South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

joshuatree said:

... the UNCLOS deadline has been more trouble stirring than a pacifier. By forcing all claimants to openly state their stake, it's escalated the tensions, actions, and counter actions. The ambiguity over the previous years allowed some leeway. China probably won't clarify up till it can't no more, until then, it will squeeze as much mileage out of it as possible.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this.

But it is now what it is.

IMHO, all parties would be best served by sitting down and beginning to negotiate in good faith towards a solution that they can all live with.

It will not be an easy thing to do.

Until they do...yes, one or more parties will be motivated to squeeze as much mileage out of their particular stance as they can.

PanAsian said:

China should clarify its 9-dashed line claim, but certainly not to the US.

Click to expand...

I do not think you will be able to leave the US entirely out of it.

Although it does not own any of the reefs or islands, or lay claim to them...as I said, the SLOC through there is vital to the US and its allies.

The US would not be a party over land or mineral claims, but it would be over the right of passage through all of those claims for goods and material..

PanAisan said:

China should be open to negotiating jointly with all the other claimants (Taiwan at the table would be tricky though) to clarify everyone's claims at the same time, which ultimately aims for a multilateral settlement. This is not just what China, but all the claimants, should be looking to do.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

This is an amazing video.

Whatever you may think of such a mission...where else could we get such views of the ongoing work there, and the US assets monitoring it?

I am surprised that they were allowed aboard and to post videos of this detail. Analysts will have a field day with this info. Typical of this administration's misadventures IMHO.

Just the same, I would urge everyone to watch this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Seeing this reclamation effort from these surveillance videos is awesome. Seeing the inside of the Poseidon like this is awesome (if crazy), hearing the Chinese controllers warning the aircraft...seeing the structures going up on Fiery Cross and Mischief Reef.

Simply amazing.

Some more:

I am going to re-post SampanViking's posted article from one of the other SCS threads as it describes much more accurately what the effects of China's presence in the SCS are, which definitely are not somehow being able to magically control or cut off S, E, and SE Asia, nor cut off other countries' SLOC's, nor fully protect China's SLOC's because there are plenty of surrounding navigable waters and China's SLOC's extend far beyond the SCS. All it does is strengthen China's presence in the SCS by a lot but not enough to matter outside of the SCS.

SampanViking said:

The inimitable Peter Lee makes his welcome return to ATOL and writes on the subject of the SCS.
Most of his premise is well established from previous writings, but he applies and shows consistency in relation to current circumstances.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

PanAsian said:

I am going to re-post SampanViking's posted article from one of the other SCS threads as it describes much more accurately what the effects of China's presence in the SCS are, which definitely are not somehow being able to magically control or cut off S, E, and SE Asia, nor cut off other countries' SLOC's, nor fully protect China's SLOC's because there are plenty of surrounding navigable waters and China's SLOC's extend far beyond the SCS. All it does is strengthen China's presence in the SCS by a lot but not enough to matter outside of the SCS.

Click to expand...

I am surprised by the credence given to the article. It is simply red herring to distract from the fundamental issue and that is China's claims and its premise. How much it affects the SCS is irrelevant to the issue.

The recent CNN exercise in my view is part of a progressive stepped effort (rather slowly) by the US in dealing with the reclamation. In my view since China is not forthcoming with its basis beyond the usual rhetoric that it's sovereignty over the rocks is unshakable, the next step is to challenge the claims by increasing incursion into the 12 nm zone. It will clearly be an escalation which may still be sitting on Obama's desk.

Brumby said:

I am surprised by the credence given to the article. It is simply red herring to distract from the fundamental issue and that is China's claims and its premise. How much it affects the SCS is irrelevant to the issue.

The recent CNN exercise in my view is part of a progressive stepped effort (rather slowly) by the US in dealing with the reclamation. In my view since China is not forthcoming with its basis beyond the usual rhetoric that it's sovereignty over the rocks is unshakable, the next step is to challenge the claims by increasing incursion into the 12 nm zone. It will clearly be an escalation which may still be sitting on Obama's desk.

Click to expand...

I think the author of the article actually agrees with what you say, just phrased somewhat more amusingly:

The PRC has been accused of building a “Great Wall of Sand” in the South China Sea with its island expansion program.

I think the U.S. is trying to build a” Great Wall of Bullsh*t” in the South China Sea, by invoking “freedom of navigation in an area that is critical to world trade” as a pretext for U.S. intervention.

Click to expand...

How China's claims effect the SCS (including freedom of navigation in an area important to world trade) is unfortunately entirely relevant to the discussion given that has been a publicly stated reason by the US for its involvement in SCS.
If the US straight up said it opposed China's island claims and the potential greater geopolitical influence it could wield in the area if its claims were unopposed and used that as the base for their involvement then the matter of FON and trade through the SCS wouldn't be much of an issue.

In other words, we're only talking about of FON and how China's island claims may effect the SCS because the US has been constantly citing those as the major reasons for its involvement. If there's a red herring anywhere it is the US using that as a pretext for involvement rather than just being honest with its legitimate geopolitical reasons for involving itself, and opening up the vulnerability of letting people like Peter Lee challenge them.

