China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

As you rightly said earlier, the British Empire showed flag follows trade. So do language, culture, social norms, and of course, guns.

The ancient Chinese silk road never need to follow any kind flag, just a good horse or camel caravan to make the trip to Middle East region and than on to the west for trades.

 

[Blackstone]

Frankly what has all these countries got to do with the current dispute? One of the institution provided by UNCLOS to settle such issues is the International tribunal but yet is rejected by China.

Since China lawfully exercised its option under UNCLOS to opt out of arbitration, parties will have to use other resolution methods. Hummm, let's see now, what other method can nations use to resolve differences? What can it be...? Hey! How about DIPLOMACY?

There is a process and a framework as pathway that underpins rule of law. Outside that pathway is simply lawlessness.

What a ridiculous assertion vis-a-vis the SCS dispute. China signed UNCLOS with reservations to the South China Sea and it lawfully exercised its option to opt out of arbitration. Reasonable people would call that legal and effective use of international law. Too effective for some, I suppose.

 

[plawolf]

Since China lawfully exercised its option under UNCLOS to opt out of arbitration, parties will have to use other resolution methods. Hummm, let's see now, what other method can nations use to resolve differences? What can it be...? Hey! How about DIPLOMACY?


What a ridiculous assertion vis-a-vis the SCS dispute. China signed UNCLOS with reservations to the South China Sea and it lawfully exercised its option to opt out of arbitration. Reasonable people would call that legal and effective use of international law. Too effective for some, I suppose.

Agreed 100%. I myself have stressed this point repeatedly to Brumby, as has others yet he picks and chooses what facts and arguments to see to best suit he's pathological need to make China out as the bad guy in all things.

Its the primary reason I placed him on my ignore list, you cannot reason with someone who refuses to see anything that contradicts his views. And I have never regretted it since.

 

[AndrewS]

Just been reading this Kyle Miyokami article in Popular Mechanics which has a glaring factual error

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"In recent years, China has laid claim to 90 percent of the South China Sea. While many countries claim part of the South China Sea, none have claimed—and seized—as much as China."

This is factually incorrect as it is Vietnam which has seized way more features than anyone else in the SCS and it's pretty easy to count them on a map and when they were taken.

I recall someone here does some writing for Popular Mechanics, so could they feed this back so it can be corrected.

===

I do wonder if China has ever seen how Israel's news monitoring centre works. It runs 24/7 and its mission is to ensure factual errors are corrected and Israel's point of view is heard whenever Israel is mentioned. So they do have a network of local journalists/diplomats ready to engage immediatey.

Come to think of it, it might actually be better to describe it as a Public Relations warfare centre instead.

 

[AndrewS]

According to Jack Midley of Deloitte defense Consulting, China planning 30 new Nuke Attack Submarines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Cross post of a CNBC news slot called 'China has huge economic interest in South China Sea'

Probably one of the better analyses from the US media, as it at least recognises that China has a legitimate interest in the SCS as it is the world's largest trading nation with most of this trade flowing through the SCS. It also looks at how China will overshadow the rest of Asia (inc Japan) in the future.

Sorry to keep harping on at this, but hopefully some of the US policymaking lurkers will see some of this.

If you don't have flash, it's also available here from CNBC direct

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

It is greater good theory, but China's actions do stand your 3 tests for the greater good:

Test 1. "The problem is the benefit is partial"

We're talking about economic benefits suffered or gained, not directly taking a life.

But the economic benefits are in the trillions AND in countries where hundreds of millions of people are in dire poverty that this money DOES translate into large number of lives. Their benefit far outweighs the loss suffered by a few fishermen.

Partiality in this instance means that the benefits do not favour a particular party in its outcome. China in appropriating territory where sovereignty is disputed is consequently deriving a beneficial outcome at the expense of other claimants. This is a failure of the impartiality test whichever way you wish to cut it.

If any economic benefits (in trillions as you said) is a result of ownership, how is this economic benefit only realisable if China is controlling it? In other words, the value is intrinsically derived and is not a function of who owns it.

