The complete ridiculousness of this proportionality test in this SCS situation is none of the claimants in this dispute has symmetrical national power and strength to each other begin with. The actions and reactions in SCS disputes are asymmetrical in nature. Hence the Philippines' move to a court hearing while China is busy reclaiming acres of sand. By common sense one can clearly see this attempt is simply trying to square a circle. Reality doesn't follow what the textbook says. By applying this bogus test, which doesn't work conceptually in this asymmetrical situation, to determine what is lawful and unlawful is utter nonsense, a complete failure of independent thinking.
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
Proportionality is an interesting word to use, because the way I see it once good faith is lost, it effectively removes the obligation for any of the individual parties to play nice.
In other words, once good faith and trust is lost, the extent of each party's actions once good faith is lost is only really dependent on their capability and resources, their prior planning, and the determination of each party and the degree of backlash and retaliation they are willing to tolerate from other parties.
So, when one side perceives a loss of good faith it effectively causes the situation to become a free for all, and it makes no sense for any side to respond "proportionately" unless they are trying to foster good will from the other side or if they are unwilling to "escalate" the situation to a level where the other side's response is one they cannot withstand.
With that in mind, it makes perfect sense for all parties to use all the advantages they have to enforce their own positions to the highest degree they are capable of doing and also keeping in mind that they will temper their actions so as to not provoke a response from their adversaries that they themselves believe they cannot handle... or cause a reaction that spins out of control.
Now, as Jeff and Brumby said, the entire scale and speed of China's reclamation is worth noting, but like also Shen said, I think that can just as easily be explained as excellent contingency planning in response to scenarios that the govt may have expected.
We can't rule out the possibility that China was looking for an "excuse" to conduct its reclamation efforts of course, but we also cannot rule out the possibility that their reclamation is a response to an effort to internationalize the dispute and that the speed and scale of the operation is just a testament to the good contingency planning and good industrial capability of China.
Whichever view one takes really depends on how good-intentioned one believes China started off as being: one either believes China was duplicitous and scheming to expand its holdings through reclamation at the start, or that its hand was forced into a response due to increasing pressure and loss of trust from the outside.
But all that said, I do believe that focusing on proportionality and scale of reclamation is misguided, because if one accepts that there is a loss of trust prior to the start of reclamation then there is obviously no need for any side to abide to any "proportional" responses.
If one does not believe there was a loss of trust prior to the start of reclamation, then that should be the more useful issue to discuss rather than proportionality, IMO.
In other words, once good faith and trust is lost, the extent of each party's actions once good faith is lost is only really dependent on their capability and resources, their prior planning, and the determination of each party and the degree of backlash and retaliation they are willing to tolerate from other parties.
So, when one side perceives a loss of good faith it effectively causes the situation to become a free for all, and it makes no sense for any side to respond "proportionately" unless they are trying to foster good will from the other side or if they are unwilling to "escalate" the situation to a level where the other side's response is one they cannot withstand.
With that in mind, it makes perfect sense for all parties to use all the advantages they have to enforce their own positions to the highest degree they are capable of doing and also keeping in mind that they will temper their actions so as to not provoke a response from their adversaries that they themselves believe they cannot handle... or cause a reaction that spins out of control.
Now, as Jeff and Brumby said, the entire scale and speed of China's reclamation is worth noting, but like also Shen said, I think that can just as easily be explained as excellent contingency planning in response to scenarios that the govt may have expected.
We can't rule out the possibility that China was looking for an "excuse" to conduct its reclamation efforts of course, but we also cannot rule out the possibility that their reclamation is a response to an effort to internationalize the dispute and that the speed and scale of the operation is just a testament to the good contingency planning and good industrial capability of China.
Whichever view one takes really depends on how good-intentioned one believes China started off as being: one either believes China was duplicitous and scheming to expand its holdings through reclamation at the start, or that its hand was forced into a response due to increasing pressure and loss of trust from the outside.
