South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Equation said:

Why should China follow by someone else's rules and reactions? Did Vietnam and the Philippines did the same when they first started putting military posts through out the SCS claims like a "thug" long before China started their reclamation work?

Click to expand...

BEIJING (AP) — China and the United States budged not a bit Saturday over Beijing's assertive development in disputed parts of the South China Sea, with Foreign Minister Wang Ji politely but pointedly dismissing Washington's push for a diplomatic solution to ease tensions.

Wang and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stressed the importance of dialogue to resolve competing claims in the waterway. But neither diplomat showed any sign of giving ground over Chinese land reclamation projects that have alarmed the United States and China's smaller neighbors.

The U.S. and most members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations want a halt to the projects, which they suspect are aimed at building islands and other land features over which China can claim sovereignty.

"We are concerned about the pace and scope of China's land reclamation in the South China Sea," Kerry said. He urged China to speed up talks with ASEAN on guidelines for handling maritime activity in disputed areas.

The goal is to help "reduce tensions and increase the prospect of diplomatic solutions," Kerry said.

"I think we agree that the region needs smart diplomacy in order to conclude the ASEAN-China code of conduct and not outposts and military strips," Kerry told reporters at a news conference with Wang.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, shakes hands with China's State Councilor Yang Jiechi …
Wang indicated that while China was prepared to talk, it would not back down on the construction that, he said, "is something that falls fully within the scope of China's sovereignty."

"The determination of the Chinese side to safeguard our own sovereignty and territorial integrity is as firm as a rock, and it is unshakable," he said.

"It has always been our view that we need to find appropriate solutions to the issues we have through communications and negotiations that we have among the parties directly concerned with peaceful and diplomatic means on the basis of respecting historical facts and international norms. This position will remain unchanged in the future."

Wang added that the differences between China and the U.S. could be managed "as long as we can avoid misunderstanding and, even more importantly, avoid miscalculation."

The Chinese claims and land reclamation projects have rattled the region where South China Sea islands and reefs are contested by China and five other Asian governments. Activities have led to clashes, accompanied by nationalistic protests and occasional serious diplomatic implications.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, talks with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang at the Zhongnanhai L …
The U.S. says it takes no position on the sovereignty claims but insists they must be negotiated. Washington also says ensuring maritime safety and access to some of the world's busiest commercial shipping routes is a U.S. national security priority.

China has bristled at what it sees as U.S. interference in the region and wants to negotiate with the ASEAN countries individually, something those much smaller nations fear will not be fair.

In one disputed area, the Spratly Islands, U.S. officials say China has reclaimed about 2,000 acres of dry land since 2014 that could be used as airstrips or for military purposes. The U.S. argues that man-made constructions cannot be used to claim sovereignty.

Obama administration officials have declined to comment on reports that it may deploy military assets, or that it is considering a demonstration of freedom of navigation within 12 nautical miles of the islands' notional territorial zone. But they have said many of the features claimed by China in the disputed Spratlys are submerged and do not carry territorial rights, and said that China cannot "manufacture sovereignty."

Despite the clear disagreements over the South China Sea, Kerry and Wang said they were on track to make progress in other areas, notably on climate change, the fight against violent extremism, and preparations for the next round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in June and Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Washington in September.

They expressed pleasure with their cooperation in the Iran nuclear talks, their solidarity in trying to denuclearize North Korea and combat diseases such as the deadly Ebola virus.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here equation, he's saying China can do what it's doing and manage the situation in an acceptable way while changing it step by step.

Click to expand...

Equation said:

Why should China follow by someone else's rules and reactions? Did Vietnam and the Philippines did the same when they first started putting military posts through out the SCS claims like a "thug" long before China started their reclamation work?

Click to expand...

Equation said:

I understand, but my main message is China can do whatever it wants to on their claim, just like the other players on the SCS did as well. Don't get mad and cry foul just because China can do it more, bigger, and faster than you.

Click to expand...

Yvrch said:

That's the game China needs to play, right? China still needs US led rules and structures to function and grow, at the same time write its won rules and build its own structures where and when she can.

Click to expand...

Yvrch said:

Climax, with all due respect, you have already admitted China has already changed de facto status in SCS. Would Vietnam be able to do the same thing in SCS ? Maybe, but not likely. You may want to play it off China against US and Japan in SCS, harp on Vietnam's solid claim on SCS, whatever you may choose, won't change the fact that it is what it is, China has made islands in SCS.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

@ climax: you'll have to define what you mean by "new islands" and list the particular reclamations which you think are new islands rather than mere expansions of previous islands.

But that's merely a detail.

The larger issue you seem to have is that you think China has changed the status quo by its reclamation effort, and that China's reclamation effort is not a proportional response to the reclamation efforts made by other nations in the region.
Which leads to the question -- why should China's response be "proportional"? This is a territorial dispute, and the other claimants in the dispute have also not exactly been forthcoming and honest and have reclaimed territory, effectively underwriting "goodwill" out of the matter, so why should China not use its industrial expertise and larger economy to facilitate and support its claim on this matter.

Because the way I read your position makes it sound like China should have deliberately kept its reclamation efforts small like the other nations, but that's like saying larger and richer countries should have a smaller military akin to the countries of the rest of the world -- sure they might be aggravating tensions with other competitors by having a massively more powerful military, but it's also well within their rights to develop that capability.
In the same way, reclamation from other countries and continued clashes at sea between all parties have made goodwill scarce and turned it into "every man for themselves" so why should China not seek to expand its holdings, why does it not have the right to do so given there were hardly any binding agreements on the matter that everyone was abiding by?

So the bottom line from what I see is that you simply don't believe China has a legitimate territorial claim or the right to enforce it.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Yes, but what Yvrch is talking about is the larger long term need to manage China's claims in a way that will allow China to achieve its objectives as much as possible in SCS while avoiding conflict that would be detrimental to everyone as well as China, whose long term goal is still development.

I don't think Yvrch has said anything about China not being able to reinforce its claims as it sees fit.

Click to expand...

Equation said:

No it doesn't. That is one overrated statement (nothing against you or anything). That's a naysayers wet dream. How many of US allies followed President Obama's advice to NOT joining China led AIIB only to found out that NONE of them did? Even Japan wants to join badly but they have to keep misery in company for now. So who's playing by who's rules again?

Click to expand...

Yvrch said:

On balance, China is playing by US led rules most of the time, if not all of the time, for the time being. AIIB is not functional, yet. China has a lot of potentials, it all depends on how it manages Sino-US relations in coming 2-3 decades.

Click to expand...