South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by PanAsian, Mar 27, 2015.

  1. Air Force Brat
    Offline

    Air Force Brat Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    8,624
    Likes Received:
    10,082
    10-4, but some folks won't get that, LOL!
     
  2. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    But the problem is nobody is discussing placing oil rigs. That's the issue you and Samurai are avoiding. I believe the contention isn't about drilling rights. It's about preventing the US to establish areas of influence and gelling together the region against China. If China had no presence in SCS, it is far easier for the US to both have a significant military and therefore political presence in the area. To counter this, China is forced to be proactive rather than reactive. When Chinese were reactive in the past, Chinese were murdered in the millions, were left far behind in terms of technology and trade, semi-colonised, split up by eight foreign powers, had a drug addicted population, and general internal turmoil that split the country into civil war that mirrored the warring states period. Abandoning SCS and leaving it as a power vacuum just for the US to fill, is suicidal for China.

    Would a person rather slowly decay away until nothingness or would they rather take down their main antagonist with them? The US has far more to lose in a direct confrontation, they will need to shift their strategy which is why all the fuss about trade wars recently. They'll no doubt aim to install a puppet leader and foster domestic unrest in China... back to old methods :rolleyes: Hopefully it won't work on modern China.

    And btw, before you guys start calling China out because all the neighbouring nations (really only Vietnam and Philippines) are against China (while all the rest are neutral), please remember there is no right and wrong. China is acting in it's own interests and so are they. Their position is no more valid than China's and vice versa. Just because their interests align with your personal preferences, does not mean it holds moral authority over China. But you're all smart people so maybe that doesn't need to be said.
     
    #2152 ougoah, Oct 14, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  3. SamuraiBlue
    Online

    SamuraiBlue Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,058
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Encroachment?
    Do you understand the meaning of the word?
    You need to own the place for the other to encroach and the world does not acknowledge nor recognize PRC's foolish nine dash claims so for the people outside of mainland China, the encroachment is by PRC developing those artificial islands not the US practicing their natural rights of freedom of passage within international waters.
     
  4. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    It is encroachment to China because they believe it is their territory. So technically this is correct from their perspective and I'm addressing the issue from their perspective if you understand the context of this specific discussion. From the perspective of the world, it is indeed China encroaching on what was previously international waters, through the acquisition of claimed islands. That's the dispute though. Borders are not static forever. Therefore it stands to reason that disputes can change borders and if two groups are disputing a set of borders (two groups being China's claim of islands and surrounding seas and the collective side that is against that claim), then the meaning of the word encroachment will be different for both parties. But okay I understand your point because it is also valid. My post was providing one explanation for why China insists on claiming those unclaimed islands so naturally I used the word from the Chinese POV. I would imagine it to be insanely irresponsible for the PRC to NOT claim those islands and allow the US to exert its naval power over the region in future. Opening up this venue for them is a strategic blunder. Even if no consequences exist in near or mid future.

    China needs to distance its mainland from US naval power. History has taught all planners this many times over. If those islands are Chinese sovereignty, the waters surrounding them will prevent the US navy from operating anywhere near the seas surrounding China, thus preventing them from cutting off shipping lanes. These waters are strategically important for China's trade and access to the energy it requires for survival and growth. Leaving it open for the US (which already has a far superior navy) will be opening up a channel for economic ruin and starving Chinese citizens of energy and income. This may or may not be their intention, but it would be stupid to allow this.

    If the US is genuinely concerned that this means China gets a stranglehold on Taiwan, they need not be worried. A conventional engagement is out of question for China with or without sovereignty over those waters if China were to act as a aggressor and hence give reason for the US to utilise its navy. In fact I'm certain that the US will push for Taiwan independence as soon as it becomes 100% clear and begrudgingly accepted that China owns those islands (which won't happen for a long time to come if ever). That would become the logical move for a sinister US to play, if they don't then I am entirely wrong about the US' intentions in the region or their strategy has shifted.

    If the US is concerned about this purely on principle, it will have to engage the PRC or it will need to back away because US planners understand how important these seas are for China's economic and social survival so it is unlikely China will ever budge on this issue. The only chance the US has would be military conflict or changing Chinese policy by other means. One source of leverage the US is starting to push on is trade.

    Out of curiousity, how would you rather all stakeholders involved resolve this dilemma? Allow the Japanese or the US to make claims and unilaterally purchase those islands from themselves so the owner is a private stateless entity?
     
    #2154 ougoah, Oct 14, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  5. SamuraiBlue
    Online

    SamuraiBlue Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,058
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Declare the artificial isles as UN property and let nature reclaim them. As for SCS, utilize UNCLOS to define EEZ for all parties and make the rest of the international waters a non militarized zone in which freedom of passage is admitted but make it a non loitering area for all military vessels including PRC.
    It was no bodies sovereign territory in the first place so keep it that way.
     
    ougoah likes this.
  6. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    951
    Likes Received:
    703
    Or for the SCS, make an accord for the area to be jointly managed and exploited with the spoils divided equally among the claimants.
     
  7. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    This would be ideal but the US is a frequent violator of UN and Hague rulings. It is also a proven war-monger and manufactures false flag incidents or excuses to justify war and breaking even its own promises. Combine the above facts with the knowledge that the US also demonstrated its resolve in containing China on multiple fronts and using propaganda to exaggerate reasons for adopting anti-China policies, and you will see why that ideal option is unrealistic for China. They've been burned in the past by being complacent about these things, once bitten twice shy.

    It would be awesome if China need not be worried, but that's still irresponsible. Better to be safe than humiliated yet again.

    Also it should be noted that it is only very recently where China had the slowly modernising military power to exert the influence in these waters. It had always wanted to every time the US conducted military exercises with Japan and South Korea, directly aimed at sending provocative messages to Beijing and threatening violence if Beijing were to become uncooperative and unyielding to the US. They have sailed around these regions so many times in the past, we've all lost count, so it is not true that the US is a peaceful force or a peacekeeping force since China has not been militarily aggressive for a while. At least not in the way the US and even Russia has been recently.
     
  8. SamuraiBlue
    Online

    SamuraiBlue Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,058
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Nope since it is international waters so no party(ies) can claim exclusivity including surrounding nations. That is what international waters means.
     
  9. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    951
    Likes Received:
    703
    Yeah but I am not citing international rules here am I. As far as I am concerned, the validity of these so called rules have been kicked out of the door a long time ago by the actions of all the participants in the matter and how unfairly such rules are applied in other preceding matters. To much fait accompli had been done to revert matters back to where they were before. The best way forward would be a compromise that gives all the participants no good excuse to renegade on it.
     
  10. SamuraiBlue
    Online

    SamuraiBlue Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,058
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    In the eyes of the world especially nations that depends free passage of the area, that is a very poor and selfish excuse to ENCROACH international waters claiming as their own placing missiles that is regarded as potential hostile provocations against any nation that are against PRC's claims.
     
Loading...

Share This Page