Chinese Geopolitics

texx1 said:

Midterm election is coming up. We will see more China bashing articles from US lawmakers, senators and representatives. Targeting China is a popular vote grabbing strategy for both parties. Don't expect any reconciliatory tone from US before Nov 4th.

Click to expand...

The same can be said about China CCP, bashing US is a way to climb up the political ladder as well. I'm sure Xi Jin Ping bash US in his speeches to the party cadres ensuring the hardline credential and maintain grip on the party. Is like Dick Cheney bashing Iranian siding with his Israeli backers to ensure his promotion to the top. You have to stick to a position. Abe wouldn't be elected if he did not bash China as his credential.

SamuraiBlue said:

If the US does not acknowledge Japan's claim then why do they officially reaffirmed that Senkaku is included within the Japan-US mutual defense treaty?

Click to expand...

The US is walking a tightrope between assuring Japan and not provoke China too much. Japan is the keystone in the US Asian alliance, and without it, American primacy (in Asia) unravels at the seams. That's why US officials will say anything they absolutely must to keep Japan satiated. But talk is cheap, and Abe doesn't quite trust US assurances, ergo the re-militarization and anti-China confederation.

Japan's claim towards Senkaku was included within the San Francisco peace treaty so at least all 40 signatory nation acknowledges it.

Click to expand...

I propose we have a reasonable debate. I ask that because I think you know pretty well the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty doesn't mention Diaoyu/Senkaku by name. Just in case you forgot, enclosed is a link to the actual wording of the treaty.



The unfortunate fact Diaoyu/Senkaku wasn't specifically mentioned has contributed to the territorial dispute between ROC, PRC, and JPN, and caused the US lots of anxiety and headaches.

As I have posted before Japan already administer the islands and does not recognize any dispute...

Click to expand...

Do you claim there was never a dispute over Diaoyu/Senkaku, or there's isn't one now? If the former, then explain why past Japanese administrations say there's a dispute over Diaoyu/Senkaku? Would you be reasonable and admit "no dispute" is a different policy under Prime Minister Abe, and former Japanese officials, including Prime Minister Yoshihiko Yoda, disagree with his position?

...so Japan cannot become a plaintiff at court. Who is Japan going to sue?

Click to expand...

Again I ask you, why should China go to the International Court when the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between China and Japan worked so well from 1978 to 2010? The better short-term solution is to go back to status quo before the 2010 incidents, and once tempers cool, the three sides (ROC, PRC, JPN) could proceed accordingly.

port_08 said:

There's only 1 option to resolve trolling nationalist government...PLA military option. Will US come to defend Japan over Senkaku? That's the question Abe administration is very nervous about because they do not trust US commitment and is better arm themselves. Japan fear China would take it by force. Would shinning white knight US come to the rescue? Hmmm

Click to expand...

Pure war mongering not to be even considered a serious post. I suggest you place yourself in the penalty box.

mr.bean said:

in the case like DYT china will go easy and play with the Japanese for another 20 years or so. there is no rush because they can't bag the island and take it home, the islands will still be there but china will be another world in 20yrs. for now they will send coast guard cutters there to ''administer'' the islands.

Click to expand...

In 20 years PRC will have the largest silver age population lacking younger generation to sustain present military and would be in the same situation as today in trying to land on those islands.

SamuraiBlue said:

In 20 years PRC will have the largest silver age population lacking younger generation to sustain present military and would be in the same situation as today in trying to land on those islands.

Click to expand...

Two retorts to yours; 1) you're correct on Chinese silver agers, but Japan would be in worse shape on aging population, and 2) China is taking measured steps to end one-child policy, which should ease the aging problem, but not entirely address it.

Blackstone said:

The US is walking a tightrope between assuring Japan and not provoke China too much. Japan is the keystone in the US Asian alliance, and without it, American primacy (in Asia) unravels at the seams. That's why US officials will say anything they absolutely must to keep Japan satiated. But talk is cheap, and Abe doesn't quite trust US assurances, ergo the re-militarization and anti-China confederation.

Click to expand...

Provocation by PRC is also cheap so I guess it is even. I really do not think PRC is ready to cross the line to see if it is a bluff or US is serious.

