China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

It is a victim because others are taking advantage of a weaker China before today to stake claims that don't on territories that don't belong to them.

I think there are two distinctive time periods that you are alluding to and consequently they invoke different issues which I think is important to differentiate in the conversation. I get the part of China's history and it being a victim to the colonial powers in the 19th century. The other period is the formative years under the CCP when the country was rebuilding itself and the concurrent development in the SCS. Clearly there is a dispute and each claimant has its own history in staking its claims. Citing victimhood viz a viz the SCS in the present era is overplaying history in my view

The focus largely on why "China's claiming to be a victim" points to the fact that you don't want to see it that way and therefore avoid the issue China can do the same what others did before. That is fine with me if you view it that way, but it is laughable to think only China can't do the same as others did to her. There is fact that China has a historical occupation to those territories. The other players don't want to use history as evidence because they know they don't have the longevity of time in action to back their claim like China. It is NOT China's fault that her civilization and activities during those time are far older than others therefore more legit.

The problem I see in your statement is the approach appears to be one of retribution rather than grounded on history being on its side. Customary law recognises discovery, occupation and jurisdictional rights. If China has the historical veracity on its side as you seem to suggest, why does China not present its claim? What we have today is a nine dash line map and an official stance that its claim its indisputable.

Unfortunately there is a disconnect between China's claims and its actions.

 

[Blitzo]

Bias is a natural fact of life. Accept it and move on. Problem is too many of the conversation is about media bias rather than the subject matter that it becomes the default talking point. I don't see anybody complaining about media bias from Global Times or the People's Daily. Why is that?

The difference is that when people read people's daily or global times they understand that there typically is a "bias" behind it and will automatically try to critically look at what they're saying -- i.e.: they keep their guard up and considers what may be true and what isn't.

While OTOH, I think there is a perception by many here that there is an unspoken idea in the general public that western media is somehow independent, unbiased, and fair, while many members here feel like the reporting on certain matters is insufficient for that kind of claim.

Or putting it another way, I think members here would not be focusing on the whole media bias slant, if it was openly accepted by everyone that all media are biased in their own way.

Having debated extensively with other posters in this forum I do have some observations that I can offer. Moderation are conducted professionally. Jeff in particular is as neutral as you can get. He is well respected by other posters regardless of ideological leaning. Any suggestion that moderation is bias is simply unfoundered when placed against facts. Having said that, many posters in this forum are generally pro China and any negative comments are not well received and that can generate a sense of forum bias. Any ensuring debate tends to degenerate and goes downhill. What is obvious it generally take a certain track :
* Arguments tends to mirror China official policies with very little substance being added;
* Playing the victimisation card i.e. it is someone else fault;
* Blame foreign media for reporting bias
* Dishing out the strawman argument even though it does not represent its usage in any shape or form
* Making assertions as if they are facts but will not respond when challenged

I think this is a bit of a cheap shot towards some members on the forum and a bit presumptuous in many regards -- no more better than other members who have criticized you in the past for your own position on certain topics.

That said, I think it's also important to acknowledge that this is a defence forum for China, and it has been openly stated by some mods in past years that there is a degree of pro-China slant here. How much of a slant is up to one's own biases, but there is definitely a bias and a slant.... but that isn't to say that there isn't biases of equal or even worse kinds on other forums.

 

[Brumby]

The difference is that when people read people's daily or global times they understand that there typically is a "bias" behind it and will automatically try to critically look at what they're saying -- i.e.: they keep their guard up and considers what may be true and what isn't.

While OTOH, I think there is a perception by many here that there is an unspoken idea in the general public that western media is somehow independent, unbiased, and fair, while many members here feel like the reporting on certain matters is insufficient for that kind of claim.

Or putting it another way, I think members here would not be focusing on the whole media bias slant, if it was openly accepted by everyone that all media are biased in their own way.

I think the divide is of perception. Although the media is generally regarded as the third pillar, I have no doubt that in every article there is a story to a story. As such I read with an open but questioning mind. My point is simply that too much emphasis is placed on media bias and it becomes the default point rather than the story itself. A recent example is in another thread when Sampan asked a question about China's $26 trillion debt and a linked source . SB in my view innocently provided a link to the article in reply. You then get a plethora of comments about how bias the article was and someone even did a thesis like post on why the article was bias. This is borderline paranoia in my view.

I think this is a bit of a cheap shot towards some members on the forum and a bit presumptuous in many regards -- no more better than other members who have criticized you in the past for your own position on certain topics.

I thank you for your honest opinion. Point taken.

That said, I think it's also important to acknowledge that this is a defence forum for China, and it has been openly stated by some mods in past years that there is a degree of pro-China slant here. How much of a slant is up to one's own biases, but there is definitely a bias and a slant.... but that isn't to say that there isn't biases of equal or even worse kinds on other forums.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with someone having a political leaning or held views. The problem I have is when those views default into some kind of talking points that I outlined in my post which you regard as cheap shot. Lol.

 

[Blitzo]

I think the divide is of perception. Although the media is generally regarded as the third pillar, I have no doubt that in every article there is a story to a story. As such I read with an open but questioning mind. My point is simply that too much emphasis is placed on media bias and it becomes the default point rather than the story itself. A recent example is in another thread when Sampan asked a question about China's $26 trillion debt and a linked source . SB in my view innocently provided a link to the article in reply. You then get a plethora of comments about how bias the article was and someone even did a thesis like post on why the article was bias. This is borderline paranoia in my view.

I can appreciate why you think that and I too have noticed the "paranoia" as well.

But I don't think the paranoia is unjustified per se, because many members here probably have been reading what they perceive as biased reporting on certain subjects, and have basically been socialized to distrust the way certain outlets report on certain subjects over a long period in their lives. And when that paranoia may help to analyze the claims or assumptions of articles or reports, well I don't see any harm in that so long as others are also able to critically look at the logic of the analysis of an article's claims in the first place.

I thank you for your honest opinion. Point taken.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with someone having a political leaning or held views. The problem I have is when those views default into some kind of talking points view that I outlined in my post which you regard as cheap shot. Lol.

Well I called it a cheap shot, because it was a criticism that was simultaneously not directed towards anyone in particular but at the same time directed at everyone.

As for "defaulting" of views, at best I think you can say that you've noticed certain trends in the way discussions about certain specific topics are had.
Calling them "talking points" is also not very accurate; the trends that you may notice are reflective of beliefs. Posters here aren't resorting to "talking points" blindly without their own independent thought, it's not like they're reading off a prepared script and trying to fit in the best response.

 

[Blitzo]

Either a nation goes along with what China says and does, or China plays the victim, claims provocation, and then creates another dozen war films for CCTV. Claiming that the other SCS nations provoked China is aburd for China to state. The PI has almost no navy (much of it literally 75 years old rusting hulls), and is not a threat in any way to a nation 40x larger in gdp. Vietnam's is 1/5th the size, and so on. Yet China repeatedly uses language of provocation, aggressor, and so on.

I'm not sure why you believe that having a larger GDP or a larger military has any relation to what a country perceives as a provocation. A nation defines its own interests, and any other nation whether they are large or small can threaten them or act in such a way to irritate and provoke them.


I'm also not sure what war films have to do with anything, I don't recall many if any Chinese war films regarding current events that often (most tend to be WWII or civil war related)... but even if China does make war films, I'm not sure why that is such an issue given other countries make war films too... sometimes films about wars even while they are still going on.

There is no way to get China to do anything. Either one agrees to China's terms, or one is painted as the aggressor.

You know, what you described is kinda just geopolitics-PR-talk 101.

Every nation of course believes their own position is reasonable, that their assumptions are fair and that others who try to push against those lines are the villains. Of course there's a bit of leeway as to where the red line is, but every nation has their lines, and there will always be guys on the other side who thinks a nation is being BS unreasonable... and this is something which goes for every nation ever.

Regardless, China is going to do what it wants to do and nothing, no one, no nation or collection of nations, is going to stop them.

Thus the strategy for everyone else is either agree to everything China does, or China reacts to the 'provocation' of the other nation not being an obsequious toady.

See, now these two sentences are kind of a bit too out there for many people's taste. It certainly is too much for my own palate.

I can of course appreciate that this very ambitious and difficult to defend statement is meant obviously in jest, but it does seem to reflect certain views you may have.

For instance, one might believe that you think it is unreasonable for a nation to try and use as much power as it can to back up its claims for a dispute. You also believe that China is not being reasonable in its policy for this specific dispute, possibly being not willing to negotiate or be flexible enough. Underlying all of this is probably your belief that you simply believe China's red lines that it has are simply unreasonable.

The views you have are not a problem, just air them openly and they can be discussed. But it's somewhat poor form when you rely on sarcasm and facetious exaggerations as the main vehicles of advancing your position. People are going to perceive them as obnoxious and offensive and accuse you of flaming, and they'd be justified in doing so. Any possible positions that you might have been able to validly defend becomes lost.

And reading the subsequent replies you've made, quite frankly I haven't seen such ambition on this forum in a while -- not only do you make personal attacks against specific members but also make a few assumptions about the forum to attack everyone here, and then you effectively try to invalidate the views of anyone that might be similar to that of the PRC.

I'm sure that buried underneath all that vitriol are some valid points worthy of calm and measured discussion but you're really not helping yourself out here.

 

[nfgc]

Word to the wise, you're standing on the tripwire and in danger of being placed in the penalty box for a week or two. This is from one who just got out of said box.

And? This is an internet forum - there are millions of more important things in life.

Finally, conduct yourself at all times in a civil and professional manner even if your actions might not be reciprocated because your patience will be tested.

"...even if your actions might not be reciprocated..."

Q.E.D.

Finally, you should understand the difference between history and prehistory.

China is not special nor unique. Every nation has history and prehistory, every nation can claim back to the mists of ancient time. History does not give a society special dispensation over one with a pre-history.

As you point out, Vietnamese Neolithic societies "predate those in China by a full 15,000 years". Thus, these nations should be ancient and wise, much like Yoda (old and wise but small in size), while China is a youngster. So according to your logic, shouldn't the old and wise cut the youngster some slack? When was the last time that an old man fights with a baby for a lollipop? Why not just give it to the youngster?

China is making this claim due to historical age, thus I compare their claim going back hundreds of years to an analogous one if Vietnam did the same. I made no assertion about being Vietnam being 'wise' or 'wisdom' being germane to this matter.

LOL, I just want to say that by that logic, Chinese civilization began with the Peking Man, about 750,000 years ago.

Sorry, but I can't help but laugh at the ignorance of someone claiming a Neolithic society to belong to a particular modern nation.

Certain Neolithic sites *are* regional with unique characteristics and various digs show this. It is certainly not 'ignorance' to state this. If your 750,000 year old claim can be used by China, then so can others having various sapiens sites, and hence UNCLOS to sort this mess out; but China wants to apply a standard that benefits them when they wish. If the law benefits them, well then they will use the modern law; if historical claim benefits them, well then they will use that.

China's strategy is to claim whatever method resolves to their benefit. They do not appear to be willing to negotiate anything if the counter party gets any benefit and will only negotiate if terms, conditions are to their benefit. Any negotiation that does not give China what it wants results in strongly worded statements from China. There appears to be no "win-win". It's all or all. There does not appear to be any attitude of fairness involved. It's China's way, or they become verbally and physically belligerent.

I really do not see how this benefits China, unless they want to alienate everyone and make everyone their enemy. They are well on their way.

Please everyone note I am studiously avoiding mentioning 'The West' and 'the USA' for good reason. China is alienating non-western nations and their neighbours at a shocking pace. Unless they want to be cut off from everyone, I do not see how their current geo-political policy makes any sense for them at all unless they wish to become isolationists again, but somehow trade with the world to grow their economy. More contradictions on multiple levels - their actions make no sense from any point of view. Face, money, economic growth, regional leadership, global leadership, military gains and growth, internationalisation of their resource pipelines, and so on.

