South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

ahojunk

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2016-05-27 12:15:17 China Daily Web Editor: Guo Jing

Japan's continuous meddling in the South China Sea is a "clumsy show" that goes against not only the interests of the G7, but also the peace and security of the South China Sea region, a Foreign Ministry official said on Wednesday.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying made the remarks in a news conference after reports that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is expected to bring up the South China Sea issue when meeting with United States President Barack Obama in Japan on Wednesday.

It's also reported that the G7 summit declaration will include the "three principles of rule of law" on solving maritime territorial disputes, which Abe brought up in 2014.

Hua described moves by Japan as "petty shrewdness" by taking advantage of its status as the host of the G7, while the summit should focus on global economic governance and cooperation.

Hua reiterated that China's activities in the South China Sea are totally justified and lawful, and the country has the right to, and must, guard its legitimate interests.

"For some time, Japan has kept hyping the South China Sea issue, sparing no effort to stir up trouble everywhere… It's just another clumsy show by Japan. I believe everybody has a clear-headed understanding of it," Hua said.
 
according to DefenseOne Pentagon Playing the Long Game in the South China Sea, Carter Says
For China, like the old Soviet Union, the U.S. defense secretary bets “internal logic” will dictate a change—eventually.

The U.S. military’s effort to keep the Asia-Pacific region stable and secure in the face of a rising China is akin to the 50-year Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Wednesday. Chinese and U.S. actions and reactions in the South China Sea are just one part of a grand pattern in an era he predicted will end when China changes internally.

It’s “going to be a long campaign of firmness, and gentle but strong pushback for probably quite a number of years,” Carter told sailors at the Naval War College on Wednesday. “Our Asia rebalance isn’t ‘try it out for a little while.’ It’s a long-term kind of thing.”

“The internal logic” of China and its society will eventually dictate a change, “but that’s almost academic at this point because their leadership is way on the other side of that equation right now,” he said.

Recent headlines about U.S. aircraft and warships passing through the South China Sea — where China has been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, then building military-grade runways on them — are only the most visible piece of a larger plan, Carter said earlier in the week.

“The rebalance is a lot more than
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” he said after addressing sailors at Sub Base New London in Connecticut. “It’s a whole program of enhanced activities in the Asia-Pacific — by the way, diplomatic and economic as well as military.”

“It is shifting forces to that part of the world, it is modernizing forces in that part of the world, it is the enormous pattern of bilateral and multilateral exercising we do, partnerships with the militaries in the region who are very eager to work increasingly with the United States,” he said. “It’s a whole lot of things that are intended to keep the system of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific that served the region so well for so long.”

As for freedom-of-navigation operations — the U.S. has
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
sailing close by China-claimed areas since October, and flown aircraft nearby as well — those aren’t just about the South China Sea, Carter said.

“That’s something we do worldwide. It’s not just about any one country, including China,” he said. “There are other claims in the South China Sea, and we challenge those claims as well.”

Such claims ought to be settled in a peaceful way, not by militarizing them, not by coercion, Carter said.

“That’s a principle we stand for all over the world, and it’s important all over the world, from the South China Sea to the Arctic,” he said, where Russia and other countries have been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “The United States has been, and other countries have been standing up for this for a couple hundred years.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Let's say that Carter is right and that internal change does happen in China.

The vast bulk of China's population (and therefore economy/territory) is still cohesive enough to remain as a single unit. Key points include 90%+ of the population self-identifying as a single ethnic group and the creation of a single domestic market linking all the provinces by highway, railway, companies etc.

So on balance, China should still grow large enough to displace the US from the Western Pacific.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Let's say that Carter is right and that internal change does happen in China.

The vast bulk of China's population (and therefore economy/territory) is still cohesive enough to remain as a single unit. Key points include 90%+ of the population self-identifying as a single ethnic group and the creation of a single domestic market linking all the provinces by highway, railway, companies etc.

So on balance, China should still grow large enough to displace the US from the Western Pacific.

Which is why the real aim is the balkanization of China.
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
Ash Carter will have to wait for a long, long time.

"Internal logic" will dictate a change" but it looks like China is reverting back to its "original".

From what I observe, China is going back to her "imperial or dynastic roots" for governance. China is implementing a similar system of "imperial examinations" to select the best and then promotions based on performance. There is a limited system of election at the local or village level.

Giving great speeches and slogans will work very well in an electoral system but not in China.

If Carter is referring to changing to the democratic system, this is foreign to China. It has proven to be a failure in the Middle East, (including Turkey which is gravitating towards dictatorship under Erdogan). The culture in Middle East and China is just different.

However, using NGO's to promote human rights, democracy or color revolution is a great tool to de-stablize and balkanize countries which are deemed not friendly to the west. Just look at the mess in the Middle East and Ukraine. They succeeded with the Soviet Union but not so with Russia, or at least not yet.

Moreover, in the social space, China is going back or re-discovering its traditional roots of Confucianism and Taoism.

This Chinese system has kept China together for 8 thousand years and by and large it has worked for them. Why would they want to change it?
 
according to Military.com US Naval, Air Maneuvers Become 'New Normal' in Asia Pacific
American ships and fighter jets maneuvering across the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan represent the "new normal" in U.S.-Pacific relations despite rising tensions with China and Moscow.

U.S. moves in recent months have led to angry protests from China and Russia, which contend the Obama administration is fueling unrest in the Asia Pacific and conducting illegal and unsafe transit in the region. U.S. military leaders defend the operations and say they will continue to exercise freedom of navigation, and may do so more frequently as time goes on.

The escalating rhetoric reflects efforts by China and Russia to show military superiority in an increasingly crowded and competitive part of the world. And it sets up a tense game of political brinksmanship as leaders from the two countries and the U.S. thrust and parry across the military and diplomatic fields of play.

The military maneuvers have shadowed President Barack Obama's "pivot to Asia," a decision early in his tenure to try to focus the relationship with Pacific partners on economics and trade.

"We're at a moment when China, Iran and Russia are all testing us, engaging in reckless behavior and forcing policy makers with the question of how far we push and when," said Derek Chollet, a former assistant defense secretary for international affairs and now a senior adviser at the German Marshall Fund. "We're for freedom of navigation and following the rules, and to an extent we are pushing back against changing the rules."

Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, said that for the first time in 25 years, the U.S. is facing competition for maritime superiority as China and Russia build up their navies.

China's island development in the South China Sea has inflamed regional tensions, including with nations that have competing claims to the land formations. Most fear that Beijing, which has built airfields and placed weapons systems on the man-made islands, will use the construction to extend its military reach and perhaps try to restrict navigation.

Three times in the past seven months, U.S. warships deliberately have sailed close to one of those islands to exercise freedom of navigation and challenge the claims.

In response, China has deployed fighter jets and ships to track and warn off the American ships, and accused the U.S. of provocative action.

Twice this year, Defense Secretary Ash Carter has flown to U.S. aircraft carriers in the South China Sea with reporters, sending a message that the U.S. will not cede navigational rights. He plans to return to the area next week for an annual Asian national security conference.

"China has taken some expansive and unprecedented actions in the South China Sea, pressing excessive maritime claims contrary to international law," Carter said Friday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. "The result is that China's actions could erect a Great Wall of self-isolation, as countries across the region - allies, partners, and the unaligned - are voicing concerns publicly and privately, at the highest levels."

Similarly, Russian attack planes buzzed a U.S.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
warship in international waters in the Baltic Sea last month, and last week Moscow lodged a formal protest about a U.S. reconnaissance flight over the Sea of Japan.

The U.S. says its missions are meant to underscore the rights of the U.S. and others to traverse the region freely and to block efforts by any nation to unlawfully extend their boundaries or territorial rights.

"To the degree that we could advocate more strongly, we need to do enough of these things so that advocacy is well understood," Richardson said in an Associated Press interview. "Certainly if you wanted to dial those up in frequency, well I think that we can support that." The U.S. is establishing "a new normal level of activity or interaction" that comes with Russia's and China's "return to great power competition."

Richardson noted that freedom of navigation operations happen hundreds of times a year in the backyards of friends and foes.

