China's SCS Strategy Thread

ahojunk

Senior Member
Once the kangaroo court says that Taiping Island is a rock, all its credibility went out the door.
Below is a piece by the former President of Taiwan.

--------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Taiwan rejects the court’s decision, which was not based on all the facts.

BN-PC334_Ma_fea_M_20160726112342.jpg
Taiwanese fishermen display flags and placards before departing to Taiping island, part of the disputed Spratly Islands chain in the South China Sea, at a fishing harbour in southern Pingtung on July 20. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

By MA YING-JEOU
July 26, 2016 1:14 p.m. ET

Earlier this month, a tribunal at The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines in its case challenging the legitimacy of mainland China’s claims in the South China Sea. In the process, it also downgraded the legal status of Taiping Island (also known as Itu Aba) to a rock, despite the fact that Taiping is the largest naturally formed island in the Spratly group and the only one among the Spratlys that has fresh water.

For Taiwan, the verdict is unfair and patently unreasonable. First, it lacks due process of law. The Republic of China (Taiwan) government has effectively ruled Taiping Island for the past 70 years. Yet when the tribunal was discussing Taiping Island’s status, Taiwan was neither invited to participate nor consulted.

The Chinese (Taiwan) International Law Society, a top academic nongovernmental organization, filed a 400-page amicus brief detailing scientific evidence of Taiping Island’s “earlier, natural condition” prior to the “onset of significant human modification.” That evidence showed ample fresh water, rich agricultural production and a history of human habitation by more than 200 residents since the 1950s.

However, the society’s request for observer or witness status and its open invitation for the arbitrators or Philippine officials to visit Taiping Island were flatly rejected. The single-party award was therefore based on insufficient, outdated and inaccurate information.

The award’s logic is also unreasonable. Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) provides that “rocks” that cannot “sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” are not entitled to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. The tribunal now modifies that standard, ruling that the land feature must have an “objective capacity which can sustain a stable community of people,” an extra requirement not contained in the original language of Unclos. It also adds that this capacity does not include official personnel.

Are official personnel not human beings under Article 121 of Unclos? The tribunal did not explain. It also ruled that economic activity should not be “dependent on outside resources.” Is there any island or city in the world today that is completely self-sufficient and independent of outside resources? The tribunal did not explain that either. Singapore, for instance, imports large quantities of water, food and energy. Should it therefore not be entitled to have an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf?

The people of Taiwan are furious. The National Legislature passed a bipartisan resolution condemning the award and have asked President Tsai Ing-wen to visit Taiping Island and reiterate Taiwan’s sovereign and maritime claims. Both President Tsai and I have rejected the unfair award, rendered without Taiwan’s participation.

In fact, from December to May, I invited, as president of the ROC (Taiwan), more than 150 dignitaries to visit Taiping Island. The invitees all witnessed its favorable natural conditions, unique to the Spratlys, including its capacity to produce 65 tons of fresh water every day, sufficient to supply 1,500 people. The island can sustain human habitation by about 200 people and its own economic life.

I have made every possible effort to provide the tribunal with new and accurate information about Taiping Island. I visited the island on Jan. 28, held international press conferences in January and March, gave interviews to CNN and the Straits Times, and published an op-ed in these pages, all to help the tribunal understand the fact that Taiping is an island, not a rock. My efforts in the past seven months drew attention from international media, generating 430 news reports about Taiwan’s claims.

Nevertheless, the ruling shows the tribunal’s disregard for these efforts. I believe that the tribunal members’ absence from the on-site survey of Taiping Island, which would have been permitted under Unclos, was a key factor that led them to believe the one-sided story offered by representatives of the Philippines.

A remote ruling that lacks evidence from on-site investigation and testimony from eyewitnesses cannot be convincing—not for Taiwan nor for any other country whose island stakes are potentially threatened.

Instead, this ruling produces more problems than answers for claimants in the South China Sea. It creates an obstacle rather than a path leading to a peaceful resolution.

Mr. Ma is the former president of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
World | Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:23am EDT
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


download (2).jpg
Chinese and Russian naval vessels participate in the Joint Sea-2014 naval drill outside Shanghai on the East China Sea, May 24, 2014. REUTERS/CHINA DAILY


China and Russia will hold "routine" naval exercises in the South China Sea in September, China's Defence Ministry said on Thursday, adding that the drills were aimed at strengthening their cooperation and were not aimed at any other country.
:
"This is a routine exercise between the two armed forces, aimed at strengthening the developing China-Russia strategic cooperative partnership," China's defense ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told a regular monthly news conference.

"The exercise is not directed against third parties."

China and Russia are veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, and have held similar views on many major issues such as the crisis in Syria, putting them at odds with the United States and Western Europe.

Last year, they held joint military drills in the Sea of Japan and the Mediterranean.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5 trillion of trade moves annually. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have rival claims.

China has repeatedly blamed the United States for stoking tension in the region through its military patrols, and of taking sides in the dispute.

The United States has sought to assert its right to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea with its patrols and denies taking sides in the territorial disputes.

Russia has been a strong backer of China's stance on the arbitration case, that was brought by the Philippines.

Yang said China and Russia were comprehensive strategic partners and had already held many exercises this year.

"These drills deepen mutual trust and expand cooperation, raise the ability to jointly deal with security threats, and benefit the maintenance of regional and global peace and stability," he said.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Writing by John Ruwitch and Brenda Goh; Editing by Robert Birsel)
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source: Xinhua | 2016-07-28 01:11:24 | Editor: huaxia

BEIJING, July 27 (Xinhua) -- China on Wednesday urged Japan, the United States and Australia to view and deal with the South China Sea issue in a right attitude.

None of the three nations are directly-concerned parties to the issue, said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang in response to question on a trilateral statement issued by the three countries on Monday evening, which touched upon the South China Sea situation.

Lu said China urges relevant countries to respect the efforts of the directly-concerned parties to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea, and do right things to serve peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

China and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have already set rules in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), he said.

During the foreign ministers' meeting between China and ASEAN nations (10+1), China and the ASEAN nations issued a joint statement on full and effective implementation of the DOC, which reiterates that disputes should be resolved peacefully through negotiation between the parties directly concerned, said Lu.

Japan, the U.S. and Australia have been citing international laws for some time, but in fact they have been adopting a double standard towards international laws, which they adopt only when the international laws fit their needs, said the spokesperson.

Lu reaffirmed China's non-acceptance of the illegal and void award issued by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the unilateral request of the Philippines.

The award given by the Arbitral Tribunal is beyond the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and has gravely violated the international law and the general practice of international arbitration, and it does not stand for the international law, he said.

China firmly opposes any proposition and action based on the award, Lu stressed.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Looks like the US/Japan/Philippines now realise that the Arbitration Tribunal has failed.

If Manila hadn't initiated the Arbitration Tribunal, I doubt that China would have embarked on the huge construction projects in the South China Seas, as the money would have been better spent on projects inside mainland China.

Asahi Shimbum

VIENTIANE--Japan will likely be forced to rethink its strategy to force China to scale back its territorial claims in the South China Sea after ASEAN dropped the mention of an international court ruling from its joint statement.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Reuters

In the lead-up to an international court ruling on China's claims in the South China Sea this month, United States officials talked about rallying a coalition to impose "terrible" costs to Beijing's international reputation if flouted the court's decision.

But just two weeks after the July 12 announcement by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague - which at least on paper, appeared to be a humiliating defeat for China - the U.S. strategy appears to be unraveling and the court's ruling is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

weig2000

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


By David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In the lead-up to an international court ruling on China’s claims in the South China Sea early this month, United States officials had talked about rallying a coalition to impose “terrible” costs to Beijing’s international reputation if it flouted the court’s decision.

But just two weeks after the July 12 announcement by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague – which at least on paper, appeared to be a humiliating defeat for China – the U.S. strategy appears to be unravelling and the court’s ruling is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials spoke repeatedly of the need for countries in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere, including the European Union, to make it clear that the decision of the court should be binding.

“We need to be ready to be very loud and vocal, in harmony together … to say that this is international law, this is incredibly important, it is binding on all parties,” Amy Searight, the then-U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia, said in February.

Then in April, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken said China risked “terrible” damage to its reputation if it ignored The Hague’s ruling.

A top lawyer from the Philippines, which brought the case against China, even said Beijing risked “outlaw” status.

The United States had backed Manila’s case on the grounds that China’s claims to 85% of the South China Sea, one of the world’s busiest trade routes, were a threat to freedom of navigation and international law.

Yet after the international court rejected Beijing’s position, the U.S. calls for a united front appear to have made little headway, with only six countries joining Washington in insisting that the decision should be binding.

They include the Philippines, but not several other countries with their own claims to parts of the South China Sea that might benefit if Beijing observed the decision.

China also scored a major diplomatic victory earlier this week, when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) dropped any reference to the ruling from a joint statement at the end of a meeting of the 10-country group’s foreign ministers in Laos. This followed objections from Cambodia, Beijing’s closest ASEAN ally.

On July 15, the European Union, distracted after Britain’s vote to leave the bloc, issued a statement taking note of the ruling, but avoiding direct reference to Beijing or any assertion that the decision was binding.

RULING RISKS IRRELEVANCE

On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed satisfaction that ASEAN had issued a communique that championed the rule of law and said the omission of any reference to the arbitration case did not detract from its importance.

