TPP?

[Bismark]

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
under the UN’s Law [/quote]

like that matters to the chinese[/quote]

Are you incapable of reasoned thought?

I stated that the argument above is egregiously flawed and has no legal basis under international law, which significantly undermines the entire article.[/quote]

LOLOLOL coming from you…[/quote]

Writes the imbecile who cannot be bothered to use proper grammar.

[quote]Aggv wrote:
i stated that international law more than likely does not matter to the chinese. [/quote]

What do you base the above on? Your study of international law? Your study of Chinese foreign policy? Your study of Chinese compliance with international law? While it is true that the PRC views international law predominantly through the lens of Realpolitik, this does not change the fact that China obeys most international law most of the time. One can argue that they do so overwhelmingly so.

Why do states obey international law? While the international system lacks impartial third-part mechanisms to enforce international law, the empirical record demonstrates that states comply with most international law most of the time. This motivation for obedience stems from a collective desire for order and predictability. Extralegal factors that promote compliance stem from enlightened self-interest. To a great extent, international law reflects the common and complimentary interests of states. Being a political system, states will seek to interpret obligations to their own advantage. But being a legal system that is built on the consent of other parties, they will be constrained by the necessity of justifying their actions in legal terms.

States also obey international law to maintain their credibility and reputation, important considerations in the everyday interaction between governments. Having the reputation of keeping one’s word and dealing within the law can facilitate good relations and aid in achieving goals that require the cooperation of others. A reputation for principled behavior and for being dependable and reliable is an asset not to be undervalued in the anarchic realm of international relations.
Routine observance of international law promotes a “habit of law” - a simple acceptance of the law as a factor in everyday decision making.

States also obey international law with the principle of reciprocity in mind. Any government contemplating a violation of the rule of law must consider the reactions of other states. As Emmerich de Vattel so astutely argued in his classic and influential treatise “The Law of Nations”, the golden rule also applies to the sovereigns of states.

A study of Chinese foreign policy will demonstrate that international law plays a significant role in that state’s foreign policy formulation.

[quote]Aggv wrote:
"
Wang indicated that while China was prepared to talk, it would not back down on the construction that, he said, “is something that falls fully within the scope of China’s sovereignty.”

“The determination of the Chinese side to safeguard our own sovereignty and territorial integrity is as firm as a rock, and it is unshakable”
"

kinda sounds like they dont care and are going to do what they want.

[/quote]

China is attempting to strengthen its claim vis-a-vis Vietnam in the event of a political or legal resolution of the Spratly Islands dispute. It invokes international law, which is indicative that it is indeed a factor in its calculus. The PRC claims sovereignty over the Spratlys in their entirety, as does the SRV. If the dispute were to go to arbitration before the International Court of Justice (which is unlikely) and China was awarded sovereignty, it would still be unable to claim a 12 nm territorial sea or a 200 nm EEZ. Your article seriously fucked up on that front, as did you by citing it. Again, artificial island construction in what amounts to res nullius is not illegal under international law.

[Gkhan]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

They aren’t violating international law by constructing islands in the Spratlys. They are unable to cogently claim territorial seas and an exclusive economic zone from those islands, however. The natural islands in the Spratlys also are unable to be a basis for the aforementioned claims, as they are uninhabitable under maritime law.[/quote]

Then please explain the point of this…why would China go through the effort of building these islands? I know there’s oil to be had, couldn’t they drill and claim it all?

[theuofh]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
under the UN’s Law [/quote]

like that matters to the chinese[/quote]

“the ability to claim a vast economic exclusion zone [sic] where it could control shipping, fishing, energy production, and even air travel over one of the busiest transportation corridors in the world . . . The reality is that under the UN’s Law and Sea Convention [sic] an island, even a small one, gets 12 nautical miles out to sea of territory to call its own and another 200 miles in any direction of mineral and fishing rights”

[/quote]

UN law doesn’t really apply to the US either.

Also, I believe the planned response entailed surveillance platforms respecting the 12 mile boundary, which does tend to lend credibility to Chinese sovereignty of the territory.

Side topic but interesting, but I believe Okinawa was also Chinese territory at some point.

[Bismark]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

They aren’t violating international law by constructing islands in the Spratlys. They are unable to cogently claim territorial seas and an exclusive economic zone from those islands, however. The natural islands in the Spratlys also are unable to be a basis for the aforementioned claims, as they are uninhabitable under maritime law.[/quote]

Then please explain the point of this…why would China go through the effort of building these islands? I know there’s oil to be had, couldn’t they drill and claim it all?
[/quote]

Did I not above? They also serve as forward operating bases for Chinese military forces, another marker of sovereignty. The Spratlys are disputed territory, and the reserve bed in question is more theoretical than actualized. The Chinese oil industry doesn’t have the technical expertise nor the capital to exploit those resources on its own. In addition, multinational corporations are hesitant to invest in areas that are legally dubious and politically unstable.

[Gkhan]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Did I not above? They also serve as forward operating bases for Chinese military forces, another marker of sovereignty. [/quote]

Haven’t we said this all along also? I said they would be used as bases armed with anti-ship missiles. So, basically we agree.

What can the US or Vietnam, Philippines, etc do about this? How could they counter the Chinese move?

[pat]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I agree with the policy prescriptions put forth by “Revising US Grand Strategy Toward China” I’m in favor of the TTP for the reasons put forth in the full report.

The Spratly Islands chain consists of by more than 100 small islands and reefs in the South China Sea. As Brantly Womack points out, “The islands themselves are insignificant as real estate, with a total of only five square kilometers of damp sand and no fresh water. They do not qualify as habitable according to the Law of the Sea, and thus do not carry rights of coastal waters.” The island chain holds, however, potentially immense economic benefits. The Geology and Mineral Resources Ministry of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has estimated that the Spratly area holds oil and natural gas reserves of 17.7 billion tons. By comparison, the Emirate of Kuwait, a very energy rich state, holds 13 billion tons of hydrocarbons. If the PRC’s analysis is accurate, the Spratly Islands would be the fourth largest reserve bed in the world. As the eminent political geographer Saul Bernard Cohen writes, “It is unlikely that China will yield on the Spratlys because of their oil and gas potential and China’s growing dependence upon imported energy supplies.” Consider Beijing’s recent bullying in the South China Sea. In March 2014, Chinese coast guard boats blocked the Philippines from accessing its outposts on the Spratly Islands. Two months later, China moved an oil rig into Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, clashing with Vietnamese fishing boats. In regard to actualized resources, the South China Sea’s share in world fish production grew from 7 percent in 1961 to 35 percent in 2010, making it a vitally important area for commercial fishing enterprises.

I haven’t heard the military options SecDef Carter mentioned. Do you have a link? The US will not be directly involved in a military confrontation regarding the Spratlys unless China acts to control the South China Sea shipping lane, among the world’s most important. A skirmish in the region could easily escalate into full on war. The name of the game will be deterrence, as indicated by the so-called “pivot” to Asia. By 2020, the navy and the air force plan to base 60 percent of their forces in the Asia-Pacific region. Although deterrence through the prospect of punishment, in the form of air strikes and naval blockades, has a role to play in discouraging Chinese adventurism, Washington’s goal, and that of its allies and partners, should be to achieve deterrence through denial - to convince Beijing that it simply cannot achieve its objectives with force.

I believe that land-based missile systems stationed in critical regions (such as the South China Sea) will constitute a key part of deterrence. Missile-intensive forces are better at denying opposing forces the ability to project power than conducting cross-border invasions. They represent the leading edge of so-called anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems - along with air defenses, antisatellite weaponry, advanced fighter aircraft, quiet diesel submarines, mines, and cyberweapons - which are raising the costs for outside countries to project power. These advanced missile systems could also be supplied to other states who have claims and military forces forward deployed in the Spratlys, namely, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Philippines. [/quote]

I agree, believe it or not.

