China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
I really like your arguments Joshuatree ... you would be a great judge/lawyer
So let me summarise my understanding of Johnson Atoll/Island
1. There were 2 natural occurring islands which remain above the high-tide mark and 2 atolls.
2. It does not have a source of naturally occurring fresh water and therefore cannot sustain human habitation by itself
3. Furthermore, the US made sure it couldn't sustain human habitation by using it as a dumping ground for radioactive waste and other nasty stuff.
4. It is now abandoned and supports a population of exactly Zero
Yet somehow the USA claims a 200nm EEZ around the islands?
If that is accurate, then I would say it's a very good thing that the USA withdrew from UNCLOS, even though the US says that it *follows* UNCLOS voluntarily.
And how on earth has Johnson Island not been mentioned in the media before like Okinotorishima?
1. There were 2 natural occurring islands which remain above the high-tide mark and 2 atolls.
2. It does not have a source of naturally occurring fresh water and therefore cannot sustain human habitation by itself
3. Furthermore, the US made sure it couldn't sustain human habitation by using it as a dumping ground for radioactive waste and other nasty stuff.
4. It is now abandoned and supports a population of exactly Zero
Yet somehow the USA claims a 200nm EEZ around the islands?
If that is accurate, then I would say it's a very good thing that the USA withdrew from UNCLOS, even though the US says that it *follows* UNCLOS voluntarily.
And how on earth has Johnson Island not been mentioned in the media before like Okinotorishima?
It is my understanding that it is how the customary international norms are supposed to work. Maybe some freedom loving people here who are very adamant to impose rule based international order can shed some insight into this.
Yes it is a really odd, if not outright embarrassing, case for do as I say folks here.
Yes it is a really odd, if not outright embarrassing, case for do as I say folks here.
The US claims the largest amount of maritime territorial EEZ of any nation in the world.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about Howland and Baker islands
Here's a list of some of the other questionable EEZ claims by the US and the amount of territory involved - all of these 'islands' are uninhabited:
It's no wonder that the US is unwilling to sign onto UNCLOS.This is how the US ended up with the largest EEZ territory of any nation in the world. Excessive maritime claims, anyone?
The amount of EEZ claimed by Johnston Atoll is larger than that given to the entire state of California.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about Howland and Baker islands
Howland and Baker are uninhabited atolls in the Pacific; yet, combined, they own an EEZ larger than California!
Here's a list of some of the other questionable EEZ claims by the US and the amount of territory involved - all of these 'islands' are uninhabited:
It's no wonder that the US is unwilling to sign onto UNCLOS.This is how the US ended up with the largest EEZ territory of any nation in the world. Excessive maritime claims, anyone?
Source: Xinhua | 2016-05-15 01:53:51 | Editor: huaxia
BEIJING, May 14 (Xinhua) -- Defense Ministry Spokesman Yang Yujun on Saturday expressed "strong dissatisfaction" and "firm opposition" to a Pentagon report that he said has misrepresented China's military development.
In an annual report on China's military activities, the U.S. Defense Department hyped up "China's military threat" and the so-called lack of transparency, deliberately distorted China's defense policies, and unfairly depicted China's activities in the East China Sea and South China Sea, Yang said.
"China follows a national defense policy that is defensive in nature. Moves such as deepening military reforms and the military buildup are aimed at maintaining sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, and guaranteeing China's peaceful development," Yang said, adding that the U.S. side has always been suspicious.
Yang stressed China's construction on the Nansha Islands serves mostly civilian purposes, and helps fulfil its international responsibilities and obligations by providing more public goods.
It is the United States that has been flexing military muscles by frequently sending military aircraft and warships to the region. Despite its call for the freedom of navigation and restraint for peace, the United States pushed forward the militarization in the South China Sea with an intention to exert hegemony, Yang said.
He said China has unswervingly made contributions to global peace and stability by increasingly engaging in overseas missions such as peace-keeping and disaster relief.
The U.S. annual report on China's military and security developments has severely damaged mutual trust between the two sides, Yang said, urging the U.S. side to take tangible actions to promote the healthy and stable development of relations between the two countries and their armed forces.
Jura The idiot
General
did the Reuters read the above post?
Sun May 15, 2016 12:27am EDT
Beijing blasts Pentagon report on Chinese military as damaging trust
source:
Yes, but I'm sure the Chinese privately point out the hypocrisy of US EEZ claims based on uninhabited atolls that are submerged at high tide. It's the Chinese style of diplomacy as it avoids public embarrassment.
But given PACOM's high-profile combative approach to China these days - I expect that China would get more mileage from bringing US hypocrisy out into the open.
Think of how China was besieged by US calls on cyber espionage a few years back. Yet it turns out the NSA is an even bigger cyber perpetrator. Afterwards there was an end to calls about sanctioning China - as the rest of the world (and the US itself) just saw hypocrisy.
Such an approach might work pretty well - given how much rope PACOM has given the Chinese to hang him with.
===
For some more parallels, when McCain confronted Xi Jinping about cyber espionage, apparently the enigmatic response was "Senator McCain is well known for his candor"
And in the wake of the US-China commercial cyber agreement last year - RAND has confirmed a marked reduction in activity. However, note that there's not actually much left to get these days and that China will likely be spending more on R&D that the US within 5 years anyway - so it's a relatively easy give for China. Plus it frees up all those groups to concentrate on national security related espionage/warfare instead.
So what does this mean for the SCS?
As I stated previously - if China ends up with the world's largest military one day - it is in China's interests to uphold UNCLOS in the long-term.
So the best approach is to keep the SCS on the back burner - until China's growing economic and military interests change China's objectives in the region.