China's SCS Strategy Thread

Blackstone

Brigadier
But doesn't that mean the US is not neutral? Although it really isn't at this point with all the verbal attacks traded around. To play devil's advocate, what if China decides to beach a vessel on the other end of the shoal? Now what? Attack the Chinese vessel?

I think a better idea if the US wants to play any form of mediator is may be getting the claimants involved to agree to joint fishery patrols around the Spratlys so fishermen of any flag won't be mistreated and proper policing of poaching is carried out without the political ramification of sovereignty issues hanging over them. It won't solve the bigger issues but it does address the practical aspects such as fishermen simply wanting to make a living as well as rebuilding some form of trust and goodwill.

Sino-America strategic distrust is so high, it's doubtful China would go with any US-led mechanism in Asian disputes. The core problem is China no longer accepts US primacy as the basis of security in Asia, and demands a place at the head if the table. If the US and her allies refuse Chinese demands and continue to preserve current status, then confrontation is the result. It's mind boggling to see US and allies caution Thucydides Trap while believing things could remain as is, and it's equally mind boggling to see China spouting Thucydides, but believes the golden handcuffs are on the other side and not on China too.
 
I just read a chain of posts here that say to me one simple thing: US policy on China is containment, but it has not yet been determined how tight or loose, because the US knows and China has let it be known that it is unwilling to accept it beyond a certain level, and everyone is trying to influence that to their advantage.

Conceptually China wants to be a military equal against the top military power that may operate within the First Island Chain because that is the minimum deterrence against an attack on China itself. In practice this means China has to match US capabilities including those of its allies in case of full hostilities. Because of China's size and development by default this means China will be dominating every one of its neighbors except for Russia. This is the tricky reality which everyone faces but the US as the dominant world power is the one making the call whether China is allowed to be militarily secure by this definition or not. Clearly as long as China can do something about it, it would rather be secure than not.
 

A.Man

Major
Why China and America are Headed Toward a Catastrophic Clash

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



This article also appears in The Interpreter, the journal of the Lowy Institute in Australia.

Many people find it hard to understand why China is acting the way it is in the East and South China Seas. What does Beijing hope to achieve by alienating its neighbors and undermining regional stability?

Let me suggest an answer: China is trying to build what President Xi Jinping calls "a new model of great power relations." To understand how this might be the aim of Beijing's actions, we have to recognize that under his "new model," Xi wants China to wield much more power and influence in Asia than it has for the past few centuries. These things are inherently zero-sum, so for China to have more power and influence, America must have less. This is what Xi and his colleagues are trying to achieve.

Their reasoning is simple enough. They know that America's position in Asia is built on its network of alliances and partnerships with many of China's neighbors. They believe that weakening these relationships is the easiest way to weaken U.S. regional power. And they know that, beneath the flowery diplomatic phrases, the bedrock of these alliances and partnerships is the confidence America's Asian friends have that America is able and willing to protect them from China's power.

So the easiest way for Beijing to weaken Washington's power in Asia is to undermine this confidence. And the easiest way to do that is for Beijing to press those friends and allies hard on issues in which America's own interests are not immediately engaged -- like a string of maritime disputes in which the U.S. has no direct stake.

By using direct armed pressure in these disputes, China makes its neighbors more eager for U.S. military support, and at the same time makes America less willing to give it, because of the clear risk of a direct U.S.-China clash. In other words, by confronting America's friends with force, China confronts America with the choice between deserting its friends and fighting China. Beijing is betting that, faced with this choice, America will back off and leave its allies and friends unsupported. This will weaken America's alliances and partnerships, undermine U.S. power in Asia, and enhance China's power.

This view of China's motives explains its recent conduct.

Ever since President Obama announced the "pivot," China has tested U.S. willingness to support its allies over the Scarborough Shoals and Senkaku/Daioyu disputes. Until his Asian trip last month, Obama seemed inclined to step back from America's commitments, but his bold words in Tokyo and Manila suggest he has recovered his resolve to stand firm.

Now we can expect China to test this newly-recovered resolve by applying more pressure in the same places or elsewhere. And that is what Beijing is doing today in the waters off Vietnam. It is calling Obama's bluff. Expect more pressure against Manila and Tokyo soon.

Of course this carries risks for China. It does not want to fight America, so it must be confident in the judgment that America will back down and desert its friends rather than engage in conflict with China, even if backing down badly weakens the U.S. position in Asia. This confidence reflects two key judgments by China's leaders.

First, they believe that China's new anti-access/area denial capabilities can deny America a quick and easy victory in an maritime clash in the East Asian littoral waters. They have been reassured by America's own Air-Sea Battle doctrine that the U.S. knows it cannot prevail in these waters without launching a major campaign of strikes against Chinese territory. Such strikes would obviously risk a major escalation which might not stop below the nuclear threshold. So China's leaders think their U.S. counterparts understand that a war with China today is one that America could not be confident of either winning or limiting.

Second, Beijing believes the balance of resolve is on China's side. Washington clearly wants to preserve its role in Asia, but Beijing is even more determined to win power at the U.S.' expense. China's conduct suggests that the leadership in Beijing believes Washington understands this imbalance of resolve. That makes the Chinese confident that U.S. leaders will not assume that China would back down first in a crisis.

The idea that China might believe these things comes as a surprise to many outside China, including, one suspects, many in Washington. U.S. policy towards China, including the pivot itself, is based on contrary assumptions. The consensus is that Beijing is not really serious about challenging U.S. leadership in Asia because it is simply not willing to risk a confrontation with America which Beijing's leaders must know they would lose, and they do not care enough about expanding China's role in Asia to take that risk.

If that's true, then China's conduct is clearly foolish. But before assuming that the Chinese leaders are fools, we would be wise to wonder whether they really do believe what Washington assumes they believe. I'm pretty sure they do not.

Asia today therefore carries the seeds of a truly catastrophic episode of mutual misperception. Both Washington and China are steadily upping the stakes in their rivalry as China's provocations of US friends and allies become more flagrant and America's commitments to support them become more categorical.

Both believe they can do this with impunity because both believe the other will back down to avoid a clash. There is a disconcertingly high chance that they are both wrong.

Someone needs to change the nature of the game to avert the risk of disaster.


More:
China Sea Disputes, China American Relations, China News, East China Sea, East China Sea Dispute, South China Sea, Foreign Policy, Chinese American Relations, China Foreign Policy, China u.s. Relations, China America Relations, China, South China Sea Dispute
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
In data analysis 101, as i suspect is the case in any analytical training course, students are taught a basic founamental fact - garbage in, garbage out.

No matter how well you analysis things, if your basic facts are wrong or incomplete, your conclusion is going to be fundamentally flawed before you even start.

And that is precisely the trap every single piece of western analysis I have seen on this issue has fallen into. It is incredibly ironic since the cause of this is the west'w own information and PR war against China.

Firstly, western analysis takes western media reports as fact, but as and others have demonstrated time and again, that is simply not true.

The western media has religiously highlighted every instance where anyone has criticised China, irrespective of the merits of the complaint, and reported what the accuser has claimed as fact. And always rehash any other similar complaints against China to force feed the point to the viewer/reader.

At the same time, it either completely fails to report similar or more provocative action by others (where has Vietnam's island fortification, oil drilling and land reclaimation activities been mentioned in the western media? And Vietnam is hardly what you could call a western ally) done against China. Or when the western media does report on Chinese grievances, it doesn't even try to hide its reluctance and goes out of its way to try and downplay, discredit or otherwise undermine China's point. Nowhere will you find more instances of questionable, or downright inappropriate use of double quotation marks than in a western piece on Chinese grievances.

The first rule about propaganda is one should not lap up ones own horse manure, yet that is a lesson western leaders and analysists alike seem to not grasp.

The reason Chinese actions have western leaders and analysists perflexed is less to do with mysterious Chinese game theory and more down to the fact those leaders and analysists were starting off with only half the data, and what 'facts' they do work with are more often then not incredible biased or distorted.

If you only listen to the western media, Chinese action seem very assertive. But if you consider all the facts, a complete different picture emerges.

Far from being proactive, Chinese strategy in the SCS disputes and the Diaoyu dispute with Japan has been balanced, or even reactionary.

The Japanese first broke with long established norms and arrested Chinese fishermen in disputed waters near the Diaoyu Islands, that moved their position from merely claiming admistrative rights to enforcement of those rights. Then, after that storm died down, the Japanese nationalised the islands, again changing the then status quo and moved administrative control to ownership.

Western blatant bias further inflamed the situation, when western leaders used past Chinese restraint as evidence China accepted Japan's claims as facts on the ground. How on earth do you expect the Chinese to show restraint if you then go throw that restraint back in their face and use it against China?

In that context, the only thing China could do if it didn't want to relinquish weaken its claims was to actively contest Japanese control of the islands.

Similar deal with the SCS disputes. The Scarbrough Shoal inident started off with the Philipines break with long established norms and sending not a coast guard ship, but the flagship of its navy, to arrest Chinese fishermen in disputed waters. Not only that, the pride of the Philipines navy bottled Chinese fishing boats in the shoal for hours, yet incredible made no arrests at all in that time, and indeed only seem to show any activity after Chinese government monitoring ships showed up. It's as classic a case of a government trying to manufacture an international incident as I have seen in a while. Yet unsurprisingly those inconvenient facts were all but entirely gloss over by the western media.

I did not follow the recent dispute with Vietnam very closely, but judging by the pictures of their activities, I would be amazed if the chain of events is as mainstream western media have portrayed it.

