It seems the economic, political and military rise of China has inevitably been accompanied by a worsening security situation for all in the region.
Japan is fearful China will seek to annex the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands by force.
Some SCS countries, Vietnam and Phillippines in particular, view China's growing navy with similar trepidation.
Taiwan has recently claimed China can mount a successful invasion by 2020, sure to ring alarm bells in the region and all those who view the island as a beacon of democracy against the dictatorship which is the People's Republic.
North Korea is increasingly unstable, and a collapse of the Kim regime could lead to conflict between the PLA and a US and SK coalition.
The US fears Chinese A2AD capabilities, and has responded with Air Sea Battle, that is a doctrine of air and naval power to use against China, involving attacks on the Chinese mainland -- such an orientation of forces is exactly what A2AD is supposed to defend against, and we see the seeds of an arms race being sown.
And all the media outlets, and hawkish thinktanks and individuals on both sides of the pacific are not helping.
Most of us on SDF have a level head, a good grasp of geopolitics, history, and culture, all of which intersect together to produce the western pacific's current security situation. This thread is meant to holistically examine all the potential flashpoints that China's rise could lead to, but identifying each flashpoint, the historical, socio-political, economic and military forces at play, and more importantly, the intentions of each party involved.
Such a thread will naturally involve some degree of political content, but I believe most posters are mature enough to agree to disagree on subjects without devolving into insults, and I believe without candid examination of ideological and political differences we cannot produce any resistance to the increasingly dangerous western pacific, dotted with miscalculation and fear on all sides.
So, to start off, here are some of the flashpoints I've identified, illustrated badly in microsoft paint (other posters, feel free to add in opinions or rectify any mistakes I've made)
Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands disputes: the current dispute has it birth in the post WWII settlement of Imperial Japanese held territory. The islands have been administered by Japan since then (the full history can be seen here: ), and it is recently that things have come to a head, with Japanese Coast Guard vessels and Chinese Coast Guard, CMS (as well as ROC coast guard ships) joining the fray to jockey for a presence in the islands. Recent US moves back to the pacific can be seen as a result of this tension, despite the fact that no side has actually deployed naval ships to enforce their claims. However, the recent Japanese nationalization of the islands, along with an increased posturing by both PLA and JSDF forces to prepare for such a contingency makes this perhaps the most dangerous flashpoint among all listed. The fact that PLA's new naval and airpower is such a leap beyond what they used to have only adds to the narrative of PRC aggression and expansionism.
Taiwan: I think most of us are aware of the history here. Ironically, this is probably the least likely flashpoint to erupt, given increasingly mutual beneficial economic and cultural ties between PRC and Taiwan. However PRC still reserves the right to use force against Taiwan in event of independence or other situations (e.g.: if Taiwan decides to pursue nuclear weapons), and doesn't like the US presence in the region (leading to the PLA pursuit of an A2AD/"anti intervention" strategy)
South China Sea disputes: Much of the western media have hooked onto China's claims to the SCS islands as expansionism. I won't go into the history of the disputes, but on the surface, one sees china's claims as looking unreasonable, via the area which china does claim, along with the sheer distance between the chinese mainland and the claimed islands (although one may point to other historical claims, and even the Japanese claim of diaoyu/senkaku as a counter example)
North Korea: basically, if chubby Kim's regime finally rips at the seams, north east asia is in for an earful. We could see NK attacks on SK via artillery and ballistic missiles, a US, SK and Japanese military response, and a PLA intervention. It will be a race to Pyongyang as all seek to regain control of NK and stop their shenanigans. It is after the dust has settled that the peninsula will be in most danger. China will not tolerate a US presence next to Yalu, and even a pro-US presence in the form of a unified korea will be detrimental to China's interests, as the one thing that PRC is chronically and acutely aware of is containment. Whether a constructive, cooperative policy is implemented to rebuild NK, or we lead to another round of clashing heads
A2AD vs ASB: A2AD is a two sided strategy. One, is to counter US intervention in any conflicts China may have in the region, namely sovereignty and territory related. the other, is a chronic Chinese fear of the US circle of bases in east asia, their permanent, vast and awesomely powerful CVBGs on forward deployment at yokosuka, and they are aware of how vulnerable its eastern coast cities are to US naval and airpower. China wants to keep such potential destructive poewr further from its shores, US conversely, sees its presence in east asia as a stabilizing, deterrent force to reassure allies, and their military power is also part of their forward defence policy
PLA Modernization: fact of the matter is, PLA is a very obsolete force, until the last few years. With the ushering of a chinese economic boom, naturally the PLA have had more cash to spend on weapons and improve training. The US and her allies in the region watch this with rising trepidation, and see expanding PLAAF and PLAN capability as a threat to teir regional military dominance.
Fear of a PRC preemptive attack: the PRC, since its founding, has engaged in a select number of conflicts, but all of them, save for Korea, were short attacks without desire for permanent occupation, and were conducted to achieve precise political agendas, vietnam and India included. In the present day, PLA opaqueness combined with a western view of past PLA conflicts as "warningless" and "unstable," could lead to a miscalculation where either PLA or the US strikes at each other first due to a fear of being hit themselves. This danger of miscalculation encompasses all the above flashpoints, but is ultimately a function of rising PLA offensive capability, rising US distribution of assets to westpac, and increased tensions in the diaoyu/senkaku theatre.
In the diagram I've also added historical, ideological anxieties for both china and the west, which are mostly self explanatory.
So the question I'll pose, is how can China, the US, and other regional actors serve to reduce tensions as China rises?
There are a few assumptions I'll make in this scenario:
1: China will continue growing at a "steady" rate, that is to say, its reforms will mostly work, leading to a somewhat slower but more sustainable growth rate for the forseeable future (5-15 years)
2: China will continue modernizing and "expanding" its military, let's say, to the point where all its obsolete aircraft are replaced, its obsolete ships replaced with new frigates and destroyers, and an acquiring of a power projection capability and a blue water navy, i.e.: aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, aerial tankers, medium-long range bombers. Chinese history will inevitably make the PRC continue its military build up until it is convincingly able to defend itself. Problem is, this will chafe with every nation in the region, because no one wants a giant powerful neighbour next door.
3: China's medium term aim is economic growth and stability in the region, and seek to use diplomacy to resolve its disputes first.
So, how can we foment greater understanding, trust and mutual cooperation in the shadow of this insurmountable mountain?
I think there are some areas for cooperation between China and other countries, namely economic and regional stability. But ideology, culture, history, and perhaps most significantly, a permanent view of US military and political preeminence are challenges to a permanent peace.
Optimally I'd like to see a peaceful resolution of all disputes. China will also seek to maintain a very powerful military -- historical scars simply run too deep, and the fear of being cut up and sold to the highest bidder is too great. this will naturally infringe on US power projection ability vis-a-vis china, if we define that as an ability to use military power to coerce another country into your bidding, or the ability to strike at mainland sites in China with overwhelming conventional power. However, one caveat is that China does not hold an expansionary agenda like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan or other past colonial powers, beyond its "historical" territorial claims (i.e.: Taiwan, diaoyu, SCS, South Tibet). The fear for surrounding nations is that this is a very vague claim and the "core interests" stamp could be branded onto any parcel of sea or land at will.
Economically and politically, China could foment more free trade deals with ASEAN, and enhance cooperation with SK and Japan (although historical greivances will always remain a challenge). Such a scenario will provide the greatest challenge to ideology, as the end of the cold war has led a portion of the world to believe western-liberal democracy is the only style to run a country ("new world order" style ideology), but China's rise under a single party, open market system has led to astounding results and the lifting of hundreds of millions out of poverty, while other similar nations under much vaunted democratic systems have fallen behind.
Fear of a powerful, autocratic China also resounds through its perceived human rights abuses, limiting freedom of speech, and accusations as serious as genocide towards Tibetans or Uighurs. There may be an idea that china will seek to impose its "values" upon the west, as the west has to the rest of the world, and lead to a spiral of a 1984esque, police world state. this of course ignores the fact that china since its opening up to dialogue with US, has not advanced any Soviet like desire to expand communism.
Big topic, yes? I will appreciate any posters and their replies. I don't think any of us can make a difference to change the views of the powers that be, but we're reaching a point where a western pacific conflict is looking increasingly likely, despite chinese economic integration with every country involved. How can mistrust and conflict be avoided? Who needs to compromise and reinvent themselves where?
