Is China the regional power?

crobato said:

That's exactly what I was thinking. A Sino-Russian alliance would start this way, with the two countries backing up each other on territorial claims, trade disputes, global and UN issues. You can see this with Iran, Iraq and N. Korea where their policies are locked in step with each other.

Click to expand...

That would just provoke the US and co to then start backing territorial claims against China and Russia more vigorously, so it might be a good way to shoot themselves in the foot.

Also I think your comparison is a bit out-of-date - Iraq's not part of the "Axis of Evil" anymore.

adeptitus said:

S. Korea would be very unhappy at the thought of US-Japan imposed economic sanction on the PRC, plus they may need PRC's backing on any future disputes vs. Japan.

Click to expand...

If China was foolish enough to take action that would provoke such economic sanctions, I rather think that South Korea wouldn't want to be seen to be backing an aggressive nation. It would remain neutral, unless its own claims/direct interests were threatened. Plus it's difficult to predict what South Korean foreign policy will be like, given the impending elections and the likely re-election of the Opposition.

As for Japan, they have a few territorial disputes with others and it may be possible for the PRC to ally with other East Asian neighbors to shake the Japanese government.

Click to expand...

Probably not. For one thing they're still somewhat suspicious of China. Russia has a few disputes with Japan, but it's not actually terribly worried. Japanese business also is good for the region, not just Chinese. And Taiwan wouldn't want to push Tokyo away while its relationship with China isn't settled - politicians from both camps have pushed for better relations. So really I think if it boiled down to a China-Japan confrontation, everyone else would back off and watch from the side-lines.

FuManChu said:

...That would just provoke the US and co to then start backing territorial claims against China and Russia more vigorously, so it might be a good way to shoot themselves in the foot....

Click to expand...

One way is to judged the strenght of the Sino-Russian alliance is to look at what happened in the past 50 years.
1. 1950 Korean War: Russian supplied arms and jet fighters, while China supplied ground forces in aiding the North Koreans.
2. 1963-1975 Vietnam War. Both Russia and China were supplying arms and training to the North Vietnamese. Curiously Russia was complaining China wasn't doing enough in helping the North Vietnamese.
3. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was formed couple years ago by Russia and China (with 4 other Central Asian states) as a quasi-security alliance to checked and forestalled U.S. world hegemony and influences.

coolieno99 said:

One way is to judged the strenght of the Sino-Russian alliance is to look at what happened in the past 50 years.
1. 1950 Korean War: Russian supplied arms and jet fighters, while China supplied ground forces in aiding the North Koreans.
2. 1963-1975 Vietnam War. Both Russia and China were supplying arms and training to the North Vietnamese. Curiously Russia was complaining China wasn't doing enough in helping the North Vietnamese.
3. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was formed couple years ago by Russia and China (with 4 other Central Asian states) as a quasi-security alliance to checked and forestalled U.S. world hegemony and influences.

Click to expand...

Both of the first two conflicts you described were ideological ones. That link doesn't exist today. And SCO isn't anything like a real alliance. Trying to limit US prescence in Central Asia is a pretty limited objective and has little to do with China's potential future conflicts. There's a difference between exerting a modest amount of pressure to get the US out of, say, Uzbekistan and actively helping China in a military conflict.

FuManChu said:

Probably not. For one thing they're still somewhat suspicious of China. Russia has a few disputes with Japan, but it's not actually terribly worried. Japanese business also is good for the region, not just Chinese. And Taiwan wouldn't want to push Tokyo away while its relationship with China isn't settled - politicians from both camps have pushed for better relations. So really I think if it boiled down to a China-Japan confrontation, everyone else would back off and watch from the side-lines.

Click to expand...

I have a different opinion.

For decades the Japanese government propped up N. Korea for its own selfish gains. Japan was N. Korea's largest trading parter and supplied N. Korea with the most hard currency, through trade and cash remittances.

For example, the Japanese Pachinko parlors is a $250 billion USD/year industry, and much of it was controlled by pro-Korean mafia. They sent the profits in cash to N. Korea via cash remittances. The Japanese government knew this was happening and did nothing until late 90's.

Another example, Japanese banks were making bad loans to Korean-front companies that take the cash, then go *poof* and route the cash to Dear Leader Kim. If you look at the >$100 billion in bad loans from Nippon Credit Bank (NCB), you'd find a lot of Korean front companies that took the $ and ran. Again, the Japanese government knew this was going on, and for decades did nothing except bailing out the banks.

This went on until the 1990s, when the nuclear genie came out and suddenly, the Japanese realized "oops" as Dear Leader shot a missile over their heads. Then you see Japan scramble to crack down on the Pachinko gangs and bring up issues like kidnapped Japanese citizens.

The Japanese government knew those people were kidnapped by N. Korean agents decades ago. They could've made a major issues out of it at any time. But they choose to keep it low-key at the expense of the victims.

I believe the reason why they choose to do this, is because they wanted to prop up N. Korea as the primary security threat to S. Korea. Heaven forbid, if N. Korea fell and Korea were to unify, it'd become a powerful competitor to Japan and press its territorial demands.

By propping up the N. Korean regime, S. Korean government couldn't afford to be hostile to Japan, so they bent backwards on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. Eventhough they occupy the island and have good claim to the whole EEZ, they kotowed to the Japanese to "share" the EEZ zone, incase if hostilities break out between North and South Korea, they hope to count on Japanese support against N. Korea.

But since the N. Koreans insisted on shooting missiles over Tokyo, it kinda spoiled the status quo that was maintained for few decades.

The situation today is that S. Korea is becoming stronger and competing against Japan in almost every major export sector, and Japan is slowly creeping toward nationalism. You can see this with recent changes to the education system, textbooks, military posture, as well as territorial demands. We've seen Japan becoming more aggressive with its territorial claims ("Takeshima day") and it will absolutely come in conflict with Koreans, Russians, and Chinese.

This is one area that the Chinese could exploit by supporting S. Korea and Russia's territorial claims, and asking for their support to PRC's territorial claims in return. No I'm not suggesting a military alliance, only a diplomatic one where you pay with lip service. This is the first step that China can take to advance territorial dispute from bilaterial to multi-laterial, with Russia and Korea in support and US in neutral position (the US is not bored enough to get into disputes over Dokdo or Daoyutai). The desired end result is to put Japan in inferior position diplomatically, with Japan desperately trying to make costly offers to other countries in attempt to "divide and conquer".

adeptitus said:

I have a different opinion........

Click to expand...

I have to say I find your "conspiracy theory" over Japan and North Korea rather bizzare. Japan may not have cracked down on North Korean gangs until recent decades, but then again the same applied to Japanese gangs as well. The lack of action against organised crime was not political. Also, unlike China, Japan only recognises the South Korean government out of the two.

South Korea has some disputes with Japan, but they're not actually that important when you strip away Korean/Japanese nationalism. The idea that Japan would actually fight South Korea for Dokdo/Takeshima is a joke. An accidental naval clash, maybe, but nothing more.

Compare that to South Korean concern over the "Koguryo matter". That might be justified or it might be paranoia - but it goes to show China is under suspicion as well (and that comes from education/academic discussion, not a territorial claim by government).

As for the Russians, they have nothing to gain from the sort of activity you mentioned because they already control the disputed territories. Better just to continue discussions and encourage Japanese investment. Why annoy Tokyo when there's no real gain?

The only thing I could see causing trouble with any real possibility would be the EEZ clash between China and Japan. In which case South Korea and Russia wouldn't be terribly interested. The modest rise in Japanese nationalism is only a concern for the very paranoid or people that don't want to see Japan become a normal country again - ultra-nationalists still have little support there. In most respects it is still less nationalist than its neighbours, so would hardly induce countries to join against it even diplomatically.

Conspiracy theory??? It just sounds like realpolitik to me. But just a part of it. Perceived Instability has probably served Japan very well, its enabled it to build the worlds second largest economy but not have to fork out for the tiresome expense of a comparable military budget, as security has been provided by the USA.

Of course as the dynamics of the region change, Japan is obviously re-appraising its position on all fronts and I would expect to see a more assertive and Independant minded Japan over the coming next decade.

As to who is the Regional Power? Well if it came to a real fight and I was asked to back who I believed would hold the field afterwards, then my money would be on the PRC.

Why? well I will always back the dynamic ascendant power rather than the moribund established one.

FuManChu said:

I have to say I find your "conspiracy theory" over Japan and North Korea rather bizzare. Japan may not have cracked down on North Korean gangs until recent decades, but then again the same applied to Japanese gangs as well. The lack of action against organised crime was not political. Also, unlike China, Japan only recognises the South Korean government out of the two.

Click to expand...

Hello FuManChu,

The Japanese government was aware that its citizens were abducted in 1970s. Yet the government increased trade with N. Korea, becoming N. Korea's largest trading partner in 1980s-1990s. The Japanese government also looked the other way while Korean syndicates routed hard currency to N. Korea.

For what reason do you think the Japanese government took such a passive stance on its citizens being kidnapped, while supplying Dear Leader with hard currency and luxery goods? Information about these kidnapped Japanese citizens were floating around intelligence community, as well as photographs and information. Yet the Japanese government stayed mum as the victim's families cried and protested.

Then, as N. Korea release the nuclear genie, suddenly we see Shinzo Abe meeting with abductee family members on national TV, comforting them after being ignored for 20+ years? And the issue of abudctions being utilized as the moral justification to cut ties with N. Korea and take a hard-line stance?

Is it a conspiracy? No, I think it's Machiavellian Realpolitk at the expense of your own citizens. Japan did not want to see a strong and unfiied Korea, becoming a powerful competitor to Japan. Keeping Korea divided was on their mind, but it kind of backfired.

=====

As for the territorial claim issue, again Japan has kept a passive stance for quite some time. In the past they even prohibited nationalist groups from going to Daoyutai. Then suddenly the government took over and installed a military listening station. Hmm.

On the Korean front, we see that Japan being content with peaceful discussions with S. Korea for 2 decades. Then suddenly we see the government claiming Dokdo/Takeshima as part of Shimae Prefecture since 1905, and send maritime survey ships to violate Korean territorial waters multiple times in 2006.

When asked why they didn't notify the S. Korean government (via prior agreement), the Japanese government responded that since it's actually Japanese territorial waters (EEZ), there was no need to notify S. Korean government. Japan draws its EEZ from Dokdo/Takeshima in conflict with S. Korea's claim.

From the many incidents that has occured, I have to conclude that Japan is starting to take a more hard-line stance on its own territorial claims. This has made Korea and Russia take notice, and we've seen a huge increase of Russian air force intrusions along Japanese airspace in 2006. The Russians are putting Japan on notice that, despite the fall of Soviet Union, "we're still here", and "don't even think about it".

==============

Now, let's examine the conflicting territorial claims.

Both Korea and Russia are in physical posession of land territory claimed by Japan. This means they only need to defend their claims, and the claims include actual, physical islands and not some imaginary line in the ocean.

China's conflicting claims with Japan is more with placement of the imaginary EEZ line than Daoyutai/Senkaaku islets. The current gas field dispute, for example, is a conflict between Japan's claim based on few reefs (far away from Daoyutai) vs. PRC's claim based on continenal shelf.

In ocean EEZ dispute, survey ships are less worrysome than artificial structures, because ships do go home, while artificial structures like drilling stations stay. The PRC placed its drilling stations not only within China's EEZ, but also beyond Japan's EEZ claim:


So, in essence, Japan can only protest about China sucking up an "unfair amount" of natural gas, but not actual, physical violation of Japan's EEZ line. Other than that, the 2 countries can prolly bicker over fishery rights in conflicted area, but not much else.

For this reason, I believe the territorial dispute between S. Korea and Japan will be more serious that PRC-Japan. Your opinion may differ.

adeptitus said:

For what reason do you think the Japanese government took such a passive stance on its citizens being kidnapped, while supplying Dear Leader with hard currency and luxery goods?

Click to expand...

Probably because at that time Japan was generally extremely passive when it came to diplomatic policy. There was also the small fact that it was highly embarrassed about Japanese citizens being plucked seemingly at-will by the North Koreans - making a huge fuss would have induced the public to ask why the government (and maybe the Americans) couldn't protect them from a backward country like North Korea.

Japan did not want to see a strong and unfiied Korea, becoming a powerful competitor to Japan.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but one could probably say the same about China and Russia.

Then suddenly the government took over and installed a military listening station.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? The most I've heard of was an automated lighthouse.

From the many incidents that has occured, I have to conclude that Japan is starting to take a more hard-line stance on its own territorial claims. This has made Korea and Russia take notice, and we've seen a huge increase of Russian air force intrusions along Japanese airspace in 2006. The Russians are putting Japan on notice that, despite the fall of Soviet Union, "we're still here", and "don't even think about it".

Click to expand...

