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

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
Won't be surprise if China annex natunas one day like Crimea, It's full of ethnic Chinese and preempt choking near Malacca strait choke point.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Won't be surprise if China annex natunas one day like Crimea, It's full of ethnic Chinese and preempt choking near Malacca strait choke point.

There's really no reason to suspect that, considering China's been quite consistent in saying the Natunas are Indonesia's and they have no claims over the islands themselves.

The friction is about the fishing rights around the islands where there may be a degree of overlap with the nine dash line and the Natuna's EEZ.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
So is China now claiming waters beside islands?

I have no idea, but it appears that is where the friction has been arising -- in our previous discussions I've also said I would like China to clarify its claims in a clearer fashion, if only so we can have more proper discussions regarding it on forums.

But I think what isn't in much dispute is that China accepts that the Natuna island features are Indonesia's, and I don't imagine that stance will be changing any time soon.
 

Brumby

Major
I have no idea, but it appears that is where the friction has been arising -- in our previous discussions I've also said I would like China to clarify its claims in a clearer fashion, if only so we can have more proper discussions regarding it on forums.

But I think what isn't in much dispute is that China accepts that the Natuna island features are Indonesia's, and I don't imagine that stance will be changing any time soon.

The way I read it is that China has not figured out how to deal with the waters adjacent to the Natuna islands. Maritime zones can only be generated from land territories and any claims on waters only (if based on nine dash) would go against traditional principle of "the land dominates the sea".
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I have no idea, but it appears that is where the friction has been arising -- in our previous discussions I've also said I would like China to clarify its claims in a clearer fashion, if only so we can have more proper discussions regarding it on forums.

But I think what isn't in much dispute is that China accepts that the Natuna island features are Indonesia's, and I don't imagine that stance will be changing any time soon.
China not clarifying their SCS claims, especially the hated 9-dash line, is the reason I say it is the biggest obstacle to sovereignty resolution, because how can the disputes be resolved if no one knows for certain who claims what?

If China claims all the waters inside the 9DL, then say so; it's a silly claim, but at least there's a base for diplomacy or even voluntary arbitration through international courts. And if parties don't trust the ICJ or the Permanent Arbitration Court, then Asian countries can set up their own just and fair courts. The bottom line is at the end of the day, the disputes can only move forward by the claimants and not by third parties with their own agendas.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The way I read it is that China has not figured out how to deal with the waters adjacent to the Natuna islands. Maritime zones can only be generated from land territories and any claims on waters only (if based on nine dash) would go against traditional principle of "the land dominates the sea".

Well, your guess is as good as mine. This is really just a small facet of the overall strategic ambiguity China is maintaining regarding the nine dash line altogether.

===


China not clarifying their SCS claims, especially the hated 9-dash line, is the reason I say it is the biggest obstacle to sovereignty resolution, because how can the disputes be resolved if no one knows for certain who claims what?

If China claims all the waters inside the 9DL, then say so; it's a silly claim, but at least there's a base for diplomacy or even voluntary arbitration through international courts. And if parties don't trust the ICJ or the Permanent Arbitration Court, then Asian countries can set up their own just and fair courts. The bottom line is at the end of the day, the disputes can only move forward by the claimants and not by third parties with their own agendas.

No disagreement from me -- but China seems to believe maintaining strategic ambiguity around the issue is in their interests... so go figure.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
The way I read it is that China has not figured out how to deal with the waters adjacent to the Natuna islands. Maritime zones can only be generated from land territories and any claims on waters only (if based on nine dash) would go against traditional principle of "the land dominates the sea".
That's how I see it too (waters next to Natuna). I also get the sense China might, MIGHT, be willing to accept some kind of face saving reset; the 9-dash line has created more trouble than its worth, and it's an absolute impediment to amicable settlements. China should look to how the US managed its dominant role in the Greater Caribbean, and understand it doesn't need to own the SCS waters or even most of the land features to have near absolute maritime security.

Having friendly nations around the SCS is much better than hostile ones, especially when none of them could realistically challenge China's power. Even if others own most of the islands/rocks/features, they have little incentives to upset China commercially, and even less to threaten its maritime security. It'd be exceptionally stupid or suicidal to do so. China's national interests are better served by friendly SCS nations, all willing to cooperate with it to fight pirates and keep SCS SLOC open for all.

It's time for Beijing to put away the stick and offer carrots to the other SCS claimants. There's no doubt each and every one of them would jump at the chance for fair settlement. What about China's maritime security? Well, there are those seven artificial islands, some with airstrips on them, and I'll bet dollars to donuts China could strike a deal where it keeps them for "public goods" reasons, especially when involved parties know there's no possibility of a deal if that doesn't happen.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
No disagreement from me -- but China seems to believe maintaining strategic ambiguity around the issue is in their interests... so go figure.
9-dash line ambiguity might have been useful at one time, but it has passed the "use by" date. At the pace of China's economic development and military modernization, it no longer needs to 'own' the SCS to dominate it and have its own version of the Monroe Doctrine. In fact, it should look at how US manages the Greater Caribbean to see how it's done.
 
Top