Chinese Geopolitics

SamuraiBlue said:

So basically you're saying that PRC does not want to participate since PRC have no influence at court?
Sorry but court of laws are supposed to be unbiased and pass verdict based on fact not swayed by bribes.

Click to expand...

Again, why should China allow the instigating party to dictate terms? It's perfectly reasonable for the Middle Kingdom to stick with bilateral agreements that has worked so well since 1978.

So tell me, why can't Nippon return to the process that has worked so well for over 30 years?

Blackstone said:

Let's turn your question around; why shouldn't Japan return to the treaty that kept peace for over 30 years? It's reckless to abandon an agreement that has worked well since 1978 for a confrontational style that destroyed peaceful coexistence.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Again, why should China allow the instigating party to dictate terms? It's perfectly reasonable for the Middle Kingdom to stick with bilateral agreements that has worked so well since 1978.

So tell me, why can't Nippon return to the process that has worked so well for over 30 years?

Click to expand...

It's PRC that moved first to demise the status quo not Japan.
Japan had been peacefully administering her sovereign territory while placing special consideration not to aggravate neighboring nations. If the US had her way those islands would had been fortified years ago.
And don't bring up nationalization or cooperative excavation of the region since I had posted both arguments which went unchallenged with many posting of other arguments evading my the points I had made.

Instigating party?
PRC has a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. ICJ is part of UN.
How much more instigating can PRC be?
Give me a break.

port_08 said:

The US, Australian government are giving support to Abe administration because it is in their best interest using another Asian country to contain China rise.

Click to expand...

It's the favorite pastime of Chinese leaders, pundits, and laobaixing (老百姓) to cry Yankee containment, but that's simply wrong. The US isn't trying to contain China because;

1) If the US really wanted to contain China, it would look a lot like how America treated the ex-Soviet Union
2) Sino-American trade is at around $500 billion, and US moves to contain China would damage the American economy too
3) US needs China to keep buying Treasury Bonds. Containment policies might dampen her enthusiasm for US debt
4) Nations around the world would oppose/resist US efforts to contain China, including many American allies
5) Hostile moves against China would drive her closer to Russia
6) Is it even possible to contain the world's second largest economy? I think that ship sailed long ago.
7) Even if it's possible to contain China, the US wouldn't do it because she understands a weak and poor China could cause more trouble than a strong and prosperous China

Japan seek leadership role in Asia.

Click to expand...

So??? If projections are correct (yes, big if), then China's economy will be about 3-4 times bigger than Japans by about 2040. Japan may lead the anti-China alliance with Philippines, Vietnam, and Australia, but so what? It wouldn't make much difference if China continues to enjoy peaceful development for another 30 years.

Partnership with current Japan administration is not possible with Abe being in charge and that's a good thing. Here, we could see the anti China forces under one nest and easier for China to find out who's their political nemesis in Japan. The current situation will continue as it is, and only China can do now is undermine Abe administration using whatever means necessary under their disposal. Probably the CCP have to wait a few more years. Democracy will change the Japan administration to a new one. Just have to wait it out.

Click to expand...

The quickest way for China to wreck Abe's administration is to leave it alone. The Japanese people will sink Abe soon enough.

SamuraiBlue said:

It's PRC that moved first to demise the status quo not Japan.

Click to expand...

It's a contradiction, a growing economic and military power cannot be but alter the status quo. It's pretty stupid right. It's like hey, you cannot be number 1, Samsung being better then Sony is violation of international law and altering the status quo. You cannot do that, says Sony executives. Pretty dumb right. Those that make noises a lot about status quo has 1 thing in common, their decline precipitate the cry for maintaining such status quo. So the more you heard US or Japan shouting for status quo, means their decline is hastening naturally to the competitions. The next time I hear about "status quo"....then we know what it means...

SamuraiBlue said:

It's PRC that moved first to demise the status quo not Japan.
Japan had been peacefully administering her sovereign territory while placing special consideration not to aggravate neighboring nations. If the US had her way those islands would had been fortified years ago.
And don't bring up nationalization or cooperative excavation of the region since I had posted both arguments which went unchallenged with many posting of other arguments evading my the points I had made.

Click to expand...

But that's just not so. Most pundits list 2010 ramming incident of a Chinese fishing boat on a Japanese CG vessel, and subsequent trial of the Chinese captain to be the cause of current ECS tension and escalation.

Instigating party?
PRC has a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. ICJ is part of UN.
How much more instigating can PRC be?
Give me a break.

Click to expand...

I standby my statement on Japan as instigating party of current ECS escalations. Reasons are listed above.

The question is why is Japan has publicly called for ICJ arbitration for the Dokdo Island dispute, but not for the Diaoyu Island dispute?

SamuraiBlue said:

So basically you're saying that PRC does not want to participate since PRC have no influence at court?
Sorry but court of laws are supposed to be unbiased and pass verdict based on fact not swayed by bribes.

Click to expand...

I think we all know that in life, what is 'supposed to be' and 'should be' is not always the outcome. The world's not fair and indeed what constitutes a fair decision is subjective to your point of view.

There are many International and Regional bodies that countries can opt to negotiate through. All are based on voluntary participation. There is no mandate for China & Japan to resolve their disputes through venue A or court B.

As a topical example, the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been subject to numerous UN Resolutions in and out of the Security Council; some of which Israel has chosen not to abide by as they do not see it in their interest and so designate it as biased against their position.

Self Interest (i.e. National Interest) governs all. I just fail to see where it is in Japan's National Interest to further the conflict with China to the point we are at now.

There was an opportunity for dialogue and negotiation. China from the outset was interested in a 'Peaceful Rise'. But that was torpedoed by Abe for what seems to me Political Interest/Gains. Perhaps in their calculus the Abe administration truly believe it will benefit the countries security environment as well. But I think time will prove that to be untrue and that these next few years will be lost years for progress in the relationship and region overall.

SamuraiBlue said:

So basically you're saying that PRC does not want to participate since PRC have no influence at court?
Sorry but court of laws are supposed to be unbiased and pass verdict based on fact not swayed by bribes.

Click to expand...

In an ideal world, international court of laws should be free of bias and any political influence. But international court of justice was not created in vacuum without any susceptibility to outside influence. ICJ is a part of UN which itself doesn't really enjoy a stellar reputation of fairness and neutrality. All veto wielding members have used their influence to gain favorable conditions for themselves and their allies.

Both Japan and PRC are trying to stack the deck for themselves. PRC likes bilateral agreements to solve territorial disputes because it believes only parties in the disputes should get involved. Japan favors international dispute resolution mechanisms that involves unrelated parties because it will receive support from US and other US allies.

In any disputes, both parties involved are expected to try to create the most advantageous environment for themselves. It is foolhardy to expect either party will simply submit itself to any mechanisms that might favor the opponent.

shen said:

The question is why is Japan has publicly called for ICJ arbitration for the Dokdo Island dispute, but not for the Diaoyu Island dispute?

Click to expand...

Simply because Japan cannot become the plaintiff for Senkaku since Japan already administrate them.

texx1 said:

In an ideal world, international court of laws should be free of bias and any political influence. But international court of justice was not created in vacuum without any susceptibility to outside influence. ICJ is a part of UN which itself doesn't really enjoy a stellar reputation of fairness and neutrality. All veto wielding members have used their influence to gain favorable conditions for themselves and their allies.

Both Japan and PRC are trying to stack the deck for themselves. PRC likes bilateral agreements to solve territorial disputes because it believes only parties in the disputes should get involved. Japan favors international dispute resolution mechanisms that involves unrelated parties because it will receive support from US and other US allies.

In any disputes, both parties involved are expected to try to create the most advantageous environment for themselves. It is foolhardy to expect either party will simply submit itself to any mechanisms that might favor the opponent.

Click to expand...

Stop acting as if PRC is a victim of some conspiracy. The 193 member nations of United Nations is not try to confine PRC and the US does not hold some ultimate control over IJC.
As I had posted before PRC simply does not have a leg to stand on in a court of law to justify their claim so they are trying to evade it as if it was the plague.
Pathetic attitude from a nation that claims they are the next global power.

SamuraiBlue said:

Pathetic attitude from a nation that claims they are the next global power.

Click to expand...

Who's attitude?


...
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America [1986] ICJ 1 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation
...