Japan starting to fight its own corner more isn't going to panic the region into uniting against it. The fact that Russia and to a lesser extent South Korea (Japan also controls a few places SK claims) have control of disputed areas means they can feel a lot safer in their claims.

For this reason, I believe the territorial dispute between S. Korea and Japan will be more serious that PRC-Japan.

Click to expand...

Until recently Japan wasn't harvesting resources in the area both it and China claims. That has changed. Now if China were to affective accept the EEZ line falling where Japan says it should be, then there would be very little scope for conflict. If on the other hand it objects to Japanese rigs being set up in an area it deems its own, there could be an explosive situation - even if normally both governments would be careful enough not to let something like that happen.

On the other hand there aren't those sorts of energy resources in the Sea of Japan - it's mostly about fishing rights. The hunks of rock that are really in dispute are pretty worthless. So I don't see the motivation for conflict nearly as much as there could be between China and Japan. That said it is fair to argue the "potential" for conflict between China/South Korea and Japan may not be nearly as serious as some people make out.

Let's not get too side-tracked by just talking about Japan's relationship with the region - the thread's supposed to be more general at the least, if not about China.

FuManChu said:

Are you sure about that? The most I've heard of was an automated lighthouse.

Click to expand...

My mistake -- the radar and listening post facilities are actually located in Miyako-jima and not Daoyutai.

===============

IMO PRC's long-term strategtic interst can also be served by supporting (diplomatically & economically) Okinawa's desire to attain the same self-governing status as Jeju-do. This would eventually made the US shift more military facilities from Okinawa to Guam or Japan's mainland. The Japanese would no longer be able to dump foreign military base on far-away place like Okinawa (out of sight, out of mind), and have to deal with all the issues and problems with hosting foreign military base close to home & civilian population.

For decades the Japanese government passively discouraged investments in Okinawa. Mainland-Japan investments to the islands required special government approval, which was usually turned down. They didn't want a fast growing economy there, because they want the local economy to stay dependent on the military base. Plus, they'd prefer if the young people there moved to mainland Japan for jobs, instead of staying or receiving a flood of immigrants. If the islands became much more developed and densely populated, it'd make having military bases there so much more difficult.

But the march of time and progress couldn't be held back. Utlimately the Okinawans did lift themselves out of reliance on military base for their income. Once Okinawa was a thriving trading post, I think the locals would prefer if it returned to that prosperous era.

========

Now let me put on devil's advocate hat and look from Japan's point of view.

Since N. Korea and China has become major security concerns for the US, the relations between Japan and US couldn't be better. China's rising trade surplus with the US has replaced Japan as the main target of "unfair trade". Unlike the 1980's-1990's, when Japan-bashing was in vogue and Americans drove cars with anti-Japanese bumper stickers, today the US is willing to sell aerial refueling tankers and other weapon systems to Japan, as well as supporting Japan's constitutional revision and oversea military deployement. Some would even go as far as supporting a nuclear-armed Japan.

Traditionally the US has 2 source of allies, Europe and East Asia. If the growing Muslim population in EU grew and obtain sufficient political power to affect its foreign policy (not unlike Cuban exiles in FL hijacking US policy toward Cuba), there may come a time when the US couldn't depend on the (mainland) EU anymore. If that were to happen, the US would become even more dependent on Australia, Japan, and possibly UK in the future.

For Japan to continue this "golden era" of US-Japan relations, it needs to make sure that both countries have a common security concern. The target "potential enemy nation" needs to stay afloat, or if it falls, a replacement must be found.

What they'd want to see is a militarily weaker China that continues to play the "potential enemy" role, but without a war. They'd like to see PRC's current administration continue in a weaker form, but not overthrown and replaced with a powerful, democratic one that would up-stage Japan's role in East Asia.

I have a different opinion on Japan; they main objective is not trying to get closer to the US, but to normalize itself and end it's history as the defeatist state.

South Korea has some disputes with Japan, but they're not actually that important when you strip away Korean/Japanese nationalism. The idea that Japan would actually fight South Korea for Dokdo/Takeshima is a joke. An accidental naval clash, maybe, but nothing more.

Click to expand...

i don't think so, i think japan's current position is similar to that of Prussia before unification of germany.. it needed an external enemy, doesn't matter who it is (whether China or North Korea), just need to convince the people to abandon the pacifist constitution and bring the power back to the nationalist.

nationalism is EXACTLY what is important for them politically. how can you strip away or ignore this?