China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Blackstone]

Then why has ASEAN repeatedly refused to discuss the SCS dispute at their summits?

Words are cheap because you can always tell someone what they want to hear. Unless Australia starts using those submarines against China, it has nothing to do with the SCS dispute.

We're at an impasse, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Equation]

That's just an excuse to misbehave. China keeps making empty promises of working to reduce SCS tension, while doing the exact opposite, resulting in more ammunition for her detractors and alienating neutral parties.

Yeah just like Vietnam misbehaving by trying to disrupt or even possibly destroy the oil rig that's clearly within China's territorial waters. China did offer to deal with each nation individually concerning the SCS dispute so you can't say they didn't try to make peace.

 

[Equation]

Don't mindlessly dismiss Western media, they are fairly reliable on getting official government statements out to the public. Also, words are important, because they generally come before actions. Australia and ASEAN have expressed their displeasure at China's actions in South China Sea, that's about as far as third party nations do, unless a first party drags them into the fight. As for concrete actions, Australia is considering getting new submarines from Japan. There are probably more, but you could google them.

And don't overestimate their words as golden. Did Australia and ASEAN expressed their displeasure at other nations of the SCS as well or did the media just pointing at China?

 

[Blackstone]

Yeah just like Vietnam misbehaving by trying to disrupt or even possibly destroy the oil rig that's clearly within China's territorial waters. China did offer to deal with each nation individually concerning the SCS dispute so you can't say they didn't try to make peace.

Outside a select few in various governments, no one really knows what was said and reposed between China, Philippines, and Vietnam. But if China approached the "negotiations" the way Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi did at an ASEAN meeting, then the small countries probably heard something along the line of 'bend over, take it, like it, and say thank you sir, may I have another.'

 

[Blackstone]

And don't overestimate their (Western media) words as golden.

As far as Western "mainstream" media goes, I agree with those that say 'keep the Bible in one hand and the New York Times in the other, so you'll always know what both God and Satan are thinking.'

Did Australia and ASEAN expressed their displeasure at other nations of the SCS as well or did the media just pointing at China?

As I recall, no country was actually named, but it was pretty clear China's the piñata.

 

[weig2000]

Outside a select few in various governments, no one really knows what was said and reposed between China, Philippines, and Vietnam. But if China approached the "negotiations" the way Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi did at an ASEAN meeting, then the small countries probably heard something along the line of 'bend over, take it, like it, and say thank you sir, may I have another.'

Ah, that (in)famous "China is a big country, other countries small countries, that's just a fact" quote supposedly from Mr. Jiechi Yang and clear evidence of China's big bully attitude/behavior.

This quote has become so "popular" among western reporters and analysts, it has almost become a "must-quote" for them when writing about China and its "aggressiveness" in South China Sea, or indeed towards its "neighbors." In fact, Robert Kaplan, in his latest book "Asia's Cauldron," prominently uses this quote as proof-positive of the Chinese bully.

Except it's a total lie and distortion of Mr. Yang's statements.

Over two years ago, under an article in The Economist on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, in which this particular quote again was used, I wrote the following comment:

----------

"AT A meeting of South-East Asian nations in 2010, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, facing a barrage of complaints about his country’s behaviour in the region, blurted out the sort of thing polite leaders usually prefer to leave unsaid. “China is a big country,” he pointed out, “and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.”

This (misquoted, out of context) presumed statement has been repeated by western press gazillions of time, as a solid evidence of China's "assertiveness." These people would not bother to check the origin and context of this statement from the supposed closed-door meeting between the foreign ministers of ASEAN countries and China and Ms. Clinton. Who tipped and leaked to them such a provocative statement, supposedly, from the top Chinese diplomat in front of all the ministers and Ms. Clinton? Why would he make such a very uncharacteristic statement? For what purpose? If the western press have a half-brain, or their intention is not purposely misquote, they would throw doubt to the authenticity of such a statement.

Well, it turns out this statement was quoted totally in isolation. What Mr. Yang was trying to say, if you read the speech in its entirety, is that just because China is a large country does not mean China is bullying other smaller countries in such territorial disputes. That China is a big country and other countries are small are facts; China can not change that. Mr. Yang's original speech was reported in Chinese press.

The lesson is that, be careful with what western press's so-called facts about China. We know some in the west are not at all comfortable with China's rise, and therefore would use biased and one-sided, isolated and anecdotal, out-of-context and sometimes totally untrue "facts" to influence the world opinion, particularly the western one, on a daily basis. Over time, you form a picture of China that is totally disconnected with reality.

This article is one such example. It's arguments are deeply flawed, facts are twisted, numbers are speculated. They basically are some recycled cliche that could not stand close scrutiny.

-------------

My above comment had garnered by far the most recommendations by TE readers, among the more than 500 comments under the article.

 

[Blackstone]

Ah, that (in)famous "China is a big country, other countries small countries, that's just a fact" quote supposedly from Mr. Jiechi Yang and clear evidence of China's big bully attitude/behavior.

