The Gulf Time Newspaper One of the finest business newspapers in the UAE brought to you by our professional writers and editors.
Bloomberg
China has intensified the drumbeat of its opposition to an international tribunal’s ruling expected on Tuesday that could threaten its expansive claims in the South China Sea.
How Beijing responds to the ruling in the case filed by US ally the Philippines could chart the course of global power relations in an increasingly dangerous hotspot. It comes as the US has ramped up its military presence in the region and could seek to marshal world opinion to pressure Beijing into complying with the verdict. A new Philippine leader who appears friendlier to Beijing could also influence the aftermath of the ruling.
The Hague-based tribunal will decide on the 2013 case that challenges the so-called nine-dash line that China uses to claim virtually the entire South China Sea and which Manila opposes because it infringes upon its own 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The dispute centers on waters through which an estimated US$5 trillion in global trade passes through each year and are home to rich fishing stocks and a potential wealth of oil, gas and other resources.
The Philippines has also asked the tribunal to rule on whether several disputed areas are outcrops, reefs or islands, a move aimed at clarifying the extent of territorial waters they are entitled to or if they can project exclusive economic zones.
More than merely about the sovereignty over the rocks and reefs or the actual waters, the South China Sea dispute has become a testing ground for a rising China to challenge the US’s leadership in the Asian strategic order, analysts say.
Beijing wants to use this dispute to show how “China’s own growing maritime power and its economic significance to the United States and the global economy have reached the point where the United States can no longer afford to stand up to China,” said Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at The Australian National University. “That calculation might prove to be wrong.”
China has boycotted the case, arguing that the tribunal has no jurisdiction and saying it won’t accept the ruling. It has insisted that bilateral talks between Beijing and other claimants is the only way to address the dispute.
Some experts have speculated that China could respond to an unfavorable ruling by establishing an air defense identification zone over all or part of the South China Sea. There is similar speculation that China might militarize a reef off the Philippine coast, the Scarborough Shoal, where a standoff with China prompted the Philippines to initiate the tribunal case in 2013. Beijing has given no direct indication of a tougher response, saying it remains committed to bilateral negotiations with Manila.
Tuesday’s ruling might further pressure China to clarify what exactly it is claiming with its “nine-dash line” boundary.
Findings of the tribunal are binding on the parties, including China. But the court – without police or military forces or a system of sanctions at its disposal – can’t enforce its ruling, so its potential impact remains unclear.
Still, in recent weeks, China has spared no effort to denounce the proceedings as unlawful, publishing state media commentaries and deploying senior military officers, current and former top officials and academics to relentlessly convey Beijing’s opposition. On Monday, the day before the verdict, the overseas edition of the ruling Communist Party’s mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, urged the Philippines to return to talks with China and the US to stay out of the dispute. The arbitration outcome, known as an “award,” was dismissed by former Chinese state councilor Dai Bingguo, in a conference in Washington, DC, last week, as “nothing more than a piece of paper.”
Beijing has faced mounting calls to observe international law. At a US congressional hearing last week, Abraham Denmark, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, urged both parties to comply with the ruling. Denmark said it was a chance to determine whether the region’s future will be defined by adherence to international laws or by “raw calculations of power.”
China might use strong rhetoric but not take aggressive action to avoid having the topic dominate the agenda at upcoming multilateral forums, said Bonnie Glaser, senior adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.
Glaser said Chinese officials she’s spoken to say privately they hope the case would not rule entirely in the Philippines’ favor so that Beijing can say in internal discussions that Chinese interests have not been “irreparably harmed.”
A key factor that could change the equation of the consequences of this ruling is how the Philippines’ new President Rodrigo Duterte decides to respond. His predecessor Benigno Aquino III’s government filed the case, straining Manila’s relations with Beijing, but Duterte has shown readiness to mend frosty ties with China.
While Duterte has made critical remarks against the US, he has pointed out the benefits of nurturing friendly relations with Beijing, including a Chinese offer of financing railway projects in the Philippines. Duterte’s rise has given China an opening to make inroads in one of America’s closest security allies.
Last week, Duterte said his government stood ready to talk to China if it gets a favorable ruling. “When it’s favorable to us, let’s talk,” he said. “We are not prepared to go to war, war is a dirty word.”
It remains to be seen, however, how far Duterte can stray from Manila’s critical stance on China’s territorial assertiveness, given his country’s close ties with the U.S. and growing nationalist sentiment against China’s actions.
Jay Batongbacal, an expert on South China Sea issues at the state-run University of the Philippines, said the government should avoid revealing its cards ahead of potential negotiations with Beijing, “otherwise you lose the leverage that you have.”
Left-wing activists protested at the Chinese consulate in metropolitan Manila on Monday, urging China to leave what they said were other countries’ territories.
