China's SCS Strategy Thread

[kroko]

article on WSJ from andrew Erickson.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

IMO, i dont think its as easy as he thinks for the US to impose costs on china. What do you think?

 

[joshuatree]

In particular, China's rejection for any venue to adjudicate or arbitrate anything, that is not a venue in China under the laws of China and no other. Also note the section XV that they mentioned, has Article 292. Prompt release of vessels and crews.

"The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV"

SECTION 2. COMPULSORY PROCEDURES ENTAILING BINDING DECISIONS

ANY? Including prompt release of vessels and crews?

The answer to your question is NO. If you had quoted the entire statement, proper context would show it is in reference to Section 2 of Part XV relating to Article 298, not 292.

The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention WITH RESPECT to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.

That China is going to perceive any international law or treaty from that date forward as being illegitimate unless it resolves in China's favour or China had control of its content.

China gets its way, or the treaty is unfair.

That's not true either, despite the Treaty of Aigun 1858 and Treaty Peking 1860 being unfavorable to China, border disputes between Russia and China were finalized and settled in 2008 and while Russia transferred Yinlong Island and half of Heixiazi Island to China, most of the land lost in 1858 and 1860 remains with Russia so this development contradicts your statement.

 

[Zool]

Context is King. Really, I have no time for people or media who may twist facts by distorting information to suit their narrative. Take a position on something, either way, based on what is real in the full context and meaning of what is written/said. Otherwise it's just propaganda & spin (i.e. lies).

 

[advill]

My take is that it is best for claimants and possibly with unbiased mediators (e.g. UN, selected members of ASEAN etc.) to solve this lingering & serious problems. There will be claims based on history, UNCLOS etc., but not all agree to their respective discourse. For the good, peace and progress of the region, let level headed Owlish Diplomats for all sides discuss & negotiate sensibly, without any hawkish/threatening stances. After all, we who are living in the region know full well that there are no winners IF there are naval/military clashes. All sides must leave behind rhetoric & get on with trying hard to find satisfactory solutions. We owe it to ALL our people who live in our region.

 

[Blackstone]

article on WSJ from andrew Erickson.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

IMO, i dont think its as easy as he thinks for the US to impose costs on china. What do you think?

I like Andrew Erickson, I read/watch lots of his writings/presentations, and his analysis on the PLA(x) are mostly spot on. However, I'm not sure if he truly appreciates just how serious and determined the PRC is about securing its SLO and establishing a zone of security in the South China Sea. If he had, his conclusions about imposing cost on China might look very different. I say that because it requires total commitment from US, India, allies, and most other ASEANs to impose the kind draconian measures that are necessary to firmly contain China and force it into accepting the International Court of Justice as final arbiter of SCS sovereignty disputes; half-measures would yield all of the problems and none of the benefits. Currently, it's clear only two countries, Japan and Philippines, are willing to do the full Monty, and that's not enough to even make things interesting. The funny thing is it's not even clear if the US is willing to go the distance with China.

There's a Presidential election coming up next year, so we'll see plenty of fireworks on the campaign trail, but in the end nothing will come of all the chest thumping and saber rattling. China is consolidating its control of the SCS, and nothing short of a great power war could change that. Put a fork in it, it's all over but the shouting.

 

[JayBird]

I like Andrew Erickson, I read/watch lots of his writings/presentations, and his analysis on the PLA(x) are mostly spot on. However, I'm not sure if he truly appreciates just how serious and determined the PRC is about securing its SLO and establishing a zone of security in the South China Sea. If he had, his conclusions about imposing cost on China might look very different. I say that because it requires total commitment from US, India, allies, and most other ASEANs to impose the kind draconian measures that are necessary to firmly contain China and force it into accepting the International Court of Justice as final arbiter of SCS sovereignty disputes; half-measures would yield all of the problems and none of the benefits. Currently, it's clear only two countries, Japan and Philippines, are willing to do the full Monty, and that's not enough to even make things interesting. The funny thing is it's not even clear if the US is willing to go the distance with China.

There's a Presidential election coming up next year, so we'll see plenty of fireworks on the campaign trail, but in the end nothing will come of all the chest thumping and saber rattling. China is consolidating its control of the SCS, and nothing short of a great power war could change that. Put a fork in it, it's all over but the shouting.

