South China Sea thoughts?

[John Fedup]

I don't think its about oil/fish or other resource, its just bonus. China expansion is to increase its influence in the region and secure sea lane for themselves, similar to many other rising/established power in the past. They have vast trade route via ScS, indian ocean, Persian gulf, and Africa coast, ScS seem like 1st step to secure it and expand from it. They have money to buy all the oil/resource they want, especially US now has largest oil/gas reserve, so we import less from other countries.

China must think the resource potential and perceived influence increase is worthwhile but the negative for them is creating a unified opposition of all the players in or near the region including some of their friends. One has to wonder what's the point of securing trade routes if you turn most of your customers off. This seems to turning into a game of chicken and the outcome could have some terrible consequences.

 

[weaponwh]

China must think the resource potential and perceived influence increase is worthwhile but the negative for them is creating a unified opposition of all the players in or near the region including some of their friends. One has to wonder what's the point of securing trade routes if you turn most of your customers off. This seems to turning into a game of chicken and the outcome could have some terrible consequences.

I don't think there is a unified front as media claim to be. most ASEAN are fractured, even Vietnam and phillippine has dispute with each other. then there are neutral party who do not have claim over scs, such as Thailand, Lao, etc etc. and most ASEAN stay in neutral because china are enticing them with trade/economy. also china continue to use its economy/trade to entice other country not to get involve, and most country wont since they don't gain anything. china will just push it, then back off if it encounter too much resistance, try again few more years later. the dispute can dated back to centuries, and they are play the long game.

 

[Boatteacher]

.. Global Times has published editorials stating that China should prepare for military confrontation and "it should be able to let the U.S. pay a cost it cannot stand if it intervenes in the South China Sea dispute by force ... China hopes disputes can be resolved by talks, but it must be prepared for any military confrontation. This is common sense in international relations." (emphasis mine). Whilst the Global Times is not as authoritative as the Peoples Daily with regard to official policy, it is published by the Peoples Daily.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman stated: "China will work with ASEAN countries to safeguard the peace and stability of the South China Sea. As for the relevant dispute, China does not accept any decision imposed by a third party as a means of resolution, nor any solution plan that is forced upon China."

Some reports called the Foreign Ministry statement a backdown from the more strident and militaristic Global Times editorial but the consistent message from China is always the same.

It can basically be summarised as "we are peace loving and want peace and as long as you acknowledge and surrender to all our territorial claims there will be peace". Just to labor the point, one is tempted to add "in our time."

It's just one expresses it as "if we don't get what we want, there will be war", the other as "there can't be peace unless we get what we want."

 

[Boatteacher]

China has declared a "no sail area" of 100,000 sq km between Hainan and the island of Luzon in the Philippines. The reason given is for exercises being held from 5/7 - 11/7/16 ending the day before the Permanent Court of Arbitration announces its ruling. The disputed Paracel Islands are within the zone and the zone encompasses international waters. .

I wonder if anyone here can let us know whether the closure of international waters for the purposes of exercises like this is permitted under international law [ignoring for the moment China does not accept these as international waters].

Unless it clearly is, then surely this would call for a FON response. Otherwise it would leave open the possibility of China achieveing its strategic objectives by conducting permanent exercises throughout the 9 dash line area; allowing only a passage for trading vessels along the authorized sea lanes; but which must of course for "safety" reasons, register their intention and follow China's directions while in the area.

In other words they could control the area as if it was sovereign territory without blocking the sea lanes to trading ships

 

[gazzzwp]

China must think the resource potential and perceived influence increase is worthwhile but the negative for them is creating a unified opposition of all the players in or near the region including some of their friends. One has to wonder what's the point of securing trade routes if you turn most of your customers off. This seems to turning into a game of chicken and the outcome could have some terrible consequences.

I think it is clear that they have only one objective. To push the US out at all costs to allow themselves to be the dominant power. The idea of trade routes being threatened I feel is a misnomer. If smaller nations are under any threat at all it is in fishing, and loss of oil exploration rights because China will take all.

 

[STURM]

I think it is clear that they have only one objective. To push the US out at all costs to allow themselves to be the dominant power.

China wants to be recognised as the new dominant power in the region and wants claimants to deal with it direct, rather than run to Uncle Sam for support and encouragement.

If smaller nations are under any threat at all it is in fishing, and loss of oil exploration rights because China will take all.

There is a school of thought that says when the day comes that the other claimants start dealing with China directly and acknowledge that it is China and not the U.S. that is the dominant regional power; then China will make its own arrangements with the other claimants towards joint oil exploration and fishing rights. As far as China is concerned the U.S. has been sticking its nose into matters that don't concern the U.S, in an area that is not in the U.S's backyard and that it is because of the U.S. that certain claimants have taken such as hostile [hostile from a Chinese perspective] approach towards China. The Chinese are also convinced that if if hadn't been for the U.S. encouraging certain claimants to behave in a way that is hostile to China, that the issue could have been settled with minimum fuss, to the mutual benefit of all the claimants involved.

 

[jokerpad89]

China has always been a employ the 'watch-then-strike' approach in all its foreign policies. It happen in Korea, Vietnam as well as India. It is also their approach for their 'sudden' or 'well-timed' economic expansion. A well-timed move, a accurate stab, and victory is impossible to miss.

A claim in SCS achieve 2 functions (that I can think of). 1) A resource grab, or resource denial for other players. Point to note: China mainland is sitting on one of the world's untapped oil well under its deserts. By tapping on SCS basin and selling it as quickly and cheaply as possible, China has quick cash to settle whatever domestic problem it has and still maintain its evergrowing military. 2) SCS is a FOB to taking back Taiwan by force, as well as to deter any foreign intervention when it wants to do so.

Both functions serve a larger goal that is to sell the world the illusion that China is actually strong, and when it comes, not one can stop them.

Disclaimer, I must admit I have not read most of this thread. Do note that those are my opinion, and will remain as my opinion, but is really scary if it is real.

 

[Boatteacher]

There is a school of thought that says when the day comes that the other claimants start dealing with China directly and acknowledge that it is China and not the U.S. that is the dominant regional power; then China will make its own arrangements with the other claimants towards joint oil exploration and fishing rights. .

I realise you may just be acknowledging the existence of the school, rather than arguing its case. But, the illogicality with that school of thought is that it is China's very aggression that is chasing countries that were previously ambivalent towards the US into stronger relations with it.

Of course China has shown a surprising naivety in its international relations before; so its possible, but doesn't seem likely. What they are arguing is well beyond a Monroe Doctrine which would be the more sensible path to the argued outcome.

The 9 dash line is incredible aggressive in its claims on other country's waters and near seas. It was clearly going to get the hackles up of any country impinged upon. Internally they are stirring up nationalistic feeling about the issue which will be difficult to back down from.

While not claiming any inside knowledge, the school of thought would seem to emanate from those who think if the US would just stay home then everything will be well with the world. We have people in Australia making essentially the same argument against our relationship with the US.

History would suggest the opposite. A disengaged US and peace in our time in exchange for unreasonable territorial claims is a proven flawed exchange.

 

[STURM]

Of course China has shown a surprising naivety in its international relations before;

China is still an immature and insecure ''power'' making similar mistakes that other powers did when they were in the process of becoming ''powers'' and finding their way around. I don't fully agree with the school of thought that I mentioned but I agree that what China desperately seeks is recognition of its new status as the power in the region and that it really irks China that certain countries are taking what the Chinese perceive as ''aggressive'' actions in the knowledge that the U.S. is behind them.

But, the illogicality with that school of thought is that it is China's very aggression that is chasing countries that were previously ambivalent towards the US into stronger relations with it.

Indeed but at the end of the day, these countries will still have to reach some kind of accommodation with China. Given China's status as an economic and military power; these countries in the long run can't afford to have bad relations with China; irrespective of the Spratlys issue. Take the Philippines for example; along with Vietnam, the Philippines has been the most publicly assertive with regards to dealings with China over the Spratlys; yet the newly elected Philippines President has made it clear that he intends to improve relations with China and has stated that he may even accept a Chinese offer to construct a railway line from Manila to Angeles City [both being about 60km apart].

It's interesting to look at the way Malaysia handles the Spratlys issue. Malaysia shares deep economic ties with China [Malaysia is China's largest trading partner in ASEAN and China is the largest foreign investor in Malaysia]; yet Malaysia not only continues its longstanding policy of a close defence relationship with the U.S. but has also taken this relationship to a new level [i.e. the first time USAF Raptors were involved in a bilateral exercise in South East Asia was in Malaysia and the Malaysian Armed Forces conducts more exercises with the U.S. military than it does with any other foreign military]. Sure, Chinese ships still regularly intrude in Malaysia's EEZ and are confronted by Malaysia naval ships [the Malaysians via radio always inform the Chinese that they're in Malaysian waters and the Chinese usually ignore them] but to date, Malaysia has been spared some of the actions China has taken towards Vietnam and the Philippines. It helps off course that it is Malaysian policy never to openly criticise China over its actions in the Spratlys [this is unlike the 1980's and 1990's when the Malaysian PM publicly described China as a ''threat''] and that in addition to ASEAN; Malaysia relies a lot on back door diplomacy in dealing with China. At the same time however, Malaysia still openly maintains that the reefs it claims and occupies in the Spratlys do not belong to China.

China in turn, in recent times at least, has never open criticised Malaysia, the way it has Vietnam and the Philippines, for claiming and occupying reefs that China maintains are an ''indisputable'' part of China. Whether Malaysia's policy will pay off in the long run remains to be seen however. There have been reports that Malaysia has been somewhat frustrated that Chinese ships still regularly intrude in its waters but for the time being at least; Malaysia's policy of engaging China whilst simultaneously having close ties with the U.S. [described as Malaysia's ''hedging'' policy] does seem to be paying off. Unlike Thailand; Malaysia is not a non NATO ally of the U.S. and unlike the Philippines, Malaysia is not linked to the U.S. by a defence treaty. In the 1990's the U.S. made it clear that it's treaty with the Philippines obligates it to come to the aid of the Philippines in the event of an external threat but that the treaty does not cover the Spratlys. It would seem however that the Philippines [the previous administration at least] is quite confident of U.S. help should things turn bad with China over the Spratlys.

 

[Boatteacher]

China in turn, in recent times at least, has never open criticised Malaysia, the way it has Vietnam and the Philippines, for claiming and occupying reefs that China maintains are an ''indisputable'' part of China. Whether Malaysia's policy will pay off in the long run remains to be seen however.

Of course, the essence of the described situation is that if you don't take any action to lay claim to what China claims is theirs - whether or not you disagree and actually think its yours - then they won't criticize you.

Meanwhile China goes around building Islands out of nothing to stake out it's claims and expects everyone else to acquiesce.

What China denounces as aggressive in other countries seems to be SOP for them. It's as if they shout loudly enough that it's theirs, then that somehow makes it so.

Even allowing for a learning process, there should have come a point at which China recognised its true path to respect and greatness was to be an economic power and a positive force in the world; not the 200 lb bully grabbing territory from its neighbors in a way the WW2 should have put an end to.

If nothing more they could have learnt from the goodwill sapping mistakes the US made (more easily done for them since they don't have the vested interests to protect or having the bad guys target them just to create the enemy that justifies the bad guys acting dictatorially). But at least the US started with a store of credibility by being the good guy in two world wars (or at least the second one anyway) and usually have a modicum of good intention, even if sometimes misplaced or misjudged. China doesn't start with that credibility or show that good intention.

And while they build up the tension about the issue internally, they remind me of nothing more than the Argentinian junta before the Falklands. A government trying to keep all the balls in the air which needs an external threat to get everyone to look somewhere else.

I hate to be a worrier, but I just don't see how this plays out to a happy ending

 

[weaponwh]

Meanwhile China goes around building Islands out of nothing to stake out it's claims and expects everyone else to acquiesce.

there are plenty countries building island on top of reef etc. Vietnam extend their own island with drenching. beside few island is not gonna stop US if we decide to sail their. also china is not the only aggressive party in the dispute, Vietnam/Indonesian also done thing that consider aggressive. but consider chinas size/economy/military it has much more weight to swing, and its the only country in the region that can challenges US influence in the region.
2nd if they are smart, they can just weight few years then try again, increase its status in the region piece by piece over several decades, if china continue to grow, by 2025-2035, it will be too costly for anyone to go up against them. so far I don't think they have any plan to invade anyone, it mainly want to establish influence and secure trade route for their economy. and I doubt they trust US to secure it for them, there is no mutual trust between them and us. hopefully all the claim party can solve this through some deal etc. if ASEAN can get a good deal out of the situation now, they should take it, cause if it drag on till 2030ish, I don't think they can get a good deal.

however if china economy shrink and riot start all over china, it will be tough for them to continue the dispute.

another thing to consider due to Russia in eastern Europe, and SCS/east china sea situation, china/Russia are getting closer. it will be bad if both establish some kind alliance to counter US. few weeks ago 3 Russia ship and 1 Chinese ship passing through the water near disputed island between japan/china. likely china getting support on Russia for its ScS, while support Russia on Ukraine issue.

 

[STURM]

Of course, the essence of the described situation is that if you don't take any action to lay claim to what China claims is theirs - whether or not you disagree and actually think its yours - then they won't criticize you.

Malaysia not only claims but occupies 5 reefs in the Spratlys. All the reefs are garrisoned by troops and there is a permanent naval presence in the area. The key difference is that unlike Vietnam and the Philippines; Malaysia does not publicly criticise China as it sees nothing to be gained from doing so. Whilst maintaining good relations with China; Malaysia also maintains the position that its claims in the Spratlys are legitimate and are non-negotiable.

What China denounces as aggressive in other countries seems to be SOP for them. It's as if they shout loudly enough that it's theirs, then that somehow makes it so.

Very true. I'm not defending China but what China is doing is similar to what Western powers previously did - history tends to repeat itself. When the U.S. became the dominant power in the Caribbean it was willing to go to war with any European power that chose to contest this. We keep hearing about China's military buildup yet the U.S. has permanent bases in Japan and South Korea, has treaty allies in the region and it is China that is surrounded by countries that are linked to the U.S. via treaties, i.e. South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan.

Also, to be fair to China; what it's doing now in the Spratlys; was done earlier by South Vietnam [followed by Vietnam], the Philippines Taiwan and Malaysia with regards to occupying reefs and conducting land reclamation; albeit on a much smaller scale - Layang-Layang/Swallow Reef was the size of a basketball court when first claimed by Malaysia; now it has a holiday resort, a runway capable of handling C-130s, a weather station and a jetty. In 1999 Malaysia ignored protests from China, Taiwan and the Philippines and went ahead with reclamation efforts to create 2 reefs in the area. We tend to view China as the only claimant that is aggressive and not behaving but other countries have also engaged in acts that the Chinese perceive as aggressive or provocative.

beside few island is not gonna stop US if we decide to sail their.

The islands/reefs are not intended to stop anyone but to strengthen China's claims in the area and to make it easier for China to maintain/sustain a military presence in the area.

 

[ralphy99]

When the U.S. became the dominant power in the Caribbean it was willing to go to war with any European power that chose to contest this.

this is an incomplete analogy. the US does not follow other ships around, harass them, attempt to cut their hydrophones and other gear, or closely buzz flights of other nations in the Caribbean.

From 70 years ago, China did not fight a global war resulting in the current mash of treaties that China now faces in its territorial grabbing.

 

[weaponwh]

When the U.S. became the dominant power in the Caribbean it was willing to go to war with any European power that chose to contest this.

this is an incomplete analogy. the US does not follow other ships around, harass them, attempt to cut their hydrophones and other gear, or closely buzz flights of other nations in the Caribbean.

From 70 years ago, China did not fight a global war resulting in the current mash of treaties that China now faces in its territorial grabbing.

back then there is no radar or sensor we have today. But now we see all major power follow each other around and Intel gathered is much more sophisticated compare back then

 

[gf0012-aust]

back then there is no radar or sensor we have today. But now we see all major power follow each other around and Intel gathered is much more sophisticated compare back then

thats not exactly correct.

