This first post... can be answered by the one below:
In other words, the source of the problem is due to certain inherently opposing interests... plain and simple. Morality isn't even part of the equation for me.
US Navy & PLAN - South China Sea Situation News (Closed)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
This first post... can be answered by the one below:
In other words, the source of the problem is due to certain inherently opposing interests... plain and simple. Morality isn't even part of the equation for me.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The bucket stops with President Obama to be sure, and we don't disagree. However, you said he was "incompetent," and I'd like to know if you say that because Obama ordered the Pentagon not to provoke China, or was he incompetent because Pentagon leaders failed to follow his orders?
ASEAN countries have been very clear they don't want conflicts between US and China. They're not interested in choosing between the two, and that's very reasonable behavior. So far, when pushed to choose between fellow ASEAN countries (Philippines, Vietnam), they've chosen not to support them, so it's not a matter of having cake and eat it too. Their actions in not supporting fellow ASEAN countries against China are louder than words.
I agree with you on China's goal to impose its own version of Monroe Doctrine in the SCS. I've been saying that for a while. What's more, smaller regional states know that too, and that's why they are the ones forcing the issue, and not China (if you back things to around 2009-2010, you could see its the smaller states that pushed for resolution of SCS claims). Going forward, China will only get stronger, relative to others in the region, so unless regional powers want to deal with stronger China in the future, then they better get the best deal they can now.
Can China be convinced to give and take? I don't know, but Beijing did settle 12 of 14 land borders, and one maritime boundary with Vietnam in the Golf of Tonkin.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Brumby
Major
I am just addressing the issue from two perspective. The first is the question of convincing and I am simply responding to that question. Convincing is tied to justification which in turn has a moral standing to it. If we go past the issue of convincing because it concerns national interest then that effort is redundant because pursuance of national interest by nature is amoral.
I can't believe I've never seen this presentation by Mr Mearsheimer... I particularly like this part from 4:30:
"You want to be the most powerful state in the region, is this because you're evil, is it because you're evil? No! It's because the best way to survive in an anarchic system where you cannot know the intention of other states, and some of those states may come at you at some point -- is to be very, very powerful."
Last edited:
What Blackstone originally said was "Unless China could be convinced FON isn't threatening to its security interests, or the US backs off roaming near China's shores, then there will be increasing great power friction."
Reading it, I don't particular moral standing when he used the word "convincing"... rather I think he meant it in a purely geopolitical sense.
Brumby
Major
There is a minimum threshold with FONOP. If that threshold is considered too provocative then don't proceed with it. What we have ended up is just total confusion and that to me is a symptom of incompetence.
The Philippines and Vietnam are the frontline states because their interest are clearly threatened if unchecked. Indonesia and Malaysia are close to throwing in the towels with ongoing developments and so the days of fence sitting might be coming to a close. The rest are not directly affected and will continue to fence sit.
Brumby
Major
Does the end justify the means? We have a few examples of countries that pursued such a philosophy that lead to WW2. The issue is how you get to the end point.
Last edited:
It's too narrow to only view WWII as an example -- every major world conflict in history between great powers is due to such a philosophy, and I think that is because it is the nature and instinct of humanity.
Obviously, it would be optimal if a nation is able to reach the mantle of being "very powerful" without coming into direct conflict with other great powers during its climb to that kind of status, and there have been a few occasions when a peaceful exchange of power has occurred, or when a nation has been unable to reach the top and dissolved. But in all of those situations, the rising power I imagine always views the end as a goal which they are willing to risk different means to reach, because if they do not pursue that goal it would mean existing in a perpetual state of vulnerability.
Brumby
Major
I disagree with the notion that great power conflicts arise due to the inherent nature and presence of competing powers per se. I believe the source is in conflicting ideologies and philosophical worldviews. For example, I don't believe in might is right and is a notion I find repulsive and just nauseating. If China continues in its path and holds the view that it can just take what it wants by fiat than eventually the pushback will come because there is a competing worldview that just do not accept such an approach.
- Status