South China Sea thoughts?

[STURM]

Unlike US who does not have any immediate neighbours abble to faced them on more or less equal footing (especially in air and naval engagement)

In the event of troubles in the Spratlys; China will also have to ensure it has sufficient assets to defend its home waters and backyard against possible moves by the U.S, Japan and South Korea. Despite this however China will still enjoy numerical superiority over what the other claimants can deploy. Also, unlike in the past, China can now better support its forces in the disputed area, including deploying airpower; thanks to the islands its building

The big difference between the U.S. and China is that even in the event of troubles; the U.S. would still have to maintain its military commitments in various parts of the world. Unlike China the U.S. has defence treaties with many countries in various parts of the world. A nightmare scenario for U.S. military planners would be trouble breaking out simultaneously in the Middle East and in Asia.

China has Japan, ROK, and Taiwan in her immediate borders.

The First, Second and Third Island Chain. China is boxed in by several countries who are either U.S. allies, U.S. friendly or neutral. This plays a large part in determining how the Chinese conduct themselves and influences their threat perceptions and insecurities.

 

[Ananda]

In the event of troubles in the Spratlys; China will also have to ensure it has sufficient assets to defend its home waters and backyard against possible moves by the U.S, Japan and South Korea. Despite this however China will still enjoy numerical superiority over what the other claimants can deploy.
Also, unlike in the past, China can now better support its forces in the disputed area, including deploying airpower; thanks to the islands building.

The First, Second and Third Island Chain. China is boxed in by several countries who are either U.S. allies, U.S. friendly or neutral. This plays a large part in determining how the Chinese conduct themselves and influences their threat perceptions and insecurities.

Sturm your 2 summarize conditions..is the challenge that China need to faced. My points all along that the SEA nation facing SCS have not to build numeriority parity with China. They only have to build up enough to take on 1st onslaught frm China in time of trouble. That's mean China southern fleet and Air asset in Hainan or whatever they build up already in the Islands bases.

That's what I see what Vietnam doing right now. What Vietnam build up now..they are not trying to get parity with China..is too far fetched..but they are build up enough capacity to make trouble to China southern fleet, and whatever Air Asset China has in the south. SCS is also important to Japan, ROK and Taiwan..granted in time of trouble North Korea will try to do something to tied up ROK..but at the same time it's tied up China's other two fleet frm effectively supporting Southern Fleet.

Yes China can continue to build up..but China build up will also bring others to build up..China continue to try to settle SCS billaterally, but the action in SCS also made everone else warried that only made them reacted counter reactive to what China wish. That's why seems there are some missconnection between what China want to dipplomatically and economically with what actual action in SCS.

China seems showing two facet, one that what to try find settlement and other which dictating and belligerent to any that are not wanting to accept her demand. Now Phillipines seems try to soften the approach, whille Vietnam show they want to talk with China, but also showing is readiness thus showing they are not some little neighbour China can push around.
I myself see Vietnam way will show more benefit rather than Philipines softening permisive approach that their new President increasingly shown to China.

In the end Vietnam continue prepared defensive approach to what ever holding they still has in SCS, so they are not being taken lightly by China, and again I believe their moved is what other neighbours should follow on conjuction dealling with China.

I deliberately take out others like the US, Australia in India..just to show that by building up considerably without having to match parity with China..it's enough to make China think twice..despite what China act diplomatically..or what Chinese internet warriors boasted.
In the end when China taking hostile action to 'say' one of Vietnam holding in SCS..it will bring others bit later on to the field.. Caused eventough too much in stakes to let China do whatever she wants in SCS, it will be some delay on that. However if the neighbours in SCS shown enough capabilities to hold off China initial onslaught..then the next onslaught will be more difficult for China to do without bring others to the field.

That's why I still say it is matter to shown some preparedness against China in deffensive posture..caused if you made too easy for China, then it will end to soon before others can reacted.

 

[STURM]

My points all along that the SEA nation facing SCS have not to build numeriority parity with China. They only have to build up enough to take on 1st onslaught frm China in time of trouble. That's mean China southern fleet and Air asset in Hainan or whatever they build up already in the Islands bases.

Easier said than done. Even were China to retain significant numbers of assets in home waters or in other areas to face possibles moves from the U.S. and other countries; the number of assets it can place in the Sptratlys will still out weight whatever Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines is able to deploy there. These countries I mentioned are not in the position of going against China head on.

In the end Vietnam continue prepared defensive approach to what ever holding they still has in SCS, so they are not being taken lightly by China, and again I believe their moved is what other neighbours should follow on conjuction dealling with China.

No. Different countries have different ways of dealing with China and the extent of their relationship with China varies. Different countries also have different threat perceptions and varying levels of insecurity. Vietnam has fought a border war with China in the past; in has had waters and islands seized by force by China; thus how it acts is driven largely by its threat perceptions and insecurities.

At the end of the day, like other countries the well being of Vietnam's economy is very much dependent on trade and good bilateral ties with China : this is not going to change anytime soon. Adopting a more confrontational approach to China or doing anything that China perceives to be ''provocative'' will bring no benefits.

 

[tonnyc]

I can't speak about other countries, but in case of Indonesia, we are not looking to get benefits from China when we conduct exercises off the Natuna islands, or when we have the navy specifically patrol the area instead of the coast guard. We do not expect any benefit from China (or anyone else, really) when we build up the military base in the Natuna Besar island, nor do we expect any benefit by putting a small task force there.

In fact, all those incur costs, and we would rather very much not have to do them.

But well, what else can we do? The alternative, not doing any of those, is worse. Talk? Sure. We'll talk. We never stopped our diplomatic approach. But since China keeps on doing both talking and acting, we think that we also should do both. To deliberately tie one's own hand by committing to not doing something while the other side has not made a similar commitment is... well, let's just say there does not seem to be any benefit to that.

 

[STURM]

There is no alternative but to continue to rely on diplomacy to try to resolve the issue; whilst simultaneously improving ones deterrent capabilities and also engaging other countries like the U.S. Vietnam acts in a different manner [compared to other claimants] because it has a quite a bit of history with China. Vietnam has deployed Lynx MLRS in the Spratlys but Malaysia wouldn't never do something similar because it has nothing to gain from such a move. This does not mean that Malaysia is not taking steps to better defend its interests there. It is but is doing so in a low key manner whilst also engaging China bilaterally and via ASEAN.

Similarly the Philippines has its own way of dealing with China. In Malaysia's case it has had troops in the Spratlys for almost 30 years and has long been concerned over the issue; way before the issue of the Spratlys and China became front page news. Whether things actually get resolved to everyone's satisfaction remains to be seen but there remains no alternative but to continue in engaging China; irrespective of whether China reciprocates or not.

 

[Ananda]

Then Sturm..let's agree to disagree....actually this is more on how to use defense accompany diplomatic..

Just like tonnyc put..diplomacy..yes..enggaging China..off course..nobody can afford not to enggage China..however we have to show China that any dispute or potential dispute have to settle diplomatically cause other alternatives will cost you (China) as much it's cost us (in relative comparison)..

The deffensive build up is just another show that what we have.. is not an easy target to 'chew'..and I believe that possition is also being choose by Vietnam..Don't think Vietnam..or us have any illusion that we can reach parrity on defensive posture against China..all we are doing only to shown that we are not easy target to be..

That move off course will be costly..but again what choice do we have ?..like I say before..as neutral party in SCS dispute..current administration in Jakarta choose to engage China favourly in bussiness, commerce and investment..showing that we can give benefit to China commercial wise..
However whille in one hand China showing to favour good commercial relationship..talking over and over to up hold our sovereign right in Natuna waters..but then again China CG continue tramping Natuna's water (both teritorial and EEZ)..

Is there benefit to gain by increasing the naval power in Natunas (both naval and CG) ..? Well so far after we increase the Naval presences..the incursion frm China is much less in frequency..
That's the problem with what China say and What China does in the field..not all coherent with each other..for that the choice is has to be improving the deffensive faces..whille still enggagging China dipplomatically and commercially..

Commercial sign also has to be followed..in 2015..the Government gave high speed train deal between Jakarta-Bandung to China over Japan..however lately the Government also give sign to Japan for fast train projects between Jakarta-Surabaya..something off course China wants considering Jakarta-Surabaya project is going to be 5 times bigger than Jakarta-Bandung..
This shown China that she is not the only viable commercial infrastructure partner..but we have option to find other (in this Japan) over them..

Vietnam despites all her deffensive moved against China..still enggage China on other multi-front..this has to be done because China her self has not showing that she can be trusted completely only by diplomatic and commercial benefit...

 

[STURM]

I have no issues to agreeing to disagree but in this case I really can't see what we're disagreeing about.

- In addition to engaging China bilaterally and via ASEAN; smaller claimants are also improving their defence/deterrent capabilities whilst also building on their relations with countries such as the U.S. There are no other alternatives to what they're already doing. Adopting a harder approach or doing things that China perceives as ''provocative'' will not deter China. The fact remains that none of the other claimants, as well as Indonesia, can meet China on or near terms; irrespective of how much they raise their defence budgets : China is a military power, it is a economic power, it has a larger population and a larger industrial base. Yes China does as it wants and claims a monopoly on what's right but there's not much the other claimants can do that they're not already doing.

- Different countries have different threat perceptions and different levels of relationships with China. Vietnam does what it does because it obviously feels more threatened compared to say Malaysia. In addition to having islands and waters seized by force by China; Vietnam also fought a border war with China in 1979 and in ancient times was invaded and became a Chinese vassal state. Thus it's no surprise that Vietnam is acting the way it is but we can't realistically expect the other claimants to do what Vietnam is doing, e.g. placing MLRS. What works for Vietnam will not work for others and vice versa. The Philippine chose to go to the international tribunal in the Hague; obviously the Filipinos felt that this was to their advantage but is something that others won't do as they see no benefit to gain from such a move.

- Despite whatever issues and concerns the smaller claimants have with China the hard fact remains that the economies of all the claimants are closely tied to that of China's - this will not change anytime soon; irrespective of whether China's economy slows or whether the economies of the various claimants significantly improve in the future. As such a fine balance has to be maintained as there is too much to lose. Take Malaysia [which was the first in ASEAN to establish diplomatic ties] as an example; Malaysia continues to maintain that the 5 reefs claimed in the Spratlys do not belong to China and routinely confronts every Chinese incursion in the area; yet actively engages China because [like others] it has no choice. Bilateral trade in 2015 totaled US$55.67 billion [the figure has been steadily rising annually] with Malaysia being China's largest trading partner within ASEAN. Like everyone else involved; Malaysia continues to defend its claims in the Spratlys but also has to ensure that whatever disagreements arise over the Spratlys; that they do not affect bilateral ties - not easy to do but as I pointed out previously, Malaysia has long been involved in the dispute [way before it started making headlines] and every country has its own way of dealing with the issue.

 

[tonnyc]

I think the disconnect is that you, Sturm, think that what Indonesia is doing is provocative while we are puzzled just exactly which action is provocative, because we sure aren't trying to provoke anyone. I mean, seriously, why would we want to provoke China? That is nuts. What gain could there be?

 

[STURM]

''Disconnect?'' I didn't say anything about Indonesia being ''provocative''; nor did I imply it. In fact, I didn't say anything about Indonesia at all! Yet the ''disconnect'' is me? Kindly point out where I said or implied that Indonesia was being ''provocative'' ....

As I stated plainly [more than once] : each country is driven by different threat perceptions and each country has different ways of doing things. Period/full stop.

[South China Sea: The World's Next Big War? - UpFront]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJxo2XVej-Q

 

[tonnyc]

Ah, I see. Okay, what happened is that you already switched to a general view while Ananda and I thought you were still responding to us about Indonesia's specific actions.

Well, miscommunication happens. Let's move on. I think the next event is what the Philippine president will say and not say on his visit to China.

 

[STURM]

I didn't ''switch'' as I was referring to things in general from the very start. As was made clear from my posts :]

Dutarte will try what others have been doing : engaging China [in the hope that some mutually beneficial settlement can be achieved] and trying not be ''confrontational'' or ''provocative'' [from a Chinese perspective] and hope the Chinese reciprocate. Like others before him, Dutarte might find that the Chinese will welcome dialogue, will offer economic ''carrots'' and will press the need for improved ties but at the same time will continue what they've been doing. That's the problem.

 

[colay1]

Philippine-US relations are headed for the freezer. It will be a long 6 years until that vulgar crank vacates his seat. His fit of pique is going to be very costly.

 

[Ananda]

I didn't ''switch'' as I was referring to things in general from the very start. As was made clear from my posts :]

Dutarte will try what others have been doing : engaging China [in the hope that some mutually beneficial settlement can be achieved] and trying not be ''confrontational'' or ''provocative'' [from a Chinese perspective] and hope the Chinese reciprocate.

And that's we disagree Sturm..yes everybody in SEA wants and try to engage China...but not everybody affraid on looking confrontational with China when teritorial dispute comes to place..Vietnam certaintly put that option..and Indonesia even not directly confrontational..but keep building it's Natuna islands defence in front China eyes.

Vietnam seems willing to loose China's carrot..and like tonnyc put..Indonesia also not looking to compromise its teritorial integrity for China economics and commercial carrot..
Will it this be costly ?..offcourse it is..but we are in deficit with China (China exports more to us..then us to China)...thus we can loose billions..but China also loose billions more than us..Will Indonesia found substitute of China ?..probably not for all..but some of it..

Still China only made 6th largest FDI in Indonesia..thus US, Japan, even Singapore is more important to us for Investment than China..
In sense..China definetely can Survive without Indonesia..but so do we can survive without China if its come to that..perhaps thats why we are more willing to give more toughen faces to China in Natuna..compared some others SCS China neighbours..we simply not that too dependent to China..

Again nobody in Indonesia, or I believe even in Vietnam have illusion we are going to ever match China..China will simply out gunned us..even to next decade or so when our economy projected bigger than now..
However heard frm some people in diplomatic and defense circle..most of us simply not see that dealling with China is enough only frm diplomatic and economic front..without we also shown willing to build defensive nature..

That's what I believe we dissagree with Sturm..Yes I agree with you that any individual country in SEA facing China in SCS has to deal with the most appropriate way each individual country think their best interest.
However I don't agree that building defensive posture toward China is pointless..

 

[weaponwh]

Does China has territorial disputes with Indonesia?? I know there are illegal fishing but it's smaller scale compared to Vietnam disputes

 

[Ananda]

Does China has territorial disputes with Indonesia?? I know there are illegal fishing but it's smaller scale compared to Vietnam disputes

Officially no..but in reality China CG covered their fishing boats deep in to Natuna waters time to times...which you can look at any definition..it's tresspassing other sovereign teritory with official vessels..which no other neighbours doing it in such 'grand' way.
Well it's much reduced now since Indonesian Navy pattroled Natuna waters with Corvettes and Frigates and not just small patrol boats of Fishery/Maritime agency like previously..

So the defensive build up in Natuna main island and waters around the islands is just "precaution"

 

[weaponwh]

Officially no..but in reality China CG covered their fishing boats deep in to Natuna waters time to times...which you can look at any definition..it's tresspassing other sovereign teritory with official vessels..which no other neighbours doing it in such 'grand' way.
Well it's much reduced now since Indonesian Navy pattroled Natuna waters with Corvettes and Frigates and not just small patrol boats of Fishery/Maritime agency like previously..

So the defensive build up in Natuna main island and waters around the islands is just "precaution"

k, though I don't think China is the only country that has trawler in those water, mala/vietanm/phillippine. As for CG, not much can do about it unless its getting into 12nm of the island, its FON (even its in 12nm is not worth the confrontation). using navy to catch fisherman is not a good idea, if china decide to protect its fisherman live, it can send its own navy. better to invest and get bigger CG ships. Imagine what US would do if Mexico using navy to catch illegal US fisherman in mexico EEZ. That's what coast guard is for.

 

[Blackshoe]

k, though I don't think China is the only country that has trawler in those water, mala/vietanm/phillippine. As for CG, not much can do about it unless its getting into 12nm of the island, its FON (even its in 12nm is not worth the confrontation). using navy to catch fisherman is not a good idea, if china decide to protect its fisherman live, it can send its own navy. better to invest and get bigger CG ships. Imagine what US would do if Mexico using navy to catch illegal US fisherman in mexico EEZ. That's what coast guard is for.

The Chinese Coast Guard is a LOT more than just a simple law enforcement agency. It is generally viewed as having a very aggressive and deniable role in enforcing/expanding the Chinese control of the SCS.

 

[tonnyc]

k, though I don't think China is the only country that has trawler in those water, mala/vietanm/phillippine. As for CG, not much can do about it unless its getting into 12nm of the island, its FON (even its in 12nm is not worth the confrontation). using navy to catch fisherman is not a good idea, if china decide to protect its fisherman live, it can send its own navy. better to invest and get bigger CG ships. Imagine what US would do if Mexico using navy to catch illegal US fisherman in mexico EEZ. That's what coast guard is for.

Any ship can be present in anyone's EEZ so long that they aren't somehow harvesting the EEZ's natural resources. However, it is documented fact that Chinese Coast Guard ships have interfered with law enforcement officers doing their duty within their jurisdiction. This is different from merely being present in the EEZ. It is not the fact that they are in another country's EEZ, it is that they were interfering with law enforcement. In at least one case, this interference actually occurred within Indonesian maritime border, within the 12 nautical miles zone. That interference is illegal under customary international law, under Indonesian law, and under Chinese law.

Look, for someone who claims to be just interested in knowing the facts you sure are very selective in your sources and very unwilling to look at facts that contradicts the Chinese narrative. Do you think that we are ignorant of what FON is and what is legally allowed in EEZ and what is not? Did you look up the details of the incidents first?

And navies catching illegal fishermen? That is actually common. Dude, sorry, but look things up first before you say it. Australia does exactly that. They don't even have a coast guard. And Australia is not unique there. All navies have maritime law enforcement power. If they see an illegal act they are legally empowered to act as law enforcement and stop an illegal act and arrest the perpetrator. They have to turn them over to the proper civilian authority afterward, but their maritime law enforcement power is real, legal, and ancient.

Seriously, read up on the issues first. Right now you sound like a wumao apologist who can't be bothered to study the issue because the pay isn't worth it. No, we talk about this because we are deeply interested in the issue. But our interest also mean we spend the time studying this. You... so far has shown little evidence of that.

 

[STURM]

k, though I don't think China is the only country that has trawler in those water, mala/vietanm/phillippine.

Malaysian trawlers do not operate in the Natuna area or the Spratlys. Areas close to the Natunas are too far for them and the Spratlys is a restricted area. Any Malaysian trawlers operating in the Malaysian part of the Spratlys will be intercepted and detained.

 

[Ananda]

using navy to catch fisherman is not a good idea, if china decide to protect its fisherman live, it can send its own navy. better to invest and get bigger CG ships.

You still argue on same thing, when some of members including swerve as moderator aready remind you that some country using their Navy vessels for fishery protection..
So what using navy on fishery protection..not all country has similar naval authorities structure..tonnyc already shown example on RAN..even RN being used as border and fishery protection..

Again so what using navy ships on that..the real issue is China CG being provacative in shielding Chinese trawlers that already illegally fishing in other country teritory..So what if Mexican navy catching US fisherman that illegaly fishing in Mexican teritory..
Are you saying that USN or USCG will also got agrresive to Mexican authority vessels to shield US fisherman that illegally fishing in Mexican teritory ?

Do you have proved that US do that ? Or you just like many Chinese internet warriors in Chinese Forum or Pakistan Defence forum that using pathetic excuse for what their CG doing..including comparing to US doing...

This forum, we debate on proved and something solid..and not just trying to find excuse and comparing others done..using your official vessels to be provocative and hindered other country authority to upheld their law in their own teritory is illegal in any international law vocabullary..
Or are you saying China is above international law..