China's SCS Strategy Thread

Lezt

Junior Member
Interesting Chinese Maritime History. I have read Zheng He's 7 interesting Voyages (13th Century: 1404-1433). However, in the historical context, the Indian Sri Vijaya Empire (7-13 Century) spread throughout South & South East Asian Regions thru' sea trade & maritime domination. So history could support that India should have the right & power to rule over these territorial waters, based on 7-13th Century domination of the Sri Vijaya Empire. The pertinent question is: Who should claim the lawful right of "owning these territorial waters" based on history - China or India? My answer is NOT History but as a Major power like China who now use Economic & Military Might, to control 90% of the South China Sea. That is why China did not favour arbitration, as historical claims are not often recognised by UNCLOS - International Law of the Sea rulings. BTW, this is a debate not intended to insulting.
I am not too familiar with the Indian voyages and I am a person who believes realpolitik.

I am interpreting this but; China's claim is based on the tribute model of historical sinosphere; not the Westphalia model Europe adopted or the older Christendom / Caliphate / protectorate international relations model.

To be a tributary is to accept vassal status and to accept the Chinese emperor is supreme over their emperor/king/sultan/etc. The domain is "technically" chinese in this perspective; and China is not a country or a nation but it is actually a cultural state. Borders were a foreign concept, just like the roman empire, the "border" was only meant to be a barrier to the non-Chinese and Chinese can easily go in and out.

Thus, here is a thought, every country/nation/empire around the south china sea was a tributary of China; whatever claims that these country can make, china "could" make as well. Japan was an exception, due to a shogun slight of hand.

We all know how China view the unequal treaties and the century of shame (and a bit before). Vietnam was lost to the french after the black flag army was destroyed, Korea was lost to Japan after the Sino-japanese war, Philippines was lost to the Spanish, Malacca was lost to the Portuguese (which lead to the extermination of all Portuguese in Chinese territory); Okinawa was taken by the Japanese.

The thing is, countries/empires/nations come and go. All claimants except China and Japan had been conquered/replaced. The only nation/country that still stands is China and Japan. Some may argue that China was conquered by the Mongols (Yuan) and the Manchus (Qing). But we must remember that these entities had been in the Chinese systems for eons. Kublai Khan of the Yuan chose to adopt the Chinese system and be himself written the mongol empire into the Chinese chronology as one of the dynasties. Shunzhi emporer, or the first Qing emperor to completely take over China also adopted the Chinese system and written themselves into the Chinese chronology. As the Nubian conquest of Egypt, do we consider black pharaohs not Egyptian as as the Nubian's adopted the Egyptian system and culture?

Infact, emperors of both the Yuan and the Qing posthumously pardoned generals and other persons in their preceding dynasties who had fought against their ancestors and have been labeled as traitors who sold their respective dynasties to the Yuan and the Qing; by looking at their own records. And in this aspect, they have celebrated these men as loyal servents of china. - For show? maybe. The illustration thou is that power have been transferred from one tribe to another all of which belonged to the same nation/country/cultrual identity.

The issues that we have, or more specifically the west have about China is that, china had to adopt the nation-state model after the Westphalia model after the century of shame. Asking China to make a historical valid claim on territory based on the Westphalia system when the historical claim is set prior to it is like asking a mandarin speaker to speak greek. it is a square pin in a round hole.

For thought, had China not fallen during the century of shame, in real Westphalia terms, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, etc. would all have been annexed as Japan had done to Okinawa which was a Japanese tribute vassal. All of this is of course history, but I think that from this angle, we can see why China claims historical claim.
 
Interesting Chinese Maritime History. I have read Zheng He's 7 interesting Voyages (13th Century: 1404-1433). However, in the historical context, the Indian Sri Vijaya Empire (7-13 Century) spread throughout South & South East Asian Regions thru' sea trade & maritime domination. So history could support that India should have the right & power to rule over these territorial waters, based on 7-13th Century domination of the Sri Vijaya Empire. The pertinent question is: Who should claim the lawful right of "owning these territorial waters" based on history - China or India? My answer is NOT History but as a Major power like China who now use Economic & Military Might, to control 90% of the South China Sea. That is why China did not favour arbitration, as historical claims are not often recognised by UNCLOS - International Law of the Sea rulings. BTW, this is a debate not intended to insulting.

