China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

I have to disagree with both points.

This successful strategy is well under way and China is already in a bind. It most efficiently leverages the immense US advantages in having both more carrots and more sticks to use on smaller countries which China cannot possibly hope to match. Together with US willingness, capability, and expertise acquired through a longstanding practice of persistent, aggressive exercising of both hard and soft power to shape the domestic politics and hearts and minds of smaller countries, especially those with a history of being Western colonial subjects. Essentially the US exercises textbook divide and conquer with the colonialist touch of self-proclaimed cultural superiority, which is akin to the psychology of hazing capitalizing on the idolization of the wealthy and powerful including the deliberate immoral pursuit of both.

Only those that believes in whatever the US media wrote believes in such trivial rhetoric. If the US where that successful than the SCS dispute would have been resolved already. Heck they are having trouble containing problems all across the Middle East and Arab world with their much smaller and less capability military compare to the US as well as financial muscle. Now just imagine China with a much more powerful rivalry in every measure? The US tax payers are getting tired of their government getting themselves into an $18 Trillion debt and growing with no end in sight in the fight against terrorism both abroad and at home.

 

[janjak desalin]

Only those that believes in whatever the US media wrote believes in such trivial rhetoric. If the US where that successful than the SCS dispute would have been resolved already. Heck they are having trouble containing problems all across the Middle East and Arab world with their much smaller and less capability military compare to the US as well as financial muscle. Now just imagine China with a much more powerful rivalry in every measure? The US tax payers are getting tired of their government getting themselves into an $18 Trillion debt and growing with no end in sight in the fight against terrorism both abroad and at home.

Sorry Equation, but you miss two things. First PanAsian is hardly an American policy apologist, nor is she or he easily susceptible to the simplistic psychology and obvious tactics of the western media. Even a cursory perusal of his or her comments, here, would illustrate that. In fact, her or his analyses, more often than not, explicitly reveal mechanisms of influence/domination that western media attempt to obscure.

Second, simply because particular analytic devices aren't in your conceptual toolbox doesn't render them invalid. To dismiss an analysis as trivial rhetoric simply because it's over your head isn't becoming of an honest intellectual, and I'm assuming that is how you see yourself. If your particular disciplinary orientation has failed to provide you with an understanding of the Postcolonialist approach, that is observing the ways that the effects of Colonial policies and practices ramify through contemporary international relations and contribute to a neo-Colonialism, that's a deficit that you need to address, or not. But, to attempt to dismiss something that informed others can easily see the validity of as trivial only makes you look both ignorant and small. Ignorance is simply a matter of not having acquired knowledge; small reveals a, deeper, personal inferiority. These, so far, have not been the qualities of your contributions, here.

Now, it goes without saying that, you're free to respond to this criticism from whichever attitude you choose. But you'd be wise to recognize, or as ghetto would say, "betta recuhize", that you're not interacting with pseudo-intellectuals, here. So, intellectual-dishonesty won't cut it.

I do apologize for the tone of my comments to you. Unfortunately, in this instance, it seemed to be warranted.

I will add further, as it seems appropriate, here, that a technical education or orientation, no matter how advanced, provides one with no more an in-depth understanding of social phenomena than a social sciences education or orientation, no matter how advanced, provides an in-depth understanding of technical processes. I think some, here, neglect this and seem to think that listening to one's favorite pundits provides an in-depth understanding of socio-historic processes. It don't!

 

[janjak desalin]

Apology and correction:

Instead of writing,

[...]To dismiss an analysis as trivial rhetoric simply because it's over your head isn't becoming of an honest intellectual, and I'm assuming that is how you see yourself[...]

, I should have written, to dismiss an analysis as trivial rhetoric simply because it's outside your field of knowledge isn't becoming of an honest intellectual, and I'm assuming that is how you see yourself.

That I wrote that something was over your head was unnecessary, presumptive, rude, presumptuous, incorrect, and wrong. The fact that someone does not know something in no way indicates their capability of knowing or understanding it. As I said,

[...]Ignorance is simply a matter of not having acquired knowledge;[...]

I do apologize.

 

[Equation]

Sorry Equation, but you miss two things. First PanAsian is hardly an American policy apologist, nor is she or he easily susceptible to the simplistic psychology and obvious tactics of the western media. Even a cursory perusal of his or her comments, here, would illustrate that. In fact, her or his analyses, more often than not, explicitly reveal mechanisms of influence/domination that western media attempt to obscure.

Second, simply because particular analytic devices aren't in your conceptual toolbox doesn't render them invalid. To dismiss an analysis as trivial rhetoric simply because it's over your head isn't becoming of an honest intellectual, and I'm assuming that is how you see yourself. If your particular disciplinary orientation has failed to provide you with an understanding of the Postcolonialist approach, that is observing the ways that the effects of Colonial policies and practices ramify through contemporary international relations and contribute to a neo-Colonialism, that's a deficit that you need to address, or not. But, to attempt to dismiss something that informed others can easily see the validity of as trivial only makes you look both ignorant and small. Ignorance is simply a matter of not having acquired knowledge; small reveals a, deeper, personal inferiority. These, so far, have not been the qualities of your contributions, here.

Now, it goes without saying that, you're free to respond to this criticism from whichever attitude you choose. But you'd be wise to recognize, or as ghetto would say, "betta recuhize", that you're not interacting with pseudo-intellectuals, here. So, intellectual-dishonesty won't cut it.

I do apologize for the tone of my comments to you. Unfortunately, in this instance, it seemed to be warranted.

I will add further, as it seems appropriate, here, that a technical education or orientation, no matter how advanced, provides one with no more an in-depth understanding of social phenomena than a social sciences education or orientation, no matter how advanced, provides an in-depth understanding of technical processes. I think some, here, neglect this and seem to think that listening to one's favorite pundits provides an in-depth understanding of socio-historic processes. It don't!

No what Pan Asian is implying is that China is already in a "bind" meaning they've already lost the PR battle among the public (assuming Western readers) when it comes to SCS. My point is that it's the media that trying to paint China in a dark light by driving the emphasis that the entire Southeast Asian nations and its entire population are worried and against China's rise due to it's action on the SCS. The reality is not many people (both east and west) doesn't care too much what's going on the SCS. I never claim PanAsian was an "American apologist" that was your invention.

 

[Zool]

No what Pan Asian is implying is that China is already in a "bind" meaning they've already lost the PR battle among the public (assuming Western readers) when it comes to SCS. My point is that it's the media that trying to paint China in a dark light by driving the emphasis that the entire Southeast Asian nations and its entire population are worried and against China's rise due to it's action on the SCS. The reality is not many people (both east and west) doesn't care too much what's going on the SCS. I never claim PanAsian was an "American apologist" that was your invention.

This is true, most really don't care too much about what goes on in the SCS or ECS. But with the prime context in most reporting being that China is acting a bully, regardless the order of events or precipitating action of other state players, it paints China as the bad guy and prepares public opinion should the decision be made to take direct and perhaps even aggressive actions to contain and slow Chinese objectives.

It's a necessary move to justify potential future scenario's from the Western perspective, but on the flip side it does not engender a lot of trust between the governments; it is basically a hedge for possible future conflict. More importantly I believe it makes it extremely difficult to develop grass roots civilian social connections and cultural understanding, which is already challenging when you look at Western vs Chinese culture/language.

My personnel view (without getting into the complexity of the why and how) is that China will ultimately become an equal power to that of the United States in relative terms Globally, and the major power in Asia in absolute terms. So while it is in Western interests to manage the 'rise' of China such that it does not run the table and set future policy exclusively, I believe it should be handled in a bit more tactful manner that does not leave a historical strain that creates difficulties for us down the road. Some hawk policy makers would call that view appeasement, but I think that's a narrow opinion and I see many of those types as working for other interests that do not always align with national interest. In any case, this is where you will see different countries taking different paths between their relationship with the US & China, with an eye towards the future.

 

[Brumby]

But with the prime context in most reporting being that China is acting a bully, regardless the order of events or precipitating action of other state players, it paints China as the bad guy and prepares public opinion should the decision be made to take direct and perhaps even aggressive actions to contain and slow Chinese objectives.

It is symptomatic in my view of a perennial emphasis in shifting the narrative that western media is the bogeymen while not addressing China's own action. Can someone explain the scope and basis of China's claim concerning the SCS beyond its official statement that its claim is indisputable. If China wants to take such a nebulous approach and blase attitude towards its claim, is it a surprise that other competing claimants and the rest of the world would react in a less than positive manner? 21st century is not medieval China where the emperor declares by fiat to take what it wants, interpret laws as it likes, and changes them whenever it suits the occasion.

 

[Zool]

It is symptomatic in my view of a perennial emphasis in shifting the narrative that western media is the bogeymen while not addressing China's own action. Can someone explain the scope and basis of China's claim concerning the SCS beyond its official statement that its claim is indisputable. If China wants to take such a nebulous approach and blase attitude towards its claim, is it a surprise that other competing claimants and the rest of the world would react in a less than positive manner? 21st century is not medieval China where the emperor declares by fiat to take what it wants, interpret laws as it likes, and changes them whenever it suits the occasion.

It's simple agenda reporting versus factual reporting. As an example, all reporting on Chinese island expansion for a long while when it began, focused directly on Chinese activities and the threat they posed to stability in the region, with buzz words like 'aggression' thrown in for effect. Not a mention of other regional claimants having done similar work on their own holdings years prior (perspective and background while informative is not the goal of most of these reports). You can also note that the majority of reporting on the topic is always in the context of 'China in territorial dispute with multiple other claimants'. They don't talk much at all about how the region is awash in territorial claims, disputing with each other as opposed to China being the central villain The take away is that China is in conflict with everyone else.

I'm honestly surprised you do not identify this. There can be a distinction between the objective of a written piece and the larger picture behind it. Especially in today's media environment. It's the same in most national politics where there are Left/Right media organizations putting forward an agenda and reporting out of context to suit a narrative. If you are happy with the quality of our media and DON'T think they are the bogeymen... then I don't know what to say

Seriously though and more to the point you are probably on about, yes China can be in the wrong on an issue and yes I am sure some people may well point to Western bias as a defense full stop and leave it at that. But I personally look quite a bit deeper into an issue in forming my opinion, whatever it might be, and think a fair few here do as well, from the in-depth arguments I've seen take place over the years. That said you might want to be selective in who you throw that media bogeymen blanket at?

