Why waning powers meddle in Asian affairs

[TaiShang]

Why waning powers meddle in Asian affairs

By Ng Yau Man David Source:Global Times Published: 2017/9/5

British Prime Minister Theresa May paid a visit to Japan last week. During this trip, she openly pressured China on the threat of North Korea's nuclear development, and also took a tour around the Japanese aircraft carrier Izumo. All these facts highlight the military intentions behind her trip, raising concerns both in her home country and abroad.

According to reports by the Japanese media, the main purpose of May's visit was to discuss economic cooperation between the two countries. She also talked about national defense security and the Korean Peninsulaissue. As it was her first visit to Japan since her election as prime minister in July last year, the breadth of the topics she raised about East Asia and her high-profile stance were beyond many observers' expectations.

Interfering in Asian affairs has become a way for Britain to regain its international influence after Brexit.

For example, not long after Britain's latest aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth was launched, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson announced that British warships would be sent to the South China Sea to travel freely. Does this represent another major policy adjustment after Britain's defense policy toward the "east of Suez" changed in 1964? This is worth observing. After all, since China resumed its sovereignty over Hong Kong, an important prerequisite for the continued improvement of Sino-British relations is that no major conflicts of interest should exist between the two countries.

May's concerns over Asia reflect Britain's desire to seek a presence in the Asia-Pacific region. The sign also shows that Asia, and especially East Asia and the South China Sea, has become a fierce arena for major powers. Non-interference will lead to no say on matters on the international stage. But this kind of interference can only be aimed at curbing the rise of China.

The North Korean nuclear issue has become a risky prospect in the current international political climate, and is putting great pressure on the US. May grabbed the chance to say that Britain would call on China to put as much pressure as possible on North Korea, to not only highlight Britain's presence, but also push China to the frontline of the dispute.

In addition, the previous border standoff between China and India made the US and Japan see more opportunities in alienating China and its neighboring countries.

The US has exported a variety of advanced weapons to India, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is scheduled to soon pay a visit to India.

Conflicts in East and South Asia are an inevitable hurdle China must overcome during its rise. Objective factors also require us to face these external challenges.

China's economic development has bolstered its national strength and improved its military power, but comprehensive national strength needs to be examined by big tests. China is still a developing country, and economic development cannot ultimately represent its only achievement. The power it brings will need some time to transform into other kinds of strength.

At present, China's national strength is in an upward phase and some countries will have to adapt to that. In general China's foreign relations run smoothly, but it still faces challenges from hegemonic countries rather than developing nations.

In the South China Sea for example, many external countries are causing trouble while more and more regional countries are becoming China's friends.

In such a complex international environment, "winning the majority and opposing the minority" is still an important policy tool for China's peaceful rise.

The author is a commentator based in Hong Kong. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The whole issue with North Korea is that the US-bloc no longer has any cards to play, they look powerless to their people.

So their only realistic option is to blame it on China, to say: "Oh the problem can be fixed, but China isn't helping us enough".

It's just political scapegoating, the truth is that no one can do anything about North Korea, unless they want to fight them directly. And no one cares enough to do that.

The only thing the world can do, is sit by and watch as lunatics like Donald Un buy new wigs and test out new bombs.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why waning powers meddle in Asian affairs

By Ng Yau Man David Source:Global Times Published: 2017/9/5

British Prime Minister Theresa May paid a visit to Japan last week. During this trip, she openly pressured China on the threat of North Korea's nuclear development, and also took a tour around the Japanese aircraft carrier Izumo. All these facts highlight the military intentions behind her trip, raising concerns both in her home country and abroad.

According to reports by the Japanese media, the main purpose of May's visit was to discuss economic cooperation between the two countries. She also talked about national defense security and the Korean Peninsulaissue. As it was her first visit to Japan since her election as prime minister in July last year, the breadth of the topics she raised about East Asia and her high-profile stance were beyond many observers' expectations.

Interfering in Asian affairs has become a way for Britain to regain its international influence after Brexit.

For example, not long after Britain's latest aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth was launched, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson announced that British warships would be sent to the South China Sea to travel freely. Does this represent another major policy adjustment after Britain's defense policy toward the "east of Suez" changed in 1964? This is worth observing. After all, since China resumed its sovereignty over Hong Kong, an important prerequisite for the continued improvement of Sino-British relations is that no major conflicts of interest should exist between the two countries.

May's concerns over Asia reflect Britain's desire to seek a presence in the Asia-Pacific region. The sign also shows that Asia, and especially East Asia and the South China Sea, has become a fierce arena for major powers. Non-interference will lead to no say on matters on the international stage. But this kind of interference can only be aimed at curbing the rise of China.

The North Korean nuclear issue has become a risky prospect in the current international political climate, and is putting great pressure on the US. May grabbed the chance to say that Britain would call on China to put as much pressure as possible on North Korea, to not only highlight Britain's presence, but also push China to the frontline of the dispute.

In addition, the previous border standoff between China and India made the US and Japan see more opportunities in alienating China and its neighboring countries.

The US has exported a variety of advanced weapons to India, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is scheduled to soon pay a visit to India.

Conflicts in East and South Asia are an inevitable hurdle China must overcome during its rise. Objective factors also require us to face these external challenges.

China's economic development has bolstered its national strength and improved its military power, but comprehensive national strength needs to be examined by big tests. China is still a developing country, and economic development cannot ultimately represent its only achievement. The power it brings will need some time to transform into other kinds of strength.

At present, China's national strength is in an upward phase and some countries will have to adapt to that. In general China's foreign relations run smoothly, but it still faces challenges from hegemonic countries rather than developing nations.

In the South China Sea for example, many external countries are causing trouble while more and more regional countries are becoming China's friends.

In such a complex international environment, "winning the majority and opposing the minority" is still an important policy tool for China's peaceful rise.

The author is a commentator based in Hong Kong. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

One more day, one more threat.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

One more day, one more threat.

In your "objective" analysis, where is the threat in this article, and who is threatening whom?

 

[Joe Shearer]

In your "objective" analysis, where is the threat in this article, and who is threatening whom?

I don't do jargon, but the comment about south Asia is pretty telling. Or do you have problems decoding it?

Here is the specific comment:

Conflicts in East and South Asia are an inevitable hurdle China must overcome during its rise. Objective factors also require us to face these external challenges.

What external challenges from south Asia does China have to overcome?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I don't do jargon, but the comment about south Asia is pretty telling. Or do you have problems decoding it?

What needs to be decoded?

Where is the threat, and who is threatening whom?

And when you say "One more day, one more threat", what are the previous threats you are referring to?

 

[Joe Shearer]

What needs to be decoded?

Where is the threat, and who is threatening whom?

And when you say "One more threat", what are the previous threats you are referring to?

1. Perhaps - just perhaps - the comment in the article needed to be decoded. If it is clear to you, surely you would not have been asking these questions.
2. Apparently there is a perceived 'external challenge' to China from south Asia.
3. The newspapers, the electronic media, Facebook, Twitter, PDF have been full of threats from China and Chinese persons to India and Indian persons.

Anything else? Am I to believe seriously that you actually needed these questions answered?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

1. Perhaps - just perhaps - the comment in the article needed to be decoded. If it is clear to you, surely you would not have been asking these questions.
2. Apparently there is a perceived 'external challenge' to China from south Asia.
3. The newspapers, the electronic media, Facebook, Twitter, PDF have been full of threats from China and Chinese persons to India and Indian persons.

Anything else? Am I to believe seriously that you actually needed these questions answered?

OK, you said that: "The newspapers, the electronic media, Facebook, Twitter, PDF have been full of threats from China and Chinese persons to India and Indian persons."

Threats from China, where are those? I mean, apart from the Indian media claiming it so? And I'm sure you know that "opinion pieces" from the Global Times don't count as official Chinese government positions or statements.

And more importantly, where are the threats from China in the article in this thread? "External challenges" mean exactly that, external challenges. Which are so far (thankfully), bloodless. Unlike say, the India-Pakistan border.

 

[third eye]

This article reeks of the Red Book.
The very premise of the article is flawed. In today's day & age anything happening anywhere on the globe impacts nations worldwide.

What the joker in NK does impacts essentials like energy costs & trade to say the least. Why then should all natio.d not be concerned ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

OK, you said that: "The newspapers, the electronic media, Facebook, Twitter, PDF have been full of threats from China and Chinese persons to India and Indian persons."

Threats from China, where are those? I mean, apart from the Indian media claiming it so?

Apparently this business of being disingenuous is appealing to you. From your external affairs ministry spokesperson to representatives of the PLA to commentators on supposedly influential media that are supposed to reflect the strategic views of the CPC, there have been incessant comments and a rain of innuendo.

Are we now to be played the peace card?

As for Indian media claiming it, when the media, Indian and international, publish a statement filled with dire warnings, it does not take a line drawn under the offensive material, it does not take a commentator for people to read it and draw their own conclusions.

And more importantly, where is it in the article in this thread? "External challenges" mean exactly that, external challenges. Which are so far (thankfully), bloodless. Unlike say, the India-Pakistan border.

What challenges would China expect from south Asia? A Bangladeshi lightning sweep through Tibet? A Nepalese attempt at capturing Lhasa? Unexpected bombing of air fields in Tibet by Sri Lanka?

