|
On June 15 2011 16:35 Empyrean wrote:
The ROC represented all of China in the U.N. until the 1970s. The PRC had been lobbying for its claims for decades until it finally passed
EDIT: Also holy shit@all that red, white, and blue ._.
Well that doesn't really represent the whole picture. The PRC had been diplomatically recognized for over a decade by that point, but purposely did not send representatives to the U.N. while the ROC had representatives there under the pretense that the unity of China was more important ideologically than the representing body. Of course they lobbied intensely to act as the representative gov't for China at the UN all the while though.
More recently, the idea of "one china" has been the popular stance in both the mainland and Taiwan. The new president of Taiwan has brought taiwan much closer to China and is now little different from the other "autonomous" regions of China, where Beijing purportedly does not interfere with the local government (though it clearly did in the case of Tibet when violence between the Han settlers and the locals broke out), but acts as the treaty party in international agreements.
Also, people have said things about China getting their asses kicked in the 3rd indo-china war, but that's not exactly the case based on the accepted historical accounts. It was a costly war for both sides, obviously, but ultimately, China's invasion was never meant to be an occupying force, but rather to be a punitive expedition. That they pulled back as soon as they reached the capital might be properly attributed to Vietnam's fierce resistance, since if there was no resistance, the PLA most certainly would have pushed further to make an even bigger point. As the PLA retreated from Hanoi, they implemented a (even today) controversial scorched earth policy. Both sides claimed victory, and in a sense both sides had extra-military goals in mind.
The PRC saw this as a means to subdue Vietnamese aggression, following the earlier Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia and the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations between Beijing and Hanoi. Their military offensive and scorched earth policy at the very minimum halted any further Vietnamese aggression in the region that might threaten China's borders.
On the other hand, the fierce resistance put up by the Vietnamese army solidified the regime's legitimacy and its ability to protect its people from foreign intervention. This makes sense so long as we remember that the primary narrative of many of these communist governments was not chiefly one of marxism, but rather one of anti-colonialism.
On June 15 2011 16:46 dakalro wrote:
If China would start a war with any of their small neighbors they would be quite safe, they have such a big influence in the world economy nobody would bother actually enforcing sanctions.
On the war side, look at what Russia did in Georgia.
China could go in for one massive push, occupy as much as possible to prevent incursions to their country. Then destroy every piece of military tech Vietnam has (navy, airforce, sams, artillery, armour), every little bit of industry, every military base and on their way out, all infrastructure. No need to even stay, just get back to China in a couple of weeks.
This way they get uncontested access to everything they want, Vietnam is back to the stoneage and its military is a lot of people with guns but no enemy to fight. Would be like Iraq invasion but without any need to stay there, they wouldn't care.
This is, in fact, what China did in their last conflict. They were not quite so successful as sending Vietnam "back to the stoneage."
|
Everyone on TL is too busy playing wargames and being an arm chair general. This is a pretty standard round of 'Chinese diplomacy', the point of the claims are not hinged around the islands themselves, rather the potential of an oil field under them. If there has been any sort of worrying conflict in the South China Sea, it would Taiwan (Chinese Taipei etcetc) and the military posturing both sides have been doing since the end of the Civil War. The Spratly Island's issue won't be resolved with violence, if anything the rights to the islands will be given to whatever country wants it, in exchange for the rights to search and prospect for oil for China.
|
On June 15 2011 16:58 hippocritical wrote:
Everyone on TL is too busy playing wargames and being an arm chair general. This is a pretty standard round of 'Chinese diplomacy', the point of the claims are not hinged around the islands themselves, rather the potential of an oil field under them. If there has been any sort of worrying conflict in the South China Sea, it would Taiwan (Chinese Taipei etcetc) and the military posturing both sides have been doing since the end of the Civil War. The Spratly Island's issue won't be resolved with violence, if anything the rights to the islands will be given to whatever country wants it, in exchange for the rights to search and prospect for oil for China.
I think you got the key payoffs correct, but I wouldn't be so optimistic. The other countries' claims aren't purely ideological either. They also want the oil. Thus, the whole "you can have the land, but we want the oil" resolution is highly unlikely to be amicable.
|
16934 Posts
On June 15 2011 16:58 Gummy wrote:
[great post here]
Also, China accomplished its goal of demonstrating both to itself and to the world that it could successfully resist any Soviet attempts at playing mediator in conflicts in the communist world.
However, I'd disagree to a certain extent with your last point. The difference in technological and military power between China and Vietnam is much greater now than it was in the seventies. If China were to conduct the same type of campaign, there'd undeniably be vastly greater damage to Vietnam.
|
but, as the same time, Vietnam has established several relationship with the entire global community especially after they joined WTO with US support.
The fact that China has grown in econ as well as military strength so fast made the current top countries in the world such as Russian or US feel the pressure. If there is a war happen based on this Viet-China conflict, clearly US and Russia as well as the rest of the world will back Vietnam up instead of China. Which certainly will put them in a huge disadv.
