Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon

[BridgeTroll]

I thought the Chinese got a pretty favorable ruling... the new "continental shelf and EEZ" area still screws Vietnam from half of their coastline.

https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-map/

[BridgeTroll]

Very good analysis...

https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-ruling-analysis/

[spuwho]

Very good analysis...

https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-ruling-analysis/

Good read. Thanks for posting.

Looking at the interactive maps I would agree Vietnam got shafted. As soon as you exit their EEZ, you are in China's EEZ.

Vietnam has a weak Navy and right now has had troubles going up against the PLAN-CG.

I cant see them putting up much push back right now.

[spuwho]

And the beat goes on.....

Vietnam moves new rocket launchers into disputed South China Sea

Per Reuters:

(Reuters) - Vietnam has discreetly fortified several of its islands in the disputed South China Sea with new mobile rocket launchers capable of striking China's runways and military installations across the vital trade route, according to Western officials.

Diplomats and military officers told Reuters that intelligence shows Hanoi has shipped the launchers from the Vietnamese mainland into position on five bases in the Spratly islands in recent months, a move likely to raise tensions with Beijing.

The launchers have been hidden from aerial surveillance and they have yet to be armed, but could be made operational with rocket artillery rounds within two or three days, according to the three sources.

Vietnam's Foreign Ministry said the information was "inaccurate", without elaborating.

Deputy Defence Minister, Senior Lieutenant-General Nguyen Chi Vinh, told Reuters in Singapore in June that Hanoi had no such launchers or weapons ready in the Spratlys but reserved the right to take any such measures.

"It is within our legitimate right to self-defense to move any of our weapons to any area at any time within our sovereign territory," he said.

The move is designed to counter China's build-up on its seven reclaimed islands in the Spratlys archipelago. Vietnam's military strategists fear the building runways, radars and other military installations on those holdings have left Vietnam's southern and island defenses increasingly vulnerable.

Military analysts say it is the most significant defensive move Vietnam has made on its holdings in the South China Sea in decades.

Hanoi wanted to have the launchers in place as it expected tensions to rise in the wake of the landmark international court ruling against China in an arbitration case brought by the Philippines, foreign envoys said.

The ruling last month, stridently rejected by Beijing, found no legal basis to China's sweeping historic claims to much of the South China Sea.

Vietnam, China and Taiwan claim all of the Spratlys while the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei claim some of the area.

"China has indisputable sovereignty over the Spratly islands and nearby waters," China's Foreign Ministry said in a faxed statement on Wednesday. "China resolutely opposes the relevant country illegally occupying parts of China's Spratly islands and reefs and on these illegally occupied Spratly islands and reefs belonging to China carrying out illegal construction and military deployments."

The United States is also monitoring developments closely.

"We continue to call on all South China Sea claimants to avoid actions that raise tensions, take practical steps to build confidence, and intensify efforts to find peaceful, diplomatic solutions to disputes," a State Department official said.

STATE-OF-THE-ART SYSTEM

Foreign officials and military analysts believe the launchers form part of Vietnam's state-of-art EXTRA rocket artillery system recently acquired from Israel.

EXTRA rounds are highly accurate up to a range of 150 km (93 miles), with different 150 kg (330 lb) warheads that can carry high explosives or bomblets to attack multiple targets simultaneously. Operated with targeting drones, they could strike both ships and land targets.

That puts China's 3,000-metre runways and installations on Subi, Fiery Cross and Mischief Reef within range of many of Vietnam's tightly clustered holdings on 21 islands and reefs.

While Vietnam has larger and longer range Russian coastal defense missiles, the EXTRA is considered highly mobile and effective against amphibious landings. It uses compact radars, so does not require a large operational footprint - also suitable for deployment on islets and reefs.

"When Vietnam acquired the EXTRA system, it was always thought that it would be deployed on the Spratlys...it is the perfect weapon for that," said Siemon Wezeman, a senior arms researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

There is no sign the launchers have been recently test fired or moved.

China took its first Spratlys possessions after a sea battle against Vietnam's then weak navy in 1988. After the battle, Vietnam said 64 soldiers with little protection were killed as they tried to protect a flag on South Johnson reef - an incident still acutely felt in Hanoi.

In recent years, Vietnam has significantly improved its naval capabilities as part of a broader military modernization, including buying six advanced Kilo submarines from Russia.

Carl Thayer, an expert on Vietnam's military at the Australian Defence Force Academy, said the deployment showed the seriousness of Vietnam's determination to militarily deter China as far as possible.

"China's runways and military installations in the Spratlys are a direct challenge to Vietnam, particularly in their southern waters and skies, and they are showing they are prepared to respond to that threat," he said. "China is unlikely to see this as purely defensive, and it could mark a new stage of militarization of the Spratlys."

