South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
DEVELOPING A SCARBOROUGH CONTINGENCY PLAN

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


====

A halfway decent writeup, but seriously, the entire Filipino coast guard and navy could be sent to Scarborough Shoal - but the Chinese Coast Guard sould still easily shove them out of the way if necessary.

Plus the Haiyang oil rig standoff was not a success for Vietnam. The Chinese literally surrounded the oil rig with vessels, and the Vietnamese threw in way more militia / coastguard / special forces than the Philippines has, but they didn't get through.

Plus the riots in Vietnam had the effect of severely crimping economic growth and and there has been further disruption/delays due to the lack of Chinese contractors/investment in the aftermath. I remember seeing an estimate of growth being reduced 1% due to this. Vietnam can't escape from the fact that it shares a land border with China which is its largest trading partner and the source of much investment supplies/capital.

==

But from the Chinese perspective, is it better just to ignore the Arbitration Tribunal ruling and maintain the current status quo?

Or would it be better for China to build an airbase on Scarborough Shoal and demonstrate to the Philippines (and the rest of Asia) that there are costs involved in going up against China, and that the US cannot be relied upon? I suspect that China will hold this in reserve and come up with other ways to show its displeasure.

I also suspect all this posturing by the US Air Force is counterproductive as it just drives a harder response from China - which happens to have escalation dominance in all the non-war scenarios in the SCS. I would judge the Roosevelt or Turnbull approach as being much more effective in this regards.

And I do wonder if PACOM has actually gamed out the various scenario and their outcomes, before he recommended US air force flybys around the SCS.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
joshuatree said:
So highlighting some pics on eastern part of West Reef using multiple sources. We see as recently as Jan 2010, eastern part of West Reef was nothing more than a submerged reef.
Click to expand...

joshuatree said:
Reclamation starts around 2012. Looks pretty extensive and complex by 2016. Yet, hardly any noise about it.
Click to expand...

To be clear this is West London Reef, held by and reclamation and building done by Vietnam.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think it's good that CSIS and the others are taking a lot more interest in China strategy.

At a minimum, there will be a more realistic assessments of the policy options available for the USA and the reaction from China to these - despite some of the bloopers that I've noticed being published.

This is just an indication of the lack of China expertise and knowledge in US policy circles sigh

But at least there are now people talking/writing/debating now.

Especially since China just reminded PACOM that the presence of the US military in the SCS invites the potential for accident or miscalculation, and that the escalation ladder ends up with ICBM launches.
 
C

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another remarkable case of "Do as we say, not as we do". East Timor compares Australia's actions to China's in the South China Sea and takes Australia to arbitration.

Does this script some similar? This sounds just like Philippines vs China, yet the Western media hasn't been nearly as eager to call out Australia for 'violating international law'. If opting out of mandatory arbitration is a viable, legal tactic for Australia and the UK, then it's only fair to view China doing the same as a legal act justified under international law.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Updated April 11, 2016

East Timor is taking Australia to the United Nations to solve the dispute over its maritime border under international maritime law.

...

Australia has withdrawn from the maritime boundary jurisdiction of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said Australia was disappointed East Timor had decided to take the matter to the UN.

"We stand by the existing treaties, which are fair and consistent with international law," the spokeswoman said.

...

"Timor-Leste's decision to initiate compulsory conciliation contravenes prior agreements between our countries not to pursue proceedings relating to maritime boundaries."

East Timor believed if the maritime boundary was decided under UNCLOS, most of the oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea would lie within their territory.

The location of the maritime border in relation to a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas field in the Timor Sea is central to a spying scandal that has rocked relations between East Timor and Australia.

Australia has been accused of bugging East Timor's cabinet office during negotiations for a treaty that would divide the revenues from the $40 billion Greater Sunrise oil and gas field.

...

"Under international law, Australia is obliged to negotiate permanent maritime boundaries with Timor-Leste but it has refused to do so, despite all our invitations.

"This has left us with only one option.

"This process allows for a commission to assist our two countries to reach an amicable solution on permanent maritime boundaries."

Dr Araujo said his country is seeking a fair and equitable solution to what it argues it is entitled to under international law.
Click to expand...

The actions that Australia has taken is remarkably similar to China's position in the SCS. They've opted out of compulsory UNCLOS dispute resolution. They've argued for preferring bilateral negotiations over arbitration. And, they've draw similar baselines from features even smaller than those found in the Spratlys.

If opting out of mandatory dispute resolution is a valid move for the UK (vs Mauritius) and Australia (vs East Timor), then it makes zero sense for others to criticize China so heavily for merely doing the same.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague has been hearing arguments recently in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
case over competing claims in the South China Sea. The move follows its earlier award that it had jurisdiction in the case.

Australia’s position on the case was summed up by Foreign Minister Bishop
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
‘set some legal principles against which China’s actions and the actions of other countries will be judged’. She went on to say that ‘we don’t take sides, we don’t back one player against another—that is a matter for arbitration and negotiation’.

Two aspects of the case are relevant to Australia. The first and most important is that it’s hard for Australia to criticise China for not participating in the arbitration when Australia is also one of relatively few countries that have opted out of mandatory dispute settlement under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The second is the possibility that Australia could be affected by the PCA introducing tighter criteria for defining ‘rocks’ and ‘islands’.

Australia
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
stating that it doesn’t accept any of the procedures provided for in UNCLOS with respect to disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations. Australia has also lodged a declaration under Article 36(2) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute excluding sea boundary delimitation disputes from the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The Government
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
because it considers that maritime boundary disputes are best resolved through negotiation, not litigation.

The decision of The Philippines to seek arbitration
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, reflecting a general preference for negotiations rather than arbitration. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
adopted at the recent meeting of the East Asia Summit (EAS) in Kuala Lumpur stated an undertaking to resolve sovereignty and territorial disputes by ‘friendly consultations and negotiations’.

After Timor-Leste became independent, it entered into several agreements with Australia covering joint development of part of the Timor Sea for a period of 30 years or until a permanent seabed boundary is delimited. The main agreements are the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty between the Government of East Timor and the Government of Australia (Timor Sea Treaty); and the 2006 Treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (CMATS Treaty).

Timor-Leste would like to take Australia to arbitration over maritime boundaries, but was prevented by Australia opting out of compulsory dispute resolution over maritime boundaries. Nevertheless, Timor-Leste has initiated arbitration against Australia
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
between the two countries.

In some similarity to the Philippines’ arbitration case, Australia believes its differences with Timor-Leste would be best resolved through consultation and dialogue rather than by arbitration. This supports a general principle that larger players in a sovereignty dispute—for example, China and Australia—want consultation and negotiation while smaller players—the Philippines and Timor-Leste respectively—seek arbitration.

The PCA will be determining the legal entitlements of some disputed features in the Spratly Islands. It’s likely to find that some features are only ‘rocks’ that can’t sustain human habitation or an economic life of their own, and aren’t therefore entitled to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The chief advocate for the Philippines at the recent hearing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that all the features in the Spratlys are ‘rocks’, and thus not entitled to anything more than a territorial sea. The global ramifications of the PCA accepting that claim would be significant as many countries around the world have based expansive maritime claims on features smaller than some in the Spratlys.

Australia has used small and uninhabited features to extend its maritime jurisdiction in the Timor Sea and the Coral Sea—Ashmore and Cartier Islets in the Timor Sea and Mellish, Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs in the Coral Sea. All are smaller than four major features in the Spratlys—Itu Aba and Spratly, West York and Thitu islands.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
were given weight in determining maritime boundaries between Australia and Indonesia although neither country has yet ratified their 1997 boundary agreement.
Click to expand...

The leaders of East Timor with some very apt quotes concerning the hypocrisy of Australia:
Mr Pereira said Australia must abide by the UN's findings.

"Australia has been trying hard in the last few years to be as best of a citizen in international community as possible.

"I think Australia cannot go on lecturing other countries about respecting international law in the limitation of maritime boundaries, and yet look the other way in its closest neighbour, Timor Leste."

Mr Pereira made the case that Australia was behaving like China in its approach to the domination of the South China Sea.
Click to expand...
 
A

ahojunk

Senior Member
Suspected new radar facility at Vietnamese occupied Namyit Island after a circular structure and towers were spotted.

Namyit.Island.2016-03-18_(1)_island-view.jpg
The location of the circular structure is located on the western side.

Namyit.Island.2016-03-18_(2).circular-structure.jpg
The circular structure was not there in April 2014, i,e, 2 years ago.

Namyit.Island.2016-03-18_(3).two-towers.jpg
The arrows pointing to the two towers.

This is not reported in the western media. Seems to be a non-issue with western media.
 
C

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another country thinking of adding radar to its holdings in the SCS - this time, it's Malaysia:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

April 25, 2016
This will help detect suspicious ships in national waters and channel information to the authorities for further action.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

KUALA LUMPUR: The Marine Department is proposing to build a radar station in the South China Sea to ensure the area is free from any criminal activities.

Director-General Baharin Abdul Hamid said the initiative was a measure to raise the level of security in national waters in the South China Sea.

“However, the construction of a radar station is still at the discussion stage and is expected to be included in the 11th Malaysia Plan,” he told Bernama on the sidelines of the 8th International Conference on the Straits of Malacca here today.

The two-day conference, which began today, is being attended by 100 participants, including from Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, China and Pakistan.

Baharin said the radar could detect suspicious ships in national waters and channel information to the authorities for further action.

The South China Sea is not exempted from being targets of criminals and pirates from time to time, he said.

“The latest being MT Orkim Harmony which went missing last year in the South China Sea,” he said.

MT Orkim Harmony, which was carrying 6,000 tonnes of RON95 petrol belonging to Petronas, was seized at 8.57pm on June 11 2015, about 30 nautical miles from Tanjung Sedili in Johor, in Malaysian waters.

The oil tanker, which was on its way from Malacca to Kuantan Port in Pahang and carrying 22 crew members comprising 16 Malaysians, five Indonesians and a Myanmar, was spotted by an Australian Air Force plane in the Gulf of Thailand on June 17.

Eight suspects were later detained by Vietnamese authorities near Tho Chu Island, south of Vietnam on June 19.
Click to expand...
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
ahojunk said:
Suspected new radar facility at Vietnamese occupied Namyit Island after a circular structure and towers were spotted.


View attachment 27086
The circular structure was not there in April 2014, i,e, 2 years ago.
Click to expand...


Looks like a radar upgrade as the location of the circular structure had what looks like a portable Yagi antenna previously. It's a given that there is a media war as what gets reported and what doesn't, and most importantly, what tone something gets reported in depends on the agenda. It's not about objective reporting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top