"China never coerces:" True or false?

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, reacting to US characterization of Chinese actions in the South China Sea, said China "never coerces and never threatens other countries," in the same manner that "we oppose coercion by other countries." So do you believe this statement? Do you think there is an iota of truth in it or do you think it is an outright lie?

Let us hold a candle to that statement based on our own experiences with China in the South China Sea. From the point of view of the Philippines and Filipinos, that is an outright lie. We have been endlessly coerced, threatened, and harassed by China in the South China Sea, even in areas officially delineated by international treaty as our zones of exclusive economic enjoyment.

The problem is, it is only the Philippine point of view. China has its own perspective with regard to the South China Sea. When it comes to this hotly-contested body of water, it is the sole owner of much of it, or what is encompassed by the so-called nine-dash-line that exists only in its head. So what to us is coercion, threats or harassment is to China nothing more than its "lawful" enforcement of rights it enjoys as "owner”.

The only way to settle this peacefully would have been via legal and independent juridical bodies. But justice in the real sense exists, or is obtainable, only to the extent that hard realities on the ground permit it. Anything less than that only makes justice imaginary, even illusory. And nowhere is this more true than in the realities obtaining in the South China Sea.

The Philippines, at the prodding of a United States that is increasingly inclined toward proxy engagements, sought redress from an international arbitral court. But China refused to submit to the process and consequently rejected the ruling that issued therefrom. The arbitral court ruling therefore, while hailed by the Philippines and the US, had little or no effect on China, which did not recognize it.

So what happens when such rulings are no match for Chinese intransigence and thus become unenforceable? Why, we turn to the US. Or so we think. But the US, sapped by too many enemies on so many fronts, no longer has the fire in its belly to sacrifice needlessly any more lives of its young fighting boys. From the post-Cold War proxy wars waged by dollar-backed dictators to economic sanctions, the US is out.

Brent Sadler of the Washington-based think tank Heritage Foundation suggests the US should reverse big boy roles in the South China Sea, that instead of China doing the patrols in the area, international waters to most of the world, America should put its naval might into play there. Naval presence and not just wimpish, almost deferential freedom of navigation forays, is the way to go, or so Sadler thinks.

In a different time, that might work. No longer. Just watch how the US played its new game in Ukraine. For years it built a tightening noose around Russia, knowing one day it will break. When Putin finally took the bait and kicked back, the US did not jump into the fray. It merely gave Ukraine the stick but that hapless pawn of US security interests had to do the swinging by itself. America was half a world away to be involved.

The Philippines is being set up as America's Ukraine in the South China Sea but sad to say, we still have not wised up despite the mounting evidence. China has not pushed its weight anywhere else, only in the South China Sea, but only because, rightly or wrongly, it thinks it owns the place. In contrast, the US is everywhere, including places it has no logical right to be. Yet when the poop hits the fan, home is far away. Ta ta.