How can the South China Sea be divided?

[Vex]

How should the south china sea, and the islands within be divide to avoid any military conflict or tensions?

[ᴾᴾᴹ Shuffle Spy]

With a wall that the Chinese will pay for.

[Professional Map Painter]

With a wall that the Chinese will pay for.

Chyyyynaaaa

[Keroro1454]

Maybe, ya know, not based on an ancient and highly incorrect map written by a Chinese cartographer who's journals indicate so many incorrect assumptions on his part (Although to be fair this was at a point where the Sea was of little importance and there's little to no evidence the mapping issue was a malice-driven error) that he clearly should not be used as a defining law. This especially given the Chinese government had never acknowledged these maps until it became convienent.

 

China obviously is in the wrong. The issue of course is how to get the country to agree with us, or at least stop behaving as if it were a childish brat not getting its way. I think we frankly need to focus on bigger fish to fry, ie convincing China on either enforcing sanctions against NK or remaining neutral or pro-US should military action be approved. Realistically China will not aggrevate the US into actual conflict, and an allied fight against someone like North Korea could strengthen or test bonds that could chain react resolve the conflicts in the sea. It's a very delicate issue from a very stubborn country.

 

If we are to leave outside influences out, I think the best solution would be to prevent further expansion through saber-rattling like China's doing, because again they have no gains in the Sea worth thermo-nuclear destruction of the entire world. Once further expansion has been negotiated or intimidated away, then allow the growing democracy movement to take course. The U.S. should remove itself from public and subtle endorsement, though perhaps having agents assisting the movement would be a powerful catalyst. This avoids messy diplomacy with China and potentially losing any "peace" currently maintained in this hypothetical South China Sea. Allowing the movement to grow will either force China to retract some of its claims to deal with the homeland issues- at this point the U.S. should openly support the movement without necessarily denouncing the current gov (Burning bridges here would be a poor idea, especially if any past movements in China are to be used as example). Optimistically, the movement forces the Chinese government to permanently withdraw as they morph more away from the current government model they use, or even more optimistically, they completely withdraw as the movement has fully taken hold and China is a better country because of it.

 

Of course, the last two points are unlikely simply because people dislike painful change, and as terrible as China's current laws and whatnot are, they are what have allowed it to become the industrial powerhouse it is now. Discussing how these laws reflect in China and how changing them in the current government or a new government would be painful would be more suited for a dissertation or a thesis as a forum post is much to simple a format to cover the intricacies of the ideas, and how they reflect on other countries like NK, Japan, the US, Russia, etc.

 

Suffice to say it's a mess OP, and one that immediate action (Excluding negotiation for sowing and halting of further expansion, although even that appears to be not an available option given the tensions in the area) would only serve to inflame the area greatly.

[HarryG]

 

If we are to leave outside influences out, I think the best solution would be to prevent further expansion through saber-rattling like China's doing, because again they have no gains in the Sea worth thermo-nuclear destruction of the entire world.

Are you implying that there is an economic gain somewhere that IS worth thermo-nuclear destruction of the entire world?

 

 

Personally, I say leave it. There's nothing we can really do right now that's worth doing in my opinion.

[Keroro1454]

Are you implying that there is an economic gain somewhere that IS worth thermo-nuclear destruction of the entire world?

 

 

Personally, I say leave it. There's nothing we can really do right now that's worth doing in my opinion.

 

Well ya know, if it means moving ourselves to Mars before said destruction happens and when we move it would be perfectly sustainable...

 

The issue is we can't just blatantly drop it, not only is it a symbolic embarrassment diplomatically and symbolically (I'd equate it to some degree with Russia's expansion into Ukraine), but we also have to consider the serious consequences that come from such fragrant disregard to international law and the precendent it sets. With Russia, it told them have at it, and if we look at Ukraine and even Syria and Russia's involvement there, we see war, destabilization and economic devestation. To even allow the possibility of something like this to occur to our allies in Asia is seriously troubling. Having allies there is strategically, economically, etc. important to the U.S. We would lose immense face and trust from our allies to turn a complete blind eye, but likewise the issue is full involvement comes at the threat of wrath from China. Somehow you need to achieve a balance of lack of involvement with a serious indication for either desire to negotiate (We have plenty of things to discuss and leverage, though obviously the art of diplomacy is not so cut and dry). 

[HarryG]

Well ya know, if it means moving ourselves to Mars before said destruction happens and when we move it would be perfectly sustainable...

 

The issue is we can't just blatantly drop it, not only is it a symbolic embarrassment diplomatically and symbolically (I'd equate it to some degree with Russia's expansion into Ukraine), but we also have to consider the serious consequences that come from such fragrant disregard to international law and the precendent it sets. With Russia, it told them have at it, and if we look at Ukraine and even Syria and Russia's involvement there, we see war, destabilization and economic devestation. To even allow the possibility of something like this to occur to our allies in Asia is seriously troubling. Having allies there is strategically, economically, etc. important to the U.S. We would lose immense face and trust from our allies to turn a complete blind eye, but likewise the issue is full involvement comes at the threat of wrath from China. Somehow you need to achieve a balance of lack of involvement with a serious indication for either desire to negotiate (We have plenty of things to discuss and leverage, though obviously the art of diplomacy is not so cut and dry).

 

Vietnam was a pretty big embarrassment and we just dropped that. And that was even another issue where we were helping Asian allies.

[puddingkip]

International law is a joke. China is clearly wrong here, as is Russia in the Crimea. But conflict with Russia or China is something nobody is looking for or can afford. So we just let them do what they want as long as they keep it at modest level.

 

Yes it sucks for the people affected. But global peace is worth more than justice, small time annexing by major powers is and has been tolerated (Sudetenland, Soviet eastern poland etc.)

 

The south China Sea can best be divided by giving it all to China but telling them they're a naughty boy. They're not worth conflict

[Vex]

International law is a joke. China is clearly wrong here, as is Russia in the Crimea. But conflict with Russia or China is something nobody is looking for or can afford. So we just let them do what they want as long as they keep it at modest level.

Yes it sucks for the people affected. But global peace is worth more than justice, small time annexing by major powers is and has been tolerated (Sudetenland, Soviet eastern poland etc.)

The south China Sea can best be divided by giving it all to China but telling them they're a naughty boy. They're not worth conflict

Hmm I wrote up a small proposal for a school project. Here is part of it:

"Joint Resource Development: "The basic principle is that countries agree on a legal framework for exploration and production, including sharing fiscal revenues, while shelving their disputes over who actually owns the islands, rocks, shoals and reefs in the area and the seabed mineral rights that come with sovereign ownership." They Can continue economic growth already exists in other parts of Asia.

China shares water with Philippines and Taiwan: China can access resources in water above 13 degrees longitude, which is above the Spratly islands. Philippines and Taiwan can access resources in water that are 450 nautical miles from their capital city. China owns the Paracel islands and Scarbourough Shore. In addition, the Phillipines also owns the entire Spratly Islands. Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei have access to the resources in the rest of the sea, with Vietnam and Malaysia each owning one of the two smaller island chains."

 

Thoughts?

[Vex]

Maybe, ya know, not based on an ancient and highly incorrect map written by a Chinese cartographer who's journals indicate so many incorrect assumptions on his part (Although to be fair this was at a point where the Sea was of little importance and there's little to no evidence the mapping issue was a malice-driven error) that he clearly should not be used as a defining law. This especially given the Chinese government had never acknowledged these maps until it became convienent.

 

China obviously is in the wrong. The issue of course is how to get the country to agree with us, or at least stop behaving as if it were a childish brat not getting its way. I think we frankly need to focus on bigger fish to fry, ie convincing China on either enforcing sanctions against NK or remaining neutral or pro-US should military action be approved. Realistically China will not aggrevate the US into actual conflict, and an allied fight against someone like North Korea could strengthen or test bonds that could chain react resolve the conflicts in the sea. It's a very delicate issue from a very stubborn country.

 

If we are to leave outside influences out, I think the best solution would be to prevent further expansion through saber-rattling like China's doing, because again they have no gains in the Sea worth thermo-nuclear destruction of the entire world. Once further expansion has been negotiated or intimidated away, then allow the growing democracy movement to take course. The U.S. should remove itself from public and subtle endorsement, though perhaps having agents assisting the movement would be a powerful catalyst. This avoids messy diplomacy with China and potentially losing any "peace" currently maintained in this hypothetical South China Sea. Allowing the movement to grow will either force China to retract some of its claims to deal with the homeland issues- at this point the U.S. should openly support the movement without necessarily denouncing the current gov (Burning bridges here would be a poor idea, especially if any past movements in China are to be used as example). Optimistically, the movement forces the Chinese government to permanently withdraw as they morph more away from the current government model they use, or even more optimistically, they completely withdraw as the movement has fully taken hold and China is a better country because of it.

 

Of course, the last two points are unlikely simply because people dislike painful change, and as terrible as China's current laws and whatnot are, they are what have allowed it to become the industrial powerhouse it is now. Discussing how these laws reflect in China and how changing them in the current government or a new government would be painful would be more suited for a dissertation or a thesis as a forum post is much to simple a format to cover the intricacies of the ideas, and how they reflect on other countries like NK, Japan, the US, Russia, etc.

 

Suffice to say it's a mess OP, and one that immediate action (Excluding negotiation for sowing and halting of further expansion, although even that appears to be not an available option given the tensions in the area) would only serve to inflame the area greatly.

In what way can you intimidate or negotiate China to stop? (More on the negotiating)

They've clearly shown they won't, rejected plans that didn't favor them, etc.. In a case created by the Philippines, it was ruled that China has no legal right to the South China Sea, but they ignored it.

 

Imo, the islands are what China cares about, and military bases and artificial islands to be created. The resources are important, yes, but not as much as slow military movement.

