Why China Has the Right to 'Build Sovereignty' in the South China Sea

[Indus Pakistan]

There is only space for 1 tiger in the mountain.

Well said. America might posture but in time the Chinese economic power will simply tower over even USA. This will be enough to calm down animated USA and like a old man will retire on the rocking chair and live on it's past. I don't think there will be war. USA has never had a war with a equal.

Just like UK accepted it was time to slowly give up the throne so will US although expect lot of posturing. The real battle will be fought on the economic front. As long as China keeps moving forward on the economic front the staggering impetus of that will sober USA and everybody east or west will slowly get pulled into Chinese economic gravitas ...

Just my two pennies ....

 

[Carlosa]

Well said. America might posture but in time the Chinese economic power will simply tower over even USA. This will be enough to calm down animated USA and like a old man will retire on the rocking chair and live on it's past. I don't think there will be war. USA has never had a war with a equal.

Just like UK accepted it was time to slowly give up the throne so will US although expect lot of posturing. The real battle will be fought on the economic front. As long as China keeps moving forward on the economic front the staggering impetus of that will sober USA and everybody east or west will slowly get pulled into Chinese economic gravitas ...

Just my two pennies ....

You are right, that's the smart way for china to do things, that's what I'm trying to explain to them, but they don't get it.

fair, then let's go further to the effects of such actions.

Would you say if the US had initiated it, however unjustified, would that be such an advantage for China, that with 1 trainer carrier to America's 11, 10 trillion and low mid income economy to America's 17 trillion and high income economy, a rising tech nation and THE leading tech nation, America being the leader of the advanced economies, and China being the leader of nobody and nothing, would that be such a difference that we wouldn't need to wait until the weight on the scale changed dramatically?

If the answer is we have to wait, what does it matter what we do right now? Unless you think it will stop China's growth in GDP and income, stop China's ability to advance our military prowess, stop China's ability to create new organizations and influence nations, and stop China from continue to advance on the technology ladder.

But if you think that we can take on the US without this dispute or that we would be stop dead in our tracks on the criteria that I have mentioned with this dispute then we are wrong.

If not what does it matter.

The main point is not the power gradient of one versus the other under during those 2 different situations or timelines. The smart way to go would it have been for china to continue same as before, don't make enemies, make friends, continue building up the economy and the military and then, most likely everything comes their way by default and maybe a confrontation can even be avoided because of economic reasons or other reasons even outside of china's control.

Xe is impatient, he wants to achieve his goals NOW, even that china is not fully prepared to take on US militarily, something that could be very different in 15 years as an example. He is taking a big risk and yes, it does matter when the confrontation happens, its like winning or losing, big difference.

How others perceive China is also very important and this situation made a big difference on that.

Look at Japan 5 years ago and look at Japan now, who gave Japan the reasons for those changes? Changes that are not good for China. Same story at play.

There is the smart way to do things (China's former policy) and the foolish, very risky way of doing things (Xe's present policy).

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You are right, that's the smart way for china to do things, that's what I'm trying to explain to them, but they don't get it.

I think they do get it. I mean the Chinese leadership. Compared to their power and GDP they have have been rather shy and mute on the world scene. On the whole China has presented a very retiring and meek giant. A Panda if you will rather than a roaring tiger. The reality is whatever China does the mere fact that it is rising like colossus out of water is sending shock waves across the world and the "tiger on the hill" is nervous.
So unless China goes back to where it was inthe 1980s and the colossus sinks back in the water she will attract unwarrented attention and issues will be made out of non issues. Do you recal Colin Powel doing the "method acting" in UN before the Iraq war with the stupid test tube to show the world in a dramatic way that Iraq had chemical weapons when there were non.

Sometimes being who you are can attract the wrong type of attention ....

 

[Genesis]

Well said. America might posture but in time the Chinese economic power will simply tower over even USA. This will be enough to calm down animated USA and like a old man will retire on the rocking chair and live on it's past. I don't think there will be war. USA has never had a war with a equal.

The war devastated Britain, what was left was a shadow of its former self, colonies were given up, British power was at an end, regardless of whether America was better or not, especially since America had surpassed Britain, long before. America is not going to be devastated, nor is it going to be a former shadow of itself. It will just not be the sole power in the world. Which leads me to my question.

Just like UK accepted it was time to slowly give up the throne so will US although expect lot of posturing. The real battle will be fought on the economic front. As long as China keeps moving forward on the economic front the staggering impetus of that will sober USA and everybody east or west will slowly get pulled into Chinese economic gravitas ...

Just my two pennies ....

