South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[Yvrch]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Philippines repeatedly attempts to encroach on Huangyan Island

Source: Xinhua | 2016-04-28 18:43:57 | Editor: huaxia

U.S. navy soldiers and their Philippine counterparts launch an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a joint military exercises between the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, June 28, 2013. (Xinhua/Rouelle Umali)

BEIJING, April 28 (Xinhua) -- Philippine fishing boats have constantly engaged in illegal fishing activities in the sea surrounding China's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

When Chinese patrol vessels demanded the Philippine fishing boats leave Chinese territory, the Philippine fishermen waved chopping knives and threw burning items at the Chinese vessels and the staff on board.

The dangerous provocations have been getting increasingly rampant over recent years, seriously jeopardizing security as well as the law and order on Huangyan Island and the nearby waters and aggravating the tension between the two countries.

These actions by the Philippines have violated China's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Since ancient times, Huangyan Island has been an inalienable part of the Chinese territory.

Chinese people had discovered the island and started to use it no later than China's Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368 AD). For generations, Chinese fishermen do sea farming in the area. Huangyan Island's unique reef structure makes it a perfect place for Chinese fishermen to take shelter from the wind and rest.

"Geng Lu Book," which was written between China's Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) and Qing Dynasty (1644-1911 AD), among other ancient documents, has recorded the fishing route used by Chinese fishermen in the Huangyan Island sea area.

In January 1935, a Chinese governmental committee tasked to examine China's land and water atlas included 132 islands, reefs and beaches in the South China Sea as part of China's Zhongsha Islands. Huangyan Island is among them.

Following that, the Chinese official documents on islands in the South China Sea in 1947 and 1983 also show that Huangyan Island is part of China.

Before 1997, the Philippines had never claimed sovereignty over Huangyan Island, and the international community had never raised any objection to China's sovereignty over the island as well. There was no sovereignty dispute over the Huangyan Island at that time.

Historically, the Philippine territories were defined by a series of treaties, including the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the 1900 Treaty of Washington between the United States and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and a 1930 treaty between the United States and Britain.

All the treaties clearly indicate that the west boundary of the Philippine territory was 118 degrees east longitude, while Huangyan Island is located on 117.51 degrees east longitude, naturally out of the Philippine territory.

Later, Philippine decrees also reaffirmed this borderline. Even in 2011, the Philippine official atlas still shows Huangyan Island is printed outside the Philippine territory.

Starting from May 1997, the Philippines started to covet Huangyan Island. Philippine naval ships frequently interfered, harassed, even struck down Chinese fishing boats in that area, and illegally detained Chinese fishermen.

The Philippine government also tried to legalize its illegal actions by making laws and amending the constitution to annex Huangyan Island and some other islands and reefs of Nansha.

The Philippines' moves in the Huangyan Island sea area are designed by the government to play victim to earn sympathy from the international community, to defame China, and to back its unilaterally-initiated arbitration against China over the maritime disputes in 2013.

Besides, the Philippines' schemes to claim Huangyan Island coincide with the United States'"pivot to Asia" strategy.

The U.S. behind-the-scenes instigation and political maneuvering have given the Philippines the nerve to wrestle with China. The Philippines' recent announcement to open five military bases to the United States clearly reveals such collusion.

The Philippines' attempts to encroach upon Huangyan Island or any other inch of the South China Sea will never succeed.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Philippines repeatedly attempts to encroach on Huangyan Island

Source: Xinhua ...

interesting summary of the Party line; at first I was about to nitpick here:

All the treaties clearly indicate that the west boundary of the Philippine territory was 118 degrees east longitude, while Huangyan Island is located on 117.51 degrees east longitude, ...

(wiki says
117°46'
which would be 117.77 but then I looked at the map to see how close it actually is to "the center of Philippines" (Corregidor is visible; scale in bottom-right corner):

and the fun ends here

 

[Brumby]

Which established rule specifically are you pointing to that China is violating? We've all acknowledged China's opt-out of particular UNCLOS clauses when ratifying that agreement, so I assume it is something else in particular that you specifically take issue with.

