South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Ray]

Philippines preparing issues for UN about China ‘intrusions’'

THE PHILIPPINES is preparing to file another complaint with the United Nations on new Chinese "intrusions" into Philippine territory, President Benigno S. C. Aquino III said yesterday, as he committed to raising the issue with Beijing in a state visit by the third quarter.

"We are completing the data on about six to seven instances since February. We will present it to [China] and then bring these to the appropriate body, which normally is the United Nations," Mr. Aquino told reporters during his two-day official state visit to Brunei Darrusalam that ended yesterday.

While Mr. Aquino reiterated the call for "peaceful resolution" rather than provocation in the disputed territories in the South China Sea, he noted that some actions of China were not justified.

The latest of the series of Chinese intrusions, Mr. Aquino noted, occurred on the same day that he had a bilateral meeting with Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie in Manila on May 23.

In this instance, Chinese vessels were reportedly unloading building materials and also placed a buoy in waters inside the West Philippine Sea.

http://www.bworldonline.com/content....80%99&id=32475

[davidbfpo]

Ray and others,

The competition over the islands, reefs and the like in the South China Sea IIRC is well documented in journals, although you need a good map to follow the claims.

The situation between PR China and others is not straight forward IMHO, partly as economic growth has distracted states from such competition and potential for conflict.

Nor is the situation between the PRC and the USA clear-cut. How many know non-military PRC agencies are aboard US Coast Guard vessels in the North Pacific? For 'fishery protection' IIRC.

Have a peek at 'Survival', the journal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS); in The February-March 2011 edition, in an article 'Policing the Waves:Maritime Paramilitaries in the Asia-Pacific' by Christian Le Miere (who is the IISS's resident export on matters naval), pgs. 133-145. Fascinating, especially the use of non-naval agencies by most nations.

[LawVol]

It may be a "boiling frog" issue and it is certainly complex, as indicated by David. However, this does provide an opening for the US. Our pursuit of the "war on terror" has led us to take our eye of certain aspects of the Pacific.

The main US interest here is maintaining freedom of navigation in the commons. This interest conflicts with China's traditional view on sovereignty, which takes on a nationalistic tone given their history, specifically what they call "the century of shame and humiliation," which refers to their exploitation by western powers. If I was in their shoes, I'd probably take the same position. The problem here is that their position is contrary to international law.

I'm no expert on law of the sea, but since they are signatories to the law of the sea convention they are bound by its provisions and it repudiates their claims. Believe it or not, international law can be just as much of an achilles heel to them as it can sometimes be to us. This is where we can press them and use the issue to bring other countries in the region closer to us. This should be framed as an economic, trade issue rather than a security issue though. The last time a rising Asian power headed south for economic reasons, Pearl Harbor was attacked. It is a security issue for us, but I think we get more play using law and economics as weapons of choice.

By the way, this whole maritime issue also plays into China's actions in space. The goal is access denial by continually pushing the boundaries of sovereignty. Whereas Europeans and some others are chipping away at sovereignty, China embraces it and seeks to expand it in novel ways. The lawyer in me likes the strategy even if I do not agree with the tactics.

[LawVol]

Just came across this news article. Check the last paragraph for the benefits of China's aggressive stance in the South China Sea.

[carl]

Ultimately, the law of the sea is whatever the strongest navy says it is. I think the PRC may be influenced a little by various legal provisions if they are strongly pestered, but once their navy gets big enough, they'll do as they please as you would expect of a pugnacious police state.

[JMA]

Just came across this news article. Check the last paragraph for the benefits of China's aggressive stance in the South China Sea.

Lets look at the last paragraph then:

"One of the most striking -- and surprising -- changes I've observed during my travels to Asia is the widespread desire across the region for stronger military-to-military relationships with the United States -- much more so than during my last time in government 20 years ago," Gates said.

If that is a surprise to him then he has not been kept up to date with developments by the Intel crowd and not able to see the obvious. Will his replacement be any better?

[slapout9]

By the way, this whole maritime issue also plays into China's actions in space. The goal is access denial by continually pushing the boundaries of sovereignty. Whereas Europeans and some others are chipping away at sovereignty, China embraces it and seeks to expand it in novel ways. The lawyer in me likes the strategy even if I do not agree with the tactics.

Yes, they have a plan and we don't.

[LawVol]

Yes, they have a plan and we don't.

You are correct, but any plan, at this point, would require a greater embrace of international institutions and international law than most Americans are willing to have. While I certainly embrace traditional notions of territorial sovereignty, I am against expanding it to areas typically viewed as global commons. Freedom of navigation within the commons is crucial to American security interests and the crux of the international economy. Thorough a closer embrace of international institutions and law we can "prep the battlefield" and perhaps increase those connections Gates spoke of.

Have we focused too much on the "war of terror" and thus dropped the ball in the Pacific? Is this issue evidence of our need to pursue a different strategy with respect to terrorism, so we can remember the big picture?

[Tukhachevskii]

Thougfht I'd share this map asa reference. Map originates from an old web article here
Conflict in the South China Sea: China’s Relations with Vietnam and the Philippines


p.s. Not as big as I would have liekd. Sort of makes a mockery of posting it as a reference aid.

[slapout9]

Have we focused too much on the "war of terror" and thus dropped the ball in the Pacific? Is this issue evidence of our need to pursue a different strategy with respect to terrorism, so we can remember the big picture?

I would say yes. I think China jumps up and down whenever we spend massive resources on wars of choice instead of building a country for the 21st Century.

[slapout9]

All, if you get a chance watch this tonight. Check your local listings.


http://thechinaquestion.com/

[AdamG]

General Liang Guanglie, China’s defence minister, has rejected criticism that his country was acting belligerently in the South China Sea, saying China was pursuing a “peaceful rise”.

“You say our actions do not match our words. I certainly do not agree,” Gen Liang replied to critics at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a high-profile Asia defence forum in Singapore.

Speaking days after Vietnam and the Philippines accused China of aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea, Gen Liang denied that China was threatening security in the strategically important and energy-rich disputed waters, saying “freedom of navigation has never been impeded”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/21c9e72a-8...#ixzz1OSKXqKLX

China is the dominant producer of rare earth metals, which are increasingly fuelling the global high-tech and green economy. From 2009 to 2010, Chinese mines accounted for 259,000 tonnes out of a total global production of 263,000 tonnes of rare earth oxide. But with this massive production has come ever more restrictive measures to control the export of these commodities.

China claims it’s doing so to protect the environment and argues that tighter measures are necessary to ensure rare earth mining industry remains sustainable. However, major consumers of rare earths including Japan, the United States, and EU states counter that recent Chinese actions to reduce exports contravene World Trade Organisation rules on free trade.

http://the-diplomat.com/new-leaders-...earth-motives/

[carl]

Ok, but do they have a good plan?

It doesn't matter whether their plan is good or bad. What matters is they almost certainly will act, and act aggressively, and we might act, or we might not, depending on what a focus group says. The one thing they can be certain of is that we can't make up our minds and that will feed their determination to act. They will be so far inside our OODA loop that any plan at all will do. It doesn't matter a whit what they will be and what we are if we won't do anything.

It appears the Chinese objective is to establish effective control, or sovereignty or whatever over the whole of the South China Sea. Law of the Sea arguments and expressions of concern won't stop them. When they do that they will have demonstrated to the world that they can do as they like and nobody will stop them. That will increase their confidence in their ability to pull this kind of thing off which will make it more likely they will continue. And all those other countries in the area will see what they can do and will incorporate that knowledge into their accounting. Things are likely to get very complicated.

The belligerent actions mentioned in Adam G's post are shots fired near Filipino and Vietnamese fishing boats to drive them out of disputed areas. Information Dissemination blog covers this today. The Filipinos can't do anything much about it and the Vietnamese don't have much power but the Viets are very truculent so who knows what they may eventually do.

[AdamG]

Just for fun - scratch out 2010 and insert 2012.

Eastern Sea (AKA South China Sea) December 2010: World War III starts over a desolate and worthless looking area in the western Pacific Ocean known as the Spratly Islands.

Strategically located between and claimed by Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei, the Spratly Islands are also claimed by distant neighbors China and Taiwan. Located in the middle of major shipping lanes with over-abundant commercial fishing possibilities, the Spratly Islands cause turmoil for an even greater reason: untapped oil and gas reserves.

http://thelastcolumnist.com/world/the-spratly-islands/

[davidbfpo]

A strange twist to Chinese diplomacy, initially for the Paracel Islands, as the BBC reports:

China is to begin running tourism cruises to a chain of disputed islands in the South China Sea by next month, state media reports.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22056661

An astute move, even more worrying if such a ship cruises into a hotly disputed area.

Incidentally this week IISS have a book launch on the disputes:http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/...-sea-disputes/

[Ray]

US floats nuclear subs option

The United States has indicated for the first time it would be willing to lease or sell a nuclear submarine to Australia in a move that will inflame tensions with China and force the Coalition to declare its policy on #bolstering regional defence.......

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s 2009 defence white paper, predicated on the potential threat posed by China, called for 12 submarines, much larger than the Collins class – around 4000 tonnes compared to the current 3050 tonnes......

Kokoda Foundation founder Ross Babbage, a proponent of the nuclear submarine option, said a smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats would serve Australia better than any available conventional submarine. “You would not need 12, you could probably get away with 9 or 10, they are much larger than a conventional sub, can carry more weapons and would have far greater range and endurance than a conventional sub,’’ he said.

“It would also be great step forward in terms of Australia’s interoperability with the United States.’’.....

Though the idea has been criticised as unworkable because Australia doesn’t have a nuclear industry to support a nuclear submarine fleet defence sources suggest the Australian fleet could be maintained at a US base in the Pacific Ocean or a US nuclear submarine base could be established in Australia........

http://www.afr.com/p/national/us_flo...3KjNwBLfFxpdeO


Dated, but indicative of the concern with which the shenanigans in the SCS is being watched.