China's SCS Strategy Thread

[delft]

FONOP can only help the US and no other country and that only if China were to be intimidated which is not the case.
The original claims against which the freedom of the seas concept was developed were those of Spain and Portugal over all non-European waters, as an extension of the Treaty of Tordesillas, Grotius thesis on the Mare Liberum of 1609 - which was paid for by the Dutch United East Indies Company - and the claim of England over all the fish in the North Sea which led to the first English Dutch War in the middle of the 17th century. US became owners of the Pacific as a result of defeating the Japanese navy and air force and was free to interpret the concept in their own interest. Now that they are only part owner the concept is changing again. IF the US conception of the Free Sea was these same now as it was in the '40's they would have objected then against China claiming these islands and rocks instead of supporting that claim. They are now trying to maintain a claim of their own somewhat similar to the English claim over the North Sea fish long ago and make themselves ridiculous.

 

[Blackstone]

Very reasonable and restrained rhetoric in response to US provocations.

Well, the more subdued Beijing's 'outrage,' the more things are going their way. US FONOPs will continue, because that's part of America's DNA since the founding of the Republic, but it's clear China's hold on the SCS is strengthening- relative to everyone else.

 

[PanAsian]

Well, the more subdued Beijing's 'outrage,' the more things are going their way. US FONOPs will continue, because that's part of America's DNA since the founding of the Republic, but it's clear China's hold on the SCS is strengthening- relative to everyone else.

Not necessarily regarding outrage corresponding to how things are going. Though indeed today's US expeditionary military operations can trace a lineage back to British colonialism and aggression. I would say things are not necessarily going China's way in the SCS, all the other claimants' holdings are still there, construction by other claimants are ongoing, other claimants' CG and naval buildups are ongoing, the US military pivot and pursuit of containment is ongoing, more direct US interference is expected potentially joined by Japan, UK, even France.

 

[Blackstone]

Not necessarily regarding outrage corresponding to how things are going. Though indeed today's US expeditionary military operations can trace a lineage back to British colonialism and aggression. I would say things are not necessarily going China's way in the SCS, all the other claimants' holdings are still there, construction by other claimants are ongoing, other claimants' CG and naval buildups are ongoing, the US military pivot and pursuit of containment is ongoing, more direct US interference is expected potentially joined by Japan, UK, even France.

China doesn't have to "own" all islands and features in the SCS to strategically dominate the waterway, just as US doesn't "own" all islands and features in the Greater Caribbean, but there's no question the Monroe Doctrine is in force. Beijing is doing well on the security end of consolidating its SCS holdings, even if it suffers short-term "soft power" hits.

As for US containment of China, it's not at all clear Washington's strategy is making much headway. Beltway mandarins and the Pentagon want to encircle China, but the American people want less foreign entanglements. While Washington elites are contemptuous of the unwashed masses, they know remaking the world in America's image would fail without the support of the very people they despise. It's so inconvenient when the peasants stop listening to their betters.

Singapore, Japan, Australia, UK, and even France made some noises to support the US, but so far it's more talk than action. Vietnam placed TPP on hold, pending Congressional ratification of the treaty- which looks increasingly unlikely (in its current form). The rest of ASEAN want no part of containing China. Japan is concerned with increasing isolationism in the US, and has begun to hedge by charting its own foreign policies. India is playing both sides against the middle.

Bottom line is while Washington wants to encircle and contain China, that train left the station years ago.

 

[weig2000]

China doesn't have to "own" all islands and features in the SCS to strategically dominate the waterway, just as US doesn't "own" all islands and features in the Greater Caribbean, but there's no question the Monroe Doctrine is in force. Beijing is doing well on the security end of consolidating its SCS holdings, even if it suffers short-term "soft power" hits.

Indeed, owning every rock in SCS would be rather anachronistic and outmoded thinking. The future of SCS should be based on mutual accommodating, sharing and joint development.

As for US containment of China, it's not at all clear Washington's strategy is making much headway. Beltway mandarins and the Pentagon want to encircle China, but the American people want less foreign entanglements. While Washington elites are contemptuous of the unwashed masses, they know remaking the world in America's image would fail without the support of the very people they despise. It's so inconvenient when the peasants stop listening to their betters.

Singapore, Japan, Australia, UK, and even France made some noises to support the US, but so far it's more talk than action. Vietnam placed TPP on hold, pending Congressional ratification of the treaty- which looks increasingly unlikely (in its current form). The rest of ASEAN want no part of containing China. Japan is concerned with increasing isolationism in the US, and has begun to hedge by charting its own foreign policies. India is playing both sides against the middle.

Bottom line is while Washington wants to encircle and contain China, that train left the station years ago.

Very pointed, but so true. The fallacy of Washington establishment's containment policy is the huge disconnect between the US and its supposed allies, and that between the elites and the common folks at home. China is no threat, at least not enough a threat to the rest of the world; it actually offers great opportunities to everyone, including the US. The US is remarkably strong and secure today, the presumed geopolitical competition with China is not convincing enough for much of the domestic populace under economic duress to make sacrifices, thus the demise of the TPP.

 

[Iron Man]

Therein lies the problem.

First, let me point out that there is no such thing as "unilateral takeover" of a disputed territory because there is no such thing as "bilateral takeover". This is just a buzz word designed to vilify China for doing what every other nation does in territorial disputes. In territorial disputes, there is only one meaningful distinction: peaceful means or war.

Territorial disputes are between the disputing nations. If those nations are willing, they can invite third parties to mediate or arbitrate. However, third party nations who insert themselves uninvited into the territorial disputes of other nations is extremely troublesome.

There is no "bilateral takeover". But just because there is no bilateral takeover doesn't mean there is no unilateral takeover. One does not follow from the other, and this is a false dichotomy. There is such a thing as "bilateral agreement" on who should own a disputed territory as surely as there is such a thing as "unilateral takeover" of a disputed territory by one side. Bilateral agreement is certainly not a foreign concept to China as it has settled the vast majority of its border disputes by now. Bilateral consensus regarding SCS disputes is theoretically the official US position, though as I have said it is plenty content to insist on this only when China is doing the claiming.

There is only one supranational authority in the world, and that is the United Nations. Any country that unilaterally takes on UN-like mandates is working outside of the established order and thus undermining the UN.

There is really only one supranational authority in the world, and it is not the UN. Or should I say, there has been really only one supranational authority in the world for the last 3 decades. And it is the US, which has not felt bound by any action of the UN that did not match its national interests. Any other country that could get away with not respecting the UN's dictates have done so as well. If this is the case, how is the UN the only supranational authority in the world? It has all the deafening roar of a kitten and the fierce claws of a chick.

Mao's axiom about political power applies no less to the US than to the CPC. There should be no illusion about the US having been the sole "world's policeman" since the fall of the Soviet empire. Just because you may not want it to be so doesn't mean it therefore isn't so. And it is continuing this role today in the SCS, whether or not any of the actual claimants want or do not want the US to be involved. As China's power grows relative to the US, the US will have a harder and harder time playing the world's policeman in the SCS. This is just great power politics; there is nothing troublesome or unexpected about this.

 

[Equation]

There is no "bilateral takeover". But just because there is no bilateral takeover doesn't mean there is no unilateral takeover. One does not follow from the other, and this is a false dichotomy. There is such a thing as "bilateral agreement" on who should own a disputed territory as surely as there is such a thing as "unilateral takeover" of a disputed territory by one side. Bilateral agreement is certainly not a foreign concept to China as it has settled the vast majority of its border disputes by now. Bilateral consensus regarding SCS disputes is theoretically the official US position, though as I have said it is plenty content to insist on this only when China is doing the claiming.


There is really only one supranational authority in the world, and it is not the UN. Or should I say, there has been really only one supranational authority in the world for the last 3 decades. And it is the US, which has not felt bound by any action of the UN that did not match its national interests. Any other country that could get away with not respecting the UN's dictates have done so as well. If this is the case, how is the UN the only supranational authority in the world? It has all the deafening roar of a kitten and the fierce claws of a chick.

