And how far would the U.S. be willing to go to defend the Philippines in the events of things getting worse between the Philippines and China. No doubt the prestige of the U.S. would be at stake and the Philippines is a treaty ally but would the U.S. risk getting into a full blown war - with all its political and economic consequences - with China over the Philippines? Even after relations suffered following the pull out from Clark and Subic; the U.S. maintained that it would defend the Philippines from external threats but that this would not include threats arising over disputed areas such as the Spratlys. I suppose another question that can be asked is would the Philippines be so vocal and assertive without the knowledge that it was linked to the U.S. by a defence treaty?
South China Sea thoughts?
- Thread starter SpartanSG
- Start date
I don't think US relationship with the Philippines nor its exact obligations with regard to the Mutual Defense Treaty are the major consideration here. A more important consideration is how the US will view the Chinese attempt to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake. I am not talking figuratively here. The Chinese is not claiming a mere EEZ in the South China Sea. Their own propaganda consistently say that the seas within the Eleven Dash Line is Chinese sovereign territory. I'm not quite sure whether this means something like territorial sea for archipelagic states or more like how continental states treat inland waters. I suspect, given the noise about ADIZ and the fact that China is historically a continental power, the latter.
(And before anyone tries to lecture me about Admiral Zheng He's expedition, let me remind you that his expeditions were shut down by his own government because they saw them as a waste of money and was never resumed.)
Presumably it is not in US interest to see the South China Sea turn into a Chinese lake. But how much effort is it willing to spend to counter the Chinese effort? That I can't predict, but the calculations on both sides will consider the Philippines as only a minor factor. (Sorry to the Filipinos out there, but the fact is that the Philippines is militarily insignificant compared to the two powers.)
If the Philippines start acting in ways contrary to US interest, the US will discreetly ask the Philippines to stop it. But if the Philippines does not stop, the US will just shrug and help someone else. Vietnam, maybe.
And if you look at actual events, we can see that the higher ups in the Philippines are well aware of the scope of the MDT. Actual military procurements are modest. Actual Philippine naval ships tries to evade the Chinese coast guard ships instead of confronting them head on. Chinese propaganda of course portrays everything as provocative. Buying FA-50 is a provocation. Sending supplies is a provocation. International arbitration is provocation. Asking for a joint communique in ASEAN is provocation. Anything that is not capitulation is provocation. But if we ignore the Chinese portrayal and examine things from an American POV (the question involves the US-Philippines MDT, hence the use of an American POV), then very few of what the Philippines did is actually provocative. I think there is that incident where a Philippine Coast Guard ship shot a Taiwanese fishing ship, but a. That's a low rank coast guard ship possibly overstepping his bound, not a high command order, b. It involves a Taiwanese ship, not a Communist China one, and c. It happened in the Luzon Strait between the island of Luzon and Taiwan.
Tldr version: it is never about the Philippines and its MDT. It's about the strategic implications of the South China Sea becoming a Chinese lake. The Philippines is just a minor actor and everyone knows it.
(And before anyone tries to lecture me about Admiral Zheng He's expedition, let me remind you that his expeditions were shut down by his own government because they saw them as a waste of money and was never resumed.)
Presumably it is not in US interest to see the South China Sea turn into a Chinese lake. But how much effort is it willing to spend to counter the Chinese effort? That I can't predict, but the calculations on both sides will consider the Philippines as only a minor factor. (Sorry to the Filipinos out there, but the fact is that the Philippines is militarily insignificant compared to the two powers.)
If the Philippines start acting in ways contrary to US interest, the US will discreetly ask the Philippines to stop it. But if the Philippines does not stop, the US will just shrug and help someone else. Vietnam, maybe.
And if you look at actual events, we can see that the higher ups in the Philippines are well aware of the scope of the MDT. Actual military procurements are modest. Actual Philippine naval ships tries to evade the Chinese coast guard ships instead of confronting them head on. Chinese propaganda of course portrays everything as provocative. Buying FA-50 is a provocation. Sending supplies is a provocation. International arbitration is provocation. Asking for a joint communique in ASEAN is provocation. Anything that is not capitulation is provocation. But if we ignore the Chinese portrayal and examine things from an American POV (the question involves the US-Philippines MDT, hence the use of an American POV), then very few of what the Philippines did is actually provocative. I think there is that incident where a Philippine Coast Guard ship shot a Taiwanese fishing ship, but a. That's a low rank coast guard ship possibly overstepping his bound, not a high command order, b. It involves a Taiwanese ship, not a Communist China one, and c. It happened in the Luzon Strait between the island of Luzon and Taiwan.
Tldr version: it is never about the Philippines and its MDT. It's about the strategic implications of the South China Sea becoming a Chinese lake. The Philippines is just a minor actor and everyone knows it.
My question still stands : in the event that things get out of hand between the Philippines and China [e.g. a chance encounter at sea between a Chinese Maritime OPV and a Philippines naval ship that rapidly spirals out of control; leading to one sided military action, which the Chinese - no surprises - will say is justified] how far would the U.S. be willing to go to defend or bolster a treaty ally? I'm not suggesting that the sinking of a Philippines naval ship will automatically result in the U.S. being involved in military action but there will be a U.S. reaction [in the form of an increased naval presence for example] and that in turn will lead to the Chinese responding.
If the U.S. didn't act what kind of message would this send to various countries linked to the U.S. via a defence treaty, what message would it send to China and what message would it send to countries who welcome the presence of the U.S. in the region as a counterweight against China? No doubt, the U.S. will publicly remind the various claimants to ensure things not get out of hand and no country, including China wants things to spiral out of control but things can happen unexpectedly at short notice and history is full of examples of countries being dragged to war because of treaty obligations.
I'm going to admit that I don't know and I'm going to speculate further that no one knows, including the government of the US.
The US isn't going to commit to any sort of "if China does this we'll do that" beyond what is already in the MDT because that will just restrict their options for no good reason. Instead, they will decide it when the incident actually happened according to the conditions at the time. Most likely in the form of increased naval presence, but if you want more specifics than that, nobody knows for sure.
I guess the upper bound limit on the possible actions is war, but that will require something bloody stupid on China's part, like perhaps attacking the Philippine main islands or attacking US ships which I can't believe China will do because there's no gain in doing that.
The lower bound limit on the possible actions is the US abandoning the Philippines to their fate, but that will require the Philippines to do something bloody stupid like declaring war on China on their own, which I can't believe they will do because they know the MDT isn't some magic document that will immediately drag the US to any and all conflict.
I realize that you aren't looking for vague stuff like this, but like I said, the US isn't going to commit on a specific course of action until they have to because why would they limit their options for no good reason?
The US isn't going to commit to any sort of "if China does this we'll do that" beyond what is already in the MDT because that will just restrict their options for no good reason. Instead, they will decide it when the incident actually happened according to the conditions at the time. Most likely in the form of increased naval presence, but if you want more specifics than that, nobody knows for sure.
I guess the upper bound limit on the possible actions is war, but that will require something bloody stupid on China's part, like perhaps attacking the Philippine main islands or attacking US ships which I can't believe China will do because there's no gain in doing that.
The lower bound limit on the possible actions is the US abandoning the Philippines to their fate, but that will require the Philippines to do something bloody stupid like declaring war on China on their own, which I can't believe they will do because they know the MDT isn't some magic document that will immediately drag the US to any and all conflict.
I realize that you aren't looking for vague stuff like this, but like I said, the US isn't going to commit on a specific course of action until they have to because why would they limit their options for no good reason?
Last edited:
sure there are hardcore nationalist in PLA, but the top level who actually make the decision are not stupid. there wont be any conflict any time soon, the recent ASEAN meeting shows china are using soft power to gain advantage. furthermore there were never a war between two major nuclear power, always proxy war. there could be misfire or mistake that could escalate into limited conflict, but recent communication establishment and rules for ships encounter between US/china in ScS and the fact PLA involve in RIMPAC shows both are cautious in ScS. china will bit its time and wait till its economy are #1 and till it has 3 CVBG or more, that wont happen till 2025 earliest, possibly later. by then it will be too costly to have even a limited conflict and CCP influence will be establish by default around that time due to its economy/military.