Agree with you Blackstone. I was very impressed with his 054A article and thought he was very insightful regarding Chinese military equipments. And thinking this guy knows China more than many Chinese themselves.

I expected a lot better from him than what he wrote in this article which sounded kind of shallow and empty. I'm truly very disappointed with his analysis regarding SCS in this article. Maybe I was too impressed with his past work that I over-rating him in my own mind.

 

[Blackstone]

One should be careful about comparing a Pax Sinica with Pax Americana's or whatever.

The way the Chinese have done things is very different than the way Western nations/empires have behaved. The Chinese eventually embraced the idea of the tributary system, which ensured relative peace and independence (official and effective) for the tributary states. It was not a 100% peaceful or fair system, and the Chinese could be quite arrogant and abuse it at times. But I'd much rather have been a Ryukyan under tributary status, than a Ryankyan once the Japanese took direct control. Or a Vietnamese before France moved in for that matter.

Looking at Chinese history makes me think that the coming era of Chinese dominance in Asia isn't going to be as bad as certain people fear. I'm actually predicting an improvement over the status quo in the long run.

I've made some of the same points in your message that, on balance, Imperial China practiced a benign form of hegemony. Nevertheless, it was still hegemony, benign or not. I don't know what kind of Asian order a reemerged China would want, but I doubt it would make a habit of invading its neighbors, since that's not in China's historical DNA. However, China will no doubt vigorously pursue its national interest, by using a combination of the world's largest economy (by PPP today, by nominal measures in a few years), the world's largest population, the world's most competent government (large countries), and the world's only major country with a global strategy. That will make some/lots of China's neighbors fearful/nervous, no matter now benign Beijing claims its reemergence as the strongest power in Asia will be.

 

[Yvrch]

I believe China's regional dominance, if not outright hegemony, would be a by-product, rather than by design, of her finding never ending solutions/adaptions to the ever changing variables of immense societal changes within China. Most of the overseas endeavors and policies are pursued with a view to effect existing domestic issues in China's favor. Depending on nature of domestic pressures and variables, China's future behavior in international relations would vary widely I guess. Imperial China didn't experience the same set of problems or see this highly competitive connected global commerce. China has to find a best response along the way.

 

[nfgc]

Are you serious? China does not follow international treaties because it specifically opted out of a section of a treaty that the US didn't even sign?

That the USA follows but China does not. That *is* peculiar I must say.

Anyone notice the Chinese 5 ship group transiting within 12 nm of USA territorial waters?

I see a massive double standard.

Chinese vessels go inside 12 nm, USA officials stated:

The Chinese ships were doing operations "consistent with international law," U.S. officials said, under the maritime rule of "innocent passage,"

When the USA aircraft went inside 12 nm of disputed territory Chinese officials stated:

Hong Lei, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, warned that the American flights, which he called “very irresponsible and dangerous,” were “likely to cause an accident.”

That is a massive gap in attitude and response to identical incidents.

 

[joshuatree]

That the USA follows but China does not. That *is* peculiar I must say.

Anyone notice the Chinese 5 ship group transiting within 12 nm of USA territorial waters?

I see a massive double standard.

Chinese vessels go inside 12 nm, USA officials stated:


When the USA aircraft went inside 12 nm of disputed territory Chinese officials stated:


That is a massive gap in attitude and response to identical incidents.

Not really, airspace above a 12 nm territorial sea is considered sovereign airspace. There is no equivalent "freedom of navigation" afforded by international law in regards to sovereign airspace. Now you may argue the feature and the accompanying territorial sea/space is disputed but the US having no claims means it has no logical right to be flying within 12 nm of that feature. It could sail within 12 nm but it better be expedient and peaceful transit or otherwise it violates the spirit of UNCLOS. The 5 Chinese ships sailing within US territorial waters to my knowledge was near the Aleutian Islands which looking on a map, isn't so sinister as it is painted if the fleet was sailing out of the Bering Sea into the main body of the Pacific.

The US only follows international law such as UNCLOS to the extent of its own interpretation. Once again, UNCLOS does not explicitly permit military surveillance in one's EEZ by another's assets. But it does list transit in another's EEZ having to be innocent passage. If you read up on it, it is purposefully ambiguous which means both sides of the argument is neither right nor wrong and that was the source of friction in previous encounters off the coast of mainland China a few years back.