China's SCS Strategy Thread

[weig2000]

Those 70 years include a period, 1946-1975, in which US maintained war in SE Asia, first supporting the French colonialists and then a series of Southvietnamese dictatorships. This was no doubt because of the primacy of internal political considerations over international rules of conduct, a objection you direct at current China. A more important matter is that China lives in Asia and so has more interest in maintaining peace in the area than US that live thousands of kilometres away.

I don't think it's correct to say that the US has had the primacy in Asia after WWII. Far from it, Asia had been hotly contested region during the Cold War, among multiple players including US, USSR, and China. There had been multiple hot wars and China was a big part in them (Korea War, Vietnam War, and other regional conflicts). It is only after the end of Cold War that the region has been mostly in peace. This peace has not been solely because that the US military primacy guaranteed it, but also because of the dissolution of USSR and the US-China rapprochement.

 

[delft]

I don't think it's correct to say that the US has had the primacy in Asia after WWII. Far from it, Asia had been hotly contested region during the Cold War, among multiple players including US, USSR, and China. There had been multiple hot wars and China was a big part in them (Korea War, Vietnam War, and other regional conflicts). It is only after the end of Cold War that the region has been mostly in peace. This peace has not been solely because that the US military primacy guaranteed it, but also because of the dissolution of USSR and the US-China rapprochement.

Ever since the US exceeded the power of the Japanese empire about 1942 it has been the strongest military force in East Asia. Until not very long ago it was also the strongest financial and economic power. Remember how less than twenty years ago the financial crisis in the area was tackled according to the dictates of the two Washington institutions, IMF and World Bank.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Measuring who's military is more powerful is just posturing. The US and allies are hesitant of what primitive isolated North Korea will do. Any conflict is the economic equivalent to mutually assured destruction. If the US led a containment of China, like China couldn't ruin it for every other economy in Asia in the process? If the shipping lanes off of China are that important to where the US doesn't want China to control, can you imagine what havoc China can wreak upon those shipping lanes? Obama's strategy has been he thinks China will have more to lose and thus will yield. The Pivot to Asia and TPP are not about isolating China. Since Obama thinks China has more to lose and doesn't want to be left out, these are tactics and pressures to make China surrender to US will. Just like Obama arrogantly believed despite the NSA scandal, the world would continue to buy US hi-tech because they couldn't live without it. The US lost $35 billion plus in international sales in 2013. It's expected to be more in 2015. China's domestic hi-tech industry has exploded since then. If the US led a containment of China, China would have nothing to lose ruining its neighbors' economies. Like Chinese would see the countries that help the US contain and undermine China as innocent? Obama didn't see China building islands in the South China Sea throwing it the face of Obama's Pivot to Asia who thought China would've already surrendered by now thus putting that as a feather in his cap for his legacy. And let's not forget which came first because we know since it didn't turn out like Obama wanted, they going to say the Pivot to Asia came after as a result of all these tensions started by China. These tensions are a result of Obama's Pivot to Asia. And remember it all began when Obama felt dissed by China at the UN Climate Summit at Copenhagen during his first year in office. And he wouldn't have been dissed if he didn't setup China to blame for the summit's failure before it even started just to cover-up that the US Congress wasn't going to pass anything agreed at Copenhagen thus would've been seen as Obama's failure.

 

[Qi_1528]

Wasn't Hillary Clinton the one behind the Asia Pivot? Not that I'm defending Obama, but to my knowledge, it's more a case of him going along with it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China landed two more planes on a contested reef in the South China Sea Wednesday, state media said, despite international condemnation of a landing at the same location days earlier.

Two civilian aircraft landed Wednesday morning on Fiery Cross reef in the disputed Spratlys island group during "test flights", the official Xinhua news agency said. Vietnam also claims the reef.

The planes departed from and returned to the city of Haikou, the capital of the southern island province of Hainan -- a two-hour journey each way.

"This successful test flight proves that this airport is equipped with the capacity to ensure the safe operation of large civilian aircraft," said Xinhua.

It said the facility would help transport supplies, personnel and medical aid.

China claims virtually all the South China Sea, while the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have partial claims.

China has asserted its claim by rapidly building artificial islands, including airstrips said to be capable of hosting military jets.

Several other claimants have also built facilities but at a slower pace, and China's activities have heightened tensions in the region.

It began work in 2014 on the 3,000-metre (9,842 feet) runway on Fiery Cross reef, around 1,000 kilometres (620 miles) from Hainan.

Last Saturday China said it had landed a civilian plane on the runway in an initial test flight -- the first time it had been used.

That landing sparked a formal diplomatic complaint from Hanoi, which labelled it a violation of sovereignty.

The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs has also said it would file a protest at the weekend incident.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I'm sure Hillary Clinton is easily somewhere in there but all roads lead to Obama. I remember reading news articles at the time of Obama announcing the pivot that the disrespect shown at Copenhagen is the cause of Obama changing his China policy.

