South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Naval Today said:

The U.S. Navy will sail, fly and operate wherever international law allows, Admiral Harry B. Harris, Commander of the United States Pacific Command, said at an Armed Services House committee hearing yesterday, February 24.

The U.S. Navy Admiral, in confirmation of U.S. fears, said that China was “clearly militarising” the region by setting up missile launchers on the disputed islands.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, when asked about the missile launchers and radars, did not deny anything and reasoned that the “limited and necessary” defence facilities on the islands were within international law regulations.

Asked about what could be done to stop China in its intentions and deter militarization, Harris said he believes a stronger naval presence might do the job. He added that the U.S. Navy could consider putting another attack submarine in the region, among other options which would not entail a full-blown carrier group.

The Admiral, however, did note that an enhanced engagement could face certain “fiscal and political hurdles”.

As the tensions in the region are constantly on the rise, U.S. officials are continuing to endorse the freedom of navigation policy in the South China Sea, most of which China claims for itself.

Click to expand...

Some people will try and make a lot of this.

But it is perfectly in line with what I had said in the past. Short of open conflict...

The US cannot stop China from reclamation and improving its holdings in the SCS.

China cannot stop the US Navy from conducting its FON exercises in the SCS.

In the end...it will be China's position in the SCS that will strengthen more.

The US Navy does not have bases there. The closest they have will be the old US Bases in the Philippines which are being reopened to them.

But there is only so much naval presence that can be sailed through and maintained in the actual SCS by the US.

China's ability to do so will continue to grow as they improve their bases that are directly in the SCS.

Both sides will make hay out of the situation to their populations...and to their defense budgets.

Jeff Head said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/U]

View attachment 25439 ​

Some people will try and make a lot of this.

But it is perfectly in line with what I had said in the past. Short of open conflict...

The US cannot stop China from reclamation and improving its holdings in the SCS.

China cannot stop the US Navy from conducting its FON exercises in the SCS.

In the end...it will be China's position in the SCS that will strengthen more.

The US Navy does not have bases there. The closest they have will be the old US Bases in the Philippines which are being reopened to them.

But there is only so much naval presence that can be sailed through and maintained in the actual SCS by the US.

China's ability to do so will continue to grow as they improve their bases that are directly in the SCS.

Both sides will make hay out of the situation to their populations...and to their defense budgets.

Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why FON makes so little sense for the US.

They are achieving nothing lasting or tangible with all this, yet are providing China with all the reason diplomatic cover it needs to turn those SCS bases into fortresses, and also steadily hardening Chinese views towards America. And I'm not just taking about the government here.

Without FON, China would have found it far harder to justify that sort of move, and those islands may well have remained largely as civilian outposts with limited military value.

Even if the USN was determined to conduct FON, it could have easily sent in unarmed naval ships and military transports/patrol planes, as opposed to heavily armed warships and heavy bombers. The Chinese reaction would have been far less sever, or if it was the same, then China would have looked a great deal more unreasonable than it currently does in its position to the neutral observer.

Just look at the British reaction to Russian bombers flying in international airspace near the British home islands.

Imagine the America reaction if China sent warships and/or bombers within 12nm of a major US military base uninvented and claimed FON. Which is precisely why China has resisted illustrating the hypocrisy inherent in the US position, since demonstrating it would harm Chinese interest more by enraging the US public while they are still largely indifferent to the whole situation at present.

You hit the nail right on the head when you said this was largely about defence budgets.

The USN needs to find ways to defend their share of the pie, especially since the whole Ukraine crisis has meant the US is going to be massively increase the budget of its European command, which is primarily for the army and air force.

Without tangible threats, the USN would find it extremely hard to defend part of their share of the budget from being reallocated to the air force and ground forces in Europe.

Casting around, the only power with even the potential to challenge the USN is China, so is it any wonder that the choices made by the top USN commander in the Pacific would end up raise tensions with China unnecessarily?

It is really unfortunate that people of such exalted positions could so openly put factional interest ahead of national interests and be celebrated for it.

PS, China actually have far less reason to hype up threats to justify its defence budget.

China has a very similar mentality as Israel with regards to defence. Its not viewed as a luxury, but as an absolutely necessity. The words "never again" has just as much resonance in China as it does in Israel.

You will find very few people in the street in China who question the necessity of a strong military and a high defence budget.

