South China Sea (SCS) is emerging a hotbed of tension between China, the economic and military power of Asia and its sea neighbors of the Asia Pacific region. Following military activity by China which claims its authority over the zone, tensions between China and its northern maritime neighbours continue to dominate developments in the SCS but further unresolved disputes add to the dangerous atmosphere because no side is ready to back down and seek genuine reconciliation, while US super power opposes Beijing and supports its neighbors.
China has issues with ASEAN as Philippines, Japan and Vietnam are been wooed by USA to fight China as part of President Obama’s Asia Pivot agenda. US military role in the region in support of China’s neighbors further complicates the tension. July 12, 2016, marked a turning point in the long-standing disputes over the South China Sea. After more than three years of proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, an international body in The Hague, a tribunal constituted under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) issued a widely anticipated decision in a case the Philippines brought in 2013 to challenge China’s maritime claims to most of the contested waterway.
The members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—have become increasingly wary of Beijing in recent years and have clearly supported resolving the region’s disputes through the mechanisms of international law. Were China to make aggressive new moves, it would deepen their sense of alienation, encouraging them to strengthen their militaries to further balance against Beijing. The Philippines’ new president, Rodrigo Duterte, has signaled that he is interested in pursuing a more conciliatory approach to Beijing and has held out the possibility of resuming negotiations with China over resource sharing in the South China Sea. If Chinese President Xi Jinping accepts Duterte’s offer, he might be able to reach a deal with Manila that allows China to continue to claim some rights to resources in the far corners of the South China Sea.
As expected by many, the tribunal ruled in Manila’s favor and China rejected the tribunal’s decision, since Beijing, a signatory to the convention, has long opposed the proceedings and had warned that it would not abide by the judgment. China believes Washington has played its role in getting the judgment against China’s position over the SCS. USA and its local partners can avoid a dangerous escalation, and encourage China to abide by the ruling. China responds with increased belligerence.
China insists that it has sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, and the tribunal did not rule on their rightful ownership. But by declaring all of the Spratlys’ features to be reefs or rocks, it significantly limited the claims China can make to the surrounding water and airspace. Under international law, China’s outposts in the Spratly Islands should be considered isolated enclaves floating in a part of the ocean that is in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, since they lie within 200 nautical miles of that country’s territory. And Beijing cannot use the Spratlys to justify any claims to the surrounding waters.
The tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on almost every count, declaring nearly all of China’s maritime claims in the region invalid under international law, bringing a substantial amount of new clarity to a number of contentious legal issues and has set precedents that will affect the law of the sea for years to come. The tribunal held that all the territories in the contested Spratly Islands are reefs or rocks, not islands. That distinction matters, because under UNCLOS, reefs cannot generate a claim to the surrounding waters or airspace, and rocks can serve as the basis for only a small maritime claim of 12 nautical miles. Islands, on the other hand, generate a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone; states can also assert additional rights based on the extent of the continental shelves that underlie them.
The tribunal found that China had conducted illegal activities inside the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and thus completely invalidated China’s claim that it holds historic rights to the South China Sea through its “nine-dash line,” a sweeping cartographic projection that encompasses as much as 90 percent of the waterway. Chinese vessels, the tribunal ruled, had fished where they shouldn’t have, and had prevented others from fishing and extracting petroleum within the zone. The tribunal also censured China’s construction of artificial islands in the region, which it determined had caused severe environmental damage and heightened geopolitical tensions.
The tribunal’s ruling that the Spratlys do not constitute islands under UNCLOS complicated Chinese position and closed off another opportunity for Beijing to save face and destroyed China’s ability to justify its expansive claims to the South China Sea in legal terms. As speculated, China has rejected the legitimacy of the Philippines’ case and the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear it since Manila first brought its complaint in January 2013. Beijing has decried the tribunal’s decision as illegitimate, and it will certainly not abandon its outposts in the Spratlys or return the sand it used to manufacture them to the seabed. In fact, in the wake of the ruling, China landed civilian aircraft on some of those outposts, presumably to demonstrate that possession is nine-tenths of the law.
