South China Sea

I would like to thank Mr. Sia Ka Mou's comments on my recent article (Making sense of Beijing's conduct in the S. China Sea, published on Feb. 3, 2000).

I am very aware of China's stern actions against non-Chinese pirates recently. However, my analysis is not based only on recent facts. For years, Beijing has allowed piracy to flourish by disregarding the involvement of its citizens (military and nonmilitary) and the knowledge that its ports provide facilities assisting such illicit activities. For example, in a case previous to that mentioned by Mr. Sia, the Chinese authorities released a number of pirates without trial (South China Morning Post, Feb. 21, 1999). Closer analysis of the International Maritime Bureau's (IMB) annual piracy report in the last decade will reveal that in each year, except for last year, strong condemnation had been directed against China's lack of piracy countermeasures.

My analysis is not based on mere speculation, but shared concern among people in foreign policymaking and the field of regional security in general. Mr. Sia may be interested to find out that people in the IMB had sounded the alarm in the past against the spread of piracy resulting from Beijing's convenient inaction (The Strait Times, Feb. 1, 1998).

Why the change in attitude among Chinese officials? Chinese foreign policy is pragmatic and will respond to changes in the international scene that may eventually benefit their grand strategy. Also, this shift in policy may have resulted in differences among China's military and foreign affairs people regarding the issue. Further analysis into this goes beyond the scope of this letter.

I would like to suggest that perhaps Mr. Sia misread my article. Indeed, the silk route was not opened by military conquest; at the time, the Chinese did not have the means to do so. It is exactly because of this weakness that they had to resort to alternative, nonmilitary, nonstate expansion strategies. My argument is that such conditions are similar to those of present-day South China Sea.

My article is not an unfounded attack on the Chinese state. Past studies indicate that Europeans as well as other Asians (e.g. Japan and its Wakou pirates) have manipulated, and probably still do covertly, its individual citizens' activities as a means to enlarging spheres of power, whether they be political, territorial or (lately) economical. In the South China Sea, the Malaysians and Vietnamese are also taking advantage of similar strategies through encouraging fishing, meteorological research, and ecotourism to consolidate their claims in the area. My recent article concentrated on China's conduct simply because it has been the most aggressive in doing so.

I think Mr. Sia's suggestion that the Chinese civilization is inherently pacifist is misleading because such claims are relative. Would an Indian, a Tibetan or a Vietnamese easily call the Chinese pacifists? I do not believe that the Chinese are evil. But like any other, they strive for power. And right now, China is seeing increased opportunity to reclaim its past maritime glory. Sun Tzu's teachings demonstrate that the Chinese are as capable of deceit, manipulation and harsh military tactics as the West (and the rest) with its Machiavellian ideas. In at least one of his writings, John K. Fairbank would have agreed with this point.

SANTO DARMOSUMARTO

Bekasi, West Java