If anything, the popular view is that China isn't spending enough on defence.

plawolf said:

Agreed, which is why FON makes so little sense for the US.

They are achieving nothing lasting or tangible with all this, yet are providing China with all the reason diplomatic cover it needs to turn those SCS bases into fortresses, and also steadily hardening Chinese views towards America. And I'm not just taking about the government here.

PS, China actually have far less reason to hype up threats to justify its defence budget.

China has a very similar mentality as Israel with regards to defence. Its not viewed as a luxury, but as an absolutely necessity. The words "never again" has just as much resonance in China as it does in Israel.

You will find very few people in the street in China who question the necessity of a strong military and a high defence budget.

If anything, the popular view is that China isn't spending enough on defence.

Click to expand...

From the US perspective, FON makes perfect sense.

They establish their presence in the area and punctuate a fundamental tenant of their maritime policy.

It's just that all the FON in the world is not going to stop the Chinese doing as they wish on their islands.

Here's a short speech from the always thoughtful and balanced Ambassador J. Stapleton Roy on US-China relations. Ambassador Roy is not a China bear nor a fanboi and his comments are worthy of consideration by panda huggers and dragon slayers alike.

Looks like the Beltway Mandarins called on China to extend non-militarization pledge to all of SCS, and in doing so, they affirmed Xi Jingping kept his word on not militarizing the Spratlys. But from all the MSM stories, you get the picture Xi went back on his promise, and can't be trusted to honor good faith agreements. Interesting turnabout.

The White House on Friday urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to extend his pledge not to militarize the disputed Spratly Islands to encompass all of the South China Sea.

Dan Kritenbrink, President Barack Obama’s top Asia advisor, issued the call at the end of a week in which China and the United States have sparred over Chinese deployment of missiles, fighter planes and radar on islands in the contested strategic waterway.

Xi had pledged during a U.S. state visit last September not to militarize the Spratly archipelago, which is claimed by Manila and Beijing, but U.S. officials have since said they see military intent in China’s building of air strips and installation of radar there.

Friction has increased over China’s recent deployment of surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets to Woody Island in the disputed Paracel chain. It has been under Chinese control for more than 40 years but is also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.

“We think it would be good if that non-militarization pledge, if he (Xi) would extend that across the South China Sea,” Kritenbrink told a conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We’re going to encourage our Chinese friends and other countries in the region to refrain from taking steps that raise tensions."

Admiral Harry Harris, head of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command, said this week China was “changing the operational landscape” in the South China Sea and the United States would increase freedom-of-navigations patrols. His congressional testimony coincided with a U.S. visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

China says its military facilities in the South China Sea are "legal and appropriate," and on Tuesday, in a reference to U.S. patrols, Wang said Beijing hoped not to see more close reconnaissance or dispatch of missile destroyers or bombers.

Kritenbrink also reiterated that China should respect an international court ruling expected later this year on its dispute with the Philippines over the South China Sea.

China, which claims virtually all the South China Sea, is facing an arbitration case filed by Manila. Beijing rejects the authority of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, even though it has ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea on which the case is based.

“When that ruling comes out, it will be binding on both parties,” Kritenbrink said. “That will be an important moment that all of us in the region should focus on.”

Click to expand...

SE Asian foreign ministers voice concerns on South China Sea

VIENTIANE, Laos – Foreign ministers from the 10 countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations said Saturday that they were "seriously concerned" by recent developments in the disputed South China Sea region and will seek a meeting over the issue with China.

At the end of their annual retreat, held this year in the Laos capital of Vientiane, they noted their worries and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining peace, security and stability in the area.

The strategically important South China Sea is at the center of a territorial dispute involving China on one side and a number of ASEAN countries on the other, including Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Tensions have ramped up since China began a massive land reclamation program in 2013. Recent satellite imagery suggests that China has installed surface-to-air missiles in a disputed area in the Paracels chain, prompting accusations that Beijing is militarizing the area.

A joint statement said the ASEAN foreign ministers "remained seriously concerned over recent and ongoing developments and took note of the concerns expressed by some members on the land reclamations and escalation of activities" in the South China Sea.

The statement added that the activities have "eroded trust and confidence, increased tensions and may undermine peace, security and stability in the region."

Vietnam's foreign minister, Pham Binh Minh, told reporters as he left the meeting that he was "seriously concerned about the situation" and called for the "non-militarization" of the South China Sea.

Cambodia's foreign minister, Hor Namhong, said ASEAN would seek a meeting with China over the matter, though no date or venue had been set.

Other matters were on the agenda too. The ministers reiterated their perennial call for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. They also addressed Islamic extremism, in the wake of an attack in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta in January that left eight people dead.

"The threat is real. It's no longer fictitious or mere imagination," said Malaysia's foreign minister, Anifah Aman.

Click to expand...

Maybe ASEAN is finally waking up from its slumber or delusion.

I don't see anywhere in the article or the statement that they gang up against China .They are not in position to antagonize China due to geography. Empire come and go in Asia. But China will be there in eternity. Nobody want the recipient of china's wrath.

It is funny to see how unnamed country keep whipping up the threat that China pose to Asean, when the Asian themselves have been live with strong China for millennia.

And they all still speak Vietnamese, Thai and Malay until today. They know how to live with strong China and don't need outsider to teach them

In other word they bob and weave and bend where the wind blow, when they time come.
if history is any precedent which they normally is .

The Vietnamese beat the Ming in battle but they don't see any gain in humiliating China They accept the token chinese suzerainty for hundred of years. And in turn China leave them alone.

If history is any precedent it will repeat again since there is so much to gain from befriending China

Brumby said:

SE Asian foreign ministers voice concerns on South China Sea

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Maybe ASEAN is finally waking up from its slumber or delusion.

Click to expand...

You need to think things though. ASEAN countries never had any delusions about China, not even Cambodia. They have opposing interests in depending on Beijing for economic delivery, while looking to Washington for security coverage. So, their own self interests dictate walking a fine line between the two great powers; being friends to both and foe to neither. The more they need one or the other, the closer they tack to it.

The problem is China served up notice it no longer accepts US primacy as the basis for Asia's security order, and it wants to co-lead the region. That's what the "new model of great power relations" is all about. US, on the other hand, is not yet willing to share power, so it reponds with "Pivot to Asia," TPP, and strengthening its alliance system. Since no ASEAN countries wants to choose sides, the result is meandering Kabuki dances that are at times painful to watch.

The bottom line is ASEAN countries are lead by intelligent and practical people, with no delusions of counting on either China or the US to bail them out of their predicaments. That's why they release non-committal joint statements that have some thunder, but absolutely no rain.

Blackstone said:

You need to think things though. ASEAN countries never had any delusions about China, not even Cambodia. They have opposing interests in depending on Beijing for economic delivery, while looking to Washington for security coverage. So, their own self interests dictate walking a fine line between the two great powers; being friends to both and foe to neither. The more they need one or the other, the closer they tack to it.

The problem is China served up notice it no longer accepts US primacy as the basis for Asia's security order, and if wants to co-lead the region. That's what the "new model of great power relations" is all about. US, on the other hand, is not yet willing to share power, so it reponds with "Pivot to Asia," TPP, and strengthening its alliance system. Since no ASEAN countries wants to choose sides, the result is meandering Kabuki dances that are at times painful to watch.

The bottom line is ASEAN countries are lead by intelligent and practical people, with no delusions of counting on either China or the US to bail them out of their predicaments. That's why they release non-committal joint statements that have some thunder, but absolutely no rain.

Click to expand...

The delusion is that it is simply about economics, that China's rise will be peaceful and that it will respect established norms and laws. Philippines took the position that whilst economics matter, its security interest also equally matters if not more and no amount of coercion from China has changed that perspective. The question is how quickly the ASEAN countries will come around to this, if ever. As you said, the ASEAN countries are leaning on the US for security and the obvious question is why. The issue to me is not who leads or whether there is power sharing but the nature of China's behaviour and its lack of respect in matters of established international law. In fact its contempt is so complete that it doesn't even bother to outline its position on the nine dash line. It just believes it can declare what it wants and the rest just have to conform. That is not a behaviour of an aspiring leader that projects confidence but one that is simply a bully that believes it can either buy acceptance or extract submission.

You might be on about grandiose geopolitical struggles but to me it is simply about a set of values that I can either support or reject.

The delusion is that some ASEAN countries thinks that the current norm is written in stone therefore any territory that once belongs to China are as good as theirs, history be damn. There lies the contention. The so called "international law" is NOT the final border for the region.