China's SCS Strategy Thread

[vincent]

Brumby loves to bring up conventions and Laws of the Sea, but never understood people have different interpretations of the said conventions and Laws of the Sea, especially the conventions and Laws were established by imperial powers. The situation becomes even more difficult because not everyone agrees on who the final arbiter on the interpretations.

Citizen generally obeys laws because the laws are established by an authoritative body with the enforcement power behind it. There are plenty of people who do not agree with certain laws (i.e. unjust laws) but they don't break them because of the fear of being visited by the armed enforcers (aka police). The same happens with countries. Just because Uncle Sam and its acolytes said their interpretation of FON is the right one, does not mean it is. It only means might makes right

 

[Blackstone]

I did not claim that China threatens commercial shipping. In fact it is China's basis for its position i.e. it has not threatened commercial shipping. My position does not require that as a precondition because FON as a state is normative by meaning rather than derived even though it might require certain preconditions to get there. Factually what is happening in the Scarborough shoals does not even support China's claim.

Let's clarify your view then. Do you believe China has threatened commercial access of the waterways in the SCS?

On Scarborough, what claim(s) are you referencing?

This issue is OT but if it gives you any sense of satisfaction I agree at face value it would be hypocrisy.

OT? Maybe, but you brought up the hypocrisy issue in post 1832, and I highlighted the fact every nation commits hypocrisy. There are no exceptions.

 

[Brumby]

Okay, one minor point of contention is the issue of China's position being outside the norm. A number of other nations do also hold certain restrictions similar to what China has regarding territorial waters, but a large number of nations also hold the position of the US and like other developed nations. This is a minor issue but here I'd just like to point out that while China might be in the slight minority, it isn't exactly alone in holding such a position. Whether it is outside "accepted convention" implies that there is an "accepted convention" which I think some of the nations which hold contrary opinions would protest to.

UNCLOS went through a number of iterations before a final grand bargain was struck where the majority felt that they could sign on. There are the minority few who felt they did not get all that they wanted and continue to push the envelope by making excessive maritime claims. FONOPs was constituted to push back against such unilateral actions. China's position as I understand it is not with the 12 nm territorial seas but with the view of territorialising the EEZ. The special status of the EEZ is such that the economic rights rest with the coastal state but beyond that it basically has the status of the high seas. Sovereign rights was specifically introduced to differentiate it from sovereignty for such reason. China's position is to expand the meaning of sovereign rights to include restricting military activities and that remains a tension with other states including that of the US.

The larger issue is that of civilian vs military FON.
Now, I'm not sure exactly what your underlying premises are (to be honest the bulk of your writing makes it difficult to string out individual premises), but it seems that your conclusion is simply that it is logically, philosophically and legally incongruent to divide FON into "civilian" vs "military" in a practical or legal sense.

However, that is not actually the discussion I was having in my previous post, though I can understand how it may be easy to mix the two up given I wasn't being very precise.
I was talking about FON in the context of the SCS FON narrative, which has been portrayed as one where the FON of civilian shipping is under threat and which must be protected. This isn't a question about law or philosophy on any sort of large or global scale, it is about relating specific actions to the SCS FON narrative.

The reason why I believe it is necessary to consider civilian FON vs military FON in this specific context to begin with, is because the narrative has been portrayed in a way where it seems like civilian FON has been emphasized as under threat due to either past actions by certain nations or suspicions that certain nations might seek to obstruct it, but where there is actually a lack of evidence to suggest it. Thus I believe it is a significant misportrayal of actual past events as well as the intentions and perceived threats and interests of the various actors involved.

If the narrative had been portrayed in a more wide manner and spoken by media and govt and military officials in a broader sense to acknowledge the lack of past evidence regarding civilian navigation as being under threat, and acknowledged the fact that past navigation obstructions were in relation to military ships or aircraft -- putting it another way, if the narrative was clear that the reason FON emerged as an issue was because of past incidents involving military aircraft and vessels -- then I could agree that it would not be as necessary to differentiate between civilian vs military in the SCS context.

tldr: the reason I'm emphasizing the need to separate civilian and military FON in the context of the SCS is because of the narrative portrayal by media, and military and govt officials as presenting civilian FON in the SCS as seemingly under threat with significant past indicators to believe so, when in reality the past indicators point virtually exclusively to military FON being obstructed only. Therefore, conflating both civilian and military FON in the context of SCS has the great potential to present a distorted picture of what is practically going on in the SCS

I don't believe it is related to what the newspaper said but fundamentally is important to look at it from the underlying interest and attitude concerning both sides. Frankly I think the attempted decoupling of FON between "civilian" and "military" is poorly formulated, difficult to understand and to justify as a position within the context of UNCLOS in the way it is presented. Philosophically it is simply mare liberum vs mare clausum. Beijing is attempting to create strategic depth within the SCS. As long as the EEZ is not an exclusion zone for military activities Beijing's perception of threat is heightened. As such, in order to achieve such an expanded zone within a legal framework like UNCLOS, the meaning and status of the EEZ has to be changed and hence Beijing's concerted effort towards this end. I think there are better ways to advance such a view but that is for Beijing to make.

