South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Backwards Observer]

One could say that China ‘peacefully’ in total consonance of the Bandung spirit of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ claimed the whole South China Sea as theirs!

It is the others who are not ready to peacefully coexist.

One does have a point!

Since the one making this point appears to be you, I suppose that one could. That is quite insightful, however, and further underscores the utmost admiration I have for your deep insights into Chinese thought and culture, a subject normally clouded by stereotypes and generalisations.

If your style of argument is any indication, I imagine that in any war between China and India, the PLA will collapse from exhaustion within the first 48 hours.

[Ray]

It almost occurs to me to wonder why you left out some of the words in the quote directly beneath the quote you quoted, but I'm sure that any proffered explanation would only further serve to reinforce your point.

Like what?

As far as the rest of it, clearly there's nothing to worry about then in that respect, I stand corrected.

Excellent!

Ray, although it is difficult to respond to your posts, I do enjoy reading them. They remind me of the Indian movies they use to show on Malaysian TV. Very melodramatic and full of extended and exuberant song and dance numbers. Movies that loved life!

Believe it not, I don't see them.

But then, what is the connection unless you wish to deflect from the reality of the issue for which you have no answers.

I also enjoy your posts.

[Ray]

Since the one making this point appears to be you, I suppose that one could. That is quite insightful, however, and further underscores the utmost admiration I have for your deep insights into Chinese thought and culture, a subject normally clouded by stereotypes and generalisations.

If your style of argument is any indication, I imagine that in any war between China and India, the PLA will collapse from exhaustion within the first 48 hours.

I do not claim any insight to Chinese thought and culture. I am always in the mood to learn. It is not easy to understand the Chinese. Better people than I have failed!

If there is a war between India and China, then both will suffer and others will win.

You want a war? I don't.

I admire the Chinese (honest!). I would rather 'Peacefully Rise' like China and then flex the new found muscles!

[Dayuhan]

That is the predictable PC answer. "Oh yeah! Well what about us?" But our navel levels generally go up and down in relation to some threat or other. It went up a lot after Dec 1941 and went down hugely after 1945 and then has been up and down since. We have used it to throw our weight around as you say, most spectacularly in waters right close to where you are. The thing we use those naval forces for more than any other is keeping the seas open for free trade and we tend to build up when states whose free trade has not been threatened, say Red China, start to build up navies for purposes that aren't defensive, since there is no extant threat. Makes us a bit suspicious. We don't always do that. Sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking nothing serious is happening, like now.

The extant threat is us. Whether or not we perceive ourselves as a threat to anyone, others perceive us as a threat and respond accordingly. Think about it: we aspire to control the sea lanes of the world, for our own benefit... of course we say "protect", but nobody's fooled by the semantics. China depends more than any nation on earth on maritime commerce. If you were in their shoes, you wouldn't feel threatened? Do you think it irrational that the nation most dependent on maritime commerce aspires to have a navy?

Not that I trust the Chinese (or anyone), but their naval aspirations are reasonably consistent with their economic needs and interests.

I fear they will take over the South China Sea, effectively turning it into Chinese territorial waters, thence cowing Vietnam, the PI, Malaysia, Thailand etc into becoming tropical Finlands. After that I fear the consequences, since the killer elites that run China don't impress me as being primarily motivated by the golden rule.

What consequences do you fear?

Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others, and despite their grim human rights record I'm not sure the current Chinese administration really qualifies for membership in a global "killer elite".

It is quite surprising that the Communists, be it the Russians or the Chinese, who have always professed the Theory of Peaceful Coexistence, is now on a different path altogether.

China has always spoken of all to apply the Bandung Spirit (1955) that can be summarised as a call for a peaceful coexistence among the nations, for the liberation from the hegemony of any superpower and for building solidarities towards the weak and those being weakened by the world order of the day.

Chinese actions don't always measure up to Chinese rhetoric. I've heard the same criticism made of the US from time to time. Which would one fear more... or should the fear be that they will mix it up with each other? After all, when elephants fight the grass gets trampled.

Could it be that China used it as a smokescreen to disarm the neighbours and parts of the world into complacency at that time. And then during the phase where they aimed to be a challenge to the US, disarmed the US and West with platitudes and piety of Peaceful Rise, and now that it can challenge the US to some extent, the US being preoccupied with its economy and other 'wars', China is showing its true colours?

Who has been "disarmed". The only thing disarming the US, to the minimal extent to which anything is, is American economic profligacy.

The Chinese are also preoccupied with their economy, as they've good reason to be. It's not as rosy as it's sometimes painted to be, and if they don't maintain an astonishing level of growth they will come up against the threat they most worry about: their own people.

Well, you have to give it to them that they are real clever even if slim customers!

They're getting fatter by the day... consequence of turning capitalist.

[Backwards Observer]

I do not claim any insight to Chinese thought and culture. I am always in the mood to learn.

Y'know, that's the first thing that comes to mind whenever I read your posts about how the Chinese are legendary for this and famous for that and well, everyone just knows these things for a fact and anyone who disagrees is deflecting from the reality for which they have no answers. I think to myself, this Ray guy, he's always in the mood to learn!

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Backwards Observer

Bill Moore, how would you interpret this intentional strategy? A precursor to "Operation Choverlord"?

Absolutely not, this is simply strategic messaging to the countries that border the SCS. I don't think China anticipates a fight, nor wants one, but of course that is conjecture. What isn't conjecture, and you touched on it in a subsequent post, is that this behavior creates the risk of a tactical miscalculation which could lead to events getting out control. Instead of the strategic corporal, we're looking at strategic Capt's playing chess with their warships. Its a dangerous game.

As far as the intentional strategy, you can find China's strategic aims with a little research, it is unclassified and available for the world to read, and claiming the SCS is a key part of their overall strategy. One way to enforce those claims are to send fishing boats out to challenge territorial claims of other nations in the region. There is a better than 50% chance these confrontations are intentional, and there have been several of them. Yes this is a change, and it isn't just about fishing. You may recall there have been several incidents where Chinese "fishing boats" have harassed U.S. Navy ships, so to assume this is just about fishing, or these fishing boats are operating independently from the government is simply naive. What is more interesting is the growing nationalism among some Chinese and their public demand calling upon their government to give the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. a lesson.

Like others have commented, this approach seems contrary to their interests, because one point Dayuhan made that I agree with (on this topic, he makes many good points throughout the forum) is that China's freedom to sail through the SCS isn't threatened, so why potentially risk a conflict by making such aggressive claims? My speculation based on reading their documents is this is part of a larger strategy to undermine the U.S. as a global power (especially regionally, but it has global implications), to gain greater economic and political influence regionally (supported by a strong military). If our national security and our economy are related, as many senior leaders state, then this is clearly in our interests.

If you buy the assumption that there are three levels of relations between states: competition (normal), conflict and war, we are still clearly in the competition relationship with China, but China and some of the SE Asian nations are pushing closer to the conflict realm. I actually think in all likelihood these disputes will be ultimately be settled peacefully, but I don't know who will win the competition. None the less the possibility remains that when they pursue these tactics the risk of miscalculation is always present. If there is a miscalculation will it be isolated, or will it spin out of control? The answer is no one knows.

[Backwards Observer]

The answer is no one knows.

Bill Moore, thanks for your comprehensive response. Assuming that there are only three levels of relations between states: competition, conflict and war; does this mean displays of co-operation are nothing but a foil in order to angle for further advantage? This kinda makes humans sound like a bunch of dirtbags. You've mentioned co-evolution in the past, do you believe it is ultimately a zero-sum game?

[Bill Moore]

Competition isn't always cut throat, especially if you play by the established rules. Kids compete for their parents' affection, co-workers compete for promotion, nations pursue self-interests (but not at all costs, that pursuit is often balanced with morality). We all have the ability to be dirt bags, but most of us have a certain degree of civility that moderates our behavior, and I think most humans have some degree of altruistic behavior also. In other words there is room for hope.

Some aspects of relations will ultimately be a zero-sum game, there is only so much oil, only so many fish in the sea, etc., and nations will simultaneously compete for those finite resources, while hopefully pursuing collective action/cooperation on pursuing better means to manage these resources that is fair to all.

One thing I learned about Crystal Balls is that they look nice, but seldom do a good job at predicting the future, so I don't pretend to know what China's behavior portends for the future. I think there is a possibility that they could have a changing of the guard in their government and we could ultimately be partners in the future, and there is also a chance that our relationship could go downhill and we experience the worst case scenario. Co-evolution isn't something that is restricted to war, it can also apply economically, politically, socially, etc. and in those fields co-evolution could equate to more co-operation. No secret, I'm a military guy, so I tend to focus on the worst case, because the nation expects us to be ready for the worst case scenario.

[Backwards Observer]

Competition isn't always cut throat, especially if you play by the established rules. Kids compete for their parents' affection, co-workers compete for promotion, nations pursue self-interests (but not at all costs, that pursuit is often balanced with morality). We all have the ability to be dirt bags, but most of us have a certain degree of civility that moderates our behavior, and I think most humans have some degree of altruistic behavior also. In other words there is room for hope.

Some aspects of relations will ultimately be a zero-sum game, there is only so much oil, only so many fish in the sea, etc., and nations will simultaneously compete for those finite resources, while hopefully pursuing collective action/cooperation on pursuing better means to manage these resources that is fair to all.

One thing I learned about Crystal Balls is that they look nice, but seldom do a good job at predicting the future, so I don't pretend to know what China's behavior portends for the future. I think there is a possibility that they could have a changing of the guard in their government and we could ultimately be partners in the future, and there is also a chance that our relationship could go downhill and we experience the worst case scenario. Co-evolution isn't something that is restricted to war, it can also apply economically, politically, socially, etc. and in those fields co-evolution could equate to more co-operation. No secret, I'm a military guy, so I tend to focus on the worst case, because the nation expects us to be ready for the worst case scenario.

Bill Moore, ave, te salutant.

[carl]

The extant threat is us. Whether or not we perceive ourselves as a threat to anyone, others perceive us as a threat and respond accordingly. Think about it: we aspire to control the sea lanes of the world, for our own benefit... of course we say "protect", but nobody's fooled by the semantics. China depends more than any nation on earth on maritime commerce. If you were in their shoes, you wouldn't feel threatened? Do you think it irrational that the nation most dependent on maritime commerce aspires to have a navy?

Extant forces does not mean an extant threat. We are not an extant peacetime threat to Chinese maritime commerce. We weren't even at times where there were Chinese shooting at us and we at then. We didn't blockade NVN until the very end of the war and even that was only to expedite our exit. So we are very careful about when we interfere with sea traffic. We basically keep the lanes open. As a maritime nation that benefits us because FREE trade benefits nations, especially maritime ones. So whether you say we "protect" or "control" the upshot is the same, the ships move without interference. We don't "control" the seas to our benefit beyond that. We don't say this nations ships can go here or but not there for our exclusive commercial benefit.

So in my view, if the Chinese are building a fleet to preserve peacetime sea communications, they are seeing and countering a threat that is not there. If that is why they are doing it, they are wrong in their judgment and wasting a lot of resources. That is the benign interpretation. The problem with the buildup is that it is combined with continuing aggressive, provocative actions at sea. This can cause things to get out of hand as Bill M. notes.

If that is how the Red Chinese regime sees it, they don't see it the way the British, Indians, Brazilians, Japanese see it, all nations dependent upon sea trade. They aren't building navies to challenge the USN.

Like I said, the benign view is the Chinese are just mistaken. The malign view is that they aren't mistaken at all and eventually want to chase off the USN and run things as they see fit, something I believe Bill M. has alluded to. Now that leads to me conclude that they would not go to all that trouble to chase off the USN unless they wanted things to be run differently than they are now. That worries me, as I am guessing it does the Vietnamese for example.

Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others, and despite their grim human rights record I'm not sure the current Chinese administration really qualifies for membership in a global "killer elite".

The Vietnamese remember when the Chinese came. As do the Japanese, or when the Chinese tried to come, twice. I'm pretty sure the Koreans do. The Tibetans don't have to remember, all they have to do is look down the street.
So they do come. In the event though I doubt that is what the neighboring countries actually fear. Like I said above, I am guessing they don't want to be the far eastern analogs of Finland in the bad old days.

The phrase I used was "killer elites", with an s at the end of elite. That meant they are to be viewed within the context of mainland China itself. They are the elite, they are killers, they are they, hence "killer elites." (I hate it when I write unclear and have to untangle things.)

[carl]

Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others...

Something else occurred to me about this comment. With exceptions I think it is mostly true, which doesn't mean it will always be true. Nations can change. But if it is mostly true that would indicate to me a culture that is not all that determined to expand. Determined meaning willing to try in the face of opposition. Opposition is the key. If there is not opposition, it doesn't take much will to keep going. But if there really isn't that much will, it may not take too much opposition to stop the expansion. But my opinion is, you've got to be clear that there will be opposition and that has to be made clear early rather than late.

[Ray]

Since the one making this point appears to be you, I suppose that one could. That is quite insightful, however, and further underscores the utmost admiration I have for your deep insights into Chinese thought and culture, a subject normally clouded by stereotypes and generalisations.

If your style of argument is any indication, I imagine that in any war between China and India, the PLA will collapse from exhaustion within the first 48 hours.

China claims the highlighted portion of the South China Sea.

Bordered by ten nations and including some of the world’s most important shipping lanes and fisheries, the South China Sea is a vital region. Critically important mineral resources, including oil, are thought to be there in large quantities as well. The Chinese have long laid claim to nearly the entire South China Sea. That claim is contested by many nations and in some instances the conflict has turned violent.
http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.asp...ookieSupport=1

That makes me and some more who are making the point!

Now compare the countries around the SCS and the image above giving the Chinese claim.



Read about the Bandung Conference of 1955, the Bandung Spirit?

Both the territorial claim, the Bandung Spirit and actions that are incongruous to what the Chinese say does indicate a wee bit on the Chinese mindset and actions.

Glad to be of help!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others...

What are others?

What are the Chinese?

Was Southern China always 'Chinese'?

Who are the 100 Yues?

Capture of Tibet? War against India, War against Vietnam?

But then that is for another thread!

[Bob's World]

US - Chinese competition is healthy. Our national attitude toward that competition is not particularly healthy though. We're just not used to thinking in terms of many states all having varying degrees of regional power and influence as was common in the pre-Cold War era.

I think the main point for the US to come to realize is that US influence appears to always rise on the tide of some other state's power (and the perceived fears and concerns of those smaller states within the sphere of influence of that rising power).

During the Cold War US influence floated highest where states were most concerned with some nearby threat. Following the demise of the Soviet threat the "tide went out" and US influence found itself stuck in the mud, so to speak, where we did not make the proper adjustments to account for that change of tide.

Today we see US influence rising across the Asia-Pacific region. Huge breakthroughs with Vietnam allowing US Navy into Cam Ranh Bay; most recently with talks with Burma, and even the Philippines looking for much increased conventional military interaction. This does not mean that any of these states do not want to maximize the nature of their relationships with China, but that they also don't want to be too vulnerable to having those relationships turn coercive either.

I call this simply "the lesser of two evils syndrome." The US makes a good partner to balance the impact of closer threats with; but even a relationship with a "good partner" can become wearisome when it stays too long, or fails to adapt to the times.

We will continue to see the rise of US influence in the Pacific. The tide is rising there, and we are, for many, the lesser of two evils.

[Backwards Observer]

China claims the highlighted portion of the South China Sea.



That makes me and some more who are making the point!

Now compare the countries around the SCS and the image above giving the Chinese claim.



Read about the Bandung Conference of 1955, the Bandung Spirit?

Both the territorial claim, the Bandung Spirit and actions that are incongruous to what the Chinese say does indicate a wee bit on the Chinese mindset and actions.

Glad to be of help!

Whoa, hold the phone there, Magellan! That's the South China Sea?! I'm gonna have to get back to ya. I was thinking of a totally different South China Sea...y'know, the one off the coast of India.

[Ray]

Whoa, hold the phone there, Magellan! That's the South China Sea?! I'm gonna have to get back to ya. I was thinking of a totally different South China Sea...y'know, the one off the coast of India.

Forgive me honourable Han Bannerman!

I did not know that is the Arabian Sea!

Foolish Indian to talk to honourable Chinese knowledgeable high ranking Han Bannerman!

Forgive.

But won't kowtow!

Wahe Guru da Khalsa. Wahe Guru de Fateh!

[Ray]

Have we ever wondered why if the US is so 'hated', even their past adversaries find US 'comfortable'?

Have we ever wondered how China has been so good to the US in converting it from a 'hate' icon to a loveable cuddly teddy bear?

Not only in the Pacific rim, but all around the world?

[Ray]

Now some news for Dayuhan and Backwards Observer

US floats nuclear subs option
The United States has indicated for the first time it would be willing to lease or sell a nuclear submarine to Australia in a move that will inflame tensions with China and force the Coalition to declare its policy on #bolstering regional defence.

US Ambassador to Australia #Jeffrey Bleich told The Australian Financial Review yesterday that whichever option Canberra pursued as a replacement for its Collins class submarines, Washington viewed #Australia’s subs program as crucial to security in the Asia-Pacific region.
http://afr.com/p/national/us_floats_...3KjNwBLfFxpdeO

Nasty chaps, these Americans.

Always obstructing the peaceful rise of China to grab all!

Imagine that!

Peaceful China and silly US creating tensions.

They should allow China to peacefully rise!

[slapout9]

Perhaps someone here knows how accurate this is. I heard on the radio(conservative viewpoint radio station) yesterday that China was struggling with it's long range missile technology, so the Clinton administration eased some technology transfer restrictions in exchange for a very healthy campaign contribution. Now the Chinese have true ICBM capability for their missiles. Anyone know how accurate that statement is?

[carl]

Slap:

Look for articles by Bill Gertz. I think he has done a lot of work on China. I vaguely remember something like that but most of my books are in storage.

They get a lot from us now, whether we want to give it or not. Their cyberespionage effort is so titanic that it probably is prudent to assume anything, and I mean anything, we have, they have full info on.

Israel has given an awful lot to them also, voluntarily.