manqiangrexue
Brigadier
It doesn't matter what the West likes to call it; they make up these names for when they don't like what China's doing. It's down to the simple principle of not buying things from people you don't like. Everyone stays within their rights.
There's no laws in the sense that there isn't anyone who will come out and arrest you but people know right from wrong. Not having the means to stop a bully doesn't mean he's no longer seen as a bully. The laws are actually defined at the UN for what is within a country's sovereign rights; it's just that when powerful countries ignore them, there's not typically the force to stop it. Doesn't mean it's legal or right.
If it's the law of the jungle, then there can never be any complaining about what anyone ever did. All of America's actions today would be covered. Israel snatching up Palestine would be covered. Japan's invasion of China/Asia would be covered. British imperalism would be covered. The 8 nations trying to part China would be covered. Law of the jungle for everyone and there can never be any morals ever discussed again by that logic.
Well if you don't want China to be morally superior to the US but just another bully like the US, then your arguments would make sense. Just 2 countries that don't give a shit about right or reason, just that stronger countries impose their will on weaker ones on the premise of "law of the jungle." Only difference is the skin color.
Now I've actually given more thought to this and it ultimately comes down to the approach. I'm arguing that it is unacceptable by any moral standards for a country to, as you suggested, tell another country that if it doesn't expel its own guests from its territory, then they're going to be invaded and it's their own fault for not complying to the order. It's actually disgusting to think about a country bullying others in this way; reminds me of why American imperialism is so hate-worthy. But it won't go this way; American behavior presents far too many oppertunities for China to act justly in its own defense. There is no real world scenerio where a US military in Japan just peacefully sits on its hands and provokes nobody or they'd lose their purpose for being there. As I said before, I'm fully in favor of Chinese military action as a response to military transgressions by the US or any American vassal. If Chinese military action needs to be taken, it will likely be as an escalation to a land dispute (such as the Diaoyu Isl.) or to a FONOPS in which Chinese ships resort to force to stop an American incursion. I do firmly believe that China should more assertively and aggressively defend itself from these provocations as Chinese power grows and the most realistic situation in which Chinese military force ousts the US from Asia would likely start from a sparkpoint as mentioned above and grow into conflict that would allow China to rightly and justly expand and take out US military bases and assets in Asia. So to conclude, ultimately in a realistic world and situation, I would support Chinese military force to secure a safer and more hospitable surrounding for itself, however, it needs to be done with much more finesse than outright bullying with an ultimatum made in peacetime that tramples on others' sovereign rights.