"Even though there's a tremendous amount of visibility on the South China Sea right now, it is important to keep those in context," he said. "We do these around the world against a lot of these excessive claims."

Under the Law of the Sea, a country can claim up to 12 nautical miles beyond its coastline. In some cases countries try to claim more than that.

In other cases, countries try to restrict what others can do within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone that's allowed under international law. For example, they may require advance notice of a flight or ship passage within that zone or prohibit certain military activities there.

The Pentagon releases an annual report that lists the countries where the U.S. has conducted freedom of navigation operations, but includes no details.

U.S. military officials said that at least 80 percent are done by ships, but U.S. aircraft also conduct flights to challenge excessive airspace claims.

The most frequent U.S. operations are in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, where hundreds of times a year ships pass through territorial waters claimed by Iran and Oman. Both countries try to restrict movement through the strait, but international law allows innocent passage.

The Iranian military often hails U.S. ships and tells them to leave. The two sides essentially follow a script, as the U.S. ship continues on its way.

In other places around the globe, including portions of India or large swaths of the South American coast, U.S. ships routinely sail within claimed territorial waters or refuse to provide advance requests for transit. Often the operations go unnoticed or trigger no reaction or protest.

In some cases, U.S. officials said, countries are only aware of the operation after the Pentagon releases the annual report.

According to the 2015 report, the U.S. formally conducted freedom of navigation operations as a way of challenging excessive claims made by 13 countries during the budget year ending Sept. 30.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
Ash Carter will have to wait for a long, long time.

"Internal logic" will dictate a change" but it looks like China is reverting back to its "original".

From what I observe, China is going back to her "imperial or dynastic roots" for governance. China is implementing a similar system of "imperial examinations" to select the best and then promotions based on performance. There is a limited system of election at the local or village level.

Giving great speeches and slogans will work very well in an electoral system but not in China.

This is a thread on SCS strategies of other nations. I suggest you refrain from making Chinese propaganda statements because you would not like the push back.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
This is a thread on SCS strategies of other nations. I suggest you refrain from making Chinese propaganda statements because you would not like the push back.

By all means ask him to keep the thread on topic and to avoid discussing domestic Chinese politics.

But I suggest you refrain from calling his opinions "Chinese propaganda statements," because I assure you that you will not like the push back either. Once that can of worms is fully opened, it will just cause all sides who disagree with each other to degenerate into calling each other's opinions "propaganda".
 

Brumby

Major
By all means ask him to keep the thread on topic and to avoid discussing domestic Chinese politics.

But I suggest you refrain from calling his opinions "Chinese propaganda statements," because I assure you that you will not like the push back either. Once that can of worms is fully opened, it will just cause all sides who disagree with each other to degenerate into calling each other's opinions "propaganda".
I term it propaganda not because it is off topic but because it is promoting a worldview view and disparaging others and injecting such views that are completely off topic. If the topic is Western vs Chinese political philosophies then by all means present your worldview.

Personally I have no problem with pushback provided it is on topic. The problem conversation degenerates because people are throwing out opinions with no basis, no rationale and no logic. In other words, the capacity to handle discourse is limited by immaturity.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I term it propaganda not because it is off topic but because it is promoting a worldview view and disparaging others and injecting such views that are completely off topic. If the topic is Western vs Chinese political philosophies then by all means present your worldview.

Personally I have no problem with pushback provided it is on topic. The problem conversation degenerates because people are throwing out opinions with no basis, no rationale and no logic. In other words, the capacity to handle discourse is limited by immaturity.

The problem is that all statements and opinions are promoting a worldview from a certain standpoint, where such a standpoint may also disparage the views of others.

There are statements and posts from a number of members in the past (including yourself) who I believe fit your definition of the word propaganda, but I am careful to avoid calling their posts propaganda because the nature of discussions on a forum like this will always have major differences in worldview.

That is why I believe you are well within the rules of the forum to call his posts excessively political and off topic to the thread, but that it is unhelpful and dangerous to call his statements propaganda, because that leaves everyone's posts to be accused of being propaganda based on their own world view. What will result is everyone calling each other's opinions as propaganda rather than discussing a topic at hand instead.
 
Last edited:
Top