（Mr. Mah is a professional investor and author of America and China and the forthcoming America and the World.）

The Asian regional defense ministers’ security conference in Singapore has become the annual ritual for the Americans to criticize China, and the year 2008 is no exception, as U.S. Secretary of Defense, Mr. Robert Gates, issued his thinly disguised threat that China “could risk its share of further gains in Asia’s economic prosperity if it bullied its neighbors over natural resources in the contested area like the South China Sea.”1.

      What Mr. Gates refers to regarding the contested area of the South China Sea is, in reality, over the Spratly Islands, or known as the Nansha Islands in China. Chinese historical record indicates that these islands were discovered by the Chinese people as early as East Han Dynasty (23-220 A.D.), and calls these islands Zhanghai.2. China has exercised sovereignty over Nansha for centuries and, in the aftermath of Second World War, she regained control from Japan as the Japanese Government renounced its “right, title and claim to Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as Nansha and Xisha islands,” thereby returning the Nansha Islands to China. This was accepted by the international community including the United States as well as China’s neighboring countries.

      As a matter of fact, on September 6, 1958, the Chinese government declared that China’s territorial sea included all islands of the South China Sea, and On September 14 of the same year, the Premier of Vietnam declared in his note to the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai that his government supported and recognized the Chinese declaration.

      The maps and encyclopedias of Japan, Germany, Britain, United States and Soviet Union all recognize that Nansha is a Chinese territory. These include the Penguin World Atlas of Great Britain and the maps and textbooks published by Vietnam in 1960s to 1970s. Moreover, prior to the 1970s, countries like the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam never refer to Nansha and the islands as their territories.

      China’s sovereignty was contested by the countries in Southeast Asia only after the discovery of large reserves of energy. China’s Ministry of Geology and Mineral Resources estimates that the South China Sea has reserves up to 130 billion barrels of oil. 3.  For this reason, the region “has become the focus of intense oil and gas exploration by multinational energy companies in the past year.”4.

      Moreover, military bases were established by several countries in the area, and then it followed with military confrontations. In 1995, there was the Mischief Reef Incident, when the Philippines demanded China withdraw its permanent military installation on the island. Lacking sufficient military strength to challenge China, the Manila government solicited military support from Washington. Washington gave the Philippine government much encouragement by agreeing to provide military assistance in this effort. This marked for the first time that United States intruded into the dispute between Philippines and China. To make the matter worse, the United States protested vigorously to China “for introduction of military forces into the area.”5. As a result, Nansha or Spratly Islands could become a military flashing point, as “a future clash between China and the Philippines could escalate to the point where the United States would become involved.”4.

       The United States has always regarded Philippines not only as a gate way to the Chinese market, but can be used as a base to project its military and economic power throughout the Far East. For this reason, Philippe Island was colonized by the U.S. at the end of 19th century.6.     

        A secret agreement for U.S. geopolitical interests was negotiated between George W. Bush and the President Arroyo of Philippines in 2002. Under this agreement, the Pentagon would increase military assistance by ten-fold to the Philippines in exchange for the opening of the port of Subic Bay to American warships. By April 2002, it was reported that United States was building a military base on Basilan. This was done without public discussion in the Philippines and in contravention of the Filipino constitution, which forbids the deployment of foreign troops in that country.4.

        It is against this background that Mr. Gates issued his veiled threat to China in the Asian regional defense ministers’ security conference in Singapore in 2008. It fits nicely with America’s strategy of engagement and containment with China. This containment strategy once again raised its ugly head on March 3, 2008, when the Pentagon submitted a report to the U.S. Congress by asserting “that China is continuing its steady military buildup,” and accused Beijing for its “reluctance to share information about its military intentions, spending and capabilities which pose a risk to stability.”7. It also raises the concern about China’s space program, in particular, China’s anti-satellite weapon of destroying satellites, which underscores China is expanding “from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.”8.

       But Pentagon’s criticism of the Chinese space programs was soundly rebuffed by two People’s Liberation Army experts who said that it was “Washington’s bid for enduring security domination in outer space” that pressed China “and other powers into competition, even confrontation.”10.

       “Strategic confrontation in outer space is difficult to avoid. The development of outer space forces shows signs that space arms race to seize the commanding heights is emerging,” wrote Wu Tianfu of Second Artillery Corps Command College. The Corps controls China’s nuclear arsenal. “We can say that weaponization of outer space…is already unstoppable.”10.