Well, weaponwh, by 2025 I'm hoping China will have softened its stance. Right now the hardliner's demand that all talk begins with the other party recognizing China's claim of sovereignty over the Eleven Dash Line is a non-starter. That's basically saying "you start by capitulating to our demand and then maybe we'll give you something in our magnanimity". I realize that the current Chinese leadership has no choice but to demand so because the hardliners would see anything less as a sign of weakness (and immediately start attacking the "weak" leader politically so they can replace him with a "strong" leader), but hopefully by then the political situation would have changed for the better.
Well I didn't read any official article from other side saying they gonna make SCS into China lake, what they want for sure is the island/reef, its EEZ, as well as influence.
Before 2012, China/Phillippine both can fishing near Scarborough shoal, but after the stand off in 2012 China basically take over. Malaysia has good relationship with China despite dispute between them, mostly likely due to China carrot tactic. as far as 11 dash line that's ROC claim AKA Taiwan, China inherit from ROC in 47ish, but change to 9 dash line. The line is ambiguous, because they never SAID they claim entire SCS, but they didn't disclaim either.
Even by 2025-2030 China still needs support from ASEAN, and China will use its soft power 1st to achieve what they want, ex. Cambodia Laos etc. like I said carrot and a stick, by 2030 if there aren't any internal issue within China, both carrot and stick would be much bigger.
Unless ASEAN can gain significant economic gain from US, otherwise they would not go up against China. with dozen or so countries ASEAN, only Philippine/Vietnam has tense relationship with china right now, and I'm pretty sure China is sweet talk others including Vietnam to reduce their reliance on US and ease the tension by promising of investment/trade deal etc. TPP was a way for us to counter China one belt one road, but at the expense of further losing manufacture job for American.
There are other countries such as Indonesia, etc that occasionally has spat with China, but they also has spat with Vietnam/Philippines and other claimant, which is one of reason ASEAN not gonna align together against China, especially majority of these nations don't have dispute with China and many rely China for investment/trade.
The best scenario I see is china and other dispute countries made some agreement on resource sharing, and get these dispute solved soon, not sure they can get better deals as time goes on. I'm pretty sure China willing to talk, whether the deal is fair or not thats another topic. After 49, China has land border dispute with what 10 nations, most are solved over time, so discuss these deal is still possible before China get too strong.
I do not want to come across like the grammar police but, sentences start - and place names have - capital letters. At least try some effort to make the text that people have to read at least legible. I spent minutes whipping this into shape.
Before 2012, China/Phillippine both can fishing near Scarborough shoal, but after the stand off in 2012 China basically take over. Malaysia has good relationship with China despite dispute between them, mostly likely due to China carrot tactic. as far as 11 dash line that's ROC claim AKA Taiwan, China inherit from ROC in 47ish, but change to 9 dash line. The line is ambiguous, because they never SAID they claim entire SCS, but they didn't disclaim either.
Even by 2025-2030 China still needs support from ASEAN, and China will use its soft power 1st to achieve what they want, ex. Cambodia Laos etc. like I said carrot and a stick, by 2030 if there aren't any internal issue within China, both carrot and stick would be much bigger.
Unless ASEAN can gain significant economic gain from US, otherwise they would not go up against China. with dozen or so countries ASEAN, only Philippine/Vietnam has tense relationship with china right now, and I'm pretty sure China is sweet talk others including Vietnam to reduce their reliance on US and ease the tension by promising of investment/trade deal etc. TPP was a way for us to counter China one belt one road, but at the expense of further losing manufacture job for American.
There are other countries such as Indonesia, etc that occasionally has spat with China, but they also has spat with Vietnam/Philippines and other claimant, which is one of reason ASEAN not gonna align together against China, especially majority of these nations don't have dispute with China and many rely China for investment/trade.
The best scenario I see is china and other dispute countries made some agreement on resource sharing, and get these dispute solved soon, not sure they can get better deals as time goes on. I'm pretty sure China willing to talk, whether the deal is fair or not thats another topic. After 49, China has land border dispute with what 10 nations, most are solved over time, so discuss these deal is still possible before China get too strong.
I do not want to come across like the grammar police but, sentences start - and place names have - capital letters. At least try some effort to make the text that people have to read at least legible. I spent minutes whipping this into shape.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boatteacher
Active Member
A China lake is probably a fair analogy.
One author sums it up as follows
"While the Chinese Government as a whole continues to maintain "strategic ambiguity" over what the line actually means, key elements within it (the military, oil companies and southern coastal provinces) continue to act on the basis that China maintains a historic territorial claim to the whole sea."
And territorial in that sense means ownership; complete and absolute.
Given the aggressiveness of the nine dash line's claim, it's difficult to see any specifically affected country actually acceding to it and starting from there whatever reasonable "soft power" is employed. They might go quiet on the issue; but it would still be there. Laos and Cambodia might block any ASEAN sanction but in the end everyone knows why ASEAN is not commenting, so its lack of comment is of limited impact.
I'm not sure how commentators here see the Philippines matter escalating to the point of triggering US treaty obligations. I doubt you envisage the Philippines being invaded. I assume you envisage an escalating naval engagement around one of the disputed features; which even then would likely be one between a couple of smaller ships over a very limited time frame.
That might raise the question of whether US ships might thereafter patrol the area and intervene in any re-run. If that produced a direct kinetic confrontation between a US and Chinese ship, that would be scary. But I suspect the more likely outcome would be an awful lot of bluster and abuse from the Chinese, but an avoidance of direct conflict.
As an Australian I'd be just as worried about the next step being the Chinese carrying through their implied threat to shoot down an Australian reconnaissance plane on a FON exercise. After all, we're not in a position to launch an immediate retaliatory attack against the offending facility and I don't doubt that they'd smooth things over and prevent an escalation with the US by pleading it was an accident and someone exceeded their authority; while still knowing the point had been made.
Plus Australia could well be the subject of an economic attack; since we are a major supplier to China and they could simply go elsewhere (or run down the stockpiles they have been mysteriously building up recently).
All, as others have noted, after the G20 meeting.
As I've noted before, it really is time for the captains of industry (in the US especially) to consider their Chinese supply chains. They should be sacked to the last man if they plead a black swan event should it happen their firms or sources of supply become economic victims of a future dispute.
China is simply acting as a bully. This is shaping as a "peace in our time" moment and I would hope world leaders have learnt the lessons of submitting to the bully in those circumstances.
Well you must not have been looking to hard then. The official line for years has been that everything inside the nine dashed line is Chinese sovereign territory. No ifs, buts or maybes.
China is not only using soft power in Asia. It is bullying and using everything short of open warfare. I just wonder if you are a Chinese apologist because you have offered nothing concrete too support any of your arguments.
Like I said link? Not just some CCTV or some media drum up version, official document etc regarding this.
Ive been tracking these things since 90s. I'm not Chinese apologist, just tracking this for years. Yes, they not only use soft power but bullying tactic as well, but so does Vietnam/Indonesia on other claimant. It doesn't justify China action . What argument are you refer too? I already said they are claiming the reef/island, its EEZ and want influence in the region etc. But I never seen an official or foreign minister declare entire ScS is part of china. The reason its dash-line rather then solid line is because they want ambiguity, if no one stop them I'm sure they will change ScS into china lake, but if they encounter sever resistance, they will settle for the reef/island etc. Hence the dash-line, also both ROC/PRC has same line, does ROC want to make a Taiwan lake, doubt it? How about Vietnam claim, which is just ridiculous. Like I said I'm not justify china action, but looking at other claimant, clearly they also did some bully themselves, of course china been much big, it is throwing its weight around.
