Questioning the effectiveness of the Guidelines for Implementation of DOC

In July 2011 ASEAN members and China agreed on guidelines for implementation of DOC (The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea). On the document, it says “these guidelines are to guide the implementation of possible joint cooperative activities, measures and projects as provided for in the DOC.”  Later, one of the provisions says “the parties to the DOC will continue to promote dialogue and consultations in accordance with the spirit of the DOC.”

Those indicate that the guidelines are aimed to improve cooperation and reduce tension in South China Sea. So, will the guidelines be effective to gain the aims? To answer this question let’s take a look at some cases happened in South China Sea after the guidelines signed.

Case 1                     

In October 2011, 3 months after the guidelines agreed, India and Vietnam signed an agreement of joint oil exploration in South China Sea even though China had objection on it. China objection can be seen from statements on China’s media.

According to this agreement, People’s Daily Online, a Chinese state-run media, said the agreement was illegal and “China may consider taking actions to show its stance and prevent more reckless attempts in confronting China in the area.”  At the same time, another Chinese state-run media, Global Times, said the same thing and quoted statement of Ye Zicheng, director of Peking University's China Center for Strategic Studies, “China must make a solemn protest and demand an explanation. The oil deal violates China's maritime interests. Beijing must take measures to stop such an act from expanding."

Case 2

Also in October 2011 Philippine and U.S. conducted military drills in South China Sea. The drills involved 3,000 Filipino and U.S. marines. U.S. official said the drills were not aimed at China. However, he said the drills were aimed at to ensure U.S. and Filipino military could jointly respond to ”anything that arises” which can be defined as military clash in South China Sea that possibly involving China.

Later, in earlier 2012 Philippine publicized its intention to increase military cooperation with U.S. to protect Philippine’s claims in South China Sea. The announcement then provoked China to respond. Global Times said by announcing its intention to boost military ties with U.S, Philippine gave a sign that it wanted to “expand the US military presence on its soil” and China had to respond to this Filipino maneuver. Furthermore, Global Times said “China may consider cooling down its business ties with the Philippines. One step forward in military collaboration with the US means a step backward in economic cooperation with China.”

Case 3

This month, March 2012, Vietnam announced its objection to Chinese company, China National Offshore Oil Corporation or CNOOC, for opening oil and gas tender for 19 blocks near the Paracel Island. Vietnam said what Chinese did was violating Vietnam’s territory. However China refused Vietnam’s objection by saying Vietnam had to respect China’s territorial integrity.

Conclusion

So will the Guidelines be effective? I am pessimistic. Those cases show that the claimants do not have good will to improve cooperation and reduce tension in South China Sea. Nothing has changed after the sign of the guidelines. Claimants still like to take provocative actions that contradicting with the aims of the Guidelines. 

wendy prajuli