South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Rocks and land features don't get EEZ.

I have been told its best to ask the following question in this thread.

Any information on how many years Vietnam wasted on the Cornwallis South Reef reclamation?.

Brumby said:

Can you please state your point because you are saying a bunch of things without getting to the point. FON is freedom to navigate the global commons. Whether they are military or civilian vessels is irrelevant because that is the basic doctrine behind laws of the sea i.e. freedom of movement. If you are saying FONOPs is gunboat diplomacy, you need to justify your statement by reasoning or else they are simply assertions. There is a basic principle in contest of ideas " assertion made without basis can be dismissed without basis".


I don't think anyone is asking for an explanation regarding the basis of the Aleutian passage. There might be questions concerning the intention but that is simply superfluous to this subject.


Sorry there is only type of "innocent passage" mentioned in UNCLOS and its meaning and application is very clear. I am unclear whether the Aleutian passage is "transit passage" or "innocent passage" but is unimportant for purpose of this discussion.


There is a difference between FON and FONOP and their usage cannot be interchanged because they actually have different meaning. It is appropriate to describe the Chinese passage as FON because that is precisely what happened through the Aleutians. In other words. the Chinese freely navigated through that straits without hindrance or fuss by the US. How else can you describe it?


Yes FONOP as a program was introduced when UNCLOS was codified and has been in place for more than 30 years. However your statement that the US specifically targets China is simply not true because every year the US would release a report on FONOPs undertaken throughout the year. I have posted one of this report previously on this forum. The report I mentioned is publicly available if you care to google.


In principle, FONOP is designed to target excessive maritime claims and so the program is meant to be visible whenever such claims exist or is known to exist.


As Jeff repeatedly pointed out, people will see the issue the way they want to see it regardless of the facts or the absence of any basis in their conclusion. For example, in the recent FONOP significant effort was made to explain it was innocent passage. That statement itself projects a lot in terms of information but sadly I see assertions made that this FON violated China's sovereignty. There is simply no truth in such assertions but yet it doesn't stop such mindless statement being made.
Kindly explain how does the recent FON aided or abetted rival claims?


For the sake of argument how do you come to the conclusion that the Chinese action is not hostile but the US is? The main thing about the Chinese passage is no one made a deal out of it except the Chinese makes a big deal out of any corresponding event. By the way, "innocent passage" and hostile actions re mutually exclusive by simple reasoning. In other words, to claim that the US conducted "innocent passage" which are hostile is self contradictory.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your attempt to frame the argument in your favor which only proves my point that context matters. Your numerous assertions and supposed basis are as dismissable, arbitrary, have no truth, and mindless as you claim mine are if we are to play that game. I will simply agree to disagree.

There is a slew of literature regarding gunboat diplomacy which is easily accessible if you care to google it. There is also a slew of literature regarding different interpretations of UNCLOS and relevant countries' conditional recognition and rejection of various portions of UNCLOS that have been previously discussed relating to this topic on this forum.

If you are actually knowledgeable or honest enough to acknowledge the relevant facts that have already been mentioned in multiple previous posts you will see how one may reasonably conclude that the US FONOP was one action in a pattern of actions hostile to China while China's "FONOP" was one action, suspicious as it may be, without a pattern of actions hostile to the US.

PanAsian said:

I appreciate your attempt to frame the argument in your favor which only proves my point that context matters. Your numerous assertions and supposed basis are as dismissable, arbitrary, have no truth, and mindless as you claim mine are if we are to play that game. I will simply agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious that any argument rest on each party to frame it in a manner that best supports their position? Having said that, you are not free to claim that my arguments are "dismissable, arbitrary, have no truth, and mindless" without providing any shred of reasoning other than mere declaration. Unfortunately such a unprofessional behaviour fits exactly the description that you have used.

PanAsian said:

There is a slew of literature regarding gunboat diplomacy which is easily accessible if you care to google it. There is also a slew of literature regarding different interpretations of UNCLOS and relevant countries' conditional recognition and rejection of various portions of UNCLOS that have been previously discussed relating to this topic on this forum.

Click to expand...

Sorry it doesn't work this way. I am having a conversation with you and not something that can be found googling. Engaging in a robust discussion do require preparation, research and effort. If you are not prepared to do so than I suggest you think carefully before engaging because you actually have to present your arguments because google is not your surrogate.

PanAsian said:

If you are actually knowledgeable or honest enough to acknowledge the relevant facts that have already been mentioned in multiple previous posts you will see how one may reasonably conclude that the US FONOP was one action in a pattern of actions hostile to China while China's "FONOP" was one action, suspicious as it may be, without a pattern of actions hostile to the US.

Click to expand...

You are simply making claims which can outright be dismissed as they are - claims.

Brumby said:

Isn't it obvious that any argument rest on each party to frame it in a manner that best supports their position? Having said that, you are not free to claim that my arguments are "dismissable, arbitrary, have no truth, and mindless" without providing any shred of reasoning other than mere declaration. Unfortunately such a unprofessional behaviour fits exactly the description that you have used.

