South China Sea thoughts?

gf0012-aust said:
you've seen how savage and quick we are to get rid of people who bait - so, although its a possibility, they'd get one chance and then run the risk of getting their trolling deleted as part of general housekeeping.

we don't have patience for trolls and dique-heads in here :)
Click to expand...

aww c'mon not my online nickname :D

re: splitting the threads - yes please, for all the reasons Bonza has already mentioned. I too get quite tired of viewing the same issue being brought up by new members, only to see the same responses and counter-responses. I feel it does draw attention away from discussions on current developments in the SCS.
 
Nice read frm Stratfor.com

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/great-power-politics-south-china-sea

Nothing much new in there..but one thing that perhaps should be good attention especially for new members that want to jump into SCS discusion in here is to look at the map in the article.

The choke point that Chinese Maritime depends on is not in SCS..but outside SCS. In short even if China manage to control SCS on the cost of antagonising its neighbours.it will only reduce its maritime benefit since SCS importance as China sea lane depends on few other maritime choke point that not under China control, but under its neighbours control.

Something to realise upon..
 
Ananda said:
Nice read frm Stratfor.com

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/great-power-politics-south-china-sea

Nothing much new in there..but one thing that perhaps should be good attention especially for new members that want to jump into SCS discusion in here is to look at the map in the article.

The choke point that Chinese Maritime depends on is not in SCS..but outside SCS. In short even if China manage to control SCS on the cost of antagonising its neighbours.it will only reduce its maritime benefit since SCS importance as China sea lane depends on few other maritime choke point that not under China control, but under its neighbours control.

Something to realise upon..
Click to expand...
The PRC has port access and surveillance facilities in the Indian Ocean the Maldives, Myanmar, Pakistan and other areas that provide it with refuelling, victualling, R&R, etc., and real time intelligence on shipping and aircraft movements heading towards the Straits of Malacca. Those straits are its biggest choke points for its energy SLOC from the Middle East and its export shipping to its markets in Europe. This is the Indian Ocean part of the String of Pearls strategy which it intends to give it greater security for its SLOC in the Indian Ocean. Hence one should look at this in conjunction with the SCS situation and a pattern is emerging.

When reading about Chinese definitions of maritime areas, understand that their definition and nomenclatures are different. They basically have two: Near Seas and Far Sea. Most western authors translate near seas as meaning coastal or littoral; it does not.
Asia’s “first island chain,” to borrow the ubiquitous Chinese phrase, encloses the East Asian coastline. It arcs southward from the Japanese home islands through the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, and the Philippine archipelago. Each annual Pentagon report on Chinese military power, moreover, includes a map that traces the island chain from the Philippines westward to central Vietnam. Interpreted thus, and sealed off by the occupants of the islands, the chain would present a formidable barrier to exit from or entry into the China Seas. This is an ideal opportunity for mischief-making at the PLA Navy’s expense. Contingents scattered on and around the islands and straits comprising the first island chain could give Beijing a bad day should things turn grim over the Senkaku Islands, Taiwan, or some other geopolitical controversy.
Defend the First Island Chain
Click to expand...
The Second Island Chain extends from Japan down through to Indonesia and Australia including Guam with the Third Island Chain as line running from Japan to Hawaii and down to Australia - New Zealand. The definitions are:
  • the near seas are to those seas that are within the first island chain
  • The far seas are those seas beyond the first island chain
These island chains are also known as the string(s) of pearls.

Sources:
Defend the First Island Chain | U.S. Naval Institute
People's Liberation Navy - Doctrine Development
Reflections on China’s Maritime Strategy: Island Chains and the Classics
 
Ananda said:
The choke point that Chinese Maritime depends on is not in SCS..but outside SCS.
Click to expand...

The ''Melaka Dilemma''. A major concern for China is the possibility that the Melaka Straits can be closed to Chinese shipping in time of war. Chinese funded ports in places such a Gwadar, in Pakistan, are intended to reduce the amount of shipping that has to transit the Melaka Straits to reach China.

Securing the Energy Supply: China’s “Malacca Dilemmaâ€

[Robert Kaplan: The Geopolitics Of The World]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yME6vWgVhQM

[Rethinking Series 2014-15: Chinese Views, Strategy and Geopolitics]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73aUAdqALqI

[Asia's Cauldron: The South China Sea And The End Of A Stable Pacific]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDdbN1GFimI
 
Putting resources by China in Cambodia, Myanmar, and Pakistan is one thing..those are nations that was, and is increasingly dependent strategically for their defense with China. However China betting high to lure Thailand to build cannal in Kra peninsula is something that I think bit too risky for China so called 'string of pearls' strategy.