[Aragorn]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
… [/quote]

Once again…“like that matters to the Chinese”. Are they going to obey international law? What will happen if they do not?

Do you see the Chinese one day controlling this economic zone via man-made islands armed with carrier destroyer DF 21-D missiles or am just thinking out of my Amygdala as Varq has suggested?

[/quote]

Nobody obeys international law when it is opposed to their interests. Not us, not USSR or present Russia, nobody. Unless, of course, they’re worried they might not be able to hold their interests with their own physical force projection. Then they pay attention. Purely a practical gamble. EDIT: this practical gamble takes reputation into account as well, as that is practical from a business standpoint.

I’m with Bismark on this topic, at least mostly. The Chinese will of course try whatever they can.

[Aragorn]

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
under the UN’s Law [/quote]

like that matters to the chinese[/quote]

“the ability to claim a vast economic exclusion zone [sic] where it could control shipping, fishing, energy production, and even air travel over one of the busiest transportation corridors in the world . . . The reality is that under the UN’s Law and Sea Convention [sic] an island, even a small one, gets 12 nautical miles out to sea of territory to call its own and another 200 miles in any direction of mineral and fishing rights”

[/quote]

UN law doesn’t really apply to the US either.

Also, I believe the planned response entailed surveillance platforms respecting the 12 mile boundary, which does tend to lend credibility to Chinese sovereignty of the territory.

Side topic but interesting, but I believe Okinawa was also Chinese territory at some point.
[/quote]

I don’t think it is a reply strengthening implicit credibility to the claim (at least not from our/the responding nations’ perspectives) so much as a desire to not precipitate a conflict of some kind whether legal or political or physical

[theuofh]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
under the UN’s Law [/quote]

like that matters to the chinese[/quote]

“the ability to claim a vast economic exclusion zone [sic] where it could control shipping, fishing, energy production, and even air travel over one of the busiest transportation corridors in the world . . . The reality is that under the UN’s Law and Sea Convention [sic] an island, even a small one, gets 12 nautical miles out to sea of territory to call its own and another 200 miles in any direction of mineral and fishing rights”

[/quote]

UN law doesn’t really apply to the US either.

Also, I believe the planned response entailed surveillance platforms respecting the 12 mile boundary, which does tend to lend credibility to Chinese sovereignty of the territory.

Side topic but interesting, but I believe Okinawa was also Chinese territory at some point.
[/quote]

I don’t think it is a reply strengthening implicit credibility to the claim (at least not from our/the responding nations’ perspectives) so much as a desire to not precipitate a conflict of some kind whether legal or political or physical[/quote]

…therefore China wins?

[theuofh]

[quote]dk44 wrote:

(Dan Carlin’s Common Sense has a recent podcast on this topic titled “The Illusion of Control” which is a very good listen, assuming you are talking about the TPP)

It potentially gives corporations the power to sue governments that enact/enforce laws, laws that the citizens may support mind you, that hurt their bottom line. No wonder fortune 500 companies love it.

And the case would be heard but an outside tribunal of private lawyers not tied to any country’s legal system.[/quote]

That guy has a good podcast, especially if you have a lot of time to kill.

US big business has a big stake in the China, Hong Kong, and elsewhere. If China did decide to escalate, by seizing assets and property, the TPP is basically worthless unless it’s backed up by force.

Or else, the “pivot to Asia” is being used as a ruse to for the quid pro quo between campaign contributions and legislation. I’d like to see someone do the analysis between the lobbyists who wrote the law, who paid them, and then who donated to the candidate. I think all this information is in the dark now due to changes to campaign finance laws, which is a shame.

From the things I’ve seen, Chinese investment in the A2/AD technologies Bismark mentioned makes China a very hard target for even the most advanced of US weapons systems.

[Varqanir]

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Side topic but interesting, but I believe Okinawa was also Chinese territory at some point.
[/quote]

The Ryukyu kingdom was a vassal state of the Ming Dynasty during the 15th and 16th centuries.

Not exactly the same as being Chinese territory.

Unless you want to go all the way back to the last Ice Age, when the Ryukyu archipelago and the Asian Mainland were connected by a land bridge due to the lower sea levels. But then you’d have to claim that all of Japan is actually historically “Chinese Territory”. And I don’t think anyone wants to do that.

[Gkhan]

I read the history of China and Japan and it’s interesting. WWII was just the last in a series of invasions/counter-invasions between Japan and China. They had been fighting a back and forth war for centuries.

Hell, China was once ruled by the Mongols. Mongolia was then over-run by the Chinese. China could lay claim to a 4th of the world by proxy if it wanted to.

[Aragorn]

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
under the UN’s Law [/quote]

like that matters to the chinese[/quote]

“the ability to claim a vast economic exclusion zone [sic] where it could control shipping, fishing, energy production, and even air travel over one of the busiest transportation corridors in the world . . . The reality is that under the UN’s Law and Sea Convention [sic] an island, even a small one, gets 12 nautical miles out to sea of territory to call its own and another 200 miles in any direction of mineral and fishing rights”

[/quote]

UN law doesn’t really apply to the US either.

Also, I believe the planned response entailed surveillance platforms respecting the 12 mile boundary, which does tend to lend credibility to Chinese sovereignty of the territory.

Side topic but interesting, but I believe Okinawa was also Chinese territory at some point.
[/quote]

I don’t think it is a reply strengthening implicit credibility to the claim (at least not from our/the responding nations’ perspectives) so much as a desire to not precipitate a conflict of some kind whether legal or political or physical[/quote]

…therefore China wins?
[/quote]

Not sure if serious comment?

I only had 2 hours of sleep though, so my brain isn’t really on, but I can’t parse what you’re saying. Are you making a witticism based on other people’s opinion in this thread or offering a serious opinion that China wins?

To rephrase–or attempt to do so–I don’t think that the planned response of surveillance platforms outside 12 miles lends credibility to the Chinese claim from our perspective. From China’s perhaps, but then in the world of international politics they can use most situations to politically claim anything they want however tenuous real credibility may be.

No, what I see here–in an extremely poor analogy due to not sleeping, but perhaps my general point will get across–…what I see here is somewhat the same as a bouncer trying to talk down a drunk at a bar. Or for that matter anyone trying to talk down an aggressive guy trying to fight you:

The minute you lay hands on the guy as a bouncer, he stops listening and starts struggling. The minute you respond to the aggressive douchebag by trying to physically restrain him, he takes a swipe at you and can then claim to the cops: he started it, he laid hands on me first…when all you were trying to do was keep him from attacking.

On the other hand, if you’re a bouncer and you just bring reinforcements up and talk to the guy you might be able to talk him down: you stay out of what he views as his “personal space” as much as you can while still being close enough to respodnd. Same thing with the douchebag: you don’t give him the excuse to claim–however illegitimately–that he had the moral high ground.

That probably makes zero sense…I’m half asleep right now lol. It made sense in my head.

[Varqanir]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I read the history of China and Japan and it’s interesting. WWII was just the last in a series of invasions/counter-invasions between Japan and China. They had been fighting a back and forth war for centuries.

Hell, China was once ruled by the Mongols. Mongolia was then over-run by the Chinese. China could lay claim to a 4th of the world by proxy if it wanted to.[/quote]

By that logic, so could England, who at one time controlled a portfolio of real estate 700,000 square kilometres larger than that of the Mongol empire, totalling nearly 23% of the land area of the planet.

Of course, if we really wanted to carry that logic to its conclusion, we might say that just as China was once ruled by Mongols, but later kicked the Mongols out and attained supremacy in the region, so too was America once ruled by the English, but kicked them out and attained supremacy.

Therefore America could also lay claim to a quarter of the world by proxy.

Oh, wait, that’s kind of what we do.

[Aggv]

Chinese Navy Issues Angry Warning to US Plane in South China Sea - Audio Recording

“Foreign military aircraft, this is Chinese navy. You are approaching our military alert zone. Leave immediately… Your action is unfriendly and dangerous. Please go away quickly.”

[Bismark]

[quote]Aggv wrote:

Chinese Navy Issues Angry Warning to US Plane in South China Sea - Audio Recording

“Foreign military aircraft, this is Chinese navy. You are approaching our military alert zone. Leave immediately… Your action is unfriendly and dangerous. Please go away quickly.”[/quote]

What is the point you’re attempting to make by posting this video? That the PRC has made claims to disputed territories? That it claims territorial seas based on those claims? That it attempts to enforce its claimed territorial airspace? As far as responses to air space violations go, the above is rather measured.

[theuofh]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
under the UN’s Law [/quote]

like that matters to the chinese[/quote]

“the ability to claim a vast economic exclusion zone [sic] where it could control shipping, fishing, energy production, and even air travel over one of the busiest transportation corridors in the world . . . The reality is that under the UN’s Law and Sea Convention [sic] an island, even a small one, gets 12 nautical miles out to sea of territory to call its own and another 200 miles in any direction of mineral and fishing rights”

[/quote]

UN law doesn’t really apply to the US either.

Also, I believe the planned response entailed surveillance platforms respecting the 12 mile boundary, which does tend to lend credibility to Chinese sovereignty of the territory.

Side topic but interesting, but I believe Okinawa was also Chinese territory at some point.
[/quote]

I don’t think it is a reply strengthening implicit credibility to the claim (at least not from our/the responding nations’ perspectives) so much as a desire to not precipitate a conflict of some kind whether legal or political or physical[/quote]

…therefore China wins?
[/quote]

Not sure if serious comment?

I only had 2 hours of sleep though, so my brain isn’t really on, but I can’t parse what you’re saying. Are you making a witticism based on other people’s opinion in this thread or offering a serious opinion that China wins?

To rephrase–or attempt to do so–I don’t think that the planned response of surveillance platforms outside 12 miles lends credibility to the Chinese claim from our perspective. From China’s perhaps, but then in the world of international politics they can use most situations to politically claim anything they want however tenuous real credibility may be.

No, what I see here–in an extremely poor analogy due to not sleeping, but perhaps my general point will get across–…what I see here is somewhat the same as a bouncer trying to talk down a drunk at a bar. Or for that matter anyone trying to talk down an aggressive guy trying to fight you:

The minute you lay hands on the guy as a bouncer, he stops listening and starts struggling. The minute you respond to the aggressive douchebag by trying to physically restrain him, he takes a swipe at you and can then claim to the cops: he started it, he laid hands on me first…when all you were trying to do was keep him from attacking.

On the other hand, if you’re a bouncer and you just bring reinforcements up and talk to the guy you might be able to talk him down: you stay out of what he views as his “personal space” as much as you can while still being close enough to respodnd. Same thing with the douchebag: you don’t give him the excuse to claim–however illegitimately–that he had the moral high ground.

That probably makes zero sense…I’m half asleep right now lol. It made sense in my head.[/quote]

I get your point, but staying with your analogy there is now an intoxicated guy who you know is going to be trouble at some point in the future taking shots at the bar, because the bar tender is unwilling to cut him off and the bouncers are unwilling to kick him out.

I’m trying to pose the question: Who has the upper hand in the South China Sea? If this is going to escalate, who is going to win?

Do you think the US will eventually fold and let the Chinese have it or risk a major confrontation at some point in the future?

[Gkhan]

The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.

[Varqanir]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[theuofh]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?