Chinese Naval Threat to SEA?

Geographer said:

My understanding of China's use of the nine dotted line maps are that they claim all the islands in the dotted line, not the ocean. Since the 1982 Law of the Sea, which China has ratified, you cannot claim ocean as territory beyond 12 nautical miles from shore. So if you want to know what ocean China is claiming, draw little circles around every island that is above water at high tide and large enough to support economic activity with a 12nm radius. You will find those are very tiny circles in the grand scheme of the South China Sea. Even in these territorial waters, the UN Law of the Sea still guarantees the right of innocent passage! There is no justified fear of restricted freedom of navigation should China control all the islands in the South China Sea.

A good parallel is how Greece treats the Aagean Sea directly East of the Greek mainland. The Aegean sea is full of islands, but much denser than the South China Sea. Greece controls every one of them, and thus the entire Aegean Sea is Greek territorial waters. But Greece still allows commercial and military ships to pass through the sea without a problem.

Click to expand...

Of course, it's never been about free passage. It's always been about the exclusive right to the natural resources found in the EEZ.

India and Vietnam certainly do not agree to that, at least in their view, and this case how other countries outside China view China matters the most, and they will look back into history

Click to expand...

I agree that Vietnam and India have been hysterical about China issues for a long time. More recently you can add the Philippines to that list. Vietnam and India were allied with the USSR during the Cold War, and you can recall the state of Sino-Soviet relations in the latter years of the Cold War. No doubt the USSR played up the China threat in order to strengthen its alliance with Vietnam and India.

I also agree that perception matters, which is why Chinese diplomats need to do a better job explaining the history and straightening out misconceptions. Chinese diplomats can easily point to the 1962 Sino-Indian War as showing their very limited goals. Chinese troops could have marched on New Delhi, and India knew it. But after winning a few battles it pulled back to pre-war lines. Perception matters, but to what extent? If the U.S. ceded responsibility for Pacific security to China, what actions would SEA nations take in response? Nothing that would harm China in the long-run. The U.S. would save a lot of money and win an important partner in China. China would respect the U.S. a lot more for recognizing its preeminence in the region and cooperate on other important issues.

Geographer said:

I also agree that perception matters, which is why Chinese diplomats need to do a better job explaining the history and straightening out misconceptions. Chinese diplomats can easily point to the 1962 Sino-Indian War as showing their very limited goals. Chinese troops could have marched on New Delhi, and India knew it. But after winning a few battles it pulled back to pre-war lines.

Click to expand...

it will be a futile effort, the hawks will remain rabid, and the doves will remain placid
history will just be a political and diplomatic tool when the need arises

march on Delhi? are you sure, it was more like a quick knock out punch
talk of mercy will even fuel their wrath and anger

Geographer said:

Perception matters, but to what extent? If the U.S. ceded responsibility for Pacific security to China, what actions would SEA nations take in response? Nothing that would harm China in the long-run. The U.S. would save a lot of money and win an important partner in China. China would respect the U.S. a lot more for recognizing its preeminence in the region and cooperate on other important issues.

Click to expand...

this a thing beyond our prediction, we are talking about decades here

but one thing for sure, the US will not pass off the Pacific like a baton to China, they are there to stay will all intent, in the long run the SEA countries will play an ever bigger role in this dynamic

this is my last comment for the day, i'll follow the discussion later, have fun

Jeff Head said:

The problem with your analogy is that in between the two houses is not just a street...first, it's like an eight lane superhighway, and there are also several other houses and businesses seperating the two homes.

Click to expand...

that would make even less of a sense for the US to claim anything in the SEA since the US is so far away...

Jeff Head said:

In addition, the US with Korea, Australia, Japan, etc., etc. has close friends who have invited them pnto their "lawns", and the South China Sea is a part of all of that. That Sea is not part of China's "lawn". It's just closer to CHina, But in order to get to its friends and to ensure free passage, the US passes through there.

Just like China does to get to Pakistan and its growing list of friends in Africa and South and Central America.

Click to expand...

Just because I am invited by my uncle to spend some time with him in his house, it does NOT mean that I should have any claim to his neighbor's lawn, or any properties near it. Similarly, just because the US has allies in the SEA, it does not mean that the US should have any claim over SEA. Cuba is an ally of China's, should China claim Florida?

Jeff Head said:

So, you believe that China can claim the entirety of the South China Sea as its own and conrol what vessels pass through any of it?

Because unless you do, the analogy stands. And if you do, it is a claim that no country that I am aware of will accept. BTW, those three countries are not the only three that the US has treaties with.

Click to expand...

That's fear mongering that US is perpetuating to mislead countries in South East Asia and ordinary people who don't realize there are a lot of islands in the area. China is not claiming the entire South China Sea; it is claiming the islands in that area, and .

