South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

shen

Senior Member
I have a better one for you. In 2008 Beijing completed the Olympics. Some smart bureaucrat decided to deploy the surplus construction materials and resources to the SCS. Lol. If you want to find a reason it is always available.

But your Lol reason doesn't fit the timeline, mine does. March 2014, Philippines attempted to internationalize the dispute by filing with international court. August 2014, China initiate large scale reclamation.

In the field of history, which I'm familiar with, we differentiate between proximate cause and underlying cause. A simple example, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the proximate cause of WWI. The complex pre-war alliance system in Europe was one of the many underlying causes of WWI.

In the SCS dispute case, the proximate cause of large scale Chinese reclamation in Sprately was clearly the Filipino escalation. If we go back to media coverage back Aug 2014, the reclamation was always linked with the Filipino court filing.

If we want to analyze the underlying cause of large scale Chinese reclamations, I think we can trace it back to the American "pivot" to Asia. Previous small scale Chinese bases in the Spratley was sufficient to deal with the capabilities of rival claimants. But after the only military superpower, the US, announced its "pivot" to Asia, which many in China view as American attempt to contain the rise of China, more capable Chinese bases are now necessary to counter possible future American military involvement in the SCS dispute.
Another reason is that although in the American "pivot" is short in substance, ie, few military resources are actually redeployed to east Asia, the very rhetoric of the "pivot" embolden certain regional actors to become less cooperative and more confrontational towards China. As any long term watch of Asian defense can see, the SCS dispute became far more heated after the "pivot". Therefore more capable Chinese bases are necessary in Spratleys to meet the worsened security environment.

In the words of one American expert.
"Robert S. Ross, an Associate at the John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, argues that the ‘pivot’ toward China is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby U.S. policy “unnecessarily compounds Beijing’s insecurities and will only feed China’s aggressiveness, undermine regional stability, and decrease the possibility of cooperation between Beijing and Washington.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The United States is minimizing long-term diplomatic engagement and inflating the threat posed by Chinese power when it should really be recognizing China’s inherent weaknesses and its own strengths. “The right China policies would assuage, not exploit, Beijing’s anxieties, while protecting U.S. interests in the region.”
 

Zool

Junior Member
When did China start planning and preparation for the reclamation? You don't know, I don't know. Unless you can provide evidence to backup your claim, I don't think that is a fruitful line of discussion.

What we do know are the facts. In March 2014, Philippines filed for arbitration by international court. In August 2014, China initiated the first large scale reclamation at Fiery Cross Reef. Previous Chinese constructions in the Spratley group are all small scale projects comparable to other claimants and smaller than what Vietnam has been building.

And that is really the point. No one outside the Chinese government has access to the planning timetables for Chinese reclamation projects and so cannot say one way or the other if the work is fully or partially in response to competitor activities in the region - but it's irrelevant.

What became relevant is the fact that other countries (Vietnam in particular) began similar reclamation work much earlier than China. Why is this relevant? Because China's regional competitors and the United States as well, took to the strategy of calling China out publicly on these activities. China was initially framed as the mastermind behind this "new" land-grab happening in the SCS which further endangered FON. All of which was factually incorrect and shown to be hypocritical when the complaint was levelled solely at China.

I think it was a misstep in US Foreign Policy to single out China without mentioning the others. The aim was obviously to affect Chinese policy in the near-term and put pressure on the scale of reclamation and what assets China would look to station on these islands. But this still could have been accomplished by more blanket statements toward the region as a whole, along with direct communication, while saving needless aggravation in the bilateral relationship (US-China). It did not seem well thought out to me.
 

Brumby

Major
But your Lol reason doesn't fit the timeline, mine does. March 2014, Philippines attempted to internationalize the dispute by filing with international court. August 2014, China initiate large scale reclamation.

In the field of history, which I'm familiar with, we differentiate between proximate cause and underlying cause. A simple example, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the proximate cause of WWI. The complex pre-war alliance system in Europe was one of the many underlying causes of WWI.

In the SCS dispute case, the proximate cause of large scale Chinese reclamation in Sprately was clearly the Filipino escalation. If we go back to media coverage back Aug 2014, the reclamation was always linked with the Filipino court filing.

The contention I have mentioned many times and I will repeat for the sake of clarity in the conversation is whether :
(i) China's massive reclamation is a direct response to the actions of other claimants ; or
(ii) China's action was years in the planning as a strategic initiative awaiting cover (excuse) to put its own plans into action.

Your idea of proximate or underlying cause is simply a red herring and as it is incapable of differentiating the two.

Your point on the timing of the Filipino's court action and China's subsequent start of reclamation underscores my view rather than undercut my position. As Jeff pointed out, such scale of reclamation requires years of planning and resourcing to put in place. It is symptomatic of a carefully planned and directed program requiring years in the making rather than a reactive program, as claimed. The start of the reclamation was in my view awaiting for the opportunity when it presented themselves so that it becomes the PR talking point to justify China's massive reclamation initiative.

Additionally, China's actions does not meet the proportionality test. China's excuse that because others are doing it rings hollow as it is engaging it in a scale that fails the proportionality test in which ever way you wish to cut it. Such actions are clearly not reactive in nature but in pursuance of its own independent agenda.

Finally, such scale in reclamation is not acting in good faith and duplicitous concerning China's own declaration on what the other claimants had been doing. In China's December 2014 position paper to the Tribunal, it argued that the Philippines had violated the principle of good faith by making inconsistent political statements. In contrast, such actions are pale in comparison to the massive reclamation it is undertaking in attempting to change the status quo and contrary to the principle of good faith.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
To each his own. Let people make up their own mind. I just present the facts.

Shen, I'd give you a simple advice to respect Jeff. He has been very objective and very resourceful and share his immense knowledge to all of us in this forum.

I do believe with what you mentioned that it (court) was a trigger for China to start massive reclamation in 2014, but Jeff is correct that the plan would have taken years and years
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Brumby and antiterror, for China to accomplish in the last three years what it has done in these several reclamation efforts is indicative of very extensive and meticulous planning. And they are showing themselves to be extremely good at it.

In strict terms of massive construction projects like this...my hat is off to them...they have put together very complex and massive efforts and done so according to an aggressive schedule.

Pulling together the numerous disciplines required and the personnel to accomplish it, according to a plan that would have had extensive planning and engineering documentation. we are talking about tens of thousands of documents and drawing, the engineering drawings probably based on CAD/CAE models. Pulling together the equipment necessary and having it scheduled to be available when needed according to this plan, was no small feat, and having it show up and accomplish what it has accomplished to their schedule also speaks to the extensive nature of the planning. These things don't "just happen."

Continuing, planning for the aggregate material by the tens of millions of tons...all of the appropriate and proper material for the various phases of the work... to find/locate, and then either dredge at the islands (for a lot of it) or transport to the islands...is simply impressive to be done in the time frames they have accomplished it...and simultaneously for these various projects.

As I say, years of planning went into such projects to make all of that possible...and they are continuing now with the massive infrastructure building on the islands themselves which all have obviously been a part of the plan.

I have been a part of such plans. For the first 25 years of my career, they were massive military projects, with a five year stint in the Nuclear Power industry on nuclear power projjects. Then for the last 12 years with the US Government on Reclamation projects. I say this again with emphasis...they did not...I repeat THEY DID NOT...see an instance of Filippino law suit filings...or a Vietnam action in 2011 or 2012 and then just decide to do this. I cna say this with 100% confidence. They started doing the work themselves in 2012...and they probably started putting the specific engineering plans together back in 2009 or so...and they decision to move ahead with the detail planning was probably based on an overall strategic plan that they developed years before that.

Remember...on each of these reefs and islands, the PRC moved forward with very simple structures years and years ago...and then through the last half of the 90s and first five years of the 2000s they improved those structures methodically.

Myself and others on this board and other boards have been following those developments for the last 10 years specifically on SD, and I personally was following them for ten years before that.

What you are seeing in the SCS from China's perspective is a 20 year plan coming together.

It is my contention that they planned to get to this type of a stage early of development early on...probably starting at least 15-20 years ago. Then, six years ago (or so), they began putting together specific plans for these large projects we are seeing now...but the decision to do that itself was very, very likely a part of a lager plan. Then approximately three years ago they began actually doing the work against those specific plans.

That's how these projects work. You do not knee jerk...or on a whim, decide in 2012 to throw together massive programs like this. That would be an initiation for disaster, waste and failure. Everything I have observed of the PRC over the last 25 years, when it comes to these type of programs...be they civil or military...speaks to very strong and long term planning. They are proving it with this project again.

And that is to China's credit...whether you agree with what they are actually doing or not...you have to respect what they have accomplished and how they have accomplished it.

If you have never been involved in such programs before...it may look like they decided to say, "hey, look what Vietnam did last year," or, "hey look at what the Filippinos are doing with this law suite...let's show them what we can really do!"

I assure you all...that is not at all what went down. That is far too shallow and reactionary for what the PRC wants to accomplish long term in the SCS.

