South China Sea Forum

[Penguin]

Woody Island

Fishing activities in the South China Sea region surrounding the island have been documented in the records of earlier Chinese dynasties. During the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), Zheng He plotted the location of surrounding islands on a map. In 1909 Zhang Renjun, the Viceroy of Liangguang ordered Guangdong Fleet Admiral Li Zhun to sail to the island. His mission landed in June 1909. In 1932, the island was occupied by French Indochina.

The island was occupied by Japan during World War II. Following Japan's surrender at the end of the war, the Nationalist Chinese government sent naval expeditions to the South China Sea in November 1946 to claim the Spratly and Paracel Islands, and established a permanent presence on Woody Island and Itu Aba. They (re)named Woody Island "Yongxing (Yung-hsing) Island" after one of the Republic of China Navy warships, ROCS Yung-hsing. The ROCS Yung-hsing was formerly the USS Embattle (AM-226) transferred to the ROC navy after the war. In January 1947, after making a failed attempt to dislodge the Chinese garrison from Woody Island, France established a permanent presence, on behalf of Vietnam, on Pattle Island in the western Paracels.

After the Hainan Island Campaign in 1950 during the Chinese Civil War, the ROC garrison on Woody Island and Itu Aba were withdrawn to Taiwan. France had a chance to take over the islands, but decided not to, for fear of compromising its interests with the newly established PRC. The islands were thus unoccupied for six years, except for seasonal inhabitation by fishermen from Hainan. In 1956, the PRC established a permanent presence on Woody Island.

The Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) continued to exercise its sovereignty over the Crescent Group in the western part of the Paracel Islands after assuming control from the departing French colonialists, by maintaining a military garrison from the mid-1950s (per a decision by Ngo Dinh Diem's administration). Within the 20 years thereafter, conflicts between the two sides repeatedly erupted within the region. In January 1974, the PLA Navy captured the archipelago during the Battle of the Paracel Islands.

Woody Island (South China Sea) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dichoi]

.
Why the United States and Vietnam Urgently Need to Deepen Ties

"Beijing is increasingly demonstrating to Hanoi that it aspires to regional hegemony and will trample the rights of any country that stands in its way..."

Alexander BenardPaul J. Leaf
September 11, 2015

U.S.-Vietnamese relations have strengthened in the past few years, in large part due to common concern over China’s increased aggression in the South China Sea. But some parts of the relationship have progressed slowly—confirming China’s belief that it can continue bullying Vietnam as part of its push for regional control without sparking serious backlash. Indeed, China recently parked another oil drilling rig in Vietnamese waters, and just last week, it extended the rig’s operations for several months. But this latest provocation, together with China’s announcement last week that it will shift more resources towards its naval and aerial capabilities, may motivate the United States and Vietnam to develop several key elements of their burgeoning partnership.

n May 2014, just three days after President Obama ended a tour of Asia meant to reassure allies there, Beijing almost triggered a crisis near the disputed Paracel Islands, which lie in the South China Sea and are occupied by Beijing, but claimed by Hanoi. Backed by “a large number of vessels,” China placed a state-owned oil drilling rig roughly 80 miles inside Vietnam’s internationally recognized exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which extends 200 miles from its coast. Beijing argued that it controlled those waters because they sit within the EEZ created by the Paracel Islands. Vietnam intervened with about thirty ships of its own. A seventy-five-day standoff ensued and escalated, as China dispatched military forces to guard the rig and the countries repeatedly rammed and sprayed each other’s boats. China sank a Vietnamese ship and anti-Chinese riots erupted in Vietnam. China ultimately withdrew after completing its testing, but warned that it might return.

The United States called China’s moves “provocative,” but it levied no sanctions, continued to bar lethal-weapons sales to Vietnam, declined to mediate the conflict and sent no military forces to the area. Seeing a detached United States and recognizing China’s naval superiority, Vietnam downplayed the dispute with its largest investor and trading partner, labeling the conflict a “brother[ly]” disagreement and resuming military ties with China. With a stronger regional power unable to stop it and Washington sidelining itself, China signaled that its rivals should accept its inexorable rise.

To underscore this message, this past June, just weeks before Vietnam’s top leader visited the United States, China deployed the same rig in a different part of Vietnam’s EEZ (which overlaps with the EEZ created by China’s Hainan Island) to investigate natural-resource deposits there. Beijing admonished foreign ships to stay 2,000 meters (6,562 feet) away from the rig. The exploration was slated to end on August 20, 2015. But last week, China moved the rig closer to Vietnam (within 110 miles of its coast) and unilaterally extended its drilling for two more months.

