US Condemns Chinese Military Build-Up the US Itself Provoked | New Eastern Outlook
By BRIAN BERLETIC - 22 MARCH 2022
US Indo-Pacific commander Admiral John Aquilino has recently complained about China’s militarization of the South China Sea. He has accused China of placing anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems along with other military facilities on islands scattered throughout the South China Sea.
The Guardian in an article titled, “China has fully militarized three islands in South China Sea, US admiral says,” would claim:
“Over the past 20 years we’ve witnessed the largest military buildup since world war two by the PRC,” Aquilino told the Associated Press in an interview, using the initials of China’s formal name. “They have advanced all their capabilities and that buildup of weaponization is destabilizing to the region.”
The article would go on to explain how the US has positioned its own military in the region, challenging Chinese territorial claims despite having no claims over the South China Sea itself. The Guardian would note that nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei have overlapping claims with China, along with the current break-away administration of Taiwan.
The Guardian notes that approximately $5 trillion in trade passes through the South China Sea but fails to note which nation above all others would benefit least from disrupting trade in the region – and which nation would benefit most.
The US, Not China Threatens Trade in the South China Sea
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – a policy think-tank funded by the US government, its allies, as well as large corporations including weapons manufacturers – maintains the China Power project. In an article published on the project’s website titled, “How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea?,” it would be revealed that China above all other nations depends on the safety and stability of the South China Sea regarding trade, noting that $874 billion in Chinese exports transit the region accounting for over a quarter of all trade through it.
Nations including South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam also account for significant trade through these waters and it must also be kept in mind that each of these nations count China as their main trade partner.
China’s military build-up in the South China Sea isn’t just in reaction to America’s unwarranted and significant military presence in the region, thousands of kilometers from American shores, but also in reaction to the specific threat America’s military presence poses to maritime trade for China and the rest of Asia (who primarily trades with China).
The threat the US poses to Chinese maritime trade is not a figment of Beijing’s imagination but a threat articulated explicitly in US policy papers regarding potential war with China WITHIN A CLOSING WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY THE US HAS TO USE ITS REMAINING ADVANTAGE IN MILITARY MIGHT TO FIGHT AND WIN A CONVENTIONAL WAR WITH CHINA AND THUS PREVENT IT FROM SURPASSING THE US ECONOMICALLY, MILITARILY, AND DIPLOMATICALLY.
The 2016 RAND Corporation paper, “War with China,” specifically mentions deliberately transforming waters through which China’s trade flows into a war zone. The paper notes that amid a US-Chinese conflict:
…much of the Western Pacific, from the Yellow Sea to the South China Sea, could become hazardous for commercial sea and air transport. Sharply reduced trade, including energy supplies, could harm China’s economy disproportionately and badly.
War with China:
The disruption of China’s economy, in fact, is seen as the only realistic way for the US to “win” in a conflict with China. The RAND Corporation paper would note:
The prospect of a military standoff means that war could eventually be decided by nonmilitary factors. These should favor the United States now and in the future. Although war would harm both economies, damage to China’s could be catastrophic and lasting: on the order of a 25–35 percent reduction in Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) in a yearlong war, compared with a reduction in US GDP on the order of 5–10 percent. Even a mild conflict, unless ended promptly, could weaken China’s economy. A long and severe war could ravage China’s economy, stall its hard-earned development, and cause widespread hardship and dislocation.
The paper also notes that the US need not even specifically blockade various straits Chinese shipping depends on. The paper points out:
This suggests very hazardous airspace and sea space, perhaps ranging from the Yellow Sea to the South China Sea. Assuming that non-Chinese commercial enterprises would rather lose revenue than ships or planes, the United States would not need to use force to stop trade to and from China. China would lose a substantial amount of trade that would be required to transit the war zone.
CONTINUE...
