China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Inst said:

Vis a vis Finland, it meant that the Soviet Union had effective suzerainty over Finland, which was still sovereign, but had to consult Soviet leadership on foreign policy decisions. Vis a vis China and South Korea, it does imply that a united Korea would be as much in the Chinese camp as say, Belarus is in the Russian camp, but the specific details are more sketchy.

Do remember that talk about tribute to the Chinese is ahistorical nonsense. In most cases, the tribute trade was profitable for the tributary nation in that in return for acknowledging Chinese supremacy, the tributary was bribed off with more expensive return gifts. The actuality of the Chinese tributary system was closer to the Chinese bribing neighbors to indulge their delusions of grandeur than military extortion.

In truth, the Chinese tribute system is a misnomer and is better replaced with something less propagandistic.

Click to expand...

Inst said:

@ Blackstone: Check this out:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's an argument that the American world system is fundamentally the same as the old Chinese tributary system. It'd be informative to you on the old Ming-Qing tributary system, and informative to others in its analysis of American hegemony.

Click to expand...

Do remember that talk about tribute to the Chinese is ahistorical nonsense. In most cases, the tribute trade was profitable for the tributary nation in that in return for acknowledging Chinese supremacy, the tributary was bribed off with more expensive return gifts. The actuality of the Chinese tributary system was closer to the Chinese bribing neighbors to indulge their delusions of grandeur than military extortion.

In truth, the Chinese tribute system is a misnomer and is better replaced with something less propagandistic.

Click to expand...

1. the state of being the firstborn child.
   • the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son.

Inst said:

Do remember that talk about tribute to the Chinese is ahistorical nonsense. In most cases, the tribute trade was profitable for the tributary nation in that in return for acknowledging Chinese supremacy, the tributary was bribed off with more expensive return gifts. The actuality of the Chinese tributary system was closer to the Chinese bribing neighbors to indulge their delusions of grandeur than military extortion.

Click to expand...

Inst said:

@Hendrik: Ryukyu is an unusual case in that unlike other Chaogong states, Ryukyu's Chaogong trade actually operated at a loss due to the cost of shipping. I also advise you not to play with the Chaogong system that way, because the term tributary implies Chinese imperialism and is often used by Western propagandists to amplify the China threat.

As to your main argument, read up on how the Ming dynasty used Chaogong to neutralize northern barbarians by enabling trade, instead of raids.

@Blackstone: I'll use Chaogong instead of tribute to denote the differences. About the term; tribute implies some form of subjugation, and while the Chaogong system required nominal and ritual submission, in practice it was relatively equal; I read once that the difference between the Chinese Chaogong system and the Westphalian state system was that in the former, there was nominal hierarchy but practical equality, while in the Westphalian system, there was nominal equality but practical hierarchy.

The thing is, when you read about country having paid tribute to dynastic Chinese, it implies that the Chinese state had military dominance and was able to extract financial gains from its neighbors, when in practicality almost every Chinese invasion of Korea failed and resulted in massive Chinese casualties, and Korea was Chinese-aligned starting with Joseon only because the Joseon government was established by coup and needed foreign backing.

As to what kind of configuration I'd actually prefer in East Asia, as you can see, I'm relatively liberal in my political views. I dislike Chinese imperialism as much as I dislike American imperialism, but at the same time, I acknowledge that China has the potential to be economically and politically dominant in the East Asia region. I would like to see an East Asian Community, perhaps an East Asian Authority, established on nominally equal terms in the region. In practice, it might be better to assign China a 33-49% voting share, but have the Chinese understand that they are better off not overtly pushing their weight through the organization, not unlike how the UN is often US-dominated, but is headed by non-Americans.

Click to expand...

Inst said:

@Hendrik: Ryukyu is an unusual case in that unlike other Chaogong states, Ryukyu's Chaogong trade actually operated at a loss due to the cost of shipping. I also advise you not to play with the Chaogong system that way, because the term tributary implies Chinese imperialism and is often used by Western propagandists to amplify the China threat.

As to your main argument, read up on how the Ming dynasty used Chaogong to neutralize northern barbarians by enabling trade, instead of raids.

Click to expand...

Inst said:

Between Finland and the Soviet Union, the latter was culturally, economically, and technologically decrepit and had nothing to offer the Finns. .

Click to expand...

Inst said:

China, on the other hand, is technologically competitive,

Click to expand...

Inst said:

@Hendrik: Ryukyu is an unusual case in that unlike other Chaogong states, Ryukyu's Chaogong trade actually operated at a loss due to the cost of shipping. I also advise you not to play with the Chaogong system that way, because the term tributary implies Chinese imperialism and is often used by Western propagandists to amplify the China threat.

As to your main argument, read up on how the Ming dynasty used Chaogong to neutralize northern barbarians by enabling trade, instead of raids.

@Blackstone: I'll use Chaogong instead of tribute to denote the differences. About the term; tribute implies some form of subjugation, and while the Chaogong system required nominal and ritual submission, in practice it was relatively equal; I read once that the difference between the Chinese Chaogong system and the Westphalian state system was that in the former, there was nominal hierarchy but practical equality, while in the Westphalian system, there was nominal equality but practical hierarchy.

The thing is, when you read about country having paid tribute to dynastic Chinese, it implies that the Chinese state had military dominance and was able to extract financial gains from its neighbors, when in practicality almost every Chinese invasion of Korea failed and resulted in massive Chinese casualties, and Korea was Chinese-aligned starting with Joseon only because the Joseon government was established by coup and needed foreign backing.

As to what kind of configuration I'd actually prefer in East Asia, as you can see, I'm relatively liberal in my political views. I dislike Chinese imperialism as much as I dislike American imperialism, but at the same time, I acknowledge that China has the potential to be economically and politically dominant in the East Asia region. I would like to see an East Asian Community, perhaps an East Asian Authority, established on nominally equal terms in the region. In practice, it might be better to assign China a 33-49% voting share, but have the Chinese understand that they are better off not overtly pushing their weight through the organization, not unlike how the UN is often US-dominated, but is headed by non-Americans.

Click to expand...