|
Here's something I've been thinking about for a while, that the recent China-Japan thread discussion put into order in my mind.
The nature of China's place in Asia is determined by whether or not China can be the hegemon. China will not be 2nd place in Asia, because when it is, then Asia is unstable. China is a natural hegemon for Asia much as the US is for the Western Hemisphere and the Franco-German axis is for continental Europe.
Japan is handicapped by its history (and by a faltering economy and demographic profile) to never have a leading position in Asia, but when Asia does not have a clear hegemon China and Japan inevitably collide as rivals. The United States is too weak and too faraway to play this role in perpetuity. Hence unless a grand bargain can be achieved that places China in a role over ASEAN + Korea/Taiwan akin to Prussia’s role over other German states in the 19th century, then there will never be peace in East Asia.
What the US is calling for right now in its “soft pivot/ASEAN cooperation/US AirSea battle”, is for the ASEAN states to play the role of Lilliputians to the Chinese giant. This is akin to placing faith in an unstable setup. The SE Asian community is not nearly as united by common values or heritage as Western and Northern Europe were; it would be fantasy to think that they are and can form a NATO redux. What’s more, such an alliance gets weaker and weaker as members get pried loose from it, and those members are more and more likely to bind with Beijing as the alliance grows weaker. What this means is that Washington is presenting Beijing with a chessboard where instability is self-reinforcing and leads to a desirable outcome; Beijing will have every incentive to "cause trouble".
Put another way, the US is cynically trying to get the SE Asian nations to sacrifice their own stability to keep Beijing from spreading its wings as a regional hegemon, by expecting SE Asian nations to not only go against the natural pull of a neighboring hegemon, but also learn to cooperate with each other where there once was no such cooperation.
Of course, the alternative method of keeping Beijing down–a massive commitment of US resources–also leads to the freeloader problem amongst East Asian countries, akin to how Israel and Saudi Arabia freeload off US security commitments in the Middle East to disrespect human rights and engage in reckless geopolitical gambles.
Neither outcome is desirable. The only logical outcome is to accept Chinese hegemony over the region. Every other outcome leads to war and suffering, and as China outstrips the US in GDP and even raw military capability close to its own shores, more and more likely.
China's hegemony need not be malevolent or even involve military force. Three sets of mechanisms could suffice:
1) Two regional defence mechanisms, and one set of mil-mil contacts
- One that ties the PLA together with the maritime forces of Asia littoral (Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan, Korea) with forces arrayed out towards Japan
- One that ties together the PLA with Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, with forces arrayed out towards Sri Lanka and India
- While not necessarily mutual ties, at least mil-mil contacts and confidence building measures with the Australian military
2) A common framework of joint economic ownership of all waters and islets amongst signatory countries, with economic proceeds to be divided between the countries on a counterbalancing basis of proximity and overall population.
Subordinate to point 2 is a way for all the manufacturing exporters of Asia to speak with one voice in the global market and bind their markets together in an open fashion. But the maritime compromise mechanism will probably come first.
3) A transparent way for its neighbors to lobby the Chinese government. This last one is critical: right now if a small nation wants a voice in Washington, it is easy--just pick up the phone and dial a lobbyist. This gives small nations ease of access and a willingness to do business with the United States. More foreign policy in the US is determined on K Street than in the Pentagon or Foggy Bottom. But if the Philippines wants to lobby China? Fat chance. This is a bad setup that needs to be reformed.
It is for these reasons why I view Romney’s Asia policy as inherently more responsible than Obama’s policy, since it draws on this point of view to bring China up the level of a global Great Power rather than a contained, angry, and destabilizing regional one. Most of Romney’s Asia policy draws on the views of Kenneth Lieberthal, Clinton’s China Hand and an able and farsighted diplomat who was able to steer the US from condemning Beijing over Tiananmen to lobbying on China’s behalf for the 2001 WTO deal. What's more, given how much Romney has personally invested in China, his policy should be pretty clear, even if not explicitly stated.