Trevor Hollingsbee, a former naval intelligence analyst with the British defense ministry, said he believed the deployment also had a political factor, partly undermining the fear created by the prospect of large Chinese bases deep in maritime Southeast Asia.

"It introduces a potential vulnerability where they was none before - it is a sudden new complication in an arena that China was dominating," he said.

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/us-underwater-drone-china.html?_r=0

U.S. Demands Return of Drone Seized by Chinese Warship
By HELENE COOPER DEC. 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said on Friday it had issued a formal protest to Beijing demanding the return of an underwater drone seized by a Chinese warship in the South China Sea, an incident that risked increasing tensions in a region already fraught with great-power rivalries.

A Defense Department official said that the unmanned underwater vehicle was discovered missing on Thursday when the crew of the United States Navy vessel Bowditch tried to retrieve it.

The Bowditch, an oceanographic ship, was operating in international waters and carrying out scientific research, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a potentially delicate international incident.

American officials said they were still trying to determine whether the seizure was a low-level action taken by Chinese sailors who spotted the drone or a strategic-level action ordered by more senior Chinese leaders.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Whatever the case, the Pentagon said that China had no right to seize the drone.

"This is not the sort of conduct we expect from professional navies," said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

The incident is the second this week in the South China Sea, coming just after China signaled on Thursday that it had installed weapons on disputed islands that it would use to repel threats. The latest moves complicate already testy relations between China and the United States, ties that have been further complicated by President-elect Donald J. Trump's phone call with the president of Taiwan.

Mr. Trump angered Chinese officials by holding a phone conversation with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, an island that Beijing deems a breakaway province of China. It had been nearly four decades since a United States president or president-elect had such direct contact with a Taiwanese leader.

In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Mr. Trump also criticized China over its trade imbalance with the United States, its military activities in the South China Sea and its ties to North Korea.

Defense officials said on Friday that they were trying to determine if the seizure of the underwater drone had anything to do with Mr. Trump's comments.

[spuwho]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/us-underwater-drone-china.html?_r=0

U.S. Demands Return of Drone Seized by Chinese Warship
By HELENE COOPER DEC. 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said on Friday it had issued a formal protest to Beijing demanding the return of an underwater drone seized by a Chinese warship in the South China Sea, an incident that risked increasing tensions in a region already fraught with great-power rivalries.

A Defense Department official said that the unmanned underwater vehicle was discovered missing on Thursday when the crew of the United States Navy vessel Bowditch tried to retrieve it.

The Bowditch, an oceanographic ship, was operating in international waters and carrying out scientific research, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a potentially delicate international incident.

American officials said they were still trying to determine whether the seizure was a low-level action taken by Chinese sailors who spotted the drone or a strategic-level action ordered by more senior Chinese leaders.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Whatever the case, the Pentagon said that China had no right to seize the drone.

"This is not the sort of conduct we expect from professional navies," said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

The incident is the second this week in the South China Sea, coming just after China signaled on Thursday that it had installed weapons on disputed islands that it would use to repel threats. The latest moves complicate already testy relations between China and the United States, ties that have been further complicated by President-elect Donald J. Trump's phone call with the president of Taiwan.

Mr. Trump angered Chinese officials by holding a phone conversation with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, an island that Beijing deems a breakaway province of China. It had been nearly four decades since a United States president or president-elect had such direct contact with a Taiwanese leader.

In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Mr. Trump also criticized China over its trade imbalance with the United States, its military activities in the South China Sea and its ties to North Korea.

Defense officials said on Friday that they were trying to determine if the seizure of the underwater drone had anything to do with Mr. Trump's comments.

I doubt it had anything to do with Trump.

More in line to see if US oceanographic activities are truly for science or intelligence gathering.

For all they know it was a CIA crew using USOS as a cover for their underwater drone which records sonographic information on submarine screws.

Yet more intrigue.

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/explained-tension-south-china-sea/

Explained by Graphics: Tension in the South China Sea

CLAIMS ON THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, THE RECENT RULING, AND WHY CHINA IS IGNORING IT

The Chart of the Week is a weekly Visual Capitalist feature on Fridays.

Tension in the South China Sea reached a potential inflection point this week.

Days ago, an international tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, dismissing China's sweeping territorial claims to the hotly contested waters in the South China Sea.

Since then, it has become clear that China plans to ignore the ruling, while Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin has threatened to declare an air defense identification zone over the waters to help protect the country's interests.

But how did we get to this point? How was this ruling determined, and what does it mean moving forwards?

WHY THE SOUTH CHINA SEA MATTERS

The South China Sea is home to 250 small islands, shoals, reefs, sandbars, and other tiny landmasses.

The South China Sea is the second most used sea lane in the world, and home to:

$5 trillion of annual trade
11 billion barrels of oil
266 trillion cubic ft of natural gas
Six countries claim parts of the South China Sea as their own: China, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.

