China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blackstone]

Nothing surprising about this. China has always maintained the position that SCS disputes should be resolved through bilateral negotiations. Obviously in this case, China and Malaysia reached some kind of understanding. Any implication that China should give the same treatment to everyone else is absurd. China is not a kindergarten teacher, nor is it interested in being one.

China's acceptance of Malayan energy exploration stands in contrast to actions by Philippines and Vietnam, and makes one wonder why the pair didn't do the same as Malaysia in the first place.

 

[solarz]

That's just an excuse to misbehave. China keeps making empty promises of working to reduce SCS tension, while doing the exact opposite, resulting in more ammunition for her detractors and alienating neutral parties.

China isn't the one who restarted this whole SCS mess. Hillary Clinton did, and it's pretty obvious what agenda is being advanced.

As for China's actions, so far the only nations making a brouhaha about this are the Philippines, Vietnam, US, and Japan. Did you forget that ASEAN repeatedly refused to discuss the SCS dispute? So which neutral parties has China alienated, according to you?

 

[solarz]

China's acceptance of Malayan energy exploration stands in contrast to actions by Philippines and Vietnam, and makes one wonder why the pair didn't do the same as Malaysia in the first place.

The difference is, Malaysia is trying to exploit the resources in the region, while PH and Vietnam are trying to *PREVENT* China from exploiting those resources.

 

[Blackstone]

China isn't the one who restarted this whole SCS mess. Hillary Clinton did, and it's pretty obvious what agenda is being advanced.

Nope, Hillary didn't start the SCS mess; I'll grant you she did her part to make things worse, but she didn't start it. Current SCS problems are the unintended consequence of UNCLOS that called for signatory states to file for 200 nautical miles EEZ. As states rushed to file claims, the long simmering SCS stew pot boiled over with a vengeance, so it's not Hillary, it's UNCLOS.

As for China's actions, so far the only nations making a brouhaha about this are the Philippines, Vietnam, US, and Japan. Did you forget that ASEAN repeatedly refused to discuss the SCS dispute? So which neutral parties has China alienated, according to you?

To be fair, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, and some European nations also expressed concerns about Chinese actions in the SCS. Difference is they didn't start fights with China, so they're not in her crosshairs. As for Japan, are you even one tiny bit surprised it makes trouble for China? When in their 1500+ year relationship has Japan not make trouble for China (when it could)? Is it rational to believe it will ever stop making trouble without massive, unequivocal, and overwhelming disincentives?

 

[solarz]

Nope, Hillary didn't start the SCS mess; I'll grant you she did her part to make things worse, but she didn't start it. Current SCS problems are the unintended consequence of UNCLOS that called for signatory states to file for 200 nautical miles EEZ. As states rushed to file claims, the long simmering SCS stew pot boiled over with a vengeance, so it's not Hillary, it's UNCLOS.


To be fair, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, and some European nations also expressed concerns about Chinese actions in the SCS. Difference is they didn't start fights with China, so they're not in her crosshairs. As for Japan, are you even one tiny bit surprised it makes trouble for China? When in their 1500+ year relationship has Japan not make trouble for China (when it could)? Is it rational to believe it will ever stop making trouble without massive, unequivocal, and overwhelming disincentives?

1- I said *re*start. Before Clinton's remarks, the SCS was nowhere as hot an issue as it currently is.

2- Again, which neutral parties did China alienate, according to you?

 

[Blackstone]

1- I said *re*start. Before Clinton's remarks, the SCS was nowhere as hot an issue as it currently is.

2- Again, which neutral parties did China alienate, according to you?

1: ok
2: Australia for sure and maybe Indonesia. EU countries also have expressed concerns.

 

[texx1]

1: ok
2: Australia for sure and maybe Indonesia. EU countries also have expressed concerns.

Australia is a maybe as it is struggling to find the best place between US and China (between money and an old friend). It's still too early to tell. Besides playing both would give Australia maximum gain.

EU countries are playing their usual game which is just offering lip service to US when it doesn't really cost them much. EU express similar concerns on almost everything that US has expressed concerns.

 

[solarz]

1: ok
2: Australia for sure and maybe Indonesia. EU countries also have expressed concerns.

Aside from parroting what mainstream western media says, what exactly has Australia done that indicates it is moving away from China? Words are cheap, it's the actions that count.

Australian media has been bashing China since the days of Rudd, and probably way before that as well, so nothing has changed.

Note also that Australia started hosting US Marines almost as soon as Obama announced his Pacific Pivot, so they're not an entirely neutral party.

 

[Blackstone]

Aside from parroting what mainstream western media says, what exactly has Australia done that indicates it is moving away from China? Words are cheap, it's the actions that count.

Don't mindlessly dismiss Western media, they are fairly reliable on getting official government statements out to the public. Also, words are important, because they generally come before actions. Australia and ASEAN have expressed their displeasure at China's actions in South China Sea, that's about as far as third party nations do, unless a first party drags them into the fight. As for concrete actions, Australia is considering getting new submarines from Japan. There are probably more, but you could google them.

 

[solarz]

Don't mindlessly dismiss Western media, they are fairly reliable on getting official government statements out to the public. Also, words are important, because they generally come before actions. Australia and ASEAN have expressed their displeasure at China's actions in South China Sea, that's about as far as third party nations do, unless a first party drags them into the fight. As for concrete actions, Australia is considering getting new submarines from Japan. There are probably more, but you could google them.

Then why has ASEAN repeatedly refused to discuss the SCS dispute at their summits?

Words are cheap because you can always tell someone what they want to hear. Unless Australia starts using those submarines against China, it has nothing to do with the SCS dispute.