US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

a1a2a3a4a5a6a · Oct 28, 2015

Brumby said:
When China ratified UNCLOS, it knew what it was getting into. You can't pick and choose what you like and ignore other provisions when it doesn't suit you.

In a rule based environment, there are proper ways of doing things. The way China goes out about conducting itself is problematic in my view. It is inconsistent with its actions and interpret things in what ever way it chooses. China simply see the rest of the world as an extension of how it runs its internal affairs.

Similarly,

When (US) ratified UNCLOS, it knew what it was getting into. You can't pick and choose what you like and ignore other provisions when it doesn't suit you.

In a rule based environment, there are proper ways of doing things. The way (US) goes out about conducting itself is problematic in my view. It is inconsistent with its actions and interpret things in what ever way it chooses. (US) simply see the rest of the world as an extension of how it runs its internal affairs.

........ which means, you are only ranting a canned message.

Brumby · Oct 28, 2015

Bltizo said:
Basically we are discussing whether it is reasonable for China and other nations to interpret UNCLOS regarding the EEZ issue in their different ways,

In a rule based environment, UNCLOS already provides a mechanism for resolving dispute over interpretation of its provisions and that is via an International Court. China does not avail of this because I believe the facts, and the substance of its position does not support such an interpretation. I believe China knows that having done due diligence.
As to the question whether it is reasonable for China to interpret it in a different way, I would like see you making a case to support such an interpretation.

Bltizo said:
and whether it is reasonable for China to not go to court on the issue [until it is more powerful] while also acting in a similar limited way which it believes other nations should not.

This statement exactly is why a new world order that China aspires to take leadership is so problematic and potentially chaotic. China thinks might is right.

Jeff Head · Oct 28, 2015

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:
Similarly,

When (US) ratified UNCLOS.....

The US never ratified UNCLOS, so that argument does not hold.

What has happened is that a US administration has said it would comply with certain aspects of UNCLOS as a matter of policy. But the US has never ;legally ratified UNCLOS.

Blitzo · Oct 28, 2015

Brumby said:
In a rule based environment, UNCLOS already provides a mechanism for resolving dispute over interpretation of its provisions and that is via an International Court. China does not avail of this because I believe the facts, and the substance of its position does not support such an interpretation. I believe China knows that having done due diligence.
As to the question whether it is reasonable for China to interpret it in a different way, I would like see you making a case to support such an interpretation.

I was merely saying the reasonable-ness of different nations interpreting the EEZ issue in different ways, seemed to be where part of our differences in opinion lie.

I suppose something else our opinions lie differently on is whether it's reasonable for China to wait until it has greater influence so that any court case could be made more firmly in its favour. If they did so now, they would probably lose but if they waited a few decades, they have a better chance of win.

This statement exactly is why a new world order that China aspires to take leadership is so problematic and potentially chaotic. China thinks might is right.

Actually that statement was part of my opinion suggesting that China is acting in that way as a bargaining chip in the EEZ-surveillance issue ("we'll stop if you stop" sort of way).

a1a2a3a4a5a6a · Oct 28, 2015

Jeff Head said:
The US never ratified UNCLOS, so that argument does not hold.

What has happened is that a US administration has said it would comply with certain aspects of UNCLOS as a matter of policy. But the US has never ;legally ratified UNCLOS.

A slippery position of not officially ratifying UNCLOS, while picking and choosing, nevertheless. The canned message still applies.

Brumby · Oct 28, 2015

Bltizo said:
I was merely saying the reasonable-ness of different nations interpreting the EEZ issue in different ways, seemed to be where part of our differences in opinion lie.)
I suppose something else our opinions lie differently on is whether it's reasonable for China to wait until it has greater influence so that any court case could be made more firmly in its favour. If they did so now, they would probably lose but if they waited a few decades, they have a better chance of win.

I agree that some provisions within UNCLOS are vague and purposely constructed at that time as such for expediency and hence is giving rise to interpretation issues. Having said that, the outcome of it is either minor or major. If it is minor, I guess you live with it and move on. if it is major like military activities in EEZ, then there are mechanisms within UNCLOS to address that. If China thinks it can't get a favourable ruling presently it would suggest to me its position is weak given what is prevailing today and it is a minority view. In a rule based environment, China should respect such an outcome.

The problem I see with China's actions with the EEZ interpretation and the nine-dash line, is that fundamentally it doesn't have strength in its case and position and so is pushing an ambiguity strategy to achieve its aim. In my view there are two problems with this approach. It reflects poorly on China in terms of how it conducts itself internationally and is unbecoming for a nation that aspires to take global leadership. Secondly such an approach is sign of weakness and not strength. Leadership demands resolve of purpose, strength of its position and clarity in its actions.

Blitzo · Oct 28, 2015

Brumby said:
I agree that some provisions within UNCLOS are vague and purposely constructed at that time as such for expediency and hence is giving rise to interpretation issues. Having said that, the outcome of it is either minor or major. If it is minor, I guess you live with it and move on. if it is major like military activities in EEZ, then there are mechanisms within UNCLOS to address that. If China thinks it can't get a favourable ruling presently it would suggest to me its position is weak given what is prevailing today and it is a minority view. In a rule based environment, China should respect such an outcome.

The problem I see with China's actions with the EEZ interpretation and the nine-dash line, is that fundamentally it doesn't have strength in its case and position and so is pushing an ambiguity strategy to achieve its aim. In my view there are two problems with this approach. It reflects poorly on China in terms of how it conducts itself internationally and is unbecoming for a nation that aspires to take global leadership. Secondly such an approach is sign of weakness and not strength. Leadership demands resolve of purpose, strength of its position and clarity in its actions.

I don't disagree with your second paragraph, and I personally expect that as China becomes more powerful it will become less ambiguous on its position, and eventually will become powerful enough such that a ruling would be more in its favour.

Jeff Head · Oct 28, 2015

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:
A slippery position of not officially ratifying UNCLOS, while picking and choosing.

Not really slippery at all, it is just the nature of a free republic where the government is handled by differing branches with the power spread out between them..

a1a2a3a4a5a6a said:
...nevertheless. The canned message still applies.

Perhaps it does to you...but knowing Brumby as I do...I can tell you that there is nothing about his comments, or reasoning that is "canned."

That is simply your own bias (IMHO) coming through.

Better to engage him with reason over whatever it is you do not agree with than to throw out what appear to be "canned" responses of your own.

Brumby · Oct 28, 2015

Bltizo said:
eventually will become powerful enough such that a ruling would be more in its favour.

I am puzzle by this statement. Is it your personal opinion or is it your opinion of China's thinking? If it is the latter I can understand it because in China, judicial independence is highly questionable and unfortunately China sees the rest of world as simply an extension of how it should conduct its internal affairs. In a strictly rule based environment, the framework within which arbitration is considered is independent from the parties in dispute. In other words, power or the lack of by any particular party has no influence on the ruling of a case.

a1a2a3a4a5a6a · Oct 28, 2015

Jeff Head said:
Perhaps it does to you...but knowing Brumby as I do...I can tell you that there is nothing about his comments, or reasoning that is "canned."

That is simply your own bias (IMHO) coming through.

Better to engage him with reason over whatever it is you do not agree with than to throw out what appear to be "canned" responses of your own.

Everybody is biased to some degree and it is only opinions vs opinions. And it does appeared to be canned as repeated over some published articles. If you were to disagree, it is yet another opinion observed. But please don't make it sound like personal as referring to Brumby.

US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)

a1a2a3a4a5a6a

New Member

Brumby

Major

Jeff Head

General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

a1a2a3a4a5a6a

New Member

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jeff Head

General

Brumby

Major

a1a2a3a4a5a6a

New Member