What they have actually done is work to a plan that has been meticulously planned for years, and then very professionally carried out over the last three. They know what they want to accomplish and they are going about doing so according to their plans.

They have done the same thing with any number of other projects...from highway infrastructure...to the Three Gorges Dam...to many military projects, including their aircraft carrier plans.

Have they had failures? Of course! Everyone does.

Have they had set backs? Yes, of course, everyone has those too.

Have they had surprises? Yes, that too...like everyone else.

But these recent SCS reclamation projects, I can tell you from personally experiences...have been long in the making and their accomplishment in these time frames are very impressive on the world stage by any measure. Again, whether you like what they are doing or not...you must respect what they have done and how they have gone about it.
 

shen

Senior Member
I do believe with what you mentioned that it (court) was a trigger for China to start massive reclamation in 2014, but Jeff is correct that the plan would have taken years and years

I think most people can agree that the trigger or proximate cause for China's large scale reclamation is the Filipinos court filing. The long term or underlying cause is the American "pivot" to Asia.

That doesn't mean the reclamation didn't take many years of planning. I stated in my earlier post that we don't have any evidence to say one way or the other, and that's true. But we shouldn't confuse planning with causation.

For example, all nations prepare war plans during peace time that can be put into effect if and when war start. But that's doesn't mean war plans are the cause of wars. Let's look at a historic example. In the years between WWI and WWII, the United States prepared a series of color coded warplanes to cover every possible war scenarios.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The most famous of these plans was War Plan Orange vs Japan. Now if war started between the US and Japan during those years and War Plan Orange went into effect, is it correct to say that the cause of the war was War Plan Orange? Of course not! The trigger or proximate cause of war in that case would probably be a Japanese attack on Philippines and the underlying cause would be the competing interests of the US and Japan in Asia. Plans don't cause war and plans don't cause reclamation either.

Back to the present day reclamation case. Did China start planning for possible reclamation many years in advance, very possible. In one of the video documentary posted in the China SCS base thread, it was discussed that years ago, survey work carried out on Mischief Reef showed that it had a solid rock base and is suitable for development into a major base. Proposal to turn Mischief Reef into a major base was forward but rejected by the Chinese government at that time. So caused the government to change its mind years later? Based on facts, the Filipino escalation in March 2014 was the final straw and caused the Chinese government to put the previously rejected reclamation plan into action. And I propose the long term cause for the reclamation is the increased military threat to China from the American "pivot" to Asia.
 

advill

Junior Member
The way to solve this problem is to start frank talks by parties concerned, and avoiding the use of rhetoric. The accusations and counter accusations can go on and on by all sides. Be wise owls during negotiations/talks without trying to justify recent actions/developments. Real hard bargaining required, but to think that the losers are those who engage in hostilities could jolt the parties to reality.
 
The way to solve this problem is to start frank talks by parties concerned, and avoiding the use of rhetoric. The accusations and counter accusations can go on and on by all sides. Be wise owls during negotiations/talks without trying to justify recent actions/developments. Real hard bargaining required, but to think that the losers are those who engage in hostilities could jolt the parties to reality.

I have to agree. Yet somehow there will also be detractors and fabricators that does not want this to happen and it takes discipline to stay committed and be a trustworthy dialogue partner. We can hope for the best.
 
Last edited:

joshuatree

Captain
Found pic comparing progress over 2 months.

ekgpis.jpg
 

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
Additionally, China's actions does not meet the proportionality test. China's excuse that because others are doing it rings hollow as it is engaging it in a scale that fails the proportionality test in which ever way you wish to cut it. Such actions are clearly not reactive in nature but in pursuance of its own independent agenda.

Is it proportional to China’s rights and interests in SCS vis-à-vis her national strength?
If it is deemed to be so, then all arguments about whether China’s reactive or pre-emptive reclamation work in SCS in relation to timing and scale of others is moot and irrelevant.
What kind of international law, that would limit China’s rights while allowing others to do the same thing, regardless of timing, scale and legitimacy of doing those things, will still hold not to be irrational, unfair and arbitrary?


Finally, such scale in reclamation is not acting in good faith and duplicitous concerning China's own declaration on what the other claimants had been doing. In China's December 2014 position paper to the Tribunal, it argued that the Philippines had violated the principle of good faith by making inconsistent political statements. In contrast, such actions are pale in comparison to the massive reclamation it is undertaking in attempting to change the status quo and contrary to the principle of good faith.
It is ludicrous to put China on the spot while willfully ignoring the whole village of fully pregnant innocent virgins.
 
Top