The "anyone but China" bias in Washington's policy has been evident on other occasions. While attending an economic summit in Bali in November 2011, President Obama went out of his way to highlight the importance of the US defense alliance with the Philippines. His comment followed Clinton's strongly pro-Philippines statements regarding the South China Sea, such as "the United States will always be in the corner of the Philippines".

However Washington's conduct regarding the South China Sea is more inclined toward balance and neutrality compared to its stance regarding the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands. Clinton stated in 2010 that Washington's 1960 defense pact with Japan covers the islands, and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Kurt Campbell was equally definitive in September 2012, stating bluntly that the disputed islands were "clearly" covered by the treaty, which obliges the US to come to Japan's aid if attacked. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated that position in April.

The Obama administration's policy is both contradictory and unhelpful. Even as they apply the defense treaty to the Diaoyu Islands, Kerry and other US officials insist that the US takes no position on the substance of the dispute. But by stating that the mutual security treaty includes the islands, Washington is implicitly regarding the islands as Japanese territory, prejudging the issue.

That view has encouraged the Japanese government and public to be more uncompromising over the dispute. Myopic actions such as the June joint US-Japanese military exercises aimed at improving the amphibious attack capabilities of Japan's Self Defense Forces increase tensions and strengthen Tokyo's belief that it should confront China. It seems hardly coincidental that the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe adopted a more militant position once US officials stressed the importance of the alliance with Japan and said that the bilateral defense treaty covers the disputed islands.

Washington is playing a dangerous game by stirring tensions and backing certain parties regarding emotional territorial disagreements. But except for the preservation of navigation rights through the relevant bodies of water, the US does not have important interests at stake in these disputes. Strict neutrality is appropriate for Washington - in deeds as well as words.

The author, senior fellow of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute based in Washington, is the author of nine books on international issues.

(China Daily 07/23/2013 page8)