How a Chinese superpower may be different

[Howitzer]

I wonder why people always say china being a superpower would be worse than the US being one. In the history of the world europeans and now the US have been the ones meddling in the business of other countries either by military force or by episonage in essence trying to get a leg up by everyone else through illegtimate means. Then later they claim they are the beacons of human rights and democracy yada yada.

Well , generally current behavior is an excellent predictor of future

behavior. Now when you look at this map, does the claimed area by

China look ok to you ?? Just curious......

It's claimed but it's not enforced.

I am sure the US has other claims. What about the illegal invasion of iraq and afghanistan? That ok to you?

[Publicus]

I wonder why people always say china being a superpower would be worse than the US being one. In the history of the world europeans and now the US have been the ones meddling in the business of other countries either by military force or by episonage in essence trying to get a leg up by everyone else through illegtimate means. Then later they claim they are the beacons of human rights and democracy yada yada.

Well , generally current behavior is an excellent predictor of future

behavior. Now when you look at this map, does the claimed area by

China look ok to you ?? Just curious......

It's claimed but it's not enforced.

I am sure the US has other claims. What about the illegal invasion of iraq and afghanistan? That ok to you?

The United States hasn't even considered a territorial grab against another country for more than a hundred years, since the Spanish-American War (1898-1901), which was fought to run Spain out of Cuba and also grab the Phils from the king in Madrid who himself had to grab a map to find out where these places were.

Russia hasn't tried a territorial grab for a hundred hours and the CCP Boyz in Beijing haven't done anything in the Spratlys for about a hundred minutes but that will end tomorrow as Beijing continues to fill the reefs and is now up to four square kilometers of new islands in the Philippine EEZ. Beijing has paved over the four sq km and has building there and supply ships making runs as it pours more fill.

There's a bad moon rising in this South China Sea and East Sea business. The Boyz in Beijing are incorrigibly revanchist and irredentist, same as Putin, just different approaches. Beijing actually thinks no one is noticing and that it will turn the SCS into a Chinese lake without firing a shot.

US ready to respond to threats in Asia-Pacific region

Admiral Harry Harris, commander in chief, US Pacific Command, at his headquarters at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, upon his appointment by Pres Obama as chief of US armed forces in the Pacific-East Asia region. Adm Harris was advanced to his new command from his position of commander of the US Pacific 7th Naval Fleet on December 7th of last year. By 2020, 60 percent of all US Naval ships and supporting assets will be assigned to the Pacific Command.

“My intent is not to plan for war against any particular nation, but rather to lessen the chances of conflict by increasing security and stability more broadly throughout the region," Admiral Harry Harris told a security conference in Canberra on Tuesday. "But the Pacific Fleet is prepared, unequivocally, to respond to threats to our nation, our interests and our allies from a position of strength,”

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/04/05/1440474/us-ready-respond-threats-asia-pacific-region

INDIA AND JAPAN: STRATEGIC BONDING – ANALYSIS

The Indian Navy submarine INS Sindhurakshak. Photo by Chris Desmond, USN.

The just-concluded four-day visit (29 March-1 April) of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar to Japan is a reaffirmation of India’s response to build a partnership with Japan that is beyond just diplomatic niceties and that reflects the changing strategic and security environment in the region.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/04042015-india-and-japan-strategic-bonding-analysis/

[Howitzer]

The key lever of this opinion piece is fraudulent, thus rendering his conclusion void. One has to do mental gymnastics to conclude that China did not colonize locally, but instead had a "tribute" system and by this mechanism vassal states were required to offer tribute- but this is not empire building, this was symbiotic. The rationale that those forced to pay tribute received recompense is nonsense. It remains partially true that China has less foreign adventure but this is only in relation to other Western superpowers. China continues to have those in SE Asia that do not want to be part of its modern "tribute" symbiosis and certainly peoples on the periphery who were previously independent.

You know the thing that pisses me off about china being less foreign adventurous compared to western nations. The fact that these western nations won't condemn themselves despite meddling even more than china on foreign affairs. To put this into say an individual human perspective it's like 2 criminals. 1 has committed a serious crime like a murder while the other commits a less serious one like theft. The murderer then proceeds to give a moral lecture to the thief and feels disgusted by his behavior when he definitely doesn't have the moral authority to do both of those things because his crime is more severe compared to the thief's. This is the same exact type of behavior the west is displaying towards china and what is even worse is the entire lack of irony and the sense of self righteousness that they display. Even in the present day bar what occured during the colonial days the west is still sticking its nose into foreign nations. The invasion of iraq and afghanistan by the US despite the fact that the reasons for invasion were found to be fradulent but still the outrage and outcry were miniscule. Even in seperate western nations like say europe or australia not much condemnation. Now just simply switch the invading nation to china instead of the US and all of a sudden the outcry would increase multiple times. Oh yes not only is the US guilty of it but so are other western nations like say NATO which involves european nations or western european ones and the coalitions that get formed whenever such invasions occur that will include most western nations like australia, NZ etc etc.

I think the one thing the west has created is to somehow build a type of moral authority that ignores such blatant double standards the double standards are so freaking obvious that they can totally ignore it and with a heightened sense of self righteousness shoot down others that have committed less criminal acts compared to them. Take the invasion of afghanistan and iraq again. The invasion was to further US interests like stealing their oil and to make western oil congolmerates rich. The killing of gadaffi was to secure the US petrodollar so it's again to serve their own interests instead of some higher moralistic values like freedom, democracy which are just used as a punchline btw. All of this is so flimsy they don't really attempt to hide it it's not difficult to find the real reasons yet the outcry is so minute.

Contrast this with say china's expansion into africa which is more like joint ventures. China invests in african nations building infrastructure, roads, schools etc creating a win win situation for both parties yet whenever the western media picks this up they make it sound like china is invading those african nations. Please if you can find a piece of news whereby china sends in tanks, planes etc etc into these african nations then do you have a right to call it an invasion.

I still remember one guy living in a western nation just simply commenting on the sheer hypocrisy of the west. Like they would commit the same type of henious deeds as everyone else but could somehow change it around and say they were doing a good deed. It's not much different from say an islamic fundamentalist who says that killing and beheading non muslims is a good deed.

[Credo]

Let's see what happens when the supply lines for things like oil, gas and natural resources that the Chinese need are interrupted. Lets see what happens when there citizens are killed, captured and held for ransom...well maybe not, since they really don't care.

China slides by on the Wests coat tails. Let's see how they handle some of the difficult international situations.

[boomerangutang]

Let's see what happens when the supply lines for things like oil, gas and natural resources that the Chinese need are interrupted. Lets see what happens when there citizens are killed, captured and held for ransom...well maybe not, since they really don't care.

