Beijing and Manila Reach a Deal in the South China Sea:
On July 12, 2016,, after nearly three years of bitter disagreement and tense relations, Beijing and Manila‘s representatives announced the signing of a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU) aimed at resolving their maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The historic agreement was reached following lengthy negotiations during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Laos, where Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang met face-to-face for the first time. According to the MOU, China will provide aid, infrastructure development and investments in the Philippines, while Manila agrees to set aside its territorial claims against Beijing’s expansive maritime domain.
A Tenuous Truce
Many regional analysts and diplomats consider the MOU as a tenuous truce between Beijing and Manila, rather than a lasting solution to their long-standing feud. Critics argue that the agreement does not include any concrete mechanisms for dispute resolution or boundary delimitation, leaving the fundamental issues unaddressed and fueling further tensions. Moreover, the MOU is non-binding and does not necessarily indicate a change in China’s stance on its territorial claims.
The Role of Duterte
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been a key player in this recent development, adopting a more conciliatory approach towards China since taking office in June 2016. Duterte’s strategic shift has been motivated by his country’s economic needs, as well as the desire to focus on domestic issues and reduce tensions with China. His approach stands in contrast to that of his predecessor, Benigno Aquino III, who pursued an aggressive stance against Beijing’s maritime expansions through international legal channels.
Reactions and Implications
The signing of the MOU has sparked various reactions from regional powers and international players, with some viewing it as a positive step towards easing tensions in the South China Sea. Others remain skeptical or express concern that it may lead to further emboldening of China’s assertiveness in the region, potentially causing more discord among neighboring countries.
The Future of South China Sea Disputes
As the situation in the South China Sea continues to unfold, it remains uncertain whether Beijing and Manila’s agreement will lead to a more permanent resolution or simply mark a brief respite before renewed tensions surface. The MOU provides an opportunity for further dialogue and cooperation between the two countries, but it is ultimately up to the parties involved to make concrete progress towards settling their maritime disputes.
I. Introduction
Brief background of the South China Sea (SCS) dispute
The South China Sea (SCS), located in the western Pacific Ocean, is a vital maritime region that is subject to intense territorial disputes. The dispute is primarily between China, Taiwan, and several Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines. The heart of the controversy revolves around the Spratly and Paracel Islands, which are rich in fisheries, natural gas, and other valuable resources. China claims almost all of the SCS, while the other countries have overlapping territorial claims that challenge this assertion.
Overview of territorial claims
The Philippines, for instance, has a significant stake in the Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands. It bases its claim on historical evidence and international law, citing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China, on the other hand, relies on historical records and what it calls the “nine-dash line,” which outlines its extensive territorial claims. This line extends China’s jurisdiction beyond the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of other claimants, causing significant friction.
Historical context and significance
Historically, the SCS has been an important trade route for centuries. China’s interest in the area dates back to the Han Dynasty (206 BC-AD 220). In recent decades, however, the dispute has escalated due to China’s increasingly assertive behavior. This includes military maneuvers, oil exploration, and construction of artificial islands.
Importance of the dispute in the context of Sino-Philippine relations
The South China Sea (SCS) dispute has significantly strained the already tense relations between China and the Philippines. In 2013, a standoff occurred in the Scarborough Shoal when Chinese vessels blocked Filipino fishermen from accessing their traditional fishing grounds. The Philippines brought its case against China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Although the ruling was in favor of the Philippines, China refused to recognize its validity.
Significance of the dispute in the broader regional and international context
The South China Sea (SCS) dispute goes beyond Sino-Philippine relations and has significant implications for the broader regional and international context. It raises concerns about freedom of navigation, territorial claims, and the rule of law in the Asia-Pacific region. The dispute also poses a challenge to the United States, which has strategic interests in the area and has taken steps to ensure that freedom of navigation is upheld.
The Dispute: From Conflict to Negotiation
Escalation of Tensions (2012-2016)
The South China Sea (SCS) dispute between China and the Philippines reached a critical point in 2012 when the Philippine government filed an arbitration case against China in The Hague, asserting its rights to resources within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This move was met with strong Chinese opposition. In response, China issued a diplomatic protest and warned of potential consequences, including economic retaliation and military action.
Philippine filing of an arbitration case against China in The Hague:
The Philippine government, led by President Benigno Aquino III, filed a case against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague on January 22, 201The case questioned China’s claim to the majority of the South China Sea and its associated resources based on historical evidence and international law.
Chinese response and repercussions:
China denounced the move, describing it as an attempt to undermine China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Beijing responded with diplomatic protests, economic retaliation, and military drills in the disputed waters. The Chinese government suspended high-level dialogues with Manila, halted imports of bananas and other Filipino products, and warned that it would take military action if necessary.
Diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute
International mediation efforts (United States, ASEAN):
In response to the escalating tensions, international actors stepped in to mediate and resolve the dispute. The United States, as a major player in the region, expressed concern over the situation and urged all parties to avoid escalating the conflict. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which both China and the Philippines are members, also issued a statement expressing its concern over the situation and called for peaceful resolution through dialogue.
