Chinese troops to seize Zhongye Island back from the Philippines in 2014(chinadailymail.com)
chinadailymail.com
Chinese troops to seize Zhongye Island back from the Philippines in 2014
http://chinadailymail.com/2014/01/11/chinese-troops-to-seize-zhongye-island-back-from-the-philippines-in-2014/
48 comments
I think the Chinese military is somewhat autonomous and pursues a different agenda than the civilian government. It's a source of concern.
The military answers directly to the Communist Party, making it autonomous from the civil government but not from the state's rulers.
They are called the Pagasa Island by everybody but the Chinese propaganda ministry.
Anyway, I think this is all more Chinese interior policy, to divert public attention in China from the many problems the CCP currently has to maintain itself in power. As any government, the need a "foreign enemy". Or, in China's case, a handfull of foreign enemies: Japan, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, maybe Malaysia.
Anyway, I think this is all more Chinese interior policy, to divert public attention in China from the many problems the CCP currently has to maintain itself in power. As any government, the need a "foreign enemy". Or, in China's case, a handfull of foreign enemies: Japan, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, maybe Malaysia.
I'm sorry, but Chinese people do not consider Philippines a proper enemy. Do consider another possibility though, that China now is really confident in its military power that taking back the islands by force become a realistic possibility. And the hawk posture is not only for internal diversion but also a display of global ambition.
> Chinese people
The only "proper" enemy would be Russia, and therefore China signed a border agreement with Russia, basically giving up their claims. Because Russia is stong enough to not play these silly games the CCP is playing with the weaker neighbors.
Like a common school bully, China is only bullying those that can't defend themselves. Doesn't give China much face, I'd say.
The only "proper" enemy would be Russia, and therefore China signed a border agreement with Russia, basically giving up their claims. Because Russia is stong enough to not play these silly games the CCP is playing with the weaker neighbors.
Like a common school bully, China is only bullying those that can't defend themselves. Doesn't give China much face, I'd say.
You sounds Chinese.
- "foreign enemy"
Not saying you are wrong. But this sort of brainwash usually goes two ways. You might not see it, but China, in a way, could well be the same type of foreign enemy of your country.
Not saying you are wrong. But this sort of brainwash usually goes two ways. You might not see it, but China, in a way, could well be the same type of foreign enemy of your country.
Many countries do this sort of thing sometimes... but because China's government stays in power at its own pleasure, without the aid of elections to lend it popular legitimacy every once in a while, and because it's freer to pursue goals that may not have the support of the populace, it may have to resort to such measures more often than governments in other countries.
I'd say you reverse the causality.
The government does this because most mainlanders eat this up. Idiotic jingoism and military adventures are how you win the populace and build your legitimacy. War is the health of the state.
The fact that culturally most people seem to see neighboring countries as either outright provinces, historical vassals that should be in their sphere of influences, or monsters that deserve to be raped and pillaged to account for past crimes doesn't help things.
Not to say the same thing doesn't occur in my country. It certainly does, and half a million dead in an equally pointless, stupid war does make risible any moral posturing on our part.
The government does this because most mainlanders eat this up. Idiotic jingoism and military adventures are how you win the populace and build your legitimacy. War is the health of the state.
The fact that culturally most people seem to see neighboring countries as either outright provinces, historical vassals that should be in their sphere of influences, or monsters that deserve to be raped and pillaged to account for past crimes doesn't help things.
Not to say the same thing doesn't occur in my country. It certainly does, and half a million dead in an equally pointless, stupid war does make risible any moral posturing on our part.
Its China who is heating the issue time and time again. With Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam. They even sent troops into India last year.
Its only with Russia that they signed a peaceful border agreement two(?) years ago, because Russia would be too strong an enemy to play these kind of games with.
Its only with Russia that they signed a peaceful border agreement two(?) years ago, because Russia would be too strong an enemy to play these kind of games with.
Sounds familiar - Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
Probably more comparable to the Monroe doctrine.
Most direct comparison to me seems to be the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
I don't find the bit where they say they will do it.
The militrary make plans all the time, so they are ready if the politicians demand action. This doesn't mean they execute them.