China slides by on the Wests coat tails. Let's see how they handle some of the difficult international situations.

Yes, 'coat tails' is an apt characterization. For those times where there are serious issue to address, like former Yugoslavia, or E.Timor or Kuwait or Libya or Iraq or Ethiopia, or Afghanistan, ....it's North Americans and Europeans and their allies which commit armnaments and put men on the firing line. It's not always a clean-cut scenario, but usually it's for either human rights issues or to stem a land-grab or for securing vital interests or a combination thereof. The point is, China is not involved, no matter how grave of a human rights issue it might be. However, when the smoke clears, and it's comparatively safe, Chinese merchants will be among the first on the scene. ...with contracts, and smiles, and handshakes. In other words, let the westerners do the dirty work, and then let them step aside, and the Chinese will step in to get biz contracts and set up factories and mining operations.

[MaxYakov]

[snipped}

Add Vietnam to the list too which whupped China's butt when the PLA invaded in 1979 then withdrew after gaining nothing.

[snipped]

The Sino-Vietnam War (Wiki) looks like a mutual nose-bloodying to me. Also, the Soviets supplied material arms and intelligence to Vietnam as well as tying up Chinese troops on the Soviet border. I'd give even Wiki credence before I'd give any to your assertions/exaggerations.

[MaxYakov]

Indeed, as the link indicates.....

"There were many reasons why it could be argued that the war was a disaster for the Chinese armed forces. First....Second....Third....Fourth....Fifth....Further....Finally, the Chinese struck back at an enemy that was highly trained, experienced, and confident due to successive victories in wars with France, the U.S., and Cambodia."

The Chinese in their thousands of years have never approached any successes of this nature, or of any military success even approximating the successes of the military forces of Vietnam. The Chinese have all the military competence of the Arabs throughout history and can actually make the French armed forces look not so bad.

Further, as other sources have recorded, the fumbling and bumbling PLA commanders had to organize attacks on the northern strategic city of Lang Son 17 times before finally staggering into it, only to be confronted by RVA forces positioned in the surrounding hills and their at will bombardment of the PLA in the deserted Lang Son ghost town.

No amount of strategic propaganda can cover the PLA's tactical failures of the Sino-Vietnam War.

Hanoi's post-incursion depiction of the border war was that Beijing had sustained a military setback if not an outright defeat. Most observers doubted that China would risk another war with Vietnam in the near future.

Gerald Segal, in his 1985 book Defending China, concluded that China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a complete failure: "China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal from [Cambodia], failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the strength of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a paper tiger, and failed to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet coalition."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

When Deng Xiao Peng during his 1979 official visit to Washington was surprise confronted with CIA satellite photos and other evidence of a PLA buildup along the Vietnam border, he replied, "Ahh, yes, it is time to give our Vietnamese neighbors a little spanking." It was in fact a rout of the PLA by the Vietnam Regular Army despite the fact the Vietnamese RA high command held the mass of its units in reserve in and around Hanoi, which the PLA never got even close to approaching.

A main problem was that the PLA attacked Vietnam at 26 points along the border, resulting in the corrupt and incompetent PLA commanders immediately losing control of the battle front and the management of the entire operation. PLA forces went without water, ammunition, transportation and fuel, leadership. They had to revert to wave attacks which the VRA forces cut down. After 60,000 casualties, the PLA was ordered out.

The PLA today remains a collection of regional war lords in each military district throughout the PRChina, all of which are corrupt, incompetent, consistently beyond the control of the emperor CCP Boyz in Beijing and their pompous and pretentious Central Military Committee.

PLA superbust.

I guess it depends on what ones definition of a "superbust" is.

You completely ignored the Vietnamese civilian casualties and the damage and loss of Vietnamese property. Did the Chinese civilians suffer and was there material damage to Chinese civilian property since this appeared to have occurred entirely within Vietnam?

You seem focused entirely on the military losses - which actually don't look so bad for the Chinese military as compared to the Vietnamese. According to the Wiki article, border skirmishes continued throughout the 1980's and "Armed conflict only ended in 1989 after the Vietnamese agreed to fully withdraw from Cambodia.".

It appears to me that this may be a case where Vietnam may have won the battle (if one ignores the Vietnamese civilian and property losses), but eventually lost the war.

From the Sino-Vietnamese War (Wiki): (with the usual caveat - Yes, but is it True?)

Chinese Casualties

"The number of casualties during the war is disputed. Vietnamese source claimed the PLA had suffered 62,500 total casualties, 550 military vehicles, and 115 artillery pieces destroyed;^[49] while Chinese democracy activist Wei Jingsheng told western media in 1980 that the Chinese troops had suffered 9,000 deaths and about 10,000 wounded during the war. New leaks from Chinese military sources indicated that China only suffered 6,954 dead."

Vietnamese Casualties

"Like their Chinese counterparts, the Vietnamese government has never announced any information on its actual military casualties. China estimated that Vietnam lost 57,000 soldiers and 70,000 militia members during the war. The official Nhân Dân newspaper claimed that Vietnam suffered more than 100,000 civilian deaths during the Chinese invasion and earlier on May 17, 1979, reported statistics on heavy losses of industry and agriculture properties."

Prisoners

"The Chinese held 1,636 Vietnamese prisoners and the Vietnamese held 238 Chinese prisoners; they were exchanged in May–June 1979."

Edited April 7, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Publicus]

The key lever of this opinion piece is fraudulent, thus rendering his conclusion void. One has to do mental gymnastics to conclude that China did not colonize locally, but instead had a "tribute" system and by this mechanism vassal states were required to offer tribute- but this is not empire building, this was symbiotic. The rationale that those forced to pay tribute received recompense is nonsense. It remains partially true that China has less foreign adventure but this is only in relation to other Western superpowers. China continues to have those in SE Asia that do not want to be part of its modern "tribute" symbiosis and certainly peoples on the periphery who were previously independent.

You know the thing that pisses me off about china being less foreign adventurous compared to western nations. The fact that these western nations won't condemn themselves despite meddling even more than china on foreign affairs. To put this into say an individual human perspective it's like 2 criminals. 1 has committed a serious crime like a murder while the other commits a less serious one like theft. The murderer then proceeds to give a moral lecture to the thief and feels disgusted by his behavior when he definitely doesn't have the moral authority to do both of those things because his crime is more severe compared to the thief's. This is the same exact type of behavior the west is displaying towards china and what is even worse is the entire lack of irony and the sense of self righteousness that they display. Even in the present day bar what occured during the colonial days the west is still sticking its nose into foreign nations. The invasion of iraq and afghanistan by the US despite the fact that the reasons for invasion were found to be fradulent but still the outrage and outcry were miniscule. Even in seperate western nations like say europe or australia not much condemnation. Now just simply switch the invading nation to china instead of the US and all of a sudden the outcry would increase multiple times. Oh yes not only is the US guilty of it but so are other western nations like say NATO which involves european nations or western european ones and the coalitions that get formed whenever such invasions occur that will include most western nations like australia, NZ etc etc.

