China's SCS Strategy Thread

[janjak desalin]

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

Why another thread when it's most relevant here?

 

[janjak desalin]

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.

No, PanAsian's most salient, explicit, and not-implied, point pertains not to media rhetoric, i. e., words, alone, but also to the US gov't and corporate policies and practices that follow the neo-colonialist model. Yes, rhetorical persuasion/propaganda is an element of this model, but even that emphasis neglects the fact that literal rhetoric is but one of many modes of symbolic communication/persuasion. What you're neglecting to acknowledge is PanAsian's explicit reference to the coercive elements of this model, that coercion is, in fact, the iron-fist in the velvet glove. Don't think, for one minute, that astute Samurai maxim, pen and sword in accord, has been lost on "the west".

China is, and has been, in a bind. That is a statement of fact. Hell, they only got their sovereignty back in Hong Kong and Macau 19 and 17 years ago, respectively, and from two, two-bit, has-been, empires, at that. Portugal, realy??? And, they still have the present, dying, empire interfering in what they consider to be their internal domestic affairs (Taiwan). In no way does PanAsian imply that this is a permanent condition; facts change. Nevertheless, emotional reactions to factual statements don't make for good intellectual discussion. And, on that note, I'll leave this discussion, 'cause it ain't good!

 

[Ultra]

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.

I couldn't agree more.
I think the US has essentially over the years taught China what the real geopolitics is - that "might is right". For example, US has illegally occupied Guantanamo Bay for over a century because Cuba cannot do anything about it. The Crimean crisis last year also amply demonstrate to China if you have arsenal of nuclear weapons that can complete annhilate United States of America, Uncle Sam will only pay lips service bitching about it and wouldn't dare to do the stunts they pull in SCS.

What this means I am afraid is that China will eventually pursue a policy of nuclear brinkmanship with US - because when people don't respect you or listen to you when you are being nice, eventually they will realize they need to bring a shotgun to the table just to be heard.

 

[Equation]

No, PanAsian's most salient, explicit, and not-implied, point pertains not to media rhetoric, i. e., words, alone, but also to the US gov't and corporate policies and practices that follow the neo-colonialist model. Yes, rhetorical persuasion/propaganda is an element of this model, but even that emphasis neglects the fact that literal rhetoric is but one of many modes of symbolic communication/persuasion. What you're neglecting to acknowledge is PanAsian's explicit reference to the coercive elements of this model, that coercion is, in fact, the iron-fist in the velvet glove. Don't think, for one minute, that astute Samurai maxim, pen and sword in accord, has been lost on "the west".

China is, and has been, in a bind. That is a statement of fact. Hell, they only got their sovereignty back in Hong Kong and Macau 19 and 17 years ago, respectively, and from two, two-bit, has-been, empires, at that. Portugal, realy??? And, they still have the present, dying, empire interfering in what they consider to be their internal domestic affairs (Taiwan). In no way does PanAsian imply that this is a permanent condition; facts change. Nevertheless, emotional reactions to factual statements don't make for good intellectual discussion. And, on that note, I'll leave this discussion, 'cause it ain't good!

So tell me how is China in a "bind" as in my opinion meaning containment? If the West had successfully used coercive elements to keep China in check, than they shouldn't be worrying about China's rising in any shape or form because their sovereignty are not being threaten just the status quo.

 

[Blackstone]

So tell me how is China in a "bind" as in my opinion meaning containment? If the West had successfully used coercive elements to keep China in check, than they shouldn't be worrying about China's rising in any shape or form because their sovereignty are not being threaten just the status quo.

The status quo is exactly what's at stake for US, China, and the rest of Asia. Currently, American military primacy is the basis of Asia's security order, but China served up notice a few years ago that it no longer accepts US primacy, but wants a say in Asian leadership. Obama's answered with the "Pivot" and TPP, and Xi reposed with AIIB and "One Belt, One Road." It's all about the status quo.

 

[Brumby]

The status quo is exactly what's at stake for US, China, and the rest of Asia. Currently, American military primacy is the basis of Asia's security order, but China served up notice a few years ago that it no longer accepts US primacy, but wants a say in Asian leadership. Obama's answered with the "Pivot" and TPP, and Xi reposed with AIIB and "One Belt, One Road." It's all about the status quo.

I don't agree with your view that the issue is about American military primacy per se but before we dwell further I would like to ask you what is meant by American military primacy? In particular how does that directly address Asia's security order and if that was to change to Chinese military primacy how would Asia's security look like?

 

[vincent]

I don't agree with your view that the issue is about American military primacy per se but before we dwell further I would like to ask you what is meant by American military primacy? In particular how does that directly address Asia's security order and if that was to change to Chinese military primacy how would Asia's security look like?

American military primacy mean Uncle Sam can do whatever he wants? He can blockade Chinese shipping and throw a few Tomahawks into mainland at will if China doesn't behave, like invading Taiwan?

 

[joshuatree]

Why another thread when it's most relevant here?

Agreed, there's too many SCS related threads - SCS China strategy, SCS China bases, SCS other claimants strategy, US-China naval encounter in SCS. Would rather just make one centralized thread on SCS claims and be done with.

 

[Blackstone]

I don't agree with your view that the issue is about American military primacy per se but before we dwell further I would like to ask you what is meant by American military primacy? In particular how does that directly address Asia's security order and if that was to change to Chinese military primacy how would Asia's security look like?

You say you don't know what I meant by China no longer accepts American primacy as the basis of Asian security order, but you disagree with it. Wonderful. What am I missing?

 

[PanAsian]

So tell me how is China in a "bind" as in my opinion meaning containment? If the West had successfully used coercive elements to keep China in check, than they shouldn't be worrying about China's rising in any shape or form because their sovereignty are not being threaten just the status quo.

The world keeps turning so it's an ongoing effort. Containment is just a euphemism for strangulation-rather-than-bash-their-skull-in, so the goal has not been achieved yet. The threat is any potential to challenge whatever the powers-that-be want to do, especially when what they want to do is particularly unfair, unreasonable, and harmful to others.

Hard power example - the US military pivot to Asia which is very real, significant, and effective despite domestic political bashing often heard in this forum. More of the best of the best military in the world, the most cutting edge equipment of all stripes, will be based in Asia. A slew of arms deals and military exchanges not just to improve the military capabilities of a number other Asian countries but also to influence those militaries to prime them for an anti-China alliance even if informal. China's maritime geographical disadvantage has already long been exploited with the annexation and militarization of the Ryukyus, support for the Taiwan military, foreign naval basing in the Philippines and possibly Vietnam, and the fact that China is in such a disadvantageous physical position in the Spratlys which it is trying to ameliorate with building on its holdings.

Soft power example - the recent South Korea-Japan agreement on permanently settling the comfort women issue was very much in Japan's terms and it has been reported to be inked under pressure from the US. The settlement deprives China of common ground with South Korea, sets up a low bar (importantly also the expectation of low bars) for Japan for any other potential settlements surrounding this issue as well as other outstanding issues from Japan's past offenses, and any further complaints against Japan by others about said issues can be more convincingly cast as obstinate grudge bearing, especially with ulterior motives, against a reasonable player who has already redeemed itself with other offended parties.