 

[Brumby]

It's simple agenda reporting versus factual reporting. As an example, all reporting on Chinese island expansion for a long while when it began, focused directly on Chinese activities and the threat they posed to stability in the region, with buzz words like 'aggression' thrown in for effect. Not a mention of other regional claimants having done similar work on their own holdings years prior (perspective and background while informative is not the goal of most of these reports). You can also note that the majority of reporting on the topic is always in the context of 'China in territorial dispute with multiple other claimants'. They don't talk much at all about how the region is awash in territorial claims, disputing with each other as opposed to China being the central villain The take away is that China is in conflict with everyone else.

In my worldview, media reporting is not a perfect world because it is a driven and targeted product. I see competing worldviews all the time and so to me is the norm and not an exception. We apply our own filters to what we read and generate our own opinion. It is a competing world with various shades of opinion on every conceivable subject. Blaming media bias is not a viable default strategy and unfortunately I see too often it being adopted on this forum. Where is the competing narrative to counter what is supposedly misrepresentation or is it because the lack of any cogent effort is a product of circumstance? .

I'm honestly surprised you do not identify this. There can be a distinction between the objective of a written piece and the larger picture behind it. Especially in today's media environment. It's the same in most national politics where there are Left/Right media organizations putting forward an agenda and reporting out of context to suit a narrative. If you are happy with the quality of our media and DON'T think they are the bogeymen... then I don't know what to say

It is not that I don't appreciate the issue but rather I am surprised by the pathway of simply blame shifting. As you said in Left/Right media organisations we see often the competing narratives. What is stopping China's narrative from being put forth?

Seriously though and more to the point you are probably on about, yes China can be in the wrong on an issue and yes I am sure some people may well point to Western bias as a defense full stop and leave it at that. But I personally look quite a bit deeper into an issue in forming my opinion, whatever it might be, and think a fair few here do as well, from the in-depth arguments I've seen take place over the years. That said you might want to be selective in who you throw that media bogeymen blanket at?

Firstly I am not throwing the media bogeymen specifically at you but rather as a general premise of my statement because I do see very often it being the default argument (again not at you). I acknowledge that you do put serious thought into your opinion. I do not believe I have in any way suggest otherwise and if I did I would appreciate you pointing out so I can retract it.

Specifically to my point on why the world's general attitude is somewhat negative and apprehensive is the manner that China has gone about with its claims in SCS. That is not a media reporting issue but what those actions represent to many no matter how you cut it. If you regard such action as positive, stabilising, and well foundered if you are on the receiving end then I am all ears. .

 

[plawolf]

This article gives a very historically accurate account of how and when everyone's territorial claims first arrose in the SCS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is tragically hilarious that the unreasonable position the western media universally portrays China to hold is actually the position of all the other claimants.

China is the only claimant who actually has a long and consistent claim to the disputed islands that predate all the laws and normals western media loves to accuse China of violating its its claims.

The fact that China ratified UNCLOS does not in any way, shape or form invalidate China's earlier claims since China specifically exercised its opt out on territorial disputes upon ratifications.

Those accusing China of breaking international laws and norms are trying to retrospectically apply laws and norms on claims made centuries before, which is pure BS nonsense.

China's claims and position has been clear, open and unchanging.

The western media loves to keep repeating the lie that China only made its territorial claims in the late 70s and 80s, after resources were discovered there, but the fact is the PRC asserted and affirmed those claims on its foundation in 1949, claims inherited from the Nationalists before them, who in turn inherited them from the Chinese dynasties before them. The very definition of grandfathering.

The disputes only arrose because the other claimants started making claims and seizing territory in the late 70s and 80s.

The only thing China did wrong was being too timid and diplomatic with its response. It made the mistake of trying to reason with the other claimants, rather then forceably evict them.

The harder line China has been gradually taking with regards to the dispute is because the west has shown through its actions and words, that they don't give a crap about right or wrong. And that restraint and diplomacy will only get you laughed at and stepped on.

The reason China is taking a hard nose approach is because that is the only thing the west actually respects and responds to in reality, not the fantasy world its media likes to portray.

China's position and strategy in the SCS is now consolidate and hold. It has little interest in accepting the status quo, and will not accept it.

It is happy to keep the dispute ongoing, since time is very much on China's side. The more time goes by the more China's relative and absolute power grows, and the smaller the cost for China to enforce its own solution to the disputes.

The time and opportunity for goodwill from China is done and gone. China made great efforts and pains to present a viable deal in 2000, and had that spat back in its face thanks to Hillary playing spoiler. It will not make such an offer again.

This is not China playing by its own rules, it is China playing by the existing rules set and maintained by the west.

As the saying goes, don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[Deino]

Indeed a very good read ... but I think it was already posted in the other SCS-tread !