joshuatree
Captain
In this case, less to do with the actual data gained from surveillance within 12nm and more with the position statement of whether that 12nm as territorial sea is viewed as such.
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
In this case, less to do with the actual data gained from surveillance within 12nm and more with the position statement of whether that 12nm as territorial sea is viewed as such.
joshuatree
Captain
Blackstone
Brigadier
Right you are, Brumby. That's why FON is more about maintaining US primacy in Asia and less about right to sail in international waters. This particular round ends with US losing varying degrees of credibility with regional nations in all scenarios except China backing off like it did during the 1995/1996 Taiwan Straits crisis. And what are the odds of that? A snowflake in hell comes to mind.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The New York Slime author missed the most likely Chinese response, and that is shadowing the US squadron with a strong force of Chinese warships, and not backing down an inch. A standoff favors China's strategy to chip away at US credibility, because US warships would eventually leave, and China could claim possession of the field, and a 'technical victory.' Given everything we've seen of Mr. Xi Jinping, what do you think he will probably do?
shen
Senior Member
We shouldn't be so complacent as to expect everybody will play the game rationally. Given the history of the past century of humiliation, having foreign warship in its territorial water is a very emotional issue for the Chinese people. Our American posters are probably familiar with the movie Sand Pebbles. Remember that during the 1988 John Reef Skirmish, Chinese sailors went beyond their order when they destroyed the Vietnamese ships. They were lucky not to have been punished, but only because they won.
Brumby
Major
Implicit in the FON is the U.S. challenging China's sovereignty claim around the man made islands. That is the whole point of it. It is the means to an end. It has absolutely nothing to do with surveillance. It also signals an escalation phase following all other political means to achieve some form of solution. There is clearly room for miscalculation from both ends henceforth and why it has taken such a long time to get to this point especially given Obama's indecisiveness and risk averse personality.
I understand your preference to see every issue of this nature through the prism of US and China primacy. I don't intend to be drawn down this path because I believe you are over complicating the issue, it is OT, unproductive and possibly inflammatory.
I think this is the area where the room for miscalculation is the greatest. Sovereignty over a territory needs to be in substance and not just in form. China has made a claim of sovereignty and the source of authority either rest on its legality or in might. China cannot invoke the law because to-date its claim is nebulous and that leaves it with the only other option. The US is signalling its intention to challenge the claim via FON. Depending on how one views substance, shadowing the US warship(s) is hollow form in staking a claim through might. This is where I think miscalculation will potentially originate. There is a "face" issue for China and how it will resonate with the domestic audience if its actions are deemed too soft given its perceived growing strength and the general insufficient recognition of its intrinsic status by Western powers.
Off topic, but as a matter of principle I try to view all actions between nations in a purely geopolitical and realpolitik scope.
Understanding each side's self interests in black and white terms is probably the clearest way of viewing why actions occur, IMO.
I think there's a bit of this on both sides... China has a domestic audience which wants to have the US respect its growing status, while I think there's also an audience in the US which would love to see China knocked down a few notches...
Are you suggesting China would be more irrational/willing to use force in such a situation?
I can't foresee that happening, not unless Chinese ships are actually fired upon.
I expect the US will sail through there with one or two ships, possible an LCS and a Burke. I expect further that they would get no close than 4 nm to any island.
I expect China to have a shadowing force of one or two FFGs probably...very similar to what happened the last time the US Navy went in there...issuing warnings not to get too close.
Afterwards both sides will claim that they met their interests.
Here's the USS Ft. worth being trailed by a Type 054A FFG in the South China sea near one of the reclamation areas in question.
Here's a P-8 flying near one as well. It was warned, but dd not diver course. Notice there was no direct fly over.
I expect China to have a shadowing force of one or two FFGs probably...very similar to what happened the last time the US Navy went in there...issuing warnings not to get too close.
Afterwards both sides will claim that they met their interests.
Here's the USS Ft. worth being trailed by a Type 054A FFG in the South China sea near one of the reclamation areas in question.
Here's a P-8 flying near one as well. It was warned, but dd not diver course. Notice there was no direct fly over.
shen
Senior Member
In 1988, both sides also claimed they were fired upon first. In that kind of tense situation, all kinds of bad unintentional things can happen. Whatever the order from the top is.
Of course the central government is not going to order Chinese ships to fire unprovoked. But we should expect stronger counter actions in territorial water then what Ft. Worth encountered (which didn't enter territorial water). Something like this should be expected.
CCTV news programs have been covering the story heavily since the American announcement of their intention to enter Chinese territorial water. USN warships will be closely monitored at all times just like Ft. Worth was last time. Should they enter the territorial water, stronger measures should be expected.
I tend to agree with Jeff's above comments. Anyway, China is unlikely to be like the former USSR during the "Cold War". Besides military/naval, there are now other considerations - trade, economic, financial, foreign affairs & other aspects governing both US & China. It will be unfortunate if there are "accidents" at sea that will eventually develop into open hostilities. The region needs stability and progress, not serious misunderstandings.