An article suggesting how to stop China from taking over the SCS. Whether it would work or not is another story.
How to stop Chinese takeover of South China Sea | The Australian Naval Institute
navalinstitute.com.au
This suggestion might be a good start and wake-up call to Xi. As for resolve amongst the many nations that should join in, probably doubtful.An article suggesting how to stop China from taking over the SCS. Whether it would work or not is another story.
How to stop Chinese takeover of South China Sea | The Australian Naval Institute
navalinstitute.com.au
The strategy of escalation. Wait and see who blinks first, and if no-one does, fight over the embers. Stop the train, I want to get off, because I seriously doubt the capacity of the USA to manage any such diplomatic effort based on their recent successes in North Korea, Syria and, well, everywhere. Just for starters it needs a high percentage of US allies to cooperate. Good luck with that given the ongoing isolationist, anti-coalition policies.An article suggesting how to stop China from taking over the SCS. Whether it would work or not is another story.
How to stop Chinese takeover of South China Sea | The Australian Naval Institute
navalinstitute.com.au
Diplomatically under the current administration the US, I would suspect is a spent force, even before Trump took over they had a shocking rate of Foreign policy failures.The strategy of escalation. Wait and see who blinks first, and if no-one does, fight over the embers. Stop the train, I want to get off, because I seriously doubt the capacity of the USA to manage any such diplomatic effort based on their recent successes in North Korea, Syria and, well, everywhere. Just for starters it needs a high percentage of US allies to cooperate. Good luck with that given the ongoing isolationist, anti-coalition policies.
oldsig
1. Above is a link to an Atlantic Council interview with the Prime Minister of Singapore which also talks about tensions between China and the US — where the areas of disagreement has become a dangerous cancerous mess between the two most powerful nations in the world (that has real consequences for countries in the Indo-Pacific region). At many points over the past 18 months, this trend line has accelerated —starting with Vice President Mike Pence’s October 2018 speech to the Hudson Institute – senior figures of the Trump administration have all, in different ways, articulated a hardline posture towards China and as Pompeo put it, he sought “to put it all together for the American people”.Diplomatically under the current administration the US, I would suspect is a spent force, even before Trump took over they had a shocking rate of Foreign policy failures.
Naval theorist Milan Vego opens a chapter on chokepoint control with a quote from British Admiral Sir John Fisher, who stated that there are “five keys to the world. The Strait of Dover, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, the Straits of Malacca, and the Cape of Good Hope. And every one one of these keys we hold.”1 Fisher spoke from an Anglo-centric view, but his point is evident that control of key chokepoints equated to control of national strategic interests. But a century later, with the technological advances in weapons and sensors, and the interconnectedness of the global economy, can such a claim be made today?
There are over 100 straits where international interest in the free flow of trade transcends the interests of the nearby littoral states. Not all of these maritime chokepoints are of equal importance. Military strategists often speak as Fisher did of strategic chokepoints, believing them to have significant geopolitical value and act as epicenters for maritime strategy, where the control of which is considered vital for success in maritime conflict. But are these chokepoints truly strategic? Does the success of a nation’s maritime strategy actually hinge on the control or loss of control of these narrow seas?..
...Today, a resurgent China lays claim to the South China Sea (SCS) as its own internal waters. As discussed above, the Strait of Malacca has traditionally been a key to control of the SCS and, therefore, strategically important for trade between Europe and Asia. But the Strait of Malacca is not the only access route to the SCS, which can also be accessed through the much larger Luzon Strait and numerous passages through the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos. The PRC recognizes this and has adopted control mechanisms that do not depend on control of the chokepoints, but instead focuses on long-range anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) weapons and redundant fortified islands within the SCS.11
China’s A2/AD strategy in the SCS is important for two reasons. First, the assumption that physical control of a chokepoint guarantees use of the chokepoint is invalid in the face of PRC A2/AD weapons and sensors. Although the United States and its partner states may possess the land on either side of the Strait of Malacca, and have sufficient naval forces to patrol the strait, the PRC could nonetheless prevent free transit of the Strait of Malacca using ASBM and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). Furthermore, these long-range weapons based on the Chinese mainland or in the central SCS can contest the other straits leading into the SCS. Conversely, the reduced reliance of predictable trade routes for maritime traffic – both merchant and military – means they can easily bypass the Strait of Malacca if it were to be “controlled” by an opposing power.12 Chokepoints can be replaced.
That's when Pakistan come to play. This is where China will support Pakistan whatever they can. US influence on Pakistan day by day, bit by bit being replaced by China.Yes some freight can be diverted through other modal links but using the rail example in the paper if, for example, the PRC was to start importing 200,000 tonnes of oil per shipment by rail. Well that's one very tempting target, for example, the Indian Air Force to interdict and it doesn't even have to go looking for it because you can't hide train tracks. Build a pipeline - that can be attacked by air or ground forces
Beyond the fact that Pakistan’s rail system can be disrupted by India, the Indian Air Force and Navy faced off with Pakistan during:That's when Pakistan come to play. This is where China will support Pakistan whatever they can. US influence on Pakistan day by day, bit by bit being replaced by China.
India can't attack China Sea and Land routes (road and belt routes) in Arabian sea and Central Asia without have to pacified Pakistan first.
Forgive my off topic reply on this thread — with a different take on shipping that I hope adds to the discussion.Yes some freight can be diverted through other modal links but using the rail example in the paper if, for example, the PRC was to start importing 200,000 tonnes of oil per shipment by rail. Well that's one very tempting target, for example, the Indian Air Force to interdict and it doesn't even have to go looking for it because you can't hide train tracks. Build a pipeline - that can be attacked by air or ground forces
Yep, but China also regard the Pakistani ports as quite important for their access to the Indian Ocean. One could almost classify them as strategic Chinese assets in that sense. So I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the idea of China not militarily supporting Pakistan against India.I want to add that a Chinese-Indian conflict will not necessarily result in Pakistan giving their all-out effort to attack India. Pakistan is not a vassal state of China. There isn't even a mutual defense treaty obligating Pakistan to aid China or vice versa.
For Pakistan to pick a fight with India, even if India is distracted by a conflict with China, is a major risk. India may decide to concede some land to China and then turning around to crush Pakistan for good. China may call Pakistan batie, but this relationship fundamentally is based on realpolitik and realpolitik can easily see China deciding that they've gotten what they want and let Pakistan to fend themselves, calling for "peace in the region" and offering mediation but not lifting a single finger in terms of military assistance. After all, despite sharing a border, China can't easily use those mountain passes to invade India. The logistics are tough. On the other hand, the Indian-Pakistani border is wide open.
Pakistan knows this, or at least their higher ups do. So rather than an all out support for China in a Chinese-Indian conflict, I expect a more measured and cautious reaction.
Yes, but that's two different scenarios there. If India attacks Pakistan, China will help Pakistan because it is in their strategic interest to do so. But if China and India got into a dispute, well, what's in it for Pakistan? A long standoff between India and China sapping Indian strength may be more beneficial to Pakistan strategically.Yep, but China also regard the Pakistani ports as quite important for their access to the Indian Ocean. One could almost classify them as strategic Chinese assets in that sense. So I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the idea of China not militarily supporting Pakistan against India.
True, but I think the scenario being talk about here for Pakistan involvement based on scenarios on China by passing Malaca Strait and used land transport through Central Asia and Sea Lane toward Pakistan ports to transport oil imports to China Interior.want to add that a Chinese-Indian conflict will not necessarily result in Pakistan giving their all-out effort to attack India. Pakistan is not a vassal state of China. There isn't even a mutual defense treaty obligating Pakistan to aid China or vice versa.
If India looked like it was going to overrun Pakistan, the Pakistanis would probably go nuclear. What's the point of having a nuclear arsenal if you aren't going to use it when your country is in military and strategic extremis with the survival of the nation at the it's most perilous.True, but I think the scenario being talk about here for Pakistan involvement based on scenarios on China by passing Malaca Strait and used land transport through Central Asia and Sea Lane toward Pakistan ports to transport oil imports to China Interior.
The safety on that routes can be compromise by India, but for Indian to compromise that route will means they have to pacified Pakistan first.
India can pacified Pakistan, there's no doubt in there. However to do that, they have to commit most of their forces.