The UK faced the real task of taking on a power even greater than Nazi Germany, far greater, in Soviet Russia, had they NOT handed the reigns to America.

So the question is, had there not been a real threat of the Soviet Union, would the UK be so willing, if you will, to give up that title as the leader of the West to the Americans, even having been reduced to a pitiful state.

The main point is not the power gradient of one versus the other under during those 2 different situations or timelines. The smart way to go would it have been for china to continue same as before, don't make enemies, make friends, continue building up the economy and the military and then, most likely everything comes their way by default and maybe a confrontation can even be avoided because of economic reasons or other reasons even outside of china's control.

Xe is impatient, he wants to achieve his goals NOW, even that china is not fully prepared to take on US militarily, something that could be very different in 15 years as an example. He is taking a big risk and yes, it does matter when the confrontation happens, its like winning or losing, big difference.

How others perceive China is also very important and this situation made a big difference on that.

Look at Japan 5 years ago and look at Japan now, who gave Japan the reasons for those changes? Changes that are not good for China. Same story at play.

There is the smart way to do things (China's former policy) and the foolish, very risky way of doing things (Xe's present policy).

Everything comes our way by default. Answer me this, would the Americans simply LET everything to come together for us?

In the end I don't think it will go much further than it has, unless you think America will risk a nuclear war, over its allies, as long as China doesn't actually send troops to anyone's capital. Obvious I'm not saying it will get nuclear if it happens, but the possibility exists and America needs to and has accounted for it.

I guess if you think America will go full force into China now, rather than later, that would make sense, but I guess we differ on that.

So let me ask you a direct question, what would the Americans do NOW that can DEFINITIVELY change how China will progress in the areas I listed. If they can't, we can still do what you said later, just from a different starting point.


Side note, Japan hasn't really changed, because it didn't become stronger by doing this, it just moved side ways. It didn't increase their overall government budget, just how much they are spending on military, they just put funds from somewhere to somewhere else, a lateral move, if there ever was any.

I think they do get it. I mean the Chinese leadership. Compared to their power and GDP they have have been rather shy and mute on the world scene. On the whole China has presented a very retiring and meek giant. A Panda if you will rather than a roaring tiger. The reality is whatever China does the mere fact that it is rising like colossus out of water is sending shock waves across the world and the "tiger on the hill" is nervous.
So unless China goes back to where it was inthe 1980s and the colossus sinks back in the water she will attract unwarrented attention and issues will be made out of non issues. Do you recal Colin Powel doing the "method acting" in UN before the Iraq war with the stupid test tube to show the world in a dramatic way that Iraq had chemical weapons when there were non.

Sometimes being who you are can attract the wrong type of attention ....

My point exactly, America will always find an excuse to do this that and the other thing, because we are not innocent in this world and to advance we need to do some shady things.

The people here are arguing that by doing nothing(what they don't mention is, to do that we be bending to their will, look at the claims map of SCS again) , we will automatically get to where we are with no interference from the US and possible help.

This can only happen if the US is willing to simply let us take the throne, because they have to be a good boy during the entirety of our rise, which is still a few decades away.

So why shouldn't China cash in now, and since we be in conflict either way, why let the Americans dictate the initiative, why not take somethings, and make it easier for the future, set the ground work. We would need to start somewhere regardless.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@Genesis Yes even if UK had not been bankrupted by the war she would have vacated to let USA move in as numero uno. You see it is all about leaving no ambigouty. If two guy's run into each other and both are in the same league then there is very good chance of fight. However if one side is overwhelingly stronger rarely does fight break out. Absolute power has very sobering effect.

American's are not stupid and will just posture however if Chinese keeps on the economic trajectory that itself will assure US humility. If China achieves anything like American GDP ( there is no reason to think she will not ) the gross effect of that will be we will have not a superpower but new species that probably would deserve to be called hyperpower since China would end up with economy four times US - All things considered equal.

This alone will suck most of smaller countries into the Chinese orbit and US will contine being superpower only that China will not be in stratsphere but on another planet. So as long as Chinese keeps her march I expect lot of huffing and puffing but the inevitable will happen.

 

[Genesis]

@Genesis Yes even if UK had not been bankrupted by the war she would have vacated to let USA move in as numero uno. You see it is all about leaving no ambigouty. If two guy's run into each other and both are in the same league then there is very good chance of fight. However if one side is overwhelingly stronger rarely does fight break out. Absolute power has very sobering effect.

Maybe, we can't find out now. We do, however, have a real world example. Russians still considers itself a Superpower, or at least a power that should challenge America here and there. The difference between Russia and the US is huge.

