China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Dayuhan]

The fact that Red China is richer than before doesn't make them any less a repressive police state and all that means for other countries that have to deal with them.

What specifically do you see as the threat, and what would you want to see done about it?

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,

Are European countries relying on tohers to handle their defense needs, or do they not perceive any pressing or imminent threat?

I don't think the Vietnamese have ever relied on others to take care of their defense needs. Overall (not just in SE Asia) there was a post cold war period in which perceptions of threat were very low, not an environment that encourages military spending, although many emerging nations continued spending (though not at exaggerated rates) anyway... pride is involved in these decisions.

I edited by response to Fuches and added additional commentary on why we're at the nascent stage of an arms race, but as the saying goes, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

Please Dayuhan, you know better, Vietnam received substantial support from the USSR for its military. Those jets and tanks weren't produced in Hanoi.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...china-ussr.htm

Beginning in November 1964, relations with the Soviet Union took a new turn, evidently because of Moscow's avowed intention to render active support to the Hanoi regime in its political and military confrontation with the United States. On 17 November 1964, the Soviet Politburo decided to send increased support to North Vietnam. This aid included aircraft, radar, artillery, air defense systems, small arms, ammunition, food and medical supplies. They also sent Soviet military personnel to North Vietnam-the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Vietnam (DRVN). Some 15,000 Soviet personnelserved in Indo-China as advisers and occasionally as combatants. The largest part of the Soviet adviser personnel were air defense officers.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...sesupport.aspx

The most immediate need was for anti-aircraft artillery, units to counter the overwhelming American air power over North Vietnam. Ho would request Chinese AAA units during a meeting with Mao in May of 1965 and PLA forces would begin flowing into North Vietnam in July of 1965 to help defend the capital of Hanoi and the transportation network to include railroad lines and bridges.[50] This movement of troops from China was not lost on the U.S. as reported in a Top Secret CIA Special Report which identified seven major PLA units in North Vietnam to include the 67th AAA Division, and an estimated 25,000 to 45,000 Chinese combat troops total. [51] Recent Chinese sources indicate that this PLA AAA Division did indeed operate in the western area of North Vietnam. [52] In addition to AAA forces the PLA also provided missiles, artillery and logistics, railroad, engineer and mine sweeping forces. These forces would not only man AAA sites but would also build and repair Vietnamese infrastructure damaged or destroyed by U.S. airstrikes. [53] Such units would have quite a bit of repair work to do given that there would be more than a million tons of bombs dropped by U.S. aircraft upon North Vietnam from 1965 to 1972. [54] The Second Vietnam War would drag on for years as a sort of operational stalemate existed in the skies over North Vietnam. The U.S. could and did bomb the North at will, but the sheer numbers of Chinese forces, to include a total of 16 AAA divisions serving with a peak strength of 170,000 troops attained in 1967, would ensure that a high price would be paid by U.S. pilots with targets often rapidly rebuilt after destruction. [55] Chinese engineering and logistics units would perform impressive feats of construction throughout their stay in North Vietnam effectively keeping the transportation network functioning.

“Why have the Americans not made a fuss about the fact that more than 100,000 Chinese troops help you building the railways, roads and airports although they knew about it?” [67]
- - Chairman Mao to Vietnamese Premier Dong, 1970

In conclusion, as we can see from the considerable historical material outlined above, the military support provided by the People’s Republic of China, to include advisors, equipment and combat troops, was the decisive factor for the Communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam prevailing during 1949-1975 in both the First and Second Vietnam Wars. The small arms, mortars, ammunition, uniforms, tanks, artillery, radars, anti-aircraft guns, jet aircraft, trucks, and naval vessels were critical in the North Vietnamese struggle. However, what was even more critical and normally not acknowledged in the laundry list of war material is the psychological and strategic advantage provided by Communist China’s pledge to intervene in the advent of a United States invasion of North Vietnam, and communicating that pledge to the U.S. This strategic advantage in effect cannot be overstated.

