        Much is being over China's recent annexation of the South China Sea, however, the sovereignty of the S.C.S. has been major flashpoint in the region for years. As the countries bordering the Sea have each individually claimed sovereignty there, citing whatever precedent they could dig up to have a casus belli to "rightfully" seize the territory. The precedents the actors cite are incredibly varied and range from ancient maps of the region to the comparably recent U.N. Maritime Charters. The actors that input these claims are as seemingly diverse as the evidence itself. The current major players here though are: of course China the number one power in the region, Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and finally the U.S.A. Though it should be said the U.S. is not directly involved as it itself does not have any claims on the region. So then how could the U.S. be a major actor in the crises then? The U.S. which has a vested strategic interest in the region has been concerned with China's perceived aggressiveness in the region. The rest of the actors, however, are concerned with the abundance of resources just below the seafloor and the territory therein. Which is not even mentioning the five point three trillion dollars in trade that goes this region every year. In the last few years this competition for sovereignty and resources is heating up and has led to many standoffs between the major actors. Thus far the standoffs have fortunately ended peacefully, but for how long? A war in the region could lead to irrevocable damage to the global economy. That's without even mentioning the incalculable number of  human lives lost in what will assuredly be a brutal war of attrition. So what now? What can the world do to avert this crisis of monumental proportions? As the world's unipolar power the citizens of the world look to the United States to act. For if not them who could solve this crisis? Yes the U.S. has major part to play if this crisis is to be diffused, however, it cannot act alone. The days when China would cow to American political pressure are gone. China sees itself as regional Hegemon whose sphere of influence encompoeses all of Eastern Asia. To defuse a crisis this treacherous  amicably and peacefully a multi-national effort will be required. All the local actors, the International power brokers from the East and West, and finally the independent mediators the players at the negotiating table can agree upon.

It is not like negotiating a peace accord is new concept being introduced to this crises. Many have been attempted with varying degrees of success. Of course that "success" hasn't seemed to solve the issue at hand, it just stop the bleeding. That is meant quite literally. This is in reference of course to the numerous conflicts surrounding the island's past as they have almost always been an area of contention. (Kuenssberg) Now there exists an awkward stalemate, which only serves to fuel tensions. China has taken the initiative to resolve the matter and is currently engaged in one-on-one negotiations with the local actors to resolve the dispute. This favors the Chinese heavily as they have a huge advantage in dealing with the actors bilaterally as they can use their expansive financial muscle to lean heavily on the less affluent countries in the region to adhere to the "Nine-Dash Line" layout of territory in which the Chinese get 90 percent of the S.C.S. If the lesser actors were able to band together and negotiate as the trading bloc ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Countries) they might have the political clout to go toe to toe with a heavyweight like China. However, the only thing they can seem to agree on when it comes to sovereignty of the S.C.S. is that they do not want China to annex it. Thus any attempts to unite would be effectively fruitless as the bloc's interests are just too divisive to put up a united front at the negotiation table. China benefits greatly from this diplomatic discord between the bloc's members and it would be an almost perfect diplomatic boon. If only they could stop the Western powers from intervening in the negotiations China would be able to carve out the strategically important islands in the S.C.S. and establish a sphere of influence in one of the most important trading routes in the world. For the West to meddle though they would need to be invited by a local actor, a partner to justify their involvement in the region's affairs. They found this partner in the Philippines.

On July 7th, 2015 the Permanent Court of Arbitration began hearings regarding the Philippines request to invalidate China's claim on the S.C.S. as China's "Nine-Dash Line" claim violates the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreements regarding exclusive economic zones and territorial Seas. (Gracie)It should be noted that the PCA is organization funded and staffed by the U.N. and as China sees it the U.N. is a biased international organization in which non-western powers are only given a piecemeal voice in the affairs of the world.(Santolan) So not surprisingly China issued a statement that summarily discounted the credibility of any decision the PCA made on the matter and denounced the Philippines for bringing this matter to the U.N. in the first place claiming that the Philippines violated the voluntary "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties" an agreement between China the ASEAN bloc which stipulates bilateral negotiations as means to solve territorial disputes. They also claim that the Philippine's actions violated several treaties with them that stipulated bilateral negotiations as well for disagreements. Further before the first hearings even commenced the Chinese Government published a position paper that argued that the matter could not be subject to arbitration by the PCA as it was matter of sovereignty not exploitation rights. (FMPRC) China has made it abundantly clear that even when the PCA decides to issue its ruling on their claim that it is already invalid. It can't be assumed that they rejected it out of complete distrust of the Western powers, but considering the history of the dealings between the two it would foolish to dismiss it as a factor in their outright opposition to the tribunal's findings. As even in the Chinese media China is portrayed as being invariably upset by what they see as an effectual kangaroo court for the West to impose its influence upon it yet again. They play the victims, which is an effective strategy for garnering domestic support. Be that as it may it won't defuse the crises as it will only serve to ignite nationalist sentiment in the opposing countries increasing tension and thusly the chance of war. At this point it seems obvious to state that China wants to keep this in house. Essentially telling international powers though primarily the West to stop meddling in their affairs. Since China seems irreverant to the idea of U.N. arbitration there are those that would assume that the unipole with it's vast strength could unilaterally ease the crises. That the US could somehow show up in force and bully China into stepping down. This could never work as China sees the US as someone who needs them just as much as they need the US.

The US could play major role diffusing the crisis, but it would have to implement some major policy changes that are not at all in step with America's current congress. These recommendations were laid out by Andrew S. Erickson an associate professor at the Naval War College before House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Erickson stated that the US must prioritize "Maintaining Freedom of Navigation" by adhering to international laws regarding the Freedom of Navigation Act and that "The United States must ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea" Which would give the United States much more credibility when applying political pressure to China. Finally he recommends building up the U.S. Navy's presence by building a more "robust" fleet that will serve as a deterrent to a possibly aggressive China. (Erikson 2-7) Erickson's recommendations builds a strong foundation for the US to serve as a deterrent to war in the SCS. However when it comes to the negotiating table for a more permanent peace it is only serves as a way to give the US a stronger position to argue from and does not address a possible resolution to the crises at hand. To do that the US would need to find some common ground with the Chinese that could be used as a jumping off point to negotiate a fair equitable agreement in the SCS and while it would involve the US the Chinese would never trust them as neutral mediator between them and ASEAN countries. Which is fair as the US has supported ASEAN's legal claims to the islands for quite some time. (Kuenssberg) The US would serve in an advisory capacity to balance the scales of power so that no one side had an insurmountable advantage over the other. As the crisis unfolded however the Chinese have shifted the scales of power multiple times in an attempt to establish a stronghold in the SCS.

They were able to do this by building artificial islands on shallow sections of the Sea. Building an artificial island requires vast amounts of sand and building material which coincidentally China has in spades. Then when they built these islands they started to build runways for military jets and bombers, but wait there's more those very same islands are also equipped with anti-air missiles. (Roy) China has effectively militarized the South China Sea turning it into a fortress that it can use to exert its will, whatever that might be. In the last two years since China occupied the islands they have attempted to claim that sailing close to the islands was a violation of Chinese waters. The US and various other Western powers have since been intentionally violating those boundaries asserting their claim to Freedom of Navigation in the region. This has angered the Chinese Navy greatly, however they have yet to respond militarily to what they refer to as a "provocation." (Phillips) However it has been documented that when fishing trolleys or boats from nearby nations attempt to cross many are harassed by the Chinese Navy with even a few cases of sailors firing at fishing vessels. (Blanchard) This hurts the livelihoods of many local fishermen who rely on the rich fish stocks in the SCS to make their living.

Fish aren't the only abundant natural resource in SCS and all the actors in the region are vying for the vast quantity of natural gas and oil beneath the ocean floor. This seems to have only antagonized the situation more as China doubles down and builds more islands to exerts more control over the SCS the more they will attempt to tap its vast natural resources. This might serve as a catalyst for future conflict as there has already been quite a few intense standoffs involving Vietnamese and Chinese oil rigs in various places throughout the SCS and it is not only Vietnam that China is contending with to access these resources it is all the actors in the region. 5.3 Trillion dollars' worth of trade annually crosses the SCS. The implications of this figure is astounding alone, but what if a single power controlled the trade route gaining the power to effectively blockade any nation that displeases it. In fact that is one of the reasons the U.S. is so concerned with nine-dash line as it envelops the trade route giving the China the ability to disrupt trade. That claim to the region and its resources relies heavily on the Chinese Government's Nine-Dash Line.

Originally called the eleven-dash line by its founders in the Republic of China. It was developed by the then government to justify its claims in the SCS. After the Communist takeover of mainland China the eleven-dash line was revised to the current nine-dash line and endorsed by Zhou Enlai the first premier of China. (Brown) In 2009 China attempted to submit a map including the nine-dash line to the U.N. to claim the SCS. That action was immediately protested by the Philippines which led to the subsequent U.N. tribunal. Which lead to China's immediate dismissal of the authority of the court to act in this case.  The implications of this nine-dash line claim are vast and could lead to a possible conflict. This in turn could hurt the global economy.  

In 2016 The Economist published a list of the 10 most threatening things to the global economy. Number 9 on that list was possible clash of arms in the South China Sea. (The Economist) It's easy to see how a disruption of 5.3 trillion dollars could have a disastrous influence on the global economy. Beyond that however, is vast minefield of incredibly horrific consequences for the world at large. Not the least of which is a possible war between the United States and China the potential consequences for which would be immense. However, the potential rated as unlikely as the probability of any of the actors risking war to pursuit their claim is frankly improbable. That is the thing with improbable though. It is not impossible, and given that you got a few overly patriotic soldiers running around with guns telling each other to surrender it is a surprise more shootouts don't occur.  

The world has a serious issue to deal with and it is going to take a lot of effort from everyone to resolve this crisis for this conflict runs deep. The Chinese wanted to keep the international community out of it, but it is too late this has become too much of a problem to avoid anymore. The regional actors are at each other's throats and it will take an accident to spark a conflict in the area. This will have heavy repercussions for the rest of the world financial and otherwise as the region falls into chaos at the hands of war. To do this right to reach an amicable peace that leaves everybody alive. A multinational effort of all the actors in the region to set at the table to hash out their differences, it's going to need the US and other powerbrokers to balance the scales of power to ensure a fair negotiation. Finally you are going to need a country that all the actors can agree on to be a mediator during the talks. This will be a long arduous process that at times will seem to get nowhere, but to be able to grasp peace an extraordinary effort is worth the reward.       