On this particular subject, Article 296 specifically states that once the Tribunal determines that it has jurisdiction, any decision rendered is binding. China already has publicly declared it will not abide by the Tribunal’s decision. That itself is in contravention of what it has signed up for. Once again as a reminder the opt out by China is not an escape vehicle. The legal reasoning I have provided in detail in an earlier post.



This is besides the PART XII PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT provision and the resulting damage to the eco system due to the massive island reclamation in the SCS.

I view the regional dynamic as wholly problematic and do not ascribe current state of affairs to the activities of any one player in isolation. Each action taken by a given party (Reclamation, Naval Patrol, Military Over-Flight etc) is bound to be internally considered an appropriate reactive response to a competitors preceding act. Its circular at this point and not surprising.

The parties are going to pursue their interests to maximum effect especially when the core of it deals with matters of National Security, Territorial Sovereignty & Resource Rights. Add to the list of regional players an extra-regional power with its own security interests, and the weight of leverage in negotiation is thrown further askew.

Such statements simply reflect national interest posturing and by its nature any nation can say anything to justify its actions. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were merely pursuing its national interest agenda. Millions died during WW2 because it was a conflict in values between those who aspire to pursue such nationalistic agenda and those that have a different view. Therefore my earlier question to you which you have avoided answering is how do you philosophically reconcile China’s actions because philosophically they are really no different from that of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

The dynamic has become much more complicated with the direct involvement of the US. This benefits US interests and (possibly) the position of Philippians, Vietnam & Japan (Diaoyu/Senkaku) while weakening the Chinese position. Internationalization has made the disputes more dangerous and difficult to resolve in my opinion.

Your statement on the US involvement is self contradictory of your primary premise that each nation is at liberty to pursue its own national interest. It has to be all inclusive and not selective. If you wish to advocate national interest agenda as a primary motivator, why is the US involvement any less qualified as long as it is pursuing its own national interest? The problem I wish to point out is that the real politics that you are advocating and if pursued outside of some rule based order basically means there are no rules. That creates more potential for conflict rather than any internationalisation.

I was interested in your question and comment about the legal aspect of Chinese claims because if the supporting Discovery & Historical Rights side of it can be so easily dismissed and the rest termed rhetoric, it really leaves no recourse for China or anyone else to hope for a law based solution. Possession/Control appears to be paramount legally and those factors are changed either by Conflict or Negotiation. Historically Conflict is the preferred method...

In international law there are a number of modes of legitimate acquisition of territory include: discovery, occupation, prescription (as by long and peaceful possession), purchase from another state, or cession by another state, conquest, disposition by treaty, and assignment by an international organization (including assignment in trust, as was frequently done by the United Nations in the aftermath of WW2).

In any territorial disputes, the issue is always about the strength of comparative claims. Chinese claims based on discovery is weak because of the facts of the case and the principle of administration just does not support the notion of absence especially when you are talking about hundreds of years.

So as you can see, I don't put nearly as much stock in an International Law based resolution as perhaps you might. The idealistic side of me wishes I could. But I see International Law as one tool that can be utilized, or put aside in Global Affairs -- something I have seen practiced by many nations -- and I see it as less than absolute in comparison to citizens subject to domestic law. Until we reach a state of Unified Global Governance, I don't see that changing.

Sad to say but that is how WW2 got started

As I said before, in my work I take a view that can best be described as political realism. I should have spelled that out clearer as it could have come across as condescending, suggesting my view is more rooted in realism than your legal perspective. That was not my intent;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is a term for a specific point of view and best describes my outlook on all things Geopolitical.

No sense of condescending at all and so rest assured. Personally I don’t have issue regarding any passionate view point provided they are backed by arguments and reasoning and are not mere rhetoric.

I would be interested in your philosophical framework in which political realism operates. Hitler was greatly influenced by Nietzsche and Hitler could have argued that he was just pursuing political realism based on his personal beliefs. Laws after all is simply a reflection of ideology and ideology is sourced from values driven by philosophical views.

Re: Critical Date in relation to international dispute, I found that there is no set criteria for what date is chosen as the critical point. It is decided upon by an arbiter of a dispute and generally chosen based on a critical point of contention between the two sides on the matter historically. So depending on historical evidence of title presented, its completely up in the air as to whether that feature of law would help or hinder a claim. But from what I've read, legally possession is paramount. Its why disputing parties protest so loudly at the changing of 'facts on the ground'.

Critical date by nature is a product of a dispute. If there is no dispute then the notion of a critical date becomes irrelevant. Reinforcing a position once a dispute is triggered is a hedge that a resolution may not come from arbitration.

I always chuckle at the chastisement of China, or anyone else for that matter, for stating that their claim is indisputable. All claims are indisputable from all sides, until they are resolved. No one in the history of the world made a claim and suggested it was on shaky grounds to begin with. You make an assertive claim, attach as much value to it as possible for the potential/inevitable bargaining table session and go from there, don't you think?

I think once you get past the initial posturing you will need to present the substance of your case which China has repeatedly failed to do so beyond the usual rhetoric of indisputability. That in my view is because China don’t actually have a case.

I would agree with the assessment that China will seek to exert de facto control over the SCS & ECS in the coming years and maintain claim over disputed physical features until negotiation wins out or conflict breaks out. In an earlier conversation with you I talked about how this is likely viewed through the prism of the security environment for both China and the US. That is unlikely to change anytime soon and will guide events.

On Philippines, my own guess is that they saw an opportunity to gain greater leverage with the involvement of the US versus whatever arrangement China was offering a few years back, and decided to scuttle bilateral negotiation in hopes a better deal will be attainable in future. Or until it appears China is reaching a critical point of regional control and influence that some deal must be reached quickly.

I just want to state that in my view the Philippines saw China was after sovereignty as a resolution which the Philippines was not willing to concede especially if it believes it has a stronger legal position. Security does trump economics.

 

[confusion]

Law is subject to interpretation.

On this particular subject, Article 296 specifically states that once the Tribunal determines that it has jurisdiction, any decision rendered is binding. China already has publicly declared it will not abide by the Tribunal’s decision. That itself is in contravention of what it has signed up for. Once again as a reminder the opt out by China is not an escape vehicle. The legal reasoning I have provided in detail in an earlier post.

That's your PERSONAL interpretation of the power of the binding nature of UNCLOS arbitration. Most commentators from Australia appear to differ in their interpretation on the binding nature of UNCLOS arbitration. Law abiding nations like Australia believe that opting out of mandatory UNCLOS arbitration is perfectly reasonable and legal.

In 2002, Australia declared that it had legally opted out of mandatory UNCLOS arbitration. China has also declared that it has opted out of mandatory arbitration.

It's perfectly legitimate to do so. Every single article from Australia that I've seen appears to agree that Australia is not bound by mandatory UNCLOS arbitration, since they opted out of the mandatory arbitration provisions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The outcome of the UN conciliation process is non-binding because Australia controversially exited the jurisdiction of UNCLOS two months before East Timor became a nation state in 2002.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Australia withdrew itself from their jurisdiction for the express purpose of marking maritime borders. Allowable yes, but also regrettable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Crucially, two months before East Timor gained independence in 2002,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from the jurisdiction of both the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea for 'any dispute concerning or relating to the delimitation of maritime zones'. It is certainly legal for any country to establish reservations on ICJ or ITLOS jurisdiction, but Australia has itself set the objective of strengthening regional rules and architecture.

I've provided multiple Australian sources that agree with the interpretation that withdrawing from mandatory UNCLOS arbitration is perfectly legal. Many Australians appear to have interpreted the limits of mandatory arbitration differently from you.

 

[confusion]

I would be interested in your philosophical framework in which political realism operates. Hitler was greatly influenced by Nietzsche and Hitler could have argued that he was just pursuing political realism based on his personal beliefs. Laws after all is simply a reflection of ideology and ideology is sourced from values driven by philosophical views.

BTW, you've accused others of empty rhetoric and immaturity, but you're the one who Godwinned this thread.

 

[Jura The idiot]

according to BreakingNews.com

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If China builds an

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on the disputed Scarborough Shoal, Sen. Dan Sullivan warned today, it will complete a “strategic triangle” of bases that can dominate the South China Sea. At this morning’s

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Sullivan displayed a map (above) of the region overlaid with the ranges of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

striking from a triangle of bases on (1) the Chinese island of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, (2) the disputed

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and (3)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(as yet unbuilt). The overlapping rings would cover not only almost all the South China Sea, but much of the Philippines and Vietnam.

“Your map’s absolutely accurate,” responded Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. China’s actions are “deeply disturbing to countries in region, which has them

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

….We are being increasingly invited to work with countries,” from old allies like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to new partners like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Vietnam has agreed to allow the US Army to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, in itself a major shift by Hanoi, which has fought multiple wars and skirmishes with its giant neighbor, China. As Sullivan’s diagram shows, almost all of Vietnam is in range of existing Chinese bases.

The US has also expanded its long-standing but often-strained relationship with the Philippines. Under a new

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(EDCA), the two countries announced in March that US forces would have access to five military bases across the country. But as Sullivan’s map makes clear, two of those five bases would be in range of Scarborough-based Chinese fighter-bombers, as would the capital city of Manila.

“Senator Sullivan is right,” said

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, director of the much-cited

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(AMTI) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If China built an artificial island and military base at Scarborough, as it has in the Spratlys and Paracels, it would bring the entire South China Sea within Chinese radar, air, and eventually missile coverage. It would also bing much of the Philippines, including Manila, Clark (air base), Subic (Bay), and at least two of the bases the US is getting access to under EDCA within that Chinese umbrella.”

So far, China hasn’t started work on Scarborough, Poling and his CSIS colleague

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

agreed. “In the (satellite) imagery that we have obtained from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, we have not seen anything,” Glaser told me. That said, given the limits of commercial imagery, she added, “we are not monitoring this 24-7, of course.”

The Chinese are allegedly more active in the region. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Richardson has described “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,” there are rumors of dredging vessels in the area (though not at the Shoal itself), and Philippine papers reporting more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

vessels, historically far more aggressive than their

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

counterparts. In response,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

have stepped up patrols of the area, including land-based

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

flying from the Philippines.

There are also

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

associated with Beijing that China will begin reclamation. Glaser, however, is skeptical. One People’s Liberation Army officer “with stars on their shoulders” told her island-building on Scarborough is “very, very unlikely,” because Beijing is well aware how badly the region would react. Such action would blatantly violate both China’s 2015 pledge to cease island-building and its 2002 Declaration of Conduct with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). China has broken both promises before, but never so egregiously as building on Scarborough would be.

“A resumption of land reclamation after stating they would stop would make the rest of the region very, very nervous,” Glaser said. “It would also be a signal, not only to the region, but also to the rest of the world that China is going to flout international law.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, is much more pessimistic. The “strategic triangle” is practically enshrined in Chinese law, he noted:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Beijing created the prefecture of Sansha, or “Three Sands,” to administer its claimed territories in the “South Sands,” i.e. the Spratlys; the “West Sands,” i.e. the Paracels; and the “Middle Sands,” i.e. Scarborough Reef, Mischief Reef, and other areas off the Philippines.

“The Chinese were telegraphing this years ago,” Cheng told me, and the US has put up only

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to Chinese land-grabs so far, so why would they stop? “Given how quickly the Chinese built the Spratlys, I say we’ve got maybe less than a year before the first runway gets built” on Scarborough, Cheng said.

If China did build an island, the second question would be what it built on the island. So far, high-end military capabilities like bomb-proof aircraft hangars and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

are restricted to the Paracel Islands, which are natural features off Vietnam, said Glaser. The artificial islands in the Spratlys have received advanced radar and runways, Poling said.

Long-range anti-aircraft missiles like the HQ-9 or the Russian-made S-400, combined with fighter jets, would dominate the airspace over the South China Sea, putting unarmed American P-3 and P-8 patrol aircraft at risk. Such missiles on Scarborough could fire right over Philippine territory into airspace off Taiwan. The Chinese will likely declare an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea as they did over the East China Sea, Cheng said. Long-range anti-ship missiles could hold at risk the vast volume of commercial maritime trade that passes to and from the Strait of Malacca.

Putting offensive capabilities like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on the islands would be “a very destabilizing move,” said

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, former president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Such assets would be intimidating in a crisis, but

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that China would face the temptation to “use it or lose it.”

“Given the small size of the islands, the missiles would be highly vulnerable, as they could not rely on mobility or hardening to provide passive defense against attack,” said Krepinevich. “They are high-value assets that are also soft targets tethered to a very small area—the island they are on.”
...

