13 ms·
What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
- m-i-l 11y agoSee also "China's Island Factory" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29107792 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29107792
- kspaans 11y agoGiven the various names for that stretch of water, I'm surprised the NYT doesn't spin the article by calling it e.g. the West Philippine Sea. Maybe because South China Sea is more recognizable in a headline?
- bpodgursky 11y agoIt's just a name. You don't see India claiming the Indian ocean. The name doesn't give the country any claims.
- hussong 11y agoTherefore, no need to rename the Pacific Ocean to "American Sea" ;-)
- sp332 11y agoMore info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea#Names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea#Names Looks like "West Philippine Sea" is a new name invented in 2011 and only used by Filipinos.
- kspaans 11y agoFull disclosure: my fiancée is from the Philippines. :D
- woodchuck64 11y agoPetition to change name of South China Sea to Southeast Asia Sea: https://www.change.org/p/change-the-name-south-china-sea-to-southeast-asia-sea https://www.change.org/p/change-the-name-south-china-sea-to-... 420,000+ signatures so far...
- caskance 11y agoFollowed shortly by the petition to rename China to Asia.
- speakeron 11y ago> 420,000+ signatures so far... It actually has a bit over 76,000 signatures.
- eevilspock 11y agoChina has a billion people. A petition battle is not the way to go.
- swuecho 11y agoyou are right. even 1 million is a very tiny number.
- fatjokes 11y agoSerious question: has change.org accomplished anything ever?
- DanBC 11y agoThis petition persuaded Playmobil that there is a market for Playmobil figures with disability. https://www.change.org/p/playmobil-please-make-disability-toys-and-help-generations-of-kids-grow-up-with-a-positive-attitude-to-human-difference https://www.change.org/p/playmobil-please-make-disability-to... The Lego petition doesn't seem to be doing as well. It's disappointing that Lego doesn't see the market.
- SeoxyS 11y ago
- jacquesm 11y agoWhat a pity they destroyed those reefs. Besides that, artificial land is nothing new, a good chunk of NL was made by manipulating the sea. Even so this is clearly a 'landgrab', but not much different other than the time in which it happens (the present, rather than a few hundred years ago). NL did it with the colonies and plenty of other countries did it too. A lot of that has reverted over the last 3 decades but there are still quite a few remnants such as Cyprus (claimed by the Turks and the Greeks), the Falkland islands (UK vs Argentina) and a whole bunch of smaller ones. The world map will always be in flux due to territorial disputes like these, in the end it is all about money.
- wahsd 11y agoThat whole story kind of strikes me as propaganda with deliberately provided intel and probably even satellite images. There is increasing necessity to condition Americans for what is seen as a coming confrontation with China. People need to start being worried and have concerns. I'm not placing any kind of judgement on whether that is good or bad, but it is happening and our government deems it necessary to "educate" the public and we all very well know that the NYT, along with many other mainstream news sources, are little more than government propaganda channels. I wouldn't say it's about money. From the bottom it looks like it's all about money, because there is a huge money layer that blocks the view; but from the top, it becomes rather clear that it's not really about money at all when you have all the money you ever need. It's about power, control, and legacy; all far more elusive goals than simply money.
- AYBABTME 11y agoThe problems in that area are nothing new, the local medias of each involved country have been talking about it for years, before the US began to take sides.
- wil421 11y agoNot everything is an American conspiracy of some kind. These issue need to be addressed before a smaller country and China start to take shots at each other (I mean this literally and figuratively). Similar issues are happening in Ukraine with Russia annexing Crimeria. What if China wants a piece of the Philippines or Vietnam? It needs to be addressed on an international stage before the civilians on both sides begin suffering.
- contingencies 11y agoIronically, the NYT is banned by the great firewall here in China. On nomenclature, Indochina Sea would perhaps be a reasonable candidate for a more honest toponym, being as it is both suggestive of the general area and adequately distanced from any specific modern political entities.
- dump100 11y agohonestly, how does indo come into picture?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- contingencies 11y agoIndochina was the name for the eastern projection of the upper mainland Southeast Asian peninsula region under French domination - hence, "French Indochina". The name probably derives from the fact that the historic and modern cultures of the region are a mix of Chinese and Indian: a little known fact is that there were all-out Hindu kingdoms as close to modern China as central Vietnam, northern Burma, southern Laos and Cambodia. Indian influence is also heavily felt in Burma, Thailand, and upper Laos, for instance in writing systems (abugidas), language, mythology, law, religion and royal/court rituals.
- ctdonath 11y agoBuy your remote deserted desert island while you still can!
- farooo123 11y agoSo when Dubai does it it's tourism, but when Chinese do it it's a bullying tactic?
- oblio 11y agoDoes Dubai do it in contested international waters? ;)
- aet 11y agoWe (USA) have a gigantic navy base replete with nuclear weapons 1000mi from China mainland. Where is the closest Chinese nuke base to the US?
- twothamendment 11y agoDoes it matter where nuclear weapons are? Can China or the US deliver one anywhere in the world?
- coldcode 11y agoNo, once someone fires one nuclear missile no one will be left to argue who won.
- temuze 11y agoWith nuclear subs, it really doesn't matter.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoWith ICBMs with 12,000 mile range, it doesn't either.
- aet 11y agoThen why do we do it?
- 11y ago
- logfromblammo 11y agoIt all comes down to the international laws of the sea. Planting your flag on a 1m wide rock above the high tide line enables an exclusive zone with radius 12 NM for excluding all foreign vessels, a radius of 24 NM for enforcement of your laws, and one with radius 200 NM for exclusive economic activities, like oil drilling, undersea mining, and fishing. It's a resource grab. China wants the fish and the seafloor. What they're going to end up doing is forging a multilateral treaty between Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Phillippines, and possibly Taiwan, with Australia and the USA giving a nod and a wink from the back of the room. I think that there won't be a shooting war. It will be about 95% economic warfare.
- jcranmer 11y agoArtificially-constructed islands don't count for expanding EEZ per UNCLOS. What China appears to be doing is attempting a mixture of trying to dilute the facts so as to increase ambiguity and developing "facts on the ground" (cf. the Israeli settlement patterns in Palestinian territory) so that any grand compromise hews more to their favor. I think the last thing China wants is a multilateral treaty: the more people that are involved in a treaty, the less powerful China's negotiating time is. China has made repeated angry noises against proposals to treat the issue as a single regional issue rather than a collection of bilateral disputes. The disputes are also a large factor into why all the other south-east Asian countries (including especially Vietnam!) are trying to cozy up to the US and get the protection of the US Navy.
- logfromblammo 11y agoSome of them are natural islands that have been artificially expanded to support a military presence. The 12 NM territorial limit for a natural island certainly allows the power owning it to build barracks, airfields, and artillery batteries within that limit. And that prevents other countries from claiming or disputing the island.
- run4yourlives2 11y agoIt's not a resource grab... those are major shipping routes. It's an economic control grab.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mafribe 11y agoI wonder to what extend the real issue is Taiwan. After all China has a (often strongly expressed) territorial claim to Taiwan (and vice versa, but that is not as well-known). If China were to cede alleged land-rights w.r.t. to these islands, it might set a precedent that Taiwan might try to exploit. Maybe China wants to avoid this situation.
- dak1 11y agoI think they're both related to upholding territorial claims, which the PRC says is a "core interest" (ie, something they're willing to go to war over), but I don't think it's viewed as a direct domino effect. The more direct link is potentially to the CCP's claim to legitimacy as the government of China. If they can't defend China's "historic" claims to territory then they could lose legitimacy in the eyes of an increasingly nationalistic public.
- mafribe 11y agoI agree, but it would be much easier to sell giving up on the Spratly Islands to the Chinese population than accepting Taiwan as a sovereign state. Indeed I would not be too surprised if China did the former. The ability to do so gives China a lot of leverage in negotiations with regional or international competitors, just like the US uses the unresolved Taiwan situation as a lever in negotiations with China.
- dak1 11y agoA big part of this is also "creating facts on the ground" that align as closely as possible with the PRC's "9-dash line"[1], especially prior to a decision being made in the Philippines v. China case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Those facts also provide much better power projection capabilities to the PLAN (the PRC's Navy). Development of the islands actually accelerated dramatically when the case was filed, and I suspect the PRC wanted to get the largest and most obvious work done before that case concludes, since, although the PRC doesn't recognize the court's jurisdiction, past cases where other countries have acted with similar disregard suggest the optics surrounding it still matters.[2] [1] See: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line [2] For example: http://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/caving-international-pressure-russia-releases-greenpeace-boat http://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/caving-inter...
- mc32 11y agoBut isn't this tactic of fabricating islands to lay claim too transparent? How could any court agree to the claims, why, yes, you demonstrated prior control, you indeed had a permanent population there"? To anyone seeing this this is an obvious objective to nullify claims by ph, vn, my, jp, etc. Can international courts be persuaded by these obvious artificial methods of establishing jurisdiction?
- dak1 11y agoIt doesn't really matter how transparent it is, since, International Law has rather little ability to enforce its decisions. As much as we try to develop rules and norms to constrain and moderate behavior by countries in the international community, at the end of the day, "the strong [still] do as they can and the weak [still] suffer what they must". And yes, you're right that the actions and intentions are pretty transparent, with just some uncertainty surrounding the extent (ie, what reasoning will the PRC ultimately use to justify its claims, as it's also been quite ambiguous about them).
- deleted 11y ago
- eonw 11y agoif that's not the creation of and FOB, i dont know what is.
- timiblossom 11y agoThe building to convert reef to island is one of the first steps to claim the entire Southeast-Asia sea by China. It will then have the self-declared ownership right to block all sea/air traffics through this region and bully other neighboring countries. Besides having a huge oil/gas reserve and fishes, in term of economic impact, this sea is as important as or more than Panama Canal or Suez Canal. A country with the right to block or own it will harm the rest of the world. Currently, the allies have been formed with a group of countries Japan, Philippine, Viet Nam, America and others trying to stop China but they have not found any solution nor success yet. Here is the map that China wants to claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea#/media/File:South_China_Sea_vector.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...
- smcl 11y agoMy word the southern reaches of the Chinese claim are extremely grabby! Is this just similar to haggling in a bazaar for an item listed at $30, which you personally value at $20 so you open with a lowballed offer of $10?
- adventured 11y agoYou're being generous. China is annexing territory that belongs to Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The same thing that Russia is doing in Ukraine. It's an act of war, the issue is that the world is very afraid of China (both militarily and economically).
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoNo, it's a territorial claim - so far. It's not yet an act of war. Trying to enforce the claim will be an act of war. Building the islands... well, everybody else who claims that area also seems to be building there. That could, arguably, be considered an act of war, but so far everybody's doing it and we do not yet have a war.
- tellthetruth 11y ago
- timiblossom 11y agoThe building to convert reef to island is one of the first steps to claim the entire Southeast-Asia sea by China. It will then have the self-declared ownership right to block all sea/air traffics through this region and bully other neighboring countries. Besides having a huge oil/gas reserve and fishes, in term of economic impact, this sea is as important as or more than Panama Canal or Suez Canal. A country with the right to block or own it will harm the rest of the world. Currently, the allies have been formed with a group of countries Japan, Philippine, Viet Nam, America and others trying to stop China but they have not found any solution nor success yet. Here is the map that China wants to claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea#/media/File:South_China_Sea_vector.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...
- iaskwhy 11y agoWhile not expanded/ing, the Savages Islands are an European example of disputed Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) between Spain and Portugal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands
- honest_joe 11y agoThe whole asia is just a boling pot that is going to explode but nobody knows when. I predict the peak to be when the North Korean regime collapses and South tries to absorb the North de facto creating an option for Korea to become a regional military super house. Japanese right wing extremists pushing government to start massive military spending once again creating much more powerful Japan. I do not really know what will China do at this stage to be honest. It may try to ally with Korea but i think koreans stay neutral and will try to rebuild the North. It is highly possible that the second miracle on the han river may actually happen and Korea gets richer and richer (after all North has a massive mineral resources and a cheap workforce) and korean GDP might start reaching interesting numbers. I predict Japan will try to push forward and claim the disputed islands with the support of uncle Sam. At this point I do not know what happens but i see Korea as a random factor that might start shooting at everyone who is not korean.
