The then cautious behavior of the United States amid China’s ongoing dispute among Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines in the South China Sea was lately noticeable and evident of having categorical interest in the disputed areas in South China Sea. Nobody will wonder it why.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Vietnam in 2010, she had declared that the United States had a national interest in freedom of navigation in the South China Sea (Emphasis is mine). However, the latest criticism of the United States on China’s move to set up a military garrison and run a city of Sansha in the province of Hainan forwarded a “wrong signal” according to Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Kunsheng in the report of AFP News via Yahoo! News.
China, following the United States’ “unlikely” remark Friday that China’s built garrison and a city of Sansha would likely intensify tensions in the disputed region—Paracel islands (Paraphrased), retorted urging the United States to correct its mistake.
China, furthermore, directed the United States to respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and urged it to take the message to the highest level. China, in this behavior, perhaps or apparently warned the United States to consider thinking over and over again before making statements that apparently detrimental to the ongoing dispute in the South China Sea.
We can remember Hillary Clinton reiterated that the United States has an interest only in an “unimpeded lawful commerce” in the South China Sea. But, was that really the point why the United States criticized China on setting up a garrison and a city of Sansha in Hainan province? It depends on who will answer this question. But, for me, it is no. History and insinuation never lie.
Involvement or interference of the United States in the activities in Asian countries, most especially its apparent “cooperation” (a euphemism for intervention) in the South China Sea dispute or what the U.S. called the region, the West Philippine Sea, was a significant telltale of its ambition to not only prevailing freedom of navigation in the region it seriously safeguarding with but also strengthening and stretching its territorial arm for advancement.
When the United States denigrated China’s sovereignty by making “implied attack” statement against the latter’s action, is it a manifestation of the former’s territorial insecurity and economic instability? Or is it a manifestation that the United States will join the battle in the South China Sea dispute? I know, the latter is too far to realize but possible.
Anyway, why still the United States will not ratify the 1982 UNCLOS for it to be not “too awkward” to intervene sea territorial dispute? Ask the United States Senate.
- Analysis: Philippines’ weak claims over Scarborough Shoal
- China-Philippines Scarborough Shoal Dispute: Will there be another Falklands War in Asia?