06-23-2016, 09:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-24-2016, 08:41 AM by John J. Xenakis.)
*** 24-Jun-16 World View -- South China Sea: China's list of supporters is found to be delusional
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** China claims that 60 countries support its South China Sea policy
****
![[Image: g160623b.jpg]](http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g160623b.jpg)
China's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hua Chunying
Any day now, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a United Nations
international court in the Hague is supposed to issue a ruling on a
case brought by the Philippines against China on the merits of China's
claims to the entire South China Sea. The case is brought under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which China
claims doesn't apply to them.
China always says that its claims "are indisputable," and this is
clearly a lie, since the claims are widely disputed. In fact, China's
claims are at least delusional, and may even be fabricated, as we
reported a few days ago. ( "22-Jun-16 World View -- China's 'ironclad proof' of South China Sea claims revealed as hoax"
)
Not only is China delusional about some of their evidence, it now
appears that they're also delusional about the kind of support they're
getting from the international community.
Even though the Court's ruling would be little more than symbolic, and
even though there would be no way to enforce the Court's ruling
against China, and even though China has already said that it will
ignore any ruling, and even though China has bitterly complained about
and even threatened the Philippines for even going to the Court in the
first place, it's clear that Chinese officials are close to a state of
panic over a possible ruling against them.
Out of anxiety, China is resorting to a full-court press in the
propaganda realm, and are doing everything they can to convince other
countries to endorse their position. In particular, China is
targeting many distant countries and land-locked countries, with no
direct interest in the South China Sea.
Last week, at China's regular Foreign Ministry press conference, the
following bizarre exchange took place:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Q: We notice that the governments of Sierra Leone and
Kenya have recently joined in the chorus supporting China's South
China Sea position. Nearly 60 countries have publicly endorsed
China's stance, and more and more countries have shown their
support to China. Is the Chinese government behind this? Is the
Chinese government trying to extend its "circle of friends" on the
South China Sea issue?
A: The South China Sea issue is supposed to be an issue between
China and a few littoral countries of the South China Sea.
... [Further comments evading the question]
Q: First question, how many countries have publicly endorsed
China's position on the South China Sea issue up to now? The
previous press conference mentioned 40, but just now a journalist
said nearly 60. ...
A: On your first question, a journalist just mentioned that nearly
60 countries support China. Compared with seven or eight countries
that hold the opposite position, I think the figure itself speaks
volumes."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
According to the first questioner, unnamed but presumably from Chinese
media, said that Sierra Leone and Kenya, as if it matters whether two
African country are for or against China.
In the second answer, the Foreign Ministry spokesman makes official
China's belief that it's supported by 60 countries, with only seven or
eight opposed. As we'll see below, these claims are delusional.
Why are these numbers even relevant? There is some suggestion that
China is trying to line up countries on its side, so that if the Court
rules against China, then China can go to the United Nations General
Assembly and try to get a vote rejecting the Court's decision. If
successful, China could then claim that the United Nations itself has
rejected the decision of a United Nations court.
Anything is possible, but I would be surprised if anything like a
majority of the United Nations members voted to reject the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS is a part
of international law that has been used to settle many disputes and
keep the peace since the end of World War II, and if UNCLOS is
rejected in this case, then it will open up many disputes that were
previously thought to be settled. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and China's Foreign Ministry (14-Jun)
****
**** China cites UNCLOS in disagreement with Japan
****
China claims to completely reject the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and has said that this international law may
not apply to China's claims in the South China Sea.
And yet, in a completely different dispute, China's Foreign Ministry
cited UNCLOS in support of its view on the status of Okinotori Islands
in relation to a disagreement between Taiwan and Japan. The details
of the dispute are not important to us, but here's the beginning of
the quote from the Foreign Ministry spokesman:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Q: On May 23, the Taiwan authority said that "it does
not take a particular stance in legal terms" on whether Okinotori
is an island or a reef. It is commented that the new Taiwan
administration has gone backwards on the issue of Okinotori,
undermining the rights and interests of Taiwan fishermen. How do
you comment?
A: Okinotori is an isolated reef in the west Pacific distant from
the Japanese soil. Pursuant to the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), Okinotori cannot have the exclusive economic zone
and the continental shelf. Waters off 12 nautical miles of it are
high seas, where all countries are entitled to freedoms on the
high seas such as fishing and so forth. On April 2012, the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) adopted
the recommendations in regard to the submission made by Japan on
the outer limits of its continental shelf, rebuffing Japan's
illegal claims based on Okinotori."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
It's striking that China is appealing to UNCLOS when it's convenient,
just a few weeks before a Court decision that it has already rejected,
along with UNCLOS. If, as suggested above, China goes ahead with a
plan to try to get the UN General Assembly to strike down UNCLOS, you
can be certain that the debate will mention China's position on
Okinotori.
This just adds to a growing picture that Chinese officials are
delusional regarding their claims to the South China Sea. China's Foreign Ministry (24-May) and The Diplomat
****
**** South China Sea: Which countries are on China's side?
****
China is claiming that 60 countries are on China's side, with only
seven or eight opposed. However, an analysis by the Asia Maritime
Transparency Initiative (AMTI) of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies has done the actual research on this issue.
AMTI has searched publicly available, official statements in an effort
to determine the real positions taken by countries.
What does it mean to be "on China's side"? What AMTI was looking for
was not whether countries take one side or the other on China's claims
in the South China Sea, but whether countries take one side or the
other on whether the Court's ruling will be binding.
AMTI has identified 57 countries that China appears to be its
supporters. Of those, 8 have publicly confirmed their support, 4 have
denied Beijing’s claim of support, and 45 have remained publicly
silent or have issued statements that are considerably vaguer than
indicated by China. In contrast, 11 countries plus the European Union
have said that the arbitral award will be legally binding and have
called on both China and the Philippines to respect it.
The AMTI has divided these countries into four groups:
So China's Foreign Ministry has it backwards: Lots of nations provide
no support for China, while only seven are supporting China.
Two of these nations, Afghanistan and Lesotho, are landlocked. Four
of them, The Gambia, Kenya, Niger and Sudan, are far away in Africa.
Vanuatu is a South Pacific island, once again far from the South China
Sea. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) and The Diplomat
****
**** Cognitive dissonance and doubling down in China
****
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, cognitive dissonance
explains many of history's greatest disasters.
The term "cognitive dissonance" refers to the mental problems that
occur when deeply held beliefs are contradicted by real life events.
The literature contains numerous examples of what happens. Some of
the most dramatic examples are those who believe that God end the
world on a specific day, and only true believers will be saved. In
many cases, people quit their jobs, sell all their belongings and
settle all their affairs, and then wait for the named day.
When the world doesn't end, they have to deal with the consequences of
their actions. According to psychologist Leon Festinger's 1957 book
"A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," there are two kinds of behaviors
that are common. Some admit they were wrong and devote themselves to
returning to their previous lives.
Others "double down." They say that they were right all along, but
that God decided to give the world one more chance. They then devote
their entire lives to proselytizing. It's possible that several
religions began this way.
China's cognitive dissonance is an extremely dangerous situation.
China's population apparently widely believes that China's South China
Sea claims are "indisputable." This is already clearly wrong, and
will be publicly proven wrong if, as expected, the Court rules against
China. As we described a few days ago,
China has put forward "ironclad proof" in the form of evidence
that's at best delusional and at worst fabricated. And China's
rejection of UNCLOS is, in my opinion, not going to be widely
supported, especially after China itself has cited UNCLOS when
convenient.