Since the tribunal rejected China’s claims to historic rights in the waterway entirely, Beijing now must either continue to reject the tribunal’s ruling wholesale or offer the Chinese public a fresh explanation of why its rights still stand—a tough approach, since Chinese leaders have long stuck to exactly the narrative that the tribunal rejected. The line was first unveiled by the Republic of China in 1947 and was adopted by China’s Communist rulers after they took power in 1949. Chinese officials have never explained the nine-dash line’s precise legal meaning, but they have repeatedly claimed that it demarcates an area from which China can extract resources.
China can be stubborn. Beijing knows for sure, as being veto members USA would not think of a war with China. It could also apply new domestic laws to the areas it controls. However, China’s actions would be deeply worrisome for neighbors and would demonstrate that Beijing is uninterested in playing by the rules of the international order. China’s withdrawal from the UNCLOS convention would suggest not only that Beijing intends to ignore the tribunal’s ruling but also that it does not want to be bound by the many other maritime rights and provisions that UNCLOS enshrines and that govern the free use of the global commons. USA is not a party to the convention to observe its provisions.
Although the tribunal dealt a blow to China’s maritime claims—its rights to water and airspace and its authority to conduct certain activities there—it did not rule on China’s claims to sovereignty over territory in the South China Sea, which are beyond the scope of UNCLOS. For that reason, Beijing can rightly argue that its sovereignty over the contested reefs and rocks it occupies has not been affected. It cannot legally continue to declare military zones in the water or airspace around the reefs it occupies, nor can it do so more than 12 nautical miles from the rocks it controls. But if Beijing emphasizes sovereignty claims instead of maritime ones, it could draw criticism from the West.
China might now choose to flout the decision more explicitly by deepening its de facto control of the area, declaring an air defense identification zone in the South China Sea, as it did in the East China Sea in 2013, unsettling many of its neighbors in Southeast Asia. Chinese forces could attempt to intercept a US ship or plane as it conducts a freedom-of-navigation operation, raising tensions between Beijing and Washington.
China has issues with Japan. There is a continual stream of events that all sides use to test the others’ resolution, with a dangerous possibility of the tension turning violent at any moment. The Chinese organised a large fishing fleet to visit islands which the Japanese claim and call the Senkaku. Japan lambasted the Chinese for sending the fishing fleet, and pointed out that they were supported by Chinese government ships. The joint presence of commercial and official Chinese vessels on such a large scale is something new. China is aggravating the situation. China appears to be asserting its right to protect its interests by mobilising fishing vessels during the summer fishing season, escorted by official vessels. Also in a recent development in a gas field in the East China Sea near the midway line between China and Japan, China installed naval vessel surveillance radar on its exploration platform. This, too, is an arbitrary move that cannot be overlooked. Beijing is steadily aiming for de facto control as fait accompli. The same tactic has been employed in the South China Sea.
Chinese sources blamed Japanese intransigence for much of the tension that has arisen with China in recent years over islands in the East China Sea. For years, Japan has refused to acknowledge it has any territorial dispute with China, which has basically shut the door to finding a peaceful solution to their sovereignty dispute over the Diaoyu Islands (Senkaku Islands in Japan) through diplomacy and dialogue.” “Japan has tried to blame China for the deteriorating situation in the region, accusing it of unilaterally seeking changes to the ‘status quo’. But it was Japan that did that by ‘nationalizing’ some of the islands in 2012, betraying the acquiescence reached by leaders of the two countries in the 1970s and subsequently maintained that the dispute should be shelved.”
A recent cyber attack in July by Chinese sources on computer system of Vietnam Airline has been condemned by Vietnamese leadership. The computer system was hacked. In addition, for a day, the screens displaying flight information at Hanoi’s and Ho Chi Minh City’s international airports were taken over and displayed derogatory messages about Vietnam and the Philippines regarding their dispute with China over South China Sea.
