If your argument were true, then why didnt the other east European party-states also develop as China did? If the Communist party were so weak and unpopular as you seem to suggest, wouldnt the logical, communist thing to do be to excersize military power within China itself rather than against foreigners?
The countries which you selected, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan, has other reasons to be wary of China, not the least because of actual historical warfare which you as a self-styled pundit might not care to learn about. Other countries in the region, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and even Singapore have their best relations with China ever in history. I am highly suspicious of any American claim to possess some sort of diplomatic advantage against China in those countries for the very fact that China has become more important in their thinking than the Americans and this is unlikely to change. No one is "arming themselves against China" because to do is necessarily self-defeating to those countries' national goals of economic growth and stability.
The PRC regime is as part of China as civil rights is a part of America. Both have been in practice for 50, 60 years. Attempting to dismiss the coummunist party as a "leftover" of history is not only intellectually lazy, it is willfully refusing to recognize a part of the world out of dogmatic adherence to democratic "end of history" hubris. Internal weaknesses, where the exist, are caused by economic, not political dysfunction. It in fact reinforces the perceived need for autocratic (ie. non-democratic) leadership. In closing, one should consider the performance of other political parties, such as Japan's LDP, and India's Congress, both of which were founding parties, and measure their accomplishments with China's Communist party.

Vietnam - Kilo class subs and Sukhoi plane for example. The fact is that China is actually in a very weak position as it has no allies, unlike the US. They are making claims which have no legal backing and are attempting to assert total control over shipping lanes critical to ROPK, Japan and Taiwan. They must be stopped - preferably peacefully.

It would be amusing indeed, but US takes itself way too seriously. The US goes around showing force halfway around the globe, yet all you read about it "China's aggressive approach". Pathetic.

Why are you both so myopically focused on America? If China supports brtual regimes in Myannmar, Sudan, and North Korea, thats OK? Are you monsters? "Peace" by itself means nothing. North Korea has peace. China is peaceful, but oppressive. It kills thousands of its own people ever year. Why is that OK? Why must the US be the only nation to be held to any standards? Are you cowards? Are you simply afraid to criticize a country that might actually do something about it? Seriously, you cant just focus on "Peace." "Peace" without freedom is every bit as bad as war.

This article is another one of those attempts (which seem typical of American journalism) to whip up a storm based on spin. In fact:

China has always claimed the South China Sea and has always marked it on maps as part of China.

The claim is based on Qing dynasty claims to the South China Sea. (This does not necessarily make their claim legitimate, but it does indicate that the issue didn't suddenly crop up in the last year or two).

The issue has been simmering for a long time. China has been using a mixture of diplomacy (playing off its adversaries in bilateral relationships and opposing its multilateralisation, which would result in China vs the rest; 'shelving' the issue but not relinquishing its long term aims) and naked force to advance its interests in the sea. Other countries, such as the Philippines have also been arresting Chinese fishermen found in waters that it claims.

It was only a matter of time before the issue came to a head. There is no way that the Chinese claim could continue as it was without some kind of showdown. What has happened to upset the Chinese is that the US has spoiled their diplomatic game by making it international/multilateral.

So why does Foreign Policy carry articles that try to sensationalise the story with headlines like Panda-Hugger Hangover and subheadlines like 'Until fairly recently, the Chinese were earning praise for their shrewd handling of Southeast Asia. Not anymore.' It totally misrepresents the situation.

As for the comments on this article, most of them are ridiculous ('China is different', 'China is not different', 'South CHINA Sea', 'It's the US that is the aggressor around the world', etc., etc.). Mostly cracked records that have nothing to say.

Yes the world was so peaceful with out America, why must they much everything up?

Get off your high horse if America were to vanish tomorrow the only force large enough to fill the vacuum left behind would be sheer and utter chaos. Want to know what the world looks like with out America? Look at Hungary in 1956, look at Rwanda in 1994 and the Congo between 1997 and 1999. these were all instances in which we decided we weren't going to involve ourselves.

The international community was unable or unwilling to do anything about them but sit and watch in horror or apathy. Now I wonder what would happen if we left South Korea and Japan to face the Chinese on their own, lets see what happens if we left the Polish to fend for themselves in the face of growing Russian might. Lets see how well Columbia would survive against Venezuelan backed terrorist with out our help. Lets see how well world trade would operate if the US just permanently called its navy back to port.

I can assure you with out American "meddling" the world would burn.