However, China has the boldest claim, insisting that over 80% of the sea is their territory based on historical maps.

ISLAND OR ROCK?

The ruling in the Philippines vs. China hearing is based on the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994. All countries disputing claims in the South China Sea are signatories.

UNCLOS defines three types of landmasses, and whether something is a "rock" or an "island" has huge implications for territorial claims.

Low-tide elevation: A landmass above water only at low tide.
Rock: A landmass permanently above water, but unable to sustain human habitation or economic life on its own.
Island: A landmass permanently above water that can sustain human habitation and economic life on its own.
Rocks get some territorial benefits, but islands get 200 nautical miles (370 km) of special economic rights around them in each direction.

Low-tide elevation: Not entitled to any separate maritime zone.
Rock: Entitled to territorial sea and contiguous zone. Each are up to 12 nautical miles (22 km) from base line.
Island: Entitled to territorial sea and contiguous zone, but also entitled to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles (370 km), and continental shelf rights.
The economic zone confers rights for fishing, drilling, energy production, and other economic activities.

THE RULING

The tribunal ruled that Scarborough Shoal, along with areas occupied by China in the Spratly Islands do not count as "islands", and therefore do not justify 200 nautical mile (370 km) economic zones around them.

China has rejected the ruling calling it "ill-founded". Taiwan, which has administered Taiping Island since 1956, also rejected the ruling.

China has argued that the tribunal has no legitimate jurisdiction on this issue since it concerns "sovereignty" – which the text of the UNCLOS explicitly prohibits tribunals from addressing.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

If China continues to ignore the ruling, likely there will be a "hit" to China's reputation, but that's it.

Going back in history, there is a long list of situations where superpowers have ignored international rulings. It is also worth noting that China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and has veto power.

Tension will continue to increase in the South China Sea, creating a situation that could boil over at any time.

[finehoe]

It should be noted the US has never ratified UNCLOS.

[Adam White]

It should be noted the US has never ratified UNCLOS.

Well, like China, Russia and every other major power, the USA only cares about the UN when it is in its best interest to do so.

[finehoe]

Tillerson says China should be barred from South China Sea islands

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state has set a course for a potentially serious confrontation with Beijing, saying China should be denied access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.

In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing on Wednesday before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia's taking Crimea" from Ukraine.

Asked whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China, he said: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

The former Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands it has built up from South China Sea reefs, equipped with military-length airstrips and fortified with weapons.

Trump's transition team did not immediately respond to a request for specifics on how China might be blocked from the artificial islands.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-congress-tillerson-china-idUSKBN14V2KZ

[finehoe]

Steve Bannon: 'we're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'

The United States and China will fight a war within the next ten years over islands in the South China Sea, and "there's no doubt about that". At the same time, the US will be in another "major" war in the Middle East.


Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump's administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump's presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the "principals committee" of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump's team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

"We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," he said in March 2016. "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it's an ancient territorial sea."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-were-going-to-war-in-the-south-china-sea-no-doubt/ar-AAmwFbi?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

[spuwho]

Steve Bannon: 'we're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'

The United States and China will fight a war within the next ten years over islands in the South China Sea, and "there's no doubt about that". At the same time, the US will be in another "major" war in the Middle East.


Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump's administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump's presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the "principals committee" of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump's team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

"We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," he said in March 2016. "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it's an ancient territorial sea."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-were-going-to-war-in-the-south-china-sea-no-doubt/ar-AAmwFbi?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

Pre-Trump, he was armchair quarterbacking.

Post-Trump, it will establish a negotiation position.

It always easy to prognosticate the worse scenarios when you have nothing to risk, but once your life is at risk, positions tend to change.

[Adam White]

Steve Bannon: 'we're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'

The United States and China will fight a war within the next ten years over islands in the South China Sea, and "there's no doubt about that". At the same time, the US will be in another "major" war in the Middle East.


Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump's administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump's presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the "principals committee" of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump's team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

"We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," he said in March 2016. "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it's an ancient territorial sea."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-were-going-to-war-in-the-south-china-sea-no-doubt/ar-AAmwFbi?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

Pre-Trump, he was armchair quarterbacking.

Post-Trump, it will establish a negotiation position.

It always easy to prognosticate the worse scenarios when you have nothing to risk, but once your life is at risk, positions tend to change.

I hope you're right - I think you're very optimistic. Bannon, et al, aren't statesmen. I guess that's why Trump appealed to so many. But he and his crew seem very dangerous. And a bit stupid, I think. Or maybe it's just blind arrogance.

[BridgeTroll]

At least as optimistic as the previous administration... The process was begun with the "Pivot to the Pacific"...

[finehoe]

So your assertion is that the "Pivot" was to lay the groundwork for a war with China?