C5ISR, ISTAR is more capable, but its not even remotely as saturated as it was at the peak of the cold war.

HUMINT is but a fraction of what it used to be, SIGINT and ELINT is more capable, but not as wide covering

eg the capability to follow and stalk submarines which are primarily ISR assets in the current climate is also a fraction of what it has been


gathering is more voluminous but that also doesn't define capability.

eg the east germans gathered so much information that it actually worked against them in the end

capability is more than just gathering

 

[weaponwh]

thats not exactly correct.

C5ISR, ISTAR is more capable, but its not even remotely as saturated as it was at the peak of the cold war.

HUMINT is but a fraction of what it used to be, SIGINT and ELINT is more capable, but not as wide covering

eg the capability to follow and stalk submarines which are primarily ISR assets in the current climate is also a fraction of what it has been


gathering is more voluminous but that also doesn't define capability.

eg the east germans gathered so much information that it actually worked against them in the end

capability is more than just gathering

i was refer to US and caribbean time, as the some poster draw parallel to US caribbean in 19-20th century to current china expansion in ScS

 

[ngatimozart]

Some interesting articles that are worth reading.
Countering China’s Third Sea Force: Unmask Maritime Militia before They’re Used Again
South China Sea Showdown: America Must Step Up to Face Off with China
How Might China React If The Hague Rules in Philippines' Favor?
Forecasting the South China Sea Arbitration Merits Award – Maritime Awareness Project
China's Maritime Militia - What It Is and How to Deal With It
China enlists fishermens help to protect maritime rights in disputed South China Sea, South China Morning Post
Maritime militia increases drills, expands in scope - China Military Online
LIMITS IN THE SEAS, No. 143, CHINA - MARITIME CLAIMS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs U.S. Department of State

 

[Bonza]

i was refer to US and caribbean time, as the some poster draw parallel to US caribbean in 19-20th century to current china expansion in ScS

Mate, do you reckon you could proof read your posts before committing them? We're not particularly strict on spelling and grammar but I think it'd benefit you and the people responding to you. Cheers.

 

[Ranger25]

USFK and ROK decide to deploy THAAD

The USFK and ROK have approved the deployment of the THAAD system to ROK.



US and South Korea agree to deploy THAAD system, angering China | IHS Jane's 360

Exact specs are classified but range is 200km ++

MDA - Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)

 

[STURM]

this is an incomplete analogy. the US does not follow other ships around, harass them, attempt to cut their hydrophones and other gear, or closely buzz flights of other nations in the Caribbean.

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 other powers said and was even willing to go to war with any power that chose to contest the U.S's new status as the dominant power in the area. And let's not mention the Philippines and the bloody campaigns [which had their share of massacres] U.S. troops fought to subjugate the locals.

From 70 years ago, China did not fight a global war resulting in the current mash of treaties that China now faces in its territorial grabbing.

Maybe not but for quite a long period a weak and divided China was trampled on by outside powers to the extent that it was outside powers who were calling the shots and Chinese in parts of their own country had become 2nd class citizens. The Chinese haven't forgotten this. 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. Also, lets not forget that for many years [way before the West entered the war against the Axis] China had been engaged in a brutal war against Japan that resulted in the deaths of millions and the devastation of much of the country. We all know about Stalingrad, Midway, Tarawa, etc, but it's often not realised that very heavy fighting also took place in China on a very large scale.

Who Occupies What In The Spratlys?
http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/south-china-sea-who-claims-what-in-the-spratlys/

A Malaysia ‘Pushback’ Against China In The South China Sea?
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/a-malaysia-pushback-against-china-in-the-south-china-sea/

Malaysia Still Playing It Safe
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca...atlys-dispute-malaysia-still-playing-it-safe/

Now, It’s China vs Malaysia
http://www.manilatimes.net/now-its-china-vs-malaysia/190660/

China's Maritime Disputes
http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/chinas-maritime-disputes/p31345#!/p31345

Vietnam’s ‘Soft Diplomacy’ In The South China Sea
http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/vietnams-soft-diplomacy-in-the-south-china-sea/

CrossTalk: South China Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2sWepJD66Y

The South China Sea Arbitration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pNnIMkTimU