South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Brumby said:
UNCLOS.
Click to expand...
I asked you a whole series of questions, all related to legitimacy of the so-called rule-based order, and you failed to address them. So again, I ask you to answer the most important question: how could the so-called rules-based international order be legitimate when some nations are held fast to them by other nations that break them at whim?
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Blackstone said:
I asked you a whole series of questions, all related to legitimacy of the so-called rule-based order, and you failed to address them. So again, I ask you to answer the most important question: how could the so-called rules-based international order be legitimate when some nations are held fast to them by other nations that break them at whim?
Click to expand...
If you wish to talk about the SCS, the current arbitration before the PCA and UNCLOS I have no problem engaging you on it because this thread is about such topics. However you have an unconstrained habit of bringing in everything and anything into the conversation which just makes it into an endless and mindless argument over unrelated stuff.
If you are agreeable I will address every point in your previous post. Your call.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Brumby said:
If you wish to talk about the SCS, the current arbitration before the PCA and UNCLOS I have no problem engaging you on it because this thread is about such topics. However you have an unconstrained habit of bringing in everything and anything into the conversation which just makes it into an endless and mindless argument over unrelated stuff.
If you are agreeable I will address every point in your previous post. Your call.
Click to expand...
You're the one that drone "rules based order" endlessly, so I hold you to your own words. If you don't want to answer it, it's your call. On the other hand, if you care to offer us some of your 'wisdom,' then address my simple question:

How could the so-called rules-based order be legitimate when some nations are held fast to them by other nations that break them at whim? I hope your answer could pass the smell test of most reasonable people.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
Two wrong doesn't make a right which I believe you are fully aware of.
The US is not being judged by Permanent Court of Arbitration, PRC is.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with the notion "rules-based international order" means little if the "rules" aren't applied to all members equally? The legitimacy of UN-based organizations is destroyed when the rule-setting nations ignore international laws, while still holding other nations to standards they can't meet.

The reason US and others' past actions are legit talking points is because if "might makes right" is ok for them, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Who's to say it's not?
 
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
As
Blackstone said:
"might makes right" for them, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Who's to say it's not?
Click to expand...

Like I said two wrongs doesn't make a right, following the US path doesn't make PRC any better.
Besides US does not make outlandish claims like PRC based on "Ancestral or ancient claims" that can neither be proven or dis-proven, has no relevance in the modern world based on law.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Blackstone said:
You're the one that drone "rules based order" endlessly, so I hold you to your own words. If you don't want to answer it, it's your call. On the other hand, if you care to offer us some of your 'wisdom,' then address my simple question:

How could the so-called rules-based order be legitimate when some nations are held fast to them by other nations that break them at whim? I hope your answer could pass the smell test of most reasonable people.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that SB has addressed the question that you raised.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
As


Like I said two wrongs doesn't make a right, following the US path doesn't make PRC any better.
Besides US does not make outlandish claims like PRC based on "Ancestral or ancient claims" that can neither be proven or dis-proven, has no relevance in the modern world based on law.
Click to expand...
If we're just talking about right or wrong, then I agree with you; two wrongs don't make a right. But, it's international politics and interests of great powers, where "right and wrong" often take backseats. Not good, and I wish it wasn't that way. However, we do live in the real world, and see it as it really is and not how we wish it is.

To be clear, I think PRC is the biggest impediment to peaceful resolution (I'm consistent in that view), not because it believes it fights for sovereignty claims, but because it refuses to state once and for all what it owns and what it doesn't own. The 9DL is ridiculously unclear and makes others think the worst- PRC thinks it owns 80% of the WATERS of the SCS. Ridiculous!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top