China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Jura The idiot]

related to https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/so...-nations-not-china.t7302/page-104#post-386505
China Strongly Condemns US for Sending Warship Near Island

China strongly condemned the United States after a US

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

warship deliberately sailed near one of the Beijing-controlled islands in the hotly contested South China Sea to exercise freedom of navigation and challenge China's vast sea claims.

The missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur sailed within 12 nautical miles (22 kilometers) of Triton Island in the Paracel chain "to challenge excessive maritime claims of parties that claim the Paracel Islands," without notifying the three claimants beforehand, Defense Department spokesman Mark Wright said Saturday in Washington.

China, Taiwan and Vietnam have overlapping claims in the Paracels and require prior notice from ships transiting what they consider their territorial waters. The latest operation was particularly aimed at China, which has raised tensions with the US and its Southeast Asian neighbors by embarking on massive construction of man-made islands and airstrips in contested waters.

Vietnamese Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh said that Vietnam respects "innocent passage" of ships through territorial waters in line with international law. State media quoted Binh as reiterating Vietnam's sovereignty over the Paracels and Spratlys and calling on nations to actively and practically contribute to peace and stability in the South China Sea.

The US has claimed the attempts to restrict navigational rights by requiring prior notice are inconsistent with international law and pledged to regularly carry out similar maneuvers.

In October,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

near Subi Reef, where China has built one of seven artificial islands.

The latest operation also drew Beijing's ire. Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun issued a statement saying the "unprofessional and irresponsible" US action "severely violated Chinese law, sabotaged the peace, security and good order of the waters, and undermined the region's peace and stability."

In an opinion published Sunday by the official Xinhua news agency, China described the maneuver as a "deliberate provocation" that raised doubts about the United States' sincerity just days after Secretary of State John Kerry visited Beijing for meetings about the South China Sea and North Korea that were called productive by both sides.

China's official response has been restrained compared to the public outrage seen online, according to Xinhua. A social media search on Sunday showed a smattering of posts calling on China to adopt a tougher military posture against US encroachment -- if not wage war with the United States.

China claims almost the entire South China Sea and its islands, reefs and atolls on historic grounds. The area has some of the world's busiest shipping lanes, and US officials say ensuring freedom of navigation is in US national interests, while not taking sides in the territorial disputes.

China seized the unpopulated Triton Island, an area of 1.2 square kilometers (0.46 sq. miles), from former South Vietnam in 1974. In May 2014, China parked a huge oil drilling platform off the Vietnamese coast in the area, prompting Vietnam to send fishing boats and coast guard vessels to harass the rig and nearby Chinese vessels. Skirmishes led to collisions and the capsizing of at least one Vietnamese boat.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

OK. Let's just then stay on track according to how you want to describe or justify it. If I understand what you are saying, any FON restriction is strictly directed at military vessels. Firstly I don't believe that is even factually true because civilians crafts had been redirected, both in the air and in the water. Leaving that aside, please explain the justification for military exclusion.

By military exclusion do you mean separating military from civilian?

Well as I've repeatedly said, the narrative of the SCS FON issue has been that civilian shipping FON is somehow under increased threat compared to a previous period of time. Being able to differentiate between civilian and military vessels within the context of the narrative is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of just whether that narrative is true, or how true it may be.

 

[Brumby]

By military exclusion do you mean separating military from civilian?

I am just trying to follow your line of argument. Isn't your main point about civilian vs military FON?

Well as I've repeatedly said, the narrative of the SCS FON issue has been that civilian shipping FON is somehow under increased threat compared to a previous period of time. Being able to differentiate between civilian and military vessels within the context of the narrative is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of just whether that narrative is true, or how true it may be.

Whose narrative is it concerning this "narrative of the SCS FON issue has been that civilian shipping FON is somehow under increased threat compared to a previous period of time"? It would appear to me that the whole position of the decoupling is based on some narrative. The problem with narrative is that it could be contrived, misconstrued or simply misrepresented. It is like building a castle on sand.

 

[Blitzo]

I am just trying to follow your line of argument. Isn't your main point about civilian vs military FON?



Whose narrative is it concerning this "narrative of the SCS FON issue has been that civilian shipping FON is somehow under increased threat compared to a previous period of time"? It would appear to me that the whole position of the decoupling is based on some narrative.

As I've stated quite clearly in post 1840, that is the entire reason why I am putting it forward.

The problem with narrative is that it could be contrived, misconstrued or simply misrepresented. It is like building a castle on sand.

Yes, whether one believes it would be necessary to separate civilian from military vessels would very much depend on how one perceives the narrative and/or whether they believe the narrative is representative of facts as we know them.

The narrative I am speaking of (as I've repeatedly stated), is the narrative where civilian shipping FON is somehow under great threat in the last year or so compared to previous due to developments in the region.
My problem with is narrative, is there has been virtually no cases of impeding civilian shipping FON, and the few high profile cases of FON obstruction (when relevant to China) were always in relation to either military vessels or aircraft, or in territorial dispute standoffs with other claimants.

Therefore I believe it is necessary within the context of the narrative to include important footnote to identify the division between civilian and military FON disruption in the recent past and present. If that is not included, then it may cause observers to assume that certain parties are somehow interested in disrupting civilian shipping FON, or that certain parties had a past history of disrupting civilian shipping FON.
If the current overarching media narrative had acknowledged the fact that past FON disruptions were always in relation to military vessels/aircraft or in the context of territorial disputes between claimants, then perhaps the separation of military vs civilian would be unnecessary.

You are of course free to say that you do not believe the media narrative needs changing and that it is technically accurate and representative of the facts, but that is where we will thus reach an impasse.

 

[Brumby]

Yes, whether one believes it would be necessary to separate civilian from military vessels would very much depend on how one perceives the narrative and/or whether they believe the narrative is representative of facts as we know them.

The narrative I am speaking of (as I've repeatedly stated), is the narrative where civilian shipping FON is somehow under great threat in the last year or so compared to previous due to developments in the region.
My problem with is narrative, is there has been virtually no cases of impeding civilian shipping FON, and the few high profile cases of FON obstruction (when relevant to China) were always in relation to either military vessels or aircraft, or in territorial dispute standoffs with other claimants.

Therefore I believe it is necessary within the context of the narrative to include important footnote to identify the division between civilian and military FON disruption in the recent past and present. If that is not included, then it may cause observers to assume that certain parties are somehow interested in disrupting civilian shipping FON, or that certain parties had a past history of disrupting civilian shipping FON.
If the current overarching media narrative had acknowledged the fact that past FON disruptions were always in relation to military vessels/aircraft or in the context of territorial disputes between claimants, then perhaps the separation of military vs civilian would be unnecessary.

You are of course free to say that you do not believe the media narrative needs changing and that it is technically accurate and representative of the facts, but that is where we will thus reach an impasse.

At least it clarified this decoupling is simply about some media narrative that you do not agree with because there are insufficient actualisation to conclude such a view. Firstly I do not intend to defend that particular narrative because media outlets say all sorts of things all the time. That narrative though is about a possible future event and obviously a future event being an unrealised phenomenon cannot be proven or denied by facts. You and I cannot say with any certainty whether such a possibility can and will happen because the future is not yet written. However the main point being once the pieces are in place it is just a policy decision to exercise such a mechanism, whether that in fact will happen or not is simply irrelevant. The fact that it potentially presents a clear and present danger is sufficient to invoke some kind of response. However that is not the main issue. The main problem which is creating all kinds of contention is that the nature of China's claims is simply grounded on a map with nine dashes.

 

[Blitzo]

At least it clarified this decoupling is simply about some media narrative that you do not agree with because there are insufficient actualisation to conclude such a view.

I do feel like I was quite clear in post 1840 that my reason for decoupling was due to the media narrative.
>_>

Firstly I do not intend to defend that particular narrative because media outlets say all sorts of things all the time. That narrative though is about a possible future event and obviously a future event being an unrealised phenomenon cannot be proven or denied by facts. You and I cannot say with any certainty whether such a possibility can and will happen because the future is not yet written. However the main point being once the pieces are in place it is just a policy decision to exercise such a mechanism, whether that in fact will happen or not is simply irrelevant. The fact that it potentially presents a clear and present danger is sufficient to invoke some kind of response. However that is not the main issue. The main problem which is creating all kinds of contention is that the nature of China's claims is simply grounded on a map with nine dashes.

I think this would be dramatically expanding the scope of the discussion.

I've more or less presented my case, in my last post I think.

 

[Brumby]

I do feel like I was quite clear in post 1840 that my reason for decoupling was due to the media narrative.

The source of the confusion for me is not your recent comment (post #1840) but residual from our previous conversation where it was imprinted in me that the decoupling was due to some official Chinese position.

I think this would be dramatically expanding the scope of the discussion.

I've more or less presented my case, in my last post I think.

Agree.

 

[Blitzo]

The source of the confusion for me is not your recent comment (post #1840) but residual from our previous conversation where it was imprinted in me that the decoupling was due to some official Chinese position.

Fair enough then.

 

[Brumby]

Fair enough then.

I think back in Oct 2015, this is where we left off on this subject. At that time the issue was over interpretation of FON and our opposing view concerning decoupling. It wasn't connected to any media narrative.

I think we've debated quite extensively as to whether there is a difference between military FON vs civilian FON, compared to "overall" FON...

And I think we do at least both agree that a disagreement exists in its interpretation.

 

[Blitzo]

I think back in Oct 2015, this is where we left off on this subject. At that time the issue was over interpretation of FON and our opposing view concerning decoupling. It wasn't connected to any media narrative.

Right, but in this case I was more talking about the issue of FON within the media narrative.

I can't remember exactly what our discussion regarding civilian vs military FON was preceded by back in October 2015 because I do believe it was discussed for a period before then as well. I think we might have talked about the issue of logical, philosophical and legal sensibility regarding dividing civilian and military FON from each other, and probably reached an impasse there as well.

Just for the record, if I were to commit to the task of actually discussing the logical, philosophical and legal sensibility of whether FON should be divided between civilian and military vessels and aircraft or not, it would be a much more fundamental issue where we would be challenging each other's sense of philosophy, justice, and precedents of certain laws and the sensibility of those laws and it would be a much more massive task than could realistically be dispensed on a thread, and would only end up in a further impasse due to certain fundamental differences in world views.