China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

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.

Obviously facts are never similar between cases but the principle of proportionality was invoked in Romania vs Ukraine. Likewise in the SCS, there are significant land mass adjacent to Itu Aba and that possibly could be given due consideration in any determination if proportionality was also invoked. As such, the assumption that even if Itu Aba is accorded island status does not automatically mean a maximal 200 NM entitlement as had been liberally assumed.

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.

No disagreement here.

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.

Personally I think Taiping island would qualify as an island and it is difficult to argue against the facts. Whether and how the court might apply the proportional rule is an unknown except there is precedent and potentially is a factor for consideration.

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.

Do you have a link to Carpio's comments?

 

[Yvrch]

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.

Personally speaking, I think China should commit to UNCLOS to its lowest possible minimalist extent, just like what US is doing. UNCLOS is a dead end which too much loose ends which do not entirely serve China's overall security interests around her maritime periphery, nor her historical claims over SCS sovereignty. I'm not quite sure what specifically are the extra ordinary benefits that China gets out of it. It is the UNCLOS, the product of Cold War, that hams in China and her access to Pacific with numerous islands, atolls, rocks etc and EEZ's that are accorded to them. The traditional international law, before the advant of UNCLOS, would align more along the line of historical claims, one of the main instruments of European colonial imperialists to grab foreign lands.

What China should do is having even more emphasis on Taiwan eventuality. Without Taiwan in China's fold, China would not escape the curse of geography.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Speaking of artificial island built up with dredged up coral, US's Johnston Atoll, a pretty messed up toxic radio active hazardous place on earth's blue water. Population zero and yet it got an EEZ.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Being in the middle of no where certainly helps. No other country to file for competing claims.

 

[Yvrch]

Being in the middle of no where certainly helps. No other country to file for competing claims.

What is even more bizarre is US didn't even ratify the treaty, and yet ,boom, it just gets the 200 miles EEZ, just like that. The benefit of pi r square indeed.

So US got it right, why bother ratifying it when it already got all the benefits without all the fuss about thousand pesky paper cuts lying around the rough edges of the treaty itself. UNCLOS is a evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Keep it to the minimal and use it to all what is it worth for her. Smart.

 

[Yvrch]

Based on China's 1958 declaration on china territorial sea and 1992 law on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, below the map of China's territorial seas

So if we do the same baseline territorial seas map for the land features inside the nine dash line, we'd get an EEZ area roughly the same size of the nine DL.
So for me to simplify things to understand a bigger picture, this 9DL represents China's baseline claim and subsequent EEZ areas. This seems like a mulch-generational quest to wrest control of the entire enclosed seas.

Judging by the land features China has reclaimed, a lot of survey works and thoughts had gone through this process. The selection of land reclamation sites showed careful choice of position for runways along roughly north south exis. Considering current events, China's next reclamation work would be on Eldad Reef. When US is distracted with her next war, China would start reclaiming Scarborough, but not any time soon given the heat.

 

[joshuatree]

As such, the assumption that even if Itu Aba is accorded island status does not automatically mean a maximal 200 NM entitlement as had been liberally assumed.

Sure but so far, all claimants have been touting the maximal 200 NM entitlement.

Do you have a link to Carpio's comments?

There can be found several different links but the one below sums up his opinion.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[joshuatree]

Being in the middle of no where certainly helps. No other country to file for competing claims.

Well if China wants to be disruptive, in theory, it could file a case under UNCLOS to determine the status of features like Howard, Baker, and Johnston to see if they qualify for an EEZ or not. Technically, the US would not be allowed to rebuttal in this court as it's not a signatory to UNCLOS. So then, either the US gets encouraged to sign on to partake or it will blow off the UNCLOS case which then becomes irony as that's what it has been harping China on.

 

[Yvrch]

Well if China wants to be disruptive, in theory, it could file a case under UNCLOS to determine the status of features like Howard, Baker, and Johnston to see if they qualify for an EEZ or not. Technically, the US would not be allowed to rebuttal in this court as it's not a signatory to UNCLOS. So then, either the US gets encouraged to sign on to partake or it will blow off the UNCLOS case which then becomes irony as that's what it has been harping China on.

That would royally screw up the Case A Case B logic of the Filipino activist harping the same thing on China here. But China is realistic, won't rock the boat.

 

[Jura The idiot]

according to NavyTimes China says U.S. report hypes up its so-called military threat

China's defense ministry criticized a U.S. report assessing its island-building efforts in the South China Sea, saying it "hyped up" China's so-called military threat.

The U.S. Defense Department's annual report on China's military activities had "willfully distorted China's national defense policy," said ministry spokesman Yang Yujun, adding that the U.S. was too suspicious.

China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition" to the Pentagon report, Yang said.

"China follows a national defense policy that is defensive in nature," he said. "China's deepening military reforms and its strengthening of weapons and equipment building are aimed at maintaining sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and guaranteeing China's peaceful development."

The report to the U.S. Congress on Friday said that China was focused on developing and weaponizing the islands it has built in the disputed waters of the South China Sea so it will have greater control over the maritime region without resorting to armed conflict.

It accused China of "increasingly assertive efforts to advance its national sovereignty and territorial claims" and a lack of transparency about its growing military capabilities that are causing tensions with other countries in the region.

Yang said it was the United States that had been "frequently sending military aircraft and warships to the South China Sea to make a show of force."

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

...
Beijing blasts Pentagon report on Chinese military as damaging trust

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a moment ago I noticed that document became available at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or from inside of
Document: Pentagon Report to Congress on Chinese Military Development

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!