South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Bltizo said:

I agree that China is deliberately being ambiguous regarding its dashed map, however through their public announcements and reinforcements I don't think they've actually claimed the entire SCS within the line as their territorial waters, rather only the islands within the line. Unfortunately no one seems to have requested a clarification surrounding just what the line means.

----

Click to expand...

I think the position should be clear. When in 1947 ROC published its claim to SCS EEZ didn't exist, wasn't even thought of, and territorial waters were 3 miles wide. It was clear since the English-Dutch wars of the 17th century that you can't claim open seas ( the English tried to claim exclusive fishing rights up to Dutch territorial waters! ) so the claim could only concern all islands within the cow tong with their territorial waters. We can then quarrel about the position of reefs that are or are not occasionally wholly covered by the sea.
At the time the US, colonizers of the Philippines, France, colonizer of Indochina nor UK, colonizer of Malacca and North-West Borneo, protested and nor did Indonesia, independent but still defending itself against The Netherlands, that thought it needed to exploit its late colony to rebuild itself after WWII.
No-one seems to be interested in looking at the historical background and that is itself curious.

Jeff Head said:

The US is going to simply ensure, for its own interests that the free passage and navigation through the SLOCs is maintained for itself and its allies.

Click to expand...

SLOCs are only endangered in time of war. State Department talking about it in this context is just waffle because they have no legitimate argument to intrude themselves in the discussion.

delft said:

SLOCs are only endangered in time of war. State Department talking about it in this context is just waffle because they have no legitimate argument to intrude themselves in the discussion.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Delft, that is simply not so. SLOCs can easily be hindered or restricted very short of war.

Every maritime nation, with commerce, lines of communication, transportation, ferrying, etc., etc. that uses those SLOCs for any of that, has a stake in the safe passage and unhindered, unimpeded passage through them..

Saying that you are going to ensure SLOCs to that end by having your vessels pass through them unhindered is not waffling in the least.

Who would have an interest in shutting the ship lanes down? Don't say China because they depend on maritime trade as much, if not more than, other countries in the region. Does the State Department fear that one day China will ban or tax traffic through the South China Sea? What specific fear do they have about freedom of navigation?

Bltizo said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

The PRC is building a strong position in the SCS...particularly around the three islands that are so clearly mutually supportive.

And the air bases do not conflict with one another from a military standpoint. They are absolutely mutually supporting and complimentary.

This strong position will bolster the PRC's ability to operate there economically, resource wise, and militarily. It is clear that the larger reclamation projects are aimed at allowing them to do just that.

As it is, they are doing this on reefs and places they already possess and control.

The buildings are going up as we watch. The airfields are going in as we watch.

I think it is very near to being a fait accompli. I do not believe that the US has any current intention or desire to internvene militarily to stop it.

The US does intend to keep an eye on it and send its vessels through there to make sure that the SLOCs remain open and that somehow, this does not develop into the whole of the SCS and SOLs being hindered, threatened, or controlled by any one nation.

Geographer said:

Who would have an interest in shutting the ship lanes down? Don't say China because they depend on maritime trade as much, if not more than, other countries in the region.

Click to expand...

Their dependency n it would be one reason why they might be tempted to do it. They would clearly not shut it down or regulate it or themselves or their allies.

China regulating or any in way controlling the passage through the SCS on SLOCs would easily be of great benefit to China.

Geographer said:

Does the State Department fear that one day China ban or tax traffic through the South China Sea? What specific fear do they have about freedom of navigation?

Click to expand...

The US wants to ensure freedom of navigation through the SLOCs. That's not only straight forward, it s a policy of very long standing. Amilitary vessel peridocally sailing trought he SLOC is not a threat.

Heck, they do so to transit from one base to another...fomr one area of operation to another...from one exercise to another...and to simply show that they can (which in turns plays to the freedom of passage).

History teaches us amply that hindrance, restriction, or control of SLOCs certainly can happen. The safest, least costly (both in terms of men, material, time, and blood) is to take measures to demonstrate freedom of navigation and thus ensure that it does not happen rather than try and react after it already has done so.

Clearly, if both sides discuss this and give assurances that no such thing is planned...having US vessels pass through the SLOCs would be of no harm to anyone. In turn the US would be able to cut back on the expensive types of surveillance and recon they are doing now.

Jeff Head said:

The PRC is building a strong position in the SCS...particularly around the three islands that are so clearly mutually supportive.

And the air bases do not conflict with one another from a military standpoint. They are absolutely mutually supporting and complimentary.

This strong position will bolster their ability to operate there economically, resource wise, and militarily. It is clear that he larger reclamation projects are aimed at allowing them to do just that.

As it is, they are doing this on reefs and places they already possess and control.

The buildings are going up as we watch. The airfields are going in as we watch.

I think it is very near to being a fait accompli. I do not believe that the US has any current intention or desire to internvene militarily to syop it.

The US does intend to keep an eye on it and send its vessels through there to make sure that the SLOCs remain open and that somehow, this does not develop into the whole of the SCS and SOLs being hindered, threatened, or controlled by any one nation.

Click to expand...

I do hope all nations in the area including the US can eventually come to an amicable solution.
It'll depend on some good will, limited demonstration of power, economic carrots, and time to let it set in.

I do not think China seeks to dominate the SCS in an absolute sense given the sheer number of different, capable countries in the area makes it impossible, however China definitely does seek a greater ability to assert itself in SCS than it currently has, mostly driven by its desire for economic and trade security. Hopefully there is a way for the different parties to eventually come to terms with this, and I do hope that once China is able to assert itself it can also propose compromises with its neighbours as well that are relatively acceptable in the broad scheme of things.
Unfortunately prior to that stage China will be seeking to reach a position of relative power first, as I believe they will want to negotiate from a position of advantage... the question is whether the tensions arising from this will result in a long term flashpoint or a temporary one that can be overcome by other means (namely regional economic integration).

Jeff, the title of this thread is "South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)" so discussion of American actions are relevant, right?

There is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea now. Has any regional government expressed a desire to impede it? Does any regional government have the desire to do so? Several governments have talked about and tried to restrict fishing and oil-drilling in the region but that's not what the U.S. is concerned about with regards to freedom of navigation.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, Delft, that is simply not so. SLOCs can easily be hindered or restricted very short of war.

Every maritime nation, with commerce, lines of communication, transportation, ferrying, etc., etc. that uses those SLOCs for any of that, has a stake in the safe passage and unhindered, unimpeded passage through them..

Saying that you are going to ensure SLOCs to that end by having your vessels pass through them unhindered is not waffling in the least.

Click to expand...

The doctrine of Freedom of the Sea was put forward by Grotius in the 1620's in opposition to the notion that the Indian Ocean were Portuguese, the Pacific Spanish waters as an extension of the Treaty of Tordesillas ( ). I never read of a Chinese academic putting forward a thesis that this Freedom didn't extent to SCS so there is not even an unofficial claim that SLOCs through that sea can legally be interfered with. That's what I refer to when I use the word waffle.

delft said:

I never read of a Chinese academic putting forward a thesis that this Freedom didn't extent to SCS so there is not even an unofficial claim that SLOCs through that sea can legally be interfered with. That's what I refer to when I use the word waffle.

Click to expand...

Okay.

And as I said, the US transiting trough those SLOCs with their vessels should not be an issue either. It is a part of normal scheduling and operations and the very act of sailing through there makes the point the US would like to make.

Now, when a nation starts building several new military bases in an area where there are numerous claims, the US Navy will monitor and surveill that too. As long as they stay outside territorial waters...there is absolutely no issue with that either.