External challenges mean exactly that, external challenges. And their being bloodless today is no guarantee that they will remain bloodless tomorrow. Or at least so we are told. Constantly. Remembering the lessons of 62 surely does not relate to a table tennis competition that was lost by a heavy margin.

I am really surprised at your attempt to project this as normal and nothing unusual. A threat is a threat.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I am really surprised at your attempt to project this as normal and nothing unusual. A threat is a threat.

Except there is no threat in this article.

And even if there was, a "commentator in Hong Kong" writing an opinion piece for a controversial tabloid is certainly not a threat from the Chinese government.

And their being bloodless today is no guarantee that they will remain bloodless tomorrow.

China's "external challenges" (which include border conflicts) are currently bloodless, this is a fact. India's border conflicts are constantly bloody, on their border with Pakistan and Bangladesh people are shot down on a regular basis by the Indian Army and the BSF (not counting what is happening within Indian-administered Kashmir for now, civilians being used as human shields on jeeps etc). Not to mention regular mortar fire between India and Pakistan, even to the extent of targeting civilian villages along the LoC, as well as soldiers having their bodies mutilated, and their heads removed (and assumed lost).

Whatever China's "external challenges" are, the Chinese government has not had to resort to opening fire against other countries, not for the last few decades. And yes, that may change in the future, but no one can predict the future.

After all, despite all the doom and gloom from India, China did not open fire, right? And the Indian members here call it cowardice, but if China opens fire then we are bloodthirsty. So basically, we cannot win either way, not in the case of Modi supporters especially.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Except there is no threat in this article.

You are perfectly correct, if a threat is to be defined as a statement of the sort,"Tomorrow at 11'o'clock, we intend to drop a bomb on Hauz Khas." If a threat is to be defined as a threat is usually defined, an invocation of harm or opposition to somebody's intentions or actions, it is there in clear view. Notwithstanding your stout denial.

And even if there was, a "commentator in Hong Kong" writing an opinion piece for a controversial tabloid is certainly not a threat from the Chinese government.

What did my original comment say? Are you picking a quarrel?

China's "external challenges" (which include border conflicts) are currently bloodless, this is a fact.

Yet there was every encouragement to think otherwise during the recent strained period. Or do you deny that as well?

India's border conflicts are constantly bloody, on their border with Pakistan and Bangladesh people are shot down on a regular basis by the Indian Army and the BSF (not counting what is happening within Indian-administered Kashmir for now, civilians being used as human shields on jeeps etc). Not to mention regular mortar fire between India and Pakistan, even to the extent of targeting civilian villages along the LoC, as well as soldiers having their bodies mutilated, and their heads removed (and assumed lost).

In this time slice, certainly. Would you like a recital of bloody confrontations in which China was involved? Secondly, has not China aggressively expanded her presence in carefully selected spots, even though bloodlessly?

Whatever China's "external challenges" are, the Chinese government has not had to resort to opening fire against other countries, not for the last few decades. And yes, that may change in the future, but no one can predict the future.

Nobody has to predict the future, or seeks to predict the future. Most of us are appalled at the violent storm of abuse and direct threat that was sent our way recently. This is about threats that have just died down, not about the future at all.

After all, despite all the doom and gloom from India, China did not open fire, right? And the Indian members here call it cowardice, but if China opens fire then we are bloodthirsty.

It strikes me that your selective use of examples is curiously transparent. Just as you disclaim the statements of journalists, and deny their connection with the Chinese national administration, you might try considering treating Indian members as other than an inchoate mass. Since you made the statement, do feel free to point out where I called the sensible and rational decision to disengage and to abandon the road-making cowardice.

The discrimination that you seek from others is surely one that you should practise yourself.

So basically, we cannot win either way, not in the case of Modi supporters especially.

I can answer for the general mass, but not for Modi supporters, unless you are labouring under the delusion that I am one myself. No, you cannot win as long as it seems that you seek to achieve your goals either through threat, or, where that is possible, through outright violence. If your history with us had been bloodless, you might have made the remark that you made with perfect legitimacy. As matters stand now, considering the huge amount of hate on display from Chinese members, they and the Modi supporters deserve each other. As matters stand now, an ordinary Indian man in the street, as I am, has no way of knowing whether the intention is to merely threaten or to kill as well.

@Chinese-Dragon

You mentioned "....a "commentator in Hong Kong" writing an opinion piece for a controversial tabloid". Perhaps your finger should not be pointing in our direction. How are we to know who is who? Might I suggest that you ask the person posting to add a word or two putting in these helpful clues?

 

[Loafer]

That moment when @Joe Shearer goes to lengths to defend India!

