China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Doombreed]

By rushing into action without thinking things through, the dragon slayers risk a Sino-American crisis that might inadvertently lead to open hostility and even war. Scary thing is both Washington and Beijing are full of 'get-tough-with-them' war hawks.

Chinese fishermen operating within 200 nautical miles of Palawan, for example, are poaching Philippine natural resources as surely as if they had landed on the island. China Coast Guard vessels accompanying the fishing fleet equate to an invasion force protecting poachers.

Did you miss this bit of gem?

 

[joshuatree]

You could agree or disagree with Holmes, but he appears to be well respected in D.C. policy and defense circles. My problem with his "option 3" is what do USN/USCG ships do after they get there? Have a party? Read them the Riot Act? WHAT?

Imagine USCG vessels among scores of CCG ships and 'fishing' boats, and they bump/ram each other. What then? Would USCG ships open fire on CCG ships without being fired on? Will American sailors machine gun Chinese 'fishermen' for bumping into or ramming them? What happens when Burks and Luyangs circle each other with unclear intentions? Accidents happen and things could spin out of control in a hurry.

By rushing into action without thinking things through, the dragon slayers risk a Sino-American crisis that might inadvertently lead to open hostility and even war. Scary thing is both Washington and Beijing are full of 'get-tough-with-them' war hawks.

Under what legitimacy would the USN/USCG "police" these waters? Freedom of navigation? As far as I know, no commercial shipping has been denied passage despite the clashes out there so far. Despite rhetoric, no threat to freedom of navigation nor would there logically be as each nation in E and SE Asia benefits from trade and would not want to hurt themselves.

Anti-piracy? There has been a flare up of piracy but in waters off Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore so those are the nations that would have to allow USN/USCG to "police" those waters but they are mostly outside of the main areas of EEZ/sovereignty contentions between the Philippines, Vietnam, and China.

So that would leave either Vietnam or more likely, the Philippines, to allow "policing" by the USN/USCG. But this is a heavily gray zone that will not help the US's credibility nor claim of neutrality. As much as both VN and PH criticize China, both are equally stubborn in feeling self entitled to 200 nm drawn straight from their coastlines as their EEZs when the reality is there's a whole lot of nuances that would overlap and compromise a clear cut 200 nm. Examples are

-Taiwan and Batanes, Philippine EEZ claims from Batanes literally give Taiwan the short end of the stick which is absurd. A good counter example is Saint Pierre and Miquelon which does not give France a full 200 nm around the island. Infact, the island's EEZ is fully within Canada's EEZ.

- Vietnam's 1958 diplomatic note acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Paracels and actual decades of Chinese effective control.

- Taiping Island being the only natural island with natural freshwater sources that clearly qualifies for its own EEZ under UNCLOS Regime of Islands. Drawing a 200 nm circle around Taiping will overlap a lot of other EEZs so compromises and demarcations are needed.

With the US not even being a signatory to UNCLOS, how does the USN/USCG righteously "police" these waters which have sovereignty disputes? It would be a quagmire and not something black and white that Holmes points out which is US soldiers on indisputable NATO territory.

As much as all the fear mongering about an impending Chinese invasion, the reality is China has no incentive to invade any mainland proper of the Philippines nor Japan which is already covered by US defense treaties. This option 3 proposal is just adding more self-inflicted problems for the US as if Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan aren't enough already.

 

[delft]

From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If successful, Beijing will set a precedent for occupying waters assigned to fellow coastal states by the law of the sea and for abridging freedom of the seas as it sees fit. China will transmute the waters bounded by the first island chain into a closed sea ruled by Chinese domestic law.

This is clearly plain rubbish.

 

[SampanViking]

As previously stated, if China wished to reduce Navigation through the South China Sea, it could at a stroke remove 90% of it, simply by closing its own ports, as these are the destination and origin points for most of it.

 

[Blackstone]

Under what legitimacy would the USN/USCG "police" these waters? Freedom of navigation? As far as I know, no commercial shipping has been denied passage despite the clashes out there so far. Despite rhetoric, no threat to freedom of navigation nor would there logically be as each nation in E and SE Asia benefits from trade and would not want to hurt themselves.

Anti-piracy? There has been a flare up of piracy but in waters off Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore so those are the nations that would have to allow USN/USCG to "police" those waters but they are mostly outside of the main areas of EEZ/sovereignty contentions between the Philippines, Vietnam, and China.

While the US and rest of the world have legitimate interests in freedom of navigation, what's going on in SCS has less to do with that and more to do with maintaining US primacy in Asia. In short, it's geopolitical competition between a rising great power and an established one. The smaller nations in the region are caught up in the Sino-American whirlwind and have no choice but to brace for the ride.

