South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[Equation]

"owlish approach & avoid being an aggressive hawk to bully the doves".

Well ironically the same can be said about the US power of uniting so called country to bully China into submitting their way of the SCS dispute.

 

[Geographer]

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(CSIS) has some new photographs of Fiery Cross Reef and Johnson South Reef. I couldn't right-click to get a URL of each photo, does anyone have any tips?

They also estimate the size of each reclaimed island:

Mischief Reef: 5,580,000 sq. meters
Subi Reef: 3,950,000 sq. meters
Fiery Cross Reef: 2,740,000 sq. meters
Cuarteron Reef: 231,100 sq. meters
Gaven Reef: 136,000 sq. meters
Johnson South Reef: 109,000 sq. meters
Hughes Reef: 76,000 sq. meters

 

[plawolf]

Sometimes I really wonder if the US and some of the other claimants in the SCS are either totally ignorant of history and how that might impact on how China responds, or if they know full well and are deliberately pushing China's buttons.

The idea of ASEAN uniting and negotiating with China as a block is simply never ever going to be acceptable to China because of historical reasons, as that kind of many-against-one negotiation setup is far too similar to the way Western Colonial powers' forced China to sign all those unequal treaties towards the end of the Qing Dynasty.

For other countries to try to gain better bargaining power by teaming up against China would make Chinese negotiators draw immediate and strong association with the most painful and shameful part of recent Chinese history, and that will undoubtedly affect how the Chinese would respond.

Even if the Chinese negotiators could put aside their own personal feelings, they cannot ignore how such a thing would play out back home, and if Beijing did make such a deal, even if it was favourable to China, there would be uproar domestically with immediate parallels drawn between the current government and the Qing.

Sometimes it seems the west and their disciples in other capitals fall for their own spin and propaganda.

Just because they keep calling Beijing "authoritarian" and "undemocratic" and other such insults every chance they get does not mean the negative connotations of those slurs are true.

Beijing could no more ignore the will of its people than any democracy. If anything, the Chinese leadership has consistently demonstrated a far greater degree of consideration about and responsiveness to the views and grievances of its citizens than western democracies.

I have strong views and why that is, but that would be political and off topic, so I shall just leave it there.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, we know that ASEAN is not going to speak with one voice re: South China Sea disputes. Why?

(1) Only 4 ASEAN countries are direct claimants of the territorial waters.

(2) China's total power comes to play - that is the interplay of economic, political/diplomatic & military assertive strategies, that included the recent launch of AIIB.

However, one should never underestimate the US power of uniting the effected countries being being shoved aside by the Chinese in the territorial waters disputes in the South China Sea.

Japan may also join in cooperating militarily with the US & others in the region.

My favorite idiom:

Take the "owlish approach & avoid being an aggressive hawk to bully the doves".

Agree to disagree, & try to work out ways of promoting stability & progress in our region - the alternative is disastrous for everyone including China.

The alternative of course is to stand back and allow the region to fall under greater Chinese influence.
It will still be peace, but just not on terms that are attractive to certain parties at present.

Everyone in the SCS disputes also have disputes with each other, and there's too much history going back decades and centuries on all sides, that attempts to pin the requirement for a peaceful resolution on one party, or conversely trying to pin the blame on one party is a misportrayal of the situation on the ground if not outright misinformation.
Everyone wants the best bite of the apple that they can get, and peace on the terms of one side will always disadvantage another side who will deem the terms unfavourable.
The only way to reach a lasting peace is for the ambitions and interests of differing countries to change, and that is determined by how much or how little power they have as well as the trust between the different parties involved.

As for the US, I think one should be careful not to overestimate the US role in trying to organize any kind of coalition, rather than underestimate it. The portrayal in the most media seems to presume that such a coalition either already exists against China, or that such a coalition would be easily created, when in reality it's quite a bit harder, not only because of China's political and economic relationships with the other claimants, but also because the other claimants have territorial disputes with each other as well.

 

[Jeff Head]

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(CSIS) has some new photographs of Fiery Cross Reef and Johnson South Reef. I couldn't right-click to get a URL of each photo, does anyone have any tips?

They also estimate the size of each reclaimed island:

I thought I would convert these into acres. For your information:

One acre = 4100 square meters
1 square mile = 640 acres.

Mischief Reef: 5,580,000 sq. meters = 1,379 acres = 2.14 sq miles.
Subi Reef: 3,950,000 sq. meters = 976 acres = 1.52 sq miles.
Fiery Cross Reef: 2,740,000 sq. meters = 677 acres = 1.06 sq miles.
Cuarteron Reef: 231,100 sq. meters = 57 acres = .09 sq miles.
Gaven Reef: 136,000 sq. meters = 34 acres = .05 sq miles.
Johnson South Reef: 109,000 sq. meters = 27 acres = .04 sq miles.
Hughes Reef: 76,000 sq. meters = 19 acres = .03 sq miles.

These are HUGE areas. MIschief reef has reclaimed over two square miles of territory! That would be an area equivalent to 10,560 feet x 5,280 feet. IMHO, clearly the first three are the locations where airfields would be considered.

As a comparison, in Washington DC the following area is approximately two square miels:



That is basically all of the major US historical monuments, including the White House and a large swath surrounding it. If you have ever been there, that is a huge area.

 

[PanAsian]

However, one should never underestimate the US power of uniting the effected countries being being shoved aside by the Chinese in the territorial waters disputes in the South China Sea.

Japan may also join in cooperating militarily with the US & others in the region.

My favorite idiom:

Take the "owlish approach & avoid being an aggressive hawk to bully the doves".

Agree to disagree, & try to work out ways of promoting stability & progress in our region - the alternative is disastrous for everyone including China.

Your favorite idiom applies to all parties while your estimation neglected to take into account that China has been the one enduring shoving by both Japan and the US as well as others in the region. China had taken the owlish approach before and merely got shoved and pecked by both the hawks and the aggressive doves. At this point China is mostly standing up for itself and hasn't even shoved back much.

 

[Blackstone]

Your favorite idiom applies to all parties while your estimation neglected to take into account that China has been the one enduring shoving by both Japan and the US as well as others in the region. China had taken the owlish approach before and merely got shoved and pecked by both the hawks and the aggressive doves. At this point China is mostly standing up for itself and hasn't even shoved back much.

A good case could be made on China's behavior being exceptionally meek, from traditional major powers perspective, until 2010.

 

[Blackstone]

Well, this is rich, Manila is out to prove China's 9DL is "illegal." It takes mighty talent indeed to invalidate something that has never been officially declared or even described in detail.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Philippines says they are prepared to undermine China’s biggest defense when it comes to Manila’s case against Beijing over conflicting claims in the South China Sea. Filipino officials hope to eventually prove that China’s so-called “nine-dash line” territorial claim is illegal during a United Nations-backed tribunal that begins Tuesday in the Netherlands.

Despite China’s refusal to participate in the arbitration case, Beijing has made their case clear against the Philippines outside of the courts, saying that the issue is primarily about land, not the sea. According to Filipino news site Rappler, this means that China rendered the case beyond the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Philippines, however, has claimed that the case is predominately about maritime boundaries, pointing specifically at the rights of Filipino fisherman, among other things, in the disputed territory.

"Once the jurisdiction is won by the Philippines, and the [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] tribunal says it has jurisdiction, then we practically know the tribunal will strike down the 9-dash line," Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court told Rappler in an exclusive interview. “Ninety-nine percent of legal scholars outside of China think that way.”

China’s reluctance to participate in the United Nations-backed tribunal is rooted in the fact that Beijing says the international body doesn't have any jurisdiction to make legal claims in the bilateral issue, and has no right to make rulings. Last December, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a position paper explaining why Beijing was rejected Manila’s claims to the United Nations, even calling moves made by the Philippines to resort to arbitration as bad practice. Ahead of Tuesday’s tribunal Chinese authorities reiterated their refusal to make a case in front of the court because it runs against the “morality and basic rules” of international relations.

“We need to resume our bilateral negotiation without any condition,” Zhao Jiahua, Chinese ambassador to the Philippines, said Monday, according to state-run Xinhua News ahead of the trial. “I think this is the best way that we can discuss how to peacefully settle these disputes.”

He added: “Our door for bilateral consultation and negotiation is still open and will be open forever.”

Despite China’s demands to maintain geo-political conversations on a bilateral level, Filipino officials said that the international forum is the most appropriate place for Manila to stake its claim because it gives the island nation a more level playing field.

“In the UNCLOS tribunal, warships, warplanes, atomic bombs don’t count,” Justice Carpio said, referring to China’s growing naval strength in the area which dwarves the Philippines. “They just decide the case based on the law of the sea. And that is the form where we are on equal footing with China, despite China’s military strength.”

Though China’s nine-dash line, a Chinese-imposed maritime demarcation that encompasses 85 percent the South China Sea, including areas claimed by countries like the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei, has been disputed by governments in the past, the U.N. tribunal will be the first time it is examined under international law.

 

[Brumby]

Well, this is rich, Manila is out to prove China's 9DL is "illegal." It takes mighty talent indeed to invalidate something that has never been officially declared or even described in detail.

That is simply in layman's terms. The legal review that I have seen regarding the Philippines submission is focussed on three specific areas, all primarily directed at interpretation of UNCLOS provisions. That particular news article is talking about one of them and that is concerning limit provisions (interpretation) as opposed to delimiting provisions (sovereignty). China is concerned enough to actually issue a position paper on it as part of its rebuttal even though it is not participating in the process. We shall soon know whether the Philippines has a leg or not because the preliminary hearing that is starting will determine whether the Philippines actually has a case or not.

 

[Blackstone]

That is simply in layman's terms. The legal review that I have seen regarding the Philippines submission is focussed on three specific areas, all primarily directed at interpretation of UNCLOS provisions. That particular news article is talking about one of them and that is concerning limit provisions (interpretation) as opposed to delimiting provisions (sovereignty). China is concerned enough to actually issue a position paper on it as part of its rebuttal even though it is not participating in the process. We shall soon know whether the Philippines has a leg or not because the preliminary hearing that is starting will determine whether the Philippines actually has a case or not.

My view is Philippines has no legal standings in the ICJ, because the 9DL isn't sovereign territory boundary. Might be better for Beijing to announce a Chi-roe Doctrine in the 9DL. The rest of the world, especially China's maritime neighbors, might not like that any better, but at least there's no legal ambiguity.