PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

shen

shen

Senior Member
How is this even news! China have already stationed weapon systems on these islands even before the recent reclamation. Now with increasingly assertive behaviors by rival claimants back by the US, there is very good to increase the amount of firepower on these island. Think about this analogy, is you have suspicious looking guys cruising around your house, taking videos of what's going on in your home and posting them on the internet, wouldn't you get some guns just in case? It would irresponsible if you don't.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
shen said:
Think about this analogy, is you have suspicious looking guys cruising around your house, taking videos of what's going on in your home and posting them on the internet, wouldn't you get some guns just in case? It would irresponsible if you don't.
Click to expand...

Self-defence and other-defence are structurally united in the phrase droit naturel to légitime défense for two reasons. First, natural law recognized a right of intervention against States that violate international law. Second, légitime défense is a criminal law concept that includes both self-defence and defence of others. (Source: Volume 91 International Law Review : Doctrine of legitimate defence)

In your example regarding the right in protecting your property and self within the neighbourhood is premised that you are acting legitimately. However if the occupation of the property is illegitimate, then the notion of legitimate self defence collapses. This is the reason why the contention in the SCS needs to be expeditiously resolved and hopefully by peaceful means.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Brumby said:
Self-defence and other-defence are structurally united in the phrase droit naturel to légitime défense for two reasons. First, natural law recognized a right of intervention against States that violate international law. Second, légitime défense is a criminal law concept that includes both self-defence and defence of others. (Source: Volume 91 International Law Review : Doctrine of legitimate defence)

In your example regarding the right in protecting your property and self within the neighbourhood is premised that you are acting legitimately. However if the occupation of the property is illegitimate, then the notion of legitimate self defence collapses. This is the reason why the contention in the SCS needs to be expeditiously resolved and hopefully by peaceful means.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but China isn't unique in having military units on its claimed islands in SCS.

In other words, in this local disputed region, the positioning of such assets should be considered normal given everyone is doing it, but we should also acknowledge the fact that all the islands are disputed by various parties makes any positioning of military units by anyone a less than positive development.

Of course this leaves aside deeper issues such as China's greater extent of land reclamation, possible ambiguity of claims compared to other claimants, possible greater ability to enforce claims, but also the motivations and provocations in the recent past which drove China on its current course of action.
Also left unsaid is a perceived degree of bias in the reporting of these military assets as if China is unilateral in its actions (I think the Chinese MFA used the phase selectively mute)... but of course it is also within the US's rights to be selective in its reporting if it perceives certain parties to be more of a threat.


Really this entire situation is a mess... part of me wants China to just negotiate with other parties in a multilateral way and part of me wishes the US had never expanded its interest in the area from a few years ago (we might have had a series of bilateral agreements set in stone by now if other claimants hadn't felt like they had US backing).
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Bltizo said:
I don't disagree, but China isn't unique in having military units on its claimed islands in SCS.

In other words, in this local disputed region, the positioning of such assets should be considered normal given everyone is doing it, but we should also acknowledge the fact that all the islands are disputed by various parties makes any positioning of military units by anyone a less than positive development.

Of course this leaves aside deeper issues such as China's greater extent of land reclamation, possible ambiguity of claims compared to other claimants, possible greater ability to enforce claims, but also the motivations and provocations in the recent past which drove China on its current course of action.
Also left unsaid is a perceived degree of bias in the reporting of these military assets as if China is unilateral in its actions (I think the Chinese MFA used the phase selectively mute)... but of course it is also within the US's rights to be selective in its reporting if it perceives certain parties to be more of a threat.


Really this entire situation is a mess... part of me wants China to just negotiate with other parties in a multilateral way and part of me wishes the US had never expanded its interest in the area from a few years ago (we might have had a series of bilateral agreements set in stone by now if other claimants hadn't felt like they had US backing).
Click to expand...

I agree essentially with your comments. The whole thing is becoming increasingly messy and the current path and trajectory is not promising.

