China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

I disagree -- facts and substance are almost irrelevant for what we are talking about, which is maintaining a posture or demonstrating one's will to contest or pursue a claim. Demonstrating anything apart from a picture of self-assuredness and complete confidence in one's position for these kind of disputes is essential if there's no good faith or trust between the parties, because neither side can trust the other to not seize the opportunity to open up an opening as an avenue of attack upon their claim.

It is standard language for a dispute of this kind, and I don't think it reflects that the nation making the claim truly believes that their claim is indisputable or not being disputed by others. It's just a script that needs to be said otherwise the other guy will end up capitalizing on a perceived weakness, and the script will be maintained until there's enough trust on both sides to agree to a compromise.


It is stupid that nations can get away with these kind of BS just to maintain a position, but there are enough cases out there that in situations like this, the BS has become the norm. At the very least, I have accepted it as just the way things run.

Can I conclude from your explanations that the ambiquity is a deliberate negotiating tactic and simply BS? Can I also collaterized that the notion of being a victim and being provoked is part of the BS initiative? I am happy to conclude on this note because that affirms my view all along that the victim card was nothing but BS.

 

[Blitzo]

Can I conclude from your explanations that the ambiquity is a deliberate negotiating tactic and simply BS? Can I also collaterized that the notion of being a victim and being provoked is part of the BS initiative? I am happy to conclude on this note because that affirms my view all along that the victim card was nothing but BS.

I agree with the belief that ambiguity is part of their negotiating tactic, however that is different to what I've been talking about -- when nations describe their sovereignty or claims being "indisputable" they are not being ambiguous, rather I think they are deliberately overreaching to make sure the other guy cannot claim a weakness in the scale of their claim.

As for playing the victim, I think that every side sees themselves as the victim and everyone sees themselves as the party who was provoked. If you agree that everyone is BSing then I will happily agree with you.

 

[Brumby]

I think it is a mistake to believe that there is a "pro China group" and an "anti China group".

I know you were not discussing it with me, but an answer I would give is that there are some people who believe the SCS islands belongs to China and that others are trespassing, and there are some who believe that the dispute is ongoing, and there are others again who believe China has no claim on the SCS islands whatsoever.

I prefer to avoid generalisations if I can help it, and this is a case where I'd prefer to avoid it as well -- but in this case there isn't even necessarily a group to generalise to begin with because people's opinions on China's position in the SCS islands dispute varies on a continuum even if one tried to describe a "pro China" group.

I think making a presupposition about either the"pro China" side or the "anti China" side is flawed to begin with because no such side can be categorically defined. The only accurate thing that can be said is that there are people who hold certain views towards a particular side of the spectrum which exist.

You acknowledged a presuppositive group exist. So far I have noted no one is stepping up to defend such a conviction. China has maintained such a position but has not offered the details. If you are parroting the
official view you can't defend an unknown - that is plainly obvious.

 

[Brumby]

I agree with the belief that ambiguity is part of their negotiating tactic, however that is different to what I've been talking about -- when nations describe their sovereignty or claims being "indisputable" they are not being ambiguous, rather I think they are deliberately overreaching to make sure the other guy cannot claim a weakness in the scale of their claim.

As for playing the victim, I think that every side sees themselves as the victim and everyone sees themselves as the party who was provoked. If you agree that everyone is BSing then I will happily agree with you.

Done. Everyone is BSing.

 

[Blitzo]

You acknowledged a presuppositive group exist.

First, I should repeat that I believe categorizing people into a "pro" and "anti" china group is awkward; people's opinions lie on a continuous spectrum and unless we were to agree for definitions of both groups we should optimally try to avoid claiming such groups exist

But, for the purposes of discussion if we do pretend that such groups exist:
Then, what I have acknowledged, is that there are individuals who may hold that presupposition, but I am also saying that it would be incorrect to suggest everyone in a "pro China" group must hold that view.

What you said in your previous post was "a presupposition that the pro China's group position is that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing" -- but at this stage it is only correct to say that there are individuals in the "pro China group" who may hold that presupposition, not that the entire "pro China group" holds that view. If you really want to make a claim for the entire "pro China group" then maybe some kind of survey could be done.

Putting it simply, the way I interpreted your statement was along the lines of "everyone in the pro China group holds this presupposition" -- what I'm saying is "not everyone in the pro China group holds this supposition".

So far I have noted no one is stepping up to defend such a conviction. China has maintained such a position but has not offered the details. If you are parroting the
official view you can't defend an unknown - that is plainly obvious.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, I'm not sure which exact official view I am supposedly parroting and I'm not sure which conviction you're talking about, but I've described my position on the matter above quite succinctly.

