South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby said:

I am surprised by the credence given to the article. It is simply red herring to distract from the fundamental issue and that is China's claims and its premise. How much it affects the SCS is irrelevant to the issue.

The recent CNN exercise in my view is part of a progressive stepped effort (rather slowly) by the US in dealing with the reclamation. In my view since China is not forthcoming with its basis beyond the usual rhetoric that it's sovereignty over the rocks is unshakable, the next step is to challenge the claims by increasing incursion into the 12 nm zone. It will clearly be an escalation which may still be sitting on Obama's desk.

Click to expand...

If we discuss on legality of China's claims, that would be the actual red herring, given that the official justification for intrusion is freedom of navigation. Also, whether a rock is owned by China or others, someone would still be entitled to a 12 nm territorial water around said rock. The question is why that would be an issue for freedom of navigation, especially when rocks are so far apart that ships can sail through without issues. I believe you have answered that already -- escalation. It is escalation for the sake of escalating.

Bltizo said:

Such a position I could accept, if the US were equally concerned with every territorial dispute in the world and willing to challenge everyone's claims via FON or equivalents.

However from what we can gather the US seems to be quite interested and involved in China's involvement with its territorial disputes in the SCS while far less involved in other disputes around the world or even the region, with seemingly little clarification sought in most of those disputes.

So, if you agree that the US seems to be particularly interested in China's specific dispute at this area compared to other regions of the world, the next question one has to ask is why?

Click to expand...

I thought the general view is the US is getting itself involved in too many issues around the world but given that so much global trade passes through the SCS, it is inevitable of US involvement.

Bltizo said:

Furthermore, do you believe that the US would accept China's position on its territory even if China clearly stated and cease conducting FON simply on the basis of a clarification? I imagine if China's clarification was detrimental to US geopolitical and military interests the US would continue challenging or even increase the intensity of the challenges.

Click to expand...

I think China's position can be solidified through legal means rather than weaken provided it actually has a solid basis to its claims which to-date it is unwilling to make a case beyond mere statement of sovereignty. The US do not really have a choice but to accept China's legal standing over its claims provided it goes through the appropriate due process which it is unwilling for whatever reason. There are essentially two core issues that need clarity :
(i) The legal basis; and
(ii) The legal ramifications arising thereof

For example, a 12 nm zone is universal and the US is bound by international laws to respect and observe such exclusion. However if the nature and sovereignty of an island is disputed then the US is not bound by the same convention. Further, the nature of the exclusion is also dependent on whether it is an island or rock as defined by the LOS convention. As I understand the LOS convention, building artificial islands do not extend sovereignty and consequential outcome from it. This may be moot because no one knows the basis of China's claims beyond the fact that it is historic. Clarifying the nature of the claims is a good step. The problem I see being raised is from questioning US motives to the degree of impact on navigation in the SCS.

Brumby said:

I think you have the issues backwards. The US is not opposing the claims by China but rather the view that it should clarify its claims and the legal basis for it. Sovereignty is the root and underlying foundation from which all other issues emanate. The central premise is, does China have sovereignty over those rocks and accordingly what jurisprudence rights emanate from it? If China indeed (not proven) has sovereignty over them, then every other state including the US has to deal with that legal reality, regardless of FON. Unfortunately the claim by China is disputed by other interested parties.

Secondly, the claims affects FON depending on whether it is an island, maritime or some kind of historic claim which China is rather unwilling to lay out its case beyond mere statements of sovereignty. Since China is not forthcoming with its basis, my read is that the US will challenge the claim via FON and will make incursion into the zone on the basis that sovereignty is disputed and hence not recognized until the matter is resolved.

Click to expand...

If that line of reasoning holds, that territory under dispute does not have territorial water, then it should equally apply to claims from other claimants. After all, their claims are disputed by China as well. As it stands, the current situation is that US is singling out China, more than anyone else.

Brumby said:

I thought the general view is the US is getting itself involved in too many issues around the world but given that so much global trade passes through the SCS, it is inevitable of US involvement.

Click to expand...

Well what other's think of US involvement around the world is immaterial, what is important is that if the US were solely concerned with clarity or legal situations as a matter of universal principle then it should be equally involved in all international disputes rather than focusing so much on China and the SCS. The fact that is isn't equally involved in all international disputes suggest there are other motives not directly related to any universal value of clarity and legality, but that the US has a vested interest in the SCS.

Of course, you do admit that the flow of global trade in SCS is a matter of US involvement, which is good.
From there it really doesn't take much to link up the logical dots. Global trade-sovereignty-ability to project power in SCS-greater control of SLOCs-greater political power-real politik.

I think China's position can be solidified through legal means rather than weaken provided it actually has a solid basis to its claims which to-date it is unwilling to make a case beyond mere statement of sovereignty. The US do not really have a choice but to accept China's legal standing over its claims provided it goes through the appropriate due process which it is unwilling for whatever reason. There are essentially two core issues that need clarity :
(i) The legal basis; and
(ii) The legal ramifications arising thereof

For example, a 12 nm zone is universal and the US is bound by international laws to respect and observe such exclusion. However if the nature and sovereignty of an island is disputed then the US is not bound by the same convention. Further, the nature of the exclusion is also dependent on whether it is an island or rock as defined by the LOS convention. As I understand the LOS convention, building artificial islands do not extend sovereignty and consequential outcome from it. This may be moot because no one knows the basis of China's claims beyond the fact that it is historic. Clarifying the nature of the claims is a good step.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you per se, but the issue of only calling the core issues arising from legality is rather misleading. It suggests that either side would happily oblige to a legal resolution even if it is heavily weighed against their respective geostrategic interests.

So I think the root reason why both China and the US are at such logger-heads is not only (or even really) because of differing interpretation of law, but rather what the differing interpretation of law would mean materially in terms of their power and capability in the region.

E.g.: Over in the SCS thread recently we can see a similar division between coastal nations that oppose the transit of foreign military vessels and hydrographic surveying in EEZ and nations which believe those vessels should be free to sail into EEZs. The differing interpretation of the EEZ law is a result of the consequences of power, capability and vulnerability that is entailed.

edit: I suppose saying something is a legal question is just another way of saying it is a material/resource/power question, given that is what law is meant to regulate, so in a way we agree with each other but we're using different ways of saying the same thing

The problem I see being raised is from questioning US motives to the degree of impact on navigation in the SCS.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that is a problem, because I think for us to understand the situation we should question each side's motives.

I'm not interested in trying to paint one or the other as the bad guy, but I do think we should speak freely here on the matter of what each side's motivations are without sugar coating it.

Bltizo said:

Well what other's think of US involvement around the world is immaterial, what is important is that if the US were solely concerned with clarity or legal situations as a matter of universal principle then it should be equally involved in all international disputes rather than focusing so much on China and the SCS. The fact that is isn't equally involved in all international disputes suggest there are other motives not directly related to any universal value of clarity and legality, but that the US has a vested interest in the SCS.

Of course, you do admit that the flow of global trade in SCS is a matter of US involvement, which is good.
From there it really doesn't take much to link up the logical dots. Global trade-sovereignty-ability to project power in SCS-greater control of SLOCs-greater political power-real politik.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you are labouring on US motives because what is core is China has make certain claims and so the issue is not the US but China but somehow you seem in my view trying to make it a US issue.

Unfortunately China's claims and the rather ambiguous nature and scope of the claim has implications including on FON.

Bltizo said:

I don't disagree with you per se, but the issue of only calling the core issues arising from legality is rather misleading. It suggests that either side would happily oblige to a legal resolution even if it is heavily weighed against their respective geostrategic interests.

Click to expand...

Since the end of WW2, the world has enjoyed a period of peace (relatively) because there is some form of law and order. A legal framework in which the majority abides by it helps to maintain a certain degree of peace that we enjoy. So legality is nor misleading as you stated but rather under-pining the environment. The issue as is, is not even about a legal resolution because no one even knows China's legal premise of the claim. In other words, we don't even have a starting point that anyone knows outside of China.

Trying to paint a geostrategic picture into the equation is unnecessary, distracting and not helpful if we want to keep it simple.

Bltizo said:

So I think the root reason why both China and the US are at such logger-heads is not only (or even really) because of differing interpretation of law, but rather what the differing interpretation of law would mean materially in terms of their power and capability in the region.

E.g.: Over in the SCS thread recently we can see a similar division between coastal nations that oppose the transit of foreign military vessels and hydrographic surveying in EEZ and nations which believe those vessels should be free to sail into EEZs. The differing interpretation of the EEZ law is a result of the consequences of power, capability and vulnerability that is entailed.

edit: I suppose saying something is a legal question is just another way of saying it is a material/resource/power question, given that is what law is meant to regulate, so in a way we agree with each other but we're using different ways of saying the same thing

I'm not sure how that is a problem, because I think for us to understand the situation we should question each side's motives.

I'm not interested in trying to paint one or the other as the bad guy, but I do think we should speak freely here on the matter of what each side's motivations are without sugar coating it.

Click to expand...

The LOS convention is clear on the nature of the 12 nm zone and EEZ. The problem is some countries want to impute on it rights and restrictions which are clearly silent and not mentioned in the convention. The LOS convention was developed to prevent and settle disputes. There are obviously still areas that not all countries see eye to eye. I think we are jumping ahead on this because, until China clarifies its claims, we actually do not know on what basis it is making it - whether according to LOSC or some other form.

Brumby said:

I am not sure why you are labouring on US motives because what is core is China has make certain claims and so the issue is not the US but China but somehow you seem in my view trying to make it a US issue.

Click to expand...

I'm not making it a US issue, I'm just trying to look at the motivations for each side's actions. It is as much a China issue as it is a US issue.

Unfortunately China's claims and the rather ambiguous nature and scope of the claim has implications including on FON.


Since the end of WW2, the world has enjoyed a period of peace (relatively) because there is some form of law and order. A legal framework in which the majority abides by it helps to maintain a certain degree of peace that we enjoy. So legality is nor misleading as you stated but rather under-pining the environment. The issue as is, is not even about a legal resolution because no one even knows China's legal premise of the claim. In other words, we don't even have a starting point that anyone knows outside of China.

Trying to paint a geostrategic picture into the equation is unnecessary, distracting and not helpful if we want to keep it simple.

Click to expand...

This isn't a matter of challenging "law" (as in the entire global order), but rather a particular law or a particular set of laws -- out of many laws.
Any law that underlies the world order (or any national order) is built atop geopolitical/political and strategic interests and agreements.
And nations will interpret, accept, enforce or challenge individual laws with differing degrees of resolve depending now how a certain law may cause material and physical consequences for them.

Those consequences could be anything from slightly cutting down a trade deficit, to the potential projection of power over a significant body of water that a significant trade flows through

In other words, I am looking at the motives and material consequences of countries when they are looking to challenge or enforce a particular law, because the effect of any law on any individual, town, state or nation will range from positive to neutral to negative, and those differing entities will respond to a law depending on how it affects them and how much it affects them.

If you really want to frame this from a legal frame of view rather than primarily as a geopolitical one, that's fine, but further interrogation into the roots of one's willingness to enforce or dispute a legal position or an interpretation of a law, inevitably leads one to see the material and physical (i.e.: strategic) consequences for either side which underlie this situation.

And the goal shouldn't be to "keep things simple". The goal should be to "keep things accurate and comprehensive". We should try to seek a clear but wide spanning and insightful interrogation of situations as is practically possible... because most situations including this one is anything but "simple".

The LOS convention is clear on the nature of the 12 nm zone and EEZ. The problem is some countries want to impute on it rights and restrictions which are clearly silent and not mentioned in the convention. The LOS convention was developed to prevent and settle disputes. There are obviously still areas that not all countries see eye to eye. I think we are jumping ahead on this because, until China clarifies its claims, we actually do not know on what basis it is making it - whether according to LOSC or some other form.

Click to expand...

The point I was making was that countries would naturally try to interpret laws to their own material advantage and/or to avoid vulnerabilities.

Bltizo said:

If you really want to frame this from a legal frame of view rather than primarily as a geopolitical one, that's fine, but further interrogation into the roots of one's willingness to enforce or dispute a legal position or an interpretation of a law, inevitably leads one to see the material and physical (i.e.: strategic) consequences for either side which underlie this situation.

Click to expand...

The facts of the claim (no matter how absent of details) would suggest that China has made some form of legal claim over some rocks or islands in the SCS. Once China has taken that step and now enforcing that claim by creating artificial structures on those claims, it is no longer a discussion about abstracts but has raised very specific issues about sovereignty, nature and scope of rights associated with the claims and especially as it impacts other States.

Bltizo said:

And the goal shouldn't be to "keep things simple". The goal should be to "keep things accurate and comprehensive". We should try to seek a clear but wide spanning and insightful interrogation of situations as is practically possible... because most situations including this one is anything but "simple".

Click to expand...