What's more though is that China and the US will likely walk this road, but fitfully, and with substantial risk of backsliding if either of their economies fails to embark on a path of steady growth. =/ Keep our fingers crossed, I guess.
  
|
Hasn't Romney explicitly pledged to brand China a currency manipulator on day one of his presidency?
Doesn't sound very responsible or far sighted...
But I do agree with the thrust of your post, that the pivot against Asia is hoping for a bit much from the SE Asia nations.
|
I think its very unlikely that China will be accepted as hegemon, for the simple reason that China's hegemony would be malevolent as long as they still have border disputes with nearly all their close-neighbor countries (Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan [I only count them as a country because of the US treaty protects them] etc.).
I agree that this would be the optimal solution for the region/world, but I just can't see the US backing down and letting China take over as the hegemon in Asia, especially because China's army is very in-transparent (for example, Japan and Australia [not 100% sure it was Japan] renewed their 'defense treaty' and issued a statement antagonizing China by calling for more transparency in the PLA).
|
There isn't much of a freeloader problem in Asia. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea all have large and modern armed forces. The other countries usually don't skimp either. The US can bring in more ships but with what the Seventh Fleet has, allied forces aren't an afterthought.
There aren't too many countries willing to risk being taken back into the varying degrees of vassalage they experienced from China centuries ago that they're afraid China wants to bring back. More formal and overbearing than what the Prussians did to the rest of Germany before Bismarck. All these countries have moved towards the US; you assume that China will just be too rich and powerful too resist. I don't think China will become that powerful before it liberalizes and loses the urge for that kind of hegemony.
China and Japan being rivals is a relatively new thing in history, the action has been more on the mainland. China does not need to be hegemon for Asia to be stable. Asian stability has historically depended more on China being stable.
What you're suggesting is turning all of East and Southeast Asia into one big Chinese military fiefdom. The Chinese would naturally dominate all these alliances and the Chinese don't dominate the way the US dominates NATO. What would this do? Besides being unacceptable to Japan and Russia, it would be incredibly unacceptable to India. China is a competitor for them in the markets of East/Southeast Asia, Chinese hegemony over everything east of Bangladesh is not something they would be happy about. If the US supported such a thing it would do way too much damage to our relations with New Delhi.
You can hope for fair deals all you want, but with Chinese NATO patrolling the skies and waters, China will get the lion's share of the wealth.
Free trade is pretty good but "speaking with one voice" either means speaking with a Chinese voice or having some kind of new common economic policy bureaucracy, presumably with members from both business and the government, which is a recipe for corruption and unnecessary anyway. If you want Asia's economies to complement and reinforce each other's, free trade and free markets will do that better than any kind of mechanism you can come up with.
The Philippines have a way to "lobby" China. The Philippine Embassy. People lobby the government because the government can do things they can't. The other countries of Asia might as well let themselves be annexed to Beijing if they're supposed to regard relations with China that way.
US condemning Tiananmen was a great failure, the USSR ended because we engaged them morally as well as socially and economically. We've engaged with China economically and more socially thanks to the internet but not so much morally. Let a (hopefully) liberalized China, in a future Asia a hundred years from now, occupy a position similar to the one France and Germany do in Europe. If they want hegemony, well, everyone else around them doesn't want it and the US doesn't want it either, and for good reasons of self-interest.
|
Please elaborate more on the Tiananmen part - Im rather curious on this topic (I cant research this on the net Im living in Shanghai atm)
|
Excellent and knowledgeable post as usual
|
I feel like there are plenty of other options here. The version of Chinese hegemony you're talking about sounds very extreme. Sure, you can say there should be some sort of nice, fair distribution of island-related resources, but once you put China in that kind of dominating position, there is no way that fair distribution will happen. A bloc that includes China and SE Asia puts China in a much more dominant position than the US is in regarding the Americas or NATO. (Europe, collectively, has a bigger economy and population than the US - not true of SE Asia compared to China.) You're talking about very little sovereignty left for those small countries.
