China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

Looks like it's time for China and Russia to do a Naval drill in the SCS.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Looks like it's time for China and Russia to do a Naval drill in the SCS.

Russia will probably reject the offer due to ties with Vietnam.

 

[mr.bean]

Looks like it's time for China and Russia to do a Naval drill in the SCS.

that might just happen. if last year was an example to go by, we should see 2 joint naval drills in 2016.

 

[joshuatree]

I am assuming you guys want to discuss this issue in good faith because if not then say so since no one wants to waste time........

(3)Civilian FON in disputed territories.
When a territory is in dispute, there is no recognised authority over it but in reality within the SCS, China's actions through its multitude of coercive actions has imposed de-facto control over the said territories. This is best exemplified by the economic exclusion of fishermen in the Scarborough Shoals. That exclusion zone is restricting FON in both meaning and effect even though China's legitimacy in doing so is highly disputed

Therefore in order to argue that there is no restriction to civilian FON in the SCS, there are only 2 positions to assume :
Either
(a)The statement that there is no restriction to civilian FON is simply a rhetorical statement that has no honesty in it as it is devoid of reality; or
(b)Accept that in effect there is restriction to civilian FON by its actions and deal with that reality and not hide behind some rhetorical smokescreen.

The discussion is in good faith but that doesn't mean I concur with your assessment. I only responded to the example you gave a few posts back that Filipino fishermen being denied access at Scarborough is an example of restricting civilian FON. That is not civilian FON restriction, rather an example of enforcement of one's sovereign economic rights. (I share Bltizo's viewpoint that enforcing one's economic rights would be an action that reaffirms one's claims.) And I have noted this is in disputed territory. The Filipino fishermen are not stating they were merely transiting by Scarborough, they were stating they wanted to fish there and were turned away. So one can argue about China unilaterally exercising its economic rights against Filipino fishermen in Scarborough but let's not forget other claimants have done the same.

However, the description "coercive" is rather hypocritical because the situation at Scarborough was initiated from the Filipinos executing their "coercive" action when attempting to detain Chinese fishermen first. It would also be "coercive" for them to impose control over disputed EEZ overlap areas with Taiwan. Last I recall, the actions of Filipino authorities have resulted in one death so far, I don't recall actions of Chinese authorities resulting in casualties.

IF we did use your assessment that economic exclusion of fishermen is restricting FON, then the Filipinos are guilty of it too. Furthermore, Japan's exclusion of Chinese/Taiwanese fishermen from within 12NM of Diaoyu/Senkaku would also be FON restriction. Where is the condemnation for these actions?

 

[Brumby]

The discussion is in good faith but that doesn't mean I concur with your assessment. I only responded to the example you gave a few posts back that Filipino fishermen being denied access at Scarborough is an example of restricting civilian FON. That is not civilian FON restriction, rather an example of enforcement of one's sovereign economic rights. (I share Bltizo's viewpoint that enforcing one's economic rights would be an action that reaffirms one's claims.) And I have noted this is in disputed territory. The Filipino fishermen are not stating they were merely transiting by Scarborough, they were stating they wanted to fish there and were turned away. So one can argue about China unilaterally exercising its economic rights against Filipino fishermen in Scarborough but let's not forget other claimants have done the same.

Two points i would make in reply. Firstly, your initial response to my comments were specific and whereas my earlier comments were general made in response to a general question. Therefore I have reconstituted the subject matter in post #1868 that the contextual framework defines your comments in perspective. In short, the choice is either (a) or (b) as I outlined according to the reasoning that I have set out. My position is either and not none or both.
Secondly, I have significant issue with the qualifier that disputed territory is automatic exclusion from consideration. I do not have issue with Bltizo's position because we both can come to terms that this matter is secondary to the nature of our conversation and therefore I did not want to labor on it. However your position as I read it is different in that the issue is elevated to a primary point of contention which in my view is fundamentally flawed as I will explain. The main premise of my argument rest on the notion that China in pursuing its territorial claims in the SCS is foundered on a nebulous position that has no clarity in legal basis, lack maritime dimensional specifics and any serious attempt to clarify its position. China's position is simply based on fiat accompanied with the undisputable sovereignty rhetoric. The effect and implication is obvious. It can simply by declaration designate any location in the SCS within the nine dash line as in dispute e.g. as in the Scarborough Shoal, and then restrict civilian FON if it choose to do so as in the same example. That is simply farcical. A genuine dispute is rooted on some tangible legal position that is subject to certain test. The Philippines position is grounded on what UNCLOS provides as its EEZ. Please tell me what is China's position grounded on outside of what I have described to exclude the Filipino fishermen. China's actions is both making a mockery and undermining established institution of law and order. It is getting away with it because its actions is simply backed up by might is right.

