Scientific Cooperation in the South China Sea: A vector for China's security diplomacy in Southeast Asia?
The South China Sea is regularly examined as a source of constant security tension, whereas analysis of scientific cooperation in the area is rare, thinly spread and short. However, scientific cooperation in maritime matters, and particularly in the South China Sea, does exist; collective research and knowledge is even considered as a means of coming together – a functional bridge – indispensable in depoliticizing recurring tensions. Disputes between parties continue to poison bilateral relations and negotiations on a Code of Conduct are put to the test by significant political questions, whereas scientific programs link an extensive network of scientists and bureaucrats who deal with complex maritime issues and resource management, and who share a common interest for preserving fragile ecological balances.
Scientific programs obviously serve the interests of both China and the Southeast Asian countries: areas of cooperation are numerous and the easiest ground to establish regional cooperation regimes. In this sense, collective scientific work or the adoption of functional standards could contribute towards defusing threatening attitudes. Yet, scientific cooperation also reflects the reality of relationships in the region, which is that of ‘unequal interdependence’, or asymmetry. In the domain of scientific cooperation, as in others, China plays on the weaknesses of its partners.
The evidence shows that China uses its rapidly developing scientific and military prowess in a synchronized manner to dissuade rivals, give credibility to its arguments and secure its regional space and supply routes. After 20 years of research programs in the South China Sea, the space is effectively starting to be well controlled. This control is not really the product of scientific cooperation, but rather the result of China leading research programs and rule setting. It is therefore reasonable to question the link between the understanding of the maritime space that this research has enabled and its use for gaining power. Besides, scientific cooperation has not reduced mistrust and facilitated the agreement on a Code of Conduct.
Available in:
Regions and themes
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Scientific Cooperation in the South China Sea: A vector for China's security diplomacy in Southeast Asia?
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.
France’s View: From Diplomacy to Public-Private Action
France has emerged as the EU’s IMEC forerunner, combining port infrastructure, diplomatic alliances and public-private cooperation. With Marseille Fos at its core, the country brings a strategic hub for logistics, energy and digital connectivity to the corridor.
Trump II, the Crisis of the Rules-Based Order and Europe’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.