US, China and Philippines

S P SETH

The Philippines President, Rodrigo Duterte’s, recent China visit created international headlines, as he seemed to upbend his country’s long time relationship with the United States. Duterte was angry at the US criticism of his no-holds-barred policy of eliminating druggies, both users and pushers, and sought to pre-emptively warn off Obama against raising the issue on the sidelines of a regional conference both were attending. Duterte felt that Obama would have no right to lecture the president of a sovereign country like the Philippines. Therefore, there were signs that the new political order in the Philippines was going to be different, indeed radically different, when it came to the country’s relationship with the United States. And this would be reflected in refashioning Manila’s relationship with China.

And if Duterte’s rhetoric during his China visit were truly reflected in the Philippines’ relationship with both China and the United States, by way of a new friendly relationship with China and aggressive disawoval of long-standing multifaceted and deep ties with the United States, it would not only shake up bilateral Washington-Manila connection but also the existing regional political and security architecture.

And to understand this, one need to go over, even if cursorily, what the visiting  president said in Beijing, unless one were to simply dismiss President Duterte as raving mad to radically alter his country’s long ties with the US, including their security alliance, going as far back as early fifties. More so, when the Philippines’ relations with China had earlier soured so badly over the issue of sovereignty claims in South China Sea that Manila had taken Beijing to the arbitration tribunal in the Hague that had upheld its claim. Duterte became president against such backdrop of hostility between the Philippines and China, with the US committed to the Philippines all the way.

Despite all this, the new president, during his China visit, declared with gusto, it would appear, his country’s “separation’ from the United States. It is worth quoting Duterte at some length on his views and the proposed policy change he  indicated. He said, “No more American influence. No more American [military exercises]. It’s time to say goodbye, my friend. Your stay in my country was for your own benefit.” He is nursing strong personal hurt over criticism of his policy of eliminating the country’s drug culture as he said, “I will not go to America any more. I will just be insulted there”, once again referring to the US President Barack Obama as the “son of a whore”.

And he seemed to blame the US for the Philippines’ anti-China policy before he became president. In his words, “What kept us from China was not our making. I will chart a new course.” On the contentious issue of South China sovereignty, his new policy will delight China and take the wind out of the US’ strategy of building up a regional coalition to contain China. Duterte simply dismissed the Hague court award against China as “a piece of paper with four corners.” Elaborating, he said, “The arbitral award gives us the right. China has the historical right. And they’re insisting. In this situation, do we argue, or do we just talk? I would say, let us put it off to some other day.”

 In his speech at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Duterte heaped insult, unusual in diplomatic parlance, on the Americans. He said, “Americans are loud, sometimes rowdy. Their larynx is not adjusted to civility”, even as he mimicked American accent. He called them “discourteous people”, adding that it is wise not to do business with them because “that is the surest way of losing your money.”

And he seemingly announced a new international alignment to include China, Russia and the Philippines. Duterte said, “I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will go to Russia and talk to Putin and tell him there are three of us against the world---China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.” His four-day visit to china included 400 business people. And China didn’t disappoint him; on paper at least as, according to the Philippines’ trade secretary, Ramon Lopez, deals worth $13.5 billion dollars were signed during the trip. The idea seems to be to restructure Philippines’ economic relationship to tap into Chinese investments in infrastructure, and an expanded access into that market.

This kind of proposed restructuring of an overall relationship, where the Philippines has before been in a virtual dependency situation with the United States from colonial times since 1898 and then after gaining independence in 1946, is rather unusual. Therefore, it will be a difficult, even problematic exercise. So far, according to reports in the US press, the US hasn’t been formally notified of the level or kind of “separation” President Duterte has publicly announced. And going by the long established ties between the two countries over decades, it will be a herculean task for Philippines’ establishment to root out the old connections and replace them with a China centric order.

Despite resentment at many levels in the Philippines over the US’ perceived condescending and arrogant behavior, into which Duterte is tapping as well as his own personal experience at times, the US is a known quantity with many people in the Philippines enmeshed into multiple ties and experiences. The New York Times quoted Roilo Golez, national security adviser to a former president in the Philippines as saying, “ Practically every family here has a relative in the U.S. They don’t dream of going to China and living there.” About 4 million Filipinos and Filipino-Americans are said to live in the United States, and their remittances back home are an important part of the country’s economy. And another major sector of the economy, call centres largely serving American companies, reportedly employ more than one million Filipinos.

