Spratly Islands: A Policy Analysis

The current American policy response to the dispute over the Spratly Islands is a combination of classic diplomacy and overt military presence. During Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington D.C. in late September, 2015, he discussed China’s claims to the Spratly Islands with President Obama, but the two failed to reach an accord. Since then, the United States Navy has engaged in “freedom of navigation operations” by sending ships within twelve nautical miles of Chinese territorial waters which are claimed to be international waters. In addition to maintaining a naval presence as both a show of force and as a deterrent to Chinese aggression, the naval operations also represent support for American allies in Southeast Asia. The head of the United States Pacific Command, Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., personally visited Beijing on November 3, 2015 to meet with political and military officials in order to maintain clear communication of intent between the United States and China. Maintaining this current line of policy in
The major benefit of instilling a psychological operation and fomenting a grassroots public movement in the region against China is that it appears democratic and villainizes China. Both outcomes are great according to national interests, but the potential negative consequences of American exposure are immense when compared to the benefits. If CIA operatives or plans are discovered by the Chinese and the United States is proven to be behind deliberate covert operations against the Chinese, the American reputation as a benevolent world leader will be severely tarnished. Moreover, an operational failure also makes the United States look feeble and incompetent among the international community. All of which are antithetical to the socially constructed national interest in relation to the Spratly