This is just one of many incidents regularly occur between all the claimant whether is China, Vietnam or other.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/indonesia-blows-up-23-foreign-fishing-boats-to-send-a-message-1459852007
Consider the Vietnam line or ROC line or even phillippine line, which is just ridiculous. They all has ridiculous claim including china
Indonesian media reports spoke of Malaysian boats being seized but when Malaysian consular officials from Kalimantan visited the crews of those boats; it was found found that not only were the crews unable to provide proof that they were Malaysians but were also unable to speak Malay. That aside, as far I understand it, none of the foreign boats that were sunk for operating illegally in Indonesian waters were in parts of the Spratlys when they were seized.
WeaponWh, once again, can you please check the wording of your posts before committing them? Stuff like "Like I said I'm not justify china action, but looking at other claimant, clearly they also did some bully themselves, of course china been much big, it is throwing its weight around." is barely meeting the requirements for a conversation in English. Understand?
That doesn't make China's conduct any more tolerable, I don't understand why you appear to be having a problem with that concept. Not all claimants should be treated the same because they're obviously NOT the same. China's aggression in pursuing these claims, along with its place in the global order, makes it stand out from the other claimants. So stop trying to argue that they're no different to one another.
The ROC line is basically the same as the PRC line because they're based on the same arguments. I agree that it is just as ridiculous as the PRC line.
The Vietnamese line is based on ancient historical claims. Same argument as PRC and ROC, just different maps. I personally do not place much weight on ancient historical claim and I will gladly agree that it is just as ridiculous as both PRC and ROC claims.
The Philippine line is based on UNCLOS, drawn from their main islands. As best as I can tell the islands they claim are within the 200 nautical miles EEZ from their main islands. We can probably discuss whether what they are doing on the Thitu island is within the scope of an EEZ, but the line itself are fine.
You are also ignoring the Malaysian, Brunei, and Indonesian EEZ lines. All three of those, and the Philippines, are based on UNCLOS. There are disputes in where to draw the lines, but these are not the same class of claims as China's line, which, by China's own declaration, is NOT based on UNCLOS but based on "ancient historical rights", whatever that is.
Look, what's your thesis here? Okay, so what is it that you are trying to say? That America shouldn't bother getting involved in the South China Sea? Because none of the claimants are right? Well, ignoring the case of Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, whose EEZs you conveniently skipped, dude, tu quoque arguments don't actually work in international diplomacy. It doesn't even work here in DefenceTalk forum.
Now, since I don't feel making multiple posts, I'll just address a few other things here that you have brought up previously.
This is a link to the UNCLOS. Part 5 covers the Exclusive Economic Zone.
However, Reuters reported that
Just in case some newbie comes in next month or next year and didn't bother reading from the beginning, let me reiterate that China is not claiming an EEZ. China is claiming sovereign territorial rights. The UNCLOS is not relevant for them because, well, because they say so.
This kind of stuff is why I said that China wants the South China Sea to be a Chinese lake.
Next, Indonesia's decision to destroy ships that were caught fishing illegally.
The legal framework behind the UNCLOS allows the coastal state to arrest the fishermen who are illegally fishing. Indonesia does that, puts them on trial, and if they are found guilty, fines them. The fishermen themselves get turned over to their respective embassies for repatriation. The fine for illegal fishing can include seizing the ship/boat for illegal fishing. The ship, having been legally seized due to its use in illegal fishing, now belongs to the state. Since it belongs to the state, the state can do whatever it wants with the ship. In the past they used to auction the ships and boats. They also had given the ships and boats away to local fishermen. And in the past they also had destroyed the ships and boats when there wasn't enough space in the Bureau of Fisheries holding docks (I think that's the right agency, but I could be wrong). You just didn't hear about it. What's different this time is that Indonesia no longer bother with auctioning and giving away ships and just skipped straight to destroying the ships and boats and does that in a public way.
Again, there is no equivalency between what Indonesia is doing and what China is doing. The ships/boats that were destroyed were confiscated legally, after due process. Why in the world you want to bring this matter into this topic puzzles me, as the two isn't related. Very few of the seized ships/boats were seized in the South China Sea. The majority was, if I remember the articles in Jakarta Post correctly, caught in Eastern Indonesia, well inside Indonesia.
The alleged Malaysian ships I mentioned earlier were seized off Kalimantan. There may have been a few foreign trawlers seized in the Natunas area but yes, the majority were well within Indonesian waters.
look at the map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China#/media/File:South_China_Sea_claims_map.jpg
The 500km line, compare against all the "claim line, china or other" phillippine/china/Vietnam/malasia/taiwan all extend beyond the 200nm EEZ. Yes, phillippine also use historical claim for its dispute, all of them did. Malaysia seem more reasonable compare to others.
As for China claim entire ScS territory, listen closely to its foreign minister or official regarding ScS. They always mention island groups(paracel/sparatly), not entire ScS as its territory.
Further evidence can be seen at PRC submission of Note Verb in 2011 to UN, most are BS against phillippine, but the 2nd to last paragraph and some other sentence regarding what they claim. So they are Claiming the island and surround water as EEZ, I didn't see them mention Entire SCS base on 9-dash line as its territory water.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2011_re_phl_e.pdf
I never said US shouldn't get involved, by constantly appling pressure on china and other claimant, they will not claim the entire sea as own territory. My original argument was China made the dash-line ambiguous and depend on how much pressure apply on them, they will either claim entire ScS or step back and claim the island/reef in sparatly island(as shows in many official press conference and note verb submit to UN). These claim still overlapping with others such as phillippine/Vietnam/others, and its better for them to solved it sooner than later. None of them has that much moral high ground than China, it just media tend to focus on China.
I never said China behavior is right, when looking at what Vietnam did in the 70/80s, or what Phillippine did on Second Thomas Shoal, China seem doing the same with much bigger scale.
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
From the Time article "Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?":
IMO, the ambiguity is not intentional. But, "China is following America's example"! Google "What evidence does China offer to substantiate its claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea?"
Can anyone produce an old map with those areas clearly claimed by ancient SE Asian peoples? From "Historical Fiction: China’s South China Sea Claims" article premises:
For the sake of the argument, even if it's true, the islands are harder to reach and settle than dry land and therefore, IMHO, since the Chinese started to explore & exploit that sea in their junks at least since the Han dynasty, while the locals in the area were using just rafts/small fishing boats & without any documented formal territorial claims to it by their leaders, today's PRC can safely rely on historical records to support her claims! From "Early Chinese Exploration":
Also, from "Chinese exploration" on Wikipedea:
With all of the above, it would be absurd to think that these islands & reefs in the S. China Sea were not explored and claimed by China in those times!
Last edited:
You make it sound like "ancient maps" is a basis for what is an otherwise baseless claim.
There are ancient maps showing a much smaller China with the rest split between neighbouring kingdoms or splinter empires. Yet nobody thinks that those are valid arguments for, say, moving the Vietnamese border farther north, the North Korean border farther west, returning Inner Mongolia to Mongolia and ceding the Northern Plains to the resulting country, and so on.
We all agree that the above is ridiculous. So why should we take the "ancient maps" argument seriously? Accepting that argument also sets a very dangerous precedent, as other countries will be able to use "ancient maps" as an excuse to conquer smaller countries. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, one of the justifications that Saddam Hussein used was that Kuwait used to be part of Iraq during the Ottoman era and it was only action by evil colonialist British that Kuwait was wrongfully torn away from Iraq. As everyone can see, nobody took that argument seriously.
There are ancient maps showing a much smaller China with the rest split between neighbouring kingdoms or splinter empires. Yet nobody thinks that those are valid arguments for, say, moving the Vietnamese border farther north, the North Korean border farther west, returning Inner Mongolia to Mongolia and ceding the Northern Plains to the resulting country, and so on.
We all agree that the above is ridiculous. So why should we take the "ancient maps" argument seriously? Accepting that argument also sets a very dangerous precedent, as other countries will be able to use "ancient maps" as an excuse to conquer smaller countries. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, one of the justifications that Saddam Hussein used was that Kuwait used to be part of Iraq during the Ottoman era and it was only action by evil colonialist British that Kuwait was wrongfully torn away from Iraq. As everyone can see, nobody took that argument seriously.
Last edited: