South China Sea Forum

[jhungary]

Lol. Military installation are there to maintain peace in the area, so its for peaceful purpose. Again you cannot change out words in a legal document.

dude, you are changing the word on a legal document.

Article301

Peaceful uses of the seas

In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention, States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

Unless you don't count your military as part of "force" then building military building to accommodate military force is a use of force, as you deploy your force in that barrack or port, hence, you used your force. Unless you solely build a barrack and not occupying it. Then that would not be a barrack, it will simply be a building.

If China controls it, then sure it can.

Yeah, tell that to your embassy

 

[Abacin]

CN collapsed about 100 times in history

But each time China became bigger.

 

[TaiShang]

China: We're Ready for War If US Continues to 'Make a Fool of Itself' in South China Sea

America: Making friends everywhere it goes!

As part of Obama's ingenious “pivot to Asia”, Washington has decided to challenge Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed on Tuesday that a U.S. warship “had passed within 12 miles of a Chinese artificial island.” Considering that China is ringed by U.S. naval bases, starting in Japan and snaking down to South Korea, it's not difficult to imagine why China is “sort of upset” about these latest developments.

Although a top Chinese admiral announced today that Beijing was open to dialogue with the U.S. regarding the South China Sea, the Chinese government seems to be running out of patience. In response to the U.S. maneuvers, Beijing called the action illegal, summoned the U.S. Ambassador, and then warned the U.S. not to “make a fool of itself”. Oh, and China is ready to take all necessary measures to protect its legitimate interests in the region. Watch this incredible video of Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang slamming Washington:

Here is the video of the statement: China: We're Ready for War If US Continues to 'Make a Fool of Itself' in South China Sea

American global hegemony is over. The sooner Washington accepts this, the better.

 

[Zsari]

dude, you are changing the word on a legal document.

Which word did I change? Peaceful purpose is very different from neutral or demilitarize. The UN will say the deployment of peace keeper are for peaceful purpose, US states its military presence are for peaceful purpose, and China have already said the island construction are for peaceful purpose. Lol. Whether you believe it or not is another matter.

 

[terranMarine]

China warns US not to make fool of itself over South China Sea – video | World news | The Guardian

 

[TaiShang]

There you go, a smart, business oriented country. If they are rational actors, these medium/small countries will balance both China and the US without favoring one strongly against the other.

Hence, Australia is smart to on the one hand preach "oh, freedom of navigation“ while not actually taking a hard stance, and on the other, do business with everybody.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Was not expecting that, this is a bold move that shows China is both serious and confident. I wonder what it will mean from now on? If China militarizes islands fully will it then regulate who can enter space near them or allow US sailing?

It was going to happen anyway, and as we've said we're not trying to affect freedom of movement in the area. After all most of the merchant ships in the world pass through there.

 

[jhungary]

Which word did I change? Peaceful purpose is very different from neutral or demilitarize. The UN will say the deployment of peace keeper are for peaceful purpose, US states its military presence are for peaceful purpose, and China have already said the island construction are for peaceful purpose. Lol. Whether you believe it or not is another matter.

Again, tell it to your embassy what your definition of "Peaceful Purpose"

 

[Zarvan]

Over the past few days, much ink has been spilled about Indonesia’s rhetoric on the South China Sea disputes as the United States finally conducted a freedom of navigation operation near China’s artificial islands there.

While paying attention to what the world’s fourth largest country thinks is important, observers would do well to look beyond the words of a few individual officials to get a sense for Indonesia’s South China Sea approach.

A case in point was the brouhaha over the comments of Luhut Pandjaitan, one of Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s top advisers. On Tuesday, according to Kyodo News, Pandjaitan said that Indonesia disagreed with the U.S. “power projection,” equating the move with ineffective wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To some, such comments make it seem like Indonesia’s South China Sea position is slightly anti-U.S. – perhaps even pro-Chinese – and that Jakarta may not view Chinese assertiveness there with much alarm. In fact, that could not be further from the truth.

Pandjaitan’s exact comments, which were given offhand in response to a few reporters, ought not to be viewed as an official articulation of Indonesia’s South China Sea policy, which I have detailed at length previously (See: “No, Indonesia’s South China Sea Approach Has Not Changed”). More generally, parsing comments by individual Indonesian officials makes for good headlines but is a bad way to assess policy change because of the diversity of views that can emerge even within a few weeks. Indeed, just last week, Indonesian Defense Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu made the news when he suggested in Beijing that that if regional countries can manage the South China Sea on their own, “there’s no need to involve other parties in resolving the dispute.”

A less hyperbolic and more authoritative and comprehensive version of Jakarta’s approach was what Jokowi himself said in prepared remarks at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, while on his inaugural trip to the United States. As fate would have it, Jokowi wound up speaking just hours after the FONOP had occurred. As I reported for The Diplomat, Jokowi said that while Indonesia was not a South China Sea claimant, the country has an interest in the preservation of regional peace and stability (See: “Indonesia Calls for South China Sea Restraint Amid US-China Tensions”). He implored all sides – not just the United States – to exercise restraint. He also said tensions in the area must be defused through peaceful means based on international law and that China and ASEAN should make progress on a binding code of conduct (CoC).

Though Jokowi did not explicitly mention the illegality of China’s nine-dash line claim or Beijing’s foot-dragging on the CoC, it was clear what he was referring to. Indeed, when asked how Indonesia would manage its relationship with China following his speech, Jokowi acknowledged that Beijing was an “important partner” but spent the second half of his response on the South China Sea issue, clearly indicating its importance even within the Sino-Indonesian relationship. He also directly specified ensuring freedom of navigation as one of the key areas of focus in the South China Sea.

Suggestions that Indonesia’s South China Sea position is slightly ‘pro-China’ and ‘anti-U.S.’ are vastly overstated. If one looks at what Indonesia is doing in the South China Sea, as opposed to what individual Indonesian officials are saying, Jakarta’s actions clearly indicate that such simplistic characterizations could not be further from the truth. In reality, in response to China’s growing assertiveness over the last few years – which has included bold intrusions into Jakarta’s waters – Indonesia has been building up its own capabilities and has pursued closer security ties with other countries including the United States. Under Jokowi, the South China Sea issue has arguably been even more of a focus given the administration’s prickliness on questions of sovereignty and territorial integrity (See: “The Trouble With Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Priorities Under Jokowi”).

Just last week, Indonesia’s legislature authorized a proposal to allocate money for earlier plans to strengthen a military base directed at the resource-rich Natuna Islands, which overlap with China’s nine-dash line. Officials have openly said the plan is motivated by growing tensions in the South China Sea (See: “Why Is Indonesia Building a New South China Sea Military Base?”). In addition to the U.S.-Indonesia defense agreements reached during Jokowi’s visit, maritime security has also featured prominently in engagements between Washington and Jakarta, including during Jokowi’s summit meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama (See: “Exclusive: US, Indonesia Eye New Defense Pacts for Jokowi Visit”). Meanwhile, while Indonesia has pursued closer economic ties with Beijing, military officials admit privately that defense relations remain limited due to lingering mistrust (See: “China and Indonesia Under Jokowi: Show Me The Money”).

To be fair, Pandjaitan’s remarks – though hyperbolic with the comparison between FONOPs and all-out wars – do reflect broader tendencies within Indonesian foreign policy that continue to inform the views of some today. Jakarta has traditionally viewed intervention by major powers with suspicion; it prefers not to take sides between major powers and instead focuses on preserving its own autonomy and exercising regional leadership. And while U.S.-Indonesia relations have been on the uptick, close observers of the relationship know that ties have long been strained by America’s ‘complex’ historical legacy there – as evidenced by its involvement in support for anti-communist rebellions in Indonesia in the 1950s – as well as recent U.S. wars in the Middle East, which are unpopular in the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation.

Pandjaitan may have meant for his South China Sea comments to reflect these general tendencies. His message might have been that Indonesia is neither opposed to U.S. preservation of freedom of navigation nor tolerant of Beijing’s growing assertiveness; Jakarta is merely concerned that U.S. FONOPs would risk exacerbating U.S.-China rivalry, thereby undermining regional stability and Indonesia’s national autonomy by forcing it to pick sides. Such a view is one shared by other regional states and reflects Indonesia’s preference to walk a careful balance between major powers. And we saw similar concerns even before Jokowi came to power. For instance, when Washington announced the rotational basing of 2,500 marines in Darwin, Australia back in 2011 as part of its “rebalance to Asia,” then-Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa declared that the move would create a “vicious cycle of tension and mistrust” between Washington and Beijing where Southeast Asian states may be forced to take sides.

But the broader point is this: while parsing the words of every Indonesian official in search of headlines or policy shifts, outside observers should not be fooled into thinking that these statements represent authoritative articulations of Indonesia’s current position or signal potential change. Rhetoric is often not reality. And actions do speak much louder than words when it comes to Indonesia’s South China Sea policy — if only they were heard.

What’s Behind Indonesia’s South China Sea Rhetoric Amid US-China Tensions? | The Diplomat

@Indos @madokafc @Jakartans@PkDef @anas_nurhafidz @Reashot Xigwin

 

[Viet]

US Navy to send more vessels near artificial islands built by Beijing, says US official; 'We will fly, sail and operate wherever international law permits,' says US Defence Secretary Ash Carter.

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 28 October, 2015, 10:13am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 28 October, 2015, 4:25pm

The USS Lassen guided-missile destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles (22km) of at least one of the land formations claimed by China in the disputed Spratly Islands chain early on Tuesday (local time).

The move infuriated Beijing, which summoned the US ambassador and denounced what it called a threat to its sovereignty.

READ MORE: US ‘playing with fire’: Chinese media’s fury after warship sails near disputed South China Sea islands

"We will do it again," the US official told Agence France-Presse on Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity.


“We sail in international waters at a time and place of our choosing.”

Washington’s move followed months of deliberation by the administration of President Barack Obama and could raise tension in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes and increase strains on US-China relations.

Another US defence official said the Lassen also went within the 12-nautical-mile limits of other reefs and features in the disputed sea claimed by Vietnam and US treaty ally, the Philippines.

US Defence Secretary Ash Carter, testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, initially said only that the US Navy had conducted operations in the South China Sea.

However, under questioning from lawmakers he said the USS Lassen had passed within 12 nautical miles of a Chinese artificial island.

“We will fly, sail and operate wherever international law permits and whenever our operational needs require,” Carter told the Senate.

Read more: Beijing has options if US escalates challenge to its claims in South China Sea

The officials said such “freedom-of-navigation” patrols were expected to become more frequent.

The US destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, an artificial island built up by China in the past year.

The second US defence official said the Lassen was followed at a safe distance by a Chinese ship and no incidents were reported during the 115km passage.

“I would expect that this becomes a regular operation in the South China Sea,” the official said. “This type of operation shouldn’t be seen as provocative.”

The official said the Lassen had been followed for weeks by Chinese vessels before the patrol.

Two other US officials said there was bridge-to-bridge radio communication with the Chinese as the Lassen approached Subi Reef.

One of the officials said the Chinese did not shadow the US warship as closely when it came within 12 nautical miles of the islands claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam.

Carter told the Senate.Subi and nearby Mischief Reef were submerged at high tide before China began a dredging project to turn them into islands in 2014.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 12-nautical mile limits cannot be set around man-made islands built on previously submerged reefs.

The White House said Washington had made clear to Beijing, even during last month’s visit by President Xi Jinping, that the US would fly or sail anywhere that international law allowed and stressed the importance of the South China Sea for commerce.

Watch: China warns US over sea patrols in South China Sea
Asked on Tuesday about the patrol, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said he could not discuss details about military operations, but added: “Our freedom of navigation operations do not assert any specific US rights.”

US State Department spokesman John Kirby told a regular briefing that, “setting this aside, the US-China relationship is vitally important and one we want to see continue to improve and to grow for the benefit of both our countries, not to mention the region”.

A range of security experts have said Washington’s freedom-of-navigation patrols would have to be regular to be effective, given Chinese ambitions to project power deep into maritime Southeast Asia and beyond.

“By [the US] using a guided-missile destroyer, rather than smaller vessels ... they are sending a strong message,” said Ian Storey, of Singapore’s Institute of South East Asian Studies.

“They have also said, significantly, that there will be more patrols – so it really now is up to China how it will respond.”

Watch: US patrols in South China Sea not a problem: Philippine President
Philippine President Benigno Aquino, speaking to foreign correspondents in Manila, said he supported the US naval manoeuvres as an assertion of freedom of navigation and as a means to balance power in the region.

“I think expressing support for established norms of international behaviour should not be a negative for a country,” he said.

“I think everybody would welcome a balance of power anywhere in the world.”

Without identifying China by name, he said “one regional power” has been making “controversial pronouncements” that must not be left unchallenged.

Agence France-Presse, Reuters and Associated Press


War of words: Beijing fumes as US threatens to send more warships near disputed South China Sea islets | South China Morning Post

 

[oproh]

Great to see that the islands being built by China is continuously growing fast, america should sail nearer if they want to learn some great techniques when it comes to island building, too bad they can't.

 

[C130]

it's very simple. a coalition of ships should sail through the area every once in awhile.

U.S+ASEAN.

 

[terranMarine]

it's very simple. a coalition of ships should sail through the area every once in awhile.

U.S+ASEAN.

RUSSIA + CHINA should visit your shores more frequently too

 

[Kyle Sun]

The dog will bark at us with arrogance while its lord is standing beside him.

 

[C130]

RUSSIA + CHINA should visit your shores more frequently too

that is your right, but no one recognizes your claim to the entire SCS.
Tribunal Rules It Can Arbitrate South China Sea Dispute - WSJ

The dog will bark at us with arrogance while its lord is standing beside him.

how much does the U.S trade with China? how much does China trade with ASEAN