China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blackstone]

Janes' Defense has a short article on China's envoy dismissing international SCS concerns at the recent Shangri-La Dialogue. It looks like China will stay its course no matter who objects.
Shangri-La Dialogue: China dismisses international pressure on South China Sea reclamation efforts

It came as little surprise that China's top envoy to the 14 th Shangri-La Dialogue, Admiral Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of the People Liberation Army's (PLA's) General Staff Department, asserted that his country's ongoing island building in the South China Sea was well within its sovereign rights and "legitimate, justified and reasonable" despite growing international disquiet.

Key issues raised by participants at the annual security summit, held in Singapore from 29-31 May, included concerns over the speed at which China is building land and improving infrastructure in the South China Sea.

Preoccupations have also grown over the facilities that are concurrently being constructed on these artificial islands, some of which, as revealed in IHS Jane's satellite imagery analysis, include harbours, communications and surveillance systems, logistics support, and at least one runway; the very same infrastructure that - a US Department of Defense (DoD) report published in April 2015 asserted - would enable China to "significantly enhance its presence in the disputed area" by being employed as bases.

The summit also came a day after media reports, citing US sources, claimed that China had deployed two "motorised artillery pieces" of unspecified type on one of its islands. While those weapons were apparently removed, the revelation prompted further concern over Beijing's intentions about these islands.

At Shangri-La, Adm Sun painted a picture of stability and calm. "At present, the situation in the South China Sea is on the whole peaceful and stable, and there has never been an issue with the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea," he said. "China has carried out construction on some islands and reefs in the South China Sea mainly for the purpose of improving the functions of the relevant islands and reefs and the working and living conditions of personnel stationed there.

"Apart from meeting the necessary defence needs, it is more geared to better perform China's international responsibilities and obligations regarding maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and relief, maritime scientific research, meteorological observation, environmental protection, safety of navigation, and fishery production services," he added, noting that work was being carried out on two new lighthouses on the Huayang Reef and Chigua Reef - known internationally as the Cuarteron and Johnson South Reefs, respectively - for the provision of "international public services".

However, other regional stakeholders remain wary of Beijing's motives, with calls by both claimant and non-claimant countries in Southeast Asia for a Code of Conduct (CoC) between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Singapore was the first among them, when in his opening address, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged both parties to conclude a CoC on the South China Sea with due haste in order to "break the vicious cycle" of the current disputes.

"[We are] more than aware of what is at stake in the South China Sea … that is why we have consistently advocated that diplomacy takes precedence in approaching this dispute," echoed Malaysian Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein. "We remain convinced that a CoC is the best way to govern the competing claims to the waters, and urge that consultations be intensified.

"If we are not careful, it could certainly escalate into one of the deadliest conflicts of our time, if not our history," he warned.

All eyes were on US defence secretary Ashton Carter, who was unequivocal in his condemnation of the ongoing reclamation in the disputed waters. While he conceded that almost all of the claimant countries had conducted development of varying scope and size in the Spratly Islands, including Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam, he nevertheless singled out Beijing during his much anticipated address, his first at the summit.

"China has reclaimed over 2,000 acres, more than all other claimants combined, and more than in the entire history of the region," said Carter, noting that this concern has been a source of tension in the region. "And China did so in only the last 18 months. It is unclear how much further China will go."

Unlike his predecessor, Chuck Hagel, who at the 2014 conference accused Beijing of advancing unilateral claims in the South China Sea "through intimidation and coercion" with "destabilising" consequences for regional security, Carter was more circumspect, asserting that the United States believes that all claimant countries should cease reclamation activities to seek an amicable resolution to the impasse. However, he reasserted that the United States would continue to enforce its rights to unfettered access to international airspace and waterways

Chinese officials responded immediately, among them Senior Colonel Zhao Xiaozhuo, deputy director general of the China-US Defense Relations Research Center at the PLA's Academy of Military Science, who criticised Carter's comments as "groundless and not constructive".

 

[Ultra]

I find it interesting the different apprach US used in dealing with China and Russia. US felt they can bully China into submission using military show of force, flying aircrafts over the disputed territory even though US is not a claimant, and readying for massive military escalation by moving more of its force to the pacific and building more bases in allied countries.

On the other hand, dealing with Russia is purely economic sanction, and HARSH WORDS. LOL!
eg.
US considering harder stance on Russia, report says

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Officials within the Pentagon reportedly have begun using harsher military terms such as deterrence instead of reassurance, the newspaper reports."

