Australia’s tough decision in South China Sea dispute

With China making big moves on the South China Sea, Australia could be forced to make a big decision in a dispute that threatens to kick off.

The South China Sea has all the ingredients of a global cataclysm. Greed. Nationalism. Politics. All are conspiring against peace and stability.

And Australia could be the forced to make a tough decision if asked to by the Unite States.

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Geopolitics Professor Richard Heydarian says the political turmoil swirling through his nation’s waters have “all the ingredients of a global cataclysm”.

It’s all about 3.5 million square kilometres of water, broken only by a few reefs, sandbars and rocky islands. About 33 per cent of the world’s international trade passes through its waters. Much of the region’s food is hauled from its depths.

Beijing claims all of it.

And it continues to do so despite the ruling of an international court of arbitration that its claims are baseless.

That’s the background to a political crisis shaking the Philippines to its core. China moved a force of more than 200 maritime militia vessels posing as fishing boats into its waters earlier this year. They’re still there. And they’re enforcing a Beijing-imposed fishing ban on Manila’s subjects in Manila’s waters.

This photo taken on January 2, 2017 shows a Chinese Navy formation during military drills in the South China Sea. Picture: STR / AFP

RELATED: ‘It will be bloody’: Threat to China

Vietnam is in a similar boat. As is Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. Indonesia has also had its own experiences with Beijing’s arbitrary acts.

Australia, while not one of the troubled South China Sea neighbours, is part of the neighbourhood. And its efforts to navigate its own interests through these troubled waters is drawing global attention.

Now a new report warns Canberra is under immense political pressure to send its warships to support “like minded” interests in the region.

“Such action may risk a significant Chinese response against Australia”, it warns.

‘Some Damned Foolish Thing’

Writing for The Diplomat, Professor Heydarian says the situation in the South China Sea is similar to Europe before the start of World War I.

“In many ways, the South China Sea disputes are today’s version of the early 20th century Balkans, where ‘some damned foolish thing’ can trigger a devastating global conflict without precedence and beyond our wildest imagination,” the professor warns.

The scene has already been set.

Arbitrary claims. Armed enforcement. Military posturing. Militarised island fortresses. Disguised militia. Disgruntled publics.

“It is here in Asia’s maritime heartland, where all the ingredients of a global cataclysm are conspiring against the post-Cold War period of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” Professor Heydarian says. “It’s also here where the naked edge of China’s hegemonic ambitions are on full display, with dire consequences for smaller neighbours and the broader liberal international order.

“Here lies the defining geopolitical dilemma of our times.”

It’s this scenario that Australian international affairs think-tank the Lowy Institute last week addressed in a new “policy brief”.

Gunboat diplomacy

China’s too big to be contained, Professor Heydarian says. But it’s also “too voracious” to be left unopposed.

“If there is one thing that history teaches us, it is that neither strategic fatalism, which would risk turning the South China Sea into a Chinese lake, nor a reckless superpower rivalry, which could spark a global conflict, is advisable.”

The Lowy policy brief agrees.

But political tensions continue to rise.

“There is an increasing likelihood that the Biden administration will place more pressure on Australia to conduct freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in support of the 2016 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ruling, forcing Australia to choose between damaging our relations with China or rejecting a request from the United States,” Lowy fellow Malcolm Cook writes.

US President Joe Biden met with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga in April 2021. Both leaders released their Joint Leaders' Statement that reaffirmed their ‘objections to China's unlawful claims and activities in the South China Sea’. Picture: Doug Mills

RELATED: Country that could stop China

It’s an idea gaining traction on both sides of the Australian parliament: Sending Australian warships, in the wake of their US counterparts, within 12 nautical miles (22km) right under the guns and missiles of China’s fortified artificial islands.

That distance is significant as it is what the international law of the sea defines as a sovereign territorial boundary - for natural, permanent islands.

“As expected, China has castigated these US operations and cited them as a pretext for further militarising its artificial islands,” Cook writes.

And that creates yet another trigger-point for “some damned foolish thing”.

“Australia should not conduct FONOPs in the South China Sea that pass within 12 nautical miles of features claimed by China,” Cook adds. “Any Australian FONOP in the South China Sea would likely face greater operational risks and lead to greater punitive reactions from China than US operations have.”

But Australia’s military should become much more visible - to our friends.

“Australia should participate in bilateral and minilateral naval exercises with willing Southeast Asian littoral states in their respective exclusive economic zones in the South China Sea; it should do this more often and more publicly,” Cook writes.

The ‘Goldilocks’ zone

“To prevent China’s prospective domination of a main artery of global trade, what’s necessary is nothing less than a multilateral ‘Goldilocks’ approach, which checks Beijing’s worst instincts through an optimal combination of engagement and deterrence,” says Professor Heydarian.

“Like-minded powers and China’s besieged neighbours should collectively deploy a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military countermeasures to uphold a free and open order in the world’s most dynamic region.

“What’s at stake is nothing less than the future of the 21st century global order.”

The Lowy brief argues a similar case.

But it warns the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing will not agree to any proposal put by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that accommodates the UN court ruling.

And this will further unsettle a region with an already “unbalanced” response to Beijing’s aggressive territorial expansion.

And that makes any agreement between the Southeast Asian states over Beijing’s proposed regional “Code of Conduct” unlikely.

That, in turn, will result in increased pressure on Canberra to make a stand.

The Lowy Institute, like Professor Heydarian, seeks a stance short of open conflict without backing down on the territorial rights of South China Sea states.

“China’s more aggressive approach to its unlawful claims in the South China Sea has directly challenged core Australian interests and the global rules-based order,” it argues.

It calls for greater diplomatic engagement, and support, of regional states.

It wants the validity of the UN’s international law of the sea to be repeatedly reinforced.

“These policy adjustments should advance Australia’s interests in strengthening Southeast Asian littoral states’ hands in Code of Conduct negotiations with China, moderate pressure to conduct FONOPs in the South China Sea, and reduce the likelihood and scale of Chinese punitive measures against Australia,” the report concludes.