Blackstone said:

I propose we have a reasonable debate. I ask that because I think you know pretty well the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty doesn't mention Diaoyu/Senkaku by name. Just in case you forgot, enclosed is a link to the actual wording of the treaty.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The unfortunate fact Diaoyu/Senkaku wasn't specifically mentioned has contributed to the territorial dispute between ROC, PRC, and JPN, and caused the US lots of anxiety and headaches.

Click to expand...

No it is not named BUT it is included as one of the minor islands that the treaty does mention. I do not see Ogasawara isles named within the treaty either but I do not think any nation will question Japan's territorial claim either.

Blackstone said:

Do you claim there was never a dispute over Diaoyu/Senkaku, or there's isn't one now? If the former, then explain why past Japanese administrations say there's a dispute over Diaoyu/Senkaku? Would you be reasonable and admit "no dispute" is a different policy under Prime Minister Abe, and former Japanese officials, including Prime Minister Yoshihiko Yoda, disagree with his position?

Click to expand...

As I have said Japan cannot become a plaintiff at a court of law since Japan is the one who maintains administration and claim there is no dispute over sovereign territorial rights of the islands.
Tell me what are the charges you suggest that Japan is going to file at ICJ and against who?
At the moment there IS NO DISPUTE that is recognized officially in the international stage over the sovereign territorial claim over the isles. The only way to change the status quo is either invade the isles by force or file a complaint at an international court of law starting a process of arbitration to mediate both claims.

Blackstone said:

Again I ask you, why should China go to the International Court when the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between China and Japan worked so well from 1978 to 2010? The better short-term solution is to go back to status quo before the 2010 incidents, and once tempers cool, the three sides (ROC, PRC, JPN) could proceed accordingly.

Click to expand...

The only result from this is reaffirmation from Japan that there is no dispute over sovereign territorial rights of the islands by the Japanese government and PRC can say whatever she wants. Basically this position has not changed before during or after ratifying of the treaty so what is the point?

SamuraiBlue said:

Provocation by PRC is also cheap so I guess it is even. I really do not think PRC is ready to cross the line to see if it is a bluff or US is serious.

Click to expand...

Agreed on semi-Communist China not looking for war. Let's hope all sides keep enough sense to not cross the line.

No it is not named BUT it is included as one of the minor islands that the treaty does mention. I do not see Ogasawara isles named within the treaty either but I do not think any nation will question Japan's territorial claim either.

Click to expand...

You need to provide support for your claim. I linked my source for the SF Peace Treaty, please provide a link for yours.

As I have said Japan cannot become a plaintiff at a court of law since Japan is the one who maintains administration and claim there is no dispute over sovereign territorial rights of the islands.
Tell me what are the charges you suggest that Japan is going to file at ICJ?

Click to expand...

Since you refuse to address my point on staying with the Treaty of Peace and Friendship by going back to the status quo before multiple provocations on both sides, I refuse to discuss your ICJ mantra. We are, after all, trying to have a reasonable debate, right?

At the moment there IS NO DISPUTE that is recognized officially in the international stage over the sovereign territorial claim over the isles.

Click to expand...

That's simply not true. US officials have repeatedly said America doesn't take sides in Diaoyu/Senkaku territorial disputes, so there's at least one other nation on the "international stage" that recognizes the dispute.

The only way to change the status quo is either invade the isles by force or file a complaint at an international court of law starting a process of arbitration to mediate both claims.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe the islands belongs to China, but I will at least give Japan the benefit of the doubt and say there's a dispute. Will you at least admit past Japanese governments have agreed there's a sovereignty dispute over Diaoyu/Senkaku?

The only result from this is reaffirmation that Japan is that there is no dispute over sovereign territorial rights of the islands by the Japanese government and PRC can say whatever she wants. Basically this position has not changed before during or after ratifying of the treaty so what is the point?

Click to expand...

I've asked for a reasonable debate, and you have yet to answer. Will you agree to hold a reasonable discussion/debate on this topic?

Blackstone said:

I've asked for a reasonable debate, and you have yet to answer. Will you agree to hold a reasonable discussion/debate on this topic?

Click to expand...

I am responding with a reasonable debate you're just not accepting it because it does not fit your criteria.
It the same situation as with the Senkaku isles situation. We simply have to agree to disagree thus PRC can go on saying whatever she wants but no nation is going to take it seriously unless she makes an appeal and put it into action by filing it at an international court of law.

As for proof that it was included within the SF Peace treaty here. The CIVIL ADMINISTRATION PROCLAMATION NO. 27
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE RYUKYU ISLANDS. It specified by longitude and latitude the boundaries of Ryukyu Islands which is named within the fore mentioned treaty. Senkaku isles are within the boundaries the US occupying force specifies.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

SamuraiBlue said:

Pure war mongering not to be even considered a serious post. I suggest you place yourself in the penalty box.



In 20 years PRC will have the largest silver age population lacking younger generation to sustain present military and would be in the same situation as today in trying to land on those islands.

Click to expand...

if in 20years the PRC has a silver age population, then japan will actually have a declining population. I don't think any side really have a serious plan to ''land'' on those islands because if you look at those pictures, there is no where to hide or dig in no cover whatsoever. any landing force will stick out like a sore thumb in a tiny island and totally vulnerable to a barrage of missile attacks. those cool military exercises we see both sides doing in island invasions and retaking an invaded island are more of a dog and pony show for the press, their own respective citizens, it's good practice for the troops but in the DYT scenario totally useless. if any side is dumb enough to land troops on DYT, that's fair game for the other side to level the island with a missile strike and just declare that island a live missile target. civilians is a different matter, you cant open fire on civilians, so if some right wing Japanese folks land on the island the Chinese can easily do a tit for tat and land Chinese civilians. if the Japanese coast guard want to come ashore to arrest Chinese civilians, then the Chinese coast guard will do the same and land ashore to arrest Japanese civilians. the Chinese are patient they can play this game with japan for as long as they like. what ever move japan makes, the Chinese will simply do the same. civilian vs civilians, coast guard vs coast guard, navy vs jmsdf, airforce vs jsdaf.

port_08 said:

The same can be said about China CCP, bashing US is a way to climb up the political ladder as well. I'm sure Xi Jin Ping bash US in his speeches to the party cadres ensuring the hardline credential and maintain grip on the party. Is like Dick Cheney bashing Iranian siding with his Israeli backers to ensure his promotion to the top. You have to stick to a position. Abe wouldn't be elected if he did not bash China as his credential.

Click to expand...

That theory is flawed in that the method of climbing ranks in China and US are vastly different. In the US, politicians obsequiously align themselves with the attitude of the masses which, as of this moment in time, reflect a paranoia about China's rejuvenation. By contrast, Chinese politicians need not heed the babbles of the lowest denominators of society; they do not need to parrot the views of the angry masses but can instead make decisions that are conducive to the interests of the nation regardless of what the average layman might think.

Xi Jinping definitely recognises the threat that the US poses to China's interests but he also knows that encouraging anti-American hysteria would be detrimental. If China was the US, Xi would be forced to publicise his stance lest he be voted out of office, but seeing as China is not the US, he can afford to be discreet and maintain his cool without compromising his political power.

SamuraiBlue said:

I am responding with a reasonable debate you're just not accepting it because it does not fit your criteria.
It the same situation as with the Senkaku isles situation. We simply have to agree to disagree thus PRC can go on saying whatever she wants but no nation is going to take it seriously unless she makes an appeal and put it into action by filing it at an international court of law.

Click to expand...

Japan isn't consistent nor credible if one government say there's a dispute on Diaoyu (since you refuse to use Diaoyu/Senkaku phrasing, I will drop the Japanese name from our future dealings), and another one says there's no dispute. Will the next government say, "maybe there's a dispute?" But, I agree to disagree on 2010 status quo vs. International Court in our two-way discussions. Thank you for remaining civil.

As for proof that it was included within the SF Peace treaty here. The CIVIL ADMINISTRATION PROCLAMATION NO. 27
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE RYUKYU ISLANDS. It specified by longitude and latitude the boundaries of Ryukyu Islands which is named within the fore mentioned treaty. Senkaku isles are within the boundaries the US occupying force specifies.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Ah very good, thanks for providing the link to US Civil Administration proclamation No. 27. You've established US had administration rights and not sovereignty of said islands, including Diaoyu. And since then, US lawfully transferred administrative rights to Japan, but she left territorial sovereignty for China and Japan to resolve.