But all that said, I do believe that focusing on proportionality and scale of reclamation is misguided, because if one accepts that there is a loss of trust prior to the start of reclamation then there is obviously no need for any side to abide to any "proportional" responses.
If one does not believe there was a loss of trust prior to the start of reclamation, then that should be the more useful issue to discuss rather than proportionality, IMO.
Last edited:
Blitzo, I believe trust, which is very subjective, is an overused word which is void of its original import in a lot of situations, this SCS dispute included. The best we could hope for is the better understanding of relevant and relative interests in play - interests are forever, and much closer to being objective.
I use the word trust because of its relatively vague nature, I suppose the key bottom line is that Beijing felt like a line was crossed that it couldn't accept and so it retaliated. Trust may not be the best word to describe it.
so linking it back to my previous post, the question is again, less about proportionality and scale and more about whether there were perceived provocations by one side or the other.
Brumby
Major
National power and strength is independent to the principle of proportionality. Your statement is irrelevant. It concern norms of behaviour in international relations and general interactions between entities. For example, if country A violates your national airspace you don't nuke their city in retaliation. That would be a disproportionate response. However if your grand plan is to nuke their city regardless, then it is not a reactive action but in pursuance of a national goal with the excuse that there was violation of national airspace.
That is a premise you need to justify.
You might as well express it in Klingon. I don't have the type of common sense that understands squaring a circle and how it relates to the issue of reactive vs. pre planned
Either you are being incoherent dressing up as being meaningful or my comprehension ability is low. Prove me wrong.
As I suspect all along, a sham has to show his true nature sooner or later, despite impressive use of terms that we could barely understand, and obviously he doesn't too.
If proportionality, used to decide what is lawful and unlawful, is not dependent on innate power and strength of parties involved, then what is?
Is the punishment proportional to crime?
States, with their vastly greater innate power and strength over individual citizens, can dish out a whole range of punishment starting from a paltry slap in the wrist to summary execution for any deemed infractions. Is it lawful to condemn a citizen to death when he fails to pay his bus fare? Probably not.
So who and what is responsible for starting this proportionality question to begin with, to determine what is lawful and what is not? It's state's innate power and strength to pick and choose from a whole spectrum of punishments for any given offenses, in this crime and punishment case. This proportionality question comes up in order to limit the innate power and strength of one or more of the parties involved.
Is the United States use of overwhelming military force and subsequent destruction in Iraq proportional to what it wanted to achieve in Iraq? Then again it is the proportionality question that tries to limit the innate power and strength of US military power not to max out its destructive nature. If it's within proportional use, it's lawful.
So who or what said that my statement is irrelevant? Your textbook? Or a little sham that tries to impress or irritate good people here day in day out parroting some classroom textbook materials ad verbatim without any original own thoughts and real understanding?
What kind of farce is this?
Now going back to China's actions in SCS.
Whatever China is doing or has done, no one got killed, nor shot at. None.
No Chinese troops has landed on any of other claimants' holdings. None.
Whatever China has done is within her own current holdings. If someone wants to limit this, they better come up with something better than this proportionality test rubbish.
Even allowing the absurdities of applying this bogus proportionality test to China's action in SCS, China still is clearly within the boundary her proportional response. No general public safety was harmed directly by China in any of the claimant countries, except if it's self-inflicted in case of Vietnam.
Because China does the same things bigger, better and faster than the others do not automatically mean it's breaking proportionality test in every endeavor, provided imminent direct threat to general public safety is not involved.
Because you cannot run as fast as Usain Bolt doesn't mean Mr. Bolt is failing the proportionality test and his fast sprints are unlawful. Real common sense. Not sham common sense.
Brumby, the nuclear missile analogy is a good one... And the circumstances of such a situation could very much mean nuking the other country would be a proportional response if the preceding environment meant the intrusion of the other country's aircraft
Say, if two nuclear armed countries were engaged in a high stakes nuclear showdown, say a modern and more tense Cuban missile crisis, and one side's aircraft violate's your airspace, then the country whose airspace is being violated could very well be justified in using nuclear force depending on how high preceding tensions had run and how big a threat or provocation the aircraft intrusion is perceived as being... as well as various other geographic factors (does the country having its airspace being intruded have the ability to equally threaten its nuclear rival? In other words, is the aircraft intruding on the country's airspace possibly a first, decapitating strike?)
In the SCS case, we need to remember that China's reclamation did not occur overnight and they likely did not choose to put it on the table as an option overnight, rather it was likely an array of options to respond to different levels and different durations of provocations from other sides, leading to a situation where any response would have been deemed proportional by China.
You have described China's reclamation as duplicitous, I believe, but one could respond and say China's reclamation was in response to the provocations of the other side. In either case, good will and trust has been lost between the parties and it has basically become a no-punches-pulled competition. In that case, if one side has the ability to completely bury the opponent in resources and scale then why wouldn't they?
It's like Russia or china asking the US to decrease its military size because the US armed forces is disproportionate to the threats that Russia and China think the US faces. The US will tell Russia and china to take a hike, because the US is under no current obligation or agreement to control its military size based on the concerns of military competitors, and because the US has the right to define their own military requirements to build a military they see fit.
Same goes for the territorial dispute; each side is under no obligation to play nice with each other anymore so can use whatever resources and scale they can stomach to use (keeping in mind the other side's retaliation) to compete with each other in an open way.
The same logic can be applied to the Cold War; the US was under no obligation to expand its military and economic capabilities in a "proportional" way to the USSR. Both sides were playing to win.
In a competition where there is little to no trust and cooperation (such as in a territorial dispute where bridges have been burnt to a military arms race without dearmament agreements or whatever), no side is obligated to be "proportional". For instance, if Side A has more resources, industrial capability, technological advancement, etc, then in the situation described, Side A would naturally seek to bring all the resources they can to bury the Side B, but only to a level where the retaliation from Side B is at a level that Side A is willing to stomach or willingly sacrifice (e.g.: if Side B threatens to use military force if Side A does action X, then Side A may be careful to not do action X. But if Side A knows that Side B's threats to use military force are a farce because they have a tiny military compared to Side A, then Side A will most likely go ahead and do action X.)
Proportionality doesn't exist in an open competition or dispute, the only things which determine the actions of both sides is the resources and power one side has versus the resources and power the other side has... and how much pain each side is willing to endure and escalate to.
The question we should be asking is whether the situation between China and the Philippines can be classified as an open dispute where there is no trust or good will between both sides... some would argue that internationalizing the dispute was the line which made China lose trust and good will towards the Philippines. You might argue that the Philippines internationalizing the dispute was perfectly legitimate and China was the first one to cross a line by reclaiming the islands. Either way, this should be the crux of the argument rather than notions about "proportionality".
Say, if two nuclear armed countries were engaged in a high stakes nuclear showdown, say a modern and more tense Cuban missile crisis, and one side's aircraft violate's your airspace, then the country whose airspace is being violated could very well be justified in using nuclear force depending on how high preceding tensions had run and how big a threat or provocation the aircraft intrusion is perceived as being... as well as various other geographic factors (does the country having its airspace being intruded have the ability to equally threaten its nuclear rival? In other words, is the aircraft intruding on the country's airspace possibly a first, decapitating strike?)
In the SCS case, we need to remember that China's reclamation did not occur overnight and they likely did not choose to put it on the table as an option overnight, rather it was likely an array of options to respond to different levels and different durations of provocations from other sides, leading to a situation where any response would have been deemed proportional by China.
You have described China's reclamation as duplicitous, I believe, but one could respond and say China's reclamation was in response to the provocations of the other side. In either case, good will and trust has been lost between the parties and it has basically become a no-punches-pulled competition. In that case, if one side has the ability to completely bury the opponent in resources and scale then why wouldn't they?
