The Quad's 'freedom of navigation' stance misleading

It is puzzling that the architects of the virtual summit of the United States, Australia, Japan and India refuse to call them an alliance, though their joint statement is an open manifestation of their stand as a security dialogue among members.

As a budding "security bloc", the Quad intends to operate in the South China Sea as if to point to China as the source of instability in the region in the name of wanting "to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific, including support for freedom of navigation, territorial integrity, and a stronger regional architecture through Quad".

In reality, it causes many to wonder about the direction of its military and political objectives.

First, the political line of freedom of navigation and keeping open the Indo-Pacific is misleading. Never has there been an instance in which the sea lane of the South China Sea has been blocked by China. Rather, it is the US that first used naval force to impose a naval blockade in the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext to attack North Vietnam.

The four nations cannot cite an instance in which China attempted to block the waterway to put political pressure on countries littoral to the South China Sea as what the US is now doing in Cuba and Venezuela in the Caribbean, or against Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Second, freedom of navigation has been maintained ever since, even by countries that have territorial claims or disputes in the South China Sea.

Despite that, disputes among littoral states in the region have always been blamed on China, even if it has never interfered to disrupt the freedom of navigation. China knows that a disruption of the waterway will never work to its advantage or to countries that rely on it as their trade route to the Pacific, the Indian Ocean and on to the Persian Gulf.

Third, the clamor for freedom of navigation by the US is the reverse application of the discredited "gun boat diplomacy" to pursue its foreign policy, applying the conspicuous display of naval power to constitute a direct threat to war on terms not amenable to them.

This indirectly and strangely means that China is prohibited from maintaining a strong naval power in the South China Sea, and that the security in the region is now the responsibility of country-members, even if they have no coastline there.

Fourth, the concept of Indo-Pacific is the Western redefinition of political geography to purposely suit its strategy of seeking to accommodate allies to justify the nomenclature of Indo-Pacific for the formation of a new alliance.

What many political analysts wonder is why the Quad appears to have singled out China as a competitor of the US and its allies in the region without them formally commencing a Cold War or analyzing their rightful status in the region.

Fifth, the expanded term "Indo-Pacific" is now being used by the West to technically lock the Western-sponsored alliance into participating in the naval exercise that will soon be institutionalized by the Quad, with the intention of easing out China as the legitimate and leading naval power in the region, which is littoral, indigenous and integral to the South China Sea.

As a burdensome member located in the Indian Ocean, India's accommodation is to give the alliance a loose meaning and provide India with jurisdiction both in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. It also is to project the idea that China is geographically and strategically isolated in the new race to dominate the South China Sea.

Sixth, the loose and expanded scope of the West-invented Quad would then require the alliance to allow vessels, warships and submarines from NATO to navigate and participate in the military exercise in the South China Sea.

In fact, the continued presence, patrolling and holding of military exercises of warships of countries not littoral to the South China Sea are what pose a threat to security in the region.

This explains why countries like China, Indonesia and the Philippines feel tense and uneasy every time the US and its allies conduct a military exercise in the South China Sea. There is uneasiness because they can sense that the US is again out to gang up on the sale of weapons.

Enticing countries to purchase submarines, frigates, patrol boats, missiles, radars and communications equipment is what predominates their thinking and not the security of the region. France and the United Kingdom today stand as top sales agents in this odd race to secure peace through the sale of arms.

The author is a Manila-based political analyst and columnist with the Manila Standard. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.