US Ratchets Up Tension
South China Sea
The United States, as part
of its stated agenda of raising tensions in the South China Sea to encourage
cooperation across Southeast Asia with the US in encircling and containing
Beijing’s regional and global rise, has included several high-profile naval and
aviation incidents. However, there is a legal battle lurking just behind these
more spectacular headlines, and once again the United Nations is being brought
in and undermined in the process.
China said on Saturday that
it would ignore the decision of an international arbitration panel in a
Philippine lawsuit against Beijing’s sweeping territorial claims in the South
China Sea.
“To put it simply, the arbitration case actually has gone beyond the
jurisdiction” of a UN arbitration panel, said Rear Adm Guan Youfei, director of
the foreign affairs office of China’s National Defence Ministry.
The Philippines has filed a case in the United Nations under the UN Convention
on Law of the Sea, questioning China’s territorial claim. An arbitration panel
is expected to rule on the case soon. The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled
last year that it has jurisdiction over the case despite China’s rejection.
While the Associated Press
portrays the lawsuit as “Philippine,” it is in reality headed not by the
Philippines, but by a US legal team led by Paul S. Reichler of the
Boston-based law firm Foley Hoag. Inquirer.net in an article titled, “US lawyer for
PH expert in maritime boundary cases,” would reveal that not a
single lawyer representing the Philippines is actually Filipino:
The lawyer leading the
Philippine team in its fierce legal battle against China belongs to a select
group of elite lawyers with extensive experience in representing sovereign
states before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (Itlos) in
Hamburg, Germany, according to Chambers Global, which ranks law firms and
lawyers across the world.
Paul Reichler of the Boston-based law firm Foley Hoag has specialized for more
than 25 years in land and maritime boundary disputes, the law firm said on its
website.
Reichler works with four other lawyers from the United States and the United
Kingdom, in arguing the country’s case before the UN arbitral tribunal in The
Hague, The Netherlands.
Foley Hoag represents the
most powerful corporate-financier interests on Earth, and is an integral part
of expanding their power and influence across the globe. That Foley Hoag is
involved in Washington’s goal of encircling and containing one of the greatest
threats to Washington and Wall Street’s hegemony not only in Asia, but
globally, is no surprise.
Part of America’s agenda in
the South China Sea is to provoke and then portray tensions in the region
as being solely between China and its neighbors, with the United States
feigning the role as peacekeeper – thus justifying its continued military,
political, and economic “primacy” over Asia.
Such an appraisal is hardly
conjecture. The corporate-financier funded and directed policy think tank, the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a paper titled, “Revising U.S.
Grand Strategy Toward China,” penned by Robert Blackwill – a Bush-era
administrator and lobbyist who has directly participated in Washington’s
attempts to maintain hegemony over Asia.
Blackwill’s paper states
(emphasis added):
Because the American effort
to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new
threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a
consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand
strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power
rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.
Indeed, a US policymaker
openly admits that the US perceives itself as possessing and seeking to
maintain “primacy in Asia,” primacy being defined by Merriam-Webster as, “the state of
being most important or strongest.”
The United States then,
literally an ocean away from Asia, presumes “primacy” over an entire region of
the planet, and is openly seeking to deny the very nations within that region
“primacy” over their own destiny, peoples, and resources.
It is an open, modern
proclamation of imperialism.
It is also the true reality
that underlines US foreign policy in the South China Sea and explains why an
American and British, not a Philippine legal team has spent years trying to
exact a ruling from the UN and other “international” organizations regarding
Beijing.
In this context, it is
quite clear why Beijing plans to ignore the ruling.
However, China’s ignoring
the ruling was already considered by US policymakers and the US law firm
“representing” the Philippines.
In more than 95% of
international cases — litigation and arbitration before various international
courts and tribunals — the states comply with the judgment, even if they are
unhappy with it. There are at least two reasons for this. First is reputation
and the influence that comes with it. The second reason is that many states
understand it is to their advantage, and the advantage of others, to live in a
rules-based system. Now, in the case of China, we see a country that
is a great power that wishes to project its influence across the international
community. China also advertises itself as the anti-imperialist great power, in
contrast to the U.S., Russia and others. Think of the economic advantages that
will accrue to the richest and most powerful nation in the region if these
disputes are resolved and investment in resource extraction from the South
China Sea begins.
Unfortunately for Reichler,
Foley Hoag, and the US-dominated “rules-based system” China is expected to
comply with, too many examples of this system’s abuse in recent years has
preceded the ruling against China. The UN’s role in the invasion, occupation,
and destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are perhaps the most extreme
examples, with the UN’s complicity (either directly or through inaction) in the
destruction of Syria and Ukraine, and sanctions leveled against Iran and others
other examples of the UN simply being used to enable Western geopolitical
ambitions and justify Western military, socioeconomic, and political aggression
across the globe.
The true foundation of Wall
Street and Washington’s “international order” is clearly, “might makes right.”
For Beijing and its expanding military presence in the South China Sea and its
attempts to circumvent “international” arbiters in favor of bilateral talks
with nations being pressured by the West to confront Beijing, appears not only
to be China’s strategy of choice, but a strategy that is incrementally drawing
out Washington’s true agenda in the region and making it increasingly
complicated for complicit governments in Asia to continue their cooperation
with the West.
Whether or not Washington’s
necessity to exert increasing pressure on governments across the region to toe
the line in America’s proxy war against Beijing will finally force Asian
governments to abandon this risky and costly game remains to be seen. But
Beijing is playing a game with home-field advantage – building military
capabilities that are backed by logistical networks leading back to the mainland
that will match and inevitably exceed US capabilities in the region.
Avoiding a rush to conflict
with the United States as Japan mistakenly did in the lead up to World War II
will ensure China sustainably creates and expands a deterrence that will first
ward off US attempts to maintain or expand primacy across the region before
finally rolling US primacy back altogether. For the rest of Asia, it is
paramount that they themselves create a regional balance of power predicated on
military deterrence coupled with economic cooperation, that excludes attempts
by the US to create conflict that will cost the entire region peace, stability,
and most importantly, prosperity.
Tony Cartalucci,
Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online
magazine “New Eastern
Outlook”.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.