Page added on May 14, 2014
With the additional deployment of a submarine and a missile ship, there are now 86 Chinese vessels accompanying the oil rig’s installation in Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Local news reports that 3 Chinese military ships are surrounding a Vietnamese marine police vessel this morning and water cannon use continues against Vietnamese ships.
Weaddressed the who, what, where, when and how of China’s HD-981 oil rig foray into Vietnamese waters here but, as we discuss below, the enduring question, as with many of China’s recently provocative actions in the Asia-Pacific, remains why?
Why Did China Set Up an Oil Rig Within Vietnamese Waters?
Why now and why Vietnam?
The enduring question, as with many of China’s provocative actions in the Asia-Pacific, remains why? The opacity of China’s internal decision-making processes makes it rather difficult to conclusively answer that question, but a good amount of evidence suggests that the oil rig crisis with Vietnam was manufactured to test the mettle of ASEAN states and the United States. It gives Beijing an opportunity to gauge the international response to China asserting its maritime territorial claims.
As Carl Thayer points out on this blog and M. Taylor Fravel said in an interview with The New York Times, the China National Offshore Oil Company’s decision to move oil rig HD-981 was a premeditated move of territorial assertion. CNOOC may be a state-owned enterprise but the decision to move this $1 billion asset into an area with questionable hydrocarbon reserves while also inciting a diplomatic crisis speaks to the planned, political nature of this move. The fact that approximately 80 PLAN and Chinese coast guard ships accompanied the rig reinforces the notion that China was making a strategic push to assert its territorial claims in the region.
The question of why China chose to escalate with Vietnam specifically is perhaps slightly easier to answer. Several analysts have already noted that China caught the world off-guard by choosing to escalate its territorial dispute with Vietnam given that relations between the two countries were improving as recently as fall 2013. Additionally, a certain degree of camaraderie exists between the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). For China to suddenly risk a relatively stable bilateral relationship through an underlying rivalry seemed brazen and irresponsible.
On the contrary, if China had to push any dispute in the South China Sea to test the mettle of the United States and ASEAN, Vietnam was perhaps the most fitting candidate.As Tuong Vu told the New York Times, a political debate exists within Vietnam about whether the country should remain close to China or pursue closer relations with the west, with the former faction wielding considerably more influence. With this in mind, China gambled with a good degree of confidence that despite the oil rig provocation, Vietnam would respond with rhetoric and restraint — not force.
To this end, only Chinese coast guard vessels rammed Vietnamese ships and hit them with water cannons — the PLAN remained in a support function, ensuring that whatever kinetic coercion was used was not explicitly originating from a military vessel (although Vietnam did not entirely buy this interpretation). Furthermore, before China can begin trying its luck with U.S. allies in the region, such the Philippines, which recently signed a ten-year defense facility sharing deal with the United States, it must see if the United States is willing to defend its self-stated interests in the region.
Whereas with the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan the United States is treaty-bound to take action, in the case of other disputes in the South China Sea, particularly the Paracel Islands dispute between Vietnam and China, all the United States has to do is demonstrate that it is willing to stand up for the interests it has identified in the past, including freedom of navigation, the peaceful resolution of all conflicts, and the non-use of coercion and intimidation in disputes.With HD-981, China has challenged the United States on all three. Additionally, given ExxonMobil’s interests in the waters, HD-981 is also impeding U.S. commercial interests in the region. So far, the United States’ response — a statement calling China’s behavior “provocative” — is insufficiently costly to China to deter such behavior in the future.
Finally, China timed this coercive move as U.S. President Barack Obama left Asia and just prior to the meeting of ASEAN Heads of Government/State in Naypyidaw, Myanmar this past weekend. In doing so, China was taking a risk: the move would doubtless draw massive international attention and condemnation. However, as the ASEAN Summit statement demonstrates, China still has an assurance that regional leaders are insufficiently united to put forth a joint front against Chinese coercion in the South China Sea. While it is significant that ASEAN Foreign Ministers issued a separate statement, the “internationalization” of disputes that China dreads has not yet come to pass (and likely will not anytime soon).
Similarly, as the United States grows old, weary and underfunded as the global policeman, this oil rig debacle sits in the same category of global crises as Syria and Ukraine — just without the same sort of political urgency. By avoiding a U.S. treaty ally or major partner, China seeks to paint the U.S. as unable to assert its interests in the region. A negative consequence of this is that other states engaged in territorial disputes with China will seek to unilaterally militarize to offset their reliance on U.S. security guarantees, potentially creating a headache for China later in the future.
The decision to move oil rig HD-981 into disputed waters matches China’s decision to impose an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea in terms of signaling China’s appetite to unilaterally pursue its maritime territorial claims. China has said that the oil rig will remain in these waters until August this year. What ultimately sets this episode apart from any other is that it is the first time China has placed an asset this expensive within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of another state. And Vietnam isn’t a pushover of a state either — it has a more-than-modest maritime capacity that could result in an armed altercation with China. Overall, in the past six months, we’ve seen China more assertive than ever in pursuing its claims and, for the moment, it is succeeding.
17 Comments on "86 Chinese Navy Vessels Now Present At Oil Rig Near Vietnam"
Makati1 on Wed, 14th May 2014 9:00 pm
And the beat goes on. The American empire is over-stretched and broke, just like the Romans in their last days. China can do what it wants, where it wants and when it wants. Or so it seems to me.
Plantagenet on Wed, 14th May 2014 9:06 pm
Obama is a wimp.
GregT on Wed, 14th May 2014 9:20 pm
Plant,
Get over Obama already. It’s beyond silly.
GregT on Wed, 14th May 2014 9:21 pm
Makati,
How was your trip back?
Plantagenet on Wed, 14th May 2014 10:12 pm
GregT
Did you read the article? Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion here?
No? Of course not.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 14th May 2014 11:26 pm
“Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion here?”
Oh, you mean something substantive and highly contributive to the conversation such as “Obama is a wimp”?
Plant, this is not a political discussion forum. Your frequent silly and immature cheap shots at Obama are in very poor taste here. There are plenty of political discussion forums where your trite cheap shots at Obama would be highly appreciated. But here, they merely offend and annoy. They definitely are not “substantive” additions “to the discussion”.
Makati1 on Wed, 14th May 2014 11:47 pm
GregT, it was not the best trip I’ve taken. Three hour delay in Detroit on the tarmac while they fixed the 747-400 starter and then we waited for a storm to pass as they had closed the airport. Then a 45 minute delay at Manila because they had to move a plane so we could park at a gate. They are extending the Manila airport and many gates are closed after midnight for construction. As we arrived at 1 AM instead of 10:30 PM, we had no p[lace to park. But, otherwise, it was a nice trip. Glad to be home again in Makati.
Norm on Thu, 15th May 2014 2:14 am
what was wrong with the 747 starter… new hamster? new wheel?
who cares if somebody says ‘obama is a wimp’. seems true ’nuff. But Bush&Boehner are a couple of thieves. So they are all rotten. Who cares. Irrelevant. Heard a comment from a sharp Ph.D. type of person recently: Real crisis of America, is there isn’t any true leadership anymore.
Norm on Thu, 15th May 2014 5:05 am
Oil rigs and battleships, all together rah rah team. Pass me a bag of popcorn a Coke and a hot dog wit mustard, cause this looks like the front row seats for peak oil Armageddon. Battle ship, oil rig, no real difference just tools for gettin what’s left. Next stop, road warriors, punk rockers on dune buggies wearing swim goggles. Fightin for the last of the gas. I am watching and munching my popcorn, so far so good.
Cloud9 on Thu, 15th May 2014 6:04 am
The Chinese may be in worse shape than we are. They exposed the dream to a billion people. Only problem is the dream is unattainable. Read the German military’s evaluation of how this game plays out.
http://www.permaculturenews.org/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf
Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 15th May 2014 6:28 am
Cloud the Chinese are the “Peak Everything” spoilers. Take a “BIL” consumers and offer them a chance at prosperity and you immediately have “Peak Prosperity”. Yet, it is only fair and just to give them that opportunity. If the rich west does not like that then arrange a meeting for all of us to let the system collapse to a lower level and let at least 1/2 or more of the global population die off relatively quickly.
Luck on Thu, 15th May 2014 7:40 am
Makati, although critical to PO taking a long distance flight with a B747 you contributed a great deal to the damage of the higher atmosphere,(engines without catalysator!), greenhouse, and rapid depletion of crude. Presumably you enjoyed flying a low budget operator squeenzing its personnel….So pursue your “wise” comments on this site :))
Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 15th May 2014 7:50 am
Luck, Mak don’t care unless it is a US resident taking the flight then he will heap scorn with fire and brimstone on how awful that “Western” person is. He is a hypocrite at heart because of his political propagandist ideologue mental bend!
steveo on Thu, 15th May 2014 8:31 am
“Obama is a wimp.”
True, but what would you have him do? Sanctions? How do you sanction the country that manufactures all the junk we buy? Military action? How well have our military actions worked out over that last 25 years?
bobinget on Thu, 15th May 2014 10:23 am
A little history: the US already fought wars in Asia that ended badly.
Off shore oil exploration just got a huge boost in costs.
Actually, deploying this many warships, building a military air base out of dredged sea floor sand to ‘defend’ a single exploratory rig should be a huge ‘tell’ as far as oil markets are concerned. China, evidently is unwilling to share discovered assets. I and others have said it;
The time is quickly coming when India but most certainly China will be capable of absorbing ALL of the world’s oil and gas exports… full stop
Makati1 on Thu, 15th May 2014 7:57 pm
Luck, my ‘pollution’ contribution is much LESS than if I were a typical American driving a trash can around to Walmart. That trip used less oil to move me around than I used in 2 months, when I worked in the States, driving my medium sized car.
Estimated fuel use was about 180 gallons for a 25,000 mile round trip. Do the math if you don’t believe me. That means the fuel cost about $720 of my $1,800 ticket. As $440 of that was taxes and fees, and if you subtract another $720 for fuel, that leaves the airline with $640 for all the other costs and profit.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 15th May 2014 9:42 pm
Mak shame on you for being a heathen energy intensive vole! then blaming it on the west.