 

[Blitzo]

Done. Everyone is BSing.

Once in a blue moon, there is something we both agree with.

 

[Brumby]

First, I should repeat that I believe categorizing people into a "pro" and "anti" china group is awkward; people's opinions lie on a continuous spectrum and unless we were to agree for definitions of both groups we should optimally try to avoid claiming such groups exist

But, for the purposes of discussion if we do pretend that such groups exist:
Then, what I have acknowledged, is that there are individuals who may hold that presupposition, but I am also saying that it would be incorrect to suggest everyone in a "pro China" group must hold that view.

What you said in your previous post was "a presupposition that the pro China's group position is that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing" -- but at this stage it is only correct to say that there are individuals in the "pro China group" who may hold that presupposition, not that the entire "pro China group" holds that view. If you really want to make a claim for the entire "pro China group" then maybe some kind of survey could be done.

Putting it simply, the way I interpreted your statement was along the lines of "everyone in the pro China group holds this presupposition" -- what I'm saying is "not everyone in the pro China group holds this supposition".




I have no idea what you're talking about here, I'm not sure which exact official view I am supposedly parroting and I'm not sure which conviction you're talking about, but I've described my position on the matter above quite succinctly.

If you recall, nfgc's original assertion was even broader in nature in that this forum is essentially pro China. I have attempted to narrow the population into a more specific set. I have made no assertion that the pro China group is presuppositive. I was attemptng to establish whether there was validity in that assertion since a couple of comments that I have seen seems to suggest such a prevailing attitude.
The idea of a survey sounds good. I did think of it but you beat me to it in expressing it.

 

[Blitzo]

If you recall, nfgc's original assertion was even broader in nature in that this forum is essentially pro China. I have attempted to narrow the population into a more specific set. I have made no assertion that the pro China group is presuppositive. I was attemptng to establish whether there was validity in that assertion since a couple of comments that I have seen seems to suggest such a prevailing attitude.

Relatively speaking, compared to other english speak defense forums I think that this forum has a more pro China position on a continuum. I'm choosing my words carefully here, with "relatively" and "continuum" being key.

Now, with the above said, I've gone back to read the posts again and I'll just state that the only things I am opposed to, is the idea that we can define a pro and anti China group at present (I believe everyone exists on a continuum of pro vs anti China, in this case), and I'm also opposed to the idea that everyone in the pro China group holds the presupposition that "the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing".

If those two above ideas are not the positions held by you or anyone else then there is no disagreement.

The idea of a survey sounds good. I did think of it but you beat me to it in expressing it.

It could potentially work, but it would require a representative sample size of not only regular posters but also non posting lurkers, and the questions would have to be phrased carefully as well.
Optimally a survey would be distributed randomly to various members as well, rather than self selection which could introduce bias.

 

[vincent]

No, china is obviously a large nation with the capabilities of a large nation, but you seem to believe that in a dispute which is important to a nation, they are obliged to hold back on the basis of some kind of as of yet undefined reason.
Reading your posts it seems like you believe that China is being "unfair" because it is using more resources to respond to what it perceives as provocations, but it is also illogical to believe that any nation has the obligation to hold back on the resources it pools in. The scale and intensity of a nation's response is dictated by both the actual threat of a particular provocation and also what the highest consequences for a particular dispute is considered acceptable.

Why bother. According to nfgc and brumby, every time a big guy fights with a small guy, it's always the big guy's fault regardless because the big guy should just let the little guy kick his balls

 

[joshuatree]

Whilst we share different worldviews I do regard your posts as being presented in good faith in attempting to bring your world view across. Your present post is significantly enlarging the conversation subject and I will not respond to it because it will clearly become unmanageable. Since the original contention here is over a presupposition that the pro China's group position is that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing, I would ask you to state your personal view on it rather than to generalise a group of people over the issue.

Just a note, as much as you say the presuppositions I laid out are generalizing, the presupposition you listed of the pro-China group is also generalizing.

Your first part of your statement is simply false. I did not say what you listed as generalisation because I opted not to comment. The reason I opted is to ensure that we stay on track as the primary issue has not been address.
In contrast I am providing you and anybody else an opportunity to directly respond to nfgc's assertion of a prevailing view within the pro China group of a presuppositive stance.

I would have to say my statement resulted from interpreting "rather than to generalise a group of people over the issue" in regards to my list of presuppositions as opposed to your reference to the pro China supposition. Given your initial sentence addressing my post in the first quote, it's reasonable to interpret your latter sentences in that context. But thank you for clarifying and I'll withdraw my statement.