South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Blackstone

Brigadier
SCS narrative from a former Australian defense department official.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Many commentators and readers of The Economist keenly await their weekly dose of KAL. The 16 July 2016
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
didn’t disappoint. A claimant hoists the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s South China Sea ruling aloft while the Chinese dragon dumps a load of rocks and topsoil on him, transforming him into a reclaimed facility and replacing the ruling with a more ominous sign ‘Welcome to the New China’. It sums up, with KAL’s usual mordancy, China’s response to the Arbitral Tribunal’s South China Sea determination: China will make its own rules when it comes to defining and protecting its strategic interests.

The Tribunal’s arbitration award in favour of The Philippines is both legally and geo-strategically significant, as Don Rothwell
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in his elegantly argued post. And The Economist’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, ‘it is also the biggest setback so far to China’s challenge to America’s influence in East Asia’. The early indications are that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, impugning the independence and integrity of the five judges of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the entirety of its South China Sea claim.

But to argue that, by flouting the ruling, China will be elevating brute force over international law as the arbiter of disputes,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, at once misunderstands the dynamics of China’s position and endorses a more robust demonstration of force
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(such as the Opposition Defence spokesman, Senator Steven Conroy). In seeking to generate a strategic buffer in the South China Sea and to consolidate its military footholds there, China is doing exactly what any rising power seeks to do—stare down its rivals and marginalise any local opposition.

That, of course, is precisely what the Monroe Doctrine, enunciated almost two centuries ago but still informing US strategic policy today, achieved in securing US dominance over the western hemisphere. China, however, isn’t promoting
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
but is rather continuing an approach more consistent with the strategy of Admiral Zheng He (Cheng Ho) in the 15th century and the more contemporary One Belt One Road policy.

It’s a strategic and political impossibility for China meekly to accept the Court of Arbitration’s ruling and withdraw its claim. Had that at any time been under consideration, China would have joined proceedings in The Hague and argued its case. That’s not to suggest, however, that China lacks options.

First, while continuing to ignore the ruling and proceeding with the construction of artificial installations in the South China Sea, China will play for time. The G20 meeting to be held in Hangzhou in early September is an important opportunity for China to showcase its power, status and wealth. China will play down the significance of both the South China Sea issue and the ruling at least until it concludes a successful heads of government meeting. And China will certainly exploit Philippines President Duterte’s offer of further consultations as proof that the court ruling isn’t the last word on the matter.

Second, China will continue to challenge and rebuff what it sees as confected US interests in the South China Sea. China’s claim, and those of the other claimants, have been alive for almost 70 years. But it was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at the 2010 ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi that identified US interests in the South China Sea. China will continue to portray the US as a self-interested latecomer to the issue.

Third, China will continue to engage bilaterally with each of the claimants, seeking either to buy them off through promises of development funding (the One Belt approach) while using concessions by one claimant to manipulate the options of the others. China’s neighbourhood diplomacy is already paying dividends, as the carefully drafted 24 July 2016
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reference to the South China Sea reflects.

Fourth, China will consolidate its land reclamations as faits accomplis, and while the declaration of an ADIZ may be unlikely in the short term (it wouldn’t be helpful in the lead-up to the G20 meeting), such a declaration remains a definite option should the China–ASEAN discussions fail to proceed smoothly. And, of course, a naval show of force by the US and others to exercise freedom of navigation rights could precipitate exactly the outcome that regional countries wish to avoid.

China’s regional diplomatic skills are well developed. Its push/pull manoeuvre/manipulate techniques are both honed and practised, and China is working away at creating its own set of regional agreements that will provide an interesting contrast to the ‘rules-based international order’ favoured by the US and its allies, particularly Australia. Wu Xinbo’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
makes for interesting reading in this regard.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is absolutely correct in emphasising diplomacy and negotiation as the most effective way forward in the current South China Sea dispute. But she needs to recognise that the term ‘rules based international order’ is tantamount to code for ‘US-legitimised international order’—a concept that China is happy to ignore. As China, India and Russia—amongst others—continue to assert their strategic ambitions, the legitimacy of the post-WW2 international order can only erode further. China wants to be a rules-creator as well as, perhaps, a rules-observer. The issue here isn’t one of accommodation or appeasement towards China’s regional and global aspirations, but rather acceptance of China for what it has become—a major power in its own right. To deny China that role would be to create an unhappy dragon. We should all take care.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
SCS narrative from a former Australian defense department official.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is PRC state media's response;

Chinese state media calls Australia ‘an ideal target to strike’ in event of South China Sea patrol

Chinese state-run media has called Australia “an ideal target for China to warn and strike” if it ventures into the contested South China Sea.



