Introduction
The article under review was chosen because of its specific focus on international affairs. It looks at challenges in national security, defense, and diplomatic strategies through the South East Asian lens. In this regard, the work will be particularly insightful in understanding how issues such as conflict resolution, power symmetries, and strategic balances can play out in international relations.
Article summary
The paper principally talks about the relationship between six South East Asian nations i.e. China (PRC), Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei about territorial claims on the South China Sea and the Islands contained therein i.e. Paracel and Spartly Islands. In essence, Emmers (4) claims that for decades, international relations between these nations have been handled by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and this group has been dealing with inequality in the South China Sea. Although the people’s republic of China and Vietnam possess historical claims to these waters, the other claimants have also expressed interest in minor portions of the territory. Some of the reasons for these interests include: furthering their economic interests, boosting their maritime security, and controlling sea line communication. By far, China is the claimant with the largest capability in the region. It has recently been engaging in naval expansions and has also acquired arms to meet its strategic objectives for the South China Sea. Because of these recent developments, the other five nations have been threatened by China’s growing powers, and in response to doing so; some of them have opted to expand their military capabilities. In the international arena, the United States may be the only country that is capable of handling China’s growing ambitions but it is too busy with other foreign relations issues such as Iraq. ASEAN has been active in maintaining order in this region especially in light of a 2002 declaration that ensured China behaved with restraint and respect for its southeast Asian neighbors. Despite such an achievement, there is still cause for alarm because recent developments indicate that China, Taiwan, and Vietnam have been pursuing potentially dangerous military strategies. For instance, Taiwan extended its runway in 2008. These actions may have been triggered by China’s nuclear submarine purchases. The ASEAN model is not effective in dealing with such an intense level of power asymmetry. In the past, this Association prefers using informal codes that revolve around restraint and consensus-building. Instead, a more practical approach is needed i.e. one with institutional frameworks where a joint development scheme is launched against a backdrop of dissolved territorial claims. (Emmer, 22)
Article critique
The article is a well-written piece that can be understood by both international relations stakeholders as well as regular readers. The author articulates his points very well by first starting with a brief history of cooperation and diplomatic ties between the six nations under analysis. He further gives readers a history of what is at stake in the disputed territory and then postulates his hypothesis that the current model of conflict management used by ASEAN may not be effective in curbing rising tension between the nations. He supports these claims throughout the paper and then ends with a restatement of the hypothesis and recommendations on what can be done to counter such problems in the future. This author has therefore sustained the interest of readers by highlighting a problem and offering solutions. It is well thought out.
The author has identified hypotheses in the paper. However, he has not done this in a succinct manner that allows readers to easily identify them. One must go through the work more than once to make them out. At the beginning of the article, in his introduction, he mentions the objectives of the paper which can be summarized as follows: ‘to assess the multilateral relations between six nations laying claim to the South china sea’, ‘to determine whether current models for conflict resolution are working there’, ‘ to identify possible pathways for mitigating power inequalities in the region’. In other words, Emmers (5) hypothesizes that traditional methods of mitigating unequal power distribution are ineffective against ensuring the security of southeast Asian nations in the context of power asymmetry. The hypotheses have not been numbered or bulleted, but one can identify them through linkages with the title of the paper, the abstract, and the bulk of the work. The author frequently refers to the latter statements in his work and this is how it is possible to recognize them. Nonetheless, the paper would have been more structured if these objectives had been explicitly stated.
The author does a good job of identifying the importance of his work early on in the paper. He asserts that the security of nations laying claim to the South China Sea could be in jeopardy if a new method of dealing with rising tensions is not sought. He further demonstrates the relevance of his work by showing that there is indeed a problem as seen by political stakeholders in the six nations. The use of recent media reports and nongovernmental reports on diplomatic struggles in the South East Asian region indicate that the author is contributing towards this very important issue in International relations. At the end of the article i.e. in his conclusion, he also does a good job of summarizing the implications or relevance of his work where he states that territorial claims by concerned nations are still rife and must be eliminated at all costs if there is any hope for maintaining security in the region.
One of the greatest strengths of this work is the in-depth literature review carried out by the author. He identifies both theoretical and empirical pieces in his work. For instance, he uses articles and books such as ‘the dispute in the South China sea’ and ‘Flashpoint Spartly’ as a summary of the goings-on in his area of study. (Emmers, 9) These materials are essential in providing a background to the study and also in indicating gaps in the concerned topic. However, more can still be done by this author in indicating how the literature review does not tackle his research objectives and why it is necessary for him to proceed with his research.
The author primarily relies on secondary research as no primary studies/ surveys have been carried out. One of the reasons for taking on a seemingly theoretical approach to the article could lie in the fact that international relations are a broad specialty. His chosen topic covers six nations and their histories for four decades. It can be logistically impossible for one to gather sufficient primary material to affirm one’s hypotheses. Even when this is possible, a researcher’s large-scale perspectives can be compromised once too much attention is given to the collection of primary data. Secondary research was, therefore, an appropriate research method for this author because it allowed him to offer insightful analyses on such a rich topic.
The author specifically quotes data from reports by government organizations as well as international associations. For instance, when supporting his claim about how various claimants in the region are working towards strengthening their position in the South China Sea, he says that 71 coastal combatants and thirty-three surface combatants were purchased by the Chinese government. (Emmers, 8) He uses a book printed by the international institute of strategic studies known as military balance. Also, several newspapers have been used as data sources such as the Financial Times and the Straits Times which provide numbers on air carriers or machinery geared as protecting the country’s claims to the disputed waters. The author has not offered information on how these figures were obtained or what sampling strategies were employed and this undermines credibility in his piece. The research was mostly a qualitative one, consequently, very minimal quantitative statistical methods were employed and this was the reason why very little data analysis was done. However, the data used was useful in answering his research questions.
The author has not over-generalized his conclusion because he ties them with his earlier assertion that there are power inequalities in the South East Asian region. He asserts that the situation on the ground is quite fragile and therefore recommends institutional changes in diplomatic relations. He says that a binding code that eliminates territorial claims should be employed together with a wider cooperative regime since the ASEAN approach to diplomacy has not been very effective. One can assert that Emmer’s conclusion (21) was actually the greatest strength of this work because he was able to highlight his earlier assertion of rising tensions in the Southeast Asian region and then explained how past strategies have not worked followed by a possible recommendation on future approaches.
Conclusion
The research is very compelling because it identifies a problem and offers solutions. In other words, the author achieves the objectives for which he had set out. However, the lack of explanations on data sources is a serious problem. Also, if he had clearly stated his research objectives and hypotheses by numbering or bulleting them then his work would have been excellent. Nonetheless, the subject matter was on point as South China waters are a serious problem to the six parties under analysis.
Works cited
Emmers, Ralf. “The changing power distribution in the South China Sea: Implications for conflict management and avoidance.” RSIS Working paper 183. 2009.