The militrary make plans all the time, so they are ready if the politicians demand action. This doesn't mean they execute them.
Exactly, some good examples:
Churchill's plans to attack the Soviet Union (again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
US plans for war with British Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Edit: In case anyone was wondering what the "(again)" was about, it is a reference to the intervention in the Russian Civil war against the Soviets by Britain, the United States and a number of other powers - Churchill was a proponent of this action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russ...
Churchill's plans to attack the Soviet Union (again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
US plans for war with British Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Edit: In case anyone was wondering what the "(again)" was about, it is a reference to the intervention in the Russian Civil war against the Soviets by Britain, the United States and a number of other powers - Churchill was a proponent of this action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russ...
Didn't find anything quite like this article in the more "mainstream" Chinese news sites, so I checked out the source qianzhan.com. Well it's definitely not something I would call a reliable news source
Holy crap. On the other hand, China can do pretty much whatever it wants. Even if China was actively crazy all the time, it's doubtful anyone would be willing or able to stop them. Which, incidentally, might be a theory they are testing on the world right now.
For everyone involved, I sincerely hope the Philippines does the right thing and avoids a hopeless military standoff, any outcome of which will only strengthen China further in a myriad ways.
For everyone involved, I sincerely hope the Philippines does the right thing and avoids a hopeless military standoff, any outcome of which will only strengthen China further in a myriad ways.
On the other hand, China can do pretty much whatever it wants.
Within a remarkably short distance of China. It does not have the equipment or expertise to globally project serious power for extended periods.
Within a remarkably short distance of China. It does not have the equipment or expertise to globally project serious power for extended periods.
all this wrangling seems to be an unintended consequence of US threatening to intervene in Syria, and then backing down - it might have been smarter not to raise the threat in the first place.
On September 14, 2013 - US and Russia agree on the deal to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons; signals that the US does not have the intentions/means to back up threats of military force;
23 November 2013, China then sent air force jets to Senkaku islands;
On September 14, 2013 - US and Russia agree on the deal to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons; signals that the US does not have the intentions/means to back up threats of military force;
23 November 2013, China then sent air force jets to Senkaku islands;
I think the US barely figures into this. I think it's all about oil in the south china seabed in both of these island disputes. Nobody cares about the actual islands. The chinese are terrified about their oil supply vulnerability.
Unfortunately this part of the world is a powder keg. I wonder if there is a diplomatic way to assuage china's oil supply insecurity and save face for all concerned.
Unfortunately this part of the world is a powder keg. I wonder if there is a diplomatic way to assuage china's oil supply insecurity and save face for all concerned.
Wikipedia says that Japan has enjoyed a long period of low defense spending (1% GDP), partly because they rely on the 1960 treaty with the US. So the implicit threat of US involvement is very much taken for granted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_an...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_an...
Japan has the fifth highest military spending in the world. That's a lot of money.
Further, military spending for the majority of the world is related to the real threat that they endure. What threats did Japan face? There was no chance of a Chinese invasion, and among the rest of the Asia Pacific countries things are relatively civil. The powder keg of India/Pakistan has nothing to do with Japan.
As a second further, when you start dumping money into the military you generally just create a problem as everyone around you will start doing the same.
Further, military spending for the majority of the world is related to the real threat that they endure. What threats did Japan face? There was no chance of a Chinese invasion, and among the rest of the Asia Pacific countries things are relatively civil. The powder keg of India/Pakistan has nothing to do with Japan.
As a second further, when you start dumping money into the military you generally just create a problem as everyone around you will start doing the same.
Not correct. The Philippines are essentially a US vassal state, and tends to care about freedom of navigation in this region. There are all sorts of legal issues around China's successful assertion of claims in this area.
I was referring to the idea that the Chinese are reacting to specific US policies. Yes, the Americans are a major player in the region, but the reason the Chinese are doing what they're doing is resource insecurity.
This stuff is multi-dimensional. Sure, they want oil, but they also know how sensitive we are to anything that potentially hinders US naval or commercial maritime interests in that region.
