Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

 

To go into a list of US bad deeds vs China bad deeds would be pedantic but you will find that the US keep getting away with murder, compared to China. Over and over again.

 

Right. Have to break some eggs to make that omelet of progress.

 

But you misread me.

 

I never said China is a saint nor its hands are clean. I am saying that US always come out smelling of roses, no matter what bad deeds they commit, whereas China - because of its inability to understand PR - never gets away with anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

China announced 130 billion for 2014. 2013 it was 119 billion. The official Chinese released budget for 2000 was still over 100 billion? How about two decades ago.. 1994, around 90 billion?

 

Anyway, even by just maintaining the same ratio with the GDP growth, the military budget will grow fast.

 

A country is like a family, according to the Asian view of states.

 

As a family grows more prosperous, they have more that needs protecting, and more money to do it. Simple as that.

 

If you used to live in a trailer park, maybe you had say a shotgun.

If you ever move into a large house, you're gonna have bullet-proofed vehicles, computerized security systems, and a panic room, plus a small collection of firearms. (Well, at least in America, you would.)

 

 

Yep :P

 

I think my name is being interpreted as Mr. anti-China.

 

I responding to below:

 

.

 

I think that going back to Mao's days shows how weak the propaganda is.

 

( I DO think that China has disgraceful policies and attitudes to minorities, HOWEVER, it is improving and as its infrastructure improves and the wealth of state capitalism spreads things will improve. Just this year the minimum wage has almost doubled and pension rights vastly improved [much to the disgust of Western consumers as export costs rise]).

 

However, their military spending has not vastly risen over the last couple of decades.

 

The Chinese state historically (over millenia, not just decades) has been overly concerned with public order - this is tied up with basic Chinese society and such things as Confucianism. That does not excuse poor/barbaric behaviours, but the West should understand Chinese attitudes, not impose Western attitudes.

 

What is hilarious, however, is the continued US scare mongering regarding Chinese "expansionism" - something that has been going on for two decades-plus, despite NO evidence.

 

.

 

That is simply not true. Statistically speaking, and ignoreing any implications of saying this, as the GDP skyrocketed, so too did military budget

 

Now is it entirely ok for China to be increasing is military budget for the latest high tech stuff? General yes, entirely ok. I'm cool with it 3 or 4 large aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, latest tanks, nuclear arsenal...sure go for it.

 

But...

 

SCS claim, Senkaku claim, secretive government, steals lots of intellectual property, cracks down on democracy, limits free speech, causes suspicion in exactly how peaceful China's raise will be and thus precautionary measures have to be taken.

 

If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim, or at the very least, cut it in half to just the northern half so that it at least geographically speaking, doesn't look so outrageous, and cut back a little from the eastern side so that the Philippines is cool. And then drop the Senkaku claim. If China lacks the flexibility to make those changes, then they are the cause of the critical western eye.

 

The anti-democracy, human rights violations, limited speech points can be countered with the need to control the population and as more money flows in and spreads out, the government will be able to relax a little more control accordingly. Ok, that's fine.

 

Raising military budget can be countered with natural desire improve the military like anything else within the country as the GDP grows. Ok, that's fine.

 

Senkaku and SCS claim? I haven't heard of a good reason in how these are perfectly fine and dandy. So when the improved military becomes a factor, then these intentions gain capability. That raises tensions. Literally screwed the whole region with a security issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dikötter's also had a look at what happened between the Communist takeover & the Great Leap Forward. Not as lethal, but millions killed. Successful peasant farmer? Get beaten to death, or dismembered, or buried alive in front of the whole village for being a capitalist. The killers were often rewarded with the possessions of the victims, & before collectivisation, his land. Oh yes, & sometimes they murdered the whole family, children & all. And so on.

 

And then there was the Cultural Revolution.

 

Do you really want to talk about human rights and of whole families being murdered, robbed etc? How about this very moment, when the entire families are murdered either by US-sponsored puppets or USAF bombings in support in its occupations of various territories? Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib etc?

 

C'mon, let's not go there since I did NOT ever say China hands are clean vs the US.

 

If you really want to go point-by-point of who did what to whom and when, let's talk about recent history that you and I can relate to directly. My question is simply:

 

"Which country has caused more deaths and human sufferings in the last 30 years? China or USA?"

 

If your answer is China, damn, man, you must really really be hardcore.

 

With due respects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US developed a dependency on assets all over the world. So as something happens outside, the US faces a decision whether to use military force or not. China is mostly internal. But as the dependency grows more on foreign areas, China too will face decisions on whether or not to use military force. I wouldn't be surprised if China finds itself deploying its military in Africa within the next 10-20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jason J:

 

"If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim"

 

 

China's SCS claim is regrettable for me personally.

 

But let me ask you your frank opinion:

 

Which would you say is more pressing problem: US continued interference in the Middle East which directly and indirectly causes the deaths and sufferings of innocent civilians daily? Or China's claim of SCS which has so far caused... let's see: ZERO civilian death? In fact the ones who died recently are presumably Chinese citizens killed by irate Viet mobs.

 

Both US and China are doing these things in the pursuit of energy. Make no mistake.

 

To me, it is very ironic that the one you - and the rest of the world - chose to spend effort condemning is the one that has so far involved no civilians, death or otherwise.

Edited by chino
Link to post
Share on other sites

The US developed a dependency on assets all over the world. So as something happens outside, the US faces a decision whether to use military force or not. China is mostly internal. But as the dependency grows more on foreign areas, China too will face decisions on whether or not to use military force. I wouldn't be surprised if China finds itself deploying its military in Africa within the next 10-20 years.

 

You are right they might if say Sudan or any other of China oil supply is threatened with US-sponsored invasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

.................... If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim, or at the very least, cut it in half to just the northern half so that it at least geographically speaking, doesn't look so outrageous, and cut back a little from the eastern side so that the Philippines is cool. And then drop the Senkaku claim. If China lacks the flexibility to make those changes, then they are the cause of the critical western eye. ..............

 

.

 

But it is o.k. for the USA to claim the western hemi-sphere ("Monroe Doctrine") and interfere for its own purposes anywhere else i the World that it wants ?

 

I dislike hypocriscy.

 

( I am still awaiting for the list of huge numbers of aircraft, AFVs and ships added to the Chinese armed forces over the last two decades that the US has been warning of the huge Chinese threat. )

 

( I also dislike the constant "crying of wolf" merely as a way of trying to increase defence spending. )

 

.

Edited by firefly1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you willing swallow the Pentagon's idiocies about China then you deserve to pay all the tax that they want.

 

.

 

The posting included what the Chinese admit as well as the Pentagon. If you want to swallow Beijing's coy gyrations, you deserve the consequences. Either way you cut it, Beijing is increasing it's budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

China's SCS claim is regrettable for me personally.

 

But let me ask you your frank opinion:

 

Which would you say is more pressing problem: US continued interference in the Middle East which directly and indirectly causes the deaths and sufferings of innocent civilians daily? Or China's claim of SCS which has so far caused... let's see: ZERO civilian death? In fact the ones who died recently are presumably Chinese citizens killed by irate Viet mobs.

 

Both US and China are doing these things in the pursuit of energy. Make no mistake.

 

To me, it is very ironic that the one you - and the rest of the world - chose to spend effort condemning is the one that has so far involved no civilians, death or otherwise.

 

 

It is not really a fair question. Again, the US has developed a dependency on assets all over the world which leaves them with decisions to make about using military force or not. And from general reading on Tank-Net, I would say a lot of members feel the US generally screwed up with its foreign policy. So it is not a case where the US is always peppered with roses. The reason why US assets ended up all over the world is for two things, business enterprise and the cold war with the Soviet Union. China has been for the most part internal. It has few assets all over so it doesn't face decision on whether or not use military force, yet.

