US military units to stay for South China Sea patrols

[55Jay]

China is pushing their agenda, looking for the resistance point. Then push a bit more to test the resolve of that resistance.

Attempts to paint them as the victim, is a feat of mental gymnastics.

The claims that the US will unleash a torrent of missiles if fired upon once, is deluded fantasy and probably wishful thinking by those predisposed to anti-US hysterics.

The ROE for US ship drivers is, and will continue to be, be very specific. If the US is directly involved in some future flash point, it will be localized and brief. That is, as brief as the Chinese wish to make it.

On that note, continue to agree with Publicus' opinion that, in the face of determined resolve, China will back down, because they are wrong, and they know it.

China is 100% pushing this. It would have never gotten to the UN Tribunal if what they were doing was all on the up and up.

The US is ensuring freedom of navigation. It's their prerogative to do so. China does this in US territorial waters. Unimpeded.

I'm not sure they will back down. Huge loss of face, which has already happened when the UN Tribunal accepted the case. And they've said they don't recognize the Tribunal. It will probably end up in back room deals, or out right trade embargoes. Could get nasty.

All about money...

Indeed, it could get nasty the longer this drags on, which is probably why PACFLT is doing back flips in front of the big flag pole, barking like Lassie warning of impending danger.

Even with the hawkish war tones coming out of Xi on defending China's sovereignty, real or imagined, following the last US freedom of nav transit, the Chinese Defense Minister said:

China, US generals to work out mechanism for South China Sea

Published May 13, 2016

Associated Press

BEIJING – Top generals from China and the U.S. say they're ready to work out an effective mechanism to prevent confrontation and maintain stability in the South China Sea.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/13/china-us-generals-to-work-out-mechanism-for-south-china-sea.html

So, China will find a way to side-step, deescalate, save face, whatever.....

IMO, the US shouldn't do this. "Working out mechanisms" would elevate China as some kind of legitimate authority out there, which they aren't.

The US should reject China's offer to work anything out on the same grounds China rejects The Tribunal's authority.

The US might also suggest that the best way for China to avoid confrontation is for China to cease being confrontational in the first place.

Edited May 14, 2016 by 55Jay

[Publicus]

China is pushing their agenda, looking for the resistance point. Then push a bit more to test the resolve of that resistance.

Attempts to paint them as the victim, is a feat of mental gymnastics.

The claims that the US will unleash a torrent of missiles if fired upon once, is deluded fantasy and probably wishful thinking by those predisposed to anti-US hysterics.

The ROE for US ship drivers is, and will continue to be, be very specific. If the US is directly involved in some future flash point, it will be localized and brief. That is, as brief as the Chinese wish to make it.

On that note, continue to agree with Publicus' opinion that, in the face of determined resolve, China will back down, because they are wrong, and they know it.

China is 100% pushing this. It would have never gotten to the UN Tribunal if what they were doing was all on the up and up.

The US is ensuring freedom of navigation. It's their prerogative to do so. China does this in US territorial waters. Unimpeded.

I'm not sure they will back down. Huge loss of face, which has already happened when the UN Tribunal accepted the case. And they've said they don't recognize the Tribunal. It will probably end up in back room deals, or out right trade embargoes. Could get nasty.

All about money...

Indeed, it could get nasty the longer this drags on, which is probably why PACFLT is doing back flips in front of the big flag pole, barking like Lassie warning of impending danger.

Even with the hawkish war tones coming out of Xi on defending China's sovereignty, real or imagined, following the last US freedom of nav transit, the Chinese Defense Minister said:

China, US generals to work out mechanism for South China Sea

Published May 13, 2016

Associated Press

BEIJING – Top generals from China and the U.S. say they're ready to work out an effective mechanism to prevent confrontation and maintain stability in the South China Sea.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/13/china-us-generals-to-work-out-mechanism-for-south-china-sea.html

So, China will find a way to side-step, deescalate, save face, whatever.....

IMO, the US shouldn't do this. "Working out mechanisms" would elevate China as some kind of legitimate authority out there, which they aren't.

The US should reject China's offer to work anything out on the same grounds China rejects The Tribunal's authority.

The US might also suggest that the best way for China to avoid confrontation is for China to cease being confrontational in the first place.

It's window dressing to try to calm nerves in the region. Everyone expects CCP Dictators in Beijing to react sharply to the Arbitral Tribunal's ruling which will come before June 30th.

Each general is the top military officer of his country but while JCS Chairman, the Marine Gen. "Fighting Joe" Dunford doesn't set policy in Washington Gen Fang does make policy in Beijing. There are indications Gen. Feng and his Bois in the PLA are running the whole show and have been running it all along.

Here's a more delicate way to state it in Hong Kong, by the South China Morning Post which has press freedom but as with all media there tip-toe when it comes to the big cheese Xi Jinping....

Beijing, for its part, has not helped to clarify these intentions. Instead, President Xi Jinping (習近平) muddled the situation when he declared that China would not “pursue militarisation” of the South China Sea, then proceeded to install surface-to-air missile batteries on Woody Island in the Paracels and conduct exercises to shoot down unmanned aircraft. It has created not only a credibility issue but also elevated concerns about his ability to command the military.

(emphasis added)

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1938610/why-us-will-gain-nothing-seeking-contain-china

CCP's statements about the PCA in The Hague have only become more shrill....

BEIJING/CANBERRA — China yesterday expressed sharp criticism of an impending court decision on its maritime claims in the South China Sea, with a senior official calling the lawsuit filed by the Philippines “a vicious act aimed at deception”.

The remarks by Mr Xu Hong, director of the department of treaties and law at China’s Foreign Ministry, came as Australia backed the United States in its so-called freedom-of-navigation operation close to a disputed reef in the South China Sea, a patrol China has denounced as an illegal threat to peace

http://www.todayonline.com/world/australia/beijing-slams-s-china-sea-lawsuit-vicious-act

The two generals kibbutzing via video link "hotline" is being done because each government with all the governments of the region know the whole thing is going up to a new dimension after the PCA issues its ruling. This high profile meeting of the two brass hats is sort of a circuit breaker on the danger high tension lines suspended across the godzilla towers.

China and the United States are pulling out all the stops before a court ruling on Beijing's claim to a large part of the South China Sea with a flurry of activity, including talks between their top military officers to ease tensions.

Gen Fang, who is a member of the Central Military Commission, also told General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, that China was not to blame for tensions with the US in the South China Sea.

Dr Malcolm Davis, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra, said: "If you think in terms of a chessboard, everyone is moving pieces around in anticipation of the next phase of events in the South China Sea emerging from that PCA finding."

China's top military officer Gen Fang recently visited Fiery Cross Reef, about 500km from the Philippines, along with singers to entertain troops.

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/china-us-try-to-ease-south-china-sea-tensions

This show is only now fixin to get cranked up.

