China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Jeff Head]

I deleted a bunch of posts here for two reasons.

1) This is a China Strategy Thread...the bulk of the deletions were posts about what the US should od, or about US Strategies. They were off topic and they were also leading to the 2nd reason.

2) Post are getting heated and personal in nature. Either keep it professional and above board...or go home.

I urge all posters to remain rational, to not get insulting at all, and to not allow the thread to either get derailed, or devolve into pure argument, emotion, etc.

If it continues, there will be warnings, suspensions, and either temporary or permanent closing of the thread.

We have two other threads on this issue (one a SCS Island and Baser Thread in the Chinese Navy Forum, and the other a SCS Strategy Thread for Non-Chinese nations in the world Military Forum), and I know sometimes the arguments and accusations, etc. tend to gravitate to the other threads.

Do not do this. it will only lead to all of them being negatively impacted.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THOS MODERATION

 

[Brumby]

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 think you are just in denial overwhelm. We deal with facts as presented and in accordance with plain reading and understanding of it in drawing a reasonable conclusion. If your standard of evidence requires an ICJ type enquiry to establish all the facts and evidence then it is not a conversation worth continuing. Are you suggesting that either or both the CNN and the USN are fabricating facts as presented? There is a recorded transcript of the conversation. It is plainly in international waters because any issue of whether it is within 12 nm or outside any zone is irrelevant simply because the whole situation is in dispute and there is no basis to establish any zone given its questionable legitimacy. That is simply derived logic. This is a point that you are well aware because you used this as angle in attempting to corner me (but unsuccessfully) in asserting that I said (which I did not) that China's claims was excessive.

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.

I have already directly responded to your assertions on this. If you have issues with my reply I would suggest you deal precisely with my reply and not rephrase the issue as if I did not deal directly with it.

 

[Blackstone]

I think you are just in denial overwhelm. We deal with facts as presented and in accordance with plain reading and understanding of it in drawing a reasonable conclusion. If your standard of evidence requires an ICJ type enquiry to establish all the facts and evidence then it is not a conversation worth continuing. Are you suggesting that either or both the CNN and the USN are fabricating facts as presented? There is a recorded transcript of the conversation. It is plainly in international waters because any issue of whether it is within 12 nm or outside any zone is irrelevant simply because the whole situation is in dispute and there is no basis to establish any zone given its questionable legitimacy. That is simply derived logic. This is a point that you are well aware because you used this as angle in attempting to corner me (but unsuccessfully) in asserting that I said (which I did not) that China's claims was excessive.

Facts are something you refuse to deal with on your continued denial of UNCLOS clauses China legitimately opted out. As for CNN/USN fabricating facts, nope I don't believe the information they presented were false. But what was edited out? We saw just a few minutes out of hours of recordings, and even what CNN showed us was edited to maximize *drum roll* 'the China threat.' Could events be exactly as described by CNN? Maybe. But, could reasonable people suspect CNN and USN of agenda management for public consumption? You don't think so, but I stipulated "reasonable people."

I have already directly responded to your assertions on this. If you have issues with my reply I would suggest you deal precisely with my reply and not rephrase the issue as if I did not deal directly with it.

You didn't deal honestly with China legitimately opting out of portions of UNCLOS. Proclaiming "disingenuous" intent, based not on facts but on emotions, don't cut the muster.

 

[Brumby]

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.

UNCLOS is very clear on freedom of navigation simply because it is an extension of customary time honoured principle of the laws of the sea. What UNCLOS did is codified and resulted in the creation of the EEZ which in legal terms is zone sui generis. It is unique and consequently the convention specifically defined the term sovereign rights vs. sovereign to account for what rights a coastal state can exercise within that zone. What you are suggesting about retuning a zone has no legal standing in international law nor allowed for in UNCLOS. Your mention of a safety zone does not attached to it the same rights as a zone in territory seas. What you are saying is untenable - legally.

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.

Whilst is an often push back against the US for not ratifying UNCLOS it should also be noted that in response to UNCLOS, President Reagan also expressed (I believe in writing) that the US will respect the terms of UNCLOS.

With regards to the issue of surveillance and freedom of navigation, it is important to distinguish between territory seas, EEZ and the high seas. There are various articles in the convention dealing with it depending on the zone. As is, military activities within the EEZ is generally accepted as a legal position. There are some states including China which has pushed for a broader definition but the former view currently prevails.

With regards to the legal positions I would refer you to the following :
Volume 90 International Law Review on the subject of Military activities in the EEZ. It discussed at length the legal arguments including the counter position and why that position is not the dominant view.
Volume 90 International Law Review titled "The Bull in the China Shop". It deals with legal issues including rights of passage and overflight and discussed at length China's ADIZ in ESC and why it is not in conformity with international law; and the Cowpen incident.
Volume 80 International Law Review titled "The legal efficacy of freedom of navigation assertion. The focus of this is on legal issues relating to excessive maritime claims.
Volume 84 International Law Review. This volume focuses on Laws of the sea and various maritime issues
Volume 66. International Law review. This volume is specifically dedicated to excessive maritime claims. It is a 396 page document that covers all the legal issues generated from Historic Bays, Contiguous Zones, EEZ, Continental Shelves to overflight restrictions.

What I am trying to convey, the legal issues are well considered even though there might be disagreement on interpretation.

 

[Blackstone]

UNCLOS is very clear on freedom of navigation simply because it is an extension of customary time honoured principle of the laws of the sea. ... yada yada

You keep going to UNCLOS, but it actually has no place in current SCS sovereignty disputes, because China legally opted out of it. Stick with facts as they are and not with how you wish them to be.

 

[Brumby]

You keep going to UNCLOS, but it actually has no place in current SCS sovereignty disputes, because China legally opted out of it. Stick with facts as they are and not with how you wish them to be.

You actually don't know what you are talking about. I suggest you actually read up on the subject so that you do know. UNCLOS allows ratification by reservations. That is what China did i.e. it made reservations to section 2 of Article XV (which covers disputes) and to Article 298 paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c). What all that means in layman terms is that UNCLOS within its conventions require any disputes to be settled peacefully and according to the different methods outlined in Article 298 paragraph 1. Countries can opt out of being subject to compulsory mediation as specified under the methods in Article 298 and that was what China did - period. All it means China committed to fulfil that obligation according to terms it would agree with.

Notwithstanding, there is a dispute and still subject to international law and UNCLOS except China needs to come forth with its case. Alternatively it is pure aggression and lawlessness.

 

[Zool]

I think it would be helpful to take a more objective view of these events to understand some members positions and more importantly China's. A couple of examples follow:

Your earlier posts in this thread chastised China for opting out of portions of UNCLOS. It seemed you were unaware it had the right to do so and that other nations had done the same, until it was pointed out to you. Later in a quote below, you apply much less judgement to the US position and it's not having ratified the treaty at all.

Whilst is an often push back against the US for not ratifying UNCLOS it should also be noted that in response to UNCLOS, President Reagan also expressed (I believe in writing) that the US will respect the terms of UNCLOS.

The second quote from you discusses China's ADIZ in the East China Sea and perceived legality, without acknowledging Japan's own long standing ADIZ and China's move in response to it and Japanese actions with regard to the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands.

Volume 90 International Law Review titled "The Bull in the China Shop". It deals with legal issues including rights of passage and overflight and discussed at length China's ADIZ in ESC and why it is not in conformity with international law; and the Cowpen incident.

The point being, Chinese actions are not occurring in a vacuum and are more often than not made in response to prior actions of other nations which it finds unfair, opposite to it's national interest, and in many cases -- hypocritical. That is the mindset from which China is pursuing it's strategies. The way some of your arguments have been carried, share that same hypocritical feeling, hence the responses you are receiving.

 

[Blackstone]

You actually don't know what you are talking about. I suggest you actually read up on the subject so that you do know. UNCLOS allows ratification by reservations. That is what China did i.e. it made reservations to section 2 of Article XV (which covers disputes) and to Article 298 paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c). What all that means in layman terms is that UNCLOS within its conventions require any disputes to be settled peacefully and according to the different methods outlined in Article 298 paragraph 1. Countries can opt out of being subject to compulsory mediation as specified under the methods in Article 298 and that was what China did - period. All it means China committed to fulfil that obligation according to terms it would agree with.

Notwithstanding, there is a dispute and still subject to international law and UNCLOS except China needs to come forth with its case. Alternatively it is pure aggression and lawlessness.

Wrong! You don't know what the hell you're talking about. UNCLOS doesn't deal with sovereignty, in this case, and China is under no obligation to accept UNCLOS. I thank you to understand that.

 

[Brumby]

I think it would be helpful to take a more objective view of these events to understand some members positions and more importantly China's.

I appreciate your effort in making the point from a different perspective and is well taken by me. Fundamentally while it might seem that I am bias, my focus is primarily issues related. This means focusing the conversation to specific thread issues or else it would be rather unmanageable regardless of the merits of other related issues e.g. Senkaku issue as you highlighted. That issue should have its place in another thread if forum members wish to engage in a discussion. That doesn't mean I would insert myself in it and that primarily is driven by whether I actually have anything to contribute.

Secondly we are all ideologically align in some shape or form. I recognise it and do not have any issue with opposing or different views. What I encourage and I make a point of it is that people defend those views. That means on the merits of its position rather than adopting excuses of other events. Whilst there might be valid reasons for it but fundamentally each case needs to rest upon the intrinsic value of its own case grounded upon the principle of case by case.

A couple of examples follow:

Your earlier posts in this thread chastised China for opting out of portions of UNCLOS. It seemed you were unaware it had the right to do so and that other nations had done the same, until it was pointed out to you. Later in a quote below, you apply much less judgement to the US position and it's not having ratified the treaty at all.

I was aware of China opting out and my initial comments were actually based on that premise. When it was pointed out to me that others had done so, I just dealt with it on the basis of what was most expedient and i.e. fundamentally in principle it was recalcitrant behaviour and that was my descriptive word. The alternative prospect was to examine each country's reservation (including that of Australia) as they are all different and have different implications and then to comment on each of them is not something I was prepared to do.

Regarding the US position and which you may disagree (and that is fine), my view is that although it did not ratify it, the US committed to uphold it. If there are any criticism to be had, it should be on the basis of any US deviation from that commitment rather than just the act of ratification. I can point out to you whilst there are many countries that had ratified but actually not abiding by some of the terms. In short my view is judgement should be based on behaviour and not mere ratification.

The second quote from you discusses China's ADIZ in the East China Sea and perceived legality, without acknowledging Japan's own long standing ADIZ and China's move in response to it and Japanese actions with regard to the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands.

Addressed generally above. Having said that I would like to briefly mentioned why China's ADIZ in ESC is not in conformity with international practice. The first is in the overlap of airspace and secondly and more importantly, in-transit flights are not subject to it but only aircraft intending to enter sovereign airspace. This is to be consistent with international right of passage and delimitation of sovereign borders.

 

[Blackstone]

Addressed generally above. Having said that I would like to briefly mentioned why China's ADIZ in ESC is not in conformity with international practice. The first is in the overlap of airspace and secondly and more importantly, in-transit flights are not subject to it but only aircraft intending to enter sovereign airspace. This is to be consistent with international right of passage and delimitation of sovereign borders.

And how exactly does China's ADIZ overlap? A country can't overlap its own space.