A Brief
In the chessboard of global geopolitics, Lee Kuan Yew, the strategic mind behind Singapore’s success, once envisioned China’s careful chess moves. He stressed the need for China to play a patient game, avoiding the mistakes of past powerhouses like Germany and Japan. “Keep your head down, smile, and aim for 40 or 50 years of peace,” he advised. However, China seems to have abandoned this cautious approach with the rise of the Wolf Warrior policy, causing ripples of concern, especially in the turbulent waters of the South China Sea. Now, a buzz is echoing through China’s neighborhood—a talk of crafting a NATO-style alliance to counterbalance China’s assertiveness. Imagine a regional alliance, not unlike NATO, built on mutual defense pacts, joint military exercises, and coordinated diplomatic efforts. It’s a strategic response to the shifting tides, a collective stance against potential threats, and a means to navigate the complex game of territorial disputes while upholding the principles of freedom of navigation. As the pieces move on this geopolitical chessboard, the narrative unfolds with intrigue and anticipation. Let us get into the details of this to understand the complexity involving the territorial disputes and the resulting backlash from the claimant states.
Highlighting the increasing tensions and competing claims in the region
China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, driven by the potential wealth of untapped oil and natural gas, have ignited tensions with neighboring countries such as Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Territorial disputes, especially regarding resource-rich areas like the Spratly Islands, have intensified since the 1970s. China asserts, based on international law, that foreign military activities in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are prohibited. However, the United States contends that under UNCLOS, claimant countries have the right to freedom of navigation in the sea’s EEZ without notifying China of military activities. Despite The Hague’s 2016 ruling favoring the Philippines, China refuses to acknowledge the court’s authority. Satellite imagery reveals extensive Chinese land reclamation efforts, creating and militarizing islands. In response, the U.S. and Japan challenged China’s claims through Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and support for Southeast Asian partners, emphasizing the importance of a binding code of conduct to ensure freedom of navigation and prevent conflicts that could endanger sea line’s vital for trade and naval movements.
The roots of the South China Sea dispute trace back to the establishment of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, providing a framework for nations’ rights and responsibilities regarding surrounding waters. However, its vague wording left it ineffective in addressing sovereignty issues in the South and East China Seas. In 1988, China engaged in its first armed conflict over the Spratly archipelago, sinking three Vietnamese ships amid an assertive regional stance. China’s 1992 Law on the Territorial Sea claimed the entire South China Sea based on historical rights. Tensions heightened in 1996 with the Mischief Reef Incident between China and the Philippines. The ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002 aimed to ease tensions, but was followed by years of territorial disputes, military agreements, and geopolitical shifts. The renaming of the South China Sea to the West Philippine Sea by the Philippines in 2011 reflected heightened tensions amid broader geopolitical changes, including the U.S. strategic rebalancing of the Asia-Pacific.
In 2013, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration marked a significant shift, approving a defense package to strengthen maritime capabilities around the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Japan’s offer of military aid and patrol boats to the Philippine Coast Guard in 2013 signaled a departure from its traditional pacifist foreign policies. The Philippines initiated a UN arbitration case against China in 2013 over sovereignty claims, marking a historic move under UNCLOS.
The signing of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines in 2014 escalated tensions, while 2014 saw Vietnamese and Chinese ships colliding near the Paracel Islands, triggering anti-China protests in Vietnam. A U.S. warship patrolled near Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea in 2015, challenging Beijing’s territorial claims.
In 2016, a landmark ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration favored the Philippines, rejecting China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim. Diplomatic efforts followed, with President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Abe Shinzo working to improve ties and establish crisis-management mechanisms. Tensions persisted in 2018 when a U.S. destroyer narrowly avoided colliding with a Chinese destroyer near the Spratly Islands. In 2019, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte expressed alarm over Chinese ships near Thitu Island.
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, China’s assertive claims escalated, exemplified by the establishment of administrative districts in the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Between March 2021 and November 2022, tensions continued to rise, with China deploying ships to the Philippines’ EEZ and accusations of China’s coast guard seizing debris during U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’s visit.