[boomerangutang]

Talk talk talk, that's what China has wanted (with individual countries) all along, and that's what it wants now and beyond.

Talks take time, and time is what China wants to waste. The more time that goes by, the more China can continue to grab territory, dredge and pour concrete. All of it with as much secrecy and deception as possible.

There seems to be an Asian fixation that development of the islands and reefs is paramount. ....as if it's a competition to see who can develop fastest and with the most investment. Then there's an added dimension, like a cherry on top, of placing military equipment and personnel.

For whom it may concern: DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE THE GOAL. In other words, for millenia (thousands of years before there were any hominids in Asia) there have been rock outcrops and atolls in that sea. That's the default setting of the sea and its sandbars, coral reefs, etc. China seems to think that only when people come along and start planting flags, pouring concrete, overfishing, ....that the islands exist or have any significance.

If Philippines want to keep their islands in their natural state and/or have a few poor villagers eke out a living there, ...that's their prerogative. Fils have no less claims of ownership if they keep things natural, than Chinese do if they build villas with swimming pools and airstrips and missile batteries. Chinese may not understand those concepts, but farang do.

It's the reason there are essentially no large mammals or large birds in SE Asia (similar for China). Asians think every type of animal and bird must have a purpose for mankind. They can't exist just for themselves in the wild. They must be used for meat or penis enlargement or hides, or something. It's the same for the islands in the SCS. Chinese can't conceive of them existing in their natural state without people using them. Chinese think that's wasteful, because they believe everything in the world exists for the benefit and use of humans. That's why there are no large national parks in China. Instead, Chinese go to the US to experience big beautiful swaths of nature, along with the magnificent beasts that roam there. If you go to a US national park, about half the visitors there will probably be speaking Chinese.

[55Jay]

Yup, the Chinese are moving as fast as they can before the tribunal they don't recognize, comes out and states the bleedin' obvious.

Oh, and typhoon season is right around the corner too.

[Publicus]

Actually the CCP screwed themselves with the Tribunal in more ways than the one overriding pronouncement Beijing won't have anything to do with the Court or the ruling.

December 7, 2014 CCP published at its Foreign Ministry website a position paper on the case brought by the Philippines. CCP lawyers argued the Court has no jurisdiction. The Court downloaded it and filed it as the de facto pleading of CCP at the Court thank you.

A year later the Court struck 8 of the Phils' 15 points of law as not in its jurisdiction. So Beijing stepped in some shit. The Tribunal struck questions of sovereignty and who has what territory, issues not covered in the Treaty and which the Court in fact does not have authority to decide.

However, what's driving CCP nuts is that the Tribunal will address the nine-dash line and the issue of which features the CCP has occupied do have or don't have a 12 mile territorial zone, a 12 mile contiguous zone, a 200 mile EEZ. So that's how the CCP knows it's not going to go well for 'em.

CCP knows it is building on rocks that are submerged at high tide. All a submerged reef or rock itself gets is a 50-meter safety zone. It's also the case that while disputed islands get some sunshine they don't get any ILOS zones of any kind -- not unless there's mutual agreement by the disputants under ILOS (draw a line to mid way).

December 7, 2014 was a double red letter day for CCP as the US on the date released its finding that the nine-dash line has no standing in international law. The cow's tongue line.

And the unhappy upshot of the developments for CCP is that because CCP posted a position paper on its website and the Court accepted it as a de facto pleading, CCP officially became a "non-participating participant" in the Phils' suit. Certified as such by the Court Steppin in it.

Imagine if CCP had decided to argue the case and had sent its nincompoop CCP party lawyers to The Hague to actually walk into a courtroom and try to argue the law.

[optad]

I was working in Vietnam in the latter 1990's and this topic was vocal then. There had been a skirmish or two but no entity had seriously undertaken to really occupy the spratleys and excise sovereignty.

To date, none of these claimants really have any better organic connections to the spratleys. In a geospatial sense obviously the filipinos and the Viets are more entitled but the fact remains that China has decided those islands are 'theirs'. What isn't?

It is spurious how the Chinese make this point but just that they do make it.

We have a problem.

[boomerangutang]

Am not sure if this was mentioned earlier (maybe Publicus mentioned it, as he's usually abreast of what's going on): Taiwan recently contacted the Int'l court to be a participant. Taiwan has occupied a tiny island it calls Taiping - purportedly for 60 yrs. It has an airstrip there. At least two things happen with Taiwan's involvement re; the legal arguments taking place in Europe: #1, because of Taiwan's 11th hour entry into the discussions, it will delay their legal findings. #2. Because Taiwan is not officially recognized as a country by the UN (because of China's deliberate ostracizing of Taiwan) - it might make for a sticky situation. My assumption is the legal tribunal will deal with Taiwan as a country, and that's how it should be. Plus, China publicly declared it won't be a party to the legal maneuverings, so it therefore shouldn't/can't protest Taiwan's participation in the legal process.

If anyone wants to see and hear details of the mounting tensions in the SCS, CNN has a long series of incisive brief news reports video accessible here

[Publicus]

Am not sure if this was mentioned earlier (maybe Publicus mentioned it, as he's usually abreast of what's going on): Taiwan recently contacted the Int'l court to be a participant. Taiwan has occupied a tiny island it calls Taiping - purportedly for 60 yrs. It has an airstrip there. At least two things happen with Taiwan's involvement re; the legal arguments taking place in Europe: #1, because of Taiwan's 11th hour entry into the discussions, it will delay their legal findings. #2. Because Taiwan is not officially recognized as a country by the UN (because of China's deliberate ostracizing of Taiwan) - it might make for a sticky situation. My assumption is the legal tribunal will deal with Taiwan as a country, and that's how it should be. Plus, China publicly declared it won't be a party to the legal maneuverings, so it therefore shouldn't/can't protest Taiwan's participation in the legal process.

If anyone wants to see and hear details of the mounting tensions in the SCS, CNN has a long series of incisive brief news reports video accessible here

Yes I'd mentioned Taiping aka Ito Aba in a previous (prolific) post that was focused on Taiwan as an invaluable but never discussed intelligence source of every kind against CCP, from human to signals intelligence.

Sovereignty is irrelevant to the Arbitral Tribunal in this case filed by the Philippines against CCP. The UNILOS does not deal with sovereignty disputes, nor does the Tribunal have any Treaty authority to say which waters belong to whom.

The material issues the Tribunal has Treaty authority to determine in this case are whether something in the water is a rock, a reef of rocks, an islet, an island etc. The definition under the ILOS determines if a spot in the sea has any kind of a zone of authority or jurisdiction, that is all.

