South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Blackstone

Brigadier
Vietnam is quietly and progressively proceeding with their efforts. You are right, griping would not change the situation. As the saying goes "if you can't beat them join them". Unfortunately for the Philippines, it is so economically challenged that it can't afford to do anything other than complain.
The weak link in your argument is Vietnam can't possibly match China's resources, and Beijing has no less fortitude than Hanoi for the contest of wills. Any additional land reclamation Vietnam does only gives Beijing cover to bring more resource into the mix. I respect Vietnam's determination, but it's a day late and a dollar short. Hanoi's wet dream is to ensnare US into a hot dispute, and that's a very dangerous game.
 

Brumby

Major
You know I don't think China knee jerked it. But, that doesn't mean China's island manufacturing operations wasn't in response to actions by others. Whether you and your ilk like it or not, facts are facts, and they show China responded with mildness for years while others expanded military bases and airstrips.
IMHO, China's reclamation actions are in pursuance of a strategy to build depth in its A2AD approach. The actions of others were simply a pretax to provide cover for its reclamations effort in the SCS. The reasons for my view are guided my two main consideration; (i) proportionality; and (ii) the scale of the reclamation. The official position of it being in reaction doesn't meet those two test. The remaining question then is why only recently. The answer is simple. Timing and economic capability to undertake the program when the conditions are right. In my view, when Obama failed to act on the red line, the signals were clear to not only China but also Russia.
How about because China can bring more to the ball game than all others combined? I'd say that's a pretty good incentive to stop provoking Beijing.
IMHO Beijing doesn't need provoking; just cover. As such, asymmetric response becomes a viable strategy for the other claimants.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
IMHO, China's reclamation actions are in pursuance of a strategy to build depth in its A2AD approach. The actions of others were simply a pretax to provide cover for its reclamations effort in the SCS. The reasons for my view are guided my two main consideration; (i) proportionality; and (ii) the scale of the reclamation. The official position of it being in reaction doesn't meet those two test. The remaining question then is why only recently. The answer is simple. Timing and economic capability to undertake the program when the conditions are right. In my view, when Obama failed to act on the red line, the signals were clear to not only China but also Russia.
Well said, Brumby, I agree with much of what you wrote, except the A2AD part. In my view, China's primary objective in the SCS is to Monroe Doctrine the zone and link the Western Pacific with the Indian Ocean. That means, China is rushing to prepare for force on force operations against likely opponents, and in event of war, I see China using active defense in ECS and Western Pacific, but active offense in the SCS.

IMHO Beijing doesn't need provoking; just cover. As such, asymmetric response becomes a viable strategy for the other claimants.
The problem is there are associated costs for Vietnam if it truly takes the hard road, because 1) it's economically dependent on China, and unless the US is willing to shell out tens of billions foreign aid each year to Hanoi (boy, US tax payers would really love that!), and 2) try as they may, VCP leaders hasn't figured a way to relocate their land borders far away from China.

As for possible asymmetric responses from other claimants, none are as daring as Hanoi (Vietnam has been playing political chicken with China for a thousand years), or as reckless as Manila.
 

Zool

Junior Member
IMHO, China's reclamation actions are in pursuance of a strategy to build depth in its A2AD approach. The actions of others were simply a pretax to provide cover for its reclamations effort in the SCS. The reasons for my view are guided my two main consideration; (i) proportionality; and (ii) the scale of the reclamation. The official position of it being in reaction doesn't meet those two test. The remaining question then is why only recently. The answer is simple. Timing and economic capability to undertake the program when the conditions are right. In my view, when Obama failed to act on the red line, the signals were clear to not only China but also Russia.

In your view, what was the red line China crossed in it's SCS activities, and what action did you expect from the Obama Administration that did not materialize?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well, in light of Admiral Harris' comments, let me share my thoughts.

IMHO, China has planned very well, built up its resources, and then waited for the appropriate time according to its own time table to strengthen its position in the SCS.

I believe China would have done this irrespective of what small efforts Vietnam and the Philippines made....and also whether Obama failed with his "red Line," in Syria or not.

China is steadily and carefully working towards its own time table and accomplishment of what it feels are in its national interests.

The Philippines has little resource to attempt anything even minutely comparable.

Hanoi knows it cannot match China at all either...but it is not trying to. It's efforts are based on what it can accomplish, what resources it has, what defense it is building up, and what support it thinks it may get. It is not going to confront China.

More likely, it is simply seeking to strengthen what it already has in conjunction with what I just mentioned...IOW, within the scope of what it can accomplish given its resources, its own military, and the minimum support it thinks it might get, Vietnam is simply trying to solidify what it already has so it can best defend it if necessary.

Admiral Harris is stating things from a US perspective which knows it cannot do a thing to stop China's reclamation efforts on those positions it already occupies. He seeking to punctuate the US claims and desires for free navigation and trying to establish a warning in that regard. What he has said is true...if it came to it, the targeting of those fixed locations would be locked in.

