China's SCS Strategy Thread

Blackstone said:

As long as China refuses to clarify the 9-dash line, then her Asia and Pacific neighbors will use it against China. If China doesn't care (as she clearly doesn't), then bully for China.

Click to expand...

China has no obligation to clarify anything. Intentionally distorting Nine Dash line and then use the distorted interpretation against China is clearly a tactic of bullying.

Blackstone said:

The US view parallels most of the world and it's China who's different. If China doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks (and she doesn't), then bully for China. But since China has conducted spying missions in other nations' EEZ, then it's hard for China to play it both ways. But if China could muscle her way into it, then bully for the Middle Kingdom.

Click to expand...

No. China's view is paralleled to most of the world, and indeed parallel to what is defined within UNCLOS. The US's view is the one that is different. The key comes down to innocent passage, and innocent passage doesn't include spying and other military activities against another nation.

If other nations allow their EEZ to be violated by Chinese spy ships, that's the choice of those countries. It doesn't place a restriction on how China enforces rules within her EEZ.

Blackstone said:

Saying a lie over and over doesn't make it true. Let's do this one more time: US and most other nations believe EEZ outside 12 mile limit is international water (eh, this means you could spy in it), and China feels she could spy in other nations' EEZ (Hawaii and Guam), but no one else could spy in her EEZ. But if China could browbeat others to allow her to have her cake and eat it too, bully for China.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether EEZ is international water, since UNCLOS states very clearly that transit through EEZ must be expedite and continuous. You can fantasize all you want, but the reality is that UNCLOS spells out the limits to what is allowable within EEZ. Spying and other military activities against China do not meet the definition of innocent passage.

When one nation says China cannot do X on the high sea, that's violating China's rights on international water. That's bullying.

Blackstone said:

Frankly, the West doesn't respect China's history (since they teach so little of it in their schools) and have contempt for her 5,000-years old culture, but they now fear her reemergence, so it's no surprise their unbalanced Press plays up China as the boogieman. If you think China is getting the poison pen now, just wait till when her GDP passes up the US.

Click to expand...

If you look at how China got criticized over the years, you would have noticed that China went from getting criticized for being communist to getting criticized for being capitalist. Basically, China did a 180° and got criticized anyway. I remember over a decade ago, there were some people who criticized China for having too many people and suggested China would invade her neighbors for living space. When the existence of One-Child-Policy finally hit those people, they criticized China for trying to limit her population.

The criticisms back then and the criticisms right now never have anything to do with what China is doing. China's actions are merely used as excuse. The underlying cause of criticisms is that part of the West is against the fundamental rights of self-determination for China and her people.

Engineer said:

China has no obligation to clarify anything. Intentionally distorting Nine Dash line and then use the distorted interpretation against China is clearly a tactic of bullying.

Click to expand...

It's clear we're at an impasse, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

No. China's view is paralleled to most of the world, and indeed parallel to what is defined within UNCLOS. The US's view is the one that is different. The key comes down to innocent passage, and innocent passage doesn't include spying and other military activities against another nation.

If other nations allow their EEZ to be violated by Chinese spy ships, that's the choice of those countries. It doesn't place a restriction on how China enforces rules within her EEZ.

Click to expand...

Not even close, but you're free to have your own opinions.

It doesn't matter whether EEZ is international water, since UNCLOS states very clearly that transit through EEZ must be expedite and continuous. You can fantasize all you want, but the reality is that UNCLOS spells out the limits to what is allowable within EEZ. Spying and other military activities against China do not meet the definition of innocent passage.

When one nation says China cannot do X on the high sea, that's violating China's rights on international water. That's bullying.

Click to expand...

If China truly believed in their fantasy reading of EEZ, then it shouldn't have conducted spying missions off Guam and Hawaii. The fact it has, and may do more of it in the future, gives it no room to complain about US spying in Chinese EEZ. Full stop.

Engineer said:

The criticisms back then and the criticisms right now never have anything to do with what China is doing. China's actions are merely used as excuse. The underlying cause of criticisms is that part of the West is against the fundamental rights of self-determination for China and her people.

Click to expand...

The US and her allies go after the CCP because they believe Chinese people should have fundamental human rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and government through multi-party elections. You could argue the West talks out both sides of its mouth, and you'll have plenty of ammunition, but the CCP might not be in charge if Xi Jinping allows free and fair multi-party elections.

The CCP isn't China, and that's what the shouting is all about.

Blackstone said:

If China truly believed in their fantasy reading of EEZ, then it shouldn't have conducted spying missions off Guam and Hawaii. The fact it has, and may do more of it in the future, then it has no room to complain about US spying in Chinese EEZ. Full stop.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not necessarily true. I think under the Chinese stance, the US would have been free to have at least protest against any Chinese naval presence in their EEZ that they deemed to not be innocent passage, the same way China can to US naval presence in its EEZ that it deems as not innocent passage.

Furthermore, the fact that China may also be spying within US EEZ doesn't mean that it wouldn't still prefer the EEZ law of innocent passage to be abode by all parties.

Basically, I see China as saying this: "we want to play by these rules which are laid out and clearly state that "military vessels can only enter another nation's EEZ for expedite and continuous transit", and we will try to enforce it and you can enforce it as well for your own waters (i.e.: you can try to protest and evict/etc PLAN ships in your EEZ), but we'll also play by your rules the same way you observe them (i.e.: PLAN ships will also do non benign military missions in your EEZ)".

Blackstone said:

It's clear we're at an impasse, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not even close, but you're free to have your own opinions.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with my opinions. What you are saying above is a projection because your retorts are based on your opinions rather than on UNCLOS.

Blackstone said:

If China truly believed in their fantasy reading of EEZ, then it shouldn't have conducted spying missions off Guam and Hawaii. The fact it has, and may do more of it in the future, then it has no room to complain about US spying in Chinese EEZ. Full stop.

Click to expand...

The above statement is a Tu Quoque fallacy. What is allowable is not defined by China's beliefs or actions, but by the UNCLOS. Full stop.

If Chinese spy ship is found to be spying within another country EEZ, that country has the full rights to kick the ship out. Should that country choose to watch instead, that's the country's choice as well. Whatever reaction there may be, it is of no consequence to what China can do within her own EEZ. Full stop.

Blackstone said:

The US and her allies go after the CCP because they believe Chinese people should have fundamental human rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and government through multi-party elections. You could argue the West talks out both sides of its mouth, and you'll have plenty of ammunition, but the CCP might not be in charge if Xi Jinping allows free and fair multi-party elections.

The CCP isn't China, and that's what the shouting is all about.

Click to expand...

The excuse sounds noble, but it is still an excuse. When Chinese exercise their fundamental human rights of free speech by defending their country against criticisms, these people get accused of being brainwashed, 50-cent members, or communist members. "The CCP isn't China" is a wedge that Western media uses to try to drive a wedge between Chinese government and Chinese. When it becomes convenient, the same ammunition used against CCP are also used on Chinese people. That's the reality. So, if China has multiparty democracy, the country would still get criticized just as the country is getting criticisms now for switching to capitalism.

This discussion is a living proof of what I just pointed out above. Even though you are given a quote from UNCLOS, you still held on to your belief because the idea that "China cannot be right" is so ingrained into you. You are simply unable to accept an alternative where China can be right. Everything must be go according to your view of right and wrong. That's the issue. That's why I pointed out that the fundamental issue is the displeasure toward the fundamental rights of self-determination for China and her people.

The US and allies like to preach their ideals by standing on the soap box of freedom and democracy, but these very same parties have the most contempt for the two concepts.

Blackstone said:

The US and her allies go after the CCP because they believe Chinese people should have fundamental human rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and government through multi-party elections. You could argue the West talks out both sides of its mouth, and you'll have plenty of ammunition, but the CCP might not be in charge if Xi Jinping allows free and fair multi-party elections.

The CCP isn't China, and that's what the shouting is all about.

Click to expand...

what the hell has CCP crap has to do with any of this SCS business.

would claims in SCS be handed over to china the next day KMT is put in power?

I have to remind you that in domestic chinese politics how vigorous CCP led chinese government prosecute these claims are a litmus test how legitimate CCP is to hold the mandate to govern.

and these claims themselves in SCS are essentially hold overs from when KMT led RoC is still the default government of china...

your passage is completely irrelevant,strange and muddle headed line of argument. to say the least.

Blackstone said:

Frankly, the West doesn't respect China's history (since they teach so little of it in their schools) and have contempt for her 5,000-years old culture, but they now fear her reemergence, so it's no surprise their unbalanced Press plays up China as the boogieman. If you think China is getting the poison pen now, just wait till when her GDP passes up the US.

Click to expand...

So are you suggesting the Western media pen has the right to dictate how China should behave and be "more responsible" in their view? It is what it is, China is a threat to the values and norms (for some reason I don't know why) of the West therefore they are crying and using any means possible to frame China as "evil" and Communist.

Engineer said:

If Chinese spy ship is found to be spying within another country EEZ, that country has the full rights to kick the ship out. Should that country choose to watch instead, that's the country's choice as well. Whatever reaction there may be, it is of no consequence to what China can do within her own EEZ. Full stop.

Click to expand...

We finally agree on sailing in EEZs. China may sail in anyone's EEZ, just as the US will continue to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters. Any nation may ask other ships to leave their EEZ, just as the other ships could politely tell them 'no.'