... size limit reached; goes on in the source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

also from the other side of the ocean, actually two oceans
McCain to SECDEF Carter: U.S. South China Sea Presence Operations Should Be ‘Magnified’ Not ‘Classified’

The chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee again criticized Defense Secretary Ash Carter for a reluctance to detail U.S. presence operations in the South China Sea during a Thursday Senate hearing.

In the testy exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Carter, McCain was critical of Carter’s reluctance to confirm recent patrols of Philippines-based U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthog attack aircraft near the disputed Scarborough Shoal claimed both by Manila and Beijing.

The A-10 flights near Scarborough were widely reported and the Air Force acknowledged last week it was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

McCain said the U.S. should be more forthright with what it’s doing in the region militarily and compared Carter’s deflection of questions to a similar exchange the pair had last October in which Carter reluctantly confirmed the widely reported freedom of navigation operation conducted

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

“This is the second time, Secretary Carter, that you’ve refused to confirm what is well known in the media. That’s not fair to this committee. It’s all been reported there were flights and — into the area around those islands,” McCain said interrupting a line of questioning from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
“And why you would refuse to confirm that when it’s already been in the media is, I think, not the proper deference that this committee is owed.”

In reply, Carter said: “I’m only refusing because I believe it’s classified information, Senator.”

McCain picked up the thread following questions from Cotton to Carter on criticisms from former Obama administration defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates who were critical of how the administration publically spoke about defense policy.

“I don’t want to belabor the point, Mr. Secretary, but to classify the fact that we are sending our ships and airplanes into international waters and have that classified, when it should be magnified throughout the world that [the] United States is asserting our respect and adherence to international law, is something that is — is confusing and befuddling,” McCain said.
“Why would we want to classify the fact that we are doing what every nation in the world should be able to do? And that’s sail or fly wherever we want to. Why should that be classified information?”

In reply, Carter said:

“It’s a fair point. And I’ll look into why — what aspects of these operations are classified. I’m just respectful of the process, so I’m not going to talk about the details of operations. But there’s no question that — and I’ve said it many, many times, I say it again today. We fly, sail and operate wherever international law permits. We exercise that right routinely,” he said.
“The operational details of a particular flight — it’s a fair question why or what parts of it are classified. I’ll go back and look into it. But I — I’m careful about disclosing classified information or information I believe is classified not to this committee, because you all have access to it in the right setting, but not this setting. And the fact that something’s in the newspaper doesn’t make it unclassified, as we all know.”

Carter’s reluctance to discuss military operations in the Western Pacific follow reports in the last month the administration has asked military leaders to refrain from publically discussing operations that could provoke China via a memo from the National Security Council ahead of a recent nuclear summit,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Late last year Carter and the Pentagon were asked to remain silent on Lassen’s FON op past Subi Reef. Lack of clear information lead

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

challenged.

Following a similar January South China Sea FON op past Triton Island in the Paracel chain,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

The more recent A-10 patrols did not come within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal – the internationally recognized limit of territorial waters – according to press reports.

China has laid claim to the feature since 2012 and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Leading up to the ultimate decision,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. forces had seen survey ships near Scarborough – which in the past had been a precursor to land reclamation operations.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Zool]

On this particular subject, Article 296 specifically states that once the Tribunal determines that it has jurisdiction, any decision rendered is binding. China already has publicly declared it will not abide by the Tribunal’s decision. That itself is in contravention of what it has signed up for. Once again as a reminder the opt out by China is not an escape vehicle. The legal reasoning I have provided in detail in an earlier post.

View attachment 27228

This is besides the PART XII PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT provision and the resulting damage to the eco system due to the massive island reclamation in the SCS.

Brumby, for someone who wishes to take a legal view of events in the SCS what you have posted here seems disingenuous to me. I asked to understand what specific law China is in breach of to which you take such an issue, and you have come back with UNCLOS Article 296.

I noted in my previous post that many are aware of a number of countries having opted out of certain UNCLOS clauses, yet this IS the specific bone of contention you want to bring up. That's fine on the surface of it, but given your own obvious research into UNCLOS to form the basis of your law based arguments you cannot have missed the following which negates the screenshot of Article 296 you provided. How do you reconcile

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On Marine Environment damage I would suggest we stay clear. Among the numerous examples of reclamation by others, weapons testing and the like, someone will again bring up the latest ICJ ruling on illegal whaling by Japan.

