China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

China may not have a very long history of international involvement, but its economic importance and size as well as its rapid increase in international engagement in recent years and the trend being likely to continue, will definitely be factors to consider as well.

Two things to note here. Firstly, China's relative recent international engagement means perception is being formed regarding its behaviour and thumbing against international norms is in fact counter productive in image development. In other words, China do not have strategic depth in its image unlike the US which can afford some dents. Secondly, whilst economics is important, it does have limitation. For example, the Philippines position even in the face of economic coercion. Maslow's hierarchy of needs places security above economics.

For nations who have strong vested interests in maintaining a good relationship with China, and who do not have vested interests in the SCS issue, they might be willing to not substantially incur "costs" upon China.
I use the term "vested interests" regarding the SCS, because obviously the ability for shipping to transit through the SCS is in the interests of all nations in the world who engage in seaborne trade thus if that were threatened then other nations of the world would obviously be more willing to play ball and incur costs on China... and I also think the ability for civilian shipping to transit through the SCS is the only significant interest that most other nations around the world have in the region... but is the freedom for civilian shipping to travel through the SCS under threat at all to begin with?

I know it is a common argument that civilian shipping is not threatened but that in my view is simply a shallow reasoning that don't see the implications beyond that horizon. A nation that legally controls the commons has the capacity to turn it on and off at will. Intuitively, nations will not be held hostage to such discretion. What China is saying is trust what we promise but China does not have a long history from which confidence can be derived. If a nation does not observe rule based systems, then on what commitment will it hold to promises?

Possibly, but then the argument could also turned around that excess focus is only being oriented now on the need to "abide" to ICJ because it's... well, China.

That is simply an assertion. The dispute resolution mechanism is an important component of UNCLOS and without it I believe it would not have the broad support of so many nations. In fact, I would venture to say that if China thumbs the arbitration ruling, it might potentially cause the demise of UNCLOS.

I think using such broad sweeps is a bit too generalizing, because it suggests that China is unique in "rule by law" (whatever it means), whereas in reality a number of other nations have also ignored ICJ rulings so when it was in their national interests to do so -- and by your argument the scale of the ruling wouldn't matter anyway because if those nations were committed to "rule of law" they would have accepted it. Your position also incorrectly suggests that China would seek to ignore all institutions which inconvenience it, whereas in reality this type of action is by far and away the exception rather than the norm for China.

The difference has to do with degree. In rule of law, we have exceptions. In rule by law it is far from exception.

The difference has to do with Chinese culture and political history. The following article that initially caught my interest regarding the difference.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The root of the problem is that Chinese phrases often lack prepositions, notes David Moser, academic director at the CET Beijing Chinese language program and author of a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on the difficulty of learning Mandarin. In the case of 法治, that phenomenon has led to two similar but distinct translations in Chinese-English dictionaries: “rule of law” and “rule by law.”

“The lexicographers seem not be aware of any distinction, and either ‘of’ or ‘by’ seemed appropriate to them,” Mr. Moser says.

While the two phrases may seem like a flip-of-the-coin for dual-language dictionary editors, they actually have very different connotations, scholars say. “Rule of law,” under which the power of political leaders is constrained by laws and regulations, is generally considered a subset of “rule by law,” says Victor Mair, a professor of Chinese language at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

[Brumby]

Are you trying to make funny?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you wish to be treated seriously I suggest you bother to state your case. I am not going to read the links you provide since you can't be bothered to articulate them. It is highly unprofessional to simply post links.

 

[Blitzo]

Two things to note here. Firstly, China's relative recent international engagement means perception is being formed regarding its behaviour and thumbing against international norms is in fact counter productive in image development. In other words, China do not have strategic depth in its image unlike the US which can afford some dents. Secondly, whilst economics is important, it does have limitation. For example, the Philippines position even in the face of economic coercion. Maslow's hierarchy of needs places security above economics.

First: yes that is true, but China is also the up and coming power, and nations would have to balance their interests with China versus their perceived threat in the SCS region if they do not seek to incur costs on China... and that threat is the big money question.
Second: Maslow's hierarchy is an excellent analogy to apply here (even if there are some valid critiques of the hierarchy in academia, but that's another subject). And the pull of differing threats and interests is exactly what's going to determine this subject we're talking about.

I know it is a common argument that civilian shipping is not threatened but that in my view is simply a shallow reasoning that don't see the implications beyond that horizon. A nation that legally controls the commons has the capacity to turn it on and off at will. Intuitively, nations will not be held hostage to such discretion. What China is saying is trust what we promise but China does not have a long history from which confidence can be derived. If a nation does not observe rule based systems, then on what commitment will it hold to promises?

Well, that is exactly what I'm getting at -- those nations who will have to consider the issue of civilian shipping through SCS will have to seriously consider whether they think civilian shipping is threatened once the dust after the ruling is settled.

That is simply an assertion. The dispute resolution mechanism is an important component of UNCLOS and without it I believe it would not have the broad support of so many nations. In fact, I would venture to say that if China thumbs the arbitration ruling, it might potentially cause the demise of UNCLOS.

Yes, my statement here was merely one assertion in reply to another.

The difference has to do with degree. In rule of law, we have exceptions. In rule by law it is far from exception.

The difference has to do with Chinese culture and political history. The following article that initially caught my interest regarding the difference.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You seem to be trying to make evidence to fit a pre conceived idea, with the idea being that China's culture and history recognizes "rule by law" rather than "rule of law" and thus it somehow means all of its actions on the international stage are going to follow suit.

But as I have repeatedly stated, the evidence does not suggest this is the case, as China has only acted like so in very few exceptional cases when severe cases of national interest have demanded it, and other nations have acted with disregard to international norms and law as well when their national interest has demanded it.

In other words, trying to apply this supposed cultural and historical phenomenon to project how China would conduct all of its dealings on the international stage is simply not supported by evidence at present.
You can suggest it as a hypothesis, which I have no problem with, but it is also very plain that in the context of global affairs and how China has conducted its affairs, compared with how other nations have conducted their own affairs, that there is simply insufficient current evidence for your position.

[Edit: there is also the massive difference between China's "rule by law" which is imposed domestically, versus your suggestion of China seeking to do so in the international sphere, which is vastly different... and a true parallel would require China to somehow be in a position to dispense and dictate "rule by law" to all other states... which is an entirely different matter. I also think the supposed "cultural" background of "rule by law" is being incorrectly conflated with the political realities and objectives which the CCP seeks to provide in respect to its legal system...]

 

[counterprime]

I am not going to read the links you provide since you can't be bothered to articulate them.

Here you go "I am not going to read the links you provide since you can't be bothered to articulate them."

The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't normally articulate common sense, but if that's what you require....USA hypocritically lectures about rule of law/international law/etc
yet people like you fail to see this. For example, who is responsible for the genocides across the Middle East right now? Don't worry, I won't be unprofessional this time and expect you to use your brain.

US invasion and occupation of Iraq was responsible for the deaths of approximately 1 million Iraqis, which is 5 percent of the total population of the country. The report also tallies hundreds of thousands of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yet, from the same mouths are cries of "Chinese colonization in Africa" and "Chinese imperialism in the South China Seas". Where are the hundreds of thousands of deaths? Oh right. that doesn't exist. When America slaughters over a million (mostly innocent) people, that's spreading freedom and democracy. China not slaughtering over a million people = imperialism.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop spreading western propaganda. That's all I'm saying

 

[Brumby]

First: yes that is true, but China is also the up and coming power, and nations would have to balance their interests with China versus their perceived threat in the SCS region if they do not seek to incur costs on China... and that threat is the big money question.
Second: Maslow's hierarchy is an excellent analogy to apply here (even if there are some valid critiques of the hierarchy in academia, but that's another subject). And the pull of differing threats and interests is exactly what's going to determine this subject we're talking about.

Let time be the judge on this.

Well, that is exactly what I'm getting at -- those nations who will have to consider the issue of civilian shipping through SCS will have to seriously consider whether they think civilian shipping is threatened once the dust after the ruling is settled.

So let's suspend the issue until the ruling is known.

You seem to be trying to make evidence to fit a pre conceived idea, with the idea being that China's culture and history recognizes "rule by law" rather than "rule of law" and thus it somehow means all of its actions on the international stage are going to follow suit.

But as I have repeatedly stated, the evidence does not suggest this is the case, as China has only acted like so in very few exceptional cases when severe cases of national interest have demanded it, and other nations have acted with disregard to international norms and law as well when their national interest has demanded it.

In other words, trying to apply this supposed cultural and historical phenomenon to project how China would conduct all of its dealings on the international stage is simply not supported by evidence at present.
You can suggest it as a hypothesis, which I have no problem with, but it is also very plain that in the context of global affairs and how China has conducted its affairs, compared with how other nations have conducted their own affairs, that there is simply insufficient current evidence for your position.

If you recall in our conversation many postings ago, I initially preamp this concept as an opinion because political philosophies are by nature ideas that shape political policies rather than specific actions. I am attempting to explain China's policies on the SCS simply as an alignment of its policies against an established Chinese political philosophy which is widely practiced in managing its internal affairs. Your main counter point is that there is simply not enough evidence to-date. It is obviously true because China do not have a long history in international engagement but you can't avoid the historical examples in its internal management. The onus is also on you to argue that the doctrines used so widely in its internal affairs somehow suddenly do not get extended to its international engagement. The main test is in its adherence to rules and norms. The further it deviates from it support the idea of pursuing "rule by law" rather than "rule of law" by the simple reasoning of the main differences between them. We know as a fact that China's policies in the SCS is resembling that of "rule by law" rather than "rule of law". What remains to be seen is whether this is an aberration or that is the new world order under China.

 

[Brumby]

Here you go "I am not going to read the links you provide since you can't be bothered to articulate them."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't normally articulate common sense, but if that's what you require....USA hypocritically lectures about rule of law/international law/etc
yet people like you fail to see this. For example, who is responsible for the genocides across the Middle East right now? Don't worry, I won't be unprofessional this time and expect you to use your brain.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yet, from the same mouths are cries of "Chinese colonization in Africa" and "Chinese imperialism in the South China Seas". Where are the hundreds of thousands of deaths? Oh right. that doesn't exist. When America slaughters over a million (mostly innocent) people, that's spreading freedom and democracy. China not slaughtering over a million people = imperialism.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop spreading western propaganda. That's all I'm saying

The subject matter is on the SCS. You need to link the context of your posting to the subject matter. I am not going to discuss other issues of your choosing as it is not OT.

 

[Blitzo]

Let time be the judge on this.

So long as we agree that those are all fundamental factors.

So let's suspend the issue until the ruling is known.

Well I was trying to get you to appreciate that particular point, so if you acknowledge it then good.

If you recall in our conversation many postings ago, I initially preamp this concept as an opinion because political philosophies are by nature ideas that shape political policies rather than specific actions. I am attempting to explain China's policies on the SCS simply as an alignment of its policies against an established Chinese political philosophy which is widely practiced in managing its internal affairs. Your main counter point is that there is simply not enough evidence to-date. It is obviously true because China do not have a long history in international engagement but you can't avoid the historical examples in its internal management. The onus is also on you to argue that the doctrines used so widely in its internal affairs somehow suddenly do not get extended to its international engagement. The main test is in its adherence to rules and norms. The further it deviates from it support the idea of pursuing "rule by law" rather than "rule of law" by the simple reasoning of the main differences between them. We know as a fact that China's policies in the SCS is resembling that of "rule by law" rather than "rule of law". What remains to be seen is whether this is an aberration or that is the new world order under China.

On the contrary, I believe the onus is on you to argue for your hypothesis given you are the one which is suggesting the more unrealistic notion, which also happens to rest on a few very illogical premises.

The first and most obvious one, is that examples of how a nation may have done things in a certain domain such as within its borders may differ substantially to how it conducts itself outside its borders -- that is the difference between internal policy and foreign policy. It also does not acknowledge that circumstances in future and/or in a different period of time may substantially differ to the circumstances in which a nation once did things in the past. To assume that a nation thus must behave in such a very specific way among such differing domains at different times, both of which present very different circumstances for that nation, is illogical.
Putting this another way, there is simply insufficient evidence suggesting China will seek to act on the international stage in the same way that it you believe it has within its own borders in the past. Furthermore, given the fact that nations often conduct foreign policies quite differently to how they conduct policies internally, the onus of evidence is on you to prove otherwise.

The second premise with a glaring fault, is that you still do not recognize nor accept the fact that other nations have also acted similarly in rejecting international norms or rulings when it has suited their national interests. You believe that such types of actions are somehow unique to China and thus suggests it will act in such a way in all its international affairs if it achieves a "new world order". This is a fundamental premise in your argument but it is not logical due to the fact that other nations in recent history have also acted similarly, yet you do not hold this opinion of them. Even if you perceive there to be a differing scale of severity in the differing situations, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the supposed cultural and philosophical beliefs or doctrines which determines how China may act on the the international stage is significantly different to that of other nations, in a global and recent historical context.
Putting this another way, the single data point (the China/SCS/ICJ situation) you have at present to support your hypothesis, is not a unique data point in context of how other nations have also behaved in regards to the ICJ or international norms and laws as well. In addition, if you want to establish the basis of a supposed philosophy or cultural foundation which behaviour rests on, then we'll need far more data points to establish a clear pattern of behaviour in a relevant context and circumstance, to begin with... and that is something we do not have.


So I repeat, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your assertion given it is the more ambitious and more illogical one, and as of yet there is far from sufficient evidence for your claim. At best, at present it is a hypothesis lacking in evidence to provide a conclusion. Maybe in twenty or thirty years we will receive enough evidence and enough datapoints of behaviour to reach a conclusion.

 

[Brumby]

On the contrary, I believe the onus is on you to argue for your hypothesis given you are the one which is suggesting the more unrealistic notion, which also happens to rest on a few very illogical premises.

The first and most obvious one, is that examples of how a nation may have done things in a certain domain such as within its borders may differ substantially to how it conducts itself outside its borders -- that is the difference between internal policy and foreign policy. It also does not acknowledge that circumstances in future and/or in a different period of time may substantially differ to the circumstances in which a nation once did things in the past. To assume that a nation thus must behave in such a very specific way among such differing domains at different times, both of which present very different circumstances for that nation, is illogical.
Putting this another way, there is simply insufficient evidence suggesting China will seek to act on the international stage in the same way that it you believe it has within its own borders in the past. Furthermore, given the fact that nations often conduct foreign policies quite differently to how they conduct policies internally, the onus of evidence is on you to prove otherwise.

The second premise with a glaring fault, is that you still do not recognize nor accept the fact that other nations have also acted similarly in rejecting international norms or rulings when it has suited their national interests. You believe that such types of actions are somehow unique to China and thus suggests it will act in such a way in all its international affairs if it achieves a "new world order". This is a fundamental premise in your argument but it is not logical due to the fact that other nations in recent history have also acted similarly, yet you do not hold this opinion of them. Even if you perceive there to be a differing scale of severity in the differing situations, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the supposed cultural and philosophical beliefs or doctrines which determines how China may act on the the international stage is significantly different to that of other nations, in a global and recent historical context.
Putting this another way, the single data point (the China/SCS/ICJ situation) you have at present to support your hypothesis, is not a unique data point in context of how other nations have also behaved in regards to the ICJ or international norms and laws as well. In addition, if you want to establish the basis of a supposed philosophy or cultural foundation which behaviour rests on, then we'll need far more data points to establish a clear pattern of behaviour in a relevant context and circumstance, to begin with... and that is something we do not have.


So I repeat, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your assertion given it is the more ambitious and more illogical one, and as of yet there is far from sufficient evidence for your claim. At best, at present it is a hypothesis lacking in evidence to provide a conclusion. Maybe in twenty or thirty years we will receive enough evidence and enough datapoints of behaviour to reach a conclusion.

The actions of China to-date support the descriptive actions of "rule by law". The facts support such assertion and so I presume you are in agreement. If not, I would like to understand what remains in the way.

The second contention is whether such a description is indicative of China's future behaviour. I have no issue with your view that there are not enough data points to make that conclusion. I have already make my case and the reasons thereof and I am happy to let it rest.

 

[Blitzo]

The actions of China to-date support the descriptive actions of "rule by law". The facts support such assertion and so I presume you are in agreement. If not, I would like to understand what remains in the way.

A single situation China is involved in, in recent times, in a specific situation which is very important to its national interest could be argued to be reflective of "rule by law" in China's dealings in foreign affairs, yes, I can accept that. But it must also be acknowledged that China is not wholly and significantly different in this aspect, when compared to actions of other nations in similar situations, in recent history.

The second contention is whether such a description is indicative of China's future behaviour. I have no issue with your view that there are not enough data points to make that conclusion. I have already make my case and the reasons thereof and I am happy to let it rest.

I suppose my contention is to challenge the idea that China has a specific culture or philosophy it intends to field in regards to foreign affairs, divided to two smaller pieces of contention:
1: China's method of conducting internal policy in the past may not be reflective of how it intends to conduct external foreign policy in the present and or future in a general sense. This contention is challenging the logic of the main premise which the hypothesis resides upon.
2: There is insufficient evidence/data points at this current period of time when only taking into account the SCS-ICJ situation, when compared to other similar actions by other nations, to support the hypothesis. This contention is stating that there is currently insufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis to say that China is significantly different to other nations of recent history in context of your hypothesis.

Based on that clarification, I too am willing to let the matter rest.

 

[weig2000]

A single situation China is involved in, in recent times, in a specific situation which is very important to its national interest could be argued to be reflective of "rule by law" in China's dealings in foreign affairs, yes, I can accept that. But it must also be acknowledged that China is not wholly and significantly different in this aspect, when compared to actions of other nations in similar situations, in recent history.




I suppose my contention is to challenge the idea that China has a specific culture or philosophy it intends to field in regards to foreign affairs, divided to two smaller pieces of contention:
1: China's method of conducting internal policy in the past may not be reflective of how it intends to conduct external foreign policy in the present and or future in a general sense. This contention is challenging the logic of the main premise which the hypothesis resides upon.
2: There is insufficient evidence/data points at this current period of time when only taking into account the SCS-ICJ situation, when compared to other similar actions by other nations, to support the hypothesis. This contention is stating that there is currently insufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis to say that China is significantly different to other nations of recent history in context of your hypothesis.

Based on that clarification, I too am willing to let the matter rest.

I really admire your patience, especially for a known character with an entrenched opinion.