Why the U S Wants to Pivot to Asia

China in the South China Sea

The geopolitical and economic consequences of China's occupation of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea can perhaps best be measured the West's (or simply Washington's) response to China's move. As Durden notes, the South China Sea is not just important to China; it is important to Washington, too, which is accused of "militarizing the region" by the Chinese. But this is essentially what the U.S. is accusing China of, while Japan meanwhile claims that China is siphoning natural gas from its side of the "economic zone" (Durden). Thus, by building islands and runways in the Spratlys and expanding itself in the South China Sea, China is provoking a host of reactions from other nations (Western or Western-supported), indicating that there is a serious economic and geopolitical clash at hand over this issue. The main economic consequence coming from the U.S. will be the threat of sanctions (an act of war) and the main geopolitical consequence will be an attempt by the "Empire of Chaos" (Escobar Empire of Chaos) to destabilize the region through revolution, regime change, military posturing, and military junta (as happens all too frequently in the Middle East) (Butool 1005).

The Spratly Islands are an important strategic geopolitical position for China, situated as they are south of Hong Kong and between the Philippines and Vietnam. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) notes that as far as Chinese President Xi Jinping is concerned, the "assertive" move by China is because of the nation's strong commitment "to safeguarding the country's sovereignty and security, and defending territorial integrity" ("China's Maritime Disputes"). The region is rich in vital resources like natural gas and hydrocarbons, so it is no surprise that various countries should want to have a presence there, including China. The "pivot to Asia" by the U.S., however, comes with a banner of diplomacy backed by a machine gun -- so the accusation of Pentagon militarism by China is not completely undeserved (Escobar). Even the CFR admits that disputes in the South China Seas "if not managed wisely, could turn part of Asia's maritime regions from thriving trade channels into arenas of conflict" ("China's Maritime Disputes"). That would be par for the course for the U.S., which should be given a Nobel Prize for Chaos.

The Philippines are conducting military exercises alongside the U.S., which, of course, sells weapons of war to the Philippine Islands (Xu). Because the South China Sea is a major sea lane for oil transports, access to and control of the region is of major importance for any "super power" seeking to expand its hegemony. Thus, control of the South China Sea offers major economic and geopolitical power. By building in the Spratlys, China is illustrating its own clout. By "pivoting" to Asia, the U.S. is demonstrating its. The consequences are clear: either the two super powers will have to learn to share the world's sea lanes and resources -- or war will soon break out.

Essentially, China believes that the disputes in the South China Sea should be settled by China and her neighbors -- not by the U.S. sticking its nose in yet another region it wishes to dominate (Escobar "The South China Sea Word War"). Because China is an economic partner with all the emerging markets in Southeast Asia (they depend on China, in other words), few are willing to question or concern themselves with China's positioning. Other than the Philippines (whose strings are pulled by the U.S.), none of them have protested in any international court of law (King). Thus, it is safe to say that the U.S. pivot is a power play by Washington to exercise influence in a realm where it is not regarded as supreme lord and master. Russia and China both agree that a new multi-polar world order is what is in store for the global economy, but Washington is an avid proponent of the uni-polar world order with, of course, itself acting as the single, all-powerful pole (Escobar "Say Hello to China's New Toys").

Should the U.S. exit the South China Sea, it is likely that whatever "tension" currently exists there will dissolve. In fact, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is poised to become even more integrated by way of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) (Escobar "Welcome to the Trade Deal Wars"). According to Escobar, the AEC would spell "the economic integration of a combined market of 620 million people and a collective GDP of $2.5 trillion" (Escobar "Welcome to the Trade Deal Wars"). At the heart of Chinese "assertion" in the South China Sea are the trade deals being floated around the world: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) meant to undermine trade between Russia and Europe, while serving the purposes of Western multi-nationals (Assange). There is also the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). What the TPP, RCEP, FTAAP and the AEC all boil down to is a giant "turf war" between the East (the China-Russia axis) and the West (the Washington-NATO axis) (Escobar "Welcome to the Trade Deal Wars"). Whereas turf wars used to be fought by street gangs, today the street gangs run entire nations, militaries, and economic regions.

China flexing its muscles in a sea of its own name should not be surprising. It is the fact that the U.S. wants to flex muscles in that region as well which creates conflict, as Noam Chomsky rightly points out: "It's worth noting that the conflict is off the coast of China. It's not off the coast of the U.S." (Hutt). The geography lesson is, of course, worth noting: China taking care of Chinese interests in the South China Sea has economic ramifications for China and geopolitical ramifications only for the U.S. because the U.S. is interested in controlling the entire world (Escobar Empire of Chaos). It wouldn't stop there, either, except for now there is no known competition to control any of the other planets in the solar system (air space, however, is another story). It has always been American policy, after all, to exercise its "Manifest Destiny" by taking over everywhere (called "New Expansionism" after the natural borders of its "destiny" were reached). Why should the U.S. care about how China controls the South China Sea?