South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby

Major
Singapore foreign minister stresses rule of law in South China Sea

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Singaporean Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan called for enhanced cooperation between Southeast Asian states and Japan to maintain the rule of law at sea amid China’s rising assertiveness in the South China Sea.

“Japan and other regional stakeholders need to work together with ASEAN to advance regional peace, stability and prosperity and to uphold and protect rules-based regional and international orders,” Balakrishnan said Tuesday in a speech in Tokyo, referring to the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, of which Singapore is a member.

Although Japan and Singapore are non-claimant countries in the territorial disputes involving China in the South China Sea, the busy sea lane stretching from the Strait of Malacca to the South China Sea is of key interest for the two maritime nations.

“Singapore and Japan have interest in upholding the right of freedom of navigation and overflight,” said the minister, who was visiting Japan to celebrate the 50th anniversary this year of diplomatic ties between the two states.

Both Japan and Singapore have expressed concerns about the work China is undertaking to construct artificial islands and outposts in the disputed waters, deemed as an assertion of its own maritime interests.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
That is an interesting view.

In the event of a China-Japan conflict in the East China Sea - it would more likely that Japan would be trying to shut down freedom of commercial navigation in the South China Seas - as Japan doesn't rely on those shipping lanes, but China does.

In comparison, the shipping lanes in the South China Seas are vital to China - so China would be doing its utmost to maintaining freedom of commercial navigation.

Of course, there are a number of scenarios where China could use control of the SCS to apply selective and temporary pressure, but it simply is not in China's interest to allow widespread disruption in trade through the SCS.
 

Brumby

Major
In the event of a China-Japan conflict in the East China Sea - it would more likely that Japan would be trying to shut down freedom of commercial navigation in the South China Seas - as Japan doesn't rely on those shipping lanes, but China does.

In comparison, the shipping lanes in the South China Seas are vital to China - so China would be doing its utmost to maintaining freedom of commercial navigation.

Of course, there are a number of scenarios where China could use control of the SCS to apply selective and temporary pressure, but it simply is not in China's interest to allow widespread disruption in trade through the SCS.

Such a line of argument is simply propaganda. The one who controls the waterways control the taps. It is an even more compelling agnostic argument given the situation to control the waterways from risk management as what China is attempting to do. However the prevailing and long established customary international law is that such waters are a global commons. The question of control should not even surface and hence the notion of FON.
 

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
If China fully controlled the SCS, Japanese shipping is merely inconvenienced; Japan can avoid a blockade of the SCS by shipping out further east and sailing up through the Celebes Sea, Sulu Sea and international waterways of the Philippines.

The true chokepoint here is the Strait of Malacca.
Such a line of argument is simply propaganda. The one who controls the waterways control the taps. It is an even more compelling agnostic argument given the situation to control the waterways from risk management as what China is attempting to do. However the prevailing and long established customary international law is that such waters are a global commons. The question of control should not even surface and hence the notion of FON.
 

Brumby

Major
U.S. Sees New Flashpoint in South China Sea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A new potential flashpoint has emerged in the standoff between China and the U.S. over disputed areas of the South China Sea amid concerns that Beijing is considering expanding the area where it is seeking to reclaim islands and extend its influence.

China has been expanding and developing islands in the Spratly Islands chain. But the U.S. military about a month ago observed Chinese ships conducting survey work around a clump of rocks, sandbars and coral reefs known as the Scarborough Shoal, far from the Spratlys. Scarborough Shoal is 120 nautical miles off the coast of the Philippines, a close U.S. ally, and just 200 nautical miles from its capital Manila. It is around 470 nautical miles from the closest point on the Chinese mainland.

Signaling its concern, the U.S. flew three different air patrols near Scarborough in recent days, including on April 19 and 21, according to U.S. defense officials. The first of the flights, in a message to Beijing that the shoal is central to maritime security in the region, came just four days after
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The U.S. Air Force disclosed the April 19 flights in a news release.

“Our job is to ensure air and sea domains remain open in accordance with international law. That is extremely important, international economics depends on it—free trade depends on our ability to move goods,” said Col. Larry Card, Commander of Pacific Air Force’s Air Contingent, which conducted the patrols. “There’s no nation right now whose economy does not depend on the well-being of the economy of other nations.”
Beijing on Monday condemned the U.S. flights, saying the shoal, which it calls Huangyan Island, is China’s “inherent territory.”

In recent weeks, the U.S. had sought to “lower the temperature” over Scarborough, a senior U.S. official said. According to other U.S. officials, that included canceling one “freedom of navigation” patrol in the South China Sea that had been planned for this month.

But last week’s U.S. air patrol has heightened tensions once again, and could lead to more Chinese activity in the area, according to Chinese security analysts.