The Beijing regime and its "People's Liberation Army" has from its beginning in 1948 acted like an Evil Empire hell bent on the destruction of human liberty as proved by its actions at Tienanmen Square in 1989. It has no respect for human life as proved by its sacrifice of over a million of its own young men in Korea's iron triangle. Any claim about the South China Sea and by the dysfunctional Manchu (Qing) dynasty is a fantasy of rank piffle. The goal of Beijing's detritus-faced Marxism in the South China Sea is the same as has been for the last 62 years - destroy the foreign devils - and in this case, cut off their use of the navigable waters of the South China Sea and re-spread its Marxist cancer into the Philippines and Malaysia. Unless firm steps are taken to prevent takeover of the South China Sea and, still further, to dismember Beijing's cancerous organization, before the end of the next half century it will be invading the USA. Some of these comments show that its fifth column is already in action

What about the support the U.S. has given to brutal regimes in the past and now, such as saudi arabia, azerbaijan, turkey, and pakistan?

Freedom is a virtue and condition that people must work for to attain and continue to work to maintain. But it is not a virtue to export because it should be attained by the natives not imposed upon them. But I think we all know that the wars in the middle east, i.e. iraq and afghanistan were not about freedom but geopolitcs and realpolitk.

While your mindless Xinhua-speak post hardly merits a response, I think in all decency one has to point out how idiotic your comment is; particularly as it is a great example of "selective amnesia".

The US has every right to perform military exercises with its (democratic) ally the ROK, particularly in response to the unprovoked agression that the DPRK has shown in recently murdering 46 South Korean sailors. The US is only in South Korea at the invitation of the South Koreans, by the way.

The fact that the PRC is unwilling to even modestly chastize the murderous psychopaths in Pyongyang is another reason that the PRC is sending up warning signals in all the other nations in Asia.

Until or unless the PRC can behave as a reponsible regional power, its mindless tactic of throwing its weight around in places it doesn't belong will continue to frighten its neighbors (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc., etc.) and as a result, drive them even further into the protective arms of Uncle Sam.

South China Sea an arrogant misnomer by the Jung Gwo.

The so called South China Sea is in fact the South East Asia Sea. Who decided to name the South China Sea as such, and by name to assign 'ownership of the body of water to the Jung Gwo, or to the CPC of the PRC? Or to assign ownership of the body of water to the pre-PRC China and any of its emperors, dynasties?

The South East Asia Sea is in fact bordered to the North by China/the PRC; to the West by mainland South East Asia, namely Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma/Myanmar, Malaysia; to the East by maritime SE Asia, namely the Philippines, Indonesia; to the South by, again, maritime SE Asia, specifically Brunei, Indonesia and to the near further South, Papua New Guinea, Australia, NZ.

What's this Beijing grabby South China Sea misnomer? How can the PRC think or believe it owns the waters that are central to South East Asia, its basin, and are the core body of water the South East Asian nations share, to include ASEAN especially and in particular?

Since the early 20th century the international system definitively came to recognize the region of the world we know as South East Asia, consisting of a dozen countries which have a regional identity, a relatively common history. The sea is the basin of the countries of South Asia and South East Asia, not China alone.

The South China Sea used to be known regionally as the Champa Sea, also as the Sea of Chan. Since the advent of the name of the body of water as the South China Sea, the UN has officially recognized the region that surrounds the Sea as South East Asia. The clear implication is that the name of the sea no longer is to be restricted to the name of any one of its dozen immediately bordering countries. The broader name of the South East Asia Sea applies and is wholly justified. Google the map of the sea and its bordering nations both mainland and maritime.

The UN is being petitioned by groups and organizations in SE Asia to rename the body of water the PRChinese arrogantly claim to be their imperial territorial property on the basis of its name, which is a gross inconsistency on the part of China since early in the 20th century. The matter is being brought by SE Asians to the President of the United Nations Atlas of the Oceans, and to the UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names.

The grabby and arrogant Boys in Beijing are once again up against the international system, in this instance in their own backyard of South East Asia. This is yet another reason Southeast Asian nations are concerned the economic giant PRC will swallow them into the maw of the Middle Kingdom. The presence of the US to counterbalance the PRC is welcome in all the SE Asian capitals save Yangoon.

Actually, the name in Chinese is ?? Nan Hai ('South Sea'), although Chinese also often use the name ???? Nan Zhongguo Hai ('South China Sea'). This is based on the English name and isn't necessarily an attempt to claim Chinese sovereignty.

did the US ever criticize Israel of its gunning down numerous Palestines including many children? Instead, the US is in a tight alliance with Israel in full of its supports by weapons, isn't it right?

Millions died in Middleeast regions' confilicts vs. 56 in S.K and this 56 dead is still in mystery.

So, truth and facts?

