South China Sea News & Discussions, incl Spratly Islands News

[Andri F]

Harmless huh?

So, if Malaysia (another claimant to the Spratlys) renames it the North Malaysia Sea, it is also harmless because it "gives them a semblance of control of the situation"?

And if Malaysia passes their own version of the Archipelagic Law to strengthen the legal basis of their claims in the Spratlys, that will also be acceptable to the Philippines since that is what the Philippines did?

What is the 2nd one that is normal? It didn't appear in your post, so a clarification will be useful.

It is normal for one side to strengthen their claims as peacefully as possible. We don't have anything against that. But against force and threat, it's another thing entirely. We won't die if they get it because the UN decides to. Sure there will be mass rallies but we could continue with our lives. Unlike when it's settled by war when we know we're done for and we might never live tomorrow.

In the UN, all claimants are assumed equal and it all comes down to who has the greatest argument and the one with the most concrete and convincing evidence so its the one ideal for us and that's why we don't have anything against renaming or passing of laws and such as long as it doesn't threaten our lives.

 

[Chino]

It could be easy for a US President to authorize military actions - thereby risking American materiel and lives - on humanitarian grounds. Example: WMD, saving Kuwait, saving the Iraqi people from a evil dictator, saving the Afghan people from the evil Taliban etc.

But the uninhabited shoals in the middle of nowhere in the SCS? Who are Americans dying for this time? The birds, fishes and plants that inhabit those islets?

Against a heavily nuclear-armed regional power?

This could be a tough sell to the already war-weary American people...

 

[Chino]

What is needed is the Asean members to try and bring in new members like Japan plus a few others because against just one country China is overwhelmingly superior but against a collective of nations there capabilites would be tested and thats when people like the US and Great Britain would become involved.

Remember how the league of Arab nations "stood up" to Israel before the Six Day War and subsequently the Yom Kippur War?

The details are complex, but betrayal was often mentioned once the shooting started.

The reason ASEAN was not created as a military alliance is because the people who created it were astute enough to recognise that ASEAN members have too many differences in terms of self-interests, to be a cohesive military alliance.

Regarding joining with Japan against China, this is burdening ourselves with Japan and China's blood feud, and quite silly thing to do.

Singapore's only interest is to keep the SLOC in SCS open. And we are allowing the basing of USN ships here for that purpose. And so far, China has NOT hinted at the closing of SLOC in SCS. And why should they? They are not the Taliban.

Frankly, we do not, and should not, border ourselves if Philippines (for e.g.) decides to take on China over a few uninhabited shoals because there is possibly oil there.

Nothing you say can convince me why I, or any Singaporean, should fight and die so that the Philippines can perhaps, drill for oil. If they want oil they should be prepared to spill their own blood and not hope about getting other people involved.

 

[STURM]

Remember how the league of Arab nations "stood up" to Israel before the Six Day War and subsequently the Yom Kippur War?

The details are complex, but betrayal was often mentioned once the shooting started.

The Arabs prior to the war were already divided - in fact, Arab 'unity' never existed. Both Syria and Egypt decided on war for different reasons but didn't bother to inform each other. Egypt was convinced that an recapturing the Sinai would jump start peace talks with Israel. Syria on the other hand, was covinced that peace talks were going nowhere and that the only way to re-gain the Golan was by military means. And off-course there was Jordan, which in the sprit of Arab unity, commited units to the Golan but prior to that, informed the Israelis.

 

[fretburner]

Based on China's statistics, their own fishermen have also been arrested, robbed or assaulted while fishing in the South China Sea:

Philippine claim groundless|Top News|chinadaily.com.cn

I never heard of the Philippine Navy/Coast Guard or Filipino Fishermen "harass Chinese fishermen in Hainan Province". Unless they claim the Scarborough shoal and Spratly's as part of Hainan Province?

 

[My2Cents]

I never heard of the Philippine Navy/Coast Guard or Filipino Fishermen "harass Chinese fishermen in Hainan Province". Unless they claim the Scarborough shoal and Spratly's as part of Hainan Province?

That is correct. Hainan Province is most of the South China Sea and includes all the disputed territory that China claims in the area, like the Scarborough shoal and Spratly Islands.

 

[USAF77]

With about the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia at stake, let alone all that natural gas and fishing, the interest of the Chinese is pretty easy to see.

They will split their enemies diplomatically/economically and bully whats left with their emerging Maritime military power. Thats even more important to them then the "face" of acquiring Taiwan. For decades now they have made energy and resources their #1 diplomatic priority. Thus all that effort in Africa and their willingness to do business with anyone.

They dont want to "dominate" as much as they want to be "dominant". They want enough muscle to get what they want without firing a shot. China's claims of sovereignty in The South China Sea go back to the 12'th century, as does of course Taiwan's. They just dont want to grab the resources ; They actually believe its their's. Its important to note that three countries claim ALL of The Spratly's. China, Taiwan, and Vietnam.

So its important to remember that China's Cold War priority's in the region have shifted from purely defensive ones to the current one of controlling the regions resource rich potential. And they know they are sitting in the cat bird seat. They are the regions dominant military power and are to important a trade partner for other nations to ignore. There is no real alliance of nations to counter them and the only one who can stop them has no claim in the region and has no interest in doing so.

They are like an old dog with a bone that he wont give up. China is not going to back down in The South China Sea.

Personally, I do not think China will implement archipelagic sea lanes in the South China Sea simply because it is not in their interest to do so. Further, they have already stated repeatedly that freedom of navigation has never been an issue, or will their claims change this.

I also do not see China being able to dominate the South China Sea simply because there are so many navies active in the area, including the US 7th Fleet. Recently, even the Indian Navy has been active in the area. Hence, it is hard to see how China can dominate the area in the near future.

As for military alliance, the failure of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) makes it quite clear that a NATO equivalent arrangement does not work for Southeast Asia. The political systems amongst the ASEAN countries are so diverse (various types of democracies, Communist country, constitutional monarchy) and there are so many differences that there is currently insufficient common ground for a military alliance. And China is trying not to be the common ground to spark a military alliance against it.

 

[Andri F]

You said China's setting up of Sansha City to administer the disputed areas is provocative earlier. The Philippines has also done something similar: Kalayaan. And this is not provocative?

I'm not sure if you understand the importance of strengthening a country's claims in disputed territories. But, this is effectively undermining another country's claims. And if that is not considered provocative, than why be bothered by China naming it the Sansha province when the Philippines have called it the Kalayaan?

As for you mention of war, did the local media in your country highlight that China's military has not been deployed to the disputed areas? The standoffs at Scarborough are by their paramilitary outfit (coastguard equivalent). If China really wanted to be provocative, they could have sent a destroyer, a few frigates and possibly an LPD with helos.

Please read my previous posts. I did not mention Sansha and I'm not really threatened by it. That is just some nuisance I expected but the grounding of the PRC ship is another thing. That was threatening (especially since a media said that they carry surface-to-surface missiles, probably just anti-ships, capable of reaching Palawan). The SCS situation is treading on thin ice and I feared that that one incident may break the ice, as it were.

As for strenghtening claims, I mention PEACEFULLY.

As for my mention of war, read:
1.)"I guess an arms build-up is inevitable and it could increase pressure until the time when one party might make a simple mistake and war might come crashing down."

2.) "There would be mass rallies everywhere denouncing the PRC (and it will never help) or issuing our gov't to hasten military modernization (although it might help hasten the modernization, once we have a capable military, our people might immediately clamor for war)."
3.)"Unlike when it's settled by war when we know we're done for and we might never live tomorrow."

Did I mentioned anything about naval warfare? Nada.

And think for one moment. Those paramilitary ships (if they are/will be armed) could trash our navy in probably a week.

And read again post #165. I'm implying that Beijing stop their provocations and act responsively for once. They are what we could call big brother so they should act nicely first not pop balloons. The arms build up by some claimants other than the PRC are acceptable evidence that they are responding to provocations or preparing to respond to it or trying to lessen it by making their rivals see that they could sting back if stung and they should settle it peacefully. Even my country which still has insurgents to worry about is modernizing its territorial defense stuffs.

 

[Andri F]

Personally, I do not think China will implement archipelagic sea lanes in the South China Sea simply because it is not in their interest to do so. Further, they have already stated repeatedly that freedom of navigation has never been an issue, or will their claims change this.

I also do not see China being able to dominate the South China Sea simply because there are so many navies active in the area, including the US 7th Fleet. Recently, even the Indian Navy has been active in the area. Hence, it is hard to see how China can dominate the area in the near future.

As for military alliance, the failure of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) makes it quite clear that a NATO equivalent arrangement does not work for Southeast Asia. The political systems amongst the ASEAN countries are so diverse (various types of democracies, Communist country, constitutional monarchy) and there are so many differences that there is currently insufficient common ground for a military alliance. And China is trying not to be the common ground to spark a military alliance against it.

Concerning the first, Japan has a say on that since the PRC could hypothetically strangle Japan when they cut that off.

As for the second, check the DF-21D. See who it's probably meant for, what it could do and what it means in the sea battleground. Imagine what a more advance version and more numerous DF-21Ds do to a US Navy that would probably be affected by budget cuts.

Then for the boldface: Kudos to the PRC. What I could see is the opposite. US allies are leaning more and more towards the US as counterbalance. A former enemy of the US is warming up to them. Just a little bit more and Beijing MAY find itself surrounded by angry snarling countries backed by the US.

 

[the concerned]

When everyone mentions the US they always go straight to the Cv's but aren't people forgetting that they also have the biggest SSN fleet around. I think you could quite easily sit the CV's back and cause absolute chaos with these plus the SSGn's. I Also think theres a problem with China Deploying DF-21's against the US. If you start launching ballistic missiles at US warships its going to take the most passive US president in history to stop their miltary launching ballistic missiles back. After all a ballistic missile is what it is regardless of warhead or target ,a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[fretburner]

1. Scarborough Shoal and Spratlys are disputed areas which are claimed by multiple states, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. Hence, all the claimants attempt to assert their sovereignty there. (Seriously, do I have to repeat this every few pages? Does people even know what this topic is about before they comment?)

Oh, I know the topic. It's just that annexing the Spratly's and Scarborough Shoal under Hainan was something new to me.

2. Not hearing about it does not mean it has not happened. Do you realistically expect a maritime enforcement personnel (Navy, Coastguard or whatever is the equivalent) to go to the press and say that they had harassed another country's fishermen? China is probably trying quite hard not to fan the nationalistic flames so it could easily spiral into social inrest. Just see what happened in China when 1 of the fishing boats was arrested by Japanese Coastguards in 2011. It was not pretty.

The thing with the article you posted is that, the Chinese media spun it like there are Philippine Vessels near the main island of Hainan.

Anyway, I believe the Philippines have invited the Chinese government to go to the UN and/or go to court. The Chinese simply refuse and say it's an internal matter.

 

[swerve]

No, a ballistic missile is the means of delivery of a warhead. You don't automatically use the same weapon as your opponent. Did previous US presidents launch ballistic missiles against Iraq? You should know the answer.

A ballistic missile is no more a weapon of mass destruction than an aircraft carrying a bomb is - unless either contains a nuclear explosive device, or an effective chemical weapon, or the like.

If the USA gets into a conventional war with China, & China uses tactical ballistic missiles with conventional warheads, it is definitely NOT going to provoke the USA into nuking China, & thus inviting China to retaliate in kind.

 

[fretburner]

^ In that scenario, how will the US know that that ballistic missile isn't carrying nukes? They're not going to wait until it hits the sea right? I would think that the moment they detect a launch, they would have already launched there own.

 

[the concerned]

With regards to my last comment that is why i said it would depend on what type of president the US has at the time. A moderate one like Obama would pause and evaluate the situation but one like Bush would retaliate regardless.If you think about it to strike just one CBG would take the best part of at least one hundred missilies to overwhelm the escorts aswell and when you add up all the personnel on all these vessels your probably past the 8000 mark ,if thats not mass destruction i don't know what is.

 

[USAF77]

It must truly be a "silent service" if people forgot our SSN force.

Then for the boldface: Kudos to the PRC. What I could see is the opposite. US allies are leaning more and more towards the US as counterbalance. A former enemy of the US is warming up to them. Just a little bit more and Beijing MAY find itself surrounded by angry snarling countries backed by the US.

But truly US public support for a conflict in SE Asia is nil. And could you imagine doing so for Vietnam? Cause I sure cant.

 

[Andri F]

When everyone mentions the US they always go straight to the Cv's but aren't people forgetting that they also have the biggest SSN fleet around. I think you could quite easily sit the CV's back and cause absolute chaos with these plus the SSGn's. I Also think theres a problem with China Deploying DF-21's against the US. If you start launching ballistic missiles at US warships its going to take the most passive US president in history to stop their miltary launching ballistic missiles back. After all a ballistic missile is what it is regardless of warhead or target ,a weapon of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, the CVs carry the air cover part to SE Asian countries unless sufficient USAF bases and allied air force are nearby to counter the PLAAF. But that's beside the point. My reply was to the statement about the US Navy 7th fleet being capable of somehow reigning the SCS.

Anyway, where is the nearest SSN group and how fast will they be able to respond to an emergency compared to the surface fleet in Japan?

 

[swerve]

China's claims of sovereignty in The South China Sea go back to the 12'th century, as does of course Taiwan's.

China? You mean the Southern Song?

There are massive continuity issues in almost all Chinese territorial claims. For most of the 12th century, for example, there were two major (& a few minor) states in China. For decades, the only Chinese state was formally a vassal of the main non-Chinese state. Both were eventually conquered by the Mongols.

So . .. how do we evaluate the territorial claims of the Southern Song? Do we treat them the same as we do, e.g., those of the Holy Roman Empire, & declare them totally irrelevant to the 21st century? This is the general rule around the world, e.g. Peru does not claim the territory of the Inca Empire, and is the only rational way to proceed.

China's appeal to ancient claims has no validity, & its uneven application is hypocritical. According to Chinese criteria, Mongolia has a valid claim to rule all of China. Current claims must be based on current criteria.

 

[Chino]

Would the US really engage a large nuclear-armed power (in its own backyard) over what is essentially a spat over a few uninhabited islands claimed by an ally?

 

[the concerned]

Its a tricky situation sure enough the US probably doesn't want to get in a spat with China over a few islands but would China stop there. If it thinks that the US would back down and not help its allies then they might be encouraged to be more forcefull in other disputes. Possibly other countries that think the US doesn't have its back might actually lean towards an alliance with China rather than confront it which could end up just as bad for the US.

 

[Chino]

Its a tricky situation sure enough the US probably doesn't want to get in a spat with China over a few islands but would China stop there. If it thinks that the US would back down and not help its allies then they might be encouraged to be more forcefull in other disputes. Possibly other countries that think the US doesn't have its back might actually lean towards an alliance with China rather than confront it which could end up just as bad for the US.

Though on the surface the Diaoyu dispute with JPN may look similar to the SCS dispute with VN & PH, they are essentially quite different in nature, to PRC folks.

Deep down, even the most nationalistic PRC guy will acknowledge that SCS = "greed for resource" in its true essence, but Diaoyu is more like unfinished WW2 business in their blood feud with JPN.

So it may be useful to know which one the PRC wouldn't negotiate or back down from before rolling the dice.