China's SCS Strategy Thread

[joshuatree]

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.

So what prevents the US from signing if so closely aligned?

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.

The same ICOJ the US brushed off when it ruled against the US in a case vs Nicaragua? As I pointed out, when Chile and Peru first established the 200 nm EEZ, that was not the norm. Somehow, it is now. Who's to say spying within the EEZ is considered a provocative, nonpeaceful act, by the majority of nations in the future? And being that there's room for interpretation, it's a little overkill to be labeling the opposition as fantasy reading.

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.

The US is happy because it believes this will affirm their right to spy in other's EEZ. But time will tell if the welcome stays when China gets more sophisticated and develop longer sea legs and better sensors, when it will routinely have such activities up and down the West coast, East coast, Gulf of Mexico, Alaska. Or when China starts to do this in other US ally's EEZ, I certainly hope the US will not come out saying it's aggressive and raises tension but say "Welcome, please spy on them for it is the norm. To the US ally country, you need to be quiet because it is the norm".

 

[Blackstone]

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.

Blitzo, John Mearsheimer is a respected scholar of the Realist School of International Relations, and he said since no nation could know the true intend of another nation, it's reasonable for nations to keep hedge against each other, especially on rivals that could lay a lot of hurt on them. From that point of view, the US and China are wise to keep sharp eyes on the other, and offshore intelligence gathering is one of many tools both nations could use. I'll grant you it causes friction and doesn't contribute to friendly relations, but unless China stops challenging US primacy in Asia (not bloody likely), or US decides to share power with China (not likely in the short-run), we'll see ships off each other's coasts.

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

Yeah, but China should put "freedom of navigation" in a toolkit and pull it out as needed for it's own national interests. It's entirely believable she will use the same 'freedom of navigation' against her true enemy, Japan, in the future.

 

[Blitzo]

Blitzo, John Mearsheimer is a respected scholar of the Realist School of International Relations, and he said since no nation could know the true intend of another nation, it's reasonable for nations to keep hedge against each other, especially on rivals that could lay a lot of hurt on them. From that point of view, the US and China are wise to keep sharp eyes on the other, and offshore intelligence gathering is one of many tools both nations could use. I'll grant you it causes friction and doesn't contribute to friendly relations, but unless China stops challenging US primacy in Asia (not bloody likely), or US decides to share power with China (not likely in the short-run), we'll see ships off each other's coasts.

All nations will inevitably try to use the most resources at their disposal to ensure their own primacy and/or superiority over others, and in this case of the US, they will seek to use "freedom of navigation" in EEZs to spy in regions close to China's sensitive bases.
On its own, that might not be a big issue. But in the scheme of the larger military disparity between China and the US and the sheer permanent and forward deployed basis of the US military in front of China's doorstep, putting all of China's eastern cities in range of US fighters, bombers, destroyers, carriers, and submarines... Like I said, I understand that all nations will seek to ensure their own superiority as much as possible, but you reach a point when you have to wonder whether it is morally correct.

Certainly, one can ask whether it's morally correct to use "freedom of navigation" as an excuse for spying in Chinese waters in the backdrop when the US already possesses so many other military advantages. Then accusing China of being the bad guy, and the aggressor when they try to expel US ships close to one of their few precious nuclear submarine bases... well frankly it is almost petty. Almost like stealing from a begger.

Yeah, but China should put "freedom of navigation" in a toolkit and pull it out as needed for it's own national interests. It's entirely believable she will use the same 'freedom of navigation' against her true enemy, Japan, in the future.

If such a situation arises where china has such overwhelming superiority over Japan the same way the US does over china, I personally woudl be against using "freedom of navigation" to conduct normal peacetime surveillance missions within Japan's EEZ.

 

[Blackstone]

So what prevents the US from signing if so closely aligned?

Our dysfunctional Senate. The US Military advised passage of UNCLOS, but their civilian masters said no.

The same ICOJ the US brushed off when it ruled against the US in a case vs Nicaragua? As I pointed out, when Chile and Peru first established the 200 nm EEZ, that was not the norm. Somehow, it is now. Who's to say spying within the EEZ is considered a provocative, nonpeaceful act, by the majority of nations in the future? And being that there's room for interpretation, it's a little overkill to be labeling the opposition as fantasy reading.