Taiwan says Taiping/ItoAba, which is located between Taiwan and the Phils, is an island, Phils says it's a rock. The Tribunal is not going to say anything about who it might belong to. Taiwan does occupy it with 200 coast guard personnel there supposedly sustaining themselves. CCP claims Taiping too. (Taiwan as the Republic of China asserted the nine-dash line before there was a People's Republic of China.) The Tribunal will say which Taiping is. If the Tribunal rules Taiping is an island then Taiwan and Phils will have to sort it out between 'em, consistent with the ILOS ways and means. Beijing stays away from Taiping entirely because it's too sensitive between Beijing and Taipei/US, so it remains a matter between Taiwan and the Phils.

The Tribunal is already working on the issue of what Taiping/Ito Aba is so Taiwan's filings with the Tribunal will not affect its ruling nor will it affect the Tribunal's timetable, which is firmly set at no later than June 30th. The Tribunal can in fact dismiss the question if it doesn't want to deal with it at the present time.

Taiwan wants the Phils to agree to visit Taiping to see for themselves, which Phils says it won't do, and for the Tribunal to hold off in its coming ruling on Taiping until Phils officials agree to visit it. There is no such requirement or recommendation in the Treaty as a basis of anything in the Tribunal reaching a decision and making a ruling in any respect. Each Taiwan and the Phils will simply have to wait a very brief period more to see what the Tribunal has decided on this.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Publicus

[Publicus]

China is pushing their agenda, looking for the resistance point. Then push a bit more to test the resolve of that resistance.

Attempts to paint them as the victim, is a feat of mental gymnastics.

The claims that the US will unleash a torrent of missiles if fired upon once, is deluded fantasy and probably wishful thinking by those predisposed to anti-US hysterics.

The ROE for US ship drivers is, and will continue to be, be very specific. If the US is directly involved in some future flash point, it will be localized and brief. That is, as brief as the Chinese wish to make it.

On that note, continue to agree with Publicus' opinion that, in the face of determined resolve, China will back down, because they are wrong, and they know it.

China is 100% pushing this. It would have never gotten to the UN Tribunal if what they were doing was all on the up and up.

The US is ensuring freedom of navigation. It's their prerogative to do so. China does this in US territorial waters. Unimpeded.

I'm not sure they will back down. Huge loss of face, which has already happened when the UN Tribunal accepted the case. And they've said they don't recognize the Tribunal. It will probably end up in back room deals, or out right trade embargoes. Could get nasty.

All about money...

One can say that about the ME as in oil and about the SCS in respect of the undersea natural resources, however, in the SCS it gets down to geo-strategical factors such as who will dominate the political order, i.e., the international system and its operations, rules, rulemaking. When these issues come to a head, as they are presently doing in the SCS, trade, business relations, bucks and money are forever present but they take the back seat. The military enforces will when it becomes a contest of wills, which is what is has been in the SCS from the outset of CCP aggressions.

Governments will take the short term loss of bucks in trade and economics, finance, in order to give due diligence to rules and who makes the rules, and who controls what areas, territories, jurisdictions.

The quote below supports what we are saying about CCP in the SCS and the US military reaction to the CCP's militarisation of its island grabbing and its construction of new islands.

The issue is that the nine-dash line aka the cow's tongue is meant by CCP Dictators in Beijing to extend CCP's national boundary. The cow's tongue line would extend the CCP's national boundary south by more than 1000 km in a straight line. It would push the CCP national boundary to the shores of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and closer from the south to Taiwan.

At issue is China’s claim to a historic zone of influence marked by the so-called nine-dash-line that covers 90 per cent of the South China Sea. Beijing says the territorial rights date back 2,000 years but they are being buttressed by its claims to dozens of tiny islands, shoals, reefs and underwater rocks throughout the sea.

If these fit the definition of islands as Beijing insists they do, they are each entitled to territorial waters and 200-mile “exclusive economic zones”, which would give China an interlocking grid of geographical claims covering a portion of the sea.

The arbitration court has said it plans to rule on the thorny question of whether 15 such features claimed by China actually fit the definition of island — capable, for example, of sustaining life and being above water at high tide. However, experts say the court will almost certainly reject China’s claims, and with it, much of the rationale for the maximalist nine-dash line claim.

“One thing really leads from another, because if the tribunal finds that the key features are not islands and cannot generate maritime zones, then this substantially erodes China’s claims,” said Tim Stephens, a law of the sea expert at the University of Sydney. “If they’re not islands for the purposes of the law of the sea, then the claim to the waters within the nine-dash line is further washed away.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87fa596e-1810-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e.html#axzz48fwB0Hoz

By the CCP's claim of territorial and contiguous seas from its islands, natural and artificial, to include a CCP claim of a 200 nm EEZ for each island it has occupied, would establish a CCP national sovereign territory throughout the SCS. All the zones of territory claimed by CCP are inside the nine-dash line. CCP's design is to make everything inside the nine-dash line the sovereign territory of the CCP.

However, the expected PCA rulings that the artificial islands do not have a territorial zone would negate this grand design of the CCP. The Tribunal's ruling on natural islands CCP has occupied would also negate CCP's claims to a territorial sea from each of the islands once the Tribunal declares whether the Spratlys are in fact inside the Phils' 200 nm territorial sea. This is the major impetus behind Vietnam's likely filing with the Tribunal over the Paracels, which CCP invaded to take possession of beginning in steps and stages from 1978 and has since been militarising.

The statecraft of the US and the Phils in this dispute has been superior to the clumsy and heavy handed approach of the CCP in every way. While CCP is in fact able to move on the various existing islands, and to create new artificial islands, its contempt and dismissal of international law and the ILOS is making it impossible to accomplish its end goal, i.e., to extend the CCP sovereign national boundary southward by some 1000 km, to the shores of Asean neighbor nations.

CCP is in fact the Asean neighbor from hell whose blinders have prevented it from seeing the big picture and the larger ramifications and implications against its Central Kingdom arrogant bully belligerence and bellicosity. Few actually recognise or realise how intense the majority of Asean states are against becoming once again Chinese Central Kingdom tributary states.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Publicus

[optad]

^^ Very informative publicus and expand the bigger issues behind the conflict. Thx for the heads up!!

[boomerangutang]

Publicus, you make it sound like the Int'l tribunal is focused just on geographical definitions of the features in the sea. Is that so? In other words, are they just determining what each feature is geologically? One is an atoll, another is a rock whose top shows at high tide, and so on? I can understand that to a point. Yet even doing that, without any geopolitical considerations (in other words, not mentioning countries' names) would have to involve considerations for terra-forming. In other words, a place which was a coral reef 5 years ago, can now be an island with an airstrip..... The time it takes to transform a reef to an island using dredgers and concrete can be measured in weeks. One location could be a reef a week before the tribunal makes its finding, .....and could be an island two weeks later. There are also ways to alter physical features using explosives or pilings (made from concrete or iron) and placing a platform.

Another consideration: is a floating platform an island? It could be tethered to the seabed by stout cables. If so, me and a few rich investors could build floating islands all over the place, .....off the coast of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma........ If the platform needs a solid connection to the seabed, we could build a strong post connecting the seabed and the platform -which allows for the platform to ease up and down. Easy peazy. All we'd then need is a flag to fly on a post. Next, we could print postage stamps and paper money. We'd have our own country ....with a 200 mile exclusion zone. Anyone want to invest?! A rich Chinese person?

