Brumby
Major
The problem is the assumed starting position that the territories belong to China - period. China knows it doesn't have a case and so it hides behind some virtual lines as if that is reality.
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
Blackstone
Brigadier
You made two mistakes in your first sentence that case doubt on your entire thesis about ‘bad China.” ASEAN countries were never delusional about China, since they lived with the giant for hundreds and even thousands of years. All of them seek to balance Beijing and Washington so they gain maximum benefit from both countries, without offending either. Far from being delusional, ASEAN countries conducted good state craft.
Empirical evidence show China’s reemergence has been relatively peaceful, when compared with rise of most of the other great powers. Far from being a revisionist power, China generally supports the current international order. China did not instigate current SCS troubles, as its actions were in response to changes to status quo by other claimants. In fact, until 2010, it did little build ups in the SCS, while other claimants reclaimed land, built airstrips, and established military bases.
Problem with your narrative is ASEAN and pre-ASEAN countries have been relying on the US for their security since WWII. They also looked to Washington for economic development for most of that period. But in the last decade, China displaced US as Asia’s economic hegemon. ASEAN will continue to lean of US for security, because Uncle Sugar is willing to provide. When that picture changes, ASEAN will look for a new sugar daddy for security. It may be China, Japan, India, or a group of nations in a ‘Concert of Asia.’
This is bold talk from a nation (Australia) that disregards international law when it suits its national interests. Quite frankly, nations routinely hold their own interests above international law, and the most vociferous defenders of international norms are some of the worst offenders.
I ascribe to the Realism school of international relations, so I don't expect China to be much different than most other great powers. On the other hand, China is among other nuclear-armed states, so its actions are already constrained by its geographic location.
What the frack are you talking about? What non-land claims have the Chinese made vis-à-vis the 9-dash line? I’ve seen no official statements on that topic, but if you know differently, kindly enlighten us.
What “values” are you talking about? Saying one thing and doing another? Condemning others for doing the same things as your own country? Supporting “our” despots while condemning “their” despots? Castigate countries for bad human rights, while embracing governments with even worse records? Invading countries on bad intelligence? Using “responsibility to protect” as pretext to overthrow governments you don't like? Aiding and abetting coup d'etat to overthrow elected governments, because you don't like their foreign policy? Are you talking about those the values?
Last edited:
Posts that delved into or veered into Chinese strategy have been deleted.
This is NOT A Chinese Strategy page.
In addition, Blackstone, the one article talking about Chinese World War Strategy, and against the US is also deleted.
For two counts...and I know everyone can see what they were,.
Stay on Topic.
DO NOT RESPIND TO THIS MODERATION.
This is NOT A Chinese Strategy page.
In addition, Blackstone, the one article talking about Chinese World War Strategy, and against the US is also deleted.
For two counts...and I know everyone can see what they were,.
Stay on Topic.
DO NOT RESPIND TO THIS MODERATION.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Question for posters living in Australia, are most Aussies more concerned with China thousands of miles away, or challenges in their immediate surroundings?
[/URL]on the Government maintaining the commitment Abbott had made to raise defence spending to 2% of GDP.
Abbott followed this with a trip to Japan, where he delivered a speech in which he strongly backed the Japanese bid for the Australian submarine contract — Euan Graham wrote eloquently on .
Then yesterday came the most astonishing move of all: Abbott contributed quotes to a which also contained extracts from a leaked draft of the Defence White Paper. Abbott pronounced himself flabbergasted that the final White Paper apparently delays the acquisition of new submarines by up to a decade (this has been denied by Turnbull and the Defence Department).
A number of commentators have interpreted this stoush as a proxy war: on this morning, for instance, journalist Paul Bongiorno said (I'm paraphrasing; the podcast is not up on the site yet) that the best retrospective judgment the electorate could offer on Abbott's short term as prime minister would be for it to throw the Turnbull Government out at the next election. Bongiorno also said Abbott was looking to burnish his legacy in anticipation of the release of a highly critical book about the Abbott Government by journalist Nikki Savva, due for release next week.
But let's not forget that there are real differences in worldview between Abbott and Turnbull at play too, helpfully summarised by Shadow Defence Minister Stephen Conroy in an :
Mr Turnbull displays a starkly different worldview from Mr Abbott. Mr Turnbull warns of the perils of Australian governments having a 'doe-eyed fascination with the leader of the free world'. He talks of Americans 'developing an inferiority complex', and of the 'risk that a combination of fear, envy and resentment will lead America into treating China as an enemy'.
Mr Turnbull has said that 'China has shown no interest in territorial expansion beyond, at some future date, reuniting Taiwan' and, on the South China Sea, that 'China is hardly alone in claiming islands and rocks far from its shores'. He also states that the 'best and most realistic strategic outcome for East Asia must be one in which the powers are in balance, with each side effectively able to deny the domination of the other'.
That last quote gets to the heart of the matter. What divides Abbott and Turnbull is the idea that American primacy in the Pacific can be maintained indefinitely, and that China's rise to the status of America's strategic equal can be resisted. If Turnbull maintains the view he put in that last quote, then he clearly believes this is not possible. Abbott (and Conroy, it seems — this is an issue that divides parties internally and crosses party lines) believes it is possible. To do it, he wants Australia to tie itself more closely to the US and Japan, and increase defence spending.
The problem with this view is that it doesn't come to terms with the scale of the challenge presented by China and other rapidly growing Asian states. Look at this graph from the 2016 Defence White Paper:
The Defence Department's own analysis is telling us that Chinese defence spending will be roughly equal to that of the US by 2035, and that Indonesian defence spending will match ours by that same year. If these forecasts are accurate, we're facing economic trends which we simply cannot resist; the issue of whether we get our new submarines in ten years' time or fifteen is beside the point. A much more substantial boost in defence spending would be needed to counteract those larger trends, something closer to the historical levels in his op-ed in the Fairfax papers on Monday. But defence hawks such as Abbott show no sign of wanting to face this reality.
Blackstone
Brigadier
[/URL]Sean Dorney speaks bluntly about Australia’s relationship with its former colony. In that very Australian way, one might say he has called a spade a spade. As an Australian with a long and heartfelt connection with Papua New Guinea, Sean appears to be trying to get the two countries to work things out for a better future. He is uniquely qualified to do just that.
From my vantage point in Papua New Guinea, I have often wondered what our richest and most powerful neighbour thinks of us. I am not sure what Australia is trying to accomplish in its dealings with my country. Australia needs to better define its end game with Papua New Guinea.
On a personal level, most Australians I have met have a very warm attitude to Papua New Guineans but I find that, at the government level, things are not so warm. It’s as if the Australian government wants to give us some lollies and send us away to play.
I have always believed in the philosophy that one should focus first on those areas where there is the best opportunity to achieve positive outcomes. This is the argument I think Sean is trying to make about Australia and its relationship with its former colony.
Australia’s foreign policy should be more focused on improving its relationship with its nearest neighbour — a country where people share similar values, who love, for example, rugby league, Aussie rules and cricket — rather than those who live on the other side of the planet. Australia’s chances of foreign policy success in Papua New Guinea are surely much better than in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is plenty of scope to improve the bonds between people and government. I recall one discussion I had with some of Australia’s top minds on foreign development when DFAT was scrapping an Agricultural empowerment program in PNG, one that had run very successfully for five years. I asked the Australian representatives why they were dumping the program despite its success. The response was 'Well agriculture is not a PNG government priority. We only fund PNG government priority programs. In addition, it is not in Australia’s interest to keep the program going'. With 85% of PNG's population dependent agriculture, that statement dumbfounded me.
I responded by saying that I understood that all countries must use foreign policy to advance their own interests. I then asked them, 'What would be in the Australia's interest?' They didn’t respond.
If the current population growth rate persists, by 2030 there will be more than 20 million Papua New Guineans living within swimming distance of Australia. Is it not in Australia’s interest to find ways of making sure those citizens live happily in their country? Or would Australia prefer to deal with thousands of people arriving in speed boats to improve their lives in your country? Papua New Guineans need empowerment, not handouts.
To all Australians, I echo Sean's plea to reset this important relationship. Come on; give us a fair shake. It's in your interest to do so.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Seems odd that Australia would need to choose sides, when its best strategy would be to remain neutral and play China and America off against each other to maximise the benefits both offers to Australia.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Australia switched its alliance from UK to US after WWII and has been a dependable deciple to the Bretton Woods world order untill the reemergence of the Middle Kingdom. It already aligns with Beijing on most economic issues, and successive governments kept up the 'we don't have to choose between US and China' mantra in the same period. Going forward, it will continue to try and walk a tight line between Washington and Beijing, not because it loves America over China (it does), but because it's in Australia's interests to do so.
The key for the next US administration is to create/modify conditions to reshape the regional environment where everyone has their share of the pie, especially China, and no one has more incentive to upset the apple cart than to preserve it.
A good interview with former Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad, who advocates a pragmatic, non-confrontational approach toward dealing with China on the SCS dispute. It's impossible for the other claimants to be fully satisfied by any future settlement with China over the SCS islands, but Malaysia's realistic strategy will, relative to other claimants, likely yield the best possible concessions from China. Unlike some other disputants, Malaysia appears to have a good awareness of its own capabilities and recognizes that it's futile and foolhardy to directly antagonize a rising superpower in its own backyard.
Southeast Asian nations are hemmed in on the disputed South China Sea, avoiding confronting China because of its sheer clout, according to former Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad.
While countries like Malaysia may risk further Chinese encroachments by not taking a tougher stance on their claims, there are few alternatives, Mahathir said in a Feb. 25 interview with Bloomberg Television in Kuala Lumpur.
"Can Asean go to war with China?" Mahathir said, referring to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. “We are dealing with a very powerful country. We can’t tell them ‘look, don’t do this, don’t do that, or I will bash your head’."
China is the largest trading partner of the 10-member Asean and has pledged sorely-needed infrastructure investment funds to the region as part of its plan to build a new maritime “Silk Road" trading route from China to the Middle East and onto Europe.
That economic clout gives it sway in its territorial disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia over the South China Sea, a key maritime artery for trade and energy shipments. China’s trading influence is increasingly matched by an expanded naval presence in the region, with missiles, fighter jets and radar operating from some reefs and islands it controls.
“It’s going to be the most powerful country in this world, more powerful than the U.S.,” Mahathir said of China. He led Malaysia from 1981 to 2003, during which he made regular trips to China -- in part to limit reliance on western nations -- and trade ties accelerated. Under his leadership Malaysia advocated a pragmatic relationship with China and promoted what he called “Asian values”.
While the Philippines and Vietnam have protested, other Asean states have been more willing to accommodate China and its economic muscle. In November, Asean defense ministers failed to release a communique from their meeting amid reports of Chinese opposition to language on the disputes. There was a similar failure at a leaders’ summit in Cambodia in 2012.
Malaysia has avoided overtly challenging China over its maritime claims. Chinese coast guard ships were spotted off the coast of Sarawak last month, sparking worries among people there, official news agency Bernama reported. Defense Minister Hishammuddin Hussein was quick to dispel any concerns, saying the situation was under control and that he’d arrange a meeting between the Chinese ambassador and the Sarawak chief minister to resolve any misunderstanding, the report said.
"If you are thinking of having military capability to fight China, you can forget about it," Mahathir said. “We have a problem with China, we’ll sit down and talk to them about the problem. We don’t confront.”
“We don’t believe in wars, we believe in trying to negotiate and to find some peaceful situation to the problem.”