Such statements simply reflect national interest posturing and by its nature any nation can say anything to justify its actions. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were merely pursuing its national interest agenda. Millions died during WW2 because it was a conflict in values between those who aspire to pursue such nationalistic agenda and those that have a different view. Therefore my earlier question to you which you have avoided answering is how do you philosophically reconcile China’s actions because philosophically they are really no different from that of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

I'll start here by requesting you carefully read what I have written and avoid the whole 'Posturing' rhetoric. You use it a couple of times in dismissive reply to what I consider my own honest, straight forward assessment of events and my frame of reference in evaluating them. I believe these type of remarks add to the challenge you have in carrying a conversation with others on this board per your earlier complaint. If you want to question a specific point I have made or want me to further elaborate on a position feel free and just ask. I attempt to be as clear as possible and try to avoid walls of text. In a real discussion I tend to fail at the later.

Moving on; all countries pursue national interest first and foremost is exactly my point. You can reference Nazi Germany v. Europe and Japan v. Asia of WWII, or Cold War USA v. Vietnam and USSR v. Afghanistan. The point is the same and continues with modern day USA v. Iraq and Russia v. Georgia. Those wars were not about values, they were about National Interest (Security Environment, Territory & Resources). However, if it is your intention to morally equate present day China's activities with those of Nazi Germany & Japan (and I'm writing this because to me it reads that way with talk of millions dead and Hitler further down), that is not a conversation I will engage and something many would find offensive.

Now I have answered your question of philosophically reconciling Chinese actions and those of other players, as a matter of national interest, at least twice now. I went further in explaining how I and others use the Political Realism frame of reference to interpret and evaluate current and future Geopolitical events. Political Realism is not an ideology but a prism through which to view and understand action and reaction on the global stage. There are others of course but I myself find it best fits real world events. Intent and interpretation of intent is critical in diplomacy.

Lastly I will quote another conversation you (#1076) and I had where I earlier explained my view on the basis of Chinese actions in the SCS & ECS. Overall I think I've been very upfront in sharing my thoughts with you on the subject and I don't see myself as having avoided anything.

Your statement on the US involvement is self contradictory of your primary premise that each nation is at liberty to pursue its own national interest. It has to be all inclusive and not selective. If you wish to advocate national interest agenda as a primary motivator, why is the US involvement any less qualified as long as it is pursuing its own national interest? The problem I wish to point out is that the real politics that you are advocating and if pursued outside of some rule based order basically means there are no rules. That creates more potential for conflict rather than any internationalisation.

My statement on US involvement is not contradictory in the slightest, and the wording of this response from you again encourages me to request you carefully read what I have written. I will further explain:

You are correct that my premise is that each nation will pursue its own national interests as primacy. There is nothing selective about it. My original statement does not qualify US interests as less or greater than any other party, it simply notes US presence in region as being to its own security interests while also possibly being to the benefit of others and to the detriment of China. The rest you have inserted yourself.

As I said above, Political Realism is not an ideology that nations follow. It is framework to best explain and predict geopolitical events. The problem you point out is not of my advocacy but with the nature of real world political dealings between powers. Its not idealistic. Mutually Assured Destruction has been a large part of that real world dynamic for sometime now. And I agree; where you said you saw issue with Chinese activities my reply was that I see the entire regional dynamic as being a problem.

My comment re Internationalisation creating a greater danger was a simple one so perhaps I should briefly elaborate. Bilateral negotiation deals with the interests of the two parties and provides the least complicated path to resolution. Internationalisation can introduce other regional actors and extra-regional actors into the calculation with their own set of interests at play, changing the weight of leverage between parties, increasing the scope of the negotiation and introducing a new degree of public scrutiny whereby disagreement and debate reaches an international audience and issues of perception and national face-saving become a greater concern. Complexity affords greater odds of miscalculation all around, is my point.

 

[Zool]

Cont.

In international law there are a number of modes of legitimate acquisition of territory include: discovery, occupation, prescription (as by long and peaceful possession), purchase from another state, or cession by another state, conquest, disposition by treaty, and assignment by an international organization (including assignment in trust, as was frequently done by the United Nations in the aftermath of WW2).

In any territorial disputes, the issue is always about the strength of comparative claims. Chinese claims based on discovery is weak because of the facts of the case and the principle of administration just does not support the notion of absence especially when you are talking about hundreds of years.

Some of those claims don't just rest on Discovery however, I believe there are also claims of possession pre-WW2 with supporting documents/notes and those would be the strongest. But I keep coming back to the primacy of possession and I do not see any of the parties giving up territory unless some island swap or security and resource sharing agreement was achieved. It is status quo for territorial possession until then.

I do not see China or the US initiating hostilities due to the escalation path and associated risk vs benefit. Where I see danger is a smaller actor like PH coming to a different calculation due to perceived support from the US, China responding and then the US. You had a bit about how WW2 got started but treaties being called into effect like dominos falling is exactly how WW1 began. For all their bluster however, US & Chinese officials are well aware of the risks.

Critical date by nature is a product of a dispute. If there is no dispute then the notion of a critical date becomes irrelevant. Reinforcing a position once a dispute is triggered is a hedge that a resolution may not come from arbitration.

Critical Date is not a 'best before' limitation to a dispute is the largest take away from my readings. The Critical Date is determined by an arbiter based on historical evidence of title from the two parties. There is no set criteria or statute of limits which is why I observed this feature of law neither helping or hindering China or another claimant. It rests on the historical evidence provided and the decision of an arbiter to choose a date.

I think once you get past the initial posturing you will need to present the substance of your case which China has repeatedly failed to do so beyond the usual rhetoric of indisputability. That in my view is because China don’t actually have a case.

No posturing here and I'll reiterate my point. Chastisement of China or any other nation making a claim they refer to as sovereign and indisputable is laughable for the simple reason that you do not make a claim and then proceed to suggest it is up for debate or illegitimate. You attach value to your holdings (particularly those of little real value for later exchange) and where negotiation is opportune, negotiate the best deal possible. Diplomacy 101.

I just want to state that in my view the Philippines saw China was after sovereignty as a resolution which the Philippines was not willing to concede especially if it believes it has a stronger legal position. Security does trump economics.

Possible. It is entirely possible China drove a hard bargain and offered little or no carrot and Philippines decided there was no loss in banding with other regional players and the US to widen the scope and see what that gets them.

I'd say of the Philippines - China dynamic the issue would have been less security and more physical territory and then resources rights as a secondary issue. China is already, and will likely always be, in a dominant military position. I suspect China was after island holdings for its own larger security interests followed by the resources, offered PH a security and resource rights agreement for the land and received a firm no. All we can do is speculate though.

 

[Brumby]

Brumby, for someone who wishes to take a legal view of events in the SCS what you have posted here seems disingenuous to me. I asked to understand what specific law China is in breach of to which you take such an issue, and you have come back with UNCLOS Article 296.


I noted in my previous post that many are aware of a number of countries having opted out of certain UNCLOS clauses, yet this IS the specific bone of contention you want to bring up. That's fine on the surface of it, but given your own obvious research into UNCLOS to form the basis of your law based arguments you cannot have missed the following which negates the screenshot of Article 296 you provided. How do you reconcile

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can barely make out what you have appended because of the fine print and as it is in blue it makes reading of it even more difficult. Based on what I can make out it seems to be specific reference to China’s opt out and so I am responding on that basis.


In my earlier reply I mentioned I had previously outlined a detailed legal argument on why China’s opt out is not an applicable escape hatch except my error was in wrongly stating that it was on this thread. It is actually found in the China’s SCS Strategy Thread

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-247#post-396692 (post #2461)

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-248

(post #2471)

I suggest you refer to them. Essentially the Philippines had carefully crafted the disputes before the Tribunal as interpretation of UNCLOS provisions rather than disputes over sovereignty (which China has opted out of). The Tribunal has reviewed the case and accepted some of the disputes as within its jurisdiction. Such a determination by the Tribunal is final. Any insistent by China that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction doesn’t comport with the provision of UNCLOS based on either law or facts. If you disagree with my arguments I am more than happy to hear your point of view. To-date no one on this forum has rebutted what I had laid out other than the continuing insistence that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Such continuing insistence is simply junior grade tantrum.

On Marine Environment damage I would suggest we stay clear. Among the numerous examples of reclamation by others, weapons testing and the like, someone will again bring up the latest ICJ ruling on illegal whaling by Japan.

The issue is in the scale of the reclamation and its effect and that counts for something. For example, killing another person is termed homicide. Repeated is serial killing. Expand the scale is mass killing. Expand that even more is potentially genocide. Why do you think there are different terms to differentiate such acts and that is because of its scale and its corresponding impact. Attempts to justify such actions by China because of what others had done is laughable simply just by the comparative scale.

I'll start here by requesting you carefully read what I have written and avoid the whole 'Posturing' rhetoric. You use it a couple of times in dismissive reply to what I consider my own honest, straight forward assessment of events and my frame of reference in evaluating them. I believe these type of remarks add to the challenge you have in carrying a conversation with others on this board per your earlier complaint. If you want to question a specific point I have made or want me to further elaborate on a position feel free and just ask. I attempt to be as clear as possible and try to avoid walls of text. In a real discussion I tend to fail at the later.

When I said posturing I did not mean you. When I referenced your statements as posturing it meant that they are merely description of political activities or stance rather than an explanation or justification of such activities which is really the substance of such conversation. If you will note that immediately after my single comment on posturing I immediately directed the conversation on why it is a problem in my view. Based on your response and your stated expectation of what I should have done it is precisely what I did. I am therefore at a loss as to why you considered my earlier comments as dismissive.

Moving on; all countries pursue national interest first and foremost is exactly my point. You can reference Nazi Germany v. Europe and Japan v. Asia of WWII, or Cold War USA v. Vietnam and USSR v. Afghanistan. The point is the same and continues with modern day USA v. Iraq and Russia v. Georgia. Those wars were not about values, they were about National Interest (Security Environment, Territory & Resources). However, if it is your intention to morally equate present day China's activities with those of Nazi Germany & Japan (and I'm writing this because to me it reads that way with talk of millions dead and Hitler further down), that is not a conversation I will engage and something many would find offensive.

I think this is where our divide is in terms of political thought. I understand you subscribe to political realism but underlying such thinking is the premise that pursuance of national interest can be separated from any moral dimension. Herein lies the main criticism of political realism and that it is not realistic to separate moral boundaries from national interest. According to the philosophy of political realism the world is simply in constant anarchy because players are in pursuance of national interest through power. However the fact that there is relative peace since WW2 would suggest that there are counter forces in place to offset such political will and that in my view is an established rule based order. It is when the forces in pursuance of national interest overwhelm a rule based order that is when we have anarchy. Philosophically when national interest is pursued in its fullest form than what we have is a manifestation of a Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Once you start the ball rolling on a certain path, where does pursuance of national interest stops and unfortunately by definition there is simply no line. Whilst it is of degree, philosophically what China is doing is no different and hence I asked you to reconcile it to the political realism model as practiced by Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in the past. The reason why the acts of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are offensive is because in pursuance of national interest they cross moral boundaries with their actions that are generally considered reprehensible. International laws are merely embodiments of moral dimensions and hence political realism in ignoring legal arguments is an unrealistic political model. International law as a constrainer to Chinese action does play a role because China also seeks legitimacy with its actions. The legal dimension also galvanise international opinion and focus the actions in clear perspective.

Now I have answered your question of philosophically reconciling Chinese actions and those of other players, as a matter of national interest, at least twice now. I went further in explaining how I and others use the Political Realism frame of reference to interpret and evaluate current and future Geopolitical events. Political Realism is not an ideology but a prism through which to view and understand action and reaction on the global stage. There are others of course but I myself find it best fits real world events. Intent and interpretation of intent is critical in diplomacy.

Please refer to my earlier post on this particular topic. Frankly I don’t agree you have addressed the philosophical weakness of a political realism model. There is a reason why I stick to legal arguments because once the subject is opened up it is even more subjective as a topic of conversation and why I avoid it. With politics I don’t just go into the cause and effect but where that pathway eventually leads as a consequence. Philosophical ideas are very difficult to express and articulate and frankly subscription of it is it is simply driven by personal values. I give you the last word on this.