You once asked me recently where do I see a red line with the US. At that time I responded I don't see one (yet). Unfortunately I am seeing one staring right in front of me. Freedom of navigation and right to transit in international waters is fundamental to US foreign policy grounded out of the very essence of freedom of navigation on the high seas. This principle is sacrosanct in my view and goes back to the very founding of the US as a nation. The words of the Defence Secretary was obvious and direct. The USN will sail anywhere in accordance with international law. Those that say why is the US so concern about some bunch of rocks in the high seas do not understand the significance of the issue. What is even more surprising is China's current attempt to restrict US navigation as reported by the CNN episode. China is already changing the facts on the ground by the reclamation and the US has no pretext to get engage. The freedom of navigation issue changed the whole dynamics. I don't even see any tactical or strategic reason for China to limit navigation and transit at this stage.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Brumby said:
I agree essentially with your comments. The whole thing is becoming increasingly messy and the current path and trajectory is not promising.

You once asked me recently where do I see a red line with the US. At that time I responded I don't see one (yet). Unfortunately I am seeing one staring right in front of me. Freedom of navigation and right to transit in international waters is fundamental to US foreign policy grounded out of the very essence of freedom of navigation on the high seas. This principle is sacrosanct in my view and goes back to the very founding of the US as a nation. The words of the Defence Secretary was obvious and direct. The USN will sail anywhere in accordance with international law. Those that say why is the US so concern about some bunch of rocks in the high seas do not understand the significance of the issue. What is even more surprising is China's current attempt to restrict US navigation as reported by the CNN episode. China is already changing the facts on the ground by the reclamation and the US has no pretext to get engage. The freedom of navigation issue changed the whole dynamics. I don't even see any tactical or strategic reason for China to limit navigation and transit at this stage.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I don't think China will be intending to challenge any nation's freedom of navigation in an all encompassing sense -- that is to say, not beyond some warnings and words for USN ships or aircraft that approach

I see China's goal regarding its island reclamation as multipronged but with a common goal. China seeks to increase its civilian and military presence in SCS, it seeks the ability to project limited airpower from particular islands, it seeks to give its civilian population (including fishermen) the ability to maintain longer duration presence... and I believe the end goal for all this is the ability to maintain a long term air and naval power there during peacetime as an overwatch to primarily protect China's own SLOC in the area.
Closing SLOC and limiting civilian FON will only occur during wartime, and tbh the USN would probably do that to Chinese shipping in event of war as well and I see the PRC goal as seeking to prevent that.
Of course, a larger Chinese air and naval presence in SCS will also complicate US surveillance near China's southern coast and Hainan as Chinese jets and surface combatants are more able to track and intercept USN or associated vessels at longer distances.

I think both PRC and US have laid their cards on the table: China isn't going to cease its reclamation and building activites and will very likely say they retain the right to deploy what assets they want onto these islands... and the US will continue to challenge China's sovereignty on a particular number of reclaimed reefs and FON in the SCS overall.


The absolute red line for war to occur I see for the US, is China shooting at USN aircraft or ships which enter the 12nmi zone for certain reefs. I doubt that's going to happen, given they can continue their reclamation unimpeded so long as there is no physical obstruction...
Which brings me to a red line for China, namely being USN aircraft or ships or personnel obstructing, boarding, seizing, or shooting at any Chinese ships or personnel in the area (including ships involved in the reclamation process). I also doubt the US will choose this option.

So my projection is in the medium term, China's going to finish its reclamation and eventually start deploying some military assets onto certain islands as well as greater civilian presence, while the US is going to heighten its military surveillance and presence near the islands and possibly send ships or aircraft within the 12nmi line... all with both sides increasing in rhetoric and with US seeking to draw China's SCS neighbours into a collective alliance against China while China uses other means to try and prevent them from forming too explicit an alliance.


