Are China's claims to the majority of the 'South China Sea' unethical?

Unethical? No. Just total bull$hit.

The Chinese government still has that bizarre belief that they can conquer the world like they used to be in ancient time. China is also notorious for their disregard for ethical standards. They think because they have a strong army and a “cunning” mind everyone has to kneel before them. And I don’t think they do all of that for their people. Just look at how they treat their own citizens: internet censoring, free speech supression, cruelty to anyone with opposite views… China has a low living condition for a developed country. The people don’t have a happy life. The government is just doing all this to feel good about themselves.

Ethical is the wrong question. Like the Monroe doctrine, the answer is no. Of course the claim isn’t ethical, but that is irrelevant. The REAL question is whether or not the Chinese can (or will be allowed to) enforce it.

How long did the American’s control the Panama Canal? Tested bombs in the Pacific? I don’t think ethics has anything to do with it. I don’t know if there are any treaties China has broken.

I agree that ethics have nothing to do with this. China doesn’t really have much of a navy, but they’re the big dog in the China Sea . .. except fro the United States Navy. They’d love to challenge the U.S. Navy and force them to back down,but that just isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future. China’s fleets are built around destroyers and frigates, they have a single aircraft carrier, and the rest of their naval air forces are land-based. Although there have been attempts at friendly exchanges between the Chinese and the Americans, the U.S. remains suspicious of Chinese espionage and cyber warfare operations, while the American naval shield around Taiwan is a festering sore in Chinese pride. It will take a long time for China to reach the point at which she can challenge the United States at sea, and in large measure, that’s because China has not been a militaristic state. Whenever criticized about their human rights record, they get all huffy and talk about lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Considering that Maoism impoverished the Chinese nation, i am cynical of their claims. Nevertheless, the Chinese government spends on modernization of industry, rural electrification and agricultural improvement much more than on their military industry. They’re pretty secure as regards military defense. so this is largely saber rattling.

@Setanta so this is largely saber rattling.

It’s also island building!

I suppose we could park an aircraft carrier off the coast of China and claim territorial jurisdiction over both sea and air out 12 miles from the carrier. How long would it take for someone to test that? By building islands in the South China Seas, China is doing that. Eventually some ship or aircraft will be seized for trespassing onto China’s territory and we’ll see how that plays out. We’re moving into unchartered waters here (pun intended).

Ethics has nothing to do with it. It’s exercise for foreign policy, which cannot be in any way equated with ethics. Foreign policy is designed to carry out the perceived national needs of the sovereign state. Ethics are not in the picture.

Although this may have changed in recent years, for decades, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (I sh*t you not, that’s what they call it) has been the poor step-child of their armed forces, getting the hand-me-downs from the People’s Liberation Army Air Force. Even with modern aircraft, you don’t build a fleet air arm overnight. The U.S. Naval Air Force was established in 1919, and the first carrier commissioned in 1920. That’s almost a century ago. American naval air war doctrine and operational standards are modern and sophisticated. They also had almost fifty years of playing cat an mouse with Soviet submarines, so U.S. Navy ASW doctrine and operational standards are also high. I didn’t say that the Chinese will never challenge American naval power, only that it won’t happen in the foreseeable future. Fleets are moving targets, islands are not. The U.S. Navy has had carrier launched AWACs for fifty years. Ya gotta find ‘em before you can fight ‘em. I agree with Jaxk that China may be positioning itself for provocation—but if you can’t run with the big dogs, you’re well advised to stay on the porch. It will be a long time before China can challenge the United States Navy at sea, and it would be wise for them not to provoke a force they cannot deal with. So, yes, i consider it to be saber rattling, at least for now.

Of note, China has recently developed an anti ship missile. Designed specifically to take out USA aircraft carriers. They know they can’t construct and train a Navy in a realistic time table to challenge US naval power. So they did the next best thing. From what I’ve read about these new missiles, they have a high probability of destroying a carrier from long distance. The missiles are said to be adept at radar evasion, and the speed and anti intercept capabilities are state of the art. I think they consider themselves competitive in ‘defending’ their territories. Although , obviously they currently can’t go toe to toe with the US military , I believe these new missiles are a respectable deterrent.
US naval, and air power are directly tied to carrier groups. No question though, if they destroy a carrier with a couple thousand US sailors , it would be all out war. It all seems to be a dangerous game of chicken.

