China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

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

The problem with your view is that you see China has to abide to the international norm of "do as I say, not what I do". While other players (whether small or big) are taking up actions to stake claims that don't belong to them.

 

[Blitzo]

They should be classified as such in China as they function as propaganda to stoke nationalism. When several of them play every day, that moves them into another classification as their obvious intent has changed. Imagine if from your 500 cable channels that 100 were playing WW2 anti-Nazi programmes. All the time. Every day. That moves those documentaries into the realm of propaganda and that is what CCTV does daily.

Well then you should have said that originally, instead.

I certainly don't dispute that there is a significant number of CCTV's channels which have tv dramas about the civil war or WWII era, and there are also a number of documentaries on some current issues and past ones.

I'll continue this vein of discussion immediately below.

Analogy.

I know you don't see this, most here don't. China's size of actions elevates what they do. Instead of one History Channel among 500, China has many programmes running every day, among the 50 or so channels available on the mainland. Thus it is incorrect to equate them to other countries because China runs so many of them that they function as propaganda that gain a much larger mindshare in the populace.

Analogy.

China reclaims 2000 to 3000 acres over 18 months compared to the few acres reclaimed by everyone else combined over the past decade.

Common concepts.

Just as having 10% of all available programming being war films changes the result, so does reclaiming 3000 acres change the result.

The other runways combined have far less impact as the one at Fiery Cross as that runway is large enough for military craft of all sizes to operate from, compared to the other runways that are only 1200m or so in length.

Okay, i see what you meant; by programmes I thought you mean reclamation programmes regarding the islands but you actually mean TV programmes.

But I still don't understand why in your original post, you said "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."
What relevance does producing war films and documentary (or propaganda) have to do with the issue at hand?
Are you disagreeing with propaganda in China, because you don't like propaganda to begin with? That is to say, you think the position held by China is "artificially created" by propaganda and propaganda is thus an unfair way of continuing the positions held by its people (i.e.: nationalism)? In which case we'll have to get into a long and difficult discussion about just how much propaganda there is in the world produced by differing countries and how to define propaganda, and about the morality of propaganda (not to mention marketing and PR) in general.
Or are you annoyed because you believe China produces more propaganda compared to other countries, and that makes the battle of wills unfair because you think propaganda means more Chinese will believe in the govt's position on the SCS disputes and more Chinese will become nationalistic? In which case one has to ask, does the govt not have a right to try and influence the beliefs and interests of its populace? And how much nationalism becomes morally wrong? More difficult questions.

Because despite your last few responses to the question I'm not sure why you brought up the issue of propaganda (and by extension, nationalism). If you were just airing your frustration in general and complaining about the existence of nationalism in China, without making any substantial point then feel free to ignore all the above -- I can appreciate it if you were only venting so naturally I won't seek to criticize that as I would a true argument.

No, I am taking what I know from China, what my friends experience now, today, what I have heard from total strangers, what I have read from many sources dating back 200 years, and what I have experienced. I then see these traits mirrored in Chinese policy in the SCS and their geo-political policy. They are behaving completely congruently, everything they do makes sense - it just alienates everyone.


You list voluminous criteria that a dissenter must meet in order to contradict the prevailing forum wisdom. Yet the prevailing forum wisdom never met such criteria.

IOW I must meet a massively high standard, whilst everyone else does not.

Just on one point mentioned at the top - it would be an impossibility to ever conduct any research on Chinese TV as a non-Chinese and prove this to your standard. They simply would not allow one entry.

With all politeness, I am not going to play your game by your rules when reciprocity is abandoned.

You call the standards "high" but that's because you're making a very, very high claim in the first place.
If your own anecdote is the only evidence that you want to bring to support such an ambitious and vast claim as fact, then you're not going to be taken seriously, people will be very justified to say your arguments have no backing.
If you don't care about that, then that's fine, but I like to know what kind of person I'm discussing things with in the first place.

 

[Brumby]

The problem with your view is that you see China has to abide to the international norm of "do as I say, not what I do".

Well either you abide by the rule of law or you don't. China has the option to do what it pleases which in effect it is doing exactly that. It releases a map and claim sovereignty and such claim is indisputable but yet refuses to outline its basis and what it is claiming. At the same time it is providing the lame excuse its actions are provoked and is actually a victim. It is behaving like as if the global audience is simply its citizens subject to its authoritarian wishes - accept what I say approach.

other players (whether small or big) are taking up actions to stake claims that don't belong to them.

Your statement fits exactly into nfgc's point that there is a presupposition that the SCS belongs to China and the rest are trespassing. If you are so sure of your position, take it to the ICJ. In my view it wouldn't even outline its claim because it would not stand up to scrutiny. Repeating its claim is indisputable just works fine because plan B is better than plan A.

 

[nfgc]

But I still don't understand why in your original post, you said "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."

What relevance does producing war films and documentary (or propaganda) have to do with the issue at hand?

It is an analogy. Goodness, how many times do I need to repost that? Do you understand what an analogy is? I am beginning to suspect that you may not.

Are you disagreeing with propaganda in China, because you don't like propaganda to begin with? That is to say, you think the position held by China is "artificially created" by propaganda and propaganda is thus an unfair way of continuing the positions held by its people (i.e.: nationalism)?

I believe I mistakenly assumed some level of cultural literacy about China with many members here. I lived in China and I appear to be arguing with people who have very little first hand experience with that culture and thus have no awareness of how the micro affects the macro.

I have had many conversations with Chinese that resulted in brick walls, as they were not told basic facts - this is not about interpretation or points of view. There are things you know that the Chinese are oblivious to, and this is due to the propaganda they receive on a minute by minute basis. I am *not* referring to the 3T's.

I make this as an analogy to explain why what is on CCTV affects the attitudes we see in the SCS: The Chinese do not know about the numbers killed during the Tang and Han consolidations. If you research this in Chinese, what you will find are personal stories and myths. How many died is completely overlooked. When I asked people about this, they just stared at me blankly.

Or are you annoyed because you believe China produces more propaganda compared to other countries, and that makes the battle of wills unfair because you think propaganda means more Chinese will believe in the govt's position on the SCS disputes and more Chinese will become nationalistic?

I do not believe this, I know it, I experienced this, I watched the tv programmes my self.
I know that right now at least 3 to 6 programmes will play on the various CCTV channels tonight that are about various wars, conflicts, the military, SCS, and so on. Out of 50 channels nationwide. They have made statements that they are going to increase said programmes. I assumed many here were aware of what Chinese media covers and what the Chinese .Gov says regarding this topic.

I am quite certain that if I were to pull up the programming for any other nation that such a content bias in this direction would not exist. Certainly it is not true in other Asian nations or any other nation I have lived in.

Of course to know this you would have to have lived in China for many years to compare.

In which case one has to ask, does the govt not have a right to try and influence the beliefs and interests of its populace?

Again, this is about quantity and degree. These concepts seem to hold little meaning here. China engages in massive reclamation and far more propaganda than everyone else, but that falls upon deaf ears here and is considered equal or smaller. My analogy of the 10kg vs 120kg person literally does not compute with most here.

My point is that this attitude is endemic to many aspects of China, and your responses wrt propaganda reveal this yet again.

Size, scale, frequency, amount - most of you literally discard these concepts in this matter when discussing China vs. everyone else, unless (of course) it is the counterparty that did anything in a greater number. THEN it matters, but only then.

It makes debate nearly impossible when you treat China like a small nation with the capabilities of one.

 

[nfgc]

other players (whether small or big) are taking up actions to stake claims that don't belong to them.

Your statement fits exactly into nfgc's point that there is a presupposition that the SCS belongs to China and the rest are trespassing.

Yes, precisely, I completely agree. This presupposition exists on this forum among many, and it is as though it 'were the air here'. I found out quickly what happens when that presupposition is challenged.

 

[Equation]

Well either you abide by the rule of law or you don't. China has the option to do what it pleases which in effect it is doing exactly that. It releases a map and claim sovereignty and such claim is indisputable but yet refuses to outline its basis and what it is claiming. At the same time it is providing the lame excuse its actions are provoked and is actually a victim. It is behaving like as if the global audience is simply its citizens subject to its authoritarian wishes - accept what I say approach.


Your statement fits exactly into nfgc's point that there is a presupposition that the SCS belongs to China and the rest are trespassing. If you are so sure of your position, take it to the ICJ. In my view it wouldn't even outline its claim because it would not stand up to scrutiny. Repeating its claim is indisputable just works fine because plan B is better than plan A.

What rule of law? What makes you think this so call law is 100% sure fire guarantee and accepted by the entire world? You are accepting the little guys to do whatever they want to China, as long as China play according to the international norms even if it's wrong.

Your statement fits exactly into nfgc's point that there is a presupposition that the SCS belongs to China and the rest are trespassing. If you are so sure of your position, take it to the ICJ. In my view it wouldn't even outline its claim because it would not stand up to scrutiny. Repeating its claim is indisputable just works fine because plan B is better than plan A.

Your opinion fits into the view that China must be contain or else it grows too strong therefore are threatening it's neighbors by preposterous assumption that it would "conquer" them. By dividing the SCS into various small territories can only insure the so call peace in the region. This is exactly the false endorsement from the anti-China group believing that only they can dictate what terms are peaceful for both China and it's neighbors, never mind if the Asian neighbors could work it out the situation on a one-to-one basis. Repeating the rhetoric of a possible instability through conflict from the region does NOT equate to making it true if China doesn't listen to them. Remember not every body in the entire Asian region cares about the drama down in the SCS because lately there is NOT a single death coming from this. China has been promoting a peaceful dialogue with each and everyone of it's SCS neighbors and always has been, but somebody has to ruin it out of their own interest of course.

 

[Equation]

Yes, precisely, I completely agree. This presupposition exists on this forum among many, and it is as though it 'were the air here'. I found out quickly what happens when that presupposition is challenged.

Why are your views too good be challenged?

 

[joshuatree]

Why are your views too good be challenged?

There's a presupposition that routinely comes from the anti-China side, that China has zero rights in the SCS that goes beyond the 200 NM from just the mainland and Hainan. When it comes to Taiwan, there's even less than 200 NM. That many other claimants have rights based on historical and legal rationale but the course of historical events such as colonialism and wars may have prevented the respective claimants from fully exercising their rights. However, should the same principles be it historical or legal be used to qualify Chinese claims, that's not allowed.

There's also the presupposition that UNCLOS is rock solid and water tight, not realizing UNCLOS is an evolving process over several rounds of negotiations and discussions spanning decades. That the reality is that it is a horrible set of agreements because it purposefully left many areas vague to attract the number of signatories that it could get. Even then, the signatory list is loaded with many individual state declarations that highlight what each respective state perceives of UNCLOS and through the individual interpretation of the vague points, that respective state is willing to sign on per that interpretation. That it is missing the largest state in terms of military and diplomatic power as a signatory, really undermining its credibility.

In this English speaking forum, there's at least a certain level of objectivity, restraint, and moderation that keeps discussions mostly civil and allows real discussion to even happen which sadly, some perceive this as a rigged environment. For most other English speaking forums, there's nothing but vile, even racist tones in the so called conversations that take place that is purely nothing but Chinese bashing. Perhaps that is what is considered as not being rigged by some folks.

 

[tidalwave]

For most other English speaking forums, there's nothing but vile, even racist tones in the so called conversations that take place that is purely nothing but Chinese bashing. Perhaps that is what is considered as not being rigged by some folks.

Because it's deep rooted in history. Among all others, China for being most resistive and refused to subjugated to western values .(western countries hate China's historic self centered, middle kingdom mentality, therefore wanted humiliate China as much as possible is deep rooted in history) Opium war I &II, league of 8 nations...Chinese Exclusion Act ..etc.

 

[Blitzo]

It is an analogy. Goodness, how many times do I need to repost that? Do you understand what an analogy is? I am beginning to suspect that you may not.

-sigh-
Let's put this another way; is scale the only reason for you using propaganda/nationalism as an analogy for the SCS island reclamation? If it is, then why not use any measure of any other large scale project or statistic in China instead? High speed rail, infrastructure, market size, naval ship building, or population or even negative things such as pollution etc.

But no, you instead use propaganda as an "analogy" -- to be an analogy, two things must have similarity of features. The point of contention is what the similarity in features in your analogy actually are.

I believe I mistakenly assumed some level of cultural literacy about China with many members here. I lived in China and I appear to be arguing with people who have very little first hand experience with that culture and thus have no awareness of how the micro affects the macro.

I have had many conversations with Chinese that resulted in brick walls, as they were not told basic facts - this is not about interpretation or points of view. There are things you know that the Chinese are oblivious to, and this is due to the propaganda they receive on a minute by minute basis. I am *not* referring to the 3T's.

I make this as an analogy to explain why what is on CCTV affects the attitudes we see in the SCS: The Chinese do not know about the numbers killed during the Tang and Han consolidations. If you research this in Chinese, what you will find are personal stories and myths. How many died is completely overlooked. When I asked people about this, they just stared at me blankly.

I do not believe this, I know it, I experienced this, I watched the tv programmes my self.
I know that right now at least 3 to 6 programmes will play on the various CCTV channels tonight that are about various wars, conflicts, the military, SCS, and so on. Out of 50 channels nationwide. They have made statements that they are going to increase said programmes. I assumed many here were aware of what Chinese media covers and what the Chinese .Gov says regarding this topic.

I am quite certain that if I were to pull up the programming for any other nation that such a content bias in this direction would not exist. Certainly it is not true in other Asian nations or any other nation I have lived in.

Of course to know this you would have to have lived in China for many years to compare.

A simple "yes" answer would have sufficed here.

So basically you're annoyed because you believe the propaganda will make the Chinese more nationalistic. In which case I'm not going to challenge that because the virtue of your last post basically makes it impossible for anyone to challenge your own anecdote. You say "I believe this based on my own experience" and we say "we believe this based on our own experience," it becomes a mess.
All that said, it still does not explain how the scale of propaganda is a valid analogy to the scale of reclamation.
Instead, what you seem to be claiming is more that the scale of propaganda/nationalism is a direct cause for the scale of reclamation rather than comparing common features between two things.

The reason I cannot see the common features in your analogy is because I have different views regarding the nature of the island reclamation and propaganda/nationalism, and try as I might I do not know what views you have of those two things to consider them as a valid analogy. So feel free to describe what you see as common features.

Again, this is about quantity and degree. These concepts seem to hold little meaning here. China engages in massive reclamation and far more propaganda than everyone else, but that falls upon deaf ears here and is considered equal or smaller. My analogy of the 10kg vs 120kg person literally does not compute with most here.

My point is that this attitude is endemic to many aspects of China, and your responses wrt propaganda reveal this yet again.

Size, scale, frequency, amount - most of you literally discard these concepts in this matter when discussing China vs. everyone else, unless (of course) it is the counterparty that did anything in a greater number. THEN it matters, but only then.

It makes debate nearly impossible when you treat China like a small nation with the capabilities of one.

No, china is obviously a large nation with the capabilities of a large nation, but you seem to believe that in a dispute which is important to a nation, they are obliged to hold back on the basis of some kind of as of yet undefined reason.

If a nation is in a dispute which threatens its interests, it has the right to use whatever means it sees as necessary to respond to those threats, and that includes using its greater resources to outmatch the opponent. The severity of a response (such as China sending in mostly coast guard ships to enforce its claims in the SCS rather than using naval ships) depends on how much of a rebuttal they are willing to withstand, as a nation would not respond in such a way in a dispute to escalate the situation to one where the response of another nation results in consequences that they cannot accept.

Every nation has this right, including the nations China has SCS dispute with, and they have played their cards, and China is now playing its own.

Reading your posts it seems like you believe that China is being "unfair" because it is using more resources to respond to what it perceives as provocations, but it is also illogical to believe that any nation has the obligation to hold back on the resources it pools in. The scale and intensity of a nation's response is dictated by both the actual threat of a particular provocation and also what the highest consequences for a particular dispute is considered acceptable.