China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blitzo]

I'm not sure what you mean, Blitzo. I said nothing about whether the PLA general's statement was correctly quoted or not, and I could see it either way. I said the Japanese Navy doesn't need China's permission to sail in the SCS, as long as it stays out of internationally recognized territorial waters, and I stand by that.

I never said whether you quoted the statement correctly or not, but whether you interpreted it correctly or not.

By saying "the Japanese Navy doesn't need China's permission to sail in the SCS, as long as it stays out of internationally recognized territorial waters," most people would infer that you believe China is denying the JMSDF permission to sail in SCS, or seeking to impose some kind of navigational restriction.

Let's put this to a simple yes/no question -- do you believe that the General is making a statement that suggests Japan needs the "permission" of China to sail in SCS (in other words, that China is seeking to impose any kind of navigational restriction in SCS against JMSDF at this time)?
If yes, then my challenge regarding your interpretation of the General's statement remains.
If no, then great, I'm confused as to why you mention this phrase in the first place: "the Japanese Navy doesn't need China's permission to sail in the SCS, as long as it stays out of internationally recognized territorial waters"... because if you do not believe China is seeking to impose any kind of navigational restriction against JMSDF then aren't you preaching to the choir?

I'm being very anal about this particular subject, because freedom of navigation and the legality of China "imposing" any kind of navigation restriction against JMSDF was never mentioned in the article and the fact that we have two or more pages of discussion regarding this topic I think is mostly because of your additional comments suggesting that China is seeking to impose such restrictions as the original article itself did not mention anything about such restrictions or "permission"
If you take back the original suggestion, then that would clear up and make moot a lot of the previous discussion and clarify the actual situation.

 

[Blackstone]

I never said whether you quoted the statement correctly or not, but whether you interpreted it correctly or not.

By saying "the Japanese Navy doesn't need China's permission to sail in the SCS, as long as it stays out of internationally recognized territorial waters," most people would infer that you believe China is denying the JMSDF permission to sail in SCS, or seeking to impose some kind of navigational restriction.

Let's put this to a simple yes/no question -- do you believe that the General is making a statement that suggests Japan needs the "permission" of China to sail in SCS (in other words, that China is seeking to impose any kind of navigational restriction in SCS against JMSDF at this time)?
If yes, then my challenge regarding your interpretation of the General's statement remains.
If no, then great, I'm confused as to why you mention this phrase in the first place: "the Japanese Navy doesn't need China's permission to sail in the SCS, as long as it stays out of internationally recognized territorial waters"... because if you do not believe China is seeking to impose any kind of navigational restriction against JMSDF then aren't you preaching to the choir?

I'm being very anal about this particular subject, because freedom of navigation and the legality of China "imposing" any kind of navigation restriction against JMSDF was never mentioned in the article and the fact that we have two or more pages of discussion regarding this topic I think is mostly because of your additional comments suggesting that China is seeking to impose such restrictions as the original article itself did not mention anything about such restrictions or "permission"
If you take back the original suggestion, then that would clear up and make moot a lot of the previous discussion and clarify the actual situation.

General Zhu basically said China accepts USN but doesn't accept JN's presence. My statement is the world doesn't need China's consent to sail in non-territorial waters of the SCS and I stand by it, because it's true.

 

[Blitzo]

General Zhu basically said China accepts USN but doesn't accept JN's presence. My statement is the world doesn't need China's consent to sail in non-territorial waters of the SCS and I stand by it, because it's true.

But your statement is unrelated to the General's statement, because the General has not said the world needs China's consent to sail in SCS unless that is how you interpret the General's statement.

So again, I ask, do you believe that the General is making a statement that suggests Japan needs the "permission" or "consent" of China to sail in SCS (in other words, that China is seeking to impose any kind of navigational restriction in SCS against JMSDF at this time)?

It's a simple yes/no question. You of course are free to not answer, but then that says a lot about how difficult it is to defend the idea that the statement implies China is seeking any kind of navigational restriction on SCS regarding JMSDF.


I think your statement in the original post is more of a "retort" against the General's concerns regarding JMSDF presence in SCS, that is to say that while the General may be concerned, there is nothing that China can actually do about it. Not too different to other situations, such as where PLA watchers "retort" against US concerns regarding China whether it has to do with military modernization of the South China Sea island building, with phrases similar to "China doesn't need US permission to do XYZ". Of course the implication isn't that the US claimed that China needs US permission to do XYZ, but rather it's just an emotional semi-spiteful retort against the opposing side's position.
If that is the reasoning for your comments in the original post, then I can understand why you're saying it. In other words, you are not claiming that China or the General is actually seeking to impose navigational restrictions on JMSDF in SCS, but rather you're just responding out of a sense of mild spite, which is understandable.

If however you actually do believe China or the General's statements suggests they want to impose any kind of navigational restrictions then I'm going to continue to request that you justify and explain the logic behind such an interpretation.