Take a looks at the recent phenomenal between US-China relationship in trading and culture, you could see how much neglecting both side are to each other. The dollarbills saved up as well as how china decided English should not be used in any sort of local media devices. US has been trying to find a lots of way to pay back and 1 of them is agree for Vietnam join WTO in 2007.
Noticed that the conflict Viet-China by the island was discovered by the media as almost identical time :-/
|
The potential economic costs of this war far outweigh the worth of whatever resources can be found below these islands, I am sure pretty much any chinese government advisor, analyst or whatever came to the same conclusion long ago. Hence any military bullying is just part of putting up diplomatic pressure. This is a consequence of today's interdependent world market, especially if the potential opponent is well integrated into the world market (which Vietnam is, unlike for example Afghanistan).
|
Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue.
|
On June 15 2011 19:28 haduken wrote:
Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue.
Oh the irony, the US Carrier Group shows up and see Taiwanese and PRC ships not shooting each other, and they sit there scratching the heads.
|
It won't be a military conflict. It takes alot to get one started in this day and age. If it would be close to starting there would be way way way way way more publicity.
|
On June 15 2011 19:28 haduken wrote:
Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue.
What? A draft? There is no such thing. I think the title of this thread is misleading a little bit. This is no an issue between China and Vietnam alone. This directly involves Malaysia and Philippine as well as most East and South East Asia countries.
But the situation is not as bad as it seems, there will just be alot of diplomatic talks and army show off, and thats about it.
|
|
|
Is this over the ownership of spratlys island? if it is, the only ones involved i think are only philippines and china, and china said they won't be even using forces to settle this.
|
after reading 10 pages, I realize:
1, most of the people dont understand the history of Vietnam and the diplomatic history between Vietnam and China and still make many (pre)judgements that aren't right.
*Personal idea: The Chinese was the one who started it, making a fuss and then they "try" to settle between each country alone. They slowly attempted to do this, long before this event but it was not this huge.
2. Filipinos do make random comments O.o
Fact is, I did study Vietnamese and Chinese history quite deeply, not the level of profession, but still know a lot of events since BC.
|
On June 15 2011 19:28 haduken wrote:
Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue.
I'm pretty sure what they did was outline who is exempt from the draft, not calling an actual draft.
|
On June 15 2011 17:28 Empyrean wrote:Also, China accomplished its goal of demonstrating both to itself and to the world that it could successfully resist any Soviet attempts at playing mediator in conflicts in the communist world. However, I'd disagree to a certain extent with your last point. The difference in technological and military power between China and Vietnam is much greater now than it was in the seventies. If China were to conduct the same type of campaign, there'd undeniably be vastly greater damage to Vietnam.
I don´t know. If the PRC really would conduct such a campaign wouldn´t they risk uniting everybody in the west? Sure, if a country or two would start to protest/put sanction in place China wouldn´t feel it. But if half of Europe and half of northern America would put sanctions into place China would have a huge problem. I think the political risk or fallout is simply too big. The oil in the sea certainly is interesting, but I doubt China would risk that much for it. To me it seems like a mindgame/bluff with no intention of escalating the situation to a critical point. At least I hope I am right.
|
These claims are pretty ridiculous. They're basically trying to get as much of the ocean for themselves as possible. I mean if they went a little bit farther, they'd be claiming land on Malaysia's soil.
The 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone seems like good boundaries.
|
On June 15 2011 08:42 TALegion wrote:
Expansion in the modern age.
Interesting. I'm exited about this, as the outcome and decisions of China will reflect on their position and opinions on growing into superpower.
China shouldn't be going to war with Vietnam. Right now for some reason people all over the world take them incredibly serious as a military force. The painfull truth is that their military is no stronger then Vietnam.
Perhaps if the two armies met on an open field China would win but that's not how war works. First up China would have to cross the sea...how? The American army's mobility is not standard, there isn't any nation in the world that can compare.
China couldn't mobilize it's military even if it wanted to. It's standing forces are about 1 million but China isn't going to be able to move most of those given it's enormous borders. The Chinese army lacks aerial or naval supremacy over Vietnam so it couldn't easily dominate the seas/air and create a transport route to ship land troops over.
The painfull truth is that if China goes to war with Vietnam then the result will most likely be similar to when the USSR tried to flex it's mucles and invade Finland. An incredibly embarasing display of military failure.
China cannot afford such a public humiliation, their government exists by the grace of their people. If people are unhappy about their government in the west they vote them out, if people are unhappy about the communist party they lynch them. Revolution is in the air and any public failure of such a magnitude will result in a very unstable situation for China.
All Vietnam would have to do is sit there and fend off the Chinese from a very nice position, all the while claiming (rightfully) that China was the offensive side that began a war of agression. Condemnation, military failure and economical slowdown would quikly force China to grovel back to the UN and present their mea culpa.
China is not a super power, it's a regional power. Problem for them is that India and Russia are also sharing that same region and the trinity of Japan/Australia/Korea dwarfs each one of them individually with economical power.
A Chinese/Vietnam war wouldn't do anyone any good but China sure as hell wouldn't be in any position to win it.
|
On June 15 2011 17:44 NB wrote:
but, as the same time, Vietnam has established several relationship with the entire global community especially after they joined WTO with US support.
The fact that China has grown in econ as well as military strength so fast made the current top countries in the world such as Russian or US feel the pressure. If there is a war happen based on this Viet-China conflict, clearly US and Russia as well as the rest of the world will back Vietnam up instead of China. Which certainly will put them in a huge disadv.
Take a looks at the recent phenomenal between US-China relationship in trading and culture, you could see how much neglecting both side are to each other. The dollarbills saved up as well as how china decided English should not be used in any sort of local media devices. US has been trying to find a lots of way to pay back and 1 of them is agree for Vietnam join WTO in 2007.
Noticed that the conflict Viet-China by the island was discovered by the media as almost identical time :-/
You're way too optimistic about what Russia/US would do if China was aggressive. It's one thing to lob missiles at Gadhafi. Quite another to kick off a conflict with a superpower in their sphere of influence. And the rest of the world will not back Vietnam up lol. They have very little political clout. All they are is a cheap labor country who's willing to give the US seaport rights.
Edit: But in general, I agree with those saying it'd be retarded for China to be aggressive. They aren't capable of fighting a war of aggression. Nor would there be any profit in doing so. The Chinese people have nothing against Vietnam whatsoever, so they wouldn't have any popular support for it either. The Vietnamese haven't really ever done anything to Chinese ppl. There's no good rhetoric for it unlike the Taiwan/Japan issues. I don't see it ever going to a war or anything like it.
It's just a squabble over oil. Only the US is psychotic enough to run around bombing people for oil.
|
On June 15 2011 15:01 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:58 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote:
This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
True, there may be logistical differences, but that alone shouldn't stop anyone from trying to draw a comparison. Hardly was there ever any perfect metaphors for anything. You may also say that China is spelt differently to US, we shouldn't compare. The mere fact is, China and US have a huge military lead over Vietnam, and it is enough to give credibility that a superpower does not automatically trump a smaller country in a military conflict. If we're going to use proximity as a measure of the validity of the claims, you might as well put it to down whoever is closest gets it. If you are going by who has historical claims over it, then that is a different matter. Agree with your third point. You're going to compare a transglobal conflict to a conflict between two powers that share a border? Do you realize the exponential difference in costs between the two types of conflict? You're acting like this is just driving down a different road. Logistics are 9/10ths of war nowadays and your example was silly. What are you talking about proximity as measure of validity. Do you know what UNCLOS is?
And US has a bigger, stronger and more efficient military that makes up for it. So what? The point is you have a country with a big military vs a smaller military country, and big does not always trump small. That was the point. The minute you start drilling down to specifics, whether or not they share a border, whether one has aircraft carriers or not, whether one has a billion population or not, then you lose the simplistic point that the metaphor was trying to establish. Give me any metaphor and I will break it down by being nitpicky, but the point of a metaphor is not to offer a complete and perfect substitute, but, in this case, it was to prove a single solitary point. BIG does not always beat SMALL.
If you still insist on this point, then lets take away the metaphor and tell me exactly who would stand a better chance at beating Vietnam at a military conflict and why. Is it the more sophisticated, better trained and better equipped US army. Or the larger and nearer Chinese army. If you say US, then you prove my point, because US lost it back then. If you say Chinese, and stick to your logistical argument, then you still do not disprove my point because I said sometimes big militaries don't beat small militaries, not always. Finally if you don't know, then what are you even talking about.
On the issue of proximity and UNCLOS, I would like to say this. UNCLOS applies only if there was not historical claim to the islands. Specifically the parcel islands, if Vietnam claims that it had Vietnamese inhabitants there way before and has ancestral rights to it, then it does not matter if the land was 10miles away or 1000 miles away, it has claims on it cause it had or has people living there. If the disputed territory has no historical claims, then the UNCLOS is the reference.
Read up, what I say is true.
|
On June 15 2011 16:52 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote:
Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't. The Us lost because their military policy was not to intentionally kill civilians, which obviously doesn't help if the enemy is within the civilian populace. China doesn't have that issue at all. Not to mention Vietnam didn't attack the US -- that would have been incredibly laughable.
It can't win the war if it had a policy of killing civilians. The world would react, unite and attack the US. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians died due to inaccurate bombing, US soldiers shooting randomly or even the project orange chemical sprays. Again if it had a policy of allowing civilians ot be killed, it would have to face most of the civilised World who would never allow this. And don't go into a jingoistic argument about how the US can beat everyone, it can'tm they will get nuked and it will be a Mutually Assured Destruction ending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48951000/gif/_48951920_south_china-sea_1_466.gif)
