China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Shaolian]

Haha, guys. Best to just add Iron Man to the ignore list. He is someone who would argue with his own self, when he runs out of people to argue.

 

[Jura The idiot]

May 25, 2018

... as I said Yesterday at 7:45 PM
I hope the China won't build beyond

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...

... and now I see it's more complicated:
A New Battle for Guadalcanal, This Time With China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[PiSigma]

May 25, 2018
... and now I see it's more complicated:
A New Battle for Guadalcanal, This Time With China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Don't remember the Solomon islands being a part of Australia or USA. So who cares where they get their investments from. Ooo right it is only okay for Americans and vassels to take over other territories and call it liberation and freedom, others all have malevolent intentions.

 

[Jura The idiot]

now the USNI News
Panel: China Continues to Coerce South China Sea Neighbors with its Maritime Forces

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China persists in employing a variety of tactics to coerce Taiwan, its maritime neighbors and put more pressure on Japan, a panel of experts agreed last week.

Nowhere is that more visible than Beijing’s “persistent and flexible presence” from its maritime militia, Coast Guard and People’s Liberation Army Navy. It is a maritime force that also keeps open the Malacca Straits, a vital passageway for its energy imports, as well as backing up its territorial claims far from its shores and extending its reach into the Indian Ocean and Africa, Bonnie Glaser, director of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China Power Project, said on Thursday.

In addition to its maritime forces, China has expanded the capability of its artificial island network in the South China Sea. The installations are now capable of handling patrol aircraft, fighters and strategic bombers as well as anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. The expansion allows the PLA “to develop operating concepts… they could use further north” to intimidate Tokyo and raise new threats to U.S. bases on Guam, she said.

Collin Koh Swee Lean, a research fellow at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University, said some South East Asian nations, already operating at a quality and numbers disadvantage with China on law enforcement and naval vessels.

They “could not match what China has” when Beijing was only employing its coast guard or maritime militia in these disputes. In a confrontation with the Chinese under those conditions, a South East Asian navy and coast guard would likely “turn tail and run.”

“Modernization is moving at a snail’s pace” in these nations’ coast guards and navies, he said. Because the security needs vary widely, there is little or no coordination among neighbors on buying together, setting common needs, developing interoperable capability and a general reluctance to spend money in this area. They also don’t want to risk provoking China — militarily or economically.

Maritime domain awareness must be the building block in responding to China’s assertiveness, Hideshi Tokuchi, of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA, said. Tokyo does not distinguish between Beijing’s behavior in the South China Sea or what it is doing in North Asia — from intimidation of civilian fishermen to insisting on specious claims to islands in the East China Sea.

From that point of view and geography, “Taiwan is more important than before” because it is in the connecting position between the two bodies of water. Its security concerns “should not be ignored” with strike aircraft from the mainland constantly

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Glaser said despite its military moves and sometimes heated rhetoric China was not looking for a war with anyone in the Indo-Pacific.

“There has been some pushback” against China, surprisingly enough it came from Europe,
Richard Heydarian, a fellow at ADR-Stratbase Institute, said

Acknowledging France and Great Britain joining the United States in freedom of navigation operations around the artificial islands was new, he warned that those missions “alone could be counterproductive.” In Beijing, they could be dismissed as “empty tactics” because they “are not robust enough to deter” the Chinese from beefing up their military presence on the reclaimed lands or extending their reach to reefs and rocks further out or to the north.

Complicating matters is the behavior of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s “meek” and “humble” approach to China in its territorial dispute, despite an international arbitration panel’s supporting Manila’s claims, he said.

This has caused a split between the country’s military, “with its constitutional responsibility to protect Philippine sovereignty” and the president’s “leaning to China.” Signs of this include his allowing PLAN naval vessels to make port calls and military aircraft to fly into bases without treaty or much formal notice.

Further complicating matters in the Philippines is Duterte’s periodic bashing of the United States, that throws into question American use of naval and air bases. At the same time, the Philippine military has more closely embraced Washington to counter China and is seeking to expand exercises and training assistance.

While a way ahead would include a “negotiated Code of Conduct” for the South China Sea, Heydarian said for the countries in the region to accept such a deal it would have to include a freeze on militarization, reclamation and naval exercises.

“Otherwise, what’s the point,” he said.

 

[Jura The idiot]

now I read
Commentary: A significant step toward lasting peace in the South China Sea
Xinhua| 2018-08-03 23:14:39

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The latest developments in the South China Sea illustrate a desire for regional peace as well as a rebuke of foreign meddling.

On Thursday, China and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) arrived at a single negotiating text draft for the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea. This marks a big step toward a peaceful resolution of their disputes.

This significant progress, as Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has put it, is akin to jointly building a house. China and ASEAN have integrated 11 different designs into one and readied the groundwork.

The consensus for future COC negotiations came one year after the COC framework was endorsed, and notably, 16 years after the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) was signed.

There were plenty of bumps along the road, too, mostly due to foreign interference; yet those efforts failed to kill the common aspiration of those involved to establish a necessary order, one that would facilitate regional cooperation and prosperity.

The agreement illustrates that a longing for peace outweighs any outstanding differences between the parties. It defeats attempts by non-regional countries to mislead public opinion, provoke confrontation and create tension; dialogue and consultation have proven better at settling disputes than outside meddling.

By staying immune to external interference, China and ASEAN have accomplished a basic set of regulations to guide behavior in the South China Sea. One cannot dismiss their will to create regional rules while thwarting attempts by outsiders eager to play God.

This big step forward is a solid starting point toward creating a South China Sea brimming with peace and cooperation. China's most advanced maritime rescue vessels have been on duty in the region ready to help passing ships and will offer scientific, research or meteorological assistance in the future when needed. In October, China and ASEAN will hold a joint maritime exercise.

The above developments show the ability of regional parties to initiate their own attempts to jointly address security challenges and safeguard regional stability.

Differences are normal, but countries around the South China Sea are capable of properly settling their disputes through consultation and without the interference of outsiders.

As long as China and the countries of ASEAN work hand in hand, the South China Sea will continue to be ruled by peace and cooperation.

 

[PanAsian]

A Chinese perspective on Diaoyu Islands:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Diaoyu Islands Dispute: A Chinese Perspective
A view from China on the treaties that apply to the territorial dispute between China and Japan.

By Liu Dan
August 08, 2018

There is a longstanding sovereignty dispute concerning the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands between China and Japan. An “international dispute” is a matter for objective determination: one exists if “there is a disagreement over of point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views of interest” between two parties, as it was stated by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Jurisdiction) case (1924). Therefore, a mere denial from the Japanese government that the dispute exists does not prove the nonexistence of the dispute.

China and Japan obviously have contradicting legal positions on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Previous Chinese literature invokes historical evidence dating to before the Sino-Japanese war to prove China’s sovereignty over the islands. For China, the “fact” that the islands were uninhabited does not mean that Diaoyu Islands were “terra nullius” under international law. Besides the fact that China had already discovered and named the Diaoyu Islands by the 14th-15th century, it is general knowledge that the maritime boundary line between China and the Kingdom of Ryukyu (invaded and then renamed as “Okinawa prefecture” in 1879 by Meiji government of Japan) was in Hei Shui Gou (today’s Okinawa Trough) between Chiwei Yu and Kume Island. The Diaoyu Islands, lying to the west of Hei Shui Gou, were China’s territory, not islands appertaining or belonging to the territory of the Ryukyu Kingdom.

Prior to the 1895 Japanese Cabinet decision that “incorporated” the Diaoyu Islands into Okinawa prefecture, the Diaoyu Islands had long been under the Chinese coastal defense of the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1912) dynasties. The Qing court further placed the islands under the jurisdiction of the local government of Taiwan. This can be proved by numerous official documents or maps originating from China, Japan, and the Kingdom of Ryukyu.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
Japan, on the other hand, relies on the theory of territorial acquisition under modern international law to defend its claim. For example, a recent article by Jun Tsuruta in The Diplomat referred to the rule of “effective control” in international law, especially “terra nullius” and “acquiescence,” and concluded that “China’s long postwar silence undermines its claim to sovereignty.” However, according to the Tripartite Hierarchy Rule for territorial disputes, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) looks first to treaty law, then to uti possidetis, and finally to effective control. Treaties in relation to the territorial dispute play a preliminary or even preferential role for international dispute mechanisms in deciding territorial sovereignty.

The 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki after the Sino-Japanese War is the starting point to examine the applicable treaties concerning the dispute. Japan’s official documents such as Minister Mutsu Munemitsu’s reply to Yasushi Nomura on January 11 of 1895 show that from the time of the fact-finding missions to Diaoyu Islands in 1885 to the occupation of the islands in 1895, Japan had consistently not made its moves to seize the Diaoyu Islands in public, until it defeated the Qing dynasty in the Sino-Japanese war. According to Article 2 (b) of the Treaty of Shimonoseki signed on April 17, 1895, the Qing court was forced to cede “the island of Formosa [Taiwan], together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa” to Japan. Accordingly, the Diaoyu Islands were ceded to Japan as “islands appertaining or belonging to the island of Formosa.”

Following the Treaty of Shimonoseki, a series of treaties and international instruments after the World War II are the legal basis for China to claim its territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. First, the Cairo Declaration of December 1943 proclaimed that “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.” The Diaoyu Islands, which were secretly stolen by Japan, should be returned to China.

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration of July 1945 reaffirms that “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out” and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender of September 1945 reflect that the fact that Japan pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations enshrined in the Potsdam Declaration. Japan’s obligation to return the Diaoyu Islands was further reinforced by these two legal documents.

Moreover, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) No. 677 of 1946 defined Japan’s administration power to “include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu Islands north of the 30th parallel of North Latitude.” The Diaoyu Islands, lying within 25°40′ – 26°00′ of North Latitude, were clearly not included into the regime defined by the SCAPIN No. 677.

Contrary to China’s approach to invoke the Treaty of Shimonoseki and legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration, Japan tends to deny the applicability of the Treaty of Shimonoseki in the dispute. Instead, Japan relies on multilateral treaties such as the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, bilateral treaties such as the 1971 Ryukyu Transferring Agreement (“Agreement concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands with related arrangements,” i.e., the so-called “Okinawa Reversion Agreement”), as well as some decrees issued by the U.S. Ryukyu Administrative Government (which operated from 1950 to 1972).

Although Japan regards relevant provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as the conventional basis for the Diaoyu Islands dispute, the applicability and legality of the Treaty are problematic. First, the negotiation, legislative, and ratification process of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in relation to the post-war arrangement with Japan excluded China and other allies such as the Soviet Union. Therefore, the legality of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as “peace treaty” or post-war arrangement is doubtful, since the said exclusion is a violation of the commitment by the allies to “cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies” which was envisaged in the 1942 Atlantic Charter. Second, according to the general rule of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt (treaty does not create obligations for a third party) under international law, China is not bound by the San Francisco Peace Treaty because of its status as a third party being excluded from the treaty signature.

Even if the San Francisco Peace Treaty is applicable in determining the dispute, if one examines the treaty provisions from the angles of the law of UN trusteeship and treaty interpretation, the use of terms in Article 3, such as “Nansei Shoto,” “any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system,” and “powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction” may not necessarily support Japan’s sovereign claims over the Diaoyu Islands.

Referring to the U.S. Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 of December 1953, Article 1.2 of the “Agreed Minutes” attached to the Ryukyu Transferring Agreement included the Diaoyu Islands into the regime of the “Ryukyu Islands” by geographic coordinates which had been indicated in Proclamation No. 27. However, neither the 1971 Ryukyu Transferring Agreement nor Proclamation No. 27 of 1953 is a solid legal basis for Japan’s claim for several reasons.

First, such inclusion was defined by the form of “Agreed Minutes” instead of “Annex,” which had been required by the Japanese government during the negotiation. The legal form undermines the possibility of applying Article 1.2 of the “Agreed Minutes” in the dispute. Second, the Ryukyu Transferring Agreement violated the general rule of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, since the Agreement has the effect of including the disputed territory (the Diaoyu Islands) into the Ryukyu Islands. Third, Proclamation No. 27 of 1953, which neither conforms with SCAPIN No.677, nor abides by the law of military occupation, shall not be regarded as a “legal basis” for the Ryukyu Transferring Agreement.

To maintain its claim, Japan disregards the Treaty of Shimonoseki and treaties signed among allies to maintain world peace and order after World War II. On the other hand, Japan relies heavily on the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Ryukyu Transferring Agreement, and the decrees of the U.S. Ryukyu Administrative Government. Moreover, rules of territorial acquisition (such as “terra nullius” and “acquiescence”) are quoted frequently by the Japanese government. However, the ICJ normally follows the Tripartite Hierarchy Rule for the territorial dispute; namely, treaties in relation to the territorial dispute — instead of rules of territorial acquisition — will play a preferential role for the Court to examine the dispute. In deciding the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute, multiple considerations such as treaties and the factor of “critical date” (the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of a dispute are said to have occurred) are more decisive than acquiescence.

LIU Dan is Associate Research Professor at Koguan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

 

[Jura The idiot]

pretty high on us.cnn.com right now is
'Leave immediately': US Navy plane warned over South China Sea

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(just the link as I'm going to listen to the audio once again)

OK inside there's a transcript of what's said:

the Chinese voice "Leave immediately and keep out to avoid any misunderstanding",

the USN voice "I am a sovereign immune United States naval aircraft conducting lawful military activities beyond the national airspace of any coastal state,"
"In exercising these rights guaranteed by international law, I am operating with due regard for the rights and duties of all states."

LOL I admit I would have to listen repeatedly to both to transcribe

 

[Icmer]

pretty high on us.cnn.com right now is
'Leave immediately': US Navy plane warned over South China Sea

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(just the link as I'm going to listen to the audio once again)

OK inside there's a transcript of what's said:

the Chinese voice "Leave immediately and keep out to avoid any misunderstanding",

the USN voice "I am a sovereign immune United States naval aircraft conducting lawful military activities beyond the national airspace of any coastal state,"
"In exercising these rights guaranteed by international law, I am operating with due regard for the rights and duties of all states."

LOL I admit I would have to listen repeatedly to both to transcribe

I don't get the purpose or timing of this piece. CNN literally just redid the same reporting from an article they published in 2013: hop on a P-8 Poseidon and deliberately fly within a few miles of the Chinese islands to provoke a response. Perhaps some folks in the Pentagon decided it was necessary to prevent the issue from disappearing from the limelight as negotiations on an SCS Code of Conduct between ASEAN and China come closer to completion.

 

[Jura The idiot]

... CNN literally just redid the same reporting from an article they published in 2013: hop on a P-8 Poseidon and ...

exactly what "an article they published in 2013" do you mean?

I don't think the Poseidons were deployed before 2014, so LOL my guess would be
Stop spy flights, China warns the U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from August 29 of 2014

anyway next time link the article you're talking about so that your story can be cross-examined

 

[Icmer]

exactly what "an article they published in 2013" do you mean?

I don't think the Poseidons were deployed before 2014, so LOL my guess would be
Stop spy flights, China warns the U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from August 29 of 2014

anyway next time link the article you're talking about so that your story can be cross-examined

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I was off by two years, but the rest of my point stands. They literally just did the same thing over again to make a new article.