South China Sea News & Discussions, incl Spratly Islands News

[STURM]

Its not just a symbolic gesture though.

Of course its not a symbolic gesture, it's intended to send a subtle message to China and reassure friends and allies in the region such as the ASEAN countries and Australia - all part of the U.S. strategy of placing more importance in the Asia Pacific region, which in the near future will be more vital for U.S. interests than Europe or the Mediterranean region. My worry is that basing ships in Singapore, coming after the recent announcement that a USMC regiment will be based in Northern Australia, will send the wrong message to China and lead to a hardening of the Chinese position towards the Spratleys.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011129132510922889.html

What would the U.S. response be if at some future point the Chinese announce that they will be basing a squadron of PLAN frigates in Myanmmar to ensure the freedom of navigation for all countries or if they base frigates in Gwadar to protect their maritime traffic from the Middle East to China?

They will provide a venue for building closer security ties with the nations in the region.

True but with the exception of a few countries, almost every country in ASEAN and East Asia, already has stronger security ties with Uncle Sam than with China. In ASEAN, Thailand and the Philippines are already non-NATO allies and Singapore is a ''close'' friend. Even a country like Malaysia, which does not go out of its way to reveal that its military trains more regularly with Uncle Sam than with anyone because of domestic politics, has a much more established military relationship and political relationship with the U.S.

 

[colay]

Of course its not a symbolic gesture, it's intended to send a subtle message to China and reassure friends and allies in the region such as the ASEAN countries and Australia - all part of the U.S. strategy of placing more importance in the Asia Pacific region, which in the near future will be more vital for U.S. interests than Europe or the Mediterranean region. My worry is that basing ships in Singapore, coming after the recent announcement that a USMC regiment will be based in Northern Australia, will send the wrong message to China and lead to a hardening of the Chinese position towards the Spratleys.

Playing with fire: Obama's threat to China - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

What would the U.S. response be if at some future point the Chinese announce that they will be basing a squadron of PLAN frigates in Myanmmar to ensure the freedom of navigation for all countries or if they base frigates in Gwadar to protect their maritime traffic from the Middle East to China?



True but with the exception of a few countries, almost every country in ASEAN and East Asia, already has stronger security ties with Uncle Sam than with China. In ASEAN, Thailand and the Philippines are already non-NATO allies and Singapore is a ''close'' friend. Even a country like Malaysia, which does not go out of its way to reveal that its military trains more regularly with Uncle Sam than with anyone because of domestic politics, has a much more established military relationship and political with the U.S.

These are just part of the overall US response to China's efforts to contest US access to what the Chinese perceive to be their backyard. They are not content wit the status quo of US superiority ovrr the region and so are building up their capabilities to project force well beyond their national boundaries, to encompass countries and sea lanes of strategic interest to the US. There can be no doubting their intent. Given this, if the Chinese do build military bases in the Indian Ocean as has been predicted by many, I would consider this just to be an extension of their overall strategy and not a tit-for-tat reaction to US initiatives.

China and the US will continue doing what they believe serve their respective interests. The US initiatives are consistent with the Joint Operational Access Concept just recently been signed off by the Joint Chiefs which is the master blueprint in crafting a US response to china's challenge.

 

[STURM]

They are not content wit the status quo of US superiority ovrr the region and so are building up their capabilities to project force well beyond their national boundaries, to encompass countries and sea lanes of strategic interest to the US. There can be no doubting their intent.

IMO the Chinese have long accepted the fact that the cannot totally challenge U.S. military superiority in the region and they don't have to. What they can do is make it extremely difficult and troublesome for the U.S., in the event of a conflict in the region. Their military buildup is in line with China's desire to be a great power, their need to protect their energy resources and their need to counter possible U.S. ''meddling'' in China's internal affairs over Taiwan and the Spratleys.

Given this, if the Chinese do build military bases in the Indian Ocean as has been predicted by many, I would consider this just to be an extension of their overall strategy and not a tit-for-tat reaction to US initiatives.

It might not be a ''tit for tat'' response as such as move would be in China's interest and can be presented as such. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see what the U.S. political would be as any complains or expressions of concern by the State Department or the Pentagon, would be akin to the U.S. pot calling the Chinese kettle black. I would also not be surprised if at anytime soon we start seeing increased IN activity east of the Melaka Straits.

 

[colay]

I'm all for diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. As with any agreement though, the devil is in the details and I withhold judgment until these are hammered out and the agreement signed by all parties. The important thing though is that ASEAN is taking a multilateral approach to the whole SCS issue.