 

Its too simple to say whether or not the US should stop its "interference" in the Middle East. For example, help fighting the Islamic State would be good policy IMO. The Iraq invasion of 2003 was a mistake IMO. At the time of its start, I didn't know enough to be for or against it but I felt something odd about it. Generally speaking I would prefer less US involvement. CIA in Iran or the US supporting Saddam against Iran and then quickly turning on Saddam. Purely on temporary interest and no principles. 1991 Iraq war I would agree with.

 

But that's besides the point. When I am talking in regards to the Asia Pacific, the SCS and Senkaku claims are causing the raise in tensions. Supposing the US causes more trouble in the ME than the SCS claim does in the Asia Pacific doesn't change the fact that the SCS is causing the raise in tensions in the Pacific. Its setting the region up for possible bad things. For why I put fourth my so much of my energy into SCS is that my thing is Asia. More specifically East Asia. It is an important region, economically, culturally, historically, and for me personally, far more interesting. It is my focus. And I think about how East Asia can pull out ahead of all the tensions and really became an outstanding region. I have said it before. That is me personally. That is where my interest lies. I leave it to others to focus on the Middle East.

 

The Middle East is such a mess. Even with zero US influence, the place would still be a mess. Religion plays too big a role over there for people and that is what makes them go nuts. Religion gets radicalized and either pushes itself into power or religion is hijacked and dragged into power as a tool. As a non-religious person, the place just turns me off. It only interest me because of its importance. If I was offered a free trip to vist some of the places there, I would take it. But I still rather pay money to have the chance to visit Asia places. So far, outside of Japan, I have been to Seoul, South Korea (about 6-7 days), Singapore (3 days), and a short stop a Shanghai. The flight layover was something like 22 hours long. So I stayed at the hotel at the airport. Americans need a visa to enter the country but to be able to get to the airport hotel, I needed a pass. And they gave me a 24 entry pass. So after airport and hotel sleeping time, I had about 6 free hours to spare. So I took the train into the city. With so little time, I just looked at the map for any distinguishable feature. There was the Oriental Pearl Tower icon so that is where I went. As short as it was, I enjoyed my little visit and thought it was a crime that I couldn't explore the city anymore after getting a small taste of it.

 

East Asian countries (except the Norks) are much more rational and can really do well if they can get over a few more hurdles I think. So I want to see the last remaining hurdles overcome. The SCS and Senkaku claims are steps backwards. I spend a lot of my energy learning about Japan's recognition of its atrocities as well. And I have a long list of things I want to read and learn still about Japan, South Korea, and China. But time is limited. I have to work and maintain my relationship, and do the god damn laundry :lol: So to label me as purely focusing on China's seemingly bad aspects is unfair and incorrect. I am not intellectually gifted with limited time and I except the risk that I might not be able to do as much as I want in regards to East Asia in my lifetime, but I figure it is worth the attempt. There is no way I can fit in the ME in depth. However I do recognize its importance and devote some time into it, enough to keep me up to speed on it.

 

 

The US developed a dependency on assets all over the world. So as something happens outside, the US faces a decision whether to use military force or not. China is mostly internal. But as the dependency grows more on foreign areas, China too will face decisions on whether or not to use military force. I wouldn't be surprised if China finds itself deploying its military in Africa within the next 10-20 years.

 

You are right they might if say Sudan or any other of China oil supply is threatened with US-sponsored invasion.

 

 

I was thinking something more like, if going with Sudan, the Sudanese getting fed up with a Chinese presence and start violently protesting or committing terrorist attacks which provoke a Chinese military dispatch in the name of peace and security so that China can continue extracting resources. Xinjiang and Tibet sort of serve as a prelude to it. I am only saying I wouldn't be surprised, not saying it will happen. US provocation not needed. CIA might jump in to make things worse for China in Sudan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

.................... If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim, or at the very least, cut it in half to just the northern half so that it at least geographically speaking, doesn't look so outrageous, and cut back a little from the eastern side so that the Philippines is cool. And then drop the Senkaku claim. If China lacks the flexibility to make those changes, then they are the cause of the critical western eye. ..............

