Jump to content


Photo

China's Peaceful Rise

wink wink nudge nudge

  • Please log in to reply
2534 replies to this topic

#61 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 1028 AM

Chinese news website I sometimes check to see things from their perspective. They run articles about Japanese WW2 atrocities sometimes...ok whatever, but this time they got the nerve to link it like below.

 

TheJapasRevil00001.jpg

 

 

Like come on.. At least keep the history and the current events separate.


  • 0

#62 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,355 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 1054 AM

.

yyibvn.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are both right. Link versus link.


  • 0

#63 firefly1

firefly1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 1652 PM

 


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

 

.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Sanity, please.


  • 0

#64 firefly1

firefly1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 1657 PM

.

 

JasonJ ;

 

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

 

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


  • 0

#65 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 1842 PM

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

For the US at those times, keeping Imperialistic European countries and the Soviet Union out of Western Hemisphere was necessary policy (which was not entirely successful since a little still squeezed in). You would prefer a Soviet Union hegemony instead? Is the US planning on invading China which means Chine needs a Chinese Monroe Doctrine?
  • 0

#66 Heirophant

Heirophant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 2111 PM

JasonJ

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

https://i0.wp.com/ww...dispute-624.gif

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I do not get it!


Edited by Heirophant, 09 August 2014 - 2237 PM.

  • 0

#67 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 0311 AM

JasonJ

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Heirophant,

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

https://i0.wp.com/ww...dispute-624.gif

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I do not get it!

 

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

 

 

Edit:

Pardon me for the tone I have put out.


Edited by JasonJ, 10 August 2014 - 0320 AM.

  • 0

#68 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 0742 AM

 

 


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

 

.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Sanity, please.

 

 

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

 

I question your deliberately obtuse position.

 

.

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

 

 

Ah. Obvious personal agenda is obvious. Duly noted.


  • 0

#69 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 0949 AM

Heirophant:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


  • 0

#70 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 0954 AM

Heirophant, thank you for a well-written post.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

...

 

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

 

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


  • 0

#71 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1009 AM

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

 

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


  • 0

#72 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1118 AM

The deniers in office are a problem.
  • 0

#73 tankerwanabe

tankerwanabe

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1122 AM

TheTitle of this thread should be retitled "The peaceful annexation of territories belonging to smaller countries that cannot fight back."
  • 0

#74 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1131 AM

The deniers in office are a problem.

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


  • 0

#75 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1159 AM

 

The deniers in office are a problem.

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

 

 

I agree. Nevertheless, they need proper introductions.


  • 0

#76 firefly1

firefly1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1519 PM

.

 

X-files ;

 

The problem is that no ne has posted some "You were given US and Chinese figures for a substantial military leap forward"  -  all that were posted were the imaginary Pentagon figures which did not clarify basic manpower figures (almost all for internal security/repression, and did NOT show any huge increase in military capability (despite the two decades of military build up.

 

IF you believe all those threat warnings, then PLEASE post all the huge increases in military hardware.

 

As for your idea that you can wipe out the Monroe Doctrine (and all the meddling in South America) by thinking it is a personal foible  --  that merely shows how unable you are to face historical truths.

 

.


  • 0

#77 Heirophant

Heirophant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1937 PM

As for your idea that you can wipe out the Monroe Doctrine (and all the meddling in South America) by thinking it is a personal foible  --  that merely shows how unable you are to face historical truths.

 

My country has de-emphasized meddling in South America.

 

We interfere in many, many other interesting places these days.

 

But we still reserve the right to "meddle" in South America. You gotta have a sense of tradition, after all.


  • 0

#78 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 1955 PM

.

 

X-files ;

 

The problem is that no ne has posted some "You were given US and Chinese figures for a substantial military leap forward"  -  all that were posted were the imaginary Pentagon figures which did not clarify basic manpower figures (almost all for internal security/repression, and did NOT show any huge increase in military capability (despite the two decades of military build up.

 

IF you believe all those threat warnings, then PLEASE post all the huge increases in military hardware.

 

As for your idea that you can wipe out the Monroe Doctrine (and all the meddling in South America) by thinking it is a personal foible  --  that merely shows how unable you are to face historical truths.

 

.

VXPaLjt.gif


Edited by Mr King, 10 August 2014 - 1955 PM.

  • 0

#79 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 2111 PM

What should be said is that Russian aggression exacerbated by Medvedev's rudeness regarding the Northern Territories in 2008 were considered an insult to Japan, which left the Japanese government spluttering in rage.

 

It also was a wake-up call to the Japanese government, that the key to the successful resolution of territorial disputes such as the Northern Territories, Takeshima, and Senkaku, is possession, backed by strength.

 

Now, in 2014, it is the Chinese who must contend with possession of Senkaku backed by strength, and it is the Chinese who are feeling the same rage that Japan felt in 2008 when faced with Russian possession of disputed territory, backed by strength.

 

The PRC's claim on Senkaku is not as worrisome as Taiwan's claim.


  • 0

#80 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 1949 PM

It was actually around 2010/11 that Japan was severely rebuffed by Medvedev and Russia regarding the Northern Territories, not 2008. It seemed longer ago to my mind.

 

When the Japanese Foreign Ministry uses phrases such as "inexcusable rudeness" and "unforgivable outrage" regarding Medvedev, it is really something, as the Japanese government prefers to express its sentiments in more nuanced ways.

 

I believe the rage directed toward Russia at that time was real, as it was based on the helplessness of not having possession and not having the strength to change the status quo. Medvedev's repeated visits and subsequent orders to militarize the Northern Territories, while at the same time declaring for the record that Japanese rage was unimportant to him or Russia, exacerbated the situation, which included the recall of the Japanese ambassador to Russia.

 

This cycle of Russian provocation and increasing Japanese rage continued for years.

 

Unfortunately for the Chinese, the Japanese Foreign Ministry are also fast learners.


  • 0