China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blitzo]

China isn't an expansionist power, so your Xerxes analogy doesn't fit.

Unfortunately that is how a good portion of the uninformed see China, so the Xerxes analogy unfortunately does fit.

Of course China isn't an expansionist power, but the media have construed it as if China is, intentionally or not.

 

[Blackstone]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

The key word here is innocent passage. Spying and other military activities are not innocent passage.

Incorrect. Spying and other military activities are perfectly acceptable (and expected) outside the 12 mile limit.

 

[Blackstone]

These are fallacy known as begging the question. First, the burden of proof is on you to find government statements to show Nine Dash line represents a claim on a body of water. Second, China's definition of freedom of navigation is not different from the rest of the world. Rather, it is US's view that is different since US does not abide itself to UNCLOS.

1) China can easily clarify things by making clear and unambiguous statement on the notion she claims ONLY land features within the 9-dash line and not the waters.
2) US view is same as most of the world and that is EEZ outside the 12 mile limit are international waters. China feels she has the right to regulate foreign military activities in said international waters, which is at odds with most of the world.

 

[Blackstone]

That's only the case if you restrict the audience to western-aligned nations. In many other parts of the world, China is perceived much better.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you want to throw out polls, here's one from the BBC showing US ahead of China for likability-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Engineer]

1) China can easily clarify things by making clear and unambiguous statement on the notion she claims ONLY land features within the 9-dash line and not the waters.

China does not need to clarify anything. Nine Dash line is Nine Dash line, it is as simple as that. The fault lies with those who deliberately add skewed interpretations to the Nine Dash Line, such as calling the line a claim on international water.

2) US view is same as most of the world and that is EEZ outside the 12 mile limit are international waters.

This has nothing to do with US's skewed view of innocent passage. Again, the keyword here is innocent passage. Spying and other military activities against China are not equivalent to innocent passage.

China feels she has the right to regulate foreign military activities in said international waters, which is at odds with most of the world.

China's view with regard to military activities on international water is the same as most of the world. By saying China cannot do X, it is the US who is trying to regulate foreign military activities in international water.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Incorrect. Spying and other military activities are perfectly acceptable (and expected) outside the 12 mile limit.

And that is the key difference in interpretation of what "innocent passage" is which is part of the problem.

 

[Engineer]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Incorrect. Spying and other military activities are perfectly acceptable (and expected) outside the 12 mile limit.

Incorrect. Spying and other military activities are not innocent passage. According to Article 38 paragraph 2:

Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.

 

[Engineer]

Agreed on Western Press' hostility against China (it will get worse and not better), and also understand reasons for China to forge unilateral policies against rules imposed by Western and Colonial powers. However, if China chooses to do so, then it also must be willing to suffer the consequences of its neighbors crying rape and begging the US for help. One begets the other.

For the West to go down that route rather than being rational would imply the hostility toward China has always existed. The logical action for China to take in that case is to have even more unilateral policies.

 

[Blackstone]

China does not need to clarify anything. Nine Dash line is Nine Dash line, it is as simple as that. The fault lies with those who deliberately add skewed interpretations to the Nine Dash Line, such as calling the line a claim on international water.

As long as China refuses to clarify the 9-dash line, then her Asia and Pacific neighbors will use it against China. If China doesn't care (as she clearly doesn't), then bully for China.

This has nothing to do with US's skewed view of innocent passage. Again, the keyword here is innocent passage. Spying and other military activities against China are not equivalent to innocent passage.

The US view parallels most of the world and it's China who's different. If China doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks (and she doesn't), then bully for China. But since China has conducted spying missions in other nations' EEZ, then it's hard for China to play it both ways. But if China could muscle her way into it, then bully for the Middle Kingdom.

China's view with regard to military activities on international water is the same as most of the world. By saying China cannot do X, it is the US who is trying to regulate foreign military activities in international water.

Saying a lie over and over doesn't make it true. Let's do this one more time: US and most other nations believe EEZ outside 12 mile limit is international water (eh, this means you could spy in it), and China feels she could spy in other nations' EEZ (Hawaii and Guam), but no one else could spy in her EEZ. But if China could browbeat others to allow her to have her cake and eat it too, bully for China.

 

[Blackstone]

For the West to go down that route rather than being rational would imply the hostility toward China has always existed. The logical action for China to take in that case is to have even more unilateral policies.

Frankly, the West doesn't respect China's history (since they teach so little of it in their schools) and have contempt for her 5,000-years old culture, but they now fear her reemergence, so it's no surprise their unbalanced Press plays up China as the boogieman. If you think China is getting the poison pen now, just wait till when her GDP passes up the US.