South China Sea Flare Up Adds to Rising Geopolitical Risks in Asia

How will boiling tension in the South China Sea, the Cauldron of Asia, impact global geopolitics?

When History Meets the Future

If we accept Parag Khanna’s claim that the future is Asian, then the coming years - and likely decades - will continue to be a period of global volatility. The simultaneous flare up in West Asia between Israel and Hamas and recent escalation in China-Philippines relations is a geopolitical amuse-bouche of what is to come.

An important footnote to this theme is to consider how the West has a tendency to separate the Middle East from the idea of Asia. Washington’s narrow conception of what constitutes “Asia” and “Asian” can be at best an embarrassing diplomatic perception, and at worst, the basis for ill-informed policy in a critical region that will define global geopolitics for the coming decades.

Instead, it would be more intellectually honest and strategically prudent to refer to these areas as different parts of a whole and not as completely separate entities. Exempli Gratia, one US politician famously - and rather foolishly - said “The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq”.

As a region, Asia in many ways was more globalized before Europe and the West as a whole were prior to the 15th-century. China’s strategists know this, and are leveraging the historical legacy of the region to advance modern strategic agendas.

The Cauldron of Asia: The South China Sea

Shipping lanes in the South China Sea (SCS) are responsible for carrying approximately $5.3 trillion worth of goods to countries every year and is a critical artery for carrying oil and liquified natural gas within Asia.

The SCS holds a rich marine ecosystem ripe for commercialized fishing and dwarfs its regional peers: more than 50 percent of the world's fishing vessels operate in this area.

Source: DailyFX

Complementing the economics, the SCS is also important for China's geopolitical ambitions. Beijing sees the SCS as a key part of its Maritime Silk Road initiative embedded in the multi-continental Belt and Road Initiative.

The SCS holds strategic value for China's military security. It provides them with a buffer zone between the mainland and Pacific Ocean to help protect China's coastlines.

Claiming key parts of the South China Sea would also give Beijing greater control over the air and sea routes in the region and their ability to project power in the Pacific Ocean.

China has made extensive claims in the SCS, including many islands and reefs that are also claimed by other countries. Their island-building endeavors have been dubbed the “Great Wall of Sand”.

As the BBC correctly notes, “In 1947, China issued a map detailing its claims, and insists history backs up its claims - Beijing says its right to the area goes back centuries to when the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation”. History seldom remains settled.

China has made the largest claims in the SCS, famously demarcated by its internationally illegitimate nine-dash line, which “extends hundreds of miles south and east from its most southerly province of Hainan”.

There have been a number of flare ups in this region going back to the early 1970s. With the current global paradigm of increasing unilateralism and geopolitical fragmentation, it is unlikely these short bursts of tension will subside.

As a matter of fact, they will likely accelerate,

These disputes have led to an escalation in tensions between China and its neighbors, including Vietnam, Malaysia, and most recently, the Philippines.

Manila and Beijing Lock Horns

Most recently, Chinese vessels blasted a Philippine ship with water cannons during a resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre, a WWII-era ship intentionally grounded on Second Thomas Shoal in 1999. Unlike China’s nine-dash line, Manila has an internationally-recognized and legitimate claim to this area that Beijing disputes.

Foreign Policy magazine reports that: “There have been other incidents elsewhere, including China’s installation in September of a floating barrier at Scarborough Shoal, another disputed area, which the Philippine Coast Guard subsequently removed.”

Policymakers and investors alike are concerned that an escalation to a direct confrontation would trigger US involvement and support for the Philippines. The Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), signed on August 30, 1951 commits both parties to support each other if either is attacked in the Pacific Area.

The MDT is the foundation of the U.S.-Philippine security alliance, which has been a key factor in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region for over 70 years. The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) support the implementation of the MDT and provide a framework for U.S. and Philippine forces to work together to address common security challenges.

Biden has made his stance clear: “Any attack on Filipino aircraft, vessels, or armed forces will invoke our mutual defense treaty”. Beijing’s regional ambitions have become more aggressive, and has raised the overall risk profile of the region.

At a time when the US is already supporting Israel in West Asia and Ukraine in Eastern Europe, additional stress in Southeast Asia would pressure Washington’s ability to live up to its mantle as guarantor of global security.

Beijing’s recent provocation in the Philippines may be designed to do just that. One analyst theorized that if the U.S. does too little to support its allies in Asia, it will undermine perceptions of their reliability and “doing too much allows Beijing to portray Washington as a destabilizing and threatening force in the region”.

Earlier this year, the US staged its largest joint military exercises with the Philippines in response to the growing urgency of the situation in the SCS. Cooperative military engagements of these kinds are expected to grow as the US steps up military and economic engagement in Asia.

The SCS, or what I call the “Cauldron of Asia”, will continue to heat up until relations with Beijing reach a boiling point and overflow into the rest of world. Diplomats would do well to find a lid and lower the temperature before they get burned.