China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blitzo]

Out of all the news outlets reporting on the pentagon report you choose daily mail?

In any case, the report seems to be mostly saying stuff we've known for years.

Long term goals for SCS is to increase surveillance capabilities, and long term persistent presence of paramilitary and military forces, with the upper hand for escalation and negotiations if things turn south.

 

[antiterror13]

Its a huge achievement, 12.8 km² of practically new land .... imagine the whole Manhattan land area is 59 km² and the whole area of central Park 3.4 km²

so 12.8 km² is roughly 22% of Manhattan island and 3.8x Central Park

And it is only Spratly, if Paracel included, it would get over 15 km² easily.

China should/would continue reclamation

 

[AndrewS]

I think the Itu Aba submission is a godsend for the PCA.

It must have been made perfectly clear that China would not accept an adverse ruling by the PCA - and that China would ignore it and demonstrate that that the PCA is powerless.

But given that Itu Aba is the only real island in the SCS that can sustain human habitation with naturally occurring freshwater, it should qualify as sovereign territory and generate its own 12 nm territorial sea, 24 nm contiguous zone, and 200 nm EEZ.

When I look at the map of such a redrawn EEZ, a large chunk of the SCS EEZs would come under control of Itu Aba (and presumably the Paracel Islands as well). Then there is the question of whether ROC or the PRC *owns* Itu Aba but that is another issue in itself.

So overall, such a UNCLOS decision on islands versus features would mean *most* (but not all) of the nine-tongue claim would be ruled as being ROC/PRC EEZ.

And given time, China's growing global maritime interests and capabilities will likely mean China's views of UNCLOS will change.

 

[AndrewS]

If this were to the outcome, I suspect China would be satisfied enough.

But I imagine Brunei/Malaysia/VIetnam would not be happy at the Philippines - because their EEZs claims would be substantially diminished.

And I imagine there would be some anger towards the current Filipino President for his incompetence in starting a court case which he then proceeded to lose.

But as the Singaporeans say, the Filipinos are too emotional and just make things worse.

 

[flyzies]

If this were to the outcome, I suspect China would be satisfied enough.

But I imagine Brunei/Malaysia/VIetnam would not be happy at the Philippines - because their EEZs claims would be substantially diminished.

And I imagine there would be some anger towards the current Filipino President for his incompetence in starting a court case which he then proceeded to lose.

But as the Singaporeans say, the Filipinos are too emotional and just make things worse.

Let's wait and see what happens. But IMO it's obvious the Filipinos aren't as confident now as they were when they initially submitted the case. They probably didn't anticipate this move from Taiwan, or perhaps they thought America could keep them in line...

 

[Brumby]

I think the Itu Aba submission is a godsend for the PCA.

It must have been made perfectly clear that China would not accept an adverse ruling by the PCA - and that China would ignore it and demonstrate that that the PCA is powerless.

But given that Itu Aba is the only real island in the SCS that can sustain human habitation with naturally occurring freshwater, it should qualify as sovereign territory and generate its own 12 nm territorial sea, 24 nm contiguous zone, and 200 nm EEZ.

When I look at the map of such a redrawn EEZ, a large chunk of the SCS EEZs would come under control of Itu Aba (and presumably the Paracel Islands as well). Then there is the question of whether ROC or the PRC *owns* Itu Aba but that is another issue in itself.

So overall, such a UNCLOS decision on islands versus features would mean *most* (but not all) of the nine-tongue claim would be ruled as being ROC/PRC EEZ.

And given time, China's growing global maritime interests and capabilities will likely mean China's views of UNCLOS will change.

I think you guys are jumping the gun on this. In Romania vs. Ukraine 2009, the ICJ held that Serpents' Island was only accorded a 12 nm territorial sea and not the 200 nm EEZ stating that to count "Serpents' island as a relevant part of the coast would be a judicial refashioning of geography". In other words, the court also looks at other competing adjacent coasts relative to the island and address equitable distribution from the standpoint of proportionality.

 

[vincent]

no territorial rights, just like the Okinotorishima "islands". No, wait.... Where is the fake outrage?

 

[confusion]

In other words, the court also looks at other competing adjacent coasts relative to the island and address equitable distribution from the standpoint of proportionality.