 

.

 

But it is o.k. for the USA to claim the western hemi-sphere ("Monroe Doctrine") and interfere for its own purposes anywhere else i the World that it wants ?

 

 

Monroe Doctrine style policy was a legacy from European colonization and the Cold War. In more recent times, I hear of things once in a while in Central America with CIA activity. Don't know how much the US is interfering with Latin America. Venezuela probably could use some interference. Post cold-war, American policy under Clinton was not so good. Prevention of genocide in Balkans was probably a good thing though. I never said going anywhere in the world for its interest was ok. 2003 Iraq invasion IMO was a mistake. Afghanistan was a must IMO.

 

I dislike hypocriscy.

 

 

Me too.

 

 

( I am still awaiting for the list of huge numbers of aircraft, AFVs and ships added to the Chinese armed forces over the last two decades that the US has been warning of the huge Chinese threat. )

 

( I also dislike the constant "crying of wolf" merely as a way of trying to increase defence spending. )

 

 

China is currently building two aircraft carriers. How big? How many aircraft per carrier? Its not disclosed. Type 95 nuclear power subs. Exactly how many? what capabilities? It's not disclosed. AFV's? Wiki says 700 Type 99 tanks. Type 99A2 is supposedly quite a nice tank. J-20, J-31? Tech demonstrators? True capabilities? Production plans? Its not disclosed. How am I supposed to give you a list? But that again is besides what I have been saying. Just the military build is perfectly fine with me. But combined with the SCS claim and Senkaku claim, it causes the need for precautionary planning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you willing swallow the Pentagon's idiocies about China then you deserve to pay all the tax that they want.

 

.

 

The posting included what the Chinese admit as well as the Pentagon. If you want to swallow Beijing's coy gyrations, you deserve the consequences. Either way you cut it, Beijing is increasing it's budget.

 

 

 

Where is this VAST build-up of forces which has been a huge threat to the USA for two decades ?

 

Sanity, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

JasonJ ;

 

So the Monroe Doctrine was o.k., but China can't do similar - and you claim you don't like hypocriscy.

 

As for the ridiculous claims by the Pentagon of twenty years of Chinese threats to the West ? You (and the Pentagon) cannot show any threat - the Chinese armed forces are miniscule compared with the USA, except in basic manpower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called the "security dilemma." It's called salami slicing. It's an incremental process that is trending right now because of the SCS and Senkaku claims. You keep forgetting about Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea (China's ADIZ) and Japan. China doesn't seem to mind their objections. To me China's foreign policy seems like it is to try to establish a precedent that they are the boss and everyone, not only the US, is saying f*ck that. Of course China isn't chanting like "death to Israel, praise Allah". If that is your standard for threat, then your threat gauge is not sensitive enough. China's "threats" are very mild suggestive threats. But it's just enough to require slow incremental precautionary measures by other rational state actors.

 

For the US at those times, keeping Imperialistic European countries and the Soviet Union out of Western Hemisphere was necessary policy (which was not entirely successful since a little still squeezed in). You would prefer a Soviet Union hegemony instead? Is the US planning on invading China which means Chine needs a Chinese Monroe Doctrine?

Link to post
Share on other sites

JasonJ

 

You say, and I believe you, that you have an abiding interest in Asia,

So let's examine, broadly but substantively, the various points you've raised about China's "aggressiveness", vis-a-vis the historical and the present regional backdrop.

 

- The Diaoyu/Senkaku issue was previously a non-issue. The Japanese physically administered it, while the Chinese formally laid claim to it. So the matter lay dormant, with both sides basically ignoring each other, and taking a hands-off approach.