Japan is fearful China will seek to annex the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands by force.
Some SCS countries, Vietnam and Phillippines in particular, view China's growing navy with similar trepidation.
Taiwan has recently claimed China can mount a successful invasion by 2020, sure to ring alarm bells in the region and all those who view the island as a beacon of democracy against the dictatorship which is the People's Republic.
North Korea is increasingly unstable, and a collapse of the Kim regime could lead to conflict between the PLA and a US and SK coalition.
The US fears Chinese A2AD capabilities, and has responded with Air Sea Battle, that is a doctrine of air and naval power to use against China, involving attacks on the Chinese mainland -- such an orientation of forces is exactly what A2AD is supposed to defend against, and we see the seeds of an arms race being sown.
And all the media outlets, and hawkish thinktanks and individuals on both sides of the pacific are not helping.
Most of us on SDF have a level head, a good grasp of geopolitics, history, and culture, all of which intersect together to produce the western pacific's current security situation. This thread is meant to holistically examine all the potential flashpoints that China's rise could lead to, but identifying each flashpoint, the historical, socio-political, economic and military forces at play, and more importantly, the intentions of each party involved.
Such a thread will naturally involve some degree of political content, but I believe most posters are mature enough to agree to disagree on subjects without devolving into insults, and I believe without candid examination of ideological and political differences we cannot produce any resistance to the increasingly dangerous western pacific, dotted with miscalculation and fear on all sides.
So, to start off, here are some of the flashpoints I've identified, illustrated badly in microsoft paint (other posters, feel free to add in opinions or rectify any mistakes I've made)
Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands disputes: the current dispute has it birth in the post WWII settlement of Imperial Japanese held territory. The islands have been administered by Japan since then (the full history can be seen here: ), and it is recently that things have come to a head, with Japanese Coast Guard vessels and Chinese Coast Guard, CMS (as well as ROC coast guard ships) joining the fray to jockey for a presence in the islands. Recent US moves back to the pacific can be seen as a result of this tension, despite the fact that no side has actually deployed naval ships to enforce their claims. However, the recent Japanese nationalization of the islands, along with an increased posturing by both PLA and JSDF forces to prepare for such a contingency makes this perhaps the most dangerous flashpoint among all listed. The fact that PLA's new naval and airpower is such a leap beyond what they used to have only adds to the narrative of PRC aggression and expansionism.
Taiwan: I think most of us are aware of the history here. Ironically, this is probably the least likely flashpoint to erupt, given increasingly mutual beneficial economic and cultural ties between PRC and Taiwan. However PRC still reserves the right to use force against Taiwan in event of independence or other situations (e.g.: if Taiwan decides to pursue nuclear weapons), and doesn't like the US presence in the region (leading to the PLA pursuit of an A2AD/"anti intervention" strategy)
South China Sea disputes: Much of the western media have hooked onto China's claims to the SCS islands as expansionism. I won't go into the history of the disputes, but on the surface, one sees china's claims as looking unreasonable, via the area which china does claim, along with the sheer distance between the chinese mainland and the claimed islands (although one may point to other historical claims, and even the Japanese claim of diaoyu/senkaku as a counter example)
North Korea: basically, if chubby Kim's regime finally rips at the seams, north east asia is in for an earful. We could see NK attacks on SK via artillery and ballistic missiles, a US, SK and Japanese military response, and a PLA intervention. It will be a race to Pyongyang as all seek to regain control of NK and stop their shenanigans. It is after the dust has settled that the peninsula will be in most danger. China will not tolerate a US presence next to Yalu, and even a pro-US presence in the form of a unified korea will be detrimental to China's interests, as the one thing that PRC is chronically and acutely aware of is containment. Whether a constructive, cooperative policy is implemented to rebuild NK, or we lead to another round of clashing heads
A2AD vs ASB: A2AD is a two sided strategy. One, is to counter US intervention in any conflicts China may have in the region, namely sovereignty and territory related. the other, is a chronic Chinese fear of the US circle of bases in east asia, their permanent, vast and awesomely powerful CVBGs on forward deployment at yokosuka, and they are aware of how vulnerable its eastern coast cities are to US naval and airpower. China wants to keep such potential destructive poewr further from its shores, US conversely, sees its presence in east asia as a stabilizing, deterrent force to reassure allies, and their military power is also part of their forward defence policy
PLA Modernization: fact of the matter is, PLA is a very obsolete force, until the last few years. With the ushering of a chinese economic boom, naturally the PLA have had more cash to spend on weapons and improve training. The US and her allies in the region watch this with rising trepidation, and see expanding PLAAF and PLAN capability as a threat to teir regional military dominance.
