|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 24 2015 03:31 oneofthem wrote:it's hilarious to think that "pluralism on the international level involves tolerating totalitarianism and fascism etc" is a worthwhile point. the ontological levels are different, there is no need to treat pluralism as equally sensible at the level of individuals in society, and at the level of ideology and national politics. a principle like 'pluralism is good' is suffering from infirmity of foundation. it would be incorrect to assume that i take liberal values as somehow objective or neutral. it is very much historically unique and distinct and needs active defending.
But that's not the point. No one said that we should engage in some kind of relativism and tolerate fascist countries, but given other Western enemies or even allies, China is a comparatively isolationist and moderate country on the international stage.
The hypocrisy involved in this is one of the biggest problems of the West. We support countries or dictatorships that are tenfold more violent or oppressive purely for geopolitical reasons.
|
On March 24 2015 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 03:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 24 2015 01:17 xDaunt wrote:
Here's some of my favorite Chinese propaganda from the War Museum in Beijing:
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
This is pretty much a Chinese thing, not just a CCP thing. It's a narrative the CCP co-opted and uses to legitimize itself (plus all the standard socialist/communist tripe), but seriously: consider the history of China from a Chinese perspective from the start of the First Opium War (and more specifically the start of opium selling by the British) to the end of World War Two and get back to me; it was, for the Chinese, one long, drawn out national trauma. Wars after massive bloody conflict after continuous weakness followed by effective colonization, government collapse, and an extended period of warlordism, topped off with one of the most brutal wars in Chinese history (and stuff like Nanjing and Unit 731 etched into the national consciousness). I've heard accounts of former concentration camp prisoners who had everything taken from them (their wealth, their property, their good name), yet, in the post-Mao era, sharply criticized the youth of the country for not respecting Mao enough for reunifying China, despite everything that happened to him personally. Much like how the 1953 Iranian coup of Mosadeggh (and subsequent rule by the Shah) has tainted Iranian views of the West for a generation after the 1979 revolution and greatly shaped Iranian security concerns (when coupled with the Iran-Iraq war), the period between 1840 and 1950 has similarly shaped Chinese perceptions and foreign policy attitudes and objectives. Similarly, how the Holocaust and the numerous Arab-Israeli wars have shaped Israel's security policy and sensitivities. Of course, public education in China reinforces this narrative, but that's public education everywhere. Look at US public education largely whitewashing the effective genocide of Native Americans, or, heck, 3rd Republic France and language education. It's all part of nation-building and cultivating a collective identity and narrative. As an authoritarian regime that suppresses dissent and knowledge of negative events like Tiananmen, the PRC has a greater degree of latitude enforcing this, but all countries do participate in this in one degree or another. I very much do think think about recent Chinese history from the Chinese perspective, which in turn shapes my opinion of how they should be dealt with at a foreign policy level. My wife is Han Chinese (born and raised there), so I have far more of an insider's perspective than the average American. Thus, when I look at your posts, I see some major whitewashing when it comes to China's nationalist and imperial ambitions.
If we're bringing out our credentials, I was born in China and still visit family there on occasion. Parents left in no small part due to the aftermath of Tiananmen and general unhappiness with the state of affairs in China and lived through the Cultural Revolution. We're even again here, oh boy.
Is the PRC an authoritarian regime that brutally oppresses minorities and dissidents? Yep.
Does China have extraterritorial claims and disputes with, heck, every neighbor? Yep.
Will China be willing to pay the economic, diplomatic, and political costs trying to enforce those claims with force? Depends, generally no, and in those cases usually as a last resort.
Does China have the power to enforce those claims, or will in the long-term through military means? Nope.
I am merely stating that the threat China poses to the United States is limited at best, short and medium term, given geopolitics and economic/demographic constraints (which will all be hitting the PRC rather hard very soon), and is both a rational actor with concrete foreign policy objectives, and is generally quite moderate as far as revisionist powers go (if we look at power transition theory).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2015 03:35 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 03:31 oneofthem wrote:it's hilarious to think that "pluralism on the international level involves tolerating totalitarianism and fascism etc" is a worthwhile point. the ontological levels are different, there is no need to treat pluralism as equally sensible at the level of individuals in society, and at the level of ideology and national politics. a principle like 'pluralism is good' is suffering from infirmity of foundation. it would be incorrect to assume that i take liberal values as somehow objective or neutral. it is very much historically unique and distinct and needs active defending. But that's not the point. No one said that we should engage in some kind of relativism and tolerate fascist countries, but given other Western enemies or even allies, China is a comparatively isolationist and moderate country on the international stage. The hypocrisy involved in this is one of the biggest problems of the West. We support countries or dictatorships that are tenfold more violent or oppressive purely for geopolitical reasons.
you can engage in self reflection and criticism without being starry eyed about far worse realities.
and 'no one' is not giving moltke credit for asking these insightful questions!
also your post is introducing the cost of changing regimes, which is considerable and the consequences uncertain. just because the u.s., for example, works with the saudis doesn't mean we like them as they are. the cost is too high for getting something different or ignoring that relationship. but obviously this stuff is imperfect and subject to historical/trivially ideological relations.
the actual u.s. policy with respect to china is quite in line with pragmatic priorities, and indeed quite generous to china's development. you can't talk about how china should be viewed in a better light because we didn't bomb the saudis. pick a question, are you evaluating the countries as they are, or evaluating u.s. handling of these countries.
|
On March 24 2015 03:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2015 03:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 24 2015 01:17 xDaunt wrote:
Here's some of my favorite Chinese propaganda from the War Museum in Beijing:
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
This is pretty much a Chinese thing, not just a CCP thing. It's a narrative the CCP co-opted and uses to legitimize itself (plus all the standard socialist/communist tripe), but seriously: consider the history of China from a Chinese perspective from the start of the First Opium War (and more specifically the start of opium selling by the British) to the end of World War Two and get back to me; it was, for the Chinese, one long, drawn out national trauma. Wars after massive bloody conflict after continuous weakness followed by effective colonization, government collapse, and an extended period of warlordism, topped off with one of the most brutal wars in Chinese history (and stuff like Nanjing and Unit 731 etched into the national consciousness). I've heard accounts of former concentration camp prisoners who had everything taken from them (their wealth, their property, their good name), yet, in the post-Mao era, sharply criticized the youth of the country for not respecting Mao enough for reunifying China, despite everything that happened to him personally. Much like how the 1953 Iranian coup of Mosadeggh (and subsequent rule by the Shah) has tainted Iranian views of the West for a generation after the 1979 revolution and greatly shaped Iranian security concerns (when coupled with the Iran-Iraq war), the period between 1840 and 1950 has similarly shaped Chinese perceptions and foreign policy attitudes and objectives. Similarly, how the Holocaust and the numerous Arab-Israeli wars have shaped Israel's security policy and sensitivities. Of course, public education in China reinforces this narrative, but that's public education everywhere. Look at US public education largely whitewashing the effective genocide of Native Americans, or, heck, 3rd Republic France and language education. It's all part of nation-building and cultivating a collective identity and narrative. As an authoritarian regime that suppresses dissent and knowledge of negative events like Tiananmen, the PRC has a greater degree of latitude enforcing this, but all countries do participate in this in one degree or another. I very much do think think about recent Chinese history from the Chinese perspective, which in turn shapes my opinion of how they should be dealt with at a foreign policy level. My wife is Han Chinese (born and raised there), so I have far more of an insider's perspective than the average American. Thus, when I look at your posts, I see some major whitewashing when it comes to China's nationalist and imperial ambitions. If we're bringing out our credentials, I was born in China and still visit family there. Parents left in no small part due to the aftermath of Tiananmen and general unhappiness with the state of affairs in China and lived through the Cultural Revolution. We're even again here, oh boy. Is the PRC an authoritarian regime that brutally oppresses minorities and dissidents? Yep. Does China have extraterritorial claims on, heck, every neighbor? Yep. Will China be willing to pay the economic, diplomatic, and political costs trying to enforce those claims with force? Depends, generally no, and in those cases usually as a last resort.
