South China Sea thoughts?

[r3mu511]

... deployment of THAAD along border give NKorean leader an sleepless nights. I wonder why China strongly opposed THAAD deployment...

Perhaps one tech reason for china's concern may be the an/tpy-2 fcr used by the thaad system which can function either in TM/terminal-mode (to serve as a fcr), or in FBM/forward-based-mode (to serve as a forward cueing sensor for longer range engagements by other assets, eg. aegis bmd capable ships, see US MDA bmd flight test FTM-15 for an example of this use).

Range performance estimates for the tpy2 vary from ~600 km in terminal mode, all the way up to ~3000 km in forward based mode (see the following for a tech discussion on the variation in range depending on target rcs and dwell time: https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2016/07/17/thaad-radar-ranges-july-17-2018/).

So perhaps it is the ability of the tpy2 (deployed with thaad) to be operated in forward based mode (and it's resulting range performance boost and ability to serve as a forward cueing sensor) which might be of some concern to china.

 

[cdxbow]

Perhaps one tech reason for china's concern may be the an/tpy-2 fcr used by the thaad system which can function either in TM/terminal-mode (to serve as a fcr), or in FBM/forward-based-mode (to serve as a forward cueing sensor for longer range engagements by other assets, eg. aegis bmd capable ships, see US MDA bmd flight test FTM-15 for an example of this use).

Range performance estimates for the tpy2 vary from ~600 km in terminal mode, all the way up to ~3000 km in forward based mode (see the following for a tech discussion on the variation in range depending on target rcs and dwell time: https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2016/07/17/thaad-radar-ranges-july-17-2018/).

So perhaps it is the ability of the tpy2 (deployed with thaad) to be operated in forward based mode (and it's resulting range performance boost and ability to serve as a forward cueing sensor) which might be of some concern to china.

I'm sure it is, but there has got to be a down side for the PRC with it's support of NK, and I think President Park has done the right thing to up the ante at this time. After one of the NK nuke tests she tried to call President Xi, but he would not take her call. South Korea and PRC relations had been going well until then, now they are increasingly frosty.

 

[Think_Tank]

China Spratly and 9-dash line

Exactly right.

And it is probably useful to recap the history and basis of this dispute for the benefit of the readers of this thread who may not be aware.
There are basically 3 basis for territorial claims:
Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS ratification
This was accepted at UN.

What ever bthe asis of argument about Chinese historical claim on islands along South China Sea debated in this article, my point of view is simple and concise as referrenced to EEZ international right of ownership. Should China really asserted historical ownership of island along West Philippine Sea long time ago why is that no claim or suggestion were made while US force was in the Philippines (+ decades). I am a live witness when US fighter planes used the island developed and transformed by China into a military fotress as mere target bombing practice aiming at concrete posts or monuments at at mid section. Makes no mistake, Chinese bold action of claim of the occupied island including those islands within 9-dash line only occurred after joint energy exploration with Vietnam hosted by Philippine ex-president Arroyo took place. Location of exploration is actually adjacent to the existing Philippine oil platform (Manampalataya) producing commercial grade oil output. Chinese claim of islands along South China Sea is all about control of vast energy deposits and at the same time control of international maritime and airspace navigation, hitting two birds in one stone in pursuit of complete military dominance in the region.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

I am a live witness when US fighter planes used the island developed and transformed by China into a military fortress as mere target bombing practice aiming at concrete posts or monuments at at mid section. .. Chinese claim of islands along South China Sea is all about control of vast energy deposits and at the same time control of international maritime and airspace navigation, ..

They follow in the footsteps of USA by "creating their own reality", so those bombings r the thing of the past! It's also about fishing, my earlier post has a corresponding link. IMO, they don't want to control international maritime & airspace navigation, but rather to be able to prevent/interdict military related activities by local & outside rivals in peacetime & economic 1s in anti-piracy/smuggling/blockade operations in wartime.

 

[Vulcan]

Dramatic turn of events made by Duterte.

Duterte Seeks Arms From China, Ends Joint Patrols With U.S. - Bloomberg

In a televised speech Tuesday before military officers in Manila, Duterte said that two countries -- which he didn’t identify -- had agreed to give the Philippines a 25-year soft loan to buy military equipment. Later, he said that Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and “technical people” in the armed forces would visit China and Russia “and see what’s best.”

...

On Tuesday, Duterte said the Philippines needs propeller-driven planes that it can use against insurgents and fight terrorists in Mindanao. He said he wanted to buy arms “where they are cheap and where there are no strings attached and it is transparent.”

“I don’t need jets, F-16 -- that’s of no use to us,” Duterte said. “We don’t intend to fight any country.”


...

Duterte also said the Philippines won’t participate in expeditions patrolling South China Sea to avoid being involved in a “hostile act.” “I just want to patrol our territorial waters,” he said.

Quite a dramatic turn of events, seems China's stronger approach is yielding some results. That's 1 key US ally in the SCS that doesn't seem to want to provoke China.

 

[gazzzwp]

Dramatic turn of events made by Duterte.

Duterte Seeks Arms From China, Ends Joint Patrols With U.S. - Bloomberg



Quite a dramatic turn of events, seems China's stronger approach is yielding some results. That's 1 key US ally in the SCS that doesn't seem to want to provoke China.

The question is will they have later regrets? China is not saying that it is prepared to relinquish sovereignty over the SCS so to me this looks more like an act of appeasement. We all know where that ultimately leads.

More bad news for the US and it's attempt to establish freedom of navigation and fair principles.

 

[Vulcan]

IMO the Philippines would appear to be taking a non-confrontational stance. By abandoning joint patrols with the USN and focussing on their own territorial waters they have signalled they do not want to be part of a naval escalation. I'm not sure if it would encompass appeasement as I'd have expected to have seen an announcement concerning their claims on the Scarborough Shoal/Spratly Islands.

If the article comes to fruition of course.

 

[gazzzwp]

IMO the Philippines would appear to be taking a non-confrontational stance. By abandoning joint patrols with the USN and focussing on their own territorial waters they have signalled they do not want to be part of a naval escalation. I'm not sure if it would encompass appeasement as I'd have expected to have seen an announcement concerning their claims on the Scarborough Shoal/Spratly Islands.

If the article comes to fruition of course.

Well it has just occurred to me what may happen. Prediction:

Having abandoned US policy and military protection China will now assume that The Philippines have bought into China's rules of engagement. The Philippines will now be granted full unlimited access including fishing rights to the SCS. The whole thing was only about ejecting US influence from the region and accepting China's authority.

Iran want the same deal in the Straits of Hormuz.

 

[tonnyc]

Let me put it this way. The Duterte presidency does not actually have a coherent policy regarding the South China Sea. If one keeps track of what Duterte has said regarding the issue since before his candidacy, one can see that there is no policy.

Since the US is critical about Duterte's method in his crusade against drug abuse, the US is the enemy. Since China is not critical of Duterte, China is BFF.

If tomorrow China criticizes Duterte about, oh, his intention to close mines (the Philippines is China's biggest source of nickel and many "less than legal" mining operations have unofficial Chinese financing) while the US praises him about his concern for the environment, the whole thing can easily flip again.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Let me put it this way. The Duterte presidency does not actually have a coherent policy regarding the South China Sea. If one keeps track of what Duterte has said regarding the issue since before his candidacy, one can see that there is no policy.

No, the policy is still evolving, just like with any new head of state. He just doesn't want his country to be used as pawn by its former colonial master. They'll have more to gain in the long by stopping pressing the same territorial issue than by getting involved in confrontations on the side of USA & Japan. Besides, just to the North is Taiwan & we all know what it means to PRC, Japan & USA!

 

[colay1]

No, the policy is still evolving, just like with any new head of state. He just doesn't want his country to be used as pawn by its former colonial master. They'll have more to gain in the long by stopping pressing the same territorial issue than by getting involved in confrontations on the side of USA & Japan. Besides, just to the North is Taiwan & we all know what it means to PRC, Japan & USA!

He cannot stop pressing the territorial issue, not unless he wants to get impeached. Defending the territorial sovereignty is in his job description.

 

[Feanor]

I think Chinese actions in the SCS are part of a bigger trend. As was correctly noted, Russia and China are both pushing on the west in a confrontational manner. What needs to be understood is the context. The US, and many other western nations, did quite a few worse things in their time to acquire strategically important territory, then simply militarizing some reefs (annexation of Hawaii for example or simply taking over territories from Spain). And major western countries enjoy the benefits of those gains to this day. When China came to the playing table, out of non-recognition, it was relatively weak, and really had little choice but to accept the existing, rather crooked, set of rules. It should come as little surprise that now that they are strong, they want these rules changed. Much the same applies to Russia, who was dealt with in a rather regrettable manner following the end of the Cold War (promises of NATO non-expansion for example). Unless the west is prepared for a serious dialogue, involving serious changes to the international order, these conflicts will continue, and are likely to culminate in the next big war, the winners or survivors of which will be writing a new international arrangement.

This situation isn't new, and if the history of European civilization is looked at over centuries, it's punctuated by large conflicts, following which "lasting" arrangements are made at the international level, and eventually those arrangements become dated, and when they're not changed (and they typically aren't) it leads to the next big war. The same pattern is occurring globally. The current, post-WWII with some post-Cold War amendments, arrangement no longer works. It doesn't help that the US and NATO act in routine disregard of the Security Coucil. It doesn't help that Russia and China are both willing to push around smaller countries in a very neo-imperial manner, citing western behavior as precedent, or making wild claims about maritime territory (be it Russian Arctic claims or the Chinese SCS claims). But ultimately they're symptoms of the same problem. And the root problem needs to be dealt with, not the individual conflicts.

 

[ngatimozart]

So Feanor what would you suggest that this new order look like and entail? How would it function? Basically it would be a new world order wouldn't it?

 

[Waylander]

I have a huge problem with bringing up the behaviour of countries from centuries ago in this day and age.

One can justify any silly and agressive behaviour with it. Back in it's day the Chinese were not shy either to act in a very imperial way to their neighbours like Korea or Vietnam. In shorter history they annexed territory like Tibet.

Russias recent past is even less stellar with their unorovoked attacks on Finland, the Baltics and Poland during WWII with putting the iron boot onto eastern Europe following immediately after WWII.

We could just as well start to pummel the North African states for their conquest of the Iberian peninsula or the Turks for their takes on conquering Vienna. Or maybe the French for their conquest spree after the revolution or the Scandinaviand for their viking raids.

You see were this leads to...

I don't care if a country doesn't feel great anymore and can't come to grips with it's declined importance. One doesn't need to be the big stomping bear or dragon in order to provide a good live for one's citizens. In fact diverting the resources for the improvement of the living standard is much more benefitial to a country.

 

[Feanor]

So Feanor what would you suggest that this new order look like and entail? How would it function?

I don't know. Historically a major war would be fought, and it's winners/survivors (at the nation-state level typically) would asses the situation, draw certain conclusions about what caused this particular ruckus, and then come up with a new international arrangement that's in line with geopolitical and socio-economic reality.

Basically it would be a new world order wouldn't it?

To some extent. Consider the international arrangement pre WWI and post WWII. That's not a typo. I do mean before the first, and after the second. That's the scale and magnitude of change that's on the table, at least potentially. Doing it diplomatically would be a huge first. Again, historically it was decided through a bloody war, and with nuclear weapons on the table, as well as a major power imbalance, with the stronger side clearly the slower and less decisive one, the risks are huge. But whether we like it or not, a big change will come and probably within a quarter-century.

To be clear, I'm not saying let China have the islands, and let Russia swallow up Ukraine. But I am saying that long and serious thought needs to be given about how to proceed not just on the level of individual states but as an international community. And Russia and China are not the only under-represented countries in the current arrangement, they're just the two most aggressive ones (Russia one account of recent history, and China because they're rising the fastest). At the end of the day political action needs to be goal oriented, so if the goal is conflict resolution then simply pounding the table and talking about "international law" (a very nebulous concept under the best of circumstances) isn't going to help.

 

[Feanor]

I have a huge problem with bringing up the behaviour of countries from centuries ago in this day and age.

One can justify any silly and agressive behaviour with it. Back in it's day the Chinese were not shy either to act in a very imperial way to their neighbours like Korea or Vietnam. In shorter history they annexed territory like Tibet.

Russias recent past is even less stellar with their unorovoked attacks on Finland, the Baltics and Poland during WWII with putting the iron boot onto eastern Europe following immediately after WWII.

We could just as well start to pummel the North African states for their conquest of the Iberian peninsula or the Turks for their takes on conquering Vienna. Or maybe the French for their conquest spree after the revolution or the Scandinaviand for their viking raids.

You see were this leads to...

I don't care if a country doesn't feel great anymore and can't come to grips with it's declined importance. One doesn't need to be the big stomping bear or dragon in order to provide a good live for one's citizens. In fact diverting the resources for the improvement of the living standard is much more benefitial to a country.

Three things.

First, it's not so much about justification. Those come later. It's about reasons for action. It matters far more why China is acting the way it is then how it justifies those actions.

Second, when actions in relatively recent past (like the post-Cold War settlement) have a giant impact today, pretending that the past is the past isn't really fair. And comparing the treatment of China over the late 19th and first half of the 20th century to something that happened by geopolitical entities that haven't been around for centuries isn't really relevant. The US has a whole network of small islands in the Pacific. That isn't the historic result of some ancient events. It's the direct result of a deliberate imperialist policy in modern history. I'm not saying the US needs to hand over those islands, but I am saying that Chinese desires are modest compared to what the US already has. Chinese behavior is problematic not only because of the behavior but also because there is no currently acceptable international framework to deal with a rising power without conflict.

Third, it's not so much about countries losing importance. That's a significantly smaller problem. If Russia was getting weaker and feeling insecure about it, it would be no big deal. It's the fact that Russia was weak and is getting stronger again, and wants to undo what was forced (or "persuaded" in exchange for promises made and not always kept) on it when it was weak. Much the same but on a bigger scale applies to China. And unfortunately there is the Middle-Eastern powderkeg, a startling and very unpleasant parallel to the pre-WWI Balkans.

It seems to me Waylander that you are approaching the problem in terms of right and wrong. But these are not useful categories when we are talking about politics. It doesn't matter how "right" the US position is vis-a-vis international law (that the US had a major hand in writing, and China got little to no say in ) if the US being right still leads the world into WWIII with a tens of millions death toll, and entire countries laid to waste. This is why I think situations like Ukraine and the SCS are alarm bells that the current order is in trouble, and the process of looking for a new one needs to begin.

 

[tonnyc]

Let me just say that I agree with Waylander. That approach would excuse anything. Want to demonize a country? I'm sure there's plenty of blood spilled in its history. Want to cast the same country as angels? There will be enough heroic and virtuous people in its history to justify it. Bringing up history from hundreds of years ago is pointless.

I am also in agreement with Ananda's previous post in which he said that the current post-WW2 order, for better or worse, is the one we should stick with, because if you start messing with one then why not another? And then we are back in the era of might makes right.

One can argue that we never left that era, but that doesn't mean it's okay to go back to the old ways. This is why I want conflict resolution to conform to international law, nebulous as it is. Because if not, then it becomes to tempting to use plain old might as the dispute resolution method. Certainly that has plenty of historical precedent, but so is slavery, and if the human civilization can grow to view slavery with contempt, then perhaps we can grow to view the use of might with contempt and embrace international law instead.

EDIT: Feanor, you keep viewing this as a conflict between big countries. But that is precisely why I as someone living in Southeast Asia do not see it as China vs. US.

In a China vs. US situation, the wishes of the Southeast Asian people don't count. I notice that you keep casting it as China vs. US. Or Russia wanting to redress the injustices blah blah blah. There's no mention of "what do the Vietnamese people think of that?" No mention of the Poles, or of the Finns, or of the Indonesians. That world-view is simplistic and incomplete. It probably isn't a big deal when it's just you and me talking about it here, but I see that China also have a similar incomplete view. China keeps thinking that the Southeast Asian countries involved in the South China Sea dispute are pawns of the US, that the US has manipulated them. They fail to realize that for many Southeast Asians, the issue is simply a big country is trying to take away their country's natural resources. Again.

China fails to see this, and thus their diplomacy stalls.

EDIT2: No, let me try again. Feanor, you're probably right about the reason why China (and Russia) is doing what they do. I'm just saying that we in Southeast Asia do not give a damn about China's reason, because from where we sit what we see is a big country pushing us around. We may understand it intellectually, but it's still a big country pushing us around. The fact that the US used to do that and now it's China's turn does not make us resent it any less.

 

[Feanor]

Tonny I genuinely have a hard time grasping what you're responding to, but I'll try to answer you. The Poles likely had little interest in the British-German balance in the early 20th century, but they got dragged into WWI whether they liked it or not. If South East Asia wants to avoid becoming a battle ground, then it's all the more important that these issues are addressed in the manner I suggested above. While I can understand your feelings, believe me, they are extremely unhelpful when it comes to understanding the situation.

Anyways, the reason we have to start messing with it is because if we don't, we will in all likelihood repeat previous patterns of conflict. No single framework can last forever. We live in a changing world, and history even shows us what the path from war to war, from order to order, looks like. Instead of hoping that this one will finally last forever and holding on tooth and claw to a deal made between countries last time, we should anticipate upcoming events and prepare for the inevitable change.

Feanor, you keep viewing this as a conflict between big countries. But that is precisely why I as someone living in Southeast Asia do not see it as China vs. US.

In a China vs. US situation, the wishes of the Southeast Asian people don't count. I notice that you keep casting it as China vs. US. Or Russia wanting to redress the injustices blah blah blah. There's no mention of "what do the Vietnamese people think of that?" No mention of the Poles, or of the Finns, or of the Indonesians. That world-view is simplistic and incomplete. It probably isn't a big deal when it's just you and me talking about it here, but I see that China also have a similar incomplete view. China keeps thinking that the Southeast Asian countries involved in the South China Sea dispute are pawns of the US, that the US has manipulated them. They fail to realize that for many Southeast Asians, the issue is simply a big country is trying to take away their country's natural resources. Again.

China fails to see this, and thus their diplomacy stalls.

But tonny, none of those countries were involved in crafting this arrangement either. This is nothing new.

EDIT2: No, let me try again. Feanor, you're probably right about the reason why China (and Russia) is doing what they do. I'm just saying that we in Southeast Asia do not give a damn about China's reason, because from where we sit what we see is a big country pushing us around. We may understand it intellectually, but it's still a big country pushing us around. The fact that the US used to do that and now it's China's turn does not make us resent it any less.

But you should give a damn. The reason is what matters more then anything else. The reason is most of the cause. And perhaps decisions on this scale should be made by people who have more then just a view from where they sit.

 

[weaponwh]

Every rising power eventually have a conflict with established power, with exception of British empire give US space to grow in late 19/early 20 century. How far they willing to push and how much west willing to give will decide a conflict or not. As China/Russia or even India rise they are going to expand, and they want their own sphere of influence/dominance, these thing dont change over time. China policy is typical carrot and stick.

 

[John Fedup]

Every rising power eventually have a conflict with established power, with exception of British empire give US space to grow in late 19/early 20 century. How far they willing to push and how much west willing to give will decide a conflict or not. As China/Russia or even India rise they are going to expand, and they want their own sphere of influence/dominance, these thing dont change over time. China policy is typical carrot and stick.

Pretty much the way of the world. Turf does matter. Conflict is more likely when powers are sort of equal (or they think they are). During the age of European colonization, the Dutch, Spanish, British, and French were somewhat equal depending on the timeframe selected and got into conflicts. After Napleon's defeat, Pax Britania followed until WW1 and Pax America followed after WW2. Perhaps "sort of stable" Is better than Pax. Anyways, American dominance won't last forever (especially with the current and pending management). China is an emerging superpower for sure but they have huge internal issues and any premature adventurism that goes wrong could come back to bite them internally big time.