China's recent annexation of the South China Sea has been all over the news as of late, however, the sovereignty of the S.C.S. has been major flashpoint in the region for years. As the countries bordering the Sea have each individually claimed sovereignty, citing whatever precedent they could dig up to have a casus belli to "rightfully" seize the territory. The precedents the actors cite are incredibly varied and range from ancient maps of the region to the comparably recent U.N. Maritime Charters. The actors that input these claims are as seemingly diverse as the evidence itself. The current major players here though are: China (the number one power in the region), Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and finally the U.S.A. Though it should be said the U.S. is not directly involved as it does not have any territorial claims on the region. So then how could the U.S. be a major actor in the crisis then? The U.S. has a vested strategic interest in the region and has been concerned with China's perceived aggressiveness. The rest of the actors, however, are concerned with the abundance of resources just below the seafloor and the territory therein, which is without even mentioning the five point three trillion dollars in trade that goes through this region every year. 

In the last few years this competition for sovereignty and resources is heating up and has led to many standoffs between the major actors. Thus far the standoffs have fortunately ended peacefully, but for how long? A war in the region could lead to irrevocable damage to the global economy. That's without even mentioning the incalculable human lives lost in what will assuredly be a brutal war of attrition. As the world's unipolar power the citizens of the world look to the United States to act. The U.S. has a major part to play if this crisis is to be diffused; however, it cannot act alone. The days when China would cow to American political pressure are gone. China sees itself as regional hegemon whose sphere of influence encompasses all of Eastern Asia. To defuse this treacherous crisis amicably and peacefully a multi-national effort will be needed to attain peace. That will require the local actors, the International power brokers from East and West, and an independent mediator that all the factions could agree upon to sit down at negotiation table, so that they might establish an accord that would finally bring peace to a region that sits on the precipice of war.  

It is not like negotiating a peace accord is new concept being introduced to this crisis. Many have been attempted with varying degrees of success. Of course that "success" hasn't seemed to solve the issue at hand, it only treated the symptoms of the crisis. This is in reference of course to the numerous conflicts surrounding the island's past as they have almost always been an area of contention (Kuenssberg "Q&A"). Now there exists an awkward stalemate, which only serves to fuel tensions. China has taken the initiative to resolve the matter and is currently engaged in one-on-one negotiations with the local actors to resolve the dispute. This favors the Chinese heavily as they have a huge advantage in dealing with the actors bilaterally, and this is readily apparent when they use their expansive financial muscle to lean heavily on the less affluent countries. This unabashed coercion technique serves a tool to control the other actors, and force them to adhere to the Chinese "Nine-Dash Line" layout of territory. In which the Chinese get 90 percent of the S.C.S. If the lesser actors were able to band together and negotiate as the trading bloc ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Countries) they might have the political clout to go toe to toe with a heavyweight like China. However, the only thing they can seem to agree on when it comes to sovereignty of the S.C.S. is that they do not want China to annex it. Thus any attempts to unite would be effectively fruitless as the bloc's interests are just too divisive to put up a united front at the negotiation table. China benefits greatly from this diplomatic discord between the bloc's members and it would be an almost perfect diplomatic boon. If only they could stop the Western powers from intervening in the negotiations China would be able to carve out the strategically important islands in the S.C.S. and establish a sphere of influence in one of the most important trading routes in the world. The West sees the Chinese annexation of the SCS as a threat to international stability and decided that they needed to intercede on the behalf of the other countries, but to justify their intervention into the regions affairs they would need to be invited by a local actor. A partner that they could use to justify their involvement in the region's affairs. They found this partner in the Philippines.

On July 7th, 2015 the Permanent Court of Arbitration began hearings regarding the Philippines request to invalidate China's claim on the S.C.S. as China's "Nine-Dash Line" claim violates the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreements regarding exclusive economic zones and territorial Seas (Gracie). It should be noted that the PCA is organization funded and staffed by the U.N. and as China sees it the U.N. is a biased international organization in which non-western powers are only given a piecemeal voice in the affairs of the world (Stanolan). So unsurprisingly China issued a statement that summarily discounted the credibility of any decision the PCA made on the matter and denounced the Philippines for bringing this matter to the U.N. in the first place claiming that the Philippines violated the voluntary "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties" an agreement between China the ASEAN bloc which stipulates bilateral negotiations as means to solve territorial disputes. They also claim that the Philippine's actions violated several treaties with them that stipulated bilateral negotiations for disagreements as well. Furthermore, before the first hearings even commenced, the Chinese Government published a position paper that argued that the matter could not be subject to arbitration by the PCA, as it was matter of sovereignty not exploitation rights (FMPRC). China has made it abundantly clear that even when the PCA decides to issue its ruling on their claim that it is already invalid. It can't be assumed that they rejected it out of complete distrust of the Western powers, but considering the history of the dealings between the two it would foolish to dismiss it as a factor in their outright opposition to the tribunal's findings. As even in the Chinese media China is portrayed as being invariably upset by what they see as an effectual kangaroo court for the West to impose its influence upon it yet again. They play the victims, which is an effective strategy for garnering domestic support. It won't defuse the crisis as it will only serve to ignite nationalist sentiment in the opposing countries increasing tension and thusly the chance of war. At this point it seems obvious to state that China wants to keep this in house essentially telling international powers, though primarily the West to stop meddling in their affairs (Stanolan). Since China seems irreverent to the idea of U.N. arbitration there are those that would assume that the unipole with its vast strength could unilaterally ease the crisis. That the US could somehow show up in force and bully China into stepping down. This could never work as China sees the US as someone who needs them just as much as they need the US.

The US could play a major role diffusing the crisis, but it would have to implement some major policy changes that are not at all in step with America's current congress. These recommendations were laid out by Andrew S. Erickson who is an associate professor at the Naval War College. These recommendations were brought before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. In his testimony Erickson stated that the US must prioritize "Maintaining Freedom of Navigation" (Erikson 1) by adhering to international laws regarding the Freedom of Navigation Act, and that "The United States must ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea"(Erikson 5). Which would give the United States much more credibility when applying political pressure to China. Finally he recommends building up the U.S. Navy's presence by building a more "robust" fleet that will serve as a deterrent to a possibly aggressive China (Erikson 1-7). Erickson's recommendations builds a strong foundation for the US to serve as a deterrent to war in the SCS. However when it comes to the negotiating table for a more permanent peace it is only serves as a way to give the US a stronger position to argue from and does not address a possible resolution to the crisis at hand. To do that the US would need to find some common ground with the Chinese that could be used as a jumping off point to negotiate a fair equitable agreement in the SCS and while it would involve the US the Chinese would never trust them as neutral mediator between them and ASEAN countries, which is fair as the US has supported ASEAN's legal claims to the islands for quite some time (Kuenssberg Navy Patrols). The US would serve in an advisory capacity to balance the scales of power so that no one side had an insurmountable advantage over the other. As the crisis unfolded, however, the Chinese have shifted the scales of power multiple times in an attempt to establish a stronghold in the SCS.

They were able to do this by building artificial islands on shallow sections of the Sea. Building an artificial island requires vast amounts of sand and building material which China has. Then when they built these islands they started to build runways for military jets and bombers, and were fairly recently equipped with anti-air missiles (Roy). China has effectively militarized the South China Sea turning it into a fortress that it can use to exert its will, whatever that might be. In the last two years since China occupied the islands they have attempted to claim that sailing close to the islands was a violation of Chinese waters. The US and various other Western powers have since been intentionally violating those boundaries asserting their claim to Freedom of Navigation in the region. This has angered the Chinese Navy greatly, however they have yet to respond militarily to what they refer to as a "provocation" (Phillips). However it has been documented that when fishing trolleys or boats from nearby nations attempt to cross many are harassed by the Chinese Navy with even a few cases of sailors firing at fishing vessels (Blanchard). This hurts the livelihoods of many local fishermen who rely on the rich fish stocks of the SCS to make their living.

Fish aren't the only abundant natural resource in SCS and all the actors in the region are vying for the vast quantity of natural gas and oil beneath the ocean floor. This seems to have only antagonized the situation more, as in light of that has China doubled down on their annexation, and has built more islands so that it can exert even more control over the SCS. In addition to annexing more territory they also serve as a way to tap the SCS's vast natural resources. This might serve as a catalyst for future conflict as there has already been quite a few intense standoffs involving Vietnamese and Chinese oil rigs in various places throughout the SCS and it is not only Vietnam that China is contending with to access these resources it is all the actors in the region. 5.3 Trillion dollars' worth of trade annually crosses the SCS. The implications that a war would have on trade here is astounding, but if a single power controlled the trade route it would effectively gain the power to blockade any nation that displeased it. In fact that is one of the reasons the U.S. is so concerned with the nine-dash line as it envelops the trade route giving China the ability to disrupt trade. The Chinese claim on the region and its resources relies heavily on the government's Nine-Dash Line.

Originally called the eleven-dash line by its founders in the Republic of China. It was developed by the then Chinese government to justify its claims in the SCS. After the Communist takeover of mainland China the eleven-dash line was revised to the current nine-dash line and endorsed by Zhou Enlai the first premier of China. (Brown) In 2009 China attempted to submit a map including the nine-dash line to the U.N. so that they might claim the SCS. That action was immediately protested by the Philippines which led to the subsequent U.N. tribunal. Which lead to China to immediately dismiss the authority of the court to act in this case.  The implications of this nine-dash line claim are vast and could lead to a possible conflict. This in turn could hurt the global economy.  

In 2016 The Economist published a list of the 10 most threatening things to the global economy. Number 9 on that list was possible clash of arms in the South China Sea. (The Economist) It's easy to see how a disruption of 5.3 trillion dollars could have a disastrous influence on the global economy. Beyond that however, is vast minefield of incredibly horrific consequences for the world at large. Not the least of which is a possible war between the United States and China the potential consequences for which would be immense. However, the potential rated as unlikely as the probability of any of the actors risking war to pursuit their claim is frankly improbable. That is the thing with improbable though. It is not impossible, and given that you got a few overly patriotic soldiers running around with guns telling each other to surrender it is a surprise more shootouts don't occur.  

The world has a serious issue to deal with and it is going to take a lot of effort from everyone to resolve this crisis for this conflict runs deep. The Chinese wanted to keep the international community out of it, but it is too late this has become too much of a problem to avoid anymore. The regional actors are at each other's throats and it would only take an accident to spark a conflict in the area. This will have heavy repercussions for the rest of the world financial and otherwise as the region falls into chaos at the hands of war. To do this right, to reach an amicable peace that leaves everybody alive, a multinational effort of all the actors in the region is needed. If they are to sit down at the negotiation table and hash out their differences, the presence of the US and other powerbrokers to balance the scales of power to ensure a fair negotiation. Finally you are going to need a country that all the actors can agree on to be a mediator during the talks. 

It is hard to speculate what kind of country would be able to satisfy the requirements set by the disparate factions, but the country would definitely need to have some diplomatic weight in the international arena, which would serve as a means to hedge the overwhelming power of U.S. and China. The country needs to able to credibly claim to be truly neutral, and must be patient enough to keep the actors at the table instead of the battlefield. These tenuous requirements would eliminate most of the countries who have been traditional candidates for this role, and it is readily apparent that are no perfect countries that could fulfill all of the requirements. Thus the candidates include the likes of the divisive Russia, which should be hesitantly considered as a possible candidate. Despite its authoritarian regime and Cold War ethos they could be considered a candidate that the Chinese might agree upon as a mediator. An additional incentive for picking them might include its rivalrous view of a China as a rising power that could overtake them in strength, thus providing a powerful motivation for Russia to keep the negotiations fair. Another country that might make a good candidate is India, as they are local powerhouse in the region that during the Cold War declared itself a neutral power. India has even gravitated towards the East's position on certain issues, which is easily explained by the U.S.'s overt support of its mortal enemy Pakistan. However, they might be considered a bad choice for the role given that India fought a war with China in 1962, and that the resulting tension has only been alleviated recently with an agreement by both countries to found the New Development Bank in 2014 with the assistance of three other countries. 

There is no easy answer to whom the mediator should be, as even the most qualified candidates for the role are tainted by their own interests in the region, and even getting the actors to agree to a multinational negotiation in the first place would be feat in and of itself. It would be especially remarkable given that China has rejected every attempt by the International Community to form a dialogue thus far. Nevertheless, when the alternative to the bickering of the negotiating table is the chaos of war, an effort to establish a dialogue on the issue will be seen as preferable to all countries, including China. It is true that there are many obstacles to a lasting peace agreement, and it will be a long arduous process filled with gridlock and at times will seem pointless. However, to be able to grasp reconciliation an extraordinary effort is worth a reward as great as peace.       