That's pretty funny, since it hasn't stopped Australia from using using the equidistant principle in demarcating its EEZ with Indonesia and East Timor. Ashmore and Cartier barely qualify as rocks under UNCLOS, yet Australians use the equidistant principle to claim a huge EEZ against Indonesia, which is obviously far away from continental Australia. Look at Australia's 'fair' EEZ claims against Indonesia here:

Likewise, Australians apply the equidistant principle from Evans Shoal to enforce its 'fair' EEZ claims against East Timor. Is Evans Shoal anything more than a low-tide elevation? Let's look at a map of that silliness here - again, this is far away from continental Australia:

Ashmore and Cartier Islands and Evans Shoal are clearly less of an island than Itu Aba - yet, Australians believe that the equidistant principle should apply when it comes to their islands, but somehow NOT apply when it comes to Itu Aba.

The hypocrisy of Australians when it comes to enforcing the rules for themselves is clear as day.

 

[confusion]

I think you guys are jumping the gun on this. In Romania vs. Ukraine 2009, the ICJ held that Serpents' Island was only accorded a 12 nm territorial sea and not the 200 nm EEZ stating that to count "Serpents' island as a relevant part of the coast would be a judicial refashioning of geography". In other words, the court also looks at other competing adjacent coasts relative to the island and address equitable distribution from the standpoint of proportionality.

Point #2 - Serpents' island is a rock under UNCLOS - there's no source of drinking water on the island, so its circumstances are different from Itu Aba. Straw man much?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The island itself lacks fresh water, however, and this is one of the reasons that until recently it was never inhabited.

 

[joshuatree]

So overall, such a UNCLOS decision on islands versus features would mean *most* (but not all) of the nine-tongue claim would be ruled as being ROC/PRC EEZ.

UNCLOS does not have jurisdiction on sovereignty issues. Any ruling that Taiping/Itu Aba is entitled to an EEZ simply means the Filipinos can't claim an uncontested 200 NM EEZ westward from Palawan. It would indirectly uphold and keep the supposed nine dash intact if the assumption of the nine dashes mean any water claims.

I think you guys are jumping the gun on this. In Romania vs. Ukraine 2009, the ICJ held that Serpents' Island was only accorded a 12 nm territorial sea and not the 200 nm EEZ stating that to count "Serpents' island as a relevant part of the coast would be a judicial refashioning of geography". In other words, the court also looks at other competing adjacent coasts relative to the island and address equitable distribution from the standpoint of proportionality.

Well, both sides of the debate have jumped the gun on more than one occasion. But in the case of Serpents' Island, the competing adjacent coasts are much different vs the SCS. An EEZ afforded from the Ukrainian mainland coast came from the West, North, and East relative to Serpents' Island so any supposed EEZ from the island in those directions would not have extended anything beyond what the Ukrainian mainland already provides. To the south with Romania, this is where the court considered the impact of an EEZ for Serpents' Island would be refashioning geography since there is still a Ukrainian mainland coast opposite Romania (Crimea) and Bulgaria is directly south of Romania which hems Romania in essentially. Serpents' Island is less thatn 30+ miles from either the Ukrainian or Romanian mainland.

Taiping/Itu Aba is not the same. It is just about 200 NM from Palawan and greater than 200 NM in regards to the mainland coasts of Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia. So it can easily be qualified for an EEZ without refashioning geography and the issue then becomes delimiting overlapping EEZs. I believe a Filipino judge (Carpio) gave the opinion that should Taiping/Itu Aba get an EEZ, then Palawan should still be able to get a larger portion of any delimitation given size of Palawan relative to Taiping. But this doesn't mean that what China has done to it's occupied features are outright illegal because they all fall within a 200 NM radius from Taiping and an overlap is yet to be delimited.

Of course, one can still argue the court will rule Taiping does not qualify for an EEZ but given the invitations sent from Taiwan to the court and to the Philippines to physically check the feature out, such a ruling would be rather bogus without any real fact checking. The Philippines have already declined to visit but considering no Filipino team has ever physically checked out Taiping, I find their evidence in court to be unreliable. To discount Taiwan's arguments in this court hearing is also biased as both the UN and the Philippines recognize the One China principle and the PROC govt has so far not denounced any of the Taiwan presentations. Any facts, regardless of source, are still facts that can be used to determine the physical attributes of a feature.

Interesting of note on Carpio's comment that Palawan's size relative to Taiping should dominate any delimitation. The Filipinos should be mindful of their EEZ claims via Batanes as Taiwan's size dominate Batanes along with Orchid Island to augment Taiwan.