The South China Sea (SCS) is a critical economic and strategic gateway within the Indo-Pacific that has been the topic of much academic and political debate. In recent years, this debate has intensified as long simmering territorial disputes, specifically over the Spratly and Parcel Islands and the Scarborough Shoal, have risen to the surface. Notably, the geopolitics of the region have been dominated by diplomatic and legal efforts to manage these tensions and restore the uneasy balance of power that defined relationships in the region prior to 2010. Indeed, this begs the question, how can we better understand the conflict in the South China Sea?<\/p>\n
Griffith Asia Institute organised a two-day workshop to discuss whether the SCS has in fact become the “new strategic playground” for the world\u2019s most powerful States. Scholars from Griffith University, Peking University, RAND Corporation, Nanyang Technological University, University of Malaysia, Deakin University, University of Western Australia, La Trobe University, and Australian National University participated. The workshop papers and discussions revealed the many complex institutional and political relationships that have come to define the behaviour of States in this region. Indeed, what is evident from the many thoughtful and critical discussions that took place over the two days, is that the impacts of tensions in the SCS are far reaching and encompass a broad network of actors \u2013 beyond China and the United States.<\/p>\n
Specifically, the discussions centred around the importance of managing and understanding the relationship between states, especially the United States and China, with strategic interest in the SCS. Indeed, one of the key issues across the papers presented was the importance of examining and assessing the successes and failures of the existing regional architecture to manage the conflict. In particular, these papers revealed the importance of creating a region-specific identity amongst its institutions to manage the ongoing tensions over trade routes and territorial disputes.<\/p>\n
Scholars grappled with the ambiguity of China’s foreign policy goals. Central to this was China’s complex and often contradictory relationship with various states including India, Japan, the Philippines and the USA. Evidently, the disputes occurring in the SCS reveal a new approach to looking at rising powers and the bargaining processes between them, specifically the shifting relationship between China and the USA, and a new “contested” approach from China towards its neighbours and the broader international community. Scholars debated why this historically contested region has since 2010 emerged above other flashpoints to become the focus of regional contestation.<\/p>\n
Complicating these relationships further are the domestic interactions between China’s Central and local provinces such as Hainan, and how to understand the ways in which Chinese scholars and the Chinese community perceived the conflict in the SCS. One challenge is how Western international relations theories can best explain regional disputes and China’s actions. Overall, the discussions sought to examine the ways in which different regional stakeholders manage their interactions with China and the United States with respect to the SCS.<\/p>\n
Today, the waters remain murky with tensions continuing to bubble despite ongoing diplomatic efforts to stabilise disputes over territory. Recent developments have done little to curb the ambiguities discussed during this two-day conference, with China now allowing Filipino fisherman access to the once heavily guarded Scarborough Shoal. It is time for states, especially the United States and China, to seek a regional solution to transform the disputed SCS to a “sea of cooperation.”<\/p>\n