Although the South China Sea disputes have deep historical roots, they have flared up in recent years because China’s growing military capabilities have meaningfully improved Beijing’s ability to press its claims. If China goes further by deliberately flouting the ruling or withdrawing from UNCLOS, it could destroy the maritime order it has already damaged.
Satisfying as the tribunal’s decision may be for Manila, all parties now have a strong stake in ensuring that the situation doesn’t escalate. The judgment sets a significant legal precedent: the principles that guided the tribunal’s decision are now part of international law, and countries must embrace and reinforce them if they want others to uphold them in the future. The USA and like-minded countries around the world should continue to declare their support for the legal process, calling on China and the Philippines to abide by it without taking a position on the underlying sovereignty disputes. USA should make clear that it will investigate the implications of the decision for its own island claims.
If China does not begin construction at Scarborough Shoal, there will be ample room for cooperation between China and its neighbors and between Beijing and Washington. The wider world is looking on with some concern and it is putting a lot of the blame on China. The New York Times said that the waterway is too strategically important and the disputes too complex for the competing claims by China and five other countries Yet, provocations continue, raising questions about “China’s commitment to the rule of law and heightening fears of a wider conflict”.
World needs and seeks peace even as many top military nation is trying to disturb peace and tranquility by all possible means. US led western military forces are after energy resources and energy routes of Arab nations and Afghanistan; China and USA are complicating SCS normalcy; Israel is bent upon destroying peace and prosperity of Arab nations, especially Palestine, killing them by fake pretexts and denying them sovereignty. Palestinians keep dying just like Kashmiris because the colonialist India and Israel keep killing Muslims as their major policy.
Advanced terror techniques are being employed by fascist, imperialist and colonist nations against weak nations. They have converted may Muslim nations into enslaved peoples without freedom.
USA should be committed to acting responsibly. US officials should work closely with their Chinese counterparts, encouraging them to negotiate with the South China Sea’s other claimants, particularly the Philippines, and to make progress on a binding code of conduct with ASEAN, a long-sought multilateral agreement that would create a strict set of guidelines for behavior in the South China Sea. A code of conduct would likely also freeze the waterway’s political and territorial status quo, helping China reassure its neighbors that its long-term intentions are not threatening.
USA and China should also press ahead with the confidence-building measures they agreed to at June’s US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, to reduce the risk of an accidental clash between them. That would help each demonstrate to the other and to the region that neither wants to see a great-power conflict over the South China Sea.
Whether or not China move forward to secure cooperation with its neighbors is difficult to forecast right away; similarly, will USA let the region return to normalcy also remains to be seen.
Of course, resolving the current showdown in SCS peacefully and legally would be in everyone’s interests.
The Malaysian Model
Prime Minister Imran Khan paid his visit to Malaysia later the last month, which was concluded as successful, endorsed by the Prime Minister of Malaysia- Mahathir Mohamad himself. The visit was planned for two days with the two prime ministers having a one-on-one meeting, followed by delegation-level talks. The visit provided an opportunity to further cement the existing friendly and cordial bilateral relations by enhancing economic, trade and commercial ties for the mutual benefit of the two countries. It has been a success in the view that it has been a way forward for the terminating of trade cooperation agreements between the two countries. At the end of the visit, the energy sector especially LNG, tourism, greater collaboration between high-tech industries in Malaysia and Pakistan, and possibility of Malaysian investment in Special Economic Zones were discussed.
Imran Khan was welcomed warmly by the Malaysian delegation on his arrival. The purpose of the visit was for Imran Khan to inspect analytically the Malaysian economic model as of how they have been successful in achieving a great economy, without the interruption of the West. Imran Khan with an intention of following the model Malaysia had adopted scheduled his visit. There is no qualm over saying that this decision is to be appreciated by the new government if they are successful in implementing in Pakistan whatever they learned in Malaysia. Malaysia by targeting on the direct social realities of their country has been able to achieve the zenith of economic and social success.
Malaysia has followed an indigenous economic model, basing their economy on purely autarky by developing products what their local conditions and society were in need indigenously rather getting the dictation from the western models of economy, without ever feeling the need of foreign assistance for their local expense decisions- the position where Pakistan lacks.
