Australian scholar says fear of South China Sea conflict is overblown
John Quiggin, professor of economics at the University of Queensland, Australia, argues that an inflated evaluation of the strategic importance of the disputed waterway may be stoking tensions. He says that those tensions are impeding diplomacy and collaboration on more critical international concerns like climate change.
He made his case in a recent article published by the Lowy Institute, an independent think tank in Australia, highlighting what he described as “five myths about the South China Sea.”
The “myths” are: The South China Sea is a vital shipping route, potentially threatened by China; the South China Sea is home to immensely valuable resources; China has the military and naval capacity to invade Taiwan; it is crucially important to maintain freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, and China is willing to fight a nuclear war to defend its claims in the South China Sea.
Speaking to RFA from Brisbane, Quiggin said that globally the most prevalent myth about the South China Sea is that “it is a vital shipping lane and China might, in some ways, disrupt it.”
“The whole idea of South China Sea as a vital shipping lane is economically nonsensical,” he said, adding: “It’s certainly convenient to have the fastest and cheapest route but there’s always a long way around.”
It’s commonly believed that up to a third of the world trade is shipped through the South China Sea each year, worth between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The Straits of Malacca are the shortest and cheapest route between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
But there are other alternatives and the economic cost of disruption would just be “a small amount,” said Quiggin, drawing a parallel with the Suez Canal’s closure in mid-20th century due to Arab-Israeli wars.
Similarly, the professor played down the importance of the oil and gas reserves in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, saying the quantities are “smaller than they seem.”
In his opinion, it is unlikely that substantial volumes of oil and gas will ever be extracted as we approach the end of the carbon fuels era and “these resources are of more value as diplomatic bargaining chips” rather than commodities.
The article provoked interest, but also disagreement, among South China Sea experts and researchers.
They included Greg Poling, a maritime expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington D.C. He disagreed with the premise that the most likely casus belli, or act that provokes war, between the United States and China would be an attempt by China to take control of shipping routes and disputed territory in the South China Sea.
Western nations, including the U.S., have stepped up military drills in the South China Sea in the past year. Those nations have become more critical of China’s sweeping sovereignty claims amid concerns that Beijing’s stance poses a threat to freedom of navigation.
AGENCIES