South China Sea thoughts?

ralphy99

New Member
My reference to the Caribbean was to illustrate the point that like other powers in the past that were finding their way around; China too is making its share of mistakes and doesn't care too much about world opinion as it's convinced that what it's doing is in line with its national interests. When the U.S. was on its way to becoming a power and became the hegemonic power in the Caribbean; it did what it had to for it's national interests; to the extent that it didn't bother what others powers said and was even willing to go to war with any power that chose to contest the U.S's new status as a the dominant power in the area. And let's not mention the Philippines and the bloody campaigns [which had their share of massacres] fought to subjugate the locals.
so? you're saying US did it once therefore China can too? or, are you saying that the US is not perfect so no US citizen can object to Chinese territory expansion? what;s your point?

my point is this, the world, that includes the US, has the right to object to Chinese territorial aggression regardless of what happened 120 years ago in the Philippines. Germany has the right to object also in spite of what happened about 80 years ago. we've moved on since then, and China had better realize that old recriminations are not considered a valid excuse for present day bad behavior.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I made my point quite clearly in my previous post - ''Sure, it doesn't excuse their actions in the Spratlys and I'm not implying it does but it's worth contemplating on how history drives the actions, threat perceptions and insecurities of certain countries''.
 

weaponwh

Member
read through Timor-Leste vs Australia dispute few days ago, wonder if china going to use this case, if US back Aussie on this dispute

from chicagotribune.com Timor-Leste
chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-timor-a36b5264-3d4c-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275-20160628-story.html

There's a major Asian power that refuses to compromise in its far-reaching territorial claims in oil-rich waters, despite appeals from its smaller neighbor to resolve the dispute in an international court.

But it's not China throwing its weight around in this case. According to the tiny nation of Timor-Leste, Australia has steadfastly rejected attempts to negotiate a permanent maritime boundary in the Timor Sea, home to plentiful oil and gas fields.


The Southeast Asian country's prime minister, Rui Maria de Araujo, flew to Washington last week to make his case to Congress and the State Department, asking U.S. officials to use their influence with their allies in Australia.

It's not easy to get American lawmakers and diplomats to pay attention to Timor-Leste's maritime claims. But the prime minister argues the long-running disagreement with Australia carries relevance for increasingly tense disputes in the South China Sea to the north, where Washington has repeatedly accused Beijing of coercive tactics against its neighbors.

"If we could not resolve these issues following the principles of international law, how can you expect one of your big allies to stand up to China and tell them to follow international law?" he told Foreign Policy in an interview.

Australia, like China, has said it refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of an international court in The Hague that is supposed to resolve disputes under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

What's at stake is not just sovereignty or fishing rights in the Timor Sea, but billions of dollars in oil and gas. After East Timor gained independence in 2002, the two countries negotiated deals on sharing oil and gas revenues in three treaties. Those agreements split evenly revenues from the lucrative Greater Sunrise gas field, while granting Timor-Leste 90 percent of the revenues from another field.

One of the treaties includes a clause that calls for a 50-year freeze on negotiating any permanent maritime boundary between the two countries.


As a result, Australia has maintained that the current arrangements have benefited both sides and that the two governments have agreed not to revisit the sea border anytime soon.

Fed up with what it considers Australia's intransigence, Timor-Leste last month turned to the United Nations to conduct a non-binding "conciliation process" with independent experts weighing in on the disagreement. The two countries are then supposed to hold negotiations based on the recommendations of the experts.

Timor-Leste made the move, Araujo said, because "we are left without any choice." Oil and gas revenues account for more than 95 percent of the tiny country's income, and it needs to clarify the legal status of the deposits in the Timor Sea to jumpstart production.

But Australia's view is that the resources in the area are being divvied up in an equitable way, and that the two sides had agreed not to delve into the maritime boundary.

"We stand by the existing treaties, which are fair and consistent with international law," Australia's foreign ministry said in April after Timor-Leste announced plans to take the case to the United Nations.

But Timor-Leste maintains that it always wanted to work out a permanent solution to the maritime boundary, and that it is missing out on revenue. Its leaders say the law of the sea favors the idea of equidistance, and that would mean drawing the line halfway between the two countries.

"If we use the principle of equidistance, we think that all these resources would belong to us," Araujo said. The fields are less than 100 miles from Timor-Leste and almost 300 miles from Australia.

The Timorese have come to distrust the Australians over the issue, especially after the Canberra government was accused of eavesdropping on cabinet officials in Dili during treaty talks in 2004 on sharing gas revenues.

The Timorese prime minister met with several U.S. lawmakers last week and held talks with Daniel Kritenbrink, the National Security Council's Asia director, and with senior State Department officials, including Thomas Shannon, undersecretary of state for political affairs, and Daniel Russel, assistant secretary in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. He said he was optimistic his message was well-received.

By resolving the maritime argument between Australia and Timor-Leste based on international law and good-faith negotiations, the prime minister suggested it would strengthen the credibility of the United States and its Asian allies as they seek to counter Beijing's tough tactics in the South China Sea.

"If we could solve this problem, which is not too complicated, we will have much more moral authority" to address the South China Sea dispute, he said.
 

ralphy99

New Member
read through Timor-Leste vs Australia dispute few days ago, wonder if china going to use this case, if US back Aussie on this dispute

from chicagotribune.com Timor-Leste
chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-timor-a36b5264-3d4c-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275-20160628-story.html
did China sign a previous agreement that it now wants changed? if not, then I don't see the relevancy.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Big country being a bit of a bully, taking advantage of an agreement made when the small weak neighbour was in a right mess & desperate. Not in the same league as China's blatant illegality, of course, but Australia's not really occupying the moral high ground here. And the Chinese are perfectly capable of using that to muddy the waters.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
And now it starts. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that "There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line',". It :said there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources.'

Interestingly enough the PCA website is unobtainable - I wonder why? :D The Chinese have refused to be bound by the ruling calling it "ill founded". They will now spit the dummy and toss all their toys out of the cot because they have lost.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Good news ofcourse (South China Sea: Tribunal backs case against China brought by Philippines - BBC News and China heeft geen recht op eilanden Zuid-Chinese Zee | NOS), but i dont think it will change anything on China's policy and activities in that area. There will be also no sanctions or embargos against China, and they know that.
I don't think anyone actually expected China to change its behavior in a positive way or recognize any decision. But the other nations may now change their behavior. With a clear international ruling, they may feel they have greater capacity to challenge China on these claims directly.

China is probably expecting this, so will more strongly defend/assert its presence in the region.
 

weaponwh

Member
Good news ofcourse (South China Sea: Tribunal backs case against China brought by Philippines - BBC News and China heeft geen recht op eilanden Zuid-Chinese Zee | NOS), but i dont think it will change anything on China's policy and activities in that area. There will be also no sanctions or embargos against China, and they know that.
sanctions, I doubt it. but other claimant just got another bargain chip. China will make a back channel deal with phillippine, since the current president seem want to solve this problem.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I expect that every Filipino president has wanted to solve the problem, but Chinese intransigence has prevented it. How do you solve the problem of a bullying, violent, thieving neighbour who refuses to change his behaviour & has intimidated others into keeping their distance?

The problem is not the Philippines. The problem would immediately cease to exist if China stopped behaving thuggishly & claiming that it's exempt from international law.
 

weaponwh

Member
China, Vietnam, Indonesia are all bullies, they all bully the smaller countries before. I remember reading news Indonesia sink/fire upon dozens ship from Vietnam and phillippine, etc, Vietnam occupy phillippine island in the 70s as well artificially extend its territory.
the case is about whether reefs considered as island or not, thus has EEZ right or not(not about who control those reef), which the tribunal decide in phillippine favor, but at the same time Taiwan already said it doesn't recognize the decision, and the decision will affect not only Taiwan, but Vietnam, Malaysia, as all the claimant has reef under their control. To extend on this many nation control reefs and has EEZ base on these reefs.
example are the May incident between Japan and Taiwan fishing right over Okinotori, and others.
and china probably will use these examples to muddy the water for its own purpose. the unfortunate fact is the decision don't have any enforcement to it, and china is not the 1st or will be the last that ignore the tribunal decision, remember the Nicaragua v US court case?
 

bdique

Member
I expect that every Filipino president has wanted to solve the problem, but Chinese intransigence has prevented it. How do you solve the problem of a bullying, violent, thieving neighbour who refuses to change his behaviour & has intimidated others into keeping their distance?

The problem is not the Philippines. The problem would immediately cease to exist if China stopped behaving thuggishly & claiming that it's exempt from international law.
I'm hearing concerns that the ruling will exacerbate the situation by hardening China's stance in the SCS - the ruling is a blow to Chinese 'lawfare' efforts, so all that's left to 'save face' is to defy the ruling and ramp up efforts to assert China's presence in the SCS.

Compounding the matter is the fact that over time, PLA warfighting capabilities will become more mature. Also, all that rhetoric meant for domestic consumption regarding the SCS would have to be actualised through actions in order to maintain CCP credibility. Thus, what I'm hearing is that China's will and ability to assert herself militarily in the SCS is greater than ever.

Thoughts? I'm really hoping this is just paranoid talk I'm hearing...
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Big country being a bit of a bully, taking advantage of an agreement made when the small weak neighbour was in a right mess & desperate. Not in the same league as China's blatant illegality, of course, but Australia's not really occupying the moral high ground here. And the Chinese are perfectly capable of using that to muddy the waters.
Correct, Chinas behaviour is illegal and immoral, Australia's simply immoral. Not saying for one second that this distinction makes Australia's behavior acceptable, it doesn't, but neither does it justify what China is doing. I have actually openly discussed my opinions and disapproval of Australia's behaviour, as I am free to do in a democracy, and honestly hope the greed and self entitled racism behind it can be pushed aside by more progressive elements in the future. Unfortunately I can't see this happening in the SCS as I fear China is doing this as a sign of strength and elements in their government don't care if it leads to armed conflict or not as it is all about proving they are strong.
 

weaponwh

Member
I'm hearing concerns that the ruling will exacerbate the situation by hardening China's stance in the SCS - the ruling is a blow to Chinese 'lawfare' efforts, so all that's left to 'save face' is to defy the ruling and ramp up efforts to assert China's presence in the SCS.

Compounding the matter is the fact that over time, PLA warfighting capabilities will become more mature. Also, all that rhetoric meant for domestic consumption regarding the SCS would have to be actualised through actions in order to maintain CCP credibility. Thus, what I'm hearing is that China's will and ability to assert herself militarily in the SCS is greater than ever.

Thoughts? I'm really hoping this is just paranoid talk I'm hearing...
well the current Phillippine president has softer attitude toward dispute and willing to negotiate a deal via back channel, and i think China willing to do so too. In the short term i doubt china will retract its position to save "face". In the long term they likely negotiate a backdoor deal as long as none of the dispute claimant openly confront china. China and malaysia also has dispute, yet the tension between them is much cooler compare to china vs vietnam/phillippine, mostly because malaysia has back door with china on these issues. When PRC was established, it has many dispute with its neighbor, most are settled over the years. I hope these dispute settle peacefully sooner than later, the more time this drag on the more powerful china become. remember PRC inherit these dispute from ROC in 1948, and ROC inherit from Qing dynasty and beyond, so they can wait till 2050 if they want to. if china continue to grow, by then, it will be a daunting task to challenge them. They probably will have 6 carrier battle group if there aren't any major domestic issue.
as i said in other post every rising power, especially those rely on sea trade etc will expand its influence, and majority of china import/export go through east/SCS.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
I watch some chinese and Taiwanese based discussion on Xi Jingping's comment about a potential war in SCS(不惜一战) . It appears that there is a power struggle in the CCP and those in the hawkish camp within the PLA supporting the previous leader Jiang Zeming. Xi has been prosecuting those under Jiang, and now those hawkish faction within PLA wants to initiate a war. If Xi doesn't go to war, he could be accused of being weak or coward. If Xi goes to war (especially with the US) and does not prevail, those hawkish PLA factions will accused him of losing the war and use that to get rid of him.

I don't know how accurate this analysis is, but it is coming out predominantly from the chinese speaking websites and commentators.

So for us in the western world, SCS is actually an internal political play.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
China has had a window of opportunity since 2008 in that it could ramp up its influence within the disputed nine dotted line and exploit this while it has the chance. Such as the frantic pace of island building being ramped up. That window is now closing not just through the Hague ruling, but both potential occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave will make there presence felt as opposed to being only heard as what happened during the Obama administration.

China is not stupid and was expecting this return to a firm stance and will move to a mission accomplished message towards its domestic audience, consolidating on its gains. They will move to an agree to disagree position with respect to the SCS but will not attempt to do much more island building in places which are demonstrably contentious and only enforce 12 mile limits on territory gained.

China does not want to go toe to toe with the US and its allies for many reasons and not simply a military one (which may not go well even if the hardliners dream about it) whatever the rhetoric generated within PLA factions who are peeved that their mates are getting done for corruption and that they gravy train does not stop outside their door.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
a japanese perspective

Personally, I have a lot of time for the AJISS pieces in general as they are absent of the hysteria you see coming out of China

AJISS-Commentary-

(RAN buying Japanese subs was seen as one of the legs of extending their political and relationship reach - so the loss of the advanced Soryu sale was more deeply felt than discussed in the Australian press)
 
Top