|
Japan "never to have a leading position" DOUBLE FACE PALM. They have only been the most dominant and powerful asian nation since the end of world war 2? They industrialised ridiculously quick and still are a huge power. Only now have been overtaken by china. Pretty good run imo. Even though now they are crippled and on the way down. But its not like the europeans ever bitch that their countries were never fated to be more powerful than germany.
Anyways it will be interesting to see which country backs out of the defensive alliance first. I think sk,aus,jp,sg,malaysia and one or 2 others have a formal agreement where troops train together. The region is already being smothered by chinese influence.
I somehow doubt that Australia will back out first. Politically and culturally we arent ready for it yet. The general public still scoff at having east asian languages being taught from an early age. And Rudd was endlessly bashed for being able to speak chinese.
Not too long ago there were rumours of the US wanting to build a carrier base in perth. Which was shut down rather quickly by the Government. And china has hinted at us to choose the US or Them.
Yeah but we still have that massive radar dish that spies on everyone on our side of the map. We also were just formally told that they have been flying global hawks from adelaide for the last decade. Which means we house American spyplanes. I think in terms of friends we are already pretty good with the US. I bet the carrier base was probably shut down because australian foreign policy is shooting at the hip atm and it was a bad week in the polls. NAURU, MALAYSIA ? So I wouldnt count out uncle sam yet.
|
On September 17 2012 17:22 ShiaoPi wrote:
Your Proposal of just letting China getting its own "backyard" to play around with is stupid.
If right now China is a grumbling rising power with a lot of disputes to settle with neighbors do you really think it will be easier to handle once you just hand them the pacific?
If that would come to pass it would, good job you just bought your "stability" at the expense of everyone around China. I wonder how long that stability lasts when China got his army of vassals and clients to push around the rest of the world.
Pretty stable considering what kind of weight America throws around in NA or around the world. Or do you really think that the other countries are not at the whims of others?
|
I am confused as to why any countries in Asia would rather have a giant, opaque, oligarchy with unclear intentions and bubbling nationalism as their hegemonic power rather than America. Nor do I see a need to change anything from the American perspective. They already have their bases in place, not only on China's shore with Taiwan and Japan and South Korea but also further out in the Indian Ocean where they can interdict the oil flow to China.
Once China enters a period of slower growth as the ability to ride investment as the driver of growth finally expires there will be much bigger problems for the Party then whether the Australians choose them as their 'godfather'
|
Extremely interesting blog; thanks for the write-up.
|
There is one huge problem in your ideal setup, and that is the fact that NOBODY in that region wants China to be the hegemonic power.
The United States' presense in the region is one that is REQUESTED by the nations surrounding China because they feel threatened by China's actions, due to the PRC government's own unclear intentions. Combine this with the fact that in this past week, the Japanese folks in China experienced their own version of Kristallnacht fueled by churning nationalism, no one really wants to be at the mercy of Chinese whims and see the United States as the lesser evil to turn to for help.
On top of that, China has repeated publically stated that they intend to be an anti-hegemonic force in the region. Handing China the keys to the region would make them hypocrites and would lessen the Party's credibility on the world stage.
|
5930 Posts
The problem with China is that their diplomatic strategy is entirely self-serving. All diplomatic policy is self-serving, of course, but the fundamental difference between, say, the United States is that they don't actually believe that they're bringing freedom or anything else to the table. Generally, big world powers get big by invading other countries in one way or another. And they solidify their position by bringing something attractive to the table such as Soviet communism, American democracy, British liberalism.
The Chinese don't really bring anything but money and their form of nationalism. Which probably explains why China's best partners are countries the West looks down upon. It also explains why support of China ebbs and flows depending on how much financial aid China is giving them. China might help a country build some silly vanity project but local support for China might vanish overnight if the ruling party gets booted out.
This is fairly evident Latin America where its essentially China enforcing their brand of economic colonialism around the region. China doesn't really want Latin America to do anything productive. They just want the raw materials and primary industry produce. Doesn't make a lot of local residents happy that's for certain. Perhaps similarly, it is why a lot of people in Australia want the "mining tax" so greatly...after the mining boom ends, we're pretty much going to be left on our own.
|
USSR ended because what?.. US engaged them morally and economically? What is this, power of mcdonalds? Way to discredit whole post with last few lines rofl
If you weren't half-educated (if that) you would know that the shift from 70s detente to 80s confrontation (that actually started with Jimmy Carter and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) caused much consternation in the Kremlin, particularly the moral element, the condemning of the USSR as an evil empire and whatnot. Freedom activists in Eastern Europe, along with hefty donations of funds from the CIA funneled through the Vatican, took heart that they weren't alone, America and the West was yelling from the treetops that they were on their side.
