South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

SamuraiBlue said:

In the eyes of the world especially nations that depends free passage of the area, that is a very poor and selfish excuse to ENCROACH international waters claiming as their own placing missiles that is regarded as potential hostile provocations against any nation that are against PRC's claims.

Click to expand...

Joint management and exploitation of the area does not necessarily preclude the free flow of civilian traffic in the area. In fact that is the last thing anyone of the claimants in the area would want to happen considering how much these nations depend on maritime trade.
And as for placing weapons, lets not forget that it was Vietnam and Taiwan that got the ball rolling first by placing their own first.
But nevertheless this is my opinion on the matter. And I still stick to it as the most optimal solution out of this mess of a issue.

Viktor Jav said:

Yeah but I am not citing international rules here am I. As far as I am concerned, the validity of these so called rules have been kicked out of the door a long time ago by the actions of all the participants in the matter and how unfairly such rules are applied in other preceding matters. To much fait accompli had been done to revert matters back to where they were before. The best way forward would be a compromise that gives all the participants no good excuse to renegade on it.

Click to expand...

The best compromise is for all ridiculous claims to be accepted as moot and void in light of UNCLOS.
As I said before, there is no treaty stating you cannot dig oil in international waters. You just don't have exclusivity to it.

SamuraiBlue said:

The best compromise is for all ridiculous claims to be accepted as moot and void in light of UNCLOS.
As I said before, there is no treaty stating you cannot dig oil in international waters. You just don't have exclusivity to it.

Click to expand...

Considering how the UNCLOS had be so disparaged and rendered impotent by so many reservations and outright violations, I am surprised that peoplestill attempt to hide behind the tattered remains of it.
While it is a common reaction to revert back to rules in a pinch, all rules have exceptions and in this case the SCS very much warrants one. Joint exploitation and management of the area can bring great economic progress for claimants involved. Civilian traffic will not be impede and for military ones, well there is always the sulawesi strait to traverse.
And if this compromise can avoid a conflict while getting all parties a slice of the pie, I don't see why the world should throw a fit about it.

SamuraiBlue said:

In the eyes of the world especially nations that depends free passage of the area, that is a very poor and selfish excuse to ENCROACH international waters claiming as their own placing missiles that is regarded as potential hostile provocations against any nation that are against PRC's claims.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. It IS indeed selfish. But that's exactly it. If it weren't for China being selfish, it would be someone else. There is simply no realistic way this area can ever remain politically neutral and offer free shipping lanes for all that depend on it. China will not allow this to happen because they have good reasons to be suspicious of the US. You may choose to disagree with that assessment but China certainly feels differently and no one can convince them otherwise so it's not going to budge. China is just choosing to place its own interests ahead of Vietnam's and Philippines. Also once China gets sovereignty if that ever happens, you can bet they will refrain from blocking ships because it has ZERO reason to do so and if it were to ever do that, it would never hear the end of it and possibly face military consequences from ALL neighbouring countries plus USA. Therefore from China's POV, it's better that it is in charge rather than leave a power vacuum.

You can call it selfish, but so are the alternatives when we can agree that there is no possible way the US will ever leave Asia alone as long as there's a Taiwan issue and North Korea issue. If those were resolved, then it would have less reason to have such military presence in Japan and S.Korea. But we can bet it will stay because it wants to have forward operating spheres against both China and Russia. Since there's no possible way for this area to become free from Chinese or US influence, then one has to fill it, and obviously China rather it be China. So the US is now actively pursuing different ways overcoming this problem. It's trademark moves for military engagement is too risky since this is one country that may be able to fight back effectively, so it has to use other tools. We're not in disagreement about the principles or politics relating to this issue. I think many just refuse to have any empathy from China's POV. Of course this doesn't invalidate everyone else's opinions but it does mean both sides will eventually bump into each other and there's no resolution in sight. China definitely does not want this to escalate into any sort of shooting fight (partly because it is less capable of one) but we'll see if it's prepared to go into one if it is the only path.

All of this is entirely ignoring China's better historical claims for those islands, compared against Vietnam and Philippines' claims. Neither side have any reasons for claims that are founded in international law or historical records. So if anything, these islands should either become Chinese sovereignty or remain independent of any nation or group. Going to Vietnam and/Philippines is an absolute disgrace for China. The political consequences of losing face for the CCP is not something they can survive. Chinese nationalists are growing in numbers and are demanding the CCP stand up to fights. Everyone's stuck in a difficult position but at the moment it seems like 1. China can take them if the US relinquishes, or 2. we can leave things be and let China continue fortifying the region since it's easier for them being next door, or 3. we can head to WW3. None of the above are great options from the US' perspective which is why they are choosing option 2 with continued "freedom of navigation" routines (until the day China grows militarily competent enough AND trigger happy - unlikely) while they use other means to contain China's development.

Chinese leaders are all too happy to continue fortifying islands while building up their military. The only thing they need to do is keep domestic matters calm and groups unified, while deflecting US attempts at slowing down the economy. Time is on their side. This is exactly why we see this trade war happening and western media coming out with totally exaggerated BS stories about China locking up millions of muslims which is obvious fake news propaganda attempt to anyone with half a functioning brain. If anyone wonders about it, think about what China has to gain from spending billions to lock up millions of its own otherwise economically productive citizens?? Not to mention something like 7% of the local population would have alleged been locked up. That's nearly half of all the men in the 30 to 50 age group in that region all being locked up by the evil communists LOL. All of this with nothing to gain and a lot of goodwill to lose. US likes picking on these sensitive spots. Good old Anglo strategy of divide and conquer, it keeps working because people are dumb and easily manipulated.

The reality is a few thousands (most accurate and fair reports indicate between 4000 and 5000 individuals in total) were sent to the "commie re-education camps" because many if not most are potential fanatics who have been fighting in Syria and intend to cause great social unrest. China does take a "harsh" stance on people like this and takes no chances at all (guilty until proven innocent attitude for everyone) but they sure don't discriminate. Doesn't matter if you're a typical eastern Han looking Fa Lun Gong practitioner or a christian spreading anti-government material, or an illegal narcotics supplier. The Chinese can determine their own methods because it's their call. Zero place for any outsider to comment. China never talks about how the US have heaps of school shooters and African Americans in prison... that must indicate a defective system no? Well Russian propaganda certainly does lay into the Americans but China has so far, stayed above this.

ougoah said:

All of this is entirely ignoring China's better historical claims for those islands, compared against Vietnam and Philippines' claims. ...

Click to expand...

my take on "historical claims" etc. May 24, 2018

Jura said:

I'm a half-day flight away from the SCS, but I can't imagine WHAT IF now Sweden/Germany/Russia started to reclaim the Baltic Sea

(just in case: in not that distant past, either of those countries possessed almost all of the enclosed land around that sea, so they might present 'historic claims' to all of it, I guess; by the way also Denmark/Poland had been very strong in the area, earlier than the three mentioned, but still)

and put on military assets like large airports, big radars etc. ... I said WHAT IF because all these countries except Russia are in EU ...

I know the SCS is like ten times bigger than the Baltic Sea, it's not just China reclaiming (for example

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), anyway I don't understand why the US didn't challenge China

I hope you won't take it as warmongering or something, I've read about Wars (just some of them, of course) in the Baltic Sea area since around 1000 until 1945, but this is not what I mean, I mean many countries might draw their 'X-dash' line and began reclaiming huh?

Click to expand...

Jura said:

my take on "historical claims" etc. May 24, 2018

Click to expand...

Are there unclaimed islands in the Baltic Sea? If so which ones? If not, then it's not comparable at all.

If there are islands which could be a source of dispute amongst those nations, it is still not fair to make a direct comparison because none of those countries are considered a threat by the US with the only exception of Russia. So if we look at Russia, the Baltic Sea does not represent an area which is strategic importance to its national security at the moment. If NATO and the US were to constantly harass Russia with exercises and military bases all around that region, maybe Russia would act differently. Then consider how much resources Russia can be reasonably expected to pour into such an eventuality? China only very recently started preparations for defending its interests in SCS. Russia does not have the finances to carry it out even if it were so inclined. But the US has given it no reason to worry and honestly I am not familiar with any islands there that can come under dispute, so the entire premise for encroachment by any party is out of the question.

US games played against Russia are somewhat different to the ones they are trying against China. Russia has responded to US aggression in other ways. China has responded in the SCS.

ougoah said:

Are there unclaimed islands in the Baltic Sea? If so which ones? If not, then it's not comparable at all.

If ...

Click to expand...

I don't mean to mix apples with oranges (the Baltic Sea is more like a pond LOL when compared to the SCS), but there's a number of shoals in it;

(I quickly found the list in Polish wiki (), but not in English)

the point is if any country from the region began to reclaim any of these shoals (no country would), several other countries might present their "historic claims"

Well whatever Pandora's box that fiasco might be, no European nation really wants to intentionally antagonise Russia any further. Also the US is not encroaching on that region as much as it was trying to get involved in eastern Europe. We saw how Russia firmly reacted there. SCS for China is a similarly important region. Unfortunately so.

The reason for the historic claims, and one difference here is, Vietnam and Philippines do not have any historic claims for those islands. In fact they should have zero claims. Their position is now trying to stop China from claiming them. For the Baltic situation, at least the involved nations have some historical basis for claims if they were to ever bring them up.

I was going to let it be, but changed my mind after this sentence of yours:

ougoah said:

The reason for the historic claims, and one difference here is, Vietnam and Philippines do not have any historic claims for those islands.

Click to expand...

reading
Philippine Claims in the South China
Sea: A Legal Analysis

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(sorry about formatting):

"The Philippines has asserted claims to Scarborough Shoal as well a collection of
50 [Spratly island] features which are known collectively as the Kalayaan island
group (KIG). The Philippine claims to
sovereignty over the features known as
Scarborough Shoal and the KIG are independent of its archipelagic status both
legally and historically.

Because Scarborough Shoal is a feature which
exists above high tide, it is capable
of [sovereign] appropriation under international law. Historical evidence
surrounding this particular
feature is unpersuasive: most
mariners charted this
feature only in order to caution vessels to remain well clear of it since it was a
hazard to navigation. Similarly, the presence of itinerant fishermen from either
China or the Philippines is legally insufficient to establish a legal presence.
However, there is evidence that the Philippines and the U.S. Navy visited the
feature, charted it, and exercised law enforcement jurisdiction over the features.
That evidence is hardly a legal “slam dunk,” but the evidence supporting
Philippine sovereignty appears stronger.
The fact that it is 400 nautical miles
closer to the Philippines than to China
and well within the Philippine EEZ weighs
in on this determination.

The KIG claim is much like the Chinese nine-dash-line claim which China (and
the Republic of China) uses to justify its
claims to features and waterspace. Using
this methodology to claim territories in large areas of water is not, standing alone,
likely to be regarded as legally sufficient to establish sovereignty over ocean
territories. By contrast, the claim of
Vietnam devolves from a legal annexation
document issued by the French in 1933 that has specific coordinates and affects
specific territories."

Click to expand...

doesn't sound to me like Vietnam and Philippines had nothing