New York Times: Special Report

AndrewS is AirSuperiority, correct?

By my own observations and experience the US MSM in foreign affairs invariably serves as an extension of US foreign policy and needs to be approached as such.

PiSigma said:

"Among its neighbors, China’s rise provokes fears that an unwanted piece of history is being resurrected — the old tribute system that cemented China’s status as the Middle Kingdom. For centuries, other nations bowed in recognition of China’s imperial might, bestowing gifts on the emperor and accepting vassal status to secure trade and peace."

That's what I'm reading right now, on money and muscle. A very much obvious example of what Americans think the Chinese tribute system is like. Because that is how the American vassalage system is set up. In reality, it is just a trading relationship and China keeps the peace in SE Asian and NE Asia.

Pretty much all the articles start with some truth, get you to believe them, then start with half truth then full on misinformation.

Click to expand...

No, what they've written here is accurate.

I agree that if China were hegemon in its surroundings, then it would be a trading relationship.

But amongst most of China's neighbours, there is a latent fear of what Chinese hegemony would look like.
Part of that is because decision making is still too arbitrary and China can be very sharp with gray zone tactics.
Plus China is still relatively poor and still very much a selfish power that looks after its own people first.

That is not to say that the USA is much better, but it is already the established power and most countries in the region have accepted their place as vassals.
But going forward, the US is becoming much more unpredictable and demanding and selfish.

"For the Western powers whose order has prevailed since the end of World War II, China poses a foundational challenge. The United States and its victorious allies erected institutions that were — at least rhetorically — designed to keep the peace by promoting trade and fair competition. "

Americans keep the peace? Lol nice joke. And as far as I remember China won WW2, but is a challenge to the American system.... Americans on trade had not been fair to even their friends and allies.. japan is a good example.

Click to expand...

If you read it again, the NY Times does actually call Americans keeping the peace a joke. "at least rhetorically" is the phrase they use.
On trade, we can see the the US economy is actually more open to foreign imports and trade than Japan, Korea, Australia, Europe.
Note that these are already wealthy developed places. So why is the Japanese economy still so closed, even today?

I'm too lazy to go into detail, but basically half if not more of every article is basically BS.

And don't get me started on NYT's second half of article on the SCS. Once again just repeating the BS all these MSM writes.

Notice none of these articles interviews positive views from China even though it is about China? On supposed "experts" that are mostly American with a clear biased view already.

Click to expand...

AssassinsMace said:

AndrewS is AirSuperiority, correct?

Click to expand...

Nope, I'm my own person

AndrewS said:

No, what they've written here is accurate.

I agree that if China were hegemon in its surroundings, then it would be a trading relationship.

But amongst most of China's neighbours, there is a latent fear of what Chinese hegemony would look like.
Part of that is because decision making is still too arbitrary and China can be very sharp with gray zone tactics.
Plus China is still relatively poor and still very much a selfish power that looks after its own people first.

That is not to say that the USA is much better, but it is already the established power and most countries in the region have accepted their place as vassals.
But going forward, the US is becoming much more unpredictable and demanding and selfish.

If you read it again, the NY Times does actually call Americans keeping the peace a joke. "at least rhetorically" is the phrase they use.
On trade, we can see the the US economy is actually more open to foreign imports and trade than Japan, Korea, Australia, Europe.
Note that these are already wealthy developed places. So why is the Japanese economy still so closed, even today?

Click to expand...

WW2 is basically the Nth Colonialist War after which and via its choices through the Cold War the US came out as the ultimate inheritor and guarantor of the colonial system which is both warmongering and exploitative. The nature of it is that once there is only a single dominant warmonger and exploiter it becomes impossible for such a system not to cannibalize itself and it also becomes increasingly difficult to mask or misinform about how the system works. The "wealthy developed places" you mentioned (note that they are either colonial powers or major colonies) are some of the earliest places in this period to be destroyed/were un/underdeveloped to begin with, rebuilt/built as secondary colonial powers and forward operating bases to expand and/or maintain the colonial system, thereby also grandfathering/privileging them with "so closed" economies to maintain their place on the totem pole which they increasingly have to fight for to prevent being annexed from above or out-developed from below.

PanAsian said:

WW2 is basically the Nth Colonialist War after which and via its choices through the Cold War the US came out as the ultimate inheritor and guarantor of the colonial system which is both warmongering and exploitative. The nature of it is that once there is only a single dominant warmonger and exploiter it becomes impossible for such a system not to cannibalize itself and it also becomes increasingly difficult to mask or misinform about how the system works. The "wealthy developed places" you mentioned (note that they are either colonial powers or major colonies) are some of the earliest places in this period to be destroyed/were un/underdeveloped to begin with, rebuilt/built as secondary colonial powers and forward operating bases to expand and/or maintain the colonial system, thereby also grandfathering/privileging them with "so closed" economies to maintain their place on the totem pole which they increasingly have to fight for to prevent being annexed from above or out-developed from below.

Click to expand...

I think you're reading too much into the colonial versus non-colonial divide.

