China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blackstone]

I have already addressed this in post #1086 and #1096. You are at liberty to offer under-cutters based on them.

We're going round and round, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Blackstone]

Please read the context of the author's comments in that article which is the source of my comments. Your comments do not suggest you understand my comments at best or plainly not made in good faith at worst.

I understood you quite well, and we simply don't agree. Let's then agree to disagree.

 

[Blackstone]

So in a nutshell, you want to stand up against China through an all powerful US proxy.
So my question to you is : Would it be in US interest to get trapped in a dispute that quickly turns hot? Will they be willing to put up a fight on your behalf?

It is in US interest to stay in Asia and not be pushed out by a rising power bent on regional dominance. It is in China's interests to have peace and external security, so it could concentrate on domestic development to reach what Xi Jinping called a "moderately well off" society. Additionally, it is in everyone's interest to avoid escalating strategic rivalry that all too often lead to conflicts. As for things turning hot, the American people don't want war and has no appetite to fight over tiny specs of rocks in the ECS and the SCS. There's every incentive for US and China to work out a strategic detente and every disincentive to invite trouble.

 

[no_name]

Runway almost finished.

 

[Ultra]

Yesterday, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman issued a formal protest at the United States’ actions in challenging its territorial clams.

“We urge the US to correct its error, remain rational and stop all irresponsible words and deeds,” Hua Chunying said. “Freedom of navigation and overflight by no means mean that foreign countries’ warships and military aircraft can ignore the legitimate rights of other countries as well as the safety of aviation and navigation.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[advill]

Runway almost finished.

 

[advill]

Clear photos of the reclamation of the reefs for military use and action. The Chinese will in due course also implement its ADZ. This is its next course of dominating the South China Sea and Air space, regardless of claims by Philippines & Vietnam and others. What can the US and the effected parties in the territorial disputes do? The test of wills will be unfolded sooner than later.

 

[Blackstone]

Before you rush headlong with your comments you should at least ensure you actually understand what I have posted before replying. I did not say China violated passage in this post but I am happy to point out it did attempt to restrict overflight passage in the P8-A incident that I pointed out in a another post.

It is the bold portion that makes me wonder if you've lost it. What were the circumstances over the so-called restrictions? Do you have all the facts or just the portions CNN and USN provided? Are either of the two entirely reliable? Could either be mistaken? Without all the facts, you're just guessing and inserting fantasies for reality.

I did not in this post define China's claim as an excessive maritime claim. This is your interpretation. This is what I said " The FON was a push back on excessive maritime claims because international law places a higher weighting on acts and the danger of implicit acceptance by lack of action." I was explaining the nature of the FON program and its purpose. Having said that I did specifically state "China has by fiat i.e. declared sovereignty over an area without even bothering to make its case under international law" I stand by those words and I welcome you to challenge my assertion if they are not factually correct. However I wish to point out that you are selectively taking different sentences and concocting something that I did not say.

Oh come on, be intellectually honest at least; I tried give you the benefit of the doubt. Your rants against China's UNCLOS positions and SCS actions were based on excessive maritime claims, whether they be land feature sovereignty, "blue national soil," or opting out of UNCLOS arbitration.

 

[Blackstone]

Clear photos of the reclamation of the reefs for military use and action. The Chinese will in due course also implement its ADZ. This is its next course of dominating the South China Sea and Air space, regardless of claims by Philippines & Vietnam and others. What can the US and the effected parties in the territorial disputes do? The test of wills will be unfolded sooner than later.

Agreed on China's aim is to create Chi-roe Doctrine. The danger is both US and China behave as if the golden handcuffs are on the other guy, so they're not on the same page for risk assessment. And then there are the cudgel waiving Neanderthals on both sides hawking confrontations between nuclear armed states. Reminds me of the ending of Dr. Stranglove.

 

[joshuatree]

There is no provision in UNCLOS or in international law the concept of a military zone in the high seas (that is lawlessness).

Though UNCLOS does allow artificial islands with an EEZ, it also allows artificial islands in the high seas related to continental shelves, and provide a safety zone of 500 meters around artificial installations. So China has to retune their zone but the US needs to mindful of this as well when wanting to challenge the zone.

The freedom of navigation (FON) program was an outcome and response to the challenges arising from UNCLOS. The challenges had always been some states including China pushing its own interpretation on the convention.

The history of UNCLOS consisted of huge disagreements on rights of coastal states vs maritime powers in EEZ waters. That is why UNCLOS purposefully left certain issues vague in order for it to even move forward to where it is today. But in doing so, what is happening now is not a simple black and white issue. US FON itself is a unilateral action. It may refer back to Article 87 in UNCLOS but the US itself has not ratified UNCLOS and UNCLOS FON says nothing about surveillance being conducted upon respective coastal state as a right or part of right to navigate.