It helps to explain why Ngo Dinh Diem was loosing so badly he had to be replaced by a military dictatorship in 1963.
PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
Brumby
Major
The merit of my statement is not drawn from what I say but rather based on what you have said regarding the majority of judges not being pro China. You are implying by your statement that decisions will not be governed by any established legal framework but rather be influenced by some form of bias. Such a statement is accusatory in nature whether you choose to admit it or not.
Brumby
Major
I understand now what you mean by being not properly constituted because South Vietnam (aka Republic of Vietnam) was not a signatory to the 1954 Geneva Agreement. I think the strength of any constituted body rather than the nature can only be measured by the effect i.e. international recognition or lack of. According to historical timeline, the Republic of Vietnam was only proclaimed on October 26, 1955 and was subsequently recognised by 88 countries. I think there are two distinct legal issues here which is jurisdiction and who are the parties to the 1954 accord. Whether South Vietnam was properly constituted at the time of the 54 accord is not important because the primary issue is whether North Vietnam has legal standing in the following :
1) The 54 accord clearly demarcated jurisdiction. The South including the islands were outside the jurisdiction of the North. Who then has jurisdiction in the South if it is disputed. This has to be resolved as a legal issue.
2)Does the North have the legal standing in 1958 to cede territories which it does not clearly have jurisdiction at the time of the 1958 note. Since it is disputed, this should be resolved through legal means.
3)Does a diplomatic note have the strength of a formal treaty that territorial transfer has indeed been made? Was there a change in administration in line with supposedly a change in jurisdiction if indeed there was one. I think the historical facts do not support such a notion. Obviously anything can be subject to legal challenge.
These are points of law and facts that are best handled based on some kind of rule based legal framework which in my opinion is by the International Court of Justice. If proponent of the 1958 note is so sure of the strength of their legal position then they should put their money where their mouth is.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
You made some good points, Brumby, but one should keep in mind that China doesn't quite trust the international court system because 1) it was setup by Western powers, without inputs from China, and 2) when China was weak and appealed to international law in the late Qing Dynasty, the West and Japan ignored it and did as they pleased. It doesn't give China a pass to be the neighborhood bully, but it sheds light on China's continued misgivings about systems created by Western powers to mainly benefit the West.
Blackstone
Brigadier
From China's perspective, none of that means anything, because France never had the right to give the Spratly Islands to anyone. In short, Vietnam received stolen goods from a thief while the owner was asleep, and now the owner is awake and want the stolen goods back.
Brumby
Major
I totally agree with the sentiments and can certainly identify with them. I am familiar with that particular segment of history you mentioned. There is the added complication that Chinese laws are not the same as western based legal system. However I also believe that the basic principle of justice and fairness is universal and does not discriminate because of origin. China as a growing power needs to do more to engage the rest of the world. This might mean taking on established systems in a meaningful way through engagement. Explore confidence building measures that will help to address some of its concerns. I remember an advice to Spider man from the movie when Spider man was struggling with his new found powers. I think it was "with great powers come great responsibilities". The world is watching how that power is being exercised.
Brumby
Major
Each country obviously feel that history is on its side depending on the starting point of choice. There are grievances that need to be addressed and if it was simple, it would have been resolved long time ago. I think there is a conscious choice of pathway and that is either engagement and rule based or of friction.
>>>>>>>>>> MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<<<
Please do not interject past political/ideological history into these discussions.
It only leads to arguments, emotion, and anger. It is also against the posted SD Rules.
Keep on topic.
Thanks.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
>>>>>>>> END MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<
Blackstone
Brigadier
Is there really universal principles of justice and fairness? Pray tell why the Western world insists it's just and fair for the Philippines to invoke international law, under UNCLOS, to sue China, but not it's not just and fair for China to use a different section of the same law to opt out of the legal dispute? Where does hypocrisy fit in the "universal' concept of what's just and what's fair?
China has engaged the world precisely as you outlined. Outside the ECS and SCS, the Middle Kingdom is one of the biggest supporter of the global system, to the point where it provides public goods and cooperates with UN and individual nations/groups for the benefits of not only China, but the world community. China definitely wants to change the rules in ECS and SCS, and such enterprises are seldom peaceful and pain-free.
Fancy words, but how do they apply vis-a-vis China in the East China Sea and South China Sea disputes? We need real world solutions to deal with real world problems. High minded principles aren't always applicable in affairs of State.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Alright, let's put aside regional and national history for the moment, and address what's really at play. Asia has experienced peace and security for the last 40 years, because China accepted American military supremacy as the basis of stability in Asia. Now that has changed, and China no longer accepts American military supremacy in Asia; that's what the "new model of major country relations" is all about. If the US alliance refuses to meaningfully address China's wish for a place at the head of the table, then China will chart its own course and do things like propping oil rigs in contested waters, and building artificial islands in the SCS to base military assets.
The US has shown little inclination to share the head table with China or with anyone else, and has taken steps to hedge against Chinese actions/intentions. In a true "prisoners' dilemma," anything the US alliance does to defend itself is seen as offensive by China, and anything China does in response is seen as provocations by the US alliance. On top of all else, even if the US could be persuaded to share power with China, the Middle Kingdom's nervous neighbors would resist US efforts to get closer to China.
So, how is the great powers game to be played?