The US doesn't have to contain China and prevent it from rising. It can become a very powerful country in the region. But if the US (and/or Japan and/or India) are also powerful countries in the region that gives the other countries options. They still might lean towards China. China would be their most important trading partner, their most important foreign relationship, etc. But if China started making insane demands, they would know they had other friends they could turn to. That provides them with leverage and reduces the level of control China has over them.
I agree that we shouldn't be asking the countries in the region to pick sides in a US v. China rivalry, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to reduce the level of Chinese hegemony a little bit.
|
On September 16 2012 22:51 padfoota wrote:
Please elaborate more on the Tiananmen part - Im rather curious on this topic (I cant research this on the net Im living in Shanghai atm)
Do you want to know about the Tiananmen incident itself or how we handled it politically?
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Subordinate to point 2 is a way for all the manufacturing exporters of Asia to speak with one voice in the global market and bind their markets together in an open fashion.
Interesting. Reminds me of OPEC in a way.
|
On September 17 2012 04:59 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +Subordinate to point 2 is a way for all the manufacturing exporters of Asia to speak with one voice in the global market and bind their markets together in an open fashion. Interesting. Reminds me of OPEC in a way.
Yep. But while OPEC doesn't really have much of an economic reason for existence, the large exporting nations of Asia: China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam--all share similar economic characteristics. All of them
--Use external aggregate demand to guide their domestic firms towards greater competitiveness.
--Intervene in their capital markets.
--Rely on seaborne energy/commodity imports and goods exports
--Face, will face, or have faced huge asset bubbles
--Have economies and politics driven by the construction-industrial complex and/or huge, vertically integrated conglomerates, with banks subordinated to industrial and political users of capital
One of the greatest "trades" that goes on in the world is that the United States guarantees global naval security and free trade so that these five countries can prosper from it. The world would be a much more balanced place if they collectively took responsibility for those two burdens from the US.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
> http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=369213#10
Well, I'm not sure how each of us are defining "economic", but wouldn't you say that OPEC's crude oil production control (and price targeting) certainly has economic reasons behind it, at its most basic level? (on a more micro level, rather than a macro economic level)
I guess one big difference between crude oil and tech manufacturing is that there's really no "getting ahead" in crude oil. Oil producers basically produce the same commodity (depending on the source itself, of course).
Meanwhile, there's a definite "getting ahead" in manufacturing / tech / consumer electronics, where there are clear winners and losers for each sector. I guess China's "assembly" is virtually a commodity at this point, but the consumer electronics production of Taiwan/Korea/Japan are still at a phase where there is sufficient differentiation among competitors that they may fear such unifying policies will undermine their future. (I might be thinking of this from too micro of a level though, and having written this up, I can see -- albeit vaguely -- how a general consensus macro policy agreed upon by all the mentioned Asian exporters can bring universal benefit to such producers)
edit: P.S. nice blog
|
I think there are two oversights in your post that tends to make me disagree with you:
1. In the near term China is about to go through economic hardship that is going to be destabilizing internally. While i don't doubt China's GDP will eclypse the US's, in the next 10 years the CCCP is going to be balancing economic re-balancing and lower growth with it implicit promise that one party rule brings wealth. One way to navigate this problem will be to inflame domestic nationalism and antagonize its neighbors. The protesting going on in China is endorsed by the CCCP in part to help the leadership transition go through smoothly.
2. The agency of the rest of Asia; Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines don't want to exist in a world in which China is the defacto Asian hegemon (just like Europe consistently resisted French hegemony before German unification and then Germany hegemony post unification). Especially considering China is not a liberal power. I doubt the ability of the rest of Asia to make a bargain acceptable without the implicit guarantee of American power and I doubt the willingness of China to make a fair bargain in the absence of American power. If America leaves the pacific to China, Asia becomes China's playground and I would expect to see many "punitive" expeditions to expidite negotiations over disputed maritime ownership rights. Think 19th century central america and the US.
