America in Asia

On the rocks, again

Barack Obama courts a region at odds over the South China Sea

See article

Readers' comments



Any one who get involved with US should remember that they are not vital interests for US. They can be sacrificed at any moment. When that happens, it will not be pretty.
Anyone still remember Agent Orange which leave 500,000 children born with birth defects.
Another victim of Agent Orange is former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko. Just look at his horribly disfigured face to see what US has done to Vietnamese.

tell truth

Actually Chinese does has huge control of most southeast Asian countries' economy. It is almost impossible for American to win there if china can maintain its economical growth as last decade.
I like to advice American it is time for you to rest and do some thing at home.

ThuPham in reply to tell truth

You should understand that this is no longer just a regional matter. This would have direct affects on the whole world.
Just imagine the ambitious China getting more and more powerful, it would no doubt aim for dominating the world.
I would also like to say that it's time for us to unite, not to sit around at home and act as if it's none of your business!



This Lady in Myanmar is the type who can destroy easily, will she be capable of constructing? drifting appart from China is not good for the international order.

Reform, sadly means dectruction of former leaders work. Specially regarding new political figures who always blame a foreign power and never take responsibility, blaming those who at least tried knowing their place and strived and constructed something.


I don't understand why USA want to join the conflict of South China Sea? Didn't they realize that China consider the Sea as its core interest?And do they really want to combat with China? Unbelievable! Maybe USA and India just don't want China become the boss of the south-east Asia. As the growing of China, it has a huge influence on south-east in many fields such as economy, military and culture.By the way, there are also many Chinese there.
So USA should go back and there is none of your business!

ADMIRALDRAGON in reply to lord_war_world

Would you rather prefer a huge Chinese Communist influence in SEA or a huge Democratic Chinese influence that we have now in SEA, which is in a democratic form and at peace in this region ? The Chinese should emulate the Indian influence through peaceful means in this region, from the 5th century till today's modern times.


If the statement, "America says it is neutral as the disputed islands and shoals.", is true? It would confirm again to the world our president votes "present".


Philippines and Vietnam should learn from India - keep the outsiders out of the regional dispute.

Best wishes

Kishore Nair from Mumbai

ThuPham in reply to soffina

Vietnam is different from India. We are still a small country. We need support from the world, from the America to make this even. Otherwise this would not be an even match since China is being such a big bully!
When there is a fight broke out between 2 parties, there should be at least a third party to act as a referee, that's why we expect this to be a multilateral negotiation! DO YOU GET IT?

hEWqvnmqks in reply to ThuPham

Imagine when one day Vietnam and China really start to fight, will America help Vietnam to fight against China? How large its economic interest in China is! To America, Vietnam is just a tool temporarily.

Michael Dunne in reply to ThuPham

Beyond diplomatic support I wouldn't expect much. I don't think there is much support for providing military guarantees or any other form of military backing for Vietnam by the US public, with the exception of maybe arms sales.

The Philippines is a different matter though - there is an alliance of 60 plus years and a joint emotional heritage(former US colony, fought together in WWII, etc.)

Maitreya Bhakal

The United States is terribly pleased. The South China Sea circus offers excellent fodder to interfere in Asia and stir up trouble. Possibly the only party that is more pleased than the US government is The Economist, which has more than once argued for more American intervention and war-mongering efforts across the globe, whether it is the Middle East or the Asia Pacific.
The maritime disputes between China and its neighbours are a boon to the US, a warmongering nation that is more than happy to poke its nose in other countries' businesses. As for The Economist, it has been clear for quite some time now that its journalists can't really fathom (article) the complicated South China Sea disputes, despite their best efforts (article). Much easier just to prostitute your opinion to America and portray China as the bad guy.
This article also suffers from confirmation bias: considering only the evidence that supports the author's point of view and disregarding the rest. For example, it states that "The Philippines and Vietnam, however, want multilateral negotiations, involving ASEAN, to agree on a long-promised code of conduct in the sea to reduce the risk of conflict" but does not mention that in 2003, China became the first non-ASEAN country to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, signaling its nominal acceptance of ASEAN’s security norm of peaceful settlement of disputes.
The United States of America, the responsible superpower, has been engaged in more military conflicts around this world than any other nation in modern times. Since the Second World War, the US has:
5. Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
Surely, with such as track record, even someone with even a semblance of an inclination towards peace would take America's overtures with skepticism? But not The Economist, no Sir - for this newspaper, America's word is sacrosanct, it is the paragon of peace - the ideal embodiment for spreading goodwill across the world.
It is indeed rather interesting that this newspaper has never, ever - without exception - actually questioned America's stance. Words such as "assertive", "belligerent", pandering to "nationalism", "chest-thumping" etc. are used about China, but no such language is used against the US, a country that is interfering in disputes on the other side of the globe, not to mention not having ratified the UNCLOS yet. America's interference is treated almost as something biblical - a fait accompli and something benevolent that shouldn't ever be questioned. It is no coincidence that wherever the US goes, death and destruction follows. And China is certainly not going to tolerate the US fostering enmity and muddying waters in its backyard. In fact, China is very much the opposite of the US, and its stance is clearly seen in the way it has settled its land border disputes (article) with neighbouring countries. China's behavior in its territorial disputes bears directly to the future of stability in Asia, which is in stark contrast to America's attitude: establishing military bases and military alliances around the region and encircling China.
- Maitreya

Alex DeLarge in reply to Maitreya Bhakal

You have made some interesting points...Iraq was a disaster for sure. But would you repeat your comments if China decided to invade across India's North Eastern border?. Again?.

If that happened, I have no doubt that the US would help their most important regional ally. And boy, would India need it.

It is not the US claiming the entire South China Sea (nine-dash line) or sailing warships through Japan's territorial waters.

The subject of this article is the acrimony at the ASEAN summit resulting from Cambodia refusing to allow discussion of a binding code of conduct in the South China Sea.

You have re-directed the discussion to other alleged issues with US foreign policy (and with The Economist's supposed impartiality), which are valid topics for discussion, but which are not relevant to this article. You are off-topic.

The world's working poor love America. Most people in the world who know a small part about America want to be here. Granted Americans have turned away from our Constitution since just before the ink dried. But.... I'll bet most people would prefer to greet an American Marine than Communist China. Painting America in a poor light and telling us China is the friend is a bit of a story.

You're confusing belief and knowledge: "many people *believe* the US finances media like the BBC". Me, I *know* that the only Americans financing the BBC are those resident in the UK, paying the licence fee like the other 25 million households here.

finally,someone speak for china,i do appreciate that and i am always wondering why so many people hold hostility towards china,i just can not understand after the great suffering we chinese indured in the second world war and the seperation with our own flesh and blood taiwanese we are suffering now,why you foreigners can not show a little sympathy to the most sympathetic nation in the world?and, by the way, who in the hell cause the seperation ?you westners make taiwan seperate from the mainland and india seperate from parkistan and south korea from north korea and so on.i am not saying who is right and who is wrong i am jusT trying to say why don'T you westers let the asians do their OWN business?

Michael Dunne in reply to Sybil downtown

Taiwan is seperate because the KMT lost the civil war, retreated to that island and didn't want to surrender to the CCP.

The Muslim League in British India was a leading proponent of partition and creation of Pakistan. Intercommunal fighting further influenced the British to adopt that approach.

Korea was split between the Soviets and the US at the end of WWII. Maybe a matter of geographical/cultural perspective, but the Soviets were not considered western. Lucky for the south, the US prevented them from falling under the Communist regime of the Kims. Now maybe you feel North Korea is a wonderful place, but many would disagree.

ADMIRALDRAGON in reply to Maitreya Bhakal

You sound more of being in a 'guangxi' entrapment fix with the Communist ! I can vouch that the greatest murderer was Chairman Mao ! It has been repeated in Tiananmen Square, Tibet and Xinjiang. It can happen again with the Merciless, Unforgiving Communist Chinese, with their carnage anywhere. Even in your hometown in India ! So speaketh the truth, nothing but the very truth please ! Today the dumb Communist Chinese even depict murderous Mao's image on their Yuan currency notes. Would you also fancy the American Dollars and the Indian Rupee to carry the image of the Murderous Chairman Mao, rather than the Peace Loving Gandhi ?

Gordon L

The more aggressive China is in pressing its claims in the South China Sea (and elsewhere), the more relevant and useful to everyone else a disinterested powerbroker such as the US must appear.

China then will need to make a choice and the Chinese so far don't seem to like choices.

No Mist

A timely dispute, if only to highlight the need for rest of the world to be aware of a determined approach while dealing with China. The ASEAN countries would be well advised to steadfastly stick to their demand for a multilateral negotiation. If China is allowed it's way of choosing it's enemy one at a time, all the birds would be killed eventually.

One look at the map of South China Sea will convince anybody that it is unresolvable by any amount of force. Whoever tries to force anything will only see the situation flare up even more five years later. The only one who does not seem to understand this is China. US must be rubbing it's hand with glee at such a godsend dispute.

Alex DeLarge in reply to No Mist

Why? The last thing the US public wants is yet another war. Unfortunately China seems to think that the US doesn't have the stomach for it, but Americans are a war-like people..they are Anglo-Saxons, after all.

No Mist in reply to Alex DeLarge

>{The last thing the US public wants is yet another war.}

I don't think you got me right. The confrontation need not flare up into a war ... in fact, almost it will never be. Whatever differences US may have with China, it is peanuts compared with what they had vis-a-vis Soviet Union. And that cold war never hotted up.

This one is primarily an economic rivalry. US is doomed to lose this war (so to speak) if it fights alone. Just the sheer size of China would ensure that. So it needs actors who have ongoing confrontation with China which may even threaten to escalate into violence. Having such actors into it's fold would make sure that China is always preoccupied with some nagging concern in it's own backyard. Meanwhile US would pump up the rivalry full throttle.

But only having small fries would never ensure a comprehensive victory. It also needs someone with the heft to make China shake. That is why US is snuggling upto India. Though India rarely throws it's weight around being the slumbering elephant (or buffalo) that it is, it alone has the economic heft, enormous soft power and steadily increasing hard power to be a long term rival of China. US is not foolish to skip this chance to keep India as it's permanent dear friend. And it is quite easy to befriend Indians ... a few well timed praises of India/cuisine/music/Bollywood generally seduces Indians like nothing else.

Alex DeLarge in reply to No Mist

"US is doomed to lose this war (so to speak) if it fights alone"

That's what Japan thought when they attacked Pearl Harbour. They thought Britain was pre-occupied with the Germans and that US naval power could be destroyed by a surprise attack.

The real problem in the South China Sea is that China may be laboring under the delusion that the US is tired of foreign wars and will not honor treaty obligations to Japan and the Philippines.

My point is that, yes, Americans are tired of POINTLESS wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. China would be a whole different ball game.

Your analysis is false. Those South east Asian countries see the US as a hedge against China. If they are smart, they would play both sides, since they only benefits them. If one side becomes too strong, they will side with the other. The Philippines, and Vietnam are the exception rather than the rule.
Secondly, China, and India are not the same. Chinese are natural capitalist, genetically superior, hard working, and have superior culture. All the east Asian countries are developed because they are Chinese. Indians got Hong Kong, and Singapore, and not the other way around. It is not true that Indians are the same as Chinese.
Thirdly, China 's economy will continue to grow, and with it, leverage in economics, and military. China will out spend all the countries in the military spending, and more. China can destroy economies by denying access. A hegemon is only a hegemon if it is powerful, and China is powerful.
My advice is incorporate China into a larger role in the world, or else, be prepare for a not so liberal China.

Interesting chauvinism and exaggerated views of China.

This comes off as sounding like outright racism: "Chinese are natural capitalist, genetically superior, hard working, and have superior culture"

And what study can you cite that judged the Chinese genetically superior to Indians or anyone else?

Alex DeLarge in reply to Michael Dunne

Not so strange when you consider that the media in sinic countries (with the possible exception of HK and Taiwan) are owned by the government, in whose interests it is to promulgate genetic superiority myths.

This brings me back to the startling similarities between contemporary SEAsia and Europe in the 1930's.

That is to say, the US confronting a regime which promotes genetic superiority myths to excuse territoral expansion.

A worrying situation.

Curate's Egg

It's telling that China, instead of sending Hu Jintao, China's paramount leader, sent Wen Jiabao, his deputy, again. Wen Jiabao is usually Hu's replacement when China has a three-way summit with Korea and Japan as well.

It is difficult to tell what China is trying to do here. A charitable explanation would assume that China is trying to make its presidency a more ceremonial one, and push more political powers to the premier. But this reading would be extremely generous to China. Perhaps China does not think that no country other than the one more powerful than it (i.e. America) is worth the time of its topmost leader.

Before you think like this, make sure that you know something about Chinese politics.
First, the ruling body in China is not one person (maybe in the old days of Mao or Deng, yes), but 9 and soon 7 member body called politburo standing committee.
Second, the internal affairs are always the most important to China.

3F2nd7FXGY in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

I bet you have never been China. Chinese premier is in charge of both internal and foreign affairs, not as a depute of the president. Chinese president are really ceremonial when it comes to conferences or summits reguarding the substantial Chinese interests.


Anyone who has seen China's infantile 'map' of the South China Sea has to agree that unilateral negotiation must be the way ahead. Otherwise it's divide and conquer.

Jean Michel in reply to macbuff

Do you prefer the 'map' where instead of South China Sea, Hillary Clinton Sea is written? After all, she claims to have discovered this sea...on the map. Would that be less...'infantile'?

Will J in reply to Unbiased Truthspeaker

Anyone who has seen the Chinese's infantile 'map' of Taiwan, Tibet and Xinzhuang has to agree that they need to be sent back to their homelands. Otherwise it's continued genocide for their native people's.
Just to sink to your level, obviously

bosendorfergrand in reply to macbuff

Bilateral means there are two sides to the negotiating process. Multilateral means many sides. Unilateral can only mean that there is only one party negotiating. So I think the correct term must be multilateral.

Shang Dynasty

It's not far away from the war if the place where the United States of America frequently appear. I think no one want a war in Asia except America.As an asian, I sincerely hope that we solve our problems by ourselves.

Jean Michel in reply to Shang Dynasty

The Asian countries must, at some point or another preferably as soon as possible, pass a resolution to request the US of America to pivot away from Asia because, as you say, where the US of America appears, war, invasion, bombing, killing and torturing are not far away.

Hibro in reply to Shang Dynasty



adistantview in reply to Jean Michel

so it has absolutely NOTHING to do with China's military build up and pushing around of all its maritime neighbours ?

After its last few shambolic attempts, I feel confident to say that the US is not angling for a fight.

HAHA China pushing around its neighbors? China has resolved almost all of its territorial disputes by making unilateral concessions and then closing the book. It's the Philippines and Vietnam who, emboldened by their American 'friends' (that killed 2-3 million civilians in each nation in the past), have suddenly decided to pick a fight with China - AND Taiwan.

Taiwan is conspicuously absent - as are Vietnam's bloody disputes with the Philippines. Perhaps Cambodia, being a lifelong victim of Vietnamese 'peacefulness', are wary of her preposterous, revisionist claims.

I think one must not forget the catch that if US has not backed ASEAN and Japan, there are no not enough hard power for ASEAN and Japan to stand against PRC - economically and militarily.

Both Beijing and Washington have been playing the Speaking Softly, and Carry a Big Stick talk: PRC "peaceful rise", reaffimration of Japan-US security pack, and Obama visits to SE Asia...

I myself really hope things can resolve peacefully. Yes, US is gaming with PRC, but the game may actually be neccessary to find a solution. If there is one thing, I just wish the right wings nuts in PRC and Japan would just shut up, and do more fix wealth gaps in China and the two lost decades of Japan.

ADMIRALDRAGON in reply to Shang Dynasty

One cannot solve problems with the Communist Mind without the Free Minded Countries around ! Would you want a thief walking into your house, without any policemen around who practices true law and order ? Think about it !

Alex DeLarge

Why does this remind me of Europe in the 1930's? Two great powers, China and the US, facing off just like Germany and Britain did.

Unfortunately it's the countries in between that get squashed.

Michael Dunne in reply to Alex DeLarge

Actually the 1930s largely comprised of Germany raising tensions, picking fights and posturing while Britain stuck with a line of appeasement (until March of 1939).

Think abrogation of the Versailles treaty, support for Franco in Spain, annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland, the final extinguishing of Czechoslovakia, etc.

Many people at the time thought the facing off was going to be between Germany and the Soviets, a view that got trumped by the pact between the two totalitarian powers in 1939.