----

edit: I should add that I disagree with Peter Lee regarding FON and the importance of trade in SCS. There may be alternatives to SCS, but I think most nations would prefer to keep using SCS as the main artery of trade, as would the US. And of course the pretext of US power in the region and globe is its relatively unchallenged ability to unilaterally control SLOCs against nations as a means of political power (mahan 101) so naturally the US aren't that keen on China being able to have greater power over an area which is both important to global trade, and also not very keen for China to have the ability to to guard China's own trade and energy security. Preferably I think the US would like to retain the ability to threaten China's SLOCs without challenge -- which of course isn't unreasonable in its position. If you're ahead you'd naturally like to stay ahead.

Bltizo said:

How China's claims effect the SCS (including freedom of navigation in an area important to world trade) is unfortunately entirely relevant to the discussion given that has been a publicly stated reason by the US for its involvement in SCS.
If the US straight up said it opposed China's island claims and the potential greater geopolitical influence it could wield in the area if its claims were unopposed and used that as the base for their involvement then the matter of FON and trade through the SCS wouldn't be much of an issue.

In other words, we're only talking about of FON and how China's island claims may effect the SCS because the US has been constantly citing those as the major reasons for its involvement. If there's a red herring anywhere it is the US using that as a pretext for involvement rather than just being honest with its legitimate geopolitical reasons for involving itself, and opening up the vulnerability of letting people like Peter Lee challenge them.

Click to expand...

I think you have the issues backwards. The US is not opposing the claims by China but rather the view that it should clarify its claims and the legal basis for it. Sovereignty is the root and underlying foundation from which all other issues emanate. The central premise is, does China have sovereignty over those rocks and accordingly what jurisprudence rights emanate from it? If China indeed (not proven) has sovereignty over them, then every other state including the US has to deal with that legal reality, regardless of FON. Unfortunately the claim by China is disputed by other interested parties. Secondly, the claims affects FON depending on whether it is an island, maritime or some kind of historic claim which China is rather unwilling to lay out its case beyond mere statements of sovereignty. Since China is not forthcoming with its basis, my read is that the US will challenge the claim via FON and will make incursion into the zone on the basis that sovereignty is disputed and hence not recognized until the matter is resolved.

Brumby said:

I think you have the issues backwards. The US is not opposing the claims by China but rather the view that it should clarify its claims and the legal basis for it. Sovereignty is the root and underlying foundation from which all other issues emanate. The central premise is, does China have sovereignty over those rocks and accordingly what jurisprudence rights emanate from it? If China indeed (not proven) has sovereignty over them, then every other state including the US has to deal with that legal reality, regardless of FON. Unfortunately the claim by China is disputed by other interested parties. Secondly, the claims affects FON depending on whether it is an island, maritime or some kind of historic claim which China is rather unwilling to lay out its case beyond mere statements of sovereignty. Since China is not forthcoming with its basis, my read is that the US will challenge the claim via FON and will make incursion into the zone on the basis that sovereignty is disputed and hence not recognized until the matter is resolved.

Click to expand...

Such a position I could accept, if the US were equally concerned with every territorial dispute in the world and willing to challenge everyone's claims via FON or equivalents.

However from what we can gather the US seems to be quite interested and involved in China's involvement with its territorial disputes in the SCS while far less involved in other disputes around the world or even the region, with seemingly little clarification sought in most of those disputes.

So, if you agree that the US seems to be particularly interested in China's specific dispute at this area compared to other regions of the world, the next question one has to ask is why?


Furthermore, do you believe that the US would accept China's position on its territory even if China clearly stated and cease conducting FON simply on the basis of a clarification? I imagine if China's clarification was detrimental to US geopolitical and military interests the US would continue challenging or even increase the intensity of the challenges.

---

Edit: you also say sovereignty is the root and underlying foundation of all issues, but that's only half the story. The US is interested in the sovereignty of the matter and interested in challenging the sovereignty not because of the nebulous concept of sovereignty but rather because there are material capabilities, abilities and geopolitical advantages that sovereignty can entail. The way I read it, the root issue is power and ability to project power over the SCS.

PanAsian said:

I am going to re-post SampanViking's posted article from one of the other SCS threads as it describes much more accurately what the effects of China's presence in the SCS are, which definitely are not somehow being able to magically control or cut off S, E, and SE Asia, nor cut off other countries' SLOC's, nor fully protect China's SLOC's because there are plenty of surrounding navigable waters and China's SLOC's extend far beyond the SCS. All it does is strengthen China's presence in the SCS by a lot but not enough to matter outside of the SCS.

Click to expand...

Like I have pointed out many times prior, the accusations made against China are nothing other than strawman arguments. No matter what China does or says, it is going to be spun to be sign of China's aggression. Parties that do this are acting in bad faith, and is why clarification on China's part isn't going to improve the situation. Note that right now, China is literally playing sand by herself, which does not fit into narrative of China being aggressive. So, certain country will now go in to provoke some kind of response.

Another factor here is psychological projections. Guess how the term "island chains" came to be? It isn't about protecting China's freedom of navigation, but in fact, meant the complete opposite. Basically, some parties harbour ill intentions, and automatically assume others are out to do the same thing.