Philippines Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario today confirmed that the United States is obliged by treaty to defend his nation’s claims in the South China Sea with military force, and provided diplomatic letters affirming that this was the US position as well.
Past US treaties have promised to protect the Philippines from attack, and the letters say the US views the country’s territorial claims in the sea as part of their scope of those treaties.
Which underscores why there is so little momentum for negotiating a settlement of who owns what in the sea, as the Philippines feels this “ironclad” guarantee of US military force on their behalf means they don’t have to deal, and can treat their claims as inviolable.
Doubly troubling though is that the Philippines claim is not unique, and the United States has been making similar promises of military involvement across China’s frontier, meaning a full-scale US war against China could erupt over any piddly claim over any unoccupied plot of land in the South and East China Seas.
Though the US sees these treaties as a convenient way of formalizing their “containment” policy toward China, they are also preventing the development of potentially lucrative offshore energy resources throughout the region, and leaving countless territorial disputes unresolved.
To make matters worse, none of these treaty obligations is exclusive to China (and indeed some were made when China was a fairly trivial power), so even to the extent these deals “work” for the sake of US policy right now, they could quickly find themselves obliged to back both sides of a conflict, as there are no less than six nations with competing claims in the South China Sea, and the US is to some extent backing five of them.
Sounds a lot like Europe just before the outbreak of WWI. Who was it that recommended “trade with all and entangling alliances with none”? I think that he must have been a very wise man and a keen observer of both history and human psychology. Unfortunately, today he has been replaced with arrogant and appallingly ignorant mediocrities. But you can bet your bottom dollar that none of those fools will be doing any of the killing and dying nor will their children.
It seems to me that our rulers are trying desperately to start WWIII. No doubt they will then be the banking and war profiteers, getting rich from the death and misery on which they thrive, just as they always have.
Back in the pre-internet days, there were limited independent sources of news available to the American people. Therefore the news we received was filtered and massaged by those who had ulterior motives for getting involved in areas where we had no vested interest as a country. That paradigm no longer exists. Information is available and the "truths" pushed by the elites is extremely susceptible to exposure and ridicule, usually from multiple independent sources.
Perhaps I'm overly optimistic but I would like to believe that if our "leaders" got us involved in a shooting (and killing) war that was not in the best interest of the American people a majority of citizens would vocally and actively revolt. And if this new war they want so desperately is the kind of war where things can easily escalate to "world changing/destroying" levels then the "rulers" who started it will surely be held responsible…assuming there will be anyone left.
Very true, but Empire USA can achieve security only by expansion, a thing best accomplished during conflict, division and a prevailing state of war.
I'm thinking the statement might depend on an unusual definition of 'security,' or maybe a security-model that depends on something unusual. I'd like to hear more…
Democratic Taiwan's claims are identical to China's.