South China Sea Forum

[yusheng]

The Chinese Solution For The South China Sea

"chinese rural dog" for SCS

March 11, 2013: Last August the Chinese Navy received its first Type 056 corvette. After extensive testing at sea, this ship (hull number 582) entered service on February 24th. There are at least twenty more 056s under construction and 4-5 more will enter service this year. These ships appear to be playing a crucial role in Chinese efforts to seize control of the South China Sea.

The Type 056s are 1,400 ton ships armed with four C-903 anti-ship missiles (200 kilometers range), a FL-3000N anti-aircraft missile (nine kilometers range) launcher (with eight missiles), two 30mm remotely controlled autocannon and one 76mm gun. The ship has air and sea search radars plus a helicopter platform in the rear and will be used mainly for coastal patrol. The ship is highly automated and has a crew of only 60.

The 056s will replace an aging fleet of Type 053 class frigates. It was one of these ships (the Dongguan) that ran aground on a reef off the Philippines coast near Half Moon Shoal two years ago. This happened 111 kilometers from the Philippines (Palawan Island) and over 1,100 kilometers from the Chinese mainland. Letting a 2,400 ton warship (carrying a crew of 200) move around in these shallow and treacherous waters at night was asking for trouble. The waters west of the Philippines (including all the reefs, shoals, atolls, and islets claimed by China) are shallow and full of obstacles just under the water. Even shallow draft fishing boats proceed carefully and usually just in daylight. GPS and recent efforts to fully map (chart) the area have made it safer but only for those who proceed with care. China eventually got the Dongguan off the reef. A Type 056, which has a shallower draft and more modern navigation systems, would probably not have gone aground in the first place.

China recently upgraded the Dongguan and the other five Type 053H1G frigates, apparently in order keep them in service for another decade or more. Originally built in the 1990s, the six Type 053H1G ships were the last of 53 Type 053s built over about twenty years. Based on the older Russian Riga class frigate, the Chinese expanded the original 1,400 ton Riga (armed with depth charges, three 100mm guns, and torpedoes) design, to a missile laden 2,500 ton vessel equipped with modern electronics. The few Type 053s still in service are mainly used for coastal patrol. But the 053 design grew too large for this job, and the smaller Type 056 sets that right.

 

[yusheng]

The Next Vietnam War

by James Dunnigan

April 8, 2011

China and Vietnam are escalating their low-key struggle to solidify control over the Spratly Islands. Apparently Vietnam believes its improving ties with Russia and the United States will keep the Chinese from crushing their small southern neighbor. The Spratlys are a group of some 100 islets, atolls, and reefs that total only about 5 square kilometers of land, but sprawl across some 410,000 square kilometers of the South China Sea. Set amid some of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the islands are believed to have enormous oil and gas reserves. Several nations have overlapping claims on the group. About 45 of the islands are currently occupied by small numbers of military personnel. China claims them all, but occupies only 8, Vietnam has occupied or marked 25, the Philippines 8, Malaysia 6, and Taiwan one.

Two years ago, Taiwan built a 1,150 meter long, and 30 meter wide air strip on Itu Aba, one of the Spratly Islands, 500 kilometers to the south. Called Taiping Island by the Taiwanese, Ita Aba is one of the largest of Spratly Islands, at about 120 acres (489,600 square meters). It has been in Taiwanese hands since the mid-1950s, and has largely been used as a way station for fishermen. The island is also claimed by the Vietnamese, who call it Thai Binh. Taiwan has long maintained a small military presence on the island, and the new air strip is meant to cement that control. Protests were made by Vietnam, which controls the largest group of islands, and the Philippines, which also claims Itu Aba island. The Vietnamese earlier refurbished an old South Vietnamese airstrip on Big Spratly Island. Recently, both the Chinese and Vietnamese were seen building more structures, including armed bunkers, on the Spratly islands they occupy. Malaysia has built an air strip on its Spratly island, which it uses to fly in tourists looking for prime scuba diving.

In 1988, China and Vietnam fought a naval battle, off the Spratly islands. The Chinese victory, in which a Chinese warship sank a Vietnamese transport carrying troops headed for one of the disputed islands, was followed by Chinese troops establishing garrisons on some of the islands. In 1992, Chinese marines landed on Da Lac reef, in the Spratly Islands. In 1995, Chinese marines occupied Mischief Reef, which was claimed by the Philippines.

The small countries all fear that China will eventually make good on its long-standing claim to all the Spratlys, as well as all similar islands and reefs in the South China Sea. At that point, the international community will have to worry about continued free passage through an area that currently sees about two trillion dollars worth of cargo moved through each year.

The problem here is that China has a very different concept of "coastal waters" than does the rest of the world. International law (the 1994 Law of the Sea treaty) recognizes the waters 22 kilometers from land as under the jurisdiction of the nation controlling the nearest land. That means ships cannot enter these "territorial waters" without permission. Moreover, the waters 360 kilometers from land are considered the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), of the nation controlling the nearest land. The EEZ owner can control who fishes there, and extract natural resources (mostly oil and gas) from the ocean floor. But the EEZ owner cannot prohibit free passage, or the laying of pipelines and communications cables. China claims that foreign military ships cannot enter its EEZ, and sometimes uses force (usually with Chinese owned fishing or cargo ships) to try and persuade them to leave. It is feared that eventually China will use one of its growing number of warships to challenge some foreign warship "invading" its EEZ. The 1994 treaty says nothing about blocking warships from your EEZ, but some nations believe it is allowed. China is simply doing what China has been doing for centuries, trying to impose its will on neighbors, or anyone venturing into what China considers areas under its control.

For the last two centuries, China has been prevented from exercising its "traditional rights" in nearby waters because of the superior power of foreign navies (first the cannon armed European sailing ships, then, in the 19th century, newly built steel warships from Japan). However, since the communist took over China 60 years ago, there have been increasingly violent attempts to reassert Chinese control over areas that have long (for centuries) been considered part of the "Middle Kingdom" (or China, as in the "center of the world").

 

[Viet]

Stennis Strike Group Operates in the South China Sea


Story Number: NNS130407-02 Release Date: 4/7/2013 8:55:00 AM A A A
By Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Kathleen O'Keefe

SOUTH CHINA SEA (April 5, 2013) The guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53) pulls the alongside the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74). John C. Stennis is deployed to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts.


SOUTH CHINA SEA (NNS) -- The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) conducted flight operations April 5 in conjunction with maritime security patrols while steaming across the South China Sea.

Stennis routinely performs aircraft launch and recovery operations in cooperation with other U.S. ships in its strike group to enhance regional security and maintain operational readiness.

"We are excited to be back in 7th Fleet and the South China Sea," said Capt. John Beaver, commander of Destroyer Squadron 21. "We have long standing partnerships in this region and an ongoing presence here is evidence of our enduring commitment to the peace and stability of Southeast Asia."

Crisscrossing the South China Sea are vital international shipping lanes where nearly one-third of the world's shipping passes through. The sea and small islands inside it are also subject to territorial disputes by many countries in the region due in part to the belief that the area contains large oil and gas reserves.

The John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSCSG) entered the South China Sea April 4 after concluding a successful three-day port visit to the Republic of Singapore where Stennis hosted a formal reception for distinguished guests from Singapore and the U.S. Embassy. Sailors also took part in community relations projects and experienced local cultures.

Stennis entered U.S. 7th Fleet March 26 after spending nearly five months in U.S. 5th Fleet supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. The strike group also participated in theater security cooperation exercises with ships from nations who are equally committed to this region including the Royal Navy frigate HMS Monmouth (F 235), the French destroyer FS Chevalier Paul (D621), and the Royal Australian Navy frigate HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156).

The John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, consisting of Stennis, Carrier Air Wing Nine (CVW 9), Destroyer Squadron 21 and guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), is forward deployed to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility promoting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts.

For more information on JCSCSG, visit www.stennis.navy.mil or www.facebook.com/stennis74.>
For more information, visit www.navy.mil, www.facebook.com/usnavy, or www.twitter.com/usnavy.>
For more news from USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), visit www.navy.mil/local/cvn74/.

 

[Maxtini]

UNCLOS define EEZ, therefore of course claim of EEZ has to be based on UNCLOS. But there is not law that say claim has to be based on EEZ.

UNCLOS is legally binding when all claimant/parties agree to be subjected by it, same as territory claim by ICJ.
and also

???
I don;t understand you language? UNCLOS set precedence for the existence of EEZ, before UNCLOS, there are no concept such as EEZ or archipelago water, and a country's sovereign territorial waters only extend beyond 6 km from it's coastline.

States that did not enforce UNCLOS, only have 6 km sovereign territorial waters beyond its coastline, such as the case of Aegean Sea of Greece.

So it is impossible not to invoke UNCLOS to claim an EEZ, except states that arrogant enough to do what it wants such as China and US.

As per Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which China ratified (well, US did not to ratified it), article 11 states that:
"Article 11
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of
instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed"


Furthermore:
"Article 27
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform
a treaty. This rule is with out prejudice to article 46."

The very act of China to ratified the Law of Treaties and UNCLOS itself meant China agree to be bound by the treaty. It does not matter whether other countries ratified the treaty or not, once came into force (UNCLOS came into force in 1994), all ratified countries will be bound by it. US, which did not ratify the treaty, won't be bound anyway.

And so we came back to the conclusion that I made earlier:
"China has become worse than United States, arrogant enough to act unilaterally against international law and convention it ratified."

 

[Viet]

???
The very act of China to ratified the Law of Treaties and UNCLOS itself meant China agree to be bound by the treaty. It does not matter whether other countries ratified the treaty or not, once came into force (UNCLOS came into force in 1994), all ratified countries will be bound by it. US, which did not ratify the treaty, won't be bound anyway.

And so we came back to the conclusion that I made earlier:
"China has become worse than United States, arrogant enough to act unilaterally against international law and convention it ratified."

Exactly, in short China signed the treaty but does not respect VN´s EEZ, while it expects Vietnam to respect its boundary. Their so-called f... 9-dash stands above everything, as they lie to the world without shame they discovered the sea since bla bla times (but just made it public recently).

Who says Chinese have no sense of humor?

 

[JSCh]

???
I don;t understand you language? UNCLOS set precedence for the existence of EEZ, before UNCLOS, there are no concept such as EEZ or archipelago water, and a country's sovereign territorial waters only extend beyond 6 km from it's coastline.

States that did not enforce UNCLOS, only have 6 km sovereign territorial waters beyond its coastline, such as the case of Aegean Sea of Greece.

So it is impossible not to invoke UNCLOS to claim an EEZ, except states that arrogant enough to do what it wants such as China and US.

As per Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which China ratified (well, US did not to ratified it), article 11 states that:
"Article 11
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of
instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed"


Furthermore:
"Article 27
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform
a treaty. This rule is with out prejudice to article 46."

The very act of China to ratified the Law of Treaties and UNCLOS itself meant China agree to be bound by the treaty. It does not matter whether other countries ratified the treaty or not, once came into force (UNCLOS came into force in 1994), all ratified countries will be bound by it. US, which did not ratify the treaty, won't be bound anyway.

And so we came back to the conclusion that I made earlier:
"China has become worse than United States, arrogant enough to act unilaterally against international law and convention it ratified."

Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS ratification
Article 310, 287 and 298 are all part of UNCLOS. China invoke all three articles as is within her right under UNCLOS.
All this articles are part of the treaty that member state signed/rectified. They are presented as part of UNCLOS.

 

[Maxtini]

You are right, but from what the Chinese Claim, the UNCLOS present a double Jeapordy case here.

Chinese claim the land are theirs or the land are the extension of their seabed, so it's obiviously the 9 *** line is the extent of what all that island expanded. (If the landmass are their's, then each island would have an extended EEZ on each and every island they claim.)

I don't think Chinese claim are base on extended seabed. Especially towards the claim of North Natuna sea. Extension of 200 nm won't reach Natuna Sea, as such China call them "traditional fisihing ground area" (中国传统捕鱼&#21306.

For UNCLOS to work, China need to first proof the island are there in the first place, if so, then the EEZ expansion is legally under internatonal law defined. If not, if the island does not belong to the Chinese, then Chinese cannot have the EEZ extented over these island chain.

You assume the 9 dash line defines the EEZ, but it's not, as in order to claim, you need to declared your baseline, coordinates, and delimitation, etc. China has been so far fail to make such declaration. Otherwise, the shape of China's claim won't be smooth U line, but rigid such as Malaysia's and Phillipines claim.

However, UNCLOS only come into play when China extented their intention to expand their EEZ by more than 200nm, say they want to set their EEZ to 400nm, then they are bounded by UNCLOS, otherwise it's a matter of international border dispute.
Bear in mind, EEZ still consider "International Water" there are no national boundary in one's EEZ. You cannot claim the EEZ is yours unless you have a land mass that mark the coastal boundary, that's where those rock are coming in to plays.

Rocks does not constitute coastal boundary. British Rockall rock is the classic example. Although it was administered and control by the British, it was ignored in defining British EEZ.

YOU CANNOT OWN AN EXCLUISIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AS IT COUNTED AS INTERNATIONAL WATER UNDER UNCLOS

But you own the resources, that's why a lot of dispute flares up.

If you look at the EEZ of the Philippine you would know the Northern island Chain of Philippine serve as the extension of the EEZ with them marked as national boundry. Without those island chain, their EEZ cannot exceed 200nm (It's nearly 400 with the island chain). It's the same case in SCS, if they can proof the Island is theirs, then they can proof that was their EEZ, it's simple as that.

Notice how Cordillera Administrative region in philippine expanded their EEZ beyond 200nm? It's the same claim the Chinese are using. It's always about the land, not about the EEZ. If you have the land, you WILL have the EEZ

I think you misunderstand how EEZ is drawn.
Archipelagic States (Philippines, Indonesia, Japan etc) are entitled to draw their baseline connecting each of their islands, all water inside those baseline are considered internal water (complete sovereignty) and is not EEZ. The dark blue is internal water and the lightest is the EEZ extended 200 nm from the baseline. The EEZ still extends 200 nm, not 400 nm as you assume.

Notice that the Philippines does not draw its baseline on Scarborough shoal and spratlys, that's because they are constitute of reefs and banks, which accroding to UNCLOS, cannot be used to draw baseline

Even if they can be used to draw baseline, they will be treated as their own regimes. China cannot draw baseline connecting its mainland to paracel and spratly because simply China is not archiplagic states. Their islands are to be drawn baseline separately from the Mainland. Under UNCLOS, it is impossible to have that kind of U-shape.

It ashame I cannot post image to clarify my statement because my posts are less than 30.

 

[Maxtini]

Article 310, 287 and 298 are all part of UNCLOS. China invoke all three articles as is within her right under UNCLOS.
All this articles are part of the treaty that member state signed/rectified. They are presented as part of UNCLOS.

Article 310 allow signing state to make a declarations, but clearly say it may not "purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention". It does not simply say, because China make a declaration, it may choose not to be bound by any of the UNCLOS article.

"Article 310. Declarations and statements "Article 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."

Article 287 and 298 specified that if dispute occured, state can choose which forum the dispute be settled or exclude the compulsory binding procedure. It does not mean China can arbitrarily draw boundary line that does not conform UNCLOS.

"Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept."
"In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes"

None of article 310, 287, 298 say China may not legally bound by UNCLOS.

 

[Malaya]

China really needs to revisit one of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III (UNCLOS III), specifically the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), and understand this law. This EEZs by definition "extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources.

In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important." China seems to show they lack knowledge about this law, they pretend to know more but it just doesn't show. They really need to learn more and think more like responsible people do. Geographically, China is not even located within 200 miles (320 km) of the Spratly Islands- Google Earth and the world map will prove this.

Their contention that the Spratlys are theirs because it is in South China Sea, even if beyond 200 nautical miles from their territorial baseline as allowed in the UNCLOS III, shows their lack of knowledge of the law. Indian Ocean is a huge ocean named after the country India but it doesn't mean India owns it (Chinese people should learn about this). Likewise, South China sea is not owned by China, it is only named after their country. Ownership of the Spratly Islands is governed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Obviously China doesn't understand the provision of this law.

 

[Malaya]

China's position hasn't changed. It's using its superior size and military strength to bully its weaker neighbors to claim those islands that are thousands of miles away from its shores.

80 km from the Malaysian coast

1800 km from the Chinese mainland

 

[shuttler]

China's position hasn't changed. It's using its superior size and military strength to bully its weaker neighbors to claim those islands that are thousands of miles away from its shores.

80 km from the Malaysian coast

1800 km from the Chinese mainland

Distance is not a factor in considering historic sovereign territories owned by China.

China is not bullying any one. If we are, Philippines is now in ashes.

"chinese rural dog" for SCS

What is this?

 

[jhungary]

Maybe you misread the Chinese claim.......

I don't think Chinese claim are base on extended seabed. Especially towards the claim of North Natuna sea. Extension of 200 nm won't reach Natuna Sea, as such China call them "traditional fisihing ground area" (中国传统捕鱼&#21306.

No. Chinese claim based on the Archipelagic waters. It's based on Sovereignty Island ownership like Cooks island and Christmas island owned by Australia Hence their baseline and territories water, not EEZ, extended from the outermost point of the 9 dotted line. The catch is, China purpose all those island chain are part of their whole Archipelagic baselines. (IE 1 island instead of 500)

Australian EEZ

China is using the claim Australian made in their EEZ in regard of Heard and McDonald Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Norfolk Island and Macquarie Island

They are external territories not Archipelagic states.

Same as US claiming Guam, Puerto, Hawaii and other external territories.....

If Chinese claim baselines have to work, China need to show proof that they own the island (The whole things) in the first place.

Also, Natuna island chain is a collective islands Archipelago itself unchallenged by Indonesian authority. The Chinese are claiming the Water over NE part (Which touching the claimant Spartly Islands EEZ). You have mistaken the Natuna and the water near the Natuna.

You assume the 9 dash line defines the EEZ, but it's not, as in order to claim, you need to declared your baseline, coordinates, and delimitation, etc. China has been so far fail to make such declaration. Otherwise, the shape of China's claim won't be smooth U line, but rigid such as Malaysia's and Phillipines claim.

I do not assume 9 dash line defines the EEZ. 9 dotted line define the Line of control. China did not claim 9 dotted line as their EEZ, China claim all within 9 dotted line are to be their territorial water as they are the part of Archipelagic baselines the once own.

Rocks does not constitute coastal boundary. British Rockall rock is the classic example. Although it was administered and control by the British, it was ignored in defining British EEZ.

But you own the resources, that's why a lot of dispute flares up.

Rock does not count as Archipelago, this point you are right, but a collective of island (including rock) counted as a Archipelagic baselines. This is as defines as Part IV of UNCLOS.

The British Rockfall rock does not have any island that related to, it's very much extremely different than the SCS as you have a lot of island some habitable and some uninhabitable some even have functioning airfield in it. The problem is, under UNCLOS, if you count the Archipelagic baselines, you have to includes both rock and island. as their extended Baseline.

The rock in itself does not count for anything, but if they are accompanied by rock. Given the rock is not 12 nm off the island, they are part of something called "Inland Water"

Quote on UNCLOS Part IV article 46

"archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such

Rock is a natural features

I think you misunderstand how EEZ is drawn.
Archipelagic States (Philippines, Indonesia, Japan etc) are entitled to draw their baseline connecting each of their islands, all water inside those baseline are considered internal water (complete sovereignty) and is not EEZ. The dark blue is internal water and the lightest is the EEZ extended 200 nm from the baseline. The EEZ still extends 200 nm, not 400 nm as you assume.

Notice that the Philippines does not draw its baseline on Scarborough shoal and spratlys, that's because they are constitute of reefs and banks, which accroding to UNCLOS, cannot be used to draw baseline

Even if they can be used to draw baseline, they will be treated as their own regimes. China cannot draw baseline connecting its mainland to paracel and spratly because simply China is not archiplagic states. Their islands are to be drawn baseline separately from the Mainland. Under UNCLOS, it is impossible to have that kind of U-shape.

It ashame I cannot post image to clarify my statement because my posts are less than 30.

I think you misunderstood what I said.

If China want to claim the EEZ to 400nm off their baseline, they need to talk to UNCLOS about it.

However, if it stayed 200nm but they claim the land mass over some island. The ownership of those land have nothing to do with UNCLOS. If they can claim owner ship of those island, they do not even need to talk to UNCLOS to explain their EEZ, as they are given.

My point being, people focus on China violate the UNCLOS. But if China can indeed proof the island belong to their in the first place, while they need to see if the claim of external territories are justified first. Which is NOT The matter of UNCLOS.

UNCLOS have not authority in this case, they are claiming the island, NOT the EEZ.

 

[yusheng]

"chinese rural dog" for SCS

What is this?

to Shuttler:

As wolf was nickname of submarine, Chinese rural dog 中华田园犬 is only a nickname for this new indigenous corvette in some chinese military websites. Just neglect it if you don't like it.



about bullying, what our authorities doing now on the seas is just actions protecting our rights, you can easy to find how the viet and phili authorities have done to our fishermen. in the near future, they will burst into more loud sobs from time to time, but we just do what we should do.

There is no "bullying", there are disputes, disputes are not bullying.


negotiation is good to solve the disputes, but needs economic and military power to support when they still believe in power and try to unite or to lead Jap or Us in the disputes.

 

[shuttler]

We can just add 4 stars on each of all the paintings and the territories are ours. Thank you vietnam for the paintjobs!

 

[Fsjal]

We can just add 4 stars on each of all the paintings and the territories are ours. Thank you vietnam for the paintjobs!

Wouldn't that be graffiti since you are just adding 4 more stars. Pretty much everyone in Vietnam would rage