Since 2010, the success or failure of peace settlement of conflict in the South China Sea has become a hot issue of concern to the international political community. From 18 to 23 July, the negotiation between China and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) (over territorial dispute in the South China Sea) finally reached a breakthrough.
Based on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, ASEAN and Chinese officials have reached a diplomatic agreement on a set of guidelines that can help to promote the creation of a mutual trust, mutual cooperation mechanism to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
Sovereignty Claim
Although this mutual cooperation mechanism will not change respective country's position on the sovereignty claim of maritime rights and islands in the South China Sea, but as we look at this breakthrough from all perspectives, the signing of this agreement has carried with it great significance.
First, after the relationship between China and Southeast Asian countries went through a round of crisis last year, the signing of the Guidelines now ushers a new turning point for China and Southeast Asian countries to move toward the right direction in resolving the conflict in the South China Sea. Second, despite the fact that the cause that led to the crisis in the South China Sea in 2010 was very complicated, but the arrival of the turning point this year has reflected the fact that China has the ability to digest and resolve crisis and turn crisis into opportunity. Third, more importantly, the signing of this ‘Guidelines’ agreement also signifies that Asian countries have the ability to use their own method to deal with one another's disputes and to establish an Asian regional order among them.
Presence of US forces in Asia
The presence of the US forces in Asia is an objective reality and the presence of the US forces in Asia is viewed by ASEAN member countries as a necessity force to ‘balance’ China. As such, very often, the US factor tends to make the construction of an Asian regional security order more complex. To China, the presence of the United States in Asia is something China cannot avoid but yet the presence of it is not at all that bad. While the presence of the United States in this Asian region has increased the difficulties of China in handling issues relating to Asia, the presence of the United States in Asia has also made China becoming more rational in handling regional affairs.
From historical perspective, the establishment of any form of regional order, especially the establishment of regional security order has never been an easy one. Most of the regional security orders that people see now were in fact achieved through wars. For example, the formation of the European security pact cannot be separated from the two world wars. The security alliance pact between the United States and Japan and the security alliance pact between the United States and South Korea are also inseparable from the past wars. Apparently, it is comparatively easier to establish new security order in post-war period.
War is a matter of life and death. Very often, in the post-war period, countries can discover many favorable conditions to form a new security order. In Europe, the two world wars have brought immense disaster to mankind. This disaster nevertheless led countries to reach a consensus on the need to establish a common security order to avoid future war. But in the process of building the European security order, the United States has played a leading role. After the Second World War, the United States has become the world leader acceptable by all the countries in Europe. Meanwhile, the United States also has the ability to play such a role using his massive economic power and military strength. In addition, development of the Cold War has also helped the United States to ascertain and establish its world leadership. During that period, Western Europe faced a strong Soviet Union; they needed such a similar strong US leadership to withstand their external threat. The Cold War that persisted for as long as half a century has highly institutionalized the security order in Europe and in the United States (mainly reflected in North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]). After the Cold War, the United States and Western Europe are able to expand the NATO mechanism to cover the whole of Europe.
Western Security Order Derived From Long Period of War
Similarly, the security alliance partnership between the United States and Japan as well as between the United States and South Korea alliance pact were also formed in the post-victory period of the United States. After the defeat of Japan in the Second World War, the United States took control of Japan for the then Japan did not have any independent diplomacy. To a very large degree, the US-Japan security alliance after the Second World War was arranged by the United States single-handedly. Although Japan is the main participant in the US-Japan security pact, Japan does not have very much say in it. The security pact signed between the United States and South Korea is also quite similar. South Korea has no difficulty to accept the US leadership and allow the US troops to be stationed in South Korea because South Korea's security threat comes from North Korea.
However, in many ways, the kind of security order formed after the ‘post-victory’ period did reflect many internal inequities. Regardless of whether it is the European security order, or whether it is the alliance pact signed between the United States and Japan or the alliance agreement signed between the United States and South Korea, the United States is in a position to command absolute leadership. While on one hand, the leadership status of the United States is useful for the establishment of new security order, but on the other hand, member countries within the security pacts must accept the US leadership. Yet for the United States to maintain its leadership status, there are some basic prerequisite and conditions the United States must observe. First, there is the cost of war to bear. Second, there is the external threat to face. Third, the openness of the US leadership with the system and the ability of this leadership to accommodate the interests of the members within the group or security pact must adhere. If substantial changes occur in these conditions, the fundamental basis of such security order will be threatened.
After the end of the Cold War, NATO is able to continue and survive and expand by relying on its expansion range. At the same time, it might be that the security threat coming from Russia has also helped in the cohesion of NATO. In the case of the alliance pact between the United States with Japan and with the alliance pact between the United States and South Korea, there were certain periods of time when these alliance pacts between them becoming loose due to the lack of external threats. During certain period, the outcries of the people in South Korea in demanding the US troop withdrawal from South Korea were very high. In Japan, during Japan's Democratic Party leader Hatoyama's tenure as the Prime Minister of Japan, Hatoyama has also proposed the establishment of an East Asian Community in order to pursue equality status of Japan with the United States. Nevertheless, in recent years, North Korean has been viewed as the threat of both Japan and South Korea. Behind the security alliance pact of Japan and South Korea with the United States, these three countries have now considered China as their external threat.