If you spent less time laughing at things you think you know stuff about but don't, you'd know that "power of McDonalds" aka power of American culture was also a major concern for the Soviet government and many great efforts were made to conceal differences in standards of living between Russia and the USA and to keep Russians from being exposed to American culture, particularly things like rock-and-roll.
|
|
|
Well let's not go handing land over to the scarier nation just to attempt to avoid future problems. I think we tried that already in the 1930's with some country in Europe... Which country was that again... (sarcasm) Anyway, didn't work so great. Doubtful such events would occur in THAT kind of extreme again, but it's a bad idea nonetheless.
|
On September 19 2012 13:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well let's not go handing land over to the scarier nation just to attempt to avoid future problems. I think we tried that already in the 1930's with some country in Europe... Which country was that again... (sarcasm) Anyway, didn't work so great. Doubtful such events would occur in THAT kind of extreme again, but it's a bad idea nonetheless.
It's not about handing territory over to China--that's retarded. And what's more, think about it this way: does China really need more land? What does a country get from another few square kilometers?
The bigger thing is that China is a nation with two "flanks": one, along its northern and northwestern borders; one along its coast. Traditionally, China has always been beset by enemies along both these flanks--the wokou from Japan; the Mongols and Manchus from the north. China today is no different--except now her sources of prosperity are concentrated along a 300mi wide strip stretching from Hainan Island in the south to the Bohai Bay by Korea, so the coastal flank is comparatively more important.
To secure her coastal flank, China can either 1) subjugate all coastal/island Asian countries or 2) integrate all of Asia's militaries into a regional defense structure. There is no other alternative. And China has learned this lesson painfully--in the 1930s, when she was developing quite nicely, Japan decided that she was a threat and decided to bomb the shit out of her and invade/dismantle every center of industry within that coastal strip (Qingdao; Tianjin; Shanghai; Nanjing).
China will never let that mistake repeat itself. That resolve cannot be doubted--it, like the Soviet Union's resolve to maintain a buffer state system between itself and NATO/Germany, will not disappear unless all of China collapses.
So then if China is not the dominant state in East Asia, East Asia will never be stable, because China will never feel secure. Because of China's painful memories, there can be no middle ground. Just as no US politician can seriously question American primacy in the world and expect to get elected, no Chinese politician can question China's right to secure flanks and expect to be selected. The only choice facing the US then, is whether America/the rest of Asia is capable and willing to beat China so hard into the ground it never rises up again, or whether they can peacefully acquiesce.
|
Basically, you hand over the countries surrounding China to appease them. I know you're putting it in a different way, through uneven "alliances" and such, but ultimately that's what it is. It's all fine and good, except for those of us actually living in those countries. Should we suffer to make China happy? Ultimately, China may force the neighboring coastal countries to acquiesce, but you shouldn't be surprised that no one's leaping forward to do so voluntarily.
I understand the logic of it and the incentives to do so, I just think it's morally bankrupt, but ultimately more profitable for most so it's probably going to happen sooner or later.
What is Taiwan if it's ruled by China? It's a Chinese territory. Never mind if technically it would be "semi-autonomous". You think Hong Kong's government is in any shape or form autonomous to the extent that Taiwan's is currently? So long as the nation continues to suffer from an inferiority complex and a need to prove itself (seen sadly I think, in the recent large-scale riots), it doesn't matter how much material and land it (China) actually gets. The United States is the perfect example - from a certain perspective, it pretty much already has everything it needs. Natural resources, no neighboring hostile powers, arguably the most influential and (in some ways) respected country in the world. Yet many neocons are so insecure about themselves and their country that they have to stomp on Middle Eastern countries to make themselves feel good. Handing over the region isn't the answer. Still, I do appreciate the perspective your post brings.