China just found its power, the CCCP is incentivized to stoke nationalism, and the internal narrative in China is that China has been disrespected by Japan, the US, and Europe for the last 200 years and its time for China to assert its power. That isn't a recipe for a mature regional hegemon. It will be stability in exchange for the rest of Asia's effective independence. Then consider a China secure in its regional hegemony: i wonder how long the bretton-woods post WWII international system will last....
|
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
|
While I agree with the first two paragraphs, your conclusion that confronting China will lead to two stronger powers is foolish, looking back at the Soviet Union etc. Labeling China a currency manipulator just hurts our relationship, potentially leading to further punitive backlashes.
A series of alliances could stalemate the region. But I'm not sure that is an ideal solution to the complex SE Asian sphere.
|
As posters have mentioned, China is malevolent. Issues like border, island disputes, Taiwan have to be settled.
|
On September 16 2012 18:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
China and Japan being rivals is a relatively new thing in history, the action has been more on the mainland. China does not need to be hegemon for Asia to be stable. Asian stability has historically depended more on China being stable.
How new is relatively new because it could definitely be considered a rather old rivalry...
|
On September 17 2012 15:05 aznboi918 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 18:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
China and Japan being rivals is a relatively new thing in history, the action has been more on the mainland. China does not need to be hegemon for Asia to be stable. Asian stability has historically depended more on China being stable.
How new is relatively new because it could definitely be considered a rather old rivalry...
Relatively new. Ancient - pre-industrial Japan was considered not advanced enough for China to bother itself with.
There were no rivalry because the contest was one sided.
Japan only emerged as an Asian power in modern times, prior to that, they were on equal footing with Vietnam/Korea.
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5955 Posts
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.
|
Australia at the moment is in a really awkward position. We have a long standing Military alliance with the US and Japan has been one of our largest trading partners for decades. And yet all our future growth seems to be dependent on exports to China.
The situation for us at least has resulted in very contradictory positions from our Defence and Foreign affairs ministers.
Australia looks to increase military ties with China
Updated 9 August 2012, 21:45 AEST
Australia's Defence Minister says the United States will remain the most important ally in Asia.
Stephen Smith has slammed critics who say Australia is too close to the U.S.
In a major speech in Sydney the Minister outlined his priorities for the new defence white paper due out next year.
One of them is to raise Australia's military ties with China to the same level as the economic relationship.
Correspondent: Karon Snowdon
SYDNEY - Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said Friday morning that Australia will take a neutral stance over China-Japan territorial disputes of Diaoyu Islands, while pledging to enhance military tie with Japan.
There is also Like some sort of love triangle going on between AUS/CHINA/US.
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.
It is a very interesting situation and I really enjoy your perspective shady.
|
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.
That is a good analogy. It does seem like shady is talking about some some sort of feudal system on an international scale.
|
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.
|
5930 Posts
World's territorial disputes are now solved through modern international law. Or does international law not exist/matter to you. We installed these sort of things to prevent the exact same shit from occuring and most of the world is able to follow these laws fairly well. Unless you, cynically, believe that no one has changed for the better in the past 100 years. That is the only way you believe what you are saying.
As I said, if Scotland, Texas, or Quebec wants to gain independent sovereignty rights, they can do so if the people want to. That's how we work today as nation states and not imperial powers. The concept of national self-determination is enough to differentiate the two because it shows an understanding that land and people are not indisputable property of a nation. Contrast that with China, who believes that many regions still belong to it because of the past, ignoring whatever the residents may think.
Also, majority of major conflicts in the South China Sea are actually China vs. someone else whether this be Vietnam, Malaysia, or the Philippines despite what you are trying to say. There is no way there are not major conflicts between China and the SEA nations. The flailing of SEA nations and China's laughable historical claims are testament to this.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
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.
Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country.
As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China.
|
You don't understand something about China, it's not a nation state to begin with. It's a civilization state and always has been. You CANNOT understand China by shoving the Europeen nation state concept. China = several nation states unified by the Emperor to become a civilization state.
People can have vastly different traditions, spoken languages, food or ethnicity, but they've all came to identify themselves as Han Chinese under the same government over time.
In fact, there has been no time where China is as unified and organized as it does now, nobody even speaks mandarin in the country side in the past.
The issue of these islands are not justifiable under that fact of course, but Shady Sands raise an interesting perspective. Since these shipping lines are extremely vital for the economy of pretty much all the Asian nations, why can't they work together instead of claiming this and that hotheadedly?
China would presumably be the force that unite all these selfish intentions and force everyone to adapt a holistic approach. I'm not sure if I buy it 100%, but I hope that's what will happen. China needs to learn to treat SEA countries with more respect if that's going to happen, and vice versa.
IMO, nation states are a dying concept due to globalization and the formation of a global culture anyway.
|
5930 Posts
Which is the point I made. Its still basically an empire. It works and thinks like one. Which is why nations around the region get very uneasy because it doesn't really bring anything they want (besides money) and its not exactly the sick man of Asia anymore (that would probably be Russia at this point). Until it stops acting like one, the region is not going to become stable like Western Europe may be.
|
On the long term, a unipolar power can provide more stability than a multipolar one. The stability of the region depends more on China's stability than their stance on a few islands.
I'm not sure if China still acts like an Empire, or is it just to save face and protect its perceived territorial integrity against the US empire, or both. Anyway, hope everyone in the region gets their shit together.
|
On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
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. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China.
So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me.
Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 09:16 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
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. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China. So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me. Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too.
How else am I supposed to understand that sentence? Don't write stupid stuff like "China's actions don't need to be justified" if you don't want people to criticize you.
Your apple example is useless, because there is a big difference between "eating an apple" -"trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands back", and only a small difference between "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" - "England strong-arming Hong Kong". Nice strawman with "How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me" btw.
Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts.
|
On September 21 2012 12:23 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:16 Feartheguru wrote:On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
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. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China. So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me. Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too. How else am I supposed to understand that sentence? Don't write stupid stuff like "China's actions don't need to be justified" if you don't want people to criticize you. Your apple example is useless, because there is a big difference between "eating an apple" -"trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands back", and only a small difference between "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" - "England strong-arming Hong Kong". Nice strawman with "How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me" btw. Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts.
There is a big difference between eating and apple and trying to control the Diaoyu Islands.
There is a big difference between strong arming Japan into giving up the Diaoyu islands and what Japanese militant nationalists did.
So......... you just restated my point. Ok.
Nice strawman with the "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" and against "international law" when it's disputed territory.
Your argument fails, because China is either 1) not violating international laws or 2) international laws mean nothing if no one is condemning China.
P.S. learn what the logic fallacies are before throwing them around to back up crappy arguments. =P
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:23 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 09:16 Feartheguru wrote:On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
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. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China. So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me. Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too. How else am I supposed to understand that sentence? Don't write stupid stuff like "China's actions don't need to be justified" if you don't want people to criticize you. Your apple example is useless, because there is a big difference between "eating an apple" -"trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands back", and only a small difference between "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" - "England strong-arming Hong Kong". Nice strawman with "How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me" btw. Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts. There is a big difference between eating and apple and trying to control the Diaoyu Islands. There is a big difference between strong arming Japan into giving up the Diaoyu islands and what Japanese militant nationalists did. So......... you just restated my point. Ok. Nice strawman with the "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" and against "international law" when it's disputed territory. Your argument fails, because China is either 1) not violating international laws or 2) international laws mean nothing if no one is condemning China. P.S. learn what the logic fallacies are before throwing them around to back up crappy arguments. =P
I was making an ironic point with you being all super-nationalist for China, which is similar to Japanese people being all super-nationalist for Japan, which was supposed to conclude that being a nationalist is a pretty bad thing in general, but okay since you seem to have missed the point completely.
Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts.
I don't understand. I just condemned both acts were bad. It's just too bad for China that they weren't strong in the 19th century before International Law was put in place to keep strong countries from bullying weaker ones. What part of that can't you accept?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
