Militarization of South China Sea & East China Sea. Six Wars Necessary

[The Brain]

Dengist? Does he know Dorsa?

[Admiral Yi]

The consequences are that China and the Philippines will do a deal, and the deal will be more favorable to the Philippines than it would have been without the ruling.

What is really at issue are the economic exploitation rights to the South China Sea.  It is inevitable that the PRC will be dominant because their consumers will generate most of the demand, and their producers and companies are the largest and most capable of development of all the countries in the SE Asia region.  What international law does, in conjunction with diplomacy, is provide some measure of counterweight when the PRC seeks to go beyond that and run absolutely roughshod over the rights of the smaller states.  And here it has succeeded.  The fact that it appears that Duerte intends to leverage the ruling to do a deal is WAD.  And the State Department official statement reflects that.

Demand for seafood and offshore oil, gas, and minerals is not limited to China.  Nor is capacity to extract them. 

Demand and capacity don't trump property rights.

[Razgovory]

I think he's suggesting that Chinese will end up purchasing whatever resource is extracted from that spot of water.

[Monoriu]

This ruling works to Beijing's favour.  China is actually suffering from massive floods right now, and the economy isn't doing well.  The ruling diverts attention away from the domestic front. 

Another issue is Taiwan.  Taiwan's claims are ruled illegal in the ruling as well.  This puts Taiwan in the same boat as Beijing.  Taiwan's ruling party doesn't want to get involved in South China Sea.  But this ruling forced them to reaffirm their claims nonetheless, thereby putting Taiwan at odds with Japan and the US.  This would be an opportunity for Beijing to get closer to Taiwan as they share the same interests and claims in South China Sea. 

[grumbler]

This ruling works to Beijing's favour.  China is actually suffering from massive floods right now, and the economy isn't doing well.  The ruling diverts attention away from the domestic front. 

Another issue is Taiwan.  Taiwan's claims are ruled illegal in the ruling as well.  This puts Taiwan in the same boat as Beijing.  Taiwan's ruling party doesn't want to get involved in South China Sea.  But this ruling forced them to reaffirm their claims nonetheless, thereby putting Taiwan at odds with Japan and the US.  This would be an opportunity for Beijing to get closer to Taiwan as they share the same interests and claims in South China Sea.

Taiwan has no interests other than symbolic ones in the SCS, and their denial of the court ruling was strictly pro forma.  I don't think that this ruling will have the slightest impact on their relations with the PRC.  Of far more interest to them is Beijing finger-fucking Hong Kong, because it shows that the PRC wouldn't keep any bargains about special status made for a Taiwanese reunification with the PRC.

The current rulers of China are remarkably short-sighted, alas.  I'm beginning to think that Beijing actually played the first Trump.

[Monoriu]

Taiwan has no interests other than symbolic ones in the SCS, and their denial of the court ruling was strictly pro forma.  I don't think that this ruling will have the slightest impact on their relations with the PRC.  Of far more interest to them is Beijing finger-fucking Hong Kong, because it shows that the PRC wouldn't keep any bargains about special status made for a Taiwanese reunification with the PRC.

The current rulers of China are remarkably short-sighted, alas.  I'm beginning to think that Beijing actually played the first Trump.

Taiwan has a military garrison and airstrip in the South China Sea.  I think they occupy one of the largest islands, but only one.  It is a legacy of their RoC days.  The island is politically important to them because they want to show that they are still a player in international diplomacy.  It is a high profile issue in their elections, and the two major parties struggle to show to voters that they care.  Already the opposition Nationalist party (which is closer to Beijing) is attacking the ruling DPP (which advocates eventual independence) of not doing enough in South China Sea.  The reason it may affect Taiwanese relations with Beijing is because if played well, the Nationalists may gain politically at the expense of the DPP.  If the Nationalists use this as leverage to regain their popularity, this may be one of the factors that help them win the next election and regain the presidency.   

[The Minsky Moment]

Demand for seafood and offshore oil, gas, and minerals is not limited to China.  Nor is capacity to extract them. 

