Opinion

US only has itself to blame for dangerous incidents in Taiwan Strait, South China Sea

Military incidents do not stem from misunderstandings and miscommunications, but are rooted in deeper differences regarding the international order and strategic interests

The US may be abusing its rights under international law, creating rights where none exist and flagrantly challenging China’s core interests

4-MIN READ4-MIN

The USS Chung-Hoon observes a Chinese PLA Navy ship conduct what it called an “unsafe” manoeuvre in the Taiwan Strait on June 3, in which the Chinese ship cut sharply across the path of the American destroyer, forcing the US ship to slow to avoid a collision. Photo: AP

Dr Mark J. Valencia is an internationally known maritime policy analyst, political commentator and consultant focused on Asia.

Published: 1:00am, 25 Jun 2023Updated: 9:04am, 25 Jun 2023

A major purpose of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to China was, in his words, to re-establish communications to reduce “misunderstandings and miscommunications”, to prevent or manage incidents between the two militaries. The near collision of Chinese and US warships in the Taiwan Strait earlier this month is a prime example.

However, Blinken did not manage to re-establish the most crucial link – military-to-military communications. Moreover, even if better military-to-military communications are reestablished, dangerous incidents will still occur. This is because they do not stem from misunderstandings and miscommunications, but are rooted in deeper differences regarding the international order and strategic interests.

The two powers are locked in an intensifying struggle for political and military dominance in the region and beyond. The June 3 incident resulted from a clash between the US demonstration of its theoretical right under international law versus China’s perceived right to protect its security.

Put another way, this incident and others like it have resulted from a conflict between the use of a “right” to gain an advantage over a potential enemy versus a country’s right to defend itself.