Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Linkedin Follow us on YouTube

Event: Brazil’s 2019 Chairship of the BRICS: Priorities & Expectations

In 2018, under the South African Chairship of the tenth BRICS summit, the BRICS leaders committed to; the need to safeguard and strengthen multilateralism, implement the United Nations 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, peacekeeping cooperation, further industrial and infrastructure development in Africa, the establishment of a BRICS vaccine centre, tourism and a women’s forum. In addition, the following agreements were signed on; collaborative research on the fourth industrial revolution, a regional aviation... Read more...

Democrats in Search of a Post-Trump Foreign Policy

In this timely occasional paper authored by Mr. Francis Kornegay, he challenges members of the Democratic Party, and indeed the broader foreign policy and national security establishment in the United States (US) to begin preparations for America’s role in the world beyond the Trump Presidency. Download the full paper

Tragedy within the Tragedy: Afghanistan and the failed US approach to east-west relations

To try and understand why the end of the Cold War did not bring with it an end to east-west conflict Afghanistan is emblematic. As the current focus of international media attention, the Donald J. Trump administration’s US special envoy to the Taliban (aka Afghanistan), Zalmay Khalilzad, American of Afghan descent, is making ‘great success’ in at long last reaching a negotiated settlement with the Taliban allowing full US troop withdrawal.    Read tthe full article

A Cyril-Modi IBSA Reset?

What started out as a more or less ho-hum state visit by President Cyril Ramaphosa to India, 25-26 January, had morphed into perhaps one of the most strategically consequential visits the president has made during his tenure in office. Why so?  Read the full article

A New Approach to Africa’s Maritime Security

African peace and security challenges in relation to the continent’s wider maritime scope and its interplay with external political actors receive little attention. Yet, much of the internal politics that affect peacebuilding in Africa involve interregional actors, such as Europe and the Mideast.  Read the full article

QUAD Eclipse: Sino-Japan in Delhi’s Indo-Pacific Calculus

INDIA & THE QUAD The Quadrilateral grouping of the U.S., Japan, India and Australia known as the ‘Quad’ was the thematic subject of the online FPRC Journal of the Foreign Policy Research Centre (FPRC) in New Delhi – “The QUAD: Stakes and Stakeholders.” The following commentary article was among the contributions to the FPRC 2018(3) quarterly issue. Read the full article

About Us

The Institute for Global Dialogue is an independent foreign policy think tank based in Tshwane (Pretoria), South Africa. It advances a balanced, relevant and policy-oriented analysis, debate and documentation of South Africa and Africa’s global politics and diplomacy. It strives to promote a broader understanding of the role of foreign policy and diplomacy in the pursuit of national and international development goals.


Dialogue on Migrations in North and Latin America
Briefing on Fast-changing Horn of Africa Developments
IGD - FES Dialogue
T20 Summit Argentina
South Africa and Jamaica Past, Present and Future
MONA Debate
Does Democracy Create Free and Equitable Societies?
IGD Seminar with FES
MGG Seminar with the German Development Institute
IGD and ICRC Event
The African influence in Latin America and the Caribbean
IGD - HSRC Roundtable
IGD - SABTT Policy Dialogue
IGD FES - ACRP - FOCAC Symposium.jpg
IGD SABTT Symposium
BRICS in Africa
Blue Economy Symposium
17-19 November 2014
Humanizing the Textile and Apparel Seminar
G77 +China Symposium
Bali Outcome Seminar
US Diplomacy Dialogue
30 January 2013
Post-Election Zimbabwe Seminar
IGD Multilateral Development Cooperation Workshop
South African Foreign Policy Review Volume 1
Book Launch 15 Feb
South South Cooperation Roundtable
8 February 2013
Nuclear Diplomacy Roundtable Discussion
IGD Environmental Diplomacy Short Course
Graduate Discussion Forum
Post-Apartheid South Africa 2011
Code of Business Conduct Roundtable by IGD in Cape Town
SA's Second Tenure on the UNSC and the Emerging Powers Dimension
IGD Roundtable
Options for the creation of SADPA
US Diplomacy Dialogue 2014
US-SA Relations Seminar

Upcoming Events

igd unisa saBRICSthinktank
Brazil’s 2019 Chairship of the BRICS: Priorities & Expectations
28 March 2019, 09h00
The Institute for Global Dialogue and the South African BRICS Think TankCordially invite you to a Symposium titled Brazil’s 2019 Chairship of the B... Read more...

South China Sea dispute:China continues to reject multilateral dialogue

China’s attitude towards a territorial sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea has proved to be problematic in South East Asia. For decades now, the territorial dispute in the Spratly/Nasha islands, known to be rich in natural resources, continue to undermine peace and security in region.

The underlining cause of the tension is that, China claim historical territorial sovereignty on the disputed islands and waters, which clashes with a number of states such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and Taiwan. These states too claim legal sovereign rights over the disputed islands.

For decades, there have been discussions and agreements between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China on how to end the dispute and to create favorable conditions for mutual benefit based on the principles of the United Nation Convention of the Law of the Sea. Such agreements include the Declaration of Conduct (DOC) of parties in the South China Sea that was signed in 2002 which lay down the rules and behavior of states in the disputed islands.

However despite the DOC there is a continual increase of animosity and lack of cooperation around the disputed islands. One of the reasons, if not the only one, is because for a long time China resists settling the dispute through multilateral negotiations. It consistently argues that it will only deal with the South China Sea dispute through bilateral dialogue with the parties involved in the dispute. The Chinese government believes that the territorial issue will only be settled reasonably without any third party involved in the negotiation.

As a result, China’s approach creates negative impact within the ASEAN bloc as it struggles to find unanimous agreement to end the dispute. The impact was evident last year during the 45th ASEAN regional summit in Cambodia 2012, when the South China Sea became a subject of contention and member states failed to issue a joint statement on how to deal with the dispute to bring about peace and security in the region.

Now with ASEAN’s top priority to form a new economic community by 2015 under the new secretariat group led by Secretary-General Le Luong Minh, the question is; will the ASEAN group influence China in re-thinking its position and approach towards the disputed islands.

Recently China took a decision in January 2013 to oppose Philippines’s initiative to resolve the dispute in the UN arbitral tribunal.The Philippines approached the UN arbitral tribunal with intentions to pressure China into multilateral discussions with all the claimant states after failed attempts by the ASEAN bloc to get China on board. China’s response to the Philippines proposal is not something new; they argue that the consensus in the DOC document states that disputes should be solved through talks between the nations directly involved.This is the principle that China always uses to avoid multilateral dialogues as a vehicle to end the dispute.

It is somehow unacceptable, however, that China chose to use the DOC to back its position after it failed to honor the same document last year when it took a decision to build a city with a military base on one of the disputed islands despite the DOC principles. This is one of the actions that sparked the dispute because it placed China in breach of the DOC agreement.

The DOC states that all Parties in the South China Sea must undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others. This means that all parties must refraining from action of inhabiting the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and musthandle their differences in a constructive manner. China, however, failed to follow this principle, so it is somewhat surprising that it feels suitable to use the DOC in opposition to the UN arbitrary tribunal.
As a result, to a large extent this is the challenge that will continue to weaken negotiations and agreements between China and the ASEAN bloc if China only intends to plays by the rules and principles of the DOC agreement when it serves only their interest.

In conclusion, with all China’s actions and approach in the South China Sea, one can only conclude that China’s unwillingness to engage in dialogue with other claimant states in a multilateral space will continue to create hostility in the disputed waters.Without any concrete solution agreed and followed by all parties, China will continue to intimidate other claimant states in the disputed islands and waters through its strong military presence. Now the question is; will the ASEAN bloc find a plausible way to limit China dominance in the land of dispute? In a way this will depend on ASEAN’s ability to form an economic community and how will the community have impact on South China Sea playing field with China.


Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Copyright © 2018, Institute for Global Dialoguemindstormsolutions tiny