Beijing's South China Sea claims rejected by court

[velu]

An international tribunal has ruled against Chinese claims to rights in South China Sea, backing a case brought by the Philippines. 

The Permanent Court of Arbitration said there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources. 

China described the ruling as "ill-founded". 

China claims almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands also claimed by others.

The tribunal in The Hague said China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights. It also said China had caused "severe harm to the coral reef environment" by building artificial islands.

The ruling came from an arbitration tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which both countries have signed. 

The ruling is binding but the tribunal, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, has no powers of enforcement.

The US sent an aircraft carrier and fighter jets to the region ahead of the ruling, prompting an angry editorial in the Global Times, a strongly nationalist state-run newspaper, calling for the US to prepare for "military confrontation".

Meanwhile, the Chinese Navy has been carrying out exercises near the disputed Paracel islands.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36771749

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

China has said it wont accept the decision.Now it remains to be seen what the reaction is.But one thing is sure,China is sure to lose its credibility.

[randomGuy]

They don't even need the oil that's there in the Spratly Islands. Their population may go down to 600 million by year 2100 ( http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0630/c90000-9079879.html )from 1300 million now, plus world may move towards electric cars and renewable energy soon.

 

Good decision by the court and China should learn to respect other nations. They do not even have as much influence that they think they have.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by randomGuy

[mishra]

Well historically India looked like

 

And there was no china. Only Mongolia

[Malcolm Merlyn]

They don't even need the oil that's there in the Spratly Islands. Their population may go down to 600 million by year 2100 ( http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0630/c90000-9079879.html )from 1300 million now, plus world may move towards electric cars and renewable energy soon.

 

Good decision by the court and China should learn to respect other nations. They do not even have as much influence that they think they have.

 

 

China and their Pakistani friends over estimate chinese influence and power.There would be repurrcussions to what China now decides to do in SCS.

[zen]

Both China and Pak need to be driven out of POK too. CPEC should be stalled as it is being build on Ind territory and Baluchistan which is fighting for its independence 

[Nova]

This is a good article explaining the situation:

South China Sea dispute: what you need to know about The Hague court ruling

 

 

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

9 minutes ago, Nova said:

This is a good article explaining the situation:

South China Sea dispute: what you need to know about The Hague court ruling

The question is what will US and its allies will do now?

1 hour ago, rett said:

Both China and Pak need to be driven out of POK too. CPEC should be stalled as it is being build on Ind territory and Baluchistan which is fighting for its independence 

And how will you stall CPEC.

[Nova]

4 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

The question is what will US and its allies will do now?

It's wait and watch policy, negotiations, diplomatic talks, etc before any possibility of use of military force. The TIME magazine gives a good review of the possibilities --->

Quote

The ruling from the Netherlands, while legally binding, has no mechanism for enforcement. That means negotiations will be required to ease the growing territorial tensions in and around the South China Sea. If talks don’t happen, or go nowhere—and China continues to refuse to back down—a military clash could occur.

U.S. optimists hope that after an initial outburst, the Chinese will realize the international community has taken a firm stance against its claims in the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in trade passes annually. Starting bilateral talks on fishing and oil rights between China and the Philippines, which brought the case to The Hague, could ease tensions. The ruling may compel Beijing to curb its dredging in the South China Sea to create new islets claimed as Chinese territory.

But U.S. pessimists suggest China is more likely to increase its island-building, and perhaps impose a blockade on Philippine sailors on a desolate shoal who are based there seeking to declare it as part of the Philippines. The Chinese blockaded the shoal in 2014. “Eventually, Manila ran that blockade by taking a civilian ship, stuffing it full of supplies, stuffing it full of foreign journalists and forcing a difficult decision on the Chinese: `Shoot us out of the water or let us go!’—and the Chinese backed off,” Gregory Poling of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said last month at a CSIS session. “We could very well see a repeat of that episode with a stronger Chinese response.”

That, in turn, could lead to a stronger U.S. response, given the 1951 mutual defense pact between Manila and Washington. A renewed Chinese blockade of the Second Thomas Shoal “would carry with it the highest risk of kinetic interaction”—guns being fired, missiles being launched and/or bombs being dropped—“with the U.S. Air Force or Navy,” Asian expert Michael Green said at the CSIS gathering.

China may also respond by declaring an air-defense identification zone over the South China Sea, as it did over the East China Sea in 2013. That would require foreign flights to identify themselves to China before entering. While civilian airlines have complied, the U.S. military has not. China has been building airstrips on islets in the South China Sea, and could deploy fighter aircraft to them shortly before declaring the sea a second air-defense identification zone. “At the end of the day that’s an elegant target set for the U.S.,” CSIS’s Andrew Shearer said.