Test 2. "the agent is not neutral"

I think we're now delving into one of the fundamental cultural differences between Confucian societies (China/Japan/Korea/Taiwan/HK/SIngapore/Vietnam) and Anglo societies. Confucian societies are more hierarchial and focus on the overall health of the group rather than an individual. Therefore agent neutrality is not seen as a requirement for a greater good test.

You have got to be kidding on this one. The desire to live and to thrive has no cultural boundaries. It certainly trumps any Confucian theory that you wish to invoke. How do I know? China has a long history of dynasty changes because the common folks have had enough of the decay that has set into each of this hierarchical system and had revolted against it. No Confucian ideology can hold them back.

When we talk of agent neutral (which I don't think you understand the concept even after the example I gave with the organ harvesting) is that the greater good theory cannot infringe the rights of an individual or body for the benefit of others unless it is freely given. In the SCS dispute, the Philippines and Vietnam are challenging the claims and therefor sufficient evidence that they are not neutral on the issue.

Plus what neutral agent can credibly adjudicate in the SCS?

Good question. The international tribunal can credibly adjudicate but which China has rejected.

The Anglo principle would be that one should be judged a jury of one's peers, but who are the peers who have no vested interest in the outcome in the SCS? And international law on the seas is but what the biggest navy decides it to be, as any international relations student will tell you.

UNCLOS is one of the most comprehensive agreement in the history of the world to govern behaviour of countries in relation to maritime issues. Significant efforts were made to provide for dispute resolution.

Test 3. "clearly such action is illegal"

In the case of organ harvesting from an individual that does not agree to it is clearly illegal as it is a priori knowledge. In the case of the SCS dispute, China by fiat declaring that it has indisputable sovereignty on the basis of some virtual lines is making a mockery to the meaning of an orderly society predicated upon known rules.

Remember that Anglo common-law also allows precedent to be set and therefore it takes the pragmatic route of legitimising what actually happens in the real world.

Please specify if you wish to argue for it.

There are clearly enough ambiguous territorial and EEZ claims that there is a genuine dispute.
Plus genuine differences in UNCLOS interpretation.

Can you tell me on what basis is China making its claims and how that is giving rise to genuine differences in UNCLOS interpretation.

So again, where are the truly impartial agents that will judge, and by what cultural yardstick will they judge the greater good?

And in international relations, it really is the law of the jungle, as the US itself demonstrated by withdrawing from UNCLOS when it didn't like a judgement, amongst other actions.

At least until there truly is a world government which can censure the US or China, but that is a whole other discussion in itself.

The provisions to resolve are embodied in UNCLOS

How the US acts is important, because its actions DO set the benchmark by which China acts.
So it would be better if the US wasn't so hypocritical sometimes , but that's for the US to recognise and reflect upon.

In the SCS dispute, the US is not a party to it - China is. The underlying issue is China's actions.

China actually spends way more time thinking about its positions and making sure they are consistent, whereas even US politicians are surprised at some of the hypocritical crap that the US actually does in the background.

Humour me please. The only consistent feature that I have noticed is the customary statement that its sovereignty is indisputable.

And I mention those other countries because you didn't believe Russia / Central Asia / Africa were neutral or supportive of Chinese activities in the SCS. I believe your exact words were "You are kidding, right?"

The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity, but on the legitimacy of its case.

Think about it. China is now setting up a military base in Djibouti on the horn of Africa, as once again, the countries in Africa know that China has an interest maintaining the shipping lanes.

Flag follows trade, indeed.

I'll repeat again, Chinese trade in the SCS is essential to the Chinese economy, and the Chinese trade probably accounts for more trade in the SCS than everyone else combined.

Your assumption is all about economics but is it?

 

[AndrewS]

@Brumby

At the macro level, it is obvious that the "greater good" means that one party does not benefit.

