China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

My post on the last page regarding the issue was quite clear on it actually -- post 1854, where I wrote:


The underlying point is that the narrative of threats to civilian FON portrays it as one of innocent, international civilian shipping being under threat whereas the past evidence of "FON disruption" was either in relation to only military vessels, or in relation to some cases of territorial dispute standoffs involving commercial fishing vessels (with the latter being a symptom of contesting or enforcing sovereignty).
.

There is no such thing as innocent passage for civilian FON. "Innocent passage" is specifically meant to define the conditions military vessel must observe to qualify for such passage in territorial waters.

If you're trying to put commercial fishing under the scope of FON then that is really pushing it, and frankly I'm not even sure if commercial fishing comes under the scope of anything near what could be considered as innocent passage, though that depends on the location of the specific action. But commercial fishing within disputed territories most definitely cannot be considered under the same scope as civilian commercial shipping vessels, which has been the true source of dispute in the present tense.

Why not? I have made a general case in post #1831 and specifically addressed this point in post #1868. Your rebuttal is simply "I can't", with no reasoning and no basis.

The overarching argument is that China has not restricted civilian FON rests on the basis of past actions, which have only been related to military vessels and aircraft, or in cases of territorial sovereignty in enforcing sovereignty claims.

So the caveat regarding "not having restricted civilian FON in general" has already been acknowledged before, however the overarching argument I believe is still fundamentally solid given controlling commercial fishing within what China considers its sovereign territory (yes it is disputed, but China considers it sovereign and to not enforce its domestic controls would be a way of conceding sovereignty) would be within its rights.

You are simply restating your previous position. You actually haven't offered any credible reasoning or rebuttal to what I have offered in my post #1831 and #1868

More importantly equating controlling commercial fishing within disputed waters to the idea that China is suddenly a threat to general civilian shipping FON in the entirety of the SCS is founded on poor logic (and that is what the narrative seems to be putting forward), therefore this argument is meant for specific rebuke against that narrative which I believe the argument should succeed in doing.

Such an extension from fishing to general civilian threat is not something that we have addressed because we haven't even got past fishing. I am happy to discuss the extension but one step at a time.

 

[Brumby]

Actually, it might be fit to rephrase the argument to a new one, better tailored for the purpose of countering the "media narrative":

I take from your statement that the media narrative is no longer on the table and never to be resurrected. Frankly, I don't recall that was your initial position but since you insisted that it was in recent discussions, I respected it.

China has not obstructed FON in any way which would be consistent with being able to logically claim that its actions have demonstrated it has the potential to place civilian commercial shipping FON under any sort of threat.

I took the effort in post #1831 to lay out the meaning of FON and I will repeat it for the sake of clarity. In its full and broadest sense it is the freedom to navigate without fear from actual, potential or conditional threats. Any possible imposition towards this degrade the meaning of freedom. China has argued that its actions to-date do not constitute any restriction to civilian FON. Leaving aside the fishing issue which I will await a response, the notion of FON is not simply a direct cause and effect model i.e. there must be tangible actions to constitute an existential threat. I am making the argument that changing conditions pertaining to the environment is sufficient to warrant corresponding actions. The fact that once the conditions are in place, it leaves the region shouldering the entire risk at the pleasure of China whether to turn the screws on or not. This leaves the region in an unacceptable position of being subject to coercive behaviour from China just simply by the fact that they have the keys to do so at will.

The truth is all nations have obstructed civilian FON in some way, if we want to expand the definition, whether it be within their own waters, disputed waters or even within international waters, and more often than not it is on the basis of national security.

As I had outlined in post #1868, take your pick but you can't have it both ways.

For instance the USN stopped the Yinhe, a Chiese shipping vessel, while it was in international waters, due to suspecting it was shipping chemical materials to Iran (it wasn't), but despite this action we cannot logically claim the US is thus somehow a threat to civilian commercial shipping FON, because this is a unique action made on the basis of a nation's own national security and cannot be expanded to that nation's policy towards all civilian vessels or even all civilian shipping.
Similarly, in the case of commercial fishing in disputed waters, obstructing and regulating such boats are also unique actions on the basis of a nation's own national security and sovereignty and cannot be expanded to that nation's policy towards all civilian vessels or all civilian shipping.

I don't know anything about the details of the Yinhe case. If the US had acted outside of international law then like everyone else it has to account for its actions. China has to learn to do the same i.e. account for its actions.

Therefore, it is impossible to truly say "nation X has never obstructued civilian FON" because one can always come up with an example where it technically has. Thus, the rephrasing of the argument.

Whether nation "X" has or not even obstructed civilian FON is not central to the matter. You are the one setting the terms of reference. I am just going along based on your preference.

 

[Blitzo]

I take from your statement that the media narrative is no longer on the table and never to be resurrected. Frankly, I don't recall that was your initial position but since you insisted that it was in recent discussions, I respected it.

No, what I meant by this is that the media narrative is still on the table but I have changed the argument I am using to counter it. (More on this at the second half of the post)

To repeat, the media narrative is definitely still on the table and is always going to be present, unless the media eventually retract and/or stop putting forward the narrative.
Therefore, please interpret everything I'm writing below in relation to the media narrative itself, and not reflective of any intention to challenge the fundamental legal or philosophical aspect of FON.

I took the effort in post #1831 to lay out the meaning of FON and I will repeat it for the sake of clarity. In its full and broadest sense it is the freedom to navigate without fear from actual, potential or conditional threats. Any possible imposition towards this degrade the meaning of freedom. China has argued that its actions to-date do not constitute any restriction to civilian FON. Leaving aside the fishing issue which I will await a response,

-snip-

Whether nation "X" has or not even obstructed civilian FON is not central to the matter. You are the one setting the terms of reference. I am just going along based on your preference.

Okay, I think the last couple of posts by both of us has opened up a number of additional new fronts of contention, many of which I feel like I do not even understand how they emerged.

So I'm going to write down my understanding of your overall position, and then rewrite my position with greater clarity.

From what I understand in post 1868, you concluded with two statements:
"(a)The statement that there is no restriction to civilian FON is simply a rhetorical statement that has no honesty in it as it is devoid of reality; or
(b)Accept that in effect there is restriction to civilian FON by its actions and deal with that reality and not hide behind some rhetorical smokescreen."

From there, in post 1869 I then quoted my post 1854, where I essentially was saying that I had already accepted your point b in my post 1854:
"...there has been virtually no cases of impeding civilian shipping FON, and the few high profile cases of FON obstruction (when relevant to China) were always in relation to either military vessels or aircraft, or in territorial dispute standoffs with other claimants."
In other words, in post 1869 I was already saying that there had already been a degree of "restriction" in regards to civilian FON, but it was in relation to territorial dispute standoffs.

====

Now, onto my overall position:

Premise: I believe that there is a media narrative which is saying civilian shipping FON in the SCS is somehow under great threat in the last year or so compared to previous due to developments in the region, mostly due to China.

My initial counter argument to the premise (post 1854): I believe that there is insufficient evidence for the media narrative to suggest China (or indeed any other nation in the region) is a threat to civilian shipping FON, because as I wrote: "there has been virtually no cases of impeding civilian shipping FON, and the few high profile cases of FON obstruction (when relevant to China) were always in relation to either military vessels or aircraft, or in territorial dispute standoffs with other claimants." I.e.: the only evidence for obstruction of FON we have (by China) is in the case of military vessels or aircraft and/or in obstructions in relation to territorial disputes, and that in my view is insufficient to portray the narrative that civilian shipping FON is under threat.
PS: The only reason why "civilian shipping FON" is being considered as an individual factor in this case, is because the narrative has portrayed it as somehow being uniquely under threat.

My revised counter argument to the premise (post 1870): Following reading your post 1868 and your point b) in particular, I decided that it was necessary to revise my initial counter argument because it offered room for misunderstanding, specifically regarding the area of "impeding civilian vessels". This is despite the fact that my original counter argument had written "impeding civilian shipping FON" and despite the fact that I did mention there were few cases of technical civilian FON obstruction in relation to territorial disputes.
Thus, I rewrote my counter argument as "China has not obstructed FON in any way which would be consistent with being able to logically claim that its actions have demonstrated it has the potential to place civilian commercial shipping FON under any sort of threat."
This revised counter argument is therefore able to account for the fact that yes, China has obstructed FON in relation to military vessels and aircraft, and yes China has obstructed the civilian commercial fishing FON in disputed waters as a matter of sovereignty, but those cases of FON obstruction are insufficient evidence for the media narrative to be able to logically portray the situation in the SCS as if civilian shipping FON were under threat.

And now, at the end, I feel obliged again to point out that this is all within the context of the media narrative, which over the last year and months have seemed to emphasize the notion that civilian shipping FON were under threat. That is why it is necessary for my counter arguments to also divide "civilian shipping FON" from the likes of other types of FON such as military, or FON obstructions such as in relation to commercial fishing in disputed waters.


There are certain other points which you have made in rebuttal to my own which I do also partially disagree with but I am willing to forgo challenging them for the sake of clarifying my own position to make the discussion easier for both of us to follow.

 

[Blitzo]

Thus, I rewrote my counter argument as "China has not obstructed FON in any way which would be consistent with being able to logically claim that its actions have demonstrated it has the potential to place civilian commercial shipping FON under any sort of threat."

More on this part -- the word "potential" is one I chose somewhat tentatively, because potential can mean lot of things.

It can mean having the capability to do something, or having the capability as well as intent to do something, or whatever degree of interpretation one wants.

In this case, I use the word "potential" to specifically refer to the intent x capability to threaten civilian commercial shipping FON, where yes China most definitely does have the capability to threaten civilian commercial shipping FON in the SCS if it wanted to (and quite frankly it could have done so for many years even before developments in the last year or so), but China has not exhibited any intent or interest in threatening civilian commercial shipping FON within the SCS.

Therefore, I consider the overall potential (aka intent x capability) for China to threaten civilian commercial shipping FON (within the foreseeable future) to be virtually zero.

This is not to say that if there was a conflict in the region then China may not seek to obstruct the civilian shipping FON or even destroy civilian shipping of opposing nations.

 

[Brumby]

No, what I meant by this is that the media narrative is still on the table but I have changed the argument I am using to counter it. (More on this at the second half of the post)


To repeat, the media narrative is definitely still on the table and is always going to be present, unless the media eventually retract and/or stop putting forward the narrative.

Therefore, please interpret everything I'm writing below in relation to the media narrative itself, and not reflective of any intention to challenge the fundamental legal or philosophical aspect of FON.


Okay, I think the last couple of posts by both of us has opened up a number of additional new fronts of contention, many of which I feel like I do not even understand how they emerged.


So I'm going to write down my understanding of your overall position, and then rewrite my position with greater clarity.


From what I understand in post 1868, you concluded with two statements:

"(a)The statement that there is no restriction to civilian FON is simply a rhetorical statement that has no honesty in it as it is devoid of reality; or

(b)Accept that in effect there is restriction to civilian FON by its actions and deal with that reality and not hide behind some rhetorical smokescreen."


From there, in post 1869 I then quoted my post 1854, where I essentially was saying that I had already accepted your point b in my post 1854:

"...there has been virtually no cases of impeding civilian shipping FON, and the few high profile cases of FON obstruction (when relevant to China) were always in relation to either military vessels or aircraft, or in territorial dispute standoffs with other claimants."

In other words, in post 1869 I was already saying that there had already been a degree of "restriction" in regards to civilian FON, but it was in relation to territorial dispute standoffs.

Essentially your statement affirms that there were indeed restriction to civilian FON but it comes with qualifiers. I do not have issue that it comes with qualifiers or the materiality. My contention was simply that any suggestion that there were none is not factually true.

Now, onto my overall position:


Premise: I believe that there is a media narrative which is saying civilian shipping FON in the SCS is somehow under great threat in the last year or so compared to previous due to developments in the region, mostly due to China.


My initial counter argument to the premise (post 1854): I believe that there is insufficient evidence for the media narrative to suggest China (or indeed any other nation in the region) is a threat to civilian shipping FON, because as I wrote: "there has been virtually no cases of impeding civilian shipping FON, and the few high profile cases of FON obstruction (when relevant to China) were always in relation to either military vessels or aircraft, or in territorial dispute standoffs with other claimants." I.e.: the only evidence for obstruction of FON we have (by China) is in the case of military vessels or aircraft and/or in obstructions in relation to territorial disputes, and that in my view is insufficient to portray the narrative that civilian shipping FON is under threat.

PS: The only reason why "civilian shipping FON" is being considered as an individual factor in this case, is because the narrative has portrayed it as somehow being uniquely under threat.


My revised counter argument to the premise (post 1870): Following reading your post 1868 and your point b) in particular, I decided that it was necessary to revise my initial counter argument because it offered room for misunderstanding, specifically regarding the area of "impeding civilian vessels". This is despite the fact that my original counter argument had written "impeding civilian shipping FON" and despite the fact that I did mention there were few cases of technical civilian FON obstruction in relation to territorial disputes.

Thus, I rewrote my counter argument as "China has not obstructed FON in any way which would be consistent with being able to logically claim that its actions have demonstrated it has the potential to place civilian commercial shipping FON under any sort of threat."

This revised counter argument is therefore able to account for the fact that yes, China has obstructed FON in relation to military vessels and aircraft, and yes China has obstructed the civilian commercial fishing FON in disputed waters as a matter of sovereignty, but those cases of FON obstruction are insufficient evidence for the media narrative to be able to logically portray the situation in the SCS as if civilian shipping FON were under threat.


And now, at the end, I feel obliged again to point out that this is all within the context of the media narrative, which over the last year and months have seemed to emphasize the notion that civilian shipping FON were under threat. That is why it is necessary for my counter arguments to also divide "civilian shipping FON" from the likes of other types of FON such as military, or FON obstructions such as in relation to commercial fishing in disputed waters.

A couple of comments I would make. Firstly, you have framed your argument into a specific sub-set subject to very narrow conditions. I have no issue from that perspective as it is for you to make. Essentially your argument invokes the lack of actualised events (restriction to commercial FON) to reasonably project an expanded negative future state of being as portrayed by the media. In other words, such conclusion lacks a qualifying antecedent. I can accept such reasoning subject to your qualifiers. Moving on I will get to my second comment. Whilst I have not seen the media’s actual narrative, I can relate to their concerns which I believe is a concern that can be justified. This position is in direct contrast to my first comment but in making my following argument, I will remove the need to have such a qualifying antecedent to make my case. I basically discussed it in my post #1872 in that the prospect of such a threat subject to only the pleasure of Beijing is not a position that would reasonably be acceptable to any nation given the value of commercial trade that passes through the SCS.

More on this part -- the word "potential" is one I chose somewhat tentatively, because potential can mean lot of things.

It can mean having the capability to do something, or having the capability as well as intent to do something, or whatever degree of interpretation one wants.


In this case, I use the word "potential" to specifically refer to the intent x capability to threaten civilian commercial shipping FON, where yes China most definitely does have the capability to threaten civilian commercial shipping FON in the SCS if it wanted to (and quite frankly it could have done so for many years even before developments in the last year or so), but China has not exhibited any intent or interest in threatening civilian commercial shipping FON within the SCS.


Therefore, I consider the overall potential (aka intent x capability) for China to threaten civilian commercial shipping FON (within the foreseeable future) to be virtually zero.


This is not to say that if there was a conflict in the region then China may not seek to obstruct the civilian shipping FON or even destroy civilian shipping of opposing nations.

Whilst any nation can potentially disrupt commercial shipping (even the rag tag pirates off Somalia), the idea that China hasn’t invoked such behaviour doesn’t in any way speak for the future. The island bases in the SCS with the reclaimed islands have effectively given China three stationary aircraft carriers that are mutually supporting. Should and if China continues with further reclamation it can potentially build enough bases to have such interlocking capacity that it can effectively strangle the region’s commercial shipping at will. In short, having the capacity to easily disrupt at will is sufficient condition to present an existential threat. Whether such capability will be exercised is simply secondary. This prospect is particularly disturbing on the back of China’s nebulous claim and legitimacy over the islands beside China’s non abiding behaviour and minority view over many aspects of UNCLOS provisions would suggest questionable future stability over the SCS environment.

 

[Blitzo]

Essentially your statement affirms that there were indeed restriction to civilian FON but it comes with qualifiers. I do not have issue that it comes with qualifiers or the materiality. My contention was simply that any suggestion that there were none is not factually true.

Okay, I can agree with that, if we appreciate that the restriction to civilian FON was in specific circumstances which are not generalizable in regards to the potential (in particular the intent) of China in disrupting civilian shipping FON.

A couple of comments I would make. Firstly, you have framed your argument into a specific sub-set subject to very narrow conditions. I have no issue from that perspective as it is for you to make. Essentially your argument invokes the lack of actualised events (restriction to commercial FON) to reasonably project an expanded negative future state of being as portrayed by the media. In other words, such conclusion lacks a qualifying antecedent. I can accept such reasoning subject to your qualifiers. Moving on I will get to my second comment. Whilst I have not seen the media’s actual narrative, I can relate to their concerns which I believe is a concern that can be justified. This position is in direct contrast to my first comment but in making my following argument, I will remove the need to have such a qualifying antecedent to make my case. I basically discussed it in my post #1872 in that the prospect of such a threat subject to only the pleasure of Beijing is not a position that would reasonably be acceptable to any nation given the value of commercial trade that passes through the SCS.

Okay.
I assume when you say "following argument" it means the last part of your reply immediately below.

Whilst any nation can potentially disrupt commercial shipping (even the rag tag pirates off Somalia), the idea that China hasn’t invoked such behaviour doesn’t in any way speak for the future. The island bases in the SCS with the reclaimed islands have effectively given China three stationary aircraft carriers that are mutually supporting. Should and if China continues with further reclamation it can potentially build enough bases to have such interlocking capacity that it can effectively strangle the region’s commercial shipping at will. In short, having the capacity to easily disrupt at will is sufficient condition to present an existential threat. Whether such capability will be exercised is simply secondary. This prospect is particularly disturbing on the back of China’s nebulous claim and legitimacy over the islands beside China’s non abiding behaviour and minority view over many aspects of UNCLOS provisions would suggest questionable future stability over the SCS environment.

I can appreciate that, however, as I said, I believe the word "potential" would require both the capability and the intent for the action to be have been demonstrated.

And I believe China most certainly has not yet demonstrated any intent that it would be interested in disrupting commercial civilian shipping in the foreseeable future, certainly barring any wars between nations that would come under armed conflict.

Furthermore, the prospect of an increased Chinese air and naval presence in the SCS posing an "existential threat" to commercial civilian shipping is technically true, but only for those nations which have poor relations with China.
In other words, the issue is not fundamentally about FON as the media narrative portrays it but it is one of military and geopolitical power, and the prospect of China fielding increased power in the SCS is discomforting for those nations which may have poor relations with China because it allows China to have the capability to control those vital sea lanes as a classical Mahanian tool of naval power.

Therefore, I would be willing to accept the media narrative of increased Chinese air and naval presence in the SCS as being an "existential threat" to commercial civilian shipping FON, if it adds the caveat that it is only in relation to the shipping of nations which have poor relations with China, and if it also adds the caveat that all nations with the ability to project military power into important sea lanes pose an "existential threat" to the commercial civilian shipping FON of nations which they have bad relations with.

Of course, I'm not using the above statement as a demand to you or anything, but it is a medium for me to convey my position regarding the portrayal of the issue of FON and power within the media narrative.

 

[Lethe]

I don't know if this article has been previously posted or not (there are only so many pages of posts about FONOPS/UNCLOS/etc. that one can read before the eyes start to glaze over) but in any case I think it well worth reading. It tackles the notion that the South China Sea is an indispensable element of the global economic system and concludes that the SCS is a critical body of water for only one nation: China itself.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[delft]

Re Fishing:
Grotius wrote his Free Seas book in reaction to the English position that the whole of the North Sea was for English fishermen to fish and that the Dutch must be excluded.( At the time the Dutch fishing effort in that sea was much larger than that of the English and the English King wanted more English fishermen so more potential sailors for RN ).
After several Dutch-English wars the states' fishing areas were limited to the territorial seas, and that has now been extended to the EEZ.

Re civil shipping, including fishing vessels:
They can go anywhere except into specific military or technical areas. ( Don't interfere with operation to improve the land's defence against sea for example, very important for the Netherlands but I don't think that has ever been a problem ). Just don't land without permission.

 

[aquauant]

In other news:
U.S. says open to patrols with Philippines in waters disputed with China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

sometimes, guns are more powerful than the laws.

 

[Blackstone]

In other news:
U.S. says open to patrols with Philippines in waters disputed with China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

sometimes, guns are more powerful than the laws.

But, I thought US didn't take sides...?