AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I'm not worried about a war with the US. I'm for more doing more than Beijing is doing now.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
I'm not worried about a war with the US. I'm for more doing more than Beijing is doing now.
Blackstone
Brigadier
When all is said and done, no one can help Vietnam against China but the Vietnamese themselves. China knows it, Vietnam knows it, and the US knows it.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Interesting read. I don't know if its true.
China is stealing a strategic march on the US
David PillingBy David PillingAuthor alerts
Bit by bit Beijing is creating new facts, and with each incident, it throws down the gauntlet
Is China being stupid? Or is it being really clever? That in a nutshell is the foreign policy debate over Beijing’s seemingly concerted effort to provoke its neighbours. The case that China is being stupid is easy to make. In recent weeks Beijing has picked simultaneous fights with Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan. It moved an oil rig near Chinese-controlled islands claimed by Hanoi, triggering anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam in which four people died. This week a Chinese fishing boat, part of a large flotilla around the rig, was accused of sinking a Vietnamese fishing boat.
Prodding at Manila’s maritime claims – whether by building artificial islands or seeking to control fishing grounds – has also turned the Philippines against China. After kicking the Americans out of the Subic Bay naval base in 1992, Manila has now asked them to come back. During President Barack Obama’s recent swing through Asia, it signed an agreement to allow US ships and aircraft to use its bases.
China has also antagonised Japan. By flooding disputed areas in the East China Sea with aircraft and boats, it is challenging Japan’s administrative control of the disputed Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu by Beijing. That has given Shinzo Abe, the rightwing prime minister, all the excuse he needs to press for a reinterpretation of Japan’s pacifist constitution. Mr Abe wants Japan to be able to fight in defence of its allies. Japan’s more assertive stance, far from troubling its neighbours, has been welcomed by many. Tokyo is supplying the Philippines with coastguard boats and has promised to do the same for Vietnam. In short, China appears to have scored an own goal by driving its neighbours into each other’s arms. All trace of China’s smile diplomacy has vanished.
Brad Glosserman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies finds it “inexplicable” that Beijing would stir up such trouble. Why would it do that, he asks in The National Interest magazine, when it faces so many potentially explosive economic and social problems at home? Mr Glosserman thinks Deng Xiaoping, who said China should “hide its brightness, nourish obscurity”, would be spinning in his grave. But Deng’s exhortation implied that China should bide its time, not that it should bury its ambition for all eternity.
Asean is divided between countries that have disputes with China and ones that do not
Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at Australian National University, has an alternative view. He argues that China’s manoeuvres should come as no surprise. After all, Xi Jinping, its increasingly assured president, has called for a “new model of great power relations”. That means it wants to be treated not as a US subordinate but as an equal, at least in the western Pacific. “These things are inherently zero-sum, so for China to have more power and influence, America must have less,” he writes in The Interpreter, a blog run by Australia’s Lowy Institute. To bring that about means undermining US authority by picking small, but winnable, fights.
This is not an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The game is asymmetric – as indeed are China’s military capabilities. (It cannot match US aircraft carriers but it may be able to sink them with missiles.) To preserve the status quo, the US needs to prevent every one of China’s moves, something it has been unable to do. China needs merely to pick a few small battles that it knows the US has no wish to fight. An air defence identification zone here. An oil rig there. Of course, Mr Obama could draw a red line. But, as he found out in Syria, red lines can be tricky.
Bit by bit, then, Beijing is creating new facts on the ground, or rather in the sea and in the air. With each new incident, it is throwing down the gauntlet. Is it worth fighting for a Vietnamese fishing boat? Thought not. How about a submerged Philippine reef? An uninhabited island? In the short term, such tactics may well prod neighbours to stick together or cling ever closer to US skirts. But if China is changing regional perceptions, and realities, that may not matter. There is talk, for example, of a more united stance by members of the Association of South East Asian Nations. For now it is just that. Talk. Asean is divided between countries that have disputes with China – the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam among them – and ones that do not, including Thailand and Cambodia. Concerted action looks a long way off.
Prof White wrote a book with the self-explanatory title The China Choice: Why We Should Share Power . The US, he argues, has three possible responses to Beijing’s challenge. It can withdraw from Asia (highly unlikely and unnecessary, even from Beijing’s perspective); it can seek to maintain its primacy; or it can compromise. The choice is between “containment” and “appeasement”, two words loaded with negative connotations.
China is seeking to prove to its neighbours that containment cannot work and that the US cannot be relied upon to defend them. If it can do so, they and Washington will have to acknowledge that the status quo is untenable. It is a dangerous strategy. It is also a clever one.
China is stealing a strategic march on the US
David PillingBy David PillingAuthor alerts
Bit by bit Beijing is creating new facts, and with each incident, it throws down the gauntlet
Is China being stupid? Or is it being really clever? That in a nutshell is the foreign policy debate over Beijing’s seemingly concerted effort to provoke its neighbours. The case that China is being stupid is easy to make. In recent weeks Beijing has picked simultaneous fights with Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan. It moved an oil rig near Chinese-controlled islands claimed by Hanoi, triggering anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam in which four people died. This week a Chinese fishing boat, part of a large flotilla around the rig, was accused of sinking a Vietnamese fishing boat.
Prodding at Manila’s maritime claims – whether by building artificial islands or seeking to control fishing grounds – has also turned the Philippines against China. After kicking the Americans out of the Subic Bay naval base in 1992, Manila has now asked them to come back. During President Barack Obama’s recent swing through Asia, it signed an agreement to allow US ships and aircraft to use its bases.
China has also antagonised Japan. By flooding disputed areas in the East China Sea with aircraft and boats, it is challenging Japan’s administrative control of the disputed Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu by Beijing. That has given Shinzo Abe, the rightwing prime minister, all the excuse he needs to press for a reinterpretation of Japan’s pacifist constitution. Mr Abe wants Japan to be able to fight in defence of its allies. Japan’s more assertive stance, far from troubling its neighbours, has been welcomed by many. Tokyo is supplying the Philippines with coastguard boats and has promised to do the same for Vietnam. In short, China appears to have scored an own goal by driving its neighbours into each other’s arms. All trace of China’s smile diplomacy has vanished.
Brad Glosserman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies finds it “inexplicable” that Beijing would stir up such trouble. Why would it do that, he asks in The National Interest magazine, when it faces so many potentially explosive economic and social problems at home? Mr Glosserman thinks Deng Xiaoping, who said China should “hide its brightness, nourish obscurity”, would be spinning in his grave. But Deng’s exhortation implied that China should bide its time, not that it should bury its ambition for all eternity.
Asean is divided between countries that have disputes with China and ones that do not
Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at Australian National University, has an alternative view. He argues that China’s manoeuvres should come as no surprise. After all, Xi Jinping, its increasingly assured president, has called for a “new model of great power relations”. That means it wants to be treated not as a US subordinate but as an equal, at least in the western Pacific. “These things are inherently zero-sum, so for China to have more power and influence, America must have less,” he writes in The Interpreter, a blog run by Australia’s Lowy Institute. To bring that about means undermining US authority by picking small, but winnable, fights.
This is not an immovable object and an unstoppable force. The game is asymmetric – as indeed are China’s military capabilities. (It cannot match US aircraft carriers but it may be able to sink them with missiles.) To preserve the status quo, the US needs to prevent every one of China’s moves, something it has been unable to do. China needs merely to pick a few small battles that it knows the US has no wish to fight. An air defence identification zone here. An oil rig there. Of course, Mr Obama could draw a red line. But, as he found out in Syria, red lines can be tricky.
Bit by bit, then, Beijing is creating new facts on the ground, or rather in the sea and in the air. With each new incident, it is throwing down the gauntlet. Is it worth fighting for a Vietnamese fishing boat? Thought not. How about a submerged Philippine reef? An uninhabited island? In the short term, such tactics may well prod neighbours to stick together or cling ever closer to US skirts. But if China is changing regional perceptions, and realities, that may not matter. There is talk, for example, of a more united stance by members of the Association of South East Asian Nations. For now it is just that. Talk. Asean is divided between countries that have disputes with China – the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam among them – and ones that do not, including Thailand and Cambodia. Concerted action looks a long way off.
Prof White wrote a book with the self-explanatory title The China Choice: Why We Should Share Power . The US, he argues, has three possible responses to Beijing’s challenge. It can withdraw from Asia (highly unlikely and unnecessary, even from Beijing’s perspective); it can seek to maintain its primacy; or it can compromise. The choice is between “containment” and “appeasement”, two words loaded with negative connotations.
China is seeking to prove to its neighbours that containment cannot work and that the US cannot be relied upon to defend them. If it can do so, they and Washington will have to acknowledge that the status quo is untenable. It is a dangerous strategy. It is also a clever one.
Brumby
Major
I don't believe containment was a US policy and officially the US was clear on that. It would be foolishness and impractical to even pursue one given China's economical ascension and the military muscle that inevitably grows with that. The question was always whether China's rise will be peaceful or otherwise. We now have a convergence of events. Obama's weak leadership and policies and China exploiting the opportunities. In the end, each country will have to re calibrate their own policies given China's increasing assertiveness.
Interestingly, in its recent budget Australia has basically cut every spending except military. I think the view will progressively be formed that China's rise will not be peaceful and each country will do what they must within their own abilities - the US including when the right leadership comes along.
Interestingly, in its recent budget Australia has basically cut every spending except military. I think the view will progressively be formed that China's rise will not be peaceful and each country will do what they must within their own abilities - the US including when the right leadership comes along.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The media has always interpreted it as containment of China. Yeah Obama can say it's not containment and he also works with his allies in the media to declare to the public for him and they'll see it as containment. It's just like how it's been charged that China uses commercial fishing boats to harass as to not admit the government is behind it.
Brumby
Major
I keep on seeing this nebulous entity called "the media" in the discussions. There are a range of characters out there, some nationalistic (no different from Global times), some out to sensationalised any issue they can, and others do whatever they do in the name of journalism. As a professional forum, members make their own judgement on situations and expressed their views through a well thought out case. I don't think the aim is in defending any media organisation especially "the media" or speculate on some conspiracy.
The US has said publicly that there is no containment policy being pursued. You may disagree with that view but as a general principle, the onus is then on the person disagreeing to argue the case and present the facts as they may be. There is a concept in psychology called "confirmation bias". Once you have an established view, there is a bias towards anything that may support that view.
As to the commercial fishing boats, my most basic understanding of such a vessel is to fish. Why is it protecting a rig obviously beg the question why is it there especially when the Chinese authorities have put in place an exclusion zone around the rig. The Vietnamese Coast Guards vessels have difficulty getting into that ring but for some reason the commercial fishing vessels can. The most plausible explanation (using Ockham's Razor) is that these fishing vessels are an extension of the Chinese government because the facts support that assertion. Once again, you may disagree but I would certainly like to hear the opposing case.
joshuatree
Captain
Can that not be applied to the Vietnamese fishing vessel as well? Everyone plying those waters is aware of the situation and the flotilla of government vessels in that area. Yet, to say an unsuspecting Vietnamese fishing boat with fellow fishing boats is merely fishing in the area is also suspicious. An extension of the Vietnamese government would also be the most plausible explanation as well. Frankly, the other claimants play these cat and mouse games themselves.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The same can be said of what you believe. Obama has said one thing and done another so there's precedence. And the President does work with the media in exchange for like exclusive interviews. Why was there a media chorus calling what the NSA was doing equivalent to what stores do at gathering customer information? That's because the White House gave to allies in the media the talking points to discuss. It's accused of the Chinese who accept at face value what the government says as being an automaton. But in this case it's somehow not even though the same purpose if fulfilled.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
I am merely contesting the point that the commercial fishing vessels as extension of the Chinese government is simply a fragment of the media's imagination to discredit China. I am not defending the use of such vessels by the Vietnamese government. Both are equally guilty. I just don't agree with the denial.