“You’re seeing sort of these odd historic partnerships grow,” Jerry Hendrix, the director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security, told VICE News. “All this means that the South China Sea isn’t going to be settled in the way that China desires it to be any time soon.”

China is the most active country that has declared dominion over islands in the South China Sea and reclaimed land by piling dredged sand on top of narrow reefs, but it’s not the only one. Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and the Philippines have all engaged in this, just to a far lesser degree. As of June, the Chinese had reclaimed more than 2,900 acres of land, according to the US Department of Defense. In comparison, the Philippines had built up only 14 acres.

“China has now reclaimed 17 times more land in 20 months than the other claimants combined over the past 40 years, accounting for approximately 95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands,” wrote the Department of Defense in the Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy, which it released last week.

Some in the Philippines are wary of Japan because of its occupation of the country during World War II, as well as of the US owing to the Philippine-American War and its Cold War military presence in the region. Despite this, the Philippine government sees the strategic advantage of fostering these partnerships.

“The government, recognizing its strategic position, would love to see the US visit regularly — like on a weekly basis,” Hendrix remarked. In exchange, the US can further project its influence toward Asia, which has been the focus of a pivot in foreign policy on the part of the Obama administration.

It is a lot like the local convenience store that gives the cops free coffee when they come by. The increased police presence this encourages helps to deter criminals from robbing the place. Even if the storeowner isn’t always on the best terms with the cops on the beat, it’s still better to give away some coffee than it is to get robbed.

In April 2014, the US signed an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the island nation. The agreement would allow US troops to build facilities and store gear in the country, and to conduct joint training exercises with the Philippine military.

“The EDCA facilitates increased bilateral defense cooperation activities by providing the US access to [Philippine military] facilities and areas on a rotational basis,” Department of Defense spokesman Commander Bill Urban told VICE News. “The US government is not building any bases in the Republic of the Philippines.”

Earlier this year, Japanese and Filipino forces began joint military exercises for the first time. Already they have conducted two maritime exercises under the guise of humanitarian assistance and disaster response, but recent talks of establishing a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) indicate that this is the beginning of a burgeoning defense relationship between the two Asian countries.

The VFA would involve the exchange of military equipment and technology, as well as training and personnel exchanges, said Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin. Talks just started, however, and the Philippines’s last VFA, with Australia, took seven years to become official.

But not everyone in the Philippines is so thrilled about the new military cooperation, and both the VFA and EDCA are being legally challenged by local Filipino activists.

There is a natural resistance within the Filipino population to a foreign military presence. World War II episodes like the Bataan Death March, in which thousands died when Japan’s military brutally forced 76,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war to walk 66 miles, are still deeply resented by some Filipinos, Hendrix said.

Two former Philippine senators spoke out against Japanese military aid in Juneat the press club in Manila. Former Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani advocated for the creation of a self-supporting military and expressed grave caution about the cooperation with Japan.

“Don’t forget they invaded us,” Shahani said. “I watched the Japanese enter the Open City of Manila. And I cried. To see foreign troops enter your native land is one of the most humiliating experiences. I hope you will never experience that.”

But Japan has worked hard to rebuild its reputation in the post-WWII era, particularly with initiatives that offer economic assistance as well as disaster relief.

The US relationship with the Philippines has also changed in the past few decades. In 1992, after almost a century on the island, the Philippines kicked the US military out of Subic Bay Naval Base in the East China Sea as part of its effort to become militarily self-sufficient.

Nevertheless, the US says it still has the Philippines’ back.

“Our commitment to the Philippines is ironclad. We are in constant and close touch with our Philippine ally,” David Shear, assistant secretary of defense for Asian-Pacific security affairs, told VICE News during a Pentagon news conference. “There should be no doubt, either in the region or among our Philippine friends, about the strength of the American commitment and of the strength of the American deterrence.”

The Philippine government’s resources have grown strained as it deals with domestic terror attacks by Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda-linked militant group. Abu Sayyaf has been taking hostages and is holding at least nine people, according to the government-run Philippines News Agency.

“The Philippine Navy has a need for just about everything,” Douglas H. Paal, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told VICE News. “They have never been able to maintain a viable navy or air force.”

Both Japan and the US have already provided the Philippines with equipment, including deeply discounted ships and planes. In 2011, the US refurbished two Coast Guard Hamilton-class cutters at a cost of $25 million and then gave them to the Philippine Navy free of charge. In 2013, it increased military aid to the Philippines by two-thirds.

More recently, in June, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III signed a deal with a Japanese shipbuilder to buy a fleet of 10 patrol vessels. The Japanese government financed the deal with a low-interest $150 million loan.

The Philippines’ military relationships are now anchored largely on China’s continuing reclamation and militarization of islands in the South China Sea.

