Hypothetical War : Contest For The Spratlys

[chino]

Meanwhile, it seems that China has done some good diplomatic maneuvering on its own, "dismantling" a perceived "Vietnam-US-Philippines" "alliance" against China over the Spratlys by being more diplomatic with the Vietnamese (with whom, IMO, is the only country in the region that can give China a semblance of a bloody nose if and when missiles and shells erupt at the Spratlys).

 

China will definitely try to buy off individual claimants.

 

And for all you know, some of the claimants may indeed be maneuvering just to get a good price. Typical Asian bargain hunting.

 

Just like ROC with all that talk about independence. Stirring things up to get more stuff/concessions from the US and PRC.

[X-Files]

Why is China in a rush to set up its oil rigs in the Spratlys?

 

In 2000, China represented only 6% of global oil demand but in the decade since then, it has accounted for nearly one-half of global oil demand growth and is now the largest vehicle market in the world. China has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest energy consumer.

 

To meet China’s insatiable demand for oil, Xinhua News reported that “CNOOC plans to invest 200 billion yuan ($30 billion) and drill 800 deepwater wells – which they expect to have an output of an equivalent 500 million barrels of oil by the year 2020.” This target production is equivalent to approximately $50 Billion USD per year.

 

China had previously assured the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2002 that it was willing to resolve sovereignty disputes peacefully through negotiations. But now, because of its massive energy needs and because it has determined that the Spratly Islands hold sufficient quantities of oil and natural gas deposits to meet its energy needs, China has changed its tune. In March 2010, China unilaterally declared the entire South China Sea a “core national interest” similar to its claims to Tibet and Taiwan and therefore “non-negotiable”.

 

http://www.asianweek.com/2011/07/01/telltale-signs-standing-up-to-the-dragon-bully/

 

*

Armed Forces chief Gen. Eduardo Oban Jr. said senior military officials had recommended an initial six multi-role planes to be acquired within the term of President Benigno Aquino III.

 

He said the Air Force was looking at either Korea’s TA-50 Golden Eagle * or Italy’s M-346, and depending on their arms and in-flight instrumentation would cost about P1 billion each.

 

The Air Force retired its last seven F5 fighter jets in 2005 after having been in service for 40 years.

 

Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, meanwhile, said President Aquino’s planned visit to China did not mean the Philippines was backing down from its assertions Chinese forces had been intruding on Philippine waters.

 

http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl110929.htm

 

* See

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/06/10/South-Korea-unveils-new-trainer-aircraft/UPI-66861307720766/

Edited July 3, 2011 by X-Files

[X-Files]

Vietnam's navy chief and deputy minister Vice Admiral Nguyen Van Hien Monday met his Indian counterpart Admiral Nirmal Verma here when the two sides discussed security challenges in the Indian Ocean region, apart from the scope for expanding defence cooperation between the two countries.

 

Nguyen, who arrived in India June 24, also discussed possibilities of India's help to build capacities of the Vietnamese naval force, which is small and growing, when compared with the Indian Navy.

 

The Vietnamese navy chief had already completed his visit to Mumbai, where he visited the Indian Navy's Western Command and defence public sector shipbuilder Mazagon Dock Limited before reaching New Delhi.

 

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20110627/1780924.html

[nemo]

I don't know why so many on this thread thinks Philippine's claim on Spratleys has substance -- actually, it is the weakest.

 

Here is an opinion from a Philippine news that offers the contrary view --

The Spratlys: Marcos’ legacy, or curse?

 

Vietnam's and China's claims have most history. For example, China issued a protest to France for it's occupation of islands in the Spratleys in 1933 -- of course China wasn't in the position to do anything about it.

Philippine claimed that it founded the islands in 1957 -- which is risible.

[Corinthian]

Here is an opinion from a Philippine news that offers the contrary view --

The Spratlys: Marcos’ legacy, or curse?

 

The article is too simplistic. It implies that the commie and Muslim insurgencies were a result of the Spratlys and Sabah disputes.

 

In the first place, the red menace is merely a successor to the Huk movement of the 50s, further inflamed by Marcos' dictatorship and corruption (when you're poor and the capitalists seem bent on getting everything including your beautiful daughter, who do you go to for help or revenge? the commie bastards armed with guns, of course....). While the Moro insurgency has long been happening when Mindanao became part of the Philippines (a place that used to be predominantly Muslim, under the control of a distant and apathetic Christian Manila).

 

It has its points (occupation = ownership, etc) though, especially the occupation=ownership bit that I have been trying to tell the less informed people here (read: Philippines, not forum).

 

However, the Chinese and Vietnamese "historical" claims aren't really that strong as well IMO. Hell, we could've done the same, say some Sultanate of Whatever as branch of the Sultanate of Sulu first discovered the Spratlys (let's give it a more native sounding flavour, say, Malayong Pulo) in 1321BC or so and was used as a rich fishing ground and such. See my point?

 

I'd rather decide this on current (read: modern history) claims and actions by the rival states rather than on some "historical document." In which case, I'd give the countries who are best able to exercise their right on the island by their actual long, continuous occupation and defense of the islands as the owners of these rocks.

[nemo]

 

I'd rather decide this on current (read: modern history) claims and actions by the rival states rather than on some "historical document." In which case, I'd give the countries who are best able to exercise their right on the island by their actual long, continuous occupation and defense of the islands as the owners of these rocks.

 

In that case, it's Taiwan, and by extension, China. Republic of China (now Taiwan), took over the largest island of the Spratleys right after WW-II, before it retreated to Taiwan after losing the civil war. Hence Taiwan has the longest continuous occupation of the Spratleys. Due the the civil war and international situation, it isn't able to station troops on the other islands.

 

If there weren't any superpower involvements (US and USSR), China would evict everyone else off the islands already. And your argument is essentially 'might makes right'.

 

EDIT -- Taiping Island (Itu Aba) occupied by Taiwan is the only island in the chain that is inhabitable (with potable water)-- hence it's the only island that can assert exclusive economic zone. The rest that are contested are reefs and shoals that cannot be used to determine exclusive economic zone.

Edited July 6, 2011 by nemo

[X-Files]

The Republic straps on the kneepads and applies chapstick.

 

 

Five years after the government of Taiwan requested permission to purchase 66 new F-16C jet fighters from the United States, it appears the deal is finally dead – a victim of the United States’ growing ties to China and the US administration’s unwillingness to proceed with a deal that could anger Beijing.

 

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/07/11/why-taiwan-needs-submarines/

[pikachu]

The Republic straps on the kneepads and applies chapstick.

 

 

 

 

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/07/11/why-taiwan-needs-submarines/

 

Which one? Taiwan is a Republic too, you know.

[Guest JamesG123]

Both.

[chino]

deleted

Edited July 13, 2011 by chino

[X-Files]

The South China Sea's Georgia Scenario

The U.S. can't risk overplaying its hand in China's disputes with its neighbors.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/11/the_south_china_seas_georgia_scenario

 

Washington must avoid the temptation -- despite local states cheering it on at every opportunity -- to overplay its hand. The main principle guiding U.S. policy regarding the South China Sea has been and should remain nonintervention. Resource disputes are inherently messy and will not likely be decided by grand proclamations or multilateral summitry. Rather, progress will be a combination of backroom diplomacy backed by the occasional show of force by one or more of the claimants. In fact, Beijing's record of conflict resolution over the last 30 years is rather encouraging: China has not resorted to a major use of force since 1979.

 

*

 

BEIJING -- China on Tuesday rejected calls by the Philippines for the two nations to bring their conflicting claims in the South China Sea before a United Nations-backed tribunal.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/philippines/2011/07/13/309689/China-rejects.htm

[X-Files]

Two Chinese warplanes intercepted an American spy plane over the tense Taiwan Strait last month in China’s most aggressive challenge to U.S. surveillance flights since a 2001 collision that touched off an international crisis.

 

According to defense officials, the intercept took place June 29. The two Chinese jets flew from a base in China to head off an Air Force U-2 spy plane over the dividing line in the 100-mile wide Taiwan Strait.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/25/chinese-jets-chase-us-surveillance-jet-over-taiwan/

[Guest JamesG123]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/25/chinese-jets-chase-us-surveillance-jet-over-taiwan/

 

Could be a routine, "We see you seeing us" event being hyped up by the MSM. Details like the altitudes would be interesting...

[X-Files]

Western media reported that Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense and the Pentagon have declined to verify the report.

 

US surveillance flights to mainland China will likely continue. The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters that, (quote): "The Chinese would see us move out of there. We're not going to do that. These reconnaissance flights are important."

 

Mullen’s spokesperson later clarified that Mullen’s statement refers in general to the US right to fly in international airspace—and not the June 29th incident.

 

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_china/2011-07-27/chinese-fighters-breach-taiwan-airspace-pursuing-us-spy-plane.html

[guest_]

How credible do you consider NTDTV/EpochTimes to be?

[X-Files]

How credible do you consider NTDTV/EpochTimes to be?

 

Their article quotes an United Daily News article*. *Shrug*

 

Got a specific problem with the content of the post? If so, feel free to slap up a link to something more illuminating.

 

 

 

* For the peanut gallery's benefit

Edited July 28, 2011 by X-Files

[X-Files]

Even as Vietnam and China continue to conduct tit-for-tat naval maneuvers in the South China Sea, Hanoi has started making direct calls for foreign involvement in the two nations' maritime territorial dispute. While many commentators saw this as a thinly veiled invitation to the United States, it could also be a precursor to India establishing a permanent presence in Vietnamese waters. India has apparently responded favorably to Vietnam's offer of permanent berthing rights in Na Thrang port. The move would not only add military heft to India's "Look East" policy, but is also emblematic of a larger Indian effort to counter China's activities in South Asia.

 

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/9630/vietnam-india-boost-naval-ties-to-counter-china

[X-Files]

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippines said Wednesday it would press its territorial claims in the South China Sea in accordance with international law before the United Nations, dismissing Chinese criticism that Manila is insincere in resolving the long-simmering disputes.

The ruling Communist Party's flagship newspaper People's Daily said Tuesday that recent construction work by Philippine troops on an island claimed by Manila violates the spirit of a preliminary agreement reached last month to resolve disputes in the South China Sea.

That shows Manila had merely been putting on "a little show," the paper said in a signed editorial. China won't sit idly by while its territory is swallowed up by others, it said. China claims the South China Sea and all its islands as its territory.

"Were there to be a serious strategic miscalculation on this matter, the due consequences would have to be paid," the newspaper said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/china-lashes-manila-over-island-claims-084337349.html;_ylt=AklMkNTOPvmlGE_g5tTn15obANEA;_ylu=X3oDMTQwZXJscjVrBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDIwMHBvb2xyZXN0BHBrZwMzZDQzNGNiYy0zNmRjLTM1ZjYtOWNhNy1kZmFiZjQ1YmFmZTYEcG9zAzcEc2VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDYzc1NmFjMzAtYmQ3ZS0xMWUwLWFiYmEtMjdkZGUyOGQ5MWVi;_ylv=3

[X-Files]

BEIJING (AP) — China has expressed its "strong dissatisfaction" at Japan's comments that it was concerned with China's increasing naval activity in waters near its shores and was taking measures to bolster its coastal defense.

A statement posted on the Foreign Ministry's website late Wednesday said Japan's annual defense report contained irresponsible comments on China's defense plans.

China's defense and military modernization drive does not target any other country and is solely for safeguarding its own sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said in the statement.

 

Ties between Japan and China have been strained for years over a contested gas field and disputed islands in the East China Sea.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7IEDkb6DEbE5AGDHJmLwwfCUvBA?docId=9d3df7578b564c0ba7cca936aca87372

 

 

*

Another perspective, especially the concluding paragraphs

Edited August 4, 2011 by X-Files

[tankerwanabe]

With the PRC starting to look like the 800lbs. gorilla bully, I wonder whether there are talks of an alliance forming between India-Vietnam-Taiwan-Philippines-Japan-South Korea.

 

If I was Taiwan, I'd take this opportunity to reach out to other players even if done secretively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, I wonder how fast and whether it's possible to refit the Hyuga and Ise to operate fixed-wing aircraft. For anti-landing craft duties of course.

Edited August 4, 2011 by tankerwanabe

[Archie Pellagio]

If I was Taiwan, I'd take this opportunity to reach out to other players even if done secretively.

 

Won't happen, for all the talk about China's military power, at the end of the day China's power and influence is economic integration and dependency - China's primary strategy is to become too important economically to become a pariah politically, and with a military in reserve just to make certain.

[Nobu]

With the PRC starting to look like the 800lbs. gorilla bully, I wonder whether there are talks of an alliance forming between India-Vietnam-Taiwan-Philippines-Japan-South Korea.

An alliance with India and Vietnam would be of little value to Japan unless the United States is planning on abrogating the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.

[Nobu]

Won't happen, for all the talk about China's military power, at the end of the day China's power and influence is economic integration and dependency - China's primary strategy is to become too important economically to become a pariah politically, and with a military in reserve just to make certain.

Japan's strategy is to ensure that the next generation of Chinese consumers will have a Canon or Nikon SLR equivalent in every household. South Korea and Taiwan are working toward the same.

 

I have no idea what Vietnam and India are doing.

[chino]

Japan's strategy is to ensure that the next generation of Chinese consumers will have a Canon or Nikon SLR equivalent in every household. South Korea and Taiwan are working toward the same.

 

I have no idea what Vietnam and India are doing.

 

Thank you to Japan for all those years of wonderful consumer products and electronics.

 

But now, to my surprise, I am buying Korean - unthinkable (to me) just a few years ago.

 

I have Samsung LCD TV, LG dvd player. All made in China, of course.

 

You guys are losing ground to the Koreans, better buck up!

 

I still love Japanese 古宝田 and 八海 sake, snack items, music (modern), cuisine etc. Politics aside, I'm a huge Japan fan.

 

Edited to Simon's comments.

Edited August 6, 2011 by chino

[Simon Tan]

pssst....Daikin is Japanese.

 

Samsung LCD panels are from Sharp.

 

IPhone and IPad screens are....Japanese.......

Edited August 6, 2011 by Simon Tan