Raising the red lantern: A perfect storm of sovereignty brewing in South China Sea

“Sovereignty is not given, it’s taken”: said Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who was founded the Independent Republic of Turkey out of the Ottoman Empire. Incidentally, his surname “Ataturk”, meaning father of Turks, was granted and prohibited by any other persons under the Turkish Parliament. Under his rule from 1923 as the first president, the role of Islamic public life shrank drastically and the office of the Sultans was abolished. Although the country was nominally democratic, Ataturk at times stifled opposition with an authoritarian hand.

In reality, what exactly is Sovereignty? Derived from the Latin through French souverainete, it is understood to be the full right of a governing body to govern itself without intervention from outside bodies. Of course, the concept of sovereignty is argued and debated throughout history. The notion of sovereignty is particularly important in modern global stage when it evolves in definitions and application, as this clearly infringe on different idealisms of “democracy” that is often intertwined.

Today, six countries that fight over two rocks, not even defined as Island, in South China Sea. It clearly reads like the reality TV synopsis of The Amazing Race Asia, except this is the real deal with the potential gains of the wealth of unexplored oceanic natural resources. Above all, this will rule the shipping and military super-corridor. The dormant Brunei, the impartial Malaysia, the agitated Vietnam, the cautious Taiwan, the irate Philippines or the mighty China. Who will prevail and at what costs to the global stability is a storm in the horizon cannot be ignored.

The South China Sea is one of the most heavily contested territories in recent decades and the differences have escalated to a new level, when the Philippines took its disputed to the International Tribunals in 2013. The permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague decided in July that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereignty with the artificial island building. The Court rulings of the “Rock Outcroppings” are technically not islands, as they are inhabitable without human interventions. Therefore the artificial island building and naval patrols in the atolls, sandbanks and reefs is an infringement. China also lost in the argument of legal rights to the territory on historical grounds.

The ruling of the Court was right, historically there has not been a proper territorial map established in South China Sea until 1947. The claims of control in different parts of the sea by the French, Dutch and British prior to the Second World War were on the “sharing basis”. In fact, the Japanese was the first power to draw a wartime map, and led to the invasion of the Malaysian Shore in 1941, which triggered the start of the occupation in Asia. After the surrender of the Japanese, the only “Country” that claimed the biggest island for military rule in the territory, was The Republic of China (Subsequently Taiwan) under the rule of Chiang Kai Shek.

The deep sense of Chinese insecurity probably stem from being endured humiliation of the British Opium War and the Japanese occupation in the mid 19th and 20th century. The political and economic rise of China in the 21st century must mean the necessity to secure “the main artery” that will ensure freedom of dependence on other neighboring nations. In 1974, the Chinese seized the Paracels from Vietnam killing more than 70 troops. In 1988, the two nations clashed again in the Spratlys losing 60 Vietnamese lives. In recent years, the unverified Chinese sabotage of the Vietnamese exploration let to large anti China street protest in 2012. The dominance is showing no signs of easing after the China had boycotted The Hague proceedings and called the ruling “ill-founded”.

Although the United States indicated no interests in taking side in the territorial dispute, by sending the military ships and planes near the region, calling it “freedom of navigation” is clearly provocative. At the same time, the collaboration of China with Russia patrolling the sea is also indicative of potential retaliation.

The silence of most world leaders on the issue during the recent G20 summit in Hangzhou is a clear sign yet the recognition of the issue as the potential trigger for conflict. Despite the involvement of Obama in Laos, following the summit at a regional ASEAN (The Association od South East Asian Nations) meeting, the dampening of the tension is felt. Even the newly elected President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Dutete, has been more conciliatory towards China. Many argue China’s relative size, economic capability and clout is an unfair advantage to diminish the ripple effects of the South China Sea.

Classical liberal consider every individual as sovereign on itself; realist view sovereignty as guarantee to legitimate nation-state. Internationalists believe that sovereignty is an unnecessary obstacle to achieve peace and Imperialists hold the view of sovereignty where power rightfully exists with the state that holds the greatest ability. With such complex and inter-related views of sovereignty, the true “perfect storm” brewing when the next US administration defend the “Sovereignty” of the being economic and political superpower, through South China Sea.

#popular