China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Hendrik_2000]

China has the largest known shale gas potential in the world and barely explored.But the trouble is fracking need a lot of water . This company in Sichuan has new technology that use minimal water that can be used in arid North west China

 

[ChesireCat]

The US simply does not understand Asian politics, and even this article betrays that ignorance.

You are absolutely right.
Take India, Americans are pushing India to become a enemy of China. India is getting lots of new weapon from western powers. The result? Growing existential anxiety in all of Indias amaller neighbor. Do they have any other choice than seeking stronger ties with china. Very few in South Asia believe India can ever be a true challenger to China. And even fewer beilieve such hostile rivalry is desirable given millennia of relative peace between these two regions of Asia.

 

[plawolf]

The US simply does not understand Asian politics, and even this article betrays that ignorance.

The US is located on a continent with only two neighbors, one to the north and one to the south. It has never had to deal with the dynamics of a dozen foreign interests on its own doorsteps.

On the other hand, China has always been at the center of Asian politics. It has had to deal with dozens of fickle neighboring states since time immemorial. Strategically, it has a wealth of history to draw from.

"The enemy of my enemy" is not my friend. It's a lot more complicated than that.

While I agree that the US does not understand Asian politics, I do not necessarily think China as having much inherent advantage in this regard just from history.

Simply put, historically, China has never really had to bother with Asian politics either.

It was always so big and wealthy and powerful that all the smaller Asian powers went out of their way to accommodate the Chinese.

Chinese Emperors or high officials seldom bothered to learn of the internal politics of its smaller neighbours. The lessor powers came to China to pay their respects and conducted relations on China's terms.

Very rarely would a Chinese Emperor have tolerated negociting with a foreign power as equals, never mind allowing foreigners to dictate rules to them.

Chinese historical experience comes overwhelmingly from internal politics, rather than international.

Foreigners only really become part of Chinese history if they either invaded China, or were invaded themselves by the Chinese and were assimilated.

The biggest differences between China and America are actually oddly, and paradoxically opposites.

While individually, Chinese people are largely notorious for having low self confidence, as a population and civilisation, the Chinese seem to have overwhelming confidence in their cultural superiority.

China historically had such harmonious relations with its smaller sourthern neighbours because the Chinese civilisations simply did not see them as posing any threat (it was always the northern barbarians that concerned the Chinese, although even that threat was only viewed as such because they kept invading). So were inclind to either ignore them, or to even give them aid as a means of demonstrating Chinese superiority (or both material and values/morals).

Americans, OTOH, are individually notorious for their unusually high levels of self confidence. Yet the American government seems to have a bit of a nervious disposition, seeing enemies everywhere, and seeming to not feel safe unless it has a dozen loaded guns pointed at everyone else's head and being able to read everything everyone else is writing to make sure they are not plotting against them.

 

[Janiz]

China historically had such harmonious relations with its smaller sourthern neighbours because

the ideals of Confucianism said so. Confucianism put no pride in military power and warriors were considered the lowest of the society. When the Emperor named someone to be military commander it wasn't a case of promotion - it was viewed as a form of punishment. If you had to resort to your military power that meant you're weak. That's the difference between China and the WHOLE world throughout the centuries. The 'world' sometimes came to Chinese doors without valuing the Confucianism and that's where it created bad things for China.

There's not much difference in nowadays Chinese or US politics. The only remaining feature that's still relevant in Chinese society coming from Confucianism is not caring too much about your fellow people and not helping each other in day to day activities. From all the good in Confucianism only that 'bad individualism' is left while it should be other way around in the perfect world. But times had changed.

 

[taxiya]

While I agree that the US does not understand Asian politics, I do not necessarily think China as having much inherent advantage in this regard just from history.

Simply put, historically, China has never really had to bother with Asian politics either.

It was always so big and wealthy and powerful that all the smaller Asian powers went out of their way to accommodate the Chinese.

Chinese Emperors or high officials seldom bothered to learn of the internal politics of its smaller neighbours. The lessor powers came to China to pay their respects and conducted relations on China's terms.

