China's SCS Strategy Thread

[joshuatree]

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.

provoke - stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, especially by arousing anger in them.

Nothing in the definition of the word provoke mentions any relation to size or strength.

You seem fixated on size with the 10kg to 120kg person but this is an incorrect analogy. A 10kg person can still throw a bottle from the 4th floor onto the 120kg person on ground level and that's gonna be pretty devastating. Plus, you left out in your analogy the 10kg person has a 200kg person in the background to back that 10kg person up, at least that's what the 10kg person likes to claim.

Since you keep referring to larger, stronger, more powerful, you fail to account for all of those attributes are countered by the needs and challenges that naturally result from a much bigger population and geography as well.

This blind spot 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.

The other "blind spot" taken up by the other side of the argument is the fact that Vietnam along with the Philippines were the most vocal about China violating in spirit a non-binding Code of Conduct from 2002 yet the following diagram clearly shows Vietnam was hypocritically violating the very same spirit after 2002 and before China even started any reclamation. Provocation leads to responses.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

No this is not how international relations works, and I think you need to understand what exactly a "provocation" is. A provocation is any action that makes another side angry or inciting them into action.
It has nothing to do with the size of one's military or their GDP, it has everything to do with the statements and the actions of various sides and the past agreements which might have been made with regards to a specific dispute. And ultimately whether statements and actions are interpreted as provocations depends on the party who is on the receiving end of the statements and actions.

I think you are confusing "provocation/provoke" with "significant threat".
One does not necessarily need to be a "significant threat" to "provoke" another party.
Just because North Korea has an obsolete, starved military with virtually no credible ability to threaten the US, does not mean that it's actions in the peninsula are not provocative to the US.
A chihuahua is no threat to a grizzly bear but can still provoke it.

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.

You need to slow down and read what I said -- I said that I don't recall any war films about current disputes. I did acknowledge that there are all kinds of war films about the civil war and WWII, but films about that era aren't exactly relevant to the disputes at hand.
Your statement only works if you include documentaries as war films, but I think I'm being quite fair in that most people would not consider documentaries to be classed as films.

So I think my statement is still quite valid, and you should have included the word "documentaries" in addition to "war films".

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.

I feel like that you have misinterpreted what I wrote -- I said "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."
In other words -- I'm not sure why it is such an issue for you that China is making war films (and/or documentaries) when other countries in the world also do so for topics which are relevant to their interests and conflicts and history.

I was not talking about the scope of reclamation (that's another subject entirely) and I'm a little bit confused as to how you got that from my sentence.

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.

I feel like this is expanding the scope of the argument dramatically, you're basically saying that you feel that China's actions is being seen negatively by many countries all across the world, yes?
This is not the thread to discuss this topic, but I will say that if you want to seriously investigate the actual international perception of China, one must be as systematic and large scale as possible -- a few cases of hostility in each country might not be the most scientific way of collating this data.

I think Pew does surveys about international perception all the time, so if you really want to start building an argument based on evidence I think looking at the Pew results for China is a good place to start.

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.

Again, you're generalizing what you see as China's actions/policies in SCS to China's actions/policies internationally.
It is a massive claim. If you want to support that position, you'll need to first clearly state what you believe China's policy in SCS is like, and then state what you believe China's policy in international relations with other countries is like, and then list evidence of China's actions which support your claims to a sufficient degree that such actions are not merely a few unique cases.

By the way what I mean PR 101, is that generally no nation in any kind of dispute or conflict will accept their own fault for starting a dispute -- they will usually accuse the other side of being the provocateurs.

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.

Whoa, let's slow down a little. I never said that your arguments are not to my taste because of what you've said. I said your posts are not to my taste because of the way you say them, because of your excess sarcasm, exaggerations, and general vitriol and underhanded mocking of members on this forum.

I'm more than willing to engage with your points directly, but this is a professional forum with certain rules and there are ways that you should conduct yourself. I have no problem discussing issues with you but your previous manner in style is not conducive to good discussion and may end up provoking many members here.

You're not writing a master's thesis, but you should try to be polite as a matter of good manners, if you want others to take your points seriously.

 

[nfgc]

Since you keep referring to larger, stronger, more powerful, you fail to account for all of those attributes are countered by the needs and challenges that naturally result from a much bigger population and geography as well.

Well then there is little that shall sway one with your views. There is, indeed, a blind spot in many here that ignores how being 40x the size has an impact on what constitutes provocation. If a smaller person makes a larger person angry, the big person just walks away. You literally do not see or acknowledge this. Fair enough.

I never said that your arguments are not to my taste because of what you've said. I said your posts are not to my taste because of the way you say them...

That is the point I addressed. If you do not care for my posts due to "the way I say them", then do not read them. I won't be changing my style, if you don't mind.

 

[duncanidaho]

please delete.

 

[duncanidaho]

Well then there is little that shall sway one with your views. There is, indeed, a blind spot in many here that ignores how being 40x the size has an impact on what constitutes provocation. If a smaller person makes a larger person angry, the big person just walks away.

1. Nations are not persons.
2. Do you know the history about Francisco Pizzaro and Hernan Cortes?

 

[Blitzo]

Well then there is little that shall sway one with your views. There is, indeed, a blind spot in many here that ignores how being 40x the size has an impact on what constitutes provocation. If a smaller person makes a larger person angry, the big person just walks away. You literally do not see or acknowledge this. Fair enough.

Again, you are confusing whether one party is a "credible threat" to whether one party has the ability to "provoke" another.

Sure, the smaller person may not be a "credible threat" to a person 40 times their size, but the smaller person can still "provoke" the larger person into an action or a response.

That is the point I addressed. If you do not care for my posts due to "the way I say them", then do not read them. I won't be changing my style, if you don't mind.

That is fine, but then in that case you will also have to accept that people are going to criticize you for the style in which you post if they perceive it as offensive and possibly accuse you of flaming or what not.

 

[vesicles]

Dear nfgc, if you want to argue about the legitimacy of claims of the southeastern Asian countries, you should let go of the size argument. By bringing up the size thing, you have already conceded that they are on the wrong. You are basically saying " look, we know what we are doing is wrong. But you should ignore us because we are small." Thus, you have conceded that the claims of the ASEAN nations have no logical ground. so let it go if you want to argue that their claim is logical.

 

[joshuatree]

Well then there is little that shall sway one with your views. There is, indeed, a blind spot in many here that ignores how being 40x the size has an impact on what constitutes provocation. If a smaller person makes a larger person angry, the big person just walks away. You literally do not see or acknowledge this. Fair enough.

Actually, I did acknowledge when I mentioned the OTHER "blindspot" in my previous reply. Can't have an other if you don't have a first. But I also pointed out to you the capacity of smaller states to provoke and provocation leads to responses. I wonder if you see this or acknowledge?

Your smaller person bigger person analogy just keeps falling flat. We're not talking about movable vessels but hard set geographical features. There is no walking away analogy here unless relinquishing claims and that's not happening. If you think that should be on the table, then the small claimants equally should factor in relinquishing their claims.

 

[weig2000]

Dear nfgc, if you want to argue about the legitimacy of claims of the southeastern Asian countries, you should let go of the size argument. By bringing up the size thing, you have already conceded that they are on the wrong. You are basically saying " look, we know what we are doing is wrong. But you should ignore us because we are small." Thus, you have conceded that the claims of the ASEAN nations have no logical ground. so let it go if you want to argue that their claim is logical.

Well, both some Southeastern Asian nations which are claimants to SCS islands, and some western media and politicians have been trying to use this "small vs. big" arguments to paint China some kind of "bully." This was also why the former foreign minister of PRC, Mr. Jiechi Yang, was very frustrated by this kind of arguments that when launched into his (in)famous rant during a meeting in 2010 with ASEAN foreign ministers and Ms. Clinton, then Secretary of State: "China is a big country, other countries are small. That is a fact...." What's amazing was that western media, pundits and analysts immediately made it an evidence of China's bullying and coercion. To this day, any serious western analysts would quote Mr. Yang's statements when they cover SCS disputes and the relationships between China and ASEAN nations.

In a similar vein, you also see these people use the relative sizes of the island reclamation between China's and other claimants', as well as the relative distance from the SCS islands to "Chinese mainland" vs. those from other claimant countries as their arguments against China, explicitly or implicitly.

 

[Brumby]

A chihuahua is no threat to a grizzly bear but can still provoke it.

.... except this grizzly bear then goes to the Chihuahua's abode, drive it and its entire family out of the area, establish a zone for the next 1000 kms and then claim its is a victim because it was provoked as a defence for its actions. If you want your argument to have any credibility, I suggest you have to suspend all logic, reasoning, fairness in your universe.