Has anyone ever entertained the idea that the South China Sea issue was intentionally flared up by China in order to drag the USA into a costly game of one-upmanship?

Think about it, the SCS issue was all but buried until the Chinese announced that it was an "integral core issue" on the scale of Tibet. All the flurry that we see now comes from that announcement.

Like Vesicles said, it is 10x more expensive for the USA to maintain a presence in SCS than China. Let's think about the implications of that. As we've seen from the recent Mekong incident, those SEA countries cannot be relied upon to provide safety for the passage of merchant ships. If the US did not patrol the area, China would be forced to spend money on doing the same job.

Now China probably knows perfectly well that the US will never willingly lose their presence in the SCS (or anywhere else in the world for that matter), so what happens when the US feels that this presence is threatened? They will respond with a bigger presence, of course. Bigger presence means higher expenditures. This ties down US resources that would otherwise have been channeled into, say, R&D, all for the benefit of what gain? Meanwhile, China is accelerating the modernization of its armed forces. I would say that is a far more important long-term objective than the resolution of some long-standing territorial dispute. In fact, the sooner China achieves technological parity (or even coming close enough to it) with the US, the sooner its border disputes will get resolved. After all, does anyone think that the SEA nations are willing to stand up to China without the certainty of US support? Remember that even Vietnam ceded land (albeit a small amount) to China after the war.

^ I would add to that, just because US gives it's verbal support does not mean it will give actual physical support when things go bad. Remember Georgia?

US is smart enough to look after themselves first and foremost. If US decides there are more loses than gains in the big picture when confronting China in SCS, they will not do it. It's that simple.

flyzies said:

^ I would add to that, just because US gives it's verbal support does not mean it will give actual physical support when things go bad. Remember Georgia?

US is smart enough to look after themselves first and foremost. If US decides there are more loses than gains in the big picture when confronting China in SCS, they will not do it. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

I'd have to say Georgia is completely different from SCS. Georgia was a land war, while SCS will be a naval confrontation. The balance of power is much more lopsided in the SCS, at least for now.

your argument sounds logical BUT keep in mind that the US (at least for now) still holds a significant advantage in defense budget, capital assets, bases, experience etc. China cannot "bleed' the USN to mediocrity in terms of tit for tat defense spending. I do not believe any R & D would be compromised because USN spends a lil more on SCS to counter 'Chinese' threat.

Nevermind the entire USN, even the US 7th Fleet alone is so much bigger and capable than everything else in that area including PLAN that they don't need any significant boost to what they typically spend for the 7th.

Personally I think it's all hogwash anyway because I seriously doubt the PLAN and USN will go to war. Not now not in my lifetime because you're talking WWIII scenerio here... which again I doubt will happen unless something horrendous goes wrong with global politics!!!

If both countries' military or in this case Navy is more or less at parity with each other, then your argument would make more sense but still I understand your argument.

For my late entry to this thread, and to quote my British (method) of answering question like this one ...

Is there a Chinese naval threat to South East Asia?
The short answer is:
No
The long answer is :
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Okay, jokes aside .

Basically it comes down to the following. There's too much for the PRC to loose compare to what they "might" gain if they decided to start any conflict in the South China Sea. Given a chance, the PRC appears to be more concern with sorting out border disputes then an unrestricted land grab; for land or resources. Just look at the small dispute they had with the USSR that could potentially resulted in nuclear war (or so some would believe). If the political climate is correct, it will be resolved. They (the PRC) will never be able to get all the island in the South China Sea. They know it, the neighboring countries knows it, the US knows it. However, little shrimps like us (example being people in this forum, yours truly included ) don't have the full picture or understanding; hey! if I know the full picture, I'll be a diplomatic or find ways to make myself pretty rich !

When this South China Sea "dispute" is eventually resolved, and becomes a little known footnote in history, my bet is that everyone (countries) will pretty much stay where they are. Who knows, perhaps we'll see the "Spratly Island resorts"; "travel from China to Vietnam in a single boat ride, and back to rest in the Philippines in the evening. Visit the relic of naval confrontations by fishing from the 'fort in the middle of the sea'!" ... okay I better not be in advertisement (job) XP

I once hears a quote (might have been from Anwar Sadat, can someone confirm?); can't remember it exactly but it goes something like

... if you have an attitude of "all or nothing", more often then not you will end up with "nothing".

So what's the current hype about? My bet is that it is all just hype, nothing more possibly less. If cooler heads prevail, then we'll look back feeling a little sillier about the whole thing. On the other hand if cooler heads DIDN'T prevail then ... we'll probably look back feeling quite dumb and stupid; that is if we are all still around by then ... ... ...