In addition, a region's geopolitical environment can also have a unique impact on that particular region's security order. Such geopolitical impact is most obviously manifested in North America. In North America, the natural environment of the United States in that particular region makes the United States holding a dominating and supremacy position and so the United States has naturally become the leader in North America. It is also apparent to all that the North American security system is a kind of highly hierarchical dependence type of security system. In all aspects of strength and capability, whether it is Mexico or Canada, these two countries cannot be compared with that of the United States. These two countries also do not have any ambition to challenge the United States. Coupled with the openness of the US system itself, North America has developed a more natural regional security order than other regions in the world.
In Asia, the construction of the regional security order does not follow such a pattern. In the first place, unlike Europe, Asia has not gone through the type of prolonged war that Europe has gone through in the past. Moreover, even when there were wars in Asia, the wars did not produce any ‘victor’ similar to that of Europe. In the 1930s of the last century, Japan had wanted to establish the Japanese Imperial order though the use of war, but Japan's ambition ended in failure. While we can China was the ‘winner’ or ‘victor’ after Japan's defeat, but in reality, China neither had the concept nor thought to establish a regional security order similar to that of the western countries. This was in addition to the fact that China did not have the ability and sufficient power to do so too. Due to the development of the Cold War, the US-Japan and US-Republic of Korea alliance were formed. In this regard, it was also quite impossible for a regional security order be formed in Northeast Asia to include all the countries in that region then. On the contrary, due to the fact that the security pacts signed between the United States and Japan as well as the security pact signed between the United States and South Korea have all viewed China as their potential external threat, the security order in the Northeast Asian region is in fact an ‘insecure’ security order. Under the current situation, for a security order to be formed in the Northeast Asian region, it must satisfy the following two conditions. First, China has to accept the regional security order led by the United States; and at least for the minimum, China must not challenge such a regional security order led by the United States. Second, the United States must accommodate China's interest to a certain level. However, these two considerations are rather unstable. As such, as of today, the Northeast Asian region still faces the challenge to form a regional security order that can include the need of both China and the United States.
ASEAN Regional Security Order
However, ASEAN is a special case. It is a successful non-western regional security order. While western security order has set conditions for its formation, there is no such condition exists among ASEAN member countries. For example, although there are sporadic conflicts among ASEAN member countries, however, within ASEAN there is no breakout of war in magnitude comparable to the type of war that happened in Europe in the past. As such, within this ASEAN regional group, there is no ‘winner’ or ‘victor’ of wars or conflicts. Moreover; the Southeast Asian region also does not have a natural leader similar to that of the United States in other regions of the world. Although among the ASEAN member countries, Indonesia is a natural big country within the Southeast Asian region, but in term of Indonesia's internal strength and external influence towards other countries in Southeast Asia, the status of Indonesia is far less from such a position that can be compared with that of the United States in North America. Moreover, although at different period of time, Southeast Asia also faced some external threat, but these threats were far less serious than the situation in Europe or Northeast Asia.
Under such conditions, the countries in Southeast Asia embarked on a non-western path and established a non-western regional security order for themselves. After the formation of ASEAN, due to the fact that ASEAN's security order is different from that of the western style secur ity order, ASEAN has all along been viewed as a regional forum with no real significant power or even carried any significant meaning. However, on practical level, ASEAN is no less insecure than any region (including Europe) since the end of the Cold War. As stated above, the security order within ASEAN is neither imposed by external force nor that was its security order ascertained or formed by a strong and forceful leader outside the ASEAN region. As such one can also hold the view that the creation and development of this regional security order in ASEAN in fact hold more democratic features than other regions. As a matter of fact, the contact, discussion, consensus and trust building mooted among all ASEAN member countries as well as the ultimate institutionalization and legalization of the work of ASEAN are the main security features of this regional grouping in Asia.
Post-Cold War Scenario
After the Cold War, ASEAN has also faced many challenges. But ASEAN accepted and succeeded to face such challenges. At certain period of time, ASEAN thought that the most effective means to maintain ASEAN's regional security was to exclude the involvement of all external big nations. Later on, ASEAN leaders realized that the exclusion of great powers into the Southeast Asian region was not realistic for it did not meet the interest of ASEAN. In this regard, ASEAN has successfully transformed into an inclusive regional forum, and has gradually established an inclusive regional security cooperation framework within the Asian region. The most outstanding achievement of ASEAN is that ASEAN has succeeded to accommodate China, Japan and South Korea from the Northeast Asian region into ASEAN's annual summit and forum. Of late, ASEAN has also included the participation of the United States in its ASEAN Regional Forum. At this year's forum held in Bali, China and ASEAN reached a non-binding guidelines and agreement for the implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. This is one of the achievements of ASEAN in dealing with regional affairs.