Millions' lives were / are much much and much unimportant than your alliance' S.K., of few dozens, correct?

see title

...America can claim all the landmasses in the western hemisphere, because its north AMERICA and south AMERICA. The South China Sea borders many nations, and its pretty big, being a sea and all. All nations bordering have some claims to it, and most of it is international waters. China wants all of the international part to be theirs, and also wants a lot of waters long held by other nations. If China's claim is observed, it will control the sea lanes of many soveireign countries. They will quickly become puppets. But no, since its name has the word China in it, China can do whatever it wants. That is so remarkably stupid. Its not their waters just because it has their name.

China is not the only country that borders on the South China Sea, which is also a major trade route for the entire Pacific Rim. It was Vietnamese, Philippine and Malaysian officials who voiced their concerns to the U.S. about China's aggressiveness in the area. At least a dozen Asian countries pushed at the ASEAN meeting in Hanoi for a dispute mechanism to be established, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported. Beijing was alarmed by the emerging alignment of ASEAN and the U.S. It does not want to “internationalize” disputes, wanting instead to bully each neighboring country “bilaterally.” China is triggering a classical balance of power response.

As Clinton said, America has "a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea.” And U.S. policy has always been to use its sea power to challenge any state that tried to close down international waters.

The question is whether President Obama will back his Secretary of State. In “support” of South Korea, joint US-ROK naval exercises were confined to the Sea of Japan. Beijing protested any U.S. maneuvers in the Yellow Sea, claiming these international waters are really just a Chinese territorial sea too. So Washington decided not to sail any of its warships off the coast of its Korean ally! Will Obama dare send a carrier group through the South China Sea? A balance of power alignment will fall apart if there is not some real power behind it.

......the United States were to declare, by Act of Congress signed into law by the President, the Pacific Ocean to be renamed as the United States Western Ocean? Moreover, the United States Western Ocean to Include Taiwan?

Would you accept that unilateral action of political jurisdiction? Would you defend it? Would you advocate its correctness on the basis of its new name? Would you insist that because the ocean has the name United States to it, the United States would have free reign and control over it? I strongly suspect not. In fact, if the United States were to self-assign its name to a body of water at its shores, you would be hopping up and down, flapping your arms in full-throated indignance - and rightly so.

The South Koreans call the Sea of Japan the East Sea - chew on that on for a while as East Sea sounds much better to me too. Does the English Channel belong to England?

Note also that there in fact and reality isn't any body of water bearing the name of the United States. The southern border of the US is at the Gulf of Mexico. So should Mexico reign supreme over that body of water?

Of the five great lakes of North America at the US-Canadian border, two bear names from Native American culture - Huron and Erie - while two bear the name of either a US state, Michigan, or the name of a Canadian province, Ontario (each also being a Native American name). The largest lake is simply named Superior.

When we look at the misnamed and misclaimed South China Sea, we see that any 200 mile territorial limit by each of the rim countries that border it, whether presently asserted by sovereign law or not, would place disputed islands and pools of natural resources more equitably among the SE ASian nations that share the basin.

The fascist claim by the PRC of ownership of the misnamed South China Sea would literally extend the territorial jurisdiction of the CPC/PRC to the shores of the Phillipines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia. I say, practically to the shores of these sovereign nation states.

The body of water is rightfully the South East Asia Sea. It rightfully should not bear the name of any single nation that shares it. The more the CPC/PRC bullies ASEAN in this matter, the more ASEAN fears this giant and forcefully grabby bully to its North, and rightfully so.

What PRC is now seen in Sth East Asia is a BIG (and dangerous) BULLY. If the world turned a blind eye to the PRC deeds in the region then the free world is just as guilty as they are. The Sea (whatever name you give to it) that borders the SE Asian countries belongs to those bordering countries, it's NOT PRC's (so can't agree with AL200's terms 'their damn waters'). Every country that has a coast line has the right to their territorial waters. The question is why now suddenly PRC is claiming that sea as theirs? OIL is the answer, and along with it, strategic suppremacy over the Pacific, that's quite worth doing some aggressions, wouldn't you say? To all those who condamn the BIG BULLY and defend the smaller guys, PLEASE sign the NguyenThaiHocFoundation petition. I know it's only symbolic to ask for a name change but it's the most peaceful way to tell PRC that the world is watching and they cannot unilaterally rule the waves in Asia and stealthfully exert their imperialistic ambitions.
Totally agree with Norboose, What is Peace without Freedom? For those of us who enjoy this Freedom, it's sad to see how some abuse it, turn against this very precious birthright, and deny this right to others, by supporting the brutal tolitarian regimes of this world.

