PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

plawolf said:

You also talk as if it was America's place to decide what is acceptable and allowable, and that it is down to American good graces to allow China's presence in the SCS, China's own backyard.

I think more than anything, it is this superior and presumptuous attitude that China resents the most.

America is not the world's judge, jury and executioner. It is not America's responsibly or place to police the world and tell others how to behave.

Click to expand...

I never said any such thing, Wolf. You are projecting.

It will be the international community, over time, that will have to decide this. And you know what, for the circumstance to arrive at the type of outcome I expect...no one will have to do anything more than the PRC simply continuing to improve its islands and the US continuing to do FO exercises.

I personally expect, as I stated in my post, that if no one makes a stupid mistake, that thjings will settle down into the reality of:

1) China having improved its shoals and reefs into islands in the SCS and improve them to be effective bases for its own operations and influence in the SCS.

2) The US conducting at will FON exercises that over time occur less and less often.[/quote]

plawolf said:

America has national interests it wants to and needs to protect and look after, but the SCS isn't remotely close to being one of those interests...

Click to expand...

This is simply not so.

Critical US allies and trading partners have significant portions of their trade that pass through the SCS. So the US has a very strong national interest in the safety and stability of the SCS.

To say that the US has not national intrests the SCS is simply not so.

plawolf said:

The continued FON thus seems more like intimidation rather than something based on a genuine concern. Its like someone who lives on the other side of town prowling around along your fence with a loaded shotgun starring at you.

Click to expand...

As stated above...this is not so.

FON is FON, it is not threatening. And as I have stated, the Chinese improvements to its islands, in and of themselves, are also not threatening.

As long as no one does anything stupid to try and force a cessation to either, things will ultimately level and gravitate to the normal I spoke of above.

Jeff Head said:

This is simply not so.

Critical US allies and trading partners have significant portions of their trade that pass through the SCS. So the US has a very strong national interest in the safety and stability of the SCS.

To say that the US has not national intrests the SCS is simply not so.

Click to expand...

So why send a warship to see if China's new islands would disrupt civilian shipping? Wouldn't sending a civilian ship make far more sense if America was truly concerned about civilian trade lanes disruptions?

Hell, do any civilian trade lanes pass anywhere close to those islands China build and improved upon? I highly doubt that, since all the shallows in that area would make navigation difficult if not hazardous, especially for large, deep draft and unmanoeuvrable bulk carriers.

Civilian trade has never been a serious question at all, it's just an excuse used to try and justify and legitimise modern gunboat diplomacy.

As stated above...this is not so.

FON is FON, it is not threatening.

Click to expand...

Its not FON that China has a problem with. Never has, never will. Its the deployment of warships and bombers close to Chinese interests, airspace, waters and its coastal population centres that China feels is inherently threatening and which it has consistently objected to.

If America really was only interested in FON, it would and should have sent a civilian merchantman, or unarmed coast guard/naval vessel to do FON. Since when do you need guns and missiles on your ship to engage in FON?

Send in a civilian merchantman and this wouldn't even be a story. FON is tested and demonstrated, and the Chinese are not made to feel threatened and intimidated by having foreign warships and bombers prowling around its interests well within weapons range.

The high minded principled PR sound bites put out by the White House and Pentagon are just words. The actual actions of the US military speaks far louder, and the message it is sending isn't remotely as friendly.

As long as no one does anything stupid to try and force a cessation to either, things will ultimately level and gravitate to the normal I spoke of above.

Click to expand...

But what happens if someone hijacks FON to pursue other ends?

You want to plan for the worst and hope of the best. We have heard plenty on what the US says it hopes will happen, but nothing on what it would do if FON is abused. That ambiguity makes it more, not less likely someone will try their luck.

What's the US' plan when Vietnam or the Philippines sends ships extremely close to Chinese islands in the name of FON? What if they goes further and do some of the things the chickenhawks in Washington had suggested the USN do? Things like engaging in some deliberately "non-innocent" activity within 12nm of islands to undermine Chinese territorial claims to those islands?

It can be argued that the US already did just that, because its ships were not merely passing through, they loitered. Hell, the ships were on a military mission aimed at Chinese interests plain and simple.

What if the Philippines and Vietnam does that and then say, "well we are just doing what America did" when challenged?

What if China decide to respond with some FON patrols of its own and pays Vietnam and the Philippines the same complement right back?

Could you not see how easy it would be for everyone to get into a vicious cycle of ever more provocative "FON" missions until someone crosses some line one or the other side will not allow them to cross?

plawolf said:

But what happens if someone hijacks FON to pursue other ends?..

Click to expand...

If FON is abused...it ceases being FON.

We can go into all sorts of "what-if"s wolf...as they say, until the cows come home.

I will simply leave it as I have said.

As long as someone does not do something stupid, China will continue improvising its holdings in the South China Sea. No one can or should do anything about that as long as China does not do something stupid.

The US will continue to conduct FON exercise. No one can or should od anything about that as long as the US does not do something stupid.

If other people do something stupid, then you respond to that as it happens.

Trying to conceive of every stupid things various nations might do is a zero sum game here on SD. It turns into a meaningless argument that can only escalate into more and more outrageous things.

That is why such arguments are against SD rules. We simply are not going to do that here on SD on either side.

Jeff Head said:

If FON is abused...it ceases being FON.

Click to expand...

But has that line ever been established and explained?

At precisely what point does FON stop being FON and turn into something else?

We can go into all sorts of "what-if"s wolf...as they say, until the cows come home.

Click to expand...

The reason I am listing what-ifs is because no one seems to know where the limits of FON are, because it is in America's interests to deliberately keep that definition vague and undefined so it could use FON as and when it suits them.

There has been much made about the ambiguousness of China's territorial claims, yet there is curiously little said and asked about the equality poorly defined nature and limits of FON by the US.

If does not help at all when it seems like the White House and Pentagon have distinctly different understandings and definitions of what FON is and encompasses.

If the rules, limits and boundaries of FON are not clearly defined and set out, how would someone know they have crossed a line and "done something stupid" until they have done it?

How would someone else know when to call out someone's behaviour as beyond the scope and FON?

Its not some "stupid" abstract niche theoretical or far-fetched extreme scenario I am giving and asking, these are the very core questions at the very heart of this issue. Am I the only one really worried that no one seems to know where the lines are and what the rules are in this game?

If the rules are not clearly defined, understood and accepted by all, then surely its a question of "when" and not "if" someone crosses the line?

Also, do you not see the inherent and obvious contradiction and inconsistency in taking a "we will deal with it if and when it happens" approach to possible FON abuses, while at the same time adopting a "we need to find out absolutely, with no ambiguity or delay" approach of how the US has treated China's island building?

The US did not wait until China actually tried to limit FON in any way before it decided it needed to mount high profile FON patrols, so why is it that the US feels absolutely no need to explain and set out what the limits of FON rights are? Especially as it seems to be hoping that others would join in with its FON patrols?

Jeff Head said:

...
Critical US allies and trading partners have significant portions of their trade that pass through the SCS. So the US has a very strong national interest in the safety and stability of the SCS.

To say that the US has not national intrests the SCS is simply not so.

Click to expand...

OK Jeff, let's get to it. What exactly is US national interests in the SCS? Those that say it's to protect trade routes from disruptions have a glaring problem in their logic, because no maritime power in the region has ever disrupted legal commercial shipping in any way. If you know of any, kindly point them out. So, if no nations have disrupted martime commerce, then what "safety and stability" are you referring to?

I do believe US has vital national interests in the SCS, and it has nothing to do with ensuring the safety of trade routes that were never impeded nor even threatened. All the shouting and peacock strutting are about sustaining US military primacy as the basis of the Asian security order; trade routes and sea lane security are canards. The faster we all get on the same page, the sooner we could get to the real argument between Beijing and Washington. Tangential arguments and innuendos only muddle the real debate, and delay eventual solution.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it isn't a chicken.

Blackstone said:

OK Jeff, let's get to it. What exactly is US national interests in the SCS? .

Click to expand...

I just explained them.

You may not like what the US is doing from its perspective to punctuate its interests...but there is no doubt that the interests exist just as I explained them.

You yourself say that the interests exists...so there is no need to further detail them.

The fact that no one has ever attacked those interests per sey does not mean the US should not declare, and show that they:

1) Have them.

and,

2) Are willing to punctuate their importance through FON exercises.

As I said earlier, an FON exercise is not a threat in itself. Sailing past islands threatens no one.

To the contrary, like any effort to deter problems, it can be argued that demonstrating the intent to show FON in itself protects FON.

The Chinese, and every other maritime nation who have significant interests and the ability to defend them do similar things all of the time.

Indeed...if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc. it is most certainly a duck. No matter whose duck it is.

The PLAN has ducks, the Russians have ducks, the UK has ducks, etc., etc. and they all get out into the water and exercise according to the desires and intent of thier owners.

When the PLAN sailed though the Bearing Strait...was that a threat? Of course not. It was the PLAN exercising their rights and doing so in a peaceful manner. And please, don't strain at knats by saying that it was the only passage through. We all know that.

But the PLAN had never done it before and now they have...and they punctuated it on the day of their celebrations. And the US immediately stated there was no issue with it.

And, as I say, we can argue over the semantics till the cow comes home...but unless someone does something foolish, it will not make a difference, and it will not threaten anyone any more than the Chinese building 10,000 foot airfields on their new islands in an of itself threatens anyone.

I am done with going round and round about this.

I have made my own position clear (for the 3rd or 4th time now) and there is no sense in simply repeating myself further.

Jeff Head said:

I never said any such thing, Wolf. You are projecting.

It will be the international community, over time, that will have to decide this. And you know what, for the circumstance to arrive at the type of outcome I expect...no one will have to do anything more than the PRC simply continuing to improve its islands and the US continuing to do FO exercises.

I personally expect, as I stated in my post, that if no one makes a stupid mistake, that thjings will settle down into the reality of:

1) China having improved its shoals and reefs into islands in the SCS and improve them to be effective bases for its own operations and influence in the SCS.

2) The US conducting at will FON exercises that over time occur less and less often.

This is simply not so.

Critical US allies and trading partners have significant portions of their trade that pass through the SCS. So the US has a very strong national interest in the safety and stability of the SCS.

To say that the US has not national intrests the SCS is simply not so.

As stated above...this is not so.

FON is FON, it is not threatening. And as I have stated, the Chinese improvements to its islands, in and of themselves, are also not threatening.

As long as no one does anything stupid to try and force a cessation to either, things will ultimately level and gravitate to the normal I spoke of above.

Click to expand...

If you describe FON in this way it looks like a waste of time and money so that is not credible. Everyone around will try to guess what the real reason is.

I think it is in the interest of both China and the US to keep the FON as vague as possible. China is slowly getting into the same league as the US. In other words, China will see its interests expanding in a major way in coming years. Defining the FON so clearly will kind of limit China to whatever its current interests would be. I don't think China wants that. If China wants to reserve the ability to keep expanding and to stay flexible, it better keep these terms as vague as possible. this way, everything can be negotiable, thus obtaining the potential to expand interests...

Jeff Head said:

I just explained them.

You may not like what the US is doing from its perspective to punctuate its interests...but there is no doubt that the interests exist just as I explained them.

You yourself say that the interests exists...so there is no need to further detail them.

The fact that no one has ever attacked those interests per sey does not mean the US should not declare, and show that they:

1) Have them.

and,

2) Are willing to punctuate their importance through FON exercises.

As I said earlier, an FON exercise is not a threat in itself. Sailing past islands threatens no one.

To the contrary, like any effort to deter problems, it can be argued that demonstrating the intent to show FON in itself protects FON.

The Chinese, and every other maritime nation who have significant interests and the ability to defend them do similar things all of the time.

Indeed...if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc. it is most certainly a duck. No matter whose duck it is.

The PLAN has ducks, the Russians have ducks, the UK has ducks, etc., etc. and they all get out into the water and exercise according to the desires and intent of thier owners.

When the PLAN sailed though the Bearing Strait...was that a threat? Of course not. It was the PLAN exercising their rights and doing so in a peaceful manner. And please, don't strain at knats by saying that it was the only passage through. We all know that.

But the PLAN had never done it before and now they have...and they punctuated it on the day of their celebrations. And the US immediately stated there was no issue with it.

And, as I say, we can argue over the semantics till the cow comes home...but unless someone does something foolish, it will not make a difference, and it will not threaten anyone any more than the Chinese building 10,000 foot airfields on their new islands in an of itself threatens anyone.

I am done with going round and round about this.

I have made my own position clear (for the 3rd or 4th time now) and there is no sense in simply repeating myself further.

Click to expand...

For someone who is usually very clear and concise about positions and opinion, this rendition is baffling. I'm not sure why you dance around elephant in the room- US primacy in Asia and China's challenge to it- when that's the talk of the town inside the Beltway.

You're right I'm not happy with US strategy in SCS and East Asia, but that's due to the well-known Washington political disease of the urgent usually trump the important. "Getting tough" with China is in vogue, with the blunderbuss as the preferred instrument. Missing in most elite political circle discussions are efforts to understand and address China's legitimate national and security interests. And no, don't even try the "responsible" stakeholder canard, it's too easy to knock it down. To date, it's "my way or the highway," and do you honestly think that would work?

For the record, the last 40 years have been as good for Asia as it ever had, thanks mainly to US leadership and security guarantees. We'd love it if it continued for another century, I know I would. But, the reality is China has withdrawn its consent to American primacy, and it gave every indication it's serious about it. In other words, the status quo is no longer sustainable.

US now must make a choice between treating China as an equal (or there about), or whack it with a stick and force the genie back into the bottle. That's the real debate; not FON for FON sake, or twisting Australia and ASEAN's arms to do SCS patrols.

vesicles said:

I think it is in the interest of both China and the US to keep the FON as vague as possible. China is slowly getting into the same league as the US. In other words, China will see its interests expanding in a major way in coming years. Defining the FON so clearly will kind of limit China to whatever its current interests would be. I don't think China wants that. If China wants to reserve the ability to keep expanding and to stay flexible, it better keep these terms as vague as possible. this way, everything can be negotiable, thus obtaining the potential to expand interests...

Click to expand...

We are in accord on FON ambiguity, but for all the teeth gnashing and saber rattling in Washington DC and on television. You can't have it both ways, not when State Department officials are quoted by the news media telling Congressional Committees actions like FONOPs are about US leadership and credibility in Asia.

IMHO, It is way past time Americans have public debates on what US role should be in Asia, given the reemerging China, and its demand to be treated as an equal. If Americans want to play hardball to sustain US military primacy, then let's do it. Either way, the nation need to debate the issue.