China's SCS Strategy Thread

joshuatree

Captain
If my understanding is correct, if you read article 60 and the following sub clauses, the reference to artificial islands and the 500m limitation is about restricting any construction to no more than 500 m. As such, China's reclamation is already in contravention of UNCLOS.

I'm not sure how you derived an artificial installation can be no more than 500 meters itself. I see this in Article 60.

"4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such artificial islands, installations and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of the artificial islands, installations and structures.

5. The breadth of the safety zones shall be determined by the coastal State, taking into account applicable international standards. Such zones shall be designed to ensure that they are reasonably related to the nature and function of the artificial islands, installations or structures, and shall not exceed a distance of 500 metres around them, measured from each point of their outer edge, except as authorized by generally accepted international standards or as recommended by the competent international organization. Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones.

6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones."

Reclamation is not in contravention of UNCLOS as it affords a state the right to build artificial installations within their EEZs and it's well within range of Taiping's EEZ. Let's not get into what EEZ overlap does Taiping have since that is yet to be resolved. But yet to be resolved does not mean in contravention.


The terms of the convention is well known and so are US actions. If US behaves in a manner inconsistent with UNCLOS they should be taken to task. The reason why the US has not ratified it is well known and I do not wish to offer any defence of its actions. You or anyone is free to criticize the current state in any way you want.

Define taken to task? The fact that the US has not ratified UNCLOS does not subject them to it so how do others take them to task within those channels? Confrontation out there as we are seeing now?


International law and long-standing State practice recognizes the right of all nations to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance operations beyond the territorial sea of any nation...

At this point, we're demonstrating the very observation I made a while back. UNCLOS in order to get the bulk of nations on board, purposefully left things vague, even potentially contradictory and becomes subject to interpretation. As I've said before, Right now, your interpretation is different from mine Which is why I believe UNCLOS created new problems in its attempt to resolve others.

For the sake of this thread, I agree with some other posters that its been debated to death here because both interpretations can go back and forth forever.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
No. That is not my perception because legitimacy to deploy military assets in a territory is grounded on sovereignty i.e. legitimacy and not bolstered by military assets if lacking legitimacy. The latter is simply aggression and lawlessness.

What I meant was, do you perceive China is seeking to deploy military assets in the area (including airpower on islands and likely more naval ships in international waters) to bolster its claims AKA to use military assets to try and assert legitimacy and more power to defend its claims militarily. Let's leave out words like aggression or lawlessness because virtually all nations involved in disputes at that part of the ocean have stationed military assets on their claimed islands and it'll get tiring calling all of them aggressive and lawless.
And of course deploying naval vessels to the area in international waters is perfectly legal (as the US often reminds China) even if it can be seen as aggressive.


All nations in their claimed islands do have legitimate reasons to try and base military assets there, I think -- and many do. If the question is regarding legitimacy to deploy military aircraft on reefs like Fiery Cross, to get across the "legitimacy" issue we can call it an aircraft carrying reef rather than a sovereign island -- i.e.: the reef is still administered by China and lacks a 12nmi territory, but it just happens to also have an airfield as well. (The 12nmi issue doesn't really come into play for the purpose of my question anyway, because whether or not Fiery Cross has a 12nmi doesn't mean China has no legitimacy to base planes there -- unless we're saying artificial reclaimed territory built atop a nation's reefs are not still not their territory)

My original question was more interested in asking why you thought China was more interested in deploying military assets there -- to assert territorial claims, or to protect SLOCs, or both?
Legitimacy in the ability to deploy military assets either on an island or around it doesn't really come into it.
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
When the US talks about "Freedom of Navigation" in the SCS, they really mean freedom of MILITARY navigation. It makes no sense for China to restrict any commercial navigation in the region. Military navigation, on the other hand, China has been quite clear in their opposition.

This goes back to my idea that the SCS islands have vital strategic interests for China. By having a strong naval presense in the SCS region, China can make it much more difficult for the US to conduct coastal surveillance against Hainan, and we know that Hainan is home to a "secret" PLAN nuclear submarine base.
 

joshuatree

Captain
This goes back to my idea that the SCS islands have vital strategic interests for China. By having a strong naval presense in the SCS region, China can make it much more difficult for the US to conduct coastal surveillance against Hainan, and we know that Hainan is home to a "secret" PLAN nuclear submarine base.

Agree, the new islands would help China create their own mini island chain. And within this island chain, it will have enhanced tracking ability to keep tabs on other states' military assets traversing the area. Having more intel on potential enemy movement effectively creates more breathing room as the enemy now has to contend that they don't have the element of surprise. making them more cautious in approach. The real asset of these islands isn't the basing of military weapons on them. It's the ability to support and stage better surveillance further out than before.
 

janjak desalin

Junior Member
(...) This goes back to my idea that the SCS islands have vital strategic interests for China. By having a strong naval presense in the SCS region, China can make it much more difficult for the US to conduct coastal surveillance against Hainan, ...
yes, after projecting an estimated combat radius of the j-16 over fiery cross reef, its centrality to, and strategic significance within, the SCS became immediately evident. a base at this location not only affords combat and surveillance aircraft to access the whole of the SCS, but, as joshuatree suggests above,
(...) The real asset of these islands isn't the basing of military weapons on them. It's the ability to support and stage better surveillance further out than before.
agreed! its centrality also provides an optimal position from which static sensory installations can achieve many types of surveillance objectives, all from the heart of the action. for a less threatening example, i projected wikipedia's reported estimated radius of the KJ-2000 radar against fighter sized objects (470 km) onto fiery cross reef and the image, once again, makes evident the prominence of this position.
KJ-2000.jpg
with an estimated range of 590 km, the ground based JY-14, Great Wall, long range air defense radar,and later developments, would provide even more impressive coverage.
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
What I meant was, do you perceive China is seeking to deploy military assets in the area (including airpower on islands and likely more naval ships in international waters) to bolster its claims AKA to use military assets to try and assert legitimacy and more power to defend its claims militarily.
In my view, the answer is dependent on China's intentions and how it intends to play out the issue. One way to look at it is the traditional view that possession is 9/10th of the law. You place your marker on an island and work through the mediation process with other countries which is effectively what the others are doing. In international law there is a three part test and demonstrating administration over an island in my view is not dependent on the size of your military assets placed to administer. The second approach is simply to use military might to have your way with no intention to actually go through the due legal process of presenting your case. I think you might do that because your case is weak or the rules are stacked against you and you feel that it the best course of action in the name of national interest. It is my view that China is pursuing the latter because of its unwillingness to present its case.

Let's leave out words like aggression or lawlessness because virtually all nations involved in disputes at that part of the ocean have stationed military assets on their claimed islands and it'll get tiring calling all of them aggressive and lawless.
No worries if you think the description is not appropriate and may be offensive to others.

And of course deploying naval vessels to the area in international waters is perfectly legal (as the US often reminds China) even if it can be seen as aggressive.
Aggression is an action not being present. It is the inherent right of every navy to sail the high sea including China. I don't think anybody is suggesting or complaining about the presence of the Chinese navy. The issue will be judged on its behaviour towards others and that includes the USN.

All nations in their claimed islands do have legitimate reasons to try and base military assets there, I think -- and many do.
I would not describe it as legitimate but rather extenuating reasons and that applies to all claimants.

If the question is regarding legitimacy to deploy military aircraft on reefs like Fiery Cross, to get across the "legitimacy" issue we can call it an aircraft carrying reef rather than a sovereign island -- i.e.: the reef is still administered by China and lacks a 12nmi territory, but it just happens to also have an airfield as well. (The 12nmi issue doesn't really come into play for the purpose of my question anyway, because whether or not Fiery Cross has a 12nmi doesn't mean China has no legitimacy to base planes there -- unless we're saying artificial reclaimed territory built atop a nation's reefs are not still not their territory)
The problem with your story are twofold. Firstly, there is a dispute and so any administration whether it is by China or the other claimants do not have legitimacy i.e. it lacks recognition by others. This is precisely the reason why the USN is making the transit into the area to demonstrate this point. Many failed to understand this act in international law that failure to make this point implies tacit agreement to China's claims. This is no different to the US sending 2 B-52's into the ADIZ over the ESC during the initial set up. It is a political message in international relations and international law. Without an understanding of international laws some of these acts might seem trivial and unnecessary but they are not. Secondly what is the difference between an aircraft carrier and an artificial reef carrying planes? The former is in transit but the latter is staking a claim over something because it is stationary. No message is louder than placing military assets over a disputed territory especially the type that are considered to have offensive capabilities. That is simply escalatory and projecting non peaceful intentions. It is PR and narrative management and China is making serious mistakes in my view. First it was the overflight restrictions and now by moving more serious military hardware unto the island.

My original question was more interested in asking why you thought China was more interested in deploying military assets there -- to assert territorial claims, or to protect SLOCs, or both?
Legitimacy in the ability to deploy military assets either on an island or around it doesn't really come into it.
Legitimacy in international order is more important than military might. I think failure to understand this point or ignoring it underscores why in my view is driving all the wrong actions on China's part.
 

joshuatree

Captain
yes, after projecting an estimated combat radius of the j-16 over fiery cross reef, its centrality to, and strategic significance within, the SCS became immediately evident. a base at this location not only affords combat and surveillance aircraft to access the whole of the SCS, but, as joshuatree suggests above,
agreed! its centrality also provides an optimal position from which static sensory installations can achieve many types of surveillance objectives, all from the heart of the action. for a less threatening example, i projected wikipedia's reported estimated radius of the KJ-2000 radar against fighter sized objects (470 km) onto fiery cross reef and the image, once again, makes evident the prominence of this position.
View attachment 14221
with an estimated range of 590 km, the ground based JY-14, Great Wall, long range air defense radar,and later developments, would provide even more impressive coverage.

If you add another radius with Woody Island at its center, you can see a very effective coverage attained. And let's not forget underwater surveillance. Hydrophones at multiple sites can help triangulate an object of interest.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
In my view, the answer is dependent on China's intentions and how it intends to play out the issue. One way to look at it is the traditional view that possession is 9/10th of the law. You place your marker on an island and work through the mediation process with other countries which is effectively what the others are doing. In international law there is a three part test and demonstrating administration over an island in my view is not dependent on the size of your military assets placed to administer. The second approach is simply to use military might to have your way with no intention to actually go through the due legal process of presenting your case. I think you might do that because your case is weak or the rules are stacked against you and you feel that it the best course of action in the name of national interest. It is my view that China is pursuing the latter because of its unwillingness to present its case.

I see -- so in other words you believe China is deploying military assets to basically bolster its claim (colloquially speaking).
The other part of my question was: do you believe deployment of Chinese military assets to the area and/or onto the islands is also related to its desire to project power into SCS related to greater outreach independent of the territorial dispute issue (defending SLOCs and greater defensive and surveillance capabilities in SCS overall) -- or is it only because China wants to effectively use military muscle to enforce its claim?

I'd also like to note that all nations there do use military assets to bolster their claim, and I think deploying military assets cannot simply be reduced down to "unwillingness to present one's case". They also act as bargaining chips, surveying other nations' activities, maintaining a presence, and of course guarding against foreign incursion.


No worries if you think the description is not appropriate and may be offensive to others.

Well not due to offensiveness per se, but more because on a defence forum I think we can be candid about certain ideas like aggression or lawlessness in a geopolitical or territorial dispute context. Actions can be seen as interest and capability and materially driven, and laws are only there to facilitate and prohibit certain explicit interests and capabilities which are beyond the red line.


Aggression is an action not being present. It is the inherent right of every navy to sail the high sea including China. I don't think anybody is suggesting or complaining about the presence of the Chinese navy. The issue will be judged on its behaviour towards others and that includes the USN.

Being present at a particular place is an action in itself, and no navy is ever only "present" at a location -- they are always doing some operation or another.


I would not describe it as legitimate but rather extenuating reasons and that applies to all claimants.

Okay, I don't disagree with that.


The problem with your story are twofold. Firstly, there is a dispute and so any administration whether it is by China or the other claimants do not have legitimacy i.e. it lacks recognition by others. This is precisely the reason why the USN is making the transit into the area to demonstrate this point. Many failed to understand this act in international law that failure to make this point implies tacit agreement to China's claims. This is no different to the US sending 2 B-52's into the ADIZ over the ESC during the initial set up. It is a political message in international relations and international law. Without an understanding of international laws some of these acts might seem trivial and unnecessary but they are not. Secondly what is the difference between an aircraft carrier and an artificial reef carrying planes? The former is in transit but the latter is staking a claim over something because it is stationary. No message is louder than placing military assets over a disputed territory especially the type that are considered to have offensive capabilities. That is simply escalatory and projecting non peaceful intentions. It is PR and narrative management and China is making serious mistakes in my view. First it was the overflight restrictions and now by moving more serious military hardware unto the island.

I agree that legitimacy of sovereignty regarding the fiery cross reef is an issue as much as it is for all claimants and all disputed islands.
However from what I understand the USN is constantly making FON challenges in the area to many countries as a means of maintaining the right of FON (possibly within another nation's EEZ) rather than specifically one's own territorial claim to a particular island.

Whether the legitimacy of reefs like Fiery Cross have a 12nmi territorial zone OTOH is another matter entirely and I can understand the US considering to challenge it.

Regarding military deploying military assets -- I agree that no message is louder, and China has been seeing and hearing that message broadcasted on all frequencies by US bases and forward deployed assets in westpac, and are now seeking to reach out itself, in response to extenuating circumstances in the area. I can agree with you if you say China doing this is as much of an issue as say, Taiwan deploying C-130Hs or Perry frigates to Taiping island or any other nation deploying marines or aircraft onto their own occupied islands, however I do not agree with you if you believe that China doesn't have as much of a right to deploy military assets onto certain islands (reclaimed or not), as other nations as they all individually see fit.

The ECS ADIZ is also a wholly different matter entirely which was somewhat simpler than the SCS territorial dispute. I was amused at USAF sending B-52s to ECS ADIZ given the whole point of an ADIZ is for nations to have the right to identify potential threats which do not acknowledge the ADIZ.


Legitimacy in international order is more important than military might. I think failure to understand this point or ignoring it underscores why in my view is driving all the wrong actions on China's part.

I think you severely underestimate the potency of military might (and any kind of might) in producing legitimacy. In fact I'd argue the perception of legitimacy only arises when one has such overwhelming power that others cannot help but agree to certain parts of regulations and rules which they might otherwise reject.

But let's ignore all that.

I want to separate the hypothetical deployment of assets into two distinct categories to see whether you believe them to be legitimate.
1: deployment of any military asset by any claimant of the SCS dispute onto their islands. Whether it is a marine garrison or a wing of flankers. In principle, are you equally opposed to anyone doing this?
2: deployment of a naval task force into SCS international waters on a long term duration -- not seeking to invade any other nation or take anyone's islands. The ships will include, say, two DDGs, two FFGs, two AORs, and an amphibious assault ship or carrier. The task force may or may not make port calls and exercises with a few SCS nations in the area, but for most of the time will conduct surveillance and patrol missions in SCS. Some nations may be opposed to the presence of Chinese military vessels there but the taskforce itself won't be raising any kind of military alert zone or what not -- so long as opposing surveillance aircraft or ships remain a sensible distance away there won't be a protest. However it is quite obvious that the ships have great warfighting capability and the capacity for land attack, air patrol, and/or limited amphibious assault capabilities.

If you agree in principle that no claimant should be doing "1" then I would be satisfied with the answer. I am personally of the opinion that in a territorial dispute if all sides have proven unfaithful to each other then they have the right to escalate to a sensible degree, but you don't have to agree to this.
If you acknowledge that China also has the right/legitimacy to do "2" despite the protests of some SCS nations -- which is similar to the kinds of missions that USN does on a regular basis -- then we will also agree.
 

Brumby

Major
I see -- so in other words you believe China is deploying military assets to basically bolster its claim (colloquially speaking).
No that is not what I mean because I don't think you can bolster a claim by military means because legitimacy is grounded upon legal merits in accordance with international law. What China is doing is reinforcing its position through military means i.e. through might. It has taken a position and that is it has sovereignty - period. In contrast, a claim means there is observation of due legal process.

The other part of my question was: do you believe deployment of Chinese military assets to the area and/or onto the islands is also related to its desire to project power into SCS related to greater outreach independent of the territorial dispute issue (defending SLOCs and greater defensive and surveillance capabilities in SCS overall) -- or is it only because China wants to effectively use military muscle to enforce its claim?
If China's aim is to deploy military assets unto the island to project power then I would have to say the timing sucks and is a terrible tactical move given the sensitivity of the island dispute. I am not even sure why the question of defending SLOC even comes into the equation. Is there any suggestion that the SLOC is under threat? I have no view on China's long term strategic vision and any views would be speculation.

I'd also like to note that all nations there do use military assets to bolster their claim, and I think deploying military assets cannot simply be reduced down to "unwillingness to present one's case". They also act as bargaining chips, surveying other nations' activities, maintaining a presence, and of course guarding against foreign incursion.
Do not disagree up to a point. Specifically the problem arises when you place offensive weapons as opposed to defensive ones. The Cuban missile crisis came about not because Cuba had military assets but when offensive missiles were placed on the island.

Being present at a particular place is an action in itself, and no navy is ever only "present" at a location -- they are always doing some operation or another.
Transiting through while I do not disagree involves some activity it is nevertheless a passive one and benign in nature. Aggression by definition is a targeted action against someone.

I agree that legitimacy of sovereignty regarding the fiery cross reef is an issue as much as it is for all claimants and all disputed islands.
However from what I understand the USN is constantly making FON challenges in the area to many countries as a means of maintaining the right of FON (possibly within another nation's EEZ) rather than specifically one's own territorial claim to a particular island.

Whether the legitimacy of reefs like Fiery Cross have a 12nmi territorial zone OTOH is another matter entirely and I can understand the US considering to challenge it.

Challenging the zone is signalling non recognition of China's claim of the status and that is what is meant to accomplish.

Regarding military deploying military assets -- I agree that no message is louder, and China has been seeing and hearing that message broadcasted on all frequencies by US bases and forward deployed assets in westpac, and are now seeking to reach out itself, in response to extenuating circumstances in the area. I can agree with you if you say China doing this is as much of an issue as say, Taiwan deploying C-130Hs or Perry frigates to Taiping island or any other nation deploying marines or aircraft onto their own occupied islands, however I do not agree with you if you believe that China doesn't have as much of a right to deploy military assets onto certain islands (reclaimed or not), as other nations as they all individually see fit.
The issue so far that I have expressed is not whether any of the claimants have more or greater rights in deploying military assets. In fact as I expressed, the mistake China made was in challenging the USN in navigation rights and passage. Until then, the US had no leg to intervene but can only comment from outside the box. China's actions gave the US a point of entry into the dispute.

The ECS ADIZ is also a wholly different matter entirely which was somewhat simpler than the SCS territorial dispute. I was amused at USAF sending B-52s to ECS ADIZ given the whole point of an ADIZ is for nations to have the right to identify potential threats which do not acknowledge the ADIZ.
I think you are mistaken. ADIZ enforcement according to international laws can only insist on identification if the intend is to enter into the country's territory zone. In transit flights are not required to disclose if there is no intention of entering the territory. This is fundamental to right of passage in international airspace. This is how the US and as I understand it by Japan and South Korea in enforcing ADIZ and is contrary to what China is doing.


I think you severely underestimate the potency of military might (and any kind of might) in producing legitimacy. In fact I'd argue the perception of legitimacy only arises when one has such overwhelming power that others cannot help but agree to certain parts of regulations and rules which they might otherwise reject.
That would simply be what some countries thought that lead to WW2

I want to separate the hypothetical deployment of assets into two distinct categories to see whether you believe them to be legitimate.
1: deployment of any military asset by any claimant of the SCS dispute onto their islands. Whether it is a marine garrison or a wing of flankers. In principle, are you equally opposed to anyone doing this?
UN Charter basically states that all disputes should be resolved peacefully. That is mirrored in UNCLOS which have similar language. When you state deployment of military assets unto the islands the assumption here is you are referring to deployment unto disputed territories and not deployment of military assets unto adjoining islands not in dispute. At the most basic any actions that would escalate and complicate matters would deviate from the UN Charter and UNCLOS. When you place military assets, the type also starts to shift across the spectrum and moves it further from the UN Charter.

2: deployment of a naval task force into SCS international waters on a long term duration -- not seeking to invade any other nation or take anyone's islands. The ships will include, say, two DDGs, two FFGs, two AORs, and an amphibious assault ship or carrier. The task force may or may not make port calls and exercises with a few SCS nations in the area, but for most of the time will conduct surveillance and patrol missions in SCS. Some nations may be opposed to the presence of Chinese military vessels there but the taskforce itself won't be raising any kind of military alert zone or what not -- so long as opposing surveillance aircraft or ships remain a sensible distance away there won't be a protest. However it is quite obvious that the ships have great warfighting capability and the capacity for land attack, air patrol, and/or limited amphibious assault capabilities.
The answer is simple. FON is guaranteed in international waters. The type of military assets is irrelevant.

If you agree in principle that no claimant should be doing "1" then I would be satisfied with the answer. I am personally of the opinion that in a territorial dispute if all sides have proven unfaithful to each other then they have the right to escalate to a sensible degree, but you don't have to agree to this.
If you acknowledge that China also has the right/legitimacy to do "2" despite the protests of some SCS nations -- which is similar to the kinds of missions that USN does on a regular basis -- then we will also agree.

I am not aware that there is protest over the presence of the Chinese Navy. Is that factually correct? I am aware though that there was (I think) attempts by the Chinese Navy in preventing supply to a Philippines outpost and in the Cowpen incident where the Chinese Navy did not behave according to international rules.
 
Top