Great Power or Clown: On South China Sea Dispute, International Credibility, and Rule-Based Order
Introduction and Personal Stance: Rule Priority
I am often asked for my views on the South China Sea issue. For this complex matter, my reply is that the core of the dispute lies not in ambiguous historical claims but in the principles of international credibility and the absolute priority of rules.
Rules supersede historical claims. Historical principles may form the basis of a claim, but within the framework of modern international jurisprudence, they do not constitute a decisive principle for resolving disputes. If all disputes were adjudicated based on historical claims, the world would descend into perpetual war. This is because historical claims are inherently overlapping, vague, and often dependent on the outcomes of military conquest. Crucially, given the anarchic nature of the international system, **where no absolute, impartial authority exists to definitively judge validity, historical claims can find adequate domestic support and legitimacy within each sovereign nation.** The only path to peace is to establish and adhere to a mutually accepted, non-military system of rules that transcends the will of any single state.
This also reveals a crucial problem: China under the CCP (PRC) may have gained some power, but it is playing the role of an international clown. Its hypocritical “having the cake and eating it too” behavior is not a rational strategic choice but the inevitable manifestation of its core values and political DNA, resulting in a fundamental gap with the civilized world’s values.
I. A Clown Disguised as a Great Power: The Collision of Rule Supremacy and Power Politics
The PRC holds historical claims over the South China Sea, but in reality, most islands and features are controlled by other countries, including Vietnam (approx. 49), Malaysia (approx. 5), and the Philippines (approx. 9). In contrast, the PRC controls fewer features (approx. 8) in the Spratlys, yet its seven main outposts have been expanded into large-scale artificial islands with military base capabilities. Faced with the contradiction between history and reality, the civilized choice is to appeal to an international tribunal.
1. Deconstructing the Myth of Being “Wronged”: Historical Entanglement and the Rule Trap
Many, especially within the Chinese-speaking community, believe that the PRC is the “wronged” party in the South China Sea because neighboring countries have long occupied most features. This is an emotionally charged historical entanglement mindset, not a rational judgment based on modern rules. We must deconstruct this myth:
- Modern jurisprudence rejects “first come, first served”: International law does not define sovereignty based on the quantity of occupations at a specific time point, such as post-WWII. The real question is: Which claim has the greater legal basis when adjudicated by an international court? Therefore, the comparison of “who occupies more or less” is inherently a false premise.
- “Wronged” is the inevitable result of rejecting the rules: The PRC’s feeling of being “wronged” stems essentially from its selective rejection of modern rules. If the PRC followed the international Law of the Sea, it would have to accept limitations on its traditional “Nine-Dash Line” claim. The PRC attempts to use historical claims to gain benefits under modern jurisprudence, and when this attempt fails, it creates the illusion of being “bullied” by the international community.
- The Opportunism of Nationalism: This sense of being “wronged” arises from the CCP’s opportunistic manipulation of history. When it needs to provoke national humiliation, it emphasizes subjugation by Western powers, Mongols, and Manchus; yet, when claiming territorial borders, it simultaneously calculates the full extent of territories expanded by these very conquerors (Yuan, Qing). This double standard in historical interpretation exposes that the essence of its claim is to serve current territorial expansion and regime legitimacy, rather than a unified historical principle.
- The Real Leverage: Size and Deterrence: The PRC possesses enormous naval, economic, and geographic bulk. In any negotiation, it is always the geopolitically strongest party. Its complaints of being “wronged” are merely attempts to garner international sympathy and mask its hegemonic intention to avoid accepting the limitations of international law.
2. Selective Enforcement and the Manifestation of Power Politics
The PRC’s actions in the South China Sea exhibit clear strategic asymmetry: Currently, the PRC’s maritime law enforcement and military deterrence are mainly directed against the Philippines, not Vietnam, which actually occupies the majority of the features.
This selective enforcement exposes the true nature of its actions: It is not strictly pursuing territory based on historical claims, but acting on realpolitik calculations, preferring to intimidate weaker opponents.
