South China Sea Disputes: What is the Role of the U.S.?

Tensions in the South China Sea Isles dispute has drastically intensified in recent weeks, particularly between China and Japan. On Aug. 15th, a group of Chinese activists sailed to the Diaoyu Islands (called Senkaku Islands by Japan) and planted a Chinese flag on the island. Japanese Coastguard patrolling the area arrested group for "trespassing onto Japanese territory." The incident spurred strong nationalist-based protest from both countries, who claim it is they who have legal territorial ownership of the oil-rich isles. As the intensity of the dispute increased, the United States began to step in to monitor to the situation. But what role does America intend to play? What obligation does the U.S. have to be the guarantor for allies such as Japan and the Philippines? Is this a political move by the U.S. against "frenemy" China?

Image Source: Reuters

According to NBC News, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia that "maritime security" is major U.S. concern. She said "transnational threats" in the region would not be dealt with lightly. It is reasonable to believe this statement also concerns China and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands claims. The U.S. has made it clear they do not want emerging world-power China to bully the other countries in the region. Should China make an attempt to seize the disputed islands and cause a military confrontation with Japan, then they will be acknowledging the likelihood of the U.S. stepping in to back Japan under Article 5 of the two nations' security treaty. The U.S. already increased troop and naval presence in nearby regions such as the Philippines, only increasing speculations that the U.S. is prepping itself for such an event.

Other comments made by Clinton and U.S. officials have some wondering how much of the U.S. agenda is surfacing in the dispute — Clinton has many times referred to the South China Sea as the "West Philippines Sea." At one point in early August the Chinese were so fed up with the Washington's statements, they told them simply to "Shut up."

It is hard not to believe the U.S. is addressing its own personal agenda in the area — every country takes into account its own personal interests before making any international diplomatic decisions. The question is more-so, is the U.S. playing the role of mediator or instigator (trying to cause conflict for its own gain)? I'm not quite convinced the answer is yes, but I'm also not quite convinced the answer is no. It is clear that the adversarial relationship the U.S. has with China is growing for many reasons: economic competition, military/technological advancements, and U.N. resolution disagreements regarding Syria for starters.

China has now placed itself in a delicate position — engaging into a conflict with Japan might seriously jeopardize China's world-power status — particularly if the U.S. takes a major stake in the conflict. It is, however, highly unlikely that any of these nations will risk coming into conflict with each other during such an economically sensitive time in world history.