Game-changing

According to former National Security Adviser Roilo Golez, the apparent building of an airstrip along with a military base on one of the disputed islands in the Spratlys, particularly on Mabini Reef is a game-changer. In other words, it is no joke. Mabini Reef is located within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the country, which China obviously refuses to respect. It is only one hundred nautical miles from Palawan. Based on the range capability of China's military aircraft, practically every corner of ASEAN will be accessible once the airstrip becomes operational. They will virtually control the sea lanes.

Having an airstrip outside your mainland has always been a sound military tactic. When the Americans occupied several Japanese islands in World War II, they could launch air strikes deep into the heart of Japan, which contributed to their surrender and the end of World War II. America still operates several airstrips off its mainland like Guam and Japan. It gives them more range and flexibility to respond to any situation, military or humanitarian, anywhere in the world.

Although we are not saying that this is what China plans to do. But what other purpose would a military base and an airstrip off the mainland be other than to intimidate its neighbors, especially when an active dispute is ongoing? So the question is, how can China be made to stop its construction? According to UNCLOS, no structures are allowed on disputed territories. But since when did China ever care about agreements they themselves are a signatory to? I even find it amusing that China is asking for UN intervention in its more physical dispute with Vietnam, when they are obviously the aggressor. Good luck with that.

According to experts, China's obvious aggressiveness over claims to disputed islands increased when the Americans left their bases in Vietnam and the Philippines. It saw that as an opportunity to finally bully everyone out of the ocean. Which is why it is time for the UN and the US to do much more than offer rhetoric against China's expansionism. To do more than offer criticism, however harsh it may be. China also has several run-ins and close calls with Japan. How long before a miscalculation of these run-ins and close calls end up in tragic contact, leading to something more substantial and deadly? I'm sure in this day and age, nobody wants that.

The US has proposed a moratorium on provocative acts in disputed islands. They should direct that to China. China remains the provocateur, while everyone else merely assert their rights. Like I said, words really do not do anything to China. But a friendly sports fest between nations that have common problems with China? That ruffled Beijing something fierce. Perhaps we should play more games.