Chinese foreign policy with regards to territorial disputes can be easily summed up by the word 'reciprocity'.

China has been more than generous when the other side has shown good fair, but where someone has shown bad faith, China punishes them. It's as simple as that.

All these talk of China trying to overthrown the current world order is about 20 years premature.

Time is on China's side, and China would much rather quietly develop and grow for another 20-50 years or however long Chinese power continues to grow in both absolute and relative turns.

Chinese leaders are not gamblers, they would much rather wait a decade, a generation or a century and have the sure thing rather than risk it all betting on red now.

The true powers that be in the west recognise this, which is why they are trying to force the issue now, before China grows too strong for the west to be able to defeat.
 

delft

Brigadier
I think China's motive with regards to SCS is relatively clear based on official statements and demonstrated actions. Its primary aim is to dominate the SCS and in its view is a reversion to its historical rights. It has now come off age both economically and militarily and the steps being taken are to right the wrongs precipitated by colonial European powers. Its actions are calculated moves to undermine the US's credibility in the region and to highlight its impotence in the face of China's assertiveness. IMHO, the so call rocks is the key and strategic pathway to its domination. Planting structures was the first step. Reclaiming provides the ports and airstrips (which we are seeing). ADIZ will surely follow - eventually.

The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS. Vietnam is not a treaty partner and so unless China directly attacks the Philippines (which it will not), there is no pretext for US involvement besides the standard huff and puff. The more statements that the US puts out, the more obvious is its inability to deal with the situation (legally and morally). In my view, the US has so far being reacting rather than taking the initiative.

I have a wild idea and was wondering whether it is feasible from a military standpoint (logistically and defensibility). Currently the Philippines has a boat beached in the Second Thomas Shoal signalling it is Philippines territory (but contested by China). If the US wants to send a signal that it means business, it can beach one of its retired LHA (say USS Nassau) next to the Philippines boat and set it up as a FOB. This will obviously infuriate the Chinese but it will then have to either back down or attack the US if it wants to continue with its plans. I think the term is passive assertiveness.

A a suitable time China might build an island around both vessels. After all China considers it to be Chinese property. The ships can then be sold to China at scrap value.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I just read a chain of posts here that say to me one simple thing: US policy on China is containment, but it has not yet been determined how tight or loose, because the US knows and China has let it be known that it is unwilling to accept it beyond a certain level, and everyone is trying to influence that to their advantage.
I don’t think US intends to “contain” China, in the way USSR was contained. Rather, it’s US’s policy to prudently employ a hedge strategy to guard against Sinio hegemony. However, it’s evident China and America’s regional friends/allies all see the hedge as containment, and that in itself is alarming.

Because of China's size and development by default this means China will be dominating every one of its neighbors except for Russia.
Japan is already stronger than Russia, and if China could "dominate" Japan, then Russia would be a junior partner to China.

This is the tricky reality which everyone faces but the US as the dominant world power is the one making the call whether China is allowed to be militarily secure by this definition or not. Clearly as long as China can do something about it, it would rather be secure than not.
Cheers for a fellow John Mearsheimer disciple!
 

Franklin

Captain
The fact that the Americans are taking pains to say that their policies in Asia is not to contain China. Then you know their policies in Asia is to contain China. This is by no means meant to be an insult towards Americans but this is the reality of politics all over the world.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
The western media has religiously highlighted every instance where anyone has criticised China, irrespective of the merits of the complaint, and reported what the accuser has claimed as fact. And always rehash any other similar complaints against China to force feed the point to the viewer/reader.
Well, not all Western media/academia unfairly criticize China, but sadly what you say is often true. In addition, it's my experience that most US media, on both sides of the political divide, kneejerk for Japan and parrot what Japanese officials and their US apologists say, even when reality is more unanced.

At the same time, it either completely fails to report similar or more provocative action by others (where has Vietnam's island fortification, oil drilling and land reclaimation activities been mentioned in the western media? And Vietnam is hardly what you could call a western ally) done against China. Or when the western media does report on Chinese grievances, it doesn't even try to hide its reluctance and goes out of its way to try and downplay, discredit or otherwise undermine China's point. Nowhere will you find more instances of questionable, or downright inappropriate use of double quotation marks than in a western piece on Chinese grievances.
Western press used to be (on balance) pro-China, but that changed in a big way after Emperor Deng ordered the Praetorian Guards to massacre peaceful protesters in, of all places, 'Gates of Heavenly Peace.' The irony! Of course, there's no proof Deng fiddled while Beijing burned.

Far from being proactive, Chinese strategy in the SCS disputes and the Diaoyu dispute with Japan has been balanced, or even reactionary.

The Japanese first broke with long established norms and arrested Chinese fishermen in disputed waters near the Diaoyu Islands, that moved their position from merely claiming admistrative rights to enforcement of those rights. Then, after that storm died down, the Japanese nationalised the islands, again changing the then status quo and moved administrative control to ownership.
China isn't the instigator in current ESC and SCS disputes. But like yellow/red cards in soccer, it's often the one retaliating to trouble that gets called and not the originator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Blackstone

Brigadier
The fact that the Americans are taking pains to say that their policies in Asia is not to contain China. Then you know their policies in Asia is to contain China. This is by no means meant to be an insult towards Americans but this is the reality of politics all over the world.

Not so! If the US really want to contain China, then there would be global full-press to isolate her a-la the Soviet Union. No amount of assurance will make China believe US policy is hedge and not containment, and words/actions of US friends, allies, and vassal state (Japan) do more harm than good.

People are free to believe what they want, but observable evidence show the US isn't trying to contain China.
 

Player 0

Junior Member
In data analysis 101, as i suspect is the case in any analytical training course, students are taught a basic founamental fact - garbage in, garbage out.

No matter how well you analysis things, if your basic facts are wrong or incomplete, your conclusion is going to be fundamentally flawed before you even start.

And that is precisely the trap every single piece of western analysis I have seen on this issue has fallen into. It is incredibly ironic since the cause of this is the west'w own information and PR war against China.

Firstly, western analysis takes western media reports as fact, but as and others have demonstrated time and again, that is simply not true.

The western media has religiously highlighted every instance where anyone has criticised China, irrespective of the merits of the complaint, and reported what the accuser has claimed as fact. And always rehash any other similar complaints against China to force feed the point to the viewer/reader.

At the same time, it either completely fails to report similar or more provocative action by others (where has Vietnam's island fortification, oil drilling and land reclaimation activities been mentioned in the western media? And Vietnam is hardly what you could call a western ally) done against China. Or when the western media does report on Chinese grievances, it doesn't even try to hide its reluctance and goes out of its way to try and downplay, discredit or otherwise undermine China's point. Nowhere will you find more instances of questionable, or downright inappropriate use of double quotation marks than in a western piece on Chinese grievances.

The first rule about propaganda is one should not lap up ones own horse manure, yet that is a lesson western leaders and analysists alike seem to not grasp.

The reason Chinese actions have western leaders and analysists perflexed is less to do with mysterious Chinese game theory and more down to the fact those leaders and analysists were starting off with only half the data, and what 'facts' they do work with are more often then not incredible biased or distorted.

If you only listen to the western media, Chinese action seem very assertive. But if you consider all the facts, a complete different picture emerges.

Far from being proactive, Chinese strategy in the SCS disputes and the Diaoyu dispute with Japan has been balanced, or even reactionary.

The Japanese first broke with long established norms and arrested Chinese fishermen in disputed waters near the Diaoyu Islands, that moved their position from merely claiming admistrative rights to enforcement of those rights. Then, after that storm died down, the Japanese nationalised the islands, again changing the then status quo and moved administrative control to ownership.

Western blatant bias further inflamed the situation, when western leaders used past Chinese restraint as evidence China accepted Japan's claims as facts on the ground. How on earth do you expect the Chinese to show restraint if you then go throw that restraint back in their face and use it against China?

In that context, the only thing China could do if it didn't want to relinquish weaken its claims was to actively contest Japanese control of the islands.

Similar deal with the SCS disputes. The Scarbrough Shoal inident started off with the Philipines break with long established norms and sending not a coast guard ship, but the flagship of its navy, to arrest Chinese fishermen in disputed waters. Not only that, the pride of the Philipines navy bottled Chinese fishing boats in the shoal for hours, yet incredible made no arrests at all in that time, and indeed only seem to show any activity after Chinese government monitoring ships showed up. It's as classic a case of a government trying to manufacture an international incident as I have seen in a while. Yet unsurprisingly those inconvenient facts were all but entirely gloss over by the western media.

I did not follow the recent dispute with Vietnam very closely, but judging by the pictures of their activities, I would be amazed if the chain of events is as mainstream western media have portrayed it.

Chinese foreign policy with regards to territorial disputes can be easily summed up by the word 'reciprocity'.

China has been more than generous when the other side has shown good fair, but where someone has shown bad faith, China punishes them. It's as simple as that.

All these talk of China trying to overthrown the current world order is about 20 years premature.

Time is on China's side, and China would much rather quietly develop and grow for another 20-50 years or however long Chinese power continues to grow in both absolute and relative turns.

Chinese leaders are not gamblers, they would much rather wait a decade, a generation or a century and have the sure thing rather than risk it all betting on red now.

The true powers that be in the west recognise this, which is why they are trying to force the issue now, before China grows too strong for the west to be able to defeat.

PLAWolf your analysis really is fantastic, do you know any good sources to study and cite to help understand or enhance the counterargument you put forth better?
 
Top