Chinese Geopolitics

Blackstone said:

Furthermore, I'd argue Japanese-occupied Okinawa belongs to China too, but I'm probably in the minority on that.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're in minority simply because Ryukyu Kingdom was never a part of China. And they never spoke anything close to Chinese as well. Case closed.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, Sol, the US has a treaty with Japan.

iThe US can be neutral about the final disposition of the Islands as long as both parties agree...but still fulfill its treaty obligations with Japan should it be attacked.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

As I have said numerous times, the only way China is going to overcome the longstanding relations and treaties that the US has with these other nations is to itself, over a long period of time, win their trust and show them that their interest co-align.

Somehow feeling it is unfair, somehow trying to act like these relationship either do not exist or "count," or ridiculous claims (as some have made) that the current US administratin's action are somehow "neocon," will do nothing to overcome what the US already has in place.

That's just the reality of the situation.

Click to expand...

Jeff, what you say is true, but where was all the fairness talk when Japan and the West (including our own country) invaded China for rape and plunder? Where were justness and fairness when the Qing Dynasty appealed to "international law" drafted by the West for protection against imperialism? The West laughed at it! Do you suppose China of today would be more willing to adhere to international court's adjudication had Japan and Western powers actually obeyed international laws when China appealed to it?

I'm sorry to say this, but China learned the hard way no one loves the weak; they pity them, but that's about it. Might was the base currency of international relations in the past, and unfortunately that hasn't changed. Singling China as the boogeyman in ECS and SCS, without flagging Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan as originators of current disputes is unjust.

Janiz said:

Yes, you're in minority simply because Ryukyu Kingdom was never a part of China. And they never spoke anything close to Chinese as well. Case closed.

Click to expand...

Case not closed. Ryukyu was a vassal state of China, and of that there can be no dispute. Japan forced the Ryukyu people into its empire by the gun (see a pattern?), and refused all efforts by natives for self-determination. One could make an argument for China as liberators and not invaders.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, Sol, the US has a treaty with Japan.

iThe US can be neutral about the final disposition of the Islands as long as both parties agree...but still fulfill its treaty obligations with Japan should it be attacked.

As I have said numerous times, the only way China is going to overcome the longstanding relations and treaties that the US has with these other nations is to itself, over a long period of time, win their trust and show them that their interest co-align.

Somehow feeling it is unfair, somehow trying to act like these relationship either do not exist or "count," or ridiculous claims (as some have made) that the current US administratin's action are somehow "neocon," will do nothing to overcome what the US already has in place.

That's just the reality of the situation.

Click to expand...

As I have said, there is no evidence whatsoever that China is going use force against Japan over the Diaoyu Islands. The US bringing up the issue of the defense treaty is simply unnecessary warmongering, and runs counter to the message the US tries to send to China in face-to-face dialogues.

That is the problem I am pointing out. You cannot have an open and honest dialogue with someone who says one thing to you, and then does something else entirely behind your back.

Again, I am referring only to China-US relations, NOT China-Japan or China-* relations. Those other relations each have their own, unique dynamic.

Blackstone said:

We all have assholes, and they all stink. You may, of course, have your own opinion, and I'll give them all the consideration they're due.

Click to expand...

No, not all opinions are equal. Opinions based on facts are worthy of consideration. Opinions based on fantasy are not.

Blackstone said:

Case not closed. Ryukyu was a vassal state of China, and of that there can be no dispute. Japan forced the Ryukyu people into its empire by the gun (see a pattern?), and refused all efforts by natives for self-determination. One could make an argument for China as liberators and not invaders.

Click to expand...

No, Ryukyu is case closed simply because there is no popular support in Okinawa for leaving Japan, never mind joining China (utterly far-fetched idea).

Blackstone said:

Jeff, what you say is true, but where was all the fairness talk when Japan and the West (including our own country) invaded China for rape and plunder? Where were justness and fairness when the Qing Dynasty appealed to "international law" drafted by the West for protection against imperialism? The West laughed at it! Do you suppose China of today would be more willing to adhere to international court's adjudication had Japan and Western powers actually obeyed international laws when China appealed to it?

Click to expand...

If we go back decades, or hundreds of years and each of us act according to the barbarous acts and wrong things that have been done...and treat today's peoples, governments, societies, etc. as responsible for those things...then we might as well all pull out our weapons now and go at it.

There is no nation without such warts in its history, including the US and China.

It is futile to appeal to such justice, or rely solely on such lessons if ANY of us expect to ever make any relations today that are meaningful and lasting.

Yes...we all have to be wary. Yes, as Reagan used to say...we must trust, but always verify. But we cannot go into any discussion or relation with an attitude of complete animus over actions that occurred before we were born, and in many cases long before our grandparents were born.

That is why we have some of the rules we have on SD. That is why I say that China...or any other nation...MUST earn the trust and repect of those they are in dialog with.

Anyhow, those, IMHO, are the answers. Schemes to avoid that hard work or the time it takes almost invariably fail and lead to even worse relations in the end.

Jeff Head said:

If we go back decades, or hundreds of years and each of us act according to the barbarous acts and wrong things that have been done...and treat today's peoples, governments, societies, etc. as responsible for those things...then we might as well all pull out our weapons now and go at it.

There is no nation without such warts in its history, including the US and China.

It is futile to appeal to such justice, or rely solely on such lessons if ANY of us expect to ever make any relations today that are meaningful and lasting.

Yes...we all have to be wary. Yes, as Reagan used to say...we must trust, but always verify. But we cannot go into any discussion or relation with an attitude of complete animus over actions that occurred before we were born, and in many cases long before our grandparents were born.

That is why we have some of the rules we have on SD. That is why I say that China...or any other nation...MUST earn the trust and repect of those they are in dialog with.

Anyhow, those, IMHO, are the answers. Schemes to avoid that hard work or the time it takes almost invariably fail and lead to even worse relations in the end.

Click to expand...

But respect according to what standard? Least we forget, post-WWII norms were setup by Western states to benefit the West more than the rest. Answer this question with regards to SCS disputes;

Philippines take China to International Court under UNCLOS laws;
China opts out, also under UNCLOS laws;
Western nations cheer Philippines for using international law;
Western nations jeer China for using a different section of the same law.

So, is respect whatever the West say, or is there a universal standard all can accept?

Blackstone said:

But respect according to what standard?

Click to expand...

I think every single one of us knows what it means to respect and trust some one. It does not even have to be written down.

That's the universal standard I am talking bout.

Sadly, there are very few individuals, or administrations in any country that can garner that type of respect amongst whole people's...but that is, nonetheless, what's necessary.

Endlessly referring to breaches of trust in the past, are as I said, something every single nation can do ad nausium...because no hands are completely clean historically. All that does is lead to reasons not to trust or have meaningful dialog.

As I also said, leaders need to be wary, and need to verify what they are being told...but that process, willing to honestly engage, while remaining wary and verifying, is how trust is established and how meaningful, and potentially long lasting relationships are forged.

There are no shortcuts to producing those results.

Blackstone said:

Japan forced the Ryukyu people into its empire by the gun (see a pattern?), and refused all efforts by natives for self-determination. One could make an argument for China as liberators and not invaders.

Click to expand...

So did China with Taiwan and other lands on the continent. You are aware that the China borders of now aren't by any means it's historical ones?