I think it's more accurate to use a vassal versus non-vassal distinction, because countries do have enough sovereignty to change their allegiances or to remain neutral. It may be painful but it is possible for the vast majority of countries.

An example of an exception would be somewhere like Bhutan, where India funds and trains the Bhutan Army and the Bhutan Police.
Bhutan has literally lost control of its internal and external sovereignty to India, which is the defacto colonial power.
---

Anyway, so what we have is an international system where previously the USA was the largest actor from an economic and naval (trade) perspective. In the case of US/Japan, it was in the mutual interest to enter into a lord/vassal type relationship, where Japan was grandfathered/privileged into the existing system with the USA on top.

But now we have a situation where China has a larger economy than the USA in terms of actual output.
The National Science Foundation also reported that China was expected to pass the US in terms of technology R&D spending in 2018.
This means that China has the capacity to displace the USA in terms of economic attraction, especially to its neighbours in Asia.

China is also the world's largest trading nation and which sits at the centre of the Asian trading network.
That will still be the case even if Trump cuts off all US trade with China.
And historically, the world's largest trading nation builds the world's largest navy to protect its trade.
And the world's largest economy does have the resources to build such a navy.

So the existing US-led system is breaking down because of the Rise of China, and most countries in Asia don't want to get involved in a US-China competition, because they will suffer in the conflict and they don't know who will be the winner.

But in the coming decades, it should become obvious that China will come out on top of any military/economic conflict with the USA, and that China's neighbours would be better off aligning with China instead of the USA.

So as China continues to grow, it would be in China's interests to maintain the liberal trade/investment order, and also military freedom of navigation. Thereby replacing the US in the international order.

This is what is driving US-China tensions today

AndrewS said:

No, what they've written here is accurate.

I agree that if China were hegemon in its surroundings, then it would be a trading relationship.

But amongst most of China's neighbours, there is a latent fear of what Chinese hegemony would look like.
Part of that is because decision making is still too arbitrary and China can be very sharp with gray zone tactics.
Plus China is still relatively poor and still very much a selfish power that looks after its own people first.

That is not to say that the USA is much better, but it is already the established power and most countries in the region have accepted their place as vassals.
But going forward, the US is becoming much more unpredictable and demanding and selfish.



If you read it again, the NY Times does actually call Americans keeping the peace a joke. "at least rhetorically" is the phrase they use.
On trade, we can see the the US economy is actually more open to foreign imports and trade than Japan, Korea, Australia, Europe.
Note that these are already wealthy developed places. So why is the Japanese economy still so closed, even today?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the words "unwanted" and "fear". NYT is trying to say historically no neighbour wanted the tribute trading and protection because they feared them. The exact opposite is true in many cases. Add a single word, the entire sentence changes.

PiSigma said:

I'm talking about the words "unwanted" and "fear". NYT is trying to say historically no neighbour wanted the tribute trading and protection because they feared them. The exact opposite is true in many cases. Add a single word, the entire sentence changes.

Click to expand...

I would say that it's ambiguously worded and could definitely do with clarification.

Modern Asia is now comprised of proud countries that value their sovereignty.

So they do want to be able to maintain independence in their actions, and maximise the benefit they receive from playing off China versus the USA.
So Chinese hegemony in the present day is to some degree "unwanted" and "feared"

In the past yes, it was usually attraction that made Asia's neighbours gravitate towards a vassal relationship.
The bargain was normally acknowledgement of Chinese pre-eminanance. And in exchange, countries were left alone to manage their own affairs, and received trade benefits and military protection. But the key thing is that this was usually a voluntary arrangement.

I think one of the most interesting episodes is when King of Java (Indonesia) asked the Emperor to incorporate his lands as part of the Chinese Empire.

Who fears China, exactly? Philippines fears China so much that their president proclaims that he "loves" China and asks for Chinese cash?

Or is it Thailand, who is doing everything they can to attract Chinese visitors?

Does Vietnam fear China? Or do they just want to pursue their own interests?

Does South Korea fear China?

How about Cambodia, Laos, Nepal, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia?

Maybe the only neighboring country that really fears China is Japan, and that is really more of a projection based on what they did to China 70 years ago.

AndrewS said:

I would say that it's ambiguously worded and could definitely do with clarification.

Modern Asia is now comprised of proud countries that value their sovereignty.

So they do want to be able to maintain independence in their actions, and maximise the benefit they receive from playing off China versus the USA.
So Chinese hegemony in the present day is to some degree "unwanted" and "feared"

In the past yes, it was usually attraction that made Asia's neighbours gravitate towards a vassal relationship.
The bargain was normally acknowledgement of Chinese pre-eminanance. And in exchange, countries were left alone to manage their own affairs, and received trade benefits and military protection. But the key thing is that this was usually a voluntary arrangement.

I think one of the most interesting episodes is when King of Java (Indonesia) asked the Emperor to incorporate his lands as part of the Chinese Empire.

Click to expand...

NYT article said unwanted now like it was unwanted in the past. Thus giving the impression of imperial ambitions throughout history. Whereas in truth it was often wanted by other countries but not wanted now. The differnecd is very important as it gives the reader either the impression of a country that always threw their weight around or one that is just doing it now.