program for action<\/a>.<\/p>\nThere\u2019s just one problem: it won\u2019t work. While it\u2019s simple to urge the dispatch of a naval force to operate in the disputed waters, it\u2019s just not realistic. Goldrick suggests we point out to Beijing that its \u2018islands\u2019 are artificial and didn\u2019t rise above high tide until it conducted the land reclamation operations. So what? They do now.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s difficult to see exactly what would be achieved by such a provocative course. Yes, we would have \u2018proved\u2019 we believe those are international waters, but do we really want to risk war? What if, for example, China sent its vessels to intercept ours or, even worse, threatened to fire on RAN vessels transiting these waters? Do we really want such a confrontation?<\/p>\n
The difficulty is to negotiate the plethora of differing objectives that motivate the various actors in the drama. By sailing a navy ship within 12 nautical miles of China\u2019s new \u2018islands\u2019 President Obama has sent a clear signal that the US won\u2019t be recognising Beijing\u2019s claim. But now what? And what are the other claimants going to do? The US still refuses to ratify the UN Convention on Law of the Sea (although abiding by it) but the real problem will come the next time America attempts to do the same thing.<\/p>\n
What happens when, instead of simply shadowing the US ship through the waters, a couple of Chinese fishing vessels place themselves in the way of the American vessel? Or China doesn\u2019t accept the transit. And what of the other claimants to these waters? It\u2019s not at all clear what the end-game is here. The creative tension that ASEAN has accepted with the mutually overlapping claims of its members worked as long as the different nations respected each other and didn\u2019t attempt to force the issue. Those times are over; China\u2019s playing for keeps.<\/p>\n
ASEAN still hasn’t even managed to frame a joint protest against China\u2019s actions, which can hardly come as a surprise to anyone who’s been following that organisation\u2019s record. If the Southeast Asian countries had been able to negotiate demarcations between themselves, they might have had a show at preventing China’s unilateral action. Unfortunately they couldn\u2019t get their act together earlier and it\u2019s far too late for that now.<\/p>\n
Jennings recommends lifting our defence spending to a minimum of 2% of GDP over the longer term but again, what will this achieve? China will outspend us, no matter how much we boost our commitment. Perhaps more importantly, building up our forces isn\u2019t a sensible answer to the problem of land reclamation in the South China Sea.\u00a0It\u2019s an attempt to find a military answer to resolve a diplomatic question, and it won\u2019t work.<\/p>\n
Since 2008 we\u2019ve spent (all up) the equivalent of $1 billion a year on sending forces to the Middle East, and yet that situation has just deteriorated further. Our forces haven\u2019t achieved the desired effect. That\u2019s why I\u2019d be searching for a clearer link between boosting spending and achieving the desired result before assuming that buying more ships and submarines made any sense.<\/p>\n
Perhaps most importantly, aggressiveness doesn\u2019t suit the new political mood in the country.<\/p>\n
Tony Abbott constantly linked the deteriorating international situation with the need to spend more money to increase security. This didn\u2019t win him the votes when he needed them. Not even the Liberal party room is listening to the old siren song emphasising defence. Malcolm Turnbull has already made it quite clear that he believes the best security is guaranteed by a sound economy. He\u2019ll be paying down the deficit before he spends more money on our armed forces.<\/p>\n
Australians should be unsettled by what\u2019s happening in the South China Sea, but they\u2019re not rushing to enlist because of it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a recent comment piece in The Australian, Peter Jennings urges action in the South China Sea. He\u2019s quite correct. China’s island-building activities are clearly demonstrating Beijing\u2019s determination to fundamentally alter the current situation by …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":23177,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[17,1522,471],"class_list":["post-23167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-australia","tag-fonops","tag-south-china-sea"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
What to do about the South China Sea? | The Strategist<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n