The islands were privately owned, but not under the formal control of Japan's government. That was acceptable to China. Point was this: Japan sits on it, but doesn't plant its flag. China claims it, but doesn't attempt to displace Japanese physical control. This was a very stable long-term situation, imho. They agreed to disagree.

 

But then, Japan obtained formal governmental rule of the islands, taking control from the private Japanese owners. This was a change from the accepted status quo, and for China, it was a clear attempt at, as you so aptly put it, salami-slicing pieces of their national territory.

 

And given the tragic, terrible history of China's "Century of Humiliation" at the hands of mighty imperialist powers, from the Chinese perspective (which you JasonJ seek to understand, as do I), such incremental territorial enroachments are simply unacceptable. The old Manchurian Qing Dynasty, in its weakness, invariably agreed to whatever demands Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United States made upon it - whether extra-territoriality (foreign citizens could not be tried in Chinese courts, no matter the crime), the right to station armies in China, punitive expeditions, commercial concessions, or worst of all, outright colonization and annexation (see: Hong Kong, Macao and Shanghai International Quarter etc).

 

This century-long epoch bred an attitude of "Never Again" in the Chinese people. But China was still weak and backward, so fell prey to Militarist Imperial Japan in 1931 to 1945. It merely made the Chinese more determined than ever to be masters of their own land, every square millimeter of it. No precedent of abandoning China's sovereignty in the slightest could be permitted.

 

From China's perspective, the border wars with both India and the old Soviet Union were about defending national integrity. The wars in Korea and Vietnam were about keeping powerful empires well away from the homeland, in case the descendants of the original conquerors decided to humiliate and oppress Chinese people again.

 

So the Diaoyu/Senkaku issue could not be simply ignored. In the eyes of China, Japan was daring China to fire first in a confrontation. China turned that around and simply ignored Japan's coast guard, brazenly sailing ships into the islands' waters. China was in turn daring Japan to shoot first.

 

IMHO, the Diaoyu/Senkaku matter is again at a stable equilibrium, but a more tense one, and it is not China, but Japan in this instance that has needlessly escalated the tension. They should have left well enough alone.

 

To expect China to drop the Diaoyu/Senkaku claim, and simply concede the matter to Japan, is actually unrealistic and more importantly unjust from a historical perspective.

 

- The South China Sea claims: are driven by a combination of the same "fear of salami-slicing" as above, and what can be termed a regional "scramble for the seas" (think "Scramble for Africa", but in the SCS).

 

See the ff. map for how much of a godawful mess that is.

 

https://i0.wp.com/www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/09/map-island-dispute-624.gif

 

China is well-known to claim all those little islets and shoals.

But see the Filipino, Malaysian and Vietnamese claims? They reach out far into the sea, far from any of their respective main coasts, and furthermore, overlap each other! These nations have disputes, serious ones, among themselves.

IMHO, the claims of other Asian states in the SCS are just as outrageous as China's, or alternately, China's claims are just as fair as theirs - take you pick. What is patently illogical and unfair is to say China is wrong, and the others are all right. Take China out of the picture, and the "Scramble for The South China Sea" would still be on, and would be equally nasty.

 

Did you know that Filipinos tried to lay claim to parts of the Malaysian Sabah province in I believe 2013? They landed armed but unsanctioned parties, which triggered an actual military response from Malaysia. That is how contentious the area is.

 

Ought China drop or scale back its claims to the SCS? I think one of two things should happen, for things to be truly impartial and just: Either ALL claimants should drop all their claims to all the islet groups (Pratas, Paracel, Scarborough, Spratly, Macclesfield) OR maintain the present stable status quo and simply traverse the area with their fishing fleets, naval vessels and commercial shipping. Either way seems to work.

 

But to single out China as the greedy expansionist, when they're all pretty much the same way, is simply irrational and unfair.

 

Why keep shining the spotlight on one nation's behavior, and ignoring or condoning that of the rest?

 

I do not get it!

