Why China has the upper hand in the South China Sea

Reuters ^ | 03 June 2015 | Barry C. Lynn

[Theoria]

Washington’s failure in recent years to keep careful watch over what goods are made where — especially when it comes to such vital items as electronics and drugs — means the United States now depends far more on China than vice versa.

Back in the 1990s, advocates of liberalizing U.S. trade with China said economic interdependence would inevitably lead to peaceful coexistence. But one-sided dependencies invite adventurism, as China’s growing belligerence today proves.

Washington must now address the fundamental flaws in the international trade system that gave China such a big advantage. The White House claims the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership will help offset China’s increasing heft. Unfortunately, the pact, which includes 11 Pacific Rim allies but excludes Beijing, will do nothing to fix the problems.

The fact that the global trading system is not working as promised is most dramatically evident in the seas around China. Beijing is engaged in a pattern of provocation bordering on recklessness. In late 2013, China unilaterally imposed an “air defense declaration zone” covering portions of the East China Sea. Earlier this year, the Chinese navy set about transforming a reef in the Spratly Islands into a military base.

International relations in East and South Asia are tenser than at any time since the 1960s. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last year compared the situation to 1914 just before World War One. The U.S. Navy recently began to directly challenge China’s claims of sovereignty over large swaths of the South China Sea.

This is the opposite of what was supposed to happen when the United States and its allies created the World Trade Organization in the mid-1990s and then invited Beijing to join. President Bill Clinton asserted that “growing interdependence would have a liberalizing effect in China.”

[buckalfa]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law?

[b4its2late]

Because of who we have in the White House?

[Theoria]

Nah. We have been adrift toward China for years.

[b4its2late]

I just figured they think can get away with more now since the empty suit took the seat. Opportunity.

[Theoria]

yeah, i’m sure there is line for that one...take a number type situation.

[blueunicorn6]

There was a recent article about how China is producing a new billionaire every week.

How would those Chinese billionaires be affected by a war with the US?

Yep. They can spend their vacations on those islands the Chinese government is building.

[FreedomPoster]

Decades, at this point.

[Wolfie]

We can’t build what we need, even to defend ourselves, without the Chinese. But, hey, our CEO’s have 5 vacation homes instead of just 2, so it all works out.

[Svartalfiar]

...means the United States now depends far more on China than vice versa.

The opposite, actually. We depend on China for cheap crappy goods and lead. China depends on us for food. I would argue that 9/10 doctors say food is a bit more important.

As for the Spratlys, China really isn't physically close to them. There's a host of other nations in the area that would, geographically, have much better claims.

Finally, Clancy was a genious. This is his what, third, fourth? book that's coming true?

[TangibleDisgust]

true.

people seem to have forgotten China’s hostile actions against one of our Navy planes just a few months prior to 9/11. Dubya did very little about it. when a country discovers it can behave in such a way without consequences, it emboldens them. China is a global rival and an enemy... people should never forget that.

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1?file=standoff

[nathanbedford]

Ping

[Paulie]

Another reason is China is not engaged in enormously expensive and endless wars hampered by self-defeating rules of engagement.

China doesn’t experiment with their military with feminists and homosexuals within the ranks, ready at the drop of a hat to court martial anyone who does not bow to political correctness.

China doesn’t have a government bent on destroying it’s economy and culture and making themselves the laughingstock of the world.

That’s why.

[TBP]

Because nobody will stand up to them.

[VanDeKoik]

China only “needs” us until they sucked up all of our industries and when their own consumer population is able enough to sustain their economy internally.

With a billion+ people, they have more than enough to offset us when the war comes.

[servantboy777]

Giving over the majority of American manufacturing to communist China is a national security issue.

Our so called leaders in D.C. will soon find out why.

[BobL]

Unfortunately the transferring of our production base to China has as many Republican fingerprints on it as Democrat.

If China decided to cut us off tomorrow, they would get by, but we would MELT DOWN as in a slow motion EMP. As things slowly break down, and no replacements or even replacement parts, tractors stop running, trucks stop running, power plants stop running, and refineries stop running (to name just a few cases).

End result is no different than an EMP attack...in 10 years, 90% of Americans starve.

[sunrise_sunset]

That’s just dead wrong. Chinese manufactured components are in every piece of electronics you have.

[hinckley buzzard]

As for the Spratlys, China really isn't physically close to them.

You miss the whole point. After building on the reefs in the Spratlys, they become part of China, at least such will be the claim of China, with military declarations warning the US and other "foreign" entities to keep their distance beyond the new hundreds of miles of "territorial waters."

[Svartalfiar]

Oh, of course that’s their plan. The thing is, is every other country down there facing them isn’t going to like it, and there’s gonna be major issues of nationality down there. Especially all the other contested islands, and they’re not China vs others, it’s a whole brawl.