China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Richard Santos]

And what interest that might be?. US or SCS countries?
Because like it or not the SEA well being is closely link to China So it behoove on those countries to have good relation with China in the long run. As event transpired in SEA now
Even if they have to make compromise on territory. Bend a little weave a little but at the end I maintain my independence

It would convenient for china if the SCS nation would think this way, therefore china is perhaps more than just disinterestedly disposed towards regarding such thinking as logical for the SCS nations.

But the many SCS nations, who undoubtedly evaluate their own interests more keenly than china might evaluate their interests, do not appear to concur.

 

[delft]

Again, in 1945 American primacy was absolute and can afford to take no position without jeopardizing her own hegemony. European colonial powers were struggling to hold on to onshore Realestate and couldn't care less about a few reefs off shore. When their entire homelands didn't belong to them the locals would hardly be in a position to quibble whether these reefs should belong to them.

These situations have all changed.

To expect consistency in the face of changing reality is infantile.

Besides, in 1946 the US was concerned with strengthening the nationalist administration, both against the communist insurgency and potentially as a bulwark against future soviet designs in the region. So the US wasn't going to sabotage Chiang Kei Shek by disputing his nationalistic posturing in SCS.

In 2017 the US is concerned about Chinese ability to rival US power in the region, and feel there is ample gains to be had in supporting the interests of nations that had come into existence since 1946.

US often talks about "rules based international conduct". Everyone can understand from your text that the main rule is that US make and change the rules as they see fit. That was a possible attitude in the forties when 50% of industrial capacity resided in US. At that time US collected many satellites whose rulers are approved by US. However now many powerful and not so powerful countries are not impressed, from China to Iran to Cuba to the Philippines. Even satellites will take notice of this when US demand that other countries "keep to the rules".

 

[Blackstone]

Seventy years ago China's claim was completely hollow and nonissue because china lacked the means to enforce the claims, there was no reason to make an issue out of such a nonissue.

Now china has the means to enforce these claim against all comers except the US, and the US sees american ability to successfully push back on china over these claims to be the litmus test all the regional powers will use to evaluate whether the US is a sufficiently effective and persistent security guarantor worth cultivating at the cost of annoying the much nearer china.

Basically, if America can't successfully push back on china in SCS, then the customary American role as the regional hegemony is at an end because countries will defer to china where Chinese and American interest collide.

We're in accord except for the part in bold, and I'm addressing the security part only, because US economic hegemony in Asia ended sometime after the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

US primacy as the basis of the Asian security order ended when China publicly announced it no longer accepted American primacy, and instead wanted a "new model of major country relations." The important part of that statement isn't China's announcement it no longer accepted American primacy, but the latter's inability to put China back in its box through diplomacy, and its unwillingness to do so with war. For a host of reasons, and we could go over those in detail if you like, it's all over but the shouting.

America would still be the most powerful country in the Asia-Pacific region, and will be so for many more years. But for all intents and purposes, American primacy as the basis of the Asian security order is over.

 

[Richard Santos]

US often talks about "rules based international conduct". Everyone can understand from your text that the main rule is that US make and change the rules as they see fit. That was a possible attitude in the forties when 50% of industrial capacity resided in US. At that time US collected many satellites whose rulers are approved by US. However now many powerful and not so powerful countries are not impressed, from China to Iran to Cuba to the Philippines. Even satellites will take notice of this when US demand that other countries "keep to the rules".

No nation conduct itself fully in a rule based way. All nations reserves for themselves the option to break rules out of national interest. Whether a nation is regarded as a rule breaker or rule follower depends on:

1. Which, How often, and when does it break rules
2. How many other countries are negatively impacted, how well has the rule breaker placated the more influential of the negatively impacted
3. How many other countries are positively impacted, and how influential are the countries impacted.

 

[dingyibvs]

I agree with Rick, I really could not care less what historical justifications anyone has, the only thing that matters is power. "Reliability" is useless as well. What's reliable is not words, but interests. Even if Obama had been 100% reliable in his promises to the Philippines, Obama's promise to come to the Philippines' aide over Scarborough would not have been reliable because Obama's interests do not align with Filipino ones in that instance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, trust is only built when both sides are convinced that the other side believes what they're doing is in their own best interest. SCS countries will submit to Chinese primacy in the region when it's in their interest to do so, but right now most can benefit more by playing China and the US off each other to varying degrees.

 

[delft]

No nation conduct itself fully in a rule based way. All nations reserves for themselves the option to break rules out of national interest. Whether a nation is regarded as a rule breaker or rule follower depends on:

1. Which, How often, and when does it break rules
2. How many other countries are negatively impacted, how well has the rule breaker placated the more influential of the negatively impacted
3. How many other countries are positively impacted, and how influential are the countries impacted.

I agree with you. As a European I look especially to what happened in the European neighbourhood. I see the destruction of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya and the founding of the failed state Kosovo. I see the coup in Kiev converting Ukraine from a failing into a failed state. I see the sponsoring of many types of terrorists in Syria. All together US that promises to be a force for stability is breaking that word often and not only the the countries concerned but the wide neighbourhood are negatively impacted and I doubt that any country is really positively impacted, not even Saudi Arabia and Israel whatever their leaders may think.

 

[broadsword]

No nation conduct itself fully in a rule based way. All nations reserves for themselves the option to break rules out of national interest. Whether a nation is regarded as a rule breaker or rule follower depends on:

1. Which, How often, and when does it break rules

Got to add 'where'

 

[plawolf]

Again, in 1945 American primacy was absolute and can afford to take no position without jeopardizing her own hegemony. European colonial powers were struggling to hold on to onshore Realestate and couldn't care less about a few reefs off shore. When their entire homelands didn't belong to them the locals would hardly be in a position to quibble whether these reefs should belong to them.

These situations have all changed.

To expect consistency in the face of changing reality is infantile.

Besides, in 1946 the US was concerned with strengthening the nationalist administration, both against the communist insurgency and potentially as a bulwark against future soviet designs in the region. So the US wasn't going to sabotage Chiang Kei Shek by disputing his nationalistic posturing in SCS.

In 2017 the US is concerned about Chinese ability to rival US power in the region, and feel there is ample gains to be had in supporting the interests of nations that had come into existence since 1946.

A) As Delft already pointed out, what you have described flies on the face of the 'rules based' order the US keeps claiming to support.

B) you are not applying your reasoning equally to all sides. If you are suggestion it is reasonable for nations to change their positions based on changes in circumstances and their own national power. Surely that also applies to China. Who had it far worse than the US or any of the other countries you mentioned at the time.

China has far bigger and more urgent priorities than to press Irs hostoric SCS claims until recently.

 

[Equation]

I agree with you. As a European I look especially to what happened in the European neighbourhood. I see the destruction of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya and the founding of the failed state Kosovo. I see the coup in Kiev converting Ukraine from a failing into a failed state. I see the sponsoring of many types of terrorists in Syria. All together US that promises to be a force for stability is breaking that word often and not only the the countries concerned but the wide neighbourhood are negatively impacted and I doubt that any country is really positively impacted, not even Saudi Arabia and Israel whatever their leaders may think.

Don't forget the US failed support for the South Vietnamese allies as well, whose government were far more corrupt and weaker than their North Vietnam enemy.

 

[sanblvd]

Trump’s Turn Toward China Curtails Navy Patrols in Disputed Zones

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Its weird this article has not been mentioned. Basically US Pacific Command (Admiral Harry B. Harris who was born in Japan) wants to keep doing the freedom of navigation thing, but look like either Trump or US military rejected this because they don't want to upset China while they are helping US with the fat Kim situation.

This is very interesting, such thing would never fly under Obama or Hillary.

Whats most important is that the SCS issue has been pushed way behind on US's list of priorities. Also by doing this, US indirectly acknowledge China's strength in Asia. I cannot believe China's predicament has been changed so dramatically in just a few years.

I guess when Trump said you will get sick of winning... he was talking about winning for China.