Is China Taking the P*** in the South China Sea?

[StringJunky]

The red dotted line is China's claimed territory.

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32941829

 

[iNow]

Worse still, intelligence reveals there is now military equipment being moved on those islands contrary to China's public comments about them being intended for civilian purposes.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-surveillance-on-island-reveals-chinese-arms-1432864632

U.S. surveillance imagery shows China has positioned weaponry on one of the artificial islands it is developing in the South China Sea, American officials said, supporting their suspicions that Beijing has been building up reefs for military purposes.

 

The U.S. imagery detected two Chinese motorized artillery pieces on one of the artificial islands built by China about one month ago. While the artillery wouldn’t pose a threat to U.S. planes or ships, U.S. officials said it could reach neighboring islands and that its presence was at odds with China’s public statements that the reclaimed islands are mainly for civilian use.

[DimaMazin]

Develop yourself. Don't develop enemy. USA and Europe still don't understand benefit of these precepts.Only those who developed China compulsorily should finance war against China.

[CharonY]

Well, the area has always been contested by the neighboring nations. Now for some wild speculations a) China wants to show off supremacy in this region before others can; b) it is a power grab of the Chinese Navy as form of internal power struggle c) it is part of larger scale politicking with the intention to use that area as a bargaining chip, d) someone had too much red bull and vodka.

[dimreepr]

Well, the area has always been contested by the neighboring nations. Now for some wild speculations a) China wants to show off supremacy in this region before others can; b) it is a power grab of the Chinese Navy as form of internal power struggle c) it is part of larger scale politicking with the intention to use that area as a bargaining chip, d) someone had too much red bull and vodka.

 

 

If any nation could, legitimately, challenge China, then ‘d’ would clearly be the answer otherwise take your pick.

[MigL]

The problem is the international agreements that are in place.

Even if neighboring nations can't challenge China ( many can give it a respectable fight and a black eye ), it will draw in others ( US for one ) and next thing you know, we're back in the Balkans and its 1914.

[dimreepr]

The problem is does China feel challenged?

[waitforufo]

The problem is the international agreements that are in place.

Even if neighboring nations can't challenge China ( many can give it a respectable fight and a black eye ), it will draw in others ( US for one ) and next thing you know, we're back in the Balkans and its 1914.

And if we don't stop them we are back in the Sudetenland in 1938. My guess is that the occupant in the White House will choose "piece in our time."

[CharonY]

The problem is the international agreements that are in place.

Even if neighboring nations can't challenge China ( many can give it a respectable fight and a black eye ), it will draw in others ( US for one ) and next thing you know, we're back in the Balkans and its 1914.

 

Actually I think (and I may be wrong as I have not read much on it) that the international agreement argument is a tad iffy. While there were a few agreement that I could find via a quick google search, it seems not to be clear that in any case clear borders have been proposed. Rather there is a kind of gentleman agreement in place (if anything at all).

 

In fact, the disputed area, including the Paracel and Spratly Islands are precisely that: contested. It is a long standing dispute. And one of the issues is of course that while the US has interests there, it is not an actually ASEAN member. Thus, direct interference could go down rather badly, considering the history of Western interference in Asian countries. It is also quite possible that this is a signal from China to the US to either step up (which can lead to ambiguous results even among the other ASEAN nations) or to limit their support, because they do not want to get dragged in. However, the US has renewed negotiations with Vietnam, which indicates some level of support (though the question is then how China is going to react to that). And not all disputing countries may be happy with a stronger US involvement, either.

 

It is easy to say that this has to be stopped, but based on what legal precedence except that one does not want Chinese dominance there? It should also be noted that except Brunei, all claimants have some soft of military installations on the Spratly Islands, for example. So it is not that there was a clear treaty and China is rolling all over them. Rather, it has made the boldest move from all claimants yet (or the most recent which, due to our short memories will always remain the boldest and most urgent one).

 

The one legal part that I could find discusses the fact that artificial islands are not considered to be islands and thus the extension of territory is considered illegal. But I would really need a detailed map and a lot of lines to figure out where the claims start and end, respectively.

Edited June 2, 2015 by CharonY

[iNow]

The problem is does China feel challenged?

For the time being, they need us as much as we need them. There's more symbiosis here than predator/prey.

[DimaMazin]

For the time being, they need us as much as we need them. There's more symbiosis here than predator/prey.

Like Hitler's Germany with USSR before war.

[dimreepr]

For the time being, they need us as much as we need them. There's more symbiosis here than predator/prey.

 

 

Indeed they do but given the history and the investment I doubt they would give it up without a fight.

[MigL]

By international agreements, CharonY, I don't mean land claims, but rather military assistance agreements.

 

The US has definitely pledged to militarily assist in other land claim issues if military force is used, and have moved carrier groups into those areas as a 'show of force' in the past when tensions have ratcheted up. Taiwan, and the islands contested with Japan, come to mind.

I don't know how credible SEATO is anymore, it never did reach the level or status of NATO.

[CharonY]

I see what you mean. I am not sure about the comparison with the Balkans. It seems that China has a rather long history in trying (mostly unsuccessful) to diminish US influence near its waters (and raise its own influence). Neither has much to gain from an open conflict so in that case presenting a fait accompli could actually work in China's favour.

[CaptainPanic]

Dominance means direct access to the oceans. China wants to get direct access to the Pacific and Indian oceans. This is btw also why the US is so concerned with these developments.

 

Direct access is necessary for stability of trade and military options (because nobody can block your ports). Unfortunately for China, it is completely surrounded by other nations.

 

It is my opinion that China is just taking natural steps to increase its influence (an influence which corresponds to the growth of its economy). Naturally, that makes other nations nervous, especially the current dominant nation (the US). But I really do not think that China is looking to invade other countries. China wants to have influence, but prefers to do that through puppet states and contracts, rather than invasion and occupation.

[CharonY]

I think your assessment makes a lot of sense. Also China has an interest of keeping people out of internal affairs which implies that they will not overtly barge into other nations. But expanding influence economically is a strategy that they have been pursuing for quite a while now.