Why maritime diplomacy and law remain vital

By Arthur I. Cyr

Current maritime conflicts echo earlier wars, launched over history to control global commerce and territory, while underscoring the durable importance of traditional trade routes.

Argentina, Britain, Brunei, China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and other nations are involved in recent disputes. Less directly, the United States is also engaged.

Vietnam charges that on May 20 a China vessel invaded “exclusive territorial waters” and rammed a ship, endangering 15 Vietnamese fishermen aboard. Earlier in March, Vietnam accused China of shooting at a fishing boat and causing a fire.

In mid-May, the Philippines’ president, Benigno Aquino III, issued a formal public apology for the killing of an unarmed Taiwanese fisherman in disputed waters. Taipei had summarily rejected an initial expression of regret. Both Taipei and Beijing have joined in condemning the killing.

Tensions have been escalating for months. In June 2012, a confrontation between Chinese and Philippine fishing boats near Scarborough Shoal threatened to become violent before both sides disengaged. Both nations claim jurisdiction of the South China Sea, including Scarborough, termed Huangyan Island by China.

Historically China has controlled these waters, but in the 1990s the Philippines began to claim authority. When Philippine ships began to occupy positions near Scarborough, the conflict grew into a continuing crisis, fitful but dangerous.

China steadily expands in international power and influence, including rapid construction of enormous new strategic naval capacities. Traditionally, this nation has been cautious in using military force for aggressive moves, but that may be changing.

The Obama administration has announced that it will devote greater strategic priority to the Pacific. Actually, since World War II, the bulk of the U.S. Navy’s ships have been committed to this vast region, including when American forces fought major wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Last June, a political maritime confrontation occurred at the G-20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner attempted to publicly hand British Prime Minister David Cameron documents regarding the disputed Falkland Islands. With characteristic cool, Cameron deflected the grandstanding.

The Falklands ― known in Argentina as the Malvinas Islands ― were the focus of a brief but extremely bitter war in 1982. The military regime in Buenos Aires seized the islands in a surprise move; British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher immediately determined to retake them.

A British expedition recaptured the outpost in an impressive demonstration of military effectiveness. U.S. logistical support was vital.

The British government remained committed to resolving the long-running dispute with Argentina by referendum among the approximately 3,000 people living on the Falklands. In March, 1,517 residents voted, with all but three choosing to remain a territory of Britain.

Great Britain, the world’s paramount maritime power before World War II, remains important. London is a global insurance industry center, populated by firms rooted initially in maritime salvage as well as shipping operations.

Sea-based commerce has generated deeply rooted and durable international law, and arguably has become even more consequential with modern globalization. This indicates the practical usefulness as well as moral imperative of the rule of law.

Britain and the U.S. have an opportunity to work together, within existing regional and international institutions, to try to mitigate conflicts that increasingly entangle Asia’s nations. At a minimum, this dangerous and generally overlooked dimension should be receiving much more public discussion.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of “After the Cold War.” Contact acyr@carthage.edu.