The Sri Vijaya Empire was an independent empire considered Indonesian or Malaysian so it doesn't involve India politically. It also had a tributary relationship with China.
 

advill

Junior Member
Sri Vijaya originated from India & established itself in the East Indies (called Indonesia since 1945 upon fighting for Independence against the Dutch); & the Malayan Peninsular. The Sri Vijaya (Indian) sailing ships were trading region-wide which they dominated commercially then in the 7th-13th Century. It also had trading links with China. Perhaps the claim of it being a tributary state of China during Zeng He's time had now encouraged China to historically claim that part of India i.e. Andra Pradesh at the border of India & China? Well history is very much dependent on the interests of the country concerned, & can be twisted to suit each country national interests.
 

duncanidaho

Junior Member
Interesting Chinese Maritime History. I have read Zheng He's 7 interesting Voyages (13th Century: 1404-1433). However, in the historical context, the Indian Sri Vijaya Empire (7-13 Century) spread throughout South & South East Asian Regions thru' sea trade & maritime domination. So history could support that India should have the right & power to rule over these territorial waters, based on 7-13th Century domination of the Sri Vijaya Empire. The pertinent question is: Who should claim the lawful right of "owning these territorial waters" based on history - China or India? My answer is NOT History but as a Major power like China who now use Economic & Military Might, to control 90% of the South China Sea. That is why China did not favour arbitration, as historical claims are not often recognised by UNCLOS - International Law of the Sea rulings. BTW, this is a debate not intended to insulting.

You should know, that Chinese maritime explorations to SCS and Indian Ocean started very, very long before Zheng He.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Cherry-picking facts, is not the best way to argument.
 
Last edited:

advill

Junior Member
Tks delft for the correction. Interesting to note that in history the former Colonial Powers: Britain, Spain, France, & the Netherlands could not reinforced their claims to the countries/territorial waters in South East Asia, because they were declining powers. The US being a leading Democratic Super Power with a strong military has always been benign & respected by most Asians. In some ways we are back to the historical colonial days: With a strong Navy & ships, engagement in Gun Boat "diplomacy" has now become a reality in the South China Sea.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Tks delft for the correction. Interesting to note that in history the former Colonial Powers: Britain, Spain, France, & the Netherlands could not reinforced their claims to the countries/territorial waters in South East Asia, because they were declining powers. The US being a leading Democratic Super Power with a strong military has always been benign & respected by most Asians. In some ways we are back to the historical colonial days: With a strong Navy & ships, engagement in Gun Boat "diplomacy" has now become a reality in the South China Sea.

Indeed, and which navy has the most powerful "gun boats" deployed in the region? Certainly not China...

The truth is that navies exist to exercise gunboat diplomacy, and it is not something which has ever changed since the first navies exist, nor is it something that has only arisen because China now has a half decent navy capable of backing up its interests. If you're only going to call China as exercising "gunboat diplomacy," you really need to take a look at all the instances of the use of naval power (or any military power for that matter) in the last few decades and take a mirror on the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
Tks delft for the correction. Interesting to note that in history the former Colonial Powers: Britain, Spain, France, & the Netherlands could not reinforced their claims to the countries/territorial waters in South East Asia, because they were declining powers. The US being a leading Democratic Super Power with a strong military has always been benign & respected by most Asians. In some ways we are back to the historical colonial days: With a strong Navy & ships, engagement in Gun Boat "diplomacy" has now become a reality in the South China Sea.
I'm very sure that US has not always been considered benign and respected by most Asians. Before WWII is was one of the Western colonial powers, i.e. it occupied the Philippines from 1898 and used a lot of violence to subdue it. It was one of the Western countries exploiting China's weakness. And of course Japan wasn't exactly friendly. After WWII it sponsored France's war against Vietnam and after France was defeated it sponsored the Ngo Dinh Diem dictatorship in South Vietnam and helped to prevent reunification of Vietnam by free and fair elections as agreed by the Geneva Agreement of 1954. When Diem failed he was replaced by a succession military dictatorships until the end of the Vietnam war. During the Vietnam war US dumped huge amounts of ordnance on Laos and Cambodia. US sponsored many dictatorships in Asia. Examples are Sing Man Rhee and his military successors in South Korea, Chiang Kai-Shek and his son on Taiwan, Suhartu in Indonesia, the Shah in Iran. And of course they're still hated on Okinawa.
I think the military power of US is generally respected.
 

advill

Junior Member
Correct delft - the American Black ships forced Japan to open its markets for trade using gun boat diplomacy. However, it was a blessing in disguise for the Japanese, as the Meiji Emperor realized & encouraged modernization of Japan with Western technology including military weaponries. The Samurais were no match to Western guns. Most major countries have past histories that encouraged domination of others; but such practices should never be emulated. Western countries today are mostly democratic and have learnt bitter lessons of the past.
 

JayBird

Junior Member
Correct delft - the American Black ships forced Japan to open its markets for trade using gun boat diplomacy. However, it was a blessing in disguise for the Japanese, as the Meiji Emperor realized & encouraged modernization of Japan with Western technology including military weaponries. The Samurais were no match to Western guns. Most major countries have past histories that encouraged domination of others; but such practices should never be emulated. Western countries today are mostly democratic and have learnt bitter lessons of the past.

oesS2TN.jpg


Not sure how bitter those lessons are for the western countries.
 
Top