You can say Britain is no Russia, Well China's no America either.

I just don't think America will move over that willingly.

American's are not stupid and will just posture however if Chinese keeps on the economic trajectory that itself will assure US humility. If China achieves anything like American GDP ( there is no reason to think she will not ) the gross effect of that will be we will have not a superpower but new species that probably would deserve to be called hyperpower since China would end up with economy four times US - All things considered equal.

This alone will suck most of smaller countries into the Chinese orbit and US will contine being superpower only that China will not be in stratsphere but on another planet. So as long as Chinese keeps her march I expect lot of huffing and puffing but the inevitable will happen.

All things are not equal, and to a more realistic point, how would China achieve said growth and power, even if time is no issue, unless we push back against American influence.

One example is weapons sale, Americans can still sale weapons to middle eastern countries, even though our prices are way cheaper and for the limited funds they have, we can equip a far better army. Not saying American weapons suck, but since funds is an issue for these countries and also technical know how, we be in a better position to do so.


What this illustrates, is a lot of things are key American interests, more so than SCS, and it is political motivated, which means if China wants to break through in a few key economic fronts, we would need to knock down a door somewhere anyways, and it will be a key American interest.

South China Sea, just happens to be one of them, and the first one.

 

[log_ccc]

The point is how and under what reasons the confrontation starts, China, by its actions conceded on that to USA. If China were to just be doing its thing peacefully as it was doing until Xe came to power, then USA is the one that has to break the normal order of things in order to take on China, but now China has given the reasons to USA, very big difference. That's why I said, it did what USA actually needed China to do.

Even Vietnam is not doing things peacefully, your patrol vessels entered Taiwan-controlled water near our Taiping island. You guys are just weak, but your aggressiveness is no less than anybody in this region.

 

[Carlosa]

The war devastated Britain, what was left was a shadow of its former self, colonies were given up, British power was at an end, regardless of whether America was better or not, especially since America had surpassed Britain, long before. America is not going to be devastated, nor is it going to be a former shadow of itself. It will just not be the sole power in the world. Which leads me to my question.



The UK faced the real task of taking on a power even greater than Nazi Germany, far greater, in Soviet Russia, had they NOT handed the reigns to America.

So the question is, had there not been a real threat of the Soviet Union, would the UK be so willing, if you will, to give up that title as the leader of the West to the Americans, even having been reduced to a pitiful state.




Everything comes our way by default. Answer me this, would the Americans simply LET everything to come together for us?

In the end I don't think it will go much further than it has, unless you think America will risk a nuclear war, over its allies, as long as China doesn't actually send troops to anyone's capital. Obvious I'm not saying it will get nuclear if it happens, but the possibility exists and America needs to and has accounted for it.

I guess if you think America will go full force into China now, rather than later, that would make sense, but I guess we differ on that.

So let me ask you a direct question, what would the Americans do NOW that can DEFINITIVELY change how China will progress in the areas I listed. If they can't, we can still do what you said later, just from a different starting point.


Side note, Japan hasn't really changed, because it didn't become stronger by doing this, it just moved side ways. It didn't increase their overall government budget, just how much they are spending on military, they just put funds from somewhere to somewhere else, a lateral move, if there ever was any.



My point exactly, America will always find an excuse to do this that and the other thing, because we are not innocent in this world and to advance we need to do some shady things.

The people here are arguing that by doing nothing(what they don't mention is, to do that we be bending to their will, look at the claims map of SCS again) , we will automatically get to where we are with no interference from the US and possible help.

This can only happen if the US is willing to simply let us take the throne, because they have to be a good boy during the entirety of our rise, which is still a few decades away.

So why shouldn't China cash in now, and since we be in conflict either way, why let the Americans dictate the initiative, why not take somethings, and make it easier for the future, set the ground work. We would need to start somewhere regardless.

I see a sea of change in terms of what Japan is doing, with the firm backing of US, they are challenging China in all fronts, giving money and economic aid to counter the same from china, changing their military attitude big time, 110 billion to counter the chinese lead bank initiative, planning patrols in SCS, come on, don't tell me its not a big change, you know better than that.

Yes, there are a number of situations under which, USA will have to let china have the cake, many types of situations can do that, many things can happen in 15 years. Americans see very well how much china is rising, ask the average american if they want a confrontation in order to stop it, the answer is no. You always need a good reason, a casus belli, SCS provides that.

Russia was also rising, needed to be stopped, so there comes Ukraine, without Ukraine you can only do baby steps as was getting done before. SCS is the Ukraine.