At the end of the day, with the exception of the Japanese post WW1 and WW2 era, the Pacific Ocean has been mostly controlled by the US Navy. We've had a naval presence there since the American Revolution. The Chinese have only had a credible naval force for a few years, so both side are testing the boundaries.
At the end of the day, with the exception of the Japanese post WW1 and WW2 era, the Pacific Ocean has been mostly controlled by the US Navy. We've had a naval presence there since the American Revolution. The Chinese have only had a credible naval force for a few years, so both side are testing the boundaries.
>On the other hand, China can do pretty much whatever it wants
I'm a Vietnamese with Nghe An root, so pardon me if I'm a little surprised at this statement.
Has the world learn nothing from history? This is not my question, this is a question that was asked countless times by politicians and scholars during the Vietnam/American War.
China had tried to invade/colonize Vietnam for over 1000 years, and each time, they went home in shame. Mongolians, Manchurians were able to take over the entire China, yet weren't able to completely dominate or wipe the Vietnamese people out. Vietnam is a VERY small country comparing to China and I think wars aren't always decided by military strength.
Unfortunately, like many other smaller countries, Vietnam doesn't have a China problem, it currently has a Vietnam problem. China keeps pushing and the smaller countries are going to realize that they can't fight a bully by themselves. For Vietnam, China keeps pushing, it will expose the Sino-friendly elements of the Vietnamese government and will escalate a change in government power.
So perhaps "China can do pretty much whatever it wants"... for a short time. Because if the water is under so much pressure, it will break the dam.
I'm a Vietnamese with Nghe An root, so pardon me if I'm a little surprised at this statement.
Has the world learn nothing from history? This is not my question, this is a question that was asked countless times by politicians and scholars during the Vietnam/American War.
China had tried to invade/colonize Vietnam for over 1000 years, and each time, they went home in shame. Mongolians, Manchurians were able to take over the entire China, yet weren't able to completely dominate or wipe the Vietnamese people out. Vietnam is a VERY small country comparing to China and I think wars aren't always decided by military strength.
Unfortunately, like many other smaller countries, Vietnam doesn't have a China problem, it currently has a Vietnam problem. China keeps pushing and the smaller countries are going to realize that they can't fight a bully by themselves. For Vietnam, China keeps pushing, it will expose the Sino-friendly elements of the Vietnamese government and will escalate a change in government power.
So perhaps "China can do pretty much whatever it wants"... for a short time. Because if the water is under so much pressure, it will break the dam.
China is powerful, but is it powerful enough to beat India, Japan and the phillipines at once?
Especially considering that USA have a defence agreement with Japan.
Especially considering that USA have a defence agreement with Japan.
The concern is that aggressive/imperial-minded political leaders may conclude the USA's current leader is disinterested in fulfilling defense agreements with several nations.
ETA: With US presidential terms limited as they are, there is a fast-dwindling window of opportunity for others to take advantage of this timidity. Such an action would take about a year, and would preferably be completed well before a more militaristic President is elected.
ETA: With US presidential terms limited as they are, there is a fast-dwindling window of opportunity for others to take advantage of this timidity. Such an action would take about a year, and would preferably be completed well before a more militaristic President is elected.
And they wouldn't be wrong -- the US is quite timid towards China, despite all of the saber rattling in American politics.
Methinks China would prefer this timidity to be obvious to everybody rather than quietly hidden among diplomatic undertones -- very devious indeed, and quite dangerous because there are quite a few on both sides that would like to see an escalation of tension.
Methinks China would prefer this timidity to be obvious to everybody rather than quietly hidden among diplomatic undertones -- very devious indeed, and quite dangerous because there are quite a few on both sides that would like to see an escalation of tension.
Japan has a hell of a military (ahem, "self-defense force), but the others...
India has some serious logistical problems, especially on its Chinese border, and it's having a hard time fixing it. The Chinese have been pushing into Arunchal Pradesh with impunity because they have the supporting infrastructure on their side of the border that India doesn't.
(India also has nukes, but we're a long way from that mattering.)
The Philippines sadly has little military capability to speak of. Other countries are effectively donating hardware to them (ships, mostly), but at the moment their best defense lies in their political ties, and the best help they can offer is to serve as a staging point for other nations' forces.
