US Foreign Policy in East Asia, Term Paper Example

Introduction: In recent years and especially since the Obama administration, increased focus has been placed on East Asia and in particular the South China Sea. The United States has determined that an increased presence is required in the area. As media is a primary influencer of public opinion it is important to understand their influence on perceptions of what is occurring. The purpose of this paper is to examine articles and determine how equitable the media coverage is of this situation. The paper’s main focus is the ongoing conflict between territorial claims of China versus other nations in the area, with emphasis on the conflict with The Philippines. Five articles will be reviewed, and my own personal evaluation of the conflict will also be provided.

Article One: An article published in Newsweek that originated with Reuters describes China’s claims that the United States is responsible for the increased tensions within the region by encouraging The Philippines and other rival countries to reject China’s territorial claims. What I found interesting is how various laws instituted by these countries create additional tensions beyond the territorial claims. For example, this article cites where a Chinese fishing boat and crew are being detained by the Philippines because they were found within the disputed area hunting sea turtles, which is illegal in The Philippines because they are protected by local laws. Hunting sea turtles is not considered unlawful in China. Such issues point the potential for chaos in this region as different countries apply laws that are not internationally accepted.

The article is well written and avoids bias, but there are a few comments that could lend support to the contention that the author has a more American/Filipino orientation. For example, it is not necessary to the story to mention how the U.S. and Philippines are the “two oldest allies” in the Asia-Pacific region. Another comment that China claims “almost the entire South China Sea” make the claim seem unreasonable. That comment could have been reworded in a way that does not convey such a perception.

Article Two: Another article published by the RT Network and describes China’s response to announcement that the United States will increase its military presence in The Philippines. What I found interesting is that the article describes how the United States is stressing the humanitarian reasons for the military presence versus the conflict with China. Because of natural disasters many Filipinos have been displaced and the United States historically lends support in such situations.

The article does appear to have some bias. The article makes the comment “The U.S. will not, however, admit that its main intention is to maintain its hegemony in the region”. This is the author’s belief that the U.S. is not being honest, and they are making an assumption that they know what the real story is behind the military presence. Another notable sentence describes how the U.S. has given The Philippines hundreds of millions of foreign aid while the current government has been accused of torturing and using extra-judicial killings to deal with select groups within the country. As this information is not essential to the story, it could communicate personal outrage by the author of this fact versus a non-biased accounting of a relevant fact.

Article Three: A third article describes the South China Sea conflict more broadly, identifying the conflicts that also involve Vietnam. What I found interesting is that this article is more comprehensive in discussing the political solutions to the conflict, which the authors clearly prefer. The article was written by the Council on Foreign Relations and goes into a number of contingencies.

The article does a good job on avoiding bias, but there are a few. In one instance that describes the risk in the U.S. getting involved in a China and Philippines conflict the it assumes that the U.S. would “lose credibility” if the U.S. chose not to get involved. Based on how it is written, it shows the author’s personal viewpoint that the U.S. cannot back down in such a situation if it were challenged by China. In another part of the article that describes a shared possession of the disputed area, the article assumes that China would be given sovereignty while other nations would only receive mineral rights. This is the result of two possible bias in my opinion. One is that it is assumed that China would take the lead because they are biggest and most important, or a bias that their claim to the area is somehow superior to those of the other countries. I cannot determine from how it is written which bias is more likely, but there is a bias.

Article Four: Voice of America published an article describing war games in the disputed waters with the United States and Philippines participating. What I learned from the article is the new emphasis by the Philippines on enhancing its Navy, as prior to the China threat they were more focused on the army due to the activity of insurgents.

The article contains no significant bias, though there is one excerpt that talks about how the Navy is (not the right organization to enforce rights in territorial waters.” Such a comment could be construed as lacking confidence in the approach being instituted by the United States and The Philippines.

Article Five: An article posted by DPost.com describes the new agreement between The Philippines and the United States to increase the American presence in The Philippines and the South China Sea region. What I learned from this article is the apparent sensitivity in The Philippines to allowing foreign powers to have bases on their country. This is likely the result of a long period of colonization before they became an independent county.

The potential bias I found in this article was a quote they chose to include that indicated that the U.S. status as a superpower was “in doubt.” This could lead to numerous negative perceptions such as the United States is weak, in decline, or desperate.

The Policy: The evaluated policy is whether or not I agree that the United States should shift its focus and resources to the South China to combat China’s increasing influence and power. In my opinion, China is using ancient claims that have never been recognized by the rest of the world to justify a territory that is expected to be rich in resources to the detriment of their neighbors. On the surface the claim does not seem reasonable and does not conform to international standards.

The United States has longstanding obligations to many countries in the region, and none of them need more assistance than The Philippines. It is also in their vested interest to protect The Philippines as they serve as a buffer against increasing Chinese power. I do agree with the policy and the desire to maintain peace, but the United States claim that military presence in the Philippines is all about humanitarian and has nothing to do with China is not credible. They should be more forthcoming in their intentions, as honest dialogue is needed in order to resolve these very complicated issues.

Works Cited

Frederick, Carl. “US Drastically Expanding Military Presence in the Philippines.” RT Network. 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 23 Jun. 2014.

Glaser, Bonnie. “Armed Clash in the South China Sea.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2012, Apr. Web. 23 June. 2014.

Gomez, Jim. “U.S., Philippines Reach Troops Deal.” DPost.com. 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 Jun. 2014.

Orendain, Simone. “US-Philipines War Games Open in Disputed Waters.” Voice of America. 27 Jun. 2014. Web. 27 Jun. 2014.

Reuters. “China Blames U.S. for Stoking Tensions in South China Sea.” Newsweek. 18 May 2014.Web. 23 Jun. 2014.