China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Richard Santos]

Seventy years ago China's claim was completely hollow and nonissue because china lacked the means to enforce the claims, there was no reason to make an issue out of such a nonissue.

Now china has the means to enforce these claim against all comers except the US, and the US sees american ability to successfully push back on china over these claims to be the litmus test all the regional powers will use to evaluate whether the US is a sufficiently effective and persistent security guarantor worth cultivating at the cost of annoying the much nearer china.

Basically, if America can't successfully push back on china in SCS, then the customary American role as the regional hegemony is at an end because countries will defer to china where Chinese and American interest collide.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

A curious case of rewriting history. If US thought the islands didn't belong to China they should have said so seventy years ago when ROC published the nine dash line.

Not only that, at the end of WWII US facilitate the transfer of power from Japan to ROC by transporting ROC troop to take over the ownership of Taiping

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here I quote State Dept South China Sea expert Ambassador Chas Freeman:

"In 1945, in accordance with the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and with
American help, the armed forces of the Republic of China government at
Nanjing accepted the surrender of the Japanese garrisons in Taiwan,
including the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Nanjing then declared both
archipelagoes to be part of Guangdong Province. In 1946 it established
garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and
Taiping Island in the Spratlys."

 

[Richard Santos]

Again, in 1945 American primacy was absolute and can afford to take no position without jeopardizing her own hegemony. European colonial powers were struggling to hold on to onshore Realestate and couldn't care less about a few reefs off shore. When their entire homelands didn't belong to them the locals would hardly be in a position to quibble whether these reefs should belong to them.

These situations have all changed.

To expect consistency in the face of changing reality is infantile.

Besides, in 1946 the US was concerned with strengthening the nationalist administration, both against the communist insurgency and potentially as a bulwark against future soviet designs in the region. So the US wasn't going to sabotage Chiang Kei Shek by disputing his nationalistic posturing in SCS.

In 2017 the US is concerned about Chinese ability to rival US power in the region, and feel there is ample gains to be had in supporting the interests of nations that had come into existence since 1946.

 

[solarz]

Again, in 1945 American primacy was absolute and can afford to take no position without jeopardizing her own hegemony. European colonial powers were struggling to hold on to onshore Realestate and couldn't care less about a few reefs off shore. When their entire homelands didn't belong to them the locals would hardly be in a position to quibble whether these reefs should belong to them.

These situations have all changed.

To expect consistency in the face of changing reality is infantile.

Besides, in 1946 the US was concerned with strengthening the nationalist administration, both against the communist insurgency and potentially as a bulwark against future soviet designs in the region. So the US wasn't going to sabotage Chiang Kei Shek by disputing his nationalistic posturing in SCS.

In 2017 the US is concerned about Chinese ability to rival US power in the region, and feel there is ample gains to be had in supporting the interests of nations that had come into existence since 1946.

Indeed, in the end, it all boils down to Realpolitiks.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Again, in 1945 American primacy was absolute and can afford to take no position without jeopardizing her own hegemony. European colonial powers were struggling to hold on to onshore Realestate and couldn't care less about a few reefs off shore. When their entire homelands didn't belong to them the locals would hardly be in a position to quibble whether these reefs should belong to them.

These situations have all changed.

To expect consistency in the face of changing reality is infantile.

Besides, in 1946 the US was concerned with strengthening the nationalist administration, both against the communist insurgency and potentially as a bulwark against future soviet designs in the region. So the US wasn't going to sabotage Chiang Kei Shek by disputing his nationalistic posturing in SCS.

In 2017 the US is concerned about Chinese ability to rival US power in the region, and feel there is ample gains to be had in supporting the interests of nations that had come into existence since 1946.

Then why are they keep bringing up the notion that Chinese interest in SCS started only after the discovery of oil in SCS? Implying inconsistency and vague claim before that Which is not true as both ROC and PRC has stake their claim in SCS by deed, treaty, and PRC claim is just the continuation of that claim. As PRC is the rightful government of China replacing ROC. Every government that has diplomatic relation with China need to confirm this including US

 

[Richard Santos]

Then why are they keep bringing up the notion that Chinese interest in SCS started only after the discovery of oil in SCS? Implying inconsistency and vague claim before that Which is not true as both ROC and PRC has stake their claim in SCS by deed, treaty, and PRC claim is just the continuation of that claim. As PRC is the rightful government of China replacing ROC. Every government that has diplomatic relation with China need to confirm this including US

Because consistency means nothing to anyone except oneself, so if you are trying to convince others you'd better not base your claim mainly on your consistency, but instead it must be based on the proposition that you are right at the current moment in a way that benefits the side you are trying to convince.

If you position is against my interest, I don't give a C*** about how consistent you have been. When you position supports my interests, i don't care how many lies you have to tell to defend your position.

In the end the only thing that matters is interest.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Because consistency means nothing to anyone except oneself, so if you are trying to convince others you'd better not base your claim mainly on your consistency, but instead it must be based on the proposition that you are right at the current moment in a way that benefits the side you are trying to convince.

And that is the definition of Hypocrisy and it will be hard to convince other of your position!

 

[Richard Santos]

And that is the definition of Hypocrisy and it will be hard to convince other of your position!

Others will be easily convinced when my demonstable position supports their interests, no matter how hypocritical I have been.

Others will never be convinced when my position hurts their interests, no matter how consistent and sincere I have been.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Others will be easily convinced when my demonstable position supports their interests, no matter how hypocritical I have been.

Others will never be convinced when my position hurts their interests, no matter how consistent and sincere I have been.

And what interest that might be?. US or SCS countries?
Because like it or not the SEA well being is closely link to China So it behoove on those countries to have good relation with China in the long run. As event transpired in SEA now
Even if they have to make compromise on territory. Bend a little weave a little but at the end I maintain my independence

 

[solarz]

Others will be easily convinced when my demonstable position supports their interests, no matter how hypocritical I have been.

Others will never be convinced when my position hurts their interests, no matter how consistent and sincere I have been.

It's not as simple as that, because you have to factor in credibility.

If the situation is self-evident, and I don't need to trust you to know that what you are saying is true, then yes, I don't care how many lies you've told in the past.

However, if my interests depend on your reliability, then yes, I absolutely care how consistent you've been in the past.

For example, Obama had been saying for years that the US will support the Philippines. Yet, when the PH cutter confronted Chinese maritime enforcement vessels, the US didn't send a single ship in support, and the PH was forced to relinquinsh the shoal, it makes the PH think twice when the next time the US tries to court their support.