If the Int'l tribunal is only dealing with geographical features (and not countries or national claims), then there should be a subsequent tribunal (the UN?) which deals with the latter. At the same time, it could come up with findings re; what sorts of restriction (if any) on ships and aircraft can travel in/near those coveted areas. Similarly, there are resource issues: who can drill, mine, fish, bring tourists, or do whatever in the surrounding waters.

Interesting, there've been no posts by Lawrence Chee recently. Did he realize he was wrong, and now chooses to stay away? Doubtful.

Edited May 15, 2016 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

In that well-made documentary by the Australian news crew (sorry, I don't have the name or URL handy), there's a point where the Fil mayor of the district makes a comment, something like, "I'd like to see the islands declared Natural Marine Reserve" ....or words to that effect. My sentiments exactly.

Also, if the SCS winds up being a checkerboard of various countries' claims, here are some added considerations:

>>> If two countries are having tiffs, one can forbid the other from traveling from point A to point B.

>>> Re; drilling: it's entirely possible to drill at angles. Usually it's done by drilling straight down, and then affecting the drill bit to go off at a predetermined angle. How far can drilling bit/pipes be positioned horizontally? My guess is one to two KMs. We could get a drilling rig expert to shed some light on this. Whatever the limit is today, ...you can bet future tech will enable rigs to go further.

>>> Oil spills: China is famous for not reporting calamities in a timely fashion. Even so, can the world depend on China (or any of the other countries) doing a state-of-the-art clean up if there's an oil spill? If you ask me, the answer is NO. Regardless, by the time anything is done it will be too late to save what bit of nature is left in that region of the sea.

[Publicus]

^^ Very informative publicus and expand the bigger issues behind the conflict. Thx for the heads up!!

Much appreciate your regard of the efforts to inform and advise. I fear that if I and others (such as yourself) might be 70% right, then that's all the accuracy we'd need to recognise and realise where this is going and how it is going to develop.

My most recent concern over SCS relates to the election of the Potus campaign underway in the US. All the 'America first' and 'let'ls start winning' stuff from the loudmouth psychotic Donald Trump may impel the White House to conduct a swift and hard military action in SCS that may provide a clear and decisive win to US voters.

Many allies and strategic partners in the region here would not take that approach but, as many here would appreciate, it would be a welcome one to Asean and to allies alike if a swift kick of the CCP did in fact have a real impact on its SCS aggressions.

The White House impressing voters by simultaneously blunting Trump and clobbering the CCP while bolstering the confidence of allies and strategic partners here might have a certain and a definite appeal to 'em. Politically and strategically.

[keemapoot]

^Interesting conspiracy theory. So, Obama whacks China, bolstering the Dems and Clinton's tough guy credentials, and that will provide a turbo boost to Clinton and swing all the negative views about Clinton so she can win the election easier. That's a real abuse of power if that is the motivation. Of course it would be impossible to prove.

However, I'm not so sure isolationist Americans, who've come out of the woodwork for Trump, would even want the US to show that. There seems to be a feeling that the US should return home and let everyone else defend themselves. So, such a strategy might backfire on the Dems.

[optad]

^^ Very informative publicus and expand the bigger issues behind the conflict. Thx for the heads up!!

Much appreciate your regard of the efforts to inform and advise. I fear that if I and others (such as yourself) might be 70% right, then that's all the accuracy we'd need to recognise and realise where this is going and how it is going to develop.

My most recent concern over SCS relates to the election of the Potus campaign underway in the US. All the 'America first' and 'let'ls start winning' stuff from the loudmouth psychotic Donald Trump may impel the White House to conduct a swift and hard military action in SCS that may provide a clear and decisive win to US voters.

Many allies and strategic partners in the region here would not take that approach but, as many here would appreciate, it would be a welcome one to Asean and to allies alike if a swift kick of the CCP did in fact have a real impact on its SCS aggressions.

The White House impressing voters by simultaneously blunting Trump and clobbering the CCP while bolstering the confidence of allies and strategic partners here might have a certain and a definite appeal to 'em. Politically and strategically.

I enjoy the erudite injection your posts have in this forum. Pls keep posting. Even those who disagree benefit.

On topic, in a macabre way i have enjoyed the latest Trump reality TV show, his run for GOP nomination and now president. I say enjoy because it strikes me as absolutely absurd a character like Trump could become POTUS. Truly absurd given the stakes. However now i am getting nervous as he does have a chance. I am depressed too as Clinton i fear is not trustworthy. I am a Sanders supporter but as a native of Australia his appeal is the remembrance of Whitlam and the great achievements he gave and left for all of us here. I admire Bernie's purity of his advocacy for others. Medicare and universal tertiary education just some of Whitlam (1970s) and Sanders social justice programs. I lament that the US cannot enjoy these simple but profoundly important equalisers society needs.

The Trump thing is dangerous. The world needs a strong United States, and an 'united' one too. US foreign policy need not be about militarisation however the ability to enforce matters history tells us is necessary. A radical, a totally unreliable person like Trump will destroy relationships and respect globally. 'The Donald' is a dangerous and very unpredictable event for global constants and unbefitting a proud America. Beyond bemused now.

Trump really cannot be trusted to secure alliances either. Not one nation can forward build on Donald's inconsistencies. Almost certainly if his tone and statement s remain, current alliances will be reassessed. I certainly can see Australia, who has been a good friend of the US since 1944 and the Coral Sea, moving to hedge against to more multilateral regional relationships simply because Trump is not so much US centric but just variable. And military alliances/relationships should not be close to that type of arrangement. A more multilateral approach is not ideal if the Chinese behemoth is to push the SCS into aggressive anti diplomatic actions which is possible. Multilateral policies could be conflicting too. So yes, you domestic politics are a concern.

The SCS is Australia's proverbial backyard in a geospatial sense and economic one. As a student of history these events do worry me and should worry all. It is precisely from disputes such as these that we find we cannot diplomatically achieve solutions to issues of lingering ancestral resentment, national pride, cultural (mis)understandings. And in Asia these are magnified.

I doubt there is another nuclear threat in the global 'us' . However, not all remember the Cuban blockade and how stupid things lead to very dangerous events. Bit part players could just be the tinder in this one.

[craigt3365]

^^ Very informative publicus and expand the bigger issues behind the conflict. Thx for the heads up!!

Much appreciate your regard of the efforts to inform and advise. I fear that if I and others (such as yourself) might be 70% right, then that's all the accuracy we'd need to recognise and realise where this is going and how it is going to develop.

My most recent concern over SCS relates to the election of the Potus campaign underway in the US. All the 'America first' and 'let'ls start winning' stuff from the loudmouth psychotic Donald Trump may impel the White House to conduct a swift and hard military action in SCS that may provide a clear and decisive win to US voters.

Many allies and strategic partners in the region here would not take that approach but, as many here would appreciate, it would be a welcome one to Asean and to allies alike if a swift kick of the CCP did in fact have a real impact on its SCS aggressions.

The White House impressing voters by simultaneously blunting Trump and clobbering the CCP while bolstering the confidence of allies and strategic partners here might have a certain and a definite appeal to 'em. Politically and strategically.

One nice thing about the US government. One person or one department can not make policy alone. If congress doesn't agree with what the Potus tries to do, they can block it. As they've done many times. Who knows how this will turn out, but if Trump is elected, I think he'll tone things down, like he's already doing.

[optad]

^^ Very informative publicus and expand the bigger issues behind the conflict. Thx for the heads up!!

Much appreciate your regard of the efforts to inform and advise. I fear that if I and others (such as yourself) might be 70% right, then that's all the accuracy we'd need to recognise and realise where this is going and how it is going to develop.

My most recent concern over SCS relates to the election of the Potus campaign underway in the US. All the 'America first' and 'let'ls start winning' stuff from the loudmouth psychotic Donald Trump may impel the White House to conduct a swift and hard military action in SCS that may provide a clear and decisive win to US voters.

Many allies and strategic partners in the region here would not take that approach but, as many here would appreciate, it would be a welcome one to Asean and to allies alike if a swift kick of the CCP did in fact have a real impact on its SCS aggressions.

The White House impressing voters by simultaneously blunting Trump and clobbering the CCP while bolstering the confidence of allies and strategic partners here might have a certain and a definite appeal to 'em. Politically and strategically.

One nice thing about the US government. One person or one department can not make policy alone. If congress doesn't agree with what the Potus tries to do, they can block it. As they've done many times. Who knows how this will turn out, but if Trump is elected, I think he'll tone things down, like he's already doing.

Agree, but that is just not the way to treat the voting public or run nations. It underlines his errant view of the world, that we should be expected to make allowances for Trumps lassitudes. Preschool stuff.

[Publicus]

^Interesting conspiracy theory. So, Obama whacks China, bolstering the Dems and Clinton's tough guy credentials, and that will provide a turbo boost to Clinton and swing all the negative views about Clinton so she can win the election easier. That's a real abuse of power if that is the motivation. Of course it would be impossible to prove.

However, I'm not so sure isolationist Americans, who've come out of the woodwork for Trump, would even want the US to show that. There seems to be a feeling that the US should return home and let everyone else defend themselves. So, such a strategy might backfire on the Dems.

It would be politics, completely and entirely politics....related to geostrategic factors (sorry to drop that word in on you again ).

Nixon kept the Vietnam war going through his entire presidency because, elected in 1968, he didn't want to be the first Potus to stand for (re)election (in 1972) after "losing" a war. Everyone knows this and the US military hated him for killing all those young Americans from the day Nixon assumed office until he had to quit his miserable presidency. People need to know Washington politics and Washington politicians to be clearheaded about life's realities in these respects.

Let's try not to be naive about realpolitik and real politicians and the no holds barred election campaign to get your Potus guy into the White House. (Look at how Republicans are sucking on up to this ignoramus Trump!)

CCP's worst miscalculation in its present rush to the end of the year to swarm the SCS may well be that they are certain they can do it in an election year and while Barack Obama is Potus. That could be a very costly miscalculation. Ash Carter is SecDef and he'd put US Marines on Scarborough Shoal yesterday if he could do it and he may well get to do it yet.

We already have seen how the US has outsmarted and outmaneuvered CCP in our statecraft by going to The Hague. It froze CCP in any and all attempts to force bilateral "negotiations" with Asean and other affected states of the region. It neutralised CCP's killing of the Asean-CCP Declaration of a Code of Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea. CCP got shut out of its central strategy to neutralise Asean states, one by one, to separate 'em from the USA, Japan, Australia, and to methodically pick 'em off one by one like Dr. No.

Pentagon, State, the White House are taking care of their own kind of business deals in their own realm of wheeling and dealing so some people have yet to learn what that is or to respect both it and them for what it is and for what they do -- for what they accomplish, how, and toward what ends.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Publicus

[ExpatOilWorker]

In that well-made documentary by the Australian news crew (sorry, I don't have the name or URL handy), there's a point where the Fil mayor of the district makes a comment, something like, "I'd like to see the islands declared Natural Marine Reserve" ....or words to that effect. My sentiments exactly.

Also, if the SCS winds up being a checkerboard of various countries' claims, here are some added considerations:

>>> If two countries are having tiffs, one can forbid the other from traveling from point A to point B.

>>> Re; drilling: it's entirely possible to drill at angles. Usually it's done by drilling straight down, and then affecting the drill bit to go off at a predetermined angle. How far can drilling bit/pipes be positioned horizontally? My guess is one to two KMs. We could get a drilling rig expert to shed some light on this. Whatever the limit is today, ...you can bet future tech will enable rigs to go further.

>>> Oil spills: China is famous for not reporting calamities in a timely fashion. Even so, can the world depend on China (or any of the other countries) doing a state-of-the-art clean up if there's an oil spill? If you ask me, the answer is NO. Regardless, by the time anything is done it will be too late to save what bit of nature is left in that region of the sea.

11-12 km horizontal section. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_reach_drilling)

[boomerangutang]

^Interesting conspiracy theory. So, Obama whacks China, bolstering the Dems and Clinton's tough guy credentials, and that will provide a turbo boost to Clinton and swing all the negative views about Clinton so she can win the election easier. That's a real abuse of power if that is the motivation. Of course it would be impossible to prove.

However, I'm not so sure isolationist Americans, who've come out of the woodwork for Trump, would even want the US to show that. There seems to be a feeling that the US should return home and let everyone else defend themselves. So, such a strategy might backfire on the Dems.

It's doubtful Obama will take military action in the SCS. He's only got 8 months more. He's won the N. Peace Prize. It's quite possible he'll ratchet up USN presence in the region, but he direct US forces to fire any missiles except in self-defense.

If HRC gets the nod, which I think she will, the Chinese would do well to be extra concerned because she's tough minded and has resolve. She also knows the issues and the legal situation there.

On the other hand, Trump is a pinata tiger. Lots of bluster, but little courage. Less predictable that HRC, and he says so himself. Trump is a cardboard cut-out of John Wayne mixed with small town mafia. Lots of bluster, but I think he would fade in a Hollywood minute if the tough got going.

