China's SCS Strategy Thread

[siegecrossbow]

Probably an imaginary one, conjured up by NBC itself.

Zhu Chenghu does exist. However, I don't know if they made up his quote.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

This quote came from a Chinese "General."



China has not right under international law to say which nations can or cannot send vessels into the South China Sea.

By setting imagining and declaring, in essence, that they and they alone make the decision on who can and who cannot enter the South China Sea, China is only bolstering the claims that freedom of navigation is in peril there.

I expect that this opinion was floated specifically from someone who does not have the final say in such matters and it will ultimately not be the case, or the opinion that the Chinese base their actions on.

Otherwise, you will probably see a great increase of US, Japanese, Australian...heck ultimately Indian and other nations...proving the point that they can transit, sail, patrol, etc. in those waters under freedom of navigation under international law.

I do not think that is what China wants.

Such a statement as this is going to serve to isolate China at a time when they are actually, with their reclamation efforts, making progress in the SCS and befuddling other nations in terms of the PRC increasing its capability and influence in the area.

Wait... can someone tell me why we're taking the words of a PLA general, being quoted by NBC, this seriously?

If this were China stating this in an official govt to govt or even military to military position then it would obviously be unreasonable, but in this case it sounds more like the PLA general's own opinion.

I also do not see anything about the general talking about any legal "right" for JMSDF to be there or not, rather the General speaks of his own acceptance and what he presumes to be the acceptance of China and the Chinese people.

I interpret this statement as simply the General perceiving the JMSDF presence in SCS to be an "unacceptable" (if that is the actual word he used) presence in relation to China's security, vision of regional stability, and its own goals in the region. In other words, for once, the title of the article is actually somewhat accurate, and the actual statement seems to be just a PLA General saying "Japan Not Welcome in south China Sea"...


Jeff, I think you are definitely overreaching if you believe the statement is meant to be any kind of official declaration of who is "allowed" or "not allowed" into SCS by China, or even by the General himself.
In effect it is just the equivalent of the General "expressing concern" at the JMSDF presence in SCS. It's not exactly logical to equate that to any kind of official or legal stance regarding the right of JMSDF to be part of SCS or even Freedom of Navigation.

 

[Blitzo]

To be honest, reading the article again and reading the subsequent responses in this thread to it, I'm bemused that people are immediately interpreting this as any kind of official statement by either China or the General, regarding the legality or the right for navies to sail in SCS. It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel to reach that conclusion IMO.

If anything, the initial response by blackstone ("I don't think Beijing got the memo on the fact nations of the world don't need its consent to sail in the South China Sea, outside normal territorial waters.") makes me feel like he believes China shouldn't be able to have a right to have an opinion regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable to its strategic and geopolitical security and aims, and that the interpretation of China seeking to impose some kind of "legal" restriction on JMSDF vessels in SCS is spinning the actual statement of the General (which does not even feature any such kinds of severe restrictions and certainly no suggestion of enforcing any such restrictions) into something far more unreasonable and indefensible.

I'm actually a bit aghast; in effect, the General is saying "Japan's naval presence in SCS is unacceptable to us" and people are either spinning it or interpreting it into: "China is seeking to restrict FON!!!!! China is overreaching its legal rights!!! China isn't abiding by international LAW!!!".
It's almost as if one is trying to present a relatively plain and reasonable statement into the worst possible inference and representation of what the statement might possibly mean (if one squints hard enough and breaks through a few logical safeguards)

I mean, sheesh, use some common sense people; do we really think a PLA General is arrogant and stupid enough to suggest that China should proclaim a restriction against JMSDF vessels in SCS during peacetime and that any such restriction is even enforceable let alone sensible? Eurgh, I feel like my IQ just dropped a few points after typing that out, is how stupid such a suggestion is.

 

[Blackstone]

There are many books on the law of the sea. The origin of the concept and its development preceded the US. It is no doubt that the US was instrumental in maintaining the rules post WW2 as belligerent states attempt to territorialize the seas. The US did not make up the rules. Please point to historical studies that support your assertion that the US made up the rules.

Brumby, let's not talk past each other again. I said post WWII norms were made by victorious powers, lead by the US. They used their might to make and enforce institutions and rules that mainly benefited themselves. I also said Brenton Woods nations break the very rules they imposed on the world, but they object to other rule breakers. Recent problems in the SCS stem from China objecting aspects of current international laws, and right or wrong, it's actively doing something about it. I concluded with the thesis 'might is right' trumps 'the meek shall inherit the Earth,' until final justice is dispensed after the Second Coming. It's hard to see how anyone could actually disagree with what I said, except the bit about Jesus Christ by non-Christians.

My prediction in the SCS is China will probably outlast the US in contests of wills through patience, guile, deep pockets, steady pressure, and internal lines of communication. Yes, the 7th Fleet is peerless, and Team USA is riled up right now, but will the next few Presidents reverse course? Will the 7th Fleet still be peerless in 10 years? How about 20 years? Maybe 30 years? Oh... you think China is giving up the ghost in the next 30 years...?

 

[Brumby]

To be honest, reading the article again and reading the subsequent responses in this thread to it, I'm bemused that people are immediately interpreting this as any kind of official statement by either China or the General, regarding the legality or the right for navies to sail in SCS. It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel to reach that conclusion IMO.

If anything, the initial response by blackstone ("I don't think Beijing got the memo on the fact nations of the world don't need its consent to sail in the South China Sea, outside normal territorial waters.") makes me feel like he believes China shouldn't be able to have a right to have an opinion regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable to its strategic and geopolitical security and aims, and that the interpretation of China seeking to impose some kind of "legal" restriction on JMSDF vessels in SCS is spinning the actual statement of the General (which does not even feature any such kinds of severe restrictions and certainly no suggestion of enforcing any such restrictions) into something far more reasonable.

I'm actually a bit aghast, the General is saying "Japan's naval presence in SCS is unacceptable to us" and people are either spinning it or interpreting it into: "China is seeking to restrict FON!!!!! China is overreaching its legal rights!!! China isn't abiding by international LAW!!!".
It's almost as if one is trying to present a relatively plain and reasonable statement into the worst possible inference and representation of what the statement might possibly mean (if one squints hard enough and breaks through a few logical safeguards)

In international relations, there are various means to get a message across and that include using surrogates like retired officials and semi official news outlets. I thought you once said to me that with Chinese affairs, the challenge is in filtering the message (not your words).

 

[Brumby]

Brumby, let's not talk past each other again. I said post WWII norms were made by victorious powers, lead by the US. They used their might to make and enforce institutions and rules that mainly benefited themselves. I also said Brenton Woods nations break the very rules they imposed on the world, but they object to other rule breakers. Recent problems in the SCS stem from China objecting aspects of current international laws, and right or wrong, it's actively doing something about it. I concluded with the thesis 'might is right' trumps 'the meek shall inherit the Earth,' until final justice is dispensed after the Second Coming. It's hard to see how anyone could actually disagree with what I said, except the bit about Jesus Christ by non-Christians.

My prediction in the SCS is China will probably outlast the US in contests of wills through patience, guile, deep pockets, steady pressure, and internal lines of communication. Yes, the 7th Fleet is peerless, and Team USA is riled up right now, but will the next few Presidents reverse course? Will the 7th Fleet still be peerless in 10 years? How about 20 years? Maybe 30 years? Oh... you think China is giving up the ghost in the next 30 years...?

Can we please stick to FON and law of the sea because I thought that was the discussion. The concept is pretty simple. Within the high seas is FON. How complex can it get?

 

[Blackstone]

Can we please stick to FON and law of the sea because I thought that was the discussion. The concept is pretty simple. Within the high seas is FON. How complex can it get?

What's there to discuss? Current rules say International waters= high seas= freedom of navigation. You and I have no disagreements on that definition.

 

[Blitzo]

In international relations, there are various means to get a message across and that include using surrogates like retired officials and semi official news outlets. I thought you once said to me that with Chinese affairs, the challenge is in filtering the message (not your words).

Absolutely, and experience in watching and listening to Chinese and PLA officials discuss these matters and a good dose of common sense can tell us just how ridiculous it is to suggest that the General is intending for China to impose any kind of legal or official restriction against JMSDF vessels.

There are of course certain characters out there who are deliberately meant to misinform the public or who are given more freedom to speak their minds without recourse, and it is up to the viewer and observer to interpret if their words represent any kind of official stance.

But in this case, it's ridiculous to interpret the General's use of the word "unacceptable" as a sign that either he or China are intending to impose any kind of navigational restriction on JMSDF vessels in SCS... even if we assume that China or the General do not care about the international backlash which would result if they proclaimed such an exclusion zone (which would be on an entirely different level compared to the ECS ADIZ and previous encounters between Chinese and US navy in SCS), the idea that they could even try to enforce such a zone, during peacetime is laughable.
I don't imagine how anyone with a half decent understanding of military capability, international relations, and even general geography could make such a claim.

Even the NBC article itself didn't seek to make that kind of leap in logic (or should I say, illogic), and really it is Blackstone who suggests it in the first place and I am disappointed that no other members thought to challenge such a confusing and ridiculous assumption of his.

 

[Blitzo]

So, @Blackstone, I'm calling you out -- I'd like to challenge your original statement and interpretation that the General and/or China is making any kind of statement regarding a desire to impose any kind of official or legal restriction against JMSDF in SCS, (or that they are making a statement regarding JMSDF's right to navigate in SCS overall)

I'd be interested for you to present your reasoning and evidence behind such a conclusion and interpretation of the statement
I've already presented my own reasoning for why such an interpretation of the statement is ridiculous and I've offered what I believe is a far more reasonable and sensible interpretation of the statement. (post 1293)

You obviously do not have to justify your interpretation if you don't want to, but seeing as we are all frank military observers on a military forum I'd like to think we can speak truly here.
You are also free of course to retract your original interpretation if you believe I've made a logical case.

 

[Blackstone]

So, @Blackstone, I'm calling you out -- I'd like to challenge your original statement and interpretation that the General and/or China is making any kind of statement regarding a desire to impose any kind of official or legal restriction against JMSDF in SCS, (or that they are making a statement regarding JMSDF's right to navigate in SCS overall)

I'd be interested for you to present your reasoning and evidence behind such a conclusion and interpretation of the statement
I've already presented my own reasoning for why such an interpretation of the statement is ridiculous and I've offered what I believe is a far more reasonable and sensible interpretation of the statement. (post 1293)

You obviously do not have to justify your interpretation if you don't want to, but seeing as we are all frank military observers on a military forum I'd like to think we can speak truly here.
You are also free of course to retract your original interpretation if you believe I've made a logical case.

I'm not sure what you mean, Blitzo. I said nothing about whether the PLA general's statement was correctly quoted or not, and I could see it either way. I said the Japanese Navy doesn't need China's permission to sail in the SCS, as long as it stays out of internationally recognized territorial waters, and I stand by that. If you mean the bit about Beijing not getting the memo, that's just for emphasis.