3 ms·

You know, this is one of those crimes which you object to not merely--or even mostly--because of the damage done. What really gets you is just how petty the cr

by rhelz 2y ago

You know, this is one of those crimes which you object to not merely--or even mostly--because of the damage done. What really gets you is just how petty the crime is. Just how very small someone would have to be to think this was a good idea. The shear lack of imagination. This is like a big dumb bully whose only move is giving wedgies. This is the kind of thing you'd get if you gave a kindergartener too much military power.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Honestly, the Finnish precedent needs to hold. If you’re damaging infrastructure the parties whose crap you’re ruining have the right to board and seize. We’ve gone through decades of hybrid warfare threading the gaps in the rules-based international order. It doesn’t make sense for Taiwan or Finland to follow those rules when neither of the world’s superpowers—America or China—nor even many of its regional powers—Israel, Russia or Iran—are.
- Jimmc414 2y ago
  A scenario where Taiwan intercepts or takes control of a Chinese ship could potentially serve China's strategic interests well, as it may provide them with a justification for military action.
  - datameta 2y ago
    Destroying international infrastructure like undersea cable should carry the weight of attacking a nation's actual infrastructure. I agree though, that this is a clear provocation by China to drum up justification for broader retaliation. Typical Russian false-flag playbook.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    Historical track record shows that such justifications can be easily manufactured when needed, and are ignored when they are not needed, meaning that this approach serves no purpose other than tying one's own hands.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    Basically, if this is anything like the cutting of cables from TW to Matsu off mainland coast last year, then it's a play to dare TW challenge PRC maritime jurisdiction in "Chinese", i.e. not international waters. A game that TW has and will continue to lose, see TW coast guard killing Chinese fisherman during aggressive pursuit last year. Result is PRC essentially asserted coast guard control and kicked TW coastguard out of Kinmen. Until TW is considered a seperate country at UN with it's own maritime rights, technically, PRC can "legally" do whatever they want to TW undersea cable infra in "Chinese" waters (read: includes all of TW coast to eezs), without even being in conflict with UNCLOS subsea infra rules, i.e. TW doesn't even have avenue to sue PRC for indemnities, which the UNCLOS rules cover.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Until TW is considered a seperate country at UN with it's own maritime rights China is currently ignoring UNCLOS rulings relating to its territorial claims vis-à-vis the Philippines. Beijing isn’t bound by international law. Taiwan will not be resolved through the crumbling rules-based international order.
      - maxglute 2y ago
        PH is ample US/PH propaganda that PRC is not in compliance with UNCLOS when PRC is in compliance, just pushing the extremes of lawfare technicality - the best type of legal technicality. PH vs PCR ruling is not valid international law (as in at UN/CLOS). It's propaganda written on nice rented PCA stationary - a bunch of US/PH aligned experts ad hoc legal interpretation against PRC that is NOT formally accepted by UN, hence not accepted by UNCLOS/ICJ/ITLOS, much less because PRC not subject to optional arbituation clause no matter how much US propaganda screams she is. Don't get me wrong, it's very sensible legal position, but it's not formally accepted, and has the legal weight of me writing, the opposite position on toilet paper. Until there is formal UNCLOS/ITLOS ruling against PRC (like they did against UK hence US/Diego Garcia for Chagos), PRC is legally compliant with UNCLOS. AKA PH vs PRC is the US led "rule-based-order" interpretation of UNCLOS (which we all know US hasn't ratified) which of course PRC is not obliged to follow, not actual UN "international law" that PRC has at least in propaganda accept as valid arbiter (if only because currently, UN reality has a PRC bias). In case of TW where PRC can, under international law, resolve TW kinetically by resuming legally ongoing civil war. Ultimately, of course, Beijing is not bound by (and should be not bound by) by non-UN rule-based / LIOrder, and even if she were, her behaviour would be acceptable considering US response to Chagos ruling, which let's be honest, one set of rules of you/me is the reasons why the rules-based order is breaking. But circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification", hence the dynamic between TW/PRC is a pure power game. It just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios.

by rhelz 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Honestly, the Finnish precedent needs to hold. If you’re damaging infrastructure the parties whose crap you’re ruining have the right to board and seize. We’ve gone through decades of hybrid warfare threading the gaps in the rules-based international order. It doesn’t make sense for Taiwan or Finland to follow those rules when neither of the world’s superpowers—America or China—nor even many of its regional powers—Israel, Russia or Iran—are.

Jimmc414 2y ago
A scenario where Taiwan intercepts or takes control of a Chinese ship could potentially serve China's strategic interests well, as it may provide them with a justification for military action.
- datameta 2y ago
  Destroying international infrastructure like undersea cable should carry the weight of attacking a nation's actual infrastructure. I agree though, that this is a clear provocation by China to drum up justification for broader retaliation. Typical Russian false-flag playbook.
- mopsi 2y ago
  Historical track record shows that such justifications can be easily manufactured when needed, and are ignored when they are not needed, meaning that this approach serves no purpose other than tying one's own hands.
- maxglute 2y ago
  Basically, if this is anything like the cutting of cables from TW to Matsu off mainland coast last year, then it's a play to dare TW challenge PRC maritime jurisdiction in "Chinese", i.e. not international waters. A game that TW has and will continue to lose, see TW coast guard killing Chinese fisherman during aggressive pursuit last year. Result is PRC essentially asserted coast guard control and kicked TW coastguard out of Kinmen. Until TW is considered a seperate country at UN with it's own maritime rights, technically, PRC can "legally" do whatever they want to TW undersea cable infra in "Chinese" waters (read: includes all of TW coast to eezs), without even being in conflict with UNCLOS subsea infra rules, i.e. TW doesn't even have avenue to sue PRC for indemnities, which the UNCLOS rules cover.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Until TW is considered a seperate country at UN with it's own maritime rights China is currently ignoring UNCLOS rulings relating to its territorial claims vis-à-vis the Philippines. Beijing isn’t bound by international law. Taiwan will not be resolved through the crumbling rules-based international order.
    - maxglute 2y ago
      PH is ample US/PH propaganda that PRC is not in compliance with UNCLOS when PRC is in compliance, just pushing the extremes of lawfare technicality - the best type of legal technicality. PH vs PCR ruling is not valid international law (as in at UN/CLOS). It's propaganda written on nice rented PCA stationary - a bunch of US/PH aligned experts ad hoc legal interpretation against PRC that is NOT formally accepted by UN, hence not accepted by UNCLOS/ICJ/ITLOS, much less because PRC not subject to optional arbituation clause no matter how much US propaganda screams she is. Don't get me wrong, it's very sensible legal position, but it's not formally accepted, and has the legal weight of me writing, the opposite position on toilet paper. Until there is formal UNCLOS/ITLOS ruling against PRC (like they did against UK hence US/Diego Garcia for Chagos), PRC is legally compliant with UNCLOS. AKA PH vs PRC is the US led "rule-based-order" interpretation of UNCLOS (which we all know US hasn't ratified) which of course PRC is not obliged to follow, not actual UN "international law" that PRC has at least in propaganda accept as valid arbiter (if only because currently, UN reality has a PRC bias). In case of TW where PRC can, under international law, resolve TW kinetically by resuming legally ongoing civil war. Ultimately, of course, Beijing is not bound by (and should be not bound by) by non-UN rule-based / LIOrder, and even if she were, her behaviour would be acceptable considering US response to Chagos ruling, which let's be honest, one set of rules of you/me is the reasons why the rules-based order is breaking. But circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification", hence the dynamic between TW/PRC is a pure power game. It just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios.