Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Drawing A Line In The Water

After the Obama administration's dismal record of drawing lines in ever-shifting sands, as with the Iranian nuclear program, it was more than a bit refreshing to observe Secretary of State Clinton draw a line in water, specifically the South China Sea the other day. Overlooked in the brouhaha started by the Wikileaks Affair, Ms Clinton announced last Friday during the ASEAN meeting in Hanoi that the US had "a national interest" in seeking a mediated end to the dispute between China and other, much smaller Asian states over the Paracel and Spratly islands.

The myriad of very small islands, coral outcroppings, and reefs are unimportant in and of themselves. What is important, the only reason there has been a dispute between no fewer than six countries as to who owns what, is the documented presence of significant undersea oil deposits.

China, along with Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Brunei claim all or parts of the thousand or so dots on the map which constitute the land portion of the disputed undersea territory. China and Vietnam have exchanged shots over the islands. Both have attempted with varying degrees of success to establish a physical, military presence on at least some of the larger (more than one acre) islands. To date China has gotten the better in the confrontations.

Not surprisingly, the Trolls of Beijing were not pleased by the Clinton declaration. Already greatly perturbed by the recent displays of power projection undertaken by the US in waters close to China, the Trolls expressed great displeasure with the temerity of the US position.

It was bad enough when Ohio class Tomahawk equipped submarines popped up around the Chinese maritime periphery. Matters were worsened (from the perspective of the Trolls) when a major task group centered on the Nimitz class carrier George Washington hove over the horizon for joint exercises with the South Korean navy. Then the Americans had the unmitigated gall to aver that they had an interest in the resolution of the ongoing South China Sea contretemps.

The nerve of those Americans! Their role, their only role, is to borrow Chinese money and buy products made in China. Beyond that, the round-eyed, big nosed barbarians are supposed to keep quiet and at a great distance from the Center Empire and its sovereign interests.

Two American oil companies have signed agreements with Vietnam allowing exploratory drilling in the part of the South China Sea claimed by Hanoi. In their counterblast to the Clinton declaration, the Chinese warned against the drilling. Beijing sounded rather like Buenos Aires did as the drills started turning in the ocean near the Falkland Islands.

It does seem a tad counterintuitive that the Obama administration might be taking a position favorable to offshore oil drilling considering the evident distaste felt for such in the Gulf of Mexico. But, the fact remains that two American companies (among those of other nationalities) want to go after the oil of the South China Sea, and the American Secretary of State went on record as supporting a new form of maritime Open Door policy.

US companies have known of the South China Sea oil for years. Back during the heyday of antiwar protests during the late Sixties, demonstrators often accused the Johnson and Nixon administrations of waging war in Vietnam to protect the future interests of Big Oil. That charge was baseless.

It is less baseless to assert that the US desires to see a quick, mediated end to the Spratly and Parcel dispute in order that drills might spin and oil might flow. This would benefit the US and all other consumers of oil--including the Chinese. Of course, the Chinese would reap much greater benefits if the oil flowed from fields under their control. That is self-evident.

There is, of course, no reason why the US should be supine before the understandable Chinese desire for this benefit. There are, however, a number of reasons other than economic self-interest why the US would seek a regional settlement to this ownership dispute. Chief among these are regional stability and, as a necessary concomitant, establishing limits to Chinese hegemony.

The Trolls of Beijing have already alarmed the smaller states of ASEAN with the Chinese build-up of naval power. The ambitious Chinese naval developments are far in excess of any possible defense need but still insufficient to counter the American power projection capacity. One result of this is a sort of arms race in the region. In the past couple of years, navies have become fashionable with all parties seeking to upgrade theirs. As an example, consider Japan's decision to build a new generation of submarines, the first in thirty years.

The ASEAN states look to the US as a force for regional stability. The governments in the region are realistic enough to understand that stability rests upon military force and the credible political will to use the hardware.

The US Navy is long on hardware. But, given the disarray of what passes for foreign policy under Team Obama, there is grave doubts throughout the ASEAN community about American political will.

The stance taken by the US in the wake of the sinking of the Cheonan went some distance in allaying the concerns pervading ASEAN capitals. The joint US-South Korean exercises as well as other multi-national naval wargames involving Asian forces helped as well. Now, the surprising announcement by Secretary Clinton regarding the dispute has gone even further in convincing directly involved states that the Obama administration can find some backbone under some circumstances.

The key matter, of course, is how long will this newly discovered spine stay intact. Will the US line in the water prove any more lasting, any more real than the past lines in the sand? Or, should the Trolls of Beijing huff and puff a bit more, show a bit more rhetorical fang, will the fresh new Obama backbone find itself afflicted with political osteoporosis?

Time will answer that question as it has so many others over the past eighteen months. It can be hoped that the answer this time is more positive than its predecessors.

No comments: