China's SCS Strategy Thread

[AssassinsMace]

You don't need to declare containment in order have it as a policy. How many wars have there been without declaring war?

When Obama came up with the Trans Pacific Partnership it was promoted to exclude China. TPP was a part of Obama's pivot. Now he says TPP is open to China. Why the turn around? Because it's an admission they're trying to contain China to which they have been denying as completely untrue. Remember Wikileaks that exposed Australian Prime Minister Paul Rudd telling then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the US might have to military attack China if China didn't "reform" to Western wishes? Attack China, not because it committed an aggressive act, but simply Beijing didn't obey and change China to their liking? And if they attacked China would they admit it was because China isn't obedient to the West? No, they're going concoct something that sounds more acceptable to public opinion.

 

[xiabonan]

Well, not all Western media/academia unfairly criticize China, but sadly what you say is often true. In addition, it's my experience that most US media, on both sides of the political divide, kneejerk for Japan and parrot what Japanese officials and their US apologists say, even when reality is more unanced.


Western press used to be (on balance) pro-China, but that changed in a big way after Emperor Deng ordered the Praetorian Guards to massacre peaceful protesters in, of all places, 'Gates of Heavenly Peace.' The irony! Of course, there's no proof Deng fiddled while Beijing burned.


China isn't the instigator in current ESC and SCS disputes. But like yellow/red cards in soccer, it's often the one retaliating to trouble that gets called and not the originator.

The change in American press' attitude towards China is more because both countries lost their common enemy, the USSR, and that after the collapse of the USSR, China is the next biggest communist country, or so as it is deemed to be.
Yes it has got to do with the Tiananmen square incident, but that just provided a good excuse, that's all.

Today's 4th June, so I'll just off topic a bit. The protests started as peaceful protests against corruption and inflation by students, but after a month's of stand-off and rounds and rounds of warnings, some "students" still stubbornly refused to evacuate. People died, yes, but not all are "peaceful protesting students". There are "student leaders" who already had the green card and immediately left for America after the incident. The protests were real, but like it still is today, many peaceful students were provoked to do things they didn't at first intend to do. It's true that students died, but so were many soldiers. Armoured vehicles were burnt and soldiers inside were roasted to death. Pictures of such can still be found on the Internet.

On a side note, my dad was the chairperson of his class and he led his whole class to the protest all the way from the Northern city of Changchun, where he went to college. He was there in the square that night, and he told me many of these stuff.

Did the army kill people? Definitely yes. Are there thousands of death? Probably not. Were all those killed innocent protesters? Probably not as well. Will China become the next USSR and collapse if no hardline measures taken? Very likely.

As a Chinese, I wholeheartedly feel sorry for those truly innocent students killed in the incident. But if I were Deng, I'll make the same call.

 

[Lezt]

The change in American press' attitude towards China is more because both countries lost their common enemy, the USSR, and that after the collapse of the USSR, China is the next biggest communist country, or so as it is deemed to be.
Yes it has got to do with the Tiananmen square incident, but that just provided a good excuse, that's all.

Today's 4th June, so I'll just off topic a bit. The protests started as peaceful protests against corruption and inflation by students, but after a month's of stand-off and rounds and rounds of warnings, some "students" still stubbornly refused to evacuate. People died, yes, but not all are "peaceful protesting students". There are "student leaders" who already had the green card and immediately left for America after the incident. The protests were real, but like it still is today, many peaceful students were provoked to do things they didn't at first intend to do. It's true that students died, but so were many soldiers. Armoured vehicles were burnt and soldiers inside were roasted to death. Pictures of such can still be found on the Internet.

On a side note, my dad was the chairperson of his class and he led his whole class to the protest all the way from the Northern city of Changchun, where he went to college. He was there in the square that night, and he told me many of these stuff.

Did the army kill people? Definitely yes. Are there thousands of death? Probably not. Were all those killed innocent protesters? Probably not as well. Will China become the next USSR and collapse if no hardline measures taken? Very likely.

As a Chinese, I wholeheartedly feel sorry for those truly innocent students killed in the incident. But if I were Deng, I'll make the same call.

I think you have nailed it pretty well here; it is an anti-graft and anti-inflation protest; democracy is not even on the table - and that a vote had been made by the students to disperse, but the radicals insisted on staying. I think we all know someone who was actually there on the night.

We also have to remember what time it was, the Berlin Wall fell 1989, Gorbachev was in town, Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia 1989, The strikes in Poland 1988, Romania rebellion 1987... Those are hard times; the choice of fragmenting the country as Gorbachev will (had) do to the USSR 1991 or to keep it together like Deng had done is a controversial and heavy burden.

 

[PanAsian]

The change in American press' attitude towards China is more because both countries lost their common enemy, the USSR, and that after the collapse of the USSR, China is the next biggest communist country, or so as it is deemed to be.
Yes it has got to do with the Tiananmen square incident, but that just provided a good excuse, that's all.

Today's 4th June, so I'll just off topic a bit. The protests started as peaceful protests against corruption and inflation by students, but after a month's of stand-off and rounds and rounds of warnings, some "students" still stubbornly refused to evacuate. People died, yes, but not all are "peaceful protesting students". There are "student leaders" who already had the green card and immediately left for America after the incident. The protests were real, but like it still is today, many peaceful students were provoked to do things they didn't at first intend to do. It's true that students died, but so were many soldiers. Armoured vehicles were burnt and soldiers inside were roasted to death. Pictures of such can still be found on the Internet.

On a side note, my dad was the chairperson of his class and he led his whole class to the protest all the way from the Northern city of Changchun, where he went to college. He was there in the square that night, and he told me many of these stuff.

Did the army kill people? Definitely yes. Are there thousands of death? Probably not. Were all those killed innocent protesters? Probably not as well. Will China become the next USSR and collapse if no hardline measures taken? Very likely.

As a Chinese, I wholeheartedly feel sorry for those truly innocent students killed in the incident. But if I were Deng, I'll make the same call.

One only needs to compare what the ex-Soviet states and China experienced from 1989 through today and their continuing development trends into the future to know that Deng and the rest of the PRC leadership made the right call in 1989 as tough as it was.

 

[Doombreed]

One only needs to compare what the ex-Soviet states and China experienced from 1989 through today and their continuing development trends into the future to know that Deng and the rest of the PRC leadership made the right call in 1989 as tough as it was.

China flourished inspite of the CCP not because of it. Would China do better under an authoritiran government rather than a democratic one? Most likely. But it doesn't mean that the CCP did well.

Any one can monday night quarterback. That's easy. If Peyton Manning didn't fumble in the thrid quarter, they wouldn't have got that intercept that won them the game. If I was Peyton I would totally fumble the ball in the thrid quarter too.

History don't work like that. Merits of an act need to be judged based on the context at the time. And shooting students is unacceptable no matter how you justify it. No such thing as, "yea you can kill this baby, cause his name is adolf hitler and I'm from the future."

I'm getting the vibe of, "yea I'm all for suffering for the greater good as long as it's not me" from the last few posts. I hope you're not parents. Imagine "yea, my kid was probably killed for a good reason. I mean, just look at these GDP numbers 25 years later."

 

[Player 0]

China flourished inspite of the CCP not because of it. Would China do better under an authoritiran government rather than a democratic one? Most likely. But it doesn't mean that the CCP did well.

Any one can monday night quarterback. That's easy. If Peyton Manning didn't fumble in the thrid quarter, they wouldn't have got that intercept that won them the game. If I was Peyton I would totally fumble the ball in the thrid quarter too.

History don't work like that. Merits of an act need to be judged based on the context at the time. And shooting students is unacceptable no matter how you justify it. No such thing as, "yea you can kill this baby, cause his name is adolf hitler and I'm from the future."

I'm getting the vibe of, "yea I'm all for suffering for the greater good as long as it's not me" from the last few posts. I hope you're not parents. Imagine "yea, my kid was probably killed for a good reason. I mean, just look at these GDP numbers 25 years later."

The problem with your logic is that its ignorant of the actual events, the shooting and violence on the part of the soldiers started in direct response to riots and violence committed against soldiers to begin with. Students were either gone or in small number and the protests stopped being peaceful and turned into an armed revolt comparable not only to the Maiden riots recently, but the riots in various Warsaw Pact states a few years before and the Iranian coup in 1953.

Riots are always the cover that the CIA or similar organizations use to stage coups, it would be foolish for any government not react with military force in the event of hundreds of thousands are rioting right outside the centre of power.

 

[port_08]

True, we cannot justify acts from history. Any action taken then by individuals or groups are only about preserving the self interest of the parties in conflict of whatever their current motivation and dreams of the future.

American can sent soldiers to liberate or give freedom to whatever countries, but for the soldiers, is just an available job for them because the economic environment and not of higher morale ideals or whatever. Is not like yeah, we stop evils...we bring civilizations to the barbarians or so

 

[Geographer]

Riots are always the cover that the CIA or similar organizations use to stage coups, it would be foolish for any government not react with military force in the event of hundreds of thousands are rioting right outside the centre of power.

Coup d'tats are nearly always executed by the army, not civilians. It is very rare when mass civilian protests overthrow a government, and when they do it's usually called a revolution rather than a coup d'tat. The default response of any autocrat to public protests is "The foreigners are behind it all!" Blaming the foreigners is easier than admitting their own citizens hate them.

I don't see why Chinese nationalists have such a hard time believing that China is a totalitarian state that does not tolerate public dissent or the formation of non-Communist political parties. The so-called "Western" narrative of the Tienanmen Square massacre is logical. Students gathered in Beijing in 1989 to protest corruption and call for liberal democracy. That's easy to believe because we have countless examples of similar protests around the world, plus the testimonies of people there. Then the Communist Party which didn't want liberal democracy and doesn't tolerate public protests against their rule used the army to smash the protests. This is easy to believe because Communist countries have been doing that since 1917. Well-known cases include the Soviet suppression of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and 1968 Prague Spring.

Communist apologists claim the army was only responding to riots. So are you saying if the protests had been 100% peaceful then the CCP would have let them continue? Has the CCP ever allowed anti-Communist protests to continue? Would the CCP allow any peaceful protests at Tienanmen Square now?

 

[Lezt]

Coup d'tats are nearly always executed by the army, not civilians. It is very rare when mass civilian protests overthrow a government, and when they do it's usually called a revolution rather than a coup d'tat. The default response of any autocrat to public protests is "The foreigners are behind it all!" Blaming the foreigners is easier than admitting their own citizens hate them.

I don't see why Chinese nationalists have such a hard time believing that China is a totalitarian state that does not tolerate public dissent or the formation of non-Communist political parties. The so-called "Western" narrative of the Tienanmen Square massacre is logical. Students gathered in Beijing in 1989 to protest corruption and call for liberal democracy. That's easy to believe because we have countless examples of similar protests around the world, plus the testimonies of people there. Then the Communist Party which didn't want liberal democracy and doesn't tolerate public protests against their rule used the army to smash the protests. This is easy to believe because Communist countries have been doing that since 1917. Well-known cases include the Soviet suppression of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and 1968 Prague Spring.

Communist apologists claim the army was only responding to riots. So are you saying if the protests had been 100% peaceful then the CCP would have let them continue? Has the CCP ever allowed anti-Communist protests to continue? Would the CCP allow any peaceful protests at Tienanmen Square now?

Geo, the USSR is not China, and history is written by the Victors, all of those eastern European countries nowadays benefit from the narrative that those are Pro-democratic demonstrations and that the new government (currently in power) heeded the words of the people for reform and did so. Also help get American Aid easier.

This is also true for those dissidents whom escaped, drumming up democracy will garner them livelihood; saying that it is an anti graft protest would not.

So do I believe them? maybe.

But we are seriously getting off tracked here, there are no saints here, all sinners; it is not like democratic countries will not use intimidation to intimidate the population of another to act in a certain way: I think it was either that Norway or Sweden that US and British Subs showed their periscopes to the citizens pretending to be soviet subs so that they would vote for something.

Why do you have such a strong conviction that it must be pro democracy? and not just anti graft?

 

[Jeff Head]

>>>>>>>>>> MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<<<
​

This thread is about the South China Sea, not about coups, not about Tienanmen Square, not about the CIA.

Cease the political/ideological back and forth and get back on topic.

Otherwise the thread will be closed and people will be warned and suspended.

Thank you.

>>>>>>>> END MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS <<<<<<<<
​