As India pretext to pacified Pakistan in this scenario is for compromising Chinese routes, then China will come to equation. India simply can't afford to take both Pakistan and India in same time.
This is the danger if World community ever allowing China claim on SCS based on their own claim of Historical/Traditional rights. No country in this world ever allowed to claim any territory based on Historical rights.Philippines’ baseless claims over Sabah hurts ASEAN unity and is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the Philippine government.
I fully expect Chinese researchers to claim they have found evidence of 1000BC Zhou dynasty pottery in the Pilbara and now have a historical claim on the region! This article from Modern diplomacy US hegemony in crisis, rise of China & Middle Power Coalition talks about a 'middle power' coalition (+US) , the article talks a little about the history of post WWII US East Asia diplomacy.This is the danger if World community ever allowing China claim on SCS based on their own claim of Historical/Traditional rights. No country in this world ever allowed to claim any territory based on Historical rights.
This kind of Philippines claim based on stupid claim from decendents of Sultanate Sulu. This is dangerous ground if ever being allowed. Pinoy should know their standing on International stage is going to be heavily eroded if they are stuck to pursue this kind of historical claim.
No nation in Southeast Asia build on their long lost ancestors land. The nations of SEA except Thailand basically build based on colonials boundaries. Philippines only can claim on area that belong to US Philippines, Malaysia can only claim what's belong to British Malaya (except Singapore which both has mutually agreed divorce), and Indonesia can't claim more than what's belong to Dutch East Indies. Even Brunai can only claim the area that basically British agree on.
This is due to the fact that those countries build on foundation of colonials states. Accepting some nation to claim based on their historical ancestorial land is simply can't be done because those nation's came to be from either colonials creation or what borders they're recognized Internationally and not what their ancestors used to have.
If this can ever be allowed/entertain by global communities then chaos of claim and counter claim can run on International relations.
If that happen, Indonesia can claim half of Malayan Peninsula since once upon a time they belong to Riau Sultanate or if wants to trace back more, the Peninsula were under control of Srivijaya Empire.
So how far do you want to reach back to your ancestorial claim ? Can Italy claim most of Europe based on Roman Empire (as Mussolini's dream) ? Can German reach back to Prussian time to claim all Baltic states and half of Poland (like Hitler wants) ?
Can Mongolia claim most of Northern China as part of Mongol inheritance ? (Something that most Chinese forumers stating rediculous while they're in Internet promoting China rightfully owned SCS as part of historical inheritance rights).
Ancestorial claim or historical claim can't be ever allowed to happen. This is where most war coming from. Each modern nation's should stick with whatever International boundaries being set when they're created. No more no less.
There's no prospect of a railway from Pakistan to China at present, nor a pipeline. Too expensive. The terrain is a nightmare. If China wants to import oil overland it'd be much more sensible to ignore Pakistan & import oil directly from Central Asia. Azerbaijan, Russia & Iran could feed directly into that. India wouldn't be able to do much to interdict that....
Yes some freight can be diverted through other modal links but using the rail example in the paper if, for example, the PRC was to start importing 200,000 tonnes of oil per shipment by rail. Well that's one very tempting target, for example, the Indian Air Force to interdict and it doesn't even have to go looking for it because you can't hide train tracks. Build a pipeline - that can be attacked by air or ground forces.
...
1. Agreed. The ICJ does not recognize right of sovereignty based on historic title after exercise of self-determination — which would apply to Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak. For background, I note that the Cobbold Commission released its findings, report and recommendations on 1 Aug 1962. It concluded that the formation of Malaysia should be implemented.This is the danger if World community ever allowing China claim on SCS based on their own claim of Historical/Traditional rights. No country in this world ever allowed to claim any territory based on Historical rights.
This kind of Philippines claim based on stupid claim from decendents of Sultanate Sulu. This is dangerous ground if ever being allowed. Pinoy should know their standing on International stage is going to be heavily eroded if they are stuck to pursue this kind of historical claim.
No nation in Southeast Asia build on their long lost ancestors land. The nations of SEA except Thailand basically build based on colonials boundaries. Philippines only can claim on area that belong to US Philippines...