Xu Qinduo

    xuqinduo@gmail.com

    THE U.S. is considering sending warships and helicopters on patrol in the South China Sea with the goal of stopping China from continuing construction on some islands. To add fuel to the fire, Washington is also talking about sending a B-1 bomber to Australia to counter what America describes as “destabilizing effects” in the South China Sea.

    The U.S. has so far failed to build a strong case for its much-talked about strategic deployment. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel said in a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 13 that the U.S. “can and does play an active role in the South China Sea to defend our national interests and international legal principles.”

    National interests may be true, but “international legal principles” sounds hollow since Washington is not even a member of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. And, of course, the U.S. is the country that invaded Iraq without U.N. authorization and tried to justify the invasion with lies.

    Regardless of that, let’s take a closer look at the following couple of points most widely quoted in the media that tend to depict a “China threat” and justify Washington’s possible military aggression.

    The U.S. says it will defend the “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea.

    China is the largest trading country in the world, and much of its own trade relies on shipping lanes through these waters. If there’s one country that cares the most about the freedom of navigation in this region, it is probably China.

    Secondly, there’s a lot of media emphasis on the scale of China’s construction work on the Nansha Islands. But all of them seem to have failed to answer a critical question: what is the proper size of reclamation that is acceptable and not alarming?

    To his credit, Mr. Russel also acknowledged, “other claimants have added reclaimed land, placed personnel and conducted analogous civilian and even military activities from contested features.”

    Then is it fair for the U.S. to single China out simply because its construction size is larger than that of others? Furthermore, how does it grant U.S. justification to take such provocative steps as sending warships and military aircraft within 12 nautical miles of territories claimed by China?

    Washington itself is not a claimant to the contested territories at all, and it has repeatedly said it will stay neutral.

    The South China Sea dispute is far from being another Crimea situation. China is reclaiming land and building islands in its own territory, or at most, disputed seawaters. Beijing is not grabbing a piece of land from another sovereign country.

    It’s hard to see what rationale Washington has to flex its muscles in the South China Sea, except one consideration: an attempt to contain the rise of China, if necessary, through military means in case it loses its dominance of Asia.

    That, however, could lead to dire consequences, not only for both Beijing and Washington, but also for the entire region.

    Beijing is unlikely to back off from any confrontation with the U.S. military in its claimed territories. This is happening in Beijing’s own backyard. It cannot afford to be weak when facing a U.S. threat.

    At the same time, Washington probably views itself in a similar situation. If it backs down, it may damage its credibility as a protector of the Philippines.

    The real challenge, of course, lies in how they are going to end this stalemate or prevent a military conflict from evolving out of their control. It’s always easy to start a military adventure but very difficult to end.

    There’s no clear picture so far on how to peacefully resolve those disputes in the South China Sea. But one thing is certain, if there’s a face-off between Washington and Beijing, there will very likely be an issue with freedom of navigation.

    (The author is a current affairs commentator with China Radio International and a visiting scholar at the University of Melbourne.)