South China Sea and China

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Interesting... are these incorrect then?

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defen...ite%20Problems



http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110204/162455171.html



Again, these projects would seem of value to the Russians not only for the money they bring in, but for their ability to keep the production lines for these aircraft open, active, and able to supply their own air force.

I'd also thought that India just took delivery of a Russian-built submarine and was expecting another... and aren't the Russians heavily involved in the Brahmos and PAK-FA programs?

All just stuff off the internet of course, and possibly not trustworthy...

Compare it with other deals.

And the other collaborations on the anvil and being executed.

How did you forget Adm Gorshov?

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

How did you forget Adm Gorshov?

I wasn't trying very hard. I'm sure it's reasonable to say that India will no longer rely exclusively on Russian hardware (even the Russians don't want to rely exclusively on Russian hardware, buying ships from France and all...), bur "Russian hardware is history" seems a bit of an exaggeration.

The production line being kept open is in India where those particular SU-30s are made.

Out of curiosity... is that actual manufacturing, or assembly of imported components?

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Out of curiosity... is that actual manufacturing, or assembly of imported components?

I don't know. The article you linked to above says they "are built entirely in India."

[carl]

Dayuhan: You stated above that nobody is challenging freedom of navigation. That is not true. The Red Chinese claim sovereignty over the South China Sea. One of the things sovereignty means is you get to set the rules within the area over which you are sovereign. If you are not interested in telling people what to do within a said area, why would you care if you had sovereignty or not? And the Red Chinese seem to care about that quite a bit, which is why they keep slicing that salami (thank you Mr. Haddick).

Now being that the Red Chinese are a bunch or right bastards for whom lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and killing are common instruments used within areas over which they have sovereignty and given their history over the whole existence of the Party in every area in which they've ruled, I think it inevitable that if they gain sovereignty over the South China Sea, navigation will be restricted at the whim of the Party.

You are right that wars start when one side won't back down. The Red Chinese should back down in the interests of peace since they are the aggressors in this. And besides those Viets are pretty feisty, if the Vietnamese government wants to avoid internal problems, they may be forced to fight by public opinion if the Red Chinese keep pushing. The best thing to do would be for the Red Chinese to back off and avoid provoking the Vietnamese populace beyond tolerance.

Finally (or not) regardless of how independent the Viets or the Malaysians or the Japanese are, not one of them would be doing anything but asking the Central Committee how high they should jump if the USN didn't exist. Anything they do at all contrary to Red Chinese wishes is because of the existence of the US and the USN.

[Ray]

China calls in U.S. diplomat over South China Sea

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's Foreign Ministry has called in a senior U.S. diplomat to protest remarks by the U.S. State Department raising concerns over tensions in the disputed South China Sea, in the latest political spat between the two countries.
In a statement released late on Saturday, China's Foreign Ministry said Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Kunsheng summoned the U.S. Embassy's Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Wang to make "serious representations" about the issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-calls-u-...-business.html

I wonder why is China so het up with the US when all the US is trying to do is ensure the freedom of navigation and nothing more.

In fact, the US has not interfered in the spat China is having with ALL its neighbours, as Dayuhan has been repeatedly stating!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I wasn't trying very hard. I'm sure it's reasonable to say that India will no longer rely exclusively on Russian hardware (even the Russians don't want to rely exclusively on Russian hardware, buying ships from France and all...), bur "Russian hardware is history" seems a bit of an exaggeration.

Surprising you were not trying hard.

You usual try very hard to exhibit your views.

If one compares what was the Russian inflow vs the inflow of military hardware from non Russian sources earlier, to what is happening now, one would realise that it has become 'history'.. Sadly that cannot be changed just to prove that you are right.

I would take it that it would be immensely foolish of any country, India in particular in this case, to abandon, having paid good money, the deals done earlier or the various collaborations.

Out of curiosity... is that actual manufacturing, or assembly of imported components?

What category would you place Transfer of Technology and then manufacturing?

[Bill Moore]

I can't help but wonder if China views the troubles in Syria as positive if it delays or prevents the U.S. military's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. Assuming that is true, what actions would the Chinese take to foment more trouble in the region other than being an objectionist in the UN?

Nightwatch recently reported that the China National Offshore Oil Corp invited foreign firms to bid on oil blocks that encroach on territory being explored by Vietnam.

Interesting approach, you get multinational corporations involved in the disputed areas and it changes the decision calculus for external actors who potentially benefit from this business venture.