Does China have the power to enforce those claims, or will in the long-term? Nope.
I bolded the area where you're whitewashing. China is actively building its military capabilities with eye towards enforcing its claims. Hell, it's already building fortifications in the islands. We may still be decades away from the tipping point where China has the power to enforce its claims, but there's no doubt that China is presently on a trajectory to get there. And perhaps most importantly of all, you left out the key, telling question:
Does China want to enforce its territorial claims: Yep.
Granted, China has some internal problems that need to be sorted out first, but let's not pretend that China isn't preparing for a coming conflict. The disturbing thing is that reports have shown that many in the PLA have a very hostile attitude toward the US. Combine that with the general level of opacity in Chinese militarization, and the problem becomes fairly obvious.
|
it's hilarious to think that "pluralism on the international level involves tolerating totalitarianism and fascism etc" is a worthwhile point. the ontological levels are different, there is no need to treat pluralism as equally sensible at the level of individuals in society, and at the level of ideology and national politics.
a principle like 'pluralism is good' is suffering from infirmity of foundation. it would be incorrect to assume that i take liberal values as somehow objective or neutral. it is very much historically unique and distinct and needs active defending.
No, the assumption was always that your affinity to what you call "liberalism," was affective and partisan. It was merely necessary to bring out the point that your oracular visions were at the heart of your own argumentation, and to the extent that you hoped to convince the rest of us, you had no hope of converting anyone who was not already in the same choir.
To update your new (and more honest) argument, it goes: you should prefer American power over Chinese power, because America is better, because she is historically unique and needs active defending. I say America, instead of "liberalism," because contrary to your insinuations, you are not talking about classical liberalism. Gladstonian liberalism would have come to the very opposite of the conclusions that you are preaching. You are talking about a particular American sense of "liberalism," which is more or less a vague collection of norms into which you were born, and you wish to see preserved. There is nothing wrong with that, you're simply being Pat Buchanan-lite.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well thanks, america the land of the free. great.
seriously though i just dont feel like spending time arguing why human rights is good for reasons already stated.
|
On March 24 2015 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 03:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 24 2015 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2015 03:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 24 2015 01:17 xDaunt wrote:
Here's some of my favorite Chinese propaganda from the War Museum in Beijing:
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
This is pretty much a Chinese thing, not just a CCP thing. It's a narrative the CCP co-opted and uses to legitimize itself (plus all the standard socialist/communist tripe), but seriously: consider the history of China from a Chinese perspective from the start of the First Opium War (and more specifically the start of opium selling by the British) to the end of World War Two and get back to me; it was, for the Chinese, one long, drawn out national trauma. Wars after massive bloody conflict after continuous weakness followed by effective colonization, government collapse, and an extended period of warlordism, topped off with one of the most brutal wars in Chinese history (and stuff like Nanjing and Unit 731 etched into the national consciousness). I've heard accounts of former concentration camp prisoners who had everything taken from them (their wealth, their property, their good name), yet, in the post-Mao era, sharply criticized the youth of the country for not respecting Mao enough for reunifying China, despite everything that happened to him personally. Much like how the 1953 Iranian coup of Mosadeggh (and subsequent rule by the Shah) has tainted Iranian views of the West for a generation after the 1979 revolution and greatly shaped Iranian security concerns (when coupled with the Iran-Iraq war), the period between 1840 and 1950 has similarly shaped Chinese perceptions and foreign policy attitudes and objectives. Similarly, how the Holocaust and the numerous Arab-Israeli wars have shaped Israel's security policy and sensitivities. Of course, public education in China reinforces this narrative, but that's public education everywhere. Look at US public education largely whitewashing the effective genocide of Native Americans, or, heck, 3rd Republic France and language education. It's all part of nation-building and cultivating a collective identity and narrative. As an authoritarian regime that suppresses dissent and knowledge of negative events like Tiananmen, the PRC has a greater degree of latitude enforcing this, but all countries do participate in this in one degree or another. I very much do think think about recent Chinese history from the Chinese perspective, which in turn shapes my opinion of how they should be dealt with at a foreign policy level. My wife is Han Chinese (born and raised there), so I have far more of an insider's perspective than the average American. Thus, when I look at your posts, I see some major whitewashing when it comes to China's nationalist and imperial ambitions. If we're bringing out our credentials, I was born in China and still visit family there. Parents left in no small part due to the aftermath of Tiananmen and general unhappiness with the state of affairs in China and lived through the Cultural Revolution. We're even again here, oh boy. Is the PRC an authoritarian regime that brutally oppresses minorities and dissidents? Yep. Does China have extraterritorial claims on, heck, every neighbor? Yep. Will China be willing to pay the economic, diplomatic, and political costs trying to enforce those claims with force? Depends, generally no, and in those cases usually as a last resort.
Does China have the power to enforce those claims, or will in the long-term? Nope. I bolded the area where you're whitewashing. China is actively building its military capabilities with eye towards enforcing its claims. Hell, it's already building fortifications in the islands. We may still be decades away from the tipping point where China has the power to enforce its claims, but there's no doubt that China is presently on a trajectory to get there. And perhaps most importantly of all, you left out the key, telling question: Does China want to enforce its territorial claims: Yep. Granted, China has some internal problems that need to be sorted out first, but let's not pretend that China isn't preparing for a coming conflict. The disturbing thing is that reports have shown that many in the PLA have a very hostile attitude toward the US. Combine that with the general level of opacity in Chinese militarization, and the problem becomes fairly obvious.
I've already noted in previous posts that China has been increasing it's military expenditures (and has for decades), and in the past few years been more assertive in their claims. However, if you look at the recent proposed budget and the 2014 Working Paper, you'll note that the increase is "only" 10%, versus the 12.2% of last year. There's more under the table and not on official documents, but it's an indication that China has other things on it's plate, most notably its economy. A few years ago, 7% GDP was considered a horrendous blow for the Chinese economy. I linked a very insightful CSIS event a few posts back, but consider economic slowdown and the possibility of financial crisis with accelerating demographic decline (because make no mistake, China is declining demographically; heck, the US is one of the few nations with a growing, stable-ish demography because of immigration). All of these factors will greatly constrain the fiscal capability of the PRC to continue to fuel major military spending increases in the next few years, and in the long term.
And again, even if China wants to start a conflict, the force disparity is too great. The US web of alliances, while not as solid as NATO, is still very large, and, quite frankly, the Chinese navy does not have anywhere near the necessary capability of projecting power far enough away to remotely threaten the US. Especially not when we're already testing out railguns; the PLAN's primary goal and design is to interdict US ships near Chinese waters. They are firmly a regional power.
And then let's look at the numbers: the US still spends ~3.5 times the amount China does, not including pre-existing tech and equipment advantages. Then factor in US allies: Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. The gap widens even more. Then consider domestic commitments: China has to commit military forces to many different borders, and also to paramilitary police to keep Tibet and Xinjiang under wraps. Combine this with a Chinese economy that isn't growing double digits, a shrinking labor force, and an aging population, with an impending debt/housing crisis looming for China up ahead. If we posit that China continues to grow more threatening to its neighbors, the neighbors react: ASEAN will drop their squabbles and unite on the issue of the Spratlys and push for internationalization of the claims, other nations will increase military expenditures to match (India is already increasing military expenditures). A new equilibrium is reached.
And, honestly, the Spratlys, among other islands are not worth a war over. We should still challenge them over the issue, but neither China nor the US is going to risk war over it. Yes, China is strengthening it's military presence on various islands to improve their claim; ok. And? ASEAN just needs to get their heads out of their asses on that island chains; others such as the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands are more tricky, due to nationalist reasons.
On March 24 2015 04:02 oneofthem wrote:
well thanks, america the land of the free. great.
seriously though i just dont feel like spending time arguing why human rights is good for reasons already stated.
They're good, but are they worth getting into an armed intervention or a war over? As the post-Cold War era has shown, not unless it's in your own backyard, and even then, only reluctantly (Yugoslavia). We have everything from Rwanda and Somalia, to fucking Syria, to show for that, unfortunately.
And of course, we have partaken in our own share of deliberate human rights abuses.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, there are other methods for supporting human rights than war. war is in itself probably counterproductive, and the efective part of any plan involving war comes after the war anyway.
peaceful methods for supporting human rights. for example, raise the cost of censorship, disrupting information control and streams, encourage actionable reformists etc. china expends considerable resources in domestic censorship because it's rather precariously positioned to go through with putting down a mass insurrection. it's a real danger to the future of the regime and contributes to the strength of hardliners in the party.
the character of china's particular blend of authoritarian capitalism is quite rapidly evolving into straight up class relations anyway, and would probably fit into more of a general critique of inequality and rent powers.
|
On March 24 2015 04:05 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Yes, China is strengthening it's military presence on various islands to improve their claim; ok. And?
When I was at the aforementioned museum in Beijing, I paid very close attention to the narrative that was told regarding China's interactions with the West during the colonial period. I took photographs of the key panels, which are what I was looking at when making my post about my favorite Chinese propaganda. The one regarding colonialism is my favorite. Do you know why? Because it so perfectly captures the attitude of the Chinese towards the West. The Chinese have a profound and deep sense of shame regarding what happened to them during the 19th and 20th centuries. This shame has been reinforced through Chinese education. It is pervasive throughout the military apparatus. China is an ascending country with a chip on its shoulder. Historically, bad things follow such circumstances.
|
On March 24 2015 04:12 oneofthem wrote:
well, there are other methods for supporting human rights than war. war is in itself probably counterproductive.
for example, raise the cost of censorship, disrupting information control and streams, encourage actionable reformists etc.
That is generally not within the purview of state-level actors, unless you want us to wage a covert war and undertake hostile action against China. Hence what I've been saying this entire time: human rights is not a state-level issue. That's something for non-state actors like NGOs or individuals to focus on and change, to exert pressure on state-level actors like the PRC government.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well the u.s. has supported some of these chinese dissident groups, often with state level objectives. but they are not very competent and pose no real threat to china.
|
I'm also not so sure if China's rising military budget should be interpreted as some concrete threat to the neighbouring nations. May as well be the case that China just wants to draw even with the US long-term and simply sees a strong military as a necessity that goes along with their economical and scientific development. I mean the US isn't that much different in that regard. After all the US has pointed out repeatedly that the NATO expansion is not aggressive or imperialist in nature (which is pretty much true).
|
On March 24 2015 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 04:05 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Yes, China is strengthening it's military presence on various islands to improve their claim; ok. And? When I was at the aforementioned museum in Beijing, I paid very close attention to the narrative that was told regarding China's interactions with the West during the colonial period. I took photographs of the key panels, which are what I was looking at when making my post about my favorite Chinese propaganda. The one regarding colonialism is my favorite. Do you know why? Because it so perfectly captures the attitude of the Chinese towards the West. The Chinese have a profound and deep sense of shame regarding what happened to them during the 19th and 20th centuries. This shame has been reinforced through Chinese education. It is pervasive throughout the military apparatus. China is an ascending country with a chip on its shoulder. Historically, bad things follow such circumstances.
And I've gone through similar museums in Wuhan and Shanghai. I know what you mean, but this doesn't negate anything regarding the basic geopolitics and cold, economic/demographic numbers, especially when an actual war would destroy the Chinese economy, given how ridiculously close regional economic interdependence in East Asia (and China and the US) is, and China simply cannot afford that.
The classic counterpoint would be WWI, but besides the East Asian regional economy surpassing even belle epoque Europe levels of integration, we have all learned from WWI and WWII, and the post-WWII institutional framework and regime is rather strong and resilient. Plus WWI was the culmination of political and diplomatic miscalculations and bungling during the July Crisis.
On March 24 2015 04:20 oneofthem wrote:
well the u.s. has supported some of these chinese dissident groups, often with state level objectives. but they are not very competent and pose no real threat to china.
Minor support. Unless we're talking the US supporting Tibet independence and the Dalai Lama, then it's rather off the radar.
On March 24 2015 04:22 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm also not so sure if China's rising military budget should be interpreted as some concrete threat to the neighbouring nations. May as well be the case that China just wants to draw even with the US long-term and simply sees a strong military as a necessity that goes along with their economical and scientific development. I mean the US isn't that much different in that regard. After all the US has pointed out repeatedly that the NATO expansion is not aggressive or imperialist in nature (which is pretty much true).
I'm personally still not sure how Russia is suppose to interpret missile defense facilities in Poland/Czech Republic as anything other than aggressive or targeted towards them.
Iran doesn't even have a missile with the capability of carrying a payload that far yet.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's always a threat when china's military is such that the cost makes sense for them to start enforcing aggressive territorial claims. it's not about who cna destroy who but what sort of cost it takes the u.s. to enforce the peace.
|
As it stands, Chinese military expenditures have generally kept even with economic growth and pegged at ~2.2ish% of GDP. But anyways.
On March 24 2015 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
it's always a threat when china's military is such that the cost makes sense for them to start enforcing aggressive territorial claims. it's not about who cna destroy who but what sort of cost it takes the u.s. to enforce the peace.
Again, you're ignoring the realities of what their neighbors would do. China acts aggressive and enforces their Spratlys claim: first, precisely how since it's pretty much uninhabited and nothing forces their neighbors to drop their claim (Vietnam still claims the Paracel islands despite China holding it for decades now, and China claims the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands despite de jure Japanese administration), and then this assumes their neighbors are headless chickens (somewhat apt in describing ASEAN, mind you but uh, not that headless). If China increases its military spending, so will its neighbors, as every neighbor of China is acutely sensitive to any Chinese expansionism or aggression.
Moreover, the principal value of these claims are the potential resources offshore. If China gets into an armed conflict, it can't exploit those resources.
China then does this in flagrant violation of international law which leads to repercussions from countries other than its immediate neighbors. This leads to major economic and diplomatic costs. Will China be willing to accept the status of a pariah nation, something Russia has semi-assumed, and everything that entails? Hmm...
This is a hypothetical that leads nowhere.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i said it's a threat, which means it'll start the cycle of armament that you've described. i didn't claim an actual war would break out. if the neighbors don't feel chinese armament is a threat then they wouldn't arm themselves/appeal for more american support. we dont really disagree much except the gloss
|
On March 24 2015 04:36 oneofthem wrote:
i said it's a threat, which means it'll start the cycle of armament that you've described. i didn't claim an actual war would break out. if the neighbors don't feel chinese armament is a threat then they wouldn't arm themselves/appeal for more american support. we dont really disagree much except the gloss
Alright, and then we come to the reality that continued Chinese budgetary increases for the military is not economically/demographically/fiscally feasible in the medium-long term. I like to call it the impending reality of East Asian demographic peace.
|
I don't even see it as a threat. China has historically not been the big bad bully of the pacific region. If anybody deserves that medal it's probably Japan. And given Japan's ambiguous stance about their history till today they're giving China ample ammunition and reason to display military strength. There is little historical evidence that China would pursue anything more aggressive than what they're doing now when it comes to territorial claims.
|
And given Japan's ambiguous stance about their history till today they're giving China ample ammunition and reason to display military strength
Japan's pacifist constitution doesnt give ammunition for anything
|
Japan is a tricky subject for everyone in East Asia (China and Koreas especially).
Fun demography facts! Japan's population is projected to decline to 2/3rd its current numbers by 2100, and China will fall behind India as the most populated country in the world in just over 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
