China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

May 31st was a separate incident. One Chinese fisherman was shot and required intensive medical care in the incident on the 19th.

I haven't followed closely the news around the Natuna islands but to my knowledge there appears to be at least three successive recent incidents. The first being the ramming, then followed by Indonesia intervening using Naval vessels in which I don't believe resulted in any injury. The most recent (if correct) happened on 17/6/2016 as reported in the WSJ today with one reported injury.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An Indonesian warship on Friday fired warning shots after spotting 12 foreign vessels fishing in waters Indonesia claims as an exclusive economic zone, the Indonesian navy said Saturday. The navy caught one vessel that it identified as a Chinese flagged boat plus its crew of six men and a woman.

China’s Foreign Ministry, in a statement Sunday, decried “harassment” of Chinese fishing boats by Indonesian navy vessels and said the shots damaged one vessel and injured a crew member.

Say what you want about the Chinese coast guard/navy, but they never opened fire on Vietnamese/Fillippino sailors in disputed EEZ.

If you have outsized Coast Guard vessels (including those 10,000 tonnes type), coercion or threat to ram would be sufficient. Firing on civilian vessels generate bad publicity if other means are sufficient. The Indonesians don't have as many options - I guess.

 

[ahojunk]

China is complaining...
--------

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BEIJING, June 19 (Xinhua) -- Chinese foreign ministry on Sunday strongly protested over Indonesia navy warships' harassment of Chinese fishermen in the South China Sea.

Chinese fishing boats were harassed and shot at by several Indonesian navy warships in a disputed fishing ground in the South China Sea on Friday. One crew member was injured. Another fishing boat and seven crew were detained.

"China strongly protests and condemns such excessive use of force," spokesperson Hua Chunying said in a press release.

The incident took place in a traditional Chinese fishing ground where China and Indonesia have overlapping maritime rights claims.

Indonesia's actions violated international laws including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and harmed the lives and property of Chinese fishermen, Hua said.

"China urges Indonesia to stop taking action that escalates tension, complicates issues, or affects peace and stability," Hua said.

 

[plawolf]

I think the situation is more complex and murky than some here would think.

I think the first thing China wants and needs to find out, in order to formulate the best response, is where the order to shoot came from.

This is because there is a significant gulf between the words and behaviour of the Indoesian government and elements within its navy.

If it's the Indonesian government who gave the order, then they are being two faced and trying to play a double game with China. That would demand a tough response, and major policy change on China's side, which will probably lead to a far more robust defence posture and operational strategy, like the permenant forward deployment of PLAN warships in those disputed waters with ROEs that allows them them to directly engage foreign warships that open fire on Chinese civilian ships in disputed waters.

However, if this incident was a result of poor/lax training and discipline in the Indonesian navy; an internal power play by elements within the Indonesian military hoping to provoke China into an overreaction to force a change of government policy or even government; or a deliberate attempt at sabotage by foreign powers who gave a rogue captain a suitcase of money to open fire to provoke a falling out and clash between China and Indonesia etc, well then, that requires a very different response from China or else China risks playing right into the hands of hostile foreign powers.

This is why Chinese media and the central government always seems to take forever to respond to such incidents. And why often China's response seem 'weak' to many.

It's not as satisfying as the brash, near instant response the likes of the US typically respond with, but it's a far more effective and mature way to deal with things to ensure China's national interests are served best.

Just think back to how many times America's initial knee-jerk reaction have proven false.

The western media might skip over such 'details' with indecent haste, but you can bet your bottom dollar they will make as much of a song and dance about it as they can if China did that and got the call wrong, with all sorts of barely tangential loaded conclusions tacked on to maximise the damage to China as much as possible.

 

[siegecrossbow]

However, if this incident was a result of poor/lax training and discipline in the Indonesian navy; an internal power play by elements within the Indonesian military hoping to provoke China into an overreaction to force a change of government policy or even government; or a deliberate attempt at sabotage by foreign powers who gave a rogue captain a suitcase of money to open fire to provoke a falling out and clash between China and Indonesia etc, well then, that requires a very different response from China or else China risks playing right into the hands of hostile foreign powers.

I think it is a case of disconnect between the Indonesian military and the civilian government. From what I've gathered, some of the Indonesian military officials have familial ties to Indonesian fishermen who felt threatened by foreign encroachments on traditional fishing locations.

 

[GreenestGDP]

All of us who can see the Big Picture know darn well that the #1 military superpower / japanese / their western thugs would love to see that Indonesian is tilting toward western side and becoming China new enemy in SCS.

Imagine if Indonesian government is allowing USN / USAF to setup military bases in Natuna islands and other Indonesian islands ... ... in order to facilitate the blocking and choking of China bound commercial shipping traffic in the future. These will be a true crippling PRC disaster before 1B1R in Central Asia takes shape.

Therefore, every PRC government officials / China Coast Guard and PRC citizens / fishermen shall focus and limit the battlefield and focus on the 2 real biggest PRC enemies, and not creating unnecessary conflict by expanding the battlefield with those other neutral ASEAN nations.

===

This is a perfect example * where the typical old inside the box thinking of PRC government Decision Makers in Foreign Ministry and other relevant departments is unable to introduce / offer a simple economical solution to remove these illegal fishing accusations from these neutral ASEAN nations.

The solution is ... ...

1) PRC Foreign Ministry shall coordinate with China Coast Guard to track in real time all PRC fishermen ships location, whenever they are sailing in South China Sea near the neutral ASEAN nations EEZ.

2) PRC Foreign Ministry shall openly share the real time data location of the Chinese Fishermen ships with those neutral ASEAN nations, thus every body knows in a transparent way whether Chinese Fisherman ships are violating and fishing illegally in ASEAN territories or the disputed territories.

3) If indeed Chinese Fishermen are fishing illegally in ASEAN territories or the disputed territories, PRC shall not hesitate to publicly punish Chinese Fishermen in front of the neutral ASEAN nations for the purpose of protecting PRC Big Picture long term National well being.


NOTE:
The LIKE button is still NOT functioning in my browser.
I am sorry that I can not give out LIKE to many posters who are most deserving the LIKE since early FEB 2016.

 

[taxiya]

I think the situation is more complex and murky than some here would think.

I think the first thing China wants and needs to find out, in order to formulate the best response, is where the order to shoot came from.

This is because there is a significant gulf between the words and behaviour of the Indoesian government and elements within its navy.

If it's the Indonesian government who gave the order, then they are being two faced and trying to play a double game with China. That would demand a tough response, and major policy change on China's side, which will probably lead to a far more robust defence posture and operational strategy, like the permenant forward deployment of PLAN warships in those disputed waters with ROEs that allows them them to directly engage foreign warships that open fire on Chinese civilian ships in disputed waters.

However, if this incident was a result of poor/lax training and discipline in the Indonesian navy; an internal power play by elements within the Indonesian military hoping to provoke China into an overreaction to force a change of government policy or even government; or a deliberate attempt at sabotage by foreign powers who gave a rogue captain a suitcase of money to open fire to provoke a falling out and clash between China and Indonesia etc, well then, that requires a very different response from China or else China risks playing right into the hands of hostile foreign powers.

This is why Chinese media and the central government always seems to take forever to respond to such incidents. And why often China's response seem 'weak' to many.

It's not as satisfying as the brash, near instant response the likes of the US typically respond with, but it's a far more effective and mature way to deal with things to ensure China's national interests are served best.

Just think back to how many times America's initial knee-jerk reaction have proven false.

The western media might skip over such 'details' with indecent haste, but you can bet your bottom dollar they will make as much of a song and dance about it as they can if China did that and got the call wrong, with all sorts of barely tangential loaded conclusions tacked on to maximise the damage to China as much as possible.

especially considering that the new Indonesian president is from grassroots without connection to the military establishment who has deep-rooted anti-Chinese, anti-Communist sentiment and is not really under the control of civilian government. The water could be deep.

 

[Brumby]

I think it is a case of disconnect between the Indonesian military and the civilian government. From what I've gathered, some of the Indonesian military officials have familial ties to Indonesian fishermen who felt threatened by foreign encroachments on traditional fishing locations.

When the EEZ regime was established by UNCLOS it created a new fisheries regime for coastal States. The EEZ regime under Part V of UNCLOS grants coastal States exclusive rights to fisheries resources as far as 200 nm from their coastlines. Such an outcome naturally precludes States from making claims to traditional or historic fishing rights in the EEZ of other States.

The problem with China pursuance of a traditional fishing ground argument within Indonesia’s EEZ is basically taking an incredulous view that what is within China’s EEZ belongs to China but what is other’s EEZ belongs to China under a traditional fishing ground argument. There is no overlapping of rights; just China’s illogical attempt at grabbing maritime rights that legally and logically does not belong to China but framed as a dispute. This is an example of why once you disregard international laws, there is simply no longer any reference other than what China says it is regardless of how illogical the argument really is.

 

[confusion]

One of the side benefits of China's reclamation projects is that it provides free marketing for China's artificial island building expertise. Saudi financing and Chinese engineering would easily make this project viable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Ministry of Transportation and Israel Ports, headed by Minister Israel Katz, has drawn up plans for how a seaport and airport built on an artificial island off the coast of the Gaza Strip would look. (Ministry of Transportation and Israel Ports)

By

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

June 20 at 12:27 PM
JERUSALEM — The Israeli government is considering a proposal to build an artificial island off the Gaza Strip that a top official says would give Palestinians living in the besieged enclave their one and only seaport — and maybe a hotel and an international airport, too.

The Israeli minister of intelligence who is promoting the plan, Israel Katz, said the Jewish state is actively seeking financial partners for the $5 billion project.

Katz mentioned the Saudis and Chinese as possible builders of the port — or maybe a mysterious Israeli entrepreneur. He declined to name names.

 

[taxiya]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Chinese Foreign Ministry's response to the WSJ's Challenge of the 60s countries supporting China's position on SCS.

Chinese Foreign Ministry's speakwoman Hua Chunying answering questions from WSJ. Italic texts in brackets are my straight words.

问：近日，《华尔街日报》等个别西方媒体称真正支持中国在南海仲裁案上立场的国家只有八个。你对此有何评论？

答：我们以前知道个别西方媒体有时会把白的说成黑的，现在才知道他们有时居然连简单的数数和加减也有问题。

Question (not from WSJ): Recently, some western media particularly WSJ reported that there are only 8 countries who support China's position on SCS issue. What do you say?

Hua: I know that some western media "some times" say white is black, only now do I know that they "some times" can NOT even count numbers and do addition and subtraction.

问：我是《华尔街日报》记者，第一个问题，据日本共同社报道，一旦南海仲裁案作出不利于中方的裁决，中方可能会考虑退出《联合国海洋法公约》。 你对此有何回应？第二个问题，我们曾与你提到的一些支持中方在南海问题立场的国家取得联系，结果有的并未直接表明支持中国。你对此作何回应？

答：关于第一个问题，我注意到近期一些消息和传闻都是首先出自日本媒体，不知道其源头和目的是什么？

我要指出的是，菲律宾单方面提起南海仲裁案是滥用《联合国海洋法公约》程序，违反一般国际法，违反《南海各方行为宣言》和中菲之间达成的双边协议。中国坚持不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的仲裁恰恰是捍卫包括《公约》在内的国际法权威。我们始终坚持《公约》应得到善意、全面、完整的解释和适用，这将有利于维护国际海洋法律秩序，符合国际社会整体利益。

关于第二个问题，我们认真阅读了你们的这篇报道，的确觉得有些奇怪。因为报道中说只有8个国家支持中国，我和我的同事实在无法理解这个数字是如何得出来的。你说曾经求证过一些国家，他们说反对。如果我没记错的话，你们列出来5个国家中就包括柬埔寨。但是你也看到了，昨天柬埔寨首相洪森在柬国家行政学院毕业典礼上花了一个小时讲南海问题，把柬埔寨在南海问题上的立场已经说得非常明确无误了。我不知道看了洪森首相的讲话，你的那位写报道的同事心里有何感想？

WSJ: I am from Wallstreet Journal...... Second question, we have contacted some countries who according to you supports China's SCS position, the result is that some did not directly express their support to China. What is your answer?

Hua: ...... regarding the second question, we have carefully examined this report of yours (questioning the supports), and are puzzled. Because your report claimed that there are only 8 countries support China. My colleagues and I really can not understand how you came up with the number. You said that you have verified with some countries and they are against (China's Position). If I am not mistaken, one of the 5 countries that you have listed (being against China's position) is Cambodia. But you must have also noticed that, just yesterday PM Hun Sen took one hour talking about SCS issue during the graduation ceremony of Cambodian Administration Academy, he made very clear of Cambodia's stance on the SCS issue (supporting China). I wonder what would the colleague of yours who wrote that WJS piece feel. (I call you a liar)

记者：我们已看到了。但我们上周联系柬埔寨政府的时候，他们可不是这么说的。

答：我不知道你指的是谁代表柬埔寨政府。我相信任何国家都会承认，你也不得不承认，首相讲话最能够代表其政府官方立场。

你们报道中还提到《多哈宣言》，这些网上或者各方面报道都是有证可查的。

WSJ: We have noted (PM Hun Sen's official statement). (I know the PM does NOT agree with us , oh shit shit) But (always a but even my hand is caught in the pant) when we contacted Cambodian government, they said differently , anonymous tactic again).

Hua: I do not know who do you think represents Cambodian government (Are you kidding yourself). I believe that every country will agree, and you have to agree that the Prime Minister's speech is the most representation of the government. (Seriously, did you graduate from a school, you do know what a Prime Minister is, do you?)

You (WSJ) has also mentioned "Declaration of Doha", you can check it.

记者：但那都是中国官媒的报道，并不是有关国家政府的表态。

答：我非常遗憾，《多哈宣言》是中阿合作论坛部长级会议共同发表的宣言，代表中国和21个阿拉伯国家以及阿盟的共同立场。

WSJ: BUT that (the declaration) is report from Chinese state media, it is not the official stance of relative governments. (Chinese State media must be liar, oops right when I am caught lying, shit shit, again, Foreign Ministers do not represent their governments, only me WSJ represents everyone).

Hua: "Declaration of Doha" is the joint declaration of the Minister conference of Sino-Arab cooperation forum, it represents the common stance of China, 21 Arab Countries and the Arab League. (You just don't learn, do you?)

记者：虽然我们报道已经发表了，但是我们愿意找机会跟你梳理一下有关国家的名单。

答：我已经讲了，越来越多的国家理解和支持中方立场，有些是公开的、书面的，有些是双边的，有些有报道，有些没有报道。你能不能首先给我一个单子，根据你们的了解和深入调研，有哪几个国家公开明确表示反对中国呢？

WSJ: Although we have published (our article), BUT (I have endless BUT without shame), I would like to find an opportunity to go through the list with you. (desperately trying to climb down the ladder).

Hua: I have said many times, more and more countries understand and support China's position, some are openly and on papers, some are bilateral, some are reported, some are not reported. Can you give me a list first, according to your "understanding and deep research" (or just BS), which country is openly against China's position? (you are really not afraid that I slap your face in front of everyone are you? because I am happy to).

 

[AndrewS]

It feels like China finally has a media monitoring/correction system like Israel has