Mao's axiom about political power applies no less to the US than to the CPC. There should be no illusion about the US having been the sole "world's policeman" since the fall of the Soviet empire. Just because you may not want it to be so doesn't mean it therefore isn't so. And it is continuing this role today in the SCS, whether or not any of the actual claimants want or do not want the US to be involved. As China's power grows relative to the US, the US will have a harder and harder time playing the world's policeman in the SCS. This is just great power politics; there is nothing troublesome or unexpected about this.

Yeah but how long can the US keep up with this world policeman reputation that they hold so dearly when economic hardships and the masses have no stomach for another confrontation of any kind? Pretty soon the elites have to yield to the masses demands or lose power and credibility. China knows this that's why it's building it's military forces, economy, AND geo politics at the same time. I believe the US knows this as well, but some of the old Cold War goats are still in denial and are throwing a hail mary to the end zone with time running out and all receivers are covered and down by two touchdowns.

 

[Iron Man]

Yeah but how long can the US keep up with this world policeman reputation that they hold so dearly when economic hardships and the masses have no stomach for another confrontation of any kind? Pretty soon the elites have to yield to the masses demands or lose power and credibility. China knows this that's why it's building it's military forces, economy, AND geo politics at the same time. I believe the US knows this as well, but some of the old Cold War goats are still in denial and are throwing a hail mary to the end zone with time running out and all receivers are covered and down by two touchdowns.

The time of the US in the sun has come and is going away soon. It could have stayed longer at the pinnacle of the world but its irresponsible politicians are spending money it doesn't have, enslaving future generations with unrepayable debt, and slowly but surely turning US credit rating into trash. A dollar crisis is coming, mark my words. China will soon have its historical place in the sun restored as long as its politicians are more responsible than the US Congress.

 

[solarz]

There is no "bilateral takeover". But just because there is no bilateral takeover doesn't mean there is no unilateral takeover. One does not follow from the other, and this is a false dichotomy. There is such a thing as "bilateral agreement" on who should own a disputed territory as surely as there is such a thing as "unilateral takeover" of a disputed territory by one side. Bilateral agreement is certainly not a foreign concept to China as it has settled the vast majority of its border disputes by now. Bilateral consensus regarding SCS disputes is theoretically the official US position, though as I have said it is plenty content to insist on this only when China is doing the claiming.

A bilateral agreement is the result of diplomacy. Taking over a disputed territory is a method of conducting diplomacy. One is a means, the other is an end. A "unilateral takeover" does not prevent a bilateral agreement in the end, as we have seen plenty of times in territorial disputes.

There's no such thing as a "non-unilateral takeover" of disputed territory, unless you mean a coalition of parties on one side.

Furthermore, a bilateral agreement is only contrasted with a multilateral agreement. There's no such thing as a "unilateral agreement", which is an oxymoron.

There is really only one supranational authority in the world, and it is not the UN. Or should I say, there has been really only one supranational authority in the world for the last 3 decades. And it is the US, which has not felt bound by any action of the UN that did not match its national interests. Any other country that could get away with not respecting the UN's dictates have done so as well. If this is the case, how is the UN the only supranational authority in the world? It has all the deafening roar of a kitten and the fierce claws of a chick.

Mao's axiom about political power applies no less to the US than to the CPC. There should be no illusion about the US having been the sole "world's policeman" since the fall of the Soviet empire. Just because you may not want it to be so doesn't mean it therefore isn't so. And it is continuing this role today in the SCS, whether or not any of the actual claimants want or do not want the US to be involved. As China's power grows relative to the US, the US will have a harder and harder time playing the world's policeman in the SCS. This is just great power politics; there is nothing troublesome or unexpected about this.

You mistake authority with power. The US has power, but it does not have the authority. You can disregard authority if you have enough power, but that doesn't mean you suddenly become the new authority.

 

[Jura The idiot]

A bilateral agreement is the result of diplomacy. Taking over a disputed territory is a method of conducting diplomacy. ...

oh is it really? then I can repeat after Clausewitz: War is continuation of politics by other means, 1826 (not sure about the year, that's how I remembered it)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!