Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_T-birds_1543-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1441-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1491-1.JPG

Nellis_14_GR4_0963-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





South China Sea News & Discussions, incl Spratly Islands News

This is a discussion on South China Sea News & Discussions, incl Spratly Islands News within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; It'll be too unfortunate for China to be assertive or aggressive just because it's bigger, it has much to loss ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 2.60 average.
Old December 14th, 2011   #76
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nigeria
Posts: 11
Threads:
It'll be too unfortunate for China to be assertive or aggressive just because it's bigger, it has much to loss when it comes to war. The smaller countries have bigger and more powerfull allies in the west and they are ready to take some flimsy excusses to teach China a Lesson.
just4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2011   #77
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
Ok thanks. Just wanted some clarification because there is a big difference between a nation - state and a company. Beijing will still have to be careful about asserting its claims in the SCS. Going by memory there are certain international conventions that have to be adhered to.such as the UNCLOS.
yes UNCLOS III does govern what legally belongs to each country such that...

"Internationally defined Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ’s). // The EEZ’s are defined by UN provisions made at the United Nations Conference on the Law Of the Sea III (UNCLOS III) in 1973. The provisions stipulate that any country has exclusive right to any resources up to 200 nautical miles off of the coastal baseline, with borders extended out perpendicular to the baseline at national coastal borders. These boundaries were initially set out to regulate fishing disputes however they do become relevant when considering another potentially valuable resource. Furthermore in 1994 Part XI established the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to regulate any seabed exploration outside of EEZ’s."

(pulled from an article I wrote)

although all nations involved in the South China Sea dispute have signed and ratified UNCLOS, all seek to claim more. The Vietnamese in fact also claim about 85-90% of the SCS as their own.

ONGC is 74% state owned and provides 30% of India's crude oil demand. It is the most profitable Indian corporation on the planet.

By proxy the Indian state are involved.
Global Scree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2011   #78
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 382
Threads:
Hopefully its just to prevent to give China too much freedom around the Spratly Islands... and nothing more....
Quote:
U.S. Navy may station ships in Singapore, Philippines



By Andrea Shalal-Esa and Eveline Danubrata

WASHINGTON/SINGAPORE | Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:54am EST

WASHINGTON/SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy said it would station several new coastal combat ships in Singapore and perhaps in the Philippines in coming years, moves likely to fuel China's fears of being encircled and pressured in the South China Sea dispute.

Regional defense analysts said the ships were small, but agreed the symbolism of the moves, which come after Washington announced it was increasing its engagement in Asia, would upset Beijing.

Last month the United States and Australia announced plans to deepen the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, with 2,500 U.S. Marines operating out of a de facto base in Darwin in northern Australia.

In coming years, the U.S. Navy will increasingly focus on the strategic "maritime crossroads" of the Asia-Pacific region, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert wrote in the December issue of Proceedings, published by the U.S. Naval Institute.

He said the navy planned to "station several of our newest littoral combat ships at Singapore's naval facility," in addition to the plans announced by President Barack Obama for marines to be based in Darwin from next year.

"This will help the navy sustain its global forward posture with what may be a smaller number of ships and aircraft than today," he wrote.

Littoral combat ships are shallow draft vessels that operate in coastal waters and can counter coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines and small, fast, armed boats.

"If we put this into context, it's a fairly small scale of deployment and the combat ships are relatively small vessels," said Euan Graham, senior fellow in the Maritime Security Program at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

"Encirclement is a phrase that does come up in Chinese debate about the U.S. strategy. They won't be happy about it, but there's nothing much that they can do to stop it."

Greenert wrote the ships would focus on the South China Sea, conducting operations to counter piracy and trafficking, both of which are endemic in the area.

"Similarly, 2025 may see P-8A Poseidon aircraft or unmanned broad area maritime surveillance aerial vehicles periodically deploy to the Philippines or Thailand to help those nations with maritime domain awareness."

One source briefed on navy plans said there has also been discussion about stationing ships in the Philippines.
Complete article at : http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...le+Feedfetcher
Sandhi Yudha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2011   #79
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandhi Yudha View Post
Hopefully its just to prevent to give China too much freedom around the Spratly Islands... and nothing more....
My opinion is that it's just a case of jumping the gun and is politically driven. Though such a move will be a huge comfort to the Philippines and in private will also be welcomed by other ASEAN countries, It might have the reverse effect and lead to China being more ''proactive'' in the Spratleys.

An interesting article...

Eric Margolis
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2011   #80
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
My opinion is that it's just a case of jumping the gun and is politically driven. Though such a move will be a huge comfort to the Philippines and in private will also be welcomed by other ASEAN countries, It might have the reverse effect and lead to China being more ''proactive'' in the Spratleys.

An interesting article...

Eric Margolis
Its not just a symbolic gesture though. Any ships the US deploy are going to be networked nodes in the overall joint force structure. This move forms part of an overall response to initiatives to contest continued US access in the region. They will extend situational awareness and may trigger a scale up of forces to respond appropriately. They will provide a venue for building closer security ties with the nations in the region.
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2011   #81
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
Its not just a symbolic gesture though.
Of course its not a symbolic gesture, it's intended to send a subtle message to China and reassure friends and allies in the region such as the ASEAN countries and Australia - all part of the U.S. strategy of placing more importance in the Asia Pacific region, which in the near future will be more vital for U.S. interests than Europe or the Mediterranean region. My worry is that basing ships in Singapore, coming after the recent announcement that a USMC regiment will be based in Northern Australia, will send the wrong message to China and lead to a hardening of the Chinese position towards the Spratleys.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...510922889.html

What would the U.S. response be if at some future point the Chinese announce that they will be basing a squadron of PLAN frigates in Myanmmar to ensure the freedom of navigation for all countries or if they base frigates in Gwadar to protect their maritime traffic from the Middle East to China?

Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
They will provide a venue for building closer security ties with the nations in the region.
True but with the exception of a few countries, almost every country in ASEAN and East Asia, already has stronger security ties with Uncle Sam than with China. In ASEAN, Thailand and the Philippines are already non-NATO allies and Singapore is a ''close'' friend. Even a country like Malaysia, which does not go out of its way to reveal that its military trains more regularly with Uncle Sam than with anyone because of domestic politics, has a much more established military relationship and political relationship with the U.S.

Last edited by STURM; December 19th, 2011 at 07:37 AM.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2011   #82
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
Of course its not a symbolic gesture, it's intended to send a subtle message to China and reassure friends and allies in the region such as the ASEAN countries and Australia - all part of the U.S. strategy of placing more importance in the Asia Pacific region, which in the near future will be more vital for U.S. interests than Europe or the Mediterranean region. My worry is that basing ships in Singapore, coming after the recent announcement that a USMC regiment will be based in Northern Australia, will send the wrong message to China and lead to a hardening of the Chinese position towards the Spratleys.

Playing with fire: Obama's threat to China - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

What would the U.S. response be if at some future point the Chinese announce that they will be basing a squadron of PLAN frigates in Myanmmar to ensure the freedom of navigation for all countries or if they base frigates in Gwadar to protect their maritime traffic from the Middle East to China?



True but with the exception of a few countries, almost every country in ASEAN and East Asia, already has stronger security ties with Uncle Sam than with China. In ASEAN, Thailand and the Philippines are already non-NATO allies and Singapore is a ''close'' friend. Even a country like Malaysia, which does not go out of its way to reveal that its military trains more regularly with Uncle Sam than with anyone because of domestic politics, has a much more established military relationship and political with the U.S.
These are just part of the overall US response to China's efforts to contest US access to what the Chinese perceive to be their backyard. They are not content wit the status quo of US superiority ovrr the region and so are building up their capabilities to project force well beyond their national boundaries, to encompass countries and sea lanes of strategic interest to the US. There can be no doubting their intent. Given this, if the Chinese do build military bases in the Indian Ocean as has been predicted by many, I would consider this just to be an extension of their overall strategy and not a tit-for-tat reaction to US initiatives.

China and the US will continue doing what they believe serve their respective interests. The US initiatives are consistent with the Joint Operational Access Concept just recently been signed off by the Joint Chiefs which is the master blueprint in crafting a US response to china's challenge.
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2011   #83
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2,870
Threads:
The above news reports and posts need to be framed in the disputes in the littorals of Southeast Asia. These areas are variously claimed by China, several ASEAN states and Taiwan and have been a recurrent focus of tension. China's actions over the last two years have alarmed many of her ASEAN neigbours.

Last year, Beijing made a crisis of a joint South Korea-US naval exercise planned in international waters in the Yellow Sea. The arrest of a Chinese trawler captain for illegally entering Japanese waters resulted in an anti-Japan campaign, targetting Japanese businesses across several Chinese cities. Vietnamese and Philippine fishing boats were regularly intimidated. As stated by the US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, on October 23, 2011:-
"...As we have noted before, the U.S. position on maritime security remains clear: we have a national interest in freedom of navigation and overflight, in unimpeded economic development and commerce, and in respect for international law. I would also add that while we do not take a position on competing claims, we do hope that in the interest of peaceful resolution, all parties will clarify their maritime claims in terms consistent with customary international law, as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.

I applaud the July accord between ASEAN and China on implementing guidelines to the 2002 declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea. I would encourage you to maintain this momentum, and continue working towards a binding code of conduct. I know that president Obama will be interested in hearing your views at the East Asia summit..."
There are some recent reports that could be of interest to members of this forum who are interested in keeping up to date with the latest developments in the region. On 3 Nov 2011, the U.S.-ASEAN Strategy Commission produced a report called 'Developing an Enduring Strategy for Southeast Asia' (See Video: U.S.-ASEAN Strategy Commission Report Rollout). On 11 Nov 2011, the Asia Society added its considerable weight behind this call for a shift in priorities, with a report “U.S.-East Asia Relations, A Strategy for Multilateral Engagement.” These recommendations include:

( 1 ) Recognize and prepare for a change in the U.S.-Asia relationship.
( 2 ) U.S. engagement with Asia can and should continue to be deepened.
( 3 ) Asian regionalism should be supplemented by efforts to engage more deeply with the U.S. and to avoid Asian triumphalism.
( 4 ) U.S.-China ties are most important for the region, but others in Asia also have a stake.
( 5 ) ASEAN can serve as a foundation.
( 6 ) Recognize that integration on different economic and security issues will continue at different speeds in the region.
( 7 ) A new U.S. diplomacy with ASEAN is needed.
( 8 ) ASEAN must be more dynamic to offer regional leadership.

The two reports (especially the report released on 11 Nov 2011) and the 2011 ASEAN Annual Report produced by the ASEAN Secretariat would be good starting points to read so as to gain some background info. BTW, China is ASEAN's biggest trading partner, with two-way trade expected to surpass US$350 billion in 2011.

If members are interested in further reading on the topics mentioned, I would recommend also having a look at "From ‘Boots’ to ‘Brogues’: The Rise of Defence Diplomacy in Southeast Asia, Bhubhindar Singh & See Seng Tan, RSIS Monograph No. 21, 2011". The establishment of the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) in 2006, a key element of the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) vision put forth in the ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II) of 2003, is an extraordinary achievement for Southeast Asia. An element of defence diplomacy in Southeast Asia is its commitment to engaging the outside region. The creation of the ADMM+8— comprising the 10 ASEAN countries and China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and the United States—in 2010 is a salient mark of the importance which the ASEAN countries assign to engaging the external powers. See also the link to the May 2011 Joint Declaration of the ASEAN Defence Ministers, which includes the inauguration of the ASEAN Military Operations Informal Meeting(AMOIM), to enhance practical cooperation among defence forces within ASEAN.
________________
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens

Last edited by OPSSG; December 19th, 2011 at 06:27 AM.
OPSSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2011   #84
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
They are not content wit the status quo of US superiority ovrr the region and so are building up their capabilities to project force well beyond their national boundaries, to encompass countries and sea lanes of strategic interest to the US. There can be no doubting their intent.
IMO the Chinese have long accepted the fact that the cannot totally challenge U.S. military superiority in the region and they don't have to. What they can do is make it extremely difficult and troublesome for the U.S., in the event of a conflict in the region. Their military buildup is in line with China's desire to be a great power, their need to protect their energy resources and their need to counter possible U.S. ''meddling'' in China's internal affairs over Taiwan and the Spratleys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
Given this, if the Chinese do build military bases in the Indian Ocean as has been predicted by many, I would consider this just to be an extension of their overall strategy and not a tit-for-tat reaction to US initiatives.
It might not be a ''tit for tat'' response as such as move would be in China's interest and can be presented as such. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see what the U.S. political would be as any complains or expressions of concern by the State Department or the Pentagon, would be akin to the U.S. pot calling the Chinese kettle black. I would also not be surprised if at anytime soon we start seeing increased IN activity east of the Melaka Straits.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2011   #85
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:
I'm all for diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. As with any agreement though, the devil is in the details and I withhold judgment until these are hammered out and the agreement signed by all parties. The important thing though is that ASEAN is taking a multilateral approach to the whole SCS issue.

However, any agreement entered into by ASEAN and China won't preclude any of the individual claimant countries and China from pursuing unilateral actions, political or military, they deem in their best interests. Actions will always speak louder than words.
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2011   #86
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
IMO the Chinese have long accepted the fact that the cannot totally challenge U.S. military superiority in the region and they don't have to. What they can do is make it extremely difficult and troublesome for the U.S., in the event of a conflict in the region. Their military buildup is in line with China's desire to be a great power, their need to protect their energy resources and their need to counter possible U.S. ''meddling'' in China's internal affairs over Taiwan and the Spratleys.



It might not be a ''tit for tat'' response as such as move would be in China's interest and can be presented as such. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see what the U.S. political would be as any complains or expressions of concern by the State Department or the Pentagon, would be akin to the U.S. pot calling the Chinese kettle black. I would also not be surprised if at anytime soon we start seeing increased IN activity east of the Melaka Straits.
Regardless of how strong the Chines become in the South China sea, the big difference will always be that in any confrontation that goes hot, China will lose the use of the sea as long as the US can contest it and its sea approaches to China, denying China the use of their home waters which they would need to win a long war. While the US, even if it can’t control the South China Sea itself, will still have the use of its home waters. In that case, over time the US will grow stronger during the conflict while China would grow weaker. Until the time comes that China has the capacity to threaten the sea lanes that the US needs (in both oceans at the same time) to maintain its commerce, in the same way that the US can threaten China’s, the contest would be unequal.

The difficulty of projecting power seven thousand miles from your home base is a lot harder and very different from contesting power in your coastal waters. China has no experience in that part of naval warfare at all and as far as I know isn’t even trying.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2011   #87
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:


Infographic: Global shipping routes, mapped using GPS data | SmartPlanet

Here's an interesting graphic I came across recently. It shows a year's shipping traffic based on actual itineraries tracked by GPS condensed in a single image.
In relation to our discussion re China, one can clearly see the how dependent China's well-being is on that single yellow line. They can build up their Navy as much as they want to try and dominate the SCS, project their forces into the Indian Ocean , etc. but they are very much a hostage to geography. Any conflict in the area could potentially pose a knife at her jugular.

Perhaps they should consider that true security may best be achieved by being less confrontational and in cooperating with other countries to ensure free and secure access to trade routes.'
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2011   #88
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
China has no experience in that part of naval warfare at all and as far as I know isn’t even trying.
And it has no need to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
They can build up their Navy as much as they want to try and dominate the SCS, project their forces into the Indian Ocean , etc. but they are very much a hostage to geography. Any conflict in the area could potentially pose a knife at her jugular.'
That's precisely why China is in the process of building a number of land routes on friendly countries to reduce it's dependency on the sea. It's reliance on the Melaka Straits has been called China's ''Melaka dilemma''.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2011   #89
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
And it has no need to do so.



That's precisely why China is in the process of building a number of land routes on friendly countries to reduce it's dependency on the sea. It's reliance on the Melaka Straits has been called China's ''Melaka dilemma''.
If I were the Chines, I too would in all prudence, like to have as many options for trade and transportation as possible. But there is and never has been a better or more efficient method of moving large numbers of people and goods than by sea transport. A fact that every land locked country can testify.

The safest, surest, and cheapest method that China has to insure its continued success is not by building the greatest navy in the world but to strengthening and supporting the principal of the freedom of the seas for everyone.

Nobody reasonable opposes that China should have a great navy to go along with its sizes and economic power. Such is the natural order of things and any attempt to stop it would not be beneficial. But making the South China Sea its territory waters, even if they could somehow succeed in that goal, will not get them increase security but will have just the opposite effect.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2011   #90
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
surpreme's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newport News VA
Posts: 200
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
If I were the Chines, I too would in all prudence, like to have as many options for trade and transportation as possible. But there is and never has been a better or more efficient method of moving large numbers of people and goods than by sea transport. A fact that every land locked country can testify.

The safest, surest, and cheapest method that China has to insure its continued success is not by building the greatest navy in the world but to strengthening and supporting the principal of the freedom of the seas for everyone.

Nobody reasonable opposes that China should have a great navy to go along with its sizes and economic power. Such is the natural order of things and any attempt to stop it would not be beneficial. But making the South China Sea its territory waters, even if they could somehow succeed in that goal, will not get them increase security but will have just the opposite effect.
I agreed with that PLAN overall plan should be to keep freedom of the sea for everyone. Sounds good but not going to happen. PLAN goals are not stated to the public that the problem. As the top commander of the CP stated be prepared for warfare what a strong statement to make. Why PLAN preparing for warfare? What are the PLAN goals are they to hold off a big navy such as US? Overall PLAN goals are not stated as the US goals are stated. Is the PLAN taking about defending the South China Sea area don't know.
surpreme is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 AM.