China’s defense ministry responded on Monday with a statement on its website expressing “concern and opposition,” and accusing the U.S. of militarizing the South China Sea. “The Chinese military will take all necessary measures to safeguard national sovereignty and security,” it said.

There is no sign yet of any land reclamation at the Chinese-held atoll, which sits some 250 nautical miles northeast of the artificial islands Beijing has built in the disputed Spratlys archipelago over the past two years.

Even so, there is growing concern among U.S. and Philippine officials that Beijing plans to begin such work at the shoal, possibly in response to a ruling on its territorial claims by an arbitration panel in The Hague, expected this summer.

Any such work would come close to a red line for the U.S. and the Philippines, given the proximity to the country and to Philippine military bases where U.S. forces were redeployed this month.

Washington and its allies also would consider it a major escalation. Beijing seized control of the shoal from Manila in 2012, whereas the artificial islands in the Spratlys were built on rocks and reefs already controlled by China.

Last week, Mr. Carter, visiting the Philippines, announced a number of initiatives aimed to “modernize” the U.S.-Philippines alliance, including a rotating deployment of U.S. military aircraft at Clark Air Base in the Philippines.

The six U.S. aircraft that flew near Scarborough Shoal on April 19 are based at Clark. The four A-10 Thunderbolt fighters and two HH-60 Pave Hawk helicoptersy “conducted a flying mission through international airspace…providing air and maritime situational awareness,” the U.S. Air Force statement said.

None of the U.S. flights flew to within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough, according to a U.S. official, which would have amounted to a legal challenge to China’s claims on the shoal, but the proximity of the flights was clearly intended to send a message to Beijing.

The U.S. patrol came a month after the U.S. chief of naval operations, Adm. John Richardson, said that the U.S. military had observed Chinese ships doing survey work around the shoal that could be a prelude to reclamation. U.S. officials say the shoal has been largely quiet since, with the exception of a medical military flight that rescued three injured civilians, according to a U.S. official.

The U.S. has used its Navy and Air Force to challenge Chinese claims in the region, but has approached the dispute with caution, to avoid provoking a broader confrontation.

But, amid criticism over that approach from senior congressional and military figures, stronger action is likely if China made a move on Scarborough Shoal, U.S. officials said.

“We’re prepared to take steps that reinforce our long-standing position in the South China Sea,” a senior administration official said.

Steps could include economic sanctions, a buildup of military assets in the area, or taking a more overt position on the legal status of land features in the South China Sea.

Another option is to rescind China’s invitation to the U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific, or Rimpac, joint naval drills in Hawaii in the summer. Disinviting China from the exercise, some U.S. officials and others believe, would amount to a public shaming that would resonate in Beijing.

Chinese security analysts said Beijing reserved the right to build on the shoal and considered it a valuable fishing ground, as well as legally important because it includes rocks that are potentially entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial seas.

China is conscious, however, that any reclamation there would be provocative.

“Of course there’s no exclusion for some sort of move like lighthouse construction or a maritime monitoring post, but sizable land reclamation on Scarborough Shoal is out of the question,” said Zhu Feng, a security expert at Nanjing University.

Beijing may be using the shoal as a bargaining chip, rather than actively seeking to establish another military outpost there, some analysts said.

“They imply that they may want Scarborough Shoal, then they will back off and show that they are a good international player,” said Bryan Clark, a former senior adviser to the chief of naval operations who is now an adviser at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank in Washington.

Any outpost at the shoal would be vulnerable to attack in a military conflict because of its remote location and proximity to the Philippines.

In peacetime, however, combined with the Spratlys and the Paracels, an archipelago to the north, even a small outpost would complete a triangle of military installations that could help China control waters and airspace in between.

It also could be used to help China to monitor and intercept patrols by the U.S. and its allies from bases in the Philippines, as well as to track ships and submarines entering the South China Sea from the Philippine Sea.

“It would allow China to monitor, patrol, and intervene anywhere in the South China Sea, with the ultimate goal of establishing de facto (if not legal) control over the sea,” said Gregory Poling, a maritime expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
 

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
It is mutually assured economic destruction, stupid.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The US Cancelled a Scheduled FONOP in the South China Sea. What Now?
Instead of a FONOP, Washington chose to conduct fly-overs near Scarborough Shoal. What are the ramifications?


By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

April 27, 2016


The United States canceled a scheduled freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) in the South China Sea,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
According to a report published in theJournal Tuesday evening, in a bid to “lower the temperature” in the South China Sea while still demonstrating resolve to China over possibly intensifying activities near Scarborough Shoal, the United States chose not to hold a freedom of navigation operation this month and instead carried out air patrols near Scarborough Shoal.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the reported freedom of navigation operation in April would have been the third since the United States began challenging excessive maritime claims in the Spratly and Paracel Islands. One operation was held in October 2015, in the Spratly Islands, and another in January 2016, in the Paracels.

The circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the operation aren’t fully known, but it is likely that the United States wanted to manage the diplomatic fallout with China in the South China Sea. Instead of another FONOP, which would have drawn a negative reaction from the Chinese foreign ministry, as previous operations in the South China Sea have, the Obama administration chose to signal its support for the Philippines. U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was in the Philippines earlier this month.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, among other things, Carter’s visit was the first high-level U.S. official visit to the country–a U.S. ally–since the activation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which will allow U.S. forces rotational access to Philippines bases. Additionally, Carter became the first defense secretary to observe the bilateral U.S.-Philippine Balikatan exercises.

The other bit of context here is the growing concern in the United States that China could begin land reclamation activities at Scarborough Shoal in earnest soon. Scarborough Shoal was famously seized by China in 2012, after a highly publicized stand-off with the Philippines, which previously administered the waters around the feature. (See a more detailed discussion of the history and circumstances of possible
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.) With the cancellation of the FONOP, Washington diverted its energies toward “three different air patrols near Scarborough in recent days,” according to theJournal‘s report. U.S. A-10 Thunderbolt fighters and HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters were deployed from Clark Air Force base in the Philippines.

The cancellation of a scheduled freedom of navigation operation undermines earlier pledges by senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the patrols would become a regular occurrence in the South China Sea. The move also suggests that tensions between the Pentagon and the White House continue to persist over just how much of a cost the United States is willing to bear in the South China Sea with regard to its broader bilateral relationship with China. No doubt, the Scarborough Shoal overflights shortly after the Balikatan exercise with the Philippines had a desirable effect for the United States: They showed Washington’s resolve to Manila. (The two allies recently revealed the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.)

A reaction from the Chinese foreign ministry earlier this week to the flights near Scarborough Shoal was surprisingly muted. Hua Chunying, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, noted that “It is nothing strange for relevant planes to fly outside airspace adjacent to Huangyan Dao,” using the Chinese name for Scarborough Shoal. “Yet there is something unnatural with the high-profile hyping up of such a flight, and the reason why they did this is questionable,” she added. The Chinese foreign ministry hasn’t issued any further statements as of this writing; Hua’s reaction to the Scarborough fly-overs can be juxtaposed with the reactions from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The Chinese defense ministry’s statement was more forthright, using language similar to what we’d seen in the aftermath of FONOPs in the Spratlys and Paracels. “The Huangyan island is China’s inherent territory and the Chinese military will take all necessary measures to safeguard national sovereignty and security,” it said. The ministry added that China opposes “such actions by the U.S. which threaten sovereignty and security of countries around the South China Sea and undermine regional peace and stability.” Echoing what has become a refrain in recent Chinese statements on U.S. activities in the South China Sea, the defense ministry said “the U.S. is promoting militarization of the South China Sea in the name of ‘Freedom of Navigation.’”

From Washington’s perspective, cancelling the FONOP might not have been all that bad. After all, the post-Balikatan air patrols near Scarborough have a similar signaling effect toward China, all while reassuring the Philippines, an important U.S. ally. Moreover, China’s response to the Scarborough fly-overs suggests that Beijing is treating them as it would a FONOP. The defense ministry’s statement, in particular, uses language seen previously in the aftermath of both the October 2015 and January 2016 FONOPs. For an administration that’s highly sensitive to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, focusing on Scarborough may have been a more appealing option given the circumstances.

I do worry, however, that Washington’s cancellation of a scheduled FONOP may be more deleterious in the long run than the Obama administration may think. The administration has claimed–correctly–that the U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation program is a fairly mundane, regular, and universal activity. It isn’t something directed at China; indeed, previous FONOPs have protested excessive claims by other South China Sea claimants as well. Calling off an operation undermines this narrative and imbues FONOPs with a special sort of signaling value.

Finally, there is the possibility that the recent tensions around Scarborough and reports that China is surveying the area for land reclamation are a red herring of sorts. China has good reasons not to conduct land reclamation there. With the pending ruling inPhilippines v. China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration expected this June, Beijing is already set to suffer some reputational costs. Even though China has said it doesn’t recognize the Court’s jurisdiction, it would have little incentive to magnify its reputational damage with new reclamation activities at Scarborough Shoal. Additionally,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, an artificial island at Scarborough, unlike the seven artificial islands China has constructed in the Spratly Islands, would be built on a feature acquired coercively from another claimant. China has held its Spratly features since the 1980s.
 

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
This doesn't quite fit into rule based propaganda and customary international norms of irritating hypocrisy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China, Indonesia to boost security ties despite South China Sea spat


Chinese and Indonesian officials pledged to boost security ties, marine cooperation and infrastructure investment, state media reported on Tuesday, after a diplomatic spat over what Indonesia called a breach of its sovereignty by the Chinese coastguard.

subi-reef-located-in-the.jpg

Subi reef, located in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, is shown in this file handout CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative satellite image

BEIJING: Chinese and Indonesian officials pledged to boost security ties, marine cooperation and infrastructure investment, state media reported on Tuesday, after a diplomatic spat over what Indonesia called a breach of its sovereignty by the Chinese coastguard.

The report came after a meeting between Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi, who outranks the foreign minister, and Indonesia's chief security minister Luhut Pandjaitan. Pandjaitan is visiting China this week.

The two countries will strengthen defence ties including in anti-terrorism, law enforcement, curbing narcotics, as well as "marine cooperation", according to the official Xinhua news agency.

Jakarta and Beijing will also work together in the fields of railway, electric power, mining, aerospace, agriculture and fisheries, Xinhua added.

Indonesia attempted to detain a Chinese trawler it accused of fishing in its exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea, prompting the Chinese coastguard to intervene last month. China has said its vessels were operating in "traditional fishing grounds".

Indonesia is not embroiled in the rival claims with China over the South China Sea and has instead seen itself as an "honest broker" in disputes between China and the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.

Pandjaitan has previously said Indonesia would maintain good relations with China but "without sacrificing Indonesia's sovereignty", and had urged Chinese ships not to enter Indonesia's maritime territory near the northern Natuna Islands, where Indonesia said the incident took place.

China's increasingly assertive military posture in the South China Sea, a strategic shipping corridor that is also rich in fish and natural gas, has rattled the United States and its allies in Southeast Asia.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Such a line of argument is simply propaganda. The one who controls the waterways control the taps. It is an even more compelling agnostic argument given the situation to control the waterways from risk management as what China is attempting to do. However the prevailing and long established customary international law is that such waters are a global commons. The question of control should not even surface and hence the notion of FON.

@Brumby

There are 2 issues here:

1. Freedom of navigation
2. China's sovereignty claims

1. China fully subscribes to freedom of commercial navigation in the SCS.

And if China controls the taps of commerce in the SCS, most of the water flowing through these taps is actually China-related. That comes from China being the world's largest trading nation and being at the centre of the Asian trading network.

So we can rely on Chinese self-interest to keep the commercial shipping lanes open - unlike the US or Japan which would seek to close those shipping lanes in certain scenarios.

And if we talk about control of the oceans - note that the US Navy is very big on being able to go anywhere it pleases and control those waters - in the name of keeping the shipping lanes open.

2. The other issue is China's sovereignty claims - which are deliberately left vague and ambiguous.

Again, it's not in China's interests for an outright conflict to occur, but peacetime dominance of the SCS does allow China to use non-military or paramilitary means to mete out carrots or sticks.

Part of the reason why China has taken such a hard line with the Philippines is precisely because it clings too tightly to the USA and thinks it can ignore/defy China - so China is making sure they serve as an example. Look at how Cuba has been an example of American vindictiveness - but which does serve as an object lesson for the rest of Latin and South America.
 

joshuatree

Captain
Such a line of argument is simply propaganda. The one who controls the waterways control the taps. It is an even more compelling agnostic argument given the situation to control the waterways from risk management as what China is attempting to do. However the prevailing and long established customary international law is that such waters are a global commons. The question of control should not even surface and hence the notion of FON.

If China fully controlled the SCS, Japanese shipping is merely inconvenienced; Japan can avoid a blockade of the SCS by shipping out further east and sailing up through the Celebes Sea, Sulu Sea and international waterways of the Philippines.

The true chokepoint here is the Strait of Malacca.


......

And if China controls the taps of commerce in the SCS, most of the water flowing through these taps is actually China-related. That comes from China being the world's largest trading nation and being at the centre of the Asian trading network.

So we can rely on Chinese self-interest to keep the commercial shipping lanes open - unlike the US or Japan which would seek to close those shipping lanes in certain scenarios.

.....

The SCS as the equivalent of taps is actually more compelling when it comes to blockading shipping to/from China; not so with the other surrounding countries.

As already pointed out, shipping for Japan plus Taiwan and Philippines can be inconvenienced but not blockaded vis-a-vis SCS as the open Western Pacific is a perfectly sound alternate. Same can be said for South Korea and even the Russian Far East.

States like Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam may seem to be hemmed in by a SCS blockade at first but unless one is talking about blockading territorial waters of these countries, shipping can still be rerouted as such so it's again more an inconvenience than anything else. Also, a SCS blockade if implemented by China would logically be in the northern and central portions of the SCS. Malaysia and Vietnam would still have clear access in the southern portion of the SCS.

On the other hand, China's access to the oceans is either via ECS or SCS and any control of both by other powers is far more critical to the Chinese, considering the amount of trade China conducts via water.
 
Top