This quote has become so "popular" among western reporters and analysts, it has almost become a "must-quote" for them when writing about China and its "aggressiveness" in South China Sea, or indeed towards its "neighbors." In fact, Robert Kagan, in his latest book "Asia's Cauldron," prominently uses this quote as proof-positive of the Chinese bully.

Except it's a total lie and distortion of Mr. Yang's statements.

Over two years, under an article in The Economist on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, in which this particular quote again was used, I wrote the following comment:

----------

"AT A meeting of South-East Asian nations in 2010, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, facing a barrage of complaints about his country’s behaviour in the region, blurted out the sort of thing polite leaders usually prefer to leave unsaid. “China is a big country,” he pointed out, “and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.”

This (misquoted, out of context) presumed statement has been repeated by western press gazillions of time, as a solid evidence of China's "assertiveness." These people would not bother to check the origin and context of this statement from the supposed closed-door meeting between the foreign ministers of ASEAN countries and China and Ms. Clinton. Who tipped and leaked to them such a provocative statement, supposedly, from the top Chinese diplomat in front of all the ministers and Ms. Clinton? Why would he make such a very uncharacteristic statement? For what purpose? If the western press have a half-brain, or their intention is not purposely misquote, they would throw doubt to the authenticity of such a statement.

Well, it turns out this statement was quoted totally in isolation. What Mr. Yang was trying to say, if you read the speech in its entirety, is that just because China is a large country does not mean China is bullying other smaller countries in such territorial disputes. That China is a big country and other countries are small are facts; China can not change that. Mr. Yang's original speech was reported in Chinese press.

The lesson is that, be careful with what western press's so-called facts about China. We know some in the west are not at all comfortable with China's rise, and therefore would use biased and one-sided, isolated and anecdotal, out-of-context and sometimes totally untrue "facts" to influence the world opinion, particularly the western one, on a daily basis. Over time, you form a picture of China that is totally disconnected with reality.

This article is one such example. It's arguments are deeply flawed, facts are twisted, numbers are speculated. They basically are some recycled cliche that could not stand close scrutiny.

-------------

My above comment had garnered by far the most recommendations by TE readers, among the more than 500 comments under the article.

I take you at your word, and it wouldn't be the first time prominent politicians were misquoted or quoted out of context.

 

[weig2000]

Outside a select few in various governments, no one really knows what was said and reposed between China, Philippines, and Vietnam. But if China approached the "negotiations" the way Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi did at an ASEAN meeting, then the small countries probably heard something along the line of 'bend over, take it, like it, and say thank you sir, may I have another.'

From what I read your comments at SDF, I believe you're fairly even-handed and open-minded when it comes to China's maritime disputes with Japan or in South China Sea. And I also think you pay a lot of attention to the developments and backgrounds to these disputes. Even so, it's not hard to see that you have quite some misconceptions about China's stands or some dynamics in the region. And, I'm not accusing you for being biased or intentionally distorting facts.

It's the media.

But why are we talking about media in a thread about South China Sea disputes in a defense forum?

It's highly relevant. Because I don't think there is any danger of military conflicts in SCS. China will not initiate a military conflict simply because it's not in her interest and she doesn't need one. Vietnam and Philippine do not have the guts to use force first (well, somewhat less sure about Philippines since they have the track records of shooting on fishermen). Although some countries/people would love/wish the US to get involved militarily, the US is not very likely to get into the heat, particularly when there is no military conflict. So what we're seeing is pretty much propaganda wars, between Vietnam/Philippine and China, and from the (largely) western media against China to frame China as an aggressor (in the hope of ...).

 

[Blackstone]

It's highly relevant. Because I don't think there is any danger of military conflicts in SCS. China will not initiate a military conflict simply because it's not in her interest and she doesn't need one. Vietnam and Philippine do not have the guts to use force first (well, somewhat less sure about Philippines since they have the track records of shooting on fishermen). Although some countries would love/wish the US to get involved militarily, the US is not very likely to get into the heat, particularly when there is no military conflict. So what we're seeing is pretty much propaganda wars, between Vietnam/Philippine and China, and from the (largely) western media against China to frame China as an aggressor (in the hope of ...).

Completely agree no one wants conflict, not US, not China, not Philippines, and definitely not Vietnam (the Vietnamese has a long land border with China, and Dong Xiaoping proved to them no one would come to their rescue, even if they were "allied" with a superpower). The problem is less intentional conflicts and more small incidents spinning out of control- the tail wagging the dog analogy, where the nationalism tails wag the national dogs. One example is the violent protests in Vietnam that lead to Chinese deaths and much property damage. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, but that one could have spun out of control.

 

[weig2000]

I take you at your word, and it wouldn't be the first time prominent politicians were misquoted or quoted out of context.

There are other similar statements from other Chinese Foreign Ministry officials, such as the one quoted in Chinese media saying that "small countries should not bully China." This was immediately laughed and sneered at by the Chinese netizens as wimpy and weak.

Sometimes, you do question the communication skills of Chinese officials.