South China Sea thoughts?

Boatteacher

Active Member
According to this US Admiral, China has reached the point where only war will dislodge it from its illegal occupation of the SCS.

US Admiral warns: Only war can now stop Beijing controlling the South China Sea
In a way he is only stating what has been depressingly obvious and reflected in this site for quite a while.

But then, it would have taken a war to stop us getting to this stage in the first place because that was all that was going to stop the bases being built when they were. I suppose a more assertive US could have just parked some obstructing boats where the construction was occurring, but other states that played these games with China found out the use of force was not ruled out; so the question would have been what then would have happened.

All we can really do is continue the FON exercises and have a really good plan as to how we respond if one turns kinetic; because that will be the next step if things are going to go pear shaped. Plus work out in advance how to take out the islands if things do turn nasty. After all, we know exactly where they are, there are no civilians nearby and we know what we're hitting. Sure something in the arsenal will do the job.
 

weaponwh

Member
To be fair china is not the 1st to build island and put military on there . Vietnam and other countries done the same before . all the building are done on their occupied reef/island that has been in their control since 70 80s
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
No China are not the first to do that. They ARE the first to apply a total stranglehold on the area via those military installations though... ;)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Maybe this whole effort is a test of international resolve. The resolve is questionable so at some point China will go after what they want most, Taiwan. With no support Taiwan will accept the inevitable. Could be wrong of course.
 

weaponwh

Member
No China are not the first to do that. They ARE the first to apply a total stranglehold on the area via those military installations though... ;)
True but do u think any other party in the dispute wont do the same if they have the power military and manufacturing capabilities as china today .
 

weaponwh

Member
Taiwan should declared independence in 50s but back then kmt still consider ccp as rogue . now it's almost impossible to do that without war
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
With no support Taiwan will accept the inevitable. Could be wrong of course.
It all depends on the U.S's policy over Taiwan in the coming years. As China gets more powerful militarily and economically in the coming years; future U.S. administrations may decide that going to war over Taiwan is just not in the U.S's interests.

True but do u think any other party in the dispute wont do the same if they have the power military and manufacturing capabilities as china today .
The key difference is that the other claimants are not claiming the whole area as theirs.
 

weaponwh

Member
The key difference is that the other claimants are not claiming the whole area as theirs.
As opposed to 5 time their country size? Vietnam claim is about what 5 time the size of their country . many others has outrageous claim as well

China note given to UN charter said it's interest are in the islands it self not all SCS . I wonder why their claims line is dash rather than solid like others
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The various claimants go about basing their claims in different ways. Malaysia for example claims several reefs which it maintains are part of its continental shelf. The same goes with Brunei. China largely bases its claims on historical reasons, including the fact that parts of the Spratlys were considered part of Taiwan [Formosa] when it was under the Japanese.

[Malaysia and Brunei: An Analysis of their Claims In The South China Sea]
https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/IOP-2014-U-008434.pdf

[Brunei, Silent Claimant In the South China Sea]
https://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2016/04/28/brunei-silent-claimant-south-china-sea/

[China Still Claiming All Of Spratlys, PH Envoy Says]
http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/12/05/17/china-still-claiming-all-of-spratlys-ph-envoy-says
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Boatteacher

Active Member
The various claimants go about basing their claims in different ways. Malaysia for example claims several reefs which it maintains are part of its continental shelf. The same goes with Brunei. China largely bases its claims on historical reasons, including the fact that parts of the Spratlys were considered part of Taiwan [Formosa] when it was under the Japanese.
But we are talking about different sorts of claims here.

Yes, some might argue that an existing Island is part of their sovereign territory. But for the most part their debates are about EEZ's.

China is asserting the whole of the SCS is their sovereign territory. That is a completely unprecedented claim; especially since it's such a busy waterway. So on this thinking the transit of a foreign warship across the waterway is effectively an invasion and maybe one day a pretext for the sort of kinetic response that leads to war. It's a very dangerous game which can't be compared with that of any other claimant.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
But we are talking about different sorts of claims here.
Yes we are, which why I said in a previous post that China claims the whole [or more accurately, most] of the South China Sea.

That is a completely unprecedented claim; especially since it's such a busy waterway.
The Spratlys was in the headlines quite often in the 1990's [when it was other claimants that were more active] but largely went unreported; until only about a decade ago. Until a few years ago most Chinese citizens were aware of issues with Tibet and Xinjiang [Turkestan] but were clueless about the Spratlys. Compare that to the situation we have now.
 
