When reporting on the South China Sea, it has become commonplace for media around the world to draw upon think tank research detailing China’s developing military capable facilities in the region.
Some use the information to bolster campaigns to convince the US Trump administration that China presents an imminent threat to the country’s interests, including freedom of navigation. But the deepening drumbeat for the US to militarily confront China in the South China Sea should be considered with a healthy dose of scepticism.
One report by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies describes China’s latest construction projects in the South China Sea, concluding that it “can now deploy military assets including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers to the Spratly Islands at any time.”
This is fact. But the AMTI director also warned in a subsequent interview to “look for deployment in the near future”. This implies that China intends to use these facilities to do so. This is supposition.
Australia’s Lowy Institute released a similar report fretting that “these strategic outposts will permit Beijing to enhance its power projection capabilities and establish anti-access zones right across the South China Sea”. There are many bad things that could happen in the South China Sea. But that doesn’t mean that they will.
Media distortion flourishes when academic analysts themselves push US-slanted research. Let’s take the concern that China will interfere with freedom of commercial navigation. Media articles often cite the more than US$5 trillion trade that transits the South China Sea.
The obvious inference is that China may use their facilities to disrupt this trade. This is possible. But China has not done so, is unlikely to do so and maintains it will not do so. China’s economy depends on seaborne trade through the South China Sea, which would likely be interrupted in a conflict.
The United States has cleverly conflated freedom of commercial navigation with the freedom to undertake provocative military intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities (ISR).
The US argument is that freedom of navigation is indivisible and includes both commercial navigation and US IRR probes.
The United States then argues that China’s interference with its military vessels and aircraft in and over China’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) violates freedom of navigation. But China argues that it is not challenging freedom of navigation itself, only the abuse of this right by the US military in its EEZ.
US ISR missions include active ‘tickling’ of China’s coastal defences to provoke and observe a response, interference with shore to ship and submarine communications, ‘preparation of the battlefield’ using legal ambiguities to evade the scientific research consent regime, and tracking of China’s new nuclear submarines for potential targeting as they enter and exit their base.
In China’s view these are not passive intelligence collection activities commonly undertaken and usually tolerated by most states. Moreover, they are not uses of the ocean for peaceful purposes as required by UNCLOS, but are intrusive and controversial practices threatening the use of force which is prohibited by the UN Charter.
Western think-tank research seems often one-sided and focused on ‘outing’ China. More balanced analysis would pay equivalent attention to other claimants’ activities — particularly those of the US navy and its own ‘militarisation’ of the South China Sea.
While China might present a problem for the US navy in encounters close to the Chinese mainland, the United States still maintains the overall military advantage in the South China Sea. It currently operates with combat military vessels and aircraft as well as manned ISR assets. It is also deploying aerial, surface and underwater drones to the area.
Research on the South China Sea also commonly neglects the vulnerability of China’s installations to the US capability to destroy them. In any conflict scenario — and interference with commercial freedom of navigation would likely incite conflict — these facilities would be indefensible in the face of US long-range cruise missiles.
According to Dennis Blair, retired Admiral and former US director of national intelligence, “The Spratlys are 900 miles away from China for God’s sake. Those things have no ability to defend themselves in any sort of military sense. The Philippines and the Vietnamese could put them out of action, much less us.”
Vietnam has deployed advanced mobile rocket launchers to some of the features it occupies thus threatening China’s installations.
China apparently does not consider defensive installations ‘militarisation’. It has repeatedly warned it will defend itself if the United States persists with provocative ISR probes and Freedom of Navigation exercises (FONOPs) near its coast and occupied features.
In a January 2016 teleconference with US Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson, Chinese naval commander Wu Shengli said that “We won’t not set up defences. How many defences completely depends on the level of threat we face”. Self-defence is every nation’s right.
There is obviously disagreement over the definition of ‘militarisation’ and who is doing it. Was the recent US deployment of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike force into the South China Sea ‘militarising’ the Sea? What about US ally Japan announcing with great media hype that it will send its largest naval vessel there? Both China and the US are ‘militarising’ the South China Sea — at least in each other’s eyes.
csdwe
Well said. It is interesting that most of the trade in the often mentioned $ 5 trillion transitting through South China Sea is to and from China. Would China stop its own trade? How come Western media never mentioned the artificial building by Vietnam or militarization by it ? Only Chinese extension is mentioned. Bias? You be the judge.
USA should give up its bases in Guam, Hawaii, etc and permit other nations to carry out Freedom of Navigation military and recognisance exercises in its EEZ and off its coasts. What was all that recent uproar in USA about a few Russian bombers flying off the Alaska’s coasts about?
