South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Geographer said:

Jeff, the title of this thread is "South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)" so discussion of American actions are relevant, right?[/qupote]Oops...my bad.

Somehow I thought I was on the chine thread and was already here.

I removed my post regarding that. Thanks.

Geographer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Of course there is.

Which makes the US transiting those waters, along the SLOCs not an issue...right?

I believe that the US in sailing through there is making its point.

With the significant incr3ease in reclamation leading to relatively major military installations in the area occurs, the US takes more interest and then while transiting, or in assigning vessels, then surveills what is going on.

As long as they do that outside territorial waters...there is no issue there either.

And, IMHO, on the other hand...China improving its possession and reclaiming more land on them is also not really an issue. They are free to do so. I do not believe the US can stop that, nor plans to try and military intervene to do so.

Of course, when they reach a ppoint (as they have already done oit seems) where they are now installing military buildings, runways, sensors, control towers, etc. there...and with the US patrolling through there...you are going to have military chatter between the two.

That's to be expected and I do not really see an issue with it on either side...as long as:

1) Freedom of Navigation is maintained
2)Niether side Hazards the other wile they are where they are supposed to be.
3) Territorial limits are respected


I think the US is making the points for number 1 & 2. And China is going to make the points about 2 & 3. A long as that is all they are doing, its cochure on both sides as far as I am concerned.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I do hope all nations in the area including the US can eventually come to an amicable solution.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

It'll depend on some good will, limited demonstration of power, economic carrots, and time to let it set in.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

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 neighbors as well that are relatively acceptable in the broad scheme of things.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

That's to be expected and I do not really see an issue with it on either side...as long as:

1) Freedom of Navigation is maintained
2) Neither side Hazards the other wile they are where they are supposed to be.
3) Territorial limits are respected

I think the US is making the points for number 1 & 2. And China is going to make the points about 2 & 3. A long as that is all they are doing, its cochure on both sides as far as I am concerned.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

solarz said:

Judging from the reports, however, it sounds like the US is looking to challenge China on #3 with respect to the reclaimed islands.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

I guess it depends on what the territorial limit for such small islands is typically recognized as.

Territorial waters, based on the 1982 UNCLOS, extendss at most 12-miles out from the low water mark along the shore.

Usually this is regarded as sovereign territory of the nation owning the island...but foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through them .

So a lot will depend on what the PRC claims as the limit for those islands...what both sides constitute as "innocent" passage, etc.

Personally, although there has been some discussion about whether an artificial island (ie man made) should have the same territorial limits, I believe that the US is not going to be able to challenge the limits of these newly created islands in court.

If it was a clear platform made of steel and buildings...perhaps. For example, I do not think someone can anchor an oil platform, no matter how large, in international waters and then claim territorial limits around it.

However, when they are dredging millions of tons of sand and earth, and building up an island with sand, soil, rock, and then plangent flora...and particularly when it is simply "reclaimed" land that is part and parcel of reefs and shoals that already exist...I simply do not think the US can win that particular court case.

I do believe that US Navy vessels can and should come right up to the 12 mille limit (or whatever distance the PRC claims for these islands up to 12 miles) And freely sail, fly, surveil, conduct recon, etc. If they do this then they will be establishing the recognized free passage according to recognized standards.

Best not to twist the dragon's tail when you do not have to.

Click to expand...

The Maunsell Forts were small fortified towers built in the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

estuaries during the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to help defend the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. They were operated as army and navy forts, and named after their designer,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The forts were decommissioned in the late 1950s and later used for other activities including

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

broadcasting. One of the forts is managed by the unrecognised

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; ....

Click to expand...

delft said:

OT
During WWII forts were built in the estuaries of the Thames and the Mersey to improve the air defence of London and Liverpool. One in the Thames estuary became the seat of the "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

I think this is the only example of the use of a structure on steel legs as a base for pretending to be sovereign.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Personally, although there has been some discussion about whether an artificial island (ie man made) should have the same territorial limits, I believe that the US is not going to be able to challenge the limits of these newly created islands in court.

Click to expand...

SamuraiBlue said:

Based on UNCLOS Ⅲ they are not it has to be a natural formation that is above water at high tides. A rock that submerges at high tide does not count as land there for it does not have obtain territorial limits. This is applied to man made reclaimed land as well.

Click to expand...