I suspect the Philippines and Vietnam are doing the same thing. The question I have is, does internationalizing the situation by bringing multinationals into the fray increase or decrease the risk of conflict?

[Ray]

It will be a chaotic scene.

China has to placate the Shia (namely Iran) and Syria is under the Shia regime.

It helps China to play along with the Shia countries (of course, without upsetting the Sunnis) so that there is a continuous belt of influence from West Afghanistan to Eastern Saudi Arabia (where I believe most of the oil lies).

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Ray

China has to placate the Shia (namely Iran) and Syria is under the Shia regime.

It helps China to play along with the Shia countries (of course, without upsetting the Sunnis) so that there is a continuous belt of influence from West Afghanistan to Eastern Saudi Arabia (where I believe most of the oil lies).

Shia Muslims are in the demographic majority in four countries: Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Bahrain. The government of Bahrain is headed by a Sunni, an inversion of the Syrian situation. I am not an area expert, but my impression is that notions of Shia influence tend to be undertheorized when noted at all. Some things to take into account would include:

• Percentage of all Muslims whom are Shia (I don’t know that a consensus exists, but you’ll often see figures somewhere in the range of 10%–20%).
• Percentage of (a) national population(s) made up of Shia Muslims.
• Number of Shia Muslims within a national population (there are roughly as many Shia Muslims residing in India as in Iraq, for example).
• Whether a national government can reasonably be said to be Shia-dominated.

It would probably also be worthwhile to formulate some bullet points at the sub-national level and to note their potential for interaction with national demographics and governance. Like I said, I am no area or subject matter expert here, so take it for what it’s worth.

[carl]

Bill:

I don't think introduction of various multinational oil companies really changes the nature of the problem in the South China Sea. It is still, at its base, about which country controls what. The Red Chinese want it all and giving an oil lease in territory Vietnam says is Vietnamese is just another marker thrown down. Last time an islet, the time before that fishing rights, this time oil leases. All are just more slices of salami.

The blog article by Robert Haddick on the possible Red Chinese strategy is very good.

[Bill Moore]

Carl,

Multinationals are not new player there, but I think they add complexity to the problem. Consider if an Exxon or BP ship conducting exploratory work is challenged (or worse) my one of the regional Navies. Perhaps not probable, but what if Exxon is drilling in area XX for China and the Vietnamese Navy fires warning shots at them. In response the PLAN responds to provide protection. Now we potentially have the aggressor China who facilitated illegal exploration providing protection to a multinational that I believe is predominantly U.S.. You don't think that would influence the strategic decision making for all concerned? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this move seems intended to do just that.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I can't help but wonder if China views the troubles in Syria as positive if it delays or prevents the U.S. military's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. Assuming that is true, what actions would the Chinese take to foment more trouble in the region other than being an objectionist in the UN?

I don't think the Chinese are likely to make troubkle in the Middle East. Trouble in the Middle East typically means higher oil prices and potentially even interruptions; they are major buyers and they have a strong vested interest in not rocking that boat. Of course they are also opportunists, and if we give them a chance to score a propaganda point or two, they'll take it.

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Nightwatch recently reported that the China National Offshore Oil Corp invited foreign firms to bid on oil blocks that encroach on territory being explored by Vietnam.

Interesting approach, you get multinational corporations involved in the disputed areas and it changes the decision calculus for external actors who potentially benefit from this business venture.

I suspect the Philippines and Vietnam are doing the same thing. The question I have is, does internationalizing the situation by bringing multinationals into the fray increase or decrease the risk of conflict?

The Philippines put several blocks up for bidding in the last few weeks, and the Vietnamese have done the same in the past. These are exploration contracts and the major multinationals are generally not involved; the bidders are generally smaller exploration-focused companies. The major players won't come in unless initial surveys yield positive results.

Originally Posted by Ray

It will be a chaotic scene.

China has to placate the Shia (namely Iran) and Syria is under the Shia regime.

The Middle East is always a chaotic scene, but why would China have to placate Iran? More the other way around... with sanctions in place China is one of the only major buyers willing to take Iran's oil and gas and one of their only suppliers for arms and many other goods. Iran needs China way more than China needs Iran.

[carl]

Bill:

Dayuhan makes a good point that the exploration is likely to be done by smaller companies. But small or large company, I don't see the situation you describe as being likely to develop because the companies aren't going dispatch rigs and ships unless they are very confident that they aren't going to end up targets. If I was running one of the companies it would be difficult to explain to shareholders, board members and creditors why I sent very expensive rigs and crews someplace where they were emulating half of Jones' pronouncement-slow ships going into harm's way.

Now if it were a Red Chinese or Vietnamese company that would be different.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

Dayuhan: You stated above that nobody is challenging freedom of navigation. That is not true. The Red Chinese claim sovereignty over the South China Sea.

If sovereignty is a de facto challenge to freedom of navigation, then Egypt is challenging navigation in the Suez Canal and Panama in the Panama Canal. Much of China's oil passes through the sovereign waters of Indonesia and the Philippines. Of course you're welcome to say that sovereignty is a challenge to freedom of navigation only when the sovereign power is one you dislike, but it will be tough to justify that in any international forum, or justify a claim that sovereignty or a claim of sovereignty is in itself a challenge to freedom of navigation.

Originally Posted by carl

Now being that the Red Chinese are a bunch or right bastards for whom lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and killing are common instruments used within areas over which they have sovereignty and given their history over the whole existence of the Party in every area in which they've ruled

We can use that line domestically, but if we try to use it to justify actions in any international forum we're likely to be reminded of our own track record of bullying, sanctioning, bombing, invading etc to get our way. We may see this as good standing up to evil, but to much of the world, and even in SE Asia, it's more about two large dangerous self-interested powers seeking their own advantage. The smaller players will try to use that to their advantage and will try to stay out of the way if it comes to blows, but don't expect anyone to buy into our propaganda.

Originally Posted by carl

You are right that wars start when one side won't back down. The Red Chinese should back down in the interests of peace since they are the aggressors in this.

I think they should back down and I would love to see them back down, but since they aren't going to back down, what you or I think they should do is pretty much a moot point. Ordering them to back down is only going to make them less likely to be reasonable, so I don't see much point in it. Again, the thing that needs to be recognized about this situation is that nobody's willing to back down, but nobody wants to fight either. That makes for an awkward status quo, but blustering in trying to force a resolution is more likely to provoke conflict than to alleviate it. In reality the SCS is disputed and will remain disputed for some time. We're not going to change that.

If we want to influence Chinese behavior we should be looking less to military threats than the possibility of economic and financial moves, which they know we might actually use (they know we aren't going to war over fishing and resource exploration rights in the SCS) and which are likely to cause them more problems than saber-rattling.

Originally Posted by carl

And besides those Viets are pretty feisty, if the Vietnamese government wants to avoid internal problems, they may be forced to fight by public opinion if the Red Chinese keep pushing. The best thing to do would be for the Red Chinese to back off and avoid provoking the Vietnamese populace beyond tolerance.

I don't think the Chinese have any desire at all to provoke an armed confrontation with Vietnam

Originally Posted by carl

Finally (or not) regardless of how independent the Viets or the Malaysians or the Japanese are, not one of them would be doing anything but asking the Central Committee how high they should jump if the USN didn't exist. Anything they do at all contrary to Red Chinese wishes is because of the existence of the US and the USN.

I don't see any reason to make that assumption, but you're welcome to make it if it pleases you. The Vietnamese certainly know the US isn't likely to help them out in any confrontation, and they've known it all along. Even the Filipinos are figuring it out.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan

I don't think the Chinese are likely to make troubkle in the Middle East. Trouble in the Middle East typically means higher oil prices and potentially even interruptions; they are major buyers and they have a strong vested interest in not rocking that boat. Of course they are also opportunists, and if we give them a chance to score a propaganda point or two, they'll take it

.

Applying simple logic based on your personal perception of the matter doesn't reflect China's strategic outlook. It is much more complex than this, and as China has demonstrated this past year they have no problem rocking the boat. This is wishful thinking not reflected in China's strategic behavior.

Posted by Carl

Dayuhan makes a good point that the exploration is likely to be done by smaller companies. But small or large company, I don't see the situation you describe as being likely to develop because the companies aren't going dispatch rigs and ships unless they are very confident that they aren't going to end up targets. If I was running one of the companies it would be difficult to explain to shareholders, board members and creditors why I sent very expensive rigs and crews someplace where they were emulating half of Jones' pronouncement-slow ships going into harm's way.

Yes and no, I have been in a lot of conflict zones and there was never a shortage of major oil companies being present. They'll take the risk if they think the profit is sufficient. The fact that Exxon is making a deal with Kurds against the wishes of Baghdad is putting their southern assets at risk, but Exxon publically stated they think the risk is worth it. They have to compete with other oil companies to get their claims/bids in, which appears to force them to move faster and accept more risk, or assume the greater risk of not being able to produce oil there. Oil companies have been attacked several times by terrorists in the Middle East, North Africa, West Africa, South America, and even in SE Asia, not to mention pirates, etc. These companies will definitely take on risk up to a point.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8701LM20120801

Analysis: China unveils oil offensive in South China Sea squabble

"The Chinese government's stance is clearer than ever ... They want to take on and develop this region," said an executive at a global oil major, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

"China's view is that the little countries, like Vietnam and the Philippines, are increasingly stealing its resources and it must demonstrate it is serious about upholding its claims," said Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

"There are hundreds of independent upstream companies in the world willing to go anywhere for a small volume of oil to turn a profit," said Kang Wu, managing director of consultancy FACTS Global Energy.

"Companies will go to the disputed South China Sea and rely on the Chinese government to protect them and ensure that drilling is safe. If they cannot get those guarantees, then they don't drill, don't spend a penny, and don't lose."

Read the entire article, it provides some useful insights. This is exactly what I was making reference to, American companies, among other others, asking for Chinese protection.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...arded-to-exxon

Vietnam Warns China to Halt Oil Bids in Exxon-Awarded Area

PetroVietnam will “unwaveringly oppose” any foreign companies that sign contracts with China to explore for oil in the nine areas, Hau said. “The Vietnamese government will not allow any implementation of these exploration activities.”

“This is one way for China to assert its maritime territory,” he said by phone. “There’s probably more to come. Domestic pressure was building up so they had to do something.”

China’s blocks overlap with Vietnamese areas that have been awarded to Exxon, Moscow-based Gazprom (OGZD), India’s Oil & Natural Gas Corp. and Talisman Energy Inc. (TLM), according to a PetroVietnam map shown to reporters in Hanoi.

Exxon has not responded to querry yet.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Applying simple logic based on your personal perception of the matter doesn't reflect China's strategic outlook. It is much more complex than this, and as China has demonstrated this past year they have no problem rocking the boat. This is wishful thinking not reflected in China's strategic behavior.

I didn't say I don't think the Chinese are willing to rock boats, I said I don't expect to see them rocking boats in the Middle East. Like anyone else, their choice of rocking or not rocking will be based on perceptions of profit, loss, and risk. The risk in rocking boats in the Middle East is high, given China's dependence on imported oil: even if they aren't specifically dependent on oil from the Middle East, any interruption in oil supplies from the Middle East will send their import bill through the roof. What do they stand to gain that would warrant that risk?

Also worth noting that outside their own immediate neighborhood, the Chinese have actually been pretty restrained about meddling in other people's affairs... unlike some other global powers. Is there any tangible evidence of Chinese boat-rocking in the Middle East?

[carl]

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. Noooo, for that is illegitimate argument.

Now I will admit that my point took two paragraphs to explicate and there are some who would have been confused by that. But you were not. You just created something that wasn't and proceeded. Clever in cocktail parties and the women probably flutter their eyelids or maybe even swoon but of little real value. Please address the point.

If I am ever called upon to teach an English, writing or rhetoric class, I am going to use your comparing the Suez and Panama Canals to the South China Sea, as far as sovereignty and freedom of navigation on the high seas go, as a most perfect example of comparing apples to oranges, or maybe apples to left-handed monkey wrenches. I must cut it out, the students will see it straight away.

You think we should appease the Red Chinese. I don't. You think that will pay in the long run. I think it won't. That is the heart of our disagreement.

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. Armed robbers generally arm themselves because they have no intention of there being a tussle with the victim. Doesn't always work out that way.

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.

[carl]

Bill:

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.

You have much more experience in conflict zones than I but I wonder if a terrestrial conflict zone is the same as a maritime one. Things may be different when at sea and possibly subject to the attentions of warships. I am not trying to be a smart aleck when saying this, it just seems that this kind of thing might be very different.

The Reuters article said the Red Chinese state oil company, the CNOOC, views one of their drilling rigs thusly "CNOOC has described the vessel as "mobile national territory". That is a bit alarming, since that rig can be moved almost anywhere and that anywhere is then viewed as Red Chinese national territory. That is the kind of thing I was meant when I mentioned how a state run oil company is different from the other oil companies when it comes to roaming around in disputed waters.

[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