To whom does the South China Sea belong? Will it be open to all the nations of the word as protected under the principles of international law, or will it become the exclusive domain of a single powerful country?

　　　　　This was the momentous question facing the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) when it handed down its July 12 ruling on China’s claims in the South China Sea. The Court left no doubt about where it stood, roundly rejecting all of China’s assertions.

　　　　　But Beijing fought back fiercely during the recent ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) foreign ministers’ meeting held in the Laotian capital of Vientiane. Adroitly utilizing its favorite divide-and-rule strategy, China managed to force ASEAN to agree to a joint communique with absolutely no reference to the landmark ruling that has dominated international attention.

　　　　　Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced a diplomatic victory for China, boasting that “both China and ASEAN believe the page has been turned and the temperature lowered.” The media in the Philippines, which filed a complaint with the PCA in 2013 against China on their territorial claims involving the Spratly Islands, dispatched reports from Vientiane that reflected disappointment over the outcome of the summit. The headline in the July 25 Manila Times read, “China Wins as ASEAN Mum on Sea Ruling,” while in its July 26 edition the Manila Bulletin stated that ASEAN had issued “a watered-down rebuke that amounted to less than a slap on the wrist.”

　　　　　Wang arrived in Vientiane on July 24 to hold a rapid series of meetings with his six counterparts from Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Singapore, and Thailand specifically to talk them into keeping any reference to the Hague ruling out of the joint communique. As expected, Cambodia—which has long been known to be China’s faithful ally―acted to please Beijing again this time. ASEAN works strictly by consensus, so China needed only Cambodia to side with it in order to break down any opposition to its plans.

　　　　　China told Cambodia it would extend US$600 million in aid to support the country’s election infrastructure, education, and health over the next three years. Actually, Japan—not China—is Cambodia’s biggest aid donor country. In addition to government aid, Japan’s private sector has been actively contributing to Cambodia over the years, building schools, dispatching teachers, and sending teaching materials. I have yet to hear about China providing similar assistance to Cambodia.

　　　　　And yet, standing at an extremely important choice between the rule of law and the rule of force, Cambodia isn’t necessary inclined to favor Japan. Perhaps more importantly, it appears Cambodia may be prone to give priority to its ties with China over its position as a member of ASEAN.

Turning Blind Eye to Cambodia’s Tyranny

　　　　　More than a few experts believe behind Cambodia’s seeking closer ties with China is the personal stake Prime Minister Hun Sen has in the bilateral relations. He has ruled Cambodia as a dictator since 1998. Having a firm hold on power in an impoverished but developing country over such a long period, it is easy to imagine there have been many opportunities for Hun Sen to line his own pockets and those of his associates. In order to control the frustrations and grievances of the Cambodian people that have grown out of such corruption, the government has implemented tyrannical policies.

　　　　　Hun Sen will face a general election in 2018. Given the current unstable political situation in Cambodia, China will be a considerably more reliable ally to Cambodia than the democracies in Asia, including Japan, if Hun Sen dares suppress his political opponents as before.

　　　　　So long as Cambodia remains faithful to Beijing, China will continue to turn a blind eye to Hun Sen’s repressive policies, taking a position of “non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries” and provide him what he wants. China has a precedence, having continued to support President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, internationally notorious for the genocide in Darfur in 2003.

　　　　　In China’s support of al-Bashir, one can see the difference in values between those that respect legal justice and a country like China, which has brushed aside the PCA ruling as “a mere piece of trash.”

　　　　　On July 25, the same day the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting was held in Vientiane, President Rodrigo Duterte delivered a state of the union address in Manila. Having already declared he would “not negotiate with Beijing” about matters pertaining to the South China Sea,
Duterte vowed: “We strongly affirm and respect the outcome before the Permanent Court of Arbitration.”

　　　　　Duterte appears to be selecting a different path than Hun Sen. However, the new Philippine president spent only one minute on his reference to the South China Sea during his 90-minute address. One cannot but feel more than a bit uneasy about his almost casual treatment of this crucial subject.

　　　　　To survive, a small country understandably must measure every move a major power makes. It would be natural for ASEAN countries to calculate the pros and cons of choosing between China and the US, or between China and Japan for that matter, wavering constantly in the process. That is all the more reason for Japan to make every effort to prevent China from acting in disregard of the law in the South China Sea, because what happens in the South China Sea will eventually affect the East China Sea. To safeguard our national interests, we Japanese must restrain China from lawless conduct. What specifically should we do, then?

　　　　　Let us first turn our attention to ASEAN’s serious lack of ability to think critically of the problems the group faces today. Prior to the ASEAN conference in Vientiane, Dr. Tang Siew Mun, head of the ASEAN Studies Center at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore opined: “…it would be strategically preferable for ASEAN to endure the ignominy of failing to issue a joint communique rather than a watered-down version on the South China Sea. This will send a strong signal that ASEAN will not be held hostage by the narrow interests of one member nation.”

Advocating “Cambrexit”

　　　　　Dr. Tang points out that the problem-resolving abilities of the five founding members of ASEAN—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand—have declined since 1999, when Cambodia joined the regional group to increase its total membership to 10 nations. Tang further observes: “While China is the common denominator of all these ‘developments,’ ASEAN should tend to its own house before laying blame on external parties.”

　　　　　Tang further points out that Cambodia is unable to come to grips with the seriousness of the South China Sea issue as a responsible member of the intergovernmental group should, failing to see “the larger strategic picture.” This, he notes, is the most concerning problem about Cambodia.

　　　　　“Cambodia can no longer afford to ignore its fellow ASEAN member states’ frustrations at this sort of obstructive behavior,” Tang fumes. It is not often that such a strong opinion is heard among ASEAN member countries, who rarely criticize each other publicly on the pretext of treasuring unity among themselves.

　　　　　Tang goes so far as to propose that ASEAN consider the possibility of Cambodia leaving the group, noting: “…‘Cambrexit’ cannot be a question left unanswered if Cambodia persists in undermining the wider interests of the group.”

　　　　　“The power to veto by any one member state must be removed,” he continues. “…The Trojan horses (must be kept) in check…This is a battle ASEAN must fight and win.
But who will lead this battle?”

　　　　　His answer is Japan, which “has a critical role to play in offsetting Chinese dominance in the region.”

　　　　　A stunning but most welcome proposal from Singapore which had once assumed an extremely rigid posture towards Japan. I believe many people in ASEAN today well understand that Japan is a nation that is totally different from China. They also know that we are a nation which honors international law and adheres to the principle of resolving problems through peaceful consultations.

　　　　　This time in Vientiane, China managed to bounce back from a South China Sea setback, but democracies in Asia must anticipate a long period ahead of confrontation with China with many twists and turns. We Japanese must keep our faith in our treasured traditional values and assume the responsibility of a leader in a dramatically changing international community—especially in Asia. We must not shirk from the preparations necessary to embrace this new role.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 715 in the August 4 issue of The Weekly Shincho)