“It is becoming increasingly clear why China desires to establish its hold over the islands and water in question,” Hendrix wrote in a recent piece for Defense One. “Despite arguments about energy and food supplies that may lay in abundance below the waters of the South China Sea, Beijing’s actions make increasingly clear that it seeks control for its own military advantage and to establish dominance over the other nations in the region.”

Published in conjunction with

WASHINGTON — After several European allies applied to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank this week, U.S. officials have begun to soften their critical view on the China-backed initiative.

“We do not ask any country to choose ties with the U.S. to the exclusion of anyone else,” Deputy Secretary of the State Tony Blinken said Tuesday in a speech at the Brookings Institution, the centrist think tank.

Tony Blinken talks about China’s role in Central Asia development

Blinken restated the White House’s earlier concerns about the standards the China-backed will use for making decisions. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew also remarked at a congressional hearing last week that anyone joining the AIIB need to ask those questions.

The AIIB’s operation plan won’t be revealed until later this year. But it is said the bank will model itself after existing development banks, giving founding members the most voting power. China will also reportedly give up veto power, which eased concerns from many countries.

Blinken worries the AIIB could “dilute the standard” of existing institutions

On one front, the environment, the AIIB is not a copy of World Bank

In the “Environmental and Social Framework” released last June, the World Bank sets specific requirements on labor and working conditions, resource efficiency and pollution protection, community health and safety, and three other categories of environmental and social standards. All are mandatory in order to reduce poverty and increase prosperity in a sustainable manner worldwide, the World Bank asserts.

Chen Bin, a commentator in the outspoken Chinese newspaper, Southern Weekly, however, said it’s “inconsiderate” to ask AIIB to stick to and carry out these criteria.

China’s Finance Minister Lou Jiwei said at a recent Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting that the bank is aimed at promoting connectivity among Asian countries, through commercial infrastructure investment instead of poverty reduction.

Largely commercial, AIIB sets itself apart from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, led by Japan, both committed to public welfare. This leaves more space as well as questions in how the bank will select the programs and infrastructures in which to invest.

“The World Bank and other existing multilateral development assistance organizations have strong rules to promote sustainable and inclusive growth,” said Scott Kennedy, director of Project on Chinese Business & Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “China’s bilateral foreign assistance to date is filled with examples where there has been insufficient attention to protecting the environment and ensuring safe and fair treatment of workers. And a substantial portion of this aid has benefitted Chinese companies. Hence, there is good reason to have some concerns about how the AIIB will operate,” he said.

AIIB currently has 30 prospective founding members, including Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Seventeen other countries and regions, including Australia and Taiwan, have yet to be approved. The final list will be confirmed on April 15.

But, he chose the academic route and pursued an MA in International Relations at Durham University in England. In his dissertation, he examined NATO as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, and how that relates to US military spending.

If you ask him what he learned as a result of the degree, his answer will be unorthodox.

“When I was writing my thesis, I really examined why NATO didn’t go away. The fall of the USSR made it obsolete,” Siff said. “I found out some things that didn’t help my outlook on things at all…I had gotten pretty cynical. The more you study, you more you will realize how much lobbyists actually determine legislation in the U.S.”

And while most of his fellow-classmates moved into government jobs, Siff chose to work in public relations at Topaz Partners, a Boston-area technology PR firm, because he was disappointed in how “political” the military had become, especially when the U.S. is pouring millions and billions of dollars into two wars that seem too expensive. (Continued below graphic)

“The US military is the pillar upon which the stability and safety of the international system rests,” said Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arlington, VA, in an interview. “It’s not in our interests to see the Middle East exploding into war or to see South Korea overrun by North Korea.”

Goure says that although the U.S. military budget is large, it acts as an international defense mechanism. He argues that the U.S. uses its military to keep peace internationally.

He also points out that if the entire defense budget were cut to zero, it would further exacerbate the debt situation instead of alleviating it. He reasons that eliminating the defense budget would mean firing the nearly 1.4 million men and women on active duty and the another 1 million in the Reserves and the National Guard. This would mean increasing the already high unemployment rate.

Let’s do the math. If you had been alive since Jesus was born and spent a million dollars every day, you wouldn’t have spent $1 trillion dollars, never mind $13 trillion. That’s according to calculation by Kevin Williamson of the National Review.

Why is the burgeoning debt a security threat? In addition to hindering economic growth, a 90 percent threshold of government debt relative to G.D.P. will make it extremely difficult for the U.S. government to make debt-service payments to its creditors, including governments around the world.

If its creditors in Asia and the Middle East doubt Washington’s ability to pay back interest on treasuries, they may stop purchasing US-backed securities, experts warn. They might even demand higher interest rates. Both will impede the federal government from doing its job, including protecting the country’s security.

As of last month, a quarter of the country’s debt is in the hands of foreign governments, nearly double the ratio in 1988 at 13 percent. Of that amount, China holds 23 percent, followed by Japan with a little more than 20 percent.

