China's SCS Strategy Thread

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
You are clearly entitled to your opinion but not to your manufactured facts. Please point out to me where did I say the following "North Vietnam cannot give away paracel because it doesn't have the consent of the vietnamese people". Your statement suggest to me that you are clueless on this issue.

Since you have so many clues explain this. Your exact words.
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.

When it was unfied, whom does North Vietnamese need to consult with in order to ratified???
 

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
Article calls out the US media for trying to over-hype the latest actions on Woody Island.

From China's perspective, the SCS issue is first and foremost a sovereignty issue, but the US media often tries to paint it as a military (threat to US Pacific naval presence) or economic issues (threat to shipping). Since the actual military threat posed by China in the SCS isn't really that big of a deal, the US is unwilling to devote real resources to counter China's build up to strengthen its sovereignty claims in the SCS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



In the South China Sea, the U.S. Stays the Course

Change comes slowly to Asia, a region of overwhelming geopolitical forces. Among the few exceptions to this rule is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, where seemingly unimportant events can move through the region like an ocean swell. It was with this exception in mind that the media reacted so rabidly today after China placed two HQ-9 surface-to-air missile batteries on Woody Island, a link in the disputed Paracel Island chain. The media would have us believe that China's actions were a watershed moment in the militarization of the South China Sea — and that they directly challenged the concept of freedom of navigation in its waters.

A more sober assessment shows that what China did is neither surprising nor particularly consequential. In fact, the status of Woody Island is fairly uncontroversial, even by the standards of the South China Sea. Though
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and China each claim Woody Island for itself — as they do with all islands in the Paracels — according to international law, it is neither a rock nor reclaimed land, unlike
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
elsewhere in the disputed waters.

Moreover, Woody Island is already host to more Chinese military equipment than most other islands in the South China Sea. It is relatively well stocked with transport infrastructure, including an airfield and a small harbor. The island sustains a small civilian population and is the seat of Sansha city, the Chinese civilian administration established over its South China Sea claims. A small garrison has stood in the city since at least 1985. In short, China's interest in protecting its anchor in the South China Sea predates anything that happened Feb. 16.

If anything, the surface-to-air missiles would not even be terribly effective in a conventional military conflict; defending the Paracels is logistically difficult. But limited though they would be in such a fight, their assembly actually aligns with China's political strategy in the region: establishing de facto control over the space with its holdings (natural or reclaimed) while keeping opposition divided and unable to mount an effective challenge. These kinds of deployments are Beijing's best option for discouraging a potential U.S.-led coalition from severing critical lines of communication through the South China Sea.

Of course, China's actions will be viewed suspiciously by the United States, which has every interest in maintaining its naval superiority throughout the world. Washington is concerned that China's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
could
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, but it is not so concerned that it will shore up its military presence in the South China Sea
. It would rather delegate that responsibility to its allies, such as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and Australia.

To that end, the United States had hoped it could persuade Association of Southeast Asian Nations members to push back against China's claims. (Interestingly, the media hype over the missile batteries overshadowed the conclusion of the landmark summit U.S. President Barack Obama
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.) But these hopes have faded over the years; Washington simply cannot bring on board non-claimant ASEAN members such as Laos and Cambodia, which have little to gain and much to lose if they act against China. The disunity in ASEAN could be heard in the Joint Statement of the U.S.-ASEAN Summit, which paid lip service to the concept of Freedom of Navigation without explicitly referring to China or the South China Sea. Despite its best efforts, the United States has found that ASEAN, the formation of which was predicated on consensus and mutual noninterference, is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
than joint security arrangements.

For now, the United States will try to do what it has done in the past: curb Chinese maritime expansion by working with claimant countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines. And though the deployment of surface-to-air missiles will do little to speed things up, it is not the prelude to regional warfare the media has made it out to be. The move simply has not significantly changed the calculations of anyone involved in South China Sea.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Considering a primary source of the tensions in the region is American insistence on sending military patrols through waters which China objects to foreign militaries operating in, hell will freeze over before China allows US navy ships on FON patrols to use any of its islands.

China might open up part of the islands to international civilian ships so they can dock to resupply, repair or just generally get a bit of R&R, maybe that could be extended to coast guard and other non-military ships.

But unless the country/navy in question renounces the right to conduct FON, and indeed any military activity without authorisation from China within its EEZ, then those naval ships will not be welcome at the islands unless for exceptional humanitarian reasons, like if one of them struck a reef and needed a place to conduct urgent repairs or else it will sink before being able to get to a friendly port etc.

Seeing as the USN will also say hell will freeze over before they accept that, they are just not going to be allowed to dock to those islands.

Basing of foreign military on any of those islands would be categorically out of the question. Just as the idea of China setting up a permanent military base somewhere on US soil would be anathema to America.
Of course it would not be FON vessels.

But Australian vessels, or other nations doing anti-piracy or something like that on a temporary basis...I can see.

Heck, since the PLAN and USN have worked anti-piracy before, I could even see a joint PLAN - USN anti-piracy exercise going on...but specifically at the PLAN request and specifically not a FON mission.

Such a gesture by China would be a good one and would help punctuate their claims to peaceful use, etc. Time will tell.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Guys, cut the war drums and speculation. This is a Chinese strategy Page for the SCS, not a war drum page and not a speculation page.

The fact is, the new missiles are on Woody Island in the Parcells, not on any of the new Islands in the Spratly's.

What passes for journalism these days (and not just in the west) does not seem interested in researching and knowing the difference...or caring. Let's not make the same mistake on SD.

Of course the PPRC is going to take steps to secure their holdings. These missiles are purely defensive, and they are not capable of controlling all of the SCS.

I expect at some point we may see them further south too.

Short of war, the US and others cannot stop this.

Short of war, the Chinese cannot stop FON.

Neither side will go to war over either a few AA missiles, or FON.

Nor should they.

DO NOT RESPOND TPO THIS MODERATION.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
There is no doubt in my mind that China is going to set up permanent bases now on its new islands in the SCS. They are doing so as we speak.

I do not think that they ever will allow permanent bases from other nations on those islands fo theirs.

But I do believe that other nations will also have permanent bases on their own holdings. some already do.

I agree completely.

But the though experiment is that it would make sense for the Chinese to offer up Fiery Cross as a SINGLE JOINT base with some of the SCS countries, given the alignment of interests in keeping the SCS open to commercial traffic no matter what happens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brumby

Major
Since you have so many clues explain this. Your exact words.
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.

When it was unfied, whom does North Vietnamese need to consult with in order to ratified???
At the time the note was supposedly given, both South and North Vietnam was still fighting over total control. The Paracels at that time was under the jurisdiction of South Vietnam. In reality, North Vietnam cannot cede sovereignty over the Paracels to China because at that time it does not own it. This is no different to you giving away your father's house. You have no legal title to it until such time you inherit it as in the case with Vietnam when the country was unified. In other words, it was conditional upon certain event happening when legal title can be assumed. Once Vietnam has title to it, whatever agreement that previously existed between China and Vietnam has to be ratified. In international law, ceding of territory requires formalisation through a treaty between two countries. That did not happen for whatever reason. The point constantly raised that Vietnam lost the Paracels through this note is a rhetorical effort to score point but in effect it acknowledges Vietnam's original title to the Paracels whenever it is raised. Instead we know as a fact that Vietnam continues to challenge China over the Paracels is testament that Vietnam has no intention to cede and hence sovereignty is now in dispute. You may accuse Vietnam of non performance of the original note but to say that Vietnam lost its right to contest is simply laughable.
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
At the time the note was supposedly given, both South and North Vietnam was still fighting over total control. The Paracels at that time was under the jurisdiction of South Vietnam. In reality, North Vietnam cannot cede sovereignty over the Paracels to China because at that time it does not own it. This is no different to you giving away your father's house. You have no legal title to it until such time you inherit it as in the case with Vietnam when the country was unified. In other words, it was conditional upon certain event happening when legal title can be assumed. Once Vietnam has title to it, whatever agreement that previously existed between China and Vietnam has to be ratified. In international law, ceding of territory requires formalisation through a treaty between two countries. That did not happen for whatever reason. The point constantly raised that Vietnam lost the Paracels through this note is a rhetorical effort to score point but in effect it acknowledges Vietnam's original title to the Paracels whenever it is raised. Instead we know as a fact that Vietnam continues to challenge China over the Paracels is testament that Vietnam has no intention to cede and hence sovereignty is now in dispute. You may accuse Vietnam of non performance of the original note but to say that Vietnam lost its right to contest is simply laughable.

Nice try.
North Vietnam needed China help therefore agreed to cede Paracel.
After taking over South Vietnam, it doesn't need China anymore and tried to eat its words and that's what happening now.

Don't try put into deceitful flowery terms "Need to ratify this , Need to ratify that that make it legit" We ain't children here.
North Vietnam trying to run a scam and China see through it.
You can say it trying contest all it wants, but China needs to expose the details of SCAM.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Nice try.
North Vietnam needed China help therefore agreed to cede Paracel.

After taking over South Vietnam, it doesn't need China anymore and tried to eat its words and that's what happening now.

Don't try put into deceitful flowery terms "Need to ratify this , Need to ratify that that make it legit" We ain't children here.

North Vietnam trying to run a scam and China see through it.

You can say it trying contest all it wants, but China needs to expose the details of SCAM.
Tidalwave, this is your opinion.

Brumby has a different opinion.

Keep it civil...but unless you have the legal proof that there is a scam going on, then it is simply your opinion that a scam is going on. Until some international court determines that is the case...it remains that. Opinions.

Also, do not placate or try and use demeaning language to make your points. Brumby has not been deceitful in the least...he has shared his opinion. Just as you have shared yours.

I am sure you do not feel that you are being deceitful, and I do not believe anyone has accused you of any such thing.

It is clear you do not agree...so, let it drop.

Once it becomes clear that you disagree and that you both hold your own opinions, to carry on such an argument to try and change someone's opinion becomes what BD POPEYE called a "meaningless argument." Meaningless arguments are against SD rules.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I'll have to chime in a here and mention that at the time, only the Crescent Group was occupied by South Vietnam. The Amphitrite Group which includes Woody Island was under ROC occupation from 1946-1950 and then under PROC later.
The history of Woody Island in general (in modern times) is as follows:

1909 Island landed on and claimed by China

1932 Island occupied and claimed by French for French Indo China (which included Vietnam)

WW II Island occupied by Japan

1946 Island claimed and occupied by Nationalist Chinese

1947 French attempt to dislodge Chinese Nationalists from Woody Island but fail. They establish a presence for Vietnam on Pattle Island instead. French Vietnam at this point was South Vietnam.

1950 Nationalist Chinese presence withdrawn from Woody Island to Taiwan s Nationalist lose on the Chinese civil war on the mainland to the PRC.

1950-1956 Island occupied occasionally by Chinese fisherman from Hainan Island. French fear taking the island because they do not want to provoke the PRC.

1956 PRC establishes a permanent presence on the Island

1956-1974 Ongoing conflicts and disagreement between Vietnam (after the Vietnam War) and China take place several times over the Parcells

1974 Battle of the Parcel Islands results in China taking control of the entire archipelago.

The Nationalist Chinese and then the PRC have occupied woody Island since 1946, for the last 70 years.
 
Top