As Rochefoucauld said, hypocrisy is the tribute from vice to virtue. No nation is sinless or 100% consistent. However, you got a good point on "fantasy reading," so I apologize for those crude words and change it to "liberal interpretation."

The US is happy because it believes this will affirm their right to spy in other's EEZ. But time will tell if the welcome stays when China gets more sophisticated and develop longer sea legs and better sensors, when it will routinely have such activities up and down the West coast, East coast, Gulf of Mexico, Alaska. Or when China starts to do this in other US ally's EEZ, I certainly hope the US will not come out saying it's aggressive and raises tension but say "Welcome, please spy on them for it is the norm. To the US ally country, you need to be quiet because it is the norm".

You're right about the best move for China is to reciprocate and show two can play the game.

 

[Blackstone]

All nations will inevitably try to use the most resources at their disposal to ensure their own primacy and/or superiority over others, and in this case of the US, they will seek to use "freedom of navigation" in EEZs to spy in regions close to China's sensitive bases.
On its own, that might not be a big issue. But in the scheme of the larger military disparity between China and the US and the sheer permanent and forward deployed basis of the US military in front of China's doorstep, putting all of China's eastern cities in range of US fighters, bombers, destroyers, carriers, and submarines... Like I said, I understand that all nations will seek to ensure their own superiority as much as possible, but you reach a point when you have to wonder whether it is morally correct.

What you said makes sense, but the issue at hand is if spying spying in others' EEZ is against international law and not if it's just or unjust policy.

Certainly, one can ask whether it's morally correct to use "freedom of navigation" as an excuse for spying in Chinese waters in the backdrop when the US already possesses so many other military advantages. Then accusing China of being the bad guy, and the aggressor when they try to expel US ships close to one of their few precious nuclear submarine bases... well frankly it is almost petty. Almost like stealing from a begger.

Strong line of thought, and I really don't have a good retort. It's not in anyone's interest for US and China to be at odds, and I hope relations don't continue down the rabbit hole.

If such a situation arises where china has such overwhelming superiority over Japan the same way the US does over china, I personally woudl be against using "freedom of navigation" to conduct normal peacetime surveillance missions within Japan's EEZ.

Japan attacked China in 1895 and stole Taiwan and Diaoyu islands
Japan invaded China and colonized Manchuria
Japan fabricated the Lugouqiao crisis to invade the rest of China
Japan murdered 15-30 million Chinese before and during WWII
Japan murdered untold numbers of people and committed unspeakable crimes in the Nanjing Massacre
Japan forced hundreds of thousands of Chinese, Korean, and Dutch women into sexual slavery
Japan put 14 Class A and hundreds of other war criminals in their national shrine
Japan says it's America's fault for Pearl Harbor
Japan says it's sorry for war and atrocities one day, but make excuses for them the next
Japan denies extend of Nanjing massacre and whitewashes their war crimes in their children's textbooks
Japanese leaders make light of women forced into sexual slavery in WWII
Japanese leaders continue to honor war criminals and lie about their past
Japan is completely insincere with their apologies

You, Mr. Bltizo, are more forgiving of the Japanese than I.

 

[Blitzo]

What you said makes sense, but the issue at hand is if spying spying in others' EEZ is against international law and not if it's just or unjust policy.

I believe that spying in other's EEZ is technically "against" international law which clearly says any military vessels entering another nation's EEZ must be transitory, benign and expedite, which spying clearly is not.

In practice, however, spying in another nation's EEZ is commonplace and is the accepted "norm".

Strong line of thought, and I really don't have a good retort. It's not in anyone's interest for US and China to be at odds, and I hope relations don't continue down the rabbit hole.

Agreed.

Japan attacked China in 1895 and stole Taiwan and Diaoyu islands
Japan invaded China and colonized Manchuria
Japan fabricated the Lugouqiao crisis to invade the rest of China
Japan murdered 15-30 million Chinese before and during WWII
Japan murdered untold numbers of people and committed unspeakable crimes in the Nanjing Massacre
Japan forced hundreds of thousands of Chinese, Korean, and Dutch women into sexual slavery
Japan put 14 Class A and hundreds of other war criminals in their national shrine
Japan says it's America's fault for Pearl Harbor
Japan says it's sorry for war and atrocities one day, but make excuses for them the next
Japan denies extend of Nanjing massacre and whitewashes their war crimes in their children's textbooks
Japanese leaders make light of women forced into sexual slavery in WWII
Japanese leaders continue to honor war criminals and lie about their past
Japan is completely insincere with their apologies

You, Mr. Bltizo, are more forgiving of the Japanese than I.

Bygones must become bygones eventually.

Of course, any reconciliation with Japan must include a recognition of Japanese atrocities during WWII and prior to it, as well as a reversal on their historical revisionism. On the subject of the Diaoyu islands, I think they should be returned to the previous state of "ambiguous sovereignty" before tensions started to rise at about 2009. Demanding complete and undisputed Chinese soveriengty and getting it handed over to China is asking for a bit much.

There needs to be some good will and equality in there to make any peace longer lasting and sincere.

The problem is that China's rise has unfortunately picked at Japan's nationalistic heartstrings somewhat, and probably challenged and questioned their own sense of national "destiny", and the right has used it to their advantage.

Any Sino-Japanese peace must also exist with Japan knowing that China will probably eventually come to dominate their part of the world. Currently, there are some political and race reasons for why Japan's national psyche can't accept it.

 

[solarz]

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.

Dude, did you read i.e.'s link?

Here it is again:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

中华人民共和国政府宣布

　　（一）中华人民共和国的领海宽度为12海里。这项规定适用于中华人民共和国的一切领土，包括中国大陆及其沿海岛屿，和同大陆及其沿海岛屿隔有公海的台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛、南沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

　　（二）中国大陆及其沿海岛屿的领海以连接大陆岸上和沿海岸外缘岛屿上各基点之间的各直线为基线，从基线向外延伸12海里的水域是中国的领海。在基线以内的水域，包括渤海湾、琼州海峡在内、都是中国的内海、在基线以内的岛屿，包括东引岛、高登岛、马祖列岛、白犬列岛、乌岳岛、大小金门岛、大担岛、二担岛、东碇岛在内，都是中国的内海。

　　（三）一切外国飞机和军用船舶，未经中华人民共和国政府的许可，不得进入中国的领海和领海上空。

　　任何外国船舶在中国领海航行，必须遵守中华人民共和国政府的有关法令。

　　（四）以上（一）（二）两项规定的原则同样适用于台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、南沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

　　台湾和澎湖地区现在仍然被美国武力侵占，这是侵犯中华人民共和国领土完整的和主权的非法行为。台湾和澎湖等地尚待收复，中华人民共和国政府有权采取一切适当的方法在适当的时候，收复这些地区，这是中国的内政，不容外国干涉。

 

[joshuatree]

Our dysfunctional Senate. The US Military advised passage of UNCLOS, but their civilian masters said no.

Well that only paints the US in a position of wanting to have its cake and eat it too as the Senate for whatever its reasons doesn't believe the US should be subjected to UNCLOS rules but should benefit from it.

Sometimes I wonder what if China simply abrogates its membership to UNCLOS. It's like the Kyoto Protocol, without everyone on board, it just really goes sideways and there's a point where one has to ask, what use is it?

 

[joshuatree]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"In what may be perceived as a further snub to Australia, the Indonesian Military (TNI) has said its decision to allow Chinese naval vessels to pass through waters in Indonesia’s southern territory near Australia was in the nation’s best interest. .."

This is from the PLAN overseas deployment thread but I wanted to post here in relation to SCS strategies. Perhaps far fetched but I think if China and Indonesia reach some sort of defense pact, that would change the equation in the region and help China further undermine the containment play. Although I don't see any major negative relations between China and Australia, Australia's enthusiasm with the US pivot and plentiful comments directed against China has drawn some ire in the back. Just look at Australia's reaction to Chinese ships crossing the area legally. Ironic given the last page of threads was a debate on interpretation of freedom of navigation and it is Australia's major ally, the US, that champions the right to spy in EEZ waters. Here we have Australia feeling like it's DEFCON 1 because Chinese ships sailed near Christmas Island. With Australia now having a low point in her relations with Indonesia, it can push China and Indonesia closer.

 

[Equation]

Deleted