China's SCS Strategy Thread

Brumby said:

.... except this grizzly bear then goes to the Chihuahua's abode, drive it and its entire family out of the area, establish a zone for the next 1000 kms and then claim its is a victim because it was provoked as a defence for its actions. If you want your argument to have any credibility, I suggest you have to suspend all logic, reasoning, fairness in your universe.

Click to expand...

The chihuahua vs grizzly bear analogy was only meant to demonstrate that party A does not need to be a significant threat or even a credible threat to party B, for party B to consider certain actions by part A as a provocation.

If you really want, I can give a full and unabridged extension of the chihuahua/grizzly bear analogy to reply to your own extended version but I think both of our positions have been made quite clear to each other in previous discussions that such an analogy won't be necessary.

If you want, you can ignore the chihuahua/grizzly bear analogy and use the small person vs large person analogy. I quote myself from a previous post as an extension of nfgc's analogy:

Sure, the smaller person may not be a "credible threat" to a person 40 times their size, but the smaller person can still "provoke" the larger person into an action or a response.

Click to expand...

I also want to emphasize that my analogy was a general reply to nfgc's belief that one's relative strength or power has anything to do with whether one can interpret the actions of a much weaker party as a provocation or not. The analogy was not mean to be a specific parallel to the SCS dispute as such.


Your reply is more related to whether you believe China's boundaries for defining what it perceives as a provocation is reasonable or not, is another question altogether and was not the topic of my analogy.

Bltizo said:

The chihuahua vs grizzly bear analogy was only meant to demonstrate that party A does not need to be a significant threat or even a credible threat to party B, for party B to consider certain actions by part A as a provocation.

If you really want, I can give a full and unabridged extension of the chihuahua/grizzly bear analogy to reply to your own extended version but I think both of our positions have been made quite clear to each other in previous discussions that such an analogy won't be necessary.

If you want, you can ignore the chihuahua/grizzly bear analogy and use the small person vs large person analogy. I quote myself from a previous post as an extension of nfgc's analogy:


I also want to emphasize that my analogy was a general reply to nfgc's belief that one's relative strength or power has anything to do with whether one can interpret the actions of a much weaker party as a provocation or not. The analogy was not mean to be a specific parallel to the SCS dispute as such.


Your reply is more related to whether you believe China's boundaries for defining what it perceives as a provocation is reasonable or not, is another question altogether and was not the topic of my analogy.

Click to expand...

Context is everything and so the story needs to be debated in perspective. Selective reasoning is in my view not a sensible way to present an argument. Personally I do not like to use analogy because it is poor form to make a cogent argument. I do not wish to labour on this but simply to make a point. You have made yours in response and so lets just leave it at that.

Putting it another way, the issue I had with nfgc's belief is that it suggests that no action should ever be seen as a provocation by a stronger party, if the difference in strength between the weaker party conducting the action and the stronger party receiving the action is big enough.

This isn't to say that a difference in strength between two parties should not be factored in when either party considers how much of a provocation an action should be perceived as.

However I do think it's absolutely illogical to believe that under all circumstances, a stronger party should have no right to perceive any actions of a smaller party as provocative on the basis of their difference in strength alone.
I believe that every party has the right to define what lines constitutes a provocation for them. Whether those lines are considered reasonable or not is another issue.

Brumby said:

Context is everything and so the story needs to be debated in perspective. Selective reasoning is in my view not a sensible way to present an argument. Personally I do not like to use analogy because it is poor form to make a cogent argument. I do not wish to labour on this but simply to make a point. You have made yours in response and so lets just leave it at that.

Click to expand...

The thing is I'm not making an argument for the SCS dispute specifically but rather as a general statement regarding the nature of provocations universally.

You can argue that one party's defining lines for what they perceive as provocations are unreasonable, but that does not mean that a stronger party has no right to perceive the actions of a much weaker party as provocative simply because of the difference in strength.


In other words, nfgc (from what I understand) was saying that if there is a sufficiently big difference in strength between two parties, then nothing that a weaker party ever does should ever be able to be perceived as a provocation by the stronger party, because of the difference in strength alone.

My position is that using a difference in strength as the single basis of determining whether an action is a provocation, is illogical and ignores not only the previous context and background of any particular situation/disagreement, but also ignores that parties should have the right to self-define their own interests, to self-define what constitutes a threat, and thus to self-define what constitutes a provocation.

My beef is not with his perception of the SCS dispute, but it is with his belief on the restriction of perceiving an action as a provocation.

I agree that analogies are never fully accurate, so if you want to end the discussion because you disagreed with my analogy then that is fine, but you should also understand the point I was trying to make with my analogy is entirely different to the point you made.
I'm only pressing this point because I'm disappointed that you'd think I would suspend logic, reasoning and fairness in my argument, when the entire point of my argument was to make nfgc see those very same hallmarks to point out the flaw in his logic.

Bltizo said:

Putting it another way, the issue I had with nfgc's belief is that it suggests that no action should ever be seen as a provocation by a stronger party, if the difference in strength between the weaker party conducting the action and the stronger party receiving the action is big enough.

Click to expand...

I think if you wish to argue whether it is conceivable that a weaker party may provoke possibly a stronger party, that argument is sustainable within reasons. However given the background between the two nations economically and militarily it is less likely and that would be my position. Considering that the nature of the provocation is that the Philippines filed for arbitration and in return China went on one of the largest land reclamation known to-date, doesn't suggest in my view simply a provoked response but rather an excuse for a larger plan. This point I had previously laboured on and will not repeat. You than overlapped the whole argument with the notion that China is merely a victim makes the whole story rather incredulous.

Bltizo said:

However I do think it's absolutely illogical to believe that under all circumstances, a stronger party should have no right to perceive any actions of a smaller party as provocative on the basis of their difference in strength alone.

Click to expand...

It is a legally established convention under law of armed conflict that any nation can invoke self defence in retaliation. However the caveat is proportionality and hence size of response matters in the whole conversation. The massive land reclamation in response to filing for legal arbitration doesn't in my view pass the proportionate response test no matter how you wish to present your argument.

Bltizo said:

I believe that every party has the right to define what lines constitutes a provocation for them. Whether those lines are considered reasonable or not is another issue.

Click to expand...

Reasonableness and fairness matters in the modern era of rule of law. I can understand that in the imperial dynasties, royal degree by fiat defines the environment but the SCS countries are not vassal states and China is part of the global community.

Bltizo said:

I'm only pressing this point because I'm disappointed that you'd think I would suspend logic, reasoning and fairness in my argument, when the entire point of my argument was to make nfgc see those very same hallmarks to point out the flaw in his logic.

Click to expand...

In view of your explanation, I retract my statement on the suspension and offer my apologies in return.

Brumby said:

I think if you wish to argue whether it is conceivable that a weaker party may provoke possibly a stronger party, that argument is sustainable within reasons. However given the background between the two nations economically and militarily it is less likely and that would be my position. Considering that the nature of the provocation is that the Philippines filed for arbitration and in return China went on one of the largest land reclamation known to-date, doesn't suggest in my view simply a provoked response but rather an excuse for a larger plan. This point I had previously laboured on and will not repeat. You than overlapped the whole argument with the notion that China is merely a victim makes the whole story rather incredulous.

Click to expand...

In this specific discussion with nfgc I never said that China was "merely the victim", and I was not using the analogy to describe the specific SCS.

I was just saying that it is not inconceivable for a weaker party to provoke a stronger party, to counter the belief of nfgc that a weaker party can never provoke a stronger party because of their difference in strength.

It is a legally established convention under law of armed conflict that any nation can invoke self defence in retaliation. However the caveat is proportionality and hence size of response matters in the whole conversation. The massive land reclamation in response to filing for legal arbitration doesn't in my view pass the proportionate response test no matter how you wish to present your argument.

Click to expand...

As I've repeated, my discussion with nfgc specifically in the last few replies were only related to his belief that a weaker party can never provoke a stronger one simply on the basis of their difference in strength.

I deliberately try to keep my statements limited in scope to avoid a discussion spiralling out of control, and in this case I've repeated myself enough to say that I'm only speaking in regards to the principle of whether it is conceivable for a weaker party to provoke a stronger party.

Reasonableness and fairness matters in the modern era of rule of law. I can understand that in the imperial dynasties, royal degree by fiat defines the environment but the SCS countries are not vassal states and China is part of the global community.

Click to expand...

Well it is a good thing that I never said that reasonable and fairness didn't matter -- I simply said that it was another matter separate to the topic of discussion I was having with nfgc around the notion that no weaker party is ever able to provoke a stronger party only because of the difference in strength.

This entire vein of discussion can basically be distilled down to one question: is it conceivable for a weaker party to provoke a stronger party?
If you agree yes, then that is the only answer I need.

And before you talk about context, or the specifics of the SCS dispute, note that I've never tried to apply the weak party/strong party provocation principle onto the SCS dispute, and I've never said that we should never look at the context, history, and details of a situation either (in fact I think those are all important things to consider)... I'm only saying that nfgc's statement as I perceive it, is illogical.

Nfgc has in effect said "X event can never happen" (with X event being a weaker party provoking a stronger party). I am saying "actually, there are circumstances in which X event can happen".
If we were to represent these with numbers, nfgc is basically saying the probability of X occurring is 0, while I am saying it is greater than 0.

Alternatively nfgc's statements could also be perceived as "Y has an inverse relationship with X and that this relationship is the strongest and/or only determinant of Y" (with Y being the degree of provocation perceived by a stronger party, and X being the difference in strength between the strong and weak party). In which case my position is that context, history, and other factors all play a significant part for determining the value of Y, and X has only a small effect on Y, if any at all.

Bltizo said:

In this specific discussion with nfgc I never said that China was "merely the victim", and I was not using the analogy to describe the specific SCS.

I was just saying that it is not inconceivable for a weaker party to provoke a stronger party, to counter the belief of nfgc that a weaker party can never provoke a stronger party because of their difference in strength.




As I've repeated, my discussion with nfgc specifically in the last few replies were only related to his belief that a weaker party can never provoke a stronger one simply on the basis of their difference in strength.

I deliberately try to keep my statements limited in scope to avoid a discussion spiralling out of control, and in this case I've repeated myself enough to say that I'm only speaking in regards to the principle of whether it is conceivable for a weaker party to provoke a stronger party.




Well it is a good thing that I never said that reasonable and fairness didn't matter -- I simply said that it was another matter separate to the topic of discussion I was having with nfgc around the notion that no weaker party is ever able to provoke a stronger party only because of the difference in strength.

This entire vein of discussion can basically be distilled down to one question: is it conceivable for a weaker party to provoke a stronger party?
If you agree yes, then that is the only answer I need.

And before you talk about context, or the specifics of the SCS dispute, note that I've never tried to apply the weak party/strong party provocation principle onto the SCS dispute, and I've never said that we should never look at the context, history, and details of a situation either (in fact I think those are all important things to consider)... I'm only saying that nfgc's statement as I perceive it, is illogical.

Nfgc has in effect said "X event can never happen" (with X event being a weaker party provoking a stronger party). I am saying "actually, there are circumstances in which X event can happen".
If we were to represent these with numbers, nfgc is basically saying the probability of X occurring is 0, while I am saying it is greater than 0.

Alternatively nfgc's statements could also be perceived as "X has an inverse relationship with Y and that relationship is the strongest and/or determinant of Y" (with X being the difference in strength between the strong and weak party, and Y being the degree of provocation perceived by a stronger party). My position is that context, history, and other factors all play a part for the value of Y, and X has only a small effect on Y, if any at all.

Click to expand...

You have defined the parameters of your statement in which it is meant to apply and I respect that. In that context, your argument is sustainable. Having said that, I do not believe it represents what nfgc was presenting from his standpoint, both in context and meaning. I leave it to the poster to make any rebuttal.

Brumby said:

You have defined the parameters of your statement in which it is meant to apply and I respect that. In that context, your argument is sustainable. Having said that, I do not believe it represents what nfgc was presenting from his standpoint, both in context and meaning. I leave it to the poster to make any rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Very well.
It is worth noting that his original point may have been made only specifically WRT the SCS dispute context, but his later statements were made in too general a way for me to let it go.


To nfgc, if you wish to respond to this entire vein of discussion, just answer the simple question: do you think it is conceivable for a weaker party to provoke a stronger party?

If you believe it is conceivable, then I have no disagreement with you on the matter.
If you believe it is inconceivable (in other words, it can never happen no matter what the circumstances are), then I will ask you to read back the last few posts that myself and others have made to define the word provocation, and the various arguments we have made. If you still believe it is inconceivable then I have no other words to exchange on this matter.

You need to slow down and read what I said -- I said that I don't recall any war films about current disputes. I did acknowledge that there are all kinds of war films about the civil war and WWII, but films about that era aren't exactly relevant to the disputes at hand.
Your statement only works if you include documentaries as war films, but I think I'm being quite fair in that most people would not consider documentaries to be classed as films.

Click to expand...

They should be classified as such in China as they function as propaganda to stoke nationalism. When several of them play every day, that moves them into another classification as their obvious intent has changed. Imagine if from your 500 cable channels that 100 were playing WW2 anti-Nazi programmes. All the time. Every day. That moves those documentaries into the realm of propaganda and that is what CCTV does daily.

I was not talking about the scope of reclamation (that's another subject entirely) and I'm a little bit confused as to how you got that from my sentence.

Click to expand...

Analogy.

I know you don't see this, most here don't. China's size of actions elevates what they do. Instead of one History Channel among 500, China has many programmes running every day, among the 50 or so channels available on the mainland. Thus it is incorrect to equate them to other countries because China runs so many of them that they function as propaganda that gain a much larger mindshare in the populace.

Analogy.

China reclaims 2000 to 3000 acres over 18 months compared to the few acres reclaimed by everyone else combined over the past decade.

Common concepts.

Just as having 10% of all available programming being war films changes the result, so does reclaiming 3000 acres change the result.

The other runways combined have far less impact as the one at Fiery Cross as that runway is large enough for military craft of all sizes to operate from, compared to the other runways that are only 1200m or so in length.

Again, you're generalizing what you see as China's actions/policies in SCS to China's actions/policies internationally.

Click to expand...

No, I am taking what I know from China, what my friends experience now, today, what I have heard from total strangers, what I have read from many sources dating back 200 years, and what I have experienced. I then see these traits mirrored in Chinese policy in the SCS and their geo-political policy. They are behaving completely congruently, everything they do makes sense - it just alienates everyone.

It is a massive claim. If you want to support that position, you'll need to first clearly state what you believe China's policy in SCS is like, and then state what you believe China's policy in international relations with other countries is like, and then list evidence of China's actions which support your claims to a sufficient degree that such actions are not merely a few unique cases.

Click to expand...

You list voluminous criteria that a dissenter must meet in order to contradict the prevailing forum wisdom. Yet the prevailing forum wisdom never met such criteria.

IOW I must meet a massively high standard, whilst everyone else does not.

Just on one point mentioned at the top - it would be an impossibility to ever conduct any research on Chinese TV as a non-Chinese and prove this to your standard. They simply would not allow one entry.

With all politeness, I am not going to play your game by your rules when reciprocity is abandoned.