Demand and capacity don't trump property rights.

I'm not suggesting they do - only pointing out the Coasian bargaining will lead to the same result regardless of how property rights are initially distributed.  E.g. CNOOC is going to be drilling (or financing the drilling and taking the product), the only question is whether they pay a royalty to Manila and how much. The amount of the royalty is of no consequence to US national security.  What does matter is that international norms of rule of law be respected because that is at the heart of the postwar world system the US led and helped build.  Hence why I think the State Dept communique got it right - PRC should be held to the standards that apply to all treaty signatories but they are perfectly free to cut their own bilateral deal with Manila.

[grumbler]

Taiwan has a military garrison and airstrip in the South China Sea.  I think they occupy one of the largest islands, but only one.  It is a legacy of their RoC days.  The island is politically important to them because they want to show that they are still a player in international diplomacy.  It is a high profile issue in their elections, and the two major parties struggle to show to voters that they care.  Already the opposition Nationalist party (which is closer to Beijing) is attacking the ruling DPP (which advocates eventual independence) of not doing enough in South China Sea.  The reason it may affect Taiwanese relations with Beijing is because if played well, the Nationalists may gain politically at the expense of the DPP.  If the Nationalists use this as leverage to regain their popularity, this may be one of the factors that help them win the next election and regain the presidency.   

Taiwan occupies the largest natural island in the Spratleys, but its policy has always been that the dispute is essentially economic and not territorial, and that thus there can be a de facto multilateral agreement on resources while ignoring the de jure disagreements.  That's a position far closer to the position of the other claimants in the region, bar Beijing, than to Beijing's position.  As you note, Taiwan's position on sovereignty is a shadow show for internal consumption.  I doubt that there are many Taiwanese who actually care about the sovereignty issue.

[Valmy]

This ruling works to Beijing's favour.  China is actually suffering from massive floods right now, and the economy isn't doing well.  The ruling diverts attention away from the domestic front. 

Another issue is Taiwan.  Taiwan's claims are ruled illegal in the ruling as well.  This puts Taiwan in the same boat as Beijing.  Taiwan's ruling party doesn't want to get involved in South China Sea.  But this ruling forced them to reaffirm their claims nonetheless, thereby putting Taiwan at odds with Japan and the US.  This would be an opportunity for Beijing to get closer to Taiwan as they share the same interests and claims in South China Sea. 

Well that would be great. One less bullshit thing for us to worry about.

But this is all bullshit and posturing so of course it works to their benefit. They can freely spin something stupid and pointless as beneficial since it will have few consequences either way.

[Monoriu]

Taiwan occupies the largest natural island in the Spratleys, but its policy has always been that the dispute is essentially economic and not territorial, and that thus there can be a de facto multilateral agreement on resources while ignoring the de jure disagreements.  That's a position far closer to the position of the other claimants in the region, bar Beijing, than to Beijing's position.  As you note, Taiwan's position on sovereignty is a shadow show for internal consumption.  I doubt that there are many Taiwanese who actually care about the sovereignty issue.

That island is Taiwan's way of telling the world "hey we still exist".  Taiwanese are very worried that their international diplomatic space will disappear.  There are only like 20-25 states that have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and they are all tiny Latin American and African states (plus the Vatican).  Beijing's position is that Taiwan may only join international organisations as part of China's delegation, and of course the Taiwanese don't want to hear that.  They care about the island not because the island is of any real use to them, but because it is one of the very few tools they still have to stop themselves from sliding into diplomatic oblivion.   

[grumbler]

That island is Taiwan's way of telling the world "hey we still exist".  Taiwanese are very worried that their international diplomatic space will disappear.  There are only like 20-25 states that have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and they are all tiny Latin American and African states (plus the Vatican).  Beijing's position is that Taiwan may only join international organisations as part of China's delegation, and of course the Taiwanese don't want to hear that.  They care about the island not because the island is of any real use to them, but because it is one of the very few tools they still have to stop themselves from sliding into diplomatic oblivion.   

