China's SCS Strategy Thread

[plawolf]

I assume you are asking in good faith and I will address your question as such. Sovereign state actors unlike you and I are not subject to country jurisdictions. There are so called international laws developed over time but nevertheless each state can opt to behave with goodwill as responsible global citizens or delinquently. How much do you opt out before you move into the latter category is not a question that I can address. Can state actors opt out - certainly. When does it become a sham? I can't answer that.

In international relations, you can't get an international agreement in place until two counter parties are in agreement - whether through coercion, bribes or willingly. This is precisely why UNCLOS can't decide on sovereignty issues because you need the affected parties to agree whether within or outside the provisions of convention. China is no Ethiopia or Sudan. It aspires to be a Superpower. It matters how it behaves because it has the potential to affect many other nations. If Sudan has a dispute, does anybody care? Probably not because its potential to affect the rest of the world is limited.

When the problem of the SCS and UNCLOS is put together, for goodness sake stop talking about abstracts and ask questions like how long is a piece of string (for example who decides). There are specific issues and problems with China's claims (for example, its legal basis). Stop bringing in comparison as a distraction as if two wrongs make it right (for example what about the Philippines). Honestly deal with the issues if you must. I have no intention to argue for the sake of just arguing.

For goodness sake, have you even taken the time to read what you are harping on about?

UNCLOS specifically states signitaries are free to opt out the provisions that China has opted out of.

You keep banging on like how China opting out of those provisions is some great cheat or breaking the rules, when in fact all China did was exercise the same options given to everyone single state who signed up to UNCLOS.

It is also hilarious how you want to impose all these moral constraints on China, while the sole superpower on the planet is infamous for its own refusal to allow any international body to impose any meaningful restraints on it's own behaviour.

The only nation on earth who is in any position to set the kind of example you want China to is the one most unwilling to do anything of the sort, and so long as American continues to practice American Expectionalism and harbours 'questionable' intentions towards China, China's leaders would have to be stupid and/or suicidal to play by the rules America itself is determined to not be bound by.

You also seem to have an uncanny ability to filter out all the unreasonable or even downright thuggish acts of all the other claiments when passing judgements on Chinese actions.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, and many of the acts you are criticising China for are direct reactions to things other countries have done first.

What America is doing in the SCS is the same trick they tried with Russia - America encourages small countries to make provocations against China and only speak out when China reacts.

The only difference is that China has thus far showing considerably more restrained than Russia in dealing with these petty insults.

That is called playing with fire. America clearly learnt nothing from Goergia and Ukriane, and are banking on its naval superimancy and Chinese patients for things to not totally blow up in the SCS.

With America's military lead and Chinese patience both wearing thin, that is an ever more risky gamble each time America throws the dice, and for what?

Sometimes America's greatest enemy is itself. It is needlessly entangling itself in a dispute that has nothing to do with it, and which has little if any impact on American national interests. Yet by needlessly getting involved, it is placing a huge risk and potential vast cost on itself.

If things keep going as they have been, once of these days, Vietnam or the Phillipines is going to miscalculate and step way over the line (they already had in the past, like opening fire on a Taiwanese fishing bait and killing the captain), and when China reflexively slaps them down, America is going to find itself with an impossible choice. Start a war it doesn't want or is guarenteed to win, or publically back-down.

 

[Jeff Head]

Guys, this has been beaten to death on two threads.

It is clear that UNCLOS does not extend 12-mile limits to articifical constructs, and sets aside most historical claims.

China opted out of the historical claim part.

It is clear that China is simply going to very large and expensive measures to strengthen and enlarge its holdings in the SCS. They are doing so because they have made it clear that the SCS, to them, is a strategic imperative and that the world is going to recognize, one way or another, the reality of that intention and desire.

Other nations who claims in the SCS are speaking out and protesting.

The US who has its own vital interests in freedom of navigation and open SLOCs through the SC without impediment or overt control from a single nation...is challenging the PRC.

But, the situation continues, and China is rapidly making its intentions and its desires a fait accompli.

As with the other thread, I am going to temporarily close this thread...until Tuesday after Memorial Day (and extend the other one for the same time) so this can cool down and we can have the chance to move on.

Please review the last 3-4 pages of posts and the links I provided for in:

THIS POST

...and particularly PLAWOLF's response documenting where China opted out of particular historical provisions.

HEREhttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-109#post-342711https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-109#post-342711

THREAD TEMPORARILY CLOSED.

 

[Jeff Head]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<​

MODERATOR NOTICE:

Thread Re-opened.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<​

 

[Brumby]

For goodness sake, have you even taken the time to read what you are harping on about?

UNCLOS specifically states signitaries are free to opt out the provisions that China has opted out of.

You keep banging on like how China opting out of those provisions is some great cheat or breaking the rules, when in fact all China did was exercise the same options given to everyone single state who signed up to UNCLOS.

Firstly you need to practice what you preached and actually read what I have posted before you comment. Please point out a single post that I had made that states in my opinion that China is not allowed to opt out. I have expressed that China by opting out on a key tenet i.e. historic claim is acting in a disingenuous manner. You are using words that do not reflect what I have posted. If you disagree to the usage of “disingenuous” you are at liberty to offer a rebuttal and take me to task for that usage but please do act professionally by not misrepresenting my statements.

It is also hilarious how you want to impose all these moral constraints on China, while the sole superpower on the planet is infamous for its own refusal to allow any international body to impose any meaningful restraints on it's own behaviour.

The only nation on earth who is in any position to set the kind of example you want China to is the one most unwilling to do anything of the sort, and so long as American continues to practice American Expectionalism and harbours 'questionable' intentions towards China, China's leaders would have to be stupid and/or suicidal to play by the rules America itself is determined to not be bound by.

You should note that this is a thread on SCS and China. This is not a thread on US behavior. If you wish to comment (and as a distraction) talked about the US, then start one or go to a related thread and talked about all the things you do not agree with regards to US behavior. This thread is about China and Chinese actions. If you are passionate in defending China’s actions then do so on the merit of its actions and not hide behind your disagreement on acts of others. Stand on the basis of China’s actions and offer your defense on that basis. I urge you to be intellectually honest and deal specifically head on with the issues and not use the US actions as a smoke screen. That is plainly shallow defense along the nature that “the devil made me do it”. That type of defense is usually invoked for a deranged defendant. I believe China is acting belligerently and in many ways disingenuously but China is not deranged in its actions.

If China does not intend to be bound by international rules and wish to pursue a program against international order, then be prepared to defend its actions and actually articulate what legal principles it is basing on. The last time I checked, ambiguity may be a strategy but beyond that the world is still waiting on China to explain its actions on the basis of international norms and laws. Unfortunately I see a number of its actions which I can only described using words like lawlessness, belligerence, and duplicitous in its actions. Take for example the recent P8-A overflight exchange with a CNN reporter on board. The transcript recorded says it is a military zone. Subsequently Hong Lei of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said he had no information about the reported exchange, but China was "entitled to the surveillance over related airspace and sea areas so as to maintain national security and avoid any maritime accidents.

What we are seeing over the P8-A incident and the position from China is horse droppings of the highest order. There is no provision in UNCLOS or in international law the concept of a military zone in the high seas (that is lawlessness). The islands or rocks are in still in dispute. China has no right to enforce limitation on freedom of navigation and overflight in international waters and China is simply acting outside the international order (that is belligerence). Freedom of navigation and overflight in the high seas are fundamentals in UNCLOS and international laws of the sea which China has signed up on. China is acting unilaterally, against international laws and shipping out horse droppings in its statements to defend its position. The CNN story was a way to highlight China’s duplicitous behaviour.

You also seem to have an uncanny ability to filter out all the unreasonable or even downright thuggish acts of all the other claiments when passing judgements on Chinese actions.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, and many of the acts you are criticising China for are direct reactions to things other countries have done first.

I am happy to go to specifics. You can lay out China’s reactions and its justification based on the actions of other claimants and we can then look at the facts and see where they fall. Let’s put the issues in perspective.

What America is doing in the SCS is the same trick they tried with Russia - America encourages small countries to make provocations against China and only speak out when China reacts.

The only difference is that China has thus far showing considerably more restrained than Russia in dealing with these petty insults.

That is called playing with fire. America clearly learnt nothing from Goergia and Ukriane, and are banking on its naval superimancy and Chinese patients for things to not totally blow up in the SCS.

With America's military lead and Chinese patience both wearing thin, that is an ever more risky gamble each time America throws the dice, and for what?

Sometimes America's greatest enemy is itself. It is needlessly entangling itself in a dispute that has nothing to do with it, and which has little if any impact on American national interests. Yet by needlessly getting involved, it is placing a huge risk and potential vast cost on itself.

I am reiterating that this is a thread on the SCS and China. So let’s talk about China and its actions unless you find China’s actions indefensible.

If things keep going as they have been, once of these days, Vietnam or the Phillipines is going to miscalculate and step way over the line (they already had in the past, like opening fire on a Taiwanese fishing bait and killing the captain), and when China reflexively slaps them down, America is going to find itself with an impossible choice. Start a war it doesn't want or is guarenteed to win, or publically back-down.

This is a language loaded with intimidating words implying harm should countries stand up to its rights and is commonly found in Chinese official statements. I personally find this type of language distasteful, barbaric and unbecoming of a responsible state actor especially one aspiring to be a world power. They are typical of language of choice of bullies to block dissent to get what they want when they lack the moral high ground in its policies and arguments.

 

[advill]

China's military shows growing military assertiveness with its newly released Defence White Paper focusing on 4 critical areas (Seas & Oceans, Cyber Space, Outer Space & Nuclear Force). The Asian region's concern is the Seas & Ocean, in particular the South China Sea (80-90%) of which is China's claimed territorial waters. China categorically stated that it will defend its "waters" even it means hostilities. The Shangri-La Dialogue (Asia-Pacific Foremost Defence and Security Summit) will be held this weekend, and China's Vice-Chief of the PLA, an Admiral leading his Chinese military team is expected to reiterate its vigorous/determined defence enforcement of its claimed territorial waters. Countries, especially the effected ones Philippines & Vietnam, as well as the others in the region will be waiting to hear the US Secretary of Defence response to China. Joint military exercises like the impending US-Australia-Japan Exercises an perhaps others are expected to take place. The security of the region does not bode well.

 

[Blackstone]

Firstly you need to practice what you preached and actually read what I have posted before you comment. Please point out a single post that I had made that states in my opinion that China is not allowed to opt out. I have expressed that China by opting out on a key tenet i.e. historic claim is acting in a disingenuous manner. You are using words that do not reflect what I have posted. If you disagree to the usage of “disingenuous” you are at liberty to offer a rebuttal and take me to task for that usage but please do act professionally by not misrepresenting my statements.

Wait a sec here, hold your horses. China was upfront about opting out of some provisions of UNCLOS, and knowing that, all member states signed the treaty anyway. So, how does China doing what it said it would constitute disingenuouinty?

 

[Blackstone]

In my opinion this William Johnson's is simply writing an appeasement article devoid of intellectual substance not reflecting a career professional who should be knowledgeable in the law of the seas and principles of freedom of navigation embedded in UNCLOS and international law.

The facts are plain and simple :
(i) China has made some nebulous claims in the SCS. According to international law, this needs to be formalised so the actual disputes can be recognised. Notwithstanding, both Vietnam and the Philippines have made their appropriate protest commensurate with China's ambiguous position. This whole thing is in twilight zone;
(ii) There is no recognition of sovereignty to be had on the rocks or islands because of the status created in (ii) by China's sole actions;
(iii) Logically and legally from (iii), there is no sovereignty; territory seas, EEZ or whatever arising that has legal standing regardless of China's numerous statements;
(iv) Any imposition of military zone et al over and around he islands is without legal standing and against freedom of navigation on the high seas.
(v) Any assertive acts by China in imposing a zone is belligerent conduct reserved for a rouge state and the onus is on China to explain to the world the basis of its actions should it decide to act this way. The author is imply misplaced and misguided in its contents as not to test China simply because it might act irrationally against law and order.

Let's examine your rants with reason, shall we?

(i) China has made some nebulous claims in the SCS... yada yada.
China's claims was in place before UNCLOS was ratified, as were Vietnam and Philippines claims. If China's claims are "nebulous," why haven't we heard one peep out of such a reasonable individual as you? Bias is what I think it is. Mucho bias.

(ii) There is no recognition of sovereignty to be had on the rocks or islands because of the status created in (ii) by China's sole actions;
Claimants argue over sovereignty, so it's only natural they don't recognize each others claims. Also, what "sole" actions did China do? Did they harpoon migrating whales or something?

(iii) Logically and legally from (iii), there is no sovereignty; territory seas, EEZ or whatever arising that has legal standing regardless of China's numerous statements;
Repeating a false statement over and over doesn't make it true. All three claimants, Vietnam, Philippines, and China claimed sovereignty before UNCLOS, and some opted out of portions dealing with existing sovereignty claims.

(v) Any assertive acts by China in imposing a zone is belligerent bla, bla, bla. The author is imply misplaced and misguided in its contents as not to test China simply because it might act irrationally against law and order
Oh yeah, I get you now; China is the only assertive nation. Similar past actions by Vietnam and Philippines aren't assertive in the least. The reason is simple, China can't react to the Vietnam and Philippines changing the status quo, because... eh... well... it is China!

 

[Blackstone]

China's military shows growing military assertiveness with its newly released Defence White Paper focusing on 4 critical areas (Seas & Oceans, Cyber Space, Outer Space & Nuclear Force). The Asian region's concern is the Seas & Ocean, in particular the South China Sea (80-90%) of which is China's claimed territorial waters. China categorically stated that it will defend its "waters" even it means hostilities. The Shangri-La Dialogue (Asia-Pacific Foremost Defence and Security Summit) will be held this weekend, and China's Vice-Chief of the PLA, an Admiral leading his Chinese military team is expected to reiterate its vigorous/determined defence enforcement of its claimed territorial waters. Countries, especially the effected ones Philippines & Vietnam, as well as the others in the region will be waiting to hear the US Secretary of Defence response to China. Joint military exercises like the impending US-Australia-Japan Exercises an perhaps others are expected to take place. The security of the region does not bode well.

Say what? Has China officially claimed sovereignty over all of the waters within the 9-dash line? If so, its Foreign Ministry hasn't informed UN. Just so we're clear, whatever Western, Japanese, and Chinese pundits say about "blue national soil" and all that nonsense, it's not real until China's Foreign Ministry makes it official.

 

[Brumby]

Wait a sec here, hold your horses. China was upfront about opting out of some provisions of UNCLOS, and knowing that, all member states signed the treaty anyway. So, how does China doing what it said it would constitute disingenuouinty?

I have already addressed this in post #1086 and #1096. You are at liberty to offer under-cutters based on them.

 

[Brumby]

Let's examine your rants with reason, shall we?

(i) China has made some nebulous claims in the SCS... yada yada.
China's claims was in place before UNCLOS was ratified, as were Vietnam and Philippines claims. If China's claims are "nebulous," why haven't we heard one peep out of such a reasonable individual as you? Bias is what I think it is. Mucho bias.

This document was offered by another poster on this subject. It is a comprehensive document that outlines what constitutes a formal legal procedural claim in international affairs. You should at least take the time to understand the process before offering drive by comments.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Let's examine your rants with reason, shall we?
(ii) There is no recognition of sovereignty to be had on the rocks or islands because of the status created in (ii) by China's sole actions;
Claimants argue over sovereignty, so it's only natural they don't recognize each others claims. Also, what "sole" actions did China do? Did they harpoon migrating whales or something?

My mistake in the numbering. Reference to (ii) should read (i). The answer to your question is self evident from (i)

Let's examine your rants with reason, shall we?
(iii) Logically and legally from (iii), there is no sovereignty; territory seas, EEZ or whatever arising that has legal standing regardless of China's numerous statements;
Repeating a false statement over and over doesn't make it true. All three claimants, Vietnam, Philippines, and China claimed sovereignty before UNCLOS, and some opted out of portions dealing with existing sovereignty claims.

There is a dispute. No legal standing of sovereignty can be accorded or recognised until it is resolved. Logically and legally, recognition is in limbo. There is no legitimate source for China to impose any zones by simple reasoning.

(v) Any assertive acts by China in imposing a zone is belligerent bla, bla, bla. The author is imply misplaced and misguided in its contents as not to test China simply because it might act irrationally against law and order
Oh yeah, I get you now; China is the only assertive nation. Similar past actions by Vietnam and Philippines aren't assertive in the least. The reason is simple, China can't react to the Vietnam and Philippines changing the status quo, because... eh... well... it is China!

Please read the context of the author's comments in that article which is the source of my comments. Your comments do not suggest you understand my comments at best or plainly not made in good faith at worst.