China's SCS Strategy Thread

Brumby

Major
People seem to want to dance around the fact that the US did not outright return Diaoyu to Japan, it merely tasked Japan to administer. This is clearly contrasted by how it reverted Okinawa back to Japan. There is not some paper admin error. Nuances in international relations have specific purposes. This nuance is even recently affirmed as supported by Blackstone's reference to Obama's statement that the US does not take a position on the dispute. Your opinion of his statement is one thing, but he is still the POTUS and decisions by POTUS is part of the US's overall official stance.

I think you are making possibly a self refuting argument. On one hand you are acknowledging that the US does not take a position on the dispute but arguing at the same time the US acknowledges a dispute. There is only one possible interpretation to the US position that doesn't make your argument self refuting and that is the US doesn't take a position on whether there is a dispute. Such an issue is to be resolved between Japan and China as otherwise the US has taken a position. You can't have your argument both ways and be logically coherent.
 
Last edited:

joshuatree

Captain
I think you are making possibly a self refuting argument. On one hand you are acknowledging that the US does not take a position on the dispute but arguing at the same time the US acknowledges a dispute. There is only one possible interpretation to the US position that doesn't make your argument self refuting and that is the US doesn't take a position on whether there is a dispute. Such an issue is to be resolved between Japan and China as otherwise the US has taken a position. You can't have your argument both ways and be logically coherent.

There's no self refuting argument here. I'll clarify when earlier referring to not taking a position on the dispute, I meant not taking a position on the final sovereignty on the feature.The US acknowledges there is a dispute over these features but doesn't endorse any particular's claim and hopes for peaceful resolution between the vying parties. None of that contradicts as you suggest. Technically, there are three parties to this dispute, PRC, ROC, and Japan.
 

Brumby

Major
There's no self refuting argument here. I'll clarify when earlier referring to not taking a position on the dispute, I meant not taking a position on the final sovereignty on the feature.The US acknowledges there is a dispute over these features but doesn't endorse any particular's claim and hopes for peaceful resolution between the vying parties. None of that contradicts as you suggest. Technically, there are three parties to this dispute, PRC, ROC, and Japan.
Ok. I agree with your explanation. I take back the self refuting statement.

On the question of the SF treaty, It seems to me the focus is on what transpired there. How does that particular situation advance China's position? I have not seen an argument that builds on it so far.
 

shen

Senior Member
The Senkaku/Diaoyu issue and whether it is in dispute is not just a rhetorical argument. It is actually a very important technical point pertaining to a question of law and the reason why China has been pushing it as in dispute and the Japanese not acknowledging it.

It is a fundamental requirement of international law that there must be a real dispute between the parties before it can proceed to international arbitral proceedings (Larsen v Hawaiian Kingdom 2001). In the Mavrommatis case, a dispute is ‘a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons’. A mere assertion is insufficient and neither is a mere denial of the existence of the dispute. It is subject to ‘objective determination’ by the Tribunal. This requires an examination of facts. It must be shown that the claim of one party is ‘positively opposed by the other’, or, in other words, that ‘the two sides hold clearly opposite views’ concerning the application or interpretation of UNCLOS. I am not familiar with the legal background with this case, but given that the Chinese had tried but unsuccessfully present it as a case in dispute would suggest to me that its legal position is somehow weak or else it would have made headway. My 2 cents.

International territorial disputes are always political disputes first and only become legal disputes as the last resort. UN charter is clear the question of sovereignty over territory should be resolved diplomatically bilaterally between the parties, with the help of UN if necessary, and only resort to arbitration if both parties agree to participate.
There are numerous ongoing territorial disputes today that have never been brought before the PCA. By acknowledge a dispute exists, the parties can at least initiate diplomatic negotiation. By refusing the acknowledge the dispute, Japan is rejecting a diplomatic solution and by its unilaterally increase its control of Diaoyu/Senkaku, thus increase the chance of a military clash.
 

Brumby

Major
By refusing the acknowledge the dispute, Japan is rejecting a diplomatic solution and by its unilaterally increase its control of Diaoyu/Senkaku, thus increase the chance of a military clash.
You are conveniently missing a step in your reasoning. I thought the UN mandate is peacefully rather than diplomatically as you are framing it. China can take up the subject for international arbitration. What is stopping China from doing so?
 
take it easy here :)
SECDEF Carter: China Still Invited to RIMPAC 2016 Despite South China Sea Tension
The United States has not revoked its invitation to China to participate in this year’s Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise despite increasingly aggressive behavior towards its neighbors in the South China Sea because the U.S. hopes China may still participate in a “system of cooperative nations,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said April 15 aboard the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74).

During a question and answer session with sailors, Carter was asked why China would still be allowed to join the multinational exercise despite “China’s misbehaving.”

“You’re right to use the word ‘allow,’ because actually we issued the invitations, and we have not taken the step of disinviting them,” Carter explained.
“And I’ll give you some of the logic behind that. Our approach to security in the region, as I indicated there, has always been to try to include everyone, so that’s our basic approach. So even as we stand strong and improve all of our systems and stand strong with our allies – and develop new partnerships with countries like India and Vietnam that we don’t have decades of experience with, like the Philippines; they’re all coming to us, in part because they’re concerned about China – but we’re still taking the approach of, everybody ought to work together here. So if the Chinese want to participate, I think it’s the right place for us to be. Come on, and instead of standing apart from everybody and isolating yourself and excluding yourself, try to be part of the system of cooperative nations that have made, as I said, the Asian miracle possible.”

The U.S. invited China to participate in RIMPAC for the first time in 2014 – and China, in addition to bringing its four invited warships and auxiliary ships, also
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to gather electronic and communications data from nearby ships and aircraft. Chinese officials said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to operate in the region.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and that invitation has not been revoked despite ongoing aggression and militarization in the South China Sea, Carter said.

Since the last RIMPAC exercise, however, the South China Sea has seen some tense moments. There have been numerous allegations of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, an incident where a Chinese Coast Guard cutter rammed a Chinese fishing ship that was seized by Indonesian law enforcement inside Indonesian waters, and claims that Chinese fishing ships entered other nations’ territorial waters.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
so aircraft can land, ships can pull into port and radars and weapons could be deployed to these artificial islands.

China has acknowledged deploying military assets on the islands –
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
– though officials
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

During his troop talk aboard Stennis, Carter said that “in the South China Sea China’s actions in particular are causing anxiety and raising regional tensions.” Still, China’s RIMPAC invitation stands, he said.

Also during the question and answer session, Carter was asked about China’s role in cyber attacks and how the U.S. government could better protect itself.

“China is one of actually many countries that we have found engaging in cyber misbehavior,” Carter said.
“We may have made some progress forward, because when the two presidents were together now six months ago or so, they reached an agreement to stop doing that, and we’re watching and seeing if that agreement is honored,” he said of a September 2015 meeting between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping.

“We’ve got to be good at defending our networks, but you can’t count on anybody not to try to exploit networks as a way of creating vulnerability for you,” he said of the more general global threat of cyber crime, adding that the Defense Department is investment money and people in protecting the networks that warfighters use to do their jobs.

“Some of this is just from pranks. Some of it is from companies trying to steal their secrets, and some of it is by people who want to do damage, including governments that want to have the ability to do damage,” Carter said.
“So wherever it comes from, we’ve got to be able to defend ourselves in the first instance, and then people ought to know that if you attack us – I don’t care how you attack us; cyber or whatever, an attack is an attack –we’re going to respond. Not necessarily in cyber, but we’ll respond in the way we choose. But you’ll be sorry you did it.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
Hahaha, should I get him a ladder or something? You know... to get down from his high horse.

Ha ha. Good point.

---
Also, on a different note Vietnam and Philippines will soon learn that -

* when two elephants fight the grass get trampled,
* when they patch up and make love, the grass get crushed.

Just stay out of the way of these two elephants.
 

joshuatree

Captain
Ok. I agree with your explanation. I take back the self refuting statement.

On the question of the SF treaty, It seems to me the focus is on what transpired there. How does that particular situation advance China's position? I have not seen an argument that builds on it so far.

It was only focused since the SF treaty was used as an argument that it validated Japan's sovereignty over Diaoyu which I do not see it being as such. A few replies back, I mentioned the fact that Japan proceeded to hash out a separate peace treaty with ROC, then abhorgated it, and then struck another peace treaty with PRC; that this most recent treaty would supercede the SF treaty when it comes to matters between China and Japan. I also question the SF treaty in matters pertaining to either Chinas because neither were invited to the table and neither were signatories.This was a result of disagreements between other states on who was the rightful representation of the Chinese at the time.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Ok. I agree with your explanation. I take back the self refuting statement.

On the question of the SF treaty, It seems to me the focus is on what transpired there. How does that particular situation advance China's position? I have not seen an argument that builds on it so far.
In the anonymous would of Internet forums, it takes a gentleman/lady (I'm not certain of your gender) to admit fault. I tip my hat to you.
 
Top