Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: Xi Jinping Wanted Global Dominance. He Overshot.

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,123

    China Defense White Papers

    How China’s Defense Establishment Views China’s Security Environment:
    A Comparison between the 2019 PRC Defense White Paper and Earlier Defense White Papers


    Michael Swaine, China Leadership Monitor, Winter 2019
    Sunday, December 1, 2019

    While reaffirming China’s longstanding “peace and development” line and offering a more positive take on many developments in Asia, the 2019 Defense White Paper highlights many negative features of the global security environment. This suggests an unresolved internal contradiction in China’s security views and policies. Such an apparent contradiction is perhaps resolved by the Defense White Paper’s description of strategic competition as driven largely by the U.S., not by China, and out of step with deeper global trends. Indeed, the PLA under Xi Jinping is depicted as working with other countries to realize Xi’s “shared community for mankind” as it strengthens its deterrence capabilities. Yet this propaganda-laden take reinforces the suspicions of many regarding China’s “real” goals. Beijing must inject a much more pragmatic, hard-power perspective into its public security stance and engage Washington on that basis in order to realize a meaningful level of stability based on mutual accommodation.

    https://www.prcleader.org/michael-swaine
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  2. #62
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,549
    It's damned frustrating when military men try to sift through the propaganda. Active Defence is Pre-emptive Attack pure and simple. The Chinese should not be surprised that no one buys their non-offensive claims. The Chinese are not allies. Win-win, therefore, is just another term for waiting to stab you in the back. The US has repeatly stated and has backed her point that she would not side with any territorial dispute but denying freedom of navigation is a direct challenge to American strategic interests. For Beijing to gloss over this point fundamentally ignores that her own strategic interests clashes with at least four of the most powerful navies on earth and one of them dwarfs all others combined.

  3. #63
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    .. but denying freedom of navigation is a direct challenge to American strategic interests. For Beijing to gloss over this point fundamentally ignores that her own strategic interests clashes with at least four of the most powerful navies on earth and one of them dwarfs all others combined.
    From what I understand the Chinese want to be informed should any foreign military vessels enter their EEZ

    FONOPS are foreign military vessels entering their EEZ without prior notice.

    Question then is should such permission be sought and subsequently refused then what ?

    It means beyond their EEZ there is no such restriction

  4. #64
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    From what I understand the Chinese want to be informed should any foreign military vessels enter their EEZ
    There is no legal requirement to inform the Chinese of any vessel in their EEZ provided those vessels are not exploiting the EEZ resources. The Chinese in fact are imposing their own jurisdiction over international territories. We call it conquest.

  5. #65
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There is no legal requirement to inform the Chinese of any vessel in their EEZ provided those vessels are not exploiting the EEZ resources. The Chinese in fact are imposing their own jurisdiction over international territories. We call it conquest.
    Legal requirement means they want to be informed. Other countries might not have such requirements. So not by international law but by Chinese. I recently learnt India has the same requirement. So providing China reciprocates when they approach our shores there will never be an Indian destroyer doing FONOPS in the SCS.

    The other point i wanted to clarify is whether the Chinese definition of EEZ conforms with the international one (200 odd nautical miles from the coast) or whether it stretches beyond. They seem to be questioning the entire concept so it not clear whether their version of EEZ is more expansive. Now if its much beyond then its a zone of exclusion beyond what is usually accepted.

    Course grabbing islands here and there or creating ones that did not exist is an attempt to push what was acceptable further out.

    Military vessels are not exploiting EEZ. FONOPS are just sailing through verifying freedom of navigation.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Dec 19, at 22:02.

  6. #66
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Legal requirement means they want to be informed. Other countries might not have such requirements. So not by international law but by Chinese. I recently learnt India has the same requirement. So providing China reciprocates when they approach our shores there will never be an Indian destroyer doing FONOPS in the SCS.
    India didn't put an island right in the middle of a travel lane. Coast guard and naval vessels have a right to demand an IFF when they meet you. What they don't have is the right to demand you register with them before you enter the EEZ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The other point i wanted to clarify is whether the Chinese definition of EEZ conforms with the international one (200 odd nautical miles from the coast) or whether it stretches beyond. They seem to be questioning the entire concept so it not clear whether their version of EEZ is more expansive. Now if its much beyond then its a zone of exclusion beyond what is usually accepted.

    Course grabbing islands here and there or creating ones that did not exist is an attempt to push what was acceptable further out.
    Think you've just answered your own question. Also, Russia defines their EEZ as extent of the Continental Shelf under water ... which Canada refused to even acknowledge.

  7. #67
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    India didn't put an island right in the middle of a travel lane. Coast guard and naval vessels have a right to demand an IFF when they meet you. What they don't have is the right to demand you register with them before you enter the EEZ.