This bullying of the weak strategy further proves that its behavior is **power politics**, far removed from the consistent rule of law sought by the civilized world.
3. The Substantive Function of International Tribunals: A Standardized Negotiation Platform
Even if the judgments of international courts (such as the South China Sea Arbitration ruling) are difficult to completely separate from political influence, the essence of an international court is to provide a standardized negotiation platform. It serves to address the core problem of international anarchy by introducing a recognized legal framework and procedures, transforming a dispute from a chaotic power confrontation into a discussion under the framework of rules.
The PRC’s rejection of the ruling is fundamentally a denial of the modern civilized consensus that “rules must supersede history,” and a fundamental departure from the values of the civilized world.
II. The Collapse of Great Power Credibility and the Reinforcement of Negative Stereotypes
A great power’s attitude towards international conventions is the yardstick for its credibility. The PRC’s behavior not only damages its state reputation but also reinforces negative stereotypes of China and its people in the international community.
1. Candid Pragmatism: Non-Participation is Maintaining Credibility
The United States, for example, chose not to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), based on the protection of its sovereignty and candid pragmatism.
The US position was to refuse participation in the universal arrangement from the outset. This “non-participation” is candid and consistent, avoiding the damage to the spirit of the contract that comes from signing and then violating it.
2. The Worst Behavior: The Deception of “Having it Both Ways” and Stereotypes
In contrast, the PRC’s behavior is the worst choice because it fundamentally shakes the principle of credibility:
- True Deception Begins with Participation: The PRC’s participation in UNCLOS followed by its rejection of the arbitration is the inevitable manifestation of its political DNA and values.
- The Hypocrisy of Selective Compliance: It enjoys the benefits of the convention yet refuses to fulfill its obligations. This “having it both ways” hypocrisy relegates it internationally to a rule-breaker lacking credibility.
- Reinforcing Negative Stereotypes: This “power dictates rules” behavioral pattern is easily interpreted globally as a continuation of traditional Chinese political thought, namely: ‘Interest is supreme, rules are dispensable.’ This not only damages the PRC’s international credibility but also indirectly reinforces the negative stereotype in Western society that Chinese people lack a contractual spirit and only obey power, causing long-term harm to overseas Chinese cultural exchange and soft power.
Value Gap: The civilized world emphasizes that credibility is the cornerstone of international relations, while the CCP treats credibility as a tactical tool. Short-sighted utilitarianism cannot bring genuine international respect.
III. The Stripping of the Great Power Mask: The Clown’s Rules and the Choice of Civilization
A great power, on the “standardized negotiation platform” of an international court, must make an honest, non-hypocritical choice. Choosing to “have it both ways” exposes a weakness of being unable to play by the rules, and reveals a fundamental gap between the PRC and the civilized world in terms of values.
1. Personal Stance Summary: The Absolute Priority of Rules
I believe that in international affairs, rules must take absolute priority over historical claims. Historical claims must yield to modern international law.
The true meaning of peace lies in legalization: peace does not come from history, but from the repeated confirmation and legalization of the status quo. This process transforms *de facto* (control in fact) into *de jure* (legal recognition) through appropriate rule-based procedures, thereby eliminating illegal overlapping states.
2. The Essential Contradiction of the PRC Regime: Entity vs. Legitimacy
Following this principle, the PRC regime faces an essential contradiction:
- If disputes were truly judged entirely according to historical claims, then the CCP itself would be an illegitimate regime. It cannot claim any territory based on legal succession or recognized constitutional foundations. The PRC’s existence is itself a *de facto* entity.
- The PRC can only narrow the distance with civilized society by abandoning the “history first” argument and embracing “rule supremacy.” Otherwise, its “power dictates rules” political DNA will prevent it from ever truly integrating into the international community, and it will be viewed as a “revisionist” challenger, projecting negative stereotypes onto the entire nation.
About The Author
