I'm afraid that it seems apparent that you might have not made enough research regarding this issue. Within the South China Sea lies a group of islands called Spratly. The Spratly Islands are a disputed territory among 6 countries (China, Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia). It is believed that it has as much oil reserve as Kuwait. Now tell me, why would the United States let down its guard on such a huge opportunity? China needs oil and the United States needs oil even more,. Come on.. why would the united states care if it weren't for its interest?

During the 1982 Falkland Islands War, the United States rejected Argentina's argument of physical proximity. Instead, the United States supported British military efforts to assert its historical claims of discovery and sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

Similarly, the United States should publicly announce its support of China's 1,000-year-old historical claims and territorial sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and area. If the United States fails to reinforce the international-law principle that historical title trumps proximity then the world will degenerate into chaos.

If the Vietnamese and Filipinos are permitted to encroach on sovereign Chinese South China Sea territory then the Argentines will be encouraged to launch a second Falkland Islands War. Also, the Spaniards will use the proximity argument and militarily attempt to eject the British from Gibraltar. The Turks will grab the nearby Greek Dodecanese Islands. Last, but not least, the Moroccans will try to seize the proximate Spanish territory of Ceuta.

Wars will break out all over the world if proximity is permitted to supersede historical title.

Why would these Asian countries drop policies that have worked very well for them and provide a high competitive advantage? If our institutions won't hold these nations accountable for neomercantilism and we're losing the battle, then we're stuck with two options: 1. Slowly bankrupt ourselves while exporting our expertise and technology 2. Step into their game and start playing hardball like we used to. Like we played before we started this free trade business to pull nations away from the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

After turning America to second rate power with their policies, now Clyde Prestowitz and his friends want Obama to look inward, become isolationist so that his Republican friends can accuse Democrats of being weak on defense.

It is Bush Junior’s fiscal and revenue policies that turned America’s huge budget surpluses of Clinton years into huge budget deficits in 2001. It is Nixon-Kissinger’s embrace of China in 1972 that has led to China’s rise to challenge America.

Americans have nobody to blame but themselves for electing Republican presidents that has led to downfall of their beloved country from super power status.

After turning America to second rate power with their policies, now Clyde Prestowitz and his friends want Obama to look inward, become isolationist so that his Republican friends can accuse Democrats of being weak on defense.

It is Bush Junior’s fiscal and revenue policies that turned America’s huge budget surpluses of Clinton years into huge budget deficits in 2001. It is Nixon-Kissinger’s embrace of China in 1972 that has led to China’s rise to challenge America.

Americans have nobody to blame but themselves for electing Republican presidents that has led to downfall of their beloved country from super power status.

A greatly reduced American naval presence in the South Pacific could invite Chinese aggression against smaller neighbors who have yet to modernize their own naval forces, especially in the South China Sea. Due to our alliance with the Phillipines, etc such aggression could trigger an even more costly conflict between the US and China.

Think of a strong continued presence as more of an insurance policy and preventive measure against more costly situations. It is expensive, but much less expensive, when coupled with diplomacy and development, than allowing a strategic imbalance to deteriorate into a cold or hot war i.e. Afghanistan.

While China does not pose a direct invasion risk to the US, pulling back would invite Chinese naval hegemony in the south China sea, allowing it to control vital shipping lanes from the middle east to the indian ocean to southeast asia and ultimately to the US. In a future conflict Chinese access denial tactics an strategies could cripple the US ability to respond. Chinese hegemony over the western pacific could allow them to apply leverage over weaker Pacific nations and establish forward naval and air bases from which to project power further toward the US.

America's hegemony over the Pacific is in our interest because freedom of navigation, commerce, and trade, and adherence to international treaties for peaceful dispute resolution are in our interest. They are also in the long term interest of almost ever other country in the region. Their agreement with us is not because of American pressure, but because we alll benefit from the system America helps to guarantee. Our presence there is vital not only to our own narrow interest but to the security and prosperity of the world. While we should encourage regional allies and members of ASEAN to deveop their own capabilities, in the mean time America should not withdraw due to a temporary recession and give China the strategic high ground and initiative in a vital region of the world.

Terrific analysis -- Prestowitz is one of the few reality-based analysts in Washington!!!

I really appreciate all of your contributions - sometimes I feel like I'm living in a crazy world in which everyone "Serious" is saying that the sun is a deep lavender, and I think I'm going crazy! Reading you assures me that indeed the sun is not a deep lavender, royal purple or neon-green. China is engaged in ruthless mercantilism while the US government (b/c of political corrutpion and the power of finance) is sitting on its hands while the country crumbles.

On one point I'm not sure I agree with you: I don't think a US presence in East Asia and revising US tax structure are mutually exclusive projects. The US could shift from raising income taxes to imposing import taxes and still afford a military presence in East Asia. The bases don't cost very much (as you know, Japan pays for most or perhaps all of the costs in Okinawa).

Consider this: The PRC central government according to Ministry of Finance data raised twenty-two (22) percent of its revenue from import taxes in 2010. Import taxes (VAT, consumption and tariffs) as a percentage of imports amounted to 13.5% in 2010 for China, vs. 1.4% for the US. If the US had import taxes that simply equaled those of the PRC the US government would raise an additional 200 billion dollars a year - conservatively, the US could raise two trillion dollars over a ten year period.

It's important the US retain a presence in East Asia to stiffen the spine of our East Asian trading partners; the US doesn't want to find itself in a situation in which China "persuades" its immediate neighbors to a trade regime that prevents or discourages trade and investment with the US. To reindustrialize quickly the US needs to be able to play off Korean, Japanese, and Chinese companies against one another. If China turns all of the East Asian countries into puppet states, then neither the US (nor any other country, ie Mexico, Nigeria, Argentina etc) will have much bargaining power in terms of getting the manufacturing trade and investment that is crucial to escaping poverty. American mercantilism requires a balance of power in East Asia that enables the smaller countries to have some foreign policy autonomy from China. In some ways China would act as an East Asian hegemon in a manner directly opposite of the US: China will bully the smaller countries into sacrificing their industrial sectors, becoming suppliers of raw materials and pliant tourist destinations for the Chinese.

This is great commentary: most observers do not appreciate just how integral the US security umbrella (and the economic trade zones it fostered) was to the rise of Asian mercantilism. As Patrick Chovanec said, "The rest of the world’s prosperity drove China’s, not the other way around."

Obama was right to talk about "nation-building at home" during his Afghanistan announcement, finally bringing the US back to its pre-9/11 anti nation-building attitude (which George W. Bush, of all people, so fervently displayed during his 2000 campaign). Getting out of the South China Sea would be another crucial step.

China does not even have the power to enforce its will over the nations in its neighborhood, certainly not against Vietnam or Japan. If it wants to pursue the geopolitical instability that territorial disputes in a US-free zone would cause, then, by all means, let it do so.

Welcome to:
http://tinyurl.com/bingstore-us

May surprises continued.Gift Non-stop.New stock constantly!Come on, dress up!

Cheapest (TOP) Nike,Air Max, Jordan (1-24) shoes $31
UGG BOOT $50Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $31
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $15Wig $22
Handbag(LV,Chanel,Coach,DG,ED Hardy.etc.)$44
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$30
Sunglasses (Dior, Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$16
jersey $ 29 New era cap $16 Belt(ED hardy /LV) $15
Watch(Rolex) $80 Scarf $21
Bikini (Ed hardy, Polo,Gucci,LV,Christan Audigier,Affliction) $15
Accept electronic bank transfer, credit card payment.
Free Shipping
Welcome to:
http://tinyurl.com/bingstore-us

I still don't understand the reasoning behind keeping a global hegemony. Looking at the US exports to Asian nations, it clearly doesn't help the US economy much. If China wants spend money building its military as a regional hegemony rather than to improve the lives of its people, that will only hasten its fall. At the end of the day pure political ideologies are largely BS when it comes to people's average needs.

IMO its inevitable that China will become a regional hegemony. This is because China is the region's biggest importer of goods. While China is accumulating a huge trade surplus with the US, China's neighbors are happily accumulating a huge surplus with China. Japan for example, has built a trade plus of over 260 billion with China over the last ten years. Today it sees China as the key to its recovery as its exports to the US are getting hammered by competition from Korea. The same would apply to China's other neighbors, all of which are eying China's growing middle class. Sure, China has tons of poor which will drag down its per capita income, but even if 20% of its people becomes the middle class that market would still be larger than the US', and majority of this is untapped. This is China's key leverage in the region, and not the military.

1 - Beijing is using the trick “turning nothing into something”
2 - VERY extensive documentation of human visitation and use of the sea area
english.vietnamnet.vn .... viking-ii-incident-and-beijing-s-plot.html
english.vietnamnet.vn .... historical-documents-on-vietnam-s-sovereignty-over-paracel-and-spratly-islands.html
both articles are worth careful reading

USING THE TRICK "TURNING NOTHING INTO SOMETHING"
" .. Sun Tzu, a great strategist in China’s history, is famous for his art of war, which made fact and fiction and then caused distrust and drove a wedge between his opponents, through which to control them. This trick was used many times in China’s history... Vietnam’s point of view includes four points:
1) Vietnam has the right to have the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone from its shore, without disputes. This area is separate from the waters of the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa archipelagoes.
2) Hoang Sa and Truong Sa is under Vietnam’s sovereignty.
3) The waters of islands in the two archipelagos are defined under the UNCLS, specifically Article 121.3. If islands in the two archipelagos have their continental shelf and exclusive economic zones, these areas are limited waters, under the principle “land rules the sea”.
4) While seeking a long-term, permanent solution, the parties involving in the East Sea dispute need to restraint, do not expand their occupation and do not have acts that make the situation more complication, to perform cooperation in less-sensitive areas like environment protection, scientific research and fighting pirate under the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea signed between the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) and China in 2002 (DOC).
Thus, as the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman said: “There is no common perception that China has the right to hinder Vietnam’s activities in its continental shelf and its exclusive economic zone. China’s acts are contrary to the common perception of the high-ranking leaders of the two countries”.
The nine-dotted line and China’s strange argument
What is the nature of China’s opposite words and acts The China Daily on June 8, 2011 did not hesitate to expose. According to this newspaper, the East Sea dispute is strategically meaningful for China for two reasons.
Firstly, China is a big country but it is not a super power in the sea. Though it has broad continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, the coasts of the mainland and islands are long but the contribution of the sea economy to China’s GDP is still modest. With several disputed islands under its control, China has no way to link its sea to the ocean.
Secondly, China will be still in a disadvantaged position without a strong navy and sea interests. To be a superpower, China must transform from a mainland superpower into a sea superpower.
The East Sea dispute is the test for realizing that target. To monopolize the East Sea, the best way is turning the sea of others into China’s sea, the undisputed sea into the disputed sea to claim sharing of natural resources and the right to control over the waters of other countries under the label “putting aside disputes to exploring the sea together”.
In May 2009, China introduced the so-called the nine-dotted line or the U-shaped to the UN for the first time, but it said that this line is the historical line that has been widely recognized by the international community and the entire islands, rocks, sandbars, etc. and related waters, the sea bed and the earth under the sea bed within the line is under China’s control. Perhaps only Chinese who always see themselves as the world’s center can have such odd argument.
At the first conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958, the list of the world’s historical waters and bays had no the so-called U-shaped line. A broken-off, unsystematically-drawn, no-coordinate line cannot be a sea borderline that is recognized by the international community.
The concept “related waters” is also China’s product, which is not mentioned in the UNCLS .. They continue to use both the U-shaped line and UNCLS when necessary.
China is using ambiguity to defend its actions that violate the international law. The U-shaped line, in nature, is the line that China set to expand the disputed area in the East Sea. The more the disputed area is expanded into the territory or the waters of other countries, the bigger advantage for China to make bargain. Countries involved in territorial disputes with China are very familiar with Beijing’s trick to turn the nothing into something.
The trap “putting aside disputes to explore the sea together”
The second step of the trick to turn nothing into something, is making pretexts and put pressure on neighboring countries to confirm in fact the so-called “U-shaped line”. This is the reason why China has stepped up harassment activities in the East Sea recently. From its unilateral ban of catching in the East Sea from May 15 to August 31, annually, to harassing Vietnam and the Philippines’ ships from May to June 2011, or using submarines to place its coat of arms under the sea bed of a sandbar near Malaysia in early 2011, all of these acts have the same thing: they are on the U-shaped line."
and finally, all this posturing and China Daily rhetoric buys time to actually build a navy, as well as confuse the issues ( at just the cost of a little soybean ink ), throw everyone off balance, and best of all -
win some economic benefits in trade for something not yours in the first place
worst case - they have nothing to lose, and any gains are "found money" at practically no cost
similar tactics were used against India ( talk peace and meanwhile occupy the territory )
what's wrong with the word "squatter" ??

I don't think that the Red China will not invade other countries, they will absolutely and the question here is when? China has been invading its neighbor s for thousand of years. Recently they invade Tibet in 1950s and claim that Tibet belong to China, dispite Tibetan gain their independent from China for hundred of years and they don't want the Chines at all. China also claim illegal U-shape without concrete evidences. If a country willing to do illegal invasion, how can the author claim that it will not invade other countries?