He also said it was “impossible” for the ruling to become irrelevant because it is legally binding.

But analysts said it now risks exactly that, not least because Washington has failed to press the issue effectively with its friends and allies.

“We should all be worried that this case is going to go down as nothing more than a footnote because its impact was only as strong as the international community was going to make it,” said Greg Poling, a South China Sea expert at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank.

“And the international community has voted by not saying anything. The consensus seems to be ‘We don’t care. We don’t want to hold China to these standards.'”

Dean Cheng, an expert on China with the Heritage Foundation think-tank, said Washington appeared reluctant to push a tougher line with Beijing – a vital economic partner as well as a strategic rival – with only a few months to go in President Barack Obama’s tenure and a presidential election in November.

“What we have is China pushing very hard into the South China Sea, physically, politically, illegally and diplomatically, and the United States refraining from doing very much at all,” said Cheng.

One reason for the administration’s relative passivity may be its desire to prevent any major escalation of the dispute after the ruling, including further land reclamation by China or the declaration of a new air defense identification zone.

China has so far responded only with sharpened rhetoric, but analysts and officials worry that Beijing might take bolder action after it hosts the Group of 20 meeting of the world’s biggest economies in September.

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick in Washington and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; editing by G Crosse)
 

vesicles

Colonel
Looks like the US/Japan/Philippines now realise that the Arbitration Tribunal has failed.

If Manila hadn't initiated the Arbitration Tribunal, I doubt that China would have embarked on the huge construction projects in the South China Seas, as the money would have been better spent on projects inside mainland China.

I have to disagree with that. You made it sound like the whole island building thing has been a simple retaliation act. In my opinion, it's a lot more complex than that.

I think it is a pure strategic move. If you look at a map of east Asia, you will find that the SCS is China's only way out. The East China Sea is crowded with islands that belong to China's competitors and potential rivals. There is no room for China to maneuver whatsoever. China is completely blocked in on its east.

On the other hand, the South China Sea is wide open. Most of the islands and reefs are disputed by multiple countries. This gives China much room to maneuver. And as many newspaper articles have pointed out, the SCS contains shipping lanes vital to China's economic development. Thus, it is clear that the SCS has always been the focus of China. To prevent possible containment and to protect its economic interests, China must secure South China Sea.

This means China must have been planning this, including island building, for a long time. Whether the Philipines filed that PCA case has absolutely no influence over China's vital interests in the SCS. it might have provedd some convenient pretext, but that's about it.

What we see, all the incredibly fast island building, is simply the final stage of a massive massive project that might have lasted a decade or longer. The final stage happened that quickly is actually a testament of how well they prepared. Jeff has also described this in detail a while back. They must have had long debates about the SCS and designed dozens of contengent plans for what they should do in what kind of political environment. Once that's done, they would need to do the actual preparation. Including equipment, materials and manpower. It takes a long time to accumulate such massive amount of everything to allow building multiple islands to happen simultaneously at such fast pace.

Then you also need to take into account of the time needed to actually come up building plans. It takes weeks to months to come up with an architectural plan for a single family house. How long would it take to plan building an island, which involves so much more complex things. Not only the islands themselves but also all the facilities on the islands. You need to worry about structural integrity not only under normal circumstances but during typhoon seasons. And military facilities have their own requirements. Everything has to be careful planned out. It takes a long time to come up with everything.

A good example would be seeing one of your neighbors moving. All you see is a Uhaul pulling up to the curb in one morning. By noon on the next day, they all move out. You are shocked that they all of a sudden just moved out... But in fact, the whole thing lasted a long long time. They first have to make a decision whether to move. Once they make that decision, they need to decide where to go. Then house hunting, which may take many months to years. Then buying furniture. Then packing, which may also take weeks and months. Yet, all you see is the final stage, the actual moving, which is simply an accumulation of massive amount of work unseen by outsiders.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I would disagree with your analysis.

The South China Seas is the only way out to where? It just leads to a small number of chokepoints like the Malacca Strait or Lombok Strait.

Yes, countries have plans for all sorts of contingencies. But what made China decide to go with what is likely the most aggressive (and most expensive) version of island reclamation with multiple airbases?

I also recall that there was a 6-12month gap from when Manila went to arbitration to the beginning of construction. And contrary to what you think about this being pre-meditated, 6months is more than long enough for China to marshall existing resources for this construction project.

China already operated the world's largest fleet of dredgers and has a lot of spare construction capacity for this sort of thing.

The island reclamation project is a piece of cake compared to the much larger high speed railway programme that China enacted back in 2008. They dusted off the plan and then marshalled all the design institutes and resources they needed in less than 6months.
 
Top