- gaius 11y agoSouth tries to absorb the North de facto creating an option for Korea to become a regional military super house Can you detail your reasoning? If the lessons of West/East Germany are anything to go by, reunification will be followed by an inward looking period in which the work of integration absorbs all resources. Also the Nork military while large, really wouldn't add anything to the capability of the South - it's poorly equipped, malnourished and badly trained. If it wasn't for the risk of collateral damage to Seoul, any modern military could rout it just as fast as Israel won the Six Day War or the Coalition rolled over Iraq in Gulf War 1.
- honest_joe 11y agoThe only thing that prevents reunification is the chaebols and politics. And East germany did not have a shitload of minerals they could use / sell. All true but South is already a regional military powerhouse with the troops from north and 40-60years of work they could really become as strong as the Empire of Japan was.
- gaius 11y ago
- shernan111 11y agoHow come the UN is not stopping this stupidity? Their 9 dash nine rule is so stupid.
- perlgeek 11y agoHow would they stop that?
- fatjokes 11y agoYou realize that China is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, right? The only time the UN can act is with the support of all five permanent members, which also includes Russia. Guess how often that happens.
- tellthetruth 11y agoThe europeans lay claim to the entire "America" continent. Is that stupid too? Oops I guess no. It's called Exception Handling.
- cmscheye 11y agoway to save the reefs, china
- damon_c 11y agoIf national control of contested territory was a board game and China pulled this move at my house, I would not invite them over again.
- fatjokes 11y agoYou would if you also ran a business where they were your biggest customer.
- haosdent 11y agoAmerica do this thing in the whole word while China just do this thing in China Sea....
- redwood 11y agoAn important difference is that Americans are diverse, not as the world itself, but more than any other large nation. A far cry from homogeneous societies.
- zaczac 11y agoWhat U.S. had been done with Hawaii? Entire mexico gulf? starting Gulf War for owning red sea? And Pacific Ocean becomes U.S. domestic lake? who brought up the world tension?
- simonh 11y agoWhataboutism. "Don't look at what we're doing over here, look at these other people over there." It's equivalent to a direct admission that what China is doing is wrong and you know it. Presumably if you could actualy defend China's actions, you do so instead of changing the subject.
- wonnage 11y agoYour response is implicitly an acknowledgment and approval of previous US actions as well... I don't think we can deny that these things happened. The West has the privilege of saying it happened in the 1800s and brushing it under the carpet.
- adventured 11y agoThe US doesn't lay claim to the Pacific Ocean, and it has a right to transit its navy in open waters. It does not make a habit of navigating its navy into other nation's waters without their permission. The US does not claim ownership over any part of the Gulf of Mexico that it doesn't blatantly have a right to, as this image makes very clear: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Territorial_waters_-_United_States.svg/2000px-Territorial_waters_-_United_States.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Te... The southern tip of Texas across to the southern tip of Florida is extremely reasonable as a water claim.
- zaczac 11y agoWhat if China ran their war ships into Mexico gulf just like U.S did in Southern China Sea?We shall think it is quiet fair because in the "public" ocean?
