South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[Blackstone]

Great power politics sometimes means nitpicking tit for tat, and China must respond to Japanese trouble making in the SCS by doing regular joint "search and rescue" exercise with South Korea around Dokdo island. ROK is probably too smart to touch that one, but it doesn't hurt to make some behind the scenes overtures. Japan just furnished proof to that China easing tension in the ECS only gives Japan the opportunity to cause trouble elsewhere. Therefore, It's better for Beijing to tighten its grip on Tokyo by sending daily patrols to Diaoyu islands. Playing nice doesn't work with Japan, but the onus is on Beijing, because it should have known better.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Janiz]

Japan just furnished proof to that China easing tension in the ECS only gives Japan the opportunity to cause trouble elsewhere. Therefore, It's better for Beijing to tighten its grip on Tokyo by sending daily patrols to Diaoyu islands. Playing nice doesn't work with Japan, but the onus is on Beijing, because it should have known better.

I didn't know that 'playing nice' means sending your CG boats on the waters near Takeshima on regular basis.

But sending a plane over international waters (China does it all the time near Japanese Islands) is wrong. As long as it's Japanese plane. Vietnam, Philippines etc don't protest this reckless move by the Japanese Navy?

 

[Blackstone]

In your assertion you are implicitly making the point that I am acting unjustly by holding the PRC to higher standards because it is richer and more powerful. In order for your assertion to hold water I believe it must fundamentally past two tests. Firstly, there are two standards and that the PRC is being disadvantaged because of a higher standard. Secondly, the PRC is disadvantaged because it is economically and militarily more powerful. Let's deal with the facts connected to the Scarborough Shoal issue and the Spratly land reclamation between the Philippines and the PRC in context of those two tests.

The dispute between two countries over the Scarborough Shoal came to a head in 2012 and after a series of standoffs, PRC successfully muscled and fenced off the area from the Philippines. This was only possible on the back of economic intimidation and military coercion. It is hard to argue that the PRC was disadvantaged because of its military and economic strength. It was reported under a deal mediated by the US to de-escalate the standoff that both would withdraw. The Philippines did but the PRC did not. Was there two different standards in which a higher one was set for the PRC?

Context and consistency is everything, and events must be viewed in their entirety. Take the Scarborough Shoal incident of 2012 for insistence, if actual events were exactly and completely as you described, then I'd agree China is guilty of aggression without cause. However, since you only present half the truth, I'd say you cherry picked to present a false picture. There's general agreement the cause of China-Philippines standoff was Manila ordering its maritime constabulary forces to arrest Chinese fishermen inside Scarborough Shoal. Prior to that event, the status quo was peaceful coexistence, and after the event, China is in sole possession. You focus only on the effect and not the cause, thus coming to the wrong conclusion.

In the Spratly islands with the land reclamation, there are plenty of evidence on the Godzilla size effort by the PRC. Qualitatively and quantitatively there is just no comparison between the PRC and the Philippines. Based on the principle of proportionality, we have one State that is conducting a set of activities that are way off the scale compared to the other. We have only one scale of measurement except one is registering earthquake proportion and the other is hardly worth mentioning in relative terms. One State is able to accomplish such effort because of it's economic strength. The facts hardly suggest the PRC is being disadvantaged.

The PRC is attracting attention because of the magnitude of its activities. As evident by the movie "Godzilla", size does matter.

Again, you focus on aftermath while glossing over the causes. China takes great pains to support status quo and avoid disruptions, not because it's such a nice neighbor, but because it wants to focus on internal development and not external troubles. Such was the case in the SCS, as Beijing worked with other governments to share resources and avoid diplomatic flareups. When trouble finally came, and it was no longer possible to hold status quo, China reacted, again, it's important to point out China reacted and not instigated, to actions of other nations. If I'm factually wrong, then by all means point it out, but if I'm factually correct, then your argument isn't everyone is equally guilty and pox on them all, but China is guilty because it retaliated with greater force. That's why I say you shackel China with higher standards.

 

[Blackstone]

I didn't know that 'playing nice' means sending your CG boats on the waters near Takeshima on regular basis.

But sending a plane over international waters (China does it all the time near Japanese Islands) is wrong. As long as it's Japanese plane. Vietnam, Philippines etc don't protest this reckless move by the Japanese Navy?

What Japanese islands are you talking about? Dokdo/Takeshima? I don't know who has better claims on Dokdo, so until that's settled, I can't honestly say it's Korean or Japanese. Diaoyu is Chinese territory stolen by Japan, and must be returned- or else.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Diaoyu is Chinese territory stolen by Japan, and must be returned- or else.

Take it up to ICJ to officially declaring it's disputed. Until then Japan really doesn't give a XXXX on some bogus claim.

 

[Brumby]

Context and consistency is everything, and events must be viewed in their entirety. Take the Scarborough Shoal incident of 2012 for insistence, if actual events were exactly and completely as you described, then I'd agree China is guilty of aggression without cause. However, since you only present half the truth, I'd say you cherry picked to present a false picture. There's general agreement the cause of China-Philippines standoff was Manila ordering its maritime constabulary forces to arrest Chinese fishermen inside Scarborough Shoal. Prior to that event, the status quo was peaceful coexistence, and after the event, China is in sole possession. You focus only on the effect and not the cause, thus coming to the wrong conclusion.

Again, you focus on aftermath while glossing over the causes. China takes great pains to support status quo and avoid disruptions, not because it's such a nice neighbor, but because it wants to focus on internal development and not external troubles. Such was the case in the SCS, as Beijing worked with other governments to share resources and avoid diplomatic flareups. When trouble finally came, and it was no longer possible to hold status quo, China reacted, again, it's important to point out China reacted and not instigated, to actions of other nations. If I'm factually wrong, then by all means point it out, but if I'm factually correct, then your argument isn't everyone is equally guilty and pox on them all, but China is guilty because it retaliated with greater force. That's why I say you shackel China with higher standards.

The question then for both examples is whether China's reaction meets the proportionality test under international law if judgement is to be made in terms of context.

 

[joshuatree]

I didn't know that 'playing nice' means sending your CG boats on the waters near Takeshima on regular basis.

Well anything outside of 12 nm is supposedly FON right?

 

[joshuatree]

Take it up to ICJ to officially declaring it's disputed. Until then Japan really doesn't give a XXXX on some bogus claim.

So what's preventing Japan from filing a case with ICJ over Dokdo? Or is that a bogus claim too?

 

[Janiz]

Well anything outside of 12 nm is supposedly FON right?

Well, the thing is that they're entering the 12 nautical mile zone around those islands. Other than that it's usual business not even mentioned anymore. Chinese Navy ships are different matter and Japanese MoD presents press releases when they're spotted in the EEZ waters. But it's the same with Russian warships. Basicly anyone who isn't considered as an 'ally' by Japanese government

So what's preventing Japan from filing a case with ICJ over Dokdo? Or is that a bogus claim too?

I thought that it takes two for ICJ. And South Korea isn't too eager to participate. Guess why.

 

[joshuatree]

Well, the thing is that they're entering the 12 nautical mile zone around those islands. Other than that it's usual business not even mentioned anymore. Chinese Navy ships are different matter and Japanese MoD presents press releases when they're spotted in the economic zone waters.
I thought that it takes two for ICJ. And South Korea isn't too eager to participate. Guess why.

Wait, you're saying Chinese vessels are entering 12 nm of Dokdo/Takeshima? I would figure the Koreans have an issue with that as well. Or are you referring to Diaoyu/Senkaku?

So if ICJ requires both sides to accept before a case can be established, it's not really a measure of whether a dispute exists or not. Just a possible venue both parties can use if they choose to.