South China Sea and China

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

If you mean to say you live closer to the South China Sea than others and because of that your opinions are more credible, say it straight out. In any event, it is a poor argument.

[carl]

Originally Posted by JMA

The yanks are not allies that can be relied upon.

Maybe not in my lifetime but certainly Hawaii will become contentious (like the Falklands is to the Brits now) and will be granted independence.

If the Russians want Alaska back they will probably get it.

The 'frontline states' had better get together and form a bulwark or they will get gobbled up piecemeal.

Oh yes, remembering MAD, they better get their own nukes and line them up and aimed and ready... and have the balls to use them.

To my great shame, I can't argue strongly against no. 1.

Number 2, I don't think so. However if the USN gets chased out of the western Pacific...

Number 3, never happen.

No. 4 is good advice to those states as is no. 5.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

Geez, lighten up, Ray, you act like anything I say is actually important. Maybe you need to get out more. Come to think of it maybe I do too.

So you are a troll?!

Maybe.

Notwithstanding, some stuff you write still interests me. You are still not that worthless as you claim!

Could I say trolls also contribute?

Guess what? I did go out on a tour of Malaysia and Singapore. Great fun and great education, to say the least!

Met a lot of Chinese including a relation who is a full blooded Chinese and not something here or there! Believe it or not, very rational and intelligent!

Don't mind my post. I am merely replicating your style; sadly my style is no patch on your sophisticated neither here nor there and saying things that means a lot and yet cannot be pinned down.

You are the expert!

:Bow to the Guru:

[Backwards Observer]

Originally Posted by Ray

So you are a troll?!

Maybe.

Notwithstanding, some stuff you write still interests me. You are still not that worthless as you claim!

Could I say trolls also contribute?

That's funny, I wondered exactly the same thing about you after you pm'd me about that Indian forum where you posted a question about Christianity. I thought maybe you were some kind of Chinese provocateur or something. What a modern marvel is this social media. I actually run the whole CCP circus from a trench behind my garage, while stuffing my fat face with microwave pot roast.

Seriously though, just like the Tamil movies I used to watch as a kid, sometimes when I read your posts I have no idea where you're coming from, but you seem to be enjoying yourself. I guess the same could be said about my bull####. Still, I can only speak one language, so you're smarter than I'll ever be.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

There has been quite a lot of comment here and analysis elsewhere.

Though I doubt the analysis is much more accurate than the comment...

[jmm99]

with Indians (the "woo-woo kind", not the "Sanskrit kind"), but never with a "Native American". I suppose American Indian or Amer-Indian would be a bit more elegant than the "woo-woo" vs. "Sanskrit" distinction, which was taught me by my Japanese lawyer apartment sharer in the late 60s.

The term "Red Indians" had some initial validity as used by 16th and 17th century English speakers as defining the Beothuck ("human beings") of Newfoundland, who painted everything (including themselves) with red ochre (it's a good bug repellent, as well as having religious significance). The Beothuck are now extinct as a separate group, although their blood lines still run among the Innu ("human beings"; Montagnais to the French) of Labrador, and among the adjacent Anishinaabeg ("human beings") west and south of Newfoundland.

Of course, all the "woo-woo" Indians believed that all peoples were "human beings" - right ? You gotta be kidding.

Regards

Mike

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

That's funny, I wondered exactly the same thing about you after you pm'd me about that Indian forum where you posted a question about Christianity. I thought maybe you were some kind of Chinese provocateur or something. What a modern marvel is this social media. I actually run the whole CCP circus from a trench behind my garage, while stuffing my fat face with microwave pot roast.

Seriously though, just like the Tamil movies I used to watch as a kid, sometimes when I read your posts I have no idea where you're coming from, but you seem to be enjoying yourself. I guess the same could be said about my bull####. Still, I can only speak one language, so you're smarter than I'll ever be.

If I did, it was to prove a point to your meanderings. And you did not have the courage to come there and be exposed, right? Surely, if you are so gung ho here, you could go there and prove your worth.

CCP is a circus! Have you some doubt? Hasn't it been proved by posters who are better equipped than me?

I don't see Tamil movies since I don't know the language.

Are you trying to show off that you are a linguist? Or just 'dropping names' just to indicate or pretend you are some know all?

I do know some Tamil cuss words, if that will help!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by jmm99

with Indians (the "woo-woo kind", not the "Sanskrit kind"), but never with a "Native American". I suppose American Indian or Amer-Indian would be a bit more elegant than the "woo-woo" vs. "Sanskrit" distinction, which was taught me by my Japanese lawyer apartment sharer in the late 60s.

The term "Red Indians" had some initial validity as used by 16th and 17th century English speakers as defining the Beothuck ("human beings") of Newfoundland, who painted everything (including themselves) with red ochre (it's a good bug repellent, as well as having religious significance). The Beothuck are now extinct as a separate group, although their blood lines still run among the Innu ("human beings"; Montagnais to the French) of Labrador, and among the adjacent Anishinaabeg ("human beings") west and south of Newfoundland.

Of course, all the "woo-woo" Indians believed that all peoples were "human beings" - right ? You gotta be kidding.

Regards

Mike

You sure can be funny.

I will use Native Indians /Ameri Indians till some American tell me that is outdated and gives another one.

You people love reinventing the wheel!

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ray

You people love reinventing the wheel!

That one made me laugh out loud. And ain't it the truth.

[jmm99]

Amer-Indians did manage independently to invent the wheel, but used them on toys. Unfortunately, for their military capabilitries, they never received the Irish saying that "guns are dangerous toys". Otherwise, Cortes would have been met by cannon - and the rest would have been His Story (that is, Montezuma's).

Anything having Indian in it is fine.

But consider Canada, where all "status Indian groups" are First Nations. So, a "status Indian" must then be a "First National".

The First Nationals are coming !; the First Nationals are coming !

------------------------------------
The Chinese are coming !; the Chinese are coming !

And, to illustrate that, we have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China, "The Issue of South China Sea" (June 2000), in five parts - and still the official statement of the claims:

(1) Its Origin, The Issue of South China Sea

(2) Historical Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

(3) Jurisprudential Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

(4) International Recognition Of China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

(5) Basic Stance and Policy of the Chinese Government in Solving the South China Sea Issue

As a counter-point, here are two articles - viewing the Chinese claims less favorably - written by the guy (Jerome Cohen) who provided us with our Chinese Communist Law textbook in the late 60s.

2010 Cohen, China's Claims to the South China Sea

2010 Cohen, China and its Ocean Disputes

Regards

Mike

[Backwards Observer]

[QUOTE=Ray;134812]

If I did, it was to prove a point to your meanderings. And you did not have the courage to come there and be exposed, right? Surely, if you are so gung ho here, you could go there and prove your worth.

Some guy I don't know directs me to a forum I've never heard of to talk about a topic he didn't want to talk about on the forum where the question was originally asked and has essentially rephrased into a different topic? I'm not that gung ho. Why didn't you discuss the question here if you were so interested? Or ask your chums to join SWC?

CCP is a circus! Have you some doubt? Hasn't it been proved by posters who are better equipped than me?

Fair enough.

I don't see Tamil movies since I don't know the language.

Are you trying to show off that you are a linguist? Or just 'dropping names' just to indicate or pretend you are some know all?

I do know some Tamil cuss words, if that will help!

The movies were listed in the Straits Times as, "Tamil Movie". There wasn't much on TV back then, so you'd end up watching whatever was on. Stating that I'm monolingual and still managing to show off that I'm a linguist. You can't beat that, really.

I hope this opportunity to prove your courage and your worth, uh, on the internet, has been as enjoyable for you as it has for me.

[carl]

Originally Posted by jmm99

The First Nationals are coming !; the First Nationals are coming !

THE BANKERS ARE REVOLTING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

(Ah-this if fun.)

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

If you mean to say you live closer to the South China Sea than others and because of that your opinions are more credible, say it straight out. In any event, it is a poor argument.

I don't think any opinion stated here has any inherent credibility. I pointed out that one might expect those with the most to lose from a given threat or potential threat to be the ones most concerned about it. In this discussion, for whatever reason, that appears not to be the case.

I do suspect that those closest to the events in this case may have been following the situation more closely for a longer time than some others in the discussion, and that this may have something to do with the attitudes displayed, but that's only conjecture.

Originally Posted by carl

The passage you quoted, twice, could be viewed as a prediction of war I guess, if you are not a careful reader. That is my fault since I should write with the expectation that uncareful readers abound. What I should have written was "could" instead of "will", as in "J-20s could be flying around picking off American jets" rather than "J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets".

That would be more clear and would more accurately reflect my opinion. After all us opinion leaders and makers bear a weighty responsibility. But in my defense, you could have J-20s picking off F-18Fs in situations well short of wars.

People on all sides of these questions point out what could happen. I'm sure that those in China who want to see greater spending on naval forces routinely point out that somewhere down the line the US Navy could be interdicting Chinese merchandise exports and commodity imports in waters far outside the range of current Chinese military capability. Probably some have real concerns about that possibility - when someone has a knife near your neck it's small consolation to note that he hasn't used it yet - and probably some have material vested interests in greater military spending. The same is true in the US: some who talk up the China threat are probably really really scared, and there are probably also some who have a material vested interest in seeing greater spending aimed at combating threats. In each case those who actually make decisions and have influence over the opinions of others (that would not include us, we're just a few folks yakking on the internet) need to maintain equal wariness of the potential threat and of those who would exaggerate that potential threat to serve their own interests.

Originally Posted by carl

But since my opinion carries such weight nowadays, I'll state what it is concerning chances of war with Red China in 10 years. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Things could run the gamut from an all out destroy both countries exchange of nukes to something like the navel (I used that word just for you BA) war we fought with France around the turn of the 18th to 19th centuries to Operation Praying Mantis to amity on the order of that we have with the Aussies.

Obviously many things could happen in the next ten years. My insignificant guess, though, is that the next ten will look a lot like the last ten. There will continue to be low-level incidents: fishing boat intrusions, arrests of fishermen. pressure to release arrested fishermen, harassment of exploration ships, occasional games of chicken. An actual shooting incident involving ships or aircraft is quite possible. I would not expect any such incident to escalate: none of the parties involved have anything to gain from combat.

I'd expect the US Navy to continue sailing task forces through the SCS, and to continue holding both bilateral and multilateral exercises with SCS border states. The Chinese will continue to denounce each event.

The Philippines will buy a few more retired coast guard cutters from the US and will try to upgrade them with missile systems. They may try to buy a few ships, though not necessarily from the US (the Italians have offered frigates that would suit and probably be cheaper than anything the US could offer). The Philippine F16 purchase will continue to be tossed around but may not go anywhere; the cost of both acquisition and operation is high, supporting systems would have to be in the package, and they wouldn't really change the picture much.

The Vietnamese will beef up coast-based radar and missile systems (I personally think the Philippines would be wise to take that course too, instead of prioritizing high profile ships and aircraft, but I don't make decisions), and take delivery of some submarines. Other SCS states will continue upgrading their navies as economic conditions permit, as they have been doing for the last few decades.

The Chinese will issue the mimeographed ritual complaint with every acquisition, while stocking up as much gear as they can. They'll be a presence in the SCS, and will probably volunteer more assets for anti-piracy work, partly to protect their shipping but largely to gain experience with operations in distant waters.

I don't expect the Chinese to gobble anyone up or to invade anyone. Not much to be gained by it for them, and high potential costs.

Of course there are many jokers in that deck, the most prominent and most likely being significant internal upheaval in China, which could go any number of ways with a wide range of outcomes, all completely beyond the control or meaningful influence of any outside party.

Originally Posted by carl

The actions of late have been a big naval buildup in the face of no threat

You may persist in saying there is no threat, but their perception of threat is more important than our ever so impartial assessment of threat, and they perceive a threat, justifiable or not. We do maintain significant military forces in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, and along their key commercial arteries in the Middle East... would we feel threatened if they had forces in similar proximity to our mainland and our vital commercial routes?

The US maintains an enormous Navy in the face of no threat. The Russians, British, French, Italians maintain significant navies in the face of no threat. Actual or aspiring major powers with extensive maritime trade maintain navies, threat or no threat. Been that way for centuries, why would it change now?

[JMA]

Originally Posted by carl

To my great shame, I can't argue strongly against no. 1.

Number 2, I don't think so. However if the USN gets chased out of the western Pacific...

Number 3, never happen.

No. 4 is good advice to those states as is no. 5.

Carl, I come from an area where the word never was often used in defiance but not in an educated sense. I learnt to never say never.

Yes indeed the countries surrounding China must create local alliances and develop/acquire the weapons to keep Chinese hegemonistic tendencies in check. I would also suggest that they as a group start to agitate for the liberation of Tibet.

The US won't do anything significant... so these nations must accept that in their time of need the US cavalry will not come riding to their rescue. Like the anti-communists in Hungry they will be sitting on their roof tops waiting for the US aircraft that will never come.

Taiwan is becoming like a irritating piece of cellotape stuck on the US finger. Can't shake it off. Well it won't be long now before the 'smart' guys in DC figure out a way to dump the Taiwan problem.

[Dayuhan]

As an added note to all this, the annual Philippine/US military exercise kicks off tomorrow off Palawan, about 500 km south of Scarborough Shoal.

Some 6,800 troops — 4,500 American and 2,300 Filipinos — are expected to participate in this annual exercise, which includes computer-simulated command post exercises, multiple field training exercises and humanitarian civic assistance projects in pre-selected areas in Palawan...

... The venue of the actual training exercises includes the West Philippine Sea (also South China Sea) off Palawan where both forces will be pursuing amphibious exercises; and gas and oil platform defense and retake.

The Philippines refers to the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea.

Of course the exercise has been planned and publicly scheduled for months, which raises the possibility (not certainty) that the Scarborough Shoal confrontation was deliberately provoked in time to coincide with the exercise. That raises the question of why the Chinese would want to do that.

While we tend to focus on the messages China may be sending to its neighbors, the US, etc, one possibility (again not certainty) is that the primary target of the messaging is domestic. Could the Chinese government be trying to hold up what they call an effort to push Chinese fishermen out of their traditional fishing grounds while at the same time masses of imperialist running dogs are staging war games in the vicinity as a way to cultivate a perception of threat and persecution, and to promote nationalism and patriotism?

Obviously there are numerous unknowns in that picture, and that may have nothing to do with what's going on... or it might.

[Bob's World]

JMA,

How is it in the interest of the smaller states in the region to confront China in regards to Tibet? What do they gain from that?

As to Taiwan, it is part of China. Certainly due to the geo-strategy of where Taiwan sits, it is a vital component of any effort to contain China proper to the mainland; so if that were still our strategy then Taiwan remains vital. Certainly due to our relationship with Nationalist China we owed them our protection from being brutally crushed in some final apocalyptic battle between Mao and Chiang. But there is little risk of that happening now. To update US policy regarding the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan is not well discussed with emotionally loaded terms such as "abandon." Personally, I believe our old mission there is complete and it is time to move on to more effective policies that enable the US and China to better explore our shared interests, rather than butt heads over our odd policy regarding Taiwan. Reasonable minds differ on this topic. Playground taunts and misplaced concepts of loyalty should not shape foreign policy.

Besides, it is a sucker's bet: The best the US could ever do in a conflict over Taiwan is reset the conditions of failure. The worst that China could do is go toe to toe with the big guy, suffer a tactical loss, but gain most likely at the gain of a significant strategic advantage. Particularly if they happen to point out the modern vulnerabilities of Aircraft carriers or long-range flight operations against a sophisticated foe prepared specifically to deal with the same.

I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull. For now China profits from this game, and besides, the Matador needs the bull. For now. Ultimately we all know what happens to the bull. Strong and instinctive he does not realize he is losing until he has already lost. Then the Matador kills the bull. But we are not a bull. We should be able to recognize the cape for what it is, and focus on what is important for us, not what China wants us to focus upon. We play their game for now, but think they are playing ours. We remain the bull.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

As to Taiwan, it is part of China.

Isn't that for the Taiwanese to decide? Self-determination and all that?

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull.

In a sense yes, and they also flash it at their own people: using an external issue to promote nationalism and patriotism and distract from domestic shortcomings is by no means a new tactic. For that reason among many others, I very much doubt that the current Chinese political dispensation has any desire to try and forcibly reclaim Taiwan.

[Bob's World]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Isn't that for the Taiwanese to decide? Self-determination and all that?



In a sense yes, and they also flash it at their own people: using an external issue to promote nationalism and patriotism and distract from domestic shortcomings is by no means a new tactic. For that reason among many others, I very much doubt that the current Chinese political dispensation has any desire to try and forcibly reclaim Taiwan.

Self determination much like it applied to the American Confederacy. Mom still gets a vote when baby decides to leave the nest. That is an internal issue they need to sort out on their own; and its good for everyone if they do that peacefully. But if Taiwan decides to play hardball, they may find they too have bitten off more than they can chew. We should not do anything to embolden Taiwan to make bad decisions, and currently I believe we do just that.

But yes, China the matador plays to a global audiance, and that certainly includes their own populace as well. We enable that game as well.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

JMA,

How is it in the interest of the smaller states in the region to confront China in regards to Tibet? What do they gain from that?

Diplomatic confrontation of a bully is about all they are able to do. The other reason is that the fate of Tibet awaits the weaker states as they are gobbled up in the not too distant future. It is probably wise for these states to decide right now wether they are going to capitulate or not go down without a fight.

As to Taiwan, it is part of China. Certainly due to the geo-strategy of where Taiwan sits, it is a vital component of any effort to contain China proper to the mainland; so if that were still our strategy then Taiwan remains vital. Certainly due to our relationship with Nationalist China we owed them our protection from being brutally crushed in some final apocalyptic battle between Mao and Chiang. But there is little risk of that happening now. To update US policy regarding the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan is not well discussed with emotionally loaded terms such as "abandon." Personally, I believe our old mission there is complete and it is time to move on to more effective policies that enable the US and China to better explore our shared interests, rather than butt heads over our odd policy regarding Taiwan. Reasonable minds differ on this topic. Playground taunts and misplaced concepts of loyalty should not shape foreign policy.

Besides, it is a sucker's bet: The best the US could ever do in a conflict over Taiwan is reset the conditions of failure. The worst that China could do is go toe to toe with the big guy, suffer a tactical loss, but gain most likely at the gain of a significant strategic advantage. Particularly if they happen to point out the modern vulnerabilities of Aircraft carriers or long-range flight operations against a sophisticated foe prepared specifically to deal with the same.

I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull. For now China profits from this game, and besides, the Matador needs the bull. For now. Ultimately we all know what happens to the bull. Strong and instinctive he does not realize he is losing until he has already lost. Then the Matador kills the bull. But we are not a bull. We should be able to recognize the cape for what it is, and focus on what is important for us, not what China wants us to focus upon. We play their game for now, but think they are playing ours. We remain the bull.

Good explanation Bob. This exactly why all nations (plus the remote states of Hawaii and Alaska) must realise that they can place no trust in a relationship the USA. For the US everything is negotiable... and they will sell one time allies down the river without conscience.

I suggest the Chinese like to play the game. They know that the US is already a spent force (intellectually and psychologically) and when they have built up their navy they will just shoulder the US out of the way with barely a shot being fired.

The US 'bull' is an exhausted and an all but impotent shadow of its former self.

I would suggest you take a little time to study how the British empire collapsed when they being virtually bankrupt and stabbed in the back by their supposed ally the USA 'lost the will to maintain their empire'. It was as much a case of psychological exhaustion than anything else.

Then I would suggest you look at how the Brits at the height of their power maintained the balance of power in Europe by supporting those at risk from the larger more aggressive states.

Then fast forward to the post Soviet era and learn what the smaller vulnerable states to Russian hegemonic intentions are attempting to do to prevent being once again being gobbled up by an expansionist Russia.

The bottom line is that all the smart guys in DC quite frankly don't have a clue. Its pretty sad really.

[Bob's World]

JMA,

Do not judge the U.S. by our recent actions. They do not define us.

As to the British Empire, their decline was their own. Like the US they had a foreign poiicy model designed for an era that no longer existed, and the costs of empire came to exceed the benefits, and they wisely converted to the Commonwealth and tucked in behind to let the US take on the onus of leadership. Unlike the US, Great Britain lacks the tremendous security and natural wealth of the US, nor the depth and diversity of populace. The US is still very much a young bull, we're just sorting out how to deal with the next phase. Don't make the mistake of reading too much into our lack of grace in that transition.

As to our reliability, we need to actually move on from the emotionally charged, ideologically defined thinking of the Cold War era to an approach that is much more practical, pragmatic, and tied to clear assessments of our interests and the interests of others. Mature powerful nations in history have played this balancing game well, and certainly Britain plays it better than most still.

In regards to Alaska and Hawaii? Don't hold your breath on anyone even seriously considering they could make such a play in any foreseeable future.