However, any agreement entered into by ASEAN and China won't preclude any of the individual claimant countries and China from pursuing unilateral actions, political or military, they deem in their best interests. Actions will always speak louder than words.

 

[rip]

IMO the Chinese have long accepted the fact that the cannot totally challenge U.S. military superiority in the region and they don't have to. What they can do is make it extremely difficult and troublesome for the U.S., in the event of a conflict in the region. Their military buildup is in line with China's desire to be a great power, their need to protect their energy resources and their need to counter possible U.S. ''meddling'' in China's internal affairs over Taiwan and the Spratleys.



It might not be a ''tit for tat'' response as such as move would be in China's interest and can be presented as such. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see what the U.S. political would be as any complains or expressions of concern by the State Department or the Pentagon, would be akin to the U.S. pot calling the Chinese kettle black. I would also not be surprised if at anytime soon we start seeing increased IN activity east of the Melaka Straits.

Regardless of how strong the Chines become in the South China sea, the big difference will always be that in any confrontation that goes hot, China will lose the use of the sea as long as the US can contest it and its sea approaches to China, denying China the use of their home waters which they would need to win a long war. While the US, even if it can’t control the South China Sea itself, will still have the use of its home waters. In that case, over time the US will grow stronger during the conflict while China would grow weaker. Until the time comes that China has the capacity to threaten the sea lanes that the US needs (in both oceans at the same time) to maintain its commerce, in the same way that the US can threaten China’s, the contest would be unequal.

The difficulty of projecting power seven thousand miles from your home base is a lot harder and very different from contesting power in your coastal waters. China has no experience in that part of naval warfare at all and as far as I know isn’t even trying.

 

[colay]

Infographic: Global shipping routes, mapped using GPS data | SmartPlanet

Here's an interesting graphic I came across recently. It shows a year's shipping traffic based on actual itineraries tracked by GPS condensed in a single image.
In relation to our discussion re China, one can clearly see the how dependent China's well-being is on that single yellow line. They can build up their Navy as much as they want to try and dominate the SCS, project their forces into the Indian Ocean , etc. but they are very much a hostage to geography. Any conflict in the area could potentially pose a knife at her jugular.

Perhaps they should consider that true security may best be achieved by being less confrontational and in cooperating with other countries to ensure free and secure access to trade routes.'

 

[STURM]

China has no experience in that part of naval warfare at all and as far as I know isn’t even trying.

And it has no need to do so.

They can build up their Navy as much as they want to try and dominate the SCS, project their forces into the Indian Ocean , etc. but they are very much a hostage to geography. Any conflict in the area could potentially pose a knife at her jugular.'

That's precisely why China is in the process of building a number of land routes on friendly countries to reduce it's dependency on the sea. It's reliance on the Melaka Straits has been called China's ''Melaka dilemma''.

 

[rip]

And it has no need to do so.



That's precisely why China is in the process of building a number of land routes on friendly countries to reduce it's dependency on the sea. It's reliance on the Melaka Straits has been called China's ''Melaka dilemma''.

If I were the Chines, I too would in all prudence, like to have as many options for trade and transportation as possible. But there is and never has been a better or more efficient method of moving large numbers of people and goods than by sea transport. A fact that every land locked country can testify.

The safest, surest, and cheapest method that China has to insure its continued success is not by building the greatest navy in the world but to strengthening and supporting the principal of the freedom of the seas for everyone.

Nobody reasonable opposes that China should have a great navy to go along with its sizes and economic power. Such is the natural order of things and any attempt to stop it would not be beneficial. But making the South China Sea its territory waters, even if they could somehow succeed in that goal, will not get them increase security but will have just the opposite effect.

 

[surpreme]

If I were the Chines, I too would in all prudence, like to have as many options for trade and transportation as possible. But there is and never has been a better or more efficient method of moving large numbers of people and goods than by sea transport. A fact that every land locked country can testify.

The safest, surest, and cheapest method that China has to insure its continued success is not by building the greatest navy in the world but to strengthening and supporting the principal of the freedom of the seas for everyone.

Nobody reasonable opposes that China should have a great navy to go along with its sizes and economic power. Such is the natural order of things and any attempt to stop it would not be beneficial. But making the South China Sea its territory waters, even if they could somehow succeed in that goal, will not get them increase security but will have just the opposite effect.

I agreed with that PLAN overall plan should be to keep freedom of the sea for everyone. Sounds good but not going to happen. PLAN goals are not stated to the public that the problem. As the top commander of the CP stated be prepared for warfare what a strong statement to make. Why PLAN preparing for warfare? What are the PLAN goals are they to hold off a big navy such as US? Overall PLAN goals are not stated as the US goals are stated. Is the PLAN taking about defending the South China Sea area don't know.

 

[STURM]

But there is and never has been a better or more efficient method of moving large numbers of people and goods than by sea transport. A fact that every land locked country can testify.

Agreed, but in China's case, they fully realise that in their merchant and tanker fleet is very vulnerable to USN and IN interdiction in time of war. Due to geography, moving oil via pipelines from Pakistan and Myanmmar to southern China makes lot of sense. This is why they have invested billions building the port and storage facilities in Gwadar and have plans to do the same in Sri Lanka and Myanmmar.

Despite all the doomsday talk by various quarters about the so-call danger posed by China's 1st carrier, I'm convinced that the main purpose of the carrier is to protect China's SLOCs and its merchant and oil fleet.

 

[rip]

Agreed, but in China's case, they fully realise that in their merchant and tanker fleet is very vulnerable to USN and IN interdiction in time of war. Due to geography, moving oil via pipelines from Pakistan and Myanmmar to southern China makes lot of sense. This is why they have invested billions building the port and storage facilities in Gwadar and have plans to do the same in Sri Lanka and Myanmmar.

Despite all the doomsday talk by various quarters about the so-call danger posed by China's 1st carrier, I'm convinced that the main purpose of the carrier is to protect China's SLOCs and its merchant and oil fleet.

In the soon coming age of “hypersonic trans-continental kinetic precision strike weapons (already starting developmental testing), even pipelines with their far more important pumping stations, are not safe from preemptive attack, no matter how far inland they are. Railroads are a far harder target to disable because, with few exceptions, they can be repaired quickly while pipelines are not.

As to China’s ultimate intentions, I still think they themselves have not made up their own minds. But I do believe that their choices will be driven far more by the internal political needs of the Communist party in its overriding goal of keeping it monopoly of power, than by any international concerns or even the best interest of the Chines people.

 

[surpreme]

In the soon coming age of “hypersonic trans-continental kinetic precision strike weapons (already starting developmental testing), even pipelines with their far more important pumping stations, are not safe from preemptive attack, no matter how far inland they are. Railroads are a far harder target to disable because, with few exceptions, they can be repaired quickly while pipelines are not.

As to China’s ultimate intentions, I still think they themselves have not made up their own minds. But I do believe that their choices will be driven far more by the internal political needs of the Communist party in its overriding goal of keeping it monopoly of power, than by any international concerns or even the best interest of the Chines people.

Overall the PLAN concern is make sure shipping lanes are protected that why they building so many ships. So don't be surprise to see more naval ship in Indian Ocean. They need lots of training in the high water to be effective and will take time somewhere in range of 5 to10 years to be professsional in the sea.
Its not easy to be a world wide navy force. But will proper training and the desire the sky is the limit for the PLAN.

 

[swerve]

Agreed, but in China's case, they fully realise that in their merchant and tanker fleet is very vulnerable to USN and IN interdiction in time of war. Due to geography, moving oil via pipelines from Pakistan and Myanmmar to southern China makes lot of sense. This is why they have invested billions building the port and storage facilities in Gwadar and have plans to do the same in Sri Lanka and Myanmmar.

Despite all the doomsday talk by various quarters about the so-call danger posed by China's 1st carrier, I'm convinced that the main purpose of the carrier is to protect China's SLOCs and its merchant and oil fleet.

A pipeline from Gwadar through Pakistan to China would be both very expensive (look at where it has to go) & vulnerable to interdiction by India. I'd look to Chinese efforts to get access to Central Asian oil as being more significant in terms of guaranteeing supply.

China is pursuing both pipeline & railway links with Central Asia, both of which could transport large quantities of fuel. A second rail link between Sinkiang & Kazakhstan was recently opened, with much higher capacity than the first. The first oil & gas pipelines both opened in 2009, & are being extended.

 

[ManilaBoy]

New intrusion into Philippine maritime areas by 3 PLAN warships were reported last month this time near the Sabina Shoal east of Mischief Reef which was taken by china already, they are definitely inching closer to the shores of Palawan island...

Philippines accuses China of maritime intrusions - Yahoo! News

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

New intrusion into Philippine maritime areas by 3 PLAN warships were reported last month this time near the Sabina Shoal east of Mischief Reef which was taken by china already, they are definitely inching closer to the shores of Palawan island...

Philippines accuses China of maritime intrusions - Yahoo! News

woh..thats indeed very close to the Philippine border...

 

[rip]

woh..thats indeed very close to the Philippine border...

The important thing to realize at this point in history is not that the Philippines have so little military capacity to currently stop any Chinese incursion upon the territory at sea of which the Philippines claim. Up until this point in history they really didn’t need it. It is there increasing resistance to the very idea of being bullied by China that is most important to consider and that is what will drive them even more than any practical economic considerations will. In fact this threat to their national identity may even revitalize their nationalist feelings. Simply, what I am saying is that they will not just give up or accept China’s version of reality. Will they step up to the challenge? I cannot be sure but I think there is a good chance that they will. Far more so than the Chinese realize I am willing to bet.

I know it is hard to think of the Philippines as a significant military power either today or even in the future for a number of reasons and so it can then just be easily dismissed. I think that would be a mistake, at least when it comes to fighting for what they think is their own is concerned.

True it is a poor country with few natural resources to call upon except for their vast diaspora of people living and working in other countries. Their government and the rest of their entrenched elites are corrupt, lazy and have a feeling of endless privilege. Their officer core is even worse. But the individual Pilipino fighting man is tough, smart, well disciplined, brave, and very, very passionate, I might even say scary passionate.

With all of their problems they have proven in the past that they have the ability to come together and overcome their differences, when it comes to issues of national sovereignty. Today this is not the number one issue in Philippine society, but some day it could be.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

US, Filipino forces plan drills near disputed area
Associated Press, Manila | Thu, 01/19/2012 6:08 PM


A Philippine general says US and Filipino marines will hold combat drills at an actual oil rig in the South China Sea to bolster the defense of such facilities from security threats.

complete report at US, Filipino forces plan drills near disputed area | The Jakarta Post

 

[ManilaBoy]

US, Filipino forces plan drills near disputed area
Associated Press, Manila | Thu, 01/19/2012 6:08 PM


A Philippine general says US and Filipino marines will hold combat drills at an actual oil rig in the South China Sea to bolster the defense of such facilities from security threats.

complete report at US, Filipino forces plan drills near disputed area | The Jakarta Post

I guess the oil rig being referred to in this news article is the Malampaya gas field rig off the northwest coast of Palawan island since this is the only lone permanent structure rig in that area that belongs to the Philippines, shown below is a photo of the actual oil platform with PN ship BRP Gregorio Del Pilar PF-15 patrolling around it on a cloudy and blustery day...

 

[ASSAIL]

Spratley Is. US Response?

If the Chinese sovreignty claims are backed up with some scaled military activity/occupation, how is the US likely to respond, if at all?
What are the treaty arrangements between the US and her ex colony?

 

[rip]

If the Chinese sovreignty claims are backed up with some scaled military activity/occupation, how is the US likely to respond, if at all?
What are the treaty arrangements between the US and her ex colony?

I do not want to appear flippant but it depends on who is the US president at the time. That said the affairs of great nations are not usually determined by political personalities that come and go with time but by the country's true national interests and by the values of the country which the country hold dear. More than one US president has been frustrated by international events that delayed or frustrated the political agenda that they were elected to enact. But sooner or later the US would respond.

As I understand it, the US has made the commitment to defend the Philippine nation. But it has not committed itself to defending the Philippine claims in the South China Sea. When the Philippines were under the US administration, I believe the US did not claim these waters as part of the nation territory so it is not committed to defending them now. But that was another age before the great land rush to try to gain control of ever rock and shoal in the world and any natural resources in, around, and under them. At that time minerals under the sea were not recoverable and had no value and people acted like the fish belonged to any and all that could catch them, as if they were an inexhaustible resource. Like I said it was another time.

The treaty for the International Law of the Sea gives the control to a nation of all the biologic and mineral resources adjacent to its land mass along its continental shelf. The sea bottom around the South China Sea is very shallow. Thirteen thousand years ago during the last Ice Age, most of it way dry land with real people living on it. We know nothing about those people now because all of their works are now up to three hundred feet under water. It this case the continental shelf of Asia extends beyond the other side of the Philippines. The US generally recognizes most claims made under the international Law of the Sea treaty but the US senate has never ratified it. So there is has lot of wiggle room ether way.