Thu, Jun 25, 2015 page8

• South China Sea not worth a war

  • By Doug Bandow
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Contrasting Chinese and US perspectives were on display at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, during which US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter challenged Beijing over its island expansion program. Privately, the possibility of war has emerged as a serious topic in Washington. Both nations should draw back from their increasingly dangerous game of chicken.

  China’s territorial claims involve a complex mix of control, historical practice, international law and treaty. In the view of most observers, Beijing’s claims are extravagant. Yet, they are not unprecedented.

  In 1845, the US annexed Texas after its violent secession from Mexico and claimed a new national boundary set well beyond land populated by secessionists. Washington also took an aggressive posture in dealing with Britain about setting the US-Canada border in the Pacific Northwest.

  The US won its claims in the first case through conquest and in the second instance through negotiation. Britain’s decision to accommodate the US yielded long-term peace and friendship.

  As territory, most of the disputed islands in the South China Sea are worthless rocks. However, they carry with them control over surrounding waters and underlying resources. Perhaps equally important, ownership reflects national ego.

  While Washington lays claim to no land, it insists on free transit in surrounding waters. Equally important, due to China’s expansion, many in the US want Washington to contain Beijing. That means backing not only treaty allies, but in practice their territorial claims against China.

  Indeed, there is increasing comment among the chattering classes about the importance of making China “pay a price” for its aggressive behavior. The US administration is in the curious position of more vigorously advancing claims than the claimants themselves. The US created particular controversy by flying over islands claimed by China, which Taiwan also claims, courting a corresponding challenge from Beijing.

  The problem is not asserting US navigational freedoms, but doing so in a way seemingly designed to provoke a response. In 2001, similar military gamesmanship resulted in an aerial collision that killed a Chinese pilot and brought down a US spy plane, leading to an extended bilateral standoff.

  Since then, both nations have become even more concerned over credibility and reputation, which means neither will readily back down when challenged. This creates a real danger of an escalating military confrontation.

  However, rather than working to prevent such an eventuality, a number of US officials, pundits and analysts appear to view it as almost inevitable. At a recent gathering that included retired military, former government officials, current policy analysts and journalists, non-governmental organization staffers and non-political professionals, much of the discussion concerned the challenge posed by China and events in the South China Sea. Without a neoconservative at the table, there was broad agreement that Beijing had tossed down the gauntlet, so to speak, and had to be confronted.

  Most sobering was the acknowledgment that an aggressive reaction could trigger a Chinese response in kind and a confrontation, such as a ship collision or the shooting down of an airplane. The consensus was that Washington would have to act immediately and firmly by, for instance, sinking a vessel or destroying a runway.

  The unspoken presumption was that the confrontation would end there, with Beijing duly chastened. However, the obvious question is: What if the Chinese made a similar calculation and escalated in turn? Some “damn-fool thing” in the Asia-Pacific region just might trigger war between the two nations.

  Washington enjoys military superiority, but must disperse its forces around the globe. More importantly, China views its interests in nearby waters as important, if not vital. In contrast, US domination everywhere against everyone is not necessary for its defense. Beijing knows that and will risk much more than the US in handling nearby territorial issues.

  The possibility of miscalculation and misjudgement makes it even more important that all participants step back from confrontation. The fuse to war might be long, but no one should risk lighting it.

  All parties should look for creative solutions to the plethora of territorial disputes. Countries could set aside deciding on sovereignty while jointly developing resources. Neighbors could share sovereignty and resources. Beijing could pledge to maintain navigational freedoms irrespective of the islands’ ultimate disposition.

  Sovereignty over territory in the western Pacific is important, but not worth war. Yet, a dangerous dynamic appears to have taken hold. Instead of sleepwalking into a shooting war while assuming the other party will bend, both the US and China should renew their determination to defuse territorial controversies peacefully.

  Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    US bolstering first island chain deterrence: NSB report

  • 2

    Jeers as Real Madrid fall 2-1 to Man City

  • 3

    Taiwan, Poland to codevelop drones

  • 4

    Climber to attempt free solo of 101

  • 5

    YouBike to require insurance for all riders from Jan. 1