China and the South China Sea dispute: The 5 trillion lie


(MENAFN- Asia Times) Carrier USS Ronald Reagan was deployed lates last year to Japan station

The idea that the PRC will ever wriggle free of the maritime chokehold is anathema to the US Navy which has staked its reputation claims to a central geostrategic role and budget demands on the idea that the US Navy's threat to the PRC's seaborne energy imports is the decisive factor that will keep the Commies in their place. America's interest in d*cking with the PRC in the South China Sea predates any Xi Jinping-related arrogance expansionism and island-building and indeed predates the appearance of any PRC Navy worthy of consideration. It can be traced to the Office of Net Assessment's 2004 report prepared via Booz Hamilton for Donald Rumsfeld Energy Futures in Asia.

As I don't think that report has been declassified interested readers can check out this 2010 paper from the US Naval War College titled 'Your Pitiful Pipeline Plans Will Never Succeed Silly Chinese! Learn the Will of the Mighty US Navy and Tremble!' (actual title China's Oil Security Pipe Dream not so far off the mark).

Indeed Middle Eastern oil oil that at the very least leaves the Middle East by ship is probably going to be a big deal in China for decades. But the PRC is trying to do something about it. 'Something' means setting up a terminal in Burma with a dual crude/gas pipeline to China and signing an agreement for the titanic (and titanically risky) project to link the Pakistan port of Gwadar to Kashgar in Xinjiang by a rail and possibly a pipeline link originating in insurrection-plagued Balochistan crossing the high Himalayas and terminating in insurrection-minded Kashgar in Xinjiang. And signing a military basing agreement with Djibouti. And putting submarines into the Indian Ocean Region.

Pipelines are of course more expensive to operate and vulnerable to attack by local insurgents and more mysterious forces as US strategists are suspiciously keen to point out. Ports in third countries are liable to meddling by pro-US governments factions and regional proxies. But the PRC is building 'em. If the US can spend half a trillion dollars on our national security the PRC is also willing to spend a couple hundred billion on its energy security in defense and capital budgets and the added expense of moving oil & gas from A to B not through the Malacca Strait.

Which means of course it's time to hype that PRC threat to the Indian Ocean!

Here you go: US Navy official questions intent of China military advance in Indian Ocean

As these massive and risky alternative expenditures by the PRCand the complete absence of plausible threats to Japan South Korea and Australia interestsindicate the only genuine role the South China Sea played as a strategic chokepoint worthy of US interest is against the PRC.

Bad news is with the PRC putting its energy eggs in a multiplicity of baskets if it ever comes to fighting the real war with Chinaa full-fledged campaign to strangle it by cutting off its energy imports (like we did with Japan in the 1930s! Hey! Useful historical analogy)we'll have to do it in a lot of places like Burma the Indian Ocean and Djibouti as well as the South China Sea. A real world war!

Good news is as the PRC's shipping options increase the strategic importance of each individual channel decreases as does the desire of the PRC Japan ROK or Australia to risk regional peace for an increasingly irrelevant sideshowand the local interests of Vietnam and the Philippines–diminishes.

What I hope is that the South China Sea instead of serving as the flashpoint for World War III may well end up as a stage for imperial kabuki as the US & PRC bluster and posture to demonstrate resolve to their neighbors and allies and an opportunity for political posturing amped-up defense spending and plenty of opportunities for the hottest of media and think-tank hot takes.

That would keep everybody happy.

Peter Lee runs the China Matters blog. He writes on the intersection of US policy with Asian and world affairs.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia Times.

(Copyright 2015 Asia Times Holdings Limited a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales syndication and republishing.)


Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.