Is this Cold War 2.0? | Digg Topnews

HONG KONG, China — With a US ally engaged in a tense standoff with China over disputed territory in the South China Sea, America risks wading into increasingly perilous waters.
The conflict began in mid-April, when a Filipino frigate — a 1960s Coast Guard vessel bought from the United States — attempted to stop several boats of Chinese fishermen who had taken live sharks, giant clams and coral from waters claimed by the Philippines around a rocky patch called the Scarborough Shoal. The Chinese dispatched several larger, more modern boats from one of its civilian maritime agencies, which intercepted the frigate, allowing the fisherman to escape with their catch. Filipino fishermen say they have since been barred from fishing in the lagoon.
Global PostNow, after nearly a month, ships from the two nations have refused to budge from the waters surrounding the shoal, while populists back home have whipped up a nationalist frenzy.
In the Philippines, the office of the president declared that it was unilaterally renaming the disputed land, “Panatag Shoal.” (Chinese call it Huangyan Island.) In China, a video went viral on Wednesday showing a TV anchor pronouncing — falsely — that the Philippines is “Chinese territory,” and that China “has unquestionable sovereignty” over the island nation. Meanwhile, a major general wrote an op-ed urging the Chinese navy to smash the Philippines “with both fists” next time, generating 174,000 responses — the majority of them supportive.
This scuffle is merely one of dozens of overlapping, contradictory claims for territory in the South China Sea, where the nations of Southeast Asia are facing off against an increasingly assertive China — and against one another.
“China certainly shares much of the blame for the current standoff. Its claims to the South China Sea, based on limited historical evidence, do not provide a significant basis to make sweeping, unilateral assertions,” says Andrew Billo of the Asia Society.
Where does the US fit into this toxic brew of jingoism, nationalism, and disputed territory? Its strategic shift to the Pacific, geopolitical rivalry with China, and alliance with the Philippines have inescapably drawn American interests to the Asian hotspot.
In early May, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlined America’s emerging priorities in the South China Sea: freedom of navigation, unimpeded commerce, maintenance of peace and stability, and respect for international law.
Beyond that, the sea plays an enormously valuable role as the international highway of global trade. Half of all the world’s intercontinental goods pass through the South China Sea, amounting to $1.2 trillion in trade with the US every year, according to a January report from the Center for New American Security. And its untapped energy resources are vast: 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and as much as 130 billion barrels of oil are estimated to lie undiscovered beneath the seabed.
“The geostrategic significance of the South China Sea is difficult to overstate,” the authors of the CNAS report write. “The South China Sea functions as the throat of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans.” Yet, they note, American interests in the region “are increasingly at risk” due to “the economic and military rise of China and concerns about its willingness to uphold existing legal norms.”
Taking any overt action to defend those interests would set off alarm bells in China. Last month, after Americans posted 4,500 personnel to the Philippines — coincidentally during the April standoff over Scarborough Shoal — Chinese critics blasted the US for “meddling” in regional affairs.
Since then, the US has exercised caution, refusing to take sides in the dispute, even as Manila requested support.
Complicating matters further is the difficulty of weighing the validity of the competing claims.
Since the 1940s, Chinese maps have included a “9-dash line” that encircles nearly all of the South China Sea; Beijing has yet to explain what the line means. Vietnam has meanwhile ramped up its naval power, while proceeding to sell oil rights in disputed territory to Western companies. Belatedly, the Philippines has become more forceful in asserting its exclusive rights to areas — such as Scarborough Shoal — that Chinese fisherman have visited for generations.
Even if they looked to the United Nations for resolution, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas has no power to settle disputes over sovereignty. And while diplomacy stalls, fishermen and civilian ships from each country are taking matters into their own hands.
“We’re now running a risk of an accident or confrontation arising from lack of clear instructions on how to behave,” says Carlyle Thayer, professor emeritus at the Australian Defence Force Academy. “The South China Sea is like a bathtub: When you put more ships in it, there’s going to be a collision.”
While efforts are underway in ASEAN, the regional association, to create a binding “Code of Conduct” on the seas, it has proved too feeble to stand up against Chinese pressure. “Some nervous nellies in ASEAN don’t want to confront China,” says Thayer.
So where does that leave the US? In the awkward position of being the final backstop against China, while simultaneously trying to maintain an appearance of neutrality. That means honoring its military commitments to the Philippines, Thayer says, while stopping short of endorsing its allies’ assertion of territorial rights.
“The US should continue backing the Philippines,” says Thayer. “That’s the weak reed, and if China breaks the Philippines, it will affect other countries’ claims.”
Other experts say that America’s main focus should be on guaranteeing the freedom of global trade routes, while leaving the mess of sorting out sovereignty to the states themselves.
“The US should take a step back from the issue,” says Billo of the Asian Society, “It has made its point with respect to its support for a key ally, and the region as a whole, but ultimately it is in the US interest to have regional stability and not allow the conflict to escalate further.”

Is this Cold War 2.0? | Digg Topnews

Obama Proposes Bumping Chevy Volt Subsidy Up To 10K

President Barack Obama is touting a new series of green-tech subsidies in North Carolina Wednesday, simultaneously trying to goose his prospects in the swing-state and to jump-start his stalled plan to minimize the nation’s use of gasoline. The new subsidies include an expansion of the $7,500 subsidy for the wealthy buyers of the Chevy Volt. If Congress approves Obama’s proposal, the government will be giving $10,000 in taxpayer money to people wealthy enough to buy novel green-tech autos that are powered by batteries or natural-gas. The new $10,000 credit, according to a White House statement, should “be applied to additional types of technologies, not currently covered.” The average household income of Chevy Volt buyers is $170,000. White House officials did not estimate the total cost to taxpayers of the proposed subsidy, which will also be given by buyers of commercial trucks. Obama also announced a new tax break to spur purchase of trucks powered by natural gas when he visits a factory run by Daimler Trucks North America in Mt. Holly, N.C. “This incentive… drive[s] up demand for the sorts of vehicles built at Freightliner’s Mt. Holly Plant and, in turn, spur[s] job creation in the American manufacturing sector,” said a press release. The visit and the subsidies may help Obama gain ground in North Carolina, which he won by 0.3 percent in 2008. Ads by Google However, his poll numbers in the state remain well below 50 percent, and the state party is in disarray because three top Democrats — including Gov. Bev Perdue — have announced they will not run in 2012. His efforts to launch a new, post-gasoline energy sector have stalled, in part, because several taxpayer-funded green-tech companies have collapsed. Several others have laid off workers. (RELATED: Bankrupt energy firms get millions in tax dollars, execs receive large payouts) This month, General Motors announced a temporary halt to production of the Chevy Volt after disappointing sales. White House spokesman Jay Carney ignored the production halt when asked by reporters about the subsidy while en-route to North Carolina “It is simply a fact that these technologies are going to be developed somewhere, and where they are developed there will be good jobs associated with the development of those technologies,” Carney said. “The President is absolutely committed… to ensuring that we do not, in the United States of America, simply throw up our hands and cede the industries of the future to other countries.” Also, green-tech investors are increasingly cautious, fearing that an Obama defeat in 2012 would end subsidies and wipe out their prospects for profit. (SEE ALSO: GM suspends production of Chevy Volt after disappointing sales) Obama’s promised subsidy for the trucks may not be needed. That’s because an increasing number of trucking companies are already looking to use natural gas because it is a cheaper fuel than gasoline. The low price is caused by energy companies’ “fracking” technology that has unlocked vast quantities of natural gas across the United States. Natural gas prices are so low that the new fuel has jump-started growth in the nation’s manufacturing sector and forced the shutdown of older, less-efficient natural gas wells. Follow Neil on Twitter Ads by Google Medifast: Free ShippingSee Details on Free Shipping Offer. Medifast Advantage. Limited Time! http://www.Medifast1.com/Advantage Chevrolet Volt ClearanceChevrolet Dealers Must Move All Models. Get Low Chevrolet Prices! ChevroletVolt.Auto-Price-Finder.com Tags: Barack Obama, Chevrolet Volt, Elections 2012, Energy, Natural gas Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/obama-proposes-bumping-chevy-volt-subsidy-up-to-10k/#ixzz1oTp06YoV