Why the United States and Vietnam Urgently Need to Deepen Ties | The National Interest

 

[Dungeness]

Woody Island is naturally formed. It has been and is disputed territory however. So, no, you got that wrong.
But lets'suppose - for the sake of argument - that it wasn't disputed, then the choise of weapon system to put there is out of proportion to any perceived threat ( and likely related to 'terraforming' 68km down the road).

The SAM range has no relation to the size of the location. Rather, again assuming for the sake of argument China has sovereignty over Woody Island, then that what it would have a right to defend doesn't extend offshore beyond 12nmi.

Of course, the whole point with Woody Island is that Chinese sovereignty (or Vietnamese or Taiwanese, for that matter) is disputed, and therefore the whole issue of 'self defence' (against what, exactly? and why, out to where?) is BOGUS.

So a country should not have any capability to defend itself beyond its 12 nmi waters? Can you tell us where do you get this this idea from. Here in NW coast, there are hundred of 100 year old fortress that hosted cannons that had range of beyond that. Are you saying they were illegal in the first place? US has Pac -3 or THAAD with range hundreds of miles, all over the world including in the lower 48, are you telling us they are all illegal?

Being dispute is precisely the reason that need to be defended. Falkland is the dispute island between UK and Argentina, so all the defense in the islands that UK set up are illegal?

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

 

[anon45]

Just a statement of the obvious, they are ignoring China's ADIZ by Korea as well. Airlines will still follow it.

 

[TaiShang]

Oh, so China is a man courting a woman? Because that's what the quote refers to.

Should you interprete wider, it refers to self centered people will step on who ever they need to and do what ever it takes no matter who thy hurt to "get to the top" or get what they want. In short, 'might makes right' (and civilization out the window). If that's the world you choose to make, well, good luck.

The way I understand the quote, it suggests one should at least "respond in kind" and act proactively and preemptively when one gets the capability to do so.

Sorry, I am confused with what you want to say:

Are you now saying yes, China has legitimate right to put SAM on "naturally formed Woody Island", but instead of HQ-9, they should use MANPADS as it is more "proportional" to the size of the island?

And if the sovereignty is in dispute, a state should not have any defense on the land in question?

You have been trying hard to prove that "artificial islands are not islands", but no Chinese member here are arguing about 200 miles EEZ for those reefs, so it seems you complete miss the point.

There is no such rule in international law. Besides, Woody Island can be regarded as an island, just as the rest of China's 9 holdings in Nansha.

See this map?

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2011/012711_gcil_maritime_eez_map.pdf

US claims EEZ for even Baker Island, which is entirely submerged in high tide.

International law is not written on stone. It is always reinterpreted according to the needs of more capable actors.

China will feed the US its own medicine to the point till the US is kicked out of China's immediate periphery and sphere of influence.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Just a statement of the obvious, they are ignoring China's ADIZ by Korea as well. Airlines will still follow it.

lol isn't that enough? once we establish the ADIZ in SCS, as along as the airlines and cargo ships comply our directive symbolize that we exercise the full control of SCS...and we don't respect others nation ADIZ neither by the way. I just love whoever have such bright idea to create the ADIZ at the fist place...now we use for our advantage.

 

[TaiShang]

We do not respect US ADIZ, as well, just as we did not respect US claims of nerve gas used by Syrian government.

We do not respect when we feel we should not respect and you can do nothing about that.

For SCS ADIZ, the point is to have the capability to enforce law when the situation requires so. Capability is the real asset; the question of having to or not having to mobilize those capabilities is just conjectural.

We will monitor, track and keep a watchful eye on you even you do not wish to be done so. Whether we will take a safety measure or not is situational. War systems are set up in peace time. Exploring new frontiers never stops.

Right now the fundamentals are set up; the ADIZ will established when all the systems are ready. Give us some more time.

 

[ahojunk]

Some selected quotes from the above article.

China counters by arguing that it abides by the rules, but that only some rules are pertinent. In China’s view, the disputed islands were lawfully returned after World War II under the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. Others insist the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea should hold sway. China counters that it is not a party to the San Francisco Treaty and signed UNCLOS with specified reservations applying to the South China Sea issue. China is therefore 'observing international law in the true sense'.

Yes, that's true.

China's stance has regional resonance. For instance, China avoids arbitration at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over seabed boundaries, just as Australia has done with its smaller neighbour Timor Leste. The Philippines has sought an ICJ ruling against China’s island grabs, with China responding by declaring it will ignore the result. Again, such a stance is not unusual: Japan is ignoring an ICJ ruling on whaling in the Southern Ocean.

Yes, other countries have to look at what they have done before opening their mouth.

The first strategy would be to target specific issues the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is particularly sensitive about. The fundamental aim of the CCP is regime survival, which hinges both on retaining popular legitimacy and on repression. To this end, the state maintains the 'great Chinese firewall', suppresses dissenters, censors news and rewrites history. Today’s CCP leadership is particularly sensitive to threats to the political status quo, creating pressure points that could be exploited by states wanting to influence China's behaviour in the South China Sea. Meeting the Dalai Lama, openly discussing China's human rights problems, supporting a free press, assisting open internet access or vigorously marketing China’s true history are all options.

It's difficult to do that to your biggest trading partner, don't you think? In some cases, it is also your banker. Some countries have tried and found that it is to their detriment.

The second approach would aim to constrain China’s future freedom of action. China has defended its land reclamation activities in the South China Sea as providing new ports and airfields for regional search-and-rescue and disaster relief operations. Recently, Foreign Minister Wang went further, declaring: 'China stands ready to open these facilities to other countries upon completion.' This offer could be accepted. A public diplomatic effort could be mounted to permanently place UN or ASEAN facilities and personnel on the islands to undertake civilian disaster relief tasks indefinitely. The islands would then be reconceptualised not as China’s exclusive property but rather as new territory shared with the world for all nations’ benefit. China’s use of the islands for military activities would be sharply constrained.

Yes, this could be a good option. But I am sure China will put in some conditions.

Either approach could form the basis of a new strategy to replace the current failing ones. On the other hand, if imposing costs is considered to not be worth the outcomes, then it might be wiser to accept China’s South China Sea fait accompli. Continuing with the present ineffectual responses seems unwise. Chinese decision-makers could learn the wrong lessons and come to believe that assertive strategies are the most efficacious way to get favourable outcomes. A China that learns the wrong lessons might be worse than a China that gains the control it seeks over the South China Sea.

I don't quite follow this. All countries, big or small will do whatever they can get away with if it is to their benefit. Examples are Japan with whaling, Australia taking advantage of Timor Leste, Russia with Crimea, US with regime changes bypassing UN, etc.

 

[dichoi]

.
South China Sea: US may consider sending more destroyers to patrol islands

Admiral Harry Harris, head of the US Navy’s Pacific Command, says ‘we’ll fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows’

Admiral Harry Harris said the US would increase freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP


Reuters
Thursday 25 February 2016 04.43 GMTLast modified on Thursday 25 February 201604.45 GMT

The US, worried by China’s military buildup to assert dominance in the South China Sea, will increase freedom-of-navigation operations there, a senior Pentagon official has said.

“We will be doing them more, and we’ll be doing them with greater complexity in the future and ... we’ll fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows,” Admiral Harry Harris, the head of the US Navy’s Pacific Command, told a hearing of the House of Representatives armed services committee.

“We must continue to operate in the South China Sea to demonstrate that that water space and the air above it is international,” Harris said.

On Tuesday, Harris said China was “changing the operational landscape” in the South China Sea by deploying missiles and radar as part of an effort to militarily dominate east Asia.

China is “clearly militarising the South China Sea ... You’d have to believe in a flat Earth to think otherwise,” Harris said in comments that coincided with a visit to Washington by the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi.

China says its military facilities in the South China Sea are “legal and appropriate”, and on Tuesday, in an apparent reference to US patrols, Wang said Beijing hoped not to see more close-up reconnaissance, or the dispatch of missile destroyers or strategic bombers.

Wang met US national security adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday and they “candidly discussed” maritime issues, the White House said in a statement. Rice emphasised strong US support for freedom of navigation and urged China to address regional concerns, the statement said.

Harris, asked what more could be done to deter militarisation, said the US could deploy more naval assets, although there were significant “fiscal, diplomatic and political hurdles” in the way of stationing a second aircraft carrier group in the region.

“We could consider putting another [attack] submarine out there, we could put additional destroyers forward ... there are a lot of things we could do, short of putting a full carrier strike group in the western Pacific,” he said.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5tn in global trade passes every year. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan have rival claims.

Harris’s comments came a day after he said China had deployed surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the sea’s Paracel chain and radars on Cuarteron Reef in the Spratly islands further to the south.

On Tuesday, his command said China’s repeated deployment of advanced fighter aircraft to Woody Island was part of a disturbing trend that was inconsistent with Beijing’s commitment to avoid actions that could escalate disputes.

In January, a US Navy destroyer carried out a patrol within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracels, a move China called provocative.

The US has also conducted sea and air patrols near artificial islands China has built in the Spratlys, including by two B-52 strategic bombers in December.

South China Sea: Beijing is winning, but here's how to retake the initiative

 

[Dungeness]

Now USA finally acknowledges how badly it has been spanked by China.

South China Sea: Beijing is winning, but here's how to retake the initiative

The two so called strategies suggested in this article were pretty "low tech".

The first approach is to stir up political sensitive issues in China , in a bid to cause social instability, has been tried many times already since 1989, so it is a pretty old trick. It is not going to work.

The second approach is new, and it wants to trick CPC to turn Chinese islands into UN property. It sounds more like a laughable child's play than a serious strategy.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

US may consider sending more destroyers to patrol islands

The more they send the better is for China, we don't need to give a verbal reply to Harry, only the hopeless and insecure need to make such announcement but we will do what must be done such as HQ-9 and let US keep crying . And as Chinese commentators said, the more they come the best for China perform intelligent gathering on each ship or airplane pass by....this is rare occasion for such enemy to expose himself to us.

 

[dichoi]

.
US B-52 bombers fly near disputed South China Sea islands

• 13 November 2015

The B-52 bomber planes, seen here in a file picture, continued the mission despite warnings from the Chinese

Two US B-52 bomber planes have flown near artificial islands built by China in disputed areas of the South China Sea, the Pentagon has said.

Their mission continued despite being warned by Chinese ground controllers.

The incident comes ahead of a visit by US President Barack Obama to a summit in Manila next week, which China's President Xi Jinping will also attend.

China is locked in maritime territorial disputes with several neighbours in the South China Sea.

It claims a large swathe of the resource-rich area and has been aggressively reclaiming land and building facilities on reefs, which the US and others oppose.

The US has said it plans to demonstrate its freedom of navigation principle in the sea, which challenges what it deems to be "excessive claims" to the world's oceans and airspace.

'Received warnings'
The US patrol, which took place overnight on Sunday near the Spratly Islands, was a "a routine mission in the SCS (South China Sea)", said Pentagon spokesman Bill Urban, taking off from Guam and returning there.

The B-52s did not breach the area of sea claimed by China around the islands, the Pentagon said.

Mr Urban told reporters that the planes received two warnings "despite never venturing within 15 nautical miles of any feature".

"Both aircraft continued their mission without incident, and at all times operated fully in accordance with international law," he said.

Last month, the US sailed warship USS Lassen into the 12-nautical mile zone China claims around Subi and Mischief reefs in the Spratly archipelago, angering Beijing.

China's foreign ministry condemned it as "illegal" and provocative.

US B-52 bombers fly near disputed South China Sea islands - BBC News

 

[dichoi]

US may consider sending more destroyers to patrol islands

US ships and US air jets will be present in front of China door and looks in china house.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

We do not respect US ADIZ, as well, just as we did not respect US claims of nerve gas used by Syrian government.

We do not respect when we feel we should not respect and you can do nothing about that.

For SCS ADIZ, the point is to have the capability to enforce law when the situation requires so. Capability is the real asset; the question of having to or not having to mobilize those capabilities is just conjectural.

We will monitor, track and keep a watchful eye on you even you do not wish to be done so. Whether we will take a safety measure or not is situational. War systems are set up in peace time. Exploring new frontiers never stops.

Right now the fundamentals are set up; the ADIZ will established when all the systems are ready. Give us some more time.

You see the great joke of ADIZ is US think that by having such Idea, it can control the space and dictate the rule on the sky but they're just shooting themselves on the foot, now China not only has ADIZ is eastern sea but will also be in SCS.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

US may consider sending more destroyers to patrol islands

US ships and US air jets will be present in front of China door and looks in china house.

, we will strip naked and expose ourself to them...well it's not far from true, there is nothing to hide in the Island