PS: I should add that all nations technically restrict FON to an extent if any nation ever seeks to regulate any sort of civilian shipping of any kind, especially if conflict occurs. The US itself has conducted blockades as well as boarding civilian ships on the basis of perceived security threats as part of direct conflicts or as part of peacetime operations. If China ever entered a conflict or if it experienced a threat to its security in the SCS it would no doubt seek to use its maritime power in such a manner as well, and I think we should acknowledge that such operations are not necessarily obstructing FON and would need to be viewed on a case by case basis.

Blockade do not fall under UNCLOS but under law of armed conflict. Blockades are legal subject to certain conditions like notification and as a temporal condition.

 

[Brumby]

Let's clarify your view then. Do you believe China has threatened commercial access of the waterways in the SCS?

On Scarborough, what claim(s) are you referencing?

Yes. Commercial fishing by Filipino fishermen is excluded from the area.

OT? Maybe, but you brought up the hypocrisy issue in post 1832, and I highlighted the fact every nation commits hypocrisy. There are no exceptions.

Yes. The context was over China's complain of military activities in EEZ. You have expanded it to included ICJ over other disputes. Please read the title of the thread.

 

[Blackstone]

Yes. Commercial fishing by Filipino fishermen is excluded from the area.

On the narrow point of Filipino fisherman, we agree that China should allow fishing, as long as they obey established rules and regulations.

Yes. The context was over China's complain of military activities in EEZ. You have expanded it to included ICJ over other disputes. Please read the title of the thread.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, you don't get to pick and choose; if you criticize one party for any hypocrisy, you open yourself to the same.

 

[Blitzo]

UNCLOS went through a number of iterations before a final grand bargain was struck where the majority felt that they could sign on. There are the minority few who felt they did not get all that they wanted and continue to push the envelope by making excessive maritime claims. FONOPs was constituted to push back against such unilateral actions. China's position as I understand it is not with the 12 nm territorial seas but with the view of territorialising the EEZ. The special status of the EEZ is such that the economic rights rest with the coastal state but beyond that it basically has the status of the high seas. Sovereign rights was specifically introduced to differentiate it from sovereignty for such reason. China's position is to expand the meaning of sovereign rights to include restricting military activities and that remains a tension with other states including that of the US.

No disagreement there, I was just pointing out that China is far from alone in its general position.

I don't believe it is related to what the newspaper said but fundamentally is important to look at it from the underlying interest and attitude concerning both sides. Frankly I think the attempted decoupling of FON between "civilian" and "military" is poorly formulated, difficult to understand and to justify as a position within the context of UNCLOS in the way it is presented. Philosophically it is simply mare liberum vs mare clausum. Beijing is attempting to create strategic depth within the SCS. As long as the EEZ is not an exclusion zone for military activities Beijing's perception of threat is heightened. As such, in order to achieve such an expanded zone within a legal framework like UNCLOS, the meaning and status of the EEZ has to be changed and hence Beijing's concerted effort towards this end. I think there are better ways to advance such a view but that is for Beijing to make.

At this point I think we are talking past each other, because I am seeking to identidy the civil and military aspect of FON so as to clarify the past and current narrative of the ongoing situation in the SCS in practical terms while you are seeking to ascribe certain reasonings behind why each party may be acting in a certain manner.

Blockade do not fall under UNCLOS but under law of armed conflict. Blockades are legal subject to certain conditions like notification and as a temporal condition.

Sure, and it's likely that if FON is interrupted or if shipping is disrupted it would likely occur in such a circumstance.

 

[Brumby]

On the narrow point of Filipino fisherman, we agree that China should allow fishing, as long as they obey established rules and regulations.


Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, you don't get to pick and choose; if you criticize one party for any hypocrisy, you open yourself to the same.

Did I deny it in my initial reply (post #1837)? For some reason you just want to keep resurrecting that point like Freddy Kruger.

 

[Brumby]

At this point I think we are talking past each other, because I am seeking to identidy the civil and military aspect of FON so as to clarify the past and current narrative of the ongoing situation in the SCS in practical terms while you are seeking to ascribe certain reasonings behind why each party may be acting in a certain manner.

OK. Let's just then stay on track according to how you want to describe or justify it. If I understand what you are saying, any FON restriction is strictly directed at military vessels. Firstly I don't believe that is even factually true because civilians crafts had been redirected, both in the air and in the water. Leaving that aside, please explain the justification for military exclusion.

 

[joshuatree]

Yes. Commercial fishing by Filipino fishermen is excluded from the area.

Is commercial fishing considered innocent passage through one's territorial waters? Granted the shoal is in dispute but regulating who gets to fish in those waters would be more of a demonstration in exercising sovereign rights as opposed to obstructing FON.

 

[Brumby]

Is commercial fishing considered innocent passage through one's territorial waters? Granted the shoal is in dispute but regulating who gets to fish in those waters would be more of a demonstration in exercising sovereign rights as opposed to obstructing FON.

The conversarion specific to civilian FON was simply about FON and not innocent passage. the issue of sovereignty was not part of the terms of reference. If you wish to introduce that component it is then a different conversation.