You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
China Pushes on the South China Sea, ASEAN Unity Collapses
2012-08-09
By: Ian Storey (The Jamestown Foundation)

China and ASEAN Much Further Apart than the Smiles Suggest

For more than two decades Beijing has pursued a consistent policy in the South China Sea composed of two main elements: gradually strengthening the country's territorial and jurisdictional claims while at the same time endeavoring to assure Southeast Asian countries of its peaceful intentions.

Recent moves by China to bolster its maritime claims have brought the first element into sharp relief, while reassurances of benign intent have, however, been in short supply. Indeed, far from assuaging Southeast Asian concerns regarding its assertive behavior, China has fuelled them by brazenly exploiting divisions within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to further its own national interests.

Commentaries in China's state-run media analyzing the South China Sea issue have become markedly less conciliatory. Opinion pieces highlight several new themes in China's official line. One theme is that China's territory, sovereignty as well as its maritime rights and interests increasingly are being challenged by Southeast Asian nations and Japan in the South and East China Seas. China's response, it is argued, should be to uphold its claims more vigorously, increase its military presence in contested waters, and, if necessary, be prepared to implement coercive measures against other countries. As one commentary notes "Cooperation must be in good faith, competition must be strong, and confrontation must be resolute" (Caixin, July 13).

Another theme is that, while China has shown restraint, countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam have been pursuing provocative and illegal actions in a bid to "plunder" maritime resources such as hydrocarbons and fisheries which China regards as its own (China Daily, July 30).

A third theme is that Manila and Hanoi continue to encourage U.S. "meddling" in the South China Sea and that the United States uses the dispute as a pretext to "pivot" its military forces toward Asia (Global Times, July 11). To reverse these negative trends, Chinese commentators have urged the government to adopt more resolute measures toward disputed territories and maritime boundaries. Nationalist sentiment, they argue, demands no less.

Recent measures undertaken by the Chinese authorities do indeed suggest a more hard-line position. Ominously, some of the initiatives have included a strong military element, presumably as a warning to the other claimants that China is ready to play hardball.
Much more at link
Posted by:Water Modem

#7  Even if need is out of the equation agression with a risky oil logistical problem is foolish and solved with a bit of will and cash.
Posted by: Rjschwarz   2012-08-09 16:49  

#6  Yeah, what Zhang Fei said. The name 'China' means Middle Kingdom - between Heaven and Earth. The rest of you can all go *bleep* yourselves. Divine right, destiny and all that nonsense.

As someone (P2K?) mentioned in another thread, this all bears a disturbing resemblance to the Japan's militaristic expansion that lead to a big-ass war in the Pacific.
Posted by: SteveS   2012-08-09 15:33  

#5  I don't think anything as rational as scarcity is driving Chinese moves. It's the cult of "we are the greatest and we will bend the world to our will". It's the one religious aspect of a basically irreligious society (even before communism).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2012-08-09 15:15  

#4  "Need" doesn't have anything to do with it. "Deserve" is more like it.

China operates on a scarcity mindset. There's not enough to go around, is the cultural thinking. Everything is a zero-sum game. In order for us to win, others must lose. This is why China makes so many seemingly self-destructive moves. From their point of view, it's the right thing to do.
Posted by: gromky   2012-08-09 14:52  

#3  Why doesn't China build nuke reactors and get themselves off of oil and the logistical nightmare that dependency requires. They could proclaim how advanced/clean they are to the world. It's not like environmentalists are gonna say squat to the PRC.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2012-08-09 14:41  

#2  

I think direct American intervention should be highly conditional and require regional players to pony up significant forces and/or money. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Japan covered the entire cost of Desert Storm. Much like Desert Storm, any American intervention in SCS should be predicated on the strong-arming of all interested parties for either money or significant military participation. Otherwise...

I understand that a lot of people think our participation in WWI and WWII, where we lost 500,000 men, only to be jeered by the Brits for being “late” to the festivities, set the pattern for posterity regarding an aggressive American posture towards big wars far from our shores. It has to be said however, that our 19th century forebears seem not to have been particularly concerned that they missed out on the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War or any of the other big wars fought in Europe during that era.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2012-08-09 10:53  

#1  China has suffered in the past; China requires these resources; China is everyone's big brother in the region; therefore everyone needs to go back to the old way of doing things where everyone kowtows to China. Just because they were down and out for a century doesn't mean anything has changed. That's China's viewpoint, for what it's worth.
Posted by: gromky   2012-08-09 00:37  

00:00