Countering the People’s Republic of China

in the region. America’s presence in Guam and the Philippines and its support of China posed

When it comes to the political profile, seven different countries have competing maritime claims (mostly over the Spratly and Paracel Islands), some of which become even more complicated as some overlap with other nations’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). Despite the “intraregional distrust, deeply rooted historical issues, and rapidly increasing military spending” in the region surrounding the South China Sea, one expert argues that “not only has the conflict not escalated into a serious military conflict; it has, in fact, been mitigated… in fact, a more stable peace has developed.” (Costlow, 2012, p.6).

Around the year 2015 China has started building artificial islands on disputed territory in the South China Sea for the purpose of resource mining, installment of surveillance and defensive infrastructures. Countries in the South China Sea that lay economic and territorial claims such as the Philippines, Malaysia, and Japan have expressed security concerns regarding China’s aggressive expansion unto territories such as the Spratyl Islands and Rubi Reef as China had increased security and surveillance in this territory may lead to conflict in trade, fishing, and other activities in the South China Sea. China’s expansion into the South China Sea is an issue to U.S. Foreign policy as claiming of the territories is goes against international

The disputes of SCS (South China’s Sea) are a perpetual issue on the conflicting licit claim for territorial land and who has the authority to sovereign it. The dispute arises, since SCS contains precious natural resources which would boost the economy of the countries which sovereigns it, as a liberalist would think. Realistically, however, these resources would provide funding for more military power allowing a nation to expand their horizons across the sea, as China is attempting to do. This ‘Great Debate’ had a theoretical aspect of what would occur if a certain nation was given sovereign over the

The Chinese expansion and territorial claims in the South China Sea is escalating tensions with surrounding countries and the United States. As the National Security Council summons to discuss this matter, I embrace the role of the Secretary of Defense. A brief explanation of this job is, “Under the President, who is also Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department, which includes the separately organized military departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff providing military advice, the unified and specified combatant commands, and various defense agencies established for specific purposes” (unt.edu). Furthermore, it is important to understand that persons in the position of Secretary Defense are a member of the cabinet, appointed by the president. This piece of information is pivotal in order to fathom the idea that the Secretary of Defense is subject to modification with every transformation of administration, hence sanctioning only a small amount of continuity in military strategy. The responsibility coveted by the Secretary of Defense at this conference that can be inferred from the duties outlined above is, collaboration with all constituents of the Department of the Defense in the direction of providing the best recommendation regarding resolution of the tensions over the South China Sea. The focal point of this recommendation will be a military strategy and the manner in which to

As of today, China has expanded and built over seven artificial islands in the South China Sea since 2014. The South China Sea has recently come to be a major problem in Asia as issues have risen over who has rights of passage and claims in this area. The Chinese of recent have been making territorial claims in the South China Sea that are in areas of free passage for many other Asian countries and the United States. In October 2015, a U.S. guided missile destroyer encountered one of the artificial islands and China’s response was that it would “take any measure” to maintain its security in “their territory”. The Chinese have been questioned in the Permanent Court of Arbitration by the Philippines after claiming rights to historical locations in the South China Sea, which violates sovereign rights of the Philippines, yet China responded to this outcome with refusal and has continued to advance itself in the territory causing huge disputes with its neighboring countries as freedom of navigation has been compromised through China’s actions.. In order to guarantee resolution and maintain the freedom of navigation aspect of international law there needs to be a foreign policy put in place that puts more United States military in the South China Sea with support from disputing countries like Japan and the Philippines as a way to make the issue multilateral and law abiding.

In July 2013, Wenweipo - the pro-PRC Chinese-language newspaper published an article titled “Six Wars China is sure to fight in the next 50 years”. According to this article, after unification of Taiwan (year 2020 to 2025), China will take the second war: Reconquest of Spratly Islands (year 2025 to 2030) and “China will send the ultimatum to countries surrounding the Islands with the deadline of 2028. The countries having disputes on the sovereignty of Islands can negotiate with China on preserving their shares of investments in these Islands by giving up”. In 1999, two Chinese military colonels – authors of the book namely “Unlimited War” suggested using an “unlimited war” to solve the disputing in the South China Sea. These authors said that, to avoid a war does not mean that not using military force and a conflict is indispensable. However, there is one more important thing that to control the intensities of conflict that. It is necessary to conduct some special activities to prove the sovereignty of China in the disputing Spratly Islands but do not let this activities increase to the total war. These things prove that the potential war between Vietnam and China in the future could be come true.

From an international relations perspective, the Taiwan Strait, one of the most likely conflict zones in the Asia-Pacific region, has been dubbed the “Balkan Peninsula of the East.” The status of Taiwan has been one of the most intricate issues in international relations arena for the past decades. The Taiwan question is essentially an extension of the “two Chinas” problem, which creates a dilemma for accommodating

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become more integrated and willing to cooperate within the global political and economic systems than ever in its history. However, there is growing apprehension in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S. in regards to the consequences of rising in economic and military power in China. Descriptions about Chinese diplomacy in the policy and scholarly are less positive lately concerning China’s obedience to regional and international rules. There was little debate in the U.S. and elsewhere in regards to whether China was or was not part “the international community.” Scholars and experts in the early 1990s have contended

Realism assumes that under a balance of power, the overriding aim of all states is to maximize power and become the only hegemony in the system. States only help themselves in the anarchic international system. Therefore, China’s rise is regarded as a disconcerting threat to the U.S.’s primacy of power in the present international stage. The power shift in East Asia is creating security dilemmas; the U.S. thus demands more security to its Asian allies including Philippines, Japan and South Korea. The rapidly-rising Chinese power would inevitably challenge the current international balance of power and appear aggressively in the eyes of weaker power such as the Philippines. Therefore it seeks help to its ally, the U.S., to counterbalance the power of China. China intends to gain more resources and to transform current international order to its favor according to its national interests. The 2010 Chinese White Paper on National Defence states that: “Contradictions continue to surface between developed and developing countries and between traditional

The territorial and maritime disputes over the South China Sea (SCS) have been ongoing for decades. The disputes have been considered to be one the fiercest-contested in Asia. The South China Sea is an enclosed sea surrounded by several different states. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan, and Malaysia all surrounded the South China Sea. The main cause of tension in this dispute is because China claims to have “historical sovereignty” over all of the South China Sea. Associations of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have come up with different discussions and suggestions on how to end the disputes with favorable conditions for all contending states. They use the principles of the United Nation Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and form the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). The states surrounding the South China Sea possess 12 nautical miles territorial sea and 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Thus, the South China Sea is not only international waters, instead, it is also overlapping exclusive economic zones. According to UNCLOS, disputes over exclusive economic zones must be resolved through negotiations by the contending states. Many of these contending Southeast Asian states have negotiated their maritime boundaries, however, China fails to comply. China claims that it owns all of the South China Sea, and therefore, has no need to

After a period of peace, disputes once again transpired in 1988 and 1995. In 2002, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) reached an agreement to keep peace within all parties tied in with the South China Sea as they were to refrain from taking any action on the uninhabited island chains located in the Sea. This Declaration of Conduct kept the region peaceful up until 2009 when China publicly claimed territory on the entire South China Sea . As the tension intensified so did China’s aggressive behavior, as they made it clear in 2012 and 2013 that legal proceedings against them were not going to make a difference on their goal to dominate the region. In 2013, China began the operations to transform these uninhabited islands into military infrastructures . In the last two years counting up to today, China’s rapid island building has continued despite publicly claiming that they have halted all construction. This is where the United States enters the situation as they have called on China to shut down all reclamation efforts on the Spratly Islands where China has transformed six coral reefs (Subi Reef, Gaven Reef, Huges Reef, Johnson Reef, Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef) into naval bases, airstrips, and weapon and surveillance facilities .

Nowadays, the conflict of territory solving in the world causes many complicated problems among countries, as well as tensions in foreign policies. One of these conflicts is the dispute in South China Sea between China and six neighbor ASEAN countries. With the intervention of the United States, the issue turns to be more serious as it attracts a lot of concerns from international community. This research tries to find a clear way of understanding the South China Sea conflict, specifically about the effort of China and Vietnam to gain the control over the two groups of islands: Paracel and Spratly. The hypothesis intends to express the possibility about Vietnam’s victory in this conflict with the help of the United States.

First, the South China Sea constitutes the eastern approach to the Strait of Malacca, one of the “world's four most important strategic maritime passages,” and therefore contains the vital SLOCs between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.3 Figure 1. provides a visual representation of the SLOCs running through the South China Sea. “About 25% of the global shipping fleet transits through the region each year, underlining the importance of the South China Sea as an extension of the Malacca chokepoint.”4 That 25% traveling these SLOCs includes over half of the world’s shipping for oil and gas every year.5 Considering the volume of traffic passing through the South China Sea, a disruption of traffic along these SLOCs caused by a claims dispute or even armed conflict will rapidly generate negative global effects. Short of military action, challenges such as natural disasters6 or piracy require an international unified action (or at least, de-conflicted action) from multiple if not all South China Sea claimant nations.

During his keynote address at the opening of the 30th Asia-Pacific roundtable, Malaysian Prime Minister said, “We will continue to rely on diplomacy and dialogue to peacefully resolve difference and disputes. We will do so in accordance with and in adherence to the norms, customs, and principles of international law" (Cheng, 2016). Disputes in the SCS have been a long-standing issues amongst claimants such as Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Republic of China. Apart from territorial disputes, the SCS holds a critical geostrategic importance due to its strategic location and energy reserves (Kaplan, 2011). Increased of China assertive action in the SCS and reclamation work in Spratlys has disturbed the SCS claimants and its users. In early 2013, Philippines have initiated an arbitration case against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (Xue Lei, 2016). Indonesia recently involved with the SCS disputes when Chinese fishing vessel encroached into Natuna Islands waters and Indonesian war ship has fired a warning shot toward the Chinese fishing vessel. Subsequently the Indonesian president visited Natuna Islands and held a meeting onboard the war ship as to send a stern warning about the country 's commitment to protecting its sovereignty (Gomez, 2016). In addition to that, the United States interest in the freedom of navigation with the rebalancing strategy for its strategic presence