This is spam, alerting any monitors

let's not forget Japan. With China becoming more active than before in the adjacent East China Sea, especially around the Senkaku Islands -- known in China as the Diaoyutai -- friction between Japan and China over maritime interests in the waters will intensify in the future too. MarkHamlet

The leaders of both the US and China are aware that both their countries would be destroyed, and that themselves, the leaders, would almost certainly perish along with their power, wealth, status, loved ones, and anything they may be emotionally attached to. Both nations posess civilization-ending arsenals. They would never intentionally decide to wage war on each other, although there is always the possibility of irrational actions taken during a crisis. Much more likely is a more subtle version of the cold war, based on strategic manuevering, and the only direct actions being taken by proxy forces, intelligence agents, and occasionally special forces military units.

That's hardly a problem. The only thing that China exports that is critical to the US and that can't be manufactured in the US or a more friendly nation are the rare earth metals - and even those can be had just be opening up some old mines. Also, if you get into a war with a country that you owe money to - that isn't your problem, it's the other country's problem.

China's leaders probably aren't foolish enough to ever let things come to blows (althogh they might not always be that wise) but they will push and prod for every advantage and attempt to systematically advance more and more unrealistic 'claims' in the region. From the US perspective, the trick is to try to keep up a consistent position and not be browbeat into agreeing to more bad precedents in exchange for appease the panda. That policy clearly doesn't work.

This from the BBC yesterday:

US and Vietnam stage joint naval activities

The training marks 15 years of normalised relations between the US and Vietnam The US and Vietnam are conducting joint naval exercises in the South China Sea, a sign of increasing military ties between the two former enemies.

The week-long activities focus mainly on non-combatant exercises and are part of the 15th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Washington and Hanoi.

But correspondents say they could anger China, which has been in a dispute with Vietnam over islands in the area.

Tensions over territories in the South China Sea have increased recently.

The US has described the exercises as a "series of naval engagement activities" which focus mainly on damage control and search and rescue.

The US Navy on Sunday hosted Vietnamese military and government officials on the USS George Washington, which is on its way back from naval exercises with South Korea in the Sea of Japan.

China air force drills under way
Vietnam puts Paracel row on summit agenda

The US Navy's strike group of three destroyers are also in the South China Sea, while the USS John S McCain is due to call at the Vietnamese port of Danang later on Tuesday.

'Belong to nobody'

Nga Pham of the BBC's Vietnamese service says the training shows a remarkable warming of the relationship between the US and Vietnam.

It also shows Washington's determination to defend free navigation in the area contested by a number of south-east Asian countries and China, our correspondent adds.

The US has increased its presence in the region in recent months as part of a show of support for South Korea against North Korea, which has been blamed for the sinking of the South Korean vessel Cheonan in March.

Capt David Lausman, commanding officer of the George Washington, said on Sunday that the waters "belong to nobody, yet belong to everybody".

"China has a right to operate here, as do we and as do every other country of the world," he added.

Last week, the Vietnamese foreign ministry said that Chinese ships which were carrying out seismic studies in the Paracels zone - a disputed area - had breached Vietnam's sovereignty.

Beijing has always protested against the involvement of any other parties in the South China Sea dispute, saying it was a matter for "bilateral negotiation".

China Beauty, your vague and rambling unsupported statements above offer us nothing specific we can use to know and understand your view or position.

You offer no specifics, dates, names, occasions, incidents etc. You simply pronounce arbitrarily and summarily that the misnomer "South China Sea" is a legitimate ancient name despite protestations and specific, particular arguments by the initiative to change the name of the body of water in question to the Southeast Asia Sea. Indeed, your empty pronouncements and assertions to the contrary, there exist modern, legitimate and historical reasons that the sea in question properly and accurately needs to be renamed the Southeast Asia Sea.

If your reference, or if one of your vague unstated references is to the voyages of the unich Admiral Zheng He, the guy made some forays out to deep waters but made no claims of lands or bodies of water as belonging to the Middle Kingdom. Even if Zheng He had made such claims, the new emperor burned his fleet and never again did the Jung Gwo sail the blue deepwater sea to continue their contact with bodies of water or lands on which Adm He traveled or on which he set foot. The Jung Gwo simply abandoned their one time aberration of deep water expeditions and explorations. If you are claiming any ownership by the Middle Kingdom of bodies or water or lands experienced by Zheng He, due to the legal principle of abandonment - long term abandonment indeed - you in your claims have no sea or land legs to stand on.