Edited by Heirophant
Link to post
Share on other sites

JasonJ

 

You say, and I believe you, that you have an abiding interest in Asia,

So let's examine, broadly but substantively, the various points you've raised about China's "aggressiveness", vis-a-vis the historical and the present regional backdrop.

 

- The Diaoyu/Senkaku issue was previously a non-issue. The Japanese physically administered it, while the Chinese formally laid claim to it. So the matter lay dormant, with both sides basically ignoring each other, and taking a hands-off approach.

The islands were privately owned, but not under the formal control of Japan's government. That was acceptable to China. Point was this: Japan sits on it, but doesn't plant its flag. China claims it, but doesn't attempt to displace Japanese physical control. This was a very stable long-term situation, imho. They agreed to disagree.

 

But then, Japan obtained formal governmental rule of the islands, taking control from the private Japanese owners. This was a change from the accepted status quo, and for China, it was a clear attempt at, as you so aptly put it, salami-slicing pieces of their national territory.

 

And given the tragic, terrible history of China's "Century of Humiliation" at the hands of mighty imperialist powers, from the Chinese perspective (which you JasonJ seek to understand, as do I), such incremental territorial enroachments are simply unacceptable. The old Manchurian Qing Dynasty, in its weakness, invariably agreed to whatever demands Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United States made upon it - whether extra-territoriality (foreign citizens could not be tried in Chinese courts, no matter the crime), the right to station armies in China, punitive expeditions, commercial concessions, or worst of all, outright colonization and annexation (see: Hong Kong, Macao and Shanghai International Quarter etc).

 

This century-long epoch bred an attitude of "Never Again" in the Chinese people. But China was still weak and backward, so fell prey to Militarist Imperial Japan in 1931 to 1945. It merely made the Chinese more determined than ever to be masters of their own land, every square millimeter of it. No precedent of abandoning China's sovereignty in the slightest could be permitted.

 

From China's perspective, the border wars with both India and the old Soviet Union were about defending national integrity. The wars in Korea and Vietnam were about keeping powerful empires well away from the homeland, in case the descendants of the original conquerors decided to humiliate and oppress Chinese people again.

 

So the Diaoyu/Senkaku issue could not be simply ignored. In the eyes of China, Japan was daring China to fire first in a confrontation. China turned that around and simply ignored Japan's coast guard, brazenly sailing ships into the islands' waters. China was in turn daring Japan to shoot first.

 

IMHO, the Diaoyu/Senkaku matter is again at a stable equilibrium, but a more tense one, and it is not China, but Japan in this instance that has needlessly escalated the tension. They should have left well enough alone.

 

To expect China to drop the Diaoyu/Senkaku claim, and simply concede the matter to Japan, is actually unrealistic and more importantly unjust from a historical perspective.

 

 

Heirophant,

 

After the Chinese civil war, where was the claim for the Senkaku islands? After the PRC went down to the SCS to reestablish their claim there, where was the Senkaku claim? After invading and taking a part of Kashmir in the late 1950s, where was the Senkaku claim? The PRC acknowledged that those islands were a part of Japan, temporarily under American occupation during the 1950s. Signs of natural gas deposits were discovered in the late 1960s. Then all of a sudden ROK and PRC claims on the Senkaku islands started brewing. Then they made it official as control of Okinawa was handed back to Japan, as if the hand over was timely symbolic or something. The PRC Chicom bastards and ROK ultra nationalist dictators used the emotions of the Chinese people like how religions get hijacked and exerted it as a claim on Senkaku islands. So now those emotions are deeply planted in Senkaku, literally an invasion of Chinese hate conjured by mass Chicom propaganda dead set on conquering the islands.

 

During the 1990s, China was still a paper dragon. Japan didnt have to worry and could wait to see if claim would wear out. By 2010, China eclipsed Japan as a larger economy and they still shown their emotions on the senkaku, saying that it belongs to China. Did Japan make the right move in purchasing the islands? Could the emotions that the islands belonged to China have possible and eventually subsided? At some point, might PRC folks not charge in like how the South Koreans took Takeshima with force? Letting China taking the islands is pure appeasement and it demonstrates to the PRC Chicoms that planting the emotions of the Chinese people to different places is effective and.. it is a useful way to relieve domestic stress away from the Chicoms themselves. So Japan made the purchase so that defense facilities can be built up around them, I reckon. The government has to own the islands before the SDF can do anything on them. Each step of the way, Chicom propagandists are drilling the Chinese emotions into the islands.

 

In old history, China had names for the islands and used them as navigation points but they were never controlled. The Senkaku islands were part of the ungoverned high seas. China has no right on the Senkaku islands. The Japanese were the first to actually do something on the islands.

 

- The South China Sea claims: are driven by a combination of the same "fear of salami-slicing" as above, and what can be termed a regional "scramble for the seas" (think "Scramble for Africa", but in the SCS).

 

See the ff. map for how much of a godawful mess that is.

 

https://i0.wp.com/www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/09/map-island-dispute-624.gif

 

China is well-known to claim all those little islets and shoals.

But see the Filipino, Malaysian and Vietnamese claims? They reach out far into the sea, far from any of their respective main coasts, and furthermore, overlap each other! These nations have disputes, serious ones, among themselves.

IMHO, the claims of other Asian states in the SCS are just as outrageous as China's, or alternately, China's claims are just as fair as theirs - take you pick. What is patently illogical and unfair is to say China is wrong, and the others are all right. Take China out of the picture, and the "Scramble for The South China Sea" would still be on, and would be equally nasty.

 

Did you know that Filipinos tried to lay claim to parts of the Malaysian Sabah province in I believe 2013? They landed armed but unsanctioned parties, which triggered an actual military response from Malaysia. That is how contentious the area is.

 

Ought China drop or scale back its claims to the SCS? I think one of two things should happen, for things to be truly impartial and just: Either ALL claimants should drop all their claims to all the islet groups (Pratas, Paracel, Scarborough, Spratly, Macclesfield) OR maintain the present stable status quo and simply traverse the area with their fishing fleets, naval vessels and commercial shipping. Either way seems to work.

 

But to single out China as the greedy expansionist, when they're all pretty much the same way, is simply irrational and unfair.

 

Why keep shining the spotlight on one nation's behavior, and ignoring or condoning that of the rest?

 

I do not get it!

 

China gets the focus because their the only ones worth being serious about. If China stayed out or limited themselves to just the upper half, we would have a separate thread about the "brilliance" of the three stooges in the Spratleys.

 

 

Edit:

Pardon me for the tone I have put out.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you willing swallow the Pentagon's idiocies about China then you deserve to pay all the tax that they want.

 

.

 

The posting included what the Chinese admit as well as the Pentagon. If you want to swallow Beijing's coy gyrations, you deserve the consequences. Either way you cut it, Beijing is increasing it's budget.

 

 

 

Where is this VAST build-up of forces which has been a huge threat to the USA for two decades ?

 

Sanity, please.

 

 

You were given US and Chinese figures for a substantial military leap forward, which is primarily a threat to China's Asian neighbors.

 

I question your deliberately obtuse position.

 

.

So the Monroe Doctrine was o.k., but China can't do similar - and you claim you don't like hypocriscy.

 

Ah. Obvious personal agenda is obvious. Duly noted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heirophant:

 

further to what JasonJ has written, I'd like to add that you are confusing sovereignty with ownership. They are totally unrelated. If I, as a private citizen, bought a house in Japan, it would still be part of the territory of Japan. If I then sold it to a British government body, it would not change that. It would be part of Japan. I own a house & land here in the UK. If I sold it to an arm of the state, it would not change its status as British territory. It would be no more, & no less, part of the UK. Ditto with the Senkaku islands. Their status in international law, Japanese law, & the status of claims to them, has not been changed by the change of ownership. Under Japanese law, they were, & remain, part of Japan.

 

If China recognises the former private ownership, Japan could accept Chinese sovereignty - and still own them. Chinese officials could control access, their waters could be Chinese territorial waters - but the Japanese state could be the legal owner.

 

Anyone who doesn't understand that, & how it works, isn't qualified to discuss the matter.

 

The Japanese state bought the islands to pre-empt their purchase by the city of Tokyo, whose governor wanted to use them in a manner which the national government feared would provoke China. Instead of accepting this move to defuse the situation as what it was, China chose to misinterpret it as a provocation. This shows that China wants to be provoked: it is seeking confrontations.

 

As for the South China Sea, it is true that the countries in the region have overlapping claims, but none claim up to the furthest coast, as China does. Everyone else claims the islets & waters nearest to them, with overlaps in the middle. China claims everything.

 

Sabah is a red herring. It is completely unlike the South China Sea islands. Unlike all those uninhabited (except for visits by fishermen) islands, it is & was inhabited, & has always been universally recognised as being territory in play, so to speak, considered valuable enough to stake claims to, fight over, etc. NE Sabah used to be part of a state (the Sultanate of Sulu) later incorporated into the Spanish colony of the Philippines. Sulu ownership was internationally recognised, not least by its immediate neighbour, the Sultanate of Brunei, under a 1658 agreement. Under a treaty of 1878, the Sultan of Sulu ceded his state to Spain. In 1885, Spain ceded the Sulu part of N. Borneo to the UK. Simple! Until Philippine independence, when a US former governor advised the newly independent Philippines to contest the validity of that cession.

 

So you see, it had been, for a long time, a recognised part of a state which was incorporated whole into the Philippines. It was, therefore, part of the Philippines for a short time. This is completely different from the South China Sea islands, which had never been administered by China - or for that matter, anyone, until recently - or internationally recognised as part of it.

 

Also, the group who landed there were not connected to the Philippine state. Their incursion was entirely unofficial. They were acting on behalf of a claimant (now dead) to the title of Sultan of Sulu. Their position was that N. Borneo belongs to the Sultan, not the Philippines. Basically, they're nutters - or maybe bandits. The Sultanate of Sulu was a pirate state for most of its existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heirophant, thank you for a well-written post.

 

The issue of Diaoyu Island ownership would be a very drawn-out and unproductive discussion.

 

To me, Diaoyu is not the cause of bad relationship between the two powers, it is the barometer of their relationship. There has always been deep rooted bad blood between the two, Diaoyu or not. But they had been able to put that aside and both benefit economically from trade. But when that relationship is strained, they Diaoyu would be the first flashpoint.

 

I watch with alarm Japan sliding down the path back towards right wing and inevitable re-militarization. Alarmed because Japan is in denial over WW2 wrongdoings and atrocities.

 

And US being a willing accomplice, perhaps even the instigator. China being contained, and kept preoccupied, can't hurt, as far as the US is concerned.

 

...

 

China is militarily in no shape to take on Japan, much less the US. Such a conflict is the kind the US dreams of fighting, where there is a clear aggressor, no ground troops, no attrition, and where its superior technology can be brought fully to bear.

 

Of course, there is always the chance, that US does a "Georgia" at the last minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Japanese people really begin to support remilitarization then PRC can just thank for it herself. The US tried to persuade Tokyo to get rid of Article 9 for decades, without much success (there were new interpretations, but the Article 9 itself remained unchanged).

 

Today's Japan cannot really be seen as a threat, that's why I welcome more of their involvement in the region and the world, it will be good to have a stable, democratic country with 3rd biggest economy on board. Quite a lot of countries seem to support such a move, not only the US and Australia, but also Taiwan and Vietnam, also not too fond of PRC's demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The deniers in office are a problem.

They are, but to imply that after official remilitarization the Japanese will go on a rampage in the region again, 1930s/40s style, is just plain stupid.

 

 

I agree. Nevertheless, they need proper introductions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...