America Is Troublemaker Behind Chaos in South China Sea

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 10 August 2012
by Luo Yuan (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Yuxi Zhao. Edited by Audrey Agot.
As the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once mentioned, the U.S. has national interests in the South China Sea, namely in the security of the U.S. maritime channel. Indeed, the U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation in the South China Sea has never been threatened, rather an American intelligence ship has threatened the safety of other countries’ elusive economic zones. Even if the U.S. has a freedom of navigation problem (which refers to the issue of “sea power,” not sovereignty issues such as disputed islands and water which China and other Southeast countries claimed), why don’t Americans intend to stir this “muddy water?”

The U.S. has said it doesn’t “hold position” or “choose sides” in the South China Sea issue. Some interpret this remark as progress of the U.S. position. In fact, when the Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations was published in 1963, the U.S. clearly declared that Spratly Islands and their adjacent waters belonged to China’s traditional territorial seas. This was once America’s opinion regarding the South China Sea, how can the U.S. change, saying it “doesn’t choose a side”? Since the Philippines was once colonized by the U.S., Philippine territory was based on the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the 1900 Treaty of Washington and the 1930 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain. The aforementioned treaties never mentioned that the Philippines’ territory reached a longitude of 118 degrees west. Based on this measurement, Huangyan Island, Zhongye Island and those areas that the Philippines claimed, have never been its territory. The U.S. clearly knows this fact, but pretends to be “neutral.” This behavior shows that there is no progress of the U.S. diplomatic position. Conversely, America has retrogressed.

There are several reasons for the U.S. to cause trouble with the South China Sea issue. Specifically, the U.S. has its strategic concerns. First, America tried to distract China’s strategic attention and impede China’s peaceful development. The U.S. believes that the best method to contain China’s rise is through both internal and external co-attack. Internally, the U.S. once tried to “westernize” and “divide” China in three ways: corrupting, defaming and weakening China. Externally, America tries to deteriorate China’s international environment, destroy China’s image, weaken China’s soft power and provoke conflicts between China and its neighboring countries. The U.S. initially tried to cut the Chinese energy supply in Middle East and North Africa. It now tries to disrupt China’s energy supply in the South China Sea.

Second, America needs to find a strategic strong point in order to return to the Asia-Pacific area. Indeed, the U.S. still regrets its two strategic contractions in the last century: One was the withdrawal from Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay and Da Nang; another was the military withdrawal in Philippines’ Subic Bay and Clark Military Base. Its purpose for returning to the Asia-Pacific is to return to the aforementioned military bases. Vietnam and the Philippines are trying to exacerbate the South China Sea situation because the U.S. is behind them. However, the Philippines and Vietnam should not be complacent just yet. They have given up parts of sovereignty to the U.S. by receiving U.S. support. Particularly Vietnam, when it totally embraces its enemy, its regime will collapse.

Third, the U.S. covets rich strategic resources in the Asia-Pacific. According to the preliminary estimate, the oil reserve in the South China Sea is roughly 23-30 billion tons. The South China Sea thus is called “Second Persian Gulf.” Moreover, the South China Sea has an estimated reserve of natural gas hydrate, which is the best alternative energy to oil and gas, about 19.4 billion cubic meters. From the geo-strategic perspective, the South China Sea is located between two major navy bases: Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay and the Philippines Subic Bay. Additionally, the South China Sea is also the major maritime route between the Pacific and Indian Oceans. As the second largest navigation waterways in the world, the South China Sea is the lifeline of the U.S. and other major economies. Whoever dominates the South China Sea, can control these important waters and the international route.

Based on these three points, one can understand why the U.S. is so pleased to “stir the waters” in the South China Sea. What is worse, the South China Sea is not a “pool of still water,” which makes it easy for the U.S. to add fuel to the flames, and fish in the muddy waters. Nevertheless, the South China Sea issue can’t be solved by any savior, world police or judge. Certain countries need to know that some people are only too willing to help, but then can't be rid of them. The South China Sea issue can only be solved by countries around the South China Sea. Although there are conflicts, it is easy to restore good relations among neighbors. Therefore, I advise countries around the South China Sea to treat themselves, China and the South China Sea better. Never tie its destiny to an American warship, which will not only harm others but also yourselves.


美国国务卿克林顿·希拉里说,美国在南海有国家利益,这里有美国海上通道安全的问题。先不说,美国在南海的海上通道安全压根没受过威胁,反而是美国的间谍船在别国专属经济区内对别国的安全构成威胁。就算美国有海上通道安全的问题,那也是“海权”问题,而非我们和南海各声索国争论的岛礁和海域归属的“主权”问题,你美国人在这里搅什么浑水?

  美国说,它在南海问题上“不持立场”,“不选边站”,有人评论说,这是美国立场的进步。事实上,美国在1963年出版的《维尔德麦克各国百科全书》就清楚地把南沙及其附近海域划入中国南海传统海疆之内,这是美国曾经的立场,怎能反悔现在说“不持立场”?菲律宾曾是美国的殖民地,它的版图是根据1898年《美西巴黎协议》、1900年《美西华盛顿条约》和1930年《英美条约》确定的,这三个条约界定的菲律宾版图从来没有超过东经118度以西,像黄岩岛、中业岛等根本不是菲律宾的,这事美国最清楚!现在美国“装公允”,这根本不是美国立场的进步,而是倒退。

  美国在南海问题上搅浑水,有其战略考量。其一,分散中国战略注意力,干扰中国和平发展。美国知道,遏制中国崛起最有效的手段是内外夹击。对内“西化、分化”中国,现在又加上“腐化、丑化、弱化”。对外恶化中国外部环境,矮化中国国际形象,毒化中国软实力,挑动周边国家和中国打群架。它首先试图阻断中国在中东、北非的一些能源供应地,现在又来扰乱中国的南海能源供应线。

-
  其二,为美国重返亚太寻找战略支撑点。其实,美国耿耿于怀的是上世纪两次战略收缩:一是撤出了越南的金兰湾、岘港,一是撤出了菲律宾的苏比克湾和克拉克军事基地。它重返亚太就是要重返上述几个军事基地。这也就是为何越、菲现在如此闹得欢,美国就是他们背后的挑唆者。菲、越不要自鸣得意,其实在获得美国力挺的同时,也将自己的国家主权部分让渡给了美国。特别是越南,完全投入到宿敌怀抱之日,就是现政权垮台之时。

  其三,觊觎亚太丰厚的战略资源。经初步估计,南海的石油储量约230亿-300亿吨,有“第二波斯湾”之称。而“可燃冰”矿体预测储量约为194亿立方米,这是石油、天然气的最佳替代能源。从地缘战略角度看,南海处于越南金兰湾和菲律宾苏比克湾两大海军基地之间,是太平洋和印度洋之间的海上交通要道。作为世界上通航量第二大的海上航道,南海是美国等主要经济体的海上航运生命线。谁拥有南海主导权,谁就可有效控制这一重要水域和国际航线。

  知道了这三点,就会明白美国为什么会在南海问题上乐此不疲,无风起浪,更何况南海本来就不是一池静水,它正好推波助澜,浑水摸鱼。但是,南海不需要救世主,也不需要世界警察和仲裁者。须知,请神容易送神难。南海的事务,南海各国可以自己解决,即便撕破了脸皮,邻居还是邻居。因此,奉劝南海各国,善待自己,善待中国,善待南海,别把自己的命运拴在美国的战车上,那只会损人害己。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Topics

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle