China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blackstone]

If China decided to disregard some of the UNCLOS rulings and use Chinese history to support its claims, this is unfortunate as it is a prominent member of the UN & the Security Council. China use of "Strong Military/Naval Muscles" in its territorial claims, disregarding other small claimants emphasised its dictum of "Might is Right " - So stay off my newly claimed territory & its air space (South China Sea). More troubling events expected.

We agree in principle on 'might is right' belongs in yesteryear. But in practice, it's not so clear what exactly constitute 'might is right.' Some people say China is employing might is right in creating new islands in the SCS, and I think they have a point. On the other hand, where those people when small claimants expanded their land features and put military bases on them? Oh! But they're small, and China is big, so it's OK for them but not for thee. After all, only the big and power can be guilty of might is right, and the small and powerless can't possibly be guilty of that, right...?

 

[Yvrch]

In my view that is simply disingenuous of China of taking the benefits and not the obligations. One of the driving force behind UNCLOS was the constant disputes arising between states driven by historic claims and UNCLOS recognised this as a problem to world peace and by general consensus dealt with it as embodied in the provisions. Whilst I acknowledge China's right as a sovereign nation to opt out, such action also undermines the very essence of the convention. It is like agreeing to an employment contract and accepting vacation days; salary and stock options whilst opting out on responsibilities and work hours. It is like having the cake and eating it.

I'll also take exception to your remark. I did a quick count of 33 countries who had chosen to use the same op-out clause that China used in UNCLOS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In the list are Canada, Italy, France, UK, Australia, Denmark , Ireland, Portugal, ROK, Russia and Spain. 4 out of 8 G8 countries. Actually 5 since USA don't even ratify it. So much for taking responsibility and consensus. At the end of the day, self-interest of nation states rules. Big countries write rules in their self interest and smaller ones accept those rules in their own self interest. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Brumby]

We agree in principle on 'might is right' belongs in yesteryear. But in practice, it's not so clear what exactly constitute 'might is right.' Some people say China is employing might is right in creating new islands in the SCS, and I think they have a point. On the other hand, where those people when small claimants expanded their land features and put military bases on them? Oh! But they're small, and China is big, so it's OK for them but not for thee. After all, only the big and power can be guilty of might is right, and the small and powerless can't possibly be guilty of that, right...?

Would you like to put it in perspective? How many acres has the so called small claimants added relative to China?

 

[Brumby]

I'll also take exception to your remark. I did a quick count of 33 countries who had chosen to use the same op-out clause that China used in UNCLOS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In the list are Canada, Italy, France, UK, Australia, Denmark , Ireland, Portugal, ROK, Russia and Spain. 4 out of 8 G8 countries. Actually 5 since USA don't even ratify it. So much for taking responsibility and consensus. At the end of the day, self-interest of nation states rules. Big countries write rules in their self interest and smaller ones accept those rules in their own self interest. Nothing more nothing less.

So we have bunch of recalcitrants. Shame on all of them.

 

[Yvrch]

So we have bunch of recalcitrants. Shame on all of them.

Shame has no business in statecraft, where self interest and self preservation is paramount.
China will write its own rules where and when it can; smaller states will accept or deny Chinese rules depending on their self interest and self preservation. China will also accept international treaties where and when they serve their purpose.

 

[Brumby]

That's a too narrow and erroneous take on China embracing the benefits and rejecting the responsibilities. Opting out of specific sections of international law UPFRONT is common and completely acceptable in international affairs. China had specific problems with sections of UNCLOS, and instead of boycotting the international body, it signed on with reservations that were accepted by all treaty partners at the time. People could agree or disagree with China's actions, but no one, absolutely no one, can say China is breaking the letter of the law. As for your "very essence of the convention," what the hell is that? Who determines what it means? Is there only one correct answer, or are there multiple correct answers?

Historic claims is a major source of conflict and disputes. UNCLOS was put in place to mitigate and help resolve disputes by removing historic claims as a source of contention. What is the point of signing up onto UNCLOS if there is no intention to support its basic tenets?

 

[Brumby]

Shame has no business in statecraft, where self interest and self preservation is paramount.
China will write its own rules where and when it can; smaller states will accept or deny Chinese rules depending on their self interest and self preservation.

That is embodiment of might is right.

 

[Yvrch]

Would you like to put it in perspective? How many acres has the so called small claimants added relative to China?

So you want a handicap 24 or something, LOL .

 

[Brumby]

China is indeed making a case for itself in official statements and in domestic and international media. You may not like the information/propaganda from China ministries and officials, but a case they are most definitely making. Doing very well too, China is, from a goal oriented perspective.

To say China has neither law nor facts is demonstrably false. I say that because there are boatloads of claims and counter claims between China, Vietnam, and Philippines, and all sides have put their version of facts/laws to the world. Truth is, no one really knows if any of the claimants has some, all, or none of the law on its side, and the International Court of Justice could shed some light on how an unbiased court sees the complex issue, regardless of who opted out of arbitration.

Please enlightened me. What is China's legal basis besides the official statement that its claim is unshakable? I trust you would be intellectually honest to actually articulate a difference in substance between a legal position and a rhetoric statement.

 

[PikeCowboy]

That is embodiment of might is right.

I think territorial rights is an amoral subject, if might is not right then what is? genetic heritage? heraldry? maximal utility?

What, in your opinion, entitles a person or a group of persons to land and excludes that land to others.