As for now, seems the Chinese have a ways to go with developing a navy, so don't think they will act too impulsively any time too soon. Unless they want to try horizontal escalation, and get North Korea to do something crazy.

Jean Michel

The USA looks like a fish out of water. It is the odd one in the group. Why does it not pivot away from Asia?

Michael Dunne in reply to Jean Michel

The US has a 61 year alliance with the Philippines. Also has alliances dating back to the 1950s with Japan, S. Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
And some military ties have been strengthened with Thailand, another longtime ally of the US.
The US also has defense agreements with Singapore.
It appears the US has quite a few friends in Asia (and I didn't even mention Taiwan), and doesn't seem like the odd one in the group at all, even if one wants to overlook geographic realities, like the US being a Pacific country.
Funny, people knock US students for being horrible at geography and then overlook or dance around some basic facts on the ground.

Naughty Bits in reply to Michael Dunne

The US is trying to be something it's not. It is the odd man out, a wolf in sheep's clothing, trying to pass of as something else.

France and Germany are European powers; the US is not. China and Japan are Asian powers; the US is not. Saudi Arabia and Iran are Middle Eastern powers; the US is not.

Yet in each case, the US tries to inject itself into the situation. It doesn't "belong" in each grouping, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

The US has a confused identity. It doesn't exist in either geographies of interest; it lies alone separated by two oceans.
It is quite ironic that it also has a president that has a "confused" identity.

Michael Dunne in reply to Naughty Bits

The US is a Pacific power and an Atlantic power. To deny that is to deny reality. No amount of pop psychology statements is going to obscure those facts either.

And by the way, whenever the European powers get in difficulties, they seem to drag the US into their messes, like cleaning up the Balkans in the 1990s.

Nevermind the US took the lead in helping Germnay get reunited, or earlier, it was the US policies of containment that helped enable Western Europe get back on its feet again. So, a little more than just "injecting oneself" into a region unfolded for the past 70 years.

Naughty Bits in reply to Michael Dunne

I didn't say that the US didn't or couldn't play a role in a certain part of the world, but it should also realize its complicated geography (some see it as a physical barrier yet others see it as a advantage to "play both fields").

The US certainly helped rebuild Germany (as with Japan) but like everything, there's two sides to the same coin. It helped because it "cared" but it was also beneficial, both diplomatically and economically, to see a strong and united Germany (currently the powerhouse of Europe) and a vibrant and peaceful Japan (although currently going through a doldrums).

ADMIRALDRAGON in reply to Jean Michel

Just don't be stupid ! How can Democratic USA be odd ? When Democratic India, since the fifth century till today has got much influence culturally in South East Asia, and free sailing of it's seas. In similarity to it's Indian Ocean freedom of sail today ! Get your perspective right please ! It's the damn Communist Chinese who are odd in SEA, and you are odd too !

ADMIRALDRAGON in reply to Jean Michel



I would if given a chance, to select a neutral country, will be
A Norwegian country, NEVER America, because for every where they go,
it means trouble (if not war) brewing or begins......

€pean in reply to LFJ

You mean Norway I assume. China would not listen them, they can piss off Norway and chinese would see none consequences. And many chinese thinks Norway is an american puppet, only because its an occidental country.

While US, first military power and first foreigner trade partner of the majority of these countries has enough power to ask for a fair agreement beetwen China and relativly small ASEAN.

Moreover, even if China doesn't like US, they do respect them (and want to (and will) take their seat).

Anyway, IMO, this summit only show how strong China is becoming and how anxious US are. Nothing will happen, China will not have any rocks, they only want to show who's the master here.

The fair agreement would be for China to expel all invaders from her islands.

However, as Chinese history shows, that's not typically the Chinese way. China has given away land to undeserving nations out of misplaced sympathy. This is something Europeans and their descendents would never do in a million years.

If Vietnam tried to take over Guam you could expect Hanoi to be the next Nagasaki. Both Vietnam and the Philippines are aware of how relatively benign China is as a regional power and are eager to punish Beijing for being too generous.


I can see Obama is very happy with the existence of these disputes.

Nothing says invitation better than the need for a "righteous" third party mediator.

He claims to be neutral but we know who he's NOT backing. Anyone against China can of course only be the "protagonist", right?



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

