South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Bill Moore]

I read both articles. I think they might be cited as well to say that these companies don't want to go in until the situation is resolved as to say that they are willing to push it in order to get in first. One of the articles seemed to say that even when blocks are awarded exploration is not being made because the situation is too dicey.

Carl, I agree with what you stated, but some of these companies are already there. And as you pointed out there may be no intention of escalating to hostilities, but it can still happen, and perhaps is more likely to happen the more they challenge each other with these contracts over the same piece of water.

To clarify I have no experience in these maritime matters, so I'm not sure how they differ from say a disputed land border. Suspect it is a little bit harder to occupy a piece of water that doesn't have an island or shoal in the vicinity there of, but as you pointed out.

CNOOC, views one of their drilling rigs thusly "CNOOC has described the vessel as "mobile national territory".

[Ray]

China lambasts US over South China Sea row
Beijing accuses Washington's intervention in the region of 'fanning the flames and provoking division'

Analysts fear the South China Sea has become a major potential flashpoint, as tensions have risen sharply between China – which claims almost all the sea – and Vietnam and the Philippines. Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia also lay claim to parts of the sea, which contains valuable energy reserves and fisheries and sees an estimated $5 trillion of cargo – half the world's shipping tonnage – pass through its sea lanes annually...

No one wants military conflict, not only because of the inevitable disruption of trade. The smaller countries would have to take on mighty China, while such a conflict "would undermine [Beijing's] peaceful rise thesis, cause irreparable damage to its image and foreign policy in Asia and push other countries far closer to the US....

Yet should it come to an exchange of fire, even the US could feel compelled to become involved – with great reluctance – to defend its credibility as an ally not only to the Philippines but countries across Asia, argued Medcalf.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...?newsfeed=true

[Ray]

The issue is whether it is Washington's intervention in the region of 'fanning the flames and provoking division' or is China angered that it is not allowed it historical imperialist expansion to continue and continue now with concocted history which are more of fables than reality.

I am sure the China expert and their supporters would clarify this conundrum for the western media is so biased against China which remains ever so benign and so bravely takes the flak with great compassion!

[Dayuhan]

Believe or not, but when somebody builds an argument to make a point, as I did in post #504, you are supposed to respond to the point being made. You are not supposed to pull out individual sentences to create points pleasing to you then address those.

The point is simply that while the idea that a claim of sovereignty constitutes de facto interference with freedom of navigation may be arguable here, it won't stand up as a casus belli either domestically or internationally. Your own ideas about the US and China as the literal incarnations of good and evil respectively are of course something you're entitled to hold, but you have to realize that in much of the world that perception isn't shared.

You think we should appease the Red Chinese. I don't.

Only if you think that anything other than confrontation is appeasement.

You're right, the Red Chinese have no intention of provoking and armed confrontation with Vietnam. Their intention is to get what they want by using the salami strategy Mr. Hakkick outlined thereby avoiding fighting. They are taking a calculated risk though. If they figure wrong and the Vietnamese get their backs up, there will be fighting, even though the Red Chinese didn't intend for it to happen.

I don't sisagree with that, but I don't see how a blustering confrontational approach is going to do anything beyond making it worse.

If you can't see how the mere existence of the USN and decades and decades of an American policy of seeing that freedom of navigation be preserved upon the high seas is what allows the smaller countries around Red China to even think about resisting, if you can't see that old Sir...there ain't no getting through to you.

Well, after 30+ years of paying close attention to this particular conflict I think that entire premise is based on invalid assumptions and highly overrated, so I guess there's no getting through to me.

[carl]

Bill:

I got to thinking about something. Let's say an American oil company got a lease in a disputed territory and began drilling. One side or the other got mad and sent a warship in the direction of the rig. I don't think the oil company would call on the navy from the country from whom they obtained the lease for protection, they would call on the U.S. Navy to save them. Politically it would be suicide to call on say, the PLAN to save them. That would not look at all good. If somebody took a lease and got in trouble, the American Navy would be involved whether it wanted to be or not. That ploy by the Red Chinese will complicate things a lot.

The more I think about this, the more I think there will be some fighting, maybe serious, in the next few or 5 years unless Red China backs off. They seem to think they can figure with enough certainty what other people will do to avoid it but that never works out. You probably know the countries in the area well enough. Who do you think will have had enough first? I figure Vietnam, only because I am old enough to remember how hard they can be when they want to be.

[carl]

The point is simply that while the idea that a claim of sovereignty constitutes de facto interference with freedom of navigation may be arguable here, it won't stand up as a casus belli either domestically or internationally. Your own ideas about the US and China as the literal incarnations of good and evil respectively are of course something you're entitled to hold, but you have to realize that in much of the world that perception isn't shared.

No, that wasn't the point. Go back and read it again.

Only if you think that anything other than confrontation is appeasement.

Ultimately it comes down to that. If you ain't willing to confront and back it up, your only choice is to appease and hope for the best.

[Ray]

he point is simply that while the idea that a claim of sovereignty constitutes de facto interference with freedom of navigation may be arguable here

If one has the sovereign rights, then it can apply its own policy and rights including debarring ships from using its waters.

Only if you think that anything other than confrontation is appeasement.

World War II and why it happened does indeed haunt me.

What if UK took a stronger stand?

Maybe history would not have been so bloody!

[Dayuhan]

Let's say an American oil company got a lease in a disputed territory and began drilling. One side or the other got mad and sent a warship in the direction of the rig. I don't think the oil company would call on the navy from the country from whom they obtained the lease for protection, they would call on the U.S. Navy to save them.

Do you really expect the US military to run out and "save" the assets of American companies working in high-risk areas? Not likely, and the companies know it.

Ultimately it comes down to that. If you ain't willing to confront and back it up, your only choice is to appease and hope for the best.

That's kind of the core of it, isn't it?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no will to "back it up". Do you really think the US is going to dispatch military forces to eject a Chinese fishing fleet from Scarborough Shoal, or to prevent China from bidding out an oil exploration block in waters claimed by Vietnam, or to evict a Chinese garrison from an island in the Paracels?

You suggest that we tell the Chinese that their claim is unacceptable and the SCS must remain international waters. So what? Just words. The Chinese will respond, inevitably, that there is no "claim" involved, and the territory involved is in fact theirs. They will probably step things up a bit: send a huge fishing fleet off the Philippine coast, plant some more flags and bunkers on a few more rocks, bid out some more exploration blocks. Then what do you do? That's the predictable, expected response, so what's your next move?

You could sail a fleet through the area, or hold an exercise. They denounce, ignore you, and carry on. Then what?

I just don't see the point in issuing big words unless there are specific things you're willing to do - not say, but do - to manage the expected response.

There are a few things you could do. You could encourage US oil companies to bid on Vietnamese or Philippine exploration offerings, and promise to indemnify or protect them. That might not be so attractive, as it creates that old "all about oil" impression, and makes it look like you're offering the US Navy as company security guards.

The Vietnamese are already buying hardware as fast as they can absorb it, but we could offer some preferential trade deals to help them pay for it. Competing industries in the US will scream their lungs out (think shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico, already up in arms about Vietnamese frozen shrimp).

You could give the Philippine a bunch of hardware (they can't afford to buy it) and teach them to use it. Giving away a few tens of billions worth of stuff to a government with prominent corruption and revenue collection issues might be a politically rough road, but it could be done.

None of these require a bold statement: you can simply do them, assuming you think you should, doubtful in each case.

I could see having someone announce, possibly in response to a question, that in our opinion the SCS is and should always be international waters. Then have someone ask what we'll do if China interferes with shipping. Then the person making the statement smiles and says it's not useful to single out any single power, but certainly the US is deeply concerned with freedom of navigation, and if that freedom were interfered with there could be military options on the table. There are other possibilities as well: the interfering nation could be excluded from US ports or have its trade with the US restricted, or face interference with its own shipping in other international waters, all of course very hypothetical.

There's no point in pulling out your saber and waving it around while shouting, especially when everyone knows you won't use it. Why not just leave a veiled hint at something you actually might do. of course it won't stop the Chinese from doing what they're doing, but neither will the shouting.

If one has the sovereign rights, then it can apply its own policy and rights including debarring ships from using its waters.

Yes, they can. The ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things. One is not a casus belli, the other is.