But you are so vague, scolding, denouncing, in the air and on high without concrete specifics, that it is impossible to know the assertions you make. I guess if I were in your position, i.e., nothing to support my claims, I'd be strongly scolding and denigrating towards those who rightfully and with strong specific arguments effectively make their case against you.

Your post reminds one of the old saying among lawyers: "If you have the facts, pound on the facts. If you don't have the facts, pound on the table."

Your post reminds one of the old saying among lawyers: "If you have the facts, pound on the facts. If you don't have the facts, pound on the table."

- ha, when you mentioned the word "lawyer" to reason your point against mine, which will only build more of my or our trustlessness on you, and your folks like. It also has reminded me of, a lawyering business is just: 500,000 suits a week in the US, and continually explode. America's corrupted litigation system, handled by a mass of scheming lawyering personnel, has been labeled as a massive lucrative "unscrupulous" business, now you used term "fact(s)" from your lawyer friend to lecture me? The US has far lost its credibilities domestically and globally. I have no trust of so-called "facts" handed by you, or some American "lawyers". Not anymore. When you said "fact(s)", it's the "fact" perceived by you, not by it's truly factual fact(s).

The People's Republic of China needs some actual lawyers and absolutely needs the rule of law.

You sound like a Republican Party complainer in the US. So the US Chamber of Commerce supports the Republican Party and the various organizations of lawyers of the US support the Democratic Party. It's called realpolitik in domestic politics.

Fact is, the American Bar Association issues fair, balanced and respected evaluations of nominees by any president to the federal judiciary, to include especially the US Supreme Court.

That's far better than the fascist Communist Party of China can do.

If you can't write decent english then please restrain from posting your bias comments which could be turned rightly against PRC. Rightly, it's OIL the reason for PRC's agressions on its neighbours. It's WATER the reason for its occupying Tibet to build dams on the Mekong which runs through 5 other countries, destabilising the whole eco-system. Who is the greedy party then? China Beauty or China Booty (booty=spoils of war, valuable items stolen by an army at war or by thieves. Cambridge International English dictionary) ?

CONTACT:

Nguyen Thai Hoc Foundation

P.O. Box 60006

Irvine, CA 92602 USA

The CPC/PRC is assigning mainland Party members dutifully to Panama to open small businesses subsidized by Beijing in order to populate and influence the place; Beijing is working unceasingly to try to surround the Panama Canal with as much PRC presence and significant influence as it can. This unite and conquer strategy which includes Cuba, Venezuela, Peru and others is the clandestine effort of the CPC/PRC to gain an indirect control over this vital waterway that connects the two major oceans.

However, Colombia remains a stout buffer between countries such as Venezuela, there is a lot of Carribean Sea between Cuba and Panama, and most countries of the Isthmus of Central America continue to recognize Taiwan/Taipei as the legitimate government of Sun Yat Sen's first and original Republic of China. Let's hope the klutzes in Beijing don't cause another 1962 Cuban-Soviet style global nuclear hair trigger.

The perceived "unstoppable development" of the PRC haha - a new "wave of the future" delusion of CPC/PRC huggers - will be halted for many reasons, a central one being that 50% of the PRC population of 1 400 000 000 lives on USD $2 a day or less. No government can sustain such a chasm of income disparity. That'ws 800 000 000 PRChinese. Not a chance such selective growth of the PRC economy is sustainable. No possibility.

The nature of income disparity in the PRC is an obviously and radically different income disparity compared or contrasted to those of the advanced or developed economies, where the disparity is measured in whether a family has one car or three, a summer home in the mountains or only a swimming pool in the back yard. In the PRC income disparity, measured by the Gini coefficient, looks at whether the table in an apartment in the sky in Shenzhen has a tablecloth and lots of food or whether the 800 000 000 dirt poor peasants of the countryside have one or two small bowls of rice a day. CpC/PRC huggers universally fail to conceive of this fact and reality.

The income disparity in the PRC is unsustainable. Rural students, for example, cannot gain access to the best universities of the mainland so are being left further behind the development of the increasing number of PRChines who live on the better side of the tracks.

The Communist Party of China indoctrinates its population to hate India, which goes well beyond the Dali Lama (an agreed absurdity one can agree). There are border issues between India and the PRC and other sundry matters, but the CPC bellows to its population that because of the huge population of China, it cannot have democracy. The CPC absolute position is that only the CPC can rule China. Yet India with a population that also exceeds 1 000 000 000 has had a viable democracy for longer than the People's Republic of China has existed.

Agreed, the PRC should learn the lesson of the Cold War Era and give it up now, from its claims over the misnomer "South China Sea" to its 5000 year old totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and history of utter disregard of its have nots (not to mention is contempt of them).