The myths of the Vietnam War are perpetuated by the likes of Nagel and his book "Eating Soup with a Knife". The fact was that it was a hybrid war, the insurgents played an important role, but were not decisive. The Vietnamese couldn't sustain their conventional fight without outside assistance and they received ample support from the USSR and the PRC.

[carl]

Many countries have been methodically replacing 70s-vintage hardware as they can, but there's little evidence of a sudden surge in the last few years. I'd have to agree with Fuchs on this one, unless someone can show actual spending patterns as evidence to the contrary.

...

Any suggestion that an "arms race" (in the sense of direct competition between or among nations) really needs to be accompanied by some kind of specific evidence.

The Vietnamese Navy going from basically no submarines to buying 6 very capable SSKs all at once indicates to me, just me alone in the world maybe, that they are in a mighty big hurry to put a serious naval force into service.

[Ray]

Dayuhan,

Are people turning away from communism because of "US influence" or because communism is a failed ideology that clearly has nothing to offer. Certainly capitalism prevailed over communism in the global ideas race (communism couldn't even finish the race) but I don't see that as "US influence", just as the collapse of an idea that basically sucked from the start.

In India, Communism is not a failed ideology. It is not thought to ‘suck from the start’ or else, though under decline, it is still alive and kicking.

Where there is inequality in income and opportunities, it becomes the breeding ground for Communism.

Of course, Communism being a banned political force in Philippines, does leave you ill equipped to comment. Understandable.

My State was ruled by the Communists from 1977 without a break till last year. Would you call Communism a failed ideology in my State? It is just that globalisation, liberalisation and the converging of idea with the US that has changed the mindset.

It was only two days ago, Hillary Clinton visited my city, the bastion of Communism. She was the toast of the town and the State Govt (now not Communist, but fervently socialist). A year ago, Ms Clinton would not have ventured here because the Communist Govt would not have played host and she would have faced black flags and slogans like ‘Down with Dollar Imperialism’ and the like!

It is your guess as to whose influence plays a role. I am quite clear on that and have already mentioned as to whose influence it is.

Again, that's less a question of US influence than of Vietnam emerging from its postwar shell and engaging more with other nations across the board, not just with the US. The US and Vietnam may both see it as in their mutual interest to cooperate to some extent on some issues, but that's less the US influencing Vietnam than a simple convergence of perceived interest.

To expect a nation that was engaged in a prolonged and exhausting war with the US and totally inimical to the US and the US’ system of governance to show gushing bonhomie towards an erstwhile enemy will be a pipedream.

Normally, nations who are not allies, take baby steps to build up relationship. They venture on issues that improve the economy and build infrastructure. They do not jump into military equations or undertake naval exercises. Therefore, it is axiomatic that Vietnam and the US have convergent interests. It also indicates that Vietnam has faith in the US, an erstwhile enemy. To feel that US has no influence on Vietnam and is merely undertaken naval exercises for altruistic reasons would be naïve.

US, on her part, does not wish to be seen as ‘overdoing’ it since that would give signals that the US is ‘ganging up’ against China. Instead, US is played her diplomatic card of undertaking the naval manoeuvres only in the interest of keeping international shipping lanes open!

It is also interesting to note that the US has no comments on Vietnam increasing her naval might by adding six submarines (from a zero submarine fleet) or to the fact that India will be training the Vietnamese submariners! In this context, it would be worth noting that the US is objecting to India drawing oil from Iran – a dire necessity for India!!

True enough, but again, I don't see any evidence that the US is causing anyone in SEA to alter policy in any way. Just because someone doesn't oppose something you want doesn't mean you caused them to take that position, it may simply mean that they see a convergence of interests. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I don't think it's valid to assume that such a convergence is orchestrated by the US or is a consequence of US influence.

