South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Jeff Head said:

Soon, the people arguing may perhaps start cooperating instead, and conducting Joint Anti-Piracy operations in the SCS.

I would much rather see that.

Click to expand...

With the discovery of a newly formed island in Luconia Breakers, I'd say the shouting and hollering will continue unabated. If anything, things will get even nastier as US inserts itself in the sovereignty disputes.

Blackstone said:

With the discovery of a newly formed island in Luconia Breakers, I'd say the shouting and hollering will continue unabated. If anything, things will get even nastier as US inserts itself in the sovereignty disputes.

Click to expand...

Well, as I have said, there is not really much the US can do to halt China's activities in the SCS.

The US can talk, it can try and get other nations onboard, it can go to the UN, etc., etc.

But the fact is, the reclamation is a fait accompli.

The dredging and material construction on those reefs is not something that the US can really stop at this point. The PRC has the capability and the will to do it. The PRC can put radars on each and every one of those new islands and give the world good safety and anti-piracy, etc. reasons for doing so.

Short of a total economic boycott (which is not likely because it would be a two edged sword hurting the US as much if not more), or direct military intervention (which short of the PRC doing something really stupid is not going to happen) the US is incapable of stopping that type of work. The only possible course I see is to form a international commercial consortium that helps the other claimants build tit for tat in the SCS to match the PRC. But this is unlikely because getting everyone together would be difficult, expensive, and the US currently does not have the leadership (IMHO) to pull it together.

But, this anti-piracy thing could work to EVRYONE's advantage. IMHO, if the US were going to be smart in international relations, it would be the first to propose a multi-national effort, including China, to root out and rid the area of these pirates, and then establish international patrols for the future to ensure they never come back.

In that way everyone has a legitimate, common interest reason to have their assets in the area, stopping piracy and keeping an eye on each other in a way that benefits them all...and allows their personnel to work together and establish multi-lateral relationships.

Looks like Vietnam is the "biggest aggressor" in the SCS, from land feature occupation perspective, but given all the wolf-crying in the last few months, you'd think it was China. The linked article claims Vietnam was the only nation to aggressively expanding its holdings from 2009-2014, and if true, it supports Beijing's position that it avoided confrontations until recently.

The item that's most troubling isn't Vietnam's assertive behavior to achieve its national interests, but the fact that US thought it was acceptable for Hanoi to aggressively expand, but not for Beijing to respond. It also suggests US recently changed its posture from hedging to 66% containment. I say 66% because of political, economic, and military spheres, US can't impose economic containment, so it has to balance on two legs of the three-leg stool.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In 1996, Vietnam occupied 24 features in the Spratly Islands (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). At that time, according to the same source, China occupied nine. By 2015, according to the United States government, Vietnam occupied 48 features, and China occupied eight.

On May 13, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, David Shear, said

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to the Senate Foreign relations Committee: “Vietnam has 48 outposts; the Philippines, 8; China, 8; Malaysia, 5, and Taiwan, 1.”

In the past 20 years, according to the United States, China has not physically occupied additional features. By contrast, Vietnam has doubled its holdings, and much of that activity has occurred recently. The Vietnamese occupations appear to have increased from 30 to 48 in the last six years.

Shear also pointed out that as of his speech, China did not have an airfield as other claimants did. He said:

All of these same claimants have also engaged in construction activity of differing scope and degree. The types of outpost upgrades vary across claimants but broadly are comprised of land reclamation, building construction and extension, and defense emplacements. Between 2009 and 2014, Vietnam was the most active claimant in terms of both outpost upgrades and land reclamation, reclaiming approximately 60 acres. All territorial claimants, with the exception of China and Brunei, have also already built airstrips of varying sizes and functionality on disputed features in the Spratlys.



It appears China has now built an airfield and that this was already visible in April 2015, when the Daily Mail

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“images showed a paved section of runway 505m by 53m on the northeastern side” of Fiery Cross Reef. Now media pundits are engaged in a debate about how many acres China has reclaimed, suggesting that China has been more aggressive than Vietnam because it has reclaimed more acres.

The statement by Shear in May puts additional critical light on the suggestion of some in the United States that China is not only making “preposterous” claims but is being the most aggressive actor in the territorial disputes (see:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Shear specifically said that between 2009 and 2014, Vietnam had been the most active. This helps us understand what Chinese military leaders mean when they say China has shown “great restraint.”

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Well, as I have said, there is not really much the US can do to halt China's activities in the SCS.

The US can talk, it can try and get other nations onboard, it can go to the UN, etc., etc.

But the fact is, the reclamation is a fait accompli

Click to expand...

But, not on the newly formed island in Luconia Breakers. Beijing might let things quiet down a bit, but at some point in the future, it may expand the new and naturally formed island. The difference this time is Malaysia and the US should be ready for Beijing's action, and may have forces in place long before the reclamation flotilla sails from port. The question is what will US/Malaysia do, and what happens if the industrial dredgers and sand casters are accompanied, not by white hulls, but grey ones?

Blackstone said:

On Luconia Breakers. Beijing might let things quiet down a bit, but at some point in the future, it may expand the new and naturally formed island. The difference this time is Malaysia and the US should be ready for Beijing's action, and may have forces in place long before the reclamation flotilla sails from port. The question is what will US/Malaysia do, and what happens if the industrial dredgers and sand casters are accompanied, not by white hulls, but grey ones?

Click to expand...

If the attempt is made on something that is clearly, internationally recognized as Malaysia's reef/property/territory, then the potential for conflict would be there.

But I do not think the PRC is doing that. The reefs they have been working on are almost entirely ones that have claimed and occupied for long periods.

In such a situation, I simple do not believe the US will go tow war to stop them from dredging and performing reclamation on something that most people would say that the Chinese won anyway.

The only thing that nations like Malaysia can do, is ensure that they have a presence on the reefs/islands that are recognized as theirs, or that they have claimed and occupied for a long time.

Then improve those places like the PRC is doing theirs.

If that is the case, then I believe the US will exercise whatever treaties and agreements it has in place with such nations, to help them protect those.

But I do not see this issue as being about that type of confrontation. China is wisely avoiding any trappings of that and has been working on things that most consider to be theirs in any case.

I have an excellent photo album on Flickr, and an in depth desctiption of the PRC's Reclamation efforts in the South China Sea.

If focuses on all seven major PRC reclamation projects showing current photos of the islands, and allowing you yto compare what you see now to the small structures that the PRC had in each location in 2012 or earlier.

.Amazing pictures and an amazing construction effort by the PRC in the south China Sea.

Jeff Head said:

I have an excellent photo album on Flickr, and an in depth desctiption of the PRC's Reclamation efforts in the South China Sea.

If focuses on all seven major PRC reclamation projects showing current photos of the islands, and allowing you yto compare what you see now to the small structures that the PRC had in each location in 2012 or earlier.

.Amazing pictures and an amazing construction effort by the PRC in the south China Sea.

View attachment 14851

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

Click to expand...

Very detailed and fact-based information, abscent of bias or agendas. Kudos, Mr. Head!

Blackstone said:

Looks like Vietnam is the "biggest aggressor" in the SCS, from land feature occupation perspective, but given all the wolf-crying in the last few months, you'd think it was China. The linked article claims Vietnam was the only nation to aggressively expanding its holdings from 2009-2014, and if true, it supports Beijing's position that it avoided confrontations until recently.

The item that's most troubling isn't Vietnam's assertive behavior to achieve its national interests, but the fact that US thought it was acceptable for Hanoi to aggressively expand, but not for Beijing to respond. It also suggests US recently changed its posture from hedging to 66% containment. I say 66% because of political, economic, and military spheres, US can't impose economic containment, so it has to balance on two legs of the three-leg stool.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

One could say that's Vietnam's strategy - encourage a rival claimant (Philippines) to take on China (800lb gorilla) while hedging by expanding as much under the radar as possible. This isn't about an ideological battle (democracy vs communism) so for the US, it's about making sure it stays #1 (can't necessarily fault any country for that). And because of that, it primarily looked the other way when it comes to Vietnam's actions.

But China only did start reclamation of such magnitude in 2014 so for 5 years prior, it was watching Vietnam occupy and build. One has to review some past articles and wonder if it's not so far out there anymore. One Global Time article listed below Vietnam's weapons deployment. So the recent hoopla about China deploying mobile artillery on their newly reclaimed land, what's so different?

A photo set featured in the Hanoi-based Vietnam Pictorial shows nine of the main nine islands and reefs administered by Vietnam have 23mm anti-aircraft guns; six of them have 37mm anti-aircraft guns, five have 85mm cannons and two of them have 122mm howitzers and 130mm cannons; six of the islands have Russian made T-54/55 medium tanks, four have the Russian-made PT-76 amphibious light tank, totaling around 120 guns and 60 medium tanks. On Spratly Island and Namyit Island the Vietnamese army have a 122mm howitzer battalion, an 85mm cannon company, an 130mm cannon company, two to three 23mm or 37mm anti-aircraft gun companies and a tank company. Military helicopters can take off from and land on at least five of the islands and reefs.

Click to expand...

The presence of large Chinese islands, even a small number, makes cooperation with China in winning oil and gas in the area more attractive than doing so against Chinese opposition. As China already offered to share with the other claimants China wouldn't win anything if it drove out the outposts of the other countries.
So China is winning all it wants by just going on as it is doing and eventually reaching agreements with these countries. US is only delaying these agreements.

I don't remember if anyone had posted any of these two papers:

A CNA Occasional Paper
Malaysia and Brunei: An Analysis of their Claims in the South China Sea
J. Ashley Roach
With a Foreword by CNA Senior Fellow Michael McDevitt
August 2014



By Prashanth Parameswaran
Playing It Safe:
Malaysia’s Approach to the South China Sea and Implications for the United States
F E B R UA R Y 2 015
MARITIME STRATEGY SERIES