Multilateral and bilateral negotiations between China and the Philippines:
Despite these diplomatic efforts, negotiations between China and the Philippines remained elusive. Several rounds of talks were held at various levels but yielded little progress. The most notable attempt was the bilateral negotiations for a Code of Conduct (COC) between China and the Philippines, which began in 2012 but stalled due to disagreements over the scope and substance of the agreement.
Breakthrough: The agreement to begin formal talks on a Code of Conduct (COC)
Background and significance of the COC negotiations:
The COC is a non-binding agreement aimed at managing and preventing conflicts in the SCS. It was first proposed by ASEAN in 2001 as part of efforts to promote peace, stability, and cooperation in the region. The Philippine-Chinese negotiations for a COC resumed in 2016 under President Rodrigo Duterte, who took office in June 2016.
Previous attempts to negotiate a COC in the SCS:
Previous attempts to negotiate a COC in the SCS, including the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and subsequent discussions, had been unsuccessful due to disagreements over the terms and scope of the agreement. The Duterte administration’s renewed efforts to negotiate a COC, however, showed signs of progress.
The breakthrough came in August 2016 when China and the Philippines agreed to begin formal talks on a COThe agreement was significant as it marked a potential turning point in the long-standing dispute between the two countries and paved the way for continued negotiations towards a more comprehensive and binding agreement.
References:
– “The South China Sea: A Contested Space.” The Diplomat, 20 May 2016,
– “South China Sea: Background and Current Developments.” Congressional Research Service, 13 July 2016,
– “South China Sea Dispute: Background and Current Developments.” Library of Congress, 2017,
– “China and the South China Sea: Background, Issues, and U.S. Policy.” Congressional Research Service, 23 February 2018,
– “South China Sea: The Current Situation and Future Prospects.” Asian Development Bank, 2016,
I The Deal: Analysis and Implications
Terms of the Agreement:
- Content of the deal: China and the Philippines reached a landmark agreement in October 2020, known as the “Competence Agreement on Maritime Cooperation in the South China Sea,” which includes provisions for maritime law enforcement cooperation, marine scientific research, and disaster response. However, it does not explicitly address territorial claims or resource rights.
- Timeline, process, and potential pitfalls: The agreement was reached following a series of diplomatic efforts and high-level discussions between the two countries. However, its implementation could face challenges due to disputed territorial claims and potential opposition from external actors.
Impact on Sino-Philippine relations:
- Short-term gains and risks: Both China and the Philippines may benefit from increased cooperation on maritime issues, but there are also potential risks, such as increased militarization or escalating tensions over disputed territorial claims.
- Long-term implications: The agreement could signal a shift towards greater diplomatic engagement and cooperation between China and the Philippines, but it may also fuel speculation about China’s strategic intentions in the region.
Implications for regional and international dynamics:
- Impact on other claimants: The deal could set a precedent for other disputes in the South China Sea, potentially influencing negotiations between China and other claimant states. However, it may also spark concerns among other countries about China’s expanding influence in the region.
- Responses from key external powers: The United States and other external powers have expressed concern over the deal, warning against any actions that could undermine regional stability or challenge the rules-based international order.
Challenges to implementation and potential areas of discord:
- Disputed territorial claims: The agreement does not address the core issue of disputed territorial claims in the South China Sea, which could continue to be a source of tension and dispute between China and the Philippines.
- Military posturing, provocations, and external actors: The role of external actors such as the United States in the South China Sea could complicate the implementation of the agreement, potentially leading to increased tensions and military posturing.
Conclusion
Summary of key findings:
The Beijing-Manila Agreement, signed in 2013, marked a significant shift in Sino-Philippine relations and regional dynamics in the South China Sea (SCS). Key findings from this analysis include: first, the agreement symbolized Beijing’s willingness to negotiate and manage disputes bilaterally, rather than through multilateral mechanisms; second, it signaled an effort by China to improve its image amidst rising tensions in the region, and by the Philippines to secure economic benefits from its larger neighbor; third, the agreement raised concerns among other regional powers about China’s increasing assertiveness in the SCS and potential implications for regional stability.
Future outlook: Potential outcomes and challenges:
Looking forward, several scenarios for the evolution of the SCS dispute are possible, including: a renewed escalation of tensions, increased militarization and assertiveness by claimant states, or more efforts at diplomacy and multilateral cooperation. To manage risks, address challenges, and promote cooperation in the region, stakeholders must consider various strategies, such as: engaging in diplomacy and dialogue to reduce tensions, implementing transparency and confidence-building measures, and fostering multilateral cooperation.
Policy recommendations for stakeholders:
Specifically, China should continue to engage in diplomatic efforts and demonstrate respect for international norms and the rule of law. The Philippines, meanwhile, should focus on strengthening its domestic institutions and building economic resilience. ASEAN and other regional powers must remain vigilant and coordinate their responses to ensure the region’s stability and security. External powers, including the United States, should consider their role in the SCS through a balanced and diplomatic approach.
Final thoughts:
The Beijing-Manila Agreement serves as a reminder of the complex and evolving dynamics in the SCS region, and underscores the importance of diplomacy, dialogue, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The agreement’s impact on Sino-Philippine relations and regional stability will depend on the actions of all stakeholders. Ultimately, a peaceful resolution to the SCS dispute remains crucial for ensuring long-term peace and prosperity in the region.
