trusted by the international community and how could Vietnam's international commitments be taken seriously in the future?" Wang said, referring to Vietnam's action as a violation of estoppel, a basic principle in the international law.

With regard to all the false accusations made by the Philippines against China, Wang pointed out the root cause of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is the Philippines' illegal occupation of some islands and reefs belonging to China's Nansha islands.

"The Philippines attempts to legalize its infringements and provocations by dragging China into arbitral proceedings," he said. "The Philippines is also trying to win international sympathy and support through deception. This is what the problem is in essence."

The ambassador noted that pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS, the Chinese government made a declaration in 2006, excluding disputes over maritime delimitation and territorial sovereignty from compulsory dispute settlement procedures.

"As a sovereign state and a state party to UNCLOS, China has the right under international law to do this. China does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines," Wang said, stressing that China's position based on the provisions of the international law will not change.

"China appreciates the efforts made by the majority of ASEAN countries to preserve regional peace and stability," he said. "We will continue working with ASEAN countries to strictly act on the DOC (the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea), promote practical cooperation, enhance mutual trust and jointly uphold peace and stability in the South China Sea."

Source: Xinhuanet

Related:

The Operation of the HYSY 981 Drilling Rig: Vietnam's Provocation and China's Position

Video: History of Chinese sovereignty over the Xisha Islands

HYSY 981 Drilling Rig: Vietnam's Provocation and China's Position

BEIJING, June 8 (Xinhua) -- China's Foreign Ministry released an article about the HYSY 981 drilling rig in the Xisha Islands on its website on Sunday. The full text is as follows:  Full story

China sends note to UN chief to clarify Xisha situation

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese envoy on Monday sent a note to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting documents making clear Vietnam's provocation and China's stance regarding the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea.

In the note, Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, also asked Ban to circulate the documents, as UN General Assembly documents, among all UN member states.  Full story

• Giving shape to Asia's new order

America wants to preserve the status quo in which its leading position remains the keystone of the regional order, and the Chinese acceptance of US leadership is the basis of US-China relationship.

• Region needs new security set-up

We should promote overall security in the Asia-Pacific, work tirelessly to expand the scope of security cooperation, enrich its concept, deepen its level and establish a new security cooperation mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region.

Related posts:

• China turns to UN to set record straight in row with Vietnam over oil rig

• China rejects arbitration tribunal South China Sea ruling; history backs China sea disputes.

Pitching for the Asean 10

Asean countries are still developing because there is still much to do, and much to learn about how to do it.

IF Asean is sometimes accused of being a talking shop, it also vividly demonstrates the value and virtues of some talking shops.

Officials’ meetings at various levels are legion, growing in number and scope over half a century until they average a few a day for every day of the year.

Between these are the summits, being more prominent in comprising heads of governments. Besides the content of the proceedings, the frequency of the summits themselves may indicate the state of the South-East Asian region.

When leaders from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand met in Bangkok in 1967 to found Asean, that was somehow not considered a summit. So the “first” summit came only in 1976 in Bali, with the “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South-East Asia” and the “Declaration of Asean Concord.”

The second summit came the following year in Kuala Lumpur, coinciding with an Asean-Japan dialogue. Although this was only one year after the first, it was a whole decade after Asean’s founding and would be another full decade before the next.

The third summit (Manila, 1987) decided to hold summits every five years. By the seventh (Bandar Seri Begawan) it would be every year, then after skipping 2006 the Philippines hosted the 12th in Cebu amid local protests.

The 14th summit slated for 2008 in Thailand was postponed to early 2009 over domestic disturbances, then put off for another two months in the broken Pattaya gathering. From then on, summits would be biannual affairs.

Between and beyond the summits, whether or not local scandals and protests add to the news value of Asean gatherings, the original five member nations seem to attract more attention if not also more interest. This is anomalous since Asean membership confers equal status on all members regardless of size, age, clout or political system.

The newer members can actually be quite pivotal in their own way, as Vietnam and then Cambodia had been, and as Myanmar may be now. And several of the older members need not be particularly significant to the Asean 10 as a whole, much less beyond.

With such issues in mind, Malaysia’s Foreign Policy Studies Group last week held another roundtable conference in Kuala Lumpur on how relations between Malaysia and the CLM countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar) can contribute to Asean consolidation.

An earlier roundtable comprised delegates from Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam in assessing how their countries’ relations with Malaysia could progress in the same vein. Vietnam, as the largest and most developed of Asean’s newer CLMV members, had also introduced reforms earliest to qualify to join the earlier dialogue with some of the original members.

Other CLMV countries have progressed on other fronts on their own. It is now 20 years since Cambodia, for example, reached agreement with Malaysia on visa-free travel.

Laos is another country that Malaysia has assisted, with the establishment of bilateral relations (in 1966) even before Asean was founded. Since then, relations have flourished, particularly after Malaysia worked to welcome Vientiane into Asean.

Myanmar today is still undergoing a transition, and therefore also very much a focus of world media attention. Its people now have a greater sense of nationhood following a raft of reforms, mindful of the national interest from economic priorities to the prerogative of rejecting foreign military bases on its soil.

A Malaysian delegate said that the US, following news reports last Sunday, was now looking for a suitable site for a new “missile shield” system in the region. The US and China were the two proverbial “elephants in the room”, and the geopolitical rivalry between them very much an issue for all delegates.

No individual, organisation or country at the roundtable, whether officially or unofficially, was left undisturbed by major power rivalry contaminating the Asean region. This was the more so when preparations abroad tended to centre around a military build-up, with the US “pivot to Asia” involving stationing 60% of its military assets in the Asia-Pacific.

According to one recent analysis, at current and anticipated rates China’s economy could surpass the US’ as early as 2016, and US overall decline could become evident by 2020. Ironically, as with its former Soviet adversary before it, the decline would be underscored by excessive military expenditure and a warlike mindset.

Given these scenarios, it is important to be reminded of some pertinent underlying issues. These may be framed by some telling questions that must be asked, for which answers are vitally needed.

First, are the CLM countries necessarily more dependent on a regional superpower-as-benefactor like China economically, compared to Asean’s older and more developed members. Not so, especially when considering that the latter, with larger economies, have more at stake in dealing with a rising China.

Second, is China even likely to consider challenging US dominance in the region? Despite occasionally dire pronouncements by some there is no evidence of that, indeed quite the reverse: beyond assertions of its old maritime claims, Beijing’s relations with all countries in the region have been progressing and progressive.

US military dominance in the Asia-Pacific is often credited with keeping the regional peace, particularly in the high seas. Is this assumption merited if piracy and terrorism are not included in the calculus, since there may not be any other military force out to wreak havoc in the region post-1945?

Fourth, how much value is there still in the assumption that the US military posture is and will remain the status quo entity in the region? The status quo is helping China’s economy grow, with secure shipping and harmonious development, while the US economy is continually taxed by its large and growing military presence.

Fifth, and by extension, how much pulling power is there today in US efforts at soliciting allies? The problem with enlisting in an alliance for other countries is that to be identified as an ally of a major power is also to identify as an ally against another major power.

Dividing the region in Cold War fashion does not help anyone, and never did. To enlist with a (relatively) declining superpower creates further problems of its own for such allies.

Sixth, can China’s reported flexing of its muscles in the South China Sea and the East China Sea in any way be a show of strength? Since it only gives Beijing a negative image just as it needs to look good, without any gain in return, it is instead a point of weakness.

Seventh, can US efforts to contain China ever work? There is no shortage of instances that verify containment, a situation confirmed by official denials.

So, eighth, why try to contain China at all when in the process the US only loses goodwill before losing face? Perhaps old habits die hard, but more likely the military-industrial complex dies harder.

Smaller countries in Asean and elsewhere have much to learn from the major powers, notably the US and China. Sadly, the lessons are just as much what not to do as they are about what to do.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES By BUNN NAGARA sunday@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

 Events in East Asia, stakes and realities

US threat: superpower gun barrels pivot east 

Japan aids armed forces of China's neighbors 

Japan, the deputy sheriff in Asia? 
The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free?