The foreign-policy issues confronting the United States are vast and complex. They range from terror groups such Islamic State and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to Russia’s attempt at re-exerting its status as a major world power. One issue, competition to control the South China Sea, pits mainland China against its lesser rivals: Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia.
Territorial disputes, coupled with Beijing’s increased militarization of the South China Sea, may sway US policymakers to believe that military conflict with China is inevitable. However, such a conflict is avoidable if the US chooses its policy carefully and implements a strategy that all but eliminates military action.
The South China Sea is rich with natural resources. According to the US Geological Survey, 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found in the hotly disputed region. The Chinese, however, indicate the area may hold more than 200 billion barrels of oil and up to 750 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Regardless of the exact quantity, these estimates are the primary reason Beijing continues to assert its claim over the region. For China to continue its economic initiatives, unrestricted access to oil and gas remains a national priority.
In addition, 12% of the world’s fish catch is in the South China Sea. Since China consumes about 25% of all seafood globally, it’s no wonder it continues to claim vast swaths of the region and insists its fisherman have the right to catch there.
At a recent US Senate confirmation hearing, now Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops. And second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” Tillerson’s comments clearly indicate that President Donald Trump and his administration are willing to use military force if Chinese activities continue. This comment is similar in tone to Steve Bannon’s during a podcast in March 2016 when he stated, “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years.” (Bannon is now senior adviser to President Trump.)
Trump and his national-security team need to understand that China’s claims are primarily driven by the need for resources, not sovereignty. According to recent reports, China’s population will reach approximately 1.4 billion by 2020. As China’s population continues to increase, demand for resources such as fisheries and oil will rise. China’s inability to feed its population in the future may ultimately lead to conflict, with or without US intervention.
The United States is rightfully concerned over China’s expansion and militarization of the South China Sea. Tillerson should move the issue to the top of his agenda. However, for all the saber-rattling on both sides of the political aisle, China is still 10 to 15 years from having a legitimate military capability to threaten US forces in the region.
Trump and his administration have other elements of national power available to limit China’s expansion. Diplomatic efforts should be its highest priority while engaging Beijing.
The United States should consider a summit including China and other claimants to begin a serious dialogue on how resources in the South China Sea can be shared.
Beijing would not be an unreasonable location for the first of a series of meetings that would demonstrate Washington’s seriousness and willingness to work with the Chinese.
The United States has a long history of intervention that leads to unnecessary loss of life. It can no longer be the world’s policeman, but it does have a responsibility to protect its strategic interests in East Asia. Freedom of navigation should be its primary issue when dealing with Beijing in the South China Sea. Washington cannot risk military confrontation over disputed territory until all diplomatic options are pursued.
The South China Sea has about US$5 trillion worth of goods flowing through it annually. Only if these shipping routes are threatened should the US consider blockading China from the region. To risk a military conflict would be an unwise use of the limited resources the US currently has deployed in theater. Until, if at all, China impedes the trading activities in the South China Sea, Trump and Tillerson should develop a diplomatic strategy where resources are shared with rather than denied to any claimant.
Washington must send a clear signal to Beijing: that it understands its concerns and is willing to address them in a responsible way that benefits all claimants in the region. Doing so should mitigate the risk of military conflict and prevent a strategic miscalculation on both sides.
You have seen the true picture. I believe you have good company.
Shawn Napper FAIL. LOL.
The vast illegal claimed by China in south china sea is provocative action, which destabilize the harmony relationship in Asean region. The soft administration of Obama toward China has allowed the further reclaiming by China, Hence the freedom of navigation by U.S. over 7 decades is an effort to protect international water interest. In the history, no single nations were unilaterally domains an entire sea of land. Except China , they twisted the story of nine dash line and bullying weak neighbors like Philippine and Vietnam to grab the sea land for resources purposes.
Jackson Moore – LOL. I certainly could, but if your reading comprehension and analytic reading skills are so poor as to mis-read a straight forward post like the above, I don’t want to waste my time on you.
Lol actually I guarantee my math scores would have TRUMPED yours but anywayyyss
And here are some valid talking points unrelated to DT’S foreign policy incompetence that people ignore on a daily basis.
China has been bullying its neighbors in the South China Sea now for decades. It needs to stop. The Chinese government isn’t interested in sharing resources, and they’ve not only said so, but have actively used their military to push other countries out of their legal territorial waters. They won’t accept court rulings, either. I also think I remember that a proposal for a summit with all claimants on this issue was rejected by China, and they said only private one on one talks with individual countries would be acceptable to them. Anyway, it isn’t only the South China Sea that’s at stake. Once the South China Sea is secured the Chinese plan to build a second fleet to project their power onto the Indian Ocean.
You read an article and Donald Trump (The President of the United States of America and leader of the free mfn world) and immediately discredit it???? In case you didn’t pick up on the point of the article LTC(r) Brady CLEARLY was offering ADVISE to the president, not endorsement. Also this article is riddled with important infromation that the majority of Americans PROBABLY do not know… for you to question the credibility of a person without knowing them and also while clearly not reading or understanding the article is completely asinine.
I wonder how much information Mr. Michael Brady has, as a "former tactical and strategic intelligence officer, former PEOC director, and now Citadel professor of intelligence and security studies", about the IQs of Donald Trump and his team of advisers.
It would seem that Trump would not survive a full 4-year term barring a timely change of strategy or game plan (if there was any in the first place).
I’d advise Trump and his cabinet to take a serious look at the administration’s survivability first.
asfeweewe