The United States has played up the South China Sea issue again in the international arena.

At the ASEAN Regional Forum Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Hanoi last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked at length about U.S. "national interests" in the South China Sea.

Hintting there is what she called "coercion" in the region, Clinton called for consistence with customary international laws, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in particular.

It is ironic that the United States is asking others to abide by the UNCLOS while itself still shunning a UNCLOS full membership.

It is known to all that the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified the UNCLOS, as some U.S. politicians insist that the ratification would "diminish" U.S. "capacity for self-defense."

While disputes remain between China and several countries around the South China Sea, they have already concluded the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in accordance with the UNCLOS.

Thanks to the DOC, the situation in the South China Sea remains peaceful, and no party has ever used "coercion" and posed any threat to regional peace or navigation security in the South China Sea.

Ignoring the advise of the Chinese delegation, Clinton, with a prepared script at hand, tried to make an issue of the South China Sea at the meeting, claiming she was objecting to the "use or threat of force" in this ocean area.

The question is: as the situation in the South China Sea is peaceful, what is the logic in Clinton's "objection? "

So her real intention is questionable.

History has repeatedly proven that the involvement of a superpower in disputed areas did, more often than not, complicate the situation and bring tragedy to parties concerned.

Superpowers often adopted the strategy of "divide and rule." They stired up tensions, disputes and even conflicts, then set foot in to pose as a "mediator" or a "judge" in a bid to maximize their own interests.