Granted there is significance commercial insentive for Thailand tobuild Kra Cannal. China wants to invest heavely on something that can by pass Strait of Malaka..can be worthwhile if China can depends on the Cannal host. However Thailand is not like Cambodia, Myanmar or Pakistan in term of dependency to China both militarily/strategically and economically. Granted China trade and Investment is big for Thailand..but like for Malaysia, Singapore or Indonesia..China trade and Investment is something that can be substitute much easier by those countries relative compared to Pakistan, Myanmar or Cambodia..

In short like the rest original 6 ASEAN, Thai dependence to China is something that can be substitute..not like the other 3 that mentioned earlier. By passing Malaka Strait thus still a problem that China still can not have clear strategy to do, besides neutralise all Indonesian, Malaysian and Singaporean Navies in the situation when hostility erupted.

Before somebody say that China navy can easily neutralise combine strength of 3 Asean Navies that controlled Malaka Strait..well it backs to reality..if hostility break up..and China Navy need to pacified and controlled Malaka Strait..do any body seriously think that those 3 Navies are the only thing that will stand in China Navy way to control Malaka strait ?

All this back to the present action China in SCS..and so called 'string of pearl' strategy..all this back to China ability to coerce and persuaded its SEA neighbours...and not antagonising them..
 
Ananda said:
China trade and Investment is something that can be substitute much easier by those countries relative compared to Pakistan, Myanmar or Cambodia..
Click to expand...

I doubt it can be substituted. Take Malaysia for example. It is China's largest trading partner in ASEAN. In 2015 trade grew by 11 percent to USD$55.67 billion. That figure off course doesn't include Chinese investment in Malaysia, which is substantial and increasing.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-02/05/c_135078498.htm
 
Sturm..I don't say it's easy to replaced..but it's 'relative' easier for the 6 original ASEAN..to replace China Trade and Investment..compared to Pakistan, Myanmar..or Cambodia..

It will be hard and hurtfull, but will not paralise the Economy..it can take some of the growth..but there are other investor and market that can replace Chinese one even though it will take few hard years to do it..

Well this is the very extreme scenario..in condition where China turn military option in SCS..which in some of Asean has to choose side with US and Japan for more hardened relations against China.
 
This article states that China has launched a stealth invasion using "little blue men" in the form of its coast guard and fisherman. I think that the articles premise is reasonably close to the mark.

Apparently new photos suggest that China has gone back on Xi's word not to continue militarise the Spratly Islands.

Japan has also formally ptotested to China about the deployment of its coast guard and 250 fishing vessels around the Senkaku Islands. Some of the Chinese ships have been observed to have gun batteries onboard.
 
Ananda said:
Sturm..I don't say it's easy to replaced..but it's 'relative' easier for the 6 original ASEAN..to replace China Trade and Investment..compared to Pakistan, Myanmar..or Cambodia.
Click to expand...

I'm no economic expert but I seriously doubt that anyone can fill in the void if China were to pull out its investments or if trade went downhill. Irrespective of whether its Malaysia or Pakistan or Myanmar; the fact remains that the economies of all these countries are strongly tied to that of China's.
 
STURM said:
I'm no economic expert but I seriously doubt that anyone can fill in the void if China were to pull out its investments or if trade went downhill. Irrespective of whether its Malaysia or Pakistan or Myanmar; the fact remains that the economies of all these countries are strongly tied to that of China's.
Click to expand...

Me either but I suspect some difficult decisions will have to be made. Pakistan and Myanmar are already more one less slave states to China both economically and defensively. Malaysia, IMO, has options. Bottom line, it will likely suck for the whole world if things go down hill.:confused:
 
John Fedup said:
Me either but I suspect some difficult decisions will have to be made. Pakistan and Myanmar are already more one less slave states to China both economically and defensively. Malaysia, IMO, has options. Bottom line, it will likely suck for the whole world if things go down hill.:confused:
Click to expand...

Everyone can see that conflict would be bad. But China is not backing down at this stage, it is assuming everyone else will. I believe they are using Japan as a test case, win against Japan and everyone will lie down flat.

China isn't de-escalating. Its not like it just stopped after the islands were built and relaxed in the knowledge they clearly hold that territory. It has escalated, building has increased, they are being turned into extensive military bases. Pressure has increased with Japan (China and Japan I really put into a separate basket to the other SCS issues. Related but different)

There is a genuine fear that China isn't going to stop with a few sand islands. There is no appeasement. The two sides have fundamentally incompatible views and believes the other side won't risk all out conflict.

Building up to a US election is not a good thing and I think the Chinese will use that. The timing could become very critical.
 
StingrayOZ said:
Everyone can see that conflict would be bad. But China is not backing down at this stage, it is assuming everyone else will. I believe they are using Japan as a test case, win against Japan and everyone will lie down flat.

China isn't de-escalating. Its not like it just stopped after the islands were built and relaxed in the knowledge they clearly hold that territory. It has escalated, building has increased, they are being turned into extensive military bases. Pressure has increased with Japan (China and Japan I really put into a separate basket to the other SCS issues. Related but different)

There is a genuine fear that China isn't going to stop with a few sand islands. There is no appeasement. The two sides have fundamentally incompatible views and believes the other side won't risk all out conflict.

Building up to a US election is not a good thing and I think the Chinese will use that. The timing could become very critical.
Click to expand...

New satellite imagery showing fighter and bomber aircraft as well as the supporting infrastructure on the built up reefs. According to the news article this directly contradicts Xi Jinping's claim that the area would not be militarised.

Satellite images show military buildup in South China Sea | On Air Videos | Fox News
 
cdxbow said:
The Vietnamese are said to be installing the Israeli EXTRA artillery rocket system on some of the islands it occupies - Exclusive: Vietnam moves new rocket launchers into disputed S.China Sea - sources | Reuters

The Vietnamese wouldn't take such a provocative step unless they are fearing the worst from the PRC. They tend to have a very realistic view of Chinese actions and intents, honed by being a neighbour for 2000+ years.
Click to expand...

Interesting article; thanks for the link. Interesting that Vietnam are thinking in terms of offensive weaponry and not just defensive. China could so easily find itself at war with an alliance of 4 capable nations (US, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines). More importantly though is the damage that all of this is doing to her reputation in the long term.
 
Ananda said:
Nice read frm Stratfor.com

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/great-power-politics-south-china-sea

Nothing much new in there..but one thing that perhaps should be good attention especially for new members that want to jump into SCS discusion in here is to look at the map in the article.

The choke point that Chinese Maritime depends on is not in SCS..but outside SCS. In short even if China manage to control SCS on the cost of antagonising its neighbours.it will only reduce its maritime benefit since SCS importance as China sea lane depends on few other maritime choke point that not under China control, but under its neighbours control.

Something to realise upon..
Click to expand...

I don't think China expand will be satisfy with just SCS. SCS is the 1st step, in time if their economy/military allowed they will expand into India ocean and perhaps all the way to 2nd island Chain.

its not that easy to substitute China investment in those ASEAN. TPP might but the next president might just scratch that, and ASEAN is just too far from America Conti.
 
gazzzwp said:
Japan expressing concern that their relationship with China is deteriorating. The issues is over the huge number of fishing and coastguard vessels that China is sending to the Senaku Islands.

China could be indeed stirring up a very muddy pond and end up with just about every neighbour as it's enemy. Presumably it is gambling that it's neighbours will simply acquiesce?

Japan says ties with China 'deteriorating' over disputed islands - BBC News
Click to expand...

Could be their attempt to shift Japan attention from SCS to East sea. I have disagree on every neighbor as its enemy. Japan/Vietnam/Phillippine are in high tension with China now, but its no where near immediate conflict. The rest are neutral or align with China such as Cambodia or Lao. Phillippine president will be in China around Sep, well see what happens.
 
Any hostilities and trade-Investment disruptions with China will be economic hurtfull for all Asia, especially in ASEAN and East Asia. However what China does with continue military posturing will made their neighbours have to choose side.

I agree with John Fedup that any hostilities with China will suck Global economy down..I also agree with Sturm that nobody can fill the China's void in Investment and Trade..at least for mid term..but eventually I do believe many 'relative' mature in developing stages economies in ASEAN, and ROK plus Japan can work something out to fill the Chinese void..

China it self is not the Allmighthy economies that many of Chinese Internet wariors potrait it..China economy is more fragile then what the surface shown..
China afterall not a fully developed Economies..no matter it is the world 2nd largest..Like any large populated developing economies..it need certain percentage of annual economy growth to maintain social-economic stability.

Indonesia will have recession if it growth bellow 4%, many Investment Bankers and Economiest put 4.5%-5% as minimum threshold growth numbers that India has to maintain to keep economic stability...whille the threshold number for China many believes is 6%.

Those economies at this moment only growth around 1% above their 'minimum' threshold..that include supossedly mighty China. In sense China actually can't afford to have prolong military conflict with anybody..unless it want to risk heavy damage to its own economy.

Perhaps why now Japan willing shown more determined face to China..since despite it miniscule economic growth rate compared to China, but as developed Industrial Economy..they actually have more economic sustainability compared to China..

China now has many excess capacity that need to be feed commercially to keep its work force socially maintanable..any prolong conflict..can risk damaging its growth..and risking internal social order..and that I believe more risk for China in the end then any external conflict.

So..in the end this Military posturing I believe is part of diplomatic bluffing..questions is..if the bluff being challenge by regional power like Japan..will China answered it back..knowing the risk it will made to its own economy thus..potential internal social stability..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top