Sorry it doesn't work this way. I am having a conversation with you and not something that can be found googling. Engaging in a robust discussion do require preparation, research and effort. If you are not prepared to do so than I suggest you think carefully before engaging because you actually have to present your arguments because google is not your surrogate.

You are simply making claims which can outright be dismissed as they are - claims.

Click to expand...

I am responding to your behavior in kind. It is self-evident that my reasoning and evidence have already been previously presented which you chose to ignore. Your posts have frequently involved just talking past and denigrating others while not positing anything of substance.

PanAsian said:

I am responding to your behavior in kind. It is self-evident that my reasoning and evidence have already been previously presented which you chose to ignore.

Click to expand...

You are now making very specific accusations. Decent thing that you now actually need to do is to present evidence to back up your claims.

Brumby said:

Thanks for putting your thoughts into words. The notion of building security depth is something I can both accept and appreciate in terms of China's own national interest. The problem I have is in the policy execution and the manner in which China attempts to explain away its actions. In my view it is unbecoming of a nation aspiring to take leadership and very disconcerting to other nations regarding China's attitude towards the rule of law. Such actions doesn't project peace but chaos ahead.

Click to expand...

I agree Chinese policy in these areas can seem to be poorly reasoned at first glance, but you must remember that in the west we are living in an English Media dominated world. Very few have the capacity to view Mandarin Media and get the Chinese perspective on events, rather than commentary from BBC World News or CNN which, more often than not, tends only to reflect the western perspective. It's the path of least resistance for the consumption of news for most people. Folks who read and post on boards like SDF are a much smaller subset of the population, who care to find more information on developments related to China, and game out the strategy behind it.

The view that Chinese actions project future chaos is I think a natural result of conflicting policies and interests between China, US and Japan primarily. The difference between our positions seems to be, frankly, you attributing all possible negative outcomes at China's feet as a result of its sole actions, while not accounting for other parties actions as perhaps being precipitous or instigating when viewed from the Chinese perspective. That is not to say China, or anyone, is "right". Only that each event should be examined through the view of each participant to understand what is at stake and how each is likely to respond and why.

Brumby said:

It is not for me to say whether the concern is reasonable but I would believe it is for China in terms of reaction and so I would concur. Having said that, China needs to learn to deal with issues through the proper manner. This being more transparent with its policies with its nine dash line claims; being consistent between its actions and its complains and not operating with a double standard; and seriously make an effort to explain its actions and not hide behind the usual bellicose nationalistic statements.

Click to expand...

I think that while yes, China could certainly do more to a degree in publicly explaining its positions for the benefit of outside observers, in the end this is domestic/foreign policy and not a television show. These things happen behind closed doors where so much of the diplomacy is talks between foreign ministry representatives and senior military service personnel. Those discussions tend to be candid and confidential. Expectations on what information is made public should be balanced and realistic.

Brumby said:

I used to believe that the SCS claims was simply opportunistic historic claims due to potential economic value. If this was the sole reason, then avenue to resolve the disputes are high e.g. joint development. However it is increasingly clear to me the island chains are China's core national interest to build strategic depth. China will not drop such claims short of war. The problem I see is that China's island claims are not sound against competing claims and so has resorted to ambiguity given the alternatives. Therefore I don't see any resolution ahead but the inevitable clash. I think China is playing the wrong cards. Until the island grab, the US do not have a foothold to get involved. Chinese actions have encourage the other claimants and the region closer to the US orbit. Therefor China instead of enhancing its own national interest is winning less friends. Eventually when push come to shove between security and economic interest, the choice of the observing nations would gravitate towards the former. just look at Japan's changed posture on defence for the effect.

Click to expand...

The historic claims support the Chinese position, which as I noted earlier in my view is being driven primarily by security interests; economic benefits being a secondary matter. I don't think Chinese security interests being the driver invalidate those historic claims, rather the historic claims should be examined at face value and judged accordingly as part of the resolution to these disputed territories.

I think you are correct that a resource sharing agreement would not satisfy the Chinese because that is not the core interest at stake for any of the major players. That does not mean there cannot be some agreement reached (and I won't get into too much detail here because it would at minimum require a similar summary of US & Japanese interests and positions), but it would entail the disposition of US Forces in Asia and a security guarantee with Japan & Korea along with resolution of the disputed island holdings. So no small task. Currently none of the parties is working towards this type of compromise, they all appear to be making changes to the strategic landscape in their own way to benefit them in a future state, while keeping their populations prepared for possible conflict.

Bltizo said:

I would add that another major difference between the situations is that China does not have anywhere near the tonnage of ships, aircraft and firepower within equivalent range of major US population centres, industrial and economic centres as the US does to China.