A pair of U.S. aircraft carriers is now steaming in the western Pacific. “We don’t get to do two-carrier operations very often,” Admiral John Richardson, the U.S. chief of naval operations, said last month. “It’s a terrific opportunity for us to do some [training for] high-end war-fighting.” But U.S. warships sailing in or near the South China Sea also represent a fat target for China. Beijing has spent years developing and deploying the DF-21D missile, informally known inside the Pentagon as the “carrier killer.”

The decision also is likely to embolden the U.S. to continue—and perhaps step up—its naval patrols in the South China Sea. The U.S. has refused to acknowledge China’s claim of sovereignty to much of it, and repeated “freedom of navigation” exercises through the disputed waters will serve to emphasize the American position, which is widely shared by the non-Chinese nations bordering the sea.

Eyeing one another down that deserted Main Street, both China and the U.S. are wondering if the other is going to reach for its gun. “We have reached a critical turning point,” says Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain now at the Center for a New American Security. “The U.S. and its Navy, in particular, must now consider plans on how it can best support the international community and uphold the rule of law. All options must be on the table.”

http://time.com/4402562/south-china-sea-hague-ruling/

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

@nova

The optimists are being foolish.XI Jinping will not accept this.A confrontation is unavoidable.

[velu]

selective Economic blockade will cripple China , though global economies will also take some hit

[zen]

26 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

And how will you stall CPEC.

By making the economic risks higher for the project .... Sir Ajit Doval has to pull out a good plan 

 

 

[Nova]

26 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

@nova

The optimists are being foolish.XI Jinping will not accept this.A confrontation is unavoidable.

If Hillary Clinton comes into power, a confrontation is very much possible. She loves war mongering and, as US Secretary of State, she took the initiative, in 2010, to push the South China sea issue in the security agenda of US foreign policy.  China is aware of this and would prefer Trump to be the US President. China wants to maximize its power and replace America....may be too ambitious for its own good? Time will tell.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

selective Economic blockade will cripple China , though global economies will also take some hit

Are you serious?I would be surprised if that happens.

By making the economic risks higher for the project .... Sir Ajit Doval has to pull out a good plan 

 

 

We should stay away from Balochistan at all costs.No need to get dirty.Rather get Chinese enemies like Japan Korea Philipines Vietnam etc to invest and use Chabahar port.

China doesnt have many allies and too many enemies in its neighbourhood.Use them.

[randomGuy]

In economics there is term called 'Moats'. If we apply this term to countries, then we will find that USA has many strong moats ( like English  language, democracy, great companies like Google etc, alliances through out the world) but China has no moats. China had (or has) cheap labour but that isn't long term or sustainable or something that other countries can't offer. China is overrated as a competitor of the US

Edited July 12, 2016 by randomGuy

[Malcolm Merlyn]

If Hillary Clinton comes into power, a confrontation is very much possible. She loves war mongering and, as US Secretary of State, she took the initiative, in 2010, to push the South China sea issue in the security agenda of US foreign policy.  China is aware of this and would prefer Trump to be the US President. China wants to maximize its power and replace America....may be too ambitious for its own good? Time will tell.

Replace America?They are half of US in GDP even after fudging figures.And not even 20% of NATO.Replace America lol.America just has to give enough support to the Chinese rivals in East and South China Sea.Should give enough headache to Chinese.

[Nova]

3 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Replace America?They are half of US in GDP even after fudging figures.And not even 20% of NATO.Replace America lol.America just has to give enough support to the Chinese rivals in East and South China Sea.Should give enough headache to Chinese.

China wants to replace America. Don't think in terms of the present. Think long term strategy. At the end of this century China plans to surpass the US in terms of absolute GDP. There is a good book on this called The Hundred Year Marathon. Even if China does not surpass the US, it presents a major challenge to Washington. Make no doubts about it.

 

[randomGuy]

3 minutes ago, Nova said:

China wants to replace America. Don't think in terms of the present. Think long term strategy. At the end of this century China plans to surpass the US in terms of absolute GDP. There is a good book on this called The Hundred Year Marathon. Even if China does not surpass the US, it presents a major challenge to Washington. Make no doubts about it.

 

It will never happen, Chinese aren't having enough babies for future generations   

[zen]

24 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

We should stay away from Balochistan at all costs.No need to get dirty.Rather get Chinese enemies like Japan Korea Philipines Vietnam etc to invest and use Chabahar port.

China doesnt have many allies and too many enemies in its neighbourhood.Use them.

That is one way to do things but Ind's strategic goal appears to become the regional superpower and a global leader. If I am not wrong, Ind has signed up with US to patrol the Ind Ocean and even South China Sea. Looking at such goals, sooner or later, Ind would get involved with various issues in the region including Balochistan

 

 

[Nova]

1 minute ago, randomGuy said:

It will never happen, Chinese aren't having enough babies for future generations   

China has lifted the one-child policy but yes, the aging population will slow down China's growth considerably. Plus, America is still the number one destination for immigration which China just doesn't have.