South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[confusion]

The Lowy Institute believes that back channel talks have already begun:

The Philippines offers Beijing talks on China Sea dispute
The Australian
12:00AM July 7, 2016

Beijing and Manila are moving closer to a detente in their South China Sea dispute with China damping down calls by nationalist elements to prepare for conflict and The Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte offering talks if next week’s UN tribunal decision goes his way.

The UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration will hand down a decision next Tuesday on Manila’s challenge to China’s claim on a series of islands, atolls and the waters around them within The Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.

Manila lodged the claim in 2013 after Beijing seized control of Scarborough Shoal, but China has consistently said it does not recognise the tribunal’s authority or any decision it makes.

Mr Duterte, who was sworn into office last week, said he was optimistic the decision would favour The Philippines, adding: “If it’s favourable to us, let’s talk.

“We are not prepared to go to war — war is a dirty word.”

Mr Duterte’s comments came as China’s Global Times urged Beijing to speed up development of its military deterrence against US interference in the dispute and prepare for war.

“Washington has deployed two carrier battle groups around the South China Sea, and it wants to send a signal by flexing its muscles: as the biggest powerhouse in the region, it awaits China’s obedience,” the newspaper editorialised. “China should be able to let the US pay a cost it cannot stand if it intervenes in the South China Sea dispute by force.”

China’s Foreign Ministry has played down those remarks, however, insisting Beijing is committed to peace. “China will work with ASEAN countries to safeguard the peace and stability of the South China Sea,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said. “As for the relevant dispute, China does not accept any decision imposed by a third party as a means of resolution, nor any solution plan that is forced upon China.”

Mr Duterte has said consistently he wants friendly relations with China, a marked departure from predecessor Benigno Aquino, who took Manila’s case to the tribunal and, amid rising tensions with China, earlier this year allowed US forces to return.

Mr Duterte met Beijing’s envoy last month and the two discussed a possible Chinese-built rail link from Manila to Clark — a provocative offer given the recent return of US troops and military hardware to the air and navy base there. China in turn has said it would negotiate with The Philippines if Manila ignored the arbitration tribunal’s ruling.

Euan Graham, from the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program, said it would be “surprising” if China and The Philippines were not already pursuing back-channel talks. “The Philippines ultimately brought this case, so it’s not owned by the international community and if (Duterte) chooses to keep (the UN ruling) in his back pocket as negotiating leverage it would be very difficult for the US or anyone else to do anything about that,’’ he said.

Manila’s case challenges China’s claim to most of the South China Sea, overlapping rival claims by The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, which all are anxiously awaiting next week’s decision.

International concern about China’s aggressive claim runs high because of the trade routes crossing the sea — an estimated third of the world’s shipping passes through those waters.

The Hague tribunal will rule on three points, including whether China is correct in claiming that certain atolls and reefs may be categorised as islands, and thereby entitled to their own 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone and natural resources rights.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea categorises an island as a land mass permanently above water that can sustain human life. China has been reclaiming land, including 3.9 million square metres on the Spratly Islands’ Subi Reef which was once completely submerged at high tide, though the law does not recognise land reclamation.

Manila has also sought clarification of its territorial rights in the sea and whether China has infringed those rights through construction and fishing.

 

[confusion]

Some harsh words from Duterte for the US; also points out that the US invasion of Iraq was in violation of international law:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JULY 8, 2016, 10:54 A.M. E.D.T.

MANILA, Philippines — The new Philippine president on Friday blamed U.S. intervention for the bloody conflicts in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries in his latest criticism of Manila's closest security ally.

President Rodrigo Duterte suggested in a speech that intrusive policy was to blame for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, saying, "It is not that the Middle East is exporting terrorism to America, America imported terrorism."

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was backed by Britain, led to Saddam Hussein's downfall but caused the oil-rich nation to descend into bloody factional strife, Duterte said, adding that America's action had no legal basis.

"They forced their way to Iraq ... look at Iraq now, look what happened to Libya, look what happened to Syria," he said. "People are being annihilated there including children."

"They destroyed the Middle East," Duterte told the Muslim community in southern Davao city in a ceremony marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

The former Davao mayor has said he would be a leftist president who would chart a foreign policy not dependent on the United States.

He has pointed out the benefits of nurturing friendly relations with Beijing, including a Chinese offer of financing railway projects in the Philippines. The country has had frosty ties with China under Duterte's predecessor, Benigno Aquino III, who bolstered security ties with the U.S. to deter China's aggressive actions in disputed South China Sea territories.

Duterte has given allies of communist rebels at least two key posts in his Cabinet as part of an effort to forge a peace deal with the Maoist insurgents, who have waged a Marxist insurgency for decades and are labeled terrorists by Washington.

Duterte's speech Friday centered on his plan to open peace talks with two large Muslim rebel groups in southern Mindanao region, homeland of minority Muslims in the largely Roman Catholic nation.

Duterte's plan includes shifting the country to a federal system that would give more autonomy and resources to regions like Mindanao, where Davao city is located. He called on Muslims to back his efforts.

"As a nation, we must sit down," he said. "Why will we kill each other?"

In the case of Abu Sayyaf militants, Duterte said he would not lump them with criminals, saying "these were the guys who were driven to desperation." He did not say how he would try to deal with the extremists although he has warned them in recent weeks to stop a wave of kidnappings for ransom or face "a reckoning one of these days."

Washington and Manila list the Abu Sayaf as a terrorist organization for bombings, ransom kidnappings and beheadings.

Despite Duterte's critical remarks, there has been no indication that he would move to change the country's robust defense ties with the United States.

The treaty allies hold largescale combat exercises each year and signed a 2014 defense pact that will allow the U.S. military to temporarily base troops and build and operate facilities in Philippine military camps, a move that was viewed with concern by Beijing.

 

[Brumby]

The Lowy Institute believes that back channel talks have already begun:

The problem is not that both nations were not prepared to negotiate. They were negotiating for years before the Philippines decided to go for compulsory arbitration. The problem is that China insist on capitulation as a precondition.

To the Editor:

Re “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

” (letter, June 1):

The Philippine Embassy is compelled to reply to the Chinese Embassy’s letter attempting to justify China’s actions.

China’s unilateral actions in the past years in the disputed areas of the South China Sea have raised the level of tensions and uncertainty to its current state. Against a chorus of calls for restraint, China has prevented coastal states from exercising their legitimate rights under the Law of the Sea Convention, carried out environmentally destructive island building, embarked on militarization of the disputed areas in the guise of providing “public goods,” and threatened freedom of navigation and overflight and unimpeded trade.

The Philippines turned to arbitration as a last resort after our numerous efforts at direct talks were met with the impossible precondition of accepting China’s “indisputable sovereignty” — a claim of sovereign rights and jurisdiction and historic rights — over the entire South China Sea.

Despite its nonappearance at the hearings at The Hague, China is and remains a party to the arbitration and is bound under international law by any award rendered by the tribunal. China’s nonparticipation in the proceedings does not render the tribunal’s proceedings invalid.

DARELL ANN R. ARTATES

Public Diplomacy Officer

Embassy of the Philippines

Washington

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blackstone]

The Lowy Institute believes that back channel talks have already begun:

That's good if it serves to improve China-Philippines bilateral relations, but it does nothing to repair the major damage caused by arbitration committee's overreach, even if the group's decision favors Beijing, because China managed to rally about 60 countries to oppose PCA power grab, which can potentially lead to parallel and maybe even competing international laws and institutions.

 

[Brumby]

That's good if it serves to improve China-Philippines bilateral relations, but it does nothing to repair the major damage caused by arbitration committee's overreach, even if the group's decision favors Beijing, because China managed to rally about 60 countries to oppose PCA power grab, which can potentially lead to parallel and maybe even competing international laws and institutions.

Setting aside whether these "60" countries support is real, relevant or imaginary, the point about a competing set of systems is inevitable in my view. China has already expressed that it doesn't intend to be bound by established rules and has projected its intention to lead. That by simple meaning of the word means a new set of systems and institution. So far I am only seeing ambiguity in its actions and plenty of angry statements. That is hardly leadership.

 

[Blackstone]

Setting aside whether these "60" countries support is real, relevant or imaginary, the point about a competing set of systems is inevitable in my view. China has already expressed that it doesn't intend to be bound by established rules and has projected its intention to lead. That by simple meaning of the word means a new set of systems and institution. So far I am only seeing ambiguity in its actions and plenty of angry statements. That is hardly leadership.

What "established rules" do you mean? What legitimacy do they have? How could the so-called established rules be legitimate when some nations are held fast to them by other nations that break them at whim? Institutional impartiality and legitimacy are the foundations of global governance, without which the entire structure doesn't work. Try as some do, but these aren't issues proponents of current world order can paper over. Not anymore anyway.

The PCA isn't a court of law, so China's rejection of a few bureaucrats granting themselves final authority on legal standings is just and fair; it may ultimately contribute to better global governance by clarifying limits of procedural powers of international bureaucratic agencies. IMHO, the West is infuriated by China, not because it raises serious and legitimate concerns of shortcomings in the PCA, but because it now has the power to organize its own "coalition of the willing" and make it stick. That's the real reason Western Capitals are apoplectic.

 

[Equation]

Setting aside whether these "60" countries support is real, relevant or imaginary, the point about a competing set of systems is inevitable in my view. China has already expressed that it doesn't intend to be bound by established rules and has projected its intention to lead. That by simple meaning of the word means a new set of systems and institution. So far I am only seeing ambiguity in its actions and plenty of angry statements. That is hardly leadership.

Neither is the US FON ops is a leadership for peace over the SCS, but rather angry actions using military might as a message to intimidate to appease their few weak Asian allies elitists. Meanwhile China has 60 countries following her lead, how many does the Philippine has?

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Meanwhile China has 60 countries following her lead

Could you actually name those 60 nations PRC claims?
According to Wall Streets Journal there are no more then 8 nations.

 

[Brumby]

Neither is the US FON ops is a leadership for peace over the SCS, but rather angry actions using military might as a message to intimidate to appease their few weak Asian allies elitists. Meanwhile China has 60 countries following her lead, how many does the Philippine has?

FON is just freedom to navigate the seas, a right established by customary international law and UNCLOS. The US leadership is in the FONOP program by challenging excessive maritime claims outside the UNCLOS provisions. The source of any tension is attributed to countries operating outside established rules. If countries operate within the rules then there is no source for tension. A simple cause and effect principle which is blinded by pure ideology that even defies basic logic.

 

[SteelBird]

Could you actually name those 60 nations PRC claims?
According to Wall Streets Journal there are no more then 8 nations.

Cambodia is one of those