I think the one thing the west has created is to somehow build a type of moral authority that ignores such blatant double standards the double standards are so freaking obvious that they can totally ignore it and with a heightened sense of self righteousness shoot down others that have committed less criminal acts compared to them. Take the invasion of afghanistan and iraq again. The invasion was to further US interests like stealing their oil and to make western oil congolmerates rich. The killing of gadaffi was to secure the US petrodollar so it's again to serve their own interests instead of some higher moralistic values like freedom, democracy which are just used as a punchline btw. All of this is so flimsy they don't really attempt to hide it it's not difficult to find the real reasons yet the outcry is so minute.

Contrast this with say china's expansion into africa which is more like joint ventures. China invests in african nations building infrastructure, roads, schools etc creating a win win situation for both parties yet whenever the western media picks this up they make it sound like china is invading those african nations. Please if you can find a piece of news whereby china sends in tanks, planes etc etc into these african nations then do you have a right to call it an invasion.

I still remember one guy living in a western nation just simply commenting on the sheer hypocrisy of the west. Like they would commit the same type of henious deeds as everyone else but could somehow change it around and say they were doing a good deed. It's not much different from say an islamic fundamentalist who says that killing and beheading non muslims is a good deed.

China is revanchist and irredentist, two negatives in the extreme that brought catastrophe to Europe and which twice drew the then isolationist United States into the madness of the Europeans, in 1917 to bring an end to things and in 1941 to begin the end of things.

Word Origin and History for revanchist

n.

"a German seeking to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I and recover lost territory,"

from revanche "revenge, requital," especially in reference to a national policy seeking return of lost territory,

from French "revanche," "revenge,"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revanchist

irredentist noun

1.

(usually initial capital letter) a member of an Italian association that became prominent in 1878, advocating the redemption,

or the incorporation into Italy, of certain neighboring regions (Italiairredenta) having a primarily Italian population.

2.

a member of a party in any country advocating the acquisition of some region included in another country by reason of cultural,

historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties.

1880-85; < Italian irredentista, equivalent to ( Italia) irredent (a) (Italy) unredeemed

< Latin redemptus; see redemption ) + -ista -ist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irredentist

It took the Europeans 2500 years of war, destruction, slaughter, mayhem, to learn the miserable failure of these ancient and primitive tribal doctrines and dark belief systems. The Chinese with their 5000 year old culture will take longer, but hopefully with less mass destruction and mayhem than the Europeans idiotically suffered so severely and inflicted without thought on others.

The current project of the CCP Boyz in Beijing is to construct a CCP Chinese identity predicated on a "century of shame" at the hands of the Western powers, Japan, Russia included, and to "even the score' as CCP Chinese have said to me directly. This is exclusively revenge and racial which is why in the 21st century it will not prevail nor can it accomplish its sinister goals, purposes, designs.

Edited by Publicus for spacing and format fit.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Indeed, as the link indicates.....

"There were many reasons why it could be argued that the war was a disaster for the Chinese armed forces. First....Second....Third....Fourth....Fifth....Further....Finally, the Chinese struck back at an enemy that was highly trained, experienced, and confident due to successive victories in wars with France, the U.S., and Cambodia."

The Chinese in their thousands of years have never approached any successes of this nature, or of any military success even approximating the successes of the military forces of Vietnam. The Chinese have all the military competence of the Arabs throughout history and can actually make the French armed forces look not so bad.

Further, as other sources have recorded, the fumbling and bumbling PLA commanders had to organize attacks on the northern strategic city of Lang Son 17 times before finally staggering into it, only to be confronted by RVA forces positioned in the surrounding hills and their at will bombardment of the PLA in the deserted Lang Son ghost town.

No amount of strategic propaganda can cover the PLA's tactical failures of the Sino-Vietnam War.

Hanoi's post-incursion depiction of the border war was that Beijing had sustained a military setback if not an outright defeat. Most observers doubted that China would risk another war with Vietnam in the near future.

Gerald Segal, in his 1985 book Defending China, concluded that China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a complete failure: "China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal from [Cambodia], failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the strength of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a paper tiger, and failed to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet coalition."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

When Deng Xiao Peng during his 1979 official visit to Washington was surprise confronted with CIA satellite photos and other evidence of a PLA buildup along the Vietnam border, he replied, "Ahh, yes, it is time to give our Vietnamese neighbors a little spanking." It was in fact a rout of the PLA by the Vietnam Regular Army despite the fact the Vietnamese RA high command held the mass of its units in reserve in and around Hanoi, which the PLA never got even close to approaching.

A main problem was that the PLA attacked Vietnam at 26 points along the border, resulting in the corrupt and incompetent PLA commanders immediately losing control of the battle front and the management of the entire operation. PLA forces went without water, ammunition, transportation and fuel, leadership. They had to revert to wave attacks which the VRA forces cut down. After 60,000 casualties, the PLA was ordered out.

The PLA today remains a collection of regional war lords in each military district throughout the PRChina, all of which are corrupt, incompetent, consistently beyond the control of the emperor CCP Boyz in Beijing and their pompous and pretentious Central Military Committee.

PLA superbust.

I guess it depends on what ones definition of a "superbust" is.

You completely ignored the Vietnamese civilian casualties and the damage and loss of Vietnamese property. Did the Chinese civilians suffer and was there material damage to Chinese civilian property since this appeared to have occurred entirely within Vietnam?

You seem focused entirely on the military losses - which actually don't look so bad for the Chinese military as compared to the Vietnamese. According to the Wiki article, border skirmishes continued throughout the 1980's and "Armed conflict only ended in 1989 after the Vietnamese agreed to fully withdraw from Cambodia.".

It appears to me that this may be a case where Vietnam may have won the battle (if one ignores the Vietnamese civilian and property losses), but eventually lost the war.

From the Sino-Vietnamese War (Wiki): (with the usual caveat - Yes, but is it True?)

Chinese Casualties

"The number of casualties during the war is disputed. Vietnamese source claimed the PLA had suffered 62,500 total casualties, 550 military vehicles, and 115 artillery pieces destroyed;^[49] while Chinese democracy activist Wei Jingsheng told western media in 1980 that the Chinese troops had suffered 9,000 deaths and about 10,000 wounded during the war. New leaks from Chinese military sources indicated that China only suffered 6,954 dead."

Vietnamese Casualties

"Like their Chinese counterparts, the Vietnamese government has never announced any information on its actual military casualties. China estimated that Vietnam lost 57,000 soldiers and 70,000 militia members during the war. The official Nhân Dân newspaper claimed that Vietnam suffered more than 100,000 civilian deaths during the Chinese invasion and earlier on May 17, 1979, reported statistics on heavy losses of industry and agriculture properties."

Prisoners

"The Chinese held 1,636 Vietnamese prisoners and the Vietnamese held 238 Chinese prisoners; they were exchanged in May–June 1979."

In 1979 Washington, Moscow, at Asean, and thus by default in Beijing, it came to be called "Deng Xiaoping's War." It is no surprise then that Beijing would from the outset to the present claim a great military victory and a majestic diplomatic triumph. The opposite is quite the reality, however.

Deng had made a long scheduled official visit to Washington, Jan 28 to Feb 4th in 1979. So it was no surprise to Washington that on February 17, approximately 200,000 PLA forces with 550 tanks, supported by artillery, invaded Vietnam at 26 points along the border.

Deng, who had personally lobbied Prez Carter for his support in the form of a silent acquiescence so that Moscow's influence in SE Asia could be checked, was instead blindsided by the DepState call for the "immediate withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia and Chinese troops from Vietnam."

In other words, Washington was not going to object to Soviet supported Vietnamese forces in Beijing-supported Cambodia, no matter. Indeed, as the post notes, Vietnamese troops did not leave Cambodia until ten years later, in 1989. That marked the end of the Third Indo-China War.

Beijing gained nothing from the adventure.

Yes very best best troops were entrenched to resist a Soviet intervention, however, the troops Beijing did commit were regular forces from the major military districts of Guangzhou and Kunming. The CIA reported the Vietnam high military command had committed only between 70K and 100K regular troops, keeping the mass of army divisions at Ha Noi, while 150K militia provided the main force that fought the PLA army groups.

Not only did Beijing gain nothing, its intervention lost a hellovalot.

It was apparent that Beijing during this period wanted the continuing US military presence in Southeast Asia, as it would checkmate its principal adversary the Soviet Union. The US decision [to deflect Beijing by not checking Moscow] was facilitated because the member states of ASEAN wanted the US to retain a credible military presence. They regarded American power, represented by the Seventh Fleet and the air force squadrons in the Philippines, to be the ultimate guarantor of their safety. Thailand and Singapore openly advocated continuing US military presence, while Indonesia and Malaysia were not so vocal. As a result the US assured ASEAN that it will continue to maintain a credible military presence. In addition the US was also offering substantial military assistance to South East Asian countries to strengthen their defence preparedness.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/02022012-henry-kissinger-china-and-third-indo-china-war-analysis/

It's also the case that a couple of weeks after China's invasion had begun, Lee Kwan Yew flew to Beijing to strongly advise Deng his invasion of Vietnam strengthened Moscow rather than weakening it in SE Asia, where Moscow had anyway never been welcome or welcomed, and that it hurt Beijing greatly in a region which had always been suspicious of China.

"Of all the Chinese leaders, the most bitter against Vietnam was Deng Xiaoping. In a meeting with the Thai leader Kriangsak in November 1977, Deng said, “There is a possibility that Phnom Penh will fall. This would not be the end of the war, but the beginning”. Deng strongly hinted that China would resort to punitive steps against Vietnam. The leaders of Singapore concurred with this view. According to S. Rajaratnam, “The Chinese never get emotional, but when Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew asked Deng about the Vietnamese, I saw in his eyes a glint. I mean real, not simulated. These ungrateful people [Vietnamese] must be punished."

When Deng tried to dismiss Lee, Lee told Deng he had to get out of Vietnam or that Singapore would urge Asean to support the Vietnam government group in Cambodia to be seated at the United Nations as the new government of Cambodia. Lee ultimately prevailed in his presentations to Deng.

Deng's Disaster.

[boomerangutang]

In the 1950's through to the end of the 1980's we had the so-called 'Cold War'

What will historians call the current stand off between China and its few bosom buddies - versus the rest of the world? The 'Noodle War'?

....as in 'noodling around' which is an idiom for doing something without full evidence or full dynamism. In other words, appearing to be on the sidelines doing little, but actually having an agenda. Noodling would fit with how China manifests in regard to other countries' possession in the S. China Sea, and also China's attitude toward (taking charge in) Thailand and, to a slightly lesser degree, its attitude towards other SE Asian countries.

[boomerangutang]

It's also the case that a couple of weeks after China's invasion had begun, Lee Kwan Yew flew to Beijing to strongly advise Deng his invasion of Vietnam strengthened Moscow rather than weakening it in SE Asia, where Moscow had anyway never been welcome or welcomed, and that it hurt Beijing greatly in a region which had always been suspicious of China.

"Of all the Chinese leaders, the most bitter against Vietnam was Deng Xiaoping. In a meeting with the Thai leader Kriangsak in November 1977, Deng said, “There is a possibility that Phnom Penh will fall. This would not be the end of the war, but the beginning”. Deng strongly hinted that China would resort to punitive steps against Vietnam. The leaders of Singapore concurred with this view. According to S. Rajaratnam, “The Chinese never get emotional, but when Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew asked Deng about the Vietnamese, I saw in his eyes a glint. I mean real, not simulated. These ungrateful people [Vietnamese] must be punished."

When Deng tried to dismiss Lee, Lee told Deng he had to get out of Vietnam or that Singapore would urge Asean to support the Vietnam government group in Cambodia to be seated at the United Nations as the new government of Cambodia. Lee ultimately prevailed in his presentations to Deng. Deng's Disaster.

Interesting bit of history. I never knew there was so much shenanigans going on at that time regarding SE Asia. It's a reminder of how a few power players can screw-up the lives of millions at grassroots level, not to mention the gross environmental disasters that wars always inflict. It's not surprising, when we get Asian leaders - even when they're meeting face to face, they can't speak frankly. Honest/frank talk is simply an alien concept to Asians, particularly when they're playing power politics. All communications devolve to being inferred or hinted-at or deferred, and mixed with hocus pocus beliefs of astrology and animal zodiac signs, etc. Watchers of world events may not like how the US and NATO shift their weight around, but at least western leaders usually say what they mean.

[Publicus]

It's also the case that a couple of weeks after China's invasion had begun, Lee Kwan Yew flew to Beijing to strongly advise Deng his invasion of Vietnam strengthened Moscow rather than weakening it in SE Asia, where Moscow had anyway never been welcome or welcomed, and that it hurt Beijing greatly in a region which had always been suspicious of China.