The unknowns of course is how successful an anti-China alliance in the region will be, as well as what kind of military projection China will ultimately seek to acquire for the area... and whether the US has a red line for Chinese military capabilities operating under its own "FON" in SCS.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Bltizo said:
Fortunately I don't think China will be intending to challenge any nation's freedom of navigation in an all encompassing sense -- that is to say, not beyond some warnings and words for USN ships or aircraft that approach

I see China's goal regarding its island reclamation as multipronged but with a common goal. China seeks to increase its civilian and military presence in SCS, it seeks the ability to project limited airpower from particular islands, it seeks to give its civilian population (including fishermen) the ability to maintain longer duration presence... and I believe the end goal for all this is the ability to maintain a long term air and naval power there during peacetime as an overwatch to primarily protect China's own SLOC in the area.
Closing SLOC and limiting civilian FON will only occur during wartime, and tbh the USN would probably do that to Chinese shipping in event of war as well and I see the PRC goal as seeking to prevent that.
Of course, a larger Chinese air and naval presence in SCS will also complicate US surveillance near China's southern coast and Hainan as Chinese jets and surface combatants are more able to track and intercept USN or associated vessels at longer distances.

I think both PRC and US have laid their cards on the table: China isn't going to cease its reclamation and building activites and will very likely say they retain the right to deploy what assets they want onto these islands... and the US will continue to challenge China's sovereignty on a particular number of reclaimed reefs and FON in the SCS overall.


The absolute red line for war to occur I see for the US, is China shooting at USN aircraft or ships which enter the 12nmi zone for certain reefs. I doubt that's going to happen, given they can continue their reclamation unimpeded so long as there is no physical obstruction...
Which brings me to a red line for China, namely being USN aircraft or ships or personnel obstructing, boarding, seizing, or shooting at any Chinese ships or personnel in the area (including ships involved in the reclamation process). I also doubt the US will choose this option.

So my projection is in the medium term, China's going to finish its reclamation and eventually start deploying some military assets onto certain islands as well as greater civilian presence, while the US is going to heighten its military surveillance and presence near the islands and possibly send ships or aircraft within the 12nmi line... all with both sides increasing in rhetoric and with US seeking to draw China's SCS neighbours into a collective alliance against China while China uses other means to try and prevent them from forming too explicit an alliance.


The unknowns of course is how successful an anti-China alliance in the region will be, as well as what kind of military projection China will ultimately seek to acquire for the area... and whether the US has a red line for Chinese military capabilities operating under its own "FON" in SCS.
Click to expand...

My thoughts on further development is that the US will not attempt to just take on China regarding FON on its own. What I anticipate may likely lead to is a coalition of the willing that will challenge China regarding FON in the SCS. There are many nations that had been seating on the fence regarding the SCS dispute and that includes Australia. There are already news that the recent restriction of navigation in the SCS is causing Australia to reassess its position and in fact is contemplating challenging the restriction in rights of passage. This may also mean that other nations are reassessing their position in light of this development as well and may join in. A narrative between the US and China is very different as opposed to China against a whole bunch of countries. It raises the profile of the issue and China's behaviour and whether it is acting legitimately according to international norm or just being an aggressor because it can. It then may become a building block leading to it being considered in the UN because of the prospect of affecting world peace. It either has to put up its case or shut up regarding its claims. Beyond that if it turns negative, the next stage will be a blockade by the rest of the world.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
Fortunately I don't think China will be intending to challenge any nation's freedom of navigation in an all encompassing sense -- that is to say, not beyond some warnings and words for USN ships or aircraft that approach
Click to expand...
The "warnings" might be problematic. China's artificial islands don't get 12 mile territorial water rights afforded to normal islands (it might not even get 3 miles or even 500 yards), so other than established norms for identifications, or whatever applicable exchanges agreed to by respective governments, China can't warn US or any other foreign military crafts away from the immediate artificial island area. The bottom line is we don't have all the facts, so we don't really know what happened, but taking CNN and USN's rendition at face value, I don't think China has the legal right to warn away US or any other military's vehicles.
 
shen

shen

Senior Member
tidalwave said:
At this point US cannot make China halt reclamation and thats why its super anxious. Before reclamation, US never bother to travel anywhere near those rocks
Click to expand...