“I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a “Tribute to the Troops” breakfast in Washington last month.

House Democratic Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said, “It is time to stop talking about fiscal discipline and national security threats as if they’re separate topics.” His comments came during a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in June.

Hoyer phrased the whopping dollar amount as “unsustainable,” and mentioned how financial dependence has toppled other superpowers.

David Walker, the former Comptroller General and current President of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, said Washington’s financial dependence on foreign loans affects its policy towards its lenders. “One of the reasons American tax payers now guarantee $5 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt is because the Japanese and the Chinese demanded it,” said Walker during an interview with Politics Daily earlier this year.

Walker added, it’s likely that “China will say, ‘We’re not going to lend you money unless you pay us higher interest rates.’”

While that is a possibility, the Basel, Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlement reported that that is highly improbable for public sector investors, i.e. governments. The global institution caters only to central banks and international organization, with the aim of fostering cooperation within the world financial system.

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute agrees. The specialist in foreign policy and civil liberties said that asking for a higher interest rate, and thus putting the U.S. economy in danger, will be a “self-destructive move” by Beijing. “The Chinese government knows the importance of a vibrant American economy, China’s biggest market.”

Similar confidence in financial stability in the future is also reflected in a briefing paper published on July 26 by the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank. John Irons and Josh Bivens wrote the fact that interest rates of U.S. treasuries are at historic lows reflects that there is still demand by global investors.”

While there is no immediate threat to national security, the defense chief, Mullen, is urging sharp cuts in expensive programs. His department spends $700 billion a year, the biggest part of the federal budget. That’s as much on defense as the rest of the world’s combined.

The largest program right now is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, funded at a level of $11.5 billion in next year’s budget request.  The aircraft carrier replacement program receives $2.7 billion in annual funding, the DDG-51 Destroyer gets $3.0 billion, and Space-Based Infrared System receives $1.5 billion.

Todd Harrison, Senior Fellow for Defense Budget Studies at Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said it is time for an overhaul. “It would be a mistake to simply downsize the military such that in a few years it looks essentially like a smaller version of the force we have today. ” Harrison added, “We should use this as an opportunity to make some strategic decisions about what missions and capabilities our military no longer needs to support.” Harrison concluded that targeted cuts that reshape the force could actually be a benefit in the long run.

Despite worries that the burgeoning debt might put the U.S. government in vulnerable position, many experts claim its influence on world economy is too large for any one of its creditors to want to destabilize. And with the defense department showing unprecedented efforts to downsize, the rate of government spending will likely slow down.

Even before the most recent overthrow, the House National Security Subcommittee was looking into contracts in the region, which is renowned for its corruption. Now, the subcommittee has undertaken a full-fledged investigation, focused on the contracts at Manas Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan, while the Department of Defense moves to open up bidding on the suspect contracts.

“Let’s be honest: At many times throughout our history, the United States has closely dealt with unsavory regimes in order to achieve more pressing policy or strategic objectives,” Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said in his opening remarks at the investigation’s first hearing in April. “The United States will have to work hard to restore our credibility in (the Kyrgyz’­) eyes, beginning with transparency regarding U.S. fuel contracts at Manas.”

The F.B.I. collaborated with the Kyrgyz government on an investigation in 2005, when accusations that the son of then-president Askar Akayev was improperly benefiting from U.S. fuel contracts. That FBI report was never made public, but an independent investigator for the Kyrgyz told The New York Timesthat he suspected the new president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, simply took over the same business model, installing his son, Maksim Bakiyev, as the beneficiary.

Now, the anti-corruption interim government led by Roza Otunbayeva is opening its own investigation, focused on six subcontractors allegedly controlled by Maksim Bakiyev.

“Whatever the Pentagon’s policy of buying warlords in Afghanistan, the state of Kyrgyzstan demands more respect,” Edil Baisalov, chief of staff for the interim lead, told ­The Times in April. “The government of Kyrgyzstan will not be bought and sold. We are above that.”

The closely linked companies at the center of the allegations are Red Star and Mina Corp., which provide enormous amounts of Russian jet fuel to power U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Together, the companies have received more than $1 billion for fuel sales over the past six years.

The fact that companies’ director of operations, Charles “Chuck” Squires, is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former defense attaché to the U.S. embassy in Bishkek raises some eyebrows. Except in the case where a presidential directive makes an exemption for national security concerns, military contracts are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the law that outlaws bribery in U.S. business transactions overseas.

“If this were a commercial setting, an investigator would probably start by studying whether there really is an arm’s-length relationship between Red Star and Pentagon contractors,” Scott Horton, an expert on accountability in military contracts, said in his written testimony to the House committee. “If not, an investigator might quickly conclude that it is a shell interposed to provide a buffer between the procurement officers and companies controlled by the president’s family.”