"Of all the Chinese leaders, the most bitter against Vietnam was Deng Xiaoping. In a meeting with the Thai leader Kriangsak in November 1977, Deng said, “There is a possibility that Phnom Penh will fall. This would not be the end of the war, but the beginning”. Deng strongly hinted that China would resort to punitive steps against Vietnam. The leaders of Singapore concurred with this view. According to S. Rajaratnam, “The Chinese never get emotional, but when Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew asked Deng about the Vietnamese, I saw in his eyes a glint. I mean real, not simulated. These ungrateful people [Vietnamese] must be punished."

When Deng tried to dismiss Lee, Lee told Deng he had to get out of Vietnam or that Singapore would urge Asean to support the Vietnam government group in Cambodia to be seated at the United Nations as the new government of Cambodia. Lee ultimately prevailed in his presentations to Deng. Deng's Disaster.

Interesting bit of history. I never knew there was so much shenanigans going on at that time regarding SE Asia. It's a reminder of how a few power players can screw-up the lives of millions at grassroots level, not to mention the gross environmental disasters that wars always inflict. It's not surprising, when we get Asian leaders - even when they're meeting face to face, they can't speak frankly. Honest/frank talk is simply an alien concept to Asians, particularly when they're playing power politics. All communications devolve to being inferred or hinted-at or deferred, and mixed with hocus pocus beliefs of astrology and animal zodiac signs, etc. Watchers of world events may not like how the US and NATO shift their weight around, but at least western leaders usually say what they mean.

Indeed.

Back about ten years or so ago, when Admiral Dennis Blair was US Commander in the Pacific-SCS-Indian Ocean region, he went to Beijing for three days of meetings and conferences. When he emerged at the end of the first day, a gaggle of foreign correspondents asked him if anything had been accomplished. Adm Blair said, and I remember this vividly, "I'm not sure. They talked a lot about animals."

That pretty much sums 'em up and remembering the quote still cracks me up because it was just perfect. "When the rabbit stops under the giraffe, and the moon is full, while the bird flies high and the fish are jumping........" and stuff like that, which is me posting now and not anything the Admiral had said specifically, cause he didn't say anything specific about the discussions or the talk by the CCP zookeepers of their beloved lower order animals and wildlife.

How a CCP superpower would indeed be different...

[boomerangutang]

....the ox steps carefully where there are rabbit droppings, and the dragon chokes on monkey dander, and beware also when the scorpion nestles in pig fat, that's a sign the dog may lick the ram's balls. Of course we know what that all means: Fix bayonets and charge up that hill, guns blazing. If anyone falters before we reach the top of the hill, shoot him.

[noodle]

"Romans contributed a whole heck of a lot more to advancement of civilization"

Ah, the truly civilizing experiences of slavery and coinage debasement.

Fortunately the 'awful barbarians' finally disposed of that empire.

Unfortunately it lives on under the banner of the Catholic Church.

[Howitzer]

China is revanchist and irredentist, two negatives in the extreme that brought catastrophe to Europe and which twice drew the then isolationist United States into the madness of the Europeans, in 1917 to bring an end to things and in 1941 to begin the end of things.

Word Origin and History for revanchist

n.

"a German seeking to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I and recover lost territory,"

from revanche "revenge, requital," especially in reference to a national policy seeking return of lost territory,

from French "revanche," "revenge,"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revanchist

irredentist noun

1.

(usually initial capital letter) a member of an Italian association that became prominent in 1878, advocating the redemption,

or the incorporation into Italy, of certain neighboring regions (Italiairredenta) having a primarily Italian population.

2.

a member of a party in any country advocating the acquisition of some region included in another country by reason of cultural,

historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties.

1880-85; < Italian irredentista, equivalent to ( Italia) irredent (a) (Italy) unredeemed

< Latin redemptus; see redemption ) + -ista -ist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irredentist

It took the Europeans 2500 years of war, destruction, slaughter, mayhem, to learn the miserable failure of these ancient and primitive tribal doctrines and dark belief systems. The Chinese with their 5000 year old culture will take longer, but hopefully with less mass destruction and mayhem than the Europeans idiotically suffered so severely and inflicted without thought on others.

The current project of the CCP Boyz in Beijing is to construct a CCP Chinese identity predicated on a "century of shame" at the hands of the Western powers, Japan, Russia included, and to "even the score' as CCP Chinese have said to me directly. This is exclusively revenge and racial which is why in the 21st century it will not prevail nor can it accomplish its sinister goals, purposes, designs.

Edited by Publicus for spacing and format fit.

ROFL so has it occured yet? Are there simmering tensions of some sort of invasion? I noticed the word you chose used germany as an example. So is china now like germany before ww2 going to launch a full scale invasion for revenge? No doesn't look so. In short you made this up to somehow hide your biasness and act like some type of fortune teller as if you could predict the future and actually read the minds of china's leaders.

[Howitzer]

Within twenty years India will have a bigger population than China, China has problems with it one child policy, just as Britain has a problem with older people.China will have its own Big problem without trying to rule the world.

Bigger population does not necessarily mean better. It's how productive they are that matters. Otherwise, it's just a liability.

I find it ironic that people bitch & moan about China's large population, but give praise to India's large and growing one.

It's the blantant double standards these people have and when it's presented like your post here they cannot even argue properly as to why they have double standards they just diss miss it.

[Howitzer]

Indeed, as the link indicates.....

"There were many reasons why it could be argued that the war was a disaster for the Chinese armed forces. First....Second....Third....Fourth....Fifth....Further....Finally, the Chinese struck back at an enemy that was highly trained, experienced, and confident due to successive victories in wars with France, the U.S., and Cambodia."

The Chinese in their thousands of years have never approached any successes of this nature, or of any military success even approximating the successes of the military forces of Vietnam. The Chinese have all the military competence of the Arabs throughout history and can actually make the French armed forces look not so bad.

Further, as other sources have recorded, the fumbling and bumbling PLA commanders had to organize attacks on the northern strategic city of Lang Son 17 times before finally staggering into it, only to be confronted by RVA forces positioned in the surrounding hills and their at will bombardment of the PLA in the deserted Lang Son ghost town.

Wrong. The sheer size of china shows the military conquest and their capabilities. Why isn't there a single arab nation the size of china but numerous arab nations? That is because none of them could unite the various nations into a single nation. China could defeat india during the sino indian war when it was the weakest militarily and take back tibet. It took 8 nations yup 8 nation alliance to fight one single nation china and they had better weapons Sounds rather unfair to me 8 vs 1. In the war in iraq, afghanistan why does USA need a coalition to defeat militarily weaker nations when it can do it alone? Doesn't this prove the US has the fighting capabilities of the arabs. It's like say a bigger and stronger guy refuses to fight a smaller/weaker guy alone but needs to call in his buddies to help. 8 nations vs 1 if china wasn't a good fighter why would they need 8 nations to unite?

Try finding an empire that has the an identity ranging back more than 5000 years that still exists today. I don't think you can find any except for china. Where are the romans, greeks of old? India doesn't count because it's a modern construct.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Howitzer

[boomerangutang]

Wrong. The sheer size of china shows the military conquest and their capabilities. Why isn't there a single arab nation the size of china but numerous arab nations? That is because none of them could unite the various nations into a single nation. China could defeat india during the sino indian war when it was the weakest militarily and take back tibet. It took 8 nations yup 8 nation alliance to fight one single nation china and they had better weapons Sounds rather unfair to me 8 vs 1.

I don't understand what you're trying to say when you mention 'Tibet' (with a capital T, btw).

First off, neither China nor India owned Tibet. Tibet had been an independent country for hundreds of years, with its own postage stamps and currency. It also had its own monarchy/government and had exchanged vassals/diplomats/legations with China. China took Tibet by force in the 1950's by simply marching in with superior numbers and superior weapons. Tibet's army was woefully outdated, using wood-spoke wheeled guns of US's civil war era. Tibet has been militarily occupied ever since. If you don't believe that, then take a look at the tens of thousands of Chinese troops stationed in and around Lhasa, and the constant jailing of dissidents there.

Edited April 10, 2015 by boomerangutang

[SheungWan]

The background context of the article is that Thailand has refused to support any of its regional neighbours in their territorial disputes with Mainland China. The article is just contributory spin for Thailand sitting on the sidelines.

Edited April 10, 2015 by SheungWan

[Howitzer]

Wrong. The sheer size of china shows the military conquest and their capabilities. Why isn't there a single arab nation the size of china but numerous arab nations? That is because none of them could unite the various nations into a single nation. China could defeat india during the sino indian war when it was the weakest militarily and take back tibet. It took 8 nations yup 8 nation alliance to fight one single nation china and they had better weapons Sounds rather unfair to me 8 vs 1.

I don't understand what you're trying to say when you mention 'Tibet' (with a capital T, btw).

First off, neither China nor India owned Tibet. Tibet had been an independent country for hundreds of years, with its own postage stamps and currency. It also had its own monarchy/government and had exchanged vassals/diplomats/legations with China. China took Tibet by force in the 1950's by simply marching in with superior numbers and superior weapons. Tibet's army was woefully outdated, using wood-spoke wheeled guns of US's civil war era. Tibet has been militarily occupied ever since. If you don't believe that, then take a look at the tens of thousands of Chinese troops stationed in and around Lhasa, and the constant jailing of dissidents there.

no the indian war with china has nothing to do with tibet and also tibet was under china's rule during the qing dynasty so it's all for naught for you and what does having it's own postage stamps or currency have to do with anything?

Every US state has its own stamps so that makes each us state a seperate nation? Also during the american civil war they had their own currency so this means they are seperate countries?

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Wrong. The sheer size of china shows the military conquest and their capabilities. Why isn't there a single arab nation the size of china but numerous arab nations? That is because none of them could unite the various nations into a single nation. China could defeat india during the sino indian war when it was the weakest militarily and take back tibet. It took 8 nations yup 8 nation alliance to fight one single nation china and they had better weapons Sounds rather unfair to me 8 vs 1.

I don't understand what you're trying to say when you mention 'Tibet' (with a capital T, btw).

First off, neither China nor India owned Tibet. Tibet had been an independent country for hundreds of years, with its own postage stamps and currency. It also had its own monarchy/government and had exchanged vassals/diplomats/legations with China. China took Tibet by force in the 1950's by simply marching in with superior numbers and superior weapons. Tibet's army was woefully outdated, using wood-spoke wheeled guns of US's civil war era. Tibet has been militarily occupied ever since. If you don't believe that, then take a look at the tens of thousands of Chinese troops stationed in and around Lhasa, and the constant jailing of dissidents there.

no the indian war with china has nothing to do with tibet and also tibet was under china's rule during the qing dynasty so it's all for naught for you and what does having it's own postage stamps or currency have to do with anything?

Every US state has its own stamps so that makes each us state a seperate nation? Also during the american civil war they had their own currency so this means they are seperate countries?

US states never had their own individual postage stamps. You're right about paper money, though. Borders of nearly every non-island nation in the world have shifted over centuries. Shall we say AZ, NM half of TX and half of CA belong to Mexico, because in the past those territories were part of Mexico? Of that Sinai and the Golan Heights belong to Israel because for a time they were conquered by Israel? That's not how things are done. Tibet has a long history of being an independent kingdom. China has been on a campaign to brainwash everyone that Tibet is a part of China, but it has only worked with the easily-duped Chinese, and very few others - certainly no one who objectively looks at the history. The Chinese also teach in their schools that early man came out of China, not out of Africa. Shall we embrace that fallacy also?

[Oziex1]

China is polluted, corrupt, and its leaders terrified that its population will eventually take to the streets. Long before it becomes a "superpower," it will crumble.

Agreed, as it becomes a mass consumer of goods that no one really needs, western designer labels, exclusive motor cars, big tv's etc etc. It is also becoming a market for drugs from overseas, may be internal as well.

Will the leaders lose the tight control they have had for so long, we will see.

[Publicus]

China is revanchist and irredentist, two negatives in the extreme that brought catastrophe to Europe and which twice drew the then isolationist United States into the madness of the Europeans, in 1917 to bring an end to things and in 1941 to begin the end of things.

Word Origin and History for revanchist

n.

"a German seeking to avenge Germany's defeat in World War I and recover lost territory,"

from revanche "revenge, requital," especially in reference to a national policy seeking return of lost territory,

from French "revanche," "revenge,"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revanchist

irredentist noun

1.

(usually initial capital letter) a member of an Italian association that became prominent in 1878, advocating the redemption,

or the incorporation into Italy, of certain neighboring regions (Italiairredenta) having a primarily Italian population.

2.

a member of a party in any country advocating the acquisition of some region included in another country by reason of cultural,

historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties.

1880-85; < Italian irredentista, equivalent to ( Italia) irredent (a) (Italy) unredeemed

< Latin redemptus; see redemption ) + -ista -ist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irredentist

It took the Europeans 2500 years of war, destruction, slaughter, mayhem, to learn the miserable failure of these ancient and primitive tribal doctrines and dark belief systems. The Chinese with their 5000 year old culture will take longer, but hopefully with less mass destruction and mayhem than the Europeans idiotically suffered so severely and inflicted without thought on others.

The current project of the CCP Boyz in Beijing is to construct a CCP Chinese identity predicated on a "century of shame" at the hands of the Western powers, Japan, Russia included, and to "even the score' as CCP Chinese have said to me directly. This is exclusively revenge and racial which is why in the 21st century it will not prevail nor can it accomplish its sinister goals, purposes, designs.

