South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Blackstone

Brigadier
"They're ba-ack..."

Further evidence Neoconservatives want to reverse 40 years of Sino-American detente on the "One China" issue. The fact official US support for actual Taiwan independence would likely trigger war seems to be a secondary concern to those people.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Outgoing Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou’s controversial trip to Itu Aba—the only island Taiwan controls in the South China Sea—has drawn a sharp rebuke from Washington. The spokeswoman for the American Institute in Taiwan, the unofficial U.S. embassy, expressed disappointment following the announcement of the visit, condemning it as “extremely unhelpful.”

While the State Department may be right to suggest that the visit “does not contribute to the peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea,” the Obama administration should take care to consider how we arrived at such a point.

Ma Ying-jeou, of course, knew the White House would read his day trip as an act of defiance. Taipei reportedly alerted Washington only a few days prior to the visit and the public announcement came just twenty-four hours in advance, ensuring that Washington would not have time to mount sufficient pressure to dissuade Taiwan’s president from his intended course.

Dissuasion may have been difficult in any case, for Taiwan has been backed into a corner. Setting aside the merits of Taiwan’s South China Sea claims, its status as a claimant is no more or less legitimate than that of the other disputants. But following the Southeast Asian claimants’ lead, Washington has essentially ignored Taiwan’s role in the sea. Taiwan has been treated not as a coequal claimant, but as a complication, despite the fact that Ma is perhaps the only leader to have put forth a thoughtful—if difficult to enact—peace plan for the region’s troubled waters.

When asked about Ma’s South China Sea Peace Initiative after he proposed it last May, a State Department spokesman issued a supportive but anodyne statement expressing lukewarm appreciation. In reality, it seems that the United States does not truly welcome any action from Taiwan on the South China Sea. Washington wants Taipei both to abide by international maritime law (as the United States understands it) and to refrain from differentiating its claims from those of the mainland, which could lead to cross-Strait tension and reveal America’s one-China policy as divorced from reality. That’s a difficult and frustrating tightrope for Taiwan to walk. Taiwan, effectively, can do no right when it comes to the disputes.

Recent events, moreover, have heightened Taiwan’s isolation and deepened its distrust of an international order from which it is largely excluded and in which Taipei finds it difficult to defend its interests. Particularly frustrating for Taiwan has been the Philippines’ arbitration, vocally supported by the United States, filed with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) regarding the legality of Beijing’s South China Sea claims.

As part of the court case, the Philippines has asserted that Itu Aba is a rock rather than an island—a dubious claim and one designed to maximize the Philippines’ potential exclusive economic zone. That assertion has certainly angered Taiwan, but not nearly so much as the PCA’s refusal to accept submission of any Taiwanese documentation arguing the contrary or even to allow Taiwan to observe the proceedings.

In other words, Taiwan has increasingly felt as if it is shouting into the wind. The international community has pointed its collective TV remote at the island and pressed the mute button, and done so at a time when China presents an ever greater threat to Taiwan’s survival, and when the United States is enhancing security ties with all of its Asian partners except Taipei, from which Washington has distanced itself. Taiwan can be excused for feeling somewhat insecure.

No country, of course, can sit idly by while its sovereignty and territorial integrity are challenged. And so Taiwan determined that if it would not be heard, it would surely be seen.

Is Ma’s visit “disappointing”? Sure. Is it “extremely unhelpful”? That’s overstating things. The hullabaloo over the visit seems likely to subside fairly quickly, and the other claimants will almost certainly revert to essentially ignoring Taiwan. The fact is that when it comes to the South China Sea disputes, Taiwan—or rather, the nature of Taiwan’s future relationship with China—is a complicating factor. It is the elephant in the room, and nobody wants to poke it.

Going forward, then, will Taiwan seek even more provocative means of asserting its claims as its options for engaging with other disputants remain narrow? Possibly, but such an outcome is avoidable if Washington not only recommits to, but doubles down on, its security relationship with Taipei.

The Obama administration and its successor must sell Taiwan the arms it most needs to defend itself; expand joint training and include Taiwan in multilateral military exercises; encourage and facilitate Taiwan’s security ties with other Asian democracies, especially Japan and the Philippines; welcome Taiwan’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement; make Taiwan’s participation in international organizations a priority for the State Department; and convey to Taiwan a belief that the island can play a meaningful role in resolving regional disputes. All of these efforts will make for a significantly more secure Taiwan, and a more secure Taiwan will see less need to take controversial measures in defense of its interests.

In 1967, presidential hopeful Richard Nixon argued that, sooner or later, the United States would have to welcome China into the “family of nations.” A few short years later, he did so. Isn’t it time the United States did the same with Taiwan?

President Reagan finally had enough of neoconservatives, and and flushed them in his second term. After that he reached out to the Soviets and the rest is history. Neocons never forgave Reagan for reaching out to the Soviets, and call him an appeaser to this day.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Unfortunately, there is a sizeable minority within the corridors of power in Washington who's primary mission in life seems to be to dream of fresh ways of taking giant steaming dumps on China and its interests.

The entire SCS issue is just the latest in a very long string of issues that were artificially created or inflated to mess with China, to try and keep it busy and off balanced.

That has worked to some extent, but it also has serious side effects and unexpected consequences, and I just do not think the likes of the neocons have any true idea of the wirlwind they are sowing.
 
now I read
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just two days after
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Adm. Harry Harris, pledged to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the South China Sea, the destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
within the 12 nautical mile limit around Triton Island. Situated in the Paracels, which are claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Triton is one of those islands China seized from what was then South Vietnam in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Today, the Paracels are a potential flashpoint in ongoing disputes over the potential oil and gas wealth of the South China Sea. (It’s also worth noting that they’re real, natural islands rather than the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
).

Senate Armed Services chairman
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and House seapower subcommittee chairman
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, who have
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
over our friends and allies in the South Pacific, praised the operation — somewhat grudgingly in McCain’s case.

“I am encouraged to hear that the U.S. Navy has conducted a freedom of navigation operation near Triton Island in the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea,” Sen. McCain said. “This operation challenged excessive maritime claims that restrict the rights and freedoms of the United States and other nations under international law. I continue to hope these operations will become so routine that China and other claimants will come to accept them as normal occurrences and releasing press statements to praise them will no longer be necessary.”

“By sailing within the disputed waters around Triton Island,” said Rep. Forbes, “the men and women of the USS Curtis Wilbur have sent a strong signal of America’s enduring commitment to Asia and the rule of law. While the ownership of these islands may be in dispute, the right to freely fly, sail, and operate in the surrounding waters is not. I am pleased that we seem to have resumed exercising and demonstrating that right on a routine basis. I urge the administration to continue conducting freedom of navigation operations, and I call on other maritime nations to stand up for our shared rights and join us in freely exercising them.”

What’s the backstory at which McCain and Forbes are hinting? While
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on who owns what islet, rock, or reef in the South China Sea, it does dispute Chinese claims to a “territorial sea” extending 12 nautical miles from various natural features and artificial islets that Beijing considers its sovereign territory. But the Pentagon admitted last year that it had
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Last fall, after months of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the destroyer USS Lassen ended the three-year hiatus in such “Freedom Of Navigation Operations” by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It did so without giving notice to or asking permission of Beijing, violating the Chinese interpretation of international law. However, by most interpretations of international law, Lassen simply conducted an “innocent passage” — sailing straight through the contested waters without engaging in specifically military operations — which warships of one country may freely do in the territorial waters of another.

What is forbidden in another country’s territorial sea is specifically military activities — even something as simple as launching a helicopter or turning on a targeting radar. Critics say that only conducting such military operations within the 12-mile limit would constitute an unequivocal statement that, as far as the US is concerned, these are not Chinese territorial waters but part of the “high seas” on which any nation may do as it likes.

The Pentagon said in a statement that “the USS Curtis Wilbur, (DDG 54) transited in innocent passage within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island” — which means it did not conduct military activities. So how serious a challenge was the operation to China’s claims?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Asia-Pacific director at the Center for a New American Security, told me that “the US is compounding the problem by making China think the US is not serious.”

“The US isn’t really challenging any Chinese maritime claims, and in fact is helping to support them by conducting an innocent passage, which is allowed within 12 miles of someone else’s territory,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations. “If the U.S. wanted to challenge China’s and other’s claims, the ship would conduct ‘military operations’ such as running radars or conducting helo ops. It did not do this.”

“Interestingly,” Clark added, “Taiwan and Vietnam are not protesting, because they recognize an innocent passage as being allowed under UNCLOS, even if the territory is theirs.” Only China is protesting, based on its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and its broad interpretation of its territorial rights under international law.

In its limited scale, the Wilbur operation is essentially a repeat of the Lassen‘s. “This is not a ratcheting up from the USS Lassen FONOP in October,” said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It is a resumption of the FONOPS that used to take place [before 2012].”

“To ‘up the ante,’ the US needs to conduct a FONOP around Mischief Reef,” Glaser said. At least by the US interpretation of international law, Mischief Reef is not an a land mass entitled to territorial waters, but merely a “low tide elevation,” completely submerged at high tide, and therefore entitled only to a 500 meter safety zone. What’s more, Mischief is the only Chinese-occupied territory in the South China Sea that is further than 12 nautical miles from any other feature and therefore outside any other place’s territorial waters. (By contrast, Glaser said, Subi Reef — which Lassen passed last fall — was within 12 nm of a feature classified as a “rock” and thus arguably within that rock’s territorial waters).

“Therefore,” said Glaser, “if the US demonstrates freedom of navigation near Mischief Reef, it will have to go beyond ‘innocent passage’ and conduct a military operation, such as turning on radar or flying a helicopter inside the 12 nautical miles. Since the Chinese are rapidly building facilities on Mischief Reef that have potential military uses, this should be the next target of a US
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.”

We’ll see if Admiral Harris and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
take her advice. So far details from the Pentagon are sparse:

“This operation was about challenging excessive maritime claims that restrict the rights and freedoms of the United States and others, not about territorial claims to land features,” said a Defense Department statement. “The United States takes no position on competing sovereignty claims between the parties to naturally formed land features in the South China Sea. The United States does take a strong position on protecting the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all countries, and that all maritime claims must comply with international law.”

The Chinese have already denounced the US move, unsurprisingly:
...
... goes on in the source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Military vessel "FONOP" is just colonialist gunboat diplomacy including a lawfare dimension designed to undermine local authority by expeditionary powers. So it is a show of force which is not really effectively responded to except with an accompanying show of force.
No, Freedom of Navigation is not Gunboat diplomacy.

It is exactly what it says it is...Freedom to Navigate in international waters.

The Chinese did the same through the Bearing Straits recently and that is fine.

As I have said, the US is not going to stop or prevent Chinese development of the shoals and reefs in the SCS through reclamation, and then improving the resulting islands.

And the Chinese are not going to stop US Navy FON exercises.

It is clear that in the end, in these exchanges, that the PRC is gaining more. They are developing actual bases and land in the area. The US is simply sailing by.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
No, Freedom of Navigation is not Gunboat diplomacy.

It is exactly what it says it is...Freedom to Navigate in international waters.

The Chinese did the same through the Bearing Straits recently and that is fine.

As I have said, the US is not going to stop or prevent Chinese development of the shoals and reefs in the SCS through reclamation, and then improving the resulting islands.

And the Chinese are not going to stop US Navy FON exercises.

It is clear that in the end, in these exchanges, that the PRC is gaining more. They are developing actual bases and land in the area. The US is simply sailing by.
I also don't see US FONOPS as gunboat diplomacy, because I doubt there's real threat of military force against China if it doesn't agree with US views. On the other hand, PanAsian is technically correct in calling it by that noun, because it's the very definition from Webster dictionary.

Frankly, China's own FONOP in the Bearing Straits implies either it agrees with US view, or it wants it both ways. The former is good, and civilized nations can't allowed the latter to stand.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

gunboat diplomacy
noun
Definition of gunboat diplomacy
Popularity: Bottom 10% of words
  1. : diplomacy backed by the use or threat of military force
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I also don't see US FONOPS as gunboat diplomacy, because I doubt there's real threat of military force against China if it doesn't agree with US views. On the other hand, PanAsian is technically correct in calling it by that noun, because it's the very definition from Webster dictionary.

Frankly, China's own FONOP in the Bearing Straits implies either it agrees with US view, or it wants it both ways. The former is good, and civilized nations can't allowed the latter to stand.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

gunboat diplomacy
noun
Definition of gunboat diplomacy
Popularity: Bottom 10% of words
  1. : diplomacy backed by the use or threat of military force
The US is not threatening anyone, or said they will military force for anything here.

They are simply sailing naval vessels through the ocean.

Should we presume then that anytime the PLAN sails near any other land mass that this is gun boat diplomacy?

Of course not.

People see what they want to see.
 

Brumby

Major
I
Frankly, China's own FONOP in the Bearing Straits implies either it agrees with US view, or it wants it both ways.
You mean hypocrisy?

Definition of gunboat diplomacy
Popularity: Bottom 10% of words
  1. : diplomacy backed by the use or threat of military force
I will use the same definition that you used in reply. Note the word "diplomacy" backed by force. In the case of FONOPs, it is FON backed by established international law and not diplomacy.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
The US is not threatening anyone, or said they will military force for anything here.

They are simply sailing naval vessels through the ocean.

Should we presume then that anytime the PLAN sails near any other land mass that this is gun boat diplomacy?

Of course not.

People see what they want to see.
Except the ultimate answer to whether a nation is willing to pursue its national interests is through combinations of economic, political, and military force. US FONOP qualifies, by Webster dictionary, as gunboat diplomacy.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
You mean hypocrisy?
Ready more carefully, I pretty much said that.


I will use the same definition that you used in reply. Note the word "diplomacy" backed by force. In the case of FONOPs, it is FON backed by established international law and not diplomacy.
International law? Laughable! Name a single mid or great power that didn't ignore international laws when it was in their interests to do so. The ultimate test of a national's interests is its willingness to use force (economic, political, military) to enforce them.
 

Brumby

Major
International law? Laughable! Name a single mid or great power that didn't ignore international laws when it was in their interests to do so. The ultimate test of a national's interests is its willingness to use force (economic, political, military) to enforce them.
Whilst I do not disagree with you that international relations is basically as you described but the subject matter of conversation was about the specific nature of FONOPs and more importantly the source of its legitimacy.
 
Top