        Ignoring warnings from China and Russia, the Pentagon went ahead to develop missile defense system to be based both in Far East and Eastern Europe, thereby placing the blame on itself for the unstoppable space arms race.
        Not surprisingly, this unstoppable space arms race has been accelerated under the Bush administration. This was in a large measure due to the powerful lobbying influence of the American military industrial complex in Washington, as arms contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing and Northrop Gumman Corp. are eagerly waiting for the lucrative contracts from the U.S. government.10. 

        Equally not surprising is that Mr. Robert Gates, the current American Defense Secretary, would use the Singapore conference to ratchet up tension among the Asian countries, as tension and confrontation also conform to the interests of the U.S. military contractors who are, in essence, the merchants of deaths. Not withstanding Mr. Gates’s militant tone of lecturing and warnings, he is much more sophisticated and civil than his predecessor, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, who was even more brunt and illogical in his denunciation of China’s military buildup.

        Mr. Rumsfeld in his usual combating tone has always complained that China is “expanding its missile capabilities with the Asian/Pacific region; improving its ability to project power; and developing advanced systems of military technology.”9.

        Unfortunately, both Mr. Gates and Mr. Rumsfeld of the Pentagon, while incessantly bashing China for increase in defense spending, conveniently forget that it is the United States, the “one regime in the world that has gone berserk in expanding missile force, increasing missile capabilities in Asia, projecting military arrogance to every corner of the globe, and developing bizarre systems of demoniac military technology.”9.

         In term of defense spending, the United States is more than next the six highest spending countries in the world combined.11. This was clearly evident with the fiscal 2008 U.S. defense budget, which comes to a grand total of $766.5 billion.12. However, this amount did not include many items that were military in nature, such as the expenditure for the development of the nuclear warheads, the Department of Veteran Affairs, which is responsible for taking care of wounded soldiers returning from the wars, the Homeland Security, the military retirement fund and the $200 billion interest charges. If one includes all these amounts, the “U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year (2008), conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.”12. The defense budget is well over 8 percent of American GDP for 2008, sharply contrasting with China, which is 1.7 percent of China’s GDP.12.

          Consequently, the United States is surrounding China with military bases, and has“hundreds of missiles aimed at China, most with 20-megaton warheads.”10. With thousands of nuclear weapons in their possession, aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarine roaming China’s coastline and the South China Sea, ready to obey orders from the Commander-In-Chief, one would think that the top brass in the Pentagon should feel comfortable with America’s national security. On the contrary, Mr. Gates, just like Mr. Rumsfeld, is constantly whining about China threatening her neighbors and “that China’s is the third largest military budget in the world, and clearly the largest in Asia.”10. 

          This is a puzzling to many innocent people including the ordinary Americans why the people in the Pentagon are always so insecure and clamoring for more defense spending as if America is being threatened everywhere including from China. But if one examines the lobbying influence of the military industrial complex in Washington, it is not difficult to discern that the roots of American militarism are not so much because of imminent or potential threat from any country including China, but rather they derive from the vested interests of the military-industrial complex which seeks to create a ‘war atmosphere’ to justify increasing expenditures.

          The American empire, to which the Pentagon dutifully defends with all military might, just like the ancient Roman Empire, is relying on foreign military bases to maintain its geopolitical interests and hegemony abroad. “The principal method by which Rome established her political supremacy in her world,” wrote historian Arnold Toynbee in his “America and the World Revolution,” is “by taking her weaker neighbors under her wing and protecting them against her and their stronger neighbors…The most that Rome asked of them in terms of territory was the cessation, here and there, of a patch of ground for the plantation of a Roman fortress to provide for the common security of Rome’s allies and Rome herself.”14.

          Similarly, America is constantly looking for military bases in Asia and, having been kicked out of the Clark air base in 1991, once again returns to the Subic Bay with a new secret treaty with the Philippines. Therefore, it is to America’s interests to stir up divisions and animosities between these small Asian states and China, which has peacefully co-existed with her neighbors for millenniums with no military conflict before the Western imperial intrusion into Asia. For this reason, it is a folly for any leader in Asia, in exchange for American military aid, would start conflict with China over resources that are solely for the benefit of American oil giants.  For the same reason, the policy of “shelving disputes and going in for joint development”, as advocated by the Chinese government 2.  for solving the dispute over Nansha is equally faulty, as it fails to recognize the nature of American imperial design behind these qarrels. This policy also weakens China’s claim of sovereignty over the Nansha, since a sovereign nation does not share resources of its territories with another country, especially when that claim is being disputed and challenged by certain quarters of the imperial powers. History in dealing with aggressive imperial power has taught us that any appeasement would inevitably produce more aggression eventually ending in the lost of territory. A case in point is Japan’s conquest of Manchuria and then, subsequently, the invasion of the whole of China.

Notes: