South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Yvrch said:

^^ The real joy of reading above piece is almost constantly disagreeing with the writer.
arge of WMD against someone go? The thirst for adventure in a faraway lands may very well turn out decidedly different this time.

Click to expand...

I definitely see flaw in the author's arguments.

Prior to 1945, conquest was a lawful means of acquiring title to territory, so the European colonial powers certainly enjoyed legal title to the features they controlled. The Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei, Indonesia, and Vietnam derive their title to features from Spain, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and France.

Click to expand...

If 1945 is the banner year on ending conquest being regarded as "lawful", then the last conquest by the Japanese would be "lawful" even if for a few years as it happened prior to 1945. Japan itself was finally conquered in 1945. When Japan relinquished the Spratlys and the Paracels in 1951, it made no specific statement about who it relinquished to. So in the same logic that the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Vietnam derive their title to features from Spain, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and France; China/Taiwan can also derive their title to features from Japan. The Japanese had called the Spratlys Shinnan Gunto and placed them under the jurisdiction of then Takao-shu of colonial Taiwan. The Paracels where placed under the jurisdiction of Japanese-occupied Hainan. ROC continued to maintain presence in those features and even evicted Clomas. Prescription is yet another means of sovereignty validation.

And if we're on the topic of former colonizers bequeathing colonies features, the author needs to keep in mind the Treaty of Paris defined what features the Philippines inherited. The latter and vague Treaty of Washington when taken in context dealt more with the issues of Cagayan Sulu and Sibutu and their dependencies.

If anyone ever need a clear definition of powerlessness, Japan's futile gesture is a good candidate. What Shinzo Abe is really saying to Vietnam is "Son, you're on your own."

TOKYO (AP) — Japan said Tuesday it will give Vietnam used boats and other equipment to improve its maritime security capabilities as China asserts its territorial claims in regional seas.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced the grant worth 200 million yen ($1.7 million) after holding talks with Vietnamese Communist Party chief Nguyen Phu Trong in Tokyo.

The two leaders said they share "serious concerns" over attempts by China to change the status quo in the South China Sea by asserting its territorial claims.

"The massive land reclamation work and construction of outposts" intensify tensions, Abe said, without identifying China by name. China has recently created new islands by piling large amounts of sand on disputed islets and outcroppings it controls.

The number of boats Japan will provide wasn't announced. Japan earlier pledged to provide six used ships to Vietnam for law enforcement operations. Two have been delivered and the other four are to be delivered by December, according to the Foreign Ministry.

In a joint statement issued after the talks, the two sides agreed to strengthen security and defense cooperation by promoting exchanges and training, and also signed a memorandum of cooperation in United Nations-led peacekeeping operations.

Tokyo, which also has territorial disputes with China over a cluster of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, has stepped up security cooperation with several Southeast Asian nations.

Abe's government is pushing for the approval of a set of highly contentious security laws by the end of this week that would expand the role of Japan's military. They could allow patrols by Japanese military ships in the South China Sea in the future.

Click to expand...

I can't quite understand Vietnam's bellicose stance towards SCS disputes from a realist point of view. They just wont be able to compete with China in number games. That's the reality and they should somehow come to realize the fact that they are stuck with these circumstances forever and ever. There is just no escape, unless someday she gets totally subsumed in Chinese culture and economic power.

Vietnam has already 29 features under her control in SCS, more than any claimants in this dispute by a long shot. What else more she can expect? With only a USD180 billions economy, she keeps her military budget under 2%, which comes to something like a bit less than USD 4 billions. She can't even realistically hope to become a middle power like Indonesia any time soon.

Even Philippines has a much higher per capita GDP than Vietnam. To keep things into perspective, the total expenditure of what China is reclaiming and building in SCS is arguably far bigger than entire Vietnam military budget. Why not consolidate the holdings she currently has and negotiate with China to share fisheries and joint develop the natural resources? China has 700,000 powered fishing boats vs. Vietnam's 130,000, China's 9.2 million fishermen vs. Vietnam's 530,000. They have to somehow deal with the reality.

On economic front, getting FTA with EU and planning to join TPP brings more problems than help. It just sharpens her deficiencies in competitiveness against much nimbler and established western and European companies. Vietnam's economy will never escape China's shadow. China's negligible 2% devaluation put Vietnam's central bank into a spin. If US, Europe, Japan and everyone else catch a cold when China sneezes, what makes them think they would be totally diversified out of China's trade and economy. Rather than seeing the opportunity being in close proximity to 14 digits economy, they are going out of their way to get things more difficult than it already is.

Yvrch said:

I can't quite understand Vietnam's bellicose stance towards SCS disputes from a realist point of view. They just wont be able to compete with China in number games. That's the reality and they should somehow come to realize the fact that they are stuck with these circumstances forever and ever. There is just no escape, unless someday she gets totally subsumed in Chinese culture and economic power.

Vietnam has already 29 features under her control in SCS, more than any claimants in this dispute by a long shot. What else more she can expect? With only a USD180 billions economy, she keeps her military budget under 2%, which comes to something like a bit less than USD 4 billions. She can't even realistically hope to become a middle power like Indonesia any time soon.

Even Philippines has a much higher per capita GDP than Vietnam. To keep things into perspective, the total expenditure of what China is reclaiming and building in SCS is arguably far bigger than entire Vietnam military budget. Why not consolidate the holdings she currently has and negotiate with China to share fisheries and joint develop the natural resources? China has 700,000 powered fishing boats vs. Vietnam's 130,000, China's 9.2 million fishermen vs. Vietnam's 530,000. They have to somehow deal with the reality.

On economic front, getting FTA with EU and planning to join TPP brings more problems than help. It just sharpens her deficiencies in competitiveness against much nimbler and established western and European companies. Vietnam's economy will never escape China's shadow. China's negligible 2% devaluation put Vietnam's central bank into a spin. If US, Europe, Japan and everyone else catch a cold when China sneezes, what makes them think they would be totally diversified out of China's trade and economy. Rather than seeing the opportunity being in close proximity to 14 digits economy, they are going out of their way to get things more difficult than it already is.

Click to expand...

I think ever since the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese have been living under a state of unrealistically high expectations and valuation of their own capabilities and strengths.

In their view, if they could "beat" America, what chance does China stand against them?

I think that thankfully, those in power in Vietnam knows that position does not stand up to reality, however, the general public expectation is such that they see no option but to act tough, least they be accused of cowardice and risk the people turning on them.

All the western criticisms of China's one party rule system actually applies far more accurately to Vietnam, where there hasn't been anything like the attempt made by the CCP to soften its imagine and be more responsive to the wants and needs of the people.

The same applies for all the western arguments that China needs to create some scary foreign threat to focus the people's attention and energies on, least they risk tuning on the government and party.

I agree with you, Wolfie, on chest thumping Vietnamese nationalism poking in China's eyes as a tool used by VCP to get popular support base for its rule. That's the only logical explanation to it.
It's not that only Vietnam CP uses this tool, every government of every political stripe uses it.
China uses it. US uses it too, but with different words, rallying around the flags, support the troops etc and it's paraded as patriotism, instead of nationalism, but it quacks the quack and it walks the walk.
Vietnamese are using it in a way that it conflicts with what her economic and national interests dictate. Like you implied, it sure looks like regime survival trumps the other interests, whatever the consequences may be in the long run for them.
Vietnam can't keep on punching above its weight forever and be a problem child living in the basement. I haven' seen China doing anything substantial to seriously hurt Vietnam yet.
China does have an ample toolbox to deal with this cantankerous population. Shutting down the border for an extended period would be a devastating blow to its economy.

Yvrch said:

I agree with you, Wolfie, on chest thumping Vietnamese nationalism poking in China's eyes as a tool used by VCP to get popular support base for its rule. That's the only logical explanation to it.
It's not that only Vietnam CP uses this tool, every government of every political stripe uses it.
China uses it. US uses it too, but with different words, rallying around the flags, support the troops etc and it's paraded as patriotism, instead of nationalism, but it quacks the quack and it walks the walk.
Vietnamese are using it in a way that it conflicts with what her economic and national interests dictate. Like you implied, it sure looks like regime survival trumps the other interests, whatever the consequences may be in the long run for them.
Vietnam can't keep on punching above its weight forever and be a problem child living in the basement. I haven' seen China doing anything substantial to seriously hurt Vietnam yet.
China does have an ample toolbox to deal with this cantankerous population. Shutting down the border for an extended period would be a devastating blow to its economy.

Click to expand...

China has bigger concerns than Vietnam.

Vietnam is a naucance, but doesn't really qualify as a threat. Same goes for all the other SCS claimants.

I think after decades of trying to negotiate and reason with them, all the while the likes of Vietnam and the Phillipines have been stalling on negotiations by insisting on preconditions that China could and never would accept - collective negotiations between China so ASEAN (smacks too much of the 8 nations alliances that humiliated the Qing Dynasty and all the unequal Treaties China was forces to sign as a consequence), while at the same time busy changing facts in the ground with land grabs, construction and fortifications of existing holdings, building oil and gas drilling rigs etc.

Beijing has concluded that the game plan of the likes of Vietnam and the Philippines is to string China along while the grab as much land and extract as much of the resources as they could.

As such, it has now pretty much given up on them and is just doing what it always planned to, but had previously held back in the hopes of reaching an agreement and settling the disputes before proceeding.

I think history should look back and see this as a massive missed opportunity for the likes of Vietnam and the Philippines.

As China has demonstrated time an again, when nations sit down with them and negotiate in good faith fairly, China has been remarkably flexible and practical in terms of their position, and most of China's land neighbours managed to cut very favourable deals when they did that.

Had Vietnam and the Philipines negotiated in good faith, China may well have accepted the reality on the ground as it was, and allowed them to keep their holdings.

That would have been the matter settled, never to be revisited again as far as China is concerned.

Now, China is just totally ignoring the other claimants and doing whatever the hell it pleases with its own holdings, and will almost certainly look to take back all the islands currently occupied by Vietnam and the Philippines when the opportunity arrises.

^^^ Right on! I couldn't agree more with what you said. We're very much like minded in this case.
Vietnam and Philippines trying to use ASEAN as a grouping to back up their respective claims is like tail wagging a dog. Original founders, like Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore couldn't care less about confronting China on their behalf. Malaysia government can't even swing out too much to US as the Muslim population base is decidedly anti-American given what's going on ME since Mahathir time. No chance there in Malaysia to go all out against China. Singapore just wants to make more money and win more elections. Joko Widodo is as nationalist as they come, so far not known for as a foreign policy president. They just like to blow up illegal fishing boats, most of them Malay and Viet with only one Chinese and sending Aussies to gallows.

I think after China finishes what she's been doing in SCS and everything up and running, Vietnam will do a turnabout and comes hat in hand to haggle with China for whatever deal they can get.
It would be interesting to see when that rusty bucket on the Second Thomas Shoal disintegrates in a few years time when Chinese facilities in Meiji are up and running just 20 miles out west.
If China starts developing Second Thomas Shoal and Scarborough Shoal, if and when that happens, that would pretty much set China to more than effectively control first island chain I believe.

A bit of spice to flavor the stew ahead of Xi's summit with Obama in Washington.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China said on Friday it was "extremely concerned" about a suggestion from a top U.S. commander that U.S. ships and aircraft should challenge China's claims in the South China Sea by patrolling close to artificial islands it has built.

China's increasingly assertive action to back up its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea have included land reclamation and the construction of ports and air facilities on several reefs in the Spratly Islands.

The work has rattled China's neighbors, in particular U.S. ally the Philippines, and raised concern in the United States.

China says it has irrefutable sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and no hostile intent.

Admiral Harry Harris, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, told a Senate hearing on Thursday that China's building of three airfields on small islands and their further militarization was of "great concern militarily" and posed a threat to all countries in the region.

Harris said the United States should exercise freedom of navigation and flight "in the South China Sea against those islands that are not islands".

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China was "extremely concerned" about the comments and China opposed "any country challenging China's sovereignty and security in the name of protecting freedom of navigation".

"We demand that the relevant country speak and act cautiously, earnestly respect China's sovereignty and security interests, and not take any risky or provocative acts," Hong said at a daily news briefing.

Chinese President Xi Jinping begins a week-long visit to the United States on Monday.

U.S. concerns about China's pursuit of territorial claims in the South China Sea will be high on President Barack Obama's agenda in their talks next Friday.

China has overlapping claims with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei in the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year.

On Thursday, the head of the U.S. Senate's military committee criticized the Obama administration for failing to challenge China's island building in the South China Sea by sailing within 12 miles (19.2 km) of them, saying this amounted to de-facto recognition of Chinese claims.

On Tuesday, a U.S. expert said China was carrying out land reclamation in the South China Sea this month, more than four weeks after saying it had stopped such activity, citing recent satellite images.

Click to expand...

Never mind, it appears Obama doesn't like spicy stew.


Failure to assert passage rights in South China Sea bolsters Beijing’s illegal maritime claims
China's alleged on-going reclamation of Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea / AP

BY:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

September 17, 2015 4:15 pm

The Obama administration has restricted the U.S. Pacific Command from sending ships and aircraft within 12 miles of disputed Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea, bolstering Beijing’s illegal claims over the vital seaway, Pentagon leaders revealed to Congress on Thursday.

“The administration has continued to restrict our Navy ships from operating within 12 nautical miles of China’s reclaimed islands,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said in opening remarks criticizing the failure to guarantee safe passage for international commercial ships in Asia.

“This is a dangerous mistake that grants de facto recognition of China’s man-made sovereignty claims,” he said.

The South China Sea is a strategic waterway used to transport $5 trillion annually in goods, including $1.2 trillion in trade to the United States.

David Shear, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific affairs, sought to play down the restrictions on Navy ship transits close to the islands. According to Shear, a regional freedom of navigation exercise took place in April and the tactic is “one tool in a larger tool box … and we’re in the process of putting together that tool box.”

Shear acknowledged that “we have not recently gone within 12 miles of a reclaimed area,” noting the last time a Navy ship sailed that close to a Chinese-built island was 2012.

The disclosure undermines statements made Wednesday by Defense Secretary Ash Carter who said the United States would not be coerced by China into not operating ships or aircraft in Asia. Carter said the United States “will continue to protect freedom of navigation and overflight.”

Shear insisted that in recent years the U.S. military has challenged “every category of Chinese claim in the South China Sea, as recently as this year.”

Blocking China from militarizing the new islands could include a range of options, including freedom of navigation operations, he said.

McCain, however, noted that the U.S. restrictions on close-in island military flights and ship visits were continuing despite the provocative dispatch of five Chinese warships in an unprecedented deployment to waters within 12 miles of Alaska’s Aleutian Islands—at the same time President Obama was concluding a recent visit to the state earlier this month.

A visibly angered McCain told Shear the best way to assert that international waters around the islands do not belong to China would be for American ships to make 12-mile passages by the disputed islands. “And we haven’t done that since 2012. I don’t find that acceptable, Mr. Secretary,” he said.

Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, was asked if he is authorized to order ships to travel within 12 miles of any of the man-made islands and answered, no. Harris also said no U.S. surveillance aircraft have flown directly over any of the islands.

Asked why not, Harris stated: “I’ll just [say] that Pacom presents options, military options to the secretary. And those options come with a full range of opportunities in the South China Sea, and we’re ready to execute those options when directed.”

The restrictions appear to be an element of the Obama administration’s conciliatory policies toward China that have increased in the months leading up to the planned visit to Washington next week by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The administration also has not taken steps to penalize China for large-scale hacking of U.S. government and private sector databases, although sanctions are planned.

China has been building islands on several reefs within the South China Sea for the past several years near the Paracels, in the northwestern sea, and near the Spratlys, near the Philippines. Several nations, including Vietnam, Philippines, and Malaysia have challenged Chinese claims to maritime sovereignty.

After ignoring the island building for several years, the Obama administration earlier this year began pressing the Chinese to halt the construction. The U.S. appeals were ignored.

A Chinese admiral recently declared that the entire South China Sea is China’s maritime territory.

“The South China Sea is no more China’s than the Gulf of Mexico is Mexico’s,” said Harris, who described himself as critic of China’s maritime behavior and large-scale military buildup.

Harris made clear implicitly during the hearing he did not agree with the restrictions on transit near the disputed islands but has been overruled by the president and secretary of defense.

“I think that we must exercise our freedom of navigation throughout the region …,” Harris said.

Pressed for his views on whether close passage of U.S. ships in the sea should be permitted, Harris said: “I believe that we should [be] allow[ed] to exercise freedom of navigation and flight—maritime and flight in the South China Sea against those islands that are not islands.”

Asked if he has requested permission for close-in island transits, Harris would not say, stating only that he has provided policy options for doing so to civilian leaders.

Harris said Pacific command surface ship commanders and crews, as well as Air Force pilots and crews, have orders when operating near China to “insist on our right to operate in international airspace and maritime space” and to respond professionally when challenged by Chinese warships or interceptor jets.

The four-star admiral warned that more incidents, such as the dangerous aerial intercept of a P-8 surveillance jet by a Chinese jet in 2014, are possible after China finishes building runways on Fiery Cross Reef and two other reefs.

With missiles, jet fighters, and warships stationed on the islands, “it creates a mechanism by which China would have de facto control over the South China Sea in any scenario short of war,” he said.

In a conflict the sites could be easily targeted, but “short of that, militarization of these features pose a threat, and certainly it poses a threat against all other countries in the region,” he said.

Shear also said the island militarization is a concern.

“The Chinese have not yet placed advanced weaponry on those features and we are going to do everything we can to ensure that they don’t,” Shear said. “This is going to be a long-term effort. There are no silver bullets in this effort. But we’re certainly complicating Chinese calculations already.”

Shear said U.S. forces are continuing to operate freely in the region and have deterred Chinese coercion of regional states.

“That we freely operate in the South China Sea is a success? It’s a pretty low bar, Mr. Secretary,” McCain said.

China’s dispatch of five warships to waters near the Bering Strait followed recent joint exercises with the Russians, after which the Chinese ships sailed near Alaska to demonstrated the ships’ ability to operate in the far north, Harris said, noting that he viewed the timing to the president’s Alaska visit as “coincidental.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan, (R., Alaska) said the Chinese action was a “provocation” and criticized the administration’s weak response. The Pentagon dismissed the Chinese ship transit as legal under international law.

“I thought it was more of a provocation and a demonstration of their interest in the Arctic,” Sullivan said. “I’m not sure that this White House would recognize a provocation if it was slapped in the face, and we need to be aware of that.”

Harris also said he is concerned by China deploying submarines, including nuclear missile submarines, further from its shores.

“We’re seeing Chinese submarine deployments extend further and further, almost with every deployment,” he said. “It has become routine for Chinese submarines to travel to the Horn of Africa region and North Arabian Sea in conjunction with their counter piracy task force operations. We’re seeing their ballistic missiles submarines travel in the Pacific at further ranges and of course all of those are of concern.”

China’s claims to have halted island construction and militarization on some 3,000 acres are false, McCain said.

“Recently released satellite images show clearly this is not true,” the senator said. “What’s more, China is rapidly militarizing this reclaimed land, building garrisons, harbors, intelligence, and surveillance infrastructure, and at least three air strips that could support military aircraft.”

Surface-to-air missiles and radars also could be added enabling China “to declare and enforce an air defense identification zone in the South China Sea, and to hold that vital region at risk,” McCain added.

Shear said the island building is nearly completed.

Meanwhile in the House, Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower, led a group of 29 members of Congress in writing to President Obama and Carter, the defense secretary, urging the lifting of the restrictions on naval and air operations near the disputed islands.

“The longer the United States goes without challenging China’s unfounded claims to sovereignty over these artificial formations—and to territorial waters and exclusive economic rights in the surrounding water—the greater the consequences will be for regional security,” the lawmakers stated in the Sept. 17 letter.

“It is our belief that the Defense Department should act immediately to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to freedom of navigation and the rule of law.”
[/QUOTE]

Blackstone said:

Never mind, it appears Obama doesn't like spicy stew.

Click to expand...

Spicy stew gives the President gas. Can't have that "gas release" at the wrong moment when meeting with the President of China at a State Dinner coming soon.