The international-law Irony of U.S. Provocations in South China Sea

[jhungary]

When we travel inside 12nm of Diaoyu, is that legal or illegal, my friend? LOL

I don't know, let's ask @Nihonjin1051

As I said in previous post, claiming and enforcing is on a different aspect, you can claim whatever you want does not mean you own the territories. I am going to use the example again, no one is stopping China from claiming Hawai'i as their territories, however, US will disagree and if China cannot enforce the matter within Hawai'i territorial water, that is the point which render the whole claim useless, not the legitimately of the claim itself.

In short, China can claim Senkaku as their territories, while Japan can claim it as theirs, in Chinese eyes, it would not be illegal as they see sSenkaku or Daioyu Island as their territories, however, in Japanese eyes, they will see it as illegal as they saw Senkaku was theirs. Solution? Either go to court and win the case and have Japan relinquish control, or fight it out in open seas. But then China, again, is doing neither.

LOL your wife is a lawyer specializes in and practices International Law? Iraq war was legal according to US law, not international law.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

China's got nothing to worry about, Nothing LOL

Ok, I'll bite.

First of all, I know you are going to bring out Kofi Annan speech in UK as a proof and this have been debunked many time, and Kofi Annan also said this is his own opinion, this is not the official opinion of UN, nor was it not from any sort of Legal advice (Kofi Annan have a master degree in international relation, not law) I have a degree in international relation, does that mean my word can be treated as legal advice?

What Kofi Annan refer to is that US and UK did not wait for the UNSC for a new round of resolution authorise the war, hence the inconformity, however, as I pointed out in previous post, resolution 678 already authorised armed action ambiguously, there are legally no need to wait for a new round of resolution to authorise the war.

Second point, the war indeed is not conform with UN Charter, however, as I pointed out in resolution 678, the resolution itself give an open ended solution on what if Iraq does not comply with the inspection and declaration. And when resolution 1441 was granted, which represent an ultimatum to the Iraqi government as the final chance to comply with the inspection, and Iraq ultimately refused 1441 in late 2002, prompted the point 34 in UN resolution 678 come into live. which stated a course of action (Did not specified Which course of action) can be pursued if Iraq fail to comply with the resolution. Since the resolution 678 did not specified whether or not War or Armed Response are one of the action suggested, hence it does not rule it out specifically and as a result of the benefit of the doubt, it was allowed to go ahead as it does not stated to be disallow.

Third point is, by saying Iraq war is justified within US law and it was not justified as per Customary International Law itself is a contradiction in term, as both were build based on Common Law system. If it conform with one, then it will conform with the other, you seems to confused about the legality of US under international law. US does not recognize more International Law and International Enforcement body, that does not always mean both law are different to any point, in fact, if you look closely on US Federal Law and Customary International Law, there are a lot of similarity.

And my wife is a Specialist in International Law in fact, it was her position to International Red Cross is the reason why we met in the first place. She was a Swedish Lawyer contracted by IRC to monitor a POW camp I was running at the time. So, between her, Kofi Annan (Which does not have a law degree) and a 4 minutes video on some dude I don't know on YouTube, I will choose my wife any time of day.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

I don't know, let's ask @Nihonjin1051

Nothing, it is our islands that have only one name, Diaoyu.

 

[xunzi]

I don't know, let's ask @Nihonjin1051

As I said in previous post, claiming and enforcing is on a different aspect, you can claim whatever you want does not mean you own the territories. I am going to use the example again, no one is stopping China from claiming Hawai'i as their territories, however, US will disagree and if China cannot enforce the matter within Hawai'i territorial water, that is the point which render the whole claim useless, not the legitimately of the claim itself.

In short, China can claim Senkaku as their territories, while Japan can claim it as theirs, in Chinese eyes, it would not be illegal as they see sSenkaku or Daioyu Island as their territories, however, in Japanese eyes, they will see it as illegal as they saw Senkaku was theirs. Solution? Either go to court and win the case and have Japan relinquish control, or fight it out in open seas. But then China, again, is doing neither.

So let me get this straight, my friend. You are basically telling us that the only way to enforce our territorial integrity is through brute force and if we are not daring to go to war when the US violated our territorial rights, then it means we are a coward. Am I right, my friend? So you see, all international communities can see that it is not us who want to fight a war but it is the US who provoke us into a war. What can we do when a country as reckless as the US is putting the world in danger by provoking another nuclear power for war? If we act childish like an amateur power, then this world would perish easily by a simple provocative US maneuver. Give us some guidance on how we should respond to the US's provocation, my friend. LOL

 

[jhungary]

So let me get this straight, my friend. You are basically telling us that the only way to enforce our territorial integrity is through brute force and if we are not daring to go to war when the US violated our territorial rights, then it means we are a coward. Am I right, my friend? So you see, all international communities can see that it is not us who want to fight a war but it is the US who provoke us into a war. What can we do when a country as reckless as the US is putting the world in danger by provoking another nuclear power for war? If we act childish like an amateur power, then this world would perish easily by a simple provocative US maneuver. Give us some guidance on how we should respond to the US's provocation, my friend. LOL

LOL, I don't even know how you get to this from my post, either you intentionally twisted my word for it, or you have a problem with basic English understanding.

I said, you need other people respect your border to make it legit, it's not just something you claim, one of the way is the ability to enforce your own border. if you cannot enforce matter within your border, then whatever you claim is a moot point. Another point is that you argue your case in court and comes out as a winner. Then and only then you have your border count. Not just I claim this and I claim that.

And yeah, US is the one provoking, when US was not even one of the claimant on SCS, that's some kind of logic you got there. Then am I expected to see the disputed party to united and stand against the US provocation?? So when will China, Vietnam, Philippine joint hand and push the evil US out of the way??

 

[seven7seven]

I wonder if China could build a network of underwater gas pipelines around these islands, that can release gas when a hostile ship encroaches within 12nm. Methane gas escaping from the seabed has been said to be responsible for ships mysteriously sinking without a trace in the Bermuda Triangle, by reducing a ship's buoyancy. I've always been fascinated if this could ever be used as a defensive measure by a country to sink hostile ships without firing a missile or torpedo. Who would know what happened right? lol

 

[jhungary]

Got to admit, buddy, the amount of island genesis they have done is impressive.

Well, this is impressive.

The Chinese reclamation work in a military strategist point of view, is plainly, stupid.

Beside showing off, what other use can these supposed "Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier" do?

First of all. When you have an island, you will need to defend it, so either the Chinese reclam all these island and put troop to garrison each and every one of them, thus spread thin on Chinese defence. Or they don't garrison it, and making them a moot point. Either way, every Military Tactician and Historian will tell you Island warfare always (ALWAYS) favor the attacker as there are no where to run for the defender. Also unless the defender have a very impressive navy, those island would otherwise exposed to being encircle.

Secondly, island will needed supply if you choose to garrison it. And where would all these supply coming from? They will be from China mainland. And that would mean they would strand the important port and airfield activities in time of war because they were needed to use to ressuply those remote Island. Which draw away resource and logistical capability.

Thirdly and most importanly at all, what is the point of all these?? The furthest island reclamation work from China is Fiery Cross Reef, which is some 630 mil from Hainan, Mainland China. The point of an Aircraft Carrier is for you to forward deploy your aircraft in support of a far away war. But Today fighter and bomber can easily cover some 600 mile (which is usuall half of what their effective range is) What is the point of launching from Fiery Cross reef when you can launch them from Hainan and you will not need to put supporting structure and logistic personal just to extend some 600 miles

It's like when Argentina decided to retake Falkland Island, and they come up with building small island some 600 mile in between Falkland and Argentina mainland. Lol, you may as well launch your sortie from Bueno Aries.

 

[Place Of Space]

Well, this is impressive.

The Chinese reclamation work in a military strategist point of view, is plainly, stupid.

Beside showing off, what other use can these supposed "Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier" do?

First of all. When you have an island, you will need to defend it, so either the Chinese reclam all these island and put troop to garrison each and every one of them, thus spread thin on Chinese defence. Or they don't garrison it, and making them a moot point. Either way, every Military Tactician and Historian will tell you Island warfare always (ALWAYS) favor the attacker as there are no where to run for the defender. Also unless the defender have a very impressive navy, those island would otherwise exposed to being encircle.

Secondly, island will needed supply if you choose to garrison it. And where would all these supply coming from? They will be from China mainland. And that would mean they would strand the important port and airfield activities in time of war because they were needed to use to ressuply those remote Island. Which draw away resource and logistical capability.

Thirdly and most importanly at all, what is the point of all these?? The furthest island reclamation work from China is Fiery Cross Reef, which is some 630 mil from Hainan, Mainland China. The point of an Aircraft Carrier is for you to forward deploy your aircraft in support of a far away war. But Today fighter and bomber can easily cover some 600 mile (which is usuall half of what their effective range is) What is the point of launching from Fiery Cross reef when you can launch them from Hainan and you will not need to put supporting structure and logistic personal just to extend some 600 miles

It's like when Argentina decided to retake Falkland Island, and they come up with building small island some 600 mile in between Falkland and Argentina mainland. Lol, you may as well launch your sortie from Bueno Aries.

What's your points after posting a bunch of sentence? Any conclusions?

 

[jhungary]

What's your points after posting a bunch of sentence? Any conclusions?

Conclusion?

It's militaristically incompetent to build Island 600 mile away from mainland China when all the Chinese potential enemies were in range from airfield in Mainland. You may as well launch your sortie from Hainan Island.

 

[Place Of Space]

Conclusion?

It's militaristically incompetent to build Island 600 mile away from mainland China when all the Chinese potential enemies were in range from airfield in Mainland. You may as well launch your sortie from Hainan Island.

How about considering it this way?
China just need to expend very few soldiers, and weapons on those islands. It won't cost a lot but actual sovereign rights and management. Filippines attack those islands, China may have lots of choices, including give a rush strike cover all its main islands, cities.

 

[jhungary]

How about considering it this way?
China just need to expend very few soldiers, and weapons on those islands. It won't cost a lot but actual sovereign rights and management. Filippines attack those islands, China may have lots of choices, including give a rush strike cover all its main islands, cities.

How do you suppose you can counter attack all the island when that would seriously dilute your naval capability? How many island you have to simultaneously defence against? And would you have the ability to launch such a defence when needed urgently?

Finally, you are talking about Philippine, what if you are up against a more on par enemy such as Japan? South Korea? India?? It won't be as easy as you said then.

Problem is, why would you launch sortie from an island merely 600 miles away when your J-11 can cover that distant with ease from mainland? Whatever that not necessarily done is a liability in war. And in war, you don't expose your own liability intentionally, you are trying to fix it. Just answer this question, what is the different from launching a sortie in Hainan then Launching a sortie in Fiery Cross reef? There are no tactical difference.

 

[asia2000]

To avoid hurt your feeling, apparently your wife didn't try her best. Regarding the legality of invading Iraq, there is no conclusive conclusion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

Are you a lawyer? My wife is, and as much as she dislike Iraq war, she, along with every lawyer trying to find the wrong doing of Iraq war cannot find it illegal. Do tell me which international law the US break when they invaded Iraq? Did you bother to read the cause of war in Iraq? Which generally considered to be Resolution 687 by UNSC, an act China as a UNSC Permanent Member agree on?

687 Did not specified the use of force in the scope of having Weapon of Mass Destruction, it gave right to use of force at the REFUSAL of inspection In Paragraph 34, it specified "Designed to remain seized of the matter, and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area" While resolution 687 focus on allowing inspection and declaring of WMD the Iraqi currently process and specified to take further steps, which it does not specify whether or not war is one of the possible step. And Iraq did refused the UN inspection in several case, the UN inspector were ask to leave the country, Thus given the US a decision to take "Further Step" in order to ensue 687 was followed by the Iraqi Government.

While it does not specify whether or not War was excluded, hence it was a legitimate decision to use war to make Iraqi complies with Resolution 687, since it was not excluded hence they are NOT ILLEGAL Most people critize Iraq war as immoral, NOT ILLEGAL

Here are the Resolution 687 once again, suggest you read it.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/687.pdf

And Libya Intervention. Did you even know they were ordered by UN resolution 1973?

So if US break international Law by bombing Libya, then China, as part of party that passed resolution 1973 would be equally culpable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973



lol, the US is breaking your rules, not talking about breaking your so-called rules. They were actually sending ship over in SCS, not talking about sending ship to the SCS to proof freedom of navigation.

On the other hand....

"This is Chinese Navy, This is Chinese Navy, you go now"

 

[nang2]

Conclusion?

It's militaristically incompetent to build Island 600 mile away from mainland China when all the Chinese potential enemies were in range from airfield in Mainland. You may as well launch your sortie from Hainan Island.

Not every issue shall be resolved via war. These buildup islands can well be used in push-over game, not necessarily just for war.

 

[Aepsilons]

How do you suppose you can counter attack all the island when that would seriously dilute your naval capability? How many island you have to simultaneously defence against? And would you have the ability to launch such a defence when needed urgently?

Finally, you are talking about Philippine, what if you are up against a more on par enemy such as Japan? South Korea? India?? It won't be as easy as you said then.

Problem is, why would you launch sortie from an island merely 600 miles away when your J-11 can cover that distant with ease from mainland? Whatever that not necessarily done is a liability in war. And in war, you don't expose your own liability intentionally, you are trying to fix it. Just answer this question, what is the different from launching a sortie in Hainan then Launching a sortie in Fiery Cross reef? There are no tactical difference.

Very good and sharp analysis of current PLAN capabilities on the ground, @jhungary . You are right that these islands are some 600, 700 nautical miles away from the nearest home port of Hainan Island. This can be a vital strategic issue in the case of strategic resupply, or force projection abilitie(s). I think that as we speak the current underperformance of such islands such as Fiery Cross Island and other key holdings in the Nansha Island(s) is due to the lack of naval and air military presence in those islands. However, from my analysis of such islands, i can't help but notice these:

Newly genesized islands such as these, are capable to be armed with at least a regiment or battalion sized force, and can easily hold up to two to three squadrons of fighters (even more). They can easily provide air defense batteries of S-400 or the HQ-9, armed with impressive radar systems such as the HT-233, YLC-2. Arming these islands with 4-5 batteries of S-400 or HQ-9s would make these practically impregnable from air to ground attacks, and would greatly inhibit foreign air force projection / interdiction or inhibit carrier air wing enforcement.

Secondly , looking at the dredging activity in the central and perimeter of the island, i can see that they will probably construct a deep sea port in this island, which can eventually host and dock larger naval systems, particularly more heavy destroyer classes of the PLAN South Sea Fleet, specifically the Type 52 B,C,D. In particular the Jiangkai Class Destroyer, which has already been deployed en masse to the Nansha Islands.

My prediction is that , utlimately, after islands such as these are fully operational and with naval deep sea ports created and ready for access, they ultimately will be forward deployed bases for their destroyer squadrons or even be host to rotational processes of their current Liaoning Carrier Battle Group. Let us remember that they are currently constructing 2 more carriers of the Varyag / Liaoning Class, i assume those two will ultimately be stationed for the North Sea Fleet and East Sea Fleet, respectively. Basically a carrier per fleet.

 

[Place Of Space]

How do you suppose you can counter attack all the island when that would seriously dilute your naval capability? How many island you have to simultaneously defence against? And would you have the ability to launch such a defence when needed urgently?

Finally, you are talking about Philippine, what if you are up against a more on par enemy such as Japan? South Korea? India?? It won't be as easy as you said then.

Problem is, why would you launch sortie from an island merely 600 miles away when your J-11 can cover that distant with ease from mainland? Whatever that not necessarily done is a liability in war. And in war, you don't expose your own liability intentionally, you are trying to fix it. Just answer this question, what is the different from launching a sortie in Hainan then Launching a sortie in Fiery Cross reef? There are no tactical difference.

You think China will defence simultaneously those islands when somebody deliberately want to attack them? No, in my opinion, China don't has to defence those islands because the small islands are impossible and worthless to defence. Attacking those islands means declare war against China, China will turn to attack the counter-parts' main target, even nuclear weapons will be considered. We can count who will pay more price.
China may have lots of choices. You didn't read this sentence. This means China can control the scale of the counter attack and when China upgrade the seriousness of conflict. All basis is China won't have actual huge damage if those small islands attacked. Those islands have strategic values, but have limited actual military functions.

 

[Aepsilons]

Not every issue shall be resolved via war. These buildup islands can well be used in push-over game, not necessarily just for war.

I am in agreement. The Chinese Defense Strategy in the SCS is centered on the ideation that "time erodes will". What do i mean by this? Ultimately, the Chinese will bide their time and use constancy of their patrols, size of their patrol force, frequency of their patrol force to erode regional contender's ability to project their claims. By constructing these islands, and then militarily arming them, permanently, then this creates an environment of 'inevitability'. Acceptance is the goal; particularly acceptance of Chinese mandate, and then this will facilitate China's creation of a SCS ADIZ. By ultimately stationing a CBG permanent fixture in this region, China, through her PLAN-South Sea Fleet , will force regional cooperation and recognition of her sovereignty.