World War II and why it happened does indeed haunt me.

What if UK took a stronger stand?

Maybe history would not have been so bloody!

Do you really think Hitler would have backed down if the UK had threatened him? I don't buy it. He was planning to fight them from the start.

[JMA]

Well, after 30+ years of paying close attention to this particular conflict I think that entire premise is based on invalid assumptions and highly overrated, so I guess there's no getting through to me.

So I now everyone will just have to wait patiently for you to present your opinion on how things should have/should be handled in this situation?

[Ray]

Do you really think Hitler would have backed down if the UK had threatened him? I don't buy it. He was planning to fight them from the start.

Hitler was arming Germany and then he started claiming territory because of Lebensraum.

He also took over territory.

You maybe right that Hitler was aiming to fight it out.

I see a similar pattern.

Peaceful Rise and rapid rearmament.

Claim territory and even occupy the same.

And you say it is all in the manner of a day's work done!

I take it that it is kosher because it is but against, Dollar Imperialism, right?

[carl]

Dayuhan:

I would very much expect the US military to "rescue" and American owned drilling ship especially if it had a number of Americans in the crew and the company was clever enough flag it American. So would the rest of the country. That is one of the reasons we pay for a Navy. They have to earn their keep occasionally.

Well you sum up your case for appeasement quite nicely. The nut of your argument is that there is nothing we can do and even if there were something we could do we wouldn't do it. Ok. That is what you think. I don't. You think the best we can do is pray the CCP is nice to us and we might be able to help that if we kowtow to them. If we don't they might be angered and smite us a mighty blow. I don't think that. If you think that we are weak and got nothing, and they are strong and got it all, your argument makes perfect sense. I don't think that cowering in the face of aggression by maybe the most murderous regime in the history of the world is a good idea. You do.

Do you really think Hitler would have backed down if the UK had threatened him? I don't buy it. He was planning to fight them from the start.

Yes actually. Herr Hitler was interested in winning mostly, fighting was secondary. He got awful far by bluffing. If the French had moved against the German troops that moved into the Rhineland they would have skedaddled lickety split and who knows what effect that would have had on Hitler's grasp on power. If the British and French and stood against Hitler in Munich, well who knows what would have happened. Some German generals were planning to act against Hitler if it came to war, the Soviets had a mutual defence treaty with Czechoslovakia and the Czech Army would have been intact, so WWII might not have happened at all or would have had a very different look to it.

So if the British and French had shown some backbone, there is a very good possibility that many many people who died, wouldn't have died so soon.

You have spent 30 years looking at the disagreements in the South China Sea. My point addressed the American and before that British commitment to freedom of navigation on the high seas. Your 30 years of looking just to the west might not really be of much help when addressing my point.

[Ray]

Herr Hitler was evil.

Chinese are lovable giant Red Pandas.

The Americans, as I learn from here, are rattlesnakes!

[jmm99]

Since 1776:



Regards

Mike

[Ray]

Russia plans to deploy Borey-class subs in Pacific

Russia plans to deploy the first two of its new Borey-class strategic nuclear submarines in the Pacific region, the country's First Deputy Defence Minister has said.

"I am absolutely certain that the first two subs will be initially placed with the Northern Fleet and will be redeployed to the Pacific Fleet after all the infrastructure there is ready," Alexander Sukhorukov, the First Deputy Defence Minister of Russian Federation, was quoted as saying by Ria Novosti on Wednesday.

The first two Project 955 Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) - Yuri Dolgoruky and Alexander Nevsky - are presently undergoing sea trials in the White Sea and are expected to be commissioned into service by the end of this year.

http://brahmand.com/news/Russia-plan...9896/1/10.html

[Ray]

China's peaceful rise and peaceful interference in the SCS is only helping to make the area a complex web!

[Dayuhan]

I would very much expect the US military to "rescue" and American owned drilling ship especially if it had a number of Americans in the crew and the company was clever enough flag it American. So would the rest of the country. That is one of the reasons we pay for a Navy. They have to earn their keep occasionally.

Do you really think that if (in an extreme case) the Chinese were to detain a US exploration ship and bring it to a Chinese port, the Navy would charge in with a "rescue"? Not a snowball's chance in hell. That would be settled by negotiation, as such things always are.

In any event no such thing is likely to happen any time soon. If the Chinese want to make an issue they'll send unarmed ships from CMS, as they always do, and they'll harass and demand withdrawal, as they do, and the US company will pull it's ship out, probably happily, as they will certainly have a clause in the contract saying they get paid even if the Chinese run them out. As has already been observed, the Chinese strategy is to never provide sufficient provocation to justify military force being deployed; that seems to be working, so why would they change it?

Well you sum up your case for appeasement quite nicely. The nut of your argument is that there is nothing we can do and even if there were something we could do we wouldn't do it.

That's not at all what I said. I said that neither military force nor threat and bluster are likely to accomplish anything. How do you get from there to "there's nothing we can do"?

You have spent 30 years looking at the disagreements in the South China Sea. My point addressed the American and before that British commitment to freedom of navigation on the high seas. Your 30 years of looking just to the west might not really be of much help when addressing my point.

You sometimes sound as though navigation has been under constant threat, and only exist through eternal Anglo-Saxon vigilance. I'm not sure that's actually the case. From whom, exactly, have we been protecting freedom of navigation? Who's threatening it?

More later... I'm at a highway rest stop between Manila and Subic, and it's time to get back on the road...

[Dayuhan]

Rainy day in Subic, as good a place as any to look at the South China Sea. Drove by Alava Pier yesterday; the USN is in town, submarine and a fairly substantial cargo ship (USNS Washington Chambers, for those who care). The locals say there's a fairly steady stream of Navy ships coming through, with many more submarines in particular than has been the habit before. Nobody's talking about turning Subic back into a US base, but there's certainly a stepped up tempo of flag-showing.

Of course the Chinese will carry on doing exactly what they've been doing, as they could and would even were the entire 7th fleet parked in Subic. We're not going to send a carrier to chase a fishing fleet out of Scarborough Shoal, ask a sub to prevent the Chinese from bidding out oil exploration rights, or dispatch a cruiser to toss a few Chinese sailors off a rock in the Spratlys. It's not a situation amenable to solution by force, but the frequent visits probably make the Philippine military feel better. Most average people don't even know about the visits; they are getting frequent enough to be barely noticed in the local press. China and the SCS aren't much in the news these days; things fade fast.

JMA asked above what I think the US ought to do about all this. First step in coming up with that, of course, is defining a goal. What is it that we wish to accomplish?

I do not think our goal should be to force the Chinese to renounce their claim to the SCS or to withdraw all forces from the area. They won't do that in any event, we haven't the means to force them to do it, and it makes us look like we're giving them orders, which reinforces their victimization narrative and lets them portray themselves domestically as heroic by defying us without facing any actual risk. It's not a practical or achievable goal.

This body of water has been disputed for many years and will be disputed for many more years. US interests at stake are somewhat overrated, and overreaction is more likely to cause conflict than to alleviate it.

So, given that military force isn't going to accomplish much (no discrete target for it) and threats and ultimatums are counterproductive, what do you do?

The declared position, which is not action but is a basis for action and a definition of where we stand, should for me avoid singling out China: they want us to bully them and issue orders, which they can then defy. That makes them look good, So you announce that freedom of navigation is a high priority, and that if it's interfered with the interfering nation may face a range of military and non-military responses, including trade sanctions (an issue for the Chinese) and potentially interference with their shipping in other waters. You take no position on territorial disputes but urge non-violent rules-based resolutions. Our position on UNCLOS is equivocal as a non-signatory, but we could point out that since all parties to the dispute are signatories, the UNCLOS definitions of territorial waters would make a good starting point. That's taking sides without mentioning names, as China's claim has no basis at all under UNCLOS.

That's all words and accomplishes nothing (same can be said of threats and ultimatums) but it sets out a position without looking provocative. That's somewhat analogous to what the Chinese are doing: push without ever pushing hard enough to provoke.

Start with what's been done: reaffirm US commitment to freedom of navigation, announce a military pivot to the Pacific, keep to the existing exercises schedule but expand the exercises a bit, run a bunch more ships through the area, etc. That doesn't "solve" the problem (neither will anything else", but it makes a point.