The Global Times, known for its hard-line nationalist stance, blasted Canberra on Saturday in an editorial slamming its support for the July 12 ruling by an international arbitration tribunal at The Hague that invalidated China’s historical claims to much of the South China Sea.

Piling on insults, the paper called Australia a “country with an inglorious history. … at first an offshore prison of the UK. … established through uncivilized means, in a process filled with the tears of the aboriginals.”


The commentary also criticized Australia’s joint declaration with the U.S. and Japan last Monday, which urged China not to construct military outposts and reclaim more land in the disputed waters.


Linking statements condemning China’s moves in the waters to Australia’s alliance with the U.S., the editorial said that Canberra “also intends to suppress China so as to gain a bargaining chip for economic interests.”.... to read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is another one ;


'Give them a bloody nose': Xi pressed for stronger South China Sea response

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's leadership is resisting pressure from elements within the military for a more forceful response to an international court ruling against Beijing's claims in the South China Sea, sources said, wary of provoking a clash with the United States.

China refused to participate in the case overseen by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. It denounced the emphatic July 12 ruling in favor of the Philippines as a farce that had no legal basis and part of an anti-China plot cooked up in Washington. The ruling has been followed in China by a wave of nationalist sentiment, scattered protests and strongly worded editorials in state media. So far, Beijing has not shown any sign of wanting to take stronger action. Instead, it has called for a peaceful resolution through talks at the same time as promising to defend Chinese territory. But some elements within China's increasingly confident military are pushing for a stronger - potentially armed - response aimed at the United States and its regional allies, according to interviews with four sources with close military and leadership ties...... to read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and some accuse me of fanning the flame.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Here is PRC state media's response;



Here is another one ;




and some accuse me of fanning the flame.

No Way Blue! well the world as we know it is changing. People in our culture, our own President BHO, and now China, are all playing the "Victim Card"! What those players don't realize is how "ludicrous" that appears to the world around them????

BHO is the most powerful man on the planet, yet he still sees himself as some kind of a victim, a guy who received the very best education money can buy, as a "ward of the state", but he "feels" like people don't like him??? and therefore that has triggered his little "victim" identity????

Now we have China, a nation that we welcomed in to the international community and offered a "powerful" place at the table. No doubt the US has benefited from China, and the hard work of Chinese citizens, many of whom were also welcomed and encouraged to become US citizens, and rightly so.

Now I'm not suggesting the US always acts with an "altruistic" motive, but many times we do, and there always have been folks around who are "users, and manipulators", like our current BHO team, and they continue to give us a bad name.

One thing I continue to observe about "leftists" is that they always feel "entitled" rather than having a willingness to work for what they need or want, and they extend very little grace to the rest of us who do have to work--- (I will point to Obama-care, fining those who cannot afford health care, under the affordable care act). and yes I paid a fairly large sum of money last year and the year before to "brother o".
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Here is PRC state media's response;



Here is another one ;




and some accuse me of fanning the flame.
It's nothing more than ill conceived saber rattling for domestic consumption. CCP has to walk a fine line between showing it will guard Chinese sovereignty, while at the same time prevent nationalistic fever from boiling over. Governance legitimacy can be tricky for all governments, and the Red Dynasty is no exception.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
No Way Blue! well the world as we know it is changing. People in our culture, our own President BHO, and now China, are all playing the "Victim Card"! What those players don't realize is how "ludicrous" that appears to the world around them????

BHO is the most powerful man on the planet, yet he still sees himself as some kind of a victim, a guy who received the very best education money can buy, as a "ward of the state", but he "feels" like people don't like him??? and therefore that has triggered his little "victim" identity????
It's common knowledge most politicians around are opportunists, and will use whatever at their disposal to retain power and to rule. And when it comes to that, BHO, XJP, and even the Pope are peas in the same pod.

Now we have China, a nation that we welcomed in to the international community and offered a "powerful" place at the table.
OK my friend Brat, I need some clarifications. What do you mean by China offered a "powerful place at the table?" One of China's biggest problems with the existing international order, especially the Asian security order, is the lack of a place at the table that gives it a real say in how the world/region is run. Here are some specific examples of why I ask you for clarification:
  • China wanted more say in global financial governance, commensurate with it's reemergence as an economic superpower. US Senate refused more IMF voting rights.
  • China wanted more say in Asian financial governance, commensurate with it's reemergence as an economic superpower. US and Japan stymied greater leadership role at ADB.
  • China wanted to exert "great power privilege". US-alliance says 'we yes, but not you.'
  • China wants to place its national interests at the top of its agenda. The West say 'do as we say and not as we do.'
I'm not playing gotcha games Brat, issues like the above are real and vexing to not only China, but other emerging powers too.
 
Good article highlighting a fundamental implication of unmanned systems used for military purposes, that it favors offense over defense, the setting in this case is the ECS and SCS but the implication is applicable everywhere and in fact have been proven in many locales.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Unmanned Systems and Manned Conflict in East Asia
Potential (mis)use of military robotic technology in East Asia’s maritime conflicts is enormous.
ByTobias Burgers and Scott N. Romaniuk
August 02, 2016

The South China Sea (SCS) and East China Sea (ECS) maritime conflicts, which have occasionally been likened to “Mexican standoffs,” have seen steady escalation over recent years. Contested oil rigs, newly build islands on coral reefs, sunken boats declared islands, military encounters between air and naval forces, contested freedom of navigation, and aggressive fishermen acting like national militias have become an integral part of the SCS. Further north, unilaterally declared air identification zones, incursions into air and sea spaces around the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands,locked radar systems, and hostile diplomatic language have become part of the ECS conflict.

Both conflicts have seen a rapid rise in political and security tensions – foremost after the recentarbitral tribunal verdictand through the deployment of military, rather than non-military (fishermen) or para-military (coast guards) assets. Nevertheless these tensions are politically manageable, and will likely not escalate into full military conflict, at least for the time being. Despite recent military deployments and aggressive naval action, the focus among all actors, regional (Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia) and international (the United States and Australia, among others) is to maintain a (fragile) peace.

The rise and increasing use of robotic technology could drastically alter that peace, giving rise to an escalation of tension and hostility in which sustained, albeit likely limited, conflict could become a possibility. This relates to two factors: first, the likelihood that so-called unmanned systems will be deployed in such conflict; second and subsequent, the still-obscure role of unmanned systems in these conflicts.

The role and importance of unmanned systems will only further increase in the near future. Given the operational and economic advantages of unmanned systems, it is likely that their current and still-limited deployment will increase quickly over the next few years, as they have unique capabilities and qualities that would make them ideal for use in both the SCS and ECS. They can remain at sea or in the air for extended periods, patrolling thousands of miles of land and sea – ideal for the extended geographical distances of the SCS and ECS. The development, procurement, and operational costs of unmanned systems are significantly less, making them available for regional actors with limited military budgets. From a quantitative perspective, we can expect that the use of unmanned systems in both conflicts will become more widespread. On a qualitative level, they have the endurance suited for large-scale and extended intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) roles. Indeed, medium and high altitude unmanned systems, such as the Global Hawk and China’s Xianglong Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) are able to conduct surveillance of thousands of square miles within a single day. They could provide states with better means and opportunities to enhance their ISR capabilities, thereby enabling better situational awareness by providing enhanced audio and visual ammunition in addition to evidence for media wars over both conflicts.

These advantages, unique abilities, and relatively limited costs make it likely that we will see more unmanned systems on, below, and above the waters of both seas. Indeed, an analysis of regional unmanned system capabilities show that nearly all actors have, to different extents, such capabilities.
...
Cont'd next post due to character limit.
 
Cont'd from previous post due to character limit.
...
China has over the course of the last decade developed a wide array of unmanned systems and has slowly become one of the world’s leaders in unmanned systems development. It is developing and producing sophisticated Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) such as the Dark Sword. In addition, it has already operationally deployed other UAVs such as the CH-4, an UAV that bears a stark resemblance to the MQ-9 Predator. It is also developing and is partly capable of deploying Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs).

Japan possesses the U.S. developed Global Hawk, a long endurance, high altitude UAV, and a number of smaller UAVs. It too is aiming to develop UUVs for maritime security purposes.

Vietnam recently revealed an advancedhigh-altitude long endurance unmanned systemwith a range of 2,500 miles that can remain in flight for up to 35 hours. Vietnam’s HS-6L is the product of nearly 10 years of development and will likely be used to maintain constant surveillance on Chinese military deployment and activity in contested SCS waters. Orbiter 2 and Orbiter 3 drones from Israel have likewise also become part of Vietnam’s arsenal.

The Philippines has also turned to unmanned systems in the SCS rivalry. According toDefense World, the Philippine Defense Department’sModernization Programincludes several projects that will result in the supply of surveillance systems, including drones. Interest in acquiring American Predator drones is also largely evident.

Taiwan, too, has developed a wide array of unmanned systems in recent years, among others the Chung Shyang II UAV and a newly developed MALE UAV, which resembles the U.S. MQ-9 Predator.

The United States – the world’s leader in unmanned robotic development – has already deployed its unmanned systems (the Global Hawk) in East Asian airspace. Last April, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, while aboard theaircraft carrier USSStennissailing in the South China Sea – an unmistakeable signal for China – stated that the United States had operational UUV capabilities and would deploy them as Washington saw fit. His visit signaled the determination of the United States to stand firmly alongside its ally, the Philippines, in the wake of a stout China posture in the area against its much smaller but equally-determined neighbors.

The deployment of unmanned systems would, however, not need to directly lead to contested waters, airspace, and increasing tension. Thousands of vessels and planes fly and sail through both seas monthly, without leading to violent military conflict. Rather, it is the possible purpose for which these systems could be used that could give rise to increasing tensions and possible violent conflict. Unmanned system are relatively easy to spot, making their military value, beyond ISR roles, relatively limited. However, this obvious visibility makes them ideally suited for political purposes: They are perfect tools for highly visible intrusions into opposing actors’airspaces or sea zones. Such actions would fit within the strategy or tactics of the infamous salami slicing tactics, or as what James Holmes refers to assmall stick diplomacy: Small, minor actions, which are not imminent (major) security threats, but which over time would contest actors’ control, dominance and sovereignty

The utility of unmanned systems, vis-à-vis manned systems, is that the absence of human operators creates advantages for the intruding actor. As no direct human interaction is possible – like communication between pilots within visual range, or crew of naval vessels – the opposing forces are limited to only two possibilities: communication or the use of violence. However, if an actor seeks to communicate, warn, and to deter the intruding systems, it would need to relay this effort by means of an extensive and time consuming process: It would need to go up and through various military and diplomatic channels, after which the entire communicational effort would need go back down to the operators of the intruding unmanned system. This is a lengthy, cumbersome process and one during which an unmanned system could remain in the contested air or sea space. If, however, an actor would decide to not pursue this lengthy process it can only decide to damage or destroy the intruding systems. This would be a significant escalation, as it would be the destruction of military material – a novelty in a region of increasing tension – and could be met with a strong political and possible military response. Within the framework of the public relations and media wars, it would make the defender look like the aggressor.

James Holmessummarized the situation of what to do with intruding unmanned systems well when he described such operations: “In effect they dare you to escalate.” As such, the use of unmanned systems could favor those seeking the offensive, intrusive use of such systems for political purposes. Particularly actors with significant military powers and the upper hand could play this game of dare-to-escalate. They could engage in a game of maritime bluff, where they seek to outmaneuver opposing actors with lesser military capabilities, challenging them to contest their actions and power.