Very rarely would a Chinese Emperor have tolerated negociting with a foreign power as equals, never mind allowing foreigners to dictate rules to them.

Chinese historical experience comes overwhelmingly from internal politics, rather than international.

Foreigners only really become part of Chinese history if they either invaded China, or were invaded themselves by the Chinese and were assimilated.

The biggest differences between China and America are actually oddly, and paradoxically opposites.

While individually, Chinese people are largely notorious for having low self confidence, as a population and civilisation, the Chinese seem to have overwhelming confidence in their cultural superiority.

China historically had such harmonious relations with its smaller sourthern neighbours because the Chinese civilisations simply did not see them as posing any threat (it was always the northern barbarians that concerned the Chinese, although even that threat was only viewed as such because they kept invading). So were inclind to either ignore them, or to even give them aid as a means of demonstrating Chinese superiority (or both material and values/morals).

Americans, OTOH, are individually notorious for their unusually high levels of self confidence. Yet the American government seems to have a bit of a nervious disposition, seeing enemies everywhere, and seeming to not feel safe unless it has a dozen loaded guns pointed at everyone else's head and being able to read everything everyone else is writing to make sure they are not plotting against them.

I think it is the opposite on the contrary. Chinese dynasties have to bother not only when they were weak but even when they were strong, both Han and Tang had to constantly play diplomatic games with various Xiongnu factions and Tujue factions from their fundings to their ends. The Qing had to play the Mongols just like its predecessors. No need to mention when the dynasties were weak.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

the ideals of Confucianism said so. Confucianism put no pride in military power and warriors were considered the lowest of the society. When the Emperor named someone to be military commander it wasn't a case of promotion - it was viewed as a form of punishment. If you had to resort to your military power that meant you're weak. That's the difference between China and the WHOLE world throughout the centuries. The 'world' sometimes came to Chinese doors without valuing the Confucianism and that's where it created bad things for China.

There's not much difference in nowadays Chinese or US politics. The only remaining feature that's still relevant in Chinese society coming from Confucianism is not caring too much about your fellow people and not helping each other in day to day activities. From all the good in Confucianism only that 'bad individualism' is left while it should be other way around in the perfect world. But times had changed.

That is BS depending on which Dynasty you are talking about Han and Tang are very aggressive and warlike They have undertaking many expedition to conquer the wild north west frontier tribe. In fact in Han time Chinese first ventured into nowadays Xinjiang, Uzbekistan,Korea,
The Mongol add Yunnan , The Manchu add Tibet and Xinjiang to the Chinese territory
How do you explain that Chinese original homeland in the yellow river river is the size of Belgium become so large?

And you have no clue about Confucianism typical of Eastern European inferiority/superiority complex
Confucianism advocate benevolence in ever larger circle start with family, then your neighborhood, village/city, then the state. Working together in harmony
It bind the individual to the society at large thru obligation, duty and honor. they definitely value working together in harmony.
Their value can be summarized by "don't do to other what you don't want other do it to you" very similar to Christian value except the Chinese doesn't believe in supreme being. they have concept of "heaven" but different from Christianity

The typical European only see and analyze Chinese society during their worst time period at the end of Qing dynasty and the ensuing chaos of warlord period . It doesn't reflect the true picture of Confucianism
The communist try to destroy Confucianism because they considered backward and responsible for the decline of Chinese state .But with the death of communism in China and successful transformation of Confucianism state of Korea, Japan, Hongkong, Taiwan,Singapore, People now are willing to reevaluate Confucianism in new light

You admire Japanese so much why do you think they are successful?. Confucianism of course

 

[plawolf]

I think it is the opposite on the contrary. Chinese dynasties have to bother not only when they were weak but even when they were strong, both Han and Tang had to constantly play diplomatic games with various Xiongnu factions and Tujue factions from their fundings to their ends. The Qing had to play the Mongols just like its predecessors. No need to mention when the dynasties were weak.

Good points, but note I made a clear and deliberate distinction between China's Southern and Northern neighbours.