Last edited:

weaponwh

Member
But we are talking about different sorts of claims here.

Yes, some might argue that an existing Island is part of their sovereign territory. But for the most part their debates are about EEZ's.

China is asserting the whole of the SCS is their sovereign territory. That is a completely unprecedented claim; especially since it's such a busy waterway. So on this thinking the transit of a foreign warship across the waterway is effectively an invasion and maybe one day a pretext for the sort of kinetic response that leads to war. It's a very dangerous game which can't be compared with that of any other claimant.
Base on official UN note that china send they seem to claim the islands in scs . And EEZ surrounding those island . The whole SCS as territory is either confusion or just someone didn't do their home work

You can find that that note by searching "china un verbal scs 2014" on google .

I don't belief china ever said entire SCS are it's territory .Media just made it for the headlines . if u read Chinese officials respond in Chinese it's always parcel and spartly island chain Not entire SCS . But when those words translated to English media news it becomes entire SCS as it's territory
 
Last edited:

Boatteacher

Active Member
Base on official UN note that china send they seem to claim the islands in scs . And EEZ surrounding those island . The whole SCS as territory is either confusion or just someone didn't do their home work

You can find that that note by searching "china un verbal scs 2014" on google .

I don't belief china ever said entire SCS are it's territory .Media just made it for the headlines . if u read Chinese officials respond in Chinese it's always parcel and spartly island chain Not entire SCS . But when those words translated to English media news it becomes entire SCS as it's territory
Why then would China react when Australian warships transited the SCS travelling from the Philippines to Vietnam.

China's claim is clearly for sovereignty over all the existing and now man made Islands plus to "control" the whole of the SCS. The concept of control is deliberately ambiguous. It is not recognized in international law and the manner in which China attempts to exercise it goes well beyond EEZ concepts. For instance China's attempts to control all aircraft transiting the area.
 

weaponwh

Member
Why then would China react when Australian warships transited the SCS travelling from the Philippines to Vietnam.

China's claim is clearly for sovereignty over all the existing and now man made Islands plus to "control" the whole of the SCS. The concept of control is deliberately ambiguous. It is not recognized in international law and the manner in which China attempts to exercise it goes well beyond EEZ concepts. For instance China's attempts to control all aircraft transiting the area.
Pretty sure china just done some communication with foreign ship since they themselves has a lot military activities in the region
Media just blow it up for headlines or do we have actual conversation between the incident?

US done similar things towards Russia/china military ship when they transit through EEZ etc. Its common for military ship encountered to communicate each other in case of some misunderstanding .

Ur mind already set on china claim entire SCS so no amount of evidence I provide can change that . But do u think it's possible china only want the islands and nearby resources not entire SCS
U base on 1 communication between china and Australia ship and conclude china want entire SCS? Until we get the full conversation between two ship we don't know what happened
And where is this evidence that china attempted control All aircraft transit through SCS
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Pretty sure china just done some communication with foreign ship since they themselves has a lot military activities in the region
Media just blow it up for headlines or do we have actual conversation between the incident?

US done similar things towards Russia/china military ship when they transit through EEZ etc. Its common for military ship encountered to communicate each other in case of some misunderstanding .

Ur mind already set on china claim entire SCS so no amount of evidence I provide can change that . But do u think it's possible china only want the islands and nearby resources not entire SCS
U base on 1 communication between china and Australia ship and conclude china want entire SCS? Until we get the full conversation between two ship we don't know what happened
And where is this evidence that china attempted control All aircraft transit through SCS
China is illegally occupying islands in the SCS and it is actively preventing other nations from pursuing legitimate activities with in the area. The case that the Philippines took to independent arbitration specifically states that China has no legal right under international law for such activities. The Nine dashed Line is not China's EEZ.

You ask for evidence. If you read back through this thread you will find plenty of verifiable facts regarding China's illegal activity within the SCS. This fora advocates robust debate, however this debate must be underpinned by verifiable evidence and regarding the SCS this has been posted. We will not accept apologists who just spout political party dogmas.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Has the US relented its hand in the SCS?

The South China Sea: Reality Is Slowly Sinking In

I believe its past the point of no return, how long will the US sit back now that China has carried thru with its intent to disrupt regional stability, the Chinese challenge of RAN task group shows it intends to bully minor state actors in the SCS. China has cast doubt on US resolve in its Asia pivot and how far the US will actually go to restrict Chinese aggressive policy of containment of the SCS.
 

weaponwh

Member
China is illegally occupying islands in the SCS and it is actively preventing other nations from pursuing legitimate activities with in the area. The case that the Philippines took to independent arbitration specifically states that China has no legal right under international law for such activities. The Nine dashed Line is not China's EEZ.