Fear of a PRC preemptive attack: the PRC, since its founding, has engaged in a select number of conflicts, but all of them, save for Korea, were short attacks without desire for permanent occupation, and were conducted to achieve precise political agendas, vietnam and India included. In the present day, PLA opaqueness combined with a western view of past PLA conflicts as "warningless" and "unstable," could lead to a miscalculation where either PLA or the US strikes at each other first due to a fear of being hit themselves. This danger of miscalculation encompasses all the above flashpoints, but is ultimately a function of rising PLA offensive capability, rising US distribution of assets to westpac, and increased tensions in the diaoyu/senkaku theatre.
In the diagram I've also added historical, ideological anxieties for both china and the west, which are mostly self explanatory.
So the question I'll pose, is how can China, the US, and other regional actors serve to reduce tensions as China rises?
There are a few assumptions I'll make in this scenario:
1: China will continue growing at a "steady" rate, that is to say, its reforms will mostly work, leading to a somewhat slower but more sustainable growth rate for the forseeable future (5-15 years)
2: China will continue modernizing and "expanding" its military, let's say, to the point where all its obsolete aircraft are replaced, its obsolete ships replaced with new frigates and destroyers, and an acquiring of a power projection capability and a blue water navy, i.e.: aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, aerial tankers, medium-long range bombers. Chinese history will inevitably make the PRC continue its military build up until it is convincingly able to defend itself. Problem is, this will chafe with every nation in the region, because no one wants a giant powerful neighbour next door.
3: China's medium term aim is economic growth and stability in the region, and seek to use diplomacy to resolve its disputes first.
So, how can we foment greater understanding, trust and mutual cooperation in the shadow of this insurmountable mountain?
I think there are some areas for cooperation between China and other countries, namely economic and regional stability. But ideology, culture, history, and perhaps most significantly, a permanent view of US military and political preeminence are challenges to a permanent peace.
Optimally I'd like to see a peaceful resolution of all disputes. China will also seek to maintain a very powerful military -- historical scars simply run too deep, and the fear of being cut up and sold to the highest bidder is too great. this will naturally infringe on US power projection ability vis-a-vis china, if we define that as an ability to use military power to coerce another country into your bidding, or the ability to strike at mainland sites in China with overwhelming conventional power. However, one caveat is that China does not hold an expansionary agenda like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan or other past colonial powers, beyond its "historical" territorial claims (i.e.: Taiwan, diaoyu, SCS, South Tibet). The fear for surrounding nations is that this is a very vague claim and the "core interests" stamp could be branded onto any parcel of sea or land at will.
Economically and politically, China could foment more free trade deals with ASEAN, and enhance cooperation with SK and Japan (although historical greivances will always remain a challenge). Such a scenario will provide the greatest challenge to ideology, as the end of the cold war has led a portion of the world to believe western-liberal democracy is the only style to run a country ("new world order" style ideology), but China's rise under a single party, open market system has led to astounding results and the lifting of hundreds of millions out of poverty, while other similar nations under much vaunted democratic systems have fallen behind.
Fear of a powerful, autocratic China also resounds through its perceived human rights abuses, limiting freedom of speech, and accusations as serious as genocide towards Tibetans or Uighurs. There may be an idea that china will seek to impose its "values" upon the west, as the west has to the rest of the world, and lead to a spiral of a 1984esque, police world state. this of course ignores the fact that china since its opening up to dialogue with US, has not advanced any Soviet like desire to expand communism.
Big topic, yes? I will appreciate any posters and their replies. I don't think any of us can make a difference to change the views of the powers that be, but we're reaching a point where a western pacific conflict is looking increasingly likely, despite chinese economic integration with every country involved. How can mistrust and conflict be avoided? Who needs to compromise and reinvent themselves where?
