• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • South China Sea: Make the Chinese Guess

    The U.S. has long held that the U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty does not extend to Philippine claims in the South China Sea. There may have been a time when that position was prudent. After all, what interest could the U.S. have had getting involved in a spat among six relatively weak claimants?

    That time has past. Chinese “fishing patrol boats” and its rapid military modernization have chased it away.

    There is now one claimant stronger than the others, growing stronger by the day, and feeling it. We need to introduce some uncertainty into Chinese calculations.

    Let’s be clear about one thing: Tensions in the South China Sea are about China. Chinese diplomats, “friends of China” and the faint-hearted will cloud the issue. They will claim that the U.S. is taking sides in sovereignty disputes that shouldn’t concern it and that its action is a problem for all the parties to the conflict.

    This response is going to call for some common-sense treatment. Is anyone concerned with Bruneian or Malaysian aggression in the South China Sea? Is it Vietnamese patrol boats challenging Philippine oil exploration off its coasts? The Taiwanese have all they can handle in the Taiwan Strait. Their recent activity is aimed at simply giving them the voice they deserve in conversations from which they are systematically excluded.

    Strategic ambiguity is not that difficult to pull off. Imagine an exchange along the following lines:

    Reporter: “There are voices calling for the U.S. to apply the U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty to the territorial dispute in the South China Sea between the China and the Philippines. Does the treaty apply to these territories?”

    State Department Rep: “We are absolutely committed to our treaty with the Philippines. There very well may be circumstances under which the treaty would apply to Chinese activity in Philippine-claimed territory.”

    Reporter: “What would those circumstances be?”

    State Department Rep: “I don’t want to speculate, but keep in mind the expansiveness and intrusiveness of the Chinese claim. It actually includes islands currently occupied and administered by the Philippines. As a treaty ally of the Philippines, we are greatly concerned by provocative action taken by the Chinese anywhere within the disputed area.”

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic initiative in the South China Sea was a welcome one. But it’s time to start making the Chinese think about consequences beyond diplomatic ones. Strategic ambiguity has helped maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The same concept could help protect the Philippines and peace and stability in the South China Sea.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to South China Sea: Make the Chinese Guess

    1. Derek Pham says:

      Good points here, but this would be the US's catch-22. The US has been far from clear what actions it would take in the event of a flare-up in the sovereignty questions; all it has elucidated is its concern that any domination of the sea by any country would obstruct access to vitals SLOCs. Not so much of a problem of whether Malaysia or Brunei has the access for sea denial or to militarily assert its claim, but the US recognition of any islands in the sea as being fully administered by the Philippines would hurt relations with Vietnam and Malaysia, which has conflicting claims, and undermines the US effort to establish multilateral forums for the resolution of the issue. As far as I'm concerned, strategic ambiguity rests on Clinton's statement last year, in which she called the powers in the region to respect a "maritime commons," challenging China's and for that matter all the other claimants' claims to the sea. Clinton has reverted to the traditional line – peaceful resolution, multilateral dialogue, no taking sides on sovereignty question, but now upping the ante by making extremely explicit that the US has a vested interest in the maritime commons and will work to preserve its stake in those commons.

    2. Pingback: U.S. Coast Guard Faces Troubling Cuts | The Foundry

    3. Genghis says:

      For those who has the interest in this topic, you should personally be there, visit the region and experience it yourself. The Chinese has been very aggressive to its smaller neighbor and we, the US, had refused to assist in resolving this matter.

      The Chinese had proven to the world for the last thousand or hundred of years as invader. Tibet and Mongol are very obvious. US Foreign Policy in the East Sea remains the same in the last almost 50 years. We don't like the China rise, but we need it to contains Russia. We don't like the Vietnamese but we need the North Vietnamese to fight China (which they had proven a couple of times before). We want to control the area but we are too cowardly to establish a presence due to REASONS with China. What are we doing ???

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×