[Analysis] Response on South China Sea ruling shows S. Korea’s fragile position

Posted on : 2016-07-14 18:06 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Seoul’s response had to balance relations with China and the US, and be mindful of possible precedent for Dokdo

On July 13, the South Korean government made known its official response to the ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding the territorial dispute in the South China Sea, a dispute that began on January 22, 2013, with a lawsuit filed by the government of the Philippines.

A statement from a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson is what released the government’s position. The ruling was announced at 6 pm on July 12, and the spokesperson’s announcement was made at 10:30 am the previous day, meaning it took 16 hours and 30 minutes for the government to come up with an official response.

This delay attests to the level of worry felt in the South Korean government as it faces the knotty issue of the South China Sea dispute, which involves the extremely tangled interests of the United States and China, as well as the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and various Southeast Asian countries. And although nobody speaks openly about it, the government’s concerns are doubtless exacerbated by the possibility that this ruling-the first ruling from an international arbitration court regarding the South China Sea dispute-could negatively impact the conflict between South Korea and Japan over Dokdo.

The official statement from the Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson consisted of just two sentences. The content is also very abstract. The first sentence goes as follows: “The Government of the Republic of Korea has consistently held the position that the freedom of navigation and overflight should be safeguarded in the South China Sea, one of the world’s major sea lines of communication, and that disputes in the South China Sea should be resolved in accordance with relevant agreements, non-militarization commitments, as well as internationally established norms of conduct.” It’s a reiteration of the basic official stance.

What warrants attention is the second sentence: “The Government of the Republic of Korea takes note of the arbitration award issued on July 12, and hopes, following the award, that the South China Sea disputes will be resolved through peaceful and creative diplomatic efforts.”

In this sentence, the hope for a peaceful resolution is consistent with what the official stance of the government has been thus far. But what is noteworthy is the expression “taking note.” It‘s very different from terms like “support” or “respect.” The term “taking note” is a diplomatic term that contains no value judgment. The character of the response is naturally different from that of the Chinese government response, which called the ruling “invalid and without binding power,” but also different from that of the American response, which was that the ruling is “final, and that it must be regarded as having legal binding power.”

When the term “taking note” is juxtaposed with the part of the sentence about hoping, “the South China Sea disputes will be resolved through peaceful and creative diplomatic efforts,” it’s possible to gain a more coherent picture of South Korea‘s diplomatic policy. The South Korean position contains the hope that, because of the possibility that this ruling could be the impetus for the aggravation of the dispute, the parties involved will not rely exclusively on judicial processes, but that through diplomatic negotiations, they will find a creative way to resolve the dispute in a way that allows for harmonious coexistence. The response suggests at the bewildering position that the South Korean government currently finds itself in: needing to secure a measure of safety for itself amid a tense conflict/dispute between the United States and China over the South China Sea.

This response represents a departure from the context of the U.S. government’s expectations and pressures on the South Korean government regarding the South China Sea dispute. Last October, during a press conference following a summit in Washington, DC with President Park Geun-hye, President Barack Obama publicly put pressure on South Korea not to “break rank” with the U.S., saying, “the only thing that we’re going to continue to insist on is that we want China to abide by international norms and rules. And where they fail to do so, we expect the Republic of Korea to speak out on that, just as we do.” Going forward, South Korea will need to watch to see how the U.S. reacts to its response.

In the South Korean government’s cautious and simultaneously ambiguous response it’s possible to read not just an effort to maintain balance within a conflict between the U.S. and China, but also the influence of anxiety about how this ruling might stir up the dispute over Dokdo with Japan. It’s because the government cannot rule out the possibility that the Japanese government might bring the Dokdo issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in keeping with Japanese claims that South Korea is illegally occupying of Dokdo (called Takeshima in Japan).

But when considering not just legal principles but also thoroughly considering the state of affairs in Northeast Asia, Japan doesn‘t appear likely to file a suit with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The South Korean government has taken a prudent stance on the matter.

According to Foreign Ministry spokesperson Cho June-hyuck on July 12, “The contents of the ruling [on the South China Sea dispute] and the legal implications [and the relevance of the ruling to the Dokdo issue] will be scrupulously examined by the government.”

The government’s position is that Dodko is clearly part of South Korea’s territory, historically, geographically and by international law, and as such cannot be subject to diplomatic negotiations or judicial resolutions.

By Lee Je-hun, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

 

 

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories

Most viewed articles