scholarly journals China’s Maritime Strategy in the South China Sea: Implications for Regional Security

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (I) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Usman Ghani
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-54
Author(s):  
Arfin Sudirman

The South China Sea conflict has been a highly sensitive issue for the last 5 years in ASEAN. China and the US have been using the South China Sea as the New Cold War Arena of power and military hegemonic competition in the South East Asia region. This has been a major challenge for ASEAN as the only regional organization in the South East Asia region that has direct in the area must take major role in managing and resolving the dispute peacefully even though ASEAN has no defense pact like NATO. This paper argues that ASEAN, at this moment, must maintain its role as a mediator and independent-negotiator in the region but at the same time apply its principle of gradually adapting with the new international system. This article also suggests that in the future, ASEAN can take a major role in the governance of the South China Sea and the South East Asia region.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-371
Author(s):  
Tatyana I. Ponka ◽  
Nikita S. Kuklin ◽  
Ivan R. Dubrovsky

This article is devoted to the role of the territorial dispute in the South China sea in relations between China, Vietnam and India in the regional subsystem of Southeast Asia. The regional space under consideration is characterized by high economic dynamism and active integration processes, including participation of non-regional actors. Particular importance is attached to the positions of the three States on fundamental aspects that have a destructive impact on the development of regional processes. Attention is paid to the conceptualization of the policy of the three States in the waters of this sea. Following consideration of the problems the authors conclude that the intersection of the interests of the three countries in this sea threatens to exacerbate the fragility of the political and strategic landscape of the regional subsystem, registration open, but citizenries order on the space of the SCS. The article notes that the confrontational tone in relations between China, Vietnam and India brings with it many threats, in particular the clash of state interests in the energy plane, the arms race between the three nuclear powers (USA, India, China), which was accompanied by increased military presence of non-regional player (USA) in the region, complicated by territorial and historical conflicts.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 218
Author(s):  
Naifa Rizani

ASEAN WAY: MANAGING EXPECTATION IN THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE SOUTH CHINA SEA Naifa Rizani Lardo Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Indonesia,S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) Singapore Email: [email protected]: 5 October 2021; accepted: 13 November 2021 AbstrakLandasan pesimistis proses ASEAN Way seringkali menurunkan kredibiltas dari peran Perhimpunan Bangsa-Bangsa Asia Tenggara (ASEAN) dalam menangani sengketa di Laut Tiongkok Selatan (LTS). Justifikasi tersebut disikapi melalui konsep power balance yang mendiskreditkan struktur norma institusionalisme dalam ASEAN Way. Hal ini mendorong rangkaian diskusi terkait kinerja ASEAN melalui prinsip ASEAN Way dalam proses Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (COC for SCS) yang membuka ruang ekspektasi untuk meningkatkan peran keamanan regionalnya. Melalui permasalahan ini, artikel ini menyuguhkan pandangan peran kemanan regional ASEAN di proses sengketa LTS dengan merumuskan pertanyaan “Apa yang bisa diharapkan dari norma ASEAN Way dalam proses COC for SCS?” Dengan menggunakan pendekatan norma institutionalisme dalam proses perumusan COC, artikel ini menunjukkan bahwa ASEAN Way tidak dibentuk sebagai solusi penyelesaian konflik LTS, melainkan sebagai penyokong bentuk kerja sama pertahanan dengan asas fleksibel bagi partisipan konflik di isu LTS. Adapun, kontribusi ASEAN Way dalam COC for SCS terjabarkan dengan memberikan ruang fleksibilitas bagi pemangku kepentingan untuk berdialog secara damai di luar ketidakseimbangan kekuatan yang terjadi dari proses COC. Hal ini dengan proses yang fleksibel dalam membawa Tiongkok dan pemangku kepentingan terkait lainnya menuju kerja sama keamanan kooperatif yang dapat memenuhi kepentingan bersama dalam perdamaian di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Pendekatan norma institusionalisme ini juga menunjukkan limitasi-limitasi dari kemampuan ASEAN yang dapat membatasi ekspektasi dari perumusan COC for SCS ke penyelesaian sengketa di LTS. Kata kunci:ASEAN, Laut Tiongkok Selatan, Code of Conduct, Tiongkok, ASEAN Way AbstractPessimistic perspectives on the ASEAN Way process frequently undermine the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in resolving the South China Sea (SCS) dispute. These justifications are addressed through the notion of power balance, which undermines the norm institutionalism framework that underlines the ASEAN Way’s foundation. This droves various conversations on ASEAN capabilities ahead of the ASEAN Way principle throughout the Code of Conduct for the South China Sea (COC for SCS) process, which questioned its expectations as a regional security body. This article offers insight on ASEAN’s regional security role in the SCS dispute peace process, guided by the question “What to expect from ASEAN Way in the process of COC for SCS?” Instead of following the power balance approach, this article suggests a norm-based institutionalism perspective through ASEAN Way to the COC process. The ASEAN Way was developed to facilitate security cooperation under flexible participation among relevant parties involved in the conflict. The ASEAN Way on COC for SCS contributes by allowing relevant actors to engage in peaceful dialogue despite the power imbalance that existed on the disputed sea. This flexible participation offered by ASEAN can deliver cooperative security to the Southeast Asia region in the interest of peace. Nonetheless, norm institutionalism also revealed limitations in ASEAN capability that impede the expectation of the formulation of COC for SCS to the resolution of SCS disputes.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
James Douglas

<p>The development and recent operations of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is one of the most pressing issues in the security structure of Asia. Discussions of both the Chinese Navy and China’s rise generally continue to be dominated by offensive realist thinking. This theory sees China as a state seeking power, and eventually hegemony, in its region. However, defensive realism is a more nuanced explanation of China’s rise and the operations of its navy. Defensive realism sees states as seeking security rather than power, valuing what they have more than what they desire. The PLAN itself was founded in 1949 and has evolved in its focus throughout its existence. First the PLAN was focused on defending against attacks from Taiwan, then defending against a possible attack by the Soviet Union. After the cementing of the US-Sino relationship towards the end of the Cold War, and the rise of Deng Xiaoping and his economic liberalisation, the PLAN lost much of its purpose and funding which had always been minimal. The Taiwan Strait crisis in 1995, along with other conflicts like the first Gulf War and the Kosovo War, reprioritised the navy and the need to defend against possible US intervention. This turn to the navy was heightened by economic, resource, energy and regime motivations. This has lead to an effort to modernise a PLAN fleet which was aging and incapable of what was now required of it. This modernisation is ongoing, and it is still to produce a navy which is an entirely modern and near the capability of other comparable forces. The development of para-military maritime forces is one of the most telling aspects of China’s maritime development. China’s navy has engaged in two operations overseas in the past decade; anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since 2005, and assisting in the evacuation of Chinese nationals from Libya in 2012. These two operations are not indicative of a new global role, and are instead born of the unique circumstances of the two situations. More telling are the exercises that the PLAN has engaged in since 2010, these show the PLAN’s developing ability to defend territorial claims, such as the South China Sea and Taiwan. There have also been a series of incidents at sea between China and other disputant states over maritime territory. These incidents take a different shape based on the military capabilities of the other state. South Korea and Japan can monitor these areas with large militaries, and so actions by China are low key. In comparison, claimant states in the South China Sea have ships harassed, primarily by the ships of paramilitary maritime organisations. This harassment is a strategy by China to ensure a secure claim to these areas under international law by asserting jurisdiction. Such a strategy serves to defend China’s claim and prevent a negotiated settlement on anything but its own terms. Thus China’s maritime strategy is based on defensive realist principles of defending territory and ensuring security, rather than seeking power.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
James Douglas

<p>The development and recent operations of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is one of the most pressing issues in the security structure of Asia. Discussions of both the Chinese Navy and China’s rise generally continue to be dominated by offensive realist thinking. This theory sees China as a state seeking power, and eventually hegemony, in its region. However, defensive realism is a more nuanced explanation of China’s rise and the operations of its navy. Defensive realism sees states as seeking security rather than power, valuing what they have more than what they desire. The PLAN itself was founded in 1949 and has evolved in its focus throughout its existence. First the PLAN was focused on defending against attacks from Taiwan, then defending against a possible attack by the Soviet Union. After the cementing of the US-Sino relationship towards the end of the Cold War, and the rise of Deng Xiaoping and his economic liberalisation, the PLAN lost much of its purpose and funding which had always been minimal. The Taiwan Strait crisis in 1995, along with other conflicts like the first Gulf War and the Kosovo War, reprioritised the navy and the need to defend against possible US intervention. This turn to the navy was heightened by economic, resource, energy and regime motivations. This has lead to an effort to modernise a PLAN fleet which was aging and incapable of what was now required of it. This modernisation is ongoing, and it is still to produce a navy which is an entirely modern and near the capability of other comparable forces. The development of para-military maritime forces is one of the most telling aspects of China’s maritime development. China’s navy has engaged in two operations overseas in the past decade; anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since 2005, and assisting in the evacuation of Chinese nationals from Libya in 2012. These two operations are not indicative of a new global role, and are instead born of the unique circumstances of the two situations. More telling are the exercises that the PLAN has engaged in since 2010, these show the PLAN’s developing ability to defend territorial claims, such as the South China Sea and Taiwan. There have also been a series of incidents at sea between China and other disputant states over maritime territory. These incidents take a different shape based on the military capabilities of the other state. South Korea and Japan can monitor these areas with large militaries, and so actions by China are low key. In comparison, claimant states in the South China Sea have ships harassed, primarily by the ships of paramilitary maritime organisations. This harassment is a strategy by China to ensure a secure claim to these areas under international law by asserting jurisdiction. Such a strategy serves to defend China’s claim and prevent a negotiated settlement on anything but its own terms. Thus China’s maritime strategy is based on defensive realist principles of defending territory and ensuring security, rather than seeking power.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document