A commenter to my last article
wrote the following:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Since Sun Tzu introduced his Art of War in the 5th
century BC, making false claims, as a form of deceiving an
opponent to gain advantage, has been prevalent in China since his
time. In particular, to eliminate the influence of Indian Buddhism
in China in the Three Kingdom Period (220-280), Chinese historian
Yu Huan stated in his work ‘Weilue’ (lit: ‘A Brief History of
Wei’): ‘The Buddhist Sutra are on the whole similar to the Canon
of Lao-tzu in content. That is because when Lao-tzu left the
passes in the west, he traversed the Western Regions and reached
India, where he converted the barbarians into Buddhists’ (see
Kenneth Ch’en’s ‘Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey’ published
by Princeton University Press (1964, page 51). In this context,
China’s "Ironclad Proof" is no exception. However, it is a clear
indication that Beijing has been so desperate to use whatever it
could imagine to support for its nine-dash line
claim."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
This commenter confirms what we've already known: China is doing
everything to prepare for war, and probably already considers itself
to be at war.
There is no chance at all that Chinese officials will admit that
they've been wrong, or that its population will change its opinions.
China is already heavily militarizing the South China Sea, and is
already attacking Vietnam's and Philippines' ships with its military.
China will react to its cognitive dissonance by doubling down. At
best, this will mean a great deal vitriolic anger on the part of
Chinese officials. Eventually, it will mean an irreversible military
action that will spiral into full-scale war. Wired (Aug 2010)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, South China Sea,
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Philippines,
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS,
Japan, Taiwan, Okinotori Islands,
Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, AMTI,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS,
cognitive dissonance, Leon Festinger, Sun Tzu, Art of War
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- China claims that 60 countries support its South China Sea policy
- China cites UNCLOS in disagreement with Japan
- South China Sea: Which countries are on China's side?
- Cognitive dissonance and doubling down in China
****
**** China claims that 60 countries support its South China Sea policy
****
China's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hua Chunying
Any day now, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a United Nations
international court in the Hague is supposed to issue a ruling on a
case brought by the Philippines against China on the merits of China's
claims to the entire South China Sea. The case is brought under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which China
claims doesn't apply to them.
China always says that its claims "are indisputable," and this is
clearly a lie, since the claims are widely disputed. In fact, China's
claims are at least delusional, and may even be fabricated, as we
reported a few days ago. ( "22-Jun-16 World View -- China's 'ironclad proof' of South China Sea claims revealed as hoax"
)
Not only is China delusional about some of their evidence, it now
appears that they're also delusional about the kind of support they're
getting from the international community.
Even though the Court's ruling would be little more than symbolic, and
even though there would be no way to enforce the Court's ruling
against China, and even though China has already said that it will
ignore any ruling, and even though China has bitterly complained about
and even threatened the Philippines for even going to the Court in the
first place, it's clear that Chinese officials are close to a state of
panic over a possible ruling against them.
Out of anxiety, China is resorting to a full-court press in the
propaganda realm, and are doing everything they can to convince other
countries to endorse their position. In particular, China is
targeting many distant countries and land-locked countries, with no
direct interest in the South China Sea.
Last week, at China's regular Foreign Ministry press conference, the
following bizarre exchange took place:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Q: We notice that the governments of Sierra Leone and
Kenya have recently joined in the chorus supporting China's South
China Sea position. Nearly 60 countries have publicly endorsed
China's stance, and more and more countries have shown their
support to China. Is the Chinese government behind this? Is the
Chinese government trying to extend its "circle of friends" on the
South China Sea issue?
A: The South China Sea issue is supposed to be an issue between
China and a few littoral countries of the South China Sea.
... [Further comments evading the question]
Q: First question, how many countries have publicly endorsed
China's position on the South China Sea issue up to now? The
previous press conference mentioned 40, but just now a journalist
said nearly 60. ...
A: On your first question, a journalist just mentioned that nearly
60 countries support China. Compared with seven or eight countries
that hold the opposite position, I think the figure itself speaks
volumes."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
According to the first questioner, unnamed but presumably from Chinese
media, said that Sierra Leone and Kenya, as if it matters whether two
African country are for or against China.
In the second answer, the Foreign Ministry spokesman makes official
China's belief that it's supported by 60 countries, with only seven or
eight opposed. As we'll see below, these claims are delusional.
Why are these numbers even relevant? There is some suggestion that
China is trying to line up countries on its side, so that if the Court
rules against China, then China can go to the United Nations General
Assembly and try to get a vote rejecting the Court's decision. If
successful, China could then claim that the United Nations itself has
rejected the decision of a United Nations court.
