What's new

China told to behave in the South China Sea ... or else

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
70
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
China told to behave in the South China Sea ... or else
OCTOBER 7, 2015

THE most powerful navy officer on earth, US Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Scott Swift, has fired a broadside at China and other regional nations who are flouting international law in the South China Sea.

Speaking to a high-powered audience that included senior navy officers from more than a dozen countries at the Pacific 2015 expo in Sydney on Tuesday, Admiral Swift warned that “friction points” at sea and the “might makes right” approach of some countries (China) could lead to all out conflict in one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.

“If we are not willing to commit to resolve these differences peacefully, leveraging the tools of the international rules-based system that has served us so well for so long …. then are we willing to accept the likelihood that imposed solutions to these national differences at sea will seek us out in our supposed sanctuaries ashore,” he said.

Admiral Swift has some 250,000 sailors and marines, 2000 aircraft, 200 ships and 43 nuclear submarines under his direct command.

8c950b03c4cfac94ed23aa4a0e715eac

Significant construction and dredging shown at the appropriately named Mischief Reef.Source:Getty Images

In a direct slap at China and its island building activities and no fly zones in the South China Sea, Admiral Swift said freedom of navigation could not be halted or encroached.

“It endures regardless of competing maritime claims, no matter how longstanding or disputed regardless of their being conceived by nature or manufactured by man.

It’s feared the tiny man-made islands popping up in the South China Sea could be a “flashpoint” of war. Their significance isn’t just the islands themselves but the ability to enforce sovereignty immediately around them.

As each island appears, China stakes a claim in the sea around it and this is the crux of the issue for China’s neighbours.

About 1500 hectares of land has been reclaimed by the Chinese. It gives the country another 12 nautical miles of territory at each new border, and also creates 200 extra miles of economic zones to dig for oil, gas and to fish in.

Admiral Swift: “There is no more direct path to unravelling the foundation on which this region has built its amazing growth and prosperity than one based on ‘might makes right’.”

108766be4a365cec2074d36f4c38e2f3

A Chinese vessel, top center, is used to expand structures and land on the Johnson Reef.Source:AAP

He said he believed several countries, including China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan saw freedom of the seas as being up for grabs.

“Some nations in this region continue to impose superfluous warnings and restrictions on freedom of the seas,” he said.

“If even one of these restrictions were successful it would be a major blow to the international rules based system with ramifications well beyond the maritime domain.”

Speaking to the media after his speech, Admiral Swift said his warning did not apply only to China but to other nations around the world that challenged the global order and international law.

“We can’t afford to ignore the challenges and so many are focused on the South China Sea.”

Australia’s top military brass declined to join the debate during the opening session of the Seapower conference.

Army chief Lieutenant General Angus Campbell described the South China Sea situation as ‘very complicated’ and urged all sides to keep talking.

“When we stop talking things can become very bad,” he said.

94e4dbcf79b79cad2f990b8c1818f751

US Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Scott Swift.Source:Supplied

Navy boss Vice-Admiral Tim Barrett said coercion must be opposed in all its forms.

When asked if they had concerns for Australian troops and flyers operating in and around Syria given Russia’s intervention the chiefs insisted there was no increased threat to our forces.

The tension has been building in the disputed area for several months. It escalated in June when it was revealed that China tested hypersonic glide vehicles capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

It was the fourth time the missiles had been tested in 18 months and was viewed as a show of aggression by the US. Beijing denied it was a show of force and insisted the tests were “normal” experiments that weren’t directed at any particular country.

A month later the Philippines announced plans to station fighter jets and frigates on a former US naval base facing the growing islands. That country, along with Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam have a stake in the region.

And at various times Japan has waded into the controversy, telling China it was acting “unilaterally and without compromise”.

The dispute has obvious implications for the rest of the world. Countries like Australia risk being dragged into it — either directly in an all out war — or being caught in a diplomatic headache where Canberra has to balance its economic interest with Asia against its defence pact with the US, its strongest ally.

Earlier this year RMIT Deputy Dean, Global and Language Studies Professor Joseph Siracussa said the area was an “eight-and-half out of ten” in terms of its dangerousness.

“It might not be a nuclear war but it would be a hell of a mess and Australia and all of its neighbours would be dragged in,” he said.

***

Notes on the article:

1. The general looks cute. When one ages and loses hair, it is advisable to shave it off. It will make one look a lot younger.

2. We share the concern about freedom of navigation with the general.

3. We ensure that we will protect freedom of navigation at all cost.

4. Talking tough and throwing threats at others at such a high level decreases the importance of the position. Remember, general, you will go one day, but the position will stay.

5. We believe that there is no flash point in SCS except the destabilizing presence of the US militarized diplomacy.

6. We will make sure that we take care of our interests, including the safety of international sea lines, and leave yours to you.

7. Our islands are growing at regular speed and you can do nothing about that. These islands are the part of a capacity build-up strategy. Hence, if we do not build-up, we cannot protect sea trade and navigation. So, we will.

8. Save some of your tough talking points for a later development like the upcoming ADIZ on SCS.

9. Might makes right. Indeed. Ask your perennial teacher and mentor, Alfred T. Mahan.

10. China is a larger trading nation than yours. So, first and foremost, it is our duty to ensure the safety of trade.
 
Last edited:
.
Time for a U.S. Military Strategy to Stop China in the South China Sea

15767587817_1f29678870_b_2.jpg

As any close observer knows, the South China Sea is a rapidly evolving—and increasingly perilous—strategic arena. China’s assertion that almost the entire sea is “indisputably” Chinese territory has been backed by a rapid buildup of maritime military power and an audacious series of land grabs. The most dramatic of these has been the construction of multiple artificial islands. The military utility of these formations has hardly been disguised. On Fiery Cross Reef, for example, a long military runway with attendant radars is being constructed.

Reactions among Southeast Asian claimants to maritime tensions in the South China Sea have varied along a spectrum of alarm, fear, anger, defiance, and resignation. There is no indication that Beijing regards any of these countries—Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the Philippines—as a serious impediment to Chinese ambitions over the near to medium term.

The only nation seen as capable of seriously constraining China is the U.S. But from Beijing’s standpoint, America has no business “interfering” in a region far from its shores and where its interests are secondary compared to China’s. For Beijing, Washington’s insistence on maintaining a military presence in the South China Sea is provocative, destabilizing and illegitimate. A distinguished Chinese professor speaking at a recent conference in Washington described America as acting like a “gangster boss” in the South China Sea.

China is driving events and has presented the U.S. with a fraught choice: acquiesce to China’s authority over the South China Sea and preserve harmony in U.S.-China relations or challenge Beijing’s ambitions at potentially great risk and cost. Whether fully cognizant of the implications or not, the Obama Administration’s embrace of the pivot/rebalance to Asia was to opt for the latter.

The fact that China’s claim to the South China Sea are without legal merit makes little difference in the hard world of geopolitics. Chinese leaders, backed by their publics, believe the South China Sea is theirs. This is a drama animated by nationalism as fierce and deep as any on the planet. A U.S. counterstrategy, if it is to have any prospect of success, will have to enlist the full range of national capabilities and assets. Thus economic negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership are critical to the overall strategy. But in the immediate term the challenge is military. If China’s military deployments and land seizures are not checked, the rest of the region, including the U.S., will be confronted with an irreversible fait accompli.

It is therefore appropriate (and necessary) that the pivot/rebalance has taken on a distinctly military coloration since its first presentation by Secretary of State Clinton. The burden of making the rebalance real has fallen on the Pentagon—and more particularly on U.S. Pacific Command. So far their initiatives have been significant but modest—new Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore, some Marines to Darwin, and a commitment to deploy the bulk of the U.S. Navy to the Pacific and to equip those forces with the most advanced systems available. A new operational concept, Air-Sea-Battle (now renamed JAM-GC), is under redevelopment but still largely under wraps. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has declared that Chinese island building will not deter U.S. forces from patrolling and deploying in the South China Sea as they always would. In other words, the new “islands” have no standing as sovereign jurisdictions with territorial seas or economic zones under international law.

What has been missing is a U.S. military strategy designed to effectively stop further Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. Such a strategy should begin with an affirmative assertion of U.S. interests—the South China Sea must be preserved as a global commons and free of coercion. It might include the following:

- U.S. Pacific forces should maintain a continuous 24/7 365 presence in the South China Sea. They should deploy, as Secretary Carter indicated, with no regard for Chinese claims that its artificial islands have sovereign rights. This should include—and here the risks are obvious—air and naval transit within 12 nm of at least one of these features.

Time for a U.S. Military Strategy to Stop China in the South China Sea | The National Interest Blog
 
.
China told to behave in the South China Sea ... or else? Or else what?

The US of A has shown no spunk in the SCS. It's all jabber and blabber and no action. It would be interesting to see the Chinese calling the U.S bluff and continue doing what they're doing.
 
. .
China told to behave in the South China Sea ... or else? Or else what?

The US of A has shown no spunk in the SCS. It's all jabber and blabber and no action. It would be interesting to see the Chinese calling the U.S bluff and continue doing what they're doing.

That's in fact what has been going on.

That;s why I advise the US not to use high-ranking officials to deliver heated rhetoric. Leave it to lower ranks; otherwise, the significance of the position declines.

Do not they see they are and are to be ignored. If they know they are to be ignored, why would they not use low rank officials to deliver messages.

we are doing what we want to do in China's south sea for more than 1 year time!


In here, I need to remind everyone in PDF, there is no SCS in this world, Only China's south sea!

Do not get me wrong!

Well said.
 
. . . .
you are wrong. When Japan Imperial was strong, Japan Invaded in to China. Take it, kid.

When dinosaur rules the earth, Human dont not even exist. Welcome to 2015 where Japan is below China and China stronger than ever. While vietnam continued to be that weak. Dont even have single destroyer warship. :lol:
 
.
10. China is a larger trading nation than yours. So, first and foremost, it is our duty to ensure the safety of trade.


Well said bro! The "Or else ..." part is best, can't wait to see.

7 out of 10 busiest ports are in China, at least 124 nations have China as largest trading partner, China's port container traffic (Mainland alone, excluding HK) is like 4 times that of US!

Naturally, ensuring freedom of navigation is definitely no lesser a Chinese duty than any smaller trading countries like the US.


Container port traffic (TEU: 20 foot equivalent units) | Data | Table
Container Port Traffic (TEU: 20 foot equivalent units) 2013
China 174,080,330
United States 44,255,378

Singapore 33,516,343
Korea, Rep. 22,582,700
Hong Kong SAR, China 22,352,000
Malaysia 21,426,791
Japan 19,688,382
United Arab Emirates 19,336,427
Germany 19,039,315
 
Last edited:
.
When dinosaur rules the earth, Human dont not even exist. Welcome to 2015 where Japan is below China and China stronger than ever. While vietnam continued to be that weak. Dont even have single destroyer warship. :lol:

just a waiting for a time, we should have destroyers and carrier too.:sarcastic:
 
.
The US is not a signatory of the UNCLOS. As a non-signatory it has no right to make any claims based on that treaty nor to enforce any part of that treaty with force or otherwise. Doing so is a declaration of war.

US waters stop 12 miles off the coast of Hawaii, California and Alaska. Full stop. Anything else is "might makes right".
 
.
The US has no leg to stand on since it's not even a claimant. China's land reclamation are our own business period. Does the US admiral expect China to "behave" when he threw this warning at us? As if China is trembling with fear from this lousy threat. The whole circus show of US "involvement" hailed by the Viets and Pinoys here is nothing but a big joke. They think the US can tell us what to do. Extremely naive considering the fact the US can only send some surveillance plane shooting photos and the wackos think the US has penetrated China's airspace. Wasn't the goal telling us to stop?
Well we ain't seeing anything like that happening are we? As a matter of fact we are going full throttle.

The Admiral can wake China up if he decides to send his whole Fleet to warn us IF he has the guts to face our DF-21 and DF-26.
 
.
Well said bro! The "Or else ..." part is best, can't wait to see.

7 out of 10 busiest ports are in China, at least 124 nations have China as largest trading partner, China's port container traffic (Mainland alone, excluding HK) is like 4 times that of US!

Naturally, ensuring freedom of navigation is definitely no lesser a Chinese duty than any smaller trading countries like the US.


Container port traffic (TEU: 20 foot equivalent units) | Data | Table
Container Port Traffic (TEU: 20 foot equivalent units) 2013
China 174,080,330
United States 44,255,378

Singapore 33,516,343
Korea, Rep. 22,582,700
Hong Kong SAR, China 22,352,000
Malaysia 21,426,791
Japan 19,688,382
United Arab Emirates 19,336,427
Germany 19,039,315

That's the entire point and many thanks for empirically backing it up.

What makes the US general think that only his country is entitled to worry about safety and freedom of navigation? If the level of US presence is an indication of its worry, then, Singapore, too, should have a military presence in the region some 70% that of US.

Besides, further crowding the congested waters with warships will only complicate the matters.

US needs to come to its senses that, as the largest trading nation in the known history of humankind, China is more than capable as well as willing to take on the challenge of providing safety and freedom of maritime navigation.

The developed islands are the pieces of this very intention.
 
.
That's the entire point and many thanks for empirically backing it up.

What makes the US general think that only his country is entitled to worry about safety and freedom of navigation? If the level of US presence is an indication of its worry, then, Singapore, too, should have a military presence in the region some 70% that of US.

Besides, further crowding the congested waters with warships will only complicate the matters.

US needs to come to its senses that, as the largest trading nation in the known history of humankind, China is more than capable as well as willing to take on the challenge of providing safety and freedom of maritime navigation.

The developed islands are the pieces of this very intention.

Thats a lot of bull i think you people need to come to your senses that claiming a whole sea is stupid illogical and expansionist.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom