International Negotiation and Impasse - Essay Example

International Negotiation and Impasse s 29th October International Negotiation and Impasse South China Sea Impasse Perlez (2012) noted that the dispute between the South East Asian countries over the South China Sea had culminated into an international impasse by 2012. China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have equally claimed ownership of the waters of the South China Sea. Increasing assertive actions and positions being undertaken by the five neighbors have only intensified the conflict with the Chinese government being in the forefront in initiating political and military control of key islands and regions. Consequently, the other four parties to the conflict have resorted to engaging their international allies such as United States. According to The Washington Post (2014), the International clash relating to the South China Sea could be traced to 1946 when the Chinese government declared the spratly island as part of Guangdong province. After their World War II defeat, the Japanese relinquished their claims of the sea in 1951. Nevertheless, official sovereignty of the spratly island was not documented. In 1974 China seized Paracel islands from the South Vietnam military further asserting it positions on the sovereignty of spratly islands. Subsequently tension between China and its immediate neighbors heightened further. In 1988, over 70 Vietnamese sailors were killed in a Chinese –Vietnamese naval battle in Spratly (The Washington Post, 2014). Contrary to the United Nations law of the sea and territorial waters conventions, China formulated its own law on territorial sea and the contiguous zones of the its international waters. Chinese military invoked the law of sea and occupied the Mischief Reef located within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. With the soaring of China – Philippine relationship, a Chinese fisherman was killed and 6 arrested by the Philippine military in 2000. Reacting to the Chinese prevalence use of military force in the South China Sea, United States condemned the strategies by the Chinese government. As an ally of Philippines and Vietnam, United States conducted joint naval drills with Vietnam over the island claimed by China in 2011. Subsequently, during the sixth East Asia summit in Bali, the China’s policies on the South China Sea were criticized by United States and the association of the South East Asian nations (ASEAN) (The Washington Post, 2014). The currently witnessed impasse between the five states have been resulted by Chinese sovereignty claim over two groups of island in the south China sea, the paracel islands and the spratly island. According to Lowy Institute for International Policy (2014), paracel islands is being contested by China, Vietnam and Taiwan while the spratly island is contested by the ASEAN members, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei , Vietnam and China. United States has emerged as pertinent party to the impasse underscored by its role in safeguarding the commercial and military interest in the region. Key drivers of renewed interests by conflicting parties are the prospect of hydrocarbon reserves in sea, the anticipated decline of fish stocks within territorial waters and the prevalence of nationalism among the citizens of ASEAN states. Despite mounting pressure by the international community urging China to revert its forceful tactics; Beijing has resorted to drawing a line in the sea to demarcate its territorial waters (Lowy Institute for International Policy, 2014).However, the epitome of the conflict was marked by the standoff between China and Philippines over the Scarborough shoal that lasted for two months. How the Parties Dealt With the Integrative and Distributive Aspects of the Negotiation Prior To the Impasse Mayer (2012) defined distributive negotiation as a strategy where parties are allocated finite resources and integrative negotiation as where parties agree to collaborate in order to achieve a win-win situation for all parties. Collaboration among conflicting parties is primarily driven by prospect of gaining mutual benefits from each other. Prior to the deterioration of the negotiation process for the South China Sea conflict, concerted efforts have been directed at resolving the international disputes diplomatically. However, according to the report by International Crisis Group (2012), the South China Sea negotiation reached an impasse in 2012. The application of integrative negotiation strategy in the case of the south china sea came in the form of the 2002 declaration of on the conduct of the parties in the South China Sea. The declaration was adopted by the ASEAN member states and the people’s republic of China in 2002 during the 8th ASEAN summit in Phnom Penh Cambodia. Key highlights of the declaration included reaffirmation of the countries efforts and desire to enhance cooperation and friendship among the governments and the people of the region, agreement to facilitate a peaceful and harmonious environment for economic growth and advancement of living standards and agreement by parties to exercise self-restraint and refrain from forceful and military strategies. Similarly, parties in the conflict have also explored the distributive negotiation strategy to end their perennial dispute over the resources of the sea. In 2000 China and Vietnam signed agreement on joint fishing activities on the disputed sea waters. Additionally China signed agreement by Vietnam on the delineation of Tonkin gulf in 2004. Brunei and Malaysia also signed an agreement on the disputed seabed, thereby granting Brunei jurisdiction of the area in 2009. Although the variant forms of negotiation strategies resulted to short term ceasefire between the conflict parties, they did not offer long term resolutions. The negotiation process for the case of the South China Sea conflict failed to reach Pareto optimality due to profound reasons emanating from the political, cultural, historical and economic background of the parties. The dispute could be viewed as collective action problem among China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Lack of the collective action has been fostered by the prospects of posit gains from any form of distributive agreement. Consideration of the relative gains from the disputed island by parties has obscured the mutual benefits that could be derived from a comprehensive cooperation among the parties in the conflict. Additionally, while members of the ASEAN are advocating for a multilateral approach in the negotiation, China has remained firm on her stand for a bilateral bargaining strategy. Vis a vis, the achievement of pareto optimality has been hindered by the political and economical aspects of the contested maritime resources. The disputes between the five East Asian states over the sovereignty of the South China Sea reached an impasse in 2012 according to a report by International Crisis Group (2012).The report by the International Crisis Group indicated that tension over the five states had heightened to unprecedented levels in 2012. As a resulted of the forceful and assertive approach of the Chinese government over the ownership of the islands, joint parties in the disputes had also intensified their military presence and fortified their claims of the maritime resources (Perlez, 2012). The impasse was triggered by China’s reinforcement of military control over the islands of paracel and spratly that were being claimed by both Vietnam and Philippines. In response, the Chinese claimed that their action was driven by Philippines and Vietnam’s strategy of seeking international intervention from their key allies such as the United States and European communities. Consequently, hostility towards China further increased in may 2014, when the Chinese government commenced drilling operations near the disputed paracel island. The drilling was located on an Oil rig that was approximately located 120 nautical miles from the Vietnamese coast and 17 nautical miles from Paracel Island (Lowy Institute for International Policy, 2014). In reaction, the Vietnamese coast guards intercepted the mobile rig and exploration vessels. The incidence was followed by fierce standoff between China and Vietnam and subsequent sinking of Vietnamese fishing boat. The incidence sparked public riot in Vietnam where over 1000 Chinese foreigners were evicted from the country. Coincidentally, at the same period, the government of Philippine was on a standoff with China over island building on coral reefs on the spratly island. Internationally, Chinese policies on the maritime resources and political strategies on South China Sea have been condemned by the United States, European Union and the United Nations. Steps That Should Be Taken For the Parties to Effectively Work Through the Impasse Reformulation of the Chinese political and military approach towards the dispute should constitute the first step to resolving the impasse. The government of China has in numerous occasions demonstrated lack of will for diplomatic means of solving the conflict. Vis a vis, the currently observed tension and heightened assertiveness by members of the ASEAN have been provoked by the reckless actions of the Chinese government. The second step should entail development of collective action by the parties to design, develop and implement a comprehensive negotiation process whose outcome would be accepted by each party in the process (Mayer, 2012). It is hence imperative that the identified negotiation process integrate the distributive approach of negotiation in order to address pertinent issues of interest and benefits relating to the contested maritime resources. This could be in the form of apportionment and subsequent allocation of the fair distribution of the resources regardless of the historical claims that may lead to Pareto optimality in the negotiation process. Furthermore, to address the issues of conflicting interest on bilateral and multilateral approaches, the formulated process should incorporate both multilateral and bilateral methods of negotiation to empower politically and economically weak states against China’s influence. Additionally, the five states should initiate efforts to promote regional integration among member citizens and bilateral trade relationships. Through such relationship conflicting parties will easily agree to forfeit certain interest while gaining proportional benefits from the negotiation process. References International Crisis Group. (2012). Stirring Up The South China Sea (Ii): Regional Responses. ICG. Lowy Institute for International Policy. (2014). South China Sea: Conflicting Claims and Tensions. Retrieved 30 October 2014, from http://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/south- china-sea Mayer, B. (2012). The dynamics of conflict resolution, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Perlez, J. (2012). Nations at Impasse Over South China Sea, International Crisis Group Warns. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 30 October 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/asia/nations-at-impasse-over-south-china- sea-group-warns.html The Washington Post, (2014). Timeline: Disputes in the South China Sea - The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 October 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/world/special/south-china-sea-timeline/ Read More