- 11y ago
- curiousjorge 11y agoThe question is, is President Xi willing to risk military conflict to enforce whatever new lines he draws on the map? I don't think he is. As we saw the air zone China drew that overlapped Korea, Japan and Taiwan, it was promptly ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was silent. An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the continuity of Xi's party and the Communist Party itself. The risk is far too great for the small gain it gets. Chinese leadership operates on a cost/benefit analysis, I don't think anything has changed. So the only logical conclusion is that Xi, along with his anti-corruption campaign to take out his foes, is using brinkmanship to further his popularity and distract people from internal problems that could lead to massive unrest. Economic downturn would certainly be a threat and war drumming has been a common political tool used by many different countries at different points in history. A military conflict that would be launched by China so far away from it's coastline makes no sense where US has dozens of nearby bases in different countries and logistic support on it's own and from host countries to sustain a prolonged naval warfare. If there was a war, China should pick it's coastlines where it has anti-access/area denial weapons (allegedly) and opposing force would not risk their assets. It would be a nightmare in terms of logistics for PLAN if they did launch some provocation so far away from the mainland. The island building is a clever way to provoke without risking it's military.
- SCAQTony 11y agoHere is The Economist map and reference to that designated Chinese flight zone. It's definitely displays grandiose ambition: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21590930-chinas-new-air-defence-zone-suggests-worrying-new-approach-region-face http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21590930-chinas-new-ai...
- dm2 11y agoChina does have 2.3 million active troops and 700 million humans who would be able to serve if needed. They are considered the 3rd most powerful military. What is the risk?
- georgeecollins 11y ago
- xkiwi 11y agoI am surprised most of us only believe/get news from CNN & MSNBCish. Vietnam is the one who building in the South China Sea. Vietnam is building two islands: West London Reef and Sand Cay, at the year of 2010. Vietnam build islands, CNN FOX cricket, cricket. China build islands, it is against international law. - http://amti.csis.org/west-reef-tracker/ http://amti.csis.org/west-reef-tracker/ - http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/16087/20150508/vietnam-building-islands-south-china-sea.htm http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/16087/20150508/vietnam-... - http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/us-southchinasea-vietnam-idUSKBN0NT04820150508 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/us-southchinasea-v... China, human right violations. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/china-and-tibet https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/china... VS. Former University of Cincinnati police officer pleads not guilty - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/07/30/former-university-of-cincinnati-police-officer-pleads-not-guilty/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/07/30... And Stop and frisk. - http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data I am not sure who is violating human right now.
- run4yourlives2 11y agoI think the difference here is that Vietnam isn't extending it's claim to thousands of miles off shore. The article clearly shows Vietnam is building islands too. It also shows them being pretty close to mainland Vietnam.
- xkiwi 11y agoThe robbery just such a small amount, it should not be charged. Since the amount is so small, i am going to forgive it. You mean the difference like this?
- georgeecollins 11y agoChina is very smart to pursue this strategy. The US is committed to fleet carriers and expensive aircraft, while the Chinese focus on island bases and balistic missiles. The US is hampered by the organizational inertia that keeps us poring resources into systems that worked in WW2 or the Cold War. In that sense the failurs of the F-35 are kind of a blessing for the US Navy. It forces them to think about drones. If there is a future for surface ships it is probably as missile platforms or as some sort of drone platform, not aircraft carriers.
- fraserharris 11y agoHigh-speed drones will still need landing strips. It will probably be optimal to have smaller, more numerous drone carriers, but not by much.
- perfTerm 11y agoPossibly not if they're solar or hybrid powered, fuel efficient, and have large enough fuel stores. A plane recently flew around the entirety of the earth without stopping so it's certainly conceivable to fly half way around the planet and back again.
- fraserharris 11y agoThat would have limited military use. Long-term airborne drones are slow, light, and carry a small payload.
- toolsadmin 11y agoSounds to me like typical MSM bait to incite people in Burgerland to hate and get defensive against China. China has been improving by leaps and bounds, they've made mistakes - sure, but they're doing great. No idiotic pseudo-religious-moral limitations on biotechonology will help the Chinese secure their place at its forefront. In the absence of a large carrier force the Chinese absolutely need the reefs as the first line of defense against encroachment by US + Co (Japan and Taiwan + minor players) interests. You're seeing now what a nation where most people chose science, engineering and math can accomplish.
- wedesoft 11y agoAccording to a "Megastructures" documentary, because Shanghai harbour is to small for the new generation of container ships.
- redwood 11y agoThis is Chinese manifest destiny.