Again, perhaps unsurprisingly, the growing security ties between Vietnam and Washington provoked an angry response with one Chinese commentator warning that the United States was trying to construct an ‘Asian NATO’ to contain China.
Writing in the People’s Daily, Li Hongmei accused the Obama administration of ‘experimenting (with) a new, more insidious but very risky diplomatic strategy in the region, where it has for long played hegemonic power, to contain an emerging great power…drifting from confrontation to confrontation with a rising China.’ Although acknowledging that a ‘physically existent NATO may be unlikely to come into being…psychologically, the US is coaxing and coercing China's neighbours to join in its galaxy.’
But it’s not all about regional pressure to intervene—US officials have their own reasons for contesting Beijing’s maritime claims.
According to one calculation, one-third of all the world’s commercial shipping traverses waters that Chinese policymakers now claim belong to them. Soon after taking office, the Obama administration made clear its determination to contest Chinese sovereignty claims in international waters after Chinese ships and aircraft launched a concerted campaign of harassment against US maritime surveillance ships that were in the South China Sea. The most notorious episode occurred in March 2009, when Chinese sailors tried to seize the sonar buoy that the USNS Impeccable was using to survey China’s new naval base on Hainan and Chinese submarines in the area.
So will the combination of regional tensions and self-interest precipitate a premeditated Sino-American military clash?
At the moment at least it seems extremely unlikely given the mutual economic interests of both countries and the obvious incentive Beijing has to bide its time while China, which recently became the second largest economy in the world after the United States, continues its peaceful rise to global power.
But the possibility of a military conflict through miscalculation can’t be ruled out. With this in mind, Washington would do well to consider whether it’s really worth putting an aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea. The motivation is noble—assisting ally South Korea by highlighting military support for Seoul. But such a move also risks undermining efforts to get Beijing’s help dealing with Pyongyang. That said, the issue of the military exercises should be treated separately from Clinton’s statement, which had the useful effect of underscoring Washington’s interest in denying Chinese claims to sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.
Last year, the show of US determination to continue maritime surveillance and freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea in the face of some Chinese opposition resulted in an end to Chinese harassment there. If both sides are sensible, there’s no reason why this latest disagreement need get out of hand.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Shawn
“why in gods name was an obstructionist, mercantile sneaky self-absorbed country ever put on the UN security council to basically scuttle absolutely any sane/normal/globally supported resolutions?”….I totally understand and completely agree with you however unfortunately the Americans are the sole superpower in this world and that’s why no country individually or collectively through the UN could stop them from invading IRAQ causing untold deaths even though the entire world was against it and wasn’t fooled by their propaganda.
UNCLOS
Given that China has never established sovereignty over the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea, right next to Beijing, other major cities and along China’s seaboard, the claim that China has established sovereignty over the South China Sea all the way down to Malaysia and Indonesia seems far fetched.
Thoughout history, the South China Sea has always been an international one, similar to the Mediterranean. It is not the case that the US is internationalizing it, but that China is trying to de-internationalize it and turn this international sea into a Chinese lake.
As for China’s insistence that bilateral negotiation is the way to resolve the dispute, does China think that bilateral negotiation between the Philippines and Malaysia or between the Philippines and Vietnam can resolve the dispute? Clearly the dispute is a multilateral one and can never be resolved by bilateral negotiations.
Furthermore the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea means that the international community has rights in the South China Sea, so it it only right that international community has an interest in that Sea.
Nathan
It’s called the “CHINA SEA” isn’t it??? The Americans are up to their usual tricks of deception trying to sow fear, mistrust and hostility in Asia as they do with all colored people globally. Classic divide and conquer replayed over and over again…period!!!
UNCLOS
First of all, it’s called the “South China Sea”, not the “China Sea”.
Secondly, by Nathan’s reasoning the Sea of Japan would belong (exclusively) to Japan, the English Channel would belong (exclusively) to England, the Gulf of Thailand would belong to (exclusively) Thailand, The Gulf of Tonkin would belong (exclusively) to Vietnam, and the Indian Ocean would belong (exclusively) to India. And we all know that’s not the case.
And we all know that the East China Sea does not belong (exclusively) to China, China does not have sovereignty over the East China Sea.
Yet some people still try to use the word “China” in “South China Sea” to suggest that that sea belongs to China!
Given that bilateral negotiation cannot possibly solve a multilateral dispute, which is what the South China Sea dispute is, why does China insist bilateral negotiation? China’s purpose here is twofold.
First of all, by insisting on a solultion that cannot possibly work, China effectively blocks all progress towards a negotiated solution, until the time is ripe fo China to take the whole South China Sea.
Secondly, insisting on negotiating with the South East Asian countries in the dispute one by one is classic divide and conquer strategy. It is China that’s employing divide and conquer strategy here, not the US.
The best hope for the South East Asian countries in the dispute and the international community is to work towards the application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to the South China Sea.
will6cx
There are Chinatowns here in the US. Are they Chinese territories? Really! That’s stupid.
LAW
@ UNCLOS:
You are dammed right: No one is trying to internationalize the South China Sea, only China is trying to de-internationalize it. And you gave the right question to the Chinese: Does China think bilateral negociation between Malaysia and the Philippines or between the Philippines and Vietnam can resolve the dispute?
LacViet
@ UNCLOS:
You are so correct. Bilateral negotiation is a way to break up the South East Asian countries and a delay mechanism by China to eat up the whole region when the time is ripe for China.
So multilateral is the only way.
Justinian
China will only be helpful if it is in China’s national interest. Let’s be totally honest here. China is busy expanding its ability to project military power everywhere, but especially in the Pacific. It clearly wants to be the “Hegemon” and will not tolerate any interference with that goal by the United States or any other state. How far China will go to challenge American power in the Pacific and elsewhere remains to be seen, but there can be no doubt that this is part of China’s foreign policy game plan. She will likewise come into conflict with other states, i.e., Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia and even Russia, as all have various territorial claims in the region. The best way to avoid conflict is for China to sit down like a responsible power and arrive at a diplomatic solution. Failing that, I fear that China’s Communist rulers may seriously miscalculate provoke a war that would be disastrous for all parties, including China.
Asean
Ah… what China tried to do is to make it sounds like the US is butting into China’s business by returning to Southeast Asia. That is the false premise for China’s argument to feed the misinformed and domestic mass. But in reality, the US Navy has been patrolling the Southeast Asian Sea for nearly a century and still is. That area contains at least 50% of the world sea commerce traffic. Most importantly, the whole region had been occupied by various nations, whose inhabitants have lived, fished and otherwise existed for millenias. All of a sudden, China came out of the blue and claimed the whole area as “historically belonged” to China and that is simply unacceptable.
Magnus T.M.
That isn’t actually true. Beijing’s claims in the South China Seas are based on the claims made by the Republic of China (Taiwan). Even today, some of the largest islands there are occupied by Taiwanese garrisons.
In terms of historical rights, China does indeed have the best claim in the region. Although I prefer that “China” to be the one on Taiwan.
Long
Magnus, would you please provide evidence why China has the best claim in the region? Let me remind you that the islands called Taiwan today along with the southernmost of China today used to belong to Dai Viet people which is now called Vietnamese. You can confirm that by reading the book “Vietnam: a country study”
So, if you go back to 111 BC, then Paracel, Spratly and the whole “South China Sea” which is called “East Sea” by Vietnamese people certainly do not belong to China.
angelus512
Get Beijing’s help on N korea? Get Beijing’s help on Iran? Africa? etc….
Seriously. Whats the preoccuptation with getting Beijing’s help on ANYTHING. When have they ever been helpful at all?
I genuinely dont know the answer to this Q but why in gods name was an obstructionist, mercantile sneaky self-absorbed country ever put on the UN security council to basically scuttle absolutely any sane/normal/globally supported resolutions?
Beijings help? Give me a break.