    Think you've just answered your own question. Also, Russia defines their EEZ as extent of the Continental Shelf under water ... which Canada refused to even acknowledge.
    If China is grabbing islands it means they comply with the international definition of EEZ.

    Expecting compliance from others is problematic and after 8 years its clearly unworkable. Militarising those islands has made sweet fanny adams difference to FONOPS

    Continental shelf arguments i've heard when countries want to claim any islands as their own. Continental shelf extends out so much this or that island is ours.

    Claiming EEZ should extend as far as continental shelf isn't workable at an international level.

    Have there been any incidents at sea between Canada & Russia. Fishing boats getting rammed or any thing ?

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    If China is grabbing islands it means they comply with the international definition of EEZ.

    Expecting compliance from others is problematic and after 8 years its clearly unworkable. Militarising those islands has made sweet fanny adams difference to FONOPS
    But civilian traffic has been re-routed to avoid complications. In effect, surrendering the waters to China. Until civilians are comfortable travelling those waters without restrictions, they will pay the extra costs in fuel to avoid political entaglements. The military, however, wants to exercise their rights and dare the Chinese to oppose them.

    This is the crust of the issue. Civilian shipping has already surrendered their rights. Who in their right mind would want to face AShM batteries with unarmed freighters? So, these must be Chinese waters, right? The military, however, is now daring the Chinese to enforce their claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Claiming EEZ should extend as far as continental shelf isn't workable at an international level.

    Have there been any incidents at sea between Canada & Russia. Fishing boats getting rammed or any thing ?
    Usual ASW games. The Russians planted a flag on the Artic Ocean floor.

  9. #69
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,958
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    But civilian traffic has been re-routed to avoid complications. In effect, surrendering the waters to China. Until civilians are comfortable travelling those waters without restrictions, they will pay the extra costs in fuel to avoid political entaglements. The military, however, wants to exercise their rights and dare the Chinese to oppose them.

    This is the crust of the issue. Civilian shipping has already surrendered their rights. Who in their right mind would want to face AShM batteries with unarmed freighters? So, these must be Chinese waters, right? The military, however, is now daring the Chinese to enforce their claims.
    Going by the commentary i read, people seem to think China has succeeded into turning the SCS into its own lake. The reason for this also stems from the US going about it quietly & frequently. As opposed to press conference loud and less frequently.

    This is where the details and semantics come in.

    China has been partially successful with this strategy. But it has yet to enforce those claims. It is not their lake so long as interlopers keep passing through whenever they want.

    That will be an uphill struggle for China given the growing appetite of like minded powers to maintain the status quo.

    US & Aussies on patrol. French show up. UK wants in too. The list could grow.

    How long until we see Poles, Romanians & Baltics joining in.

    China could politely persuade them not to with some investments i suppose.

    Japan still can't stray too far from their shores unless under exceptional circumstances.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Dec 19, at 21:21.

  10. #70
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Going by the commentary i read, people seem to think China has succeeded into turning the SCS into its own lake. The reason for this also stems from the US going about it quietly & frequently. As opposed to press conference loud and less frequently.

    This is where the details and semantics come in.

    China has been partially successful with this strategy. But it has yet to enforce those claims. It is not their lake so long as interlopers keep passing through whenever they want.
    Which is precisely my criticism of their DWP. They're wondering what the hell is their Win-Win strategy is not working when everyone saw right through it. They would spout words like Active Defence and Deterrence (the man-made islands were attempts to provide a fait accompli to territorial claims) from foreign interference in their own territories. Then, they act surprised when strong naval powers sailed through those waters like all their attempts were for naught.

    I keep harping the line about Deterrence is not warfighting but the Chinese seems to not have considered what happens when Deterrence fails.

  11. #71
    Regular
    Join Date
    02 Nov 10
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I keep harping the line about Deterrence is not warfighting but the Chinese seems to not have considered what happens when Deterrence fails.
    They're establishing a baseline claim so that when they're finally ready, from an equipment and training standpoint, the Party hierarchy and the Chinese public will fall in line re the ruckus that follows the enforcement of this claim. It will presumably involve the impounding of foreign vessels and possibly armed confrontation on the high seas. And, of course, casualties, and not just foreign ones.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Xi Jinping's historic power grab in China
    By citanon in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 17 Feb 19,, 13:38
  2. And what of the future of U.S. air dominance ???
    By JRT in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Apr 17,, 23:38
  3. Xi Jinping and his ascent in the Chinese Communist Party.
    By AdityaMookerjee in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18 Oct 10,, 15:44
  4. Dominance displays
    By Shek in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 27 Feb 10,, 01:40

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •