Testing the Temperature: The Global Significance of the South China Sea Dispute, by Geoffrey Till

By way of contrast, the early 20^th Century strategist Sir Halford Mackinder made many years ago what many would regard as the key point: ‘The unity of the ocean is the simple physical fact underlying the dominant value of sea-power in the modern globe-wide world.’[3]Because the sea is ‘all joined up’ external countries, outside the immediate region, have a major stake in the management and outcome of the dispute, especially if they are maritime in nature, and so should be expected to want to express their interests in it. For that basic reason, the South China Sea dispute necessarily becomes a global one and the global community has a stake in its peaceful management, and hopefully one day, resolution. ‘One measure of the strength of a community of nations, ‘ said Mrs Clinton is how it responds to threats to its members, neighbours and region.’ [4] The position that the South China Sea dispute was a global one with global implications and consequences was taken further by Robert Gates at the Shangri-La Dialogue in June 2011. As a result those implications and consequences… are seen as justifying the United States and other outside countries in seeking to maintain a role in defence of their wider interest in the area. Mr Gates was even prepared to bet $100 that for this reason, ‘five years from now the United States’s influence in this region [will be] as strong if not stronger than it is today.’ [5]

So, the question arises, why does the United States and why do other external countries take such an interest in the South China Sea  issue and what is likely to be the consequence of this ?