Sino-Myanmar Border Conflicts

Equation

Lieutenant General
As much as China is disliked by most countries in SE Asia due to the South China Sea dispute,

Ehh...like who other than Vietnam and the Philippines? Does Laos, Cambodia, or Singapore have a major beef with China over the SCS? Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia have a concern about the SCS disputes but not hatred towards China. Even Vietnam and the Philippines doesn't have that much hatred towards China like the western media portrays it to be. If that's true than why do people from both sides still marrying to each other? The truth the majority of the people don't give a crud about a bunch of rocks on the ocean with no one living on them. It is only became an issue when the Obama administration made it an issue with their "Asia pivot" futile China containment.
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Ehh...like who other than Vietnam and the Philippines? Does Laos, Cambodia, or Singapore have a major beef with China over the SCS? Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia have a concern about the SCS disputes but not hatred towards China. Even Vietnam and the Philippines doesn't have that much hatred towards China like the western media portrays it to be. If that's true than why do people from both sides still marrying to each other? The truth the majority of the people don't give a crud about a bunch of rocks on the ocean with no one living on them. It is only became an issue when the Obama administration made it an issue with their "Asia pivot" futile China containment.
Well...putting aside U.S. interference and hegemony, is it reasonable according to post-1945 international law and norms to impose your "historical territorial ownership" on another country's doorstep, not to mention such historical ownership is debatable? (Of course, the U.S. and U.K. are not immune from other kinds of imposition behavior, such as the invasion of Iraq, arguably the Vietnam War, too)
Regarding the current crisis, a Chinese retaliation against the Burmese - whether it is legal self-defense or not - would definitely weaken China's influence in SE Asia, given that China already has conflict with Vietnam and the Philippines. It would definitely exacerbate China's image as a "regional aggressive bully," despite the conflict is provoked by Myanmar. Of course, the U.S. and India would definitely take advantage of the situation by handing out humanitarian aids to Myanmar, effectively rolling back Chinese influence in the region.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Well...putting aside U.S. interference and hegemony, is it reasonable according to post-1945 international law and norms to impose your "historical territorial ownership" on another country's doorstep, not to mention such historical ownership is debatable? (Of course, the U.S. and U.K. are not immune from other kinds of imposition behavior, such as the invasion of Iraq, arguably the Vietnam War, too)
Regarding the current crisis, a Chinese retaliation against the Burmese - whether it is legal self-defense or not - would definitely weaken China's influence in SE Asia, given that China already has conflict with Vietnam and the Philippines. It would definitely exacerbate China's image as a "regional aggressive bully," despite the conflict is provoked by Myanmar. Of course, the U.S. and India would definitely take advantage of the situation by handing out humanitarian aids to Myanmar, effectively rolling back Chinese influence in the region.

The "bully" label came from the media, not China. China's influence and images is NOT solely depended on whatever the media wants to portray them to be. If that's the case than how come so many Europeans and other US allies ignored the wishes of President Obama and joined the China led AIIB in the first place?
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
The "bully" label came from the media, not China. China's influence and images is NOT solely depended on whatever the media wants to portray them to be. If that's the case than how come so many Europeans and other US allies ignored the wishes of President Obama and joined the China led AIIB in the first place?
Yes, in the words of David Campbell, it is the American construction of "us vs them", especially in the elite-controlled media. Therefore, the image of "China threat" is a U.S. (Western and Japanese, more generally) constructed representation of what the latter perceives China as. In this sense, anything China does is likely to be viewed as "abnormal" when compared to U.S. self-identities (such as liberal democracy, checks and balance, government non-interference in market, etc.); thus, the rise of China economically and politically would most likely be viewed as a "threat." Finally, by portraying China as a "threat" along with "different other", American political elites justify the existence of post-Cold War Liberal norms, as well as more specific issues like pushing back against Chinese "autocratic/non-democratic" influence (whether in the South China Sea, Myanmar, or AIIB).
Having said that, even if China's retaliation against Myanmar is justified, given that the construction of "China autocratic threat" is widely shared among Western nations (including the U.S. and some EU members) and China's neighbors, Chinese leaders need to be cautious that if PLA artillery guns fire back and cause certain collateral damages, China's regional economic influence - including the AIIB - could potentially be negatively affected, so would China's long term soft power projection.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Yes, in the words of David Campbell, it is the American construction of "us vs them", especially in the elite-controlled media. Therefore, the image of "China threat" is a U.S. (Western and Japanese, more generally) constructed representation of what the latter perceives China as. In this sense, anything China does is likely to be viewed as "abnormal" when compared to U.S. self-identities (such as liberal democracy, checks and balance, government non-interference in market, etc.); thus, the rise of China economically and politically would most likely be viewed as a "threat." Finally, by portraying China as a "threat" along with "different other", American political elites justify the existence of post-Cold War Liberal norms, as well as more specific issues like pushing back against Chinese "autocratic/non-democratic" influence (whether in the South China Sea, Myanmar, or AIIB).
Having said that, even if China's retaliation against Myanmar is justified, given that the construction of "China autocratic threat" is widely shared among Western nations (including the U.S. and some EU members) and China's neighbors, Chinese leaders need to be cautious that if PLA artillery guns fire back and cause certain collateral damages, China's regional economic influence - including the AIIB - could potentially be negatively affected, so would China's long term soft power projection.

When China retaliates out of self defense and security of its homeland nobody in the AIIB membership will object to that. China's economy and AIIB influence does not rest on how the western media portrays it.
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
When China retaliates out of self defense and security of its homeland nobody in the AIIB membership will object to that. China's economy and AIIB influence does not rest on how the western media portrays it.
Yes! However, what one-self perceives as "defensive" could also be perceived as "offensive" by the others, especially given that the others (Vietnam, Philippines, U.S., Japan, etc.)' constructed image of China is already a "big bully." So I will say China faces a dilemma: if CCP leaders do not order a retaliation, it will look weak and illegitimate under the current domestic popular nationalist norms. However, if the CCP does order a military strike against Burmese troops, even a proportional response risks weakening China's long-term influence. I don't how much such a response would affect China's position in the AIIB, but certainly China's business opportunities in SE Asia would likely to suffer. You can argue that history (at this moment) is quite unfair to China, but neither was it fair to other rising powers like Kaiser's Germany and Japan. Realistically what Chinese leaders need is real prudence, but unfortunately the current Chinese social-constructed "victim mentality" and subsequent popular nationalist norm are not assisting the much-needed prudence. This is the dilemma for Chinese leaders (got to respect them for how much stress they can handle in their daily works :)).
 

montyp165

Senior Member
Yes! However, what one-self perceives as "defensive" could also be perceived as "offensive" by the others, especially given that the others (Vietnam, Philippines, U.S., Japan, etc.)' constructed image of China is already a "big bully." So I will say China faces a dilemma: if CCP leaders do not order a retaliation, it will look weak and illegitimate under the current domestic popular nationalist norms. However, if the CCP does order a military strike against Burmese troops, even a proportional response risks weakening China's long-term influence. I don't how much such a response would affect China's position in the AIIB, but certainly China's business opportunities in SE Asia would likely to suffer. You can argue that history (at this moment) is quite unfair to China, but neither was it fair to other rising powers like Kaiser's Germany and Japan. Realistically what Chinese leaders need is real prudence, but unfortunately the current Chinese social-constructed "victim mentality" and subsequent popular nationalist norm are not assisting the much-needed prudence. This is the dilemma for Chinese leaders (got to respect them for how much stress they can handle in their daily works :)).

Under the circumstances, if Chinese citizens are dying under the actions of Myanmar, PLA countermeasures are not only well within the rights and responsibilities of the PLA to stop further deaths, but as Russia demonstrated in South Ossetia that if the need is great action will be carried out for such responsibilities, no matter the western media braying. If anything attacks on such legitimate actions would worsen the west's position rather than China's, for even Vietnam and India would act the same if they were dealing with the same type of situation and they understand that.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
this has nothing to do with US. Stick to China/Myanmar please
 
Sounds like the Myanmar government is deliberately confusing the issues of it not having control over multiple Chinese-Burmese ethnic rebel groups (and their territory and borders) versus China having to do its job for it. An actual request for help rather than blaming others after their own stray attacks across the border would probably be much better received.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Myanmar calls on China to strengthen border control
By Ye Mon and Guy Dinmore | Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Myanmar yesterday signalled its growing frustration with China over the border war in the Kokang region by calling on its neighbour to strengthen controls along the rugged frontier to prevent infiltration by insurgents.

Tatmadaw shells hit a hilltop held by Kokang rebels close to the border with China last week. Photo: Ministry of InformationTatmadaw shells hit a hilltop held by Kokang rebels close to the border with China last week. Photo: Ministry of Information

U Ye Htut, information minister and presidential spokesperson, told reporters that the government wanted to know how the ethnic Chinese rebels in Kokang were sourcing weapons and food supplies.

“Myanmar protects the border but our country can’t do it alone. China also needs to protect the border together with Myanmar,” the minister said after briefing foreign diplomats, including Chinese envoys, at the Myanmar Peace Center in Yangon.

“If China doesn’t, then it can happen again that shells fall [across the border]. China should protect the area so that Kokang rebels do not occupy the border,” U Ye Htut said.

The minister was referring to an incident on May 14 when five civilians inside China were wounded by artillery fire that Beijing suspects came from the Tatmadaw. Myanmar has agreed to investigate the incident. China warned Myanmar in March that it could face “resolute and decisive measures” after a Tatmadaw aircraft killed five Chinese villagers in a cross-border strike.

Fighting that began in Kokang in Shan State in early February has recently intensified along hills close to the border with China’s Yunnan province. Diplomats said U Ye Htut’s comments reflected Myanmar’s concerns that the ethnic Chinese insurgents of the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) were being aided across the border, possibly by local interests acting against the official policy of non-interference set by Beijing.

A source close to the MNDAA said the group’s fighters remained inside Myanmar and it was not sourcing food and weapons from China. The source said MNDAA forces did not enter Chinese territory and would be arrested if they did.

But the official Global New Light of Myanmar yesterday accused the Kokang rebels and their allies of using vast stockpiles of narcotics to pay the medical expenses of wounded fighters treated in a Chinese hospital in the border town of Nansan. Drugs were also sold to pay compensation for mercenaries killed in battle, the newspaper said.

The article’s main focus of attack, however, was the United Wa State Army (UWSA). An ally of the Kokang forces, the UWSA is the most powerful armed ethnic group in Myanmar with a reported 30,000 fighters and an economy closely integrated with Yunnan province.

Readers were reminded that eight UWSA leaders were indicted in the US in 2005 on heroin and methamphetamine trafficking charges.

The article carried distinctly anti-Chinese overtones with the author, believed to be writing under a pen name, noting that ethnic Chinese were occupying official posts in the Wa self-administered border zone, where “local culture is being swallowed and overwhelmed by the Chinese one”.

“Official language is Chinese and circulating money is Chinese renminbi while local dialect and literature are also becoming Chinese. Now is the time to monitor if they are all real ethnic Wa tribesmen or if they are Chinese people pretending to be Wa,” the article said.

The UWSA hosted a conference of select armed ethnic leaders in its border enclave of Pangkham in the first week of May, ostensibly to discuss the draft nationwide ceasefire accord signed by government representatives and negotiators for 16 armed groups on March 31.

The meeting ended with a communiqué reiterating UWSA demands for a separate state and for the inclusion of the Kokang groups in the nationwide ceasefire accord. Responding to the Wa demands for a separate state, the newspaper said it could be assumed that the UWSA was “willing to engage a military challenge”.

The source close to the MNDAA said fighting in Kokang had subsided yesterday. However, the Tatmadaw’s claim to have captured the Point 2202 hill post on May 14 after intense battles was disputed by the Ta’ang National Liberation Army, which is allied to the MNDAA. The group said its forces were still on the hill.
 

Skye_ZTZ_113

Junior Member
Registered Member
Honestly, this is just a bad situation IMO. It can very easily be interpreted by the PRC side as a deliberate series of events showing disrespect and disdain for chinese sovereign borders/citizens. It is however, worth investigating the claims that local interests on the PRC border are supporting the rebels. There is certainly drugs trafficking involved, and even if little comes to fruition on this front, it is still a win-win situation.

Diplomatic niceties aside, I suspect that this will end with either a) the situation blowing over (unlikely given the history with the rebels), b) the bombings go one step too far and take out a PLA position/large number of civilians or c) a gradual backing down from the Myanmar government slowly to save face, but surely.

It would be useful if the PRC could get some forward observers (HUMINT) in the combat area to find out what is happening exactly regarding the artillery/bombs targeting. However, this does run the risk of them being caught and then having the situation spun in the media as looking as though the PRC is encroaching on the borders and thus giving credence to the above claims of 'sinocising' the population there.
 
Top