Yeh, harsher words will work!


Why the difference?

 

[SampanViking]

I find it interesting the different apprach US used in dealing with China and Russia. US felt they can bully China into submission using military show of force, flying aircrafts over the disputed territory even though US is not a claimant, and readying for massive military escalation by moving more of its force to the pacific and building more bases in allied countries.

On the other hand, dealing with Russia is purely economic sanction, and HARSH WORDS. LOL!
eg.
US considering harder stance on Russia, report says

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Officials within the Pentagon reportedly have begun using harsher military terms such as deterrence instead of reassurance, the newspaper reports."

Yeh, harsher words will work!


Why the difference?

The difference is that this is still pretty much the first round with China, while they have already gone the distance the Russia. It is therefore a very different game.

I still struggle to see the point of the US Strategy in this, as I cannot see what they hope to achieve.
If the USN sail past any of these Islands, they will simply create an incident, to which the PRC will simply issue a Demarche and a vocal protest in the UN.
If the USN repeatedly sails past they will create a number of incidents, each with a corresponding demarche and protest.
All I see this achieving is giving the PRC a "paper trail" that it can use to justify any stronger action further down the line.
I also question whether or not such action would solidify any kind of international support behind the US. International diplomacy dislikes precedents as they occur outside of the comfort zone of established protocol. Some nations may support such action from the US, but many others may well prefer the precedent set by the PRC as it would help facilitate claims of their own and will not welcome anything that would challenge that position.

Finally of course, if the USN does more than simply sail by, then they will have declared war on the PRC and would of course entail all that which would be the natural consequence.

 

[Jeff Head]

Simply sailing past these islands should not be any kind of issue. And I think that is part of the point.

As long as the US Navy vessel, or any other vessel for that matter, does not intrude on what are acceptable territorial rights, there is no issue,.

But that is the rub for these islands since they are not natural islands there is some significant discussion about whether they get a 12-mile limit...3-mile...or 500 yards, etc. But as long as something along those lines (perhaps down to a 2-3 mile distance) are maintained, I expect there will be no trouble.

But since with artificially created islands there is some question, this is what the US is in the process of testing. That line needs to be firmly determined...and for all parties.

I suspect at some point, the UN or the international community will resolve it. Until it does, the US is probably going to test the 12 mile limit for these islands. I do not expect them to land on the islands, or to get within a mile or two...but that is what the vessels in the area about IMHO.

Now, the idea that the US can request that the PRC stop their reclamation is certainly something they can request...but it is also something that is ludicrous. I do not think there is a snow ball's chance in you know where that such a request will be accepted by the PRC. Heck, when the US tried to get other nations to agree to it as some sort of lever...even they said no. And understandably so.

No, I expect the US will continue to test the limits of freedom of navigation around the islands and that the PRC will probably complain until such a time that both sides, or the international community comes together and agrees what it should be.

I also expect the US to try and make these requests about the Reclamation and see them rebuffed, and the PRC will go on and complete every reclamation project they start on reefs that they possess.

In the end, I expect the PRC will do their extensive reclamation...and I expect that freedom of navigation will be established in the area and respected. We just may have to go though some back and forth, complaints, and discussion in the meant time...as long as either side doesn't do something foolish and escalate it beyond that. I do not expect that to happen...and hope and pray it does not.

 

[Blackstone]

...
But that is the rub for these islands since they are not natural islands there is some significant discussion about whether they get a 12-mile limit...3-mile...or 500 yards, etc. But as long as something along those lines (perhaps down to a 2-3 mile distance) are maintained, I expect there will be no trouble.

But since with artificially created islands there is some question, this is what the US is in the process of testing. That line needs to be firmly determined...and for all parties.

I suspect at some point, the UN or the international community will resolve it. Until it does, the US is probably going to test the 12 mile limit for these islands. I do not expect them to land on the islands, or to get within a mile or two...but that is what the vessels in the area about IMHO.

Quite so, Jeff. It's not clear what territorial limits artificial islands get, but as a USN officer was quoted (CNN?) a few days ago, and I paraphrase, "we're not sure who owns what (in SCS), but we're sure they're not ours." As you pointed out, the UN needs to get involved and clarify.

No, I expect the US will continue to test the limits of freedom of navigation around the islands and that the PRC will probably complain until such a time that both sides, or the international community comes together and agrees what it should be.

Let's be clear PRC isn't concerned about established civil norms, it wants to change military freedom of navigation. US media seldom differentiate the two.

I also expect the US to try and make these requests about the Reclamation and see them rebuffed, and the PRC will go on and complete every reclamation project they start on reefs that they possess.

IMHO, US has no legs to stand on SCS reclamations, legally or morally. It pretends to take no sides on SCS sovereignty, and said nothing when all other claimants expanded and fortified their outposts/bases. But when China follows suit and expand its holdings, US jumps the shark and complain 'NO FAIR! Sure, others did it too, but you do it better!'

In the end, I expect the PRC will do their extensive reclamation...and I expect that freedom of navigation will be established in the area and respected. We just may have to go though some back and forth, complaints, and discussion in the meant time...as long as nether side does not make a foolish mistake and escalate it beyond that. I do not expect that to happen...and hope and pray it does not.

The fallout is China tightens its grip on the SCS, US, despite overwhelming might, is seen as impotent, and other claimants left with no realistic choices but go back to Beijing for bi-lateral negotiations. Worst of all, US polls show most Americans want nothing to do with military conflicts over rocks in oceans, but Xi Jinping enjoys overwhelming support from the Chinese public and the Communist apparatchik.

 

[Geographer]

The UN Law of the Sea is clear that artificial islands DO NOT get territorial waters or an exclusive economic zone.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.

Earlier in that section it says coastal states have exclusive rights to construct artificial islands in their EEZs. Since China claims EEZs from Taiping and all other Spraty Islands, this is not a contradiction on Chinese policy. But if China ever started reclamation on Scarborough Reef which is well inside the Philippines' EEZ and no where near any Chinese-claimed natural island, it would illegal.

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

 

[joshuatree]

But if China ever started reclamation on Scarborough Reef which is well inside the Philippines' EEZ and no where near any Chinese-claimed natural island, it would illegal.

Actually, Scarborough Shoal itself is above high tide and is entitled to its own 12 NM territorial sea. So a state could legally reclaim on top of it without violating the EEZ of the Philippines. Infact, the Philippine govt classified Scarborough Shoal under UNCLOS as a Regime of Islands which in my opinion indicated their intent. Rather than simply classifying Scarborough as a feature within the EEZ from the Philippine mainland, calling it as a ROI enables Scarborough to be eligible for its own EEZ, (Article 121 is a little vague on the issue of ability to generate economic activity to qualify for an EEZ). This will further extend the reach of Filipino EEZ out west. So it amounts to nothing but another claimant trying to maximize their claims. The part that wasn't anticipated was the 2012 standoff and contention of the shoal. But the Philippines can't backtrack on filing Scarborough as ROI with the UN so its lawyers with the present case are merely asking to overlook the 12 NM around Scarborough and not resolve sovereignty of it because that would make their UNCLOS case overstep UNCLOS's jurisdiction and risk it being thrown out.

So to go back to the issue of Chinese reclamation, if they did at Scarborough, it would be legal but the issue would be contention of who has sovereignty.

And of the features that have been reclaimed, some actually do have rocks above high tide so some actually should be entitled to 12 NM. This is something the US has to carefully identify first if they opt for action of crossing the 12 NM mark. Because even if the US does not recognize Chinese sovereignty of those features, it would mean it is still someone's 12 NM territorial sea that they've violated and it's already contentious that they haven't ratified UNCLOS but wants to enforce it.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Let's be clear PRC isn't concerned about established civil norms, it wants to change military freedom of navigation. US media seldom differentiate the two.

The door sways both ways you know.
If military navigation is somehow limited within another nation's EEZ then PRC's passage through the Okinawa archipelago will also be limited making the containment theory self fulfilling.

 

[Blackstone]

The door sways both ways you know.
If military navigation is somehow limited within another nation's EEZ then PRC's passage through the Okinawa archipelago will also be limited making the containment theory self fulfilling.

Got it in one, Mr. Blue! That's the problem in China's position to regulate foreign military passage in their EEZ. Japan, or any other country can regulate PLAx activities too. Things get tricky in very narrow waterways as you could imagine, but what's good for the goose is good for the gender, and Japan is simply too big to push around like Philippines, even without the USA.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

It also violate international law of the sea, namely UNCLOS assuring safe passage through EEZ which PRC is a signatory of. Sorry but you really do not get it do you.