Well if even North Korea wants to puff itself up, why shouldn’t China just “invent” a military tradition?

@MrGrimm888 Yes, brinksmanship. To rattle a saber, you have to have a saber and demonstrate the case. The USN has been looking at carrier-killing techniques since the Soviet era, and they are a credible threat. They also require a large support infrastructure. Nothing lasts forever, and that includes carrier task forces. I would suspect that China wants a deterrent—killing an American carrier would definitely be an act of war engendering a response which would destroy what passes for a Chinese navy in rather short order. So, once again, I consider this saber rattling, brinksmanship. Going eyeball to eyeball to see if the other guy blinks. The Chinese are very prestige conscious.

It must be truly maddening for the Chinese, so hell bent on proving that it is now “my turn”. It appears that ambition drives them to underestimate the capabilties of what they perceive as the foundering bully currently in first place.

There is also behind their attitude a perception which has been a part of the Chinese mindset for thousands of years that they are culturally superior to those around them. How maddening it must be to consider others culturally inferior, and yet be obliged to tolerate their economic or military superiority, no matter how transitory one is inclined to view it.

Well. I get the audacity of China’s claims. But if you’re going to play devil’s advocate, it’s not much worse than land grabs in past , that dictate most current official maps. And the lines that define the borders.
I think China is being a jerk. But do other countries have a moral high ground? Their territories, and borders came from similar means. I feel there is a parallel to Israel, and the settlements they built/build on disputed land…But it’s not AS big of a deal. Or is it? I’m a US citizen. I can admit that large swaths of our current territory were ill gotten. Large numbers of natives were slaughtered, entire cultures were swept under the rug, millions displaced. All in order to create what is here now. But who are we to judge China for doing what most countries have already done?

It is neither ethical or unethical. There is no world governernment and there is no externally enforced international law. Indeed what passes for international law is simply the body of rules and behaivors most nations abide by. So called maritime law regarding territorial waters; the right of free transit; etc, are merely rules that are enforced by the relevant nations. No enforcement: no law. It appears China understands this principle very well and the current government of the United States has forgotten it.

^welcome to Fluther.

The remarkable feature of current events in the South China Seais not so much the audacity of China, but rather the passivity of the United States, under our very strange and feckless President. A few decades ago we regularly ( several times each year) sent Naval vessels theough the Lombac Straits near Bali and thtough the Taiwan Straits between that island and mainland China just to flut claims by Indonesia and China respectively that these were national waters, the examp[le encouraged other nations and ship operators to do so as well, thereby invalidating the egregious claims of the nations in question. This is a 200+ year old tradition of the united States, actively protecting the right of free transit in the world’s oceans, We have given up doing that under Obama and will pay a price for that in the years ahead.

^^ All excellent points.

Maybe it’s time to let the nations of the region police their own waters. Japan & South Korea have the resources to purchase top notch us naval assets. Then there’s Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. We can build them whatever they need and put our folks to work doing it. And if we made noises about the threat to equip them, the Chinese might well change their tune.

@stanleybmanly you think they can’t build ships? I suggest you Google South Korea ship building industry and have a read.

Of course they can build ships. The point is that shipbuilding HERE is now virtually limited to military stuff, while theirs rakes in money. The truth is that the United States can park whatever it chooses in the South China sea and everybody knows it. Our “strange and feckless President” has forced the nations I listed above to consider the possibility that we will no longer carry the freight if they can combine and do so themselves.

Uh… I think one reason war, or letting the region destabilize into war isn’t a position is that so much shipping would be affected.

For the warmongering jellies out there. Obama is NOT feckless. He tries diplomacy. Because he’s smart. You can’t just go to war with every nation.