China's SCS Strategy Thread

Brumby · Aug 30, 2015

Equation said:
What rule of law? What makes you think this so call law is 100% sure fire guarantee and accepted by the entire world? You are accepting the little guys to do whatever they want to China, as long as China play according to the international norms even if it's wrong.

The issue isn't about whether any rule based order is 100 % accepted by all as it will never be. We have a prime example like North Korea. It is however a prerequisite to navigate through issues. The problem with China is that it has staked a claim and declared that it is indisputable. A good starting point would be to actually put out its case if it is historic title and stake out what exactly is the scope of its claim. So far what we have seen are some feeble assertions like imperial records (from pro defenders). Claims pertaining to historic rights are not unique just to China. There are numerous historic claims that had been resolved before the ICJ.

Equation said:
Your opinion fits into the view that China must be contain or else it grows too strong therefore are threatening it's neighbors by preposterous assumption that it would "conquer" them. By dividing the SCS into various small territories can only insure the so call peace in the region. This is exactly the false endorsement from the anti-China group believing that only they can dictate what terms are peaceful for both China and it's neighbors, never mind if the Asian neighbors could work it out the situation on a one-to-one basis. Repeating the rhetoric of a possible instability through conflict from the region does NOT equate to making it true if China doesn't listen to them. Remember not every body in the entire Asian region cares about the drama down in the SCS because lately there is NOT a single death coming from this. China has been promoting a peaceful dialogue with each and everyone of it's SCS neighbors and always has been, but somebody has to ruin it out of their own interest of course.

I expect better from you. You are now making groundless accusations of what my opinion might be. If I had made specific comments that you disagree than by all means challenge those views and my basis. You are resorting to allegations and accusations.

Brumby · Aug 30, 2015

joshuatree said:
There's a presupposition that routinely comes from the anti-China side, that China has zero rights in the SCS that goes beyond the 200 NM from just the mainland and Hainan. When it comes to Taiwan, there's even less than 200 NM. That many other claimants have rights based on historical and legal rationale but the course of historical events such as colonialism and wars may have prevented the respective claimants from fully exercising their rights. However, should the same principles be it historical or legal be used to qualify Chinese claims, that's not allowed.

There's also the presupposition that UNCLOS is rock solid and water tight, not realizing UNCLOS is an evolving process over several rounds of negotiations and discussions spanning decades. That the reality is that it is a horrible set of agreements because it purposefully left many areas vague to attract the number of signatories that it could get. Even then, the signatory list is loaded with many individual state declarations that highlight what each respective state perceives of UNCLOS and through the individual interpretation of the vague points, that respective state is willing to sign on per that interpretation. That it is missing the largest state in terms of military and diplomatic power as a signatory, really undermining its credibility.

In this English speaking forum, there's at least a certain level of objectivity, restraint, and moderation that keeps discussions mostly civil and allows real discussion to even happen which sadly, some perceive this as a rigged environment. For most other English speaking forums, there's nothing but vile, even racist tones in the so called conversations that take place that is purely nothing but Chinese bashing. Perhaps that is what is considered as not being rigged by some folks.

Whilst we share different worldviews I do regard your posts as being presented in good faith in attempting to bring your world view across. Your present post is significantly enlarging the conversation subject and I will not respond to it because it will clearly become unmanageable. Since the original contention here is over a presupposition that the pro China's group position is that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing, I would ask you to state your personal view on it rather than to generalise a group of people over the issue. It only requires a yes or no answer. A yes answer will lead to a different track of discussion and that would be to defend that position. A no answer is simply that the islands are in dispute and while in dispute the sovereignty issue is unresolved.

joshuatree · Aug 30, 2015

Brumby said:
Whilst we share different worldviews I do regard your posts as being presented in good faith in attempting to bring your world view across. Your present post is significantly enlarging the conversation subject and I will not respond to it because it will clearly become unmanageable. Since the original contention here is over a presupposition that the pro China's group position is that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing, I would ask you to state your personal view on it rather than to generalise a group of people over the issue. It only requires a yes or no answer. A yes answer will lead to a different track of discussion and that would be to defend that position. A no answer is simply that the islands are in dispute and while in dispute the sovereignty issue is unresolved.

You have every right to choose what you want to respond to in discussion. And I appreciate your acknowledgement of my views in regards to other presuppositions that exist.

However, I have no interest answering your question as I wasn't engaged in that specific discussion with you or nfgc, others were and would make more sense to be answering your question.

Just a note, as much as you say the presuppositions I laid out are generalizing, the presupposition you listed of the pro-China group is also generalizing.

Blitzo · Aug 30, 2015

Brumby said:
The problem with China is that it has staked a claim and declared that it is indisputable.

I'm not going to review the entire discussion, and there are some of equation's points which I disagree with which you've already addressed.
But I think this particular issue of the claim being "indisputable" should be considered in light of the actual pattern of language used in territorial disputes.

In territorial disputes I don't think many countries would dare to use weaker words than "indisputable" to describe their own claims, especially if there's not a lot of good faith to go around between all the claimants (regardless of what the cause of the loss of good faith is).
That said, I can appreciate that use of such a strong word is a cause of consternation and/or anxiety for some of the other claimants in the region, but I think the use of strong words are also a given in territorial disputes around the world and in history.

So I'm not sure if getting hung up on the word "indisputable" is too useful, because no claimant in a territorial dispute with hostility on both sides is ever going to call a claim or the basis of their claim as only "mostly indisputable" or "only mildly disputable," regardless of the actual basis of a territorial claim which obviously can be objectively disputed.
They're always going to come out with the strongest words they can to describe their claim, as an indication of the willingness to press their claim.

Brumby · Aug 30, 2015

Bltizo said:
I'm not going to review the entire discussion, and there are some of equation's points which I disagree with which you've already addressed.
But I think this particular issue of the claim being "indisputable" should be considered in light of the actual pattern of language used in territorial disputes.

In territorial disputes I don't think many countries would dare to use weaker words than "indisputable" to describe their own claims, especially if there's not a lot of good faith to go around between all the claimants (regardless of what the cause of the loss of good faith is).
That said, I can appreciate that use of such a strong word is a cause of consternation and/or anxiety for some of the other claimants in the region, but I think the use of strong words are also a given in territorial disputes around the world and in history.

So I'm not sure if getting hung up on the word "indisputable" is too useful, because no claimant in a territorial dispute with hostility on both sides is ever going to call a claim or the basis of their claim as only "mostly indisputable" or "only mildly disputable," regardless of the actual basis of a territorial claim which obviously can be objectively disputed.
They're always going to come out with the strongest words they can to describe their claim, as an indication of the willingness to press their claim.

The problem is not with the word "indisputable" per se. You have conveniently ommitted the subsequent sentences following the sentence of mine that you quoted. The issue is with indisputable and no attempt to justify its position that makes it a problem. It is like me stating you are wrong and not offering a basis for it.

Blitzo · Aug 30, 2015

Brumby said:
The problem is not with the word "indisputable" per se. You have conveniently ommitted the subsequent sentences following the sentence of mine that you quoted. The issue is with indisputable and no attempt to justify its position that makes it a problem. It is like me stating you are wrong and not offering a basis for it.

It would obviously be optimal if one's explanation and justification for one's claim was accepted by all, of course, as that would fulfill the criteria of a claim being "indisputable".

But regardless of whether a claim is actually indisputable or not, in a dispute where there's no good faith to go around, the nation making the claim is rarely going to admit that their claim has holes in it or that their claim is not disputable. They're always going to come out and say "we are completely right, our claim is fully correct". Look at all kinds statements made about territory for any nation in any kind of strained dispute in recent history -- strong words like "indisputable" are always part of the official statement.

Which is why I see the use of words like "indisputable" as a demonstration of a nation's will, and as an official PR statement, and as a bluff and as hot air, and why I think getting too caught up in whether the actual evidence a nation presents is disputable or not is not immensely useful. They're all going to lie a little and twist the words if they don't mesh wholly right with reality.

Brumby · Aug 30, 2015

Bltizo said:
It would obviously be optimal if one's explanation and justification for one's claim was accepted by all, of course, as that would fulfill the criteria of a claim being "indisputable".

