|
|
#1 | |||
|
Council Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calcutta, India
Posts: 936
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One wonders how the scenario will pan out. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 3,213
|
Quote:
__________________
"The highest generalship is to compel the enemy to disperse his army, and then to concentrate superior force against each fraction in turn." - Col. Henderson, George Francis Robert (1854-1903) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Slapout,Al.
Posts: 4,427
|
Last edited by slapout9; 06-02-2011 at 06:56 PM. Reason: add stuff |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 2,554
|
It's fascinating that the idea of "massive oil resources" in the Spratly Islands has been elevated to the level of accepted truth. On the basis of actual evidence it's extremely hypothetical. No test wells have been driulled, and though the Chinese claim there is oil, other authorities (notably USGS, which is generally fairly optimistic in its estimates) point out that there's no real evidence of substantial deposits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kabul
Posts: 339
|
I'm not sure this is really about oil in the Spratley Islands anyway. Sure, the pretext is there, but this may be more about China extending its maritime defensive perimeter -- the so-called string of pearls. China's maritime claims go hand-in-hand with their activity in 2001 (EP-3 take down) and in 2009 (USNS Impeccable incident). In both cases, just like with their maritime claims, the design seems to be to have more stand-off against the US Navy.
With some exceptions, China has settled its land disputes and now turns to the sea. By effectively claiming the south China sea, China can also move a step closer to securing maritime energy transport (their real goal I think). They are building a naval base in Gwadar, Pakistan that will provide security near the Persian Gulf for their shipments. Securing the South China Sea bookends the transport route. Next comes the straight of Malacca which becomes easier to secure if you have naval might on both sides of it. I'm not saying China can challenge US naval supremacy now, but they are taking action that could be bothersome. In a time of financial incertitude in the US, this may be the perfect time for China to act.
__________________
-john bellflower Rule of Law in Afghanistan "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince) |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | ||
|
Council Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 3,213
|
Quote:
...in reality we see the boiling frog story unfolding where the US is the frog: Quote:
__________________
"The highest generalship is to compel the enemy to disperse his army, and then to concentrate superior force against each fraction in turn." - Col. Henderson, George Francis Robert (1854-1903) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calcutta, India
Posts: 936
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 6,096
|
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.
__________________
davidbfpo |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kabul
Posts: 339
|
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.
__________________
-john bellflower Rule of Law in Afghanistan "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince) |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kabul
Posts: 339
|
Just came across this news article. Check the last paragraph for the benefits of China's aggressive stance in the South China Sea.
__________________
-john bellflower Rule of Law in Afghanistan "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince) |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 1,790
|
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.
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | ||
|
Council Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 3,213
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The highest generalship is to compel the enemy to disperse his army, and then to concentrate superior force against each fraction in turn." - Col. Henderson, George Francis Robert (1854-1903) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Slapout,Al.
Posts: 4,427
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kabul
Posts: 339
|
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?
__________________
-john bellflower Rule of Law in Afghanistan "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince) |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 524
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Slapout,Al.
Posts: 4,427
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Slapout,Al.
Posts: 4,427
|
All, if you get a chance watch this tonight. Check your local listings.
http://thechinaquestion.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | ||
|
Council Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,136
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station A canter down some dark defile Two thousand pounds of education Drops to a ten-rupee jezail Last edited by AdamG; 06-06-2011 at 02:17 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 1,790
|
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.
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Council Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,136
|
Just for fun - scratch out 2010 and insert 2012.
Quote:
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station A canter down some dark defile Two thousand pounds of education Drops to a ten-rupee jezail |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| South Sudan: a laboratory for stabilisation | M-A Lagrange | Africa | 187 | 07-06-2012 03:36 PM |
| Is It Time to Get Out of Afghanistan? | Cannoneer No. 4 | OEF - Afghanistan | 161 | 05-31-2011 04:19 AM |
| Small Wars at Sea: 21st century piracy | AdamG | Global Issues & Threats | 15 | 07-11-2008 02:42 PM |