"China Building a Base in the South China Sea" Topic

Looks like China is upping the ante, and building a new base in the South China Sea, to support its operations and claims there:

link

It's not clear if it will include an airstrip, or will just be a military and naval refueling base, thus far.

Well it is the South CHINA Sea so its is understandable from the Chinese perspective. The Philippines will be miffed and so are the Vietnamese over oil rigs so a natural and local encirclement policy may develop to check Chinese expansionism (if that is what this is). Best approach is to let the locals get upset and then quietly support them. Direct confrontation may be good for wargamers but will bode ill for the US economy and debt servicing.

At least they are building their own land, rather than taking it from someone else :-)

Well it is the South CHINA Sea so its is understandable from the Chinese perspective.

Canada is in North America, so it's legit for the US of A to annex it, too, amiright? ;)

At least they are building their own land, rather than taking it from someone else :-)

Good point. And I'm sure there's probably a good eco-friendly angle to work there, as well. "Look, we're creating a new green belt!"

If they open a factory there that builds iPhone parts or ships to Wal-Mart, we'll probably be ok with that.

Darthfozzywig, so the Chinese shouldn't be allowed to build bases on Chinese soil in an area where China has a keen strategic interest?

Meanwhile the US has bases all around the world including countries that don't want the US there (e.g. Guantanamo Bay in Cuba).

And the story of the Spratleys is convoluted. For example the Phillipines claim is based on "it's there."

Personally I think Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia are the only ones with truly strong claims.

It's hardly a question of "being allowed", Thomas. And it's a question of conflicting strategic interests, you know. That means unilateral actions make for tricky politics, and it's perfectly reasonable for other state actors to weigh in on the subject.

Thomas,

The claims are established in UNCLOS to which China is a signatory.

Well it is the South CHINA Sea…

Apparently, it has several names, and what it is called depends on the language used as well as on historico-political factors:

link

The problem is that China bases her territorial assertions on 'historical claims' rather than UNCLOS. The '9-dash' line covers 80 percent of the entire SCS. Since China is loath to take on Japan militarily over the Diaoyu Islands, she is flexing her muscles on weaker nations like Vietnam by parking a $1 USD billion oil rig 130 nautical miles off its coast. This new development with the Phillipines is but the latest example of China 'testing the waters' to see how far she can go. The Phillipines has been a thorn in the sides of China lately, running Chinese blockades and resupplying her troops on some disputed rocks.

UNCLOS states that EEZ's extend 200 nm's from a nation's coast, and a nation's territorial waters as extending 12 nm's. But if a group of rocks lie outside of more than one nations' territorial waters (beyond 12 nm's) but within the EEZ (200 nm's) of these nations, who has the rights to exploit them? They're in dispute because they overlap.

Should the potential resources around them remain untapped because the islands are in dispute? China is probably the only nation other than Japan and S. Korea in the region rich enough to tap into these gas or oil reserves, so if the poorer nations like the Phillipines and Vietnam can't share the burden financially how should the windfall be distributed?

If you're interested in the SCS claims I highly recommend this well researched and informaive report by Ronald O'Rourke for the CRS:

PDF link

@28mm: Thanks for your insightful post and the link to the report!

Thanks for that PDF However it should be noted it's done for the US government and thus would have been done from a US perspective.

E.g. it talks about US not interfering with Soviet air and naval operations near the 12 mile limit, but this is wrong.

Bombers and recce aircraft were usually intercepted by US military aircraft that would obviously result in "mission kill" for the Soviets. The Soviets did the same but my point is that report is not a true third party independent review.

The question arises as to what should happen and who should get what?

Basically what has happened is China (and Russia) are making come backs and that's causing frictions.

The US should really be more neutral and try to get both sides to the negotiation table.

But the US position is clearly to support anti-Chinese efforts regardless of claims – I'm sure if the Philippines claimed Beijing the US would support that.

I suspect the ideal US position would be for China to go back to the 19th century and Russia to be swallowed up in the ground.

Indeed from a more global perspective the US has done some things to deliberately infuriate China such as agreeing to assist Indians in nuclear weapons development or Obama meeting up with the Dalai Lama. Or the whole Asian pivot which is openly aimed at containing China.

The Chinese do stupid things but the US are just as bad.

Thomas, the US supports Australia every bit as unilaterally

And the "East China Sea" runs all the way to Kagashima, while the "Sea of Japan" runs up the Korean coastline and includes Vladivostok. Name isn't relevant to claiming rights. Though I guess we could start calling the South China Sea the North Australian Sea. Then let Internet Yellow Journalism howl!

Any "surviving Atlanteans" will have some very lucrative claims regarding the Atlantic Oceans.

@ThomasHobbes

Points taken. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased report since the people who write them are still human colored by their views and dispositions. Even though the CRS report is more factual than editorial, the perspective is nonetheless American. The underlying assumptions in the report lead one to think that China may be a problem and a force of instability in the region due to her increasingly aggressive claims, and although the report made no policy recommendations it painted China as a potential adversary.

We can't help that geopolitics still comes into play and nations still act in their perceived national interests. China's rise as a regional superpower threatens to diminish American influence in the region, hence the antagonistic foreign policy vis-á-vis China (the so-called 'Asia Pivot') and the CRS report's America-centric POV. A Harvard professor even argued that increasing competition between superpowers will inevitably lead to war just like Athens and Sparta: hnn.us/article/147875. I call this the "this playground is only big enough for one bully" syndrome.

'The Thucydides Trap' has been debunked by others in academia since, but the fundamental truths that nations act in their self interests and such interests can often come into conflict remain as valid today as they did nearly two-and-a-half millenia ago.

As far as getting all clamaints of disputed islands, shoals or other geological formation to the negotiating table, the prospects are dim because there's not even consensus between China and the other nations on the ground rules. China's position is that all negotiations and dispute resolution should be handled privately at the government-to-government level, but countries opposing China like the Philippines (my apologies for mispelling the name earlier like a person's name with two l's and one p) insist that such disputes be brought to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Seas for adjudication.

And the "official" US position that she takes no sides in these disputes while de facto siding with China's rivals doesn't help.

ps: I'm glad my degree in international relations still comes in handy once in a while.

Darthfozzywig:
Many Americans in the past believed that annexation was the right and destiny of the USA, thus the Manifest Destiny ideology and the Munroe Doctrine. But notions of Social Darwinism and Imperialism have faded today. As to the future, perhaps Canada should annex the USA and impose unspeakable socialist horrors like single-payer medicare and, God-forbid, gun-control! Moo-ha-ha!;)
Rod Robertson (Commissar of Canukistan)

I don't

But notions of Social Darwinism and Imperialism have faded today. As to the future

Wishful thinking. For better or worse (the latter, most likely), nationalism is as powerful a force as ever. Just because it's lost steam in the West doesn't mean that translates to the rest of the world.

perhaps Canada should annex the USA and impose unspeakable socialist horrors like single-payer medicare and, God-forbid, gun-control!

If it makes people more polite, cleans up the streets, and allows bears to roam at will and hold elected office, I'm all for it.

And the "official" US position that she takes no sides in these disputes while de facto siding with China's rivals doesn't help.

If the US truly wanted resolution it would be far more neutral.

The USA needs an enemy and China is a good one. Indeed there are even high level groups that include Congress people whose sole purpose is to advocate China as an enemy – e.g. the so called Blue Team.

If the US truly wanted resolution it would be far more neutral

Wasn't that the Japanese line back during 40-41? After all, The Empire's problems were between her and the Chinese and French…

South China Sea = West Phillipines Sea, which is now what some in the latter islands are now calling it.

I must say, I much prefer the North Australian Sea, myself, since it has a catchy ring to it.

Also, on a related note, the Chinese are now playing "bumper boats" with the Vietnamese, and are ramming the latter's vessels on purpose, in a show of divine benevolence.

Tgunner makes an excellent point.

How hypocritical of an Aussy to criticise the U.S. taking a stand against a rising Asian power. Ah, if only we'd stood back in those dark days of '41, and the Aussies would all be cheerfully laboring under their Nipponese masters now…

Come to think of it, that might have been a better result all around.

The Japanese never seriously intended to invade Australia.

The logistics behind such an endeavour were astronomic and the risks massive – most of Australia is barren desert. And back then roads were limited so the jungles of the north would've impeded the Japanese considerably.

Indeed the only country that that has ever had the capability to invade Australia (post colonisation) was the USA (and this was according to Paul Dibbs, a very high ranking Australian defence analyst).