But unless the US is prepared to occupy or completely cut off those islands...then that ultimately accomplishes little, and would only lead to a full scsale conflict in the SCS. In other words, unless that already happens, the US would not act in that regard.

Sansha and then the three principle islands in the Spratley area are all going to be mutually supportive, and very much supported by the mainland...reaching down through Sansha. The US would have to fight an all out war at sea to try and prevent that. The US, IMHO, is not only unprepared to do that...but they have no compelling reason to do so.

China knows this and it not likely to suddenly stumble in its careful planning and do something foolish as to make a pretext for it.

The fact is...with the positions that they have established and are in the process of completing...and the influence it will give them....they are going to be in a position to offer to work with Hanoi and Manila to find ways to help all who are willing to economically benefit...but doing it on terms favorable to Beijing.

The one island shown that Hanoi is improving, and anything that the Philippines can do with that cargo ship on the one reef will not mean a thing to any of that. They amount to knits on the back of an elephant...ot tinkling in the wind.

China has already put in place...very rapidly and with a huge, planned expenditure of resource...the position and facilities to establish itself exactly where it wants to be in the SCS. I do not see them suddenly going wild eyed. They will simply continue and make use of the position they have established and proceed now from a position of strength.

I expect once all of those islands and bases are completed with their infrastructure...and an influx of more equipment and personnel, that they will offer the velvet glove to any of the nations that want to take it, and help meet their own resource needs, while providing benefit to those who accept it.

That's what I would do with such gains.

The US will ultimately maintain its desire for freedom of navigation through there...but China will have a vastly improved position at the same time.
 
Last edited:

joshuatree

Captain
The narrative that we see often in this forum that China was only responding to others is simply echoing China's official statement but devoid of substance.

Given what China is doing on the ground, I don't see why Hanoi and Manila should not pursue their own reclamation effort.

I find that to be a statement that simply wants to overlook certain facts in themselves. Reclaiming and building bases of the magnitude seen and with such speed is no doubt a process planned ahead. But to say when China executed the plans is not a response to others is glossing over that for years post ASEAN Code of Conduct, Vietnam has been playing the island building game. Let's not haggle about the scale vs China, point is the principle, especially if claimants such as Vietnam and the Philippines harped the "spirit of the code" to death in their rhetoric everywhere they went. Then we have the Philippines who have been trying to make examples of Chinese fishermen, even using the naval flagship. There are poachers and errant fishermen from all claimant countries in those waters but you be hard pressed to find any major protesting from the Philippines in regards to other violators. Unlike other claimants, the Philippines did not even field an ambassador in China for a while, much less conduct any tension reducing efforts such as CG-to-CG meets, or navy-to-navy, establish any fishing enforcement escalation protocols, or protocols for unplanned meets on the high seas. The Philippines' rather fumbled response to issues like the Manila hostage situation for HK or the PCG shooting of a Taiwanese fishermen only added fuel to the fire.

Coupled the above with developments in the ECS the last few years - the failure in my opinion of the US to prevent Japan from "nationalizing" Diaoyu/Senkaku which was a match to the powder keg and the even bigger blunder of not strategically being ambiguous on whether the US will step in to defend those islands. That ambiguity was a strength card for US policy in my opinion but that's been spent now. Anyway, so you have the Philippines chest thumping MDT this and MDT that. No dignified strategic planner in China is going to ignore all these developments and not formulate a response that would help strengthen and defend China's interests in the SCS against potential events.
 

Brumby

Major
The weak link in your argument is Vietnam can't possibly match China's resources, and Beijing has no less fortitude than Hanoi for the contest of wills. Any additional land reclamation Vietnam does only gives Beijing cover to bring more resource into the mix. I respect Vietnam's determination, but it's a day late and a dollar short. Hanoi's wet dream is to ensnare US into a hot dispute, and that's a very dangerous game.

I am not referring to matching dollar for dollar in spending by Hanoi because clearly it is not remotely sustainable. I am referring to some form of asymmetric response which are tailored for optimal bang for buck.

Jeff's comments best sums up the situation and I would just quote him below.

Hanoi knows it cannot match China at all either...but it is not trying to. It's efforts are based on what it can accomplish, what resources it has, what defense it is building up, and what support it thinks it may get. It is not going to confront China.

More likely, it is simply seeking to strengthen what it already has in conjunction with what I just mentioned...IOW, within the scope of what it can accomplish given its resources, its own military, and the minimum support it thinks it might get, Vietnam is simply trying to solidify what it already has so it can best defend it if necessary.
 

delft

Brigadier
Vietnam is quietly and progressively proceeding with their efforts. You are right, griping would not change the situation. As the saying goes "if you can't beat them join them". Unfortunately for the Philippines, it is so economically challenged that it can't afford to do anything other than complain.
Complaining will serve the Philippines less well than cooperating with China.
 
Top