|
On September 19 2012 01:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +USSR ended because what?.. US engaged them morally and economically? What is this, power of mcdonalds? Way to discredit whole post with last few lines rofl If you weren't half-educated (if that) you would know that the shift from 70s detente to 80s confrontation (that actually started with Jimmy Carter and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) caused much consternation in the Kremlin, particularly the moral element, the condemning of the USSR as an evil empire and whatnot. Freedom activists in Eastern Europe, along with hefty donations of funds from the CIA funneled through the Vatican, took heart that they weren't alone, America and the West was yelling from the treetops that they were on their side. If you spent less time laughing at things you think you know stuff about but don't, you'd know that "power of McDonalds" aka power of American culture was also a major concern for the Soviet government and many great efforts were made to conceal differences in standards of living between Russia and the USA and to keep Russians from being exposed to American culture, particularly things like rock-and-roll.
USSR collapsed due to internal problems such as stagnation, corruption, inefficiency, which culminated in the epic fail which which was the perestroika. Not because Reagan called the USSR an 'evil empire', because frankly, what some American thought was the least of any Russian's concern.
|
On September 18 2012 13:36 Brindled wrote:
There is one huge problem in your ideal setup, and that is the fact that NOBODY in that region wants China to be the hegemonic power.
The United States' presense in the region is one that is REQUESTED by the nations surrounding China because they feel threatened by China's actions, due to the PRC government's own unclear intentions. Combine this with the fact that in this past week, the Japanese folks in China experienced their own version of Kristallnacht fueled by churning nationalism, no one really wants to be at the mercy of Chinese whims and see the United States as the lesser evil to turn to for help.
On top of that, China has repeated publically stated that they intend to be an anti-hegemonic force in the region. Handing China the keys to the region would make them hypocrites and would lessen the Party's credibility on the world stage.
Hopefully you're wrong with the outcome, but good reference.
|
China, as it currently sits, is a threat to many SE Asian nations. As long as that situation exists, there will always be instability in that region.
China, as the hegemon of all SE Asian nations, is a threat to India, Russia, Japan (if not included), and possibly Australia (if Indonesia is included). That pits China directly against multiple nuclear powers and also puts the United States's nuts even further in a vice since we would lose many alternative trading partners as they all get rolled up into China. Rather than having instability in a small region, you'd be setting up the next cold war. With borders right next to each other with potential land disputes, you'd have an even greater chance of that war turning hot.
Small regional instabilty is much better than the next Cold War or WW3.
|
5930 Posts
On September 19 2012 14:22 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 13:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well let's not go handing land over to the scarier nation just to attempt to avoid future problems. I think we tried that already in the 1930's with some country in Europe... Which country was that again... (sarcasm) Anyway, didn't work so great. Doubtful such events would occur in THAT kind of extreme again, but it's a bad idea nonetheless. It's not about handing territory over to China--that's retarded. And what's more, think about it this way: does China really need more land? What does a country get from another few square kilometers? The bigger thing is that China is a nation with two "flanks": one, along its northern and northwestern borders; one along its coast. Traditionally, China has always been beset by enemies along both these flanks--the wokou from Japan; the Mongols and Manchus from the north. China today is no different--except now her sources of prosperity are concentrated along a 300mi wide strip stretching from Hainan Island in the south to the Bohai Bay by Korea, so the coastal flank is comparatively more important. To secure her coastal flank, China can either 1) subjugate all coastal/island Asian countries or 2) integrate all of Asia's militaries into a regional defense structure. There is no other alternative. And China has learned this lesson painfully--in the 1930s, when she was developing quite nicely, Japan decided that she was a threat and decided to bomb the shit out of her and invade/dismantle every center of industry within that coastal strip (Qingdao; Tianjin; Shanghai; Nanjing). China will never let that mistake repeat itself. That resolve cannot be doubted--it, like the Soviet Union's resolve to maintain a buffer state system between itself and NATO/Germany, will not disappear unless all of China collapses. So then if China is not the dominant state in East Asia, East Asia will never be stable, because China will never feel secure. Because of China's painful memories, there can be no middle ground. Just as no US politician can seriously question American primacy in the world and expect to get elected, no Chinese politician can question China's right to secure flanks and expect to be selected. The only choice facing the US then, is whether America/the rest of Asia is capable and willing to beat China so hard into the ground it never rises up again, or whether they can peacefully acquiesce.
Well China still essentially operates through imperialist thinking so they're doing what you want anyway. And no one is really happy about it because its unfair and unjust in about every way possible. Not to mention China's diplomatic strategy consists of strong arming weaker nations through bilateral talks and is extremely short sighted and obviously self-serving, as explained above.
What separates a nation state from them is that citizens in a nation state have national self-determination. Scotland can leave the United Kingdom any time but they probably don't because its still beneficial for them to stay with their conquerors and basically self identify with them. If they have enough support, the split will be messy but possible.
The potential land disputes exist because China's concept of land control is vastly different from everyone else's. Consistently they bring up the past, because the past is where China's glory is, but forget that the past has no bearing on the future in an international community. Conflict around Arunachal Pradesh occurred because China believed the past has bearing on the future. Same goes for Tibet, the South China Sea, a bunch of Vietnamese controlled islands, etc etc. It was a part of China before so it is always a part of China. That has been their justification for just about everything in the international stage. Nevermind the people's current self-identity, it was China's land in the past and it'll be China's land today.
Does anyone in China learn about the conquest of Xinjiang/elimination of the Dzungurs? Or do they believe the region has always belonged to China? Fun question to ask people...
So if China ends up controlling East Asia as the dominant state, what will prevent them from continuing their line of thinking in the past? The one where they considered just about every place in the world as tributary states? The only way for real stability is for China to finally accept that the world doesn't work like they want it to work anymore. The stability in the region won't be true stability like stability in the United Kingdom or the United States where the people, more or less, are willing to be together as a nation and self-identify with each other.
|
On September 20 2012 19:00 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:22 Shady Sands wrote:On September 19 2012 13:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well let's not go handing land over to the scarier nation just to attempt to avoid future problems. I think we tried that already in the 1930's with some country in Europe... Which country was that again... (sarcasm) Anyway, didn't work so great. Doubtful such events would occur in THAT kind of extreme again, but it's a bad idea nonetheless. It's not about handing territory over to China--that's retarded. And what's more, think about it this way: does China really need more land? What does a country get from another few square kilometers? The bigger thing is that China is a nation with two "flanks": one, along its northern and northwestern borders; one along its coast. Traditionally, China has always been beset by enemies along both these flanks--the wokou from Japan; the Mongols and Manchus from the north. China today is no different--except now her sources of prosperity are concentrated along a 300mi wide strip stretching from Hainan Island in the south to the Bohai Bay by Korea, so the coastal flank is comparatively more important. To secure her coastal flank, China can either 1) subjugate all coastal/island Asian countries or 2) integrate all of Asia's militaries into a regional defense structure. There is no other alternative. And China has learned this lesson painfully--in the 1930s, when she was developing quite nicely, Japan decided that she was a threat and decided to bomb the shit out of her and invade/dismantle every center of industry within that coastal strip (Qingdao; Tianjin; Shanghai; Nanjing). China will never let that mistake repeat itself. That resolve cannot be doubted--it, like the Soviet Union's resolve to maintain a buffer state system between itself and NATO/Germany, will not disappear unless all of China collapses. So then if China is not the dominant state in East Asia, East Asia will never be stable, because China will never feel secure. Because of China's painful memories, there can be no middle ground. Just as no US politician can seriously question American primacy in the world and expect to get elected, no Chinese politician can question China's right to secure flanks and expect to be selected. The only choice facing the US then, is whether America/the rest of Asia is capable and willing to beat China so hard into the ground it never rises up again, or whether they can peacefully acquiesce. Well China still essentially operates through imperialist thinking so they're doing what you want anyway. And no one is really happy about it because its unfair and unjust in about every way possible. Not to mention China's diplomatic strategy consists of strong arming weaker nations through bilateral talks and is extremely short sighted and obviously self-serving, as explained above. What separates a nation state from them is that citizens in a nation state have national self-determination. Scotland can leave the United Kingdom any time but they probably don't because its still beneficial for them to stay with their conquerors and basically self identify with them. If they have enough support, the split will be messy but possible. The potential land disputes exist because China's concept of land control is vastly different from everyone else's. Consistently they bring up the past, because the past is where China's glory is, but forget that the past has no bearing on the future in an international community. Conflict around Arunachal Pradesh occurred because China believed the past has bearing on the future. Same goes for Tibet, the South China Sea, a bunch of Vietnamese controlled islands, etc etc. It was a part of China before so it is always a part of China. That has been their justification for just about everything in the international stage. Nevermind the people's current self-identity, it was China's land in the past and it'll be China's land today. Does anyone in China learn about the conquest of Xinjiang/elimination of the Dzungurs? Or do they believe the region has always belonged to China? Fun question to ask people... So if China ends up controlling East Asia as the dominant state, what will prevent them from continuing their line of thinking in the past? The one where they considered just about every place in the world as tributary states? The only way for real stability is for China to finally accept that the world doesn't work like they want it to work anymore. The stability in the region won't be true stability like stability in the United Kingdom or the United States where the people, more or less, are willing to be together as a nation and self-identify with each other.
GB did exactly what you're describing here except 10x worse and exploited everyone they could for 500 years then backed off "nicely" because their power of waning, and not because they had a moral epiphany. Every countries wants more than it's fair share when they are strong, that's human nature. Won't bother addressing the rest of your argument, that slope is a little too slippery for me.
|
5930 Posts
That is in the past. What happens in the past does not justify the future. What happens in the past also does not represent a nation in the future either. What a previous nation has done in its horrible past does not justify another nation from doing the same thing.
Are you serious suggesting that if Scotland becomes an independent sovereign nation, the United Kingdom is going to directly stop them? I'm fairly certain it won't happen. If it does happen, the United Kingdom is probably committing international suicide and I'm fairly certain the people of the United Kingdom will not support aggressive landgrabbing in this day and age.
Pretty much no liberal empire exists in this day and age. The United Kingdom isn't one anymore, everyone has either splinted off, considering the possibility of splintering off, or willing to stick with the United Kingdom for whatever reason. The French Empire doesn't exist anymore and neither does Germany. If a region wants to enforce their right of national self-determination, they can do so very easily. The imperial ideal does not really exist anymore because its a waste of time that leads to shit like the Great Game.
Which brings us to the critical question. China has ratified something called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. They didn't have to ratify it because the United States didn't do it. I don't think anyone held a gun to their temple and forced them to sign it.
With the Philippines, they tried to strongarm them by forcing bilateral talks rather than bringing in a neutral third party of trained maritime judges. But in the case of Japan, a nation with a pretty decent navy and economy, I don't believe they've ever brought it to the international court. Why is that I wonder?
Historical boundaries that are often proposed by China have no real basis in the real world. If they did, we'd have boundaries like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EzT8Cl.gif)
In this century, we created something called international law. This is to ensure boundaries are clearly and legally defined and fair for everyone involved. Shit like "sorry but because we used to own this region, let us run our boundaries along your coastline because that's totally fair" is prevented in such law. As you can see, true boundaries are generally 200 miles from coastline so everyone has some part of the sea.
China ratified it yet doesn't really follow the law at all. What does that say about their intentions?
|
Thanks for not understanding a single thing. Britain took more than its fair share when it was strong, only backed off because they were not longer strong. China was weak and got less than its fair share, now it's strong and it wants more than it's fair share. I hope that post was for just to express your opinion and wasn't directly at me because it's not even mutually exclusive with my point.
|
5930 Posts
So what's your point? Because China was weak in a small period of its history, its allowed to push people around? Is this seriously your justification? Is this also your justification for their claim around the South China Sea?
The United Kingdom's citizens are allowed national self-determination. No matter how weak or strong the United Kingdom is right now, that is one important thing that makes a nation state and not an empire. If you want me to answer your point directly, I know it has nothing to do with the United Kingdom suddenly becoming a moral beacon of light. I don't think I've ever suggested that. What is certain is that their current attitude towards their territory has changed in this day and age, which is the critical thing to understand.
I should instead ask what part of my post do you have a problem with? Because what I discussed was China's ideals of territory vs. the world's concept of territory.
|
What's my point? That China is doing what every country in history has always done, take more than its fair share when its strong. That's not justification, China's actions don't need to be justified. They're strong arming a few neighbors into giving up some disputed islands in the SCS, just like how Britain strong armed China into giving up Hong Kong for 99 years when China was weak (which is a hell of a lot more significant than what China is trying to get). There are tonnes of disputes in the SCS, and it's not a China vs everyone else situation.
China's ideals of territory (get everything they think they deserve)
World's concept of territory (everyone tries to get everything they think they deserve)
Nope, don't see a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
