China: The Unsatisfied Power

[Carlosa]

China is a consultative and collective leadership-party government

USA is THE DICTATOR STATE to the whole world in its guise of having a "democratic" system to its people!

Yeah, very "consultative", you people live in self delusion. Dream on pal.

Here is an explanation on the Chinese NPC, which elects the Politburo.

The NPC consists of about 3,000 delegates. Delegates to the National People's Congress are elected for five-year terms via a multi-tiered representative electoral system. Delegates are elected by the provincial people's assemblies, who in turn are elected by lower level assemblies, and so on through a series of tiers to the local people's assemblies which are directly elected by the electorate.

Yes, sure, Vietnam, Cuba, etc also have those mechanisms of supposedly representative forms of government, where SOME people can only vote for the ONE official candidate of the only ONE party and anyone that doesn't agree with that one party has no say and no alternative.

Very representative form of government, sure, you people keep going with the self delusion.

@gambit What is it with these people? Do they actually think that they fool anybody with their "representative" form of government or are they naive enough to believe their own official propaganda?

 

[Aepsilons]

LOL ... Unsatisfied power ==> "ENTERPRISE", it's the right way to beomce a great power in this world, only few nations can understand it !

View attachment 160508

That's old news!

Unsatisfied Power = Gerald R Ford Class

 

[gambit]

@gambit What is it with these people? Do they actually think that they fool anybody with their "representative" form of government or are they naive enough to believe their own official propaganda?

Both.

It is not that they are naive but it is about necessary self delusion. Most of the Chinese members on this forum never been to the US or even any Western country. However, that does not prevent them from learning about the outside world from other well traveled Chinese and from the Internet. Another thing to note or be suspicious about is that it is unlikely these guys work with any American on a regular basis, whereas in my case, I work with non-US citizen Chinese and Taiwanese daily. The well traveled Chinese know better than to politically compare China against the US. When you have a taste of US-style freedoms and rights for its citizens, you cannot help but wonder why would anyone want to go with less.

 

[Carlosa]

Both.

It is not that they are naive but it is about necessary self delusion. Most of the Chinese members on this forum never been to the US or even any Western country. However, that does not prevent them from learning about the outside world from other well traveled Chinese and from the Internet. Another thing to note or be suspicious about is that it is unlikely these guys work with any American on a regular basis, whereas in my case, I work with non-US citizen Chinese and Taiwanese daily. The well traveled Chinese know better than to politically compare China against the US. When you have a taste of US-style freedoms and rights for its citizens, you cannot help but wonder why would anyone want to go with less.

Yes, you are right, they only know their local reality and they think its wonderful and they also think that most things that are negative in China are just also normal everywhere else.

Countless times during my travels in China they ask me "do you like our city or village or whatever it is (something crappy) and you just have to be nice and say, "Oh yes, very nice here". They don't really realize how oppressed they are until they travel overseas.

In fact, wealthy Chinese that do have experience traveling, they do try to get out from China and they usually settle in USA, Canada or Europe, they vote with their feet.

 

[cnleio]

That's old news!

Unsatisfied Power = Gerald R Ford Class

View attachment 160563

View attachment 160564


View attachment 160565


View attachment 160566

I didn't mean Aircraft Carrier, i mean "Big E" & "ENTERPRISE" spirit ... a unsatisfied power.

 

[William Hung]

Few things, first for someone that continuously question my arguments as personal opinions, you sure use a lot of opinions as bases of your arguments.

Nope, read my post again. I've barely expressed my opinions (except maybe on one or two occasions). My post was largely a rebuttal to your claims and premises. There are two ways to make a counter argument: one way is to make opposing claims and argue for its superior justifications. The second way is to directly refute the opponent's claims and premises, without hardly a need to make my own claims or opinions at all.

Read my post again. The second method was what I've used and I hardly gave my own personal opinions. Mentioning someone else's opinions is often a valid method to debunk an opponent's claim. For example, you've claimed that China is not a dictatorship, as if everyone would unanimously agreed to your claim. Just by mentioning someone's opposing view would debunk your claim. It proves that your claim is debatable.

Second, that's how these things work, anything concrete is impossible, even if Xi himself were to write it.

The only thing we can be certain is that nothing is certain.

There are concrete things that we can be certain about, such as in Maths, where many things are provable. When things are not so concrete, you must give good justifications or reasons why we ought to accept your views.
I've argued that alot of your reasons are flawed at worst and debatable at best. I haven't explicitly given my proper opinions at all.

fourth, you can find people that disagrees with everything, in fact there are people protesting keep government hands off my medicare, you can find him, if you ever go to DC and take a tour of the white house, he's outside.

That doesn't give it merit.

I mentioned the opposing views not because disagreements in itself has merits, but rather, I mentioned it to debunk some of your claims that was written as though everyone would unanimously agreed to it. For example, you simply claim that China is not a dictatorship, or that its demands in the disputed seas is logical (and has historic basis) without any attempt to give any justifications for those claims.

OK onto our debate:

1. China is patient:

By patient I mean China is willing to play the long game.

Official word has been out, 2020 modern ground forces, 2030, modern navy and able to win in a regional scenario, 2050, matching the US's global ambitions.

Matching the US in air tech this generation and challenge them on the next.

By most estimates including Chinese tink tanks 2023-2030, matching the US in nominal GDP, 2030-2040 surpassing the US nominal GDP. 2020 become "high income" nation, that standard is actual a lot lower than you think.


You want to know what I mean by patient, that's what I mean, waiting for the time when the threat of force is just as potent as he actual use of force.

Umm, I don't see how mentioning those figures can help support your claims that China is patient. I'm afraid you might be confusing the idea of patient with the idea of delaying certain plans due to constraints (financial and technological).

Of course it will take some time for China to reach the same GDP and military power with the US. How is this a proof that China is patient? it is a time constraint that China must accept, it has no choice.

And what are you saying in that last sentence? waiting for what? waiting for the right time to attack? I dont quite understand what you're trying to say.

This however doesn't mean we will use the threat of force to get our way. Just in case you think that's the route we were going for.

Again this is just your opinions and speculation about the future. One historic fact is that China did used force, as opposed to using negotiation, to take over the Scarborough shoal a few years ago.

What I'm suggesting is for the Vietnamese and Filipino government to take the use of force OFF the table.

Don't really get what you're saying here.
Are you saying that VN and the Philippines should not use force? or that they should not accuse China of using force?

You may say Philippines and Vietnam wants to talk. In truth they do, but they are not comitting 100% to talks. Philippines still think international pressure(American) can pressure us into backing down, while Vietnam wants to talk, but they are still beefing up their navy(in their own way) in hopes to stare us down.

The Philippines has formally asked China to participate in a Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS. How is that not a 100% commitment to talk? The tribunal is the most fair and unbiased platform to settle the dispute peacefully. The US doesn't have any influence over that tribunal either. China is the one that is not 100% committed to negotiate and peacefully settle the dispute by rejecting such tribunal.

Going to international court on this could very well be in our favor, but the thing about that is we have too many interests, and we can't sacrifice something else for this.

China did go to court back in 2012 and tried to invoke UNCLOS to turn the senkaku area into an official disputed territory.

Essentially the same action, but our actions have far more impact.

But China undertook some other actions. After signing the DOC, no party has used force to occupy a new sea territory, except for China (Scarborough shoal).

No skirmish has taken place, if they have there be no Vietnam or Philippines navy, no war has broken out, no shots have been fired. In the eyes of people who actually know what war is, that's pretty peaceful.

No skirmish between navies but plenty of skirmishes between white vessels. No shots have been fired because the CCG and CMS was strong enough to push back the Viets and Filipino. Using these CCG and CMS vessels to forcefully occupy the Philippines EEZ is not considered peaceful by many people.


2. China's policy and actions should not be considered as expansionism.

China isn't very expanisonist in the past for the same reasons we are not today, so yes it applies. The power balance hasn't really shifted all that match, and especially it will once again be in our favor.

Germany isn't the same Germany it was in the 1900s.

Teh past isn't a good indication if situation has shifted too much, while 2014 is way different than 100 years ago, the fundamental Chinese mind set and incentives hasn't changed.

No, as I've mentioned, you can't make any strong comparisons because we're dealing with different entities in different contexts. The "China" of the past is not the same political entity as the present China. The context has also changed. The geo-political environment is not the same, the US hasn't always been the number one superpower, the SCS wasn't always the trade lifeline of China, Japan hasn't always been a powerful rival, the Philippines has never been a legal threat to Chinese territorial claim, the 9-dash lines doesn't exist before 1947, etc. I can go on and on.

Clearly, the geo-political context is different from the past. You mentioning the chinese mindset is trivial. Mindsets may stay the same, but it's the geo-political context that dictates what actions will be taken.

If anything there are now more reasons why China won't expand in terms of land territory than ever before.

I've only been talking about sea territory, not land territory. And in terms of sea territory, China has indeed expanded its territorial occupation within the last 3 years. China now occupy the Scarborough shoal, which it didn't before 2012.

Germany during the Bismark era wasabout limited wars, limited objectives, and sphere of influences. China today is not looking to conquer Vietnam and Philippines, and most likely we will comprimise later with all the claimates.

Strawman argument. When did anyone say China wants to conquer VN and the Philippines? We've been talking about disputed seas. Your speculation about China compromising is just mere speculations. China's track record doesn't support your speculation either. When have China ever comprised it's SCS and ECS territorial claims? The words from officials has always been along the line, "we have undisputable sovereignty over..." AND they have always backed their words with actions such as the Oil rig skirmish and the Scarborough shoal. I see no signs of compromising.

If we didn't want to do that, we would not be biggest trading nation in the world. You don't become one by not being flexible and realistic. Also in terms of the power equation, it's not much different now or 20 years from now. We to them are at a point where adding more power won't do much good.

This is not a good reason to support your speculation that China will compromise in the disputed seas. China currently has plenty of military and economic power to deal with Vietnam and the Philippines, if the US is not involved. Continuing with the trading relationship will not make or break anything in regards to the dispute.

We are also hosting each other's military officials and other officials.We have invited Philippines and Vietnam..

These political pleasantries are trivial. Most countries host these kind of trivial events all the time. Nothing to write home about.

we are developing infrastructure for the Silk Road that will most likely include both.

If you think we want to finish them off, then doing all of this would have been a waste of time and effort. however it does go with the limited objectives scenario.

Strawman again. Have I ever said China wants to finish off VN and the Philippines? No, I've only been talking about the sea disputes. And again, I don't see how the planned silk Road will make or break anything in terms of the dispute.

If you think China isn't ruled by popular opinion then why are the reform agendas largely what the Chinese people have wanted.

Why are we reforming at all.

You got this bias that we are not ruled by the people, just because we don't vote. Well, we are tackling polution at around the same time as the US, the US population demanded it, just as we are.

Having some of the population's interest converging with the interest of the ruling Party doesn't necessarily mean that the population is actually ruling the country.

I'm a foreign student on a student's visa. My interests also converges with the interest of the govt of my host country. They want to tackle crime, increase employment, make the country better, etc. We both share the same interests, but does this mean that I'm actually ruling over my host country??? hell no.

You may say that the population has a limited influence on the ruling Party, but to say that the Chinese population is actually doing the ruling is far fetched.

If you think Chinese leaders can declare wars on a whim, then we shouldn't have had the type of success that we had since the 80s. Crazy dictator and economic explosion don't go hand in hand.

I've never said that the Chinese leaders can declare wars on a whim. But I've mentioned some facts about China previously using force to occupy new territories.

To say we are going to take over Asia, THAT, would be a personal opinion, because nothing right now suggest we do, unless you also believe in the flying Spaghetti monster.

When did I say China is going to take over Asia? certainly not in regards to land territory. I've only been talking about the sea disputes.
And contrary to what you've said, China has indeed carried out some actions to take over some sea territories.

There are no death for the Philippines and Vietnamese, and the sinking of boats is debatable at best. I mean if you won't take one communist government's word, why another? And why another failed democracy that has less credibility than us on the international stage.

So the only fact you given is not only not a fact, but again is based on their opinion to be aggressive. the I'm not touching you game is annoying, not assualt.

The rammings and sinking is available for everyone to see on youtube.

I have given a more detailed reason on the expansionist theory.

I've argued that it's not good enough.

Saddam is a dictatorship, Putin is close, Emperors are dictators. China is not, every 10 years the president must step down and his actions are determind by the people, I have made my case above.

What case? the fact that the population has some interest that converges with some interest of the ruling party means that the ruling party is not a dictatorship? What about the other interest that doesn't converge with that of the ruling party?

It doesnt' show dictatorship is debatable, it's actually pretty well defined, people disagree on Health care is provided by government, I don't think that makes it come from Santa clause.

The mere fact that there are already some members here debating whether China is a dictatorship or not means that it is indeed debatable. I don't even need to mention the discussions in other medias.

Civilian ships and military ships are the difference. The only reason you don't think so is because our coast guard is stronger than their navy.

The point is China have used force and coercion to occupy new territories within the last 3 years.

If we wanted to use weapons, again we would not have came up with the Silk road, the Asian bank, the brics bank, joining different groups and everything. Everything is not isolated, you must look at the whole picture.

These civilian project such as the Silk Road, AIB, etc, will not make or break anything with regards to the disputes. If I'm not being clear, let me rephrase it: If China decides to use force to take over the disputed seas, the Silk Road, AIB, etc, will not help the Philippines or VN in any way. Nor will the Silk Road, AIB be demerital to China if it decides to use force in the disputed sea.

Yet, two way trade is still strong, they are only making a fuss because they want to and we have all the leverage. When the US does it they call it sanctions, we can't do that yet, so here we are.

All the leverage? if you are saying that China will use its economic leverage to coerce its opponents to compromise their territory, then I'd agree with you.

The BRICS bank is a good indication of how this will play out, asking India and other powerful Asian nations to join, INCLUDING Japan, is an indication of how we want this bank to function.

We gave up leadership in BRICS and we will delegate to the others on the infrastructure bank, if we didn't want to do that we can just continue with our own lending which dwarfs any investment by the two banks combined .

Like I've said, these civilian banks won't make or break anything in regards to the territorial disputes. Their existence are not good indicators to predict what China will do in regards to the disputes.

I have looked at what we can already do, and the possible reasons for future actions and this would be the most logical.

You have been quite ambiguous. You've previously mentioned about this "take and give" game, etc. but it's still unclear. Just tell us directly what your opinions on what China is going to do.

Japan and Chian trade is going up and will soon reach an all time high, as is trade with the Philippines. See you can't just judge a whole situation by some sensationalist propaganda.

China benefitted tremendously by trading with Japan. It was an essential component of its growth engine.

In regards to the Philippines, you've hinted that China holds the leverage. If this is what you've said, then China will benefit from this trade. So for both cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that trading reflects China's non-aggressive plan.

3. China does not use military force.

Obviously we do have enough power to destroy, but that's their problem not ours. Japan has the same population, and the UK, yet there they are.

I wasn't arguing that it's China's problems or that China should stop it's military spending. I think China has the rights to do so.

I was refuting your argument that China should not be considered as aggressive or threatening because China's military spending is relatively small and it's modernization is slow. My contention was that China already has enough power to destroy, which you've agreed with.

Do you know why we can have pretty accurate figures. We are the Chinese people, chinese makes up of the Chinese military, not martians. Information is passed around, and wam, we can deduce how much equipment we have pretty accurately.

Military are very organized, the same organization would have the same number of equipments, easier than counting Chickens.

Even outlandish estimates still puts China at 2.5% which is still far lower than the super powers.

You are wrong here. Pictures and information about PLA equipments are extremely hard to come by, especially if it is something strategic or new. Knowing the exact inventory numbers is even harder. You can also forget about deducing it's development and running cost. I know because I sometime browse military enthusiast blogs.

I might actually know more about PLA weapons than you. I've already given you a Challenge, which you've ignored:

Give me some specs and pictures of the HQ-19 and HQ-26 system (the whole system). Have they been inducted yet? How many batteries currently in operation. What was their development cost? how much do they cost now? They are strategic systems.

Easier than counting chickens you say? I'll wait for your answers since they are so easy to come by.

We are trying to avoid more complicated issues which is another reason for the no weapons argument. If we are to use force, what does it matter what anyone saids.

This I can agree with. And I think this is your strongest argument given so far.


4. China's "demand" on the SCS and ECS are both "logical and has historic basis."

Yes according to our own standards, everyone acts in their own interests and follow the law when it isn't worth breaking it. The US didn't invade Syria but did to Iraq. Doesn't mean the US always follows or always breaks the law, it's a matter of if it's worth it.

