The US-China diplomatic relations have been strained for long periods. However, the critical issue affecting the two countries is the South China Sea dispute. According to analysis of commentaries from various authors both from the Chinese front and from the U.S front, this is the only dispute between the two countries with the potential of making militarization of dispute between the two powers inevitable. Several reasons have been advanced by commentators on this issue of South China Sea dispute. From the Chinese perspective, it has been an issue for the United States in an area where it is not a signatory. On the other hand, the perspective of the United States has been the rebalancing of the ASEAN bloc. From both perspectives, however, there are many grey areas whose consideration will be the subject of this paper. On the bottom line, this research paper asserts that the position that the South Sea China crises as currently seen emanates from military actions taken by the United States about fifteen years ago, which led to the loss of a Chinese pilot in a mid-air collision. However, this paper is also asserting the position that the event just caused the beginning of the crises but over the years, the crises has worsened due to several other factors including international and regional trade (Hong 35).
The South China Sea dispute as currently conceptualized has been about some ASEAN countries suing China for the construction of military bases on islands reclaimed from the sea. These islands are in international waters, and the construction is said to be in contravention of the international maritime laws and conventions that bide the ASEAN members. According the analysis of commentaries from researchers, countries such as Philippines and Vietnam only raised concerns with the UN after the United States highlighted the issue and actions of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea (Ying and Shicun). The revelation of this information leads to a perspective on the underhand effect of the United States that is said to be pulling the strings against China by supporting and even pushing ASEAN countries to contest against China in the dispute. Considering his information, then it becomes important to look into issues of how and why the United States choose to take sides in a dispute that it does not have jurisdiction over (Buszynski 142).
On April 1, 2001 (about 15 years ago), news hit the world that a Chinese fighter jet pilot had been killed in a mid-air collision with a United Stated spy plane. The incident that occurred on the Hainan Island led to the discovery that the spy plane was spying over the South China Sea in a distance of about 110 kilometers from the Chinese island and about 160 kilometers from a Chinese military bases in the Paracel Islands (Glaser). The Chinese military from the base decided to intercept the spy plane with J-8 fighter jets and it is in this process that the fighter jet and the plane collided leading to the loss of the pilot. The partly destroyed spy plane was forced to land on the Hainan Island and the crew arrested and interrogated by the Chinese military. The crew would only be let free after the United States issued a statement that was meant to prevent the escalation of the covert mission into a full scale war between the two military powers and for reasons that would be considered as the recklessness of the United States. The spy plane would then be released to the United States after being dismantled but this would not come without consequences which presumably include the current crisis on the South China Sea (Glaser).
The analysis of historical information indicates that the tension between the United States has escalated over the fifteen years marked by the date when this even occurred. The rationale in this argument is the fact that over the fifteen years, the United States has been said to violate international maritime code by getting its navy planes and ship close to the Chinese territorial waters. The discovery of the operations of the Chinese government in the disputed areas is said to be a result of the United States spy missions over the region (Yahuda 449). Further, study indicates that the United States only started getting curious about the disputed islands when it discovered the creation of runways and the military equipment in the Island. The understanding of this information is that if it were not for the militarization of the reclaimed islands, the United States would not have raises a red flag over Chinese activities. Additionally, there is a high likelihood that the Philippines and other ASEAN countries would not have raised the issue with the international arbitrators (Xiangyang).
According to information published by various independent Chinese news channels, the United States is entirely to blame for the escalation of the violence n in the region (Ying and Shicun). The United States has continued to spy on the activities of the Chinese just as much as it has continued to do in other parts of the world. The implication of this is that it continues to severe the already difficult ties between America and the People ’s Republic of China. Activities on the reclaimed islands are said to result in notable interferences in the activities of the United States, especially with regard to the spying over the region in consideration. The United States pursuit of putting an end to the Chinese activities is considered to be a way of pursuing private interests in the name of national interests and not in the interests of the communities living in the ASEAN countries (South Sea China Morning Post).
Speaking of national interests, the United States is highly interested in the economic rebalancing of one of its largest trading blocs, which is the ASEAN trading bloc. America has for many years been calling for the integration of the activities of the trading bloc even though member countries of ASEAN are among the most diverse to be in a trade bloc. Analysis indicates that it is because most or even all of the countries in the ASEAN trading bloc are small and with lower bargaining power on issues pertaining to trade as compared to the United States. Consequently, the United States is said to be forcing the countries to operate as a bloc or otherwise their trade ties with the United States would be severed. Using this power, the United States then pushes the ASEAN countries to have a stance against China and the South China Sea just provides the most appropriate point for striking this stance. The countries can argue that the reclamation of islands from the South China Sea interferes with the abilities of the countries to navigate the seas, and this has implications for their trading activities, yet the navigation rights are protected by the UN conventions touching on the region (South Sea China Morning Post).
One particularly important note that the reader ought to make is the fact the ASEAN region as a trading bloc is of interest to both the United States and China. According to analysis, the ASEAN-China trade relations have had great implications on the growth of China and this is majorly due to eh observation that the relations had great implications on the country between 1991 and 2010. Over this period, the trade between China grew by more than 37 times representing values of 8 billion USD to about 300 billion USD (Zimmermann and Baumler 436). Over the same period, the ASEAN countries had their economies expanding more than five times. The analysis of this information by the United States during the wake of the last global financial crises reawakened the United States to the importance of the ASEAN countries in trade and in the rise of China towards becoming a global superpower and it is for this reason that the crisis in the region started ballooning. Interpreted from the perspective of the current South China Sea crises, the fueling of the crises over the period between 2009 and 2012 was commissioned specifically by the United States in order to scuttle the success of the trade ties in the region. Further analysis indicates that while rebalancing and navigation have been given by the United States as the reason for opposition to the construction of Chinese islands in the South China Sea, the fact that the islands establish new limits to the United States access to the market of the ASEAN economy is one of the reasons (Ying and Shicun).
Other than the mid-air accident and the interference in trade routes, the Chinese government has been asserting the position that the interference by the United States raises questions of sovereignty in the region. According to the Chinese government, the People’s Republic of China was the first to discover, name, and claim highly contested Nansha Islands (Xiangyang). This was in the 1930 and until the discovery of potential offshore oil fields in the region, there was no dispute as to whether the China owns the islands. Indicatively, in 1969, agreements touching on the region helped in solving any possible crises over the region and this were with the Japanese and since then the Japanese have not been involved in the claiming of the islands. The implication of this realization is that the United States and all other nations claiming access to the islands are simply infringing on the sovereignty of China and as the authorities of the country have indicated, the People’s Republic of China is ready to defend the islands. As is the case at the moment, the Chinese authorities have received ruling that is not in their favor over the islands. However, the Chinese indicate that the ruling as it is was rigged and that it was based on giving more control to the United States over other nations just as the United States had done in the past (Glaser).
The worrying matter to the Chinese is the fact that increased spying activities by the United States over the region as well as the increased interception of planes and ships indicates the United States intentions to start war with a sovereign state. Ideally, the Chinese would be blamed for starting the war if they became the first to attack the spy planes and destroyers that time and again approach the region. The Chinese have also indicated that the rigged media activities and reporting have led to the international communities being fed with information in favor of the United States. It indicates a height of unfairness in the manner of information packaging. Consequently, there is the perspective that while the questions raised by the United States can be true they are also highly subjective and ought not to be relied upon. For instance, the media has reported on a China that wants to start war with the United States and not a United States that has been providing military support to ASEAN countries in readiness for indirect involvement in war with China. Additionally, it presents the case of a nation that poses a threat to the region without objectively indicating the spying activities over China are not justifiable. Additionally, the media presents a case of a China that lays territorial claim to a region that ought to be open to international navigation without indicating the fact that military navigation in the South China Sea region is the only one that the United States ought not to be involved in under the current circumstances (Ying and Shicun).
Works Cited
Buszynski, Leszek. "The South China Sea: oil, maritime claims, and US–China strategic rivalry." The Washington Quarterly 35.2 (2012): 139-156.
Glaser, Bonnie S. "Armed Clash in the South China Sea." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.
Hong, Zhao. "The South China sea dispute and China-ASEAN relations."Asian Affairs 44.1 (2013): 27-43.
South Sea China Morning Post. "How We Got to This Stage in the South China Sea: Understanding the Source of Tension." South China Morning Post. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.
Xiangyang, Chen. "The U.S. Has Gone Too Far in the South China Sea DisputeCHINA US Focus | CHINA US Focus." Exclusive Analysis of the Politics, Economics, Military and Culture of China-US Relations | CHINA US Focus. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.
Yahuda, Michael. "China's new assertiveness in the South China Sea."Journal of Contemporary China 22.81 (2013): 446-459.
Ying, Fu, and Wu Shicun. "South China Sea: How We Got to This Stage." The National Interest. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.
Zimmermann, Andreas, and Jelena Bäumler. "Navigating Through Narrow Jurisdictional Straits: The Philippines–PRC South China Sea Dispute and UNCLOS." The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 12.3 (2013): 431-461.