And let's look at the case of the Filipino fisherman in more detail. Yes they lose out in the short-run, but the increased Chinese/ASEAN growth means higher wages and economic activity in those countries. The Philippines will inevitably benefit from the spillover of economic activity in terms of increased trade and their wages equalising upwards. What is up for debate is how much the Phillipines will benefit, but if we're talking about trillions of dollars, then yes, it is reasonable to estimate that the Philippines will see an overall net economic benefit as well.

And yes, the economic benefits of the SCS do only apply with Chinese control. Do you think China will sink billions/trillions into low yield infrastructure/investments/trade without some sort of security that the shipping lanes will stay open? And remember that China is the only country in the world which has the capacity, need and political will to make these sorts of investments.

===

And again, we come back to a fundamental philosophical difference between Confucian and Anglo culture.

"the greater good theory cannot infringe the rights of an individual or body for the benefit of others unless it is freely given"

That statement simply doesn't make sense. We see examples all the time where Anglo courts infringe on the individual all the time, and the individual DOES not freely give up those rights. Examples include compulsory purchases of property for the greater good, and compulsory military service for 18 year old adults who have never had the chance to vote before.

And remember that Confucian culture traditionally holds that the group is more important than any individual, and CAN infringe on the rights of an individual.

===

I think I'm done now, as it seems like you don't have the mental flexibility to see another point of view, or the multiple shades of grey.

 

[AndrewS]

And I'll throw in the joint oil exploration deal that China/Vietnam/Philippines agreed some 15 years ago, but which was scuppered by Australia on ideological opposition to China, despite the clear economic benefits China/Vietnam/Philippines would have obtained from oil production.

Today, some 15 years later, there still hasn't been widespread oil exploration because the area is still disputed. But if China obtains defacto control of the SCS, then presumably oil exploration/production could go ahead solely by China and result in greater oil supply. Even if Vietnam and the Philippines do not agree, they will still benefit as the studies show that lower oil prices result in higher global economic growth overall, particularly in oil importing nations like China/Vietnam/Philippines where almost EVERYONE would benefit.

So yes, it would have been better if Vietnam and the Philippines had been joint exploration partners along with China, but I fear that it now may be too late. And this is all due to interference from Australia on ideological grounds against the expansion of Chinese influence, rather than looking at what is best for the countries involved.

 

[AndrewS]

Anyway, back on topic now.

Peter Layton has one of the best analyses of the SCS I've seen yet from the Lowy Institute in Australia. Full article below.

South China Sea: Beijing is winning, but here's how to retake the initiative

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

My thoughts are:

1. that it's good that someone in the think tank community can cogently recognise that China's interests and its strength/options in the area, although it is still understates China to a degree.

2. It may or may not end up as a zero-sum outcome in terms of territory, as it's too early to say at this time what China will ultimately do. But in economic terms, there is a good case that Chinese security control of the shipping lanes will result in a positive economic outcome even for Vietnam/Philippines - due to the spillover from increased trade/investment/resource extraction that will occur as China feels more secure that its investments in Asia can be protected.

3. The author suggests one strategy which is to target the CCP to obtain leverage, but I think that this would have to be handled very carefully, because it could so easily become counter-productive when the CCP pushes back even harder and escalates.

4. The 2nd strategy the author suggests is to demilitarise the SCS islands under UN or ASEAN control. However, permanent UN or ASEAN only facilities in the SCS islands are just not in China's interest, as China gets nothing from this.

But a joint civilian facility with ASEAN or selected ASEAN members is something that I think China would seriously consider, because it would comprise a multi-lateral effort that would inevitably be led and dominated by China. However, note that this would likely only be stationed on 1 island, which means the other 2 big SCS islands would remain under exclusive Chinese control.

I would expect that this joint facility would share the same island with a separate China-only facility under coast guard or military jurisdiction. This means that the joint China-ASEAN assets and presumably Chinese military and coast guard assets become mixed together on the same island. It means that the interests of China-ASEAN become more comingled, and any potential attack on the islands also becomes an attack on ASEAN in addition to China.

The benefits of this joint China-ASEAN force are that the day-today interactions take the heat off the SCS and invite a compromise between China-ASEAN. But from the US perspective, it means they lose influence to a China-led grouping.

The author suggest a civilian disaster relief command, which sounds reasonable to me as it benefits everyone in the region and indeed the world. But aren't most of these sorts of assets in ASEAN and China actually paramilitary or military in nature? Think a Tsunami or Hurricane.

And if the remit of this joint force expands to anti-piracy etc, then it definitely becomes a paramilitary or military force.

Then we see China leading a China-ASEAN security grouping, which should lead to much more stability in the SCS and which would be in the interests of China and ASEAN. But again, it means a loss in influence for the US.

Comments anyone?

 

[Brumby]

At the macro level, it is obvious that the "greater good" means that one party does not benefit.

And let's look at the case of the Filipino fisherman in more detail. Yes they lose out in the short-run, but the increased Chinese/ASEAN growth means higher wages and economic activity in those countries. The Philippines will inevitably benefit from the spillover of economic activity in terms of increased trade and their wages equalising upwards. What is up for debate is how much the Phillipines will benefit, but if we're talking about trillions of dollars, then yes, it is reasonable to estimate that the Philippines will see an overall net economic benefit as well.

The greater good theory obviously has its appeal because it benefits some at the expense of another. Its attractiveness is subject to being at which receiving end of the proposition. There are limiters in its application to this theory of which I have pointed out three. You can apply any scenario in the context of this constrainers and it will hold up to scrutiny. in response you have not offered any valid under cutters but is merely repeating what you had previously said as if repeating them would enhance your reasoning. You have not demonstrated the nexus on why the disputed islands under China's jurisdiction would enhance economic benefits as opposed to status quo. You also have not demonstrated why trade between economic entities which is mutual enhancing somehow becomes one dimensional as China benefiting the world. Your reasoning defies basic logic, ignores economic reasoning and is incoherent between causative nature of attributes. You short, you are merely making assertions in support of your greater good theory.

And yes, the economic benefits of the SCS do only apply with Chinese control.

Your statement is an example of assertions that defies economic reasoning. The SCS was a trade route long before China got involved,. Since China got involved it has benefited tremendously from cross trade. Trade is mutually economic enhancing and not because China is in control of the SCS.

Do you think China will sink billions/trillions into low yield infrastructure/investments/trade without some sort of security that the shipping lanes will stay open? And remember that China is the only country in the world which has the capacity, need and political will to make these sorts of investments.

China involved itself in island building because of its own security interest - period and not for public goods. You may believe in flat earth hypothesis but don't insult the rest of us.

And again, we come back to a fundamental philosophical difference between Confucian and Anglo culture.

"the greater good theory cannot infringe the rights of an individual or body for the benefit of others unless it is freely given"

That statement simply doesn't make sense. We see examples all the time where Anglo courts infringe on the individual all the time, and the individual DOES not freely give up those rights. Examples include compulsory purchases of property for the greater good, and compulsory military service for 18 year old adults who have never had the chance to vote before.

This is an example of reasoning that defies understanding of logical relationships and then tries to apply it to another subject. you are trying to fit a square into a round shape. Compulsory property acquisition is a domestic issue of a sovereign state. Some states feed you to the dogs if you don't share their political views. Others forcefully imprison you or send you to education camps if you politically dissent. Yet others compulsory acquire your land and short change you in value. If you are in a politically oppressed state unfortunately you don't have much options. If in more liberal democracies maybe your options are wider. In our discussions on the SCS, the rest of the countries are not citizens of China and it is not a domestic issue but an international one. If you wish to argue for greater good in China, then your theory is not that it is right but the options to exercise limiters are not there.

And remember that Confucian culture traditionally holds that the group is more important than any individual, and CAN infringe on the rights of an individual.

As I pointed out to you if your theory holds water than we would not see all these different dynasty changes through history in China because under Confucian theory the people would just suIk it out and not revolt. Instead you re just repeating your line and you think that is a rebuttal?

I think I'm done now, as it seems like you don't have the mental flexibility to see another point of view, or the multiple shades of grey.

You have not demonstrated any coherent reasoning beyond repeating your lines.