Abstract Maritime governance is an integral component of global governance, and the current maritime governance crisis reflects a broader global governance crisis. This crisis can be examined through various lenses, but we will analyze it from the perspective of international public goods. The ocean is a prime example of an international public good since it connects continents across the globe. No nation can escape the challenges of maritime governance; they can only experience it to varying degrees. Inclusive multilateralism, in my opinion, presents an effective solution to address the issue of negative public goods and serves as a positive international public good in and of itself.
Viewed through the lens of international public goods, the maritime governance crisis results from two interconnected factors: a lack of positive global public goods and an excess of negative ones.
There has been a shortage of positive international public goods for many years. The international system, centered around the United Nations organization, various international treaties and organizations aimed at specific issues, and regional treaties and organizations, can all be seen as positive international public goods. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a positive public good for the ocean. However, these international organizations and institutions have not been integrated into maritime governance and exhibit a highly fragmented trend. What is even more serious is that today, big powers are increasingly competing in the maritime domain and displaying a selfish nature. Thus, the public goods that big powers can provide are far from sufficient. UNCLOS is an excellent international public good, but some big powers do not recognize or join the convention, only using it as an effective tool to criticize other countries. When some big powers stand above international law, international law loses credibility and effectiveness.
Along with the shortage of positive international public goods, countries are producing too many negative public goods, such as the marine ecological crisis caused by marine debris, overfishing, and decreased marine biodiversity. Every year, humans pollute the water they rely on to survive, making the ocean a "dumpster" for humanity.
Big Powers and International Public Goods
So how can we provide enough good international public goods? And how can we reduce the bad ones?
From the perspective of the theory of international public goods, big powers play a special role in providing sufficient positive international public goods and reducing negative ones. Big powers have more capability to provide positive international public goods, while small powers tend to free-ride. Even if they have the will, the capacity of small countries is insufficient to provide enough positive public goods compared to large countries. Similarly, if we want to reduce negative international public goods, big countries must bear the primary responsibility because small countries follow the lead of big countries. For example, with carbon emissions, the carbon emissions of China and the United States together account for about half of the world's total. Obviously, even if small countries make efforts, they will be in vain if China and the United States cannot cooperate.
Therefore, cooperation between major powers is essential whether it is to provide sufficient positive international public goods or to reduce negative international public goods. In fact, as we humans have developed into the 21st century and material civilization has developed to this extent, we have enough ability and technology to provide positive international public goods and enough ability and technology to reduce negative international public goods. However, the problem lies in the fact that big powers cannot cooperate effectively; especially now, big powers are not only unable to cooperate but also engage in vicious competition and even conflict.
Among all the relationships between big powers, the relationship between China and the United States is the most crucial. Since Joe Biden was elected President of the United States, the US has put forward a formula for its policy towards China: "cooperate where we can, compete where we must, and confront where we must.” However , although theoretically possible, this model is very difficult to apply in practice. Although the two big powers can try, the effects will not be very positive. Until now, the US policy towards China guided by this formula has not produced very positive results; rather, adverse effects are significant. The reason is simple: the two countries cannot have a fierce conflict in one area while still being able to cooperate reasonably in another. While both sides can verbally or superficially say they are willing to cooperate, it is difficult to implement. Imagine that both sides are constantly arguing in one area while expecting to smile and greet each other in another area. Under the premise of distinguishing between various areas, parallel diplomatic cooperation cannot produce positive results. For example, it is difficult for China and the US to be at loggerheads over Taiwan while cooperating seamlessly on climate issues. From experience, the US cannot even achieve this within its own country, nor can other big powers. The US demands too little of itself and too much of other countries. Since no country can achieve this, I believe that the formula proposed by the US is an unrealistic utopia.
International Public Goods Requires Inclusive Multilateralism
If the US-style big power cooperation is not feasible, is it possible to solve the problem of international public goods? This is possible, depending on what form of multilateralism big powers practice: multilateral cooperation between big powers and other smaller countries. The question here is whether we can reduce bad multilateralism and increase good multilateralism.
Both China and the US are practicing multilateralism. However, the multilateralism the US practices is often exclusive and aimed at third parties. This kind of multilateralism is bad because its goal is to divide the international community to serve the interests of the big powers. The purpose of multilateralism is to solve common problems facing humanity and promote the development of a human community with a shared future. However, “cliquish” multilateralism exacerbates the fragmentation and opposition of human society.
The international organization system centered on the United Nations established after World War II was largely, even crucially, created with the help of the US. But recently, has the US made the UN system more integrated or fragmented? This is not a difficult question; the UN system has been greatly fragmented. The UN has become more fragmented, and the major organizational systems under it, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), are also fragmented. During the Trump era, the US withdrew from some key international conventions and treaties, which greatly damaged the credibility of the international system, making the international community believe that for the US, international organizations and conventions are optional, to be used when useful, and discarded when not. Empirically, trouble will follow once a big power withdraws from these international organizations.
In contrast, China seeks inclusive, open multilateralism not aimed at other countries but only at the problems facing its member countries, known as "inclusive multilateralism," rather than exclusive multilateralism. The multilateral cooperation between China and ASEAN is an example of inclusive multilateralism. China and ASEAN countries negotiate on the South China Sea issue by the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC). This kind of multilateralism is not aimed at any country outside the members but at the members’ problems. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) initiated by China is also not aimed at any specific country. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the BRICS, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) are all open and inclusive multilateral organizations designed to enhance the interests of member countries and have no enemies. However, I believe that there is still room for discussion on how to define good multilateralism. The promotion of multilateralism can be initiated by big powers or small countries with big powers’ support. China has achieved very positive results in promoting good multilateralism in recent years.
To Handle US-China Relations, We Must Avoid
Falling Into The "Thucydides Trap"
When discussing international public goods issues, it is important to emphasize the current unavoidable issue of US-China relations. The United States' current policy towards China is based on its fear of China, known as the "Thucydides Trap.” I believe that this fear is unnecessary. On the one hand, China has never had the intention, will, or plan to become a global hegemony like the United States. The so-called "Hundred-Year Marathon" of China competing with the United States is the United States merely trying to impose its logic on China.
On the other hand, China also needs to understand the United States' fear of China. Although this fear comes from the West's logic, it also negatively impacts US-China relations. Therefore, China needs to lead by example and not instill fear in the United States to eliminate the fear of America. Once both China and the United States fear each other, it is easy to fall into what is called the "Thucydides Trap".
Because China does not fear the United States as the United States fears China, its relationship with ASEAN has been handled relatively well. The United States' recent actions seem to force ASEAN countries to take sides and require them to stand with the United States. China is more generous and does not force Southeast Asian countries to choose sides like the United States. As an international political stage, ASEAN can practice independent diplomacy based on each member's national interests, which benefits both ASEAN and China. As long as China can persist in supporting ASEAN countries in this way, ASEAN will have its judgment ability towards China. Last year, Indonesian Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto's speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue was very impressive. He advocated resolving differences and challenges through "Asian methods". He emphasized that Indonesia refuses to "take sides," and respects all great powers but will not participate in any military or political alliance. That is to say, Indonesia and other countries should deal with China in an Asian way rather than in the American way with other Asian countries. In earlier years, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir also expressed this attitude more clearly. In an interview with the media, he said that China has been Malaysia's neighbor for 2,000 years, but China has never invaded or conquered us. In 1509, Europeans came and conquered and colonized Malaysia in just two years.
This inspires us to ask, can we start our ocean governance in Asia? There are many points of conflict among Asian countries over issues such as the South China Sea and the East China Sea. But we need to reflect on the root cause of these points of conflict. Should we deal with our relationships among Asian countries based on the "sovereignty" defined by European countries in the past, which divided the ownership boundary lines on the ocean, or should we seek wisdom from our Asian civilization and history to solve our conflicts? The conflicts that Asian countries are facing today are the result of applying modern European concepts. I believe that we can still manage and resolve our conflicts among Asian countries from the new concept of the "Asian Community" and "Ocean Community." Today, we have the motivation to think about how these conflicts arose and how to solve the problems because we have these points of contention.
I believe that if China continues to adhere to inclusive, non-exclusive, and problem-oriented multilateralism and thus forms a community of shared future for the oceans, establishing an effective maritime order will not be limited to people's imagination. In other words, inclusive multilateralism effectively addresses negative public goods and is itself a positive international public good.
Professor, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
President, The Institute for International Affairs, Qianhai
Professor Zheng is Editor of The Asian Review of Political Economy (Springer-Nature), Editor of China Policy Series (Routledge), and Co-editor of Contemporary China Studies Series (World Scientific).
Professor Zheng’s main research interests are international relations, China’s foreign policy, Sino-US relations, China’s domestic transformation and its external relations. He has authored and edited some one hundred books, including ten monographs in English. He has published numerous research papers in academic journals.
![](javascript: void(window.open('https://plus.google.com/share?text=We can resolve our conflicts among Asian countries from the new concept of the "Asian Community" and "Ocean Community" instead of applying modern European concepts.&image=http://ippreview.com/Uploads/Blog/2023-03-11/640c8f34e6eda.png&url='.concat(encodeURIComponent(location.href)),'menubar=no,toolbar= no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,height=600,width=600)'));){kind=link}
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *