Canada should remain a “middle power” as tensions escalate in the South China Sea
Photo Credit: (USNI News / Google Images)
Written by: Lahari Nanda
Canada has never sided concretely with its ally, the United States or China in matters of the South China Sea and it should maintain this stance.
In late April, China stated its claim to territory in the South China Sea (SCS) by renaming 80 islands and other geographical structures in contested areas of maritime claim. Most of these are in the contiguous zone of Vietnam, violating international law set out by the United Nations Covenant of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
UNCLOS allows nations sovereign claim over land, air and water (including the seabed) up to 12 nautical miles measured from the coast of the nations.
Here’s how Canada has been involved in the SCS thus far:
1980: Canadian experts on Asian foreign and maritime policy began to publish papers about China’s policy in the SCS. Indonesia backed Canada’s research.
1991 to 2000: CIDA and Indonesia fund “Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea” for a discussion and “workshop” upon resolving the SCS conflict.
2014: United States begins to carry out “Freedom of Navigation (FON)” maritime exercises immediately outside China’s contiguous zone in the SCS (12 nautical miles off its coast).
2018: The US continues FON exercises, but becomes aggressive despite not having ratified UNCLOS. Canada doesn’t participate in FON, but instead carried out “anti-submarine warfare” exercises to show its support for preventing illegal Chinese control in the SCS. China has ratified and is a signatory to UNCLOS, which means it is bound by international law to only claim geographical territories within 12 nautical miles of its shore.
2020: China renames 80 islands and other geopolitically sensitive areas in the SCS outside its contiguous zone. Canada hasn’t responded yet, and the US has issued a warning to China.
(Source: Canadian Global Affairs Institute, Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea, Reuters)
By conducting similar, but less aggressive naval operations in the SCS as its close ally, the US, Canada has remained neutral in its approach to containing Chinese militarization of the SCS.
China is Canada’s second largest trade partner. A move that creates political tensions between the two will have a negative impact both on bilateral trade amounting to $5.3 trillion, according to the World Bank and result in geopolitical tensions. On the other hand, political and more valuable fiscal trade affiliations with the US may also be negatively impacted if Canada doesn’t choose a side.
In order to maintain trade relations, especially in context of the novel-Coronavirus and disrupted global supply chains, Canada should remain a neutral power, while continuing to support nations whose maritime claims are being disrupted by China’s illegal militarization of the SCS.
These nations include Indonesia, Taiwan and Brunei.
For Canada, geopolitical affiliations with these nations means trade of natural resources like palm oil and timber, as well as the opportunity to further develop its presence in the Pacific.
Canada should continue to maintain its military presence in the SCS and remain impartial to both the Western bloc of allies (US, Britain, France) and the Eastern bloc (China). This presence must, however, remain peaceful to keep the conflict from escalating too far and to serve as a moderator between opposing sides of the conflict.
Being the “middle power” is a wise decision for Canada to make right now.
More Articles