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

That moment when @Joe Shearer goes to lengths to defend India!

That's the part that confused me as well, that Joe Shearer is suddenly arguing with me in the same way that a regular Modi supporter does.

You mentioned "....a "commentator in Hong Kong" writing an opinion piece for a controversial tabloid". Perhaps your finger should not be pointing in our direction. How are we to know who is who? Might I suggest that you ask the person posting to add a word or two putting in these helpful clues?

Well it says that right at the bottom of the article...

Nobody has to predict the future, or seeks to predict the future. Most of us are appalled at the violent storm of abuse and direct threat that was sent our way recently. This is about threats that have just died down, not about the future at all.

Yet there was still no bloodshed, nobody opened fire, nobody was killed.

China's tabloids, India's tabloids and Hong Kong's tabloids had a field day though.

Now contrast that with the regular bloodshed on India's borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh, where parents regularly have to come to terms with the fact that they will never see their children again, where children regularly have to come to terms with the fact they will never see their parents again.

If you ask me, I would prefer the version without the bloodshed. Which is what China has achieved over the last few decades, and India has not. Now if India wants to turn the Sino-Indian border into the India-Pakistan border in terms of bloodshed, that will be their own choice, how can we stop them from doing that?

 

[Joe Shearer]

That's the part that confused me as well, that Joe Shearer is suddenly arguing with me in the same way that a regular Modi supporter does.

Regular Modi supporters are bigots and fascists. If I said anything bigoted or fascist in nature, I would be glad if you pointed it out. However, on the other hand, being assertive on the side of my nation is surely nothing to do with liking or disliking Modi? I have been assertive - it is to be hoped that my remarks were not rude - in conversation with a very eminent Pakistani member with a penchant for pulling out supposedly authoritative articles out of his hat, articles that endorse the Pakistani point of view on one particular issue or another. Please take a look at that exchange; would that detailed and involved discussion be typical of a Modista, or would that sub-species of the human race not confine itself to single-sentence abuse and personal attack?

I am thunderstruck that you found a resemblance.

Well it says that right at the bottom of the article...

It just gave the name and the role, and the name of the paper. How are we to interpret that meagre introduction? How would we know if Global Times is left, right or looped over itself in the centre, unless one of you tells us?

Yet there was still no bloodshed, nobody opened fire, nobody was killed.

China's tabloids, India's tabloids and Hong Kong's tabloids had a field day though.

Now contrast that with the regular bloodshed on India's borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh, where parents regularly have to come to terms with the fact that they will never see their children again, where children regularly have to come to terms with the fact they will never see their parents again.

To put it mildly, it is an unfair comparison.

You have the signal advantage of not having an overcrowded nation on your doorstep, other than two tightly regimented societies, Vietnam and North Korea, and they surely are under very severe restrictions; no leakage over the border there. Do please take that into account.

We have to deal with a hungry and despairing population - please ignore what these threads report from the side of the immigrants, I have personally seen the rising number of labourers who have risked their lives to come across.

On the other side, we have to deal with a vast cloud of fanatics, who will try to infiltrate through our borders and come in to kill, maim and oppress the legitimate authorities. We have not only to face them, we have to face a tough, well-trained Army that has been dedicated to the mission of slipping across these crazies under cover of their fire and their distractions. These are the reasons why there is bloodshed, and relatively little or none across the borders with Nepal, Bhutan and even Sri Lanka, apart from constant friction between fishermen and the Sri Lankan Navy.

If you ask me, I would prefer the version without the bloodshed. Which is what China has achieved over the last few decades, and India has not. Now if India wants to turn the Sino-Indian border into the India-Pakistan border in terms of bloodshed, that will be their own choice, how can we stop them from doing that?

Who would not? If there was one noticeable difference during the recent difficult days, it was the enormous public pressure built up by one side, and the discretion and diplomatic silence maintained by the other. I take your point about the tabloids; leaving them out of the equation shows a startling disparity of behaviour. Under those circumstances, and considering such restraint of behaviour, is it fair to suggest that India wants to turn the Sino-Indian border into the India-Pakistan border? Who is being provocative, and who is rattling their swords in their scabbards?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a good place to stop. This exchange should not become strident and should not descend to ethnic slurs or to remarks about comparative IQ; I respect you too much for that. However, that same respect ought not to tie me down or stop me from upholding what I am bound to uphold, within the bounds of democratic behaviour and acknowledgement of a corporate standard.

Thank you for your wise counsel, and I shall refrain from spontaneous gasps of indignation in future.

I found to my embarrassment that my best friend among the Chinese members appears to be reading this thread. To him, and to you, and to the other Chinese members of good intentions, my greetings and assurances of goodwill.