On December 22, 2022, Indonesia and Vietnam finalized EEZ boundaries, removing a major irritant in bilateral relations. In February 2023, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. welcomed an expanded U.S. military presence, drawing objections from China. The trilateral summit at Camp David in August 2023 condemned China’s behavior, supporting the 2016 ruling. However, on August 28, 2023, China released an updated territorial map, escalating tensions with a new “ten-dash” line, drawing swift protests from ASEAN members, India, Japan, and Taiwan. The complex interplay of historical claims, geopolitical rivalries, and evolving power dynamics underscores the ongoing challenges in the contested waters of the South China Sea.
Potential Members of the Alliance
The prospect of a NATO-style alliance in the South China Sea introduces a dynamic array of potential members, strategically positioned to counterbalance China’s assertiveness. At the forefront, core littoral states, including Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, form the foundational bloc. Indonesia, the regional giant, demonstrated its resolve in 2023 by sinking a Chinese fishing vessel encroaching on its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Vietnam, engaged in tense standoffs with China over Vanguard Reef, has a vested interest in regional security, as evidenced by over 500 ship incursions in 2023. The Philippines, amid escalating tensions over the Spratly Islands, filed a landmark arbitration case against China. Smaller players, Malaysia and Brunei, share overlapping claims, with Malaysia recently intercepting Chinese coast guard vessels.
Major regional powers such as Japan, with the historical wariness of China, possess a powerful navy and share concerns about Chinese activities near the Senkaku Islands. South Korea, cautious not to antagonize China, hinted at a potential shift by joining joint naval exercises with the Philippines. Australia, a staunch US ally, views the South China Sea as crucial to its security and has participated in freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs).
Extra-regional stakeholders contribute significant weight, with the United States as a key player conducting regular FONOPs and backing allies. India, a rising regional power, demonstrated engagement through joint naval exercises with the Philippines. The European Union, expressing concerns about China’s assertiveness, lends diplomatic support to maintain a rules-based order at sea. While speculative, this diverse coalition, spanning regional powers and extra-regional stakeholders, could foster a united front, ensuring maritime security, safeguarding freedom of navigation, and upholding international law in the critical South China Sea region.
Geopolitical Landscape of the South China Sea
The South China Sea emerges as a pivotal theater in a multifaceted geopolitical struggle involving several nations, prominently China, as they vie for control over islands, reefs, and surrounding waters. Against this backdrop, the idea of forging a NATO-styled alliance among like-minded nations gains prominence, aimed at addressing shared concerns, upholding international law, and countering China’s assertive actions.
The potential alliance would revolve around nations with strategic interests in the South China Sea, such as the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Southeast Asian partners. The primary objectives of this coalition could be to ensure freedom of navigation, deter aggression, and promote stability in the region. Similar to NATO’s collective defense mechanisms, joint military exercises, and a unified front would be crucial elements in navigating the complexities of the South China Sea dispute.
The territorial disputes, involving nations like Vietnam and the Philippines, become focal points for alliance members committed to upholding a rules-based international order. The 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Case, which ruled against China’s historical claims, could serve as a unifying principle for the alliance, aligning with the broader goal of promoting adherence to international law.
The alliance could also echo the U.S. official stance of neutrality in the South China Sea dispute but emphasize strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly freedom of navigation.
Crucially, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) could serve as a foundational framework for the alliance, defining terms and rights related to the dispute. While the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, considering it part of customary international law, the alliance members can collectively advocate for its principles and guidelines.
Map of the South China Sea with disputed territories
The territorial claims in the South China Sea are visually represented through a myriad of maps and images, each reflecting the perspectives of the nations involved. China, notably the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan asserts its expansive territorial reach through the controversial new ten-dash Line, a contentious demarcation that encircles a significant portion of the South China Sea. This claim is visualized in maps provided by both the PRC and Taiwan, illustrating their differing views on the extent of their maritime territories.
The transformation of the South China Sea is evident in visual representations that capture the before-and-after scenarios, showcasing the development of military installations in the Spratly Islands by China in 2015. Additionally, images and analyses of Chinese building projects in the region offer insights into the evolving dynamics of the disputed area. The disputes extend to Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims and hydrocarbon resources, with maps delineating these overlapping claims and the locations of exploration blocks offshore Vietnam.
Interactive resources, such as the Spratly Islands Gazetteer and Joint Seismic Survey Area maps, provide detailed geographical information, aiding in a comprehensive understanding of the complex territorial landscape. The South China Sea tables and maps, compiled by organizations like the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and National Geographic Society (NGS), contribute further insights into maritime claims, resource distribution, and geopolitical nuances in the region.
Sovereignty claims and agreements, as documented by the US Department of Defense in 2012, shed light on the intricate web of territorial disputes. The conflicting claims over the Spratly Islands are detailed, and Taiwan’s specific stance is elucidated through postal stamp images.
These diverse visual resources collectively contribute to an understanding of the territorial landscape complexities of the South China Sea disputes.
Key claimants: China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan, and Indonesia
Territorial disputes in the South China Sea involve conflicting claims by multiple sovereign states, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. These disputes encompass various features like the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, and Scarborough Shoal, and extends to the waters near the Indonesian Natuna Islands.
Resources and strategic importance of the region
The region’s strategic importance is underscored by approximately US$3.37 trillion worth of global trade passing through it annually, constituting a third of the world’s maritime trade. China’s extensive energy imports and trade heavily rely on these waters. The claimant states vie for rights to fishing stocks, exploration of oil and gas reserves, and control over critical shipping lanes. Recent developments, like China’s island-building activities and the 2016 UN tribunal ruling against its maritime claims, further heighten tensions.
Existing Security Structures
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its role in the region
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), established in 1967 and comprising 10 member states, including Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, plays a distinctive and vital role in conflict resolution within the Southeast Asian region. Operating on the principles of cooperative security and non-confrontational approaches, ASEAN employs preventive diplomacy through dialogue and engagement, both at official levels and through Track II dialogues involving non-governmental actors. The organization’s commitment to consensus building ensures that decisions are reached through unanimous agreement, providing a platform for peaceful dispute resolution. ASEAN has established normative frameworks like the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) and the ASEAN Charter, emphasizing peaceful settlements, non-interference, and regional cooperation. Acting as a neutral facilitator, ASEAN provides platforms for dialogue and mediation in conflicts such as the Rohingya refugee crisis and the South China Sea disputes. However, the consensus-based decision-making process, the non-interference principle, power dynamics among member states, and the influence of external actors present challenges to ASEAN’s conflict resolution efforts.
The South China Sea Code of Conduct negotiations
The ongoing South China Sea Code of Conduct (CoC) negotiations between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China mark a crucial diplomatic endeavor to address the complex issues surrounding the disputed waters. The region, vital for its strategic importance and rich resources, has experienced heightened tensions due to China’s assertive actions. The objectives of the CoC include preventing armed conflict, ensuring freedom of navigation, managing resource extraction sustainably, and upholding international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Initiated in 2002 with the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), the negotiations for a legally binding CoC have faced challenges such as China’s reluctance to include sensitive issues and varying interpretations of international law among ASEAN states. While recent guidelines aim to expedite the process, significant progress on core issues remains at a standstill.
 Limitations of existing mechanisms
The South China Sea’s complex geopolitical landscape underscores the limitations of existing mechanisms, primarily within ASEAN and the South China Sea Code of Conduct (CoC). ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making, non-interference principle, and lack of enforcement power pose challenges in addressing the assertive actions of external actors like China. The CoC negotiations, marked by slow progress and potential enforcement ambiguity, further accentuate the need for alternative approaches. The potential appeal of a NATO-style alliance in the South China Sea emerges as a strategic consideration. Such an alliance could serve as a deterrent against Chinese expansionism, ensuring collective resistance and upholding international law. However, the concept faces substantial hurdles, including possible Chinese retaliation, divergent member interests, and domestic political considerations. Striking a balance between deterrence and cooperation, exploring complementary approaches, and acknowledging the alliance as a hypothetical concept are crucial for navigating the complex dynamics in the region and devising effective strategies for regional security.
The rationale for a South China Sea Alliance
In the contested waters of the South China Sea, a prospective NATO-style alliance is gaining momentum, driven by escalating concerns over China’s audacious territorial claims and actions. The rationale for such an alliance is multi-faceted, encompassing deterrence, safeguarding freedom of navigation, environmental protection, and upholding international law. China’s assertive behavior, marked by extensive island-building and militarization, has triggered anxieties, prompting the need for a collective response. The alliance aims to serve as a deterrent force against China’s expansionist endeavors, sending a strong message that unilateral actions will face resistance. Moreover, it seeks to ensure the unimpeded flow of global trade, valued at over $3 trillion annually, through the vital maritime routes of the South China Sea. The environmental dimension emphasizes the alliance’s role in shielding the region’s diverse marine ecosystems from unsustainable practices linked to China’s actions. Finally, by upholding international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the alliance aims to challenge China’s dismissive stance, reinforcing the principles of a rules-based international order. As former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aptly stated, “The South China Sea is not China’s lake.” While challenges persist, understanding the compelling reasons behind the envisioned South China Sea alliance is crucial for navigating the complex geopolitics of this strategic region. While Secretary Blinken has addressed the South China Sea issue in the following words, “China’s disregard for UNCLOS and the rights of its coastal neighbors weakens the foundation of that order, and weakens the foundation of stability and prosperity in the region.â€
Structure and Mechanisms of the Alliance
In the prospective formation of a NATO-style alliance in the South China Sea, the structure and mechanisms are pivotal elements for ensuring regional security and countering Chinese expansionism. At its core, a collective defense pact akin to NATO’s Article 5 would provide a solid foundation, offering a deterrent against aggression and emphasizing mutual military assistance among member states. This has proven effective in alliances like NATO, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. Joint military exercises and patrols would further underscore the alliance’s capabilities, fostering interoperability and showcasing a commitment to upholding freedom of navigation. Recent examples, such as joint naval exercises between Japan and the Philippines, highlight the potential for enhanced regional cooperation. Intelligence sharing and cybersecurity cooperation are essential components for staying ahead of emerging threats. Collaborative efforts, similar to the intelligence-sharing alliance Five Eyes, can provide valuable insights into China’s military activities and cyber capabilities. Diplomatic and economic coordination would amplify the alliance’s influence on the international stage, pressuring China to align with established norms. Drawing parallels with the European Union’s coordinated response to geopolitical challenges, this approach demonstrates the potential efficacy of unified diplomatic and economic measures. It is crucial to recognize that these are hypothetical features, and the final framework would require intricate negotiations, considering evolving regional dynamics. The success of such an alliance would hinge on maintaining a delicate balance between deterrence and dialogue, ensuring stability while allowing for constructive engagement with China.
Challenges and Obstacles
The challenges facing a potential South China Sea alliance are formidable, reflecting the complex geopolitical landscape of the region. Chinese opposition and the risk of retaliation are underscored by historical instances, such as China suspending military ties with Australia in response to perceived provocations. Differing interests and priorities among member states, exemplified by Vietnam’s assertive stance compared to Indonesia’s more conciliatory approach, highlight potential internal divisions. Domestic political considerations, particularly in nations with close trade relations with China, may lead to public resistance against joining an alliance, as seen in some Southeast Asian countries. Balancing deterrence with cooperation, akin to challenges faced by NATO in its relationship with Russia, emphasizes the delicate diplomatic tightrope that such an alliance must navigate. These challenges are not mere theoretical hurdles but real complexities that demand careful consideration for the successful establishment and sustained operation of a South China Sea alliance.
Conclusion
In weighing the anchor of a potential NATO-style alliance in the South China Sea, the fog of uncertainties surrounding its feasibility and impact looms large. The hurdles are formidable, with Chinese opposition, divergent member state interests, and domestic political considerations creating a challenging backdrop for its formation. However, amidst these challenges, a glimmer of hope emerges from the growing regional concerns about China’s actions and the strategic interest of the United States in the region, which might create conditions conducive to negotiations. The potential impact of such an alliance on deterring China from unilateral actions and upholding a rules-based order is substantial. Yet, the risks of escalation due to miscalculations or perceived encirclement by China underscore the delicate nature of regional dynamics. Exploring alternative and complementary approaches, such as empowering ASEAN, implementing confidence-building measures, and utilizing multilateral forums, could offer a more sustainable and nuanced path.
Thank you for joining us in this exploration of a NATO-styled alliance around China’s neighborhood. Give us your valuable feedback and do not forget to like share and subscribe to our channel for more deeper analysis of the complex geopolitical issues surrounding us.