For Duterte to imagine that the Philippines might be able to almost swap its present relationship with the US and replace it with China, is likely to be a painful experience, to put it mildly. And, in his sober moments, Duterte seems aware of some of the difficulties and dangers. On return home from Beijing, for instance, he reportedly sought to soften his call for “separation” to clarify that it didn’t mean cutting diplomatic relations: “Because the Filipinos in the United States will kill him”, apparently pointing to the magnitude of the linkages between the people of the two countries.

However, Duterte’s Beijing visit and his call for reshaping his country’s relations to make China the centre of gravity is likely to have important repurcushions for regional politics. It might set a precedent for China’s other neighbours, with issues of contested sovereignty, to see the writing on the wall, as if, and make their own accommodation with Beijing.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

  

Flashpoint South China Sea

S P SETH

Nobody really knows how the South China Sea sovereignty issue will be sorted out. It featured in one way or the other at the recent Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting and the follow up East Asia summit in Laos. So far, China is resolute about its sovereignty claims regarding islands/islets/rocks that scatter around these waters. Indeed, it has dredged out new ones and has justified building airfields and other military structures as security measures to defend its sovereignty. Beijing has flatly rejected the recent ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague, which favoured the Philippines that had sought the court’s arbitration on China’s construction of military structures on Mischief Reef in the Spratly archipelago, claimed by Manila. In a sweeping judgment on China’s sovereignty claims, it rejected its “nine dash line” that tends to turn almost all of South China Sea into its exclusive lake.

An adverse finding from Hague court was expected but not with such vehemence. It said, “The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’”. And it found that the artificial islands that China has been building did not create extended maritime zones as they couldn’t naturally sustain human habitation. It, therefore declared that “certain sea areas [which China claimed] are within the excusive economic zone” of the rival claimant, the Philippines. And worse still, the tribunal found that “China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.”

Not surprisingly, and considering that China had boycotted the tribunal, Beijing said that the ruling of the court, “is null and void and has no binding force.” China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, said that the ruling has placed the South China Sea “in a dangerous situation of intensifying tension and confrontation.” And he called the unilaterally initiated (by the Philippines) case and the resultant ruling a “sheer political farce in the disguise of law…” He added that, “The attempts of any power to harm or deny China’s sovereignty and maritime interests in any form will be futile.”

And to this end, China is not averse to showing its military muscle by making it clear that it would use all the necessary measures to protect its sovereignty in South China as it sees it. China has been holding military exercises, and reportedly even cut off outside access to parts of South China Sea to host these exercises. It has also conducted combat air patrols in the region, which are slated to become a “regular” feature in the future, according to its state news agency, Xinhua. In other words, Beijing is steadfast on its position and is leaving no one in doubt that it means what it says.

China’s regional neighbours, at odds with China over the sovereignty issue, are reluctant to put up a united front. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), for instance, has not been able to put up a joint front on this issue as they look to China for trade and investment. Besides, China is politically and militarily powerful. The diplomatic option, sought to be exercised by the Philippines, has apparently failed, as China doesn’t accept the Hague court’s authority and writ. In any case, China’s position is clear that it has sovereignty over the islands and over much of the South China Sea waters.  

The only way to confront China would be to team up with the United States. The US is trying to rally regional countries to exercise their right of freedom of navigation through Chinese-claimed waters and islands, which the US has done on a few occasions and is determined to continue doing. China has said that it might declare an air-defence identification zone requiring aircraft passing through the area to identify themselves. However, the US and its allies, Australia, for instance, might ignore this, potentially leading to military confrontation.

Beijing believes that the US is creating trouble in China’s backyard. It regards the US as an outside power that should stay out of regional affairs. But for the US ‘interference’, in Beijing’s view, the region will be peaceful based on China’s ‘historical’ sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and much of the waters surrounding them. The US, on the other hand, rejects China’s contention that it is an outside power seeking to stir up trouble, citing its large Pacific coast and vital economic, strategic and political interests. During a recent Australia visit, US vice-president, Joe Biden, was adamant that the US would remain a Pacific power. As if addressing China and regional doubters about the US stamina and determination, he said in Sydney, “We are not going anywhere. And that is vital because our presence in the region… is essential to maintaining peace and stability, without which the economic growth and prosperity I believe would falter.”

And he added, “America is the linchpin and we want to ensure the sea lanes are secure, the skies remain open. That is how to maintain the free flow of commerce, that is the life blood of this region.” To fortify the US resolve, Biden went on to say, “We have the most capable ground forces in the world and unmatched ability to project naval and air power to any and every corner of the globe, and simultaneously.” Talking specifically of US commitment to Pacific region, Biden said, “And we’ve committed to put over 60 per cent of our fleet and our most advanced military capabilities in the Pacific by 2020.” 

Biden’s choice of Australia to reiterate this commitment is interesting, as it was here that President Obama had announced the US “pivot to Asia” in 2011 during his visit to Australia. In a sense, it is designed to bolster the flagging confidence of regional countries that are not keen to confront China, being unsure of the US’ resolve and staying power. There is a sense, rightly or wrongly, that the US is a declining power and is over-stretched, while China is in ascendance. As if to calm some of the frayed nerves in Australia about US politics with Donald Trump as Republican presidential nominee, Biden said, “Don’t worry about our election. The better angels in America will prevail.” But that is more a prayer than a policy prescription.

The point, though, is that both China and the US are committed to their respective positions. Which is that China has sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and will defend it with all its power. The US, on the other hand, is determined to challenge this by exercising the right of free navigation through Chinese-claimed South China Sea islands and surrounding waters. And if they mean what they say, one cannot rule out military confrontation at some point,  with unpredictable results.

Note: This article was first printed in the Daily Times.

Contact; sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Obama’s Vietnam and Japan visits

S P SETH

The recent visit to Vietnam of the US President Barack Obama was epochal both for its imagery and substance. One just has to hark back to 1975 to the hurried evacuation of the US embassy personnel, when the North Vietnamese forces marched victoriously into Saigon, later renamed Ho Chi Minh City. It was a humiliating sight for a superpower to be pushed out by a guerrilla enemy after nearly 15 years of constant bombardment and military operations where Vietnam’s countryside was ravaged by the use of chemical Agent Orange, with anywhere between 1-2 million Vietnamese killed and many wounded and maimed and their offspring born deformed to this day. In the midst of it all, Vietnam not only survived but its communist regime prevailed and the country is now as normal as might be expected in the circumstances.

And now look at the rapturous welcome that greeted President Obama on his visit as if all was forgotten. Not only that there is now a fervent desire on both sides to forge a new relationship, bordering on a military alliance. During his visit, Obama announced the lifting of US arms embargo on Vietnam. During his three-day visit, unusual as it is considering their recent history, Obama announced that, “The United States is fully lifting the ban on military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for 50 years.”

What lies behind this transformation in US-Vietnam relationship from their once implacable enmity to an emerging strategic alliance? It has to be understood against a backdrop of China’s projection of power into Asia-Pacific region to the point that it is asserting sovereignty over a cluster of islands and islets in the South China Sea, also claimed by Vietnam and some other regional countries.  China has also created a string of artificial islands in its claimed area and built up military structures and facilities, thus turning much of the South China Sea into its exclusive waters that contain precious oil and gas reserves as well as fisheries.

The resultant control of the South China Sea will enable China, if it so wanted, to control the passage nearly $5 trillion worth of trade that flows through it as well movement of all sorts of ships that pass through these waters. With China’s emergence as a superpower and all the economic and military leverage that flows from it, the regional claimants to South China Sea islands have very little countervailing power to China’s sovereignty claims sourced from old history. However, with the US turning its ‘pivot’ or ‘re-balancing’ act to Asia-Pacific region to forge a coalition of regional countries, Beijing’s task of completing its historical mission is not going to be all that easy. It will face tough opposition.

