Time to review law of the sea

[Stormweaver]

Of course, seven carrier groups can be easily sunk by tactical nuclear missiles. It depends on whether China is willing to escalate to defend its territory.

The United States sat by meekly while Russia invaded and annexed 20% of Georgian territory. I see no reason why China should not follow the Russian example and call the U.S. bluff on the South China Sea.

Interesting, that you bring in Nuclear weapons into the equation so easily. You probably know that the US will turn any country into glass, if nuclear weapons are used against her.


Like all the "long term" Chinese policy strategists [an approach that I admire], the West has been cutting into the Russian sphere of influence for quite some time with admittance of former Warsaw pact countries into NATO and the European Union. This war didn't really have any far reaching consequences...

Also, nuclear deterrence isn't war fighting... once you cast the die with first use, you will definitely get a disproportionate nuclear response.

One USN carrier group can be sunk by ASBMs, torpedoes, or anti-ship missiles. I think you grossly overestimate the military power of a single carrier group. This is the year 2011, not 1981. One USN carrier group isn't going to scare China. That is the reason the U.S. went to the trouble of assembling seven carrier groups for Summer Pulse in 2004.

The main reason why the US goes for these massive shows of force is because they believe in overwhelming the enemy with superior quantity and quality. If they can bring to bear the full might of the US Navy, then they definitely will do so. Ever since the First Gulf war, the US has been using massive forces at its command in large scale operations.

 

[rcrmj]

Hey Martian

you might wanna pass your 'discovery' thing by your turkish friends here in the forum, because by your reasoning not only the Med but almost half of europe and perhaps even China and India would belong to the Greeks for having 'discovered' them first.
I bet the turks would't take so kind to your ...claims to put it nicely ...

you are too china friendly to understand when you crossed the line into the ridiculous in this forum.

while we are at it, why not simply find out who were the most ancient tribes and give them rule on everything..not just the sea ...
how about that?

jesus...

jesus dont be ludicurous, read martian's posts carefully, the ancient discovery has to be supported by solid evidence not ancient greek mythologies. and Turks came in late 5th centuery when most of their places where 'discovered' and ruled by others.

 

[vtnsx]

jesus dont be ludicurous, read martian's posts carefully, the ancient discovery has to be supported by solid evidence not ancient greek mythologies. and Turks came in late 5th centuery when most of their places where 'discovered' and ruled by others.

Then in that case, if you want to take our land, then you must fight for it. Bring it!

 

[ao333]

One USN carrier group can be sunk by ASBMs, torpedoes, or anti-ship missiles. I think you grossly overestimate the military power of a single carrier group. This is the year 2011, not 1981. One USN carrier group isn't going to scare China. That is the reason the U.S. went to the trouble of assembling seven carrier groups for Summer Pulse in 2004.

Of course, seven carrier groups can be easily sunk by tactical nuclear missiles. It depends on whether China is willing to escalate to defend its territory.

The United States sat by meekly while Russia invaded and annexed 20% of Georgian territory. I see no reason why China should not follow the Russian example and call the U.S. bluff on the South China Sea.

The United States was unwilling to risk full-scale thermonuclear war over Georgia. Who seriously thinks the United States is willing to risk full-scale thermonuclear war over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands?

You shouldn't debate a Vietnamese on SCS. Gambit will continue to defend the sovereignty of Vietnam through American flags.

(ironically you're doing the same)

 

[Martian2]

You shouldn't debate a Vietnamese on SCS. Gambit will continue to defend the sovereignty of Vietnam through American flags.

(ironically you're doing the same)

I'm debating the issue on principled grounds. Gambit is just being emotional and irrational.

Let me try this again:

1. Ancient territorial claims were sufficient through first discovery (e.g. Christopher Columbus and Hernando Cortez).

2. China claimed the South China Sea and its islands starting in 110 A.D. with the Han Dynasty, which is an unbeatable 1,901 years ago. Therefore, it is indisputable that China has sovereignty over the entire South China Sea and its islands as shown in the nine-dotted-line map.

3. Modern claims of territory follow the 1994 UN Law of the Sea convention (which excludes the United States because it refuses to ratify it). It is clear China's 1,901-year-old South China Sea claims fall outside of the purview of the UN Law of the Sea convention from less than two decades ago. The UN Law of the Sea is not retroactive and specifically leaves an exception for historical title.

Gambit is intentionally being provocative and a Vietnamese-nationalist. Anybody, who understands logic and is reasonable, can see China's 1,901-year-old ancient South China Sea claims are ironclad.

Vietnam and the Philippines are a bunch of crybabies, because someone else discovered nearby islands thousands of years before they did.

 

[gambit]

I'm debating the issue on principled grounds.

Sure you are...

Regardless of whether the US signed UNCLOS or not, there is a reason why there is a consensus that we should move away from 'discovery' as simple criteria for sovereignty and the acknowledgment of the same: The military superiority of the discoverer could dictate the terms of sovereignty, from concepts to practical applications.

That was what has always happened and the world accepted it. Now it is no longer the case and we rejected such simplicity. The thorny issue of regression into history is certain to create unnecessary wars. For the militarily superior, the wars will be interpreted as 'necessary' to maintain national pride and to 'reclaim' what was 'lost' when in reality what was 'lost' was actually abandoned or gave away. For the militarily inferior, the wars will be interpreted as 'necessary' to keep vital physical resources for economic growth.

China will not find allies in Asia for this, let alone in the UN. Publicly advocating this will signal to the militarily inferior in Asia that China is aggressive in acquiring 'new' territories, as in their own lands, and to put these people under Chinese vassalage. This is a resurgence of the old Chinese belief in a 'commission from Heaven to rule the universe'.

 

[Solomon2]

As tension heats up in the South China Sea, some bordering countries insist on solving the dispute simply within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but this insistence ignores history and violates inter-temporal law, a doctrine of international law.

The World Court dismissed what CD calls "inter-temporal law" and applied post-1970 international law to condemn Israel's border fence and 1967 conquests ex post facto.

When injustice is accepted somewhere it soon starts being applied everywhere. The American revolutionary Samuel Adams, who had been victimized by the British this way, insisted on the clause in the U.S. constitution forbidding ex post facto laws. It is a key element distinguishing rule-of-law from rule-BY-law as no law-abiding U.S. citizen need worry that his actions may be declared illegal after the fact, or by the whim of a judge in a courtroom, or the policeman in the street.

 

[gambit]

The main reason why the US goes for these massive shows of force is because they believe in overwhelming the enemy with superior quantity and quality. If they can bring to bear the full might of the US Navy, then they definitely will do so. Ever since the First Gulf war, the US has been using massive forces at its command in large scale operations.

That is what these conscript rejects turned armchair generals or bathtub admirals missed: The US does not conduct only exercises with massive forces. In the USAF, we conducted exercises at the wing level, meaning the base is the central point for a war. No difference for the USN. The USS Ranger left San Diego and entered EMCON Alpha, meaning no EM emissions of any kind, and for two weeks conducted 'attacks' against Hawaii. No one was able to find her. Deck operations were solely through visual signals. That is one group. And here this bathtub admiral is using one exercise as typical of how we would conduct wars.

 

[gambit]

The World Court dismissed what CD calls "inter-temporal law" and applied post-1970 international law to condemn Israel's border fence and 1967 conquests ex post facto.

When injustice is accepted somewhere it soon starts being applied everywhere. The American revolutionary Samuel Adams, who had been victimized by the British this way, insisted on the clause in the U.S. constitution forbidding ex post facto laws. It is a key element distinguishing rule-of-law from rule-BY-law as no law-abiding U.S. citizen need worry that his actions may be declared illegal after the fact, or by the whim of a judge in a courtroom, or the policeman in the street.

Bravo...Ex post facto laws can be used to gain as well as to punish in this case. China have effectively lost the current legal arguments for taking the Paracels and Spratlys, is too military weak to take them by force and too politically alone to gain moral support so is now trying to enact ex post facto laws.

 

[Solomon2]

The circle can be squared by separating the issue of economic rights from sovereign rights. Economic rights are more easily shared than sovereign ones.

For example, in the Treaty of Paris which ended the U.S. War of Independence the U.S. surrendered its claim to Canadian territory but retained the right of American fishermen to fish the Grand Banks and even dry their catch on "unsettled Bays, Harbors, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador" link. Something similar can probably be worked out here, if the parties are interested.

 

[amalakas]

jesus dont be ludicurous, read martian's posts carefully, the ancient discovery has to be supported by solid evidence not ancient greek mythologies. and Turks came in late 5th centuery when most of their places where 'discovered' and ruled by others.

what greek mythologies? the least greek legend is more credible than what is being debated here. That was the point.
The whole 'discovery' thing cannot stand today nor can we regress to it.

 

[gambit]

The circle can be squared by separating the issue of economic rights from sovereign rights. Economic rights are more easily shared than sovereign ones.

For example, in the Treaty of Paris which ended the U.S. War of Independence the U.S. surrendered its claim to Canadian territory but retained the right of American fishermen to fish the Grand Banks and even dry their catch on "unsettled Bays, Harbors, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador" link. Something similar can probably be worked out here, if the parties are interested.

A diplomatic solution is what I have ALWAYS advocated. We will have to wait and see if China will agree to the same. Even so, all smaller and militarily inferior Asian countries are more alerted to the potentiality of an aggressive China seeking to reclaim 'lost' territory and may not be so amenable to a diplomatic solution.

 

[Solomon2]

I'm not sure what China wants, but in my mind the outlines of a workable solution are Chinese sovereignty over the islands with economic rights of the smaller claimants specified - for example, Vietnam would retain its traditional salvage rights in the area. In exchange China explicitly accepts the principle that it can only claim the Law of Sea rights of a continental power, not an island power.

Nobody would be completely happy with this, but in this fashion the area can be exploited by all claimants and peace preserved and extended.

Not so obvious, but also necessary imo, would be a mechanism to deal with disputes, real or imagined, like a Vietnamese oil well fouling a Chinese beach. Perhaps some sort of international sovereign company formed, like the Suez Canal company of 150 years ago, to deal just with oil, navigation, and tourist issues.

 

[Martian2]

I'm not sure what China wants, but in my mind the outlines of a workable solution are Chinese sovereignty over the islands with economic rights of the smaller claimants specified - for example, Vietnam would retain its traditional salvage rights in the area. In exchange China explicitly accepts the principle that it can only claim the Law of Sea rights of a continental power, not an island power.

Nobody would be completely happy with this, but in this fashion the area can be exploited by all claimants and peace preserved and extended.

Not so obvious, but also necessary imo, would be a mechanism to deal with disputes, real or imagined, like a Vietnamese oil well fouling a Chinese beach. Perhaps some sort of international sovereign company formed, like the Suez Canal company of 150 years ago, to deal just with oil, navigation, and tourist issues.

No. Britain and France have millions of square miles of exclusive economic zones around their islands. China will not be cheated out of her EEZ for her islands, which are over a thousand years older than British or French island claims.

Here's what the compromise looks like:

1. Since Han Dynasty in 110 A.D., Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea and its islands is indisputable.

2. Vietnam and Philippines are poor countries and they're trying to get their grubby little hands on China's oil in the South China Sea. A few billion dollars either way make little difference to China (with $3.4 trillion in forex and monthly trade surplus of roughly $20 billion). China cuts the greedy buggers in for a percentage of oil extracted near Vietnamese and Filipino shorelines.

3. China retains its strategic objective in asserting its 2,000-year-old territorial rights to the South China Sea. Foreign warships are prohibited from Chinese South China Sea waters. China has confirmed that civilian freedom of navigation is protected. However, foreign warships will not be permitted in the South China Sea within the nine-dotted-line map.

----------

In July, a Chinese warship demanded that an Indian naval warship stay outside of Chinese South China Sea territorial waters. Fifteen years from now, we will see a replay of Chinese warships confronting American naval vessels and demanding they also stay outside of 2,000-year-old Chinese territorial waters. China is busy building a massive fleet of Type 052C Lanzhou-class destroyers and Type 054A Jiangkai II frigates. Constructing an armada to confront another armada.

China confronts Indian navy vessel - FT.com

"China confronts Indian navy vessel
August 31, 2011 6:48 pm
By Ben Bland in Hanoi and Girija Shivakumar in New Delhi

A Chinese warship confronted an Indian navy vessel shortly after it left Vietnamese waters in late July in the first such reported encounter between the two countries’ navies in the South China Sea.

The unidentified Chinese warship demanded that India’s INS Airavat, an amphibious assault vessel, identify itself and explain its presence in international waters shortly after it completed a scheduled port call in Vietnam, five people familiar with the incident told the Financial Times. (article continues)"

 

[amalakas]

oh man this has been reduced into nationalistic stuff now... how low..