US Sphere of influence does not mean a mandatory requirement for Nations to alter their policies and follow the US as vassal states. One does not have convergence of interest without reasons. Just an example - Do you think that Pakistan allows Drone strikes on its territory merely because of US financial and military aid? It is because it serves Pakistan to blame some other nation for doing what she wants to do, but cannot do, owing to public pressure. Convergence of interests. The fact that inspite of growing anti US sentiments in Pakistan it is still being done indicates the influence US has on the Pakistan administration and it’s military.

Who's racing? If modernization "automatically leads to an arms race", then the entire world is in an arms race.

No the entire world is not in an arms race. Britain has cut down defence expenditure as so has Greece to name a few.

The Asian countries have increased it. Now, why have they done so? They are obsessed with their childhood fantasies of playing toy soldiers or are they obsessed with showing that they have modernised their armed forces, even if their people wallow negatively in social succour.

They modernise to keep pace with the international and regional geopolitical pressures and the pressure are mutual amongst the neighbourhood. If one arms, then the other has to arm to maintain the balance – thus, the arms race.

[Ray]

cont from above.

It's also a question of political priorities. Vietnam and the Philippines have similarly sized economies, but Vietnam spends close to 3% of GDP on its military, the Philippines, despite having two serious active insurgencies, spends less than 1% of GDP on its military. Different priorities.

Political priorities grow out of what are the national interests, aims, threats and economy. China’s political priority is to have a strong nation that is a leader of the world. It emanates from their sincere belief that their culture is superior to all and they have much to give to his world with regards to culture and approach to the world. That is why even when they protest, they couch such statements with pious platitudes and sagacious homilies.

To be strong in all facets, they believe that the political atmosphere has to be tranquil and stable within. Hence they are averse and even brutal against dissensions.

Their Theory of Legalism prompts shape their policies and there is some spill over in their policy towards the neighbours who they treat as nothing better than vassal states that have sometime during history were, as per them, China’s ‘lost lands’ and the need for China to get back to their ‘old border’!!

It is common knowledge that in 1959 Mao Zedong said: “Our goal is the whole wide world . .. where we will create a mighty state" and that in 1965 he presented China with the task of “absolutely getting hold of Southeast Asia" in the near future. And today, far from disavowing these and similar statements, Peking uses them as a guide. Politics, propaganda and armed force combine to further Maoist foreign policy doctrines, in a range of ploys which extends from historical fabrications and the publication of maps showing the “lost Chinese lands" to armed provocation and outright aggression against neighbouring states......

A maiden work of this order was Su Yen-tsung’s The General Tendency of the Modification of China’s Borders, [249•22 which was published shortly after the Hsinhai revolution. Coming after it, Hua Chi-yun’s China’s Borders [249•23 gained wide currency. Indeed, its author, possibly the Kuomintang’s leading authority in the field, completed his treatise in the spring of 1930, shortly after the Kuomintang provocations on the Chinese Eastern Railway, the raids on Soviet territory, and the rupture of SovietChinese relations. Hua Chi-yun’s conceptions, which reflected the official moods.

Hua Chi-yun advocated the thesis of the need to “return” to China the lands it had “lost”. He claimed that “China’s old borders" had embraced vast territories extending from Kamchatka to Singapore and from Lake Balkhash to the Philippines. Korea, Burma, Vietnam, and Bhutan were seen as “conceded tributaries”, which had been within the “old borders”. Considerable tracts of Soviet Far Eastern territory along with the Island of Sakhalin, part of Kazakhstan and the Soviet Central Asian republics, sections of Afghan and Indian territory, and the Ryukyu Archipelago were also included among China’s “losses”. The Mongolian People’s Republic was generally ignored as a sovereign state and was designated as within China’s contemporary borders. Maritime boundaries stretched hundreds and thousands of miles away from the mainland, taking in the islands of the East China and South China Seas. The special map appended to the chapter, “Revision of Frontiers and Lost 250 Territories”, illustrated this projected programme of territorial aggrandisement.
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/read/PRO.pdf

Maybe the Vietnamese have also cut back on exploration in contested areas. These incidents come and go, and there's little evidence to suggest that any caution has been enforced... you can bet your last peso that another incident will come along soon enough, exercises or no exercises. Certainly US/Philippine exercises haven't enforced any caution at all.

Does Vietnam have an option not to cut back on the hostilities?

If another incident happens it will be from China and not from Philippines or Vietnam.

What makes you feel that the US presence has not put caution on China? Any facts?

The US has quite explicitly stated that it's not going to side with anyone on the SCS territorial disputes. If there's an incident, the US response, exercises or no, is likely to be limited to urging everyone to resolve issues peacefully.

If US is not taking sides and if the US has no influence on Vietnam, as per you, why did US carry out a naval exercise with Vietnam, their erstwhile enemy? Vietnam has influence over the US?

The treaty is old, and the wording is very ambiguous. The US has already stated that they would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines, and even if, say, a Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process.

Conveniently the words become ‘ambiguous’?

Could you give the link where the US has said the US would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines or Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process?

What is this ‘constitutional process’?

I rarely pay attention to speeches. Actions speak louder.

Convenient isn’t it that you find President Obama’s speech that the US strategic focus has moved to the Asia Pacific Rim and yet you find innocuous statements of underlings that US will not take sides something earthshaking!

So, I take it that the US President is not responsible for US Foreign policy and instead a merely US govt underling somewhere someplace!!!!

Very convenient!

The Philippines has tried to maneuver the US into making an expanded commitment of support and into providing a wider range of hardware at a lower price. They haven't succeeded with either effort. When you look beyond the rhetoric it looks like the US is maintaining some distance and is more interested in looking involved than in getting involved... fair bit of posturing and flag-showing, but a scrupulous effort to avoid commitment.

How droll.

You take that as the Gospel and you consider the President of the USA’s statement on changed strategic priorities as garbage that you don't read!

[Dayuhan]

Please Dayuhan, you know better, Vietnam received substantial support from the USSR for its military. Those jets and tanks weren't produced in Hanoi.

Ok, we're talking about two different things... I didn't consider receiving material support as "relying on others to take care of their defense needs". Of course you could say the South Vietnamese relied on the US to take care of their defense needs, as the US actually did defend South Vietnam. I don't think modern Vietnam (post unification) has been relying on others to defend it.

Most of Vietnam's post-unification arms purchases have come from Russia (though there's some diversification going on) but buying doesn't really constitute reliance.

Conveniently the words become ‘ambiguous’?

Could you give the link where the US has said the US would not consider an attack on a disputed area to be an attack on the Philippines or Philippine ship were fired upon the treaty requires no more than response in accordance with constitutional process?

What is this ‘constitutional process’?

The words are ambiguous as written:

ARTICLE IV.

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional process. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

ARTICLE V.

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is
deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Note that this does not require either party to commit military force to the defense of the other, it only requires that they "act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional process". Effectively that means either government can do whatever its government decides to do.

This Philippine Senator's opinion is a fairly representative sample:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05...treaty-useless

Joker says Mutual Defense Treaty useless

he recent meeting between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario had just rendered the 61-year-old Mutual Defense Treaty useless in the event that China attacks the country over the disputes in the West Philippine Sea, Sen. Joker Arroyo said yesterday.

“As matters stand, China now confirms what it had thought all along, that the 61-year Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) cannot be invoked in the Panatag standoff,” Arroyo said. “Whereas before there was at least some doubt where the US stands in the crisis, now it has been clarified.”

Arroyo made the assessment after the United States declared that it would not take sides in the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China...

The Vietnamese Navy going from basically no submarines to buying 6 very capable SSKs all at once indicates to me, just me alone in the world maybe, that they are in a mighty big hurry to put a serious naval force into service.

Fine, as long as we realize that the "mighty big hurry" goes back to 2005-2008... a period when the Vietnamese economy was growing rapidly, and well before the current round of incidents.

"Rising military spending" is only relevant if spending is increasing as a percentage of GDP. Of course if a country consistently spends 2.5 to 3% of GDP on the military and its economy grows an average of 5% a year for a decade, military spending will rise. That's not evidence of an arms race. If they bumped military spending up to 3.5% of GDP, that would be a different story.

[Ray]

http://mobile.shanghaiist.com/2012/0...s_the_phil.php

Chinese newsreader: The Philippines an inherent part of China's sovereign territory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KiudNjxTdg4

Oops of the Day: CCTV anchor He Jia mistakenly declares (at 1'35"): "As we all know, the Philippines is Chinese territory. China has unquestionable sovereignty over the Philippines." The video went viral shortly after it first appeared on Sina Weibo, and was quickly scrubbed off the CCTV website.

**************


That puts paid to China being a peaceful nation and carrying out legitimate activities.

And to the vehement protestations that China is no threat to Philippines!!!!!!

I wonder what new 'twist' the Chinese supporters will give.

Truth cannot be hidden too long!

[Ray]

JMM is right that what Mao said is what they are doing!

[Backwards Observer]

That puts paid to China being a peaceful nation and carrying out legitimate activities.

And to the vehement protestations that China is no threat to Philippines!!!!!!

I wonder what new 'twist' the Chinese supporters will give.

Truth cannot be hidden too long!

Ray, as far as 'China supporters' go, how would you describe a nation like India which plans to do in excess of $100 billion worth of trade with China in the next few years? Phoney opportunists? If JMM is correct, and you believe he is, open conflict with China is likely inevitable. Since this television broadcast puts paid to China being a peaceful nation, if, or rather when, war breaks out between the US and China, what do you think the nature of India's participation will be? Which way do you think Russia will go, given India's long-standing ties with the former Soviet Union?

Dec 17, 2010: PM Manmohan Singh on Thursday said that India and China will march together as friends and not rivals in the years to come and stressed while addressing the gathering that partnership between the two countries will be a key milestone in defining 21st century.

India and China will march together as friends: Indian PM

[carl]

Fine, as long as we realize that the "mighty big hurry" goes back to 2005-2008... a period when the Vietnamese economy was growing rapidly, and well before the current round of incidents.

"Rising military spending" is only relevant if spending is increasing as a percentage of GDP. Of course if a country consistently spends 2.5 to 3% of GDP on the military and its economy grows an average of 5% a year for a decade, military spending will rise. That's not evidence of an arms race. If they bumped military spending up to 3.5% of GDP, that would be a different story.

Dayuhan, you must be a very fine dancer. You buy six subs at once, you are in a mighty big hurry to get serious naval power. Period. Given the constraints of lead time for construction, building bases, training and working up crews and all the other things that go with it, 2009 was yesterday. That yesterday was before the current round of incidents, but after the incidents before that.

Besides, racing to buy all those subs starting just a very few years ago might be viewed as prescient.

[Ray]

Trade does not indicate that a country does not have to worry about its security concerns.

If the Chinese subconscious suggests that Philippines is a part of China, one wonders if parts of India are also not being taken to be a part of China.

It is also no axiom that doing trade it is indicative of being 'supporters'.

It is just a question of a profit - loss equation and what is beneficial.

I wonder if you have been reading the Indian news, but India is equipping itself to not worry as to who will 'side with' India.

Russia is no longer in the strategic loop and it is for them to decide since China is no friend of theirs either.

There will be no reason for US and China to break out in a war. If that happens, surely India will not be on China's side.

Manmohan Singh may say anything, but the reality is known.

[Backwards Observer]

Trade does not indicate that a country does not have to worry about its security concerns.

It is also no axiom that it is indicative of being 'supporters'.

It is just a question of a profit - loss equation.

I wonder if you have been reading the Indian news, but India is equipping itself to not worry as to who will 'side with' India.

Russia is no longer in the strategic loop and it is for them to decide since China is no friend of theirs either.

There will be no reason for US and China to break out in a war. If that happens, surely India will not be on China's side.