As far as I know, the US didnt break any international law or convention (that the US is signatory to) when they declared war against Saddam. I'll let the American members dispute this so I won't discuss this.

I was actually talking about standards in reference to historic claims, but nevermind. What I find interesting is you saying that China will break international laws if it is worth it.

We can't go to court for this because we have conflicting types of claims, if we win one we lose the other.

Having conflicting types of claims, where winning one in court would mean losing another, means that the claims are illogical.

hypocritical? Yes, but it is what it is. I never said we are good, just not evil and not warmongering.

In my previous post, I've never said that China is a hypocrite. But thanks to your admission, I'm sure @BoQ77 @NiceGuy @Soryu @Cossack25A1 will now have a new name to call China.

First you said China's demands on the disputed seas are logical with historic basis.

Now you're saying that China's demands are illogical, hypocritical and will break international law, if it is worth it.

Those are not flattering words my friend. I hope you are not a lawyer by trade. You'd be the type that gets the clients into deeper trouble than they were before. lol j/k

Your claims on two isolated incidents which btw has other reasons, the rare earth thing is to control the price doesn't matter who's buying it.

I think everyone knows what was going on. It's hard to believe that those rare earth and banana saga were just isolated freak co-incidents. I'd rather believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

5. China will negotiate peacefully.

By negotiation I actually mean China US, a meeting of the great powers, a concert of Europe type deal. Did you not get that.

OK, but what will China and the US be negotiating for exactly? why aren't the dispute parties (VN, Phils, JP) included in this negotiation table?

why don't you bring Japan into this who at this point has just as many ships as our Eastern command and has been doing more or less the same.

I haven't brought up Japan much because there is a member who goes by the name @Nihonjin1051 who tend to disagree with me on many matters so I'll let him speak for himself.

 

[Aepsilons]

I didn't mean Aircraft Carrier, i mean "Big E" & "ENTERPRISE" spirit ... a unsatisfied power.

My bad, but I do appreciate the clarification!

 

[Cossack25A1]

In my previous post, I've never said that China is a hypocrite. But thanks to your admission, I'm sure @@BoQ77 @@NiceGuy @@Soryu @@Cossack25A1 will now have a new name to call China.

First you said China's demands on the disputed seas are logical with historic basis.

Now you're saying that China's demands are illogical, hypocritical and will break international law, if it is worth it.

Those are not flattering words my friend. I hope you are not a lawyer by trade. You'd be the type that gets the clients into deeper trouble than they were before. lol j/k

Sadly, I am not very imaginative in making new names.

 

[Carlosa]

Nope, read my post again. I've barely expressed my opinions (except maybe on one or two occasions). My post was largely a rebuttal to your claims and premises. There are two ways to make a counter argument: one way is to make opposing claims and argue for its superior justifications. The second way is to directly refute the opponent's claims and premises, without hardly a need to make my own claims or opinions at all.

Read my post again. The second method was what I've used and I hardly gave my own personal opinions. Mentioning someone else's opinions is often a valid method to debunk an opponent's claim. For example, you've claimed that China is not a dictatorship, as if everyone would unanimously agreed to your claim. Just by mentioning someone's opposing view would debunk your claim. It proves that your claim is debatable.




There are concrete things that we can be certain about, such as in Maths, where many things are provable. When things are not so concrete, you must give good justifications or reasons why we ought to accept your views.
I've argued that alot of your reasons are flawed at worst and debatable at best. I haven't explicitly given my proper opinions at all.



I mentioned the opposing views not because disagreements in itself has merits, but rather, I mentioned it to debunk some of your claims that was written as though everyone would unanimously agreed to it. For example, you simply claim that China is not a dictatorship, or that its demands in the disputed seas is logical (and has historic basis) without any attempt to give any justifications for those claims.

OK onto our debate:

1. China is patient:



Umm, I don't see how mentioning those figures can help support your claims that China is patient. I'm afraid you might be confusing the idea of patient with the idea of delaying certain plans due to constraints (financial and technological).

Of course it will take some time for China to reach the same GDP and military power with the US. How is this a proof that China is patient? it is a time constraint that China must accept, it has no choice.

And what are you saying in that last sentence? waiting for what? waiting for the right time to attack? I dont quite understand what you're trying to say.




Again this is just your opinions and speculation about the future. One historic fact is that China did used force, as opposed to using negotiation, to take over the Scarborough shoal a few years ago.



Don't really get what you're saying here.
Are you saying that VN and the Philippines should not use force? or that they should not accuse China of using force?




The Philippines has formally asked China to participate in a Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS. How is that not a 100% commitment to talk? The tribunal is the most fair and unbiased platform to settle the dispute peacefully. The US doesn't have any influence over that tribunal either. China is the one that is not 100% committed to negotiate and peacefully settle the dispute by rejecting such tribunal.




China did go to court back in 2012 and tried to invoke UNCLOS to turn the senkaku area into an official disputed territory.



But China undertook some other actions. After signing the DOC, no party has used force to occupy a new sea territory, except for China (Scarborough shoal).



No skirmish between navies but plenty of skirmishes between white vessels. No shots have been fired because the CCG and CMS was strong enough to push back the Viets and Filipino. Using these CCG and CMS vessels to forcefully occupy the Philippines EEZ is not considered peaceful by many people.


2. China's policy and actions should not be considered as expansionism.



No, as I've mentioned, you can't make any strong comparisons because we're dealing with different entities in different contexts. The "China" of the past is not the same political entity as the present China. The context has also changed. The geo-political environment is not the same, the US hasn't always been the number one superpower, the SCS wasn't always the trade lifeline of China, Japan hasn't always been a powerful rival, the Philippines has never been a legal threat to Chinese territorial claim, the 9-dash lines doesn't exist before 1947, etc. I can go on and on.

Clearly, the geo-political context is different from the past. You mentioning the chinese mindset is trivial. Mindsets may stay the same, but it's the geo-political context that dictates what actions will be taken.



I've only been talking about sea territory, not land territory. And in terms of sea territory, China has indeed expanded its territorial occupation within the last 3 years. China now occupy the Scarborough shoal, which it didn't before 2012.




Strawman argument. When did anyone say China wants to conquer VN and the Philippines? We've been talking about disputed seas. Your speculation about China compromising is just mere speculations. China's track record doesn't support your speculation either. When have China ever comprised it's SCS and ECS territorial claims? The words from officials has always been along the line, "we have undisputable sovereignty over..." AND they have always backed their words with actions such as the Oil rig skirmish and the Scarborough shoal. I see no signs of compromising.




This is not a good reason to support your speculation that China will compromise in the disputed seas. China currently has plenty of military and economic power to deal with Vietnam and the Philippines, if the US is not involved. Continuing with the trading relationship will not make or break anything in regards to the dispute.




These political pleasantries are trivial. Most countries host these kind of trivial events all the time. Nothing to write home about.




Strawman again. Have I ever said China wants to finish off VN and the Philippines? No, I've only been talking about the sea disputes. And again, I don't see how the planned silk Road will make or break anything in terms of the dispute.




Having some of the population's interest converging with the interest of the ruling Party doesn't necessarily mean that the population is actually ruling the country.

I'm a foreign student on a student's visa. My interests also converges with the interest of the govt of my host country. They want to tackle crime, increase employment, make the country better, etc. We both share the same interests, but does this mean that I'm actually ruling over my host country??? hell no.

You may say that the population has a limited influence on the ruling Party, but to say that the Chinese population is actually doing the ruling is far fetched.




I've never said that the Chinese leaders can declare wars on a whim. But I've mentioned some facts about China previously using force to occupy new territories.



When did I say China is going to take over Asia? certainly not in regards to land territory. I've only been talking about the sea disputes.
And contrary to what you've said, China has indeed carried out some actions to take over some sea territories.




The rammings and sinking is available for everyone to see on youtube.




I've argued that it's not good enough.




What case? the fact that the population has some interest that converges with some interest of the ruling party means that the ruling party is not a dictatorship? What about the other interest that doesn't converge with that of the ruling party?



The mere fact that there are already some members here debating whether China is a dictatorship or not means that it is indeed debatable. I don't even need to mention the discussions in other medias.




The point is China have used force and coercion to occupy new territories within the last 3 years.




These civilian project such as the Silk Road, AIB, etc, will not make or break anything with regards to the disputes. If I'm not being clear, let me rephrase it: If China decides to use force to take over the disputed seas, the Silk Road, AIB, etc, will not help the Philippines or VN in any way. Nor will the Silk Road, AIB be demerital to China if it decides to use force in the disputed sea.




All the leverage? if you are saying that China will use its economic leverage to coerce its opponents to compromise their territory, then I'd agree with you.



Like I've said, these civilian banks won't make or break anything in regards to the territorial disputes. Their existence are not good indicators to predict what China will do in regards to the disputes.



You have been quite ambiguous. You've previously mentioned about this "take and give" game, etc. but it's still unclear. Just tell us directly what your opinions on what China is going to do.




China benefitted tremendously by trading with Japan. It was an essential component of its growth engine.

In regards to the Philippines, you've hinted that China holds the leverage. If this is what you've said, then China will benefit from this trade. So for both cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that trading reflects China's non-aggressive plan.

3. China does not use military force.



I wasn't arguing that it's China's problems or that China should stop it's military spending. I think China has the rights to do so.

I was refuting your argument that China should not be considered as aggressive or threatening because China's military spending is relatively small and it's modernization is slow. My contention was that China already has enough power to destroy, which you've agreed with.




You are wrong here. Pictures and information about PLA equipments are extremely hard to come by, especially if it is something strategic or new. Knowing the exact inventory numbers is even harder. You can also forget about deducing it's development and running cost. I know because I sometime browse military enthusiast blogs.

I might actually know more about PLA weapons than you. I've already given you a Challenge, which you've ignored:

Give me some specs and pictures of the HQ-19 and HQ-26 system (the whole system). Have they been inducted yet? How many batteries currently in operation. What was their development cost? how much do they cost now? They are strategic systems.

Easier than counting chickens you say? I'll wait for your answers since they are so easy to come by.




This I can agree with. And I think this is your strongest argument given so far.


4. China's "demand" on the SCS and ECS are both "logical and has historic basis."



As far as I know, the US didnt break any international law or convention (that the US is signatory to) when they declared war against Saddam. I'll let the American members dispute this so I won't discuss this.

I was actually talking about standards in reference to historic claims, but nevermind. What I find interesting is you saying that China will break international laws if it is worth it.




Having conflicting types of claims, where winning one in court would mean losing another, means that the claims are illogical.




In my previous post, I've never said that China is a hypocrite. But thanks to your admission, I'm sure @BoQ77 @NiceGuy @Soryu @Cossack25A1 will now have a new name to call China.

First you said China's demands on the disputed seas are logical with historic basis.

Now you're saying that China's demands are illogical, hypocritical and will break international law, if it is worth it.

Those are not flattering words my friend. I hope you are not a lawyer by trade. You'd be the type that gets the clients into deeper trouble than they were before. lol j/k




I think everyone knows what was going on. It's hard to believe that those rare earth and banana saga were just isolated freak co-incidents. I'd rather believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

5. China will negotiate peacefully.



OK, but what will China and the US be negotiating for exactly? why aren't the dispute parties (VN, Phils, JP) included in this negotiation table?



I haven't brought up Japan much because there is a member who goes by the name @Nihonjin1051 who tend to disagree with me on many matters so I'll let him speak for himself.

I don't see any answers from our chinese friends, I guess they don't have any more arguments.

ha ha DEBATE WITH BLACK FLAG AT YOUR OWN PERIL, HE WILL CUT YOU TO PIECES.

 

[Zero_wing]

I've previously said that I won't make any serious discussions anymore. But since @LeveragedBuyout has invited me to give my input and you've given me the go signal, I'll just give a short quasi-serious comment on your essay.

Firstly, I've interpreted your essay as an attempt to salvage whatever is left of the image of China's "peaceful rise." Your essay argued for 5 main points to salvage this "peaceful rise" image, as follows:

1. China is patient.
2. China's policy and actions should not be considered as expansionism.
3. China does not use military force.
4. China's "demand" on the SCS and ECS are both "logical and has historic basis."
5. China will negotiate peacefully.


Actually, I'm not too interested in debating whether China is peaceful or not. I think everyone is smart enough to make their own observation and come to their own conclusion. I'll just comment on your essay where your premises seems questionable.


1. China is patient:



It is certainly nice for someone to have the reputation of having a patient character, especially if it enforces one's peaceful image. Well, it certainly beats having the reputation of being rash, temperamental and unpredictable.

However, I must question your definition of "patient" in China's context. "Patient" is actually a relative term as it comes in various degree. Are you saying China is patient compared to the German Empire? compared to the US? compared to who? or are you saying China is patient from an ideal rational perspective?

In this case, I'm sure many would disagree that China can be considered as patient from an ideal rational perspective (as @LeveragedBuyout has already hinted). Certainly, VietNam and the Philippines would contend that China has not demonstrated any form of patience during the previous conflict with the Oil rig and the Scarborough Shoal skirmish.

You may argue that those Vietnamese and Filipino opinions did not come from an ideal rational perspective. But they could say the same thing against your assertion. So, the notion of "patient" is actually relative. If you were relying on this notion of "patient" to argue for China's peaceful rise, then your argument is flawed because it relies on a relative term that not everyone would agree with.

You haven't proven how China is "patient" and how the opposing views are flawed. But at the end of the day, you cannot "prove" who is patient and who is not, just as you cannot prove which kind of fruits taste best. They are all relative to each different individuals.


2. China's policy and actions should not be considered as expansionism.



As argued by LeveragedBuyout, your comparison between Bismark Germany is questionable. However, I want to critique something else. You seem to have made an argument that China is currently not expansionist because it hasn't been so in the past. If this is not your argument then I don't see why you would bother make this historic reference. But if it is indeed your argument,
then it is flawed.

Assuming your historic reference is correct (and I can see many people disagreeing with you), you still cannot make any conclusion about any contemporary countries based on its past behaviour. They are historically different entities with different contexts.

You cannot draw any conclusions about contemporary Germany being agressive based on the behaviour of the historic Nazi Germany. Likewise, you cannot say China is not expansionist based on its historic past.

We are only interested in the present and future China. And I'm sure many Filipino, Viet and Japanese would say that the present China is aggressive and expansionist. I don't see how bringing up a historic reference could help reject these assertions.




These are all just your personal opinions. Other members, especially Viets and Filipino on PDF, will have opposing opinions.

Unless we can get inside the minds of the ruling CCP officials and have psychic power to predict the minds of future PRC leaders, there is no point in discussing this. They are just opinions. And you cannot make any objective conclusion about China's peaceful rise based on your personal opinions.




1. Do you have any insiders info about CCP's plans? if not then, this is again just your opinions and speculation.

2. Assuming that you are onto something, what exactly is this "end game"? can you describe how it can be "played right"? how would it be largely devoid of blood shed? How would the status quo be re-established? what is your definition of a status quo? are you a psychic? What you have been saying are all ambiguous and mere opinions. I don't see any facts given in this paragraph.

But here's some facts: China has previously carried out some actions that were considered as overly aggressive by the Viets and Filipino, which resulted in the sinking of boats, injuries/death of civilians and the status quo being shaken for the Philippines.

Your arguments that China is not expansionist are only based on your own personal opinions/speculations and some irrelevant historic reference. Your arguments in that paragraph are flawed.


3. China does not use military force:



As @Carlosa has argued, what is your definition of a "dictatorship"?

Firstly, many Filipino and Viets would argue that China's actions in the Scarborough Shoal and with the Oil rig reflects a dictatorship mentality (or @Zero_wing would prefer to call it "imperialist"). You may disagree with their views but it just shows that the term "dictatorship", is at best, relative.

Secondly, China may not have had used "weapons" from any grey navy vessels but it has used CCG and CMS vessels to ram and sink civilians ship in the past. This doesnt bode well for your prediction that China is unlikely to use weapons in the future.

Lastly, how can you predict that China is unlikely to use weapons in the future? did you make this prediction based on your opinion that China is not a dictorship? As I mentioned, dictatorship is a relative term.




The AIB is brand new and cannot be evidence for anything. China's decision to establish that bank cannot be evidence for anything either until it starts operating and we see how things work out.

Why am I making this skeptical remark? it's because China has recently demonstrated itself as being immature in its dealing with trade partners when territorial dispute heats up between China and the said trade partners. Yes, I'm referring to the rare earth debacle that Japan went through and the rotten Filipino Bananas.




Unlike LeveragedBuyout, I find this argument particularly weak.

China's military budget and development is not transparent. Don't get me wrong, all militaries are secretive to a certain degree but in China's case, it is very very opaque. I remember you yourself got mistaken about the development of certain SAM system in the PLA's arsenal. I don't think I need to argue how relatively opaque Chinese military budget and development is.

Official figures are just official figures. You don't exactly know how much each weapons procurement cost, the running cost of certain equipments, the development cost of certain prototypes, etc. So how do you know the official figures are accurate?

More importantly, you do not know the exact number of weapons and equipments in PLA's arsenal. Can you tell me whether the HQ-19 and HQ-26 is already in service or not? how many regiments are currently operating them? or are they still in development? Do you know all the exact models of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles currently in PLA's possession? and how many missiles currently in stock???

These are all strategic weapons and can be used to obliterate VietNam and the Philippines. It can also certainly cause Japan huge damage.

Your attempt to downplay China's aggressive posturing by quoting these official figures and "slow" military modernization is flawed. China has enough military power to obliterate VietNam and the Philippines.




Firstly, the fact that China haven't set up an AIDZ in the SCS doesn't mean that China is being benevolent. Things in the SCS is more tricky. China is signatory to UNCLOS which has specific laws and regulations. China haven't even dared to declare what those 9 dash lines is in precise legal terms. Once China do that, other parties can invoke UNCLOS to judge China's 9 dash lines. Right now China is leaving the 9 dash ambiguous and ignoring UNCLOS arbitration case. To set up an AIDZ could mean that China would need to precisely define what those 9-dash lines are, but this is something China would want to avoid.

Secondly, the oil rig and Scarborough shoal conflict didn't result in a military conflict because both Vietnam and the Philippines does not have the means to sustain such arms conflict and China's CG and CMS had enough power to bully the Viets and Filipino. This doesn't mean that China was acting benevolent or non-aggressive. To the contrary, the Viets and Filipino says that China was acting overly aggressive.


4. China's "demand" on the SCS and ECS are both "logical and has historic basis."



What precisely do you mean by "logical" and "historical basis"?

Logical and histoical according to China's own standard? or is it according to international law?

Your claim is worthless when China doesn't even dare to take their legal, logical and historical cases to the IC. If China has such good logical and historic basis, then why not take it to the IC and settle it once and for all? Unless, those logical and historic basis are not so logical and historical at all. I think the American has the saying, "the proofs in the pudding." or what PDF Chinese loves to say here "Do more, talk less". Stop talking about how strong your historic case is and bring it to the IC to prove it to the world your historic evidences.




China holds no card? what about the threat to stop rare earth export to Japan? what about the Filipino rotten Bananas and cancelled tours? what about the threat of the sounds of cannons if certain small neighbours doesn't behave? Gee I think I can recall about 100 warnings that China has issued recently.


5. China will negotiate peacefully:



What negotiation table? was the Scarborough shoal a big wet table? was the oil rig actually a negotiation table misidentified by the VietNamese?

China refuses to participate in the Philippines arbitration case under UNCLOS, which China is signatory to. China only wants a one on one negotiation behind closed door. Is this the negotiation table you're talking about? the type where China can bribe or bully the other smaller party? is the arbitration tribunal and IC too transparent and so China cannot bully the Philippines there?




Are you saying that because China is the biggest trading nation, China has the rights to create a territorial buffer and infringe on others' territorial sovereignty?



To sum up, all your arguments are based on personal opinions, irrelevant historic reference, flawed assumptions about the PLA, unsupported logical and historic claims and just flawed reasoning in general.

There @LeveragedBuyout, I've just given you some brief comments on the OP's article.

@NiceGuy @Soryu @Viet @BoQ77 @mrfly911 @Ayan81 @Cossack25A1 @Zero_wing, @JayMandan, I hope I haven't misrepresented your perspectives.

I guess well point i may not agree with some of your points but as far as logic goes its pretty good

Few things, first for someone that continuously question my arguments as personal opinions, you sure use a lot of opinions as bases of your arguments.

Second, that's how these things work, anything concrete is impossible, even if Xi himself were to write it.

The only thing we can be certain is that nothing is certain.

Third, while my points, may not have concrete proof from the central committee, I do give reasons as to why I think so. They may not be well established due to the constraint of time and space. People usually write books on these things, not 500 word forum posts.

fourth, you can find people that disagrees with everything, in fact there are people protesting keep government hands off my medicare, you can find him, if you ever go to DC and take a tour of the white house, he's outside.

That doesn't give it merit.


Patient, what does that mean? Germany at the point of WW1 was not ready to invade either France or Russia. If not for the weakness of the Tsar, the strategic genious of the German generals, WW1 would have been the 5 days war.

By patient I mean China is willing to play the long game.

Official word has been out, 2020 modern ground forces, 2030, modern navy and able to win in a regional scenario, 2050, matching the US's global ambitions.

Matching the US in air tech this generation and challenge them on the next.

By most estimates including Chinese tink tanks 2023-2030, matching the US in nominal GDP, 2030-2040 surpassing the US nominal GDP. 2020 become "high income" nation, that standard is actual a lot lower than you think.


You want to know what I mean by patient, that's what I mean, waiting for the time when the threat of force is just as potent as he actual use of force.

This however doesn't mean we will use the threat of force to get our way. Just in case you think that's the route we were going for.

What I'm suggesting is for the Vietnamese and Filipino government to take the use of force OFF the table.

You may say Philippines and Vietnam wants to talk. In truth they do, but they are not comitting 100% to talks. Philippines still think international pressure(American) can pressure us into backing down, while Vietnam wants to talk, but they are still beefing up their navy(in their own way) in hopes to stare us down.

That doesnt' seem aggressive to you only because of how weak they actually are. Should we do the same, it would not have the same reaction.

for example East China Sea, we want to talk, no talk, we are building up, it's threatening, we are making moves(same as the broke *** ship of the Philippines and the rammings and water cannons of Vietnam), and it's aggressive. Going to international court on this could very well be in our favor, but the thing about that is we have too many interests, and we can't sacrifice something else for this.

Essentially the same action, but our actions have far more impact.

Even though you said you don't want to talk peaceful rise, but clearly you think we are not peaceful. Whether you think so or not is not relevant to this discussion, what I said may have been assumptions, and calculated guesses, there are certain facts.

No skirmish has taken place, if they have there be no Vietnam or Philippines navy, no war has broken out, no shots have been fired. In the eyes of people who actually know what war is, that's pretty peaceful.



China isn't very expanisonist in the past for the same reasons we are not today, so yes it applies. The power balance hasn't really shifted all that match, and especially it will once again be in our favor.

Germany isn't the same Germany it was in the 1900s.

Teh past isn't a good indication if situation has shifted too much, while 2014 is way different than 100 years ago, the fundamental Chinese mind set and incentives hasn't changed.

If anything there are now more reasons why China won't expand in terms of land territory than ever before.




China has been expanisonist under WuDi, but only because an ancestor to the Mongols were harrassing and he made it his life mission to defeat them. Along the way he did take other lands, but most of them willingly submitted like Vietnam, but probably not Korea.

Other times, Yongle of Ming was also expansionist in nature, the TaiZong of Tang, CaoCao of Han. A lot of times it was a necessity due to the harrassment of the hordes.

Then obviously there are the Mongols and Manchus of which we are the rightful heirs to their empires. We even have them sign the documents that proves it, Mongol empire was much later and was actually done around the time of the fall of Ming when the Manchus did it.

Bet you didn't know that.



Germany during the Bismark era wasabout limited wars, limited objectives, and sphere of influences. China today is not looking to conquer Vietnam and Philippines, and most likely we will comprimise later with all the claimates.

If we didn't want to do that, we would not be biggest trading nation in the world. You don't become one by not being flexible and realistic. Also in terms of the power equation, it's not much different now or 20 years from now. We to them are at a point where adding more power won't do much good.

We are also hosting each other's military officials and other officials.We have invited Philippines and Vietnam, we are developing infrastructure for the Silk Road that will most likely include both.

If you think we want to finish them off, then doing all of this would have been a waste of time and effort. however it does go with the limited objectives scenario.

As to the reference, it's only that, a reference, I'm simply saying we are closer to Bismark germany than WW1 Germany. As oppose to many articles that claim we are WW1 Germany or even hitler by Aquino III.






They are personal yes, but I did give out the reasons, and the current actions we are taking. If you think China isn't ruled by popular opinion then why are the reform agendas largely what the Chinese people have wanted.

Why are we reforming at all.

You got this bias that we are not ruled by the people, just because we don't vote. Well, we are tackling polution at around the same time as the US, the US population demanded it, just as we are.

So you tell me if we can't look into the political future of China.

If you think Chinese leaders can declare wars on a whim, then we shouldn't have had the type of success that we had since the 80s. Crazy dictator and economic explosion don't go hand in hand.




Again this is how this type of thing works, we make judgement base on a variety of factors and current actions.

To say we are going to take over Asia, THAT, would be a personal opinion, because nothing right now suggest we do, unless you also believe in the flying Spaghetti monster.

There are no death for the Philippines and Vietnamese, and the sinking of boats is debatable at best. I mean if you won't take one communist government's word, why another? And why another failed democracy that has less credibility than us on the international stage.

So the only fact you given is not only not a fact, but again is based on their opinion to be aggressive. the I'm not touching you game is annoying, not assualt.

I have given a more detailed reason on the expansionist theory.


You want facts, and yet, your entire argument is based on your perception of how South China Sea is playing out and the opinion of their people.

If I were to go to North Pakistan, the ones hunted by drones, I'm sure US and the devil would mean the same thing.

Doesn't make US the devil, does it.




Saddam is a dictatorship, Putin is close, Emperors are dictators. China is not, every 10 years the president must step down and his actions are determind by the people, I have made my case above.

It doesnt' show dictatorship is debatable, it's actually pretty well defined, people disagree on Health care is provided by government, I don't think that makes it come from Santa clause.

In China's case it maybe a bit gray, but ask @leveragebuyout or @Nihonji if they think China is a dictatorship, the kind that you are suggesting.


China didn't sink any vessel, the circumastances around that are mirky at best. You are pinning something like that on us on the word of another communist and failed democratic government. So if our words are not to be taken neither should theirs.

Civilian ships and military ships are the difference. The only reason you don't think so is because our coast guard is stronger than their navy.

Again the Shaq argument, people charge at us and their boat sink and Shaq gets called the foul. Too big too powerful.

By 2020, our coast guard will be the most advanced and biggest by a mile, even than the US.


If we wanted to use weapons, again we would not have came up with the Silk road, the Asian bank, the brics bank, joining different groups and everything. Everything is not isolated, you must look at the whole picture.





Yet, two way trade is still strong, they are only making a fuss because they want to and we have all the leverage. When the US does it they call it sanctions, we can't do that yet, so here we are.

The BRICS bank is a good indication of how this will play out, asking India and other powerful Asian nations to join, INCLUDING Japan, is an indication of how we want this bank to function.

We gave up leadership in BRICS and we will delegate to the others on the infrastructure bank, if we didn't want to do that we can just continue with our own lending which dwarfs any investment by the two banks combined .

I have looked at what we can already do, and the possible reasons for future actions and this would be the most logical.

You don't think we created a bank just to piss people off do you.

Japan and Chian trade is going up and will soon reach an all time high, as is trade with the Philippines. See you can't just judge a whole situation by some sensationalist propaganda.




Obviously we do have enough power to destroy, but that's their problem not ours. Japan has the same population, and the UK, yet there they are.

Do you know why we can have pretty accurate figures. We are the Chinese people, chinese makes up of the Chinese military, not martians. Information is passed around, and wam, we can deduce how much equipment we have pretty accurately.

Military are very organized, the same organization would have the same number of equipments, easier than counting Chickens.

Even outlandish estimates still puts China at 2.5% which is still far lower than the super powers.

And much less than what we could spend.





I never said we were benevolent, or good, just that we are not the type of aggressive like Western media and you like to suggest.

We are playing the diplomatic game, and a good diplomat never ignores advantages he has at his disposal.

We are trying to avoid more complicated issues which is another reason for the no weapons argument. If we are to use force, what does it matter what anyone saids.




Yes according to our own standards, everyone acts in their own interests and follow the law when it isn't worth breaking it. The US didn't invade Syria but did to Iraq. Doesn't mean the US always follows or always breaks the law, it's a matter of if it's worth it.

We can't go to court for this because we have conflicting types of claims, if we win one we lose the other.

hypocritical? Yes, but it is what it is. I never said we are good, just not evil and not warmongering.

Your claims on two isolated incidents which btw has other reasons, the rare earth thing is to control the price doesn't matter who's buying it.

threats are as meaning, especially since our actions have shown, we will work togethor.



It's a play dude, everyone makes it to strengthen their hand, I don't see the vietnamese backing down that's because they want a stronger hand too.

By negotiation I actually mean China US, a meeting of the great powers, a concert of Europe type deal. Did you not get that.

I'm saying because China is the biggest trading nation, we won't ever damage trade.

Personal opinion is you, since you keep refering to what this or that thinks of this and that.

Irrelevant? I only started with the historical thing, but I mostly used recent events to back it up.

Flawed? Hardly, again you only view it like that because they have no way of fighting back, why don't you bring Japan into this who at this point has just as many ships as our Eastern command and has been doing more or less the same.

Nope one china did not invite us to anything in fact china keeps demanding yes demanding well if you can consider demanding as request then yes your country were "requesting" for biateral talks and the West Philippine Sea trade route aka the Silk road sea route Vietnam and the Philippines was excluded from that so one you have so balls to lie or your not informed about it.

 

[Zsari]

Yes, sure, Vietnam, Cuba, etc also have those mechanisms of supposedly representative forms of government, where SOME people can only vote for the ONE official candidate of the only ONE party and anyone that doesn't agree with that one party has no say and no alternative.

Very representative form of government, sure, you people keep going with the self delusion.

You asked for how it works, so I thought pointing you to a Wiki paragraph on the election process for the NPC would help. Obviously you took an issue with the term "representative" which only describe the election process itself. You know a dictatorship needs a dictator, which China does not have, and there are many forms of government besides dictatorship and democracy. Or it could be that you are confusing dictatorship with authoritarianism.

 

[bolo]

I suggest China start copy US on this working culture and on being land of immigrants.

thailand need more immigrants not China. We have over 1.3b people and enough workforce, in fact over capacity in certain areas.

 

[Carlosa]

You asked for how it works, so I thought pointing you to a Wiki paragraph on the election process for the NPC would help. Obviously you took an issue with the term "representative" which only describe the election process itself. You know a dictatorship needs a dictator, which China does not have, and there are many forms of government besides dictatorship and democracy. Or it could be that you are confusing dictatorship with authoritarianism.

Dictatorship or dictatorial system, it does not have to depend on a sole figure, here is the definition of dictatorship and it fits China:

"Dictatorship is a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a single person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong." Wikipedia.

thailand need more immigrants not China. We have over 1.3b people and enough workforce, in fact over capacity in certain areas.

Enough workforce? Where did you get that? Factories have a very hard time getting enough workers.

 

[Genesis]

Nope, read my post again. I've barely expressed my opinions (except maybe on one or two occasions). My post was largely a rebuttal to your claims and premises. There are two ways to make a counter argument: one way is to make opposing claims and argue for its superior justifications. The second way is to directly refute the opponent's claims and premises, without hardly a need to make my own claims or opinions at all.

Read my post again. The second method was what I've used and I hardly gave my own personal opinions. Mentioning someone else's opinions is often a valid method to debunk an opponent's claim. For example, you've claimed that China is not a dictatorship, as if everyone would unanimously agreed to your claim. Just by mentioning someone's opposing view would debunk your claim. It proves that your claim is debatable.

I didn't say personal opinion, I said Vietnam and Philippine's opinion. If you ask the Iraqis they would claim they should not be invaded, but most of the world don't condemn it and a lot of them support it, so that claim is invalid.

Also you are mentioning the claim of a country's president that called us Hitler, as to Vietnam, their people might be mad, but their government is quite friendly actually. Vietnam is an old imperial power, they know how the game is played. Why do you think they haven't gone international yet.

You haven't really refute my claims, you simply think it's not concrete, and it's not, you have to read between the lines. The fact of the matter is, there can't be anything concrete, aside from the fact it's difficult to do, it's also not advised. It's far better to keep the situation ambigious than to show we lean one way or the other.

