joshuatree
Captain
Still a part of the SCS islands. Less claimants for Australia to worry about in their response to a Chinese offer. Already has developed infrastructure to play host.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
Still a part of the SCS islands. Less claimants for Australia to worry about in their response to a Chinese offer. Already has developed infrastructure to play host.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's really like the saving face version of the good cop/ bad cop routine. The US can't ask these things because it's essentially what China was offering in the beginning. So the Australians do it while the US still shows off its military. Like Australia can broker a deal circumventing the US?
I disagree with blacklisting Americans from using these islands. There are a lot geo-political slippery slopes involved here. China was never going to bow down in the South China Sea over its claims because that would have ramifications with claims against Japan. The US wants Japan to control all islands in its possession that are in dispute but can't say it out loud because it's not only China that has claims. The US would be declaring those territories claimed by just as an important ally, South Korea, are Japan's too. And look how Japan poking South Korea in the eye has stifled any allied front against China. Having Americans, whether civilian or military, use those facilities will be slapping the face of Vietnam and the Philippines because that's de facto declaring it belongs to China. Don't be surprised since this tactic is what probably caused this whole mess in the first place. I remember reading stories before China started reclamation that Obama okayed US energy companies to co-explore with China's rivals in disputed waters in the South China Sea. That is de facto saying the US recognizes those countries' claims. Like China is not going to do anything? I bet Obama was counting on it so he can spin it to look like China was the aggressor to garner support for the Pivot to Asia. He just didn't see China building islands in response.
These reclamation projects have reportedly cost China tens of billions of dollars. Like China is going to give them up now? China is there to stay. Maybe the US should've protested when reclamation started but instead Obama waited over a year to say something. Maybe he thought China going to easily give up and have them waste all that money when he ordered Beijing to leave those islands? Maybe he should've thought about it more in the first place. Maybe China's neighbors shouldn't be so easy to drink the Kool-Aid.
Letting others use those islands is the opposite of the goal of isolating China.
I disagree with blacklisting Americans from using these islands. There are a lot geo-political slippery slopes involved here. China was never going to bow down in the South China Sea over its claims because that would have ramifications with claims against Japan. The US wants Japan to control all islands in its possession that are in dispute but can't say it out loud because it's not only China that has claims. The US would be declaring those territories claimed by just as an important ally, South Korea, are Japan's too. And look how Japan poking South Korea in the eye has stifled any allied front against China. Having Americans, whether civilian or military, use those facilities will be slapping the face of Vietnam and the Philippines because that's de facto declaring it belongs to China. Don't be surprised since this tactic is what probably caused this whole mess in the first place. I remember reading stories before China started reclamation that Obama okayed US energy companies to co-explore with China's rivals in disputed waters in the South China Sea. That is de facto saying the US recognizes those countries' claims. Like China is not going to do anything? I bet Obama was counting on it so he can spin it to look like China was the aggressor to garner support for the Pivot to Asia. He just didn't see China building islands in response.
These reclamation projects have reportedly cost China tens of billions of dollars. Like China is going to give them up now? China is there to stay. Maybe the US should've protested when reclamation started but instead Obama waited over a year to say something. Maybe he thought China going to easily give up and have them waste all that money when he ordered Beijing to leave those islands? Maybe he should've thought about it more in the first place. Maybe China's neighbors shouldn't be so easy to drink the Kool-Aid.
Letting others use those islands is the opposite of the goal of isolating China.
Maybe.
I myself think it would be a good move by China to eventually invite Australia, the US, and a few SCS countries (probably not vietnam and Philippines) to host some limited joint humanitarian exercises on the islands -- because if they accept, then it will essentially be their semi acknowledgment of control over the islands and it gives China's presence there more legitimacy, and if they decline, then they will be the ones seen as the unreasonable ones refusing the olive branch.
In response to this specific Australian request, I think a sensible answer would be for China to lay open the opportunity for foreign aircraft and ships to visit the reclaimed islands and to conduct cooperative exercises, but would be dependent on various conditions in the future and to leave it at that -- I'm sure they will understand the meaning of it.
I don't think so, Unlike Spratley, China think Paracel is undisputed despite Vietnam current protest. China has Pham Van Dong, the N vietnam premier at that time hand written note to Zhou Enlai stating China's sovereign over paracel. It controlled since 1974. Vietnam cant take China to court on that now or future. No legit country can eat its formal previous declaration.
Paracel Chain is unshareable, untoucheable according to China.
China might share soemthing in Spratley.
Last edited:
Fiery Cross is probably the best option. Apparently it lies outside of anyone's 200km EEZ, so is politically the best option as it's in a "neutral" zone.
Come to think of it, would it be in China's interest to offer up Fiery Cross as a permanent base for joint patrols with various littoral nations in the South China Seas?
>>> Direct US-China conflict scenario deleted. It is against SD rules <<<{/b]
Last edited by a moderator:
Placing S-400 in Hainan or the SCS doesn't make much sense to me.
In comparison, S-400s placed opposite the Taiwan Strait make much more sense.
The missiles can shoot down aircraft over the skies of Taiwan as soon they take off.
joshuatree
Captain
It is exactly because the Paracels really only has one opposition claimant (I regard Taiwan's claim as more of the ROC/PROC issue), it would be easier for Australia to accept such an invitation. Inviting Australia is something China should want to happen as opposed to just merely talk. I've already mentioned such suggested actions come with the disclaimer that they have no prejudice against claims.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Do you really need to drag in Japan which in a completely different situation compared to PRC to justify your case?
Basically you are grabbing for straws.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
PRC Foreign Minister denies that his nation had stationed any missiles on SEA island stating it is a complete fabrication by western media.
Talk about not receiving the memo.
Like I said the Foreign Minister didn't get the memo.
Seriously though PRC's foreign minister really lacks accountability where the left hand is oblivious of what the right hand is doing.
Brumby
Major
You are conveniently avoiding two key points in your comments. North Vietnam cannot give away what it does not own at that time because it was under the jurisdiction of South Vietnam. Secondly, that supposedly note was never ratified by Vietnam when it was unified as a country. In other words ceding of territory is not on the back of some hand written note. In international law that has to be by way of some treaty. Please show me that treaty.