US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

solarz · Oct 28, 2015

It occurs to me that so far, China has mostly relied on its civilian law enforcement vessels to enforce its claims of sovereignty. Might we now be seeing PLAN ships patrolling the area instead?

The logical response to continued US intrusions into Chinese-claimed territorial waters is to further militarize the islands, something China has previously said they did not want to do. The US and PH will obviously protest such a move, but the rest of ASEAN might no longer be as objectionable to Chinese militarization of the islands now.

Jeff Head · Oct 28, 2015

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:
... it does appeared to be canned as repeated over some published articles.

...please don't make it sound like personal as referring to Brumby.

I simply indicated that you calling his comments, "canned," was not, IMHO, an appropriate way of handling dialog here on SD.

If you want to engage him about what he has to say...please do so.

But simply saying, and then punctuating, that, "those are canned remarks," adds very little, if anything, to the forum.

That is all.

Blackstone · Oct 28, 2015

Brumby said:
In a rule based environment, UNCLOS already provides a mechanism for resolving dispute over interpretation of its provisions and that is via an International Court. China does not avail of this because I believe the facts, and the substance of its position does not support such an interpretation. I believe China knows that having done due diligence.
As to the question whether it is reasonable for China to interpret it in a different way, I would like see you making a case to support such an interpretation.

China doesn't want to involve international courts because great powers generally shun instruments that impede their ability to get their way. Even if great powers feel confident of victory in the ICJ, they'd still avoid it if they don't need the political cover. Why complicate things when no one can effectively challenge you? It's the same line of reasoning US avoids ICJ when it doesn't benefit it, and ignore its rulings when results aren't to Washington's liking. You don't honestly expect Beijing to do differently, do you...?

This statement exactly is why a new world order that China aspires to take leadership is so problematic and potentially chaotic. China thinks might is right.

Can you tell me one great power that doesn't ultimately think might is right? I know it's hard for you to believe, but there's no reliable global 911, and nations do what they must to pursue their national interests.

Blitzo · Oct 28, 2015

Brumby said:
I am puzzle by this statement. Is it your personal opinion or is it your opinion of China's thinking? If it is the latter I can understand it because in China, judicial independence is highly questionable and unfortunately China sees the rest of world as simply an extension of how it should conduct its internal affairs. In a strictly rule based environment, the framework within which arbitration is considered is independent from the parties in dispute. In other words, power or the lack of by any particular party has no influence on the ruling of a case.

It is my own opinion that power can have significant influences on the ruling of a case and the formation of international norms and rules through indirect means, and sometimes direct means.

I'm not suggesting that China will use economic sanctions to threaten a court to rule in its favour -- nothing so obtuse or obvious.
But China may seek to over time, use its influence to generate a greater coalition of opinions and to indirectly influence the world order in other ways, until it has its pieces in place and is ready to put forward a case that it knows it will have a good chance of winning.

Blackstone · Oct 28, 2015

Brumby said:
I am puzzle by this statement. Is it your personal opinion or is it your opinion of China's thinking? If it is the latter I can understand it because in China, judicial independence is highly questionable and unfortunately China sees the rest of world as simply an extension of how it should conduct its internal affairs. In a strictly rule based environment, the framework within which arbitration is considered is independent from the parties in dispute. In other words, power or the lack of by any particular party has no influence on the ruling of a case.

Can you list one single nation of strong power that hasn't ignored so-called international laws when they're not convenient to national interests? Just one would do nicely.

Blitzo · Oct 28, 2015

solarz said:
It occurs to me that so far, China has mostly relied on its civilian law enforcement vessels to enforce its claims of sovereignty. Might we now be seeing PLAN ships patrolling the area instead?

The logical response to continued US intrusions into Chinese-claimed territorial waters is to further militarize the islands, something China has previously said they did not want to do. The US and PH will obviously protest such a move, but the rest of ASEAN might no longer be as objectionable to Chinese militarization of the islands now.

China has already had naval vessels in SCS there before the US, and before they tended to use coast guard vessels as the "active" role in contesting and asserting its sovereignty in more disputed parts of the SCS.

I can't see China changing that and wanting to use naval vessels for that job tbh, mostly because it's an unnecessary escalation which provides China no additional benefit imo compared to simply using its large fleet of large sized coast guard cutters.

Jeff Head · Oct 28, 2015

Guys, some of the prolonged discussion here (which is a good discussion BTW) has certainly veered away from the point of this thread.

IE the specific US Navy activities in the SCS, and relating PRC responses.

Later this evening I will move some of the discussion to the "Chinese SCS Strategy Page where it belongs and you can continue the discussion there.

Thanks

Blackstone · Oct 28, 2015

Bltizo said:
It is my own opinion that power can have significant influences on the ruling of a case and the formation of international norms and rules through indirect means, and sometimes direct means.

I'm not suggesting that China will use economic sanctions to threaten a court to rule in its favour -- nothing so obtuse or obvious.

Click to expand...

And why not? It's great for China and other powers if they could get away with it. What prevents such behavior is cost/benefit considerations in pursuance of national interests.

But China may seek to over time, use its influence to generate a greater coalition of opinions and to indirectly influence the world order in other ways, until it has its pieces in place and is ready to put forward a case that it knows it will have a good chance of winning.

Click to expand...

China will seek whatever works, and if it could find multiple options, then it'll choose the least destructive one that serves its interests. Why would it do anything else?

Blitzo · Oct 28, 2015

Blackstone said:
And why not? It's great for China and other powers if they could get away with it. What prevents such behavior is cost/benefit considerations in pursuance of national interests.

I don't think China will, because I think it would be difficult for China to get away with it, and the costs would probably be not worth the benefit in using this particular method. Though I suppose it depends on how much more powerful China becomes.

China will seek whatever works, and if it could find multiple options, then it'll choose the least destructive one that serves its interests. Why would it do anything else?

Agreed.

Blitzo · Oct 28, 2015

@Jeff Head, I think we already have far too many threads about the SCS, and I think that history has shown that discussions of a similar nature tend to be duplicated across all the SCS threads as the issues surrounding the SCS situation tends to boil down to a few consistent differences in opinion that we always end up reaching.

It may be worth having only a single unified thread on the SCS issue rather than so many.

US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

solarz

Brigadier

Jeff Head

General

Blackstone

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Blackstone

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jeff Head

General

Blackstone

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General