Blackstone
Brigadier
Mischief Reef has a Diego Garcia look to it, but it's probably too close to Philippines for a major base.
PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
Also too close to Hainan.
Well, acient history may not count, or perhaps should not count as you said, but recent history must count, otherwise all arguments including legal arguments would be meaningless. So my question to you is after what point of time do you think should we agree as valid? Does 1945 and afterwards count? I use 1945 because, UN was estabilished that year at the conclusion of WWII, it is also the point that since then today's World order and many internal legal bases are founded. China at the end of WWII in 1945 laid claim of thoses SCS islands, by then it was actually 11 dashed lines instead of 9. Where were the morden states of all other claimants? Vietnam was still legally part of French colony, that's why the first indo-china war from 1946 to 1954, it gained formal independence at the conclusion of the war in 1954. Philippines was legally commonwealth of the United States untill 1946. Malaysia was under British rule untill 1957 or 1963, two dates as parts of today's Malaysia was incoperated in at different times. All in all, none of these claimants existed at the time when China laid the claim. If you say the Chinese claim is invalid then what is? All the information and dates above are from English Wikipedia, you can read through them yourself.
I think your analogous is more applicable to the other claimants than to China, just like morden Mogolia laying claim of Russia when the Mogolian republic of today was established only at 1925 and gained legal recognation from China (being its legal sovereign at the time) in 1945.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Empirical evidence show international laws and norms only apply to superpowers when they wish it. Since it's impossible for past/current great and super powers to reconcile their actions from words, it's irrational to expect rising (Brazil, Indonesia) and reemerging (China, India) great powers to behave any better. Facts are when you strip away all the grandiose pretenses, Realpolitik is king, and always will be. What it means for China's neighbors in the SCS is they'll have to cut the best deal they can (while they still can), in spite of noble or ignoble intentions by any and all involved parties.
May I please have the comments by the supporters of China re: territorial claims in the Spratlys - South China Sea. TV yesterday reported that the Philippines' claim is considered legally justified by the UN Court of Justice. How would China react to this if this is a confirmed report? Thanks.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The ICJ made some rulings on Philippines v China? That's news indeed! Can you link the source please?
Do you mind provide link to the verdict of ICJ? Also the Word "considered" does not sound like a verdict. Third, ICJ does NOT have jurisdiction if the state involved in the dispute does NOT submit to the ruling of the Court. In layman's term it means if China don't go to the court, the Court has no say in the business. And China has declared many times that she does "submit" the matter to any Court which is within her legal right.
So the short version of China's reaction is "none of your business".
Advill, as we all can see and learn from history, all great and powerful nations, past and present, most likely future ones as well, more often than not do things in peacetime strategic competition where a defender/challenger devises strength and situations to induce the challenger/defender to do his wills. Sun Tzu said it, so did Clausewitz. The immediate event and the final endgame may not be seen readily in any discernible pattern or link sometimes. Obviously powerful states tend to see events in widest possible context, and devise and craft their strategies accordingly to shape strengths and situations to fit the endgame.
San Francisco system worked perfectly for US so far, it enabled her to geographically hem in the rising communism in east Asia, while at the same time allowing her secure an array of bases right down to Mahan's prescriptions, location, value, vitality and strength. Hence the dominance. But it seems this can't go on forever as the influx of events point to a shift of some sort.
This Philippines court case, in and of itself, wouldn't have much bearing on what is playing out in SCS. For sure we'll see a lot of sea nationalism coming and going in waves after waves, sometimes smaller claimants gaining escalatory dominance over bigger power as bigger power has to recalibrate before response.
I agree with the realpolitik part. But not the empirical evidence part. Yes it may be naive to epect new Powers to behave better than the old ones, but it is actually irrational to think the new guys to be worse than the old guys because "you DON'T know them". We are sure about what happened in the past, therefore the empirical evidence, but we can never be sure about the behaviour of future Powers. I am not picky or playing Word games here, I am very serious. Heraclitus said "You could not step twice into the same river.", that applies to Human race as a whole too. All countries made mistakes, China, India, Russia, U.S. U.K. etc all did. The new Powers will learn from their own mistakes as well as others, their rivals. The old Powers will do the same. China and India are totally different cultrues than U.S. and U.K., they never behaved the same way as the U.S. and other western Powers, even during their high time.
Also, about the empirical evidence part, I suggest Learning some World (outside of Europe and U.S.) history before western coutries made contacts with other part of the globe will be helpful to get different evidence.
So my thought is that, just wait and see, speculating too far (10 years and beyond) is waste of time and brain cell. In the mean time deal with the imediate issue within the current legal frame work.