China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
dingyibvs said:
The two scenarios you presented are just two different points on the same spectrum, the spectrum of US power in East Asia. The relative decline of the US is more about China's rise than America's fall, war is one way to check China's rise. The sooner they do it the closer they can get to maintaining primacy, by 2020 they can only hope for co-dominion, and I expect that by 2030 they'll be on a path toward relinquishing hegemonic intent altogether in East Asia.
Click to expand...
As you clearly pointed out, war is only one of the multiple ways US could employ to check China's reemergence to its traditional residence atop NE/E/SE Asia. War for the US, in fact is the worst option to maintain Asia primacy for many reasons, chief among which is the kind of war required to 'put China back in its box' could lead to total war that would be long and might escalate to usage of nuclear weapons by both sides. While China has no appetite for both long conflict and nukes, US has even less appetite for them. Far less. What it means is other than the Pentagon and a few neocon/neolib (liberal imperialists) think tanks and politicians, there is little or no argument for goading China into a war that US has no assurance it could "win." whatever winning means in this case.

Give it some time. The US fought plenty of wars against Mexico and Canada in the beginning. It'll take generations of being hopelessly overshadowed by a greater power for the populace to give up resisting altogether. Vietnamese resistance is already much milder now compared to the 70's and 80's, and it's only since the 90's after the fall of the USSR and the rise of China that Vietnam's resistance has become hopeless.
Click to expand...
Time is actually on the side of US peacefully accommodating China, because the power gap between the two great powers are narrowing, and shows no sign of flatlining. US, even with support of Japan and Australia, can't be assured of "victory" today, let alone five or ten years from now. After that, it really doesn't matter how hard neocons/neolibs push for war, because the warhawks would be steamrolled by John Q. Public.

Bottom line is should there be a unified Korea without war, time would probably make it more aligned with Chinese interests than less.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
vesicles said:
Well, in my opinion, it's never realistic to contain a country the size of China. You may delay its eventual rise but can never completely contain it. It's simply physically impossible.

How many China-sized nations do we actually have in the world? A country managed to grow to that size for a reason. A large country typically has a large population, which translates to a large market and potential for significant development and less dependence on foreign influence.

It also means the land has enough resources to sustain a large population. Otherwise, major conflicts would rise from within enough times to cause the entire country to collapse and split into smaller nations. This is actually what happened to the Soviets. Sort of like collapsing under its own weight.

It also means geographically the country must have enough defensive advantages to protect itself. Otherwise, with its rich resources, it would have been invaded so often that it eventually becomes impossible to maintain sovereignty. Then split into smaller pieces.

These factors alone make it almost impossible for any opponent to hinder these gigantic nations' development long term. They might lose their ways temporarily for a few decades but will bounce back because of large population and rich resources. Of course, it will take a long time for them to grow if they have to do it on their own but it'll be like turbocharged when they get some help from elsewhere.

The fact that China has been developing so fast is actually a testament of China's tremendous geopolitical advantages. It's like Michael Jordan getting his favorite sneakers. MJ can still dunk with easy even without shoes. But with his favorite sneakers, he will fly. Guys like you and me? We can't even touch the board even with MJ's personal Nike Jordan.

Its extensive defensive advantages also makes actual attempts to contain it become so difficult and financially and physically prohibitive.

A country with the size of China or the US is like a freight train going downhill at 100 mph. You may be able to slow it down a little bit but impossible to stop it. Plain physics.
Click to expand...
Well said, and I agree. One other fact to consider is just how much of an outlier China is in its reemergence. Humanity has never seen its like on such a scale, and over the last 35 years, China has basically put to shame most of the bears and doomsayers.

China is currently embarked on arguably the toughest part of its reemergence, namely its transformation from manufacturing/export based economy to service/consumption based. The challenge is immense, and the jury is still out on if Chinese leaders could pull it off. China bears say "no," and China bulls say "probably yes." I'm with the bulls, but time will tell.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
PanAsian said:
In reality Japan isn't so much "screwed" without the US but that in any natural order Japan has to submit to dominance by either the US or China, even Russia, and so far their deal is better under US dominance.
Click to expand...
From Japan's perspective, submitting to China is a nonstarter, so I standby my statement it is basically "screwed" without the protection of the United States.

Also the US speaks, and history gave it the chance to make a speech with, the language of war and violence with Japan which holds a special place in Japan's cultural heart especially among a faction of its elite.

This is likely to change once China becomes both more enticing and intimidating as a more powerful all-aspect power. This will be especially true if China comes out on top of any armed conflict with either Japan or the US, but this also applies vice versa.
Click to expand...
America, I believe, will eventually peacefully accommodate China. That's because it's thousands of miles away, and cost of even maintaining a strong security presence without China's agreement would be immense, never mind primacy. Beijing would be wise to tread carefully and give Washington more face than minimum required to get the job done.

Japan, on the other hand, will not agree to Chinese leadership and would resist even if it has to go it alone, and it most likely would have to go solo. Thousands of years of history tells us it's in Japan's DNA to resist Chinese hegemony, and I see little evidence that will change.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
Well said, and I agree. One other fact to consider is just how much of an outlier China is in its reemergence. Humanity has never seen its like on such a scale, and over the last 35 years, China has basically put to shame the China bears and doomsayers.

China is currently embarked on arguably the toughest part of its reemergence, namely its transformation from manufacturing/export based economy to service/consumption based. The challenge is immense, and the jury is still out on if Chinese leaders could pull it off. China bears say "no," and China bulls say "probably yes." I'm with the bulls, but time will tell.
Click to expand...

Larry Summers (former Treasury Secretary) actually wrote a paper which outlined how China's growth would "revert to the mean" of 2% in the long term.

But what does China really have in common with South America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia? China's peer group are the other East Asian Economic Tigers that it shares so many similarities with, and which sustained 5%+ growth at a similar stage of development.

And a further Chinese slowdown to 5% still means the economy doubles over the course of the next 14 years.

The other key indicator for me is China's stellar R&D spending in terms of % of GDP. It's a huge outlier when compared to every other developing or middle-income country, and places China firmly amongst wealthy developed country peers.

Furthermore, China's R&D spending trajectory is on track to increase to 2.5% by 2020. Then presumably the target would be 3% by 2025. And at 3%, China would be devoting a larger proportion of its economy to R&D than either Germany or the USA.

Singapore (the most astute observer in the region and the world) reckons there is an 80% chance of China overcoming its many issues (which are the same ones that the other East Asian Economic Tigers already overcame), and becoming a developed country in the end.

Note that the other East Asian Economic Tigers also had their share of financial crises, yet these proved temporary (but painful) hiccups on this journey.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
now I read
China urges restraint after U.S.-ROK joint drill
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China on Wednesday urged all relevant parties to avoid actions that may increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula following a drill near the area by the airforces of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the Republic of Korea (ROK).

"We are aware of the drill," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said at the daily press briefing, adding that given the highly complicated and sensitive situation, China is opposed to any party taking actions that would increase tensions and damage regional peace and stability.

According to reports, U.S. strategic bombers took off from Guam on Monday and conducted a drill with ROK fighter jets. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) said the drill concerned its major targets and called it a "reckless provocation" that could push the peninsula to the brink of war.

Geng said the priority was to ease the situation and restart dialogue and negotiation. He urged all sides to remain calm and restrained, to create conditions for contact and dialogue.
Click to expand...
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
The less the reason to complain then. As you say it's tit for tat which PRC started.
Click to expand...
Chinese leaders complains because that's pro forma of the international relations game, and because its citizens expect them to. Also, it doesn't matter if China started the tit for tat, only how it ends. Given the high probability of Moon Jae-in being elected the next ROK President, Beijing would be in the catbird seat with both a friendlier ROK as well as increasing its power in the SCS. I understand some people don't like it, but it's reality.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Blackstone said:
From Japan's perspective, submitting to China is a nonstarter, so I standby my statement it is basically "screwed" without the protection of the United States.


America, I believe, will eventually peacefully accommodate China. That's because it's thousands of miles away, and cost of even maintaining a strong security presence without China's agreement would be immense, never mind primacy. Beijing would be wise to tread carefully and give Washington more face than minimum required to get the job done.

Japan, on the other hand, will not agree to Chinese leadership and would resist even if it has to go it alone, and it most likely would have to go solo. Thousands of years of history tells us it's in Japan's DNA to resist Chinese hegemony, and I see little evidence that will change.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I agree about Japan being screwed under Chinese leadership. China is a very generous country. Personally, I've seen Chinese groups warm-heatedly invite many foreign friends including Japanese (though I see Japanese and Korean groups preferring to keep themselves pure) into their community. If Japan submits and accept Chinese leadership, what would it lose? I think nothing or next to nothing. Diaoyu, if lost, is not much of a loss at all and with a dramatic warming of relationship, I can see China agreeing to joint exploration. Japan's economy would gain a great boost from Chinese support as China would most certainly bring big economic baskets during relationship warming meetings. What would they lose? I just don't see China relentlessly punishing a country for its past if its current self is repentant and ascribes to Chinese leadership in the region.

But I do agree that the Japanese are stubborn in their thousand-year-ways and may choose to continue to distrust China. It is important to note that that was much easier in a time period where countries were much more isolated and less dependent on foreign trade and relations than today. Once the environment is right, it would simply and obviously be foolish self-alienation. It remains to be seen if that stubbornness will prevail or if the desire to avoid huge obvious mistakes will.
 
Last edited:
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
Well said, and I agree. One other fact to consider is just how much of an outlier China is in its reemergence. Humanity has never seen its like on such a scale, and over the last 35 years, China has basically put to shame most of the bears and doomsayers.

China is currently embarked on arguably the toughest part of its reemergence, namely its transformation from manufacturing/export based economy to service/consumption based. The challenge is immense, and the jury is still out on if Chinese leaders could pull it off. China bears say "no," and China bulls say "probably yes." I'm with the bulls, but time will tell.
Click to expand...

I think, that kind of reemergence has happened numerous times in the past (in China). Just the westerners have never bothered to know. :)

I was going to comment on Plawolf's original post, but here instead.

Consider this, China was broken in pieces after the collapse of Qin (the 1st unified China), western Han dynasty, eastern Han, Sui/Tang, Yuan, Ming and Qing. In between these unified China, China had many small entities. In the mean time there were large and powerful neighboring rivalries, the Xiongnu, the Tujue etc. Some of these advisories were even more powerful than today's USA. But every time China bounced back to her original place. Those reemergence are so common that it has entered to the national psyche of Chinese which is one of the foundational self-confidences of China's future, (but arrogant in uneducated eyes). Without knowing this long history, it is of course an "unprecedented" thing to the Westerner or anyone. But really nothing surprising to Chinese.

Funny is that, I just get an evidence of what I am saying now from a Mexican fried TODAY.:D He watched a 7 episode historical documentary program (not made by China) on TV in the last week about Tang dynasty. His words (with surprise) is that "China is just recovering again!? China was bigger than today before?!". My response was "oh, now you know what I was trying to tell you all these years?"
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
MrCrazyBoyRavi said:
why can't China and Korea live together like USA and Canada like brothers ? Instead of provoking each other they should focus creating good relationship with each others. The recent moves by China to indirectly punish S.Korea for installing THAD will surely backfire. The more china tries to subjugate S.Korea , then more it will try to seek USA's alliance. Even Vietnam who fought a bloody war with USA is acting as a passive USA allies. China should learn how to have good relation with its neighbors if it truly wants to see peace in Asia and reduce US influence.
Click to expand...
China and Korea was living quite peaceful together before the arrival of "modern" western international system in east Asia that ended the peace in late 1890s.

Before that, China even defended (the unified) Korean state with China's own survival on the line THREE times. The first time in 500s (Tang) China faired well which lead to the FIRST unification of a Korean state (Silla). The second time in 1400s (Ming) China got bankrupted (even though she wan the war) which lead to the down fall of Ming to Qing. The third time in 1890s, it was a disaster to Qing (China), not only Korea was annexed by Japan, but China lost Taiwan to Japan due to that defeat.

It is very unfair to accuse China of being unbrotherly when China put her own life on the line to defend Korea. The only reason that you can accuse that unbrotherly is from SK perspective, but remember NK is also Korean. Even though I don't like the Kim family, the people in NK are Koreans, and China did the brotherly thing in 1950s, the 4th time.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
taxiya said:
I think, that kind of reemergence has happened numerous times in the past (in China). Just the westerners have never bothered to know. :)

I was going to comment on Plawolf's original post, but here instead.

Consider this, China was broken in pieces after the collapse of Qin (the 1st unified China), western Han dynasty, eastern Han, Sui/Tang, Yuan, Ming and Qing. In between these unified China, China had many small entities. In the mean time there were large and powerful neighboring rivalries, the Xiongnu, the Tujue etc. Some of these advisories were even more powerful than today's USA. But every time China bounced back to her original place. Those reemergence are so common that it has entered to the national psyche of Chinese which is one of the foundational self-confidences of China's future, (but arrogant in uneducated eyes). Without knowing this long history, it is of course an "unprecedented" thing to the Westerner or anyone. But really nothing surprising to Chinese.

Funny is that, I just get an evidence of what I am saying now from a Mexican fried TODAY.:D He watched a 7 episode historical documentary program (not made by China) on TV in the last week about Tang dynasty. His words (with surprise) is that "China is just recovering again!? China was bigger than today before?!". My response was "oh, now you know what I was trying to tell you all these years?"
Click to expand...
How many of China's past empires have a billion people? I standby my statement the world has never seen great power reemergence on the scale of China.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top