Nuclear war? no way, nobody is stupid enough for that. Is China going to go nuclear because it lost SCS? Of course not. They are not suicidal. How far can US go? Just ask the neocons, haven't you seen what they are capable of doing and what they have already done and what they think of China? It would be easy to have a limited war confined to SCS.
The only thing that is keeping things "soft" is Obama, he is a wimp, but don't count on that with the next one and anyway, even that Obama is a wimp Obama can be push to do more than what he wants.

In the end, why to go the most risky way? Water usually flows through the path of less resistance.

Even Vietnam is not doing things peacefully, your patrol vessels entered Taiwan-controlled water near our Taiping island. You guys are just weak, but your aggressiveness is no less than anybody in this region.

I would say Vietnam's aggressiveness is far less than a certain big power in the region and that's clearly what most people believe. Oil rig anybody? How was that perceived at the international level?
Blockading PH supply ships in the second Thomas shoal, anybody else doing something like that?

 

[log_ccc]

I would say Vietnam's aggressiveness is far less than a certain big power in the region and that's clearly what most people believe. Oil rig anybody? How was that perceived at the international level?
Blockading PH supply ships in the second Thomas shoal, anybody else doing something like that?

I just hope we don`t see a powerful Vietnam in the near future. Countries in South Asia knows pretty well who will be the next if China lose in this SCS dispute. As I said before, Vietnam are just lack of power , but it`s deeds shows it has a very good potential to be the next one. According to the history , I trust Chinese rather than you Vietnamese.

 

[Genesis]

I see a sea of change in terms of what Japan is doing, with the firm backing of US, they are challenging China in all fronts, giving money and economic aid to counter the same from china, changing their military attitude big time, 110 billion to counter the chinese lead bank initiative, planning patrols in SCS, come on, don't tell me its not a big change, you know better than that.

To an equal strength country, changing from a club to a sword would affect the fight, but if the difference is me against GSP, I don't think it matters if I was holding a club or a sword.

Now if Japan was holding a gun, the equivalent of having the US' military industrial complex and the same level of GDP as us, then I be worried, but I don't really care what Japan does as things stand.

Yes, there are a number of situations under which, USA will have to let china have the cake, many types of situations can do that, many things can happen in 15 years. Americans see very well how much china is rising, ask the average american if they want a confrontation in order to stop it, the answer is no. You always need a good reason, a casus belli, SCS provides that.

Russia was also rising, needed to be stopped, so there comes Ukraine, without Ukraine you can only do baby steps as was getting done before. SCS is the Ukraine.

Sure, America certainly would need to let us go on without fanfare, IF we don't touch their key interests, look at IP, jobs, and market access as well as currency value, they have waged a different war on us already that has nothing to do with SCS. Because those things are key American interests just like the SCS.

America sanctioned Russia, because Russia itself cannot sustain a US assault on the economic front. Even without this, it could be human rights, it could be middle east, it could be any numbers of things that America can use to sanction Russia.

I was unaware 1989 had any effect on American allies.

Nuclear war? no way, nobody is stupid enough for that. Is China going to go nuclear because it lost SCS? Of course not. They are not suicidal. How far can US go? Just ask the neocons, haven't you seen what they are capable of doing and what they have already done and what they think of China?
The only thing that is keeping things "soft" is Obama, he is a wimp, but don't count on that with the next one and anyway, even that Obama is a wimp Obama can be push to do more than what he wants.

Obama is a wimp? Really, you think a wimp can become President of the US? You think a wimp would fly a mission into Pakistan to kill Osama, six feet from Pakistani West Point. You think a wimp would try to force through a trade deal with the sole purpose of excluding China and setting the rules of trade. You think a wimp would impose sanctions on a G8 member, come on, give us some credit.

In the end, why to go the most risky way? Water usually flows through the path of less resistance.

You say risky, I say necessary, we could be the ones to provide military cover, negotiate trade terms, and dictate regional development patterns to suit our interests. Look at one road, one belt, America is trying to stop it, because it serves our purpose rather than theirs, and they are not trying to stop it because we are doing what we do in SCS.

If we can win now, in this area, even a minor victory, it will open the door for many things. If we don't do anything, who's to say others won't look at our position as weak and powerless and let America make them pass on our initiatives.

There are other banks in the world like AIIB, but no great power joined, who's to say, if it wasn't the show of force that made people look seriously at our power and thus joining our initiative.




If I were to sum up, we differ on the degree I think SCS can escalate, and whether China can go forward without challenging the US on key interests. It just so happens the SCS issue hurts you close to heart. I don't see you posting about China moving in on other American key interests, and they are just as, if not more, destabilizing to US China relations. Since what we are talking about is China America relations.

 

[xudoai]

I just hope we don`t see a powerful Vietnam in the rear future. Countries in South Asia knows pretty well who will be the next we have to face if China lose in this SCS dispute. As I said before, Vietnam are just lack of power , but it`s deeds shows it has a very good potential to be the next one. According to the history , I trust Chinese rather than you Vietnamese.

Taiwan KMT stolen Itu Aba from South Vietnam in 1956, when we was busy with policy struggle of Ngô Đình Diệm and Emperor Bảo Đại.

Vietnam will take Itu Aba back.

 

[log_ccc]

Taiwan KMT stolen Itu Aba from South Vietnam in 1956, when we was busy with policy struggle of Ngô Đình Diệm and Emperor Bảo Đại.

Vietnam will take Itu Aba back.

Your response is perfectly proved my point. Thanks, bro.

 

[xudoai]

Your response is perfectly proved my point. Thanks you, bro.

bcz, Itu Aba is our Island from long time ago, in the past we didn't have troubles with China bro, pls to understand that we don't have right to give Islands up.

 

[Beast]

You don't get it, the point is not how much power these regional countries add to US, the point is that china's actions created the environment for USA to get involved.



If you don't seriously see anybody asking USA to intervene then I suggest new eyeglasses.

If US wanted to get involved into China. They are millions of way to do it. One way is to fly provoking surveilance plane very near China edge as what happen in 2001. And u are naive to believe China is the cause of all this recent tension? US is the instigator asking Philippine to start reclaim their islet as far as 10years ago and US is also the one asking Philippine to drive out Chinese fisherman from Scarborough shoal area. You are suggesting China shall just sit there and allow pinoy to start all provocation? Maybe when Pinoy reaches hainan water. You shall suggest brilliantly China shall keep a low profile? See how u China basher twisted facts.

 

[Carlosa]

Now if Japan was holding a gun, the equivalent of having the US' military industrial complex and the same level of GDP as us, then I be worried, but I don't really care what Japan does as things stand..

Right there we have a fundamental difference; I think its very important how other countries other than US act and talk and how China is perceived in the international arena. US has many allies, China has none. That makes a big difference and it has made a big difference in the last world wars.

Obama is a wimp? Really, you think a wimp can become President of the US? You think a wimp would fly a mission into Pakistan to kill Osama, six feet from Pakistani West Point. You think a wimp would try to force through a trade deal with the sole purpose of excluding China and setting the rules of trade. You think a wimp would impose sanctions on a G8 member, come on, give us some credit..

Obama is one hell of a wimp when compared to the republicans, he restrained Hillary Clinton and the neocons, otherwise you would it have lost SCS already.

If I were to sum up, we differ on the degree I think SCS can escalate, and whether China can go forward without challenging the US on key interests. It just so happens the SCS issue hurts you close to heart. I don't see you posting about China moving in on other American key interests, and they are just as, if not more, destabilizing to US China relations. Since what we are talking about is China America relations.

SCS is the opportunity for confrontation, the other issues don't provide the opportunity, that's the key difference. China provided the opportunity in a silver platter.

If we can win now, in this area, even a minor victory, it will open the door for many things. If we don't do anything, who's to say others won't look at our position as weak and powerless and let America make them pass on our initiatives..

Win what? Something that you already virtually had, but now you risk losing it, that's not a big risk for you? I didn't see anybody calling China weak, that's your way of seeing things, which is the reason why you confront USA, because you perceive it to be weak. That can be your undoing. Just ask Japan.

If we can win now, in this area, even a minor victory, it will open the door for many things. If we don't do anything, who's to say others won't look at our position as weak and powerless and let America make them pass on our initiatives..

Win what? Something that you already virtually had, but now you risk losing it, that's not a big risk for you? I didn't see anybody calling China weak, that's your way of seeing things, which is the reason why you confront USA, because you perceive it to be weak. That can be your undoing. Just ask Japan.

I just hope we don`t see a powerful Vietnam in the near future. Countries in South Asia knows pretty well who will be the next if China lose in this SCS dispute. As I said before, Vietnam are just lack of power , but it`s deeds shows it has a very good potential to be the next one. According to the history , I trust Chinese rather than you Vietnamese.

As I said many times, chinese and vietnamese are very similar, but the historical record does show that China invaded Vietnam many times not the other way around and anyway, you are pretty much chinese, so I can understand how you think.