China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

So you want a handicap 24 or something, LOL .

Perspective matters. Do you have the facts or LOL will do?

 

[Yvrch]

That is embodiment of might is right.

Exactly! That's why you don't want to be weak in any way , shape or form. Might has its own rights. Who do you think is running the global systems? Nepal? Ethiopia? Philippines?

 

[Brumby]

I think territorial rights is an amoral subject, if might is not right then what is? genetic heritage? heraldry? maximal utility?

What, in your opinion, entitles a person or a group of persons to land and excludes that land to others.

I don't have an issue with might is right per se. I believe that is fundamentally what China is pursuing as a strategy. The problem is that all kinds of horse droppings is being used as a defence rather than this plain simple fact.

 

[Brumby]

Exactly! That's why you don't want to be weak in any way , shape or form. Might has its own rights. Who do you think is running the global systems? Nepal? Ethiopia? Philippines?

Finally one honest person who is prepared to acknowledge it.

 

[Yvrch]

Finally one honest person who is prepared to acknowledge it.

Well it's as clear as day isn't it? States are not created equal, that's why your self interest and self preservation are paramount. Everybody is doing it. No exceptions.

 

[Blackstone]

Would you like to put it in perspective? How many acres has the so called small claimants added relative to China?

So is it your view, it's OK to expand land features, if they are small enough? Small violations are fine, but larger ones aren't? Who sets the standards? What UN law gave that person the power?

 

[Blackstone]

Please enlightened me. What is China's legal basis besides the official statement that its claim is unshakable? I trust you would be intellectually honest to actually articulate a difference in substance between a legal position and a rhetoric statement.

The same legal basis as other claimants in the area. Vietnam say some of the SCS land features belong to them, as does Philippines.

 

[Blackstone]

Historic claims is a major source of conflict and disputes. UNCLOS was put in place to mitigate and help resolve disputes by removing historic claims as a source of contention. What is the point of signing up onto UNCLOS if there is no intention to support its basic tenets?

Brumby, in your considered opinion, do nations have the right to opt out of some portions of UNCLOS, with the full knowledge and consent of the other signees? Your answer will say a lot about your personal bias in this issue.

 

[Brumby]

Brumby, in your considered opinion, do nations have the right to opt out of some portions of UNCLOS, with the full knowledge and consent of the other signees? Your answer will say a lot about your personal bias in this issue.

I assume you are asking in good faith and I will address your question as such. Sovereign state actors unlike you and I are not subject to country jurisdictions. There are so called international laws developed over time but nevertheless each state can opt to behave with goodwill as responsible global citizens or delinquently. How much do you opt out before you move into the latter category is not a question that I can address. Can state actors opt out - certainly. When does it become a sham? I can't answer that.

In international relations, you can't get an international agreement in place until two counter parties are in agreement - whether through coercion, bribes or willingly. This is precisely why UNCLOS can't decide on sovereignty issues because you need the affected parties to agree whether within or outside the provisions of convention. China is no Ethiopia or Sudan. It aspires to be a Superpower. It matters how it behaves because it has the potential to affect many other nations. If Sudan has a dispute, does anybody care? Probably not because its potential to affect the rest of the world is limited.

When the problem of the SCS and UNCLOS is put together, for goodness sake stop talking about abstracts and ask questions like how long is a piece of string (for example who decides). There are specific issues and problems with China's claims (for example, its legal basis). Stop bringing in comparison as a distraction as if two wrongs make it right (for example what about the Philippines). Honestly deal with the issues if you must. I have no intention to argue for the sake of just arguing.

 

[Ultra]

I think this comment I read on FP sums it up the best:

"Even if China has de facto control of the SCS, what within the bound of rationality does it benefit to not ensure the continuance of the freedom of navigation? Absolutely nothing. In fact the very opposite: enormously negative economic consequence for China. Thus the American statement is purely for the consumption of their gullible voters. What the US really meant is "freedom of military navigation". Whenever the US want, for whatever reasons, they can freely place a battle group or two in that area.

The real reason is about control. It is like the trump card to keep China in line. If the Chinese doesn't get in line, Uncle Sam can discipline you into submission by shutting down your economy through blockading your energy imports and your sea trade routes. The dollar and naval supremacy. China is challenging those two things and Uncle Sam is not amused."