But regardless of whether a claim is actually indisputable or not, in a dispute where there's no good faith to go around, the nation making the claim is rarely going to admit that their claim has holes in it or that their claim is not disputable. They're always going to come out and say "we are completely right, our claim is fully correct". Look at all kinds statements made about territory for any nation in any kind of strained dispute in recent history -- strong words like "indisputable" are always part of the official statement.

Which is why I see the use of words like "indisputable" as a demonstration of a nation's will, and as an official PR statement, and as a bluff and as hot air, and why I think getting too caught up in whether the actual evidence a nation presents is disputable or not is not immensely useful. They're all going to lie a little and twist the words if they don't mesh wholly right with reality.

I can understand the posturing part as an initial play. Once you get past that, there is only so far that you can hide behind a veil of ambiquity. Eventually the facts and substance matters and that is the nature of my point.

Blitzo · Aug 30, 2015

Brumby said:
I can understand the posturing part as an initial play. Once you get past that, there is only so far that you can hide behind a veil of ambiquity. Eventually the facts and substance matters and that is the nature of my point.

I disagree -- facts and substance are almost irrelevant for what we are talking about, which is maintaining a posture or demonstrating one's will to contest or pursue a claim. Demonstrating anything apart from a picture of self-assuredness and complete confidence in one's position for these kind of disputes is essential if there's no good faith or trust between the parties, because neither side can trust the other to not seize the opportunity to open up an opening as an avenue of attack upon their claim.

It is standard language for a dispute of this kind, and I don't think it reflects that the nation making the claim truly believes that their claim is indisputable or not being disputed by others. It's just a script that needs to be said otherwise the other guy will end up capitalizing on a perceived weakness, and the script will be maintained until there's enough trust on both sides to agree to a compromise.

It is stupid that nations can get away with these kind of BS just to maintain a position, but there are enough cases out there that in situations like this, the BS has become the norm. At the very least, I have accepted it as just the way things run.

Brumby · Aug 30, 2015

joshuatree said:
Just a note, as much as you say the presuppositions I laid out are generalizing, the presupposition you listed of the pro-China group is also generalizing.

Your first part of your statement is simply false. I did not say what you listed as generalisation because I opted not to comment. The reason I opted is to ensure that we stay on track as the primary issue has not been address.
In contrast I am providing you and anybody else an opportunity to directly respond to nfgc's assertion of a prevailing view within the pro China group of a presuppositive stance.

Blitzo · Aug 30, 2015

Brumby said:
In contrast I am providing you and anybody else an opportunity to directly respond to nfgc's assertion of a prevailing view within the pro China group of a presuppositive stance.

Brumby said:
Whilst we share different worldviews I do regard your posts as being presented in good faith in attempting to bring your world view across. Your present post is significantly enlarging the conversation subject and I will not respond to it because it will clearly become unmanageable. Since the original contention here is over a presupposition that the pro China's group position is that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing, I would ask you to state your personal view on it rather than to generalise a group of people over the issue. It only requires a yes or no answer. A yes answer will lead to a different track of discussion and that would be to defend that position. A no answer is simply that the islands are in dispute and while in dispute the sovereignty issue is unresolved.

I think it is a mistake to believe that there is a "pro China group" and an "anti China group".

I know you were not discussing it with me, but an answer I would give is that there are some people who believe the SCS islands belongs to China and that others are trespassing, and there are some who believe that the dispute is ongoing, and there are others again who believe China has no claim on the SCS islands whatsoever.

I prefer to avoid generalisations if I can help it, and this is a case where I'd prefer to avoid it as well -- but in this case there isn't even necessarily a group to generalise to begin with because people's opinions on China's position in the SCS islands dispute varies on a continuum even if one tried to describe a "pro China" group.

I think making a presupposition about either the"pro China" side or the "anti China" side is flawed to begin with because no such side can be categorically defined. The only accurate thing that can be said is that there are people who hold certain views towards a particular side of the spectrum which exist.

China's SCS Strategy Thread

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

joshuatree

Captain

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General