If billions in trade does not qualify as support, what do you mean when you use a phrase such as "China supporters"? People who are doing trillions in trade? Pretty soon we'll be talking real money. If trade does not equate with support why would the the US gently request that India back off on trade with Iran under the current circumstances?

As far as there being no reason for the US and China to break out in war, if you're saying China considers the Philippines an integral part of Chinese territory, then war is more rather than less likely. Especially if, as you mentioned in an earlier comment, the Chinese also consider themselves to have an ancient claim on America. What level of participation do you anticipate from India's side should war break out between China and the US?

Concerning Russia and China; every time the US holds joint exercises with another nation in the area you present it as certain proof of a policy of containment viz China. A television broadcast is solid proof of hostile Chinese intentions towards the Philippines. Yet joint Russian-Chinese exercises are somehow meaningless? Well, if you say so...

China and Russia are making military history this weekend with the first bilateral naval exercises the two governments have ever conducted together.

China is sending a group of 16 ships, including destroyers, frigates, and a hospital ship. Russia is sending 4 ships, including the cruiser Varyag and three air defense destroyers now moving south from Vladivostok to join the Chinese after navigating through the Sea of Japan.

US worried as China and Russia prepare to hold historic joint exercises - International Business Times - April 20, 2012.

[davidbfpo]

Backwards Observer asked just:

If billions in trade does not qualify as support....

IIRC this was a riposte to Ray citing expected growth in Sino-Indian trade.

Without researching for facts & figures currently China has an extensive trade imbalance with the USA, to PRC's advantage and a Australia has a large surplus on it's trade with PRC. Is that, Backwards Observer, support...?

Mindful of history, taught many years ago, there were expanding trade relations between nations in Europe in August 1914 and that did not stop going to war. (It also had some odd aspects for the UK as it was dependent on Germany for key finished industrial products). Post-1945 and especially within the EU there is a common argument that expanding trade reduces the chances of conflict,which to date has worked well between France and Germany, the two principal nations of concern.

[Backwards Observer]

Without researching for facts & figures currently China has an extensive trade imbalance with the USA, to PRC's advantage and a Australia has a large surplus on it's trade with PRC. Is that, Backwards Observer, support...?

Mindful of history, taught many years ago, there were expanding trade relations between nations in Europe in August 1914 and that did not stop going to war. (It also had some odd aspects for the UK as it was dependent on Germany for key finished industrial products). Post-1945 and especially within the EU there is a common argument that expanding trade reduces the chances of conflict,which to date has worked well between France and Germany, the two principal nations of concern.

As you have indicated, under some circumstances extensive trade appears to do little to prevent war, and may to some extent provide fuel for the fire, as it were. Does trade in itself reduce the chances for war, or does it work in conjunction with a host of other factors that contribute to a lessening of tensions? I don't know.

The argument Ray seems to be putting forth is that China is an unrepentantly hostile and expansionist power with hegemonic designs not just in the Asian region but upon the whole world. Is trade facilitating this policy? This question would apply to any country trading with China that simultaneously denounces it in the harshest of terms as a clear and present threat.

[Fuchs]

...currently China has an extensive trade imbalance with the USA, to PRC's advantage...

It depends. Would you consider yourself lucky if you worked for 80% of your wage and your employer says he'll pay you the other 20% sometime, maybe?
Are those 20% working to YOUR advantage?


I'd say their surplus is less dysfunctional than the U.S.'s deficit, but at least in the short and medium term the U.S. is advantaged - and it can rip off the PRC in order to become advantaged by the imbalance even in the long term.

[Entropy]

I guess I am still trying to figure out what the big deal is, at least for the US. The SCS situation hasn't changed much since the early 1990's as far as I can tell, which was when it was also kind of a hot topic. As a young intel analyst I spent a lot of time briefing developments and the discussions about Chinese intentions were similar those today.

Other than protecting the free flow of trade, what's our interest here? As long at the claimants don't start a big, destabilizing war, why should we care?

[Ray]

If billions in trade does not qualify as support, what do you mean when you use a phrase such as "China supporters"? People who are doing trillions in trade? Pretty soon we'll be talking real money. If trade does not equate with support why would the the US gently request that India back off on trade with Iran under the current circumstances?

You will not understand that money is not all in life.

To a Chinese money is everything and the index to supreme happiness.

Not so to people who still have religion and religious beliefs.

That is why you find it problematic in Tibet where you are shovelling in money.

It is difficult to explain to you Chinese.

Check any forum.

The Chinese are surprised why the Tibetans are rebelling when their materialistic lives have improved manifolds!

No, to many around the world, religion and religious solace and religious ethics matter.

Money, wealth and power is not all.

Values are also important!

India has not backed off from Iran, in case you did not know. Check Indian news!

Yet, we are still with the US on the major issues!

[Ray]

I guess I am still trying to figure out what the big deal is, at least for the US. The SCS situation hasn't changed much since the early 1990's as far as I can tell, which was when it was also kind of a hot topic. As a young intel analyst I spent a lot of time briefing developments and the discussions about Chinese intentions were similar those today.

Other than protecting the free flow of trade, what's our interest here? As long at the claimants don't start a big, destabilizing war, why should we care?

As an intel analyst, were you briefed about the geostrategic and geopolitical issues?

If so, you would understand.

The talk of Free flow of trade is all eye wash and is a smokescreen!

Free flow of trade in the SCS does not in any way affect the US.

[Backwards Observer]

You will not understand that money is not all in life.

The question is not whether I understand money or what life is all about. The question is whether the policy of a nation deemed to be openly hostile with an unquenchable lust for expansionist hegemonism is being facilitated by international trade.

To a Chinese money is everything and the index to supreme happiness.

Do you think that this might be a generalisation or an exaggeration?

Not so to people who still have religion and religious beliefs.

That is why you find it problematic in Tibet where you are shovelling in money.

It is difficult to explain to you Chinese.

Check any forum.

You seem to be saying that having religion and religious beliefs are two separate things. Aside from that, are you implying that no Chinese have religion or religious beliefs? Is this an accurate depiction, in your opinion? Do you mean that I am personally shovelling in money to Tibet? If money is my supreme happiness, why would I give any to the Tibetans? Let them find their own money. I can barely shovel enough money into my own bank account. Furthermore, I'm personally in favour of independence for both Tibet and Taiwan. Is this realistic? I don't know. Given the current state of the world, somehow I doubt it. When you say any forum, do you literally mean that? If I go to a forum discussing bad seventies movies, will I encounter these things of which you speak that are so difficult to explain to a Chinese?

The Chinese are surprised why the Tibetans are rebelling when their materialistic lives have improved manifolds!

No, to many around the world, religion and religious solace and religious ethics matter.

Money, wealth and power is not all.

The Chinese are probably surprised at a great many things. Perhaps not least of all at the countries trading with them to whom money, wealth and power are not all.

Values are also important!

Would you describe the values that are important to you? Are these values consonant with the manner in which you address people who disagree with you on this forum?

India has not backed off from Iran, in case you did not know. Check Indian news!

Bully for you.

Yet, we are still with the US on the major issues!

Such as the containment of China. Correct?

[Entropy]

As an intel analyst, were you briefed about the geostrategic and geopolitical issues?

If so, you would understand.

The talk of Free flow of trade is all eye wash and is a smokescreen!

Free flow of trade in the SCS does not in any way affect the US.

It's been a few years, but from what I remember tensions in the area were moderately high. Various parties were setting up flags on little bits of rock and then someone would come along, rip down one flag and put up another. Our purpose, as intel folks, was simply to monitor the situation, look for signs of potential escalation and provide warning so the diplos could jaw jaw should it prove necessary. Basically it was indications and warning 101.

Do we have a major interest there? It seems to me the SCS is a tertiary concern for the US.