China however does not waste resources in carrying out such empty provocative activities against USA.
You should come to Vietnam to study ancient relics, royal decrees pertaining to the administration of the Paracels and Spratly dating back to the 13th century. Vietnam has strong claims on those islands and intends to fight to keep the ones it currently controls because they are vital for Vietnam’s security.
Vietnam is developing the capability to cut off supply line and isolate the reclaimed islands operated by China, one of which is only 480km from Saigon. By virtue of the 1961 San Francisco Convention, Vietnam is given legal custody of the South China Sea islands. It is within Vietnam’s legal right to fortify the defense of its islands.
Vietnam cannot rely on unreliable third party like the US to defend its interest.
It is possible that this article is Fake News!!!
Shhhh Mr Valencia ……… exposing US geopolitical hypocracy challenges long established western ideological stereotypes.
"Self-defence is every nation’s right."
But those manufactured islands are not legally a nation, are they?
Give up it’s bases in Hawaii? Why not add San Diego, Florida, etc. while you are at it.
Wake em up t PLA uncle sam..or else ‘they’ felt imperialisme of t communisme amongs asean nation…
It is, the "South China Sea," the US needs to get out, and close down our over 800 military bases around the world.
Do America bases interfere with freedom of navigation or forcefully prevents nation from doing economic activities in their traditional economic zones.
Lawrence Gichuru sail or fly close to diego garcia and u will have the answer.by the way un already tol uk and us diego garcia not belongs to either of the but indegious
Ruby Jones Hawaiii is 3000 km from continental USA. Guam is 10,000 km away and closer to Philippines.
The South China Sea is 18,000 km away. USA should restrict itself to its 200 km EEZ.
Actually, it is "deepening drumbeat for Washington to militarily confront Beijing" that "should be considered with a healthy dose of skepticism".
The chance for war between US and China remains very low.
What, the US can’t even have a few drumbeats?
Ken Nguyen : But you miised the word dispute. People anywhere have the right to dispute America’s ownership of Hawaii. When a dispute arises, disputants will first try to settle it by peaceful means, if not successful then by going to war. The current ownersip claim over South China Sea is being disputed by many countries, while there is noboy disputing the American ownership of Hawaii etc.
You also missed the substance of China’s claim. China is claiming the entire watery area of the SCS, while America does not claim the ownership of the Pacific ocean.
Extremist.
Chineese are smart in their trade of lying. They have started employing letter writers , trolls and surrogates already to soften up criticism of bullying By China. Very clever move!
Why do you think the Chinese go to such lengths to spend billions to build a corridor from Gwadar in Pakistan to Xinjiang? What a pipe line throught the length of Burma to Yunan? Why establishing a port in Sri Lanka? Why build a port in Jibouti? Why seriously cutting a canal across the Kra Isthmus in southern Thailand??? You think the Chinese is so cash flush that they have become crazy throwing money around? Its purely for the simple reason to ensure at least a certain level of probabbility that their supply lines will not be completely "choked off" by the US hegemon should a conflict between the two should arise.
Ken Nguyen go back to where your ancestors came from please. or join obama hating america antifa
You all forget one thing. China is after stealing everyone elses gas and oil in these oceans. Yes, it is that simple.
So erudite!
Did you know who coined that term?
HINT: it was not the Chinese.
BTW, the term China itself was not even invented by the Chinese. It’s not what they refer to themselves.
‘China argues that it is not challenging freedom of navigation itself, only the abuse of this right by the US military in its EEZ’
It’s an impossible task separating Valencia’s PoV from Xin Hua scripts – as he is employed by Wu Shicun (NISSS) so he’d know which side of the bread to put butter on.
China’s hypocrisy is boundless.
Active spying at RIMPAC / Malabar exercises. Warships transit near Alaska. Snooping at missile launches again in Alaska … all without a single objection from the USA as international laws allow such activities.
When it comes to China’s own EEZ, suddenly the feeling of the Chinese people dictates that there must be security interests despite its absence in UNCLOS. Hence, ramming / obstruction become de rigueur for China.
Where was Valencia when LTEs became artificial ‘islands’ ?
Where was Valencia when messages of ‘… This is the Chinese Navy …. Go away….’ to all ships & planes ??
Didn’t Valencia know that artificial ‘islands’ have ZERO status under UNNLOS (500m safety zone only) ?
But then, having his words approved by Wu Shicun could only lead to one certainty: repetition of Xin Hua materials.