Dude, tell you what, go to any Chinese language defense forum, and ask there if the Nanhai (南海) is their sovereign territory or just an exclusive economic zone. You can use English, they know enough to understand you. Ask them what blue national soil (蓝色国土) means.
South China Sea thoughts?
- Thread starter SpartanSG
- Start date
Better yet, don't. We don't want or need to attract attention from any of the various nationalist groups, from any nation.
-Preceptor
I'm American not Chinese . what find is even after I provide the link ppl still consider I'm nationalisc Chinese . I just point out what i read and don't have take in SCS
I can read Chinese and I have look report from both US media US sources and official Chinese media . every time i heard from Chinese officials they mention parcel and spartly island Not SCS + their UN note say differently. To me this indicates they interest in islands and it's EEZ. I know some Chinese think SCS as it's territory but that's different from what their official saying it .
Ppl ask me provide evidence i did provide OFFICIAL UN note not some fanboys claim on either side . and the analysis i provide is from official US sources . not media sources subject to bias in either direction .
U could argue their source is ambiguous which is true but base on their UN note, they way Chinese officials say and analysis from US sources . I believe their intention is to have dominated influence in region, resources. As long china can get that there is no need for entire SCS under it's territory . The latter could draw significant push back from various nations, and that's against china own interests
Of course you are, because if you are Chinese (by which I mean citizens of China, rather than people of Chinese descent in other countries) you would know what China says to their own people via TV, newspapers, social media, the works. Not what China tells outsiders. Generally a Chinese citizen would not be making the claim that China wants just the islands, they will be asserting China's ancient territorial rights instead over the "blue ancestral land". I suppose a very small minority may dissent, but they'll be careful not to mention it in public.
It's why I suggested that you ask the Chinese, directly, at the Chinese defense forums. Preceptor is correct though in saying that we don't want the attention of nationalistic groups. That takes higher priority, so fine, don't ask them.
So how's Avengers: Infinity War, eh? Didn't expect that ending.
As a Moderator, I don't care what nationality a member is, I care about the posting behavior they exhibit through post content and sources.
People who exhibit nationalistic behavior (i.e. MY country is better than YOUR country-type behavior) bring the tone and quality of discussion down. IMO, people who exhibit the MY vs. YOUR-type behavior, examples of which are readily available in US politics, tend to degrade just about everything they are involved with when behaving in such a fashion. Hence the very real interest and concern DT has about not attracting people who (mis)behave in such a way. Given that the thread topic is the SCS, there are many people in the various nations with claims that are going to behave in ways inappropriate for DT, especially if encountering someone who doesn't agree with their respective nationalistic perspective (i.e. someone from another nation with competing claims). In point of fact the DefenceTalk Moderator Team has banned a number of former members from nations with competing SCS claims, because they couldn't follow the DT rules.
If people feel that other members seem to consider them nationalists, then I would suggest pausing to give some serious thought about one's posting content and behavior.
-Preceptor
I'm fine to pause it but I felt i contribute links regarding whether or not china claim entire SCS or just islands EEZ etc . I never claim china position on SCS is right but the original debate was on what china claim IS . To prove my opinions i provide UN note and US analysis on SCS as my argument . if other poster provide something similar to prove contradictions, then I'll accept that . But instead I got call as nationalistic when I'm not even Chinese . but your right I'll stop on this topic clearly I unintentionally flame up the debate and that was not my original purpose
Also I apologize cause I unintentionally quote you rather then quote tonnyc calling me nationalist in few posts above
Last edited:
Preceptor, sorry for continuing this. I will take the infraction if the mods feel it's warranted. I will try to remain within the boundary of polite conversation, but ultimately you and the other moderators are the ones who decide whether I am overstepping the bounds.
Weaponwh, you have this really annoying tendency of misinterpreting things. Where did I call you a nationalist? Read what is actually there, not what you made up in your head. Think. I am not playing word games here. If I think you are a Chinese nationalist why would I tell you to ask the Chinese? What you are is uninformed. Hence why I told you to ask the Chinese. But no, you made up this reality inside your head and decided that it means I am calling you a Chinese nationalist.
I don't give a damn whether you are American or Chinese or Somalian. But you have been misinterpreting things, through ignorance, through making uninformed assumptions, and through not bothering to ask the actual people, since your first post here. Try to change that.
Weaponwh, you have this really annoying tendency of misinterpreting things. Where did I call you a nationalist? Read what is actually there, not what you made up in your head. Think. I am not playing word games here. If I think you are a Chinese nationalist why would I tell you to ask the Chinese? What you are is uninformed. Hence why I told you to ask the Chinese. But no, you made up this reality inside your head and decided that it means I am calling you a Chinese nationalist.
