PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

This From 1974 Vietnamese 9th Grade Geography Textbook

A.Man, when I right clicked on the image and went to the Photobucket site, all I saw was a page describing in Chinese, English, and French the Vietnamese textbook. That's second hand information. Where is the primary source--a scan of the textbook itself?

Blackstone said:

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?.

Click to expand...

There are 2 separate issues raised by your statement. Firstly, is there such thing as fairness and justice? The answer depends on your worldview because our decision making model and behaviour is shaped out of our belief system. In order to determine what is fair and just, the most immediate question is what is the reference point and who determines it? There is existing some form of rule based framework such as UNCLOS and International Court of Justice. There might be flaws with them but politics is messy but this is what we have. China might feel that the existing system is stacked against it because of history or just the way it is configured. The same issue when you are in politics when in opposition. Do you engage for the greater good or do you stay oppose because you see it serves your political ambition.
Secondly, the issue is not whether China has the right to opt out or not but rather how it intends to stay engaged when there is a stalemate. China needs to step up besides just insisting on bilateral negotiations. Philippines has gone the route of UNCLOS to level the playing field because the alternative is essentially "the strong takes what it wants and the weak endures what it must" What is the strength of China's case? Is it drawn from its intrinsic economic and military strength or from the merit of its case. Its behaviour doesn't suggest the latter.

Blackstone said:

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..

Click to expand...

There is no denying that China has stepped up to engage especially in Africa. That is a good thing and should continue to do so. However there are now opportunities for China to truly engage meaningfully in SCS because of the seriousness of the issues. There are two sides to a coin. China sees a threat of containment; the existing system (rightly or wrongly) stacked against it; and a general denial of a rightful place commensurate with its rise. The other side of the coin that I see are opportunities (i) to directly engage a system to right any wrong within the system; (ii) presents a robust case based on its merits and not on coercion and intimidation; and (iii) face its past and not live in its shadows. China if it is to move on to become a great nation, it has to step up and confront issues with confidence rather than carry any remaining baggage. It has to psychologically as a nation grow out of its own shadow.

It is said that a character of a person is known from its behaviour when under stress. The SCS is when the rubber meets the road.

Blackstone said:

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.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, values shape a person and people determines the character of a country. Do you live by principles of fairness and justice; the strong protect the weak; to give rather than take; to gain honourably rather than through deceit; to act with restraint rather than callously? They are choices that both shape an individual as much as a nation.

Blackstone said:

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?

Click to expand...

You got me here as clearly the issues you raised are above my pay grade. I do have some philosophical views that I can offer.

The primary assumption in your analogy is that there is a table with a so call head to it. If you take a world view that there are tables that are constituted differently e.g. like a round table then the dynamics and relationship becomes different. In other words, the opportunities and possibilities are defined by how big or narrow is the vision of choice.
In its leadership aspiration, there are 2 underlying issues that China need to address. Firstly, what type of leadership role does it envision itself to take? The head of the table although sets the menu also picks up the bill. Being a leader is not the end in itself but rather the means for something. Does it want to take on the role as a force for good and to maintain peace? Is it willing to let its sons and daughters die for the sons and daughters of other nations? What will the China be like when and if it is seated at the head of the table? Secondly, there are choices of pathway to get to its intended destination. Clearly the world is the stage in which China conducts itself. Respect especially for a leader is importantly earned. Its every action needs to inspire confidence and trust in its actions and character. A leader needs to project vision, explain its actions and demonstrate strong character. It includes depth and maturity in handling criticism and not be offended at every opportunity. It only reinforce an image of weakness and not strength. Its recent actions in SCS doesn’t help its cause. There is no point being head of a table when there are no quest. It needs to take a crash course on “how to win friends and influence people”.

Brumby said:

There are 2 separate issues raised by your statement. Firstly, is there such thing as fairness and justice? The answer depends on your worldview because our decision making model and behaviour is shaped out of our belief system. In order to determine what is fair and just, the most immediate question is what is the reference point and who determines it? There is existing some form of rule based framework such as UNCLOS and International Court of Justice. There might be flaws with them but politics is messy but this is what we have. China might feel that the existing system is stacked against it because of history or just the way it is configured. The same issue when you are in politics when in opposition. Do you engage for the greater good or do you stay oppose because you see it serves your political ambition.

Click to expand...

Greater good? Seriously? Pray tell what great power has ever held "greater good" above it's own national interests? UK? Not even close. France? Not a chance. Imperial Germany? Don't make me laugh! Soviet Union? I'm laughing. United States? Maybe as an accident. Will China behave much differently than other great powers? When pigs fly.

Secondly, the issue is not whether China has the right to opt out or not but rather how it intends to stay engaged when there is a stalemate. China needs to step up besides just insisting on bilateral negotiations. Philippines has gone the route of UNCLOS to level the playing field because the alternative is essentially "the strong takes what it wants and the weak endures what it must" What is the strength of China's case? Is it drawn from its intrinsic economic and military strength or from the merit of its case. Its behaviour doesn't suggest the latter.

Click to expand...

That's completely backwards. China should pursue her national interests, just as other nations pursue theirs. Using legal means to opt out of the International Court is perfectly acceptable, if the provisions of international laws allow it. And it does.

There is no denying that China has stepped up to engage especially in Africa. That is a good thing and should continue to do so. However there are now opportunities for China to truly engage meaningfully in SCS because of the seriousness of the issues. There are two sides to a coin. China sees a threat of containment; the existing system (rightly or wrongly) stacked against it; and a general denial of a rightful place commensurate with its rise. The other side of the coin that I see are opportunities (i) to directly engage a system to right any wrong within the system; (ii) presents a robust case based on its merits and not on coercion and intimidation; and (iii) face its past and not live in its shadows. China if it is to move on to become a great nation, it has to step up and confront issues with confidence rather than carry any remaining baggage. It has to psychologically as a nation grow out of its own shadow.

Click to expand...

Very pretty words. Now show me one great power that actually behaves as you want China to behave. Just one. I'm waiting... still waiting...

What's your real argument? China should voluntarily limit her own legal rights under international law and give sway to whatever others demand, so she could be loved instead of feared? Is that how you measure "great nations?"

It is said that a character of a person is known from its behaviour when under stress. The SCS is when the rubber meets the road.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Are we talking about national interests and great power politics or are we talking about saints?

On the contrary, values shape a person and people determines the character of a country. Do you live by principles of fairness and justice; the strong protect the weak; to give rather than take; to gain honourably rather than through deceit; to act with restraint rather than callously? They are choices that both shape an individual as much as a nation.

Click to expand...

I applaud your vision.

Blackstone said:

Greater good? Seriously? Pray tell what great power has ever held "greater good" above it's own national interests? UK? Not even close. France? Not a chance. Imperial Germany? Don't make me laugh! Soviet Union? I'm laughing. United States? Maybe as an accident. Will China behave much differently than other great powers? When pigs fly.


That's completely backwards. China should pursue her national interests, just as other nations pursue theirs. Using legal means to opt out of the International Court is perfectly acceptable, if the provisions of international laws allow it. And it does.


Very pretty words. Now show me one great power that actually behaves as you want China to behave. Just one. I'm waiting... still waiting...

What's your real argument? China should voluntarily limit her own legal rights under international law and give sway to whatever others demand, so she could be loved instead of feared? Is that how you measure "great nations?"


You're kidding, right? Are we talking about national interests and great power politics or are we talking about saints?



I applaud your vision.

Click to expand...

Oops .... sorry. The comments were meant for a place and time in an alternate universe. It is obviously too much to expect of China. Well let the drilling and ramming continue then and the construction to begin. Don't worry about environmental impact study if it even remotely comes into the picture. After all national interest (whatever that means) triumphs over all.

Brumby said:

Oops .... sorry. The comments were meant for a place and time in an alternate universe. It is obviously too much to expect of China. Well let the drilling and ramming continue then and the construction to begin. Don't worry about environmental impact study if it even remotely comes into the picture. After all national interest (whatever that means) triumphs over all.

Click to expand...

"It is obviously too much to expect of China"

actually it's obviously too much to expect from USA, japan, Vietnam, Philippines, france, UK and everybody else who play great power games. don't single out china as if they are the only ones doing it. some folks are just uncomfortable that china is playing that game now and getting better at it and do national interests triumph all? well just ask chuck hagel or shinzo abe i'm sure they will say ''yes you betcha''.

Brumby said:

Oops .... sorry. The comments were meant for a place and time in an alternate universe. It is obviously too much to expect of China. Well let the drilling and ramming continue then and the construction to begin. Don't worry about environmental impact study if it even remotely comes into the picture. After all national interest (whatever that means) triumphs over all.

Click to expand...

Doesn't every country in the world pursue their national interest ? If the leadership of a country (any country) doesn't pursue their national interest. They would be considered as treasonous by its people.

Brumby said:

Oops .... sorry. The comments were meant for a place and time in an alternate universe. It is obviously too much to expect of China. Well let the drilling and ramming continue then and the construction to begin. Don't worry about environmental impact study if it even remotely comes into the picture. After all national interest (whatever that means) triumphs over all.

Click to expand...

Did you just finish a high school civics class? Yes, national interest does indeed trump all, and great powers' interests generally trump lesser powers. Who knows, maybe your generation could do better than all previous.

mr.bean said:

"It is obviously too much to expect of China"

actually it's obviously too much to expect from USA, japan, Vietnam, Philippines, france, UK and everybody else who play great power games. don't single out china as if they are the only ones doing it. some folks are just uncomfortable that china is playing that game now and getting better at it and do national interests triumph all? well just ask chuck hagel or shinzo abe i'm sure they will say ''yes you betcha''.

Click to expand...

I just realized we've been arguing with a child; nature of the Internet beast, I guess. Time to move on.