Is Scarborough Shoal Worth a War?

Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan

Is Scarborough Shoal Worth a War?

If China begins to reclaim and militarize Scarborough Shoal, says Philippines President Benigno S. Aquino III, America must fight.

Should we back down, says Aquino, the United States will lose “its moral ascendancy, and also the confidence of one of its allies.”

And what is Scarborough Shoal?

A cluster of rocks and reefs, 123 miles west of Subic Bay, that sits astride the passageway out of the South China Sea into the Pacific, and is well within Manila’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

Beijing and Manila both claim Scarborough Shoal. But, in June 2013, Chinese ships swarmed and chased off a fleet of Filipino fishing boats and naval vessels. The Filipinos never came back.

And now that China has converted Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef into artificial islands with docks and air bases, Beijing seems about to do the same with Scarborough Shoal.

“Scarborough is a red line,” says Gregory Poling of the Center for Strategic and International studies. To allow China to occupy and militarize the reef “would clearly change the balance of power.”

Really? But before concluding that we must fight to keep China from turning Scarborough Shoal into an island base, there are other considerations.

High among them is that the incoming president of the Philippines, starting June 30, is Rodrigo Duterte, no admirer of America, and a populist authoritarian thug who, as Mayor of Davao, presided over the extrajudicial killing of some 1,000 criminals during the 1990s.

Duterte, who has charged Aquino with treason for abandoning Scarborough Shoal, once offered to set aside his country’s claim in exchange for a Chinese-built railroad, then said he might take a jet ski to the reef to assert Manila’s rights, plant a flag and let himself be executed to become a national hero.

In a clash with China, this character would be our ally.

Indeed, the rise of Duterte is yet another argument that, when Manila booted us out of Subic Bay at the Cold War’s end, we should have dissolved our mutual security pact.

This June, an international arbitration tribunal in The Hague will rule on Manila’s claims and China’s transgressions on reefs that may not belong to her. Beijing has indicated she will not accept any such decision.

So, the fat is in the fire. And as the Chinese are adamant about their claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands and virtually all the atolls, rocks and reefs in the South China Sea, and are reinforcing their claims by creating artificial islands and bases, the U.S. and China are headed for a collision.

U.S. warships and reconnaissance planes passing near these islets have been repeatedly harassed by Chinese warplanes.

Vietnam, too, has a quarrel with China over the Paracels, which is why President Obama is being feted in Hanoi and why he lifted the ban on arms sales. There is now talk of the Navy’s return to Cam Ranh Bay.

But before we agree to support the claims of Manila and Hanoi against China’s claims, and agree to use U.S. air and naval power if needed, we need to ask some hard questions.

What vital interest of ours is imperiled by who owns, or occupies, or militarizes Scarborough Shoal? If U.S. rights of passage in the South China Sea are not impeded by Chinese planes or ships, why make Hanoi’s quarrels and Manila’s quarrels with China our quarrels?

Vietnam and the Philippines are inviting us back to our old Cold War bases for a simple reason. If the Chinese use force to back up their claims, Hanoi and Manila want us to fight China for them.

But, other than a major war, what would be in it for us?

And if, after such a war, we have driven the Chinese off these islets and destroyed those bases, how long would we be required to defend them for Hanoi and Manila?

Have we not enough war guarantees outstanding?

We are moving NATO and U.S. troops into Eastern Europe and anti-missile missiles into Poland and Romania, antagonizing Russia. We are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, and, if the neocons get their way, we will soon be confronting Iran again.

Meanwhile, North Korea is testing nuclear warheads for long-range missiles that can reach the American homeland.

And no vital U.S. interest of ours is imperiled in the South China Sea.

Should Beijing insanely decide to disrupt commercial traffic in that sea, the response is not to send a U.S. carrier strike group to blast their artificial islands off the map.

Better that we impose a 10 percent tariff on Chinese-made goods, and threaten an embargo of all Chinese goods if they do not stand down. And call on our “allies” to join us in sanctions against China, rather than sit and hold our coat while we fight their wars.

This economic action would send China’s economy into a tailspin, and the cost to Americans would not be reckoned in the lives of our best and bravest.

Loading…

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Ed
Ed

Another Buchanan punitive tariff plan. That’s the love of his life, apparently.

YODA_bite me (you know who)
YODA_bite me (you know who)

“If U.S. rights of passage in the South China Sea are not impeded by Chinese planes or ships,”

But those ‘rights’ will be impeded and do justify action.

OTOH, the U.S. has been acting as the world’s dictator to obtain complete hegemony. Russia and China are the only two countries that thwart their plan. Who knows how far they will go.

overthecliff

If Mexico continues to violate the borders of the USA, the Phillipines must fight????? Benigno Aquino, speak for yourself and fight your own battles! ASSHOLE!

artbyjoe
artbyjoe

bring the troops home–alive

MuckAbout

Go ahead and kiss a bullys’ ass and see what it gets you…

MA

BUCKHED
BUCKHED

Ed..can you de-bunk Pat B’s points of tariffs in his 5/19/2016 editorial ? If so I’d like to see it printed here .

Capn Mike
Capn Mike

No need for tariffs. If China blocked passage, they would just be shooting themselves in the foot. They REQUIRE free passage there for their own economy. Doesn’t ANYONE in authority think?? And yeah I do know the answer.

Suzanna
Suzanna

@overthecliff

Brilliant!!

Uncle Charley

The “Chinese Miracle” will soon collapse back into the peasantry it came from. The Commie government will then have it’s hands full keeping their heads attached to their necks. End of the problems in the south china sea.

Ed
Ed

Buckhed, the only debunking necessary is to point out to Pat that America’s manufacturing is done in China now. Imposing a punitive tariff or barring importation of Chinese made goods will hurt American corporations and wouldn’t add to China’s problems significantly, since much of Europe’s manufacturing is also done there.

Anyway, nothing needs to be done about China’s actions in that part of the world. I agree with Pat about that, but not about tariffs.

Pat calls for tariffs routinely. It’s his solution to everything. I don’t try to understand it, because it’s a republican thing and normal people can’t understand it. I’m just glad he stopped running for president. It had already stopped being funny and had become pitiful.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading