China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

I think the US government has also been cautious. It's under a lot of domestic pressure to make some "tough" statements, but it also tries to rein some of hot-headed pushes from the US military. It's a difficult balancing job for both governments.

I don't usually want to get into these kinds of arguments because of the nasty implications that they would usually lead to. But let me say this: if you think you can bully China into submission without any recoils, you'd be wrong. When that happens, WTF.

Exactly, than lets get rid of these so hot headed US military big shrimps before they do something really stupid that can lead the nation into trouble. Who cares about the pressure from some few domestic citizens who still thinks the world revolves around the US world policing.

 

[Blackstone]

International laws is not written in stone, therefore irrelevant to this debate, my beef is that the US ONLY does FONOP is base purely to get China's neighbors joined them in an exercise to trying to contain China through military showmanship. So far it hasn't gotten the US anywhere other than the Philippines and Vietnam pivoting away from the US and their goals of containing China through a small multilateral party.

That's absolutely false. US conducts FONOPs on nation that asserts more maritime rights than international laws grant them, be they allies, rivals, friends, foes, and everything in between. Enclosed is a link to Under Secretary of Defense FONOP reports that shows freedom of the seas missions against just about every country with excessive maritime claims, including allies like Japan, South Korea, India, Philippines, Taiwan, Djbouti, Demmark, and even Malta.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blackstone]

Exactly, than lets get rid of these so hot headed US military big shrimps before they do something really stupid that can lead the nation into trouble. Who cares about the pressure from some few domestic citizens who still thinks the world revolves around the US world policing.

It's not that simple nor clear cut and you know it. Great power competition is heading up and both camps pursue their national interests to the hilt. There are hot heads on both sides, and while I agree with you they need adult supervision, but honest brokers would lay blame on everyone with stake in the outcomes.

 

[Dolcevita]

US challenges any nation that claims it has sovereign control of water ways outside internationally recognized territorial limits. That usually means 12 miles for islands and coasts, 3 miles for land features, and 500 meters for artificial islands. You will note USN spokesman said USS Decatur stayed outside 12 mile limits of all Parcel island land features, and China's Defense Ministry didn't contradict that claim. Therefore we could safely assume it is true. Given that fact, it doesn't matter what "baseline" China established in 2016, 1996, 1066, or even 66 BC, those baseline don't impede freedom of the seas outside internationally recognized sovereign territorial limits.

Quite frankly, I think the US is making a mistake by not sailing (safely) near the 3 mile limit of land features, and near 500 meter of artificial islands. It should do just that, if FON has any real meaning. But, that's just my personal opinion.

Again. You take US claims as gospel and you can continue your adoration and no one is stopping you. But you become ill-informed and blind from your adoration. Here is the Crux of the conflict where there are 2 interpretation of the same fact,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's Baseline was submitted to UNCLOS in accordance to the rules and international law and no signatory has ever challenged this baseline. China took the straight baseline approach in its filing for the UNCLOS baseline. While the US may not agree to this straight baseline approach, the US does not have any credentials to question the interpretation of the baseline.

Why? Because the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS. The US may think it is the final judge and executioner for UNCLOS but for the rest of the world, it does not legally have the credentials, Simple as that.

Essentially the US is saying gunboats are above international law.

 

[broadsword]

Are there any police personnel in the world who are not subject to the laws of their jurisdictions? I know of no police force that does not need to abide by the law even if they do not break them.

UNless you are talking about bad cops.

 

[advill]

Let's see what happens after the US Presidential Elections. Changes may take place, hopefully to the satisfaction of all parties, OR it could worse. The South China Sea episode should never be a zero-sum game. It's not only security but also matters related to economic and international trade etc. must be taken into consideration. I believe China's senior leaders are pragmatic. No one country should push too hard & face serious repercussions. During recent meetings between PLA-N & USN Chiefs of Navy & their Fleet Commanders, I read that they expressed their views on mil-mil encounters, and agreed to disagree on certain issues. "If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will escape a hundred days of sorrow" (A Chinese Proverb).

 

[Blackstone]

Again. You take US claims as gospel and you can continue your adoration and no one is stopping you. But you become ill-informed and blind from your adoration. Here is the Crux of the conflict where there are 2 interpretation of the same fact,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's Baseline was submitted to UNCLOS in accordance to the rules and international law and no signatory has ever challenged this baseline. China took the straight baseline approach in its filing for the UNCLOS baseline. While the US may not agree to this straight baseline approach, the US does not have any credentials to question the interpretation of the baseline.

Why? Because the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS. The US may think it is the final judge and executioner for UNCLOS but for the rest of the world, it does not legally have the credentials, Simple as that.

Essentially the US is saying gunboats are above international law.

The crux of the argument isn't whatever baseline China filed with the UN, those don't matter at all when it comes to freedom of the sea lanes. As long as US or any other nations' ships stay outside of legal territorial waters, which means 12 miles for coasts and islands, 3 miles for submerged features, and 500 meters for artificial islands. Inside those limits, China has full sovereignty and outside of them China limited law enforcement jurisdiction, but no sovereignty. It's that simple.

 

[Equation]

That's absolutely false. US conducts FONOPs on nation that asserts more maritime rights than international laws grant them, be they allies, rivals, friends, foes, and everything in between. Enclosed is a link to Under Secretary of Defense FONOP reports that shows freedom of the seas missions against just about every country with excessive maritime claims, including allies like Japan, South Korea, India, Philippines, Taiwan, Djbouti, Demmark, and even Malta.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So the US does act as the one world governing body whenever it suits them? Sorry but that time is over.

It's not that simple nor clear cut and you know it. Great power competition is heading up and both camps pursue their national interests to the hilt. There are hot heads on both sides, and while I agree with you they need adult supervision, but honest brokers would lay blame on everyone with stake in the outcomes.

Yes it is that simple, the American people need to be aware of these venal group of elitist acting on behalf of the US that can get them killed. Time to rise and get rid of them or at least shine a light on these shadows to keep them at bay. So far I'm not seeing that, therefore NO hope and NO change.

 

[SouthernSky]

This course of events wasn't a foregone conclusion, if the US was willing to pay up more (economic investment, military aid, yielding more political power in bilateral arrangements, positive PR, and freedom of action... etc.) to the likes of the Philippines and Vietnam then the US could have gotten more of its way, though still not everything as it wanted. But the US was not willing to be more generous which partially is a deeper reflection of the kind of relationship the US expects between itself and others, and the history of US relations with these specific countries.

But it's still early in the game, let's see what happens when Duterte and Abe meet. Duterte's rhetoric also continues to not match statements from others in the Philippines government, his pivot has not been cemented as Philippines' pivot, there is the possibility he may be removed from power one way or the other, and a different president may not take the Philippines in the same direction.

My comment was specific to Duterte. And I stand by it.

At the end of the day, he and he alone will shape the relationships between the Philippines and her neighbors. His voice is far louder than others in the Philippine Government, for better or worse.

 

[Jura The idiot]

I noticed only now (article dated Oct. 20, 2016 at 12:59 PM), anyway China deploys air force on disputed South China Sea island

China confirmed it has stationed troops in the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

Beijing's People's Liberation Army Daily reported on Thursday the Chinese military has deployed airmen on Woody Island, also known as Yongxing Island in China.

The report comes more than a year after Chinese President

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

said

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of another cluster of islands, the Spratlys, during his state visit in September 2015.

At the time China had already broken a pledge to halt reclamation and had built three runways on artificial islands at the Fiery Cross and Subi reefs.

The air force of China's South China Sea fleet is to monitor all activities near the Paracel Islands from its vantage point on Woody Island.

The Paracels are also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam, but China has already built a 1.9-mile airstrip on Woody Island, according to PLA Daily.

In February, Fox News reported the Chinese military had

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of advanced surface-to-air missiles, the HQ-9 air defense system, in the Paracels.

The missiles were being clandestinely deployed on Woody Island, according to satellite imagery.

In 2015, China stated military training was taking place on the island, but this is the first time Beijing acknowledged the presence of troops.

As China has shown few signs from retracting sovereignty over South China Sea islands, some of its neighbors are taking a different approach to relations.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte did not make the South China Sea dispute the focus of conversation during a state visit this week, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

"The two sides briefly mentioned the South China Sea. Both sides agreed that this issue is not the sum total of bilateral relations," said Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin, adding the two sides agreed on a "settlement through bilateral dialogue."

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!