Korea is a funny one, though. They're friendly to the Filipinos (and Americans), but the people there share a lot of the anti-Japanese sentiment seen in China. I think the scope of any role they play will be pretty path dependant, mostly hinging on where things flare up first.
India has some serious logistical problems, especially on its Chinese border, and it's having a hard time fixing it. The Chinese have been pushing into Arunchal Pradesh with impunity because they have the supporting infrastructure on their side of the border that India doesn't.
(India also has nukes, but we're a long way from that mattering.)
The Philippines sadly has little military capability to speak of. Other countries are effectively donating hardware to them (ships, mostly), but at the moment their best defense lies in their political ties, and the best help they can offer is to serve as a staging point for other nations' forces.
Korea is a funny one, though. They're friendly to the Filipinos (and Americans), but the people there share a lot of the anti-Japanese sentiment seen in China. I think the scope of any role they play will be pretty path dependant, mostly hinging on where things flare up first.
Intentionally acting crazy has actually been used as a strategy in international relations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Didn't work so well with Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War. When there's nothing left to loose but pride, I'm quite sure that the "mad" metric is a little off.
"Peace in our time" they used to say
Nitpick: You are probably thinking of Chamberlain saying "Peace for our time"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
Correct
> It will be an intolerable insult to China
Like little kids...
Like little kids...
Yes, I fully agree with that comment.
But, I can easily imagine press in other countries (including in the US) using this kind of arguments in similar circumstances.
But, I can easily imagine press in other countries (including in the US) using this kind of arguments in similar circumstances.
I can imagine it too, and I would say the same thing whether this was a statement from US or from my own country.
This kind of language suggest to me the framework of thinking of small kids or proud idiots, not of even remotely rational people. This saddens me.
This kind of language suggest to me the framework of thinking of small kids or proud idiots, not of even remotely rational people. This saddens me.
Is this for real or just a propaganda bluff?
What's next, capture the Japanese Islands in the south that China is disputing?
Really hope this is just sensationalist news, as there are always plenty of them around. But there's also been a stream of weird updates on this region for the last years, and it's not just about rogue state North Korea.
What's next, capture the Japanese Islands in the south that China is disputing?
Really hope this is just sensationalist news, as there are always plenty of them around. But there's also been a stream of weird updates on this region for the last years, and it's not just about rogue state North Korea.
It seems to me the Chinese are getting cocky and their using god old Chinese ego to fuel their propaganda.
I hate to say this but with all the military activity a full blown war is bound to happen soon.
Their picking fights left and right or taking strategic military points preparing for a war.
Neither sounds good to me.
I hate to say this but with all the military activity a full blown war is bound to happen soon.
Their picking fights left and right or taking strategic military points preparing for a war.
Neither sounds good to me.
I prefer to see it in a bit more relaxed light -- they're checking to see who will pick sides, and which side they will pick, when the shit hits the fan. So they're poking and prodding mainly from a curiosity's standpoint.
It's nasty and nobody likes to be pushed around, but nowadays there's a very large difference between what you say and what you do.
It's nasty and nobody likes to be pushed around, but nowadays there's a very large difference between what you say and what you do.
This is what the UN was founded for, to handle disputes of territory in a civilized way.
Even the league of nations has managed to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_Islands#History
Even the league of nations has managed to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_Islands#History
and 19/1/2014 is the 40th year anniversary of the Battle Of Paracel Islands between China and the then Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands
Sounds eminently blusterous.
[deleted]
Just a crazy thought, if due to some chain of events of this or similar events China devalues Dollar - can a backup currency like cryptocoin(s) be used in result of such emergency?
Also I strongly disapprove of imperialist move by China, Filipinos are nice people and no need to be an aggressor against such a small country.
my 2c
Also I strongly disapprove of imperialist move by China, Filipinos are nice people and no need to be an aggressor against such a small country.
my 2c
Looks like its happening all over Asia.
[1] http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-india-needs-to-be-more-wa... [2] http://www.livemint.com/Politics/fHAd0H2KBmVMcJW0HvC75H/Indi...