South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

continue

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

Noted but as I explained it has to be understood in the context our respective political philosophy.

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

If your original statement of the US involvement is not meant as a disqualifier we can move on.

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agree

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

At face value and up to a point your argument would be a reasonable position. However when there are also a set of dynamics that are continuously introduced over time into the equation then that initial bilateral model has gone past its used by date. Isn’t that political realism?

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

Frankly each claimant would have some basis from which it would be arguing from. Arbitration in my view is still the best solution when all the facts and legal positions can be thrown into the equation where comparative judgement can be made.

The problem is that China is not maintaining status quo but changing the status quo.

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

So far the US is very restrained with its actions. I can’t say the same with the Chinese actions. Any move on Scarborough by the Chinese in my view will be a game changer. If the US do not react to such potentially provocative action I think the US would lose all credibility in the region.

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, the Tribunal has already set a critical date due to the Philippines submission before it. All the reclamation of land by the Chinese are before the critical date and so whatever reclamation effort does not reinforce the Chinese legal position.

continue

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are suggesting but from my perspective, China needs to move beyond the indisputability stance and actually argues its case.

Zool said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment and that is what I believe led the Philippines to go to the Tribunal.

Brumby said:

I am not sure what you are suggesting but from my perspective, China needs to move beyond the indisputability stance and actually argues its case.

Click to expand...

I think what he's saying in regards to this part is that few nations will ever say anything other than "we have indisputable sovereignty" in regards to a territorial dispute, especially if it is one tainted by bad blood or bad history.

I think I also understand where you're coming from -- that it would be helpful for China to actually "argue its case," rather than merely saying "we have indisputable sovereignty" (and I think that would go for all other examples of territorial disputes anywhere tbh).

A way to reconcile your view and Zool's in this regard is that you cannot realistically expect China to drop the whole "we have indisputable sovereignty" line under the present state of affairs in the region, but you can say that China should also present a greater amount of substance to back up its case. Of course, whether one views China's existing argument case and substance as being sufficient to back up its case or not is another matter entirely.

Bltizo said:

A way to reconcile your view and Zool's in this regard is that you cannot realistically expect China to drop the whole "we have indisputable sovereignty" line under the present state of affairs in the region, but you can say that China should also present a greater amount of substance to back up its case. Of course, whether one views China's existing argument case and substance as being sufficient to back up its case or not is another matter entirely.

Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing by my earlier statement "China needs to move beyond the indisputability stance and actually argues its case."

Brumby said:

I think we are saying the same thing by my earlier statement "China needs to move beyond the indisputability stance and actually argues its case."

Click to expand...

I think the part "needs to move beyond the indisputability stance" conveys a suggestion that it is realistic for China to "drop" the indisputability stance.

If it was simply that China should more strongly argue its case with no mention of the indisputability stance then I think your positions would not be at any odds.

Bltizo said:

I think the part "needs to move beyond the indisputability stance" conveys a suggestion that it is realistic for China to "drop" the indisputability stance.

If it was simply that China should more strongly argue its case with no mention of the indisputability stance then I think your positions would not be at any odds.

Click to expand...

Ok I understand what you are saying. Moving on to me means "build upon" rather than "move away".

Brumby said:

Ok I understand what you are saying. Moving on to me means "build upon" rather than "move away".

Click to expand...

Okay fair enough. Semantics is important!

Bltizo said:

Okay fair enough. Semantics is important!

Click to expand...

Since you are into semantics it should be noted that I had the conjunction "and" connecting two sets of actions which would imply a connection rather than a dis-association.

Brumby said:

Since you are into semantics it should be noted that I had the conjunction "and" connecting two sets of actions which would imply a connection rather than a dis-association.

Click to expand...

Yes, i did note that, however the use of "move beyond" conveyed a meaning which suggested "to drop," which made the subsequent use of "and" more to be a sequential connection, like "first drop indisputability stance, and then..."

Bltizo said:

Yes, i did note that, however the use of "move beyond" conveyed a meaning which suggested "to drop," which made the subsequent use of "and" more to be a sequential connection, like "first drop indisputability stance, and then..."

Click to expand...

It is not a dispute or debate but I am simply curious regarding usage of the term "move beyond". At best it would suggest that the initial position is temporal and such a position needs to be sustained by something more substantive. In other words, the initial position is effectively contingent on subsequent reinforcement. You seem to be suggest that in terms of normal usage that it may include first dropping the initial position. Can you suggest of an example in usage that would align to such a meaning.