Oh please, Chinese reclamation is not a threat to freedom of navigation. The only threat to FON in SCS are pirates, hundreds of attack on merchant shipping every year, and maybe renegade Filipino coast guards (like those who murdered the Taiwanese fisherman last year). The US knows it, everybody knows it. Freedom of navigation is just an excuse for the US to butt into the Spratly dispute, otherwise it has not reason to be involved at all. Even with the FON excuse I don't think the American elite can sell substantive American involvement in SCS to the American people. I've been reading comments to American news coverage of this issue lately, the overwhelming sentiment from ordinary American seems to be "why are we involved in this? what does this have to do with us? why spend money on this when our bridges and rails are collapsing?"
US is butthurt after the embarrassment from the AIIB debacle. Now it is just stirring up some trouble in SCS to try to save face. But China is not going to back down either when it comes to its core interests, as history have shown going back to the Korean War. The threat for unlimited escalation exist now.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
shen said:
Oh please, Chinese reclamation is not a threat to freedom of navigation. The only threat to FON in SCS are pirates, hundreds of attack on merchant shipping every year, and maybe renegade Filipino coast guards (like those who murdered the Taiwanese fisherman last year). The US knows it, everybody knows it. Freedom of navigation is just an excuse for the US to butt into the Spratly dispute, otherwise it has not reason to be involved at all. Even with the FON excuse I don't think the American elite can sell substantive American involvement in SCS to the American people. I've been reading comments to American news coverage of this issue lately, the overwhelming sentiment from ordinary American seems to be "why are we involved in this? what does this have to do with us? why spend money on this when our bridges and rails are collapsing?"
US is butthurt after the embarrassment from the AIIB debacle. Now it is just stirring up some trouble in SCS to try to save face. But China is not going to back down either when it comes to its core interests, as history have shown going back to the Korean War. The threat for unlimited escalation exist now.
Click to expand...

Care to point me to some of those articles with the comments you describe? I read these news articles mostly from niche sites like the diplomat where the readership is much more opinionated about geopolitics.

----

@Brumby

I don't think China would change its goal or actions even if other nations like Australia or Japan join in on USN FON missions, although it does mean China will likely try to apply some leverage over say, Australia to deter them from getting too cozy.

The US could try to make a case at the UN regarding FON, but I'm not sure how that will work if China doesn't actually physically prohibit anyone's FON in the first place -- I think all countries have the right to declare military alert zones or similar zones depending on the nature of the area or situation (ADIZs and even NFZs exist for a reason, and restricting airspace from sensitive zones such as war zones), and if China doesn't actually do anything but warn USN aircraft and ships away is there actually a case to be made? That is to say, I imagine China has to actually restrict and demonstrate it is a threat to FON before any kind of legal case can be made.... and I'm not sure if warning ships and aircraft identified as "potential threats to security" (as I'm sure China will phrase it) and asking them to leave the area qualifies as restricting FON.
The US could try to weigh in other claimants in trying to undermine Chinese sovereignty in a legal setting... but that would be hard to perceived as upholding FON and more as supporting the claims of other nations.
And of course China can simply not partake in proceedings like the Philippines case.

And let's pretend China in a year's time doesn't actually ask US aircraft and ships to leave even if they enter the 12nmi limit, but instead just tails them with ships or fighters deployed from the islands, would that still qualify as restricting FON?

The idea of a worldwide blockade is kind of laughable, I think you overestimate the efficacy of the UN not to mention China and Russia also sit at the security council. The US could try to organize a blockade, but that is effectively tantamount to war, and they don't have to jump through legal hoops to do so... there's also the little fact that China is the world's largest trading nation and I'm not sure how many nations are happy to give up on their trade relationship with China simply because China is politely asking USN P-8s to leave from some patches of sand in SCS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top