The inaugural Manila Dialogue on the South China Sea was just held in the Philippines. I attended the conference at the invitation of @kasphilippines (🙏@braun_daniela). Here are some of my takeaways. /1 
- Several countries are committed to a rules-based order in the maritime domain but they do not always agree on whether and how to punish transgressors.
(I'll comment on the term "rules-based order" at the bottom of this thread.) /2
(I'll comment on the term "rules-based order" at the bottom of this thread.) /2
While there is strength in the multiplicity of measures against the aggressor, disagreement and lack of coordination often undercut the effort. There is, therefore, /3
a need for more dialogue, not so much with the transgressors, but among like-minded nations to facilitate more agreement and coordination in a joint effort to safeguard the rules-based international order. (This controversial term will be explained at the bottom of the thread) /4
- Despite being the foremost regional organization in the area, ASEAN has been unable to mitigate tensions or stabilize the situation in the South China Sea. Several ASEAN members appear to embrace the view that as a small country, the Philippines must accommodate China /5
rather than seek support from “outsiders” for its cause in the SCS. Hence, these fellow ASEAN members tend to blame the Philippines, rather than China, for raising tensions in the SCS. The inclusion of those ASEAN members in the dialogue can help improve mutual understanding. /6
- A promising line of effort to promote the rules-based order is “middle power diplomacy.” More cooperation among the “middle powers” such as Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, Germany, France, the UK, and Canada with “frontline” states /7
such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Taiwan would not only complement great power leadership but also avoid the various disadvantages that often accompany great power leadership. /8
Now to the controversy about the term "rules-based order."
* The term “rules-based order” is not accurate because all orders have rules and so can be seen as “rules-based.” The term has been invented to contrast with an order based on might or power where “might makes right.” /9
* The term “rules-based order” is not accurate because all orders have rules and so can be seen as “rules-based.” The term has been invented to contrast with an order based on might or power where “might makes right.” /9
But the terms “might-based order” or “power-based order” are also inaccurate because no order is effective without enforcement and enforcement requires power, thus all effective orders can be seen as “power-based.” /10
More accurately, what we wish to call “power/might-based order” is hierarchical, with the most powerful on top and the most powerless at the bottom. What we call the “rules-based order” can more accurately be called “lateral” as opposed to hierarchical. /11
The characterization “lateral” reflects the structure of power in the order: everyone is equal before the law. The rules of the lateral (a.k.a. “rules-based”) order are largely neutral regarding the size and power of the countries. /12
The rules of the hierarchical international order reflect, ritualize, and reinforce the asymmetry of power among the countries. So, yes, all orders are based on rules, but it's in the nature of its rules that an order gets its characterization. /13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