You ask for evidence. If you read back through this thread you will find plenty of verifiable facts regarding China's illegal activity within the SCS. This fora advocates robust debate, however this debate must be underpinned by verifiable evidence and regarding the SCS this has been posted. We will not accept apologists who just spout political party dogmas.
I'm asking for evidence where previous poster claim china attempted control ALL air traffic in the area . I don'the see that and I've been tracking SCS from various media for sometime

Yes I do know china occupied island etc so does Vietnam Philippine etc . I'm not saying china is right but the whole conversation started when someone indicates china claim ALL SCS as it's territory but I point to UN note where china really claim is the islands and use it's EEZ to get the resources . They want influence resources in the area, they don't need take entire SCS as it's territory to achieve that

If u read my previous posts ..then u know it's about they want claim all SCS as territory or the 9 dash line is meant for claim all island within and Its EEZ . That was the difference opinion I had with previous postser which start the back and forth post

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf
Under this possible interpretation, the dashed line indicates only the islands over which China claims sovereignty. It is not unusual to draw lines at sea on a map as an efficient and practical means to identify a group of islands. If the map depicts only China’s land claims, then China’s maritime claims, under this interpretation, are those provided for in the LOS Convention. China’s statement accompanying the map in its 2009 Notes Verbales could be read to support this meaning:
China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof (see attached map).
The “sovereignty” over the waters “adjacent” to the islands could refer to the 12-nm territorial sea, which is indeed a zone of “sovereignty” under international law.28 Likewise, the “sovereign rights and jurisdiction” could be understood to refer to the legal regimes of the EEZ and continental shelf under the LOS Convention, which uses the same terminology to describe coastal State authority within those zones.29 The “relevant waters” and the “seabed and subsoil thereof” likewise could be understood to refer to the EEZ and continental shelf.
Support for this interpretation can be found in China’s laws and statements. Article 2 of China’s 1992 territorial sea law claims a 12-nm territorial sea around the “Dongsha [Pratas] Islands, Xisha [Paracel] Islands, Nansha (Spratly) Islands and other islands that belong to the People’s Republic of China.”30 China’s 1958 Territorial Sea Declaration makes similar claims.31 With respect to the “relevant” areas seaward of the territorial sea, China’s 1998 EEZ and continental shelf law establishes a 200-nm EEZ and describes China’s continental shelf rights and jurisdiction.32 Indeed, China’s 2011 Note Verbale clarified its view that “China’s Nansha Islands is fully entitled to Territorial Sea, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and Continental Shelf,” and no mention was made of any other maritime claims.33
Cartographic evidence and official statements also provide support for an interpretation that China’s dashed line describes island claims and not distinct maritime claims. As noted above, the original 1930s dashed-line map, on which subsequent dashed-line maps were based, was titled “Map of the Chinese Islands in the South China Sea.” That map was apparently brought into use domestically by the Republic of China in the late 1940s during a time when the international law governing maritime claims by most accounts recognized only a narrow belt of territorial sea. Indeed, China’s own Declaration on its territorial sea of 1958 states:
This provision [a 12-nm territorial sea] applies to all territories of the People’s Republic of China, including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands, as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas [emphasis added].34
The reference to “high seas”—maritime space under no country’s jurisdiction—separating China’s mainland and coastal islands from “all other islands belonging to China” indicates that in 1958 China made no claim to the entirety of the ocean space within the dashed line.
 
Last edited:

weaponwh

Member
Has the US relented its hand in the SCS?

The South China Sea: Reality Is Slowly Sinking In

I believe its past the point of no return, how long will the US sit back now that China has carried thru with its intent to disrupt regional stability, the Chinese challenge of RAN task group shows it intends to bully minor state actors in the SCS. China has cast doubt on US resolve in its Asia pivot and how far the US will actually go to restrict Chinese aggressive policy of containment of the SCS.
there is not much anyone can do short of war. China hasn't invade Vietnam/malasia occupy island, even the phillippine are cozy up to china. As 3rd party US can't say stop building stuff on island/reef that was under china control in the 1st place. But china also been careful on this not to piss off smaller SE asia country, which will push them toward US. Example of this is recent phillippine china cozy up and China move its oil rig after Vietnam intense objections.
 
Top