The hearing witnesses consistently hit the refrain that the U.S. embassy delegation was unnecessarily close with the Bakiyev regime. The essential question is whether this was a State Department blunder, or if it was part of a larger policy of currying favor with the regime to ensure the future of the Manas air base.

In February 2009, in what was widely seen as a quid pro quo, Bakiyev announced plans to close the Manas base on the same day that Russian President Putin announced $2.15 billion in aid to the country. Later, Bakiyev flipped when the U.S. agreed to pay $17 million more in annual rent for the base.

Earlier this month, the Department of Defense moved to open up bidding on the contracts to the Manas base. Meanwhile, the United States and Kyrgyzstan have been in intense negotiations over taxes on fuel being imported to the base.

In impoverished Kyrgyzstan, the U.S. air base and its connected contracts make an easy whipping boy for disgruntled citizens whose country was ranked 128 out of 149 for corruption by World Audit in 2009.

But in business environments like that of Kyrgyzstan, it may well be that only countries connected to political elite will be in a position to meet U.S. needs.

“Allegations like these are an inevitable by-product of working in this part of the world, where corruption is just the way business is done,” said Martha Brill Olcott, an expert on the region for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The question is, were these contracts illegal, or were they simply unethical? There are only a few places you can get oil from – you’ve got to have a refinery – and it’s predictable that the bigger companies, the ones with elite connections, are going to be the ones that can get the best deal for the U.S. government.”

Simply looking at a map would tell you how disjointed U.S. policy in the region is, says Paul Goble, an expert on Eurasian issues who has served in various capacities in the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. State Department. Although U.S. efforts have remained fixated on Russian influence in the former-Soviet region, the country does not in fact share a border with Russia – but it does with China.

“There is a very large geopolitical switch going on that Americans are not ready for,” Goble said. “China is simply going to be the biggest player in the region. Russia doesn’t have the leverage it once did.”

With its booming population and industry hungry for raw materials, China is roaming the world in search of energy supplies and minerals. In its backyard of Central Asia, it is investing billions in infrastructure including pipelines, railroads and highways.  Earlier this year the first segment of an oil pipeline stretching from Turkmenistan to China opened up. The project signifies what many experts say is a shift in the region’s petroleum resources away from Russia and toward China.

“Economic interests are the Chinese entryway into Central Asia and Eurasia,” said China expert Russell Hsiao of the Jamestown Foundation. “Kyrgyzstan is a pretty crucial piece in the whole of the puzzle.”

In the near-term, most analysts agree that Russia poses the greatest threat to America’s primary interest in the region – the Manas Air Base, which provides a critical link in the supply chain to U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Last year, the now-deposed president Kurmanbek Bakiyev agreed to end the U.S. contract for the air base after receiving a promise for more than $2 billion in aid from Russia. Bakiyev later reversed, after receiving the initial installment of Russian aid, when the U.S. agreed to pay more than three times the original rent for the base. Now, there is wide speculation that Russia supported the revolution that deposed Bakiyev in early April.

But, while a heavy-handed media blitz tends to accompany Russia’s tactics, Chinese policies are subtler. The flood of top provincial party leaders that travelled to the bordering Chinese province of Xinjiang in the days after the revolution, and the reported financial support China has lent the provisional government, underscore the Chinese leadership’s vested interest in the country.

In addition to being a hinge in China’s plan for expansion into Central Asia and Eastern Europe, Beijing fears that Kyrgyzstan raises the specter of unrest on its borders. Their particular concern is that the unrest could spread to the Muslim Uighur population, which makes up more than half of Xinjiang province, and which has members in Kyrgyzstan.

Chinese economic interests and the country’s desire for stability in the region do not directly conflict with U.S. goals in Kyrgyzstan. Satiating the Chinese appetite for oil with resources in Central Asia, in fact, could prevent the country from undertaking measures that conflict more directly with U.S. interests. Analysts warn, though, that Chinese economic policy lacks the ideological prerequisites that the West has come to expect.

“They’re willing to bribe, they’re not concerned about human rights violations, their businesses can deal with corrupt practices that our businesses can’t,” Goble said.

And while Chinese leadership is not directly threatened by the revolution, some authoritarian leaders in the region such as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Nursultan Nazarayev of Kazakhstan – with whom China has vested economic relationships – are.

“If they’re able to hold free and fair elections, which has never happened in this region before, then it’s going to be a huge threat to some countries in this region,” said Erica Marat, a Eurasia expert. “None of them want Kyrgyzstan to become a good example.”

As the U.S. navigates relations with the provisional Kyrgyz government – a task made more difficult by allegations that the American military knowingly purchased corrupt fuel contracts that benefited the deposed leader’s family – regional experts warn that policy makers should keep an eye on the East as well as the West.