As a general statement to anyone who has been reading this chain of discussion, not as a specific reply to Jeff:
I think Brumby and I have made both of our positions quite clear and there are certain passages that we cannot agree with in terms of interpretation, and I've demonstrated all the evidence I would care to show on the matter. Everyone here can judge for themselves which of our positions they choose to agree with.
The prevailing theme of the massive discussions that Brumby and I get into, usually surround the "guilt" of some of China's specific actions in the SCS dispute either in relation to international law or in terms of general good faith and regional peace.
My consistent belief has been that China has acted in an unfriendly way but that everyone else has also acted in an unfriendly way and that no party can be singled out to be the only one at fault given this is a massive cluster of intermingled territorial disputes with a long history of incremental escalations over the decades that each side are justified in reacting to and which the other side is justified in reacting to. Most importantly my position is that all sides have valid (in their eyes) territorial claims and thus have valid reasons to both protect their interests and also to act and react to self perceived breaches and threats to their interests.
Brumby's position from my experience tends to be that China is either of much greater guilt in the dispute or even the single party who is guilty in the dispute, due to either the perceived unlawful nature and size of its territorial claims or due to the perceived unlawful nature and scale of its activities in SCS such as reclamation in relation to other countries.
Narrative here is important, as it is narrative which often ends up driving and justifying action and reaction, and there is a big difference between saying everyone in an argument is being unfriendly and saying that only one particular actor in an argument is being unfriendly. The intricacies of the territorial dispute are more complex than this simple analogy but I do think it holds true in regards to the overall conflicting narratives the two of us are espousing.
I appreciate that the discussions with Brumby are civil, but it is clear that his views are entrenched in his perconceived beliefs (as admittedly, my own views are entrenched in my own beliefs) and others have pointed this out to me that such debates are never productive even if the full extent of logic are applied, and the best solution may simply be to not respond. I'm not sure if I can do that given I still do occasionally venture in the SCS dispute related threads and even if I do post a member onto the ignore list it is still possible to see that they've made a post (can this be fixed?), so the only real solution is to consciously not respond.
Needless to say, I am closing down my side of this most recent chain of discussion. In a unilateral fashion. Interpret that how one wants.
PS: Also, I do think it's hard to fully separate the SCS threads into separate ones only including China, or not China or only about news and facts rather than strategy, as everyone will have a certain opinion on what one country is doing and a single comment like that can spiral into a multipage discussion spanning days quibbling over whether a particular word or phrase implicates one party or another in being guilty of a particular action or way of thinking.
