China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Jura The idiot]

interestingly Philippine fishermen allowed off Scarborough Shoal under close Chinese Coast Guard watch

Filipino fishermen are once again allowed to fish in the contested waters off Scarborough Shoal under Chinese Coast Guard supervision, China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman confirmed during a regular press conference on Monday.

China has given Filipino fishermen access to the waters, based on the “friendliness between China and the Philippines,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters.

Another reason for this “concession” possibly lies in the fact that Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte reportedly told China that he would not be placing weapons on a Philippines-occupied island in the South China Sea.

The Scarborough Shoal, referred to as Huangyan Dao by China, is a contested region of the South China Sea seized by China in 2012. Chinese control of the fishing area was declared illegal in a 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that said China’s territorial claims in the region had no legal grounding.

The court made a differentiation between rocks and islands and low-tide elevations declaring that only naturally formed islands qualified for a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone. This means that most of the rocks and artificially-built islands upon which China’s so-called nine dash line was based on did not give China jurisdiction over the territory.

Hua Chunying confirmed the presence of Filipino fishermen off Scarborough Shoal after Reuters reporters visited the shoal last week.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that the visit was the first access by foreign media since China seized it in 2012.

“It’s good that we’re now allowed inside, it helps me to support my family’s needs. I don’t want the Chinese here, because there’s so many, it’s affecting the way we fish… but I’m willing to share, I don’t want to be thrown out. At least I can fish,” Reuters quoted a Filipino fisherman as saying.

source is NavalToday

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blackstone]

A J-11 on airstrip at Woody Island...

What of it? Woody Island is China's sovereign territory and it has the right to station military assets there.

 

[sanblvd]

It seemed a lot folks here taken offense of what I said about lunching missiles in Syria on how it will effect China on dealing with North Korea. That all of you argue that China will stand strong, that Trump launch missile will have 0 influence on their attitude with NK nuclear program.

My argument is that Trump show his crazy side of lunching military operation at drop of a hat, and this will persuade China more in rein North Korea.

Judging by the event so far I think this is what is happening, China just turned back dozens of NK coal ships in Chinese port, and Xi and Trump had a good conversation yesterday as well.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can argue that correlation doesn't equal causation, but when was last time China put this much pressure towards NK?

I can also say for sure that China has NEVER cooperate this much with US on NK with Bush or Obama while they were in power.

This is an ongoing event, we'll find out soon what will happen.

 

[Equation]

It seemed a lot folks here taken offense of what I said about lunching missiles in Syria on how it will effect China on dealing with North Korea. That all of you argue that China will stand strong, that Trump launch missile will have 0 influence on their attitude with NK nuclear program.

My argument is that Trump show his crazy side of lunching military operation at drop of a hat, and this will persuade China more in rein North Korea.

Judging by the event so far I think this is what is happening, China just turned back dozens of NK coal ships in Chinese port, and Xi and Trump had a good conversation yesterday as well.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can argue that correlation doesn't equal causation, but when was last time China put this much pressure towards NK?

I can also say for sure that China has NEVER cooperate this much with US on NK with Bush or Obama while they were in power.

This is an ongoing event, we'll find out soon what will happen.

Yeah but what does China get in return is what I'm waiting for the western news to report on.

 

[N00813]

snip

You can argue that correlation doesn't equal causation, but when was last time China put this much pressure towards NK?

snip.

Sanctions started about a year ago:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The refusal to buy NK coal had already (legally at least) begun by April 2016, but only now is it making the news.

Anyway this is off-topic.

 

[solarz]

It seemed a lot folks here taken offense of what I said about lunching missiles in Syria on how it will effect China on dealing with North Korea. That all of you argue that China will stand strong, that Trump launch missile will have 0 influence on their attitude with NK nuclear program.

My argument is that Trump show his crazy side of lunching military operation at drop of a hat, and this will persuade China more in rein North Korea.

Judging by the event so far I think this is what is happening, China just turned back dozens of NK coal ships in Chinese port, and Xi and Trump had a good conversation yesterday as well.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can argue that correlation doesn't equal causation, but when was last time China put this much pressure towards NK?

I can also say for sure that China has NEVER cooperate this much with US on NK with Bush or Obama while they were in power.

This is an ongoing event, we'll find out soon what will happen.

The problem with your premise is that you assume China wasn't pissed at NK to begin with.

China has their own timetables for dealing with NK. They may be able to adjust those timetables as leverage in negotiations with Trump, but I highly doubt China is going to change its NK "framework" just because Trump launched some missiles.

 

[sanblvd]

Well its good at least you guys are agreeing with me somewhat, first.. it was "it will have no effect on China's NK policy", now its "well, China have plan to do this for a long time".. anyway its all good guys.

My argument still stand, Trump attack Syria DID have an impact on China's decision on dealing with NK. And this is NOT me saying that China has lost, US has win. In fact, I would argue China played this even smarter than Trump.

Below are my assessment for why China is doing this now, each of those factor can be just as important and the other.

1. Trump is the most unusually people ever to hold such office, he is a gambler, he is reckless, so China can never predict what is he going to do next, its better to deal with NK before Trump is crazy enough to actually launch the strike causing a Korea wide war, the result of this will be millions of refugee flooding to Dong Bei, which is one of the worst performing economy in all of China.

2. China sees Trump is actually someone who can actually deal with, unlike Obama (calculating, emotionless, soulless and self superior mug) who never keep this word, Trump I think is a business person, and he actually do value the importance of relationship. This is also the reason why China is trying to build up a personal relationship with Trump's daughter and his son in law, he is also someone who holds grudges base on the way he still bashes Hillary, so more positive touch is better than negative touch.

3. Further drive a widge between the potential Trump Putin alliance, this is not a good week for Putin, the person that lost the most face I think is Putin, Syria is under his alliance, and US can just launch 59 missiles and Russia can't do shit. This is also coinciding with the latest UN resolution on Syria, which China didn't follow Russia's veto, this is pretty huge, because last resolution when Trump shittalk One China policy, China Veto with Russia together, now China shows Trump that we work together, there will be incentives and of course, this further drive a widge of any potential US Russia alliance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Oh and of course, Trump today also said NATO is actually not "obsolete" another huge U turn for Trump, another slap in the face for Russia

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

4. Notice how the last 2 president Obama and Bush talked to China when it come to NK, their attitude were all but look down on China, and "demanded" China to do something, but this time, Trump actually used the word "asked" "helped" as if he is asking China for a favor, this does not put China in a weak position at all, I argue this improve China's image more towards a equal peer power to US. Ever since June 4th incidence, US have always look down on China's government as illegitimate, this is a further step towards the end of the self-superiority that Western nation has already felt. And besides, China needed to deal with fat Kim sooner or later, and when other people are begging you for it, its as a good time as any.

5. I think China will play smart, they won't do everything that Trump request, but they will help him and China will make Trump remember when all of this is over.

Lastly 2 more articles for you

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't know about you, its pretty surprising change of attitude towards China in just a short few month.

6. And lastly, most importantly, absolutely NO mention of SCS issue whatsoever, If China is smart, they would "help" trump to pressure NK, while at the time time, they will triple shift their SCS build up, and by the time the NK crisis is over... China's position in SCS will be stronger than ever.

China will have plenty to gain if they play their cards right.

 

[A.Man]

Don't Have to be PLA

 

[PanAsian]

Accurate description of how many countries, not just China, view foreign military activities close to/on to/into their shores, seas, airspace, and cyberspace since these spying and "probing" activities have real detrimental security impacts on the target countries.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Do US Actions in the South China Sea Violate International Law?
American actions in the region could be viewed as a “threat or use of force.”

By Mark J. Valencia
April 24, 2017

A confidential 2001 U.S. Navy-National Security Agency report revealed by Edward Snowden shows that China’s concerns regarding America’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions off its coasts are justified. The report details the scope of secrets exposed to China in the 2001 EP- 3 incident. That incident involved a collision between a U.S. Navy ISR plane and a Chinese jet fighter about 70 miles southeast of China’s militarily sensitive Hainan Island. Hainan hosts a large signals intelligence facility and air force and nuclear submarine bases. The EP 3 was damaged in the collision and made an emergency landing at a Chinese military base on Hainan. The report reveals that the EP-3 crew were unable to destroy all the secret data and systems on board. Chinese experts likely extracted the remaining intelligence secrets.

The United States flies hundreds of ISR missions every year in the region. They collect communications between the target country’s command-and-control centers and radar and weapons systems including surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery and fighter aircraft. EP-3 activities have also been alleged to include interference with communications, jamming of radar and cyber attacks. Other U.S. ISR probes collect “actionable intelligence for expeditionary and irregular warfare.” China alleges that such activities abuse the principle of freedom of overflight and are a threat to its national security.

Another important secret that could have been — and probably was — extracted from the exposed information on board was, as The Intercept reported, that the United States has “the ability to locate and collect transmissions to or from Chinese submarines and to correlate them to specific vessels…” The plane also carried data that clarified “how much the U.S. knew about China’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles program…” This asset would be used as China’s response to a nuclear first strike by an adversary and is thus its fundamental deterrent against such an event and obviously a core national security interest.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
It turns out that it is not only China that should be worried. The report also reveals that United States ISR probes target U.S. allies. The plane carried information about the emitter parameters for weapons systems of some allies. This information could be used by China to help it collect and process their communications. Worse, the incident also exposed U.S. National Security Agency directives establishing policy for signals intelligence activities. Targets of interest included — in addition to China — the Philippines and Thailand.

According to the report, the spy plane missions give the United States some geospatial advantages over satellites for signals reception. More important they also spur targeted militaries to react, thus creating communications that can be intercepted.

There have been several “dangerous” incidents resulting from these ISR probes. As I have noted before, the U.S.-China relationship was strained by the EP-3 incident as well as the Bowditch (2001), Impeccable (2009), and Cowpens (2013) incidents. In August 2014, and again in September 2015, Chinese jet fighters intercepted U.S. intelligence-gathering aircraft over the South China and Yellow Seas.

Clearly the U.S. “rebalancing” to Asia is coming face-to face with China’s naval expansion, rising capabilities and ambitions. Indeed the two have converging strategic trajectories. China is developing what the United States calls an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy that is designed to control China’s “near seas” and prevent access to them by the United States in the event of a conflict. The U.S. response is Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (formerly the Air-Seat Battle Concept) which is intended to cripple China’s command, control, communications, computer and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems (C4ISR). This means that C4ISR is the “tip of the spear” for both sides and both are trying to dominate this sphere over, on and under China’s near seas.

Given the strategic role of ISR, should electronic and signals intelligence activities such as probing, tickling, tracking with targeting, interference with communications, and military research and surveys be considered a threat of the use of force? The Charter of the United Nations stipulates that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”

But what is a “threat or use of force”? Is it only physical military force? Some developing countries maintain that the term “force” includes non-military force such as economic and cyber coercion and that these threats are prohibited by international law.

A threat of force can be defined as “an express or implied promise by a government of a resort to force conditional on non-acceptance of certain demands of that government.” Is a ‘“show of force” a threat to use of force? It seems obvious that the imminent deployment of the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group to waters off the Korean Peninsula is both a “show of force” and a threat to use it if North Korea does not curtail or at least pause its nuclear weapon and missile development program. Indeed a senior U.S. intelligence official said, “We are trying to communicate our concern and the existence of many military options to dissuade the North first.”

President Trump said, “We are sending an armada, very powerful” and added Kim Jong-un “is doing the wrong thing.” U.S. Vice President Michael Pence added in a speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan deployed to Japan that “the sword stands ready.”

The initial deployment of the Carl Vinson strike force was to the South China Sea. The presumed purpose was to exercise and demonstrate “freedom of navigation” in the face of perceived threats thereto , i.e., to convince China not to interfere with such and to rescind claims that the U.S. considers inconsistent with the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Are these probes and the deployment of perhaps the most powerful symbol of U.S. military force to the South China Sea to convince China to change its policy a threat of use of force and thus a violation of the UN Charter ?

Some argue that the U.S. aerial ISR probes off China’s coast are examples of “gunboat diplomacy,” that is the show of force to create a fait accompli or change the policy or behavior of a government. Are these illegal “threats to use force”? The same should be asked of the repeated U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) challenging China’s claims and policies. China considers them an indirect threat to its claims to sovereignty over the features it occupies.

Are the activities in China’s EEZ of the U.S. hydrographic survey ship Bowditch, the U.S. ocean surveillance ship Impeccable, and the Poseidon 8s when dropping sonobuoys to search for submarines prohibited by UNCLOS which stipulates that “the deployment and use of any type of scientific research equipment in the marine environment is subject to the conditions as those prescribed for marine scientific research?” That means they are subject to the consent of the coastal state.

The United States and Australia have added cyber attacks to their mutual defense treaty meaning that a cyber attack on one could lead to a response by both nations including conventional military action. Then former U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this underscores the way the United States views the cyber threat and “cyber is the battlefield of the future.” When does a US cyber “probe” of China’s electronic networks become an ‘attack ‘and a threat to China’s sovereignty and security?

Unfortunately we may never know the answers to most of these legal questions at least formally because the United States has not ratified UNCLOS and is thus not subject to its dispute settlement mechanisms. Nevertheless these are all legitimate questions that deserve objective analysis and answers. To clear the air the United States should at least tell the world exactly what these IRS probes are doing and why.

Mark J. Valencia is an Adjunct Senior Scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Haikou, China. This piece first appeared in the IPP Review.

 

[Equation]

Unfortunately we may never know the answers to most of these legal questions at least formally because the United States has not ratified UNCLOS and is thus not subject to its dispute settlement mechanisms. Nevertheless these are all legitimate questions that deserve objective analysis and answers. To clear the air the United States should at least tell the world exactly what these IRS probes are doing and why.

Unfortunately the Regime Changer of Peace behaves as if it doesn't have to answer to nobody.