OPINION-The Geopolitics of the Water Cannon Incident in South Sea – Macau Business

The dispute between China and the Philippines over the islands in the South Sea was shown in the action of a Chinese coastguard vessel that used water cannon to prevent a Philippine military supply boat from transporting fuel, food and water to troops stationed on an old warship grounded near the Second Thomas Shoal. The incident led to the immediate diplomatic protests from the Philippines, followed by the support from the US and a rebuttal from the Chinese side. The whole incident illustrates the complex geopolitics in the territorial dispute over the islands inthe South Sea.

The Philippines government summoned the envoy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Manila to protest the Chinese coastguard action.

The PRC asserts that it has sovereignty over the submerged reef, namely Ren’ai (or Ayungin in Philippines), and that the Philippines military should remove the grounded warship from the reef region. The Philippines side has been refusing to do so.

Historically, China has claimed its sovereignty over the Second Thomas Shoal in the South Sea. Its sovereignty extends to the “nine-dash line” that covers some of the economic zones of other claimants, including Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. During the naval conflicts between China and Vietnam in 1974, the PRC got back the Paracel Islands. In 1995, the PRC controlled the Mischief Reef, whose sovereignty was claimed by the Philippines. In 2016, an international tribunal in Hague dealt with a lawsuit launched by the Philippines and it decided that China’s “nine-dash line” and historical claims were superseded by the United Nations Convention on the Sea. But China did not recognize the rulingand said that it was a drama staged in the name of the international law with the behind-the-scenes manoeuvre of the US.

The Philippines in 1999 grounded its old warship, namely Sierra Madre, at the Second Thomas Shoal as a show of its assertion of sovereignty over the disputed waters. The Shoal is situated east of the Mischief Reef and is near the Philippine Island of Palawan.

The Philippines action of stationing some troops on Sierra Madre and providing logistical supplies to them regularly was a gesture of asserting its sovereignty.

On the other hand, the Chinese coastguard action of using water cannon to target at the Philippine military supply boat was also a gesture of asserting its sovereignty in the disputed territory.

The Chinese foreign ministry said that it exercised restraint all the time and repeated the demand for the Philippines to tow away the grounded warship, adding that the coastguard vessels targeted at Philippines ships that carried construction materials to the warship. The PRC side also added that the Filipino side had promised to remove the grounded warship. The Chinese claim of this Philippines promise was rejected by Manila, and President Marcos added that if such a promise existed, he would “rescind” it.

From the video shown in public, it seems that the water cannon did not directly hit the Philippines military supply boat. It looks like a minor incident showing both sides’ assertions of theirsovereignty over the disputed area.

It was reported that four Philippines vessels were involved in the water cannon saga, including two coastguard vessels and two chartered vessels. Moreover, there were six Chinese coastguard vessels and two Chinese fishing vessels.

However, some politicians in the Philippines appeared to react strongly. This is not surprising given the fact that the Philippine politicians are often divided into those who are more supportive of a friendly diplomacy toward China and those who are more pro-American and supportive of a hardline and nationalist policy toward Beijing. The remarks of the hardliners can be seen when Jonathan Malaya, a spokesperson of the Philippines national security council, insisted that his country would “never abandon Ayungin Shoal.”

It must be noted that former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte adopted a more friendly relationship with the PRC, knowing the necessity of making the Philippines a more neutral actor that was sandwiched between the power politics and regional rivalry between the PRC on the one hand and the US on the other.

However, the current Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has been adopting a more pro-US policy than Duterte. The Marcos government has given Washington access to four additional military bases under the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement in 2014, an agreement that provides for joint military training, the use of military equipment, and the construction of military facilities including storage and runways. The US has provided military aid to the Philippines. Under the Marcos regime, the US relations with the Philippines have been strengthened at the expense of a more harmonious relationship between Manila and Beijing.

The water cannon incident prompted the US defence secretary Lloyd Austin to stress the “ironclad nature of the US-Philippines alliance” during a call with the Philippine defence secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. The US side criticized the Chinese side for “threatening” regional peace and stability.

The PRC Foreign Ministry Wang Yi then criticized the US side for stirring up troubles in the South Sea and for “adding the fuel on the fire” on Sino-Philippines relations. He also criticized the US for “instigating confrontations” with China and undermining the peace and calmness in the South Sea. According to Wang, China hopes that countries in the region should be on guard over the “black hand” behind the scenes and that they should grasp the leadership right into their own hands. 

During his visit to Singapore and Malaysia, Wang Yi said that China raised to the Philippines many times on its willingness to deal with mutual opinion differences through bilateral dialogue.Moreover, China would like to work with the ASEAN on the regional rules and regulations in accordance with the international law.

On the other hand, President Marcos indicated that both the Philippines and Chinese side would discuss further on the disputed areas. He said: “The position of China, of course, is they say, ‘this is ours, so we are defending it’ and we, for our part, are saying ‘no, we own it, so we are defending it.’ So that becomes a grey area that we are discussing.”

If the Chinese and the Philippines sides are willing to sit down in the negotiating table to talk and discuss about territorial dispute over the islands on South Sea, then the water cannon saga would hopefully be tackled in a calm, wise and diplomatic manner.

The whole water cannon incident illustrates the potential flashpoint between China and its neighbours over territorial disputes in the islands of South Sea.

First, the geopolitical alliance between the US and the Philippines and other American allies has made any action taken by China to assert its sovereignty claims over the islands in South Sea extremely sensitive and politicized. Apart from the US-Philippines defence alliance, Japan has agreed to provide coastguard and military vessels to the Philippines. Japan’s expression of its political and defensive support of Taiwan, as Liberal Democratic Party vice president Taro Aso commented during his recent visit to Taipei, has also angered China. The distrust between China on the one hand and the US, the Philippines and Japan on the other hand does not appear to bode well for the future of peace in the Asia-Pacific region.

The strong relations between the US allies and the Philippines mean that Manila may have to be more careful, delicate, and subtle in Manila’s dispute with Beijing over the islands in South Sea. Any imbalance in Manila’s orientation that may be tilted toward the US side would perhaps bring about tense relations with Beijing – an imbalance that was avoided by President Duterte.

Second, China’s coastguard action may have to be more careful in its usage of water cannons. Although it is understandable that the Chinese side asserted its sovereignty over the disputed territory, any mild action on the part of its coastguard vessels could be misperceived and misinterpreted by Beijing’s Asian neighbours, some of whom cast suspicious eyes on the PRC’s military expansion and intention in South Sea.

Third, if Washington wishes to return to more harmonious relations with Beijing, its responses to a similar water cannon incident will perhaps need to be wise and to exercise more restraint in verbal comments. Indeed, in the world of international politics, neutrality is extremely difficult. But, as Wang Yi mentioned perhaps quite fairly, the remarks from the US side appeared to add fuel to the fire, fanning the flames of an accident unnecessarily. However, from another angle of balancing and containing the PRC influence, it is understandable that the US promptly criticized the Chinese coastguard action atthe Second Thomas Shoal.

Fourth, it is imperative for ASEAN to finalize, endorse and implement the code of conduct for South Sea so that any unnecessary international military conflicts in the region would be avoided. Trust-building will be necessary between China and its Asian neighbours. Instead of seeing China as a “threat,” most Asian states will hopefully embrace its rapid rise in a harmonious and win-win situation.

In conclusion, the water cannon incident appears to be a minor one, but it can be a flashpoint that draws the PRC and the Philippines into an unnecessary dispute and unwanted conflict. Neither Beijing nor Manila would like to witness any conflict, but in fact both countries have exhibited a consensus of sitting down on the negotiating table to communicate further over disputed issues. Most importantly, the water cannon incident demonstrates the complexities of geopolitics under which the US-China rivalry is complicating the relations between the Philippines and the PRC. Geopolitical rivalries between China and other US allies can also be easily seen in the water cannon saga. Under these circumstances, Manila may have to consider the virtue of the Duterte regime in balancing the US and China subtly and skilfully without tilting toward any side prominently. On the other hand, the Chinese coastguard vessels may have to be extremely cautious in exercising even more restraint in dealing with similar Philippines attempts at making gestures to demonstrate Manila’s sovereignty over the disputed waters in South Sea. Mutual restraints are and will perhaps the most important ingredient avoiding misperceptions in international politics.