South China Sea thoughts?

[STURM]

You have a point but we have to bear in mind that China would place great pressure on North Korea to avoid moves that would result in all out war. The last China wants is a unified and democratic Korea on its border; especially one that may still play host to U.S. troops.

We were fortunate that the North Korean shelling on South Korean territory and the sinking of the ROKN corvette did not lead to all out war but who knows what the North Korean leadership might resort to in the future. One thing's for sure however, unless North Korea makes serious moves that result in war, the regime is secure from outside attempts at regime change; especially given that it is widely believed to process nuke devices.

I believe there is a desire not to settle scores with Japan but surpass it's economic and diplomatic clout. Despite all the recent moves and rhetoric China's main focus is its economy and despite distrust and rivalry, Japan plays a vital role with regards to China's economy.

 

[STURM]

The dominant media view on the issue mostly looks at things from a non Chinese perspective. Sure, I disagree with certain actions undertaken by China but then other claimants have also undertaken actions that can be viewed by others as provocative or aggressive. People talk about the Chinese "Great Wall of Sand" but in the early 1980s Malaysia did the same; albeit on a much smaller scale. Layang-Layang (Swallow Reef) was barely half the size of a basketball court when it was claimed but now has a runway, jetty, diving resort and other facilities. When works were undertaken on the reefs, men would often awake to find their tents half submerged! The reefs were that small.

Operation Petaling in 1999 saw living modules towed all the way from Peninsular Malaysia to the Spratlys where they were anchored on a pair of reefs. A friend of mine was involved and he spoke of surveillance efforts taken by other countries (including non claimants) that kept track of the convoy and the works undertaken on the reefs. There were genuine fears that other countries would intervene : Hawks with live Sidewinders at Labuan were placed on 15 minute alerts and half the navy was deployed to the area. Malaysia ignored all the protests from others and said it had a legitimate right to do what it did. Today the whole area is a restricted security area and no foreign or even local trawlers are allowed in. All 5 reefs are garrisoned by security detachments.

It's too simplistic to convey the impression that China is the bad guy and that the other, weaker and smaller claimants, along with the U.S. are the good guys. We may not agree with what China is doing but like others, it has legitimate reasons for doing what it's doing and there is some elements of truth when China screams of double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. We can only hope that diplomacy will eventually lead to a solution to this dispute.

 

[swerve]

The big difference between China & the others is that the others aren't ignoring as many international laws. At least the reefs they're turning into islands are in waters which they can legitimately claim as EEZs, if not territorial waters.

China, on the other hand, is claiming to own the waters despite them being relatively distant from China, & is claiming that by turning reefs & rocks into islands it is endowing them with territorial waters & EEZs, despite (correctly) condemning other cases of this being done, in waters not claimed by China, as invalid, for exactly the reasons which it ignores in the case of the reefs etc. it claims in the South China Sea.

So, China is saying that the law of the sea depends on the country. Different laws for China from everyone else.

 

[tonnyc]

The Chinese perspective is simple. Their view is that the South China Sea is an integral part of Chinese territory from time immemorial and everyone else is trespassing.

There is no such thing as other claimants, because there is no claim. The South China Sea is as much part of China as Beijing is part of China. Mind you, the South China Sea is not Chinese EEZ. It is China's "blue" homeland. Their internal rhetoric is very consistent on this and is accepted without question by the Chinese (if any Chinese academics disagree, they know better than to say it).

Given this baseline, any action that is not silent acquiescence can easily be spun as provocative and aggressive. What matters is not the actual action, but whether the Party sees the corresponding nation as a friend or not.

For example, some three years ago I saw a series of TV programs covering the South China Seas. As part of the show a Chinese Marine Surveillance ship was shown proudly and bravely rescuing Chinese fishermen from a "foreign warship". The problem is that the coordinates shown corresponds to the Indonesian EEZ. This is not the CCTV mistakenly putting the wrong numbers, because the coordinates were shown on the CMS ship's navigation screen. The foreign warship has had its flag blurred out, but from the silhouette someone said it was an Indonesian navy ship.

A warship threatening your fishermen is normally a big deal. The Indonesian Navy ship was probably going to arrest the Chinese fishermen for poaching, but if China says the SCS is their integral territory (listen to what the Chinese officers say, their warnings consistently say "Chinese territory", unlike the Chinese diplomats who still keep things vague), then it would have been a foreign military entering sovereign territory to kidnap one's citizens. This ought to be a big diplomatic mess. But nope, barely anyone ever heard about it. I don't claim to know why, but I speculate that it is because China sees Indonesia as a friendly nation.

Contrast that to the Philippines taking the issue to UN arbitration. No warship involved. No lives involved. It doesn't seek to establish who owns the area, merely to establish that the islands in question are rocks that can not naturally sustain people and thus can't generate EEZ. This does not even conflict with China's own claim, since China does not base the Nine Dash Lines on the rocks but rather states that the Nine Dash Line is Chinese territory, period. No justification given because none is needed. And yet the filing of the arbitration is considered highly provocative.

While hypothetically some action is obviously aggressive and provocative (e.g., actual shooting), it's impossible to determine what action is unquestionably non-provocative and non-aggressive because China can always choose to view it as provocative.

I share the hope that diplomacy will provide a solution. I watch Chinese TV from time to time and it is a useful barometer. But as long as their internal propaganda says that it is their homeland, though, then diplomacy can only delay things, not solve it. When their media starts saying that the SCS is Chinese EEZ, then maybe we can hope for a real solution. Because EEZ can be negotiated, but homeland is not.

 

[STURM]

There was a theory put forward to me by a defence writer a few years ago that doesn't sound very far fetched.

According to the theory, what China badly desires is for the other claimants to first acknowledge China's new status as an economic and military power and to stop (this would include Taiwan, the Philippines and Vietnam) being 'influenced" by the U.S. and Japan (to China the U.S. and Japan are meddling in matters that don't concern them). China believes that if it wasn't for other claimants being influenced by "outsiders", the issue would have long been resolved and everyone would have gained something (naturally China will gain the most).

After this is done and after the other claimants completely cease all actions that are deemed "provocative" and "disrespectful", they will be rewarded. The rewards would include being allowed to keep the reefs they currently hold, joint oil and gas exploration with China and increased trade and investment from China. Despite its actions and strings words, the Chinese realised that some concessions will have to be made. Naturally, China will be the dominant partner in this arrangement and the other smaller and weaker claimants will have to "behave".

This year's Shang-rila dialogue will be held soon. Will be interesting to see what various countries have to say about recent events in the Spratlys.

 

[Goknub]

That theory makes sense. It's Chinas version of America's "Monroe Doctrine" that kept the Europeans out of South America. Even Australia has its Pacific "backyard".
The US has a less than rosy relationship with some of its southern neighbours.

International Law only exists while the major powers see value in them and are willing to play nice. The League of Nations was a big deal back in its day too.

 

[STURM]

Thank God they have the US to defend them then that's all I can say. These nations deserve respect and dignity. If it takes the US to safeguard that right then so be it.

Is the U.S. really going to defend "them"? Is it in the interest of the U.S. to risk the prospect of war in the event that China gets more aggressive with a certain claimant? If Chinese bullying of a certain claimant does not interfere with the freedom of navigation in the area, will it be in the interests of the U.S. to risk getting caught up in a war; especially after the failures that were Iraq and Afghanistan? If for example the Philippines decides to act more aggressively - with a 40 year old former USCG cutter - in knowledge that it is a U.S. treaty ally; will the U.S. automatically jump in if a Chinese ships rams the Philippines cutter?

If the U.S. - regardless of whether it serves its natural interests - was so eager to defend the weak and vulnerable; I can think of certain places whose populations would be deserving of U.S. protection to safeguard their well being, "respect" and "dignity".

 

[swerve]

That theory makes sense. It's Chinas version of America's "Monroe Doctrine" that kept the Europeans out of South America. Even Australia has its Pacific "backyard".

Bit of a difference.

The Monroe doctrine was (1) aimed at stopping European states carving up the recently or being vacated Spanish, Portuguese & French (Haiti) colonies, & (2) by agreement with the UK, which had no interest in new colonies in the Americas & didn't want anyone else establishing any for fear they'd interfere with its trade. It included a proviso that the USA would not interfere with existing arrangements, such as the remaining European colonies.

A Chinese equivalent would be a declaration that it would not accept any establishment of colonies in Asia by outsiders, backed up by an agreement by the USA to help in enforcing it, to protect its own trade with the area, & a promise not to interfere with existing US & other treaties with Asian countries.

 

[Goknub]

Bit of a difference.

Obviously there are large differences, the comparison is more the desire of major (and even minor) powers to control their neighbourhood. The standoff with Russia over Ukraine is for similar reasons.

At this point I don't see the US doing much more than matching China's moves. A serious challenge isn't going to achieve much unless they are prepared to occupy those islands by force, which obviously means war with China.

The best bet would be to a establish a small naval base in the near vicinity so they can encourage everyone to play nice.

As has been mentioned, the other claimants haven't been innocent bystanders in all this either.

 

[STURM]

There isn't really much more the U.S. can do beyond what it's already doing. Lets be realistic here. The worrying part is that despite the U.S. "pivot", moves to strengthen ties with regional players and strong statements made by U.S. officials; the Chinese haven't backed down. I suspect the Americans - like everyone else - are not only worried and frustrated but are at a lost at what to do next.

Given the way things are going I will not be surprised to see USN ships visiting Subic more often for rest and refueling stops. Another possibility - if Sino/Vietnamese ties worsen - is USN ships regularly stopping at Da Nang.

 

[STURM]

It's really interesting how in just a few years the Spratlys issue has assumed such importance for China and has become the main topic of discussion for many ordinary Chinese citizens. For most of the 1990's and 2000's it was Tibet and Xinjiang that was the main topic in internet chatrooms; many people in China didn't even know about the Spratlys issue!

The Life of Chinese Soldiers in the Spratlys | The Diplomat

I posted this link in a previous post. No doubt some will disagree with statements made but it is nonetheless an interesting discussion with a lot of valid points made. One of the speakers talks of how the Chinese view the dispute and the involvement of the U.S., which is completely different from how it's viewed in Washington and elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bxxAgFTwOU

I feel that part of the problem is how the issue is viewed from outside China - most people fail to try a view things from a Chinese perspective and to try and figure out what it is China really wants and what it's worried about. Sure, I don't agree with a lot of what China is doing but I think the common narrative that many believe in - a bullying China hellbent on imposing it will and bullying smaller and weaker neighbours in total disregard for international law and in the background the U.S. which is ever ready to preserve peace and stability in the region, to uphold the rule of law and to protect the weaker claimants - is a wee bit simplistic and one sided.

China has been quite successful in ensuring the various claimants don't adopt a common stand on the issue and has taken the view that if it wasn't due to urging from the U.S. and countries like Japan; certain other claimants won't have adopted a softer approach to the issue and that this would have made it easier to solve at a bilateral level [this is self serving on the part of China no doubt but there is some element of truth that the behaviour of certain claimants is driven by the knowledge or hope that the U.S. will automatically jump in if things get very hot]. It also helps that some claimants are more dependent on Chinese trade and FDI than others and that all the other claimaints have overlapping claims in the Spratlys. Malaysia for example claims and physically controls reefs that are also claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam. Not sure how accurate this is but I read somewhere - about a couple of years ago - that the Philippines has the lowest level of Chinese FDI when compared to countries like Vietnam and Malaysia.

There are also differences over how the various claimants go about their business in the disputed area. Just a few days ago Philippines and Vietnamese troops gathered for sports and other activities on a Vietnamese reef as part of a confidence building measure - the first event was held last year on a Phillippines reef.

Vietnam, Philippines turn to sports in Spratlys | The Jakarta Post

Holding such an event would be unthinkable for Malaysia, which has declared the whole area a security zone, has no interaction or dealings with foreign troops in neighbouring reefs and with the exception of Layang-Layang [which has a diving resort], does not allow any civillians, let alone foreign visitors, access to. As was shown in a video link I posted in a previous post, the Phillippines has actually encouraged settlers to live on its reefs.

http://www.manilatimes.net/territory-row-could-be-deadliest-conflict-ever/187700/

https://www.aspi.org.au/media-centr...ging-strategy-bilateral-and-regional-activism

Sino-Malaysian Relations: Close But Not Too Close | The Jamestown Foundation

Why Malaysia isn’t afraid of China (for now)

 

[gazzzwp]

Interesting announcement from down under:

South China Sea dispute: Strong indication Australia will join push back on China's island-building

This is the best way to counter the Chinese push; for countries to outwardly reject it by mutual co-operation. The UK should follow suit along with other NATO members.

 

[bdique]

Interesting announcement from down under:

South China Sea dispute: Strong indication Australia will join push back on China's island-building

This is the best way to counter the Chinese push; for countries to outwardly reject it by mutual co-operation. The UK should follow suit along with other NATO members.

I think one of the key concerns regarding China's island-buiding in the SCS that's being overlooked here is that if these islands become military bases, regardless of the legality of their existence, they will allow the PLA[N] to exert military control over shipping routes that pass through the region if they so choose to. We all know how that will pan out for the regional economies, Australia being one of them.

It should therefore come as no surprise that Australia is taking a firm stance on this. In fact, all the regional states are expressing concern, the difference being that some are a little more hawkish than others.

I don't see why European nations need to lose sleep over what's going on in this part of world. Most European governments will probably be observing developments, and I bet have already quietly done their analysis of the SCS situation. The European 'silence' on this matter should be indicative of how the developments in the SCS are being prioritised by the respective governments.

Also, I don't think NATO will be making any statements regarding the SCS in a long while. It simply is not a fundamental area of interest to them.

 

[STURM]

An article by a former head of the Royal Malaysian Navy [RMN] on the ''nine-dotted line''. The writer was the first local to assume command of the RMN - all his predecessors were from the Royal Navy [RN] and the Royal Australian Navy [RAN].

China’s nine-dotted line claim has no legitimacy – K. Thanabalasingam - The Malaysian Insider

''I attended several conferences on the "Dispute in the South China Sea and Overlapping Claims". In one conference there were three speakers from China. All three spoke of their nine-dotted-line claim dating back centuries and based on historical rights, etc.At the end of their presentations I asked them several questions to which I received no answer. I pointed out to all present that China as a founding member of the UN and permanent member of the UN Security Council since its inception is well aware of the laws and regulations governing the seas and oceans and is party to them, even if it has not ratified certain articles.''

 

[ngatimozart]

An article by the a former head of the Royal Malaysian Navy [RMN] on the ''nine-dotted line''. The writer was the first local to assume command of the RMN - all his predecessors were from the Royal Navy [RN] and the Royal Australian Navy [RAN].

China’s nine-dotted line claim has no legitimacy – K. Thanabalasingam - The Malaysian Insider

''I attended several conferences on the "Dispute in the South China Sea and Overlapping Claims". In one conference there were three speakers from China. All three spoke of their nine-dotted-line claim dating back centuries and based on historical rights, etc.At the end of their presentations I asked them several questions to which I received no answer. I pointed out to all present that China as a founding member of the UN and permanent member of the UN Security Council since its inception is well aware of the laws and regulations governing the seas and oceans and is party to them, even if it has not ratified certain articles.''

Yes there is no legitimacy to Chinas claims in international law. They are signatories to UNCLOS, plus they haven't honoured two agreements that they have made with ASEAN and the Philippines regarding the handling of any disputed areas. Technically if Chinese military forces fire on a foreign military unit in international waters or airspace or non Chinese territories unprovoked, that is regarded as open aggression without lawful cause.

 

[Blackshoe]

An article by the a former head of the Royal Malaysian Navy [RMN] on the ''nine-dotted line''. The writer was the first local to assume command of the RMN - all his predecessors were from the Royal Navy [RN] and the Royal Australian Navy [RAN].

China’s nine-dotted line claim has no legitimacy – K. Thanabalasingam - The Malaysian Insider

''I attended several conferences on the "Dispute in the South China Sea and Overlapping Claims". In one conference there were three speakers from China. All three spoke of their nine-dotted-line claim dating back centuries and based on historical rights, etc.At the end of their presentations I asked them several questions to which I received no answer. I pointed out to all present that China as a founding member of the UN and permanent member of the UN Security Council since its inception is well aware of the laws and regulations governing the seas and oceans and is party to them, even if it has not ratified certain articles.''

Bill Hayton in his book The South China Sea notes that the country with the most legitimate, traceable, and enforceable claim for most of the Spratlys is actually the Brits, since they went through the effort of putting a notice in the newspaper back in the 1800s. Ironic in the sense that they've rescinded their claim and don't even care anymore.

Of course, from the Chinese perspective, possession may well be 9/10ths of the law, and the other tenth gets hard to argue when they've already fortified it anyway.

 

[Blackshoe]

I understand the US Navy is proposing a close sail by of one of the newly created Chinese islands to make the point that the US sees the area as international waters.

Does anyone have an idea of the time frame for this exercise?

Saying they are going to do something =/=doing something.

If this happens, we won't know (and those of us with blue handle fonts) won't be able to talk about it until afterwards.

 

[Blackshoe]

Agreed. Can the US stand another humiliation though? Surely the weight of principle is behind the US on this one? That is an important issue that will decide whether the US takes a stand imho.

Then many questions need to be asked. Can the US Navy deal with the Chinese subs? I would have to believe that by now they have developed effective detection technology. I presume that any fleet that takes to the waters close to the new Chinese sand castles will have a respectable submarine escort?

Finally the support of allies will be an important issue. Australia, and the surrounding nations. It would also be nice to see Japan take a stance on this one.

Lots of issues here.

Weight of principle is probably behind the US (and I don't know what the results of the , but weight of will is solidly behind China. Plus the weight of logistics (at least in favor or just staying there) are behind the PRC. As far as enduring another humiliation, that's partly what makes me think this won't happen (note how after the Chinese mil hacks against the US, two months later there were still NYT articles discussing the admin agonizing over how to respond. That said a lot).

As far as ASW...not necessary for this. This is FONOPS, sending a single ship in driving close (eg w/in 12nm of these islands) to show to the Chinese that it can be done. You shouldn't expect the PLAN to respond with submarines or for them to attack. That would be...incredibly aggressive. Now, to get shouldered by some Chinese vessels? Heck, that's a tradition (though for the record, I don't think that's what the Soviets were trying to do here, just bad seamanship on their part).

Allies don't need to be involved, in fact shouldn't be involved too much; there's a different response to be generated by a US ship doing FONOPS in the SCS than an MSDF ship (RAN would have the same reaction probably, but different domestic reactions in Australia that I'll defer to the Diggers on the board). An MSDF ship doing this would be very, very provocative.

 

[Blackshoe]

This is no real provocation by the USN IMO. This is an excercise in support of freedom of Navigation rules, period



If anyone remembers on 9/4 when the PRC Premier was visiting the US a flotilla of 5 PLAN ships did the same in Alaska



Chinese Navy Ships Came Within 12 Nautical Miles of U.S. Coast - WSJ

Make no mistake about it-this was provocative. At least it certainly was to the PRC which is what matters.

Now, the choice to make it provocative or not rests in the eye of the beholder-see the noted PLAN intrusion into the US TTW.

Question now is what the PRC response will be. My suspicion is we can expect to see a movement of oil rigs into someone's block and possibly something in the Senkakus as a retort.

 

[s002wjh]

Look at what is at stake though. No one really knows the true purpose of these militarised reefs. They could well be for the purpose of evicting surrounding nations completely from their islands, and taking over the whole region restricting these nations to a minimum allowance in terms of oceanic territory.

You say who will pay? The price could be extremely heavy in the next 5 years if no action is taken.

China is after all investing heavily and as sure as God made little apples it will be expecting a return.

you do know we are neutral in this dispute right? building island for PH is consider taking side, thus further raise the tension, not helping at all. furthermore vietnam control more island than either china or PH.

here is our stance on this, we doing it for FON not get involve in the dispute between vietnam, ph, china etc
US, China Discuss South China Sea Ops | Naval Today

US Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson and his Chinese counterpart, People’s Liberation Army (Navy) Commander Adm. Wu Shengli took part in a video teleconference to discuss ongoing engagements between the two navies and recent operations in the South China Sea.

The talks held on Oct. 29 were in light of the US Navy’s USS Lassen sailing within 12 nautical miles of China’s man-made island in the Spratly Islands territory, most of which is claimed by China.

The sail-by took place Oct. 27 and provoked government outrage in China. As Reuters reports, Admiral Wu Shengli confirmed China’s stern stance that a minor incident could spark war if the US repeated similar actions in the future.

U.S. Navy’s statement on the latest call reports Richardson and Wu discussing U.S. freedom of navigation operations; the relationship between the two navies, including pending port visits and senior leader engagement; and the importance of maintaining an ongoing dialogue.

Admiral John Richardson stated that U.S. freedom of navigation operations serve to protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations under international law. He further added that these operations were not a challenge to the sovereignty of land features and that United States takes no position on competing sovereignty claims to land features in the South China Sea.