Exactly.  A shadow show for internal consumption.  Very few Taiwanese probably care about what the resolution to the sovereignty/EEZ dispute is, so long as Taiwan has a seat at the negotiations.

[Josquius]

Beijings position  is completely against international law.
Not just in the claiming islands that don't belong to them thing.  But in claiming eezs for rocks that can't support human life.
Though it is an interesting consideration that I don't believe is covered in the rules;  what of man made islands? Could a country just make a island somewhere unclaimed  and have an eez?

[Ancient Demon]

Beijings position  is completely against international law.
Not just in the claiming islands that don't belong to them thing.  But in claiming eezs for rocks that can't support human life.
Though it is an interesting consideration that I don't believe is covered in the rules;  what of man made islands? Could a country just make a island somewhere unclaimed  and have an eez?

I'm quite sure it's already covered that artificial islands do not provide EEZ.

[jimmy olsen]

Needless to say I don't exactly trust Trump's ability to oversee a conflict on this scale.

https://news.vice.com/story/chinese-state-media-says-us-risks-large-scale-war-if-it-blocks-access-to-disputed-islands?

China issued a warning to the incoming Trump administration through its state-run media Friday that the U.S. risks a "large-scale war" if it follows through on Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson's suggestion that the U.S. should block China's access to its growing man-made islands in the South China Sea.

Two Chinese dailies, the saber-rattling Global Times and the English-language China Daily, took aggressive and at times condescending approaches to Tillerson's stance on the issue during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday. China Daily described the would-be secretary of state's comments as a "mish-mash of naiveté, shortsightedness, worn-out prejudices, and unrealistic political fantasies."

Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon Mobil, took a hard line toward China's island-building and expansionist claims in the oft-disputed South China Sea, an international body of water and crucial trade route, and compared the country's recent aggression there to "Russia's taking of Crimea."

China's rapid island-building around the Spratly Islands — an archipelago that has long been a source of tension in the region — was a concern for the Obama administration, which responded by conducting regular "freedom of navigation" operations.

The most recent exercise, involving passing a United States Navy destroyer near the disputed island, elicited an angry response from the Chinese Defense Ministry, which described it as "illegal" and "provocative."

The mission stayed outside the internationally recognized 12-nautical-mile territorial limits of the disputed islands, but within waters China claims as its own. "This operation demonstrated that coastal states may not unlawfully restrict the navigation rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea that the United States and all states are entitled to exercise under international law," Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, said at the time.

James Mattis, Donald Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, reinforced such an approach, as is current U.S. policy, during his confirmation hearing Thursday.

"International waters are international waters, and we've got to figure out how we deal with holding onto the rules we've made over many years." Mattis said, reiterating U.S. responsibilities in preserving freedom of navigation through the contested waters.

Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Brunei all have territorial claims to the Spratly Islands, located along one of the world's busiest trade routes.

"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands is not going to be allowed," Tillerson said during his hearing.

The secretary of state nominee's latter point clearly struck a nerve. "Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories," an unsigned Global Timeseditorial threatened.

Tillerson's remarks would be a notable shift from current policy, one that experts told the Guardian would require a dramatic show of military force that could lead to "a crisis, a military clash."

China's official response was far more tame, but it revealed a key underlying assumption of territorial control over the disputed islands that will likely be a sticking point in future diplomatic discussions. China's foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China had the right to "conduct any kind of normal activities" in its territory and deflected from specifically addressing Tillerson's comments on the U.S. preventing China from accessing the islands.

Tillerson is the latest official in Trump's incoming administration to stake out a hard line on China. Trump's incoming trade representative Robert Lighthizer and leader of the newly formed national trade council Peter Navarro are longtime critics of China and what they see as its regular abuse of free-trade agreements.

Trump frequently criticized China on the campaign trail and has continued to ramp up tension with the nuclear power since winning the presidential election. Between his incoming administration's flirtation with Taiwan, which China deems a threat to its decades-long "One China Policy," his trade appointees' track records, and his go-to Twitter provocations, Trump looks poised to thrust Sino-U.S. relations into new and hostile territory.

[Berkut]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0