Introduction
The South China Sea conflict represents one of the most complex and enduring geopolitical disputes in the modern era, involving multiple states with overlapping territorial claims, significant economic interests, and strategic military concerns. This essay aims to analyse the South China Sea conflict through the lens of conflict management by employing three key conflict analysis tools: the Conflict Tree, the ABC Triangle, and the Onion Model. These frameworks will be used to dissect the root causes, dynamics, and positions of the actors involved, providing a structured understanding of this multifaceted issue. By exploring the historical context, underlying issues, and attitudes of key stakeholders, this analysis seeks to illuminate the intricacies of the conflict and highlight potential pathways for resolution. The essay will first outline each analytical tool, then apply them to the South China Sea dispute, and conclude with a summary of findings and their implications for conflict management.
Conflict Analysis Tools: Theoretical Overview
Conflict analysis tools are essential in conflict management studies as they provide structured methods to deconstruct disputes and identify pathways to resolution. The Conflict Tree, for instance, offers a visual representation of a conflict by distinguishing between root causes (the roots), core problems (the trunk), and visible effects (the branches) (Fisher et al., 2000). This model helps analysts delve beyond surface-level issues to uncover deeper structural or historical drivers. Similarly, the ABC Triangle, developed by Johan Galtung, categorises conflict into three interdependent elements: Attitudes, Behaviours, and Contradictions (Galtung, 1996). This framework highlights the interplay between perceptions, actions, and underlying incompatibilities. Lastly, the Onion Model focuses on the layered nature of conflict, separating positions (outer layer), interests (middle layer), and needs (core) of the parties involved (Moore, 2014). Together, these tools provide a comprehensive approach to understanding complex disputes like the South China Sea conflict.
Contextualising the South China Sea Conflict
The South China Sea, a critical maritime region in Southeast Asia, is contested by several states including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. The dispute centres on territorial claims over islands, reefs, and maritime boundaries, with China asserting dominance through its ‘nine-dash line’ claim, which overlaps with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other nations (Storey, 2013). Beyond territorial issues, the region is vital for global trade routes, with approximately $3.4 trillion of trade passing through annually, and holds significant untapped oil and gas reserves (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023). Tensions have escalated due to militarisation, with China constructing artificial islands and deploying military assets, prompting counter-responses from other claimants and external powers like the United States. This context of economic stakes, strategic interests, and historical grievances makes the South China Sea an ideal case for conflict analysis.
Applying the Conflict Tree to the South China Sea
Using the Conflict Tree, the root causes of the South China Sea conflict lie in historical grievances and unresolved post-colonial territorial ambiguities. For instance, China’s expansive claims trace back to historical maps and narratives of sovereignty dating to ancient times, while Vietnam and the Philippines base their claims on proximity and international law, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Storey, 2013). The trunk, or core problem, is the incompatibility of these overlapping claims, exacerbated by the lack of a binding regional framework to mediate disputes. The branches, representing the visible effects, include militarisation, diplomatic standoffs, and occasional violent clashes, such as the 2012 Scarborough Shoal incident between China and the Philippines. Thus, the Conflict Tree reveals that addressing the conflict requires not only managing current tensions but also tackling historical and legal contradictions at the root, a challenging yet essential task for conflict resolution (Fisher et al., 2000).
Analysing Dynamics with the ABC Triangle
The ABC Triangle provides further insight by breaking the South China Sea conflict into attitudes, behaviours, and contradictions. Attitudes are shaped by nationalistic sentiments and mistrust among stakeholders. China, for example, views the South China Sea as integral to its sovereignty and regional dominance, while other claimants perceive China’s actions as aggressive and hegemonic (Kaplan, 2014). Behaviours manifest in actions such as China’s island-building and naval patrols, countered by joint military exercises between the US, the Philippines, and other allies. The contradiction lies in the fundamental incompatibility of territorial claims and the differing interpretations of international law; China rejects the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling in favour of the Philippines, highlighting a clash of legal principles versus historical claims (Galtung, 1996). This analysis underscores the need for diplomatic efforts to shift hostile attitudes and de-escalate provocative behaviours, though the core contradiction remains a significant barrier.
Peeling the Layers with the Onion Model
The Onion Model delves into the positions, interests, and needs of the parties involved in the South China Sea conflict. On the outer layer, positions are rigid: China insists on near-total control, while Vietnam and the Philippines demand adherence to UNCLOS and recognition of their EEZs (Moore, 2014). Peeling deeper, the interests reveal economic and security motivations; claimant states seek access to resources and safe maritime routes, while China additionally prioritises strategic dominance to project regional power. At the core, the needs include national security, economic stability, and political legitimacy—China’s leadership, for instance, arguably relies on asserting control to maintain domestic support (Kaplan, 2014). This model suggests that negotiation might be more effective if it focuses on shared interests, such as joint resource exploration, rather than entrenched positions. However, addressing core needs like security remains a complex challenge given the high stakes involved.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the application of the Conflict Tree, ABC Triangle, and Onion Model to the South China Sea conflict reveals a deeply layered dispute driven by historical grievances, incompatible territorial claims, and intertwined attitudes, behaviours, and needs. The Conflict Tree highlights the importance of addressing root causes like historical ambiguities, while the ABC Triangle emphasises the role of mistrust and provocative actions in perpetuating tensions. Meanwhile, the Onion Model uncovers potential common ground in shared economic interests, though core security needs pose persistent obstacles. These findings suggest that conflict management in the South China Sea requires a multifaceted approach, combining legal frameworks, confidence-building measures, and dialogue to shift attitudes and behaviours. Furthermore, the implications for conflict management studies are clear: analytical tools are invaluable in dissecting complex disputes, yet their effectiveness depends on political will and the capacity to translate insights into actionable strategies. Ultimately, while resolution remains elusive, a structured understanding of the conflict offers a foundation for mitigating escalation and fostering regional stability.
References
- Council on Foreign Relations. (2023) Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea. Council on Foreign Relations.
- Fisher, S., Abdi, D. I., Ludin, J., Smith, R., Williams, S., & Williams, S. (2000) Working with Conflict: Skills and Strategies for Action. Zed Books.
- Galtung, J. (1996) Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Sage Publications.
- Kaplan, R. D. (2014) Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific. Random House.
- Moore, C. W. (2014) The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass.
- Storey, I. (2013) The South China Sea Dispute: Rising Tensions, Increasing Stakes. ISEAS Publishing.