Anything is possible, but I would be surprised if anything like a
majority of the United Nations members voted to reject the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS is a part
of international law that has been used to settle many disputes and
keep the peace since the end of World War II, and if UNCLOS is
rejected in this case, then it will open up many disputes that were
previously thought to be settled. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and China's Foreign Ministry (14-Jun)
****
**** China cites UNCLOS in disagreement with Japan
****
China claims to completely reject the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and has said that this international law may
not apply to China's claims in the South China Sea.
And yet, in a completely different dispute, China's Foreign Ministry
cited UNCLOS in support of its view on the status of Okinotori Islands
in relation to a disagreement between Taiwan and Japan. The details
of the dispute are not important to us, but here's the beginning of
the quote from the Foreign Ministry spokesman:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Q: On May 23, the Taiwan authority said that "it does
not take a particular stance in legal terms" on whether Okinotori
is an island or a reef. It is commented that the new Taiwan
administration has gone backwards on the issue of Okinotori,
undermining the rights and interests of Taiwan fishermen. How do
you comment?
A: Okinotori is an isolated reef in the west Pacific distant from
the Japanese soil. Pursuant to the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), Okinotori cannot have the exclusive economic zone
and the continental shelf. Waters off 12 nautical miles of it are
high seas, where all countries are entitled to freedoms on the
high seas such as fishing and so forth. On April 2012, the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) adopted
the recommendations in regard to the submission made by Japan on
the outer limits of its continental shelf, rebuffing Japan's
illegal claims based on Okinotori."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
It's striking that China is appealing to UNCLOS when it's convenient,
just a few weeks before a Court decision that it has already rejected,
along with UNCLOS. If, as suggested above, China goes ahead with a
plan to try to get the UN General Assembly to strike down UNCLOS, you
can be certain that the debate will mention China's position on
Okinotori.
This just adds to a growing picture that Chinese officials are
delusional regarding their claims to the South China Sea. China's Foreign Ministry (24-May) and The Diplomat
****
**** South China Sea: Which countries are on China's side?
****
China is claiming that 60 countries are on China's side, with only
seven or eight opposed. However, an analysis by the Asia Maritime
Transparency Initiative (AMTI) of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies has done the actual research on this issue.
AMTI has searched publicly available, official statements in an effort
to determine the real positions taken by countries.
What does it mean to be "on China's side"? What AMTI was looking for
was not whether countries take one side or the other on China's claims
in the South China Sea, but whether countries take one side or the
other on whether the Court's ruling will be binding.
AMTI has identified 57 countries that China appears to be its
supporters. Of those, 8 have publicly confirmed their support, 4 have
denied Beijing’s claim of support, and 45 have remained publicly
silent or have issued statements that are considerably vaguer than
indicated by China. In contrast, 11 countries plus the European Union
have said that the arbitral award will be legally binding and have
called on both China and the Philippines to respect it.
The AMTI has divided these countries into four groups:
- Publicly supporting China’s position that arbitral
tribunal is illegitimate:
Afghanistan, The Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Niger, Sudan, Togo,
Vanuatu
- Has not publicly confirmed China’s claim of support (Countries
marked with an asterisk are members of the Arab League, for which
no statement of support is publicly available, but from which
China claims support):
Algeria*, Bahrain*, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina,
Brunei, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros*, Djibouti*, Egypt*, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Iraq*, Jordan*, Kuwait*, Kyrgyzstan, Laos,
Lebanon*, Libya*, Malawi, Mauritania*, Morocco*, Mozambique,
Pakistan, Palestine*, Qatar*, Russia, Saudi Arabia*, Serbia,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, Somalia*, Sri Lanka, Syria*, Tanzania,
Tunisia*, Uganda, United Arab Emirates*, Venezuela, Yemen*,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
- Publicly denied china’s claim of support:
Cambodia, Fiji, Poland, Slovenia
- Publicly supporting outcome of arbitral proceeding as binding
(Countries marked with an asterisk are members of the European
Union who have not issued independent statements supporting the
arbitration, but whose support is based upon EU statements
presented as the position of all members):
Albania, Australia, Austria*, Belgium, Bosnia&Herzegovina,
Botswana, Bulgaria*, Canada, Croatia*, Cyprus, Czech Republic*,
Denmark*, Estonia*, Finland, France, Germany, Greece*, Hungary*,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia*, Liechtenstein, Lithuania*,
Luxembourg, Malta, Oman*, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands*, New
Zealand, Poland*, Portugal*, Romania*, Slovakia*, Slovenia*,
Spain*, Sweden*, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam
So China's Foreign Ministry has it backwards: Lots of nations provide
no support for China, while only seven are supporting China.
Two of these nations, Afghanistan and Lesotho, are landlocked. Four
of them, The Gambia, Kenya, Niger and Sudan, are far away in Africa.
Vanuatu is a South Pacific island, once again far from the South China
Sea. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) and The Diplomat
****
**** Cognitive dissonance and doubling down in China
****
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, cognitive dissonance
explains many of history's greatest disasters.
The term "cognitive dissonance" refers to the mental problems that
occur when deeply held beliefs are contradicted by real life events.
The literature contains numerous examples of what happens. Some of
the most dramatic examples are those who believe that God end the
world on a specific day, and only true believers will be saved. In
many cases, people quit their jobs, sell all their belongings and
settle all their affairs, and then wait for the named day.
When the world doesn't end, they have to deal with the consequences of
their actions. According to psychologist Leon Festinger's 1957 book
"A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," there are two kinds of behaviors
that are common. Some admit they were wrong and devote themselves to
returning to their previous lives.
Others "double down." They say that they were right all along, but
that God decided to give the world one more chance. They then devote
their entire lives to proselytizing. It's possible that several
religions began this way.
China's cognitive dissonance is an extremely dangerous situation.
China's population apparently widely believes that China's South China
Sea claims are "indisputable." This is already clearly wrong, and
will be publicly proven wrong if, as expected, the Court rules against
China. As we described a few days ago,
China has put forward "ironclad proof" in the form of evidence
that's at best delusional and at worst fabricated. And China's
rejection of UNCLOS is, in my opinion, not going to be widely
supported, especially after China itself has cited UNCLOS when
convenient.
A commenter to my last article
wrote the following:
[indent]<QUOTE>"Since Sun Tzu introduced his Art of War in the 5th
century BC, making false claims, as a form of deceiving an
opponent to gain advantage, has been prevalent in China since his
time. In particular, to eliminate the influence of Indian Buddhism
in China in the Three Kingdom Period (220-280), Chinese historian
Yu Huan stated in his work ‘Weilue’ (lit: ‘A Brief History of
Wei’): ‘The Buddhist Sutra are on the whole similar to the Canon
of Lao-tzu in content. That is because when Lao-tzu left the
passes in the west, he traversed the Western Regions and reached
India, where he converted the barbarians into Buddhists’ (see
Kenneth Ch’en’s ‘Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey’ published
by Princeton University Press (1964, page 51). In this context,
China’s "Ironclad Proof" is no exception. However, it is a clear
indication that Beijing has been so desperate to use whatever it
could imagine to support for its nine-dash line
claim."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
This commenter confirms what we've already known: China is doing
everything to prepare for war, and probably already considers itself
to be at war.
There is no chance at all that Chinese officials will admit that
they've been wrong, or that its population will change its opinions.
China is already heavily militarizing the South China Sea, and is
already attacking Vietnam's and Philippines' ships with its military.
China will react to its cognitive dissonance by doubling down. At
best, this will mean a great deal vitriolic anger on the part of
Chinese officials. Eventually, it will mean an irreversible military
action that will spiral into full-scale war. Wired (Aug 2010)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, South China Sea,
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Philippines,
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS,
Japan, Taiwan, Okinotori Islands,
Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, AMTI,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS,
cognitive dissonance, Leon Festinger, Sun Tzu, Art of War
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
