China, the South China Sea, and the and the League of Nations

August 27, 2016
 

September 18^th, 1931: a young Japanese army lieutenant, Suemori Kawamoto, acting under orders of Col. Seishiro Itagaki, surreptitiously detonates a small bomb next to a railroad track just outside of Shenyang, Manchuria.

The Japanese used the fabricated ‘Mukden Incident’ to justify invading and occupying Manchuria, claiming the attack represented a threat to security.

Roll the clock forward…

Beginning in 1991, as the Philippines demanded removal of US military bases, and as US presence in the South China Sea (SCS) began to shrink, the US began shifting naval assets to the Middle East, while shrinking our navy as part of the ‘peace dividend’; no serious effort was made to address the power vacuum in SE Asia.

Meanwhile, the Chinese had already been making waves about the ‘9 Dash Line,’ a map (with a line made up of nine segments – ‘9 Dashes’) that marked out Chinese territory in the SCS, to include most of the islands. China didn’t quite have the navy to do anything about it, so things went more or less unchanged for the next decade or so.

 

But 4 or 5 years ago things started changing: the Chinese navy was larger and more capable, the US had sent a clear signal that it viewed trade with China as perhaps our number one foreign policy issue, and there was no one else to challenge China. And China had plans to expand their footprint in the SCS.

 

In January 2013, as China staked a claim to what was clearly Philippine territory, the Philippine government brought its case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague (established under the UN), seeking a ruling on ownership of the islands.

 

The Chinese asserted the court had no jurisdiction and in 2014 (and again in 2015) refused to submit a counter argument.

By 2014 the Chinese were already well into a major construction effort, dredging around the islands and pouring tens of thousands of tons of concrete.

Nevertheless, on July 12^th, 2016 the court issued its decision, finding the Philippine position was correct, undermining China’s entire claim to the ‘9 Dash Line.’

 

Since then China has made it very clear it vehemently disagrees and has no intention of abiding by the Court’s findings. The Philippines finds itself unable to confront the Chinese navy (or air force, now flying routine patrols over the SCS) and appears to be headed towards some sort of de facto accommodation with Beijing.

 

It’s worth remembering that through the SCS passes 25% of the world’s international trade, to include some 15 million barrels of oil per day.

 

All of which leads us to wonder what happens next.

But, this kind of thing has happened before.

Consider: in February of 1933 the League of Nations issued a report calling for Japan to leave ‘occupied Manchuria.’

In response, on February 24^th, Ambassador Yosuke Matsuoka walked out of the League assembly in Geneva, and Japan withdrew from the League. Matsuoka stated: "Japan will oppose any attempt at international control of Manchuria. It does not mean that we defy you, because Manchuria belongs to us by right.”

Now, the words President Xi of China used just 7 weeks ago in responding to the ruling by the Court:

“China is committed to resolving disputes through direct negotiations, but its national sovereignty and maritime interests will not be influenced under any circumstances by the South China Sea ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal of The Hague.”

Later, while meeting with the EU President, Xi added: “The South China Sea Islands have been China's territory since ancient times, and China refuses to accept any claims or activities based on the arbitral ruling.”

Following Japan’s quitting the League of Nations there was a good deal of talk, but little action.  Two years later (1935) Italy, equally contemptuous of the League, invaded Ethiopia. The League did nothing. Several years later, the world was at war.

Decisions have consequences. The decisions made by the foreign policy elite over the last two decades, and in particular those made since 2010, have led us to this situation. It’s unreasonable to assume that those who got us into this situation will get us out of it. And to a certainty, this will get worse before it gets better.