-Taiwan and Batanes, Philippine EEZ claims from Batanes literally give Taiwan the short end of the stick which is absurd. A good counter example is Saint Pierre and Miquelon which does not give France a full 200 nm around the around. Infact, the island's EEZ is fully within Canada's EEZ.

Agreed, but those nations are not in geopolitical competition and no one is provoking the others.

- Vietnam's 1958 diplomatic note acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Paracels and actual decades of Chinese effective control.

That might not matter since North Vietnam can't give away territory it didn't own in 1958. I think the better argument for China is an unequivocal statement on recovering the islands from the French.

With the US not even being a signatory to UNCLOS, how does the USN/USCG righteously "police" these waters which have sovereignty disputes? It would be a quagmire and not something black and white that Holmes points out which is US soldiers on indisputable NATO territory.

The US has been providing public goods around the world since WW2, and no one complained about lack of UNCLOS for US protection, so it is not needed.

As much as all the fear mongering about an impending Chinese invasion, the reality is China has no incentive to invade any mainland proper of the Philippines nor Japan which is already covered by US defense treaties. This option 3 proposal is just adding more self-inflicted problems for the US as if Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan aren't enough already.

The biggest problem with James Holmes' "Option 3" is it massively increase Sino-American tension without resolving the issue at the heart of the problem: SUCCESSFULLY managing the resumption of China that results in strong US presence in Asia, peaceful neighborhood, and China feeling powerful, secure, and joint-owner with the US in nurturing and sustaining Asian and global commons.

 

[xiabonan]

That's a pretty fair and also multi-dimensional article as it touches on one of the deeper reasons why there is increased tension in the SCS. The populations of many Asian countries have been getting wealthier and the corresponding "footprint"/resources needed to support a higher standard of living is expanding for all of them. Hopefully they will pursue improving efficiency even more in providing a higher standard of living and change some habits that were previously sustainable but may no longer be, ironically, now that more people can afford it.

Compare to American lifestyle and Western lifestyle in general, I believe that most Asian people can confidently say they lead a very sustainable lifestyle as compared to Americans...

Be it Japanese, Korean, or Chinese; or Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Indians...

Just look at the daily average consumption of diary products, vegetables, meat, eggs, rice, you'll see that for most Asian people regardless of level of development, due to cultural, climatic, dietary differences and preferences, I dare say Asians indeed on average lead a more sustainable lifestyle.

 

[xiabonan]

China has moved three more oil rigs into the SCS. I'll try to find an English newslink later but according to Chinese media this seems to be the case.

 

[joshuatree]

Agreed, but those nations are not in geopolitical competition and no one is provoking the others.

Until coast guards such as the PCG decide to shoot fishermen because of supposedly being in one's EEZ vs the other's.

That might not matter since North Vietnam can't give away territory it didn't own in 1958. I think the better argument for China is an unequivocal statement on recovering the islands from the French.

I did also point out effective Chinese control of the islands for decades. My main point is waters around the Paracels are not clear cut Vietnamese EEZ for the USN/USCG to just start "policing" if Vietnam allows it.

The US has been providing public goods around the world since WW2, and no one complained about lack of UNCLOS for US protection, so it is not needed.

That's not just solely for goodwill but it serves US's interests. Otherwise, other nations are now fielding navies capable of "policing" their waters but the US is hellbent on maintaining dominance and not wanting to relinquish the spot. I mentioned US not being signatory to UNCLOS to simply highlight the contradiction if the USN/USCG jumps in to "police" according to "international law" which it even opted out so far.

The biggest problem with James Holmes' "Option 3" is it massively increase Sino-American tension without resolving the issue at the heart of the problem: SUCCESSFULLY managing the resumption of China that results in strong US presence in Asia, peaceful neighborhood, and China feeling powerful, secure, and joint-owner with the US in nurturing and sustaining Asian and global commons.

Agreed.

 

[mr.bean]

China has moved three more oil rigs into the SCS. I'll try to find an English newslink later but according to Chinese media this seems to be the case.

wow I haven't heard about that yet, but would be a great move if true. ''more action, less talk'' would be the motto for the Chinese.

 

[Blackstone]

Compare to American lifestyle and Western lifestyle in general, I believe that most Asian people can confidently say they lead a very sustainable lifestyle as compared to Americans...

Be it Japanese, Korean, or Chinese; or Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Indians...

Just look at the daily average consumption of diary products, vegetables, meat, eggs, rice, you'll see that for most Asian people regardless of level of development, due to cultural, climatic, dietary differences and preferences, I dare say Asians indeed on average lead a more sustainable lifestyle.

Environmental degradation in China is one of the costs of Chinese lifestyle, and that simply isn't sustainable. CCP government is trying to address the problem, but given China is only about 1/3 of the way to CCP goals of finishing development and becoming a "rich country," it's not at all clear if they'll be successful.