 

[Blackstone]

But your statement is unrelated to the General's statement, because the General has not said the world needs China's consent to sail in SCS unless that is how you interpret the General's statement.

So again, I ask, do you believe that the General is making a statement that suggests Japan needs the "permission" or "consent" of China to sail in SCS (in other words, that China is seeking to impose any kind of navigational restriction in SCS against JMSDF at this time)?

It's a simple yes/no question.

Yes, in my view General Zhou implied Japan needed China's consent to sail in SCS. No, I don't believe that's China's current official position, and yes, I believe sometime in the future, China will gain control of the SCS and it will run it like the US runs the Greater Caribbean.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, in my view General Zhou implied Japan needed China's consent to sail in SCS. No, I don't believe that's China's current official position, and yes, I believe sometime in the future, China will gain control of the SCS and it will run it like the US runs the Greater Caribbean.

Okay, at least we've cleared this up.

So if you believe that Gen Zhou implies Japan needs China's consent to sail SCS... can I ask where in Gen Zhou's statement do you interpret it?

I refer back to the original relevant part

"As for the Japanese military presence, it is very difficult for the Chinese people and the Chinese government to accept it," said Major General Zhu Chenghu, a professor of strategic studies at China's National Defense University, according to the NBC report.

The actual General himself actually doesn't use the word "unacceptable" in relation to the JMSDF presence, and the phrasing of the statement actually says that the chinese people and govt has accepted the JSDF presence in SCS, but also that it was difficult for them to accept it. It is the NBC report which uses the word "unacceptable" not the General.

So how do we interpret the statement? Well first of all I think we can rule out the phrase that the JSDF presence in SCS is "unacceptable" to China. Gen Zhou said it was "difficult to accept" which is quite different.
Continuing on, what does "difficult to accept" mean? Well, a synonymous phrase that I imagine, is "difficult to stomach", and another phrase with similar meaning is "concerned about".

With all this in mind, is it reasonable to believe that the General's original statement is implying that JSDF needs China's "consent" to sail in SCS? It's absolutely unreasonable IMO, given the General himself has said that "it is difficult for the Chinese people and Chinese government to accept it".
In other words such a statement can be boiled down to "we don't like the idea of it".... or.... "we're concerned at it". There is a huge, vast difference between such a statement and claiming that China is seeking to impose any kind of restriction of JSDF vessels in SCS...


SDF is among the brightest open source places on the english speaking internet to discuss PLA matters and especially to filter the actual truths past mass media BS. I'm quite disappointed that somehow we've misinterpreted and exaggerated the meaning of the General's original statement to a severe degree even beyond what the original media source claimed.

 

[Blackstone]

Okay, at least we've cleared this up.

So if you believe that Gen Zhou implies Japan needs China's consent to sail SCS... can I ask where in Gen Zhou's statement do you interpret it?

Of course you can ask, and a serious question deserves a serious answer. General Zhou was primarily addressing American, Chinese, and Japanese audiences. It's said the Japanese generally don't like to say 'no,' so they use the phrase "very difficult" as substitute. I first learned that in a business class, and I've also experienced it dealing with Japanese suppliers. So, to me, the General said China doesn't accept the Japanese navy in the SCS, and all the rest.

I refer back to the original relevant part


The actual General himself actually doesn't use the word "unacceptable" in relation to the JMSDF presence, and the phrasing of the statement actually says that the chinese people and govt has accepted the JSDF presence in SCS, but also that it was difficult for them to accept it. It is the NBC report which uses the word "unacceptable" not the General.

So how do we interpret the statement? Well first of all I think we can rule out the phrase that the JSDF presence in SCS is "unacceptable" to China. Gen Zhou said it was "difficult to accept" which is quite different.
Continuing on, what does "difficult to accept" mean? Well, a synonymous phrase that I imagine, is "difficult to stomach", and another phrase with similar meaning is "concerned about".

With all this in mind, is it reasonable to believe that the General's original statement is implying that JSDF needs China's "consent" to sail in SCS? It's absolutely unreasonable IMO, given the General himself has said that "it is difficult for the Chinese people and Chinese government to accept it".
In other words such a statement can be boiled down to "we don't like the idea of it".... or.... "we're concerned at it". There is a huge, vast difference between such a statement and claiming that China is seeking to impose any kind of restriction of JSDF vessels in SCS...


SDF is among the brightest open source places on the english speaking internet to discuss PLA matters and especially to filter the actual truths past mass media BS. I'm quite disappointed that somehow we've misinterpreted and exaggerated the meaning of the General's original statement to a severe degree even beyond what the original media source claimed.

There's no exaggeration by me on General Zhou's statement. Reasonable people can read it as I did. Of course, reasonable people can also disagree, and that's their right.

 

[Brumby]

do you believe that the General is making a statementthat suggests Japan needs the "permission" or "consent" of China to sail in SCS (in other words, that China is seeking to impose any kind of navigational restriction in SCS against JMSDF at this time?)

The key word which the subject of interpretation is "unacceptable". The ordinary meaning of this word implies some form of respond because rejection is an active word. There are a range of plausible reactions that we can posit including :
1. a statement expressing displeasure,
2. some form of quid pro quo that would make it painful for Japan,
3. Denial of navigation in the SCS through some form of coercion or intimidation e.g. Cowpen incident.
I believe any meaningful interpretation of the word "unacceptable" could include a possible range of actions including denial.
.

 

[Blitzo]

Of course you can ask, and a serious question deserves a serious answer. General Zhou was primarily addressing American, Chinese, and Japanese audiences. It's said the Japanese generally don't like to say 'no,' so they use the phrase "very difficult" as substitute. I first learned that in a business class, and I've also experienced it dealing with Japanese suppliers. So, to me, the General said China doesn't accept the Japanese navy in the SCS, and all the rest.


There's no exaggeration by me on General Zhou's statement. Reasonable people can read it as I did. Of course, reasonable people can also disagree, and that's their right.

If you want to interpret the description "very difficult to accept" the JSDF in SCS, as the equivalent of "China is seeking to restrict JSDF vessels from SCS"... then fine, you know, that's on you, if you can reconcile that with your own logic then I won't challenge it.

 

[Blitzo]

The key word which the subject of interpretation is "unacceptable". The ordinary meaning of this word implies some form of respond because rejection is an active word. There are a range of plausible reactions that we can posit including :
1. a statement expressing displeasure,
2. some form of quid pro quo that would make it painful for Japan,
3. Denial of navigation in the SCS through some form of coercion or intimidation e.g. Cowpen incident.
I believe any meaningful interpretation of the word "unacceptable" could include a possible range of actions including denial.
.

The general never used the word unacceptable, that was NBC using it in their first sentence.
This is what the general actually said:

"As for the Japanese military presence, it is very difficult for the Chinese people and the Chinese government to accept it," said Major General Zhu Chenghu, a professor of strategic studies at China's National Defense University, according to the NBC report.

But let's entertain the idea that the General did use the word "unacceptable" -- sure, in theory, options 2 and 3 could be possible, i.e.: some sort of strategic military response such as increasing martime surveillance capabilities, or possibly physical denial of navigation...
But realistically, what is the most likely implication even if the General did use the word "unacceptable"? I agree that options 1 and 2 are likely, but both of these options are actions or feelings that China can take without inciting major conflict or tension. Option 3 is a physical obstruction and interception of JSDF vessels from entering SCS.

Let's just think about how difficult Option 3 would be to execute: defining a red zone that JSDF cannot enter, monitoring the red zone, and enforcing that red zone, and what would occur if JSDF ships enter the red zone?
Then there are consequences of Option 3: there would be outrage from the US and some of its allies and not to mention other countries in the world, with many navies in the world likely to go challenge the red zone just for the hell of it. It would also likely cause the US to further increase military presence there and force China into a corner where it either has to enforce a red zone (and thus instigate either a conflict or start a war) or else look weak...
So what does China gain from Option 3: .... little and nothing.

Sure, in theory, if the General did use the word "unacceptable" then it's possible he might have implied some kind of actual navigational restriction on JSDF vessels in SCS... but when we put our thinking caps on and even start considering what such an operation would actually entail, do we actually think such a course of action is actually being suggested?
At the very least, even if the General did use the word "unacceptable" we would be far from justified in denouncing China or the General as intending on "restricting navigation" or whatever, given that such an position is making a massive leap of faith to assume that the General suggested China should conduct such a course of action in the first place.

If the General did use the word "unacceptable" then at most, it would only be logically reasonable at present to debate whether he meant to impose any kind of navigational restrictions... OTOH it would be logically fallacious to immediately presume that is what he meant and denounce that course of action, without first challenging and asking whether such a course of action is even plausible.

 

[Zool]

Can we please stick to FON and law of the sea because I thought that was the discussion. The concept is pretty simple. Within the high seas is FON. How complex can it get?

I was hesitant to include this in the discussion but it is relevant to current events regarding FON and how other nations deal with the matter: The example being Israel's intercepting and boarding of a Swedish ship this week - the Marianne of Gothenburg - in open international waters (let's be clear on that point), carrying Pro-Palestinian activists. There is also the 2010 example of Israel doing the same with a Turkish Flotilla.

The point is not judgement or to bring the thread off-topic but to spot-light an example of actual FON violation based on strict letter of international law, towards civilian shipping in international waters. In the context of China I have never seen such an action or intent by the PLAN to-date, yet the rhetoric towards China on FON is so disproportionate compared to what really goes on in the world. Never mind China's clear distinction between Military & Civilian shipping.

Perhaps a broader view on the state of Global FON would be helpful when evaluating the actual severity of Chinese actions and intent.