China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

We finally agree on sailing in EEZs. China may sail in anyone's EEZ, just as the US will continue to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters. Any nation may ask other ships to leave their EEZ, just as the other ships could politely tell them 'no.'

And if that ship refuses to leave politely and chose to act aggressively, than they can expect consequences such as an ASBM coming down on them pretty fast and hard.

 

[joshuatree]

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.

When Chile and Peru first declared having jurisdiction on EEZs out to 200 nm in 1947, that wasn't a norm or what the majority of nations believed in. The US may like to recite "international norm" yet the US still to this day won't sign onto UNCLOS so all the perks apply but none of the consequences, that's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black on the issue of having cake and eat it too. If all other nations consider beyond 12 nm as international waters, why bother having the definition of EEZ? Clearly, it is not the same as international waters.

If China truly believed in their fantasy reading of EEZ, then it shouldn't have conducted spying missions off Guam and Hawaii. The fact it has, and may do more of it in the future, gives it no room to complain about US spying in Chinese EEZ. Full stop.

I don't see how it's fantasy reading of EEZs when UNCLOS no where explicitly lists conducting military intel as allowable or peaceful. It leaves room for interpretation. No nation likes being spied on. Has it ever occurred that conducting spying missions off Guam and Hawaii are basically responses, saying "Do you like this? How does your people feel about this? Do you like your own medicine?" And quite often, reading western media and many forum posts across the spectrum, a lot of Americans don't like it and complain.

Since the US believes it's perfectly normal to spy in EEZ waters, then shouldn't your rationale stipulate the US has no right to complain when the other country takes measures to derail that spying? But we hear a lot about that too.

 

[Equation]

When Chile and Peru first declared having jurisdiction on EEZs out to 200 nm in 1947, that wasn't a norm or what the majority of nations believed in. The US may like to recite "international norm" yet the US still to this day won't sign onto UNCLOS so all the perks apply but none of the consequences, that's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black on the issue of having cake and eat it too. If all other nations consider beyond 12 nm as international waters, why bother having the definition of EEZ? Clearly, it is not the same as international waters.




I don't see how it's fantasy reading of EEZs when UNCLOS no where explicitly lists conducting military intel as allowable or peaceful. It leaves room for interpretation. No nation likes being spied on. Has it ever occurred that conducting spying missions off Guam and Hawaii are basically responses, saying "Do you like this? How does your people feel about this? Do you like your own medicine?" And quite often, reading western media and many forum posts across the spectrum, a lot of Americans don't like it and complain.

Since the US believes it's perfectly normal to spy in EEZ waters, then shouldn't your rationale stipulate the US has no right to complain when the other country takes measures to derail that spying? But we hear a lot about that too.

Yep, it's called..."Do As I Say, NOT what I do" mentality and self righteousness.

 

[Blackstone]

The excuse sounds noble, but it is still an excuse. When Chinese exercise their fundamental human rights of free speech by defending their country against criticisms, these people get accused of being brainwashed, 50-cent members, or communist members. "The CCP isn't China" is a wedge that Western media uses to try to drive a wedge between Chinese government and Chinese. When it becomes convenient, the same ammunition used against CCP are also used on Chinese people. That's the reality. So, if China has multiparty democracy, the country would still get criticized just as the country is getting criticisms now for switching to capitalism.

There's no question the phrase 'CCP isn't China' is used by Western media to attack the Communist Government, but it doesn't mean it isn't true. If Xi Jinping allowed free and open multi-party elections, there's a good chance the CCP would lose governing powers. Nevertheless, the Party isn't the nation, just as the US Democrats or Republicans are not America, the CCP isn't China. The CCP argues otherwise because they don't want political competition.

This discussion is a living proof of what I just pointed out above. Even though you are given a quote from UNCLOS, you still held on to your belief because the idea that "China cannot be right" is so ingrained into you. You are simply unable to accept an alternative where China can be right. Everything must be go according to your view of right and wrong. That's the issue. That's why I pointed out that the fundamental issue is the displeasure toward the fundamental rights of self-determination for China and her people.

Aww, now that was uncalled for. And even more improtant, it's demonstrably wrong. Let's get back to friendly bantering and disagree without being disagreeable, shall we?

The US and allies like to preach their ideals by standing on the soap box of freedom and democracy, but these very same parties have the most contempt for the two concepts.

Well, you got us there, and we're guilty as charged. But the beauty of America is we put our mistakes in the front window for all to see, and if we fail today, we'll try to do better tomorrow.

 

[Blitzo]

We finally agree on sailing in EEZs. China may sail in anyone's EEZ, just as the US will continue to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters. Any nation may ask other ships to leave their EEZ, just as the other ships could politely tell them 'no.'

I prefer to see it as so:
China and the US may sail in anyone's EEZ with transitory benign intentions, but both will also seek to bend the law to their advantage by using ships to conduct non-benign spying missions on each other, and it is the right of the other side to choose to protest, or react with appropriate force to expel the spy ships in question.

However in light of the law which states clearly that military ships can only travel through EEZs and not conduct deliberate spy missions, the spy ship has less of a tenable moral if not lawful basis for saying "no". However, in practice, the spy ships or military ships will always say "no" and the ships which belong to the home country will probably seek to use non-lethal force methods to try and expel and/or harass the spy ships in question.


This is all under the larger picture, however, of China quietly showing the original wording of the EEZ law which clearly states that all military ships travelling in another nation's EEZ must be transitory and benign, which spy missions clearly are not.