While I said based on current observations force would not be used, but it's based on CURRENT observations. It doesn't mean it's off the table and we can't let it be off the table.


As to dictatorship, let's say for the sake of argument it is, and let's say we are a dictatorship, for the purposes of this debate, do you think we are the type of dictatorship that would be the difference maker in this scenario, and I mean for the worst.

There are concrete things that we can be certain about, such as in Maths, where many things are provable. When things are not so concrete, you must give good justifications or reasons why we ought to accept your views.
I've argued that alot of your reasons are flawed at worst and debatable at best. I haven't explicitly given my proper opinions at all.

This isn't math and I was speaking in the context of geopolitics. You are arguing it is not concrete, on essentially guessing work. That's like giving penalties to handicap basketball for double dribble.

I mentioned the opposing views not because disagreements in itself has merits, but rather, I mentioned it to debunk some of your claims that was written as though everyone would unanimously agreed to it. For example, you simply claim that China is not a dictatorship, or that its demands in the disputed seas is logical (and has historic basis) without any attempt to give any justifications for those claims.

Historic basis are not debatable, we have musems dedicated to this. The Vietnamese, in acient times, use the same system we do, so if our system isn't good than so are yours. the Philippines didn't even exist.

Do I even need to mention what was the norm for these islands back in the 70s? It may not be mentioned in Philippines or Vietnam or Western MEDIA, but the facts are kept by the US military not as a secret, just nobody ever went to look for it. This is concrete btw, everybody who wants to know, knows.

Umm, I don't see how mentioning those figures can help support your claims that China is patient. I'm afraid you might be confusing the idea of patient with the idea of delaying certain plans due to constraints (financial and technological).

Of course it will take some time for China to reach the same GDP and military power with the US. How is this a proof that China is patient? it is a time constraint that China must accept, it has no choice.

And what are you saying in that last sentence? waiting for what? waiting for the right time to attack? I dont quite understand what you're trying to say.

We can do all of that now, you doubt our ability to rain death to any ASEAN claim nations?

What I'm simply saying is we are waiting for the time that makes this not questionable even in the slightest. To not use war and still be able to achieve our goals, which ironically would make the entire SCS moot, because it's strategic purpose would no longer be valid.

The Philippines has formally asked China to participate in a Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS. How is that not a 100% commitment to talk? The tribunal is the most fair and unbiased platform to settle the dispute peacefully. The US doesn't have any influence over that tribunal either. China is the one that is not 100% committed to negotiate and peacefully settle the dispute by rejecting such tribunal.

How can the tribunal be upheld? The Philippines is using what limited means to strong arm us and it's not going to work.

by talk it should be between us and with comprimise not to use some international bullcrap to try to force us into something.

Even if that did work, the Chinese people would not accept and defeating foreign forces, however insignificant they maybe, is part of the party's mandate that they cannot ignore.

This is a differing in opinion, I can see that you are probably Vietnamese, and I know what Black flag is, but I'm not sure if you are refering to that exactly.

btw, if the Philippines pull the same thing on Vietnam, which they can, would you still accept it and think it's a good will gesture.

But China undertook some other actions. After signing the DOC, no party has used force to occupy a new sea territory, except for China (Scarborough shoal).

that is not force, that's coast guard. That's why we used them and that's why we are pouring billions into it. At most it's a gray area.

I've only been talking about sea territory, not land territory. And in terms of sea territory, China has indeed expanded its territorial occupation within the last 3 years. China now occupy the Scarborough shoal, which it didn't before 2012.

In our view, that was our territory to begin with, which part of Paris did Hitler think was rightfully German.

If taking back territory is expansionist, than everyone is, cause guess how the islands came into Philippines and Vietnamese possession. The Philippines didn't own any of them before they took it from republic of china.

Strawman argument. When did anyone say China wants to conquer VN and the Philippines? We've been talking about disputed seas. Your speculation about China compromising is just mere speculations. China's track record doesn't support your speculation either. When have China ever comprised it's SCS and ECS territorial claims? The words from officials has always been along the line, "we have undisputable sovereignty over..." AND they have always backed their words with actions such as the Oil rig skirmish and the Scarborough shoal. I see no signs of compromising.

That was not the argument? I thought we were arging whether china wanted to conquer Vietnam, because of South china Sea today, not Vietnam tomorrow and you disagree. Or it could be someone else.

When Pakistan made a good will gesture during 1962, we comprimised. Why? Because once the strategic goal has been achieved, the rhetoric doesn't matter anymore.

Keep in mind China is reverting back to our old imperial mindset, if even Maoist communists were willing to comprimise what makes you think we won't.

We have dialed back East China Sea Rhetoric, meaning this is flexible. We have kept the status quo with Japan until they changed it.

You want an admission that we will comprimise? that will comprimse our hand and we are not yet stupid enough to do that.

This is not a good reason to support your speculation that China will compromise in the disputed seas. China currently has plenty of military and economic power to deal with Vietnam and the Philippines, if the US is not involved. Continuing with the trading relationship will not make or break anything in regards to the dispute.
These political pleasantries are trivial. Most countries host these kind of trivial events all the time. Nothing to write home about.

Philippines sure, but US will not come to Vietnam's aid, if you think they will is frankly very outlandish.

Continuing the trade relationship, won't stop any wars if it does happen, however it is an indication that we want to solve this dimplomatically.

Since when does the US host NK leaders or Iranian leaders, except maybe when they want to make a push for better relations.

Hence the importance of it.

Strawman again. Have I ever said China wants to finish off VN and the Philippines? No, I've only been talking about the sea disputes. And again, I don't see how the planned silk Road will make or break anything in terms of the dispute.

It's not going to stop war, if Philippines sinks a naval or Coast Guard vessel(not sure how they can), but it's a sign for things to come.

This doesn't mean no war, but it does signal the direction we want to go, which is Asia intergration, by which time, it won't so much matter what happens to SCS.

You keep wanting China say one way or the other, we won't ever do that. That would be the definition of a stupid move.

The US also does this, it's commitment to Asia, it's both about and not about China and it's both going to come and not going to come to its ally's aid.

These things are not good to say outloud and tie you to anything, but use some actions to either show, or influence how things should go going forward, and if things don't turn out as well, then always be able to fall back.

Having some of the population's interest converging with the interest of the ruling Party doesn't necessarily mean that the population is actually ruling the country.

I'm a foreign student on a student's visa. My interests also converges with the interest of the govt of my host country. They want to tackle crime, increase employment, make the country better, etc. We both share the same interests, but does this mean that I'm actually ruling over my host country??? hell no.

You may say that the population has a limited influence on the ruling Party, but to say that the Chinese population is actually doing the ruling is far fetched.

You are right it doesn't. Keep in mind Chinese today especially in big cities, Shanghai, beijing, Tianjing, and such have a per capita of 25,000 nominal GDP, approximately. That's a very tough population to say no to. That's about 100 million people.

The party isn't in a vacume.

Let's just say, Chinese system is more faith based, and US system is more people based, though they are essentially yielding the same result at this point, due to the vast empowerment of the Chinese population and the fact that US government have lobbies and interest groups that may not benefit everyone or even the majority.

But for the purposes of this discussion, that's not important, what's important is the party can't afford to lose 1000 men for no reason, or anything less than we were provoked in such a way that must warrent war.

I've never said that the Chinese leaders can declare wars on a whim. But I've mentioned some facts about China previously using force to occupy new territories.

Then we mostly agree on this fact, just our way of seeing the coast guard actions is different.

When did I say China is going to take over Asia? certainly not in regards to land territory. I've only been talking about the sea disputes.
And contrary to what you've said, China has indeed carried out some actions to take over some sea territories.

We must have got mixed up somewhere then.

The rammings and sinking is available for everyone to see on youtube.

The vietnamese also rammed, not our fault their boat sucks. The fact of the matter is, the sinking of the boat is not the goal here.

The one with the fire is debatable at best.

Let's just say that no one is innocent here. It's not like Vietnamese ships were just there and we rammed it. Both were in there to do "battle."

Like I've said, these civilian banks won't make or break anything in regards to the territorial disputes. Their existence are not good indicators to predict what China will do in regards to the disputes.

You have been quite ambiguous. You've previously mentioned about this "take and give" game, etc. but it's still unclear. Just tell us directly what your opinions on what China is going to do.

China will drag this out until we are strong enough to challenge US within our regional sphere effectively and when our investments grows bigger, our influence in the finiancial and political world grows.

Bottom line, when we are more or less a match in our regional sphere.

After that, what does it matter who gets what, if you think this is about resources, it's not, if it's about showing Vietnam and Philippines who's boss, it's not.

In terms of resources, we always pay for them, and the question of superiority is answered long ago in terms of ASEAN and China.

The only thing is the containment of the US. Once that's dealt with, the rest will become irrelevant. We have poured massive investment into Africa and Latin America as well as Europe, those will be the key places for China in the next 30 years, not Asia.

The Rush for Africa part 2.

In regards to the Philippines, you've hinted that China holds the leverage. If this is what you've said, then China will benefit from this trade. So for both cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that trading reflects China's non-aggressive plan.

It doesn't say we won't use force, but it does say, trade is more beneficial and anything else can be talked about at a later time.

You are wrong here. Pictures and information about PLA equipments are extremely hard to come by, especially if it is something strategic or new. Knowing the exact inventory numbers is even harder. You can also forget about deducing it's development and running cost. I know because I sometime browse military enthusiast blogs.

Not blogs, I have relatives in the army and the military industrial complex, as do my friends and random Chinese on the street.

While the top secret ones are secret. The amount of tanks, of helicopters, things like that are known.

I might actually know more about PLA weapons than you. I've already given you a Challenge, which you've ignored:

Give me some specs and pictures of the HQ-19 and HQ-26 system (the whole system). Have they been inducted yet? How many batteries currently in operation. What was their development cost? how much do they cost now? They are strategic systems.

Easier than counting chickens you say? I'll wait for your answers since they are so easy to come by.

Specs are not, and that's not my area of interest, all the family I have that have association with the military are in the navy.

Besides, you are implying we are under going this secret modernization, while it's not in the public, it's not far from the rumors.

I'm obviously talking conventional weapons, not missile forces, or any other platform that are not widely avalaible, including but not limiting to drones.

This I can agree with. And I think this is your strongest argument given so far.

All the other things are connected, you can't look at trade and say it's not going to affect it, you must look at it, in relation to military modernization, which we are not going full speed, you must look at the AIIB bank, the BRICS bank, the fact we are using coast guards, and more are all part of the puzzle.

hypocritical? Yes, but it is what it is. I never said we are good, just not evil and not warmongering.
In my previous post, I've never said that China is a hypocrite. But thanks to your admission, I'm sure @BoQ77 @NiceGuy @Soryu @Cossack25A1 will now have a new name to call China.

First you said China's demands on the disputed seas are logical with historic basis.

Now you're saying that China's demands are illogical, hypocritical and will break international law, if it is worth it.

Those are not flattering words my friend. I hope you are not a lawyer by trade. You'd be the type that gets the clients into deeper trouble than they were before.

Until we get called the biggest terriorst nation like the US, I won't be satisfied. The worst the name, it means the more power we can exert.

I'm not trying to convince you that we are good, and you misunderstood logical and historical backing.

We do have valid historical backing, but whether because of that we should control it because of it is hard to say, though if you are honest you would say the same on vietnam who uses information from essentially the same time period and information.

The Philippiens has no historical backing at all, seeing as they were not a nation then or claimed it until pretty much the 70s.

By logical I mean we want it as a strategic buffer, that's the logic I'm talking about, so it's not a claim out of no where for no reason.

I think everyone knows what was going on. It's hard to believe that those rare earth and banana saga were just isolated freak co-incidents. I'd rather believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Believe what you wish.

OK, but what will China and the US be negotiating for exactly? why aren't the dispute parties (VN, Phils, JP) included in this negotiation table?

Japan would be, do I really need to tell you why the other two won't.

I don't see any answers from our chinese friends, I guess they don't have any more arguments.

ha ha DEBATE WITH BLACK FLAG AT YOUR OWN PERIL, HE WILL CUT YOU TO PIECES.

sorry I'll quit my day job like you and just focus on this site entirely.

 

[Lure]

@LeveragedBuyout Hey thanks for the invitation. This is a very nice discussion.

Bismark wanted a united Germany and a European order that has a major, but not exclusive German input. Wanting of power and prestige is just human nature and it not only exist in China, but also in the US, and even the Indonesians want some sort of leadership role in ASEAN.

Germany seeking dominance in Europe had economic roots as well. British Empire and France spread and colonized across every continent. Belgium and Luxemburg were active in Africa. Netherlands was colonizing in Asia. Hell even Russians were influencing Central Asia and Causcus.

What did might Germany have? After all those scientific achievements in 19th century? After all that technological and industrial lead? Nothing pretty much.

This is France sphere of influence/colonies

This is tiny Netherlands sphere of influence/colonies

And this is our mighty Germany

So not the best places right? I mean in order to fuel your massive industry you need resources. In order to have resources you needed to have colonies. As a late comer Germany had not much valuable colonies.

And boom. Here goes two world wars. This is the most vital part of my argument about China. Because I think US is doing the same mistake that Britain did back in the early 20th century.

Bismark's idea of a satisfied power and gradual shift in power is of great similarity to the China of the present and past. China was not much of an expansion power save for very brief periods in our history. To think China will simply roll over the entire ASEAN and Japan is about as crazy as to think we will simply live in a world order where the second and soon to be first economy has less say in international affairs than France and less influence in Asia than Japan.

But you will do that naturally. As you dominate the trade and economy you will dominate the culture and as you dominate the culture you will have a influence at your neighbours. For example Can Mexico let any other country open a military base in it's own soil? For example a Russian base? a Chinese? You can't even think about it. Last time when a similar thing happened with Cuba the world was in the edge of complete destruction.

A similar relation will emerge between China and Asean, Taiwan, Korea and even Japan. Mutual dependencies will become so one sided that China will be clearly influencing it's neighbours and China will be doing everything to protect this status quo. Which is again pretty natural and is a must. Denying it would be just making politics

Ironically, it is the fact China isn't a dictatorship that makes it far more likely time will be the main weapon, rather than actual weapons. A departure even from Bismark Germany, the wishes of one man is not the state policy of China, and thus Chinese interests don't align with personal interests and in the interest of China, the continued growth of China in all fields while at the same time advancing our interests is far more adventagous than a blantant attack on the current world order and disrupt the order that has served China so well and will continue to do so in the future.

The evidence of this is the establishmenrt of the BRICS bank and the Asian infrastructure bank. The headquarters is in China, but the power is not only divided, but in the case of the BRICS bank, China mostly gave away leadership positions.

This is the most vital part and you are absolutely right. Emergence of BRICS bank and AIIB is the point of failure for the American foreign policy. This is the point which USA should understand or it will make the same mistake of British Empire back in the early 20th century. If China had some more role in IMF and the World Bank, today there were no AIIB or BRICS Bank. If a country is not satisfied with it's role in the current status and it has the actual power to realize that more sophisticated roles that country will eventually realize those roles, like the case with China.

Power of a country can be measured by 3 metrics,

M for military strength
E for economic health both in size and quality
C for cultural strength (All scientific successes, sports, arts, movies etc. goes here)

So Power = M * E * C

Every status quo should form it's own power structure. If that power structure is not fair then that status quo will be challanged. Current status quo -you can name it Pax Americana- should also do the same thing.

Let's have a closer look at British Empire and Pax Britannica. Pax Britannica was very generous to Britain -as expected-. However it was also seeing France as a major ally and was very generous to them either. For Germany? It was not. It was giving Germany a much smaller role then it has actually deserved.

Now let's head to the end of WW2. British Empire acknowledges that if it makes a fair power structure, Britain will not be the lead player like back in early 20th century hence it had transferred it's leadership status peacefully to United States. What did British saved by that move? It's very own world view. Even today anglo-saxon tradition is very important in United States. Besides Pax Americana is like Pax Brittanica Version 2.0. So British gave leadership position peacefully to another country which it believed it can sustain it's world view with minimal revision.

So what lesson we get from here? If you are the leader in a status quo, you either give every player what they deserve with respect to their power, or you fight them.

For US, it's like a poker table. You can challange China and make sure that China will get what US lets it get. However if China defeats US in such a challenge Pax Americana will completely disappear from the face of the Earth.

Or you can choose the peaceful way, let China learn the American way and let it lead with Pax Americana V2.0 or Pax Brittanica V3.0.

It's actually not China's choice. It's US' choice. China makes it's intentions very clear that it wants more.