China's SCS Strategy Thread

[solarz]

I specifically stated that it would not be a FON patrol but rather an anti-piracy one. The FON and territorial disputes won't go away but a joint anti-piracy patrol in SE Asia can be a confidence building measure to balance the contentious issues, as small a baby step as it would be. It would also be a symbol of power and responsibility sharing, especially if SE Asian navies are included. This does not serve anyone's maximal selfish interests but it does serve the interest of co-operation and building trust. Something like this can make the difference between whether the FON and territorial disputes spiral out of control less easily. Might be too little too late even if done at this point though.

Problem is, I don't think there are any piracy problems in the SCS.

That is, aside from the PH coast guard...

 

[Blackstone]

Please humour me why a simple narrative regarding a conditional event is connected to your political exposition.

What is it you don't understand about a reemerging but still less powerful nation avoiding unnecessary confrontations with the existing hegemon until the former is clearly more powerful than the latter?

 

[Blackstone]

That actually a dangerous mentality to adopt.

This isn't 10 years ago, and China has already amassed considerable military strength.

There are limits to Chinese patience and restraint, and as with any great power, China recognises that there is hardly ever a sure thing in the world, and that sometimes risks are necessary.

As such, it would be dangerous to keep pushing China for short term concessions, expecting China to back off every time because absolutely Chinese national and military power still lags behind the US.

If the US pushes too far, too hard and over-extends itself militarily and/or adopts a position that is hard for even its professional spin doctors and sympathisers in the western press to justify, China may well decide to push back and force the US into either a humiliating climb down or a costly military defeat.

The SCS is actually almost the ideal place from the Chinese prospective to have a throw down.

It's close enough to the Chinese mainland to give China the home field advantage, yet far enough that direct strikes on mainland targets would be seen by all as a massive and disproportionate escalation.

The geography of much of the region makes it very limiting and unfavourable for ocean going, large displacement warships and subs, thus creating easy bottlenecks and perfect ambush zones.

The pro-US vassal states in the region are bluntly put, militarily insignificant, and the US lacks any real military base in the region.

That means that if push came to shove, the US would be forced to engage with just its navy, pretty much as far from home as its possible to get on this planet, with minimal to no useful support from the other branches of the US military, and saddled with allies who's forces represent little more than living decoys for US assets.

This, in my view is why China has taken such a robust position on this issue since the US first started to wade into it.

China raised the stakes when the US first started making noises and used that as cover and pretext to build up its holdings in the SCS into potentially game changing island bases capable of hosting huge numbers of PLA forces, and forming a mutually supporting defensive and offensive lynchpin that even the USN would find extremely hard and costly to try and take.

I think the Chinese leadership was half expecting the US to back off, seeing how much worse those island bases have made their military options and chances in the region.

However, the US seems to have doubled down instead on a lousy hand.

The good news is that I don't think China wants war, because if it did, it would be exceptionally easy to bait the US into one.

However, the US needs to wake up and take stock of just how bad a position they have sleepwalked into and stop pushing and escalating the situation in the SCS real quickly.

This joint patrol with the Phillippines is a really bad idea. What are they going to do if the Chinese send coast guard ships to obstruct only the Philippines part of the patrol?

China might be willing to limit themselves to only verbal protests about US warships sailing in its waters, but anyone with half a brain can see that the only reason the Philippines would get involved in the so called 'FON' patrols is to undermine Chinese territorial claims and control. So it is far less likely to tolerate that.

The flip side is China needs stability to continue internal and external development, and confrontations with its greater and lesser regional rivals could impact stability. It doesn't mean China should back down on all provocations, but choosing what fights to accept and what to avoid is better foreign relations management than fullthroated opposition to everything.

 

[Blackstone]

Awful idea as far as Chinese interests are concerned.

Even mounting counter FON patrols would undermine China's opposition to these patrols. To do a joint one is pretty much conceding everything.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible China might someday embrace current FON norms, so it could send assets right outside foreign 12-mile limits. So, nuanced response to US-style FONOP might be more beneficial to China's long-term interests.

 

[plawolf]

The flip side is China needs stability to continue internal and external development, and confrontations with its greater and lesser regional rivals could impact stability. It doesn't mean China should back down on all provocations, but choosing what fights to accept and what to avoid is better foreign relations management than fullthroated opposition to everything.

Well, unfortunately the stock arguments western politicians routinely spout about the perils of appeasement very much applies from China's POV also.

It's not hard to see the rationale and justification in the argument that China trying to be reasonable and restraint is effectively engaging in appeasement, and the more China compromises, the more emboldened certain factions and countries become, thus leading to far greater excesses and instability.

It is precisely because China does not want to have to fight everyone on every front that making a stand when and where it most benefits China is a good idea.

As the old Chinese proverbs says, 'one can kill the chicken to warn the monkey', that by mounting a successful, limited 'shock and awe' campaign to demonstrate both Chinese might and willingness to use it, China can deter future aggression from the usual suspects, thereby creating a more stable and secure environment for future economic development than if it did nothing and invited more provocation and disruptions.

There is certainly good historical precedent, if you contrast the bellicose tone and attitude of prominent figures within the US government before Chinese involvement in the Korean War, and subsequently during the Vietnam war, where the US went out of its way to try and reassure China that it had no hostile intentions.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

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".

Sino South Korean Relations are critical. Xi can't feed the north without burning the south.

 

[Blackstone]

Well, unfortunately the stock arguments western politicians routinely spout about the perils of appeasement very much applies from China's POV also.

It's not hard to see the rationale and justification in the argument that China trying to be reasonable and restraint is effectively engaging in appeasement, and the more China compromises, the more emboldened certain factions and countries become, thus leading to far greater excesses and instability.

It's also true US news media and think tanks are heavy with neocon perspectives that promote continued US primacy and condemn accommodations as "appeasement," and yet there's actually less bashing of China in the current Presidential election than the one in 2012. Additionally, we see many news articles advocating reasonable accommodations for China by such noted authors as Henry Kissinger, Ted Galen Carpenter (Cato Institute), Hugh White (Australian National Univ.), David Lampton (ex-US Ambassador to China), J Stapleton Roy (ex-US Ambassador to China), Stephen Harner (ex-US Foreign Service Officer), Lyle Goldstein (US Naval War College), and many, many more.

It is precisely because China does not want to have to fight everyone on every front that making a stand when and where it most benefits China is a good idea.

As the old Chinese proverbs says, 'one can kill the chicken to warn the monkey', that by mounting a successful, limited 'shock and awe' campaign to demonstrate both Chinese might and willingness to use it, China can deter future aggression from the usual suspects, thereby creating a more stable and secure environment for future economic development than if it did nothing and invited more provocation and disruptions.

There is certainly good historical precedent, if you contrast the bellicose tone and attitude of prominent figures within the US government before Chinese involvement in the Korean War, and subsequently during the Vietnam war, where the US went out of its way to try and reassure China that it had no hostile intentions.

What you say has merit, but let's look at it from the other guy's perspective. US is the current leader in Asia, and a reemerging China wants to carve out some space of its own. Since it'll likely come at US expense, is it reasonable Washington would see it in a negative way? If one believes the best solution is for both sides to address the others most pressing concerns, then China needs to reassure US anxieties, just as US needs to consider Chinese sensitivities. It's a two-way street.

 

[Equation]

then China needs to reassure US anxieties, just as US needs to consider Chinese sensitivities. It's a two-way street.

But it's not Chinese job or responsibility to reassure US anxieties as it is not US job to consider Chinese sensitivities.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Check out around 15:10 mark the comment by arch-conservative Pat Buchanan.

.

An he's anti-China...

 

[Zool]

Check out around 15:10 mark the comment by arch-conservative Pat Buchanan.

.

An he's anti-China...

If he holds the same view under a Republican administration, then he would have my respect for his position either way. It's people who flip flop on policy to score political points that I can't stand, because they push personal agenda over national interest. Those people should be called out publicly every time.