To China the Spratleys are now an undisputable of China, just like Tibet and Tukerstan. Nationalism is a powerful tool and unites people.... The Moroccans would say the Western Sahara is 100% Moroccan and the Argentine's would say the same about the Falklands/Malvinas.
I'm no expert on China or Chinese foreign policy but it would appear that China's strategy for dealing with other claimants over the Spratley's would be to use it's greater diplomatic and economic clout, and of course military muscle, to wear down each individual claimant on the negotiation table. Like everyone else, China is contend to mantain the status quo unless off course 'provocative' moves are made by other countries.
Agreed, nothing is permanent. Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, being in China's backyard have had trading relations with China for centuries. The difference now is that China's a world power and the economies of these countries are tied to the fortune's of China in a way they never were before.
Too: SAMPANVIKING
There is so much that needs to be addressed within your response I cannot get to all of your points and address them fully. Obviously we are both predicating our outlooks upon different assumptions and it is those, as yet unstated and unclarified assumptions, which are at