Malaysia has continued over four decades of brisk inclusive growth, declining its reliance on agriculture and commodity exports to become a diversified, contemporary and open economy. The profit of development have been extensive and the high levels of income inequity inherited at independence progressively reduced through a development model emphasizing impartial growth, including increased participation of the Bumiputera (ethnic Malays and indigenous groups) in the modern economy. Growth has been determined by a series of structural reforms and the country cultivated its complimentary geographical location on global trade routes to promote export-oriented industrialization and endorsing regional incorporation. This has facilitated the improvement of manufacturing, boosting growth, employment and yield by expanding access to global markets, capital, knowledge and technology.
Pakistan since its birth has been following the western model of economy where Pakistan does not decide what its economic needs ought to be, but the west decides what the Pakistani economy needs. This dependence on the west has lead Pakistan in having the detrimental economic situation it has today where the “Dollar” seems to be getting more expensive and the rupee, de valued, thus the economy crippling.
Socially, Malaysia stands as the only country globally that has in actuality criminalized war in their national law. The society has always been free from political turmoil since politics has been very stable for the country, unlike Pakistan.
It will be unfair if it is advised that Pakistan starts following the complete Malaysian model of economy since the politico-economic situation and history of both the countries have been very different, thus applying the exact replicated model will not be possible. Pakistan unlike Malaysia has been subject to political and economic instability, has witnessed change in policies, dealt largely with the menace of corruption, have had government that would reverse economic models of each incoming government to start anew etc. It was pointed out rightly by PM Imran Khan that if “Malaysia, with a population of 30 million people, has exports worth $220 billion, and we, with a population of 201 million people have exports worth $24bn, then clearly we are doing something wrong”.
A solution can be applied in the act that Pakistan rather relying on the West for its economic build up, shall shift its focus on countries with the similar background and a more tangible yet acceptable economic model as that of Malaysia and other Asian economic giants. Pakistan can try to learn from them and follow their economic models as a replacement of the West. Following a pattern of economic development of similar nations will be much easier to pursue, less exploitative and attainable compared to the unrealistic western models.
Pakistan should realize what their need is indigenously rather letting the west dictates it for them. The Western model has always been exploitative towards countries like Pakistan and this is the right time to abandon it and take other inspirations in view.
Can disruption empower youth in politics? Interview with Malaysian Minister of Youth and Sports Syed Saddiq
Bangkok – On a hectic Wednesday night, I rushed to the heart of Bangkok for an event hosted by Oxford Foundation and Talk Foundation. The audiences were debaters, students, and young politicians from leading Thai political parties eager to have a glimpse of ASEAN’s youngest Minister.
Eager to learn from his “success”.
A special guest was in town; it was a fireside conversation in the honor of Malaysian Minister of Youth and Sports, Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman.
In the landslide election in May that brought Mahathir, a veteran, 93 years old, back to office, it was undoubtedly clear that youth voters were amongst the key component to that victory and Syed Saddiq was the player in that triumphant election.
Amongst all the techniques he used, he mobilized new millennials through social networks. With 1.5 million followers on Instagram, he told the audience how he used these online platforms for his political purpose.
Youth votes accounted for 41% of Malaysian electorates.
“On the eve of the election, we told everyone to watch Facebook Live at 10 pm. On that day, all Party members were garnering support through local places and online platforms to build up for the 10 pm Live. By 10 pm, we broadcasted Mahathir speech to the public.”
“The parents’ and grandparents’ generations were still with the current government. So, we relied on youth. We asked them to use their cell phones and they showed that to their parents.”
When asked what can youth bring to politics, Saddiq seemed fixed that “disruption is the only way to go”.
“We need to disrupt, disrupt the old ways of doing things, disrupt old politics, disrupt corruption.”
“The lowering of voting age is the case in point where disruption is a successful technique to champion youth agenda.”
Malaysia has recently been successful in lowering the youth eligibility to votes from 21 years old to 18 years old.
He was not naïve, however. He went on to elaborate his points that one needed to “pick the battle”.
All politician do.
Saddiq gave an interview that it is important for youth to strategize their precious voices for things that matter to them. Saddiq was confident it was education, a better and fairer education system, employment, and good standard of living.
“I said time and again that the Ministry of Youth and Sports must work hands in hands with the Ministry of Education. The two issues are different, but intertwined”.
In a casual, meticulous, leather jacket, Saddiq won the crowd on that day with his wit and humor. Instead of talking top down and being patronizing, the young politician was vibrant with energy and optimism.
He was on point.
The night was straightforward and inspiring. A young man aimed high and succeeded. He brought a new face to the old politics of Malaysian longstanding cronyism.
Saddiq stood tall and high as an epitome of youth empowerment.
But youth in politics is nothing new. The 1970s in Thailand democratic demonstrations to topple military dictatorship, the Vietnam war uprising in the United States or the recent rounds of youth activism for debt, LGBT and sexual harassment as well as the Apartheid Disinvestment in the 1970s to 1980s saw youth participation in good numbers.
There is no debate on whether the young are powerful. Of course, they are. The power of the young is immeasurable and there is a lot youth can bring to politics.
But youth in politics must bring more than young faces in the old regime. Youth in politics requires a new way of thinking – disruption perhaps – but how to make it sustainable? Youth in politics demands us to take ourselves seriously and reflect respect in our opinion as something serious and accountable.
When talking about youth, most of the time, it is the case that the loudest and most privileged are the ones that get heard and make noise. How can the new system ensure all kinds of youth voices count?
This reminded me of Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. If I could paraphrase the Broadway famous song:
“Do you hear the youth sing? Singing the song of angry men and women and gay and the poor? This is the song of young people who will not be slave again.”
To make politics work for youth, it must not be a rich boy game.
The fight has just begun. I wish you well.
Letter to heaven: An eulogy to Luang Poo Boonyarith Bundito
Everyone knows him as a great monk who was an exceptional teacher of meditation. From the royal family to a layman, Luangpoo Boonyarith Bundito was well loved and respected.
Luang Poo Boonyarith was a forest monk who ordained since the age of 31. Like forest monks before him from Luang Poo Mann Puritat to Luang Poo Chob Thannasamo, he followed a strict tradition of solitude. For decades, he traveled to the furthest parts of Thailand and remained there on his own. For at least 9 years, he lived by himself in the peak of a Karen Mountain in the Northern Part of Thailand.
“The karen has an innocent mind” he said in his meditation preaching.
In 1974, he was sent by Wat Bawornnivetviharn on a diplomatic mission to preach Buddhism in Australia. During more than 30 years of his tenure there, he built, strengthened and taught the beauty of mediation to foreigners and Thai alike.
An epitome of what a modern diplomacy is.
With his compassion and open-mindedness, he welcomed Christian, Jewish and Muslim into his temples to learn how to meditate, even though they were clear not to be Buddhist.
He was equally straightforward to them. “Meditation and Buddhism is intertwined and Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy nor a lifestyle”.
Something that would kill the New Age followers.
I had the privilege of knowing him since I was nearly four years old, where he would stay at our house during his trips and sabbatical to Bangkok. Sometimes he stayed for a couple weeks, sometimes that would last for a couple months. At least for 20 summers, we were lucky enough to host him.
While his disciples came to our house to seek truth and find peace, for a 4 years old me, Luang Poo was my English tutor. Having been fluent in French, German and English, Luang poo was a great linguist who paid attention to details of grammatic rules and depth of meaning and complexity of the vocabulary.
He is an avid reader – with extensive collection of books on philosophy, history, maps, arts and great classics. His gifts for me involved pens and notebooks, collection of postcards from foreign lands I never been or books I had never heard of.
At the age of 16, he gave me Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. With the density of idea and complexity of vocabulary, I quickly returned it to him.
He insisted: “keep it, when the time comes, you will get it.”