I don't give a damn whether you are American or Chinese or Somalian. But you have been misinterpreting things, through ignorance, through making uninformed assumptions, and through not bothering to ask the actual people, since your first post here. Try to change that.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AND
A few things. A note that China (or any other nation involved in a dispute or arbitration before the UN or a UN body) submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague is not at all the same as ruling from that or another UN body. I have included a link to the PCA press release issued regarding the SCS arbitration between the Philippines and PRC here.
Some of the key findings from the PCA is that the PRC has no valid EEZ claims to areas that the Philippines claims in the SCS since the land areas which China used to make territorial waters and EEZ claims were rocks and not islands and therefore do not grant EEZ areas. The press release also describes what the difference is between a rock and an island, and what is used as the basis to decide the status. The press release also stated that claims had to be based upon the original/unmodified condition of rocks and/or islands, and not on artificial and/or reclaimed islands, or areas that are naturally submerged at high tide.
Now also consider what would be the most logical reasons for the PRC to build 3,000 m airfields (sufficient to take even large aircraft like heavy bombers and strategic airlifters) on built up/reclaimed rocks in the SCS. Such a capability is complete overkill for an EEZ claim, but is quite understandable as a forward operating base for long-ranged MPA, fighter/interceptors, and strike aircraft, as well as land-based AShM and SAM batteries, all tasked with performing anti-access/area denial missions. BTW AA/AD is all about establishing and maintaining control of an area (aka sovereignty) and not about exploiting the natural resources available in a maritime area like an EEZ.
Next, consider this article which specifically mentions that the PRC did reaffirm a claim of sovereignty over the Spratly and Paracel Islands in 1990.
Lastly, consider both articles like this one in the Global Times, the significance of what/where it appeared, and what some of it is saying. First, while the article is an op-ed, it is appearing in the Global Times which is a mainland/PRC site/paper with all that implies and entails. In other words, the content had governmental approval even if it was not an 'official' gov't statement or press release.
The op-ed also mentioned that;
This "freedom of navigation" involves being able to have shipping, including naval vessels transit through areas outside of a nation's home or territorial waters as recognized under UNCLOS. Put another way, even if any of the rocks the PRC has claimed, occupied, and built up/reclaimed were used to claim the 12 n mile limit for home or territorial waters under UNCLOS, then foreign shipping and naval vessels can still transit through international waters which after past the 12 n mile limit freely.
If the PRC is advocating and/or acting to put limits on "freedom of navigation" then in essence it is attempting to restrict the ability of other nations to be able to freely transit through international waters and doing so amounts to a claim of sovereignty over the area, as opposed to agreeing that the area is international waters.
As a side note, if one looks through a number of other mainland, PRC newspapers that also have ties the gov't, like being the official paper to the ruling party or other similar and related bodies (like the official paper of the Communist Youth League, etc.) then one tends to see a number of similar or related actions or assertions that amount to the PRC making a claim of sovereignty, even if officials do not necessarily make a direct public statement claiming sovereignty.
I think ppl misinterpret the debate, my original point was what China claimed, i'm well aware arbitration against china. The global time, and like other media on both side are often bias, and not paint the full picture. Take example of this China installs cruise missiles on South China Sea outposts: CNBC
if you notice all the officials are saying Sparatly/Paracel island. There are certainly news from both side claim the entire ScS, but the official stance is Sparatly/Paracel and they been very careful not to said entire ScS.
one of reason I use UN note verbale 2009/2011, is because its official not from media source such as global time, cnn etc etc.
Again the whole debate is about what China really claim is, is it entire ScS or its the island in the region and its resource.
I would said ScS is in a grey area, for sure 1 nation shouldn't control all ScS, but who get what and how much control that's debatable
how does UNCLOS work if some nation never ratify it?
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
And the above is why some people have questioned whether or not a person is an apologist for the PRC, as it ignores or distorts a number of things.
For instance, the PRC ratified UNCLOS in 1996 and the Philippines in 1997. Which means that the UN PCA in the Hague ruling which determined that the PRC has no EEZ claims in conflict with the Philippines because the territory China was claiming in the Spratlys does not grant EEZ rights should stand.
Relating to that, one has to remember the control over the media within China, to the point that content cannot really be called biased, since it needs approval to be released and therefore gets gov't sanction to be printed/published.
Since the PCA ruling, the most China could legally claim under UNCLOS/international law is the 12 n mile limit around what were the unmodified shores of the rocks China was claiming. Anywhere outside of the 12 n mile limits (which the claims themselves are still questionable, but the PCA specifically stated that it was not making a determination about the territorial claims, just whether there were any valid EEZ claims) it international water and China cannot dictate who or what vessels transit through it.