To me, this seems like a somewhat repeat of the Cold War, both sides know they cannot face direct military confrontation, so they are just slowly testing each other, which I believe China has been doing better at(in part because the U.S. can't really stop them without risking military conflict).

The countries with competitions claims realize that it's foolish to engage in war with the Chinese, unless they have the U.S promised backup, which the U.S is avoiding.

 

The only solution is some sort of negotiation, which can give China at least some of what they want.

I said it above but this is part of a plan I wrote up for school;

"Joint Resource Development: "The basic principle is that countries agree on a legal framework for exploration and production, including sharing fiscal revenues, while shelving their disputes over who actually owns the islands, rocks, shoals and reefs in the area and the seabed mineral rights that come with sovereign ownership." They Can continue economic growth already exists in other parts of Asia.

China shares water with Philippines and Taiwan: China can access resources in water above 13 degrees longitude, which is above the Spratly islands. Philippines and Taiwan can access resources in water that are 450 nautical miles from their capital city. China owns the Paracel islands and Scarbourough Shore. In addition, the Phillipines also owns the entire Spratly Islands. Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei have access to the resources in the rest of the sea, with Vietnam and Malaysia each owning one of the two smaller island chains. "

 

Thoughts?

[puddingkip]

Hmm I wrote up a small proposal for a school project. Here is part of it:

"Joint Resource Development: "The basic principle is that countries agree on a legal framework for exploration and production, including sharing fiscal revenues, while shelving their disputes over who actually owns the islands, rocks, shoals and reefs in the area and the seabed mineral rights that come with sovereign ownership." They Can continue economic growth already exists in other parts of Asia.

China shares water with Philippines and Taiwan: China can access resources in water above 13 degrees longitude, which is above the Spratly islands. Philippines and Taiwan can access resources in water that are 450 nautical miles from their capital city. China owns the Paracel islands and Scarbourough Shore. In addition, the Phillipines also owns the entire Spratly Islands. Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei have access to the resources in the rest of the sea, with Vietnam and Malaysia each owning one of the two smaller island chains."

Thoughts?

Nice idea. China isn't stupid though. It has everything, why give stuff up? It's not like anybody is actually willing to risk anything on it. Duterte understands that giving up his (rightful) claims to china's illegal occupation is the smart thing to do. China is too big and strong. Unless there is significant benefits in China not just taking what it wants, why would they stop. Vietnam or the Philippines certainly won't make them. Japan, Russia or the USA could, probably. But that'd hurt trade relations. A lot. And war is expensive, so very expensive. Who wants to pay for that?

[A Cyan Stone in Mustard]

Give it to Britain and have it registered as an Overseas Territory like BIOT, then watch as all the surrounding countries get pissed off but can't do jack shit because of NATO. Then see how the dispute fades away because all the meaningless islands will sink in a few decades.

[sulker]

meaningless islands

According to a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139):

 

'They matter because they are close to important shipping lanes, offer rich fishing grounds and lie near potential oil and gas reserves. They are also in a strategically significant position, amid rising competition between the US and China for military primacy in the Asia-Pacific region.'

 

Do you even try to do research?

[Vex]

According to a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139):

 

'They matter because they are close to important shipping lanes, offer rich fishing grounds and lie near potential oil and gas reserves. They are also in a strategically significant position, amid rising competition between the US and China for military primacy in the Asia-Pacific region.'[/size]

 

Do you even try to do research?

Yeah, agreed.

They are very important, a ton of water and land, control over trading routes with $3 trillion+ in trade yearly, a ton of natural resources underwater, and simply military base possibilities (Chinese turning islands into air bases)

[#NewWizard]

International law is a joke. China is clearly wrong here, as is Russia in the Crimea. But conflict with Russia or China is something nobody is looking for or can afford. So we just let them do what they want as long as they keep it at modest level.

 

Yes it sucks for the people affected. But global peace is worth more than justice, small time annexing by major powers is and has been tolerated (Sudetenland, Soviet eastern poland etc.)

 

The south China Sea can best be divided by giving it all to China but telling them they're a naughty boy. They're not worth conflict

 

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. 

And let's not forget Americans destabilizing middle east and Africa.

[Keroro1454]

And let's not forget Americans destabilizing middle east and Africa.

 

What does that controversial statement have to do with a discussion on the South China Sea. Quite frankly your whole post seemed off-topic and of little actual purpose.

[#NewWizard]

What does that controversial statement have to do with a discussion on the South China Sea. Quite frankly your whole post seemed off-topic and of little actual purpose.

 

And talking about Russia wasn't? Every super power is abusing their powers.

[Vex]

What does that controversial statement have to do with a discussion on the South China Sea. Quite frankly your whole post seemed off-topic and of little actual purpose.

I think what he means is that those countries that can and have the power to push around smaller weaker ones will do so, and will influence and command areas in the absence of any sizable opposition, and/or reforming it to suit them.

 

I.e. Chinese basically control areas within the South China Sea due to its sheer strength, and countries like Malaysia can't stop it or do any thing about it.