Conflict among ASEAN members over the South China Sea issue
Column
PDF (43.2KB)
ASEAN
did
not
announce
its
position
on
the
South
China
Sea
issue
at
the
ASEAN
Foreign
Ministers’
Meeting
or
at
its
related
meetings
held
from
July
9
to
13,
2012,
because
each
member
country
has
its
own
stance
on
relations
with
China
and
conflicts
of
interest
arose
on
how
to
deal
with
the
South
China
Sea
issue.
The
conflicts
of
interest
remained
unsettled,
and
ASEAN
decided
not
to
announce
the
joint
communiqué
of
its
Foreign
Ministers’
Meeting
for
the
first
time
in
its
history.
Furthermore,
ASEAN
shelved
the
announcement
of
the
policy
on
principles
to
be
incorporated
into
the
code
of
conduct
in
the
South
China
Sea.
Some
ASEAN
members,
including
the
Philippines
and
Vietnam,
have
territorial
disputes
with
China
over
the
Spratly
Islands
and
the
Paracel
Islands.
Because
abundant
natural
resources
are
supposed
to
exist
in
the
South
China
Sea,
contesting
countries
claim
territorial
rights
by
formulating
various
domestic
measures
to
secure
their
marine
interests.
Seizure
of
fishing
boats
and
face-offs
between
patrol
ships
and
the
navies
occur
intermittently
nowadays
between
China
and
the
Philippines
and
between
China
and
Vietnam.
The
ASEAN
members
and
China
jointly
published
the
Declaration
of
the
Conduct
of
Parties
in
the
South
China
Sea
(DOC)
in
2002
for
peaceful
settlement
of
the
issue.
The
DOC
presents
two
aspects
for
peaceful
settlement.
One
is
the
confirmation
of
peaceful
resolution
of
territorial
disputes
and
self-restraint
of
hostile
attitudes.
The
other
is
the
enhancement
of
confidence
building
through
mutual
exchange
of
military
personnel
and
cooperation
in
environmental
research.
To
cope
with
the
intensifying
conflicts,
the
ASEAN
members
and
China
agreed
to
formulate
a
more
binding
code
of
conduct
by
developing
the
DOC.
However,
a
conflict
of
opinion
over
the
nature
of
this
code
of
conduct
exists
among
ASEAN
members
as
well
as
between
ASEAN
and
China.
The
point
of
dispute
concerns
which
of
the
two
aspects
of
the
DOC
should
be
emphasized
more
in
formulating
the
code
of
conduct.
The
Philippines
and
Vietnam
placed
more
importance
on
the
first
aspect
of
the
DOC.
That
is,
they
insisted
on
incorporating
dispute
settlement
procedures
based
on
the
United
Nations
Convention
on
the
Law
of
the
Sea
(UNCLOS)
into
the
code
of
conduct.
By
contrast,
China
emphasized
the
second
aspect,
insisting
on
confidence
building
through
cooperative
environmental
research
and
the
joint
resource
development.
Cambodia
and
Thailand,
which
do
not
have
direct
interests
in
this
issue,
sided
with
China.
The
Philippines
insisted
that,
in
the
joint
communiqué
of
the
Foreign
Ministers’
Meeting,
ASEAN
members
should
specify
the
region
at
stake,
such
as
Scarborough
Reef,
and
express
the
concerns
over
China’s
hostile
actions.
Vietnam
insisted
that
respect
for
the
exclusive
economic
zone
(EEZ)
prescribed
in
UNCLOS
should
be
mentioned
in
the
communiqué.
Some
member
countries,
including
Indonesia,
agreed
with
these
two
assertions,
but
Cambodia,
which
chaired
the
Foreign
Ministers’
Meeting,
opposed
them
and
supported
China.
Because
of
the
objection
by
Cambodia,
no
agreement
was
reached
on
the
sentences
on
the
South
China
Sea
issue
to
be
incorporated
into
the
joint
communiqué.
ASEAN
members
have
been
discussing
principles
to
be
incorporated
into
the
code
of
conduct
in
Senior
Officials’
Meetings
since
the
end
of
2011.
They
include
utilizing
the
dispute
settlement
procedures
of
UNCLOS,
constructing
a
monitoring
system,
and
emphasizing
respect
for
the
EEZ
in
consideration
of
the
assertions
of
the
Philippines
and
Vietnam.
Use
of
the
dispute
settlement
procedures
of
UNCLOS
is
consistent
with
the
articles
of
the
ASEAN
Charter,
which
prescribes
the
utilization
of
an
international
approach
to
settling
disputes
among
ASEAN
members.
In
line
with
the
above
policy,
the
ASEAN
members
attempted
to
hold
discussions
with
China
and
formulate
a
code
of
conduct
before
the
end
of
2012.
At
this
Foreign
Ministers’
Meeting,
however,
China
opposed
ASEAN’s
policy
and
insisted
on
restarting
discussions
from
the
very
beginning.
China
argued
that
territorial
disputes
should
be
settled
bilaterally
by
the
countries
concerned,
and
it
does
not
want
them
to
be
settled
through
multinational
frameworks
or
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
of
UNCLOS.
Because
Cambodia
and
Thailand
supported
China’s
position,
the
ASEAN
foreign
ministers
decided
not
to
announce
ASEAN’s
policy.
With
regard
to
the
second
aspect
of
the
DOC,
the
foreign
ministers
announced
the
Guidelines
for
the
Implementation
of
the
DOC
in
July
2011.
The
guidelines
stipulate
the
procedures
and
principles
that
contesting
countries
should
follow
when
jointly
engaged
in
environmental
surveys
and
the
development
of
resources.
China
agreed
to
the
guidelines.
At
the
Foreign
Ministers’
Meeting
in
July
2012,
it
proposed
the
establishment
of
a
marine
cooperation
fund
for
resource
development
and
for
survey
and
rescue
activities,
to
which
it
would
contribute
3
billion
yuan.
China
insisted
that
a
code
of
conduct
be
established
for
confidence
building,
not
for
a
method
of
dispute
settlement,
although
it
was
not
against
the
idea
of
incorporating
the
principle
of
self-restraint
of
hostile
actions
(non-use
of
force)
into
the
code.
China
and
the
ASEAN
members
agreed
to
continue
discussions
on
formulating
a
code
of
conduct,
and
talks
will
resume
after
September.
However,
the
starting
point
of
talks
is
undecided
because
of
the
above
disagreement,
and
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
China
will
agree
to
principles
on
the
code
of
conduct
prepared
by
ASEAN.
A
more
serious
concern
is
that
there
is
no
consensus
among
ASEAN
members
on
how
to
respond
to
China’s
attitude.
Accordingly,
it
will
be
hard
to
formulate
a
code
of
conduct
before
the
end
of
2012
and
to
formulate
the
code
to
meet
the
expectations
of
the
Philippines.
The
ASEAN
members
have
formed
various
agreements
by
compromise,
despite
conflicting
interests.
In
particular,
they
have
usually
declared
a
uniform
position,
as
ASEAN,
toward
countries
outside
the
region,
even
on
issues
that
involve
only
some
of
them,
such
as
the
South
China
Sea
issue.
In
this
regard,
the
outcome
of
the
Foreign
Ministers’
Meeting
in
2012
is
worthy
of
attention.
The
failure
to
announce
the
joint
communiqué
is
associated
with
the
conflicting
interests
among
member
states
and
the
fact
that
host
nation
Cambodia,
which
places
greater
emphasis
on
its
relations
with
China,
had
little
previous
experience
in
the
chair.
Although
Indonesia
and
the
Philippines
offered
a
compromise,
no
agreement
was
reached
because
of
Cambodia’s
objections.
In
ASEAN,
the
outcome
of
its
meetings
is
affected
by
the
interests
and
attitudes
of
the
chair
country
because
drafting
a
declaration
is
finally
entrusted
to
that
country.
If
a
dispute
exists,
a
member
country
inexperienced
in
hosting
meetings
often
finds
it
difficult
to
utilize
measures
such
as
prior
consultation
and
the
offer
of
a
compromise,
resulting
in
an
unsuccessful
adjustment
of
interests.
In
2014,
Myanmar
will
assume
the
chair
for
the
first
time.
It
remains
to
be
seen
if
ASEAN
members
can
declare
a
united
position
under
an
inexperienced
chair.
[References]
1.
ASEAN
Documents:
Declaration
on
the
Conduct
of
Parties
in
the
South
China
Sea
,
November
2002.
http://www.aseansec.org/13163.htm
Guidelines
for
the
Implementation
of
the
DOC
,
July
2011.
http://www.asean.org/documents/20185-DOC.pdf
2.
Newspapers:
Asahi
Shimbun,
Mainichi
Shimbun,
Tokyo
Yomiuri
Shimbun,
Nihon
Keizai
Shimbun,
Tokyo
Shimbun
Bangkok
Post,
Jakarta
Post,
Philippine
Daily
Inquirer,
Straits
Times.