“We’re calling on our brothers in Southeast Asia that this call for a ‘Chexit,’ or China exit, now is not only for Filipinos but for all to call on China to respect our territorial integrity,” said protest leader Mong Palatino.
Experts say the outcome of the dispute could provide ammunition for other countries involved in disputes with China. Six governments have overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea – China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. In addition, China’s nine-dash line overlaps waters that are part of Indonesia’s internationally recognized exclusive economic zone.
“This is a time for China not to keep pushing forward too aggressively because they could embolden Vietnam and Indonesia to file a case as well,” Glaser said.
Regardless, the ruling is unlikely to stop China from continuing to pursue more effective control over the sea space and airspace of the South China Sea, Glaser said.
Over the last few months, the U.S. has held combined exercises by two Navy aircraft carrier strike groups off the coast of the Philippines and freedom of navigation cruises near China’s man-made islands to assert its presence in the Western Pacific. Chinese state media have accused Washington of trying to turn the South China Sea “into a powder keg” and warned it not to underestimate China’s determination to defend its territorial claims.
Chinese warships, fighter jets and submarines have held live-fire war games as part of what the People’s Liberation Army Navy called routine exercises in the week running up to the tribunal’s ruling, drills that were seen at least in part
responding to the US presence.
“There’s a real game of nerves going on here with China perhaps assuming that the U.S. is bluffing and the U.S. hoping that China will actually not test American resolve,” Australian National University’s White said.
China-Philippines case lights up world’s oldest tribunal
AFP
The little-known Permanent Court of Arbitration on Tuesday rules on a bitter dispute over the South China Sea which could have huge international ramifications amid growing tensions in the key
waterway.
The Philippines brought the case against the China in 2013, asking the court to find that Beijing’s claims to much of the territory in the sea are invalid and violate the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Here are five facts about the tribunal based in The Hague:
What is the PCA?
The PCA is the world’s oldest inter-governmental organisation dedicated to resolving international disputes through arbitration “and other peaceful means”.
It came to life in 1899 during the first Hague Peace Conference convened by Czar Nicholas II of Russia. It refers to contracts, special agreements and various treaties such as those set up by the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to rule in disputes.
It also has a permanent overseas presence in Mauritius and can conduct hearings all over the world.
Interesting PCA cases
The PCA’s arbitral tribunals have rendered more than 70 decisions in past cases and it currently considers 116 cases. Recently-concluded cases include rulings in a bitter border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia and handing down an award in favour of the Indian Ocean nation of Mauritius in a fight with Britain over a marine protected area in the Chagos Archipelago. In another case, it gave India a partial green light to build a hydro-electric project in the Kishenganga River after a dispute with Pakistan, who was worried about the project’s impact on water supply further downstream.
Is it a real ‘court’?
The PCA is not a court in the traditional sense with judges to rule on issues. Rather it consists of arbitral tribunals put together for each case. Hearings are not open to the public or press, unless both parties in the dispute agree.
How does it work?
When diplomacy fails between two states they may turn to arbitration via the PCA.
Usually cases are settled on a pre-existing agreement— contained in a treaty or contract— that if a dispute arises it will be resolved through arbitration.
Once arbitration begins, an arbitral tribunal is appointed, consisting of one, three or five members. For the South China Sea arbitration a five-member panel has been appointed led by Ghanian-born judge Thomas A Mensah.
Are its decisions binding?
Yes. All decisions, called “awards” are binding on all the parties in the dispute and have to be carried out without delay.
There are some post-award proceedings available to parties unhappy with the tribunal’s decision, but they are limited, particularly in inter-state disputes. Experts also say enforcement is often the “Achilles Heel” of public international law. However, states who ignore or disregard the PCA’s ruling risk losing credibility and losing out in the so-called “court of world opinion”.
#CHexit deluges
social media
AFP
It is time for China to do a #CHexit from the South China Sea, social media users and activists in the Philippines said on Monday on the eve of a crucial tribunal ruling.
Inspired by the Brexit term coined for Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, the catchy new reference for China has quickly gained currency on Facebook, Twitter and protest placards ahead of Tuesday’s verdict on Beijing’s claims to most of the sea.
“We ask our friends from other countries, especially our brothers and sisters in Southeast Asia, to call for a #CHexit,” Mong Palatino said as he protested with a small group of people outside the Chinese consulate in Manila.
“China should stop bullying its neighbours.”
On social media, some of the messages were more blunt.
“China, get out of Philippine territory! #CHEXIT,” wrote @emiletabiar on Twitter.
“The West Philippine Sea is not for you to own. #CHexit,” said @rmcocoba.
Other Filipinos were not amused. “‘CHexit’?!?!? Cringing on this one,” said @titobabis.
China claims nearly all of the strategically vital sea, even waters approaching the coasts of the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations.
Manila filed a case with an international tribunal in The Hague in 2013 challenging China’s claims. China refused to participate in the hearings and vowed to ignore Tuesday’s verdict.