Approaching the SCS and ECS like a game of poker is risky strategy, foremost if what is at stake are not merely chips, but geopolitical powers and human lives. It is therefore essential that all nations involved in both conflicts develop frameworks and understandings on how to deal with the rise of unmanned systems and their possible offensive and assertive use. The South and East China Seas have recently seen their waters become increasingly stormy though they remain sailable. It would be a mistake if the rise and use of unmanned systems turned them into inaccessible waters.

Tobias Burgers is a Doctoral Candidate at the Otto-Suhr-Institute (Free University of Berlin) where he researches the rise and use of cyber, robotic systems in security relations, and the future of military conflict.

Scott Nicholas Romaniuk is a PhD Candidate in International Studies (University of Trento). His research focuses on asymmetric warfare, counterterrorism, international security, and the use of force.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
It's common knowledge most politicians around are opportunists, and will use whatever at their disposal to retain power and to rule. And when it comes to that, BHO, XJP, and even the Pope are peas in the same pod.


OK my friend Brat, I need some clarifications. What do you mean by China offered a "powerful place at the table?" One of China's biggest problems with the existing international order, especially the Asian security order, is the lack of a place at the table that gives it a real say in how the world/region is run. Here are some specific examples of why I ask you for clarification:
  • China wanted more say in global financial governance, commensurate with it's reemergence as an economic superpower. US Senate refused more IMF voting rights.
  • China wanted more say in Asian financial governance, commensurate with it's reemergence as an economic superpower. US and Japan stymied greater leadership role at ADB.
  • China wanted to exert "great power privilege". US-alliance says 'we yes, but not you.'
  • China wants to place its national interests at the top of its agenda. The West say 'do as we say and not as we do.'
I'm not playing gotcha games Brat, issues like the above are real and vexing to not only China, but other emerging powers too.

I'm going to plead the fifth, or maybe just "ignorance", while I am aware of many of China's concerns, I am also aware that the US has extended to China "most favored nation" trade status, and generally an "economic path-way" to grow, and grow her economy, has it benefited both countries, yes and no, many US jobs were "exported" to China, and China benefited greatly economically.

Now that BHO has had the US economy in "free fall" for over 7 years, it is likely that he has also exported our "recession". I am aware that the BHO team has mishandled, and "disrespected" China, as evidenced anecdotally by Michelle Obama's visit, with her Mom, and children, and the apparently "rude behavior", she exhibited toward the Chinese hotel staff and others on her visit. It should have been an opportunity for the first lady to show some manners, and gracious love to the Chinese people, while at the same time "building relationships" with the govt officials whom she came in contact with, but Michelle is not that kind of girl.

Also the much "bally-hooed" "Pacific Pivot" has been handled very poorly, and in a manner to cast doubt on China, very ignorant, and very poor taste, no doubt "rude" behavior as well. These concerns should have been handled quietly and diplomatically, but BHO likes to lecture us all and make us feel like second class citizens, going to the "principals office", just a very screwed up mess. So I do get that, and I do NOT approve of how any of our foreign policy has been "botched" from day one.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
....and another
Beijing warns of war in South China Sea and urges military, police and public to prepare

China's defence minister Chang Wanquan has warned the military, police and the public to prepare for a "people's war at sea" as tensions over the South China Sea dispute escalated.

The comments come weeks after The Hague ruled against China's historic claims over the disputed maritime asset, stating the country had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights through its activities in the region.

Urging the country to prepare for mobilisation to "safeguard sovereignty", Wanguan called for recognition of the "seriousness of the national security situation".

According to the country's official Xinhua News Agency, Beijing has placed emphasis on a "threat from the sea" and maritime security threats, calling for the public to be educated on national defence issues.

In recent months, China has increased military activity in the disputed seas, causing concern for its smaller neighbours and becoming a source of confrontation with the United States. China dismissed The Hague's South China Sea ruling, noting that it does not have jurisdiction over the dispute.
chinas-defense-minister-chang-wanquan.jpg

China's Defense Minister Chang Wanquan has warned of
'threat from the sea' amid a 'serious national security
(ED JONES/AFP/Getty)


....... to read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top