At RealClearPolitics Seth Cropsey, musing over whether naval conflict with China is inevitable, assesses U. S. policy with respect to China:
U.S. policy toward China has failed spectacularly. China’s actions show that it sees us as a strategic competitor. We have chosen to see China as a large market that can be cajoled into joining us as a defender of international security and economic stability. U.S. policy makers hoped that the large volume of trade between China and the U.S. and the accompanying economic progress in the former would remold Chinese rulers to look, think, and act more like us. The evidence does not support this roseate hope.
He is skeptical of the Obama Administration’s “strategic patience” and recommends “active diplomacy”:
China does not respect international law. Japan and the U.S. do. American policy has done nothing to resolve this fundamental difference, and the possibility increases daily that the growing weight of opposed interests could lead to accidents or actual hostilities. The U.S. should change its policy toward China so that instead of persuading its leaders to be more like us, our objective is to convince China through diplomacy, military strength, and increased presence, that a conflict with us is not in their interest.
To what end? The harm has already been done and it will take more than diplomacy and visibility to undo it.
Military conflict is inevitable with the Chinese as long as the Chinese believe it is and China’s military authorities have made it abundantly clear that they believe it is and that they can prevail in any conflict.
The United States’s situation is unique. Because of the peculiar qualities of that situation we should never issue threats, particularly idle threats. We should merely act consistently with our interests.
What are our interests in the Western Pacific and what actions would further those interests?
Our main interest should be freedom of American shipping to travel as it will thru international space. To accomplish this, the occasional naval and air patrol. Secondly, maintain sufficient military presence to protect our overseas possessions (e.g Guam, Saipan, etc) and fulfill our treaty obligations to Japan, Korea, Micronesia, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, et al.
So, due to a lack of other alternatives, Cropsey’s recommendations make sense. The alternatives seem to be picking a fight to settle who is top dog, continued hand wringing and piling up tribunal judgements the Chinese will ignore or a withdrawal to say Pearl Harbor while hanging everyone else to learn Mandarin.
The incident that occurred on President Obama’s most recent China trip is a good example of what I think is going on. It was an intentional snub on the part of the Chinese. They’re testing him. They think he’s a weak sister.
The next time a high-ranking Chinese official comes to the U. S., they should make him come into the White House through the tradesmans’ entrance. The Chinese pay attention to this stuff.
We should be making a point of sinking Chinese fishing vessels that we find operating within the EEZs of our allies, announcing it publicly, and saying that we’d apprehended pirates.
Would much rather board the fishing vessels with a representative of the offended nations Coast Guard then following established international law, seize the catch, haul the crew in for trial, put the seized ship up for auction, etc. To sink them out of hand is an invitation to an anti-missile defense demonstration, violation of the law of the sea and loss of first down .