[Publicus]

Publicus, you make it sound like the Int'l tribunal is focused just on geographical definitions of the features in the sea. Is that so? In other words, are they just determining what each feature is geologically? One is an atoll, another is a rock whose top shows at high tide, and so on? I can understand that to a point. Yet even doing that, without any geopolitical considerations (in other words, not mentioning countries' names) would have to involve considerations for terra-forming. In other words, a place which was a coral reef 5 years ago, can now be an island with an airstrip..... The time it takes to transform a reef to an island using dredgers and concrete can be measured in weeks. One location could be a reef a week before the tribunal makes its finding, .....and could be an island two weeks later. There are also ways to alter physical features using explosives or pilings (made from concrete or iron) and placing a platform.

Another consideration: is a floating platform an island? It could be tethered to the seabed by stout cables. If so, me and a few rich investors could build floating islands all over the place, .....off the coast of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma........ If the platform needs a solid connection to the seabed, we could build a strong post connecting the seabed and the platform -which allows for the platform to ease up and down. Easy peazy. All we'd then need is a flag to fly on a post. Next, we could print postage stamps and paper money. We'd have our own country ....with a 200 mile exclusion zone. Anyone want to invest?! A rich Chinese person?

If the Int'l tribunal is only dealing with geographical features (and not countries or national claims), then there should be a subsequent tribunal (the UN?) which deals with the latter. At the same time, it could come up with findings re; what sorts of restriction (if any) on ships and aircraft can travel in/near those coveted areas. Similarly, there are resource issues: who can drill, mine, fish, bring tourists, or do whatever in the surrounding waters.

Interesting, there've been no posts by Lawrence Chee recently. Did he realize he was wrong, and now chooses to stay away? Doubtful.

you make it sound like the Int'l tribunal is focused just on geographical definitions of the features in the sea. Is that so? In other words, are they just determining what each feature is geologically? One is an atoll, another is a rock whose top shows at high tide, and so on?

Yes and that is pretty much it.

Because these specific and focused determinations by the Court identify whether a feature is to have a territorial zone of 12 nm, a contiguous zone of 12 nm (also = 24 nm) and an EEZ of 200 nm (from the baseline coastal shore, i.e., low tide...again, water, not land).

ILOS does not determine sovereignty. It does recognise these zones by their rightful owner, a nation state. What for instance is the Philippine EEZ? In instances of disputes, one major question is, which disputed feature is closer to the claiming nations and their governments.

As I'd noted, all a rock gets, as defined by the ILOS, is a 50-meter safety zone. If Taiping is a rock, then Taiwan is screwed. Phils fishermen can go there without hassles (by ILOS anyway).

It may be worth noting the US takes no position on sovereignty in the SCS (or anywhere else in the world). It takes no position on who has which zones or whether this country or that one has a zone here or there, or of what size a zone. US stays away from this completely and its kept away from this since 1945.

US does object to "excessive maritime claims." Which means if a country constructs on a reef that by definition is below water at high tide, then claims a territorial zone of any size, that would be "excessive." That is of course, CCP in the SCS.

Still, US does not go after each and every country that does this. Only certain countries in certain instances, such as when freedom of navigation on the high seas would be impacted. CCP in SCS is it in this respect. One hundred percent it.

Building a platform above sea level, raising a flag and declaring yourself a new country would get the attention of most national governments and would merit a visit by their coast guard so it would be something to consider avoiding.

[keemapoot]

^Interesting conspiracy theory. So, Obama whacks China, bolstering the Dems and Clinton's tough guy credentials, and that will provide a turbo boost to Clinton and swing all the negative views about Clinton so she can win the election easier. That's a real abuse of power if that is the motivation. Of course it would be impossible to prove.

However, I'm not so sure isolationist Americans, who've come out of the woodwork for Trump, would even want the US to show that. There seems to be a feeling that the US should return home and let everyone else defend themselves. So, such a strategy might backfire on the Dems.

It's doubtful Obama will take military action in the SCS. He's only got 8 months more. He's won the N. Peace Prize. It's quite possible he'll ratchet up USN presence in the region, but he direct US forces to fire any missiles except in self-defense.

If HRC gets the nod, which I think she will, the Chinese would do well to be extra concerned because she's tough minded and has resolve. She also knows the issues and the legal situation there.

On the other hand, Trump is a pinata tiger. Lots of bluster, but little courage. Less predictable that HRC, and he says so himself. Trump is a cardboard cut-out of John Wayne mixed with small town mafia. Lots of bluster, but I think he would fade in a Hollywood minute if the tough got going.

I'm gonna have to agree with Pub on this one. There are no prisoners this election year. Clinton is heaving under populist uprising by Trump and Sanders to a lesser extent. Obama won that peace prize for work not yet done, so it's bogus and he knows it more than anyone. Clinton does stand a chance to lose, and I've read some pathways recently how that could happen. It's not likely, granted, but the Dems have everything to lose and would be stupid to take any chances. Clinton is a highly flawed candidate.

Anyway, a little show of force won't be fatal to US-China relations, just chill them for a bit, and it'll recover long enough to get things back to balance.

[keemapoot]

Publicus, you make it sound like the Int'l tribunal is focused just on geographical definitions of the features in the sea. Is that so? In other words, are they just determining what each feature is geologically? One is an atoll, another is a rock whose top shows at high tide, and so on? I can understand that to a point. Yet even doing that, without any geopolitical considerations (in other words, not mentioning countries' names) would have to involve considerations for terra-forming. In other words, a place which was a coral reef 5 years ago, can now be an island with an airstrip..... The time it takes to transform a reef to an island using dredgers and concrete can be measured in weeks. One location could be a reef a week before the tribunal makes its finding, .....and could be an island two weeks later. There are also ways to alter physical features using explosives or pilings (made from concrete or iron) and placing a platform.

Another consideration: is a floating platform an island? It could be tethered to the seabed by stout cables. If so, me and a few rich investors could build floating islands all over the place, .....off the coast of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma........ If the platform needs a solid connection to the seabed, we could build a strong post connecting the seabed and the platform -which allows for the platform to ease up and down. Easy peazy. All we'd then need is a flag to fly on a post. Next, we could print postage stamps and paper money. We'd have our own country ....with a 200 mile exclusion zone. Anyone want to invest?! A rich Chinese person?

If the Int'l tribunal is only dealing with geographical features (and not countries or national claims), then there should be a subsequent tribunal (the UN?) which deals with the latter. At the same time, it could come up with findings re; what sorts of restriction (if any) on ships and aircraft can travel in/near those coveted areas. Similarly, there are resource issues: who can drill, mine, fish, bring tourists, or do whatever in the surrounding waters.

Interesting, there've been no posts by Lawrence Chee recently. Did he realize he was wrong, and now chooses to stay away? Doubtful.

you make it sound like the Int'l tribunal is focused just on geographical definitions of the features in the sea. Is that so? In other words, are they just determining what each feature is geologically? One is an atoll, another is a rock whose top shows at high tide, and so on?

Yes and that is pretty much it.

Because these specific and focused determinations by the Court identify whether a feature is to have a territorial zone of 12 nm, a contiguous zone of 12 nm (also = 24 nm) and an EEZ of 200 nm (from the baseline coastal shore, i.e., low tide...again, water, not land).

ILOS does not determine sovereignty. It does recognise these zones by their rightful owner, a nation state. What for instance is the Philippine EEZ? In instances of disputes, one major question is, which disputed feature is closer to the claiming nations and their governments.

As I'd noted, all a rock gets, as defined by the ILOS, is a 50-meter safety zone. If Taiping is a rock, then Taiwan is screwed. Phils fishermen can go there without hassles (by ILOS anyway).

It may be worth noting the US takes no position on sovereignty in the SCS (or anywhere else in the world). It takes no position on who has which zones or whether this country or that one has a zone here or there, or of what size a zone. US stays away from this completely and its kept away from this since 1945.

US does object to "excessive maritime claims." Which means if a country constructs on a reef that by definition is below water at high tide, then claims a territorial zone of any size, that would be "excessive." That is of course, CCP in the SCS.

Still, US does not go after each and every country that does this. Only certain countries in certain instances, such as when freedom of navigation on the high seas would be impacted. CCP in SCS is it in this respect. One hundred percent it.

Building a platform above sea level, raising a flag and declaring yourself a new country would get the attention of most national governments and would merit a visit by their coast guard so it would be something to consider avoiding.

The sovereignty is not an issue at this point, though could be later, because to have sovereignty you need established land mass and other factors.

The second issue is on maritime claims, and I haven't read the briefs filed by China, but I suppose they challenge the notion of the legitimacy of international maritime law as it applies to this case. The British Empire was the country most responsible for the current body of international maritime law, and because the US system was formed on the UK common law system, the US largely agreed early on. Furthermore, that British-influenced law has become truly accepted international law. The issue may be that China is arguing that they were not part of the process of establishing current maritime law, (therefore they don't recognize its legitimacy) and that they do not agree with its interpretation with respect to their SCS claims. Of course, the more specific issue, as Pub mentioned was that China felt that Hague arbitration was not mandatory for them under the treaty or otherwise. Those claims are indeed spurious, as has been mentioned.

One issue the court will probably be looking at, because these are disputed waters, disputed features and reefs, that can one party occupy, reclaim, and therefore exclude and start to establish ownership and militarization of such features. It will probably rule that nobody can do that, including the Philippines. So, China will later argue that it is merely enjoying its use of various sections of the SCS, the same way that beat up old beached ship is being "used and occupied" by Filipino marines. So, probably the ruling will be that nobody can use anything exclusively, and the argument will be over what constitutes "exclusive." Certainly those threatening and blocking Chinese naval vessels can be construed that way.

*This won't go away, and even if all parties agree to "share," the region, the first one to get there and drill, or establish runways, etc., still wins the first battle.

Edited May 15, 2016 by keemapoot

[keemapoot]

As can be expected, Xinhua has a unique view on this SCS Philippines case and their rights in the SCS.

BEIJING, May 13 (Xinhua) -- China's position of neither participating in nor accepting the results of the forceful arbitration initiated by the the Philippines over the disputes in the South China Sea does not mean the country disobeys international law, on the contrary, it's defending it.

First, the crux of the subject matter of the arbitration is the territorial disputes caused by the Philippines' illegal occupation since the 1970s of some islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands, maritime delimitation disputes, and the evolution of the contemporary law of the sea.

In addition to other novel ideas, this idea that there is an "evolution of 'contemporary' law of the sea" is indeed I think some of what we will see China argue to the international community.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/13/c_135357982.htm

[boomerangutang]

The restraint of the int'l tribunal is sort of like: Let's say there were several muggings in a particular section of town. The police round up the probably suspects and victims, but rather than focus on what happened, the police instead assess the scene:

>>> the alleged muggings happened at an outside basketball court.
>>> it was at night, but the artificial lights were on. Someone had a flashlight.
>>> there were cig buts, a bowling pin with blood stains, and a ripped shirt on the ground
>>> $17.32 was stolen.

One of the victims asks the police inspectors: "are you going to inquire into what happened or who is responsible?"

Police; "No, we're just here to ascertain the scene where the crime purportedly happened. Oh there were three trees nearby, and a parked taxi without a driver."

Publicus advises: "Building a platform above sea level, raising a flag and declaring yourself a new country would get the attention of most national governments and would merit a visit by their coast guard so it would be something to consider avoiding."

Ok thanks. Instead, I'll find a sandbar in the middle of the Mekong River, and create my principality there.

[Publicus]

As can be expected, Xinhua has a unique view on this SCS Philippines case and their rights in the SCS.

BEIJING, May 13 (Xinhua) -- China's position of neither participating in nor accepting the results of the forceful arbitration initiated by the the Philippines over the disputes in the South China Sea does not mean the country disobeys international law, on the contrary, it's defending it.

First, the crux of the subject matter of the arbitration is the territorial disputes caused by the Philippines' illegal occupation since the 1970s of some islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands, maritime delimitation disputes, and the evolution of the contemporary law of the sea.

In addition to other novel ideas, this idea that there is an "evolution of 'contemporary' law of the sea" is indeed I think some of what we will see China argue to the international community.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/13/c_135357982.htm

Yes, some of us have seen that. Hadn't paid much mind to it cause no one had taken much note of it till now. And yes, the Tribunal thingy has really sent the Boyz in Beijing into a rare rage.

Top it off (for now with more to come) it's time for the Pentagon to make its annual defense posture report to Congress and it unsurprisingly focused on CCP and the SCS.

Said CCP are "using coercive tactics" in the SCS. CCP launched off at a new velocity saying US is causing a loss of trust . Happened some time back actually on the US side so while it is unfortunate it took CCP quite a time to recognise it, and to reciprocate, I'd call it progress cause now each side seems to more accurately understand the other one.

China blasts Pentagon report, says it damages trust

China today accused the US of "severely damaging" mutual trust as it hit back at the Pentagon for issuing a "hyped up" report on Chinese military capabilities that "deliberately distorts" its defence policies.

China also expressed "strong dissatisfaction" and "firm opposition" to the annual report, which it said, has misrepresented the country' military development.

In its report submitted to the Congresson Friday, the Defence Department noted that China is using "coercive tactics" and fostering regional tensions as it expands its maritime presence in the disputed South China Sea (SCS) and elsewhere. It said China is focusing on the militarisation of artificial islands built by it in the SCS in a bid to assert its control.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/china-blasts-pentagon-report-says-it-damages-trust-116051500200_1.html

Asean lost trust in China centuries ago.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Publicus

[keemapoot]

Interesting statements by Singapore's PM yesterday regarding Russia's role in ASEAN:

SINGAPORE, May 14. /TASS/. Singapore appreciates Russia’s participation in regional affairs and its contribution to ensuring stability in Southeast Asia, Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in an exclusive interview with TASS First Deputy Director General Mikhail Gusman.

"We very much value Russia as a participant in regional affairs and a constructive contributor to stability and peace in the region," Lee said ahead of his visit to Russia and attending the Russia - ASEAN summit in Sochi.

As I posted in one of these threads recently, the Vietsovpetro JV between Vietnam and Russia is a hugely important oil exploration and production company, and is also directly vested in the SCS disputed claims between Vietnam and China. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietsovpetro)

So, I wonder if we will see some Russian activity with respect to protecting the Vietnam interests in the near future?

http://tass.ru/en/world/875668

[ExpatOilWorker]

Publicus, you make it sound like the Int'l tribunal is focused just on geographical definitions of the features in the sea. Is that so? In other words, are they just determining what each feature is geologically? One is an atoll, another is a rock whose top shows at high tide, and so on? I can understand that to a point. Yet even doing that, without any geopolitical considerations (in other words, not mentioning countries' names) would have to involve considerations for terra-forming. In other words, a place which was a coral reef 5 years ago, can now be an island with an airstrip..... The time it takes to transform a reef to an island using dredgers and concrete can be measured in weeks. One location could be a reef a week before the tribunal makes its finding, .....and could be an island two weeks later. There are also ways to alter physical features using explosives or pilings (made from concrete or iron) and placing a platform.

Another consideration: is a floating platform an island? It could be tethered to the seabed by stout cables. If so, me and a few rich investors could build floating islands all over the place, .....off the coast of Thailand, Cambodia, Burma........ If the platform needs a solid connection to the seabed, we could build a strong post connecting the seabed and the platform -which allows for the platform to ease up and down. Easy peazy. All we'd then need is a flag to fly on a post. Next, we could print postage stamps and paper money. We'd have our own country ....with a 200 mile exclusion zone. Anyone want to invest?! A rich Chinese person?

If the Int'l tribunal is only dealing with geographical features (and not countries or national claims), then there should be a subsequent tribunal (the UN?) which deals with the latter. At the same time, it could come up with findings re; what sorts of restriction (if any) on ships and aircraft can travel in/near those coveted areas. Similarly, there are resource issues: who can drill, mine, fish, bring tourists, or do whatever in the surrounding waters.

Interesting, there've been no posts by Lawrence Chee recently. Did he realize he was wrong, and now chooses to stay away? Doubtful.

He has probably been pulled in for attitude adjustment after hanging out with free thinkers like us.

[boomerangutang]

Obama won that peace prize for work not yet done.....

My take on it is: He was awarded the prize early in his first term. It was as much a hopeful gesture by the Nobel Committee as anything else. I think on that we can agree. However, we see it differently re; the ensuing 7 years. Obama has done as much as he could to take US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He and the Joint Chiefs felt compelled to engage ISIS in the dunes, but it's been from the air - so is not as messy as 'boots on the ground.' Perhaps it's convoluted logic, but in a way, Obama has earned his Peace Prize by keeping the world's strongest military out of conflict in a troubled world.

In contrast, if Trump or another Republican had been in the Oval Office for the past 7 yrs, there could have plausibly been a war started in Crimea, and certainly there would be bigger fireworks in dune countries. Heck, the way Trump talks so tough, there could have also been flare-ups with N.Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and maybe the Baltics.

The second issue is on maritime claims, and I haven't read the briefs filed by China, but I suppose they challenge the notion of the legitimacy of international maritime law as it applies to this case. The British Empire was the country most responsible for the current body of international maritime law, and because the US system was formed on the UK common law system, the US largely agreed early on. Furthermore, that British-influenced law has become truly accepted international law. The issue may be that China is arguing that they were not part of the process of establishing current maritime law, (therefore they don't recognize its legitimacy) and that they do not agree with its interpretation with respect to their SCS claims. Of course, the more specific issue, as Pub mentioned was that China felt that Hague arbitration was not mandatory for them under the treaty or otherwise. Those claims are indeed spurious, as has been mentioned.

One issue the court will probably be looking at, because these are disputed waters, disputed features and reefs, that can one party occupy, reclaim, and therefore exclude and start to establish ownership and militarization of such features. It will probably rule that nobody can do that, including the Philippines. So, China will later argue that it is merely enjoying its use of various sections of the SCS, the same way that beat up old beached ship is being "used and occupied" by Filipino marines. So, probably the ruling will be that nobody can use anything exclusively, and the argument will be over what constitutes "exclusive." Certainly those threatening and blocking Chinese naval vessels can be construed that way.

*This won't go away, and even if all parties agree to "share," the region, the first one to get there and drill, or establish runways, etc., still wins the first battle.

I don't mean to get nit-picky, but China has publicly stated it won't be a party to the negotiations. It's doing that because it knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. After the initial ruling (end of June?), expect China to release a statement which completely disses it. As I've said a dozen times in this thread, no amount of words, or rulings, or findings or lectures by other countries is going to get China to slow its territory grabs. UN resolutions won't work either. Not even threats of military action and certainly no embargoes will thwart China's grabs. Actual military action is the only thing which will have a chance of sending the Chinese back to China.

[Publicus]

The restraint of the int'l tribunal is sort of like: Let's say there were several muggings in a particular section of town. The police round up the probably suspects and victims, but rather than focus on what happened, the police instead assess the scene:

>>> the alleged muggings happened at an outside basketball court.

>>> it was at night, but the artificial lights were on. Someone had a flashlight.

>>> there were cig buts, a bowling pin with blood stains, and a ripped shirt on the ground

>>> $17.32 was stolen.

One of the victims asks the police inspectors: "are you going to inquire into what happened or who is responsible?"

Police; "No, we're just here to ascertain the scene where the crime purportedly happened. Oh there were three trees nearby, and a parked taxi without a driver."

Publicus advises: "Building a platform above sea level, raising a flag and declaring yourself a new country would get the attention of most national governments and would merit a visit by their coast guard so it would be something to consider avoiding."

Ok thanks. Instead, I'll find a sandbar in the middle of the Mekong River, and create my principality there.

The United Nations International Law of the Sea Treaty regime was negotiated by governments under the auspices of the UN.

No government is going to give authority to the UN over its sovereignty. Not by treaty, not by a vote, not by and kind of agreement, not by any means and not for any reason.

We're fortunate to have the ILOS for the many things that it does have jurisdiction over.

However, national sovereignty is not subject to the UN except at the Security Council where one veto by the one of the P-5 can kill any action against a sovereign government. UNSC as you know can only override national sovereignty in extreme instances such as agreement that genocide is occurring or horrors of that nature.

The UN itself has no sovereignty in any respect. Each member state is superior to the UN in the state's sovereignty. No state must be a member of the UN, no state must pay assessed membership fees cause that is voluntary too.

UNILOS does not decide on or determine any nation's sovereignty or claim of sovereign territory at sea. UN has no authority whatsoever over a nation-state and its sovereignty (but for the rare instance noted).

That is the real world of realpolitik.