It's like Russia or china asking the US to decrease its military size because the US armed forces is disproportionate to the threats that Russia and China think the US faces. The US will tell Russia and china to take a hike, because the US is under no current obligation or agreement to control its military size based on the concerns of military competitors, and because the US has the right to define their own military requirements to build a military they see fit.
Same goes for the territorial dispute; each side is under no obligation to play nice with each other anymore so can use whatever resources and scale they can stomach to use (keeping in mind the other side's retaliation) to compete with each other in an open way.
The same logic can be applied to the Cold War; the US was under no obligation to expand its military and economic capabilities in a "proportional" way to the USSR. Both sides were playing to win.
In a competition where there is little to no trust and cooperation (such as in a territorial dispute where bridges have been burnt to a military arms race without dearmament agreements or whatever), no side is obligated to be "proportional". For instance, if Side A has more resources, industrial capability, technological advancement, etc, then in the situation described, Side A would naturally seek to bring all the resources they can to bury the Side B, but only to a level where the retaliation from Side B is at a level that Side A is willing to stomach or willingly sacrifice (e.g.: if Side B threatens to use military force if Side A does action X, then Side A may be careful to not do action X. But if Side A knows that Side B's threats to use military force are a farce because they have a tiny military compared to Side A, then Side A will most likely go ahead and do action X.)
Proportionality doesn't exist in an open competition or dispute, the only things which determine the actions of both sides is the resources and power one side has versus the resources and power the other side has... and how much pain each side is willing to endure and escalate to.
The question we should be asking is whether the situation between China and the Philippines can be classified as an open dispute where there is no trust or good will between both sides... some would argue that internationalizing the dispute was the line which made China lose trust and good will towards the Philippines. You might argue that the Philippines internationalizing the dispute was perfectly legitimate and China was the first one to cross a line by reclaiming the islands. Either way, this should be the crux of the argument rather than notions about "proportionality".
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
The context of proportionality in the conversation was not about lawful or otherwise. You should at least understand the nature of the conversation before inserting yourself in it.
The type of farce that inserts itself into a conversation and raises a bunch of stuff that are not connected to the original conversation. That makes it irrelevant. If you wish to define your own talking points, then establish your own topic.
The problem with your premise is right of the bat you are stating categorically the land reclamation are Chinese territory.
The contention wasn't about the nature of proportionality or the lawfulness of it. Your statements affirm what I have said above. You are inserting yourself into a conversation without regard or an understanding of the subject of discussion. The contention is simply about proportionality in the context of reactive vs. pre planned program and which serves as a better explanation.
Brumby
Major
Except you are cleverly merging two different situations as if they are comparable. The former as you described had gone through escalation steps with the nature of serious conflict as a possibility involving nuclear weapons. In a nuclear standoff, first strike as a doctrine is a serious consideration because of the nature of the issue.
In the SCS, adding over 2000 acres of real estate in disputed territory because someone has filed for arbitration and to argue as proportional is a less plausible explanation as compared to it being pursuant of a long held strategic program being executed.
I said China's actions is duplicitous because it accused the Philippines while in negotiation had gone to arbitration and therefore has acted disingenuously (per position paper to the Tribunal). In return, I am simply casting China by the standard that China has herself used by China's massive reclamation while in negotiations. This is notwithstanding officially China had on many occasions stated that the territories are indisputable. If they are indeed indisputable as claimed, what good faith is there to expect the Philippines to continue to negotiate over indisputable territories. That itself is an oxy moron position.
You are right. Each parties are not bound to play nice or be proportional. The context of proportional response was with regards to whether it was more plausible when connected to reactive vs. a pre planned program given the scale of the reclamation
The scope of the conversation was more narrow as it was not my intention to broaden it to a degree (like you have) that it became unmanageable as a conversational topic.