However, the description "coercive" is rather hypocritical because the situation at Scarborough was initiated from the Filipinos executing their "coercive" action when attempting to detain Chinese fishermen first. It would also be "coercive" for them to impose control over disputed EEZ overlap areas with Taiwan. Last I recall, the actions of Filipino authorities have resulted in one death so far, I don't recall actions of Chinese authorities resulting in casualties.

A dispute between Taiwan and the Philippines is not the same as with China even if you wish to merge them. The conversation is whether China has restricted FON and more importantly the source of its legitimacy to do so. If its source is highly questionable, then every action that arises from it has questionable legitimacy. I am not defending Philippines action viz a viz Taiwan because that is not relevant to our conversation.

IF we did use your assessment that economic exclusion of fishermen is restricting FON, then the Filipinos are guilty of it too. Furthermore, Japan's exclusion of Chinese/Taiwanese fishermen from within 12NM of Diaoyu/Senkaku would also be FON restriction. Where is the condemnation for these actions?

The Diaoyu/Senku issue is different because whether you accept it or not, Japan has legitimate legal basis to conduct such exclusion no more than China can do so within its own sovereign territory. The only reason why this situation has not become farcical like in the SCS is because Japan is no push over unlike the Philippines.

 

[supercat]

Looks like it's time for China and Russia to do a Naval drill in the SCS.

China does not have to respond to imperial overstretch in kind. Paying lip service - protesting diplomatically like what China has done so far, is more than enough. Here is why:

...

The U.S. knows that it’s China’s backyard, and they could sink any U.S. task force if they choose to. But they probably won’t. Why start a war when your enemy has a superior military, but you are growing your economy several times faster than he is? It makes more sense to wait…so it’s likely to remain a Mexican standoff, as opposed to an overture to World War III. But these things have a way of escalating unpredictably. In any event, it makes no sense to go to the other side of the globe just to provoke someone.

In the meantime, the U.S. carrier groups are prestigious, and great for sticking the U.S. government’s nose into far-off places where it’s not welcome. But they’re hugely expensive, at about $6 billion a ship, plus another billion or two per copy for its half-dozen escorts, plus another $200 million for each of the 50 or so F-35 fighters they’ll soon carry. Plus a few billion a year to keep each group operational. Not to worry on that score; the Chinese will surely lend the U.S. government more money to enable that.

There’s plenty of reason to be concerned about the roughly $1 trillion a year the U.S. spends on the military and “security.” Even though it’s more than the next 28 countries combined, it’s apparently not enough to keep America safe. In fact, it’s actually making the country less safe, by provoking and threatening other powers.

And if it doesn’t start a war in the short run, it’s going to guarantee a U.S. bankruptcy in the slightly longer run. All the “hawks” running for president this year (which is to say, almost every candidate) seem oblivious to the fact that, in anything but the briefest conflict, economic power completely trumps military hardware.

In conclusion, whenever you see a mention of the U.S. Navy and the Spratlys in the same paragraph, you’re seeing a reminder of an open vein helping to bleed America dry. And that’s the best case.

For those who are interested, here is the article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

P.S. The USN chose a bad time to do their so-called FONOP. Chinese delegates are currently in North Korean - I wonder what they will say to their North Korean comrades about their imminent "satellite launch".

 

[Ultra]

But, I thought US didn't take sides...?

Well, to be fair, do you think PLAN would invite the US to patrol SCS with them?



Come to think of it, PLAN should do just that.

If US refuse, then they are taking side. If they don't, then there is more room for cooperation, and China get to have more hands-on experience with USN and much more to learn from them. Its a win.

 

[Blackstone]

Well, to be fair, do you think PLAN would invite the US to patrol SCS with them?



Come to think of it, PLAN should do just that.

If US refuse, then they are taking side. If they don't, then there is more room for cooperation, and China get to have more hands-on experience with USN and much more to learn from them. Its a win.

In the short-run, both China and US should do what they can to reduce tensions and keep their dependents on tight leashes so things don't spin out of control. In the long-run, I think the region will be the most peaceful with shared leadership and responsibilities if the Asia-Pacific great powers work together in something akin to the Congress of Vienna.

 

[PanAsian]

Well, to be fair, do you think PLAN would invite the US to patrol SCS with them?

Come to think of it, PLAN should do just that.

If US refuse, then they are taking side. If they don't, then there is more room for cooperation, and China get to have more hands-on experience with USN and much more to learn from them. Its a win.

It's a win-win!!

 

[GreenestGDP]

... ...
If US refuse, then they are taking side. If they don't, then there is more room for cooperation, and China get to have more hands-on experience with USN and much more to learn from them. Its a win.

Yes, wonderful idea and will stop China from being defensive and reactive all the time.

Since, it is a given that US is NOT taking any side ... ...


Will China PROACTIVELY ask US --- can we do a joint Military FoN patrol with you on all Spratly reefs claimed and occupied by Philippines ?

US will say ... ...Over--my--Dead--body.