South China Sea General/Intel 5/26

[Drumboy44]

The South China Sea is a critical commercial gateway for a significant portion of the world’s merchant shipping, and hence is an important economic and strategic sub-region of the Indo-Pacific. It is also the site of several complex territorial disputes that have been the cause of conflict and tension within the region and throughout the Indo-Pacific.

Geographically, the South China Sea plays a significant role in the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific. The South China Sea is bordered by Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. Their recent economic growth has contributed to a large portion of the world’s commercial merchant shipping passing through these waters. Japan and South Korea rely heavily on the South China Sea for their supply of fuels and raw materials and as an export route, although the availability of diversionary sea lanes bypassing the South China Sea provides non-littoral states with some flexibility in this regard. The South China Sea also contains rich, though unregulated and over-exploited fishing grounds and is reported to hold significant reserves of undiscovered oil and gas, which is an aggravating factor in maritime and territorial disputes. The major island and reef formations in the South China Sea are the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Pratas, the Natuna Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/south-china-sea

Who Supports China in the South China Sea and Why

The psychology behind global support for China’s South China Sea position: a desire to avoid war.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/who-supports-china-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why/

China defends its right to arm South China Sea islands

The Nansha islands are China's inherent territory. China's building of facilities and necessary territorial defensive facilities on its own territory is completely normal," he said, using China's name for the Spratlys.

If China's building of normal facilities and deploying necessary territorial defensive facilities on its own islands is considered militarisation, then what is the sailing of fleets into the South China Sea?"

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/china-defends-arm-south-china-sea-islands-161215185822285.html

 

[rudemarine]

China has no right to destroy vital reefs just to build a military base on them. They are being hostile to their neighbors a thousand miles away from their own shores just to take what they want, not what belongs to them. The UN said they were out of line in a big way so not respecting that finding just proves they are being a bully and the U.S. is the only neutral nation with the power to keep them in check. The world no longer puts up with British like colonialism so China needs to buy like everyone else, rather than stealing.

 

[Drumboy44]

☆The most likely and dangerous contingency is a clash stemming from U.S. military operations within China's EEZ that provokes an armed Chinese response. The United States holds that nothing in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or state practice negates the right of military forces of all nations to conduct military activities in EEZs without coastal state notice or consent. China insists that reconnaissance activities undertaken without prior notification and without permission of the coastal state violate Chinese domestic law and international law. China routinely intercepts U.S. reconnaissance flights conducted in its EEZ and periodically does so in aggressive ways that increase the risk of an accident similar to the April 2001 collision of a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance plane and a Chinese F-8 fighter jet near Hainan Island. A comparable maritime incident could be triggered by Chinese vessels harassing a U.S. Navy surveillance ship operating in its EEZ, such as occurred in the 2009 incidents involving the USNS Impeccable and the USNS Victorious. The large growth of Chinese submarines has also increased the danger of an incident, such as when a Chinese submarine collided with a U.S. destroyer's towed sonar array in June 2009. Since neither U.S. reconnaissance aircraft nor ocean surveillance vessels are armed, the United States might respond to dangerous behavior by Chinese planes or ships by dispatching armed escorts. A miscalculation or misunderstanding could then result in a deadly exchange of fire, leading to further military escalation and precipitating a major political crisis. Rising U.S.-China mistrust and intensifying bilateral strategic competition would likely make managing such a crisis more difficult.

https://www.cfr.org/report/armed-clash-south-china-sea

☆China strongly denounced the communique released after a G7 summit, saying it interfered in the East China Sea and South China Sea issues in the guise of international law, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said early Sunday.
The 2017 G7 summit concluded with a joint communique Saturday, saying the G7 members are committed to "maintaining a rules-based order in the maritime domain based on the principles of international law", and expressing concerns about the situation in the East China Sea and South China Sea.
China's position on the East China Sea and South China Sea issues is clear and consistent, said Lu.
China has been committed to properly handling disputes, cementing cooperation, and safeguarding peace and stability of the East China Sea and South China Sea through talks and consultations directly with related parties, he said.
Lu urged G7 and countries outside to understand the situation, stick to the pledge to take no position on relevant disputes, fully respect the efforts made by countries in the region to handle disputes, and stop making irresponsible remarks.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/28/c_136321119.htm

 

[krzepice1976]

For the first time since President Donald Trump took office, a U.S. warship has sailed near a Chinese-controlled island in the disputed South China Sea, signaling an attempt to project a more assertive American stance against Beijing just before a major regional defense summit.

The mission, a passage by the guided missile destroyer USS Dewey­ on Wednesday within twelve nautical miles of Mischief Reef, in the Spratly island chain, was long anticipated and delayed. The last such operation took place in October, and U.S. commanders who had already chafed under Barack Obama’s tight leash had hoped to get a freer hand and to carry out more patrols under Trump.
Instead, the new administration has declined several requests from the military to carry out naval patrols in the disputed waterway. Eager to secure China’s help in pressuring North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, the White House has moved cautiously and chosen not to confront Beijing over the South China Sea, officials and congressional aides told Foreign Policy.
Instead, the new administration has declined several requests from the military to carry out naval patrols in the disputed waterway. Eager to secure China’s help in pressuring North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, the White House has moved cautiously and chosen not to confront Beijing over the South China Sea, officials and congressional aides told Foreign Policy.
North Korea and its rapidly-expanding missile and nuclear weapons program have grabbed the attention of the Trump administration, pushing the disputes over the Chinese land grab in the South China Sea — and Beijing’s open militarization of many islets and atolls — to the back burner. Trump has toned down his rhetoric on trade disputes and other spats with China specifically to secure Beijing’s cooperation in defusing the North Korea crisis.
“The president and his advisers have calculated that if we are to get China’s help on North Korea, better to take the foot off the gas on more contentious issues,” said Mira Rapp-Hooper, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/25/in-the-south-china-sea-the-u-s-is-struggling-to-halt-beijings-advance/?utm_content=buffer4f494&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[krzepice1976]

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis applauded China’s efforts to work with the international community on North Korea at an annual security forum in Singapore Saturday. But when it came to the South China Sea, he called China’s ongoing militarization of man-made islands there and its disregard for international order, unacceptable.
“We cannot accept Chinese actions that impinge on the interests of the international community, undermining the rules-based order that has benefited all countries here today (at the forum), including, and especially China,” Mattis said, in a speech to delegates and the media at the Shangri-La Dialogue.
Artificial island construction and indisputable militarization of facilities on features in international waters undermines regional stability,” he said, noting that China’s military buildup of the man-made beachheads differed from what other countries had done.
Artificial island construction and indisputable militarization of facilities on features in international waters undermines regional stability,” he said, noting that China’s military buildup of the man-made beachheads differed from what other countries had done.
The same goes for regional rules and regulations, he added, noting China’s recent progress along with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in drafting a framework for a code of conduct for the South China Sea.
https://www.voanews.com/a/mattis-china-militarization-man-made-island-unacceptable/3885335.html

 

[RiffRaff]

China has no right to destroy vital reefs just to build a military base on them. They are being hostile to their neighbors a thousand miles away from their own shores just to take what they want, not what belongs to them. The UN said they were out of line in a big way so not respecting that finding just proves they are being a bully and the U.S. is the only neutral nation with the power to keep them in check. The world no longer puts up with British like colonialism so China needs to buy like everyone else, rather than stealing.

I don't think the US qualifies as a "neutral" nation anywhere on the planet, and we have a reputation for being somewhat of a bully ourselves.

 

[Obreid]

China has no right to destroy vital reefs just to build a military base on them. They are being hostile to their neighbors a thousand miles away from their own shores just to take what they want, not what belongs to them. The UN said they were out of line in a big way so not respecting that finding just proves they are being a bully and the U.S. is the only neutral nation with the power to keep them in check. The world no longer puts up with British like colonialism so China needs to buy like everyone else, rather than stealing.

I don't think the US qualifies as a "neutral" nation anywhere on the planet, and we have a reputation for being somewhat of a bully ourselves.

Just because America might not qualify as a neutral does not change the reality of what China is trying to do in the SCS.

I was adamantly against our actions in Lybia, Syria, and Ukraine during Obama and do not agree with current path in Syria save the fact that the current administration has at least publicly dropped the removal of Assad.
I don't belueve that horrible policy decisions by the US in past disqualify us from responding to current actions of other nations.

 

[RiffRaff]

China has no right to destroy vital reefs just to build a military base on them. They are being hostile to their neighbors a thousand miles away from their own shores just to take what they want, not what belongs to them. The UN said they were out of line in a big way so not respecting that finding just proves they are being a bully and the U.S. is the only neutral nation with the power to keep them in check. The world no longer puts up with British like colonialism so China needs to buy like everyone else, rather than stealing.

I don't think the US qualifies as a "neutral" nation anywhere on the planet, and we have a reputation for being somewhat of a bully ourselves.

Just because America might not qualify as a neutral does not change the reality of what China is trying to do in the SCS.

I was adamantly against our actions in Lybia, Syria, and Ukraine during Obama and do not agree with current path in Syria save the fact that the current administration has at least publicly dropped the removal of Assad.
I don't belueve that horrible policy decisions by the US in past disqualify us from responding to current actions of other nations.

A very valid point, thank you. I am just so tired of the blind nationalistic attitudes that seem prevalent these days.

 

[Obreid]

I don't think the US qualifies as a "neutral" nation anywhere on the planet, and we have a reputation for being somewhat of a bully ourselves.

Just because America might not qualify as a neutral does not change the reality of what China is trying to do in the SCS.

I was adamantly against our actions in Lybia, Syria, and Ukraine during Obama and do not agree with current path in Syria save the fact that the current administration has at least publicly dropped the removal of Assad.
I don't belueve that horrible policy decisions by the US in past disqualify us from responding to current actions of other nations.

A very valid point, thank you. I am just so tired of the blind nationalistic attitudes that seem prevalent these days.

I do understand that as well, stupid decision have muddled so many things in past. The saddest part for us is that no matter how successful we might be here at reaching a sane consensus it will never materialize in real world.
We do this to be informed and share ideas about dangers and possibilities.
I appreciate this forum so much because even though we don't all agreed on cause and effect there is a lot of good insight and allows for one to "constructively" vent and comment without endless trolls.

For that I appreciate everyone who post here!

Although I had a primary care doc who once described this type of activity as mental mastrabation. Feels good but doesn't really change reality.