Well, that's a matter for much debate. Whilst it true that the other claiments do not have a common stand as they themselves have overlapping claims, in dealing bilaterally with certain countries China can use its greater diplomatic and economic clout to advantage. Bilateral discussions may be to the advantage of China but not the other claiments. UNCLOS may not be perfect and the best platform but is there an alternative? In the event that the other 5 claimants settles their differences and agree to take a common stand in dealing with China - would China agree to it and would it help sole the disputes - I think not as China would then cry foul.
Hi Sturm, well you open the areas that should be discussed very nicely.
Lets start be reiterating the point that their is no common position. This is an unavoidable reality and simply trying to pretend otherwise (for the purpose of diplomatic negotiation) is pointless, as trying to assume a multilateral position when there isn't one is simply a fiction.
This is I believe the Chinese complaint with the US Interjection, as it encourages the other participants to open negotiations from a position of fiction. Well obviously this is a recipe for disaster, misunderstanding and chaos. It means that one side is talking BS from the outset in a situation where the other knows it. If someone did it you, you would doubtless conclude that people were trying to take the "p" and react negatively. Its no different for International relations.
In this instance I am sure that the Chinese view the US position as one deliberately intended to promote regional division and mistrust and benefit little more than the Corporate Arms Manufacturers by translating dispute and mistrust into an arms race.
UNCLOS is a piece of legislation, like any other and should not be deemed as written in stone. It should be a liable to revision or replacement as any other piece of legislation. If you are charitable, you may say that it fails to satisfy the requirements of dispute resolution in the East Asian Seas, while if you were not charitable you could describe it as a primary driver of the dispute and an obstacle to resolution. In that sense the US insistence on its use, could easily appear malignant to the Chinese side.
UNCLOS may have a role to play in determining final border demarcations in a post dispute settlement phase, but otherwise it can be all too easily perceived as a system that draws Imperious straight lines across water, just as once the great powers drew them across land. In any sense, in Asia, UNCLOS is clearly unfit for purpose and should be withdrawn in favour of a system capable of building new protocols.
How would China react if the other 5 resolved their differences and were able to present themselves from a credible multilateral position? If the position was genuinely changed, then I have no doubt that China would change its policy. China however is as unwilling to be dragged into hypothetical's on such matters as is any other nation and to for any of to try and claim we could second guess, unrealistic.