Historically, Chinese foreign policy has always been primarily focused at countering the barbarian hords from the north.

It paid its more peaceful Southern neighbours very little attention in comparison.

The end result was that China's northern neighbours pretty much all ended up being assimilated into the Chinese culture and nation eventually (which is why I classed those as internal politics), while the far less troublesome southern neighbours, who were happy to play nice, were left largely to their own devices and remained separate.

 

[taxiya]

Good points, but note I made a clear and deliberate distinction between China's Southern and Northern neighbours.

Historically, Chinese foreign policy has always been primarily focused at countering the barbarian hords from the north.

It paid its more peaceful Southern neighbours very little attention in comparison.

The end result was that China's northern neighbours pretty much all ended up being assimilated into the Chinese culture and nation eventually (which is why I classed those as internal politics), while the far less troublesome southern neighbours, who were happy to play nice, were left largely to their own devices and remained separate.

Very good points, particularly I agree with the last paragraph.

 

[Equation]

The US simply does not understand Asian politics, and even this article betrays that ignorance.

The US is located on a continent with only two neighbors, one to the north and one to the south. It has never had to deal with the dynamics of a dozen foreign interests on its own doorsteps.

On the other hand, China has always been at the center of Asian politics. It has had to deal with dozens of fickle neighboring states since time immemorial. Strategically, it has a wealth of history to draw from.

"The enemy of my enemy" is not my friend. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Since when did the US leaders ever care to understand the politics of Asia? All it ever cares about that any Asian country must not challenge the status quo and it's world domination status.

 

[vesicles]

the ideals of Confucianism said so. Confucianism put no pride in military power and warriors were considered the lowest of the society. When the Emperor named someone to be military commander it wasn't a case of promotion - it was viewed as a form of punishment. If you had to resort to your military power that meant you're weak. That's the difference between China and the WHOLE world throughout the centuries. The 'world' sometimes came to Chinese doors without valuing the Confucianism and that's where it created bad things for China.

This is simply not true. Although ancient Chinese dynasties did place civilian officials at slightly higher status than military commanders during peace time, it does not mean that they "put no pride" in military power. In fact, ancient Chinese viewed both military and civilian achievement the same. The phrase "出将入相" symbolizes this view. Note that "出将入相", which means being a commanding general outside (or on the battlefield) and being a prime minister (the highest civilian position in ancient Chinese court), had always been viewed as the highest achievements that anyone loyal to the empire could ever accomplish. Note that in this famous phrase, the military commander and the prime minister have been placed at equal footing.

Nowhere in China's ancient history that appointing someone to a military post had been viewed as a punishment. The only exception is sending someone to a remote and harsh outpost. This is of course viewed as a punishment, just like sending someone to the "Night's Watch" in Game of Thrones or sending someone to the Eastern front in Nazi Germany. No one wants to go to a harsh place. This is obviously very different from having a military position in general.

Many civilian officials served dual military and civilian positions and have been mostly known and praised for their military accomplishments. The best known civilian official serving as a military commander would be Zhuge Liang in the late East Han dynasty. Although he was a scholar and had never touched a weapon in his life time, he has been best known for being a brilliant military tactician and field commander. And the name "Zhuge Liang" in China is synonymous with genius. Another example is "Jiang Ziya" who was an 70-year old scholar appointed to the position of commanding general. He was accredited for almost single-handedly creating the Zhou dynasty.

Of course, these people lived so long ago and many of their achievements have become legend and myth. Regardless of facts or myth, the fact is Chinese people admire military accomplishments the same as any other accomplishments. These people's status has not been tarnished because of their involvement in military matters. In anything, people emphasize or even exaggerate their military accomplishments to glorify these individuals.

Confucius had many disciples who were military commanders. Confucius himself served as counselor for the State of Lu and provided balanced advices, both military and civilian. There was no evidence that he was specifically against military actions.

The Martial Emperor of Han dynasty, one of the most famous military conquerors of ancient China, adopted Confucianism as THE national philosophical belief in China.