I will leave the geostrategic, motives and politics in your able hands as it is not my intention to go there because it is long winding trip that leads to no where in my view. I agree the issues concerning any cross country claims are not simple, but adding layers on top of it would just make it confusing without adding substance to the discussion. It is my view, that China should step up by addressing the basis of its claims. This would crystallise the issues, clarify areas of contention and hopefully with that becomes a focus for negotiations. The fact that it seems hesitant is a sign of weakness in the substance of its claim rather than strength in its case.

In the absence of facts, the US will begin to probe and test the boundaries in which China intends to exercise sovereignty over the rocks and islands. The recent CNN exercise is just a start and unfortunately we will see further episodes of testing of resolve between the two and raises the prospect of miscalculation.

Brumby said:

The facts of the claim (no matter how absent of details) would suggest that China has made some form of legal claim over some rocks or islands in the SCS. Once China has taken that step and now enforcing that claim by creating artificial structures on those claims, it is no longer a discussion about abstracts but has raised very specific issues about sovereignty, nature and scope of rights associated with the claims and especially as it impacts other States.


I will leave the geostrategic, motives and politics in your able hands as it is not my intention to go there because it is long winding trip that leads to no where in my view. I agree the issues concerning any cross country claims are not simple, but adding layers on top of it would just make it confusing without adding substance to the discussion. It is my view, that China should step up by addressing the basis of its claims. This would crystallise the issues, clarify areas of contention and hopefully with that becomes a focus for negotiations. The fact that it seems hesitant is a sign of weakness in the substance of its claim rather than strength in its case.

In the absence of facts, the US will begin to probe and test the boundaries in which China intends to exercise sovereignty over the rocks and islands. The recent CNN exercise is just a start and unfortunately we will see further episodes of testing of resolve between the two and raises the prospect of miscalculation.

Click to expand...

So long as you recognize that there are underlying valid geostrategic and material motivations for the actions of both sides then I have nothing more to add.

Possible reasons for not clarifying the extent of claims has been discussed in the other thread quite well by Shen which I won't repeat here.

----

The manner of US probes and challenges has been discussed before, and to greater length over on CDF.
It is expected that the US will seek to possibly support rival claimants and attempt to organize similar countries to oppose China in the SCS, and possibly involve countries such as Japan and Australia (the former of whom is quite enthusiastic, the latter seemingly less so). China will naturally seek to use diplomatic and economic means of preventing the formation of too explicit an alliance.

I expect the US will continue to probe and challenge and possibly even enter the 12nmi limit of certain Chinese reclaimed islands, and I do not expect China to actively fire on them even to enforce their sovereignty, but at the same time the US cannot stop Chinese ships and personnel on the ground from reclaiming those islands short of blockading, boarding, seizing and/or sinking those vessels which would obviously result in a crisis two steps short of outright military conflict.
The question we should ponder therefore needs to be whether the US will accept a potential Chinese military presence in SCS that while limited, will also likely be permanent in nature. So the question on everyone's mind is where is the red line for the US in SCS, if there is a red line to begin with.

Bltizo said:

The question we should ponder therefore needs to be whether the US will accept a potential Chinese military presence in SCS that while limited, will also likely be permanent in nature. So the question on everyone's mind is where is the red line for the US in SCS, if there is a red line to begin with.

Click to expand...

If it can be established that the islands are part of China's real estate, then it is China's inherent right to exercise full sovereign rights including basing military assets. That "if" is what needs to be settled because all issues originate from that unresolved issue.

In my view, the issue of red line is probably not appropriate in the SCS because it is not an environment (yet) which would likely trigger crossing a threshold which would constitute a red line. The issue is likely to be because of the nebulous nature of the problem that might give rise and the risk of miscalculation on either side.

I suspect that even if an agreement arises between the various claimants regarding China's claimed territories, the US would still maintain a heavy presence in SCS and conduct fairly intensive surveillance and patrols around the islands where China has military bases, if any.

Given the very vulnerable and forward nature of these SCS islands it would be foolish not to.


And yes I agree that it is probably premature for the US to draw any red lines, but they are very resistant to the idea of potential PRC military bases (especially air bases) in the SCS. While the utility of such bases will be limited in an actual conflict they could be invaluable in peacetime for a variety of missions and enhancing presence and forward long duration capability... and I'm unsure as to whether the US will be willing to not intervene physically with military means to prevent such a capability. Of course intervention would constitute a military crisis, which is why such a course of action probably won't happen, but it remains a slight danger.