Historians in the future will say that this ‘Guidelines’ agreement reached between China and ASEAN is a starting point of a new China-ASEAN regional security order. In the formation of this regional security order, China will play a key role in it. If the China factor is ignored, then the talk of a new Asian regional security order would be impossible to achieve.
As a rising Asian power, China is destined to play a major role in Asia's regional security order. This is regardless of what other people's subjective wish of Asia's regional security order will be. How China acts will determine whether Asia can form a certain kind of regional security order or not. From what is happening now, it is obvious that China has gradually used its own method to successfully integrate itself into the Asian regional security order that uses ASEAN as its fundamental base. China's choice is not only consistent with China's national interests. China's choice is also more in line with ASEAN's interests. However, this process is not easy. For China, this is a challenge. China must learn, adapt and take up the responsibility to shoulder the duties entrusted along the process.
China's transformation of behavior in dealing with other countries has comprehensively reflected the non-western concept of Asian feature. In China's relationship with ASEAN countries, like all other big countries, China's initial response was refusal. But very soon, China accepted the multilateralism nature of ASEAN and within this multilateral framework; China played an active role in it. In this kind of multilateral relationship, China also made effort to stress on putting multinational economic relations with ASEAN first; and then later on expanded to other areas, including the security fields. Now, through trade and economic relations, China and ASEAN countries have gradually built mutual trust with each other and have begun to engage in various aspects of institutionalized constru ction. Although China and ASEAN have already achieved the implementation of free trade through the signed China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, China still puts its focus on building up economic relations with all ASEAN member countries. Of particular note is that the reason why ASEAN is able to accommodate China is because China has chosen to be accommodated by ASEAN. In this regard, China is different from some other major powers which are only interested to fight for leadership role within the ASEAN framework. After China joined ASEAN's friendly pact, China has no intention to fight for leadership role, but instead, China acknowledges and supports ASEAN's leadership role. In this regard, the behavior of China and the action taken by China pose a striking contrast of the behavior of the United States. It is obvious that the United States has begun to assert its leadership role in this ASEAN region once the United States joins ASEAN as part and parcel of its partnership body. In fact, while welcoming the participation of the United States into the ASEAN mechanism, at the same time, ASEAN countries also keep close watch and concern of the US behavior within the ASEAN framework.
On the other hand, based on China's foundation on trade and economic ties with ASEAN countries, China already has the condition to establish a regional security order with ASEAN. As compared with the western culture, China's culture has never been one that will put a lot of emphasis on maintaining regional security order. On regional security matter, China has always been very cautious. Although the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was discussed in 1992, it was only in 2002 that China has agreed and signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea with all ASEAN member countries. Then it was after nine years that ASEAN and China finally signed the agreement to implement the ‘Guidelines’ of the Declaration. This newly signed ‘Guidelines’ pertaining to the South China Sea conflict is an assurance of peace and security to the South China Sea, a piece of ocean that has multiple party disputes over the sovereignty of its islands and maritime resources. The next step for China and ASEAN to do is to start carrying out negotiations and working on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea so that it can have legal binding.
Although the ‘Guidelines’ signed between China and ASEAN still does not have any legal binding, and although the close cooperation between China and ASEAN and sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea are two different issues, but after all, the provision of this ‘Guidelines’ has already paved way for a good start to resolve the pending conflict in the South China Sea in a more peaceful manner. In resolving disputes between countries, the West tends to use hard power and military policy. Yet unlike the West, China is more inclined to create a friendly atmosphere first and the later on, try to find a peaceful solution to resolve the sovereignty disputes.
South China Sea Conflict
After China's reformation and opening up, China did not waste very much time and had applied peaceful settlement means to resolve its border conflicts between Russia, Vietnam and other countries. This achievement of China is rare in the West. We have reason to believe that although the South China Sea territorial conflicts can be more complicated that China's border issues with other countries and although in the South China Sea conflict, there are constantly some external forces beyond the region trying to interfere with the already complicated conflicts in the South China Sea, we have reason to believe that China, a country that is able to accept past mistakes as its learning experience is bound to find some peaceful means to resolve the issues in the South China Sea.
At a higher level, people can also believe that unlike the West that uses force, ‘external threat’ and supremacy leadership to establish regional security order, China and Asian countries are capable to clearly establish its own distinctive regional security order embedded with Asian characteristics. If the western security order is a manifestation of the western culture, then the emergence of the Asian security order must by default also reflect the embodiment of Asian culture. In more than a century in the past, although Asian countries (including China) have, in varying degree, influenced by the western culture, but with the emergence of countries with long history of civilization such as China and India, Asia will eventually return to Asia. Asia will eventually establish an Asian regional security order that truly belongs to Asia.
