South China Sea thoughts?

[gazzzwp]

Correct, Chinas behaviour is illegal and immoral, Australia's simply immoral. Not saying for one second that this distinction makes Australia's behavior acceptable, it doesn't, but neither does it justify what China is doing. I have actually openly discussed my opinions and disapproval of Australia's behaviour, as I am free to do in a democracy, and honestly hope the greed and self entitled racism behind it can be pushed aside by more progressive elements in the future. Unfortunately I can't see this happening in the SCS as I fear China is doing this as a sign of strength and elements in their government don't care if it leads to armed conflict or not as it is all about proving they are strong.

The S China sea is far more vital to world trade and world affairs than any insignificant pond between Australia and E Timor. There is no precedent for this crisis. I would use that word now.

How this situation will move forward I have no idea. It will be a miracle if this passes without conflict.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The S China sea is far more vital to world trade and world affairs than any insignificant pond between Australia and E Timor. There is no precedent for this crisis. I would use that word now.

How this situation will move forward I have no idea. It will be a miracle if this passes without conflict.

the previous view by some analysts was that things would go pear shaped over the SCS and ECS around 2025 - 2030, that was when china militarily would have been harder to contain

they've bought it forward 10 years

U can't help but think that there is also an internal hawks and dove play at work here as militarily they are not in a position to win even a regional war

If the hawks have the upper hand then they don't care about whether they are ready or not, there are some awful parallels presenting themselves here and it won't take much for it to get out of hand

Chinese white mice boats bashing vietnamese fishing boats won't work with the USN

 

[ngatimozart]

Two good articles worth reading. What’s behind Beijing’s drive to control the South China Sea? from The Guardian is a good background article. What the South China Sea ruling means for the world from the Washington Post is one explanation of what may happen.

 

[gazzzwp]

the previous view by some analysts was that things would go pear shaped over the SCS and ECS around 2025 - 2030, that was when china militarily would have been harder to contain

they've bought it forward 10 years

U can't help but think that there is also an internal hawks and dove play at work here as militarily they are not in a position to win even a regional war

If the hawks have the upper hand then they don't care about whether they are ready or not, there are some awful parallels presenting themselves here and it won't take much for it to get out of hand

Chinese white mice boats bashing vietnamese fishing boats won't work with the USN

I presume you mean that China is not able to win a war against the US? China have openly said that their objective would be to make a conflict so costly that the US would not be able to sustain a fight.

Off the top of my head the threats as I see them are:

1) China's large fleet of quiet subs.
2) The 'Carrier Killer' DF-21 missile.
3) China's ability to take out US satellites.

Does anyone have any more ideas regarding China's ace weaponry? Where would China be vulnerable in the event of open warfare in that arena with the US?

What part could the new THAAD system play in S Korea? What is the timescale for this?

Lots of points here for constructive discussion.

Edit to add: The first F-35 are apparently soon to be ready for IOC. That needs to be factored into the discussion.

 

[weaponwh]

I presume you mean that China is not able to win a war against the US? China have openly said that their objective would be to make a conflict so costly that the US would not be able to sustain a fight.

Off the top of my head the threats as I see them are:

1) China's large fleet of quiet subs.
2) The 'Carrier Killer' DF-21 missile.
3) China's ability to take out US satellites.

Does anyone have any more ideas regarding China's ace weaponry? Where would China be vulnerable in the event of open warfare in that arena with the US?

What part could the new THAAD system play in S Korea? What is the timescale for this?

Lots of points here for constructive discussion.

Edit to add: The first F-35 are apparently soon to be ready for IOC. That needs to be factored into the discussion.

not sure df21d is real or not, since they never test it in open water against moving target. Also I don't think they want a conflict now, maybe 2025+ when they are much more confident.

one advantage is SCS is closer to china mainland then other US base, with mainland support, the theater will pretty much limit in SCS, and hundreds miles from mainland. direct attack on mainland could escalate to full scale war vice versa when china direct attack on US carrier. so both party likely will just defend/attack those islands in SCS and limited the scale of conflict.

china does has some quiet conventional subs, as well as lot anti-ship missile of different kind and platforms that can equip it, but if US stay on east side of phillippine, china don't have ability to reach that far. US can lunch cruise missile/jet to bombard those new man made island. At this point I don't think china has ability to effectively defend against 3+ US CVBG on scs islands.

but I think it wont come to that, war is worst case situation. its much better to use economy leverage against china, but that also hurt US economy somewhat in the process as both country economy are linked. which is another reason both don't want a war. Also its a tough sell to fight a phillippine war against 3rd most powerful military in the world over some uninhabited reef/rock with combine size less than 3000acre, and 10 thousands miles away from US mainland. as I mention before china need the trade route open in SCS more than US, majority of their trade go through SCS, which is one of major reason they are expanding in the sea.

 

[gf0012-aust]

1) China's large fleet of quiet subs.

despite all the homeland hype - they don't have any decent quiet subs - and definitely not in volume

2) The 'Carrier Killer' DF-21 missile

.

unknown quantity - but the US is refocussing on subs - something which China has zero advantage in with her current tech

3) China's ability to take out US satellites.

unknown quantity - but is factored in to fighting blind anyway. poke the eye and that would generate a response anyway

Does anyone have any more ideas regarding China's ace weaponry? Where would China be vulnerable in the event of open warfare in that arena with the US?

they are a regional power - but they don't have any form of parity with the US

Edit to add: The first F-35 are apparently soon to be ready for IOC. That needs to be factored into the discussion.

2 x USMC JSF Squadrons deploy to Japan later this year

 

[Boatteacher]

but I think it wont come to that, war is worst case situation. its much better to use economy leverage against china, but that also hurt US economy somewhat in the process as both country economy are linked. which is another reason both don't want a war.

I've expressed for a while a concern that this doesn't seem to have a happy ending.

Hopefully calm heads will prevail but at the very least one would hope captains of industry would have enough foresight to start evaluating and diversifying their supply chains. That's much easier said than done, I know. But if they get blindsided by things turning pear-shaped in a few years time - even just economically - then they should refund the company their over sized salaries.

It would be one thing to lose China as a market. Another all together to lose their ability to manufacture their product.

I found it ironic the stock market went up yesterday. It seems to work on a 5 minute time horizon.

 

[Blackshoe]

the previous view by some analysts was that things would go pear shaped over the SCS and ECS around 2025 - 2030, that was when china militarily would have been harder to contain

they've bought it forward 10 years

U can't help but think that there is also an internal hawks and dove play at work here as militarily they are not in a position to win even a regional war

If the hawks have the upper hand then they don't care about whether they are ready or not, there are some awful parallels presenting themselves here and it won't take much for it to get out of hand

Chinese white mice boats bashing vietnamese fishing boats won't work with the USN

One of the fascinating books I read not too long ago was called A War It Was Always Going To Lose, which was about how the Japanese ended up going to war with the US, despite the fact that neither wanted to go to war, that the the Japanese knew they would probably (as in 8 times out of 10) lose that war, and how close both sides were in terms of being trading partners.

Scary times.

 

[Joe Black]

I have always wonder why the current chinese leaders and those in the PLA have not heed to wise words of their past leader Deng Xiaoping...

“If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.” ~ Deng Xiaoping speech at the United Nations, April 10, 1974

I watched a Taiwanese TV talk show last night which a political professor laid the entire blame on the US for the current escalation. He reckons the US used the SCS to contain the Chinese to keep China and the PLA in check as US is rapidly weakening while the Chinese are rising in power both economically and militarily. In order to keep the chinese in check, the US has purposely encircled china by bring along the neighbouring countries such as Japan, Vietnam and naturally the Philippines and feces stirring a contentious issue of the ownership and claims of the Spratly islands. China felt threatened by the US's actions and felt that their Sea line of communications would be severely impacted. Thus their up-the-ante struggle to dominate the whole of SCS to "secure" their SLOC.

From the chinese view, this struggle is actually between them and the US. The Philippines is only a stooge.

Now with Hague ruling that Taiping island is only a "rock" and not an island and thus they could not claim the 200km EEZ around Taiping island, this caused headaches to the Taiwanese. Taiwanese felt that they need to secure their meager real estate not only in the SCS (which they reckon they were the one who was award the SCS and drawn up the 11 dashed line after WWII. Now their traditional fishing ground is at stake (1 of their fisherman was killed by the Philippines Navy followed by confrontation between Taiwan and the Philippines), their economic interest could also be threaten.

Taiwan has just sent two of their warships as to a show of force / show of flag exercise. Apparently China is now supporting this move and suggest the two states work together to jointly stake their claims. Perhaps the US has just managed to push Taiwan towards China.

Confusing? I know.

 

[gazzzwp]

I have always wonder why the current chinese leaders and those in the PLA have not heed to wise words of their past leader Deng Xiaoping...

“If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.” ~ Deng Xiaoping speech at the United Nations, April 10, 1974

I watched a Taiwanese TV talk show last night which a political professor laid the entire blame on the US for the current escalation. He reckons the US used the SCS to contain the Chinese to keep China and the PLA in check as US is rapidly weakening while the Chinese are rising in power both economically and militarily. In order to keep the chinese in check, the US has purposely encircled china by bring along the neighbouring countries such as Japan, Vietnam and naturally the Philippines and feces stirring a contentious issue of the ownership and claims of the Spratly islands. China felt threatened by the US's actions and felt that their Sea line of communications would be severely impacted. Thus their up-the-ante struggle to dominate the whole of SCS to "secure" their SLOC.

From the chinese view, this struggle is actually between them and the US. The Philippines is only a stooge.

Now with Hague ruling that Taiping island is only a "rock" and not an island and thus they could not claim the 200km EEZ around Taiping island, this caused headaches to the Taiwanese. Taiwanese felt that they need to secure their meager real estate not only in the SCS (which they reckon they were the one who was award the SCS and drawn up the 11 dashed line after WWII. Now their traditional fishing ground is at stake (1 of their fisherman was killed by the Philippines Navy followed by confrontation between Taiwan and the Philippines), their economic interest could also be threaten.

Taiwan has just sent two of their warships as to a show of force / show of flag exercise. Apparently China is now supporting this move and suggest the two states work together to jointly stake their claims. Perhaps the US has just managed to push Taiwan towards China.

Confusing? I know.

This is one way of looking at it. Another view says that if the SCS surrounding nations are treated fairly in terms of fishing and exploration rights, the US would be satisfied. Also the US would be satisfied if the SCS was (rightly) regarded as international seas belonging to no one. FON to be conducted by anyone at any time.

 

[weaponwh]

This is one way of looking at it. Another view says that if the SCS surrounding nations are treated fairly in terms of fishing and exploration rights, the US would be satisfied. Also the US would be satisfied if the SCS was (rightly) regarded as international seas belonging to no one. FON to be conducted by anyone at any time.

the dispute is less about fishing etc, but more about clash of influence in the region between china and US, and stabilities. looking at dispute between Vietnam/others, vietnam show same aggressiveness as china in these dispute, yet how often do you see media point to Vietnam/Indonesia.

china intentionally make the 9-dash line ambiguous, and I think media "say" china claim entire ScS, but I didn't see any confirm article from other side claim all ScS etc.

Also phillippine file lawsuit in PCA, not UN backed ICJ. seem UN didn't accept phillippine case before.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states, international organizations, or private parties.[1][2] It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, while the PCA is not a UN agency[3]

The PCA is a permanent bureaucracy that assists temporary tribunals to resolve disputes among states (and similar entities), intergovernmental organizations, or even private parties arising out of international agreements. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade

The PCA is not a “court" in the conventional understanding of that term but an administrative organization with the object of having permanent and readily available means to serve as the registry for purposes of international arbitration and other related procedures, including commissions of enquiry and conciliation.[4] The judges or arbitrators that hear cases are officially called "Members" of the Court.

The public at large is usually more familiar with the International Court of Justice than with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, partly because of the closed nature of cases handled by the PCA and also the small number of cases dealt with between 1946 and 1990. Sometimes even the decision itself is kept confidential at the request of the parties. Many decisions and related documents are available on the PCA's website

Since the PCA is not UN-backed agency, it's income relies on the arbitration services it provides to its clients [6]. Unlike the judges from the International Court of Justice who are paid by the UN[7], judges of the PCA are paid from that same income the PCA earns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration

 

[ngatimozart]

the dispute is less about fishing etc, but more about clash of influence in the region between china and US, and stabilities. looking at dispute between Vietnam/others, vietnam show same aggressiveness as china in these dispute, yet how often do you see media point to Vietnam/Indonesia.

china intentionally make the 9-dash line ambiguous, and I think media "say" china claim entire ScS, but I didn't see any confirm article from other side claim all ScS etc.

Also phillippine file lawsuit in PCA, not UN backed ICJ. seem UN didn't accept phillippine case before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration

It doesn't matter whether the case was heard by the ICJ or the PCA. The real point is that it was heard by an internationally recognised and respected institution. Please note that Wikipedia is not a good source.

 

[ngatimozart]

Apparently the US has quietly been suggesting that nations involved in SCS disputes with China proceed quietly and not to move aggressively to capitalize on the PCA ruling against China.

The Australians have upset the Chinese who are lodging an official diplomatic protest to the Australian Govt about comments made by the Australian Foreign Minister. She said that Australia will continue with their FON activities in the SCS as per international law. The Chinese protest is about the error of the Australian statement.

 

[Joe Black]

Apparently the US has quietly been suggesting that nations involved in SCS disputes with China proceed quietly and not to move aggressively to capitalize on the PCA ruling against China.

The Australians have upset the Chinese who are lodging an official diplomatic protest to the Australian Govt about comments made by the Australian Foreign Minister. She said that Australia will continue with their FON activities in the SCS as per international law. The Chinese protest is about the error of the Australian statement.

I don't see anything wrong with Bishop's statement. She was only stating the most obvious position from the Australian side, with a not so subtle hints at Aussie supporting the US. China needs to take a chill pill.

However, I think Australia has done enough speaking for a while and shown enough support to the US.

 

[ngatimozart]

Weeping, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments! Those were sounds emanating from Beijing following the July 12 ruling from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. ....

Here’s an idea: as a guide to action, let’s jettison the adjective “innocent” in favor of “indecent”. Innocent passage seldom offends those who need to be offended. It does little for freedom of the sea, except in the trivial case when the coastal state imposes some extra burden on freedom of navigation—such as demanding advance notice from vessels before they cross through the territorial sea. Innocent passage deflates minor excesses at best.

Think bigger. Indecent passage would mean challenging every Chinese overreach, early and often. Its goal would be to prevent Beijing from abridging any maritime freedom guaranteed by treaty or customary international law. In the case of the Scarborough Shoals of the world, it would mean keeping China from changing the legal status of a maritime feature merely by altering its physical conformation—by piling sand on an atoll or submerged rock. ....

To uphold freedom of the sea, U.S. Navy and friendly ships and planes should exercise every prerogative to which they’re entitled by the law of the sea, in every square inch of airspace and waterspace where they’re entitled to exercise it. Airmen should conduct surveillance flights in immediate proximity to Scarborough Shoal and other contested features. Ships can lawfully conduct flight operations, underwater surveys and the like—check UNCLOS. They can loiter or even anchor there.

They should. Be indecent—and confound the lawless.

An interesting article by James Holmes in the National Interest: Beijing May Ignore the South Sea Ruling—But We Must Not from which the above is quoted. However another article there suggests that the West should tread carefully because the verdict may push China and Russia into standing up to the West. My opinion is that the actions of both nations require the West and other nations to stand up to them because they are exhibiting the actions of bullies.

 

[weaponwh]

It doesn't matter whether the case was heard by the ICJ or the PCA. The real point is that it was heard by an internationally recognised and respected institution. Please note that Wikipedia is not a good source.

and since when these case respect by any great power, do you expect china to follow it after others didn't follow. example such as Nicaragua vs US case, Netherlands vs Russia, and Chago island vs UK case

 

[STURM]

Apparently the US has quietly been suggesting that nations involved in SCS disputes with China proceed quietly

No one, despite the all the rhetoric and muscle flexing; is eager for war; China and the U.S. included. At the end of the day; all the countries will eventually have to reach some kind of compromise with China. Easier said than done sure but there's really no other way. China has repeatedly stressed that it's open to bilateral talks on how the various claimants can benefit from joint fishing and oil/gas exploration and has also repeatedly stressed that it does not intend to interfere with the freedom of navigation in the area. Off course China will be the one calling the shots and China will never cease reminding the other claimants that it's the new power in the region but it's better than prolonged tensions and better than going to war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAkz_nuVf8o

 

[swerve]

But the one thing China flatly refuses to even talk about talk about talking about is the one thing that's unacceptable to everyone else, & not just the SCS countries: China's claim to own the SCS. It's completely contrary to all relevant international law & custom. Nobody owns the open sea out of sight of land, & nobody ever has one.

So what China's offering to talk about are the terms for surrender. "Give in to our demands & we'll allow you some crumbs which we can withdraw at any time." Nobody wants to agree to it because once they do, everything they get from then on on is at China's discretion. They'd have to cede all rights, all claims, all recourse to any authority other than the Chinese leadership.

It's like the owner of the biggest house in your street claiming that he owns the road, & offering to allow you to use it (when he feels like it) to get in & out of your property as long as you agree that it's his, & you'll co-operate with him in keeping the police out, promise not to go to court, etc. I.e. he'll allow you a tiny part of what you already have, but at the price of you agreeing that he has the right to take away even that tiny part any time he wants. Not much of a deal, is it?

 

[ngatimozart]

and since when these case respect by any great power, do you expect china to follow it after others didn't follow. example such as Nicaragua vs US case, Netherlands vs Russia, and Chago island vs UK case

The point I was making is that the case was heard by an internationally recognised and respected institution and even though the institution has no power to enforce its decision, China has been shown to be in the wrong. It is justice and justice, like politics, is about perceptions and in international relations perceptions count for a lot. So regardless of whether or not China abides by the ruling, it has been shown to be a bully, thief and vandal.

 

[swerve]

and since when these case respect by any great power, do you expect china to follow it after others didn't follow. example such as Nicaragua vs US case, Netherlands vs Russia, and Chago island vs UK case

There's a big difference in this case. China isn't arguing a case under international law, but claiming that it has a special exemption, & the international laws which apply everywhere else (& which China cites in its own disagreements with other states elsewhere) don't apply to China. It's claiming that it can own the sea, several hundred km from the nearest part of China. That's unprecedented.

It's not just a disagreement over a particular decision, but a rejection of principles of law which China has agreed to. China's effectively saying "we agree that this law applies to other countries, e.g. Japan, but it doesn't apply to China".