It is one thing to sail a small flotilla of ships under the explanation of innocent passage within territorial waters when those few ships do not have any back up within 4000km away, and another thing entirely when sailing ships when there are forward deployed CSGs, airbases filled with stealth fighters, stealth bombers, strike aircraft and a AEW&C and ELINT/SIGINT aircraft many of which are a few hundred km away from the area in question and many of which are also a few hundred more km away from virtually all of a nation's major population, industrial and economic centres.


Therefore, I think whenever we consider how one side may interpret the "threat" or "intent" of a particular action we must not only look at the legality or even intent of the action itself but we must consider the overall strategic picture and force disposition within the theater in which the action is being conducted and which assets, forces, and centres may or may not be under threat.

Click to expand...

I agree that for China, the disposition of US Forces in Asia is a major concern and relates back to those Chinese security interests I discussed with Brumby.

That said, the US has a strategy behind the placement of those pacific forces which are to its interests, and those interests happen to align well with Japan & Korea who see those US Forces as their own buffer against possible Chinese & North Korean aggression. Solving that is the big picture.

Zool said:

I agree Chinese policy in these areas can seem to be poorly reasoned at first glance, but you must remember that in the west we are living in an English Media dominated world. Very few have the capacity to view Mandarin Media and get the Chinese perspective on events, rather than commentary from BBC World News or CNN which, more often than not, tends only to reflect the western perspective. It's the path of least resistance for the consumption of news for most people. Folks who read and post on boards like SDF are a much smaller subset of the population, who care to find more information on developments related to China, and game out the strategy behind it.

Click to expand...

Whilst what you describe might be factually true regarding access to information for the general Chinese population but it doesn't explain away China's actions. I believe the problem is much more fundamental which I have previously debated with Biltzo over it. It is my belief that the Chinese philosophical view of law is one which is "rule by law" as opposed to western concept of "rule of law". In the latter, actions are constrained by the law itself and subject to it. Chinese history tells us the concept of rule by law is the prevailing attitude. In other words, law is merely an instrument to govern and to be used to achieve an end. Such attitude means interpretation of laws, application in meaning and administration is always subject to circumstances that suits the government. The effect is that the goal post can be changed at will to suit any occasion. The resulting effect is the application of laws seem haphazard and any reasoning becomes problematic because of inconsistency in application as interpretation is merely subjective to suit the objectives. Unfortunately as China integrates more with the rest of the world, such a philosophical worldview is similarly projected in the manner in which China deals with the legal issues in the SCS. International laws to China are simply hindrances to its actions and to be circumvented rather than as an institution that need to be respected.

Zool said:

The view that Chinese actions project future chaos is I think a natural result of conflicting policies and interests between China, US and Japan primarily. The difference between our positions seems to be, frankly, you attributing all possible negative outcomes at China's feet as a result of its sole actions, while not accounting for other parties actions as perhaps being precipitous or instigating when viewed from the Chinese perspective. That is not to say China, or anyone, is "right". Only that each event should be examined through the view of each participant to understand what is at stake and how each is likely to respond and why.

Click to expand...

My view that Chinese actions is likely to project chaos is not grounded on its national interest because tension between nations will always be present. It is much more basic and that is Chinese actions are undermining the established institution of rule of law. China by its actions is basically dismantling a system that provides a frame of reference in which actions are either judged or constrained. When there is no standard to judge actions, it ultimately degenerates into chaos by basic reasoning. Instead China is injecting ambiguity into a system that laws are subject to interpretation at will and to be disregarded at pleasure.

Zool said:

I think you are correct that a resource sharing agreement would not satisfy the Chinese because that is not the core interest at stake for any of the major players. That does not mean there cannot be some agreement reached (and I won't get into too much detail here because it would at minimum require a similar summary of US & Japanese interests and positions), but it would entail the disposition of US Forces in Asia and a security guarantee with Japan & Korea along with resolution of the disputed island holdings. So no small task. Currently none of the parties is working towards this type of compromise, they all appear to be making changes to the strategic landscape in their own way to benefit them in a future state, while keeping their populations prepared for possible conflict.

Click to expand...

Sad to say, the prospect of realistic negotiation have come and gone. The way I see it is that the vested parties are simply reinforcing their positions and investing their resources to confront the inevitable.

Brumby said:

...It is my belief that the Chinese philosophical view of law is one which is "rule by law" as opposed to western concept of "rule of law". In the latter, actions are constrained by the law itself and subject to it.

Click to expand...

What "rule of law" do you mean? If it's laws constraining government officials from arbitrary actions, then that philosophy has been central to China for thousands of years. To wit, in China officials must govern justly and for the betterment of the governed, or risk losing their stations. That's what "Mandate of Heaven" is all about; if officials, kings, and emperors governed unjustly, then they could lose the mandate of heaven and therefore their right to rule.

As for the West, rule of law isn't all it seems. For example, in the US, the law is what nine unelected, unaccountable judges in black robes say it is. They are nominated to their august positions by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not for their judicial knowledge, experience, and temperament, but their philosophical and political leanings. So, what do you say that is, "rule of law," or "rule by lawyers?"