Of course future steps would be incremental, you don't want to jump on all options at once. It's not a war and there's no winning it, more like an extended shadow-boxing ritual aimed at gaining perceived advantage.

Robert Haddick suggests arming and assisting other contending parties. That's certainly an option. The Vietnamese are already heavily armed and have as much on order as they can pay for, but the US could boost economic cooperation to increase their ability to pay (as stated before, some domestic political issues there) and could offer intelligence and surveillance cooperation, access to satellite data, etc. These are all cards that can be played one at a time, when and if deemed desirable.

The US could urge US oil companies to bid on Vietnamese oil exploration blocks, but that could also be dodgy as stated above. If I were driving I'd quietly urge the Vietnamese to give Gazprom some key disputed blocks, and get the Russians into the picture on their side. Handing deals to some Indian companies would also not be a bad idea.

Arming the Philippines is of course more complicated. They have little money (larger GDP than Vietnam but terrible gov't revenue issues) and they're starting from such a low point that the capacity to absorb and use a large influx of modern equipment (even if we were willing to give it away) has to be doubted. They desperately want big ticket display items (fighters and ships) but their capacity to support and maintain is questionable. My preferred move there would be to offer to work with them to develop a modern coastal and air defense system, which could be justified as purely defensive but would extend over some disputed areas. Again there could be offers to "cooperate" on surveillance and intel efforts.

Other nations would also be involved: Japan is going to provide a dozen Coast Guard patrol boats, which will allow the Philippines to confront civilian ships without the escalation of bringing their Navy into the picture.

Of course at the same time the diplomatic effort urging progress on the much discussed "code of conduct" has to go on.

None of this of course will "solve" the problem or "resolve" the issue. This one isn't going away, it's been there a while and it will be there a while; it's something we're trying to manage, not resolve. There is no conclusive option available and trying to find one would likely blow things up and make matters way worse.

Overall, we need to stop looking at China as an enemy we need to defeat and see them as another power with which we have a relationship that's involved in some disputes with other powers with whom we also have relationships. Resolving those disputes is not our business, trying to help manage them may be... of course that will require some subtlety, not our strongest suit.

Gotta go, could enlarge but some other time...

So I now everyone will just have to wait patiently for you to present your opinion on how things should have/should be handled in this situation?

[Entropy]

Good post Dayuan. I think it's in keeping with the traditional role of the US Navy, as least as I remember it (it's been over a decade now since I wore cracker jacks).

The territorial disputes in the SCS and elsewhere are ultimately political disputes and they won't get "solved" anytime soon. I see no reason, at the present time, for the US to take a side for one claimant or another. You mention freedom of Navigation and I think that is (and should be) the primary US interest in the SCS.

The US Navy routinely conducts "FONOPS" (Freedom of Navigation Operations) in which US Navy vessels challenge claims that exceed the definition of UNCLOS .

Upthread Ray said:

If one has the sovereign rights, then it can apply its own policy and rights including debarring ships from using its waters.

FONOPS challenge "sovereign rights" that depart from the UNCLOS definition all the time and, in addition, exercise the right of "innocent passage." So what are "sovereign rights?" The old adage "talk is cheap" comes to mind. I don't think there has been any serious response to these challenges by the US Navy since Libya stupidly decided to act on its "line of death" across the Gulf of Sidra in 1981. Countries can make claims beyond UNCLOS but none, at present, are willing to try to enforce those claims - at least against the US Navy.

The US should continue this practice. Other than that, I don't see much role for the US military beyond normal mil-to-mil relations and monitoring the situation in order to provide strategic warning.

I think the US should invite China to participate in the next RIMPAC. It would develop more mil-to-mil relations with China and allow us to learn more about their capabilities.

[carl]

Do you really think that if (in an extreme case) the Chinese were to detain a US exploration ship and bring it to a Chinese port, the Navy would charge in with a "rescue"? Not a snowball's chance in hell. That would be settled by negotiation, as such things always are.

That wasn't what I thought. That is what you decided I thought after not reading what I wrote that outlined what I thought. (I should be used to that by now). I could go through the series of exchanges and the serial distortions but that would be tiresome (feel free to use that as a straight line). So I will say that if an American flagged ship had a Red Chinese ship headed this way they damn well would call on the USN to save them. Absolutely. Especially since if a US flagged ship were to place itself in such a situation they would likely have done it with the tacit approval of the powers that be. They would not have done it if the powers that be had said "you guys are on your own." So that is what I think despite melting snowballs.

That's not at all what I said. I said that neither military force nor threat and bluster are likely to accomplish anything. How do you get from there to "there's nothing we can do"?

Sorry about that. My mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again. I just naturally figured that when dealing with a bunch of murderous thugs, if you eliminate warnings and the determination to back warnings with physical action, that leaves you with nothing you can do since they don't actually recognize anything else. Mea culpa.

You sometimes sound as though navigation has been under constant threat, and only exist through eternal Anglo-Saxon vigilance. I'm not sure that's actually the case. From whom, exactly, have we been protecting freedom of navigation? Who's threatening it?

Asked and answered...again and again and again. Please refer to the history of navies and sea borne commerce. There is no threat because the mere existence of the RN, USN and their centuries old policies.

Hey, that reminds me. How come I have to pay taxes to pay cops? I ain't been robbed lately.

[carl]

Dayuhan you have said all these things.

You say

So, given that military force isn't going to accomplish much (no discrete target for it) and threats and ultimatums are counterproductive, what do you do?

You say

So you announce that freedom of navigation is a high priority, and that if it's interfered with the interfering nation may face a range of military and non-military responses, including trade sanctions (an issue for the Chinese) and potentially interference with their shipping in other waters.

You say

Start with what's been done: reaffirm US commitment to freedom of navigation, announce a military pivot to the Pacific, keep to the existing exercises schedule but expand the exercises a bit, run a bunch more ships through the area, etc. That doesn't "solve" the problem (neither will anything else", but it makes a point.

You say

It's not a war and there's no winning it, more like an extended shadow-boxing ritual aimed at gaining perceived advantage.

You say

I could see having someone announce, possibly in response to a question, that in our opinion the SCS is and should always be international waters. Then have someone ask what we'll do if China interferes with shipping. Then the person making the statement smiles and says it's not useful to single out any single power, but certainly the US is deeply concerned with freedom of navigation, and if that freedom were interfered with there could be military options on the table. There are other possibilities as well: the interfering nation could be excluded from US ports or have its trade with the US restricted, or face interference with its own shipping in other international waters, all of course very hypothetical.

There's no point in pulling out your saber and waving it around while shouting, especially when everyone knows you won't use it. Why not just leave a veiled hint at something you actually might do. of course it won't stop the Chinese from doing what they're doing, but neither will the shouting.

You say

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no will to "back it up". Do you really think the US is going to dispatch military forces to eject a Chinese fishing fleet from Scarborough Shoal, or to prevent China from bidding out an oil exploration block in waters claimed by Vietnam, or to evict a Chinese garrison from an island in the Paracels?

You suggest that we tell the Chinese that their claim is unacceptable and the SCS must remain international waters. So what? Just words. The Chinese will respond, inevitably, that there is no "claim" involved, and the territory involved is in fact theirs. They will probably step things up a bit: send a huge fishing fleet off the Philippine coast, plant some more flags and bunkers on a few more rocks, bid out some more exploration blocks. Then what do you do? That's the predictable, expected response, so what's your next move?

You say all these things.

Remember the scene in 12 O'Clock High where Dean Jagger is sitting in a chair with a drink in his hand, drunk, and he says to Gregory Peck "I am confused."? Remember that?

Well that's me. I am confused. You seem to me anyway to say military force and warnings about the use of it are for naught. But then you say that the veiled threat of it isn't. But then you say that a warning of no value because everybody knows you won't do it but maybe they don't really know that. So what I am hearing is that military force is of no value because we won't back it up but we should threaten to use it. That confuses me. It confuses me because in my life I have learned that the surest way to get into deep trouble is to make a threat, veiled or not, that you can't back up, and yet that seems to be what you advocate.

(Just as an aside, when I first saw 12 O'Clock High many years ago, I identified with the young bomber pilots. Then later I identified with Gen. Savage and Maj. Cobb. Now I identify with Harvey Stovall. Old age changes how you see a movie.)