What they are doing literally makes no sense, even by their own standards.

I do not see this policy being wise, if they wish to engage with the rest of humanity on this planet.

 

[delft]

And? This is an internet forum - there are millions of more important things in life.



"...even if your actions might not be reciprocated..."

Q.E.D.



China is not special nor unique. Every nation has history and prehistory, every nation can claim back to the mists of ancient time. History does not give a society special dispensation over one with a pre-history.



China is making this claim due to historical age, thus I compare their claim going back hundreds of years to an analogous one if Vietnam did the same. I made no assertion about being Vietnam being 'wise' or 'wisdom' being germane to this matter.



Certain Neolithic sites *are* regional with unique characteristics and various digs show this. It is certainly not 'ignorance' to state this. If your 750,000 year old claim can be used by China, then so can others having various sapiens sites, and hence UNCLOS to sort this mess out; but China wants to apply a standard that benefits them when they wish. If the law benefits them, well then they will use the modern law; if historical claim benefits them, well then they will use that.

China's strategy is to claim whatever method resolves to their benefit. They do not appear to be willing to negotiate anything if the counter party gets any benefit and will only negotiate if terms, conditions are to their benefit. Any negotiation that does not give China what it wants results in strongly worded statements from China. There appears to be no "win-win". It's all or all. There does not appear to be any attitude of fairness involved. It's China's way, or they become verbally and physically belligerent.

I really do not see how this benefits China, unless they want to alienate everyone and make everyone their enemy. They are well on their way.

Please everyone note I am studiously avoiding mentioning 'The West' and 'the USA' for good reason. China is alienating non-western nations and their neighbours at a shocking pace. Unless they want to be cut off from everyone, I do not see how their current geo-political policy makes any sense for them at all unless they wish to become isolationists again, but somehow trade with the world to grow their economy. More contradictions on multiple levels - their actions make no sense from any point of view. Face, money, economic growth, regional leadership, global leadership, military gains and growth, internationalisation of their resource pipelines, and so on.

What they are doing literally makes no sense, even by their own standards.

I do not see this policy being wise, if they wish to engage with the rest of humanity on this planet.

China has shown in negotiations on land borders will all neighbours except India that it is prepared to make concessions to reach an equitable agreement. ( Retired Ambassador Bhadrakumar and retired police general Subramanian, who was the highest police officer in North East India, both blame New Delhi for that ). There is no reason to believe that an equitable agreement is impossible in SCS.

 

[JayBird]

Malaysia, China to hold joint military exercise in September

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BEIJING: Malaysia and China would hold a joint military exercise from the middle to late September in the Straits of Malacca and its surrounding area, said the Chinese Defence Ministry, Thursday.

The joint exercise will be the first between both armed forces. Some 1,160 Chinese participants were expected to take part in it, Xinhua news agency quoted the ministry’s spokesperson Yang Yujun as saying.

Codenamed “Peace and Friendship 2015“, the exercise would include joint escort, joint search and rescue, saving hijacked vessels, use of weapons, humanitarian aid and disaster relief, it said.

“Two Chinese destroyer-frigates, one hospital ship, four transport aircraft and three shipboard helicopters will be involved in the exercise,” Xinhua quoted Yang as saying.

A joint command post would be set up by both sides to coordinate the air, land and sea forces, it said.

The military drill is aimed at cementing the China-Malaysia all-round strategic partnership, enhancing bilateral military exchanges, improving capabilities to address security threats, and jointly safeguarding regional maritime security. – BERNAMA

 

[nfgc]

I'm not sure why you believe that having a larger GDP or a larger military has any relation to what a country perceives as a provocation.

The larger, stronger and more powerful one, or a nation, is, the less that an entity of give size X will provoke you. If a 10kg person attempts to provoke a 120kg person, it's a non-issue. Thus a nation with a massive military is not provoked by one with a rusting navy of 75 year old derelicts - and in this case that is exactly what is at issue.

I'm also not sure what war films have to do with anything, I don't recall many if any Chinese war films regarding current events that often (most tend to be WWII or civil war related)... but even if China does make war films,

I am incredulous at this response. CCTV regularly - as in every afternoon and every evening - has at least 3 and up to 6 channels (of the standard ~50+ channels available at any time) that have war films regarding WW2, soap operas set in the period of 1937-1949, Military programs, documentaries about the USA, the Spratly's, the Senkakus, Japan, WW2 (War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression), Korea (War of Resistance Against USA Aggression), and so on. Comedies, Dramas, romances, soap operas, talk show panels, discussions, interviews, MMOG with Spratlys as the focus, every format has been used for the constant, daily, message. There is always at least 1 show on and more likely 2, 3 or more, always, at all times.

I'm not sure why that is such an issue given other countries make war films too... sometimes films about wars even while they are still going on.

It is the size and scope of what China does when compared to everyone else that makes them not comparable. They have far more programmes than anyone, and their reclamation dwarfs all others combined.

This blindspot is very common here. To many here, it is irrelevant if China reclaims 7 islands of 3,000 acres total and Vietnam reclaims 20 islands of 22 acres total - in their mind, what Vietnam does is much more incorrect, or comparable. I guess many here do not comprehend the vast difference that this makes in projecting power when one creates several sq kms of land in comparison to a few tens of thousands of sq metres..

There really is not much I can post to remedy this - you don't see this, I cannot make you realise the difference in scope makes a difference in the disruptive nature of the acts. Either in the number of war programmes or the area of reclaimed land - small equals the same as massive to many here who do not recognise that they are not the same when the size scopes, runway lengths, harbour depths and sizes, are so much greater in the case of China's.

Every nation of course believes their own position is reasonable, that their assumptions are fair and that others who try to push against those lines are the villains. Of course there's a bit of leeway as to where the red line is, but every nation has their lines, and there will always be guys on the other side who thinks a nation is being BS unreasonable... and this is something which goes for every nation ever.

Yes, however China is pushing away nearly everyone, even more than the USA. It cannot be that everyone is biased against China. It is more likely that the Chinese consistently behave in a fashion that irritates everyone, and by 'everyone' I use Nicaragua, Mexico, Nigeria, Vietnam, Thailand, The Maldives as some of the standards wrt geo-political stature and size. When I read articles in Spanish and see anti-Chinese graffiti written in Central America in Spanish, when the Maldives express regret about allowing China to reclaim land - that is most definitely not the 'West' and reveals a broad issue with Chinese behaviour on this planet. The same criticisms come up again and again, in different languages, in different countries, on different continents, in different media sources.

This is not 'PR 101', this is an issue with behaviour and many societies see this and response similarly. They seem even less concerned than the Americans with how many they push away. There is not even an attempt at coalition building, for one of many examples look at the Chinese behaviour when responding to the most recent ASEAN meeting. They literally seem to not care, and speak in harsh reproachful tones to other nations.

See, now these two sentences are kind of a bit too out there for many people's taste. It certainly is too much for my own palate.

Well, either make a cogent logical counter argument or accept that other people will say things not to your taste.

Arguing based upon a disagreement with style...that's just not a valid argument. I am not making a Master's Thesis Defense with an assigned style guide. If you don't like how I post, or how I say what I say - I really don't care. You can place me on ignore or choose to not reply, or simply not read my posts. It really makes no difference me.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Blackstone]

The larger, stronger and more powerful one, or a nation, is, the less that an entity of give size X will provoke you. If a 10kg person attempts to provoke a 120kg person, it's a non-issue. Thus a nation with a massive military is not provoked by one with a rusting navy of 75 year old derelicts - and in this case that is exactly what is at issue.

The notion very weak military powers can't provoke strong ones exist only in some people's imagination. In the real world, international relations are best characterized by Thucydides' dialogue with the Melians: "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Credit the weak powers for doing what they dare against the strong, but in the end, they must reap the whirlwind of their own actions, especially if they scheme against their stronger neighbors.