Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute

[LeveragedBuyout]

First, thank you for the constructive criticism and discussion. We've had some friction between us in the past, but I always do appreciate new insights, even when they conflict with my previously held opinions. I'm not averse to admitting I'm wrong if it comes to that.

Still, this does not change the fact that, what the US understands from an alliance is, first and foremost, a subservient status of the other side to the greater interests of the US. There is no idea of equal partnership in the US book. This is simply does not exist in its nature.

To be blunt, the US doesn't understand an equal partnership because until recently, we have had no equal. I am optimistic that someday, the US and China can come to some accommodation or understanding, and thus truly realize "a new kind of great power relationship," but we have to learn how to do that, first. We gradually reached an understanding with the USSR, even while we remained rivals, which is why we never had a direct war between us. Hopefully that will be the case as well with China, and indeed, our trade relations are so vast that already we can no longer compare US-China relations to US-USSR relations.

So, whatever shared security interests you mention, it is at times only the interests of the US as propagated to be interests of all -- a typical case of false consciousness which the US excels at promoting.

Sure, every country looks out for its interests. Does China do otherwise?

Turkey's accession to the NATO is completely a Cold War produce. You needed to stop the Red Wave by encircling the USSR with a reactionary Green Belt. ISIS is one of the out of wedlock children of this convenient partnership, as a matter of fact.

I see the claim that ISIS is somehow the spawn of the FSA, and that the US sponsored the FSA, but I don't really see much evidence for either of these claims. Certainly the US never gave the FSA the same kind of support it gave to the Afghan guerrillas who went on to form Al Qaeda, so it's hard to proceed with this line of discussion.

For the Iraq War veto, well, you have punished Turkey severely, by allowing the radical Islamists to cut down on the independent-minded generals, intellectuals and academicians (who were the actual architects of the veto which the government had adamantly opposed) by using the radical cleric you host in Pennsylvania as a fifth column inside Turkey's judiciary and key ministries.

Whoa, isn't this dangerously close to conspiracy-theory territory? We "allowed" Islamists to take over Turkey? If we had supported a coup, you would say that the US traitorously initiated a revolution, as you do at the end of your post. You present a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't (and thus unrealistic) scenario. What would you have preferred to see happen?

Currently, Turkey has been doing all it can to destabilize Syria, your common enemy, and, as for Iran, other than some corruption involved by some Turkish ministries and Iranian elites that favor the business going on between Iran and Turkey out of pure selfish interest, there is no strategic affinity/compatibility between Iran and Turkey. For one, Iran supports secular Assad, Turkey's sworn enemy.

This is merely a function of Erdogan's foreign policy incompetence. Until 2010, Turkey's relations with Iran, and Iran's puppet in Syria were rapidly warming. Then something changed, and Erdogan turned against both of them. If the US had been in control of Turkish foreign policy as you claim, then the pre-2011 rapprochement between Turkey and Iran (and Turkey and Syria) never would have happened. And then change in policy by Turkey wasn't because of the US, but because something changed in Turkey.

Thus, the US idea of partnership/alliance is not less dangerous than climbing over a crocodile to swim across a river. You can't simply trust them. Putin does not trust US more than he would trust his domesticated snow leopards.

No doubt about it, great power politics is a difficult business, and not always clean. But don't assume that Putin is as generous with his allies as you think. Even before Ukraine, Putin has been manhandling Belarus, which is as close to a Russian satellite as is possible.

First, this is an assumption. Second, Russia knows that, even though it decides to cancel the oil contract and convert all Remninbi to USD, China will not seek a coup against Putin or provide logistical support to Ukrainian Nazi groups. This is the essential feature of China's strategic partnership with Russia: Non-intervention and respect for sovereignty.

Other than this, partners might be unhappy about this or that. That's the nature of all relationships. There might be extensive power/wealth struggle even between brothers in a family. No body is rosy about a partnership higher than Elbrus or wider than Siberia.

Unless we can read minds, all of our discussion is an assumption. I would like to think that we're making educated guesses based on behavior and past history. But to one-sidedly accuse the US of various coups and revolutions from the Cold War period while ignoring Soviet-instigated coups and revolutions is not convincing.

As long as there is the respect and non-intervention, who would expect more? Once these parameters are set, then, there is a huge room for development, hence you have the SCO and BRICS and the likes. If one day one of the deals are broken, the underlying essence will remain nonetheless. That's what is really important. That's what the US lacks. US has no respect for others and thinks it can play with them: You can be rewarded or you can be punished. And you can anytime anticipate a color revolution orchestrated by the US out of certain selfish strategic points, not out of principle.

All great powers behave this way, even Russia (Georgia and Ukraine come to mind, as well as various threats about energy cut-offs to various eastern and central European powers). China is no exception, or what else would you call China's bare-knuckle maneuvering in the SCS?

When we move past double-standards, we can come to constructive solutions.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

None sense there is no partnership

China + Russia & Rest of world vs USA (Republican states)

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

You need to prove that Russia signs "unfavorable deals with China."

The details of the pipeline agreement have not been disclosed. All there is is speculation. What else? The Silk Road project? The Beijing-Moscow HSR project? China selling agricultural/dairy products to Russia because of EU sanctions?

What concrete evidence do you have to prove that Russia does sign agreements that are unfavorable to its national interests?

Fair enough. I'll see if I can find anything concrete.

 

[Kolaps]

I think china and japan needs to put away the disputed island issue for at least 100 years.

Told that to Japan, that US made a mistake to hand over the islands to the wrong country.

Give them an ultimatum!

 

[Beidou2020]

Fair enough. I'll see if I can find anything concrete.

How much are you paid?

 

[zhanghang]

Its name is the Diaoyu Islands, rather than Senkaku Islands, would you please write the correct title.

 

[TheMatador]

If we were Japanese, we would twist the sword to finish the weakened enemy. Because we are Chinese, we show them mercy as long as Abe kowtows to Xi Jinping.

 

[JSCh]

The China Russia gas negotiation has been on going for many many years.

And in all trade, both sides have to agree to the terms that both consider acceptable.

Think about it, would China kick a man when he is down? Would China do such a short sighted thing to Russia? Why would Russia expect China to take a cut from the term that China consider as fair all along?

No, all sign show that China just stuck to her long held position that China consider as fair. It is possible that China might even lower terms in order to help Russia out because of long term geo-strategic interest.

And Russia would accept the deal because Russia consider it to be in her best interest given the circumstances that Russia is in.

If Russia want to blame anyone, they would remember that it is not China that put Russia in those circumstances.

Think about it. If China's leader is so myopic as to screw Russia, do you think there would be so much more other further deals both announced and planned afterward? Would Russia say they want to sell more gas to China if they are not happy with the term of the deal?

 

[Audio]

Excellent! Let us re shelf the issue and continue where both sides left off as per the 2008 East Sea Consensus. Let us develop the natural resources together, as originally planned.

Didn't that end with China taking more than it's agreed share (as per Japanese side)?

 

[Aepsilons]

Next stop, Abe and Xi meet! After that, let's drop all the rough rhetoric .

Didn't that end with China taking more than it's agreed share (as per Japanese side)?

It ended when they started mass protests in 2008-2011. It led many of us to believe some members in the CPC, who have influence in media, tried to botch this consensus by putting this wedge.

Our response to these? We nationalized the islands. We have administrative control of the islands , have had it since the islands were incorporated into Okinawa since 1885. Long before the 1st Sino Japanese War.