Tag: South China Sea

It seems that if the Chinese are coming out and threatening the Japanese with military action for moving their ships through waters that an International Court has said is not Chinese; this almost forces the Japanese to sail through them to force the point that these are international waters and that they will not be intimidated:

Beijing is thought to have threatened Japan that it would launch military action if Tokyo pressed ahead with its stance on the South China Sea dispute. Chinese officials are reported to have conveyed the warning to a top-ranking Japanese official in June.

According to diplomatic sources, cited by Japan’s Kyodo news agency, China’s ambassador to Japan, Cheng Yonghua, told Japan that it would cross a “red line” if Japanese vessels took part in the so-called freedom of navigation operations launched by the US in the South China Sea. Cheng even went on to indicate that Beijing would not hesitate to take military action. This emerged only on Sunday, 21 August though the incident reportedly occurred in June.  [IB Times]

You can read more at the link.

Considering Australia’s strong economic ties to the Chinese I will be surprised if they commit to supporting freedom of navigation patrols in the SCS.  These calls to strike Australian ships I believe is just a signal from the Chinese to the Australians to stay out of this dispute in response to the US request for freedom of navigation patrols:

China’s state-run Global Times has published an editorial attacking Australia for supporting the recent international ruling on China’s activities in the South China Sea and called for strikes on any Australian ships which might undertake “freedom-of-navigation” activities in the region.

The editorial said Australia “is not even a ‘paper tiger’, it’s only a ‘paper cat’ at best”. It says that even though “Australia calls itself a principled country… when it needs to please Washington, it demonstrates willingness of doing anything in a show of allegiance”.

As a result, the Global Times says (our emphasis):

China must take revenge and let it know it’s wrong. Australia’s power means nothing compared to the security of China. If Australia steps into the South China Sea waters, it will be an ideal target for China to warn and strike.

Earlier this year, the Commander of the US Seventh Fleet, Vice Admiral Joseph P Aucoin, said it would be in the “best interests” of the region if Australia was to send ships to within 12 miles of the disputed area. Australia has so far not sent any of its ships there.  [Business Insider]

You can read the rest at the link.

The UNCLOS ruling was expected to rule in favor of the Philippines, but I think no one expected it to be this much of harsh rebuke against China:

An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a sweeping rebuke on Tuesday of China’s behavior in the South China Sea, including its construction of artificial islands, and found that its expansive claim to sovereignty over the waters had no legal basis.

The landmark case, brought by the Philippines, was seen as an important crossroads in China’s rise as a global power and in its rivalry with the United States, and it could force Beijing to reconsider its assertive tactics in the region or risk being labeled an international outlaw. It was the first time the Chinese government had been summoned before the international justice system.

In its most significant finding, the tribunal rejected China’s argument that it enjoys historic rights over most of the South China Sea. That could give the governments of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam more leverage in their own maritime disputes with Beijing.

The tribunal also said that China had violated international law by causing “irreparable harm” to the marine environment, endangering Philippine ships and interfering with Philippine fishing and oil exploration.

“It’s an overwhelming victory. We won on every significant point,” said the Philippines’ chief counsel in the case, Paul S. Reichler.

But while the decision is legally binding, there is no mechanism for enforcing it, and China, which refused to participate in the tribunal’s proceedings, reiterated on Tuesday that it would not abide by it.

Speaking at a meeting with European leaders, President Xi Jinping was defiant, reasserting China’s claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea “since ancient times,” the state-run People’s Daily reported. His remarks echoed a statement from the Foreign Ministry. The tribunal’s decision “is invalid and has no binding force,” the ministry said. “China does not accept or recognize it.”  [NY Times]

You can read much more at the link, but first of all as the court pointed out Chinese historical claims to the SCS are ridiculous.  Should the Mongolians put in a claim for the parts of China and central Asia they once controlled?  Maybe the Koreans should put in a claim to the parts of northeast China they once controlled as well?

It will be interesting though to see what China does in response.  Considering how much nationalism the communist regime has put into their South China Sea claims they will have to do something.  The easiest thing would be to declare an ADIZ; the most provocative would be to start land reclamation at the Scarborough Shoal which they stole from the Philippines and the international court confirmed.  The Scarborough Shoal is just off the coast of the Philippines and building a base there would put potential US assets based in the Philippines at risk.

So what does the US do in response?  I can’t imagine anyone wants a war over this and the Chinese know this so what is to stop them from moving forward with their consolidation of the SCS?  There needs to be an asymmetric response and the recent approval to sell US weapons to Vietnam is a perfect example.  Determining weapons that could be sold to other regional countries in response to Chinese provocations could be a strategy to think about.

I have always wondered why the environmentalists are not involved in this?  The international court confirmed the Chinese are destroying a fragile eco-system with their scorched earth fishing and dredging in the SCS.  Where is Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace?  This is actually an area I would support them protesting instead of non-endangered whales.  The environmentalists could bring international attention and embarrassment against what the Chinese are doing in the SCS.

Anyone else have any ideas and how the international community should respond to China’s now confirmed illegal territorial grab in the South China Sea?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out because it appears that the Chinese are all in, in regards to their South China Sea claims, is the US and its regional allies all in as well to deter them?

As a rising power, China is roughly charting the same course the Americans and Soviets did 50 years ago. China has land-based missiles, bombers, and missile submarines. And China is establishing its own bastion — in the South China Sea. This sea grab is a logical response to China’s strategic dilemma.

China’s coming submarine deployment is allegedly in response to the deployment of the American THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea. While it is true that the U.S. is deploying THAAD on the Korean peninsula, the system can only be used against missiles targeting South Korea — coming from China’s ally, North Korea. China’s explanation is designed to make Beijing look like the victim. But China, which has its main submarine missile base adjacent to the South China Sea, has been preparing to sail its missile submarines there for years.

China’s aggression in the South China Sea is not likely merely for aggression’s sake, or the result of a rising power feeling its oats. China is acting out of strategic necessity, something even more dangerous because it feels it is doing something because it must, not simply because it can. The ruling Chinese Communist Party has made the calculation that the strategic benefits — having a safe location for its nuclear missile submarines — outweighs the negative attention the country is receiving worldwide.

What does that mean? It means that Beijing is not going to back down. Chinese nuclear weapons, which are the ultimate guarantor of Communist Party rule, are involved, and anything crucial to the survival of the regime is non-negotiable. Barring a new nuclear strategy — perhaps one that rules out submarines and relies on land-based missiles hidden in tunnels — controlling the sea is a must. Beijing has access to other stretches of the Pacific, but they can be easily accessed by traditional rivals including Taiwan and Japan. The South China Sea, for example, is adjacent to a number of relatively poor, weak states.  [The Week]

You can read the rest at the link.

It is going to be really interesting to see what the Chinese reaction is going to be if in fact the UNCLOS ruling in regards to territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea favors the Philippines:

The simmering dispute in the contested South China Sea is about to turn to a boil.

With an international arbitration court ruling on the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim to much of the South China Sea set to be handed down in the coming days or weeks, experts say the situation is likely to get a lot more complicated in the months and possibly years ahead.

The case, brought before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague by the Philippines, is widely expected to end in a ruling favoring Manila, which says that Beijing’s claims violate United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreements about territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZ).

While both China and the Philippines are signatories to the treaty, Beijing has refused to participate in the process and vowed to ignore its ruling.

“The PCA is likely to determine that none of the land features at issue are entitled to an EEZ or continental shelf, and that some are not entitled even to a territorial sea,” James Kraska, research director at the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote in late April in a paper posted to the Maritime Awareness Project website.

“The decision will not make China walk back its claims or undo its island building, but it will challenge the country’s notion that the law is the instrument of the strong to control the weak,” Kraska wrote. “Ineffective as they are, international law and the moral authority of a liberal world order pose a central obstacle to Chinese ambitions.”

Another key result of the ruling could see China’s hand forced on the nine-dash line.

Analysts say a large part of China’s strategy in the disputed waters rests on the ambiguity surrounding its claims. Beijing has never clarified exactly what the nine-dash line claim entails, apparently in hopes of maximizing its gains. It has also used its man-made islands in the South China Sea to bolster claims to EEZs of 200 nautical miles (370 km) and territorial seas of 12 nautical miles (22 km).

“The nine-dash line is really what’s at the heart of this case,” said Harry Krejsa, a Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security.

“The court wants to bring as much clarity as possible to the South China Sea disputes while also being strategic about its ability to strengthen international norms over the long run,” Krejsa said.

But a decision in favor of Manila, one nixing the nine-dash line, will undoubtably prompt a furious reaction from Beijing.

“The whole situation is probably going to get worse before it gets better, but strategically, the case for international law and norms are going to get stronger,” Krejsa said.  [Japan Times]

You can read more at the link, but if for example the ruling declares that the Scarborough Shoal is Philippine territory and the Chinese refuse to vacate it what should be the US and United Nations reaction to this?  Economic sanctions?  Is the US government willing to absorb the retaliatory economic impact that would come from China in response to such sanctions?

Here is the latest on the South China Sea front where the US is expanding efforts to demonstrate to China the US commitment to freedom of navigation:

Filipino fishermen say they’ve seen more Chinese coast guard ships than usual around the contested Scarborough Shoal, which China effectively took over in 2013 after a tense standoff with Philippine vessels.

Although fishermen have been complaining they’re being driven away by Chinese ships, the Philippine Department of Defense said it could not confirm an increase in Chinese presence at the shoal, 145 miles (230 kilometers) from Luzon island.

Meantime, the U.S. Air Force flew its first mission over the Scarborough area as part of a new Air Contingent force stationed in the Philippines. It involved four A-10C Thunderbolt jets and two Sikorsky HH-60 helicopters.

The first ever export of a submarine by South Korea must not have made the Chinese government very happy considering the maritime and territorial disputes they are having with Indonesia in the South China Sea.  If these submarines ever do see combat it would likely be against Chinese ships:

South Korean-made submarine with Hall Number code H7712 has been released from Okpo Port on Thursday, March 24, which was witnessed by Defense Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu along with Indonesian Ambassador for South Korea, John A. Prasetio, and Chief of Navy Staff Admiral Ade Supandi.

According to Indonesian Minister Counselor for the Indonesian Embassy in Seoul, the submarine is the first of three submarine units ordered by Indonesia to secure Indonesian territory. The construction had begun in 2013 at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) in Okpo, South Korea. All the process is under the supervision of task forces for submarine procurement project (Satgas Yekda KDSE DSME209) led by Col. Iwan Isnurwanto.

“Based on the contract, the first and second construction of the submarine will be done at DSME, while the third will be done at PT PAL Indonesia shipyard with a transfer of technology (Tot) process,” Aji said in a statement on Thursday.

During the third submarine development process, PT PAL Indonesia has also sent 112 engineers to DSME, South Korea, so they could be directly involved in the ToT process and development study, as well as independent submarine development via on the job training (OJT) stage.

The diesel electric submarine DSME209, which is South Korea’s first export production, is an improvement from Chang Bogo Class type submarine owned by the Republic of Korean Navy (ROK Navy) and Cakra Class submarine, which belongs to the Indonesian Navy. According to Indonesian Military Attaché of the Republic of Indonesia for Seoul, Col. Aditya Kumara, the submarine measured 61.3 meters long with a maximum speed of 21 knots underwater and has the ability to sail for more than 50 days.  [Jakarta Post]

You can read more at the link.

Shortly after SAM deployment, fighter jets seen on disputed Woody Island in South China Seahttps://t.co/yntdmC6HnQ pic.twitter.com/YGzeMIUYHI

— Voice of America (@VOANews) February 24, 2016

I would also not be surprised if in the future the Chinese use large “fishing boats” as well to try and block US Navy ships from moving through contested areas in the South China Sea.  The Chinese would love nothing more to have a “fishing boat” sunk to portray the US as the aggressors in the South China Sea and to rally domestic support.  The US Navy is going to have to really think through procedures to deal with being blocked and rammed by Chinese ships in the South China Sea:

China has announced its intention to build a massive new coast guard ship ostensibly to patrol its territorial waters, protect its fisheries, and uphold its laws. This is a huge ship and its physical characteristics fall far outside the norms associated with the coast guard mission. For instance, the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend-class national security cutter is 418 feet long and displaces 4,500 tons of water. The Chinese cutter will be over 500 feet long and displace more than 10,000 tons. The ship will be lightly armed, with two 76mm guns and other small arms, but these are not important to its true mission. This ship and its follow-on sister ships are built for one purpose: to move other ships out of the way.  [Defense One]

You can read the rest at the link.

Arguments Open in Philippine Case Against China's South China Sea Claims https://t.co/EhN0j2jDFO pic.twitter.com/kT4rJ6TiDM

— The Diplomat (@Diplomat_APAC) November 24, 2015