The outposts China has constructed upon the expanded and reclaimed lands on these rocks, consider what the purpose of having a large military runway build, along with fuel storage and land-based AShM and SAM batteries. Even if there was still a dispute in international law over EEZ claims (yes, I am aware that China is refusing to recognize the validity of the PCA ruling), land-based strategic bombers, SAM's and AShM's are absolute overkill and except for the SAM's, cannot even be claimed as 'defensive' like China has done.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
China installs cruise missiles on South China Sea outposts: Report
Apparently HQ9 and YJ-12 have both made an appearance. The trend towards anti-access/area denial in the region continues...
and I agree from my early post, china claim is not valid. But my debate topic was what China Claim is. not about if that claim is legitimate, that's another topic.
my opinion is this
1: establish what official china claim is, whether entire ScS or island/reef in the region. Even Chinese media are not good source since global time and such has bias, ex. some global time article indicate china could use Nuke in the event of Taiwan conflict, that doesn't sound like CCP official stand on non-first use. Just because china media is controlled doesn't mean CCP stop nationalist from venting their discontent toward other nation. In 2012, many Chinese media say they should invade japan diaoyu island, but that's their opinion not official stance. Furthermore, wouldn't you agree Chinese UN note verbal, gov analysis from other nation on this such as US, + what they actually said in Quote is far more credible than article written by some journalist that's nationalistic in nature.
2: once ppl agree on what China claim is, then we can determine reason/evidence behind the claim. Are those evidence support the claim and has legitimacy to it? For example both China/Vietnam Claim parcel island, which is close both country, and both country has history on it, so what make one countries claim more valid than other.
As for UNCLOS, true PRC ratified that, and it didn't follow the rules, US didn't ratified, yet it use UNCLOS rule for FON operation. The fact is powerful country often does not obey the rule or twist it for their own need. That just reality, phillippine been in a weaker position, it has to be in a good relationship with its bigger neighbor. In 2012 phillippine had a cold relationship with China, which result China taken the Shoal from phillippine, in 2017 Phillipppine change its foreign policy by warming up to China, which result china given aid to them and allow fisherman to fish in the area. We notice ScS news die down quite a bit in recent years, possibly due to china softpower at play.
Back on original discussion on what China claim is. Either they claim entire ScS or just islands, if its latter, then it can separate in to Parcel and Sparatly islands.
Both of these group HAS actual island which by UNCLOS can be used for EEZ purpose, but it depend who has the legitimate ownership of these actual island.
as for militarization, Vietnam done it, so did other countries, what weapon are you consider is defense? some country consider AshM are defense weapon. I mean there is no rule on what military equipment they can put on island, as far I can tell. The fact military ship transit through 12 nm in the region(which china claim) just give them more excuses to put those weapon in the area. I've been saying this for years, FON wont due squad on china ambitions, before they might be careful on militarize those island, but now they can say "look, foreign military ships constantly transit through 12nm or in the area to challenge china claim, therefore we need put more weapon on the island" It just encourage them not deter them, just like 1996 Taiwan strait, which force PLA to modernize its air force, navy and develop DF21D type missile.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
You can put whatever spin on it you like, I think the reality is pretty clear. China is functionally conducting a creeping annexation of that part of the region. The military assets are surely there to consolidate this and enable future power projection further afield.
well i'm not spin anything, I already said china intention are to claim paracel and sapartly island group just not the entire SCS as its territory. China is a major power in the region, switch China power with Vietnam/phillippine, they will likely do the same. No major/superpower gonna dictated by other smaller power on whats theirs or not, that just reality despite we have various consent rules on this after WWII.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
And yet others look at the commentary coming from and especially the actions undertaken by China, and have a decidedly different opinion on what is going on. Realistically I think the discussion at this point is only going to go around endlessly in circles, as what has been presented so far has not changed the way members are interpreting the intent of the SCS claimants.
The PLAN has just hands its invite to RIMPAC rescinded by the USN
After years continuing to sail alongside China in the massive RIMPAC naval exercises even as the peer competitor militarized man-made islands in the South China Sea, the U.S. has decided enough is enough, and has rescinded the invite.
“China’s continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region,” said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Logan. “As an initial response to China’s continued militarization of the South China Sea we have disinvited the PLA Navy from the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise.”
China was just uninvited from RIMPAC. Here’s why:
After years continuing to sail alongside China in the massive RIMPAC naval exercises even as the peer competitor militarized man-made islands in the South China Sea, the U.S. has decided enough is enough, and has rescinded the invite.
“China’s continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region,” said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Logan. “As an initial response to China’s continued militarization of the South China Sea we have disinvited the PLA Navy from the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise.”
China was just uninvited from RIMPAC. Here’s why:
Don't worry, they'll still have an AGI there. They'll just have to miss out on the awesome receptions.
The PRC have militarised their Coastguard, bringing it under military control. So now there is no pretence about its enforcement of its illegal SCS occupation.
The PRC Ambassador in London has been bemoaning the fact that foreign warships in the South China Sea are causing trouble. Well since they are exercising their right under international law to sail in international waters, I do not see what the problem is.
‘Big countries’ causing trouble in South China Sea, envoy says
‘Big countries’ causing trouble in South China Sea, envoy says