 

[Qi_1528]

Vietnam is doing a second protest. What they doing now is nagging, quite annoying. What China needs to do is send fighter jets to pay a visit to fiery cross , this way would let Vietnam know , protest and nagging are useless.

It would be better for China to keep doing what it has been: testing its newly built infrastructure for civilian use. Vietnam can condemn this as much as it wants, but it won't change any of the facts on the ground, and a harsh response from China won't make it back down.

 

[tidalwave]

It would be better for China to keep doing what it has been: testing its newly built infrastructure for civilian use. Vietnam can condemn this as much as it wants, but it won't change any of the facts on the ground, and a harsh response from China won't make it back down.

In the latest news, Chinese general indicated military will use the airstrip second half of the year.

It's not a harsh response, its eventuality

 

[PanAsian]

Measuring who's military is more powerful is just posturing. The US and allies are hesitant of what primitive isolated North Korea will do. Any conflict is the economic equivalent to mutually assured destruction. If the US led a containment of China, like China couldn't ruin it for every other economy in Asia in the process? If the shipping lanes off of China are that important to where the US doesn't want China to control, can you imagine what havoc China can wreak upon those shipping lanes? Obama's strategy has been he thinks China will have more to lose and thus will yield. The Pivot to Asia and TPP are not about isolating China. Since Obama thinks China has more to lose and doesn't want to be left out, these are tactics and pressures to make China surrender to US will. Just like Obama arrogantly believed despite the NSA scandal, the world would continue to buy US hi-tech because they couldn't live without it. The US lost $35 billion plus in international sales in 2013. It's expected to be more in 2015. China's domestic hi-tech industry has exploded since then. If the US led a containment of China, China would have nothing to lose ruining its neighbors' economies. Like Chinese would see the countries that help the US contain and undermine China as innocent? Obama didn't see China building islands in the South China Sea throwing it the face of Obama's Pivot to Asia who thought China would've already surrendered by now thus putting that as a feather in his cap for his legacy. And let's not forget which came first because we know since it didn't turn out like Obama wanted, they going to say the Pivot to Asia came after as a result of all these tensions started by China. These tensions are a result of Obama's Pivot to Asia. And remember it all began when Obama felt dissed by China at the UN Climate Summit at Copenhagen during his first year in office. And he wouldn't have been dissed if he didn't setup China to blame for the summit's failure before it even started just to cover-up that the US Congress wasn't going to pass anything agreed at Copenhagen thus would've been seen as Obama's failure.

Sounds like a lot of media sensationalism and more projecting of whatever haters imagine on to President Obama. To those familiar with the history of US foreign policy it is obvious that the Obama administration has been carrying on with policies from the established US playbook. Containment in influence can be done in the political, popular opinion, and military arenas while only affecting economics secondarily. And China is inherently due to be in a rough patch in the course of its economic development anyways.

 

[ChesireCat]

China surely is forced to show more assertiveness by the growing US encirclement. Who could blame them. But i think the US do not want a direct confrontation like in the cold war days. There should be no doubt that the US have more powerful tools it could use to curb chinas growth. It would harm itself in the process, no doubt, but such scenario would be much more devastating for China than the US. Simply because the US military and its soft power potential is immense, and the US society is more prosperous and stable for the time being.

Personally i think China should invite other claimants in the SCS to use the facilities on these islands for civilian purposes. It would probably lower the antagonism in the region. No one wants a war between China and the US. It would be devastating for world economy and may cause human extinction in the worst case scenario. It is hard for americans to watch their global supremacy slowly fade away, day by day. But this is not a unique event in history. Many americans do not understand how young their country is. It is beyond their comprehension that countries like China, Italy, India, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Greece (and so on), are thousands of years old and have fluctuated between prosperity and decline many times during history.

The hawks in ASEAN, USA and China should calm down and let pragmatic people with foresight handle SCS issue.

 

[siegecrossbow]

China surely is forced to show more assertiveness by the growing US encirclement. Who could blame them. But i think the US do not want a direct confrontation like in the cold war days. There should be no doubt that the US have more powerful tools it could use to curb chinas growth. It would harm itself in the process, no doubt, but such scenario would be much more devastating for China than the US. Simply because the US military and its soft power potential is immense, and the US society is more prosperous and stable for the time being.

Personally i think China should invite other claimants in the SCS to use the facilities on these islands for civilian purposes. It would probably lower the antagonism in the region. No one wants a war between China and the US. It would be devastating for world economy and may cause human extinction in the worst case scenario. It is hard for americans to watch their global supremacy slowly fade away, day by day. But this is not a unique event in history. Many americans do not understand how young their country is. It is beyond their comprehension that countries like China, Italy, India, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Greece (and so on), are thousands of years old and have fluctuated between prosperity and decline many times during history.

The hawks in ASEAN, USA and China should calm down and let pragmatic people with foresight handle SCS issue.

If only the claimants allow China to use their islands for similar purposes as well.