Not surprisingly, China is not happy with the US seeking to ‘stir up’ trouble in the region. Writing in Singapore’s Straits Times newspaper, Xu Bu, China’s ambassador to 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) reportedly said, “It is no coincidence that the changes in US policy [to rebalance China] have been followed by some South-east Asian countries making changes to their policies on the South China Sea issue.” And he added that, “The tension in South China Sea was intentionally churned and hyped [by the US].”

Commenting on Obama’s Vietnam visit, China’s official Xinhua news agency said: “It is welcome that Vietnam improves its ties with any other country, including the United States. However, such rapprochement should not be used by the United States to damage the strategic interests of a third country [China].” In other words, China sees its sovereignty as legally and historically valid and believes that, but for the US ‘meddling’, the regional countries will have no choice but to come to terms with the new situation.

At a recent international security forum in Singapore, Admiral Sun Jianguo said forcefully---responding to the US Defence Secretary, Ash Carter’s, remarks that  China risked erecting a “Great Wall of self-isolation--- that “We [China] do not make trouble, but we have no fear of trouble.” He added, “ China will not bear the consequences, nor will it allow any infringement on its sovereignty and security interest, or stay indifferent to some countries creating chaos in the South China Sea.”

China sees the US as an external power and would rather like it to remain out of Asia-Pacific region strategically. But the US doesn’t see it this way. It regards itself as much a regional power as China with its large Pacific coast, and vital economic and strategic interests by virtue of its alliances and old and new friendships, as with Vietnam. It is sending aerial and naval patrols to assert  ‘freedom of navigation’ in the vicinity of Beijing-claimed islands/islets, one of which almost led to a Chinese intercept, at least that is how the US saw it. All these activities, with China projecting its power by setting up military structures, and the US and its regional allies, like the Philippines, challenging it, is turning the region into a veritable tinder box.

The Philippines has taken the sovereignty issue to a UN court in Hague for arbitration, with China refusing to submit to its jurisdiction. If the court’s decision goes in the Philippines favour, as is generally expected, it is going to further complicate the situation. Lately, the sovereignty issue regarding another group of islands is also starting to feature in China’s relations, this time with Indonesia. Against such backdrop of rising regional tensions, Obama’s Vietnam visit and lifting of ban on the US arms sales to that country is indicative of how serious the situation is getting in the Asia Pacific region.

President Obama’s Vietnam visit was followed up by his trip to Japan, another country with contested sovereignty with China over a group of islands’ in East China Sea. In East China Sea, the two countries have almost come to blows a few times. The US is Japan’s security partner in the region. Their alliance has got even stronger against the backdrop of China’s power projection in the region. Tokyo has relaxed some of the pacifist features of its post-WW11 constitution with a view to meet new security challenges from China.

Apart from highlighting US-Japan security alliance, an important feature of Obama’s Japan trip was his visit to Hiroshima, the first Japanese city (Nagasaki was the second) subjected to US atomic bombing in WW11 that out rightly killed about 140,000 of its people, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. Obama is the first US President to have visited Hiroshima. This gesture came as close to an apology, without a formal phraseology. And this should further strengthen US-Japan relations.

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times. 

Flashpoint South China Sea

S P SETH

In the midst of so many crisis points in the world, the potential of a sudden flare up in the South China Sea is not as seriously recognized, as it should be. This flash point arises from China’s sovereignty claims to a cluster of Islands in the South China Sea and the waters surrounding them, with some regional countries, like the Philippines and Vietnam, contesting these claims. China says that this region has always belonged to it historically and hence it is not subject to any kind of negotiations, international arbitration or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. And the islands and much of the South China Sea being China’s sovereign territory and waters, it has the right to build up military bases and structures on these and other artificial islands/reefs it has dredged up.

Beijing particularly objects to US military involvement in the region by strengthening its security ties with other countries that contest and challenge China’s sovereignty claims.  Washington, on the other hand, claims a legitimate role in the region arising from significant economic, political and strategic interests in the region, and is worried about China’s destabilizing and threatening role It, therefore, favours a peaceful negotiated settlement of the disputed issues between concerned countries based on international law to ensure a stable regional environment. It has security treaties with some of the regional states and is developing still closer relations with others. It is against China unilaterally declaring the South China Sea islands and waters around them as its sovereign territory, giving it the authority and power, if it chooses to do so, to restrict freedom of navigation through these waters.  About $5 trillion worth of international trade is carried through South China Sea lanes---not to speak of naval movements through these international waters. And the US is not going to let China restrict passage through theses waters and has sought to assert this right by sending a ship or two through, what China regards as, its sovereign territory. Beijing regards this as provocative.

Lately, there has been an uptake in regional tensions with the strengthening of the US-Philippines security ties, including joint naval and air patrols and stationing of US military assets in the Philippines. During his recent visit to the Philippines, US Defence Secretary, Ashton Carter, reportedly said that the initial US air contingent will “conduct flight operations in the area, including the South China Sea, and lay the foundation for joint air patrols to complement ongoing maritime patrols.” The US will also establish a command-and-control centre in the Philippines to co-ordinate the joint operations.

China hasn’t taken kindly to it. Reacting to it, China’s defence ministry said that,  “A strengthening of the US-Philippine military alliance--- is a manifestation of the Cold War mentality and is not conducive to peace and stability in the South China Sea.” And it added: “ The Chinese army will monitor this trend closely, and will resolutely safeguard China’s territorial sovereignty as well as maritime rights and interests.”

President Obama announced the US’s “pivot” to Asia policy in November 2011 during his Australia visit. In the decade before that the US had been engaged militarily with two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and was now seeking to disengage from that region. With the US occupied in the Middle East, China was successfully expanding its political, economic and military space in the Asia Pacific region. It had never made secret of its sovereign claims in the region but, under President Xi Jinping’s regime, a process of assertive control of the South China Sea area by way of building artificial islands and military structures was put in place to test, as if, the limits of US power in the region. And that now is happening seriously, as indicated by the upgrading of the US-Philippines military ties.

The US has other friends and allies in the region. Among them, Australia is one of its most loyal allies going back to WW 11. Therefore, the choice of Canberra to announce the ‘pivot’ to Asia seemed deliberate to assure Australia and other others in the region Washington’s resolve to stay engaged and not leave China to do as it pleased. It was followed up with a further upgrading of US-Australia security ties with the announcement of rotation of US troops through northern Australia and access to other facilities. China reacted strongly to this, and Canberra’s criticism of its South China policy. Beijing claims that the region has historically been part of China. And in any case, Australia is not a disputant and should stay out of it.

Australia, more or less, follows the US position that Beijing’s actions are destabilizing the region and that it is against China’s own interests, because a stable Asia Pacific region in the last few decades has worked to its advantage by fostering its economic growth. Hence, it is in China’s interest to work through these issues peacefully with its regional neighbours within the framework of international law. China finds these arguments, by its proponents, self-serving to perpetuate status quo designed to contain China’s rise. And it apparently wants to break through this ‘containment’ ring.

During his recent high-powered visit to China, with a large delegation of  business people, Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, repeated the usual message of the need for peaceful resolution of the sovereignty issue in the South China Sea, while emphasizing the importance of their bilateral economic relationship. China is now Australia’s largest trading partner with a healthy trade balance in Australia’s favour. However, Beijing is unhappy about Australia’s even stronger strategic nexus with the US against the backdrop of tensions in the South China Sea, attributed to China’s muscular policy. But Beijing apparently believes that its increasing economic leverage from Australia’s dependent trade relationship would dent this nexus. Which is also worrying some in the US, as well as Australia’s strategic community invested in the US-Australia security alliance. Canberra, on the other hand, is equally hopeful that it can continue to have the best of both worlds—an expanding trade relationship with China as well as the security umbrella of the US alliance.

In a recent column in the Sydney Morning Herald, its international editor, Peter Hartcher, was pleased with the way Canberra has so far successfully done this balancing act. He, however, acknowledged that, “It is possible that Australia could one day be forced to choose, but only if China and the US break out into open war.” Which doesn’t bear thinking but the way things are going, there is always of a danger of things just getting out of control.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.