Edited by Publicus for spacing and format fit.

ROFL so has it occured yet? Are there simmering tensions of some sort of invasion? I noticed the word you chose used germany as an example. So is china now like germany before ww2 going to launch a full scale invasion for revenge? No doesn't look so. In short you made this up to somehow hide your biasness and act like some type of fortune teller as if you could predict the future and actually read the minds of china's leaders.

I noticed the word you chose used germany as an example.

German and Italy, post 1870 to 1945. Each one was revanchist and irredentist and the definition of each word comes from each country and its context at the time. Now it applies to the CCP Boyz in Beijing and the substantial mass of its indoctrinated population. The "century of shame" thing promoted by Beijing, i.e., the Chinese are the innocent victims of history, which we see some of presented in these threads also.

you made this up

Either address the issues or just keep the line moving plse thx.

some type of fortune teller as if you could predict the future and actually read the minds of china's leaders.

The terminology would exclude realism which makes it an approach that is dismissive, silly, vacuous, rhetorical...OTT, which disqualifies it as an intellectually respectable approach.

All the same, I present the following to the readers to consider, if they might.......

I've stated what is well known globally, that for Beijing to become a global power, it must first become a regional power, and that that is impossible because of the democracies of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Australia/NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, India. Add to that, Vietnam, Brunei, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,none of which want to be dominated by Beijing.

So the purpose of the CCP Boyz in the South China Sea and the East Sea is to separate regional allies of the United States from the US. The US cannot and will not allow this to occur....absolutely not...never under any circumstances. The CCP's strategy in this respect is recognized and is well-known throughout the region, as well as in global capitals.

Regional alliances are historically and precisely defined and they exclude the CCP Boyz. The alliances fluctuate only on the margins, such as Myanmar realigning with the US and Thailand moving closer to Beijing but not actively opposing the US. Cambodia is Beijing's only solid ally in all of the region so it continues to be the CCP's Trojan Horse inside Asean in respect of the SCS, which everyone knows and constrains.

The world and this region know exactly what revanchist policies and irredentism are, do, and how destructive each is and how together the two are in fact catastrophic. Beijing's failure is to repeat the same mistakes thinking they can succeed at a low or no cost, where others had only at great cost failed; and, moreover, to succeed without a shot being fired.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Indeed, as the link indicates.....

"There were many reasons why it could be argued that the war was a disaster for the Chinese armed forces. First....Second....Third....Fourth....Fifth....Further....Finally, the Chinese struck back at an enemy that was highly trained, experienced, and confident due to successive victories in wars with France, the U.S., and Cambodia."

The Chinese in their thousands of years have never approached any successes of this nature, or of any military success even approximating the successes of the military forces of Vietnam. The Chinese have all the military competence of the Arabs throughout history and can actually make the French armed forces look not so bad.

Further, as other sources have recorded, the fumbling and bumbling PLA commanders had to organize attacks on the northern strategic city of Lang Son 17 times before finally staggering into it, only to be confronted by RVA forces positioned in the surrounding hills and their at will bombardment of the PLA in the deserted Lang Son ghost town.

Wrong. The sheer size of china shows the military conquest and their capabilities. Why isn't there a single arab nation the size of china but numerous arab nations? That is because none of them could unite the various nations into a single nation. China could defeat india during the sino indian war when it was the weakest militarily and take back tibet. It took 8 nations yup 8 nation alliance to fight one single nation china and they had better weapons Sounds rather unfair to me 8 vs 1. In the war in iraq, afghanistan why does USA need a coalition to defeat militarily weaker nations when it can do it alone? Doesn't this prove the US has the fighting capabilities of the arabs. It's like say a bigger and stronger guy refuses to fight a smaller/weaker guy alone but needs to call in his buddies to help. 8 nations vs 1 if china wasn't a good fighter why would they need 8 nations to unite?

Try finding an empire that has the an identity ranging back more than 5000 years that still exists today. I don't think you can find any except for china. Where are the romans, greeks of old? India doesn't count because it's a modern construct.

For better and for worse, China historically to the present has no record of military success. This is so despite the universal recognition of Sun Tzu as a brilliant military strategist and tactician along the lines of von Clausewitz.

For better and for worse, China has no Alexander the Great, no Caesar, no Hannibal, no Gengis Khan, King Richard or Suleiman of the Crusades, or even a Napoleon among others, to perhaps include George Washington who was a student of Alexander's boundless confidence and of Hannibal's failures to complete his conquests. The analysis of the Chinese generals is that they can conquer only themselves as they have been entirely unable to apply Sun Tzu to foreign conquers.

Central to this inability of Chinese warlords is the fact the Great Wall as a response to the nomad mobile warriors of the grassy plains north of China was a much hailed infrastructure achievement but it was in fact an abject failure of military strategy and tactics as the hoards simply broke through the gates to ride forth. China was as much invaded and defeated after the wall as before it.

While the Mediterranean, despite its deserts was a water based civilization, China is a civilization based in and on a solid land mass, which is a huge one that extends well beyond the original or expanded borders of the first Emperor Chin. Due to each reality, the Med powers or empires were shifted or were altered, whereas China remained stable even while under the rule of conquerors, because the rule of conquerors throughout history has proved to always be temporary. The Chinese moreover never adopted the customs or cultures of the foreign devil barbarian conquerors. This remains fact and reality today in the globalized world of trade, commerce, democracy, human rights etc etc.

It is also fact, as evidenced in the post, of the people who adore 5000 years of the Chinese culture of dictatorship, i.e., emperors, that they never want to talk about India or have a good or kind word to say about India. Never, which is proving more costly as events demonstrate.

[NeverSure]

China isn't trusted enough to even have secure allies in Asia. To the contrary it is seen as an alligator that would like to gobble things up. See its failed claim of all fishing rights in the S. China Sea, it's claim to islands belonging to smaller Asian countries, and its attempt to cut off airline routes to deter competition.

It was the United States which sailed a Nimitz class aircraft carrier group through the area and flew military planes through those air routes to put a stop to it.

A China which can't even dominate Asia economically, politically or militarily and which can't or won't develop real allies is far from being ready to be a dominate world player.

China simply can't be trusted and other than import/export is pretty much isolated on the world stage.

Edited April 11, 2015 by NeverSure

[boomerangutang]

China isn't trusted enough to even have secure allies in Asia. To the contrary it is seen as an alligator that would like to gobble things up. See its failed claim of all fishing rights in the S. China Sea, it's claim to islands belonging to smaller Asian countries, and its attempt to cut off airline routes to deter competition.

It was the United States which sailed a Nimitz class aircraft carrier group through the area and flew military planes through those air routes to put a stop to it.

A China which can't even dominate Asia economically, politically or militarily and which can't or won't develop real allies is far from being ready to be a dominate world player.

China simply can't be trusted and other than import/export is pretty much isolated on the world stage.

"China isn't trusted enough to even have secure allies in Asia."

Generally yes, but it's doing a rather good job with Thailand. In contrast, Burma had the verve to stand up to China and deny it the right to build a large dam in northern Burma. Could Thailand have stood up to China? Not likely. Most Thai politicians and most top corporate bosses in Thailand (including rice mill barons) are Chinese descent, so perhaps it's not surprising that Thailand's leaders can't help but kow-tow to China.

As for S.China Sea, the latest news is China has stepped up its territory grab. Now it's got giant machinery down there (besides military) and is pumping mountains of wet sand on the rocky islands to make them more substantial - as military bases, airports, living space. Armed conflict is inevitable in that theater.

[Publicus]

China was Darwinian 2500 years before Darwin.

Obama concerned China using size to bully others in South China Sea

April 10, 2015

"We get concerned with China where it is not necessarily abiding by international norms and rules and is using its sheer size and muscle to force countries into subordinate positions," Obama told a town-hall event in Jamaica on Thursday ahead of a Caribbean summit in Panama.

"We think this can be solved diplomatically, but just because the Philippines or Vietnam are not as large as China doesn't mean that they can just be elbowed aside," he said.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/467330/news/nation/obama-concerned-china-using-size-to-bully-others-in-south-china-sea

China's Neighbors See Mischief In What's Happening At Disputed Reef

April 09, 2015

There's something amiss on Mischief Reef: Before and after satellite imagery of the disputed coral atoll in the South China Sea taken a few years ago and last month show that the reef is growing. And the telltale presence of a Chinese flotilla is proof of who's been at work dredging up white sand and depositing it on the surface.

Meiji Reef, as the Chinese call it, is part of the Spratly Islands, an archipelago that has long been the source of a tug-of-war between China, Vietnam, the Philippines and at least three other claimants.

Last month, Adm. Harry Harris Jr., commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet wrote about China creating a "great wall of sand" as part of a speech to Australian policy makers.

And earlier this week, the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington released two satellite photos — one taken Jan. 24, 2012, and another on March 16 of this year — showing obvious land-reclamation work recently being done on the reef.

Credit: Stephanie d'Otreppe/NPR

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/09/398517750/chinas-neighbors-see-mischief-in-whats-happening-at-disputed-reef

Note the CCP Boyz in Beijing base their claim on Taiwan being a province of the PRChina, which is not officially accepted on Taiwan or in certain other foreign capitals, such as in Washington, for instance. Taiwan anyway has its own sovereign claims in the SCS which are independent of and separate from Beijing's claims.

Taiwan is negotiating with Asean, whereas the Beijing Boyz want to negotiate a single little country at a time. China continues 100% to buy Darwinian points about big fish eating little fish as the natural order.

US and other governments such as in Nato and the Middle East are concerned that Beijing control of newly created SCS islands will lead to CCP claims of territorial sovereignty over international sea lanes through which $5 Trillion of commerce passes annually, to include ME oil to Taiwan, South Korea, Japan to include Asean countries such as Indonesia, the Phils in particular.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/467330/news/nation/obama-concerned-china-using-size-to-bully-others-in-south-china-sea

Edited April 11, 2015 by Publicus

[Credo]

China isn't trusted enough to even have secure allies in Asia. To the contrary it is seen as an alligator that would like to gobble things up. See its failed claim of all fishing rights in the S. China Sea, it's claim to islands belonging to smaller Asian countries, and its attempt to cut off airline routes to deter competition.

It was the United States which sailed a Nimitz class aircraft carrier group through the area and flew military planes through those air routes to put a stop to it.

A China which can't even dominate Asia economically, politically or militarily and which can't or won't develop real allies is far from being ready to be a dominate world player.

China simply can't be trusted and other than import/export is pretty much isolated on the world stage.

"China isn't trusted enough to even have secure allies in Asia."

Generally yes, but it's doing a rather good job with Thailand. In contrast, Burma had the verve to stand up to China and deny it the right to build a large dam in northern Burma. Could Thailand have stood up to China? Not likely. Most Thai politicians and most top corporate bosses in Thailand (including rice mill barons) are Chinese descent, so perhaps it's not surprising that Thailand's leaders can't help but kow-tow to China.

As for S.China Sea, the latest news is China has stepped up its territory grab. Now it's got giant machinery down there (besides military) and is pumping mountains of wet sand on the rocky islands to make them more substantial - as military bases, airports, living space. Armed conflict is inevitable in that theater.

Thailand is the biggest fair weather friend in the international community. They will go which ever way the wind is blowing. They are usually completely forgiven by the international community because everyone knows they are a petulant little child. The Saudis have been less forgiving, but everyone pretty much knows how they are and just looks the other way.

China has friends, you know, like North Korea, they are a friend aren't they? So China has two friends, NK and Thailand. Pretty impressive credentials, internationally.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Credo

[boomerangutang]

China is getting closer to 'push comes to shove' time. Obama's recent statement on the topic "....using its sheer size and muscle to force countries into subordinate positions," ...is near the same as what I and others have been saying for years. We already know China is Crapville for environmental concerns, and that's proven yet again by how they're killing coral reefs and covering them with concrete and steel. And where are the human feces and plastic waste going to go? Ha ha ha, in the water, duhhh, where else?

I've seen the maps before, and the map posted reinforces the obvious: Those rocky islands are not China's ...by any stretch. Not any more than Barbados belongs to the USA.

If I was a Philippine navy captain, I'd be chompin on the bit to take a squadron of attack ships in there. Pardon me for being a saber rattler, but China's territory grab is soooo blatant. It's got to stand down - and get kicked back to is territorial waters, hundreds of km's away.

[boomerangutang]

from the OP: "In Professor Vanchai's view, there are three aspects to being a superpower - economic might, military might and global influence."

economic might: yes, built mostly on inferior consumer products made of plastic

military might: Similar to Russia at the dawn of WWI. Lots of soldiers, lots of spirited singing of martial songs, but more bark than bite. It came to the aircraft carrier party 100 years after the US and Britain. China's best fighter plane is built from plans stolen from US companies, but is not even good enough for Chinese standards, so is earmarked for export only.

Global influence. Yes, if you ask Thai leaders. But, pretty much everyone else sees China as staying out of any conflict (..to do with human rights, etc) and solely focused on amassing raw materials by any means. No Red Cross, no Hope Ship, No MSF (Doctors Without Borders), no donating aid to oppressed ww, ....the list goes on.