China's SCS Strategy Thread

[tch1972]

Can anyone point to me the historical records china based their assertion on?

I often heard china official position that those islands and reefs belong to them 'historically' but can't find any historical text or maps on lines to back up the claim.

Not that I want to find fault with china but even if I want to defend Chinese position on SCS, I also need proof . I think the Chinese authority could do a better job by making sure whatever historical documents that is relevant are easily accessible online.

 

[bd popeye]

This is nothing new. There have always been some defense facilities on the Woody Island and military aircraft. A J-11B take-off picture was even posted on SDF a few months ago. The media is deliberately mixing up the Woody Island with the Spratly Islands further south. Woody Island, by the way, has been under Chinese control since the '50s. It's a natural island and China declared territorial lines around the island back in 1996.

The media is getting ridiculous.

Thanks for the clarification. and its' typical IMO for FOX news to spin the news to provoke an reaction.

I did a little research and this is what I discovered about Woody Island.

from wiki..

Fishing activities in the South China Sea region surrounding the island have been documented in the records of earlier Chinese dynasties. During the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(1368–1644),

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

plotted the location of surrounding islands on a map.[

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

] In 1909

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Chinese: 張人駿), the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ordered Guangdong Fleet Admiral Li Zhun to sail to the island. His mission landed in June 1909. In 1932, the island was occupied by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

The island was occupied by Japan during World War II. Following Japan's surrender at the end of the war, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

government sent naval expeditions to the South China Sea in November 1946 to claim the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and Paracel Islands, and established a permanent presence on Woody Island and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. They (re)named Woody Island "Yongxing (Yung-hsing) Island" after one of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

warships, ROCS Yung-hsing (永興號). The ROCS Yung-hsing was formerly the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

transferred to the ROC navy after the war. In January 1947, after making a failed attempt to dislodge the Chinese garrison from Woody Island, France established a permanent presence, on behalf of Vietnam, on Pattle Island in the western Paracels.

After the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in 1950 during the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the ROC garrison on Woody Island and Itu Aba were withdrawn to Taiwan. France had a chance to take over the islands, but decided not to, for fear of compromising its interests with the newly established PRC. The islands were thus unoccupied for six years, except for seasonal inhabitation by fishermen from Hainan. In 1956, the PRC established a permanent presence on Woody Island.

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(South Vietnam) continued to exercise its sovereignty over the Crescent Group in the western part of the Paracel Islands after assuming control from the departing French colonialists, by maintaining a military garrison from the mid-1950s (per a decision by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

's administration). Within the 20 years thereafter, conflicts between the two sides repeatedly erupted within the region. In January 1974, the PLA Navy captured the archipelago during the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

To paraphrase that great American Jim Rome ..Scoreboard..China!

 

[solarz]

I think that is generally correct, but remember that China is not just a rising regional power. In the coming years, it will likely surpass the US in most categories of power, so will likely become a global superpower as well.

The other thing to note is that with Chinese control of the SCS, it is now China that will be holding a knife to a country like a much smaller and poorer Vietnam, which shares a land border with the Chinese Army and is also a long thin coastal state surrounded by Chinese bases.

Judging from history, I do not believe China has any global superpower ambitions, nor do I think China is interested in coercing neighboring countries.

First, China's large population is both its strength and its weakness. Governing a nation the size of China is a herculean feat in and of itself. Compared to the US, China has more than 4 times the people and only a fraction of the arable land. No amount of economic development or technological advancement is going to change that fact.

China has traditionally focused entirely on agriculture just to feed its population, which was only a fraction of its current size. With the advent of the modern age, China can no longer afford to do the same thing. Today, the key to China's food security lies in building strong, stable trading partnerships with agricultural nations like Ukraine or Canada.

Second, the phenomena of "superpower" is a legacy of the old capitalism vs communism ideology struggle. The USSR became a superpower by incorporating neighboring states and spreading communism all over the world. The US became a superpower by leading an alliance against the spread of communism. The US remains a superpower because of inertia: it already has substantial military presence in many countries and it is loathe to withdraw them, and the American culture was developed around its messiah complex in the last 70 years.

To put it simply, I see nothing, except perhaps hubris, that would motivate China to tread the same path as the US or the Soviet Union.

 

[PanAsian]

Can anyone point to me the historical records china based their assertion on?

I often heard china official position that those islands and reefs belong to them 'historically' but can't find any historical text or maps on lines to back up the claim.

Not that I want to find fault with china but even if I want to defend Chinese position on SCS, I also need proof . I think the Chinese authority could do a better job by making sure whatever historical documents that is relevant are easily accessible online.

There is a persistent and huge information gap, even on the miraculous internet, where a lot of information is not available especially when it comes to information not originally intended for the public or mass media, or older than or on media different from those we still use today, and even if available would only be in its original or descendant language. A first step would be to learn Chinese if you don't know it already and search around the Chinese internet. Good luck and please post if you find anything of note!

 

[AndrewS]

Judging from history, I do not believe China has any global superpower ambitions, nor do I think China is interested in coercing neighboring countries.

First, China's large population is both its strength and its weakness. Governing a nation the size of China is a herculean feat in and of itself. Compared to the US, China has more than 4 times the people and only a fraction of the arable land. No amount of economic development or technological advancement is going to change that fact.

China has traditionally focused entirely on agriculture just to feed its population, which was only a fraction of its current size. With the advent of the modern age, China can no longer afford to do the same thing. Today, the key to China's food security lies in building strong, stable trading partnerships with agricultural nations like Ukraine or Canada.

Second, the phenomena of "superpower" is a legacy of the old capitalism vs communism ideology struggle. The USSR became a superpower by incorporating neighboring states and spreading communism all over the world. The US became a superpower by leading an alliance against the spread of communism. The US remains a superpower because of inertia: it already has substantial military presence in many countries and it is loathe to withdraw them, and the American culture was developed around its messiah complex in the last 70 years.

To put it simply, I see nothing, except perhaps hubris, that would motivate China to tread the same path as the US or the Soviet Union.

I agree China doesn't have global superpower ambitions, but if China does become a wealthy and hitech nation, it will automatically have the heft to be a superpower and will inevitably have interests in elsewhere. But I think China is smart enough to stick mostly to Asia and the Indian Ocean / Arabian Gulf. And China has certainly learned the lesson of the USSR which focused on military influence rather than economic influence.

And technological development does hold the promise of allowing China to manage the demand for arable agricultural land. Look at the labs where yeast is being genetically engineered to produce milk or meat is being grown in a petri-dish. Once developed, such production methods will be far more efficient, cheaper and better than animal husbandry and will free up a lot of land. Improved plants will also increase yields and the possible acreage, although China will overall still be a food-importing nation.

In terms of the China-Vietnam relationship, Vietnam does have a widespread anti-China attitude, and is sometimes tempted to ally with a foreign power. So ultimately China does need to remind Vietnam that a foreign military alliance against China is not an option, as economic signals only go so far in such an environment.

 

[tidalwave]

Yes, China can have undisputed possession of the SCS islands but such an aggressive foreign policy would have invited many more Western attempts to screw with China wherever they can. The result could be that China today would be stuck at the development level of the Middle East.

Nope, US and the west were firmly on China side in the 80s as they were against Soviet and its follower, Vietnam.

 

[tidalwave]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Beijing however has said such facilities, as well as lighthouses it has built on several reefs, are designed to make the region safer for shipping. And the Global Times in turn accused the U.S. of “military hegemony” in the Pacific, and of “mischievous… muscle flexing” and “hyping up” tension in the South China Sea, in pursuit of what it called a “strategic game with a rising China.”

A separate commentary by an academic in the paper suggested that U.S. missions near the Paracels — Xisha in Chinese — were designed to incite Vietnam, the chain’s other main claimant, to oppose China. It said these moves were “a highly strategic attempt for the U.S. to stir up trouble over the Xisha islands,” and “trick Vietnam into taking actions.”

And the U.S. may face a balancing act as it seeks Chinese cooperation over tackling North Korea, with which Beijing has close relations, while at the same time countering China’s position in the South China Sea.

Victor Gao, Director of the China National Association of International Studies, told Chinese state television that Washington was sending “conflicting messages” to China.

“On the one hand the U.S. wants full cooperation from China on the DPRK nuclearization issue – but on the South China Sea it’s very, very belligerent,” he said. “How should China reconcile these? You can’t have your cake and eat it. This is international relations 1.0 — you need to incentivize China to do the right thing, you can’t create disincentives so that China will move the other way.”

 

[joshuatree]

3. In the long-run, settle the territorial disputes in the SCS, because at the end of the day, the value of that territory is marginal to every nation involved, and they all know it. And once the disputes are settled, China naturally has military primacy in the region and should lead a multi-lateral security organisation which includes the other nations of the SCS. The remit would include anti-piracy and keeping the sea lanes open no matter what happens, unlike certain outside powers which would close those shipping lanes in the event of a blockade against China.

That is only way for China to be truly secure in the SCS, but there are certain outside interests who have no desire in ever seeing this happen.

And I council patience in these endeavours, because time is on China's side. Even if the Chinese economy slows down further to 6% per year, it still doubles in size in 12 years time. China will be in a much different place by then.

China can use multiple ways to settle the disputes. Easiest is bilateral resolution with Indonesia, if there are any outstanding items. Possibly similar scenario with Malaysia and Brunei but because those two have overlapping claims, that may be a three party discussion. Once you have that, you're really left with just Vietnam, Philippines, and Taiwan. Taiwan, would be a different matter. So with Vietnam and the Philippines, something like the Svalbard Treaty would a realistic approach.

 

[tidalwave]

I think USN admiral Harry Harris is way too political for an acting officer.

He drew quote from Deng Xiao Ping and said China follow Deng's advice; to continue to lay low.
He also said China betrayed President Xi's Pledge of not to militarize SCS.
Finally he said China seeking hegemony and any one believe otherwise would think the earth is flat.

Those things he said should belong to a politician not an acting officer. His job is follow order from the civilian branch.

I could see him try to run for election one day

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think USN admiral Harry Harris is way too political for an acting officer.

He drew quote from Deng Xiao Ping and said China follow Deng's advice; to continue to lay low.
He also said China betrayed President Xi's Pledge of not to militarize SCS.
Finally he said China seeking hegemony and any one believe otherwise would think the earth is flat.

Those things he said should belong to a politician not an acting officer. His job is follow order from the civilian branch.

I could see him try to run for election one day

I completely disagree with everything that you have stated, for a US admiral to make such statements is within his rights, and he is only voicing the "concern" that those who are aware of China's overt policy changes have on their minds?

The US and her allies will respond to China's more aggressive policies, and militarizing these disputed territories is a provocative action in any language and culture?