 

[Blackstone]

So are you suggesting the Western media pen has the right to dictate how China should behave and be "more responsible" in their view? It is what it is, China is a threat to the values and norms (for some reason I don't know why) of the West therefore they are crying and using any means possible to frame China as "evil" and Communist.

Equation, read my post again without rancor.





Yes, you got it wrong the first go around.

 

[Blackstone]

And if that ship refuses to leave politely and chose to act aggressively, than they can expect consequences such as an ASBM coming down on them pretty fast and hard.

Great powers don't shoot at each other over naval cat & mouse, so China and US will find ways to accommodate each other on the high seas.

 

[Blackstone]

When Chile and Peru first declared having jurisdiction on EEZs out to 200 nm in 1947, that wasn't a norm or what the majority of nations believed in. The US may like to recite "international norm" yet the US still to this day won't sign onto UNCLOS so all the perks apply but none of the consequences, that's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black on the issue of having cake and eat it too. If all other nations consider beyond 12 nm as international waters, why bother having the definition of EEZ? Clearly, it is not the same as international waters.

The US hasn't signed UNCLOS, but she does observe the rules and statues. Rear Admiral James Foggo recently visited China and reported that he was pleasantly surprised the Chinese government recognizes US observance of UNCLOS, even though it hasn't signed the treaty. In his words, it wasn't a big deal with Chinese leaders.

I don't see how it's fantasy reading of EEZs when UNCLOS no where explicitly lists conducting military intel as allowable or peaceful. It leaves room for interpretation. No nation likes being spied on. Has it ever occurred that conducting spying missions off Guam and Hawaii are basically responses, saying "Do you like this? How does your people feel about this? Do you like your own medicine?" And quite often, reading western media and many forum posts across the spectrum, a lot of Americans don't like it and complain.

As you say, UNCLOS doesn't stipulate whether it's legal or illegal to spy in international waters, so there's room for interpretation. However, if the majority of major countries see things one way, then that's the norm. If some nations believe the 'norm' is wrong, then they'll be smart to take it to the International Court of Justice and get a favorable ruling.

Since the US believes it's perfectly normal to spy in EEZ waters, then shouldn't your rationale stipulate the US has no right to complain when the other country takes measures to derail that spying? But we hear a lot about that too.

You are quite right, and the US is rather happy China is spying off Guam and Hawaii. In fact, Admiral Locklear, Commander of US Pacific Command, was quoted in news media as welcoming Chinese ships off US shores gathering intelligence.

 

[Blitzo]

You are quite right, and the US is rather happy China is spying off Guam and Hawaii. In fact, Admiral Locklear, Commander of US Pacific Command, was quoted in news media as welcoming Chinese ships off US shores gathering intelligence.

Blackstone, you are intelligent enough to know that he is happy because that way he believes it gives China less weight if China wanted to prevent US ships from spying in China's EEZ, because that way the US can portray China as a hypocrite.

However, I bet he woudl not be happy about Chinese ships spying in America's EEZ, if China surrounded both sides of the US coast with permanently stationed carrier battle groups, submarines, and have rallied nations in the carribbean and latin america against the US and has air bases, naval bases, and all manner of offensive weapons near not only the USN's few SSBN bases, but also its most populous cities and even its capital.


Basically, I'm saying that if the situation were reversed, and if China had surrounded the US with as much military power as the US currently does surround around China, then he probably wouldn't be welcoming PLAN ships spying in US continental EEZ waters.

In fact, the US in this case would be justifiable to react rather forcefully to try and prevent Chinese ships entering the US's EEZ especially if it is around a sensitive and vulnerable nuclear submarine base, especially if that submarine base hosts half of the USN's small SSBN force.


---

So please try to see this in the larger scheme of things and the larger balance of power. This isn't about upholding international law or freedom of navigation. This is about China not wanting the US to have another military advantage on its doorstep to add upon all the other innumerable suffocating military advantages in the region which the US already have.

For the US to cry about "freedom of navigation" in such cases is a little nauseating for me to hear.

 

[Blackstone]

I prefer to see it as so:
China and the US may sail in anyone's EEZ with transitory benign intentions, but both will also seek to bend the law to their advantage by using ships to conduct non-benign spying missions on each other, and it is the right of the other side to choose to protest, or react with appropriate force to expel the spy ships in question.

Well Bltizo, words are cheap, and unless your name is Shinzo Abe, they don't usually do lasting damage. "Appropriate force" on the other hand, is a bridge too far for great powers to treat each other in peacetime.

However in light of the law which states clearly that military ships can only travel through EEZs and not conduct deliberate spy missions, the spy ship has less of a tenable moral if not lawful basis for saying "no". However, in practice, the spy ships or military ships will always say "no" and the ships which belong to the home country will probably seek to use non-lethal force methods to try and expel and/or harass the spy ships in question.

A simpler way to look at things is what country 'A' does in international waters, that's isn't prohibited by international law, isn't governable by country 'B.' China might someday decide to put constant patrols up and down Japan's coast, should Japan objects, then China could claim freedom of navigation in international waters and tell Japan to go to hell.

This is all under the larger picture, however, of China quietly showing the original wording of the EEZ law which clearly states that all military ships travelling in another nation's EEZ must be transitory and benign, which spy missions clearly are not.

I'll grant you spying off someone's coast isn't a friendly act, and the US isn't doing itself any favors by enraging China, but gathering intelligence in international waters isn't against international laws.