I did. When I joined Thammasat as an undergraduate student, Brave New World became my favourite, inspiring reference to make a difference in a toxic society.
As I became more interested in graduate schools and had my eyes on the most prestigious scholarship in Thailand, the Anandamahidol scholarship under the royal patronage the late king Bhumibol of Thailand, our conversation became more intense, focused and intellectual.
We debated ideas. With his wealth of knowledge on world history, we would always talk current affairs and politics. Theories and concepts.
Who would have thought a forest monk would be on point on world political affairs?
Luang Poo continued to guide me through the hardship of graduate schools. We would talk on the phone on the books I read, the papers I wrote and the difficulty things were for me to conceptualise.
“Sati, Ninja, Sati.” Conscious that meant. He said, “one word at a time. Never skim”.
He loves dictionary so he taught and trained me to open up every word I don’t understand.
If you open his books, you will find scribbles on the sideline on the explanation of words he did not know or his interpretation of them.
As studying theories became more complex, that kind of attention to detail allowed me to be on point, concise and succinct.
He said however that a Buddhist is not a theorist. A Buddhist is a doer. Test the theories, he meant.
When I consulted him with the idea of creating UNITE Thailand, he was on board and gave me the most life changing advice to an idealistic me with heavily foreign influences.
“Forget the theories, forget democracy, forget Buddhism, make kids happy, as many as possible.”
Before the tragic day of the 14th of November 2018 where he parted this world for heaven, he has suffered severe health issues and complication for 7 years that he could not talk, move or eat by himself.
He was the educator who loved Thailand so much. The last sentence he ever said to me was “a great person is one with gratitude. We are indebted to this land, be good. Be kind. Be nice. Be helpful.”
Thailand loses a great monk who taught them Dhamma. I lost a grandfather who helped me through the intensity of life, who taught me to read, write and question, who taught me the beauty of life, the necessity to serve our society.
Enjoy heaven, Luang Poo.
I will always remember you.
The Best Ways to Spend the Festive Holidays in Beirut
The holiday season is one of the most exciting times to visit Beirut. The city streets are decked out in shimmering lights,...
Shifting Middle Eastern sands spotlight diverging US-Saudi interests
A series of Gulf and Middle East-related developments suggest that resolving some of the Middle East’s most debilitating and devastating...
Piero della Francesca. Monarch of Painting
On 7 December 2018, Russian Orthodox St Catherine’s Day, the monographic exhibition Piero della Francesca opens in the State Hermitage,...
Modern Russian Defense Doctrine
On December 26, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new military doctrine for the Russian armed forces. The document...
UN launches new framework to strengthen fight against terrorism
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres launched a new Organization-wide framework on Thursday to coordinate efforts across the peace and security,...
West return to 2007: Europe’s anger over incompetent politicians
The anger and discontent of European citizens over European politicians is increasing day by day. While more than ten years...
Preparing teachers for the future we want
At its annual meeting in Montego Bay, Jamaica, from 5-9 November, the International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030...
- Centre and Calm Yourself and Spirit on Restorative Yoga Energy Trail
- Queen Rania of Jordan Wears Ralph & Russo Ready-To-Wear
- OMEGA watches land on-screen in Universal Pictures’ new film First Man
- Experience the Prada Parfum’s Way of Travelling at Qatar Duty Free
- ‘Get Carried Away’ With Luxurious Villa Stays and Complimentary Private Jet Flights
Defense2 days ago
The prospect of the military and security potential of Syrian Kurds and Democratic Alliance
South Asia2 days ago
India and Pakistan bid for NSG Membership
Middle East3 days ago
Iran: Which way to go?
Middle East2 days ago
Qatar’s decision to leave OPEC
Economy1 day ago
Success of G-20 Summit 2018
Reports2 days ago
Report: Pakistan’s trade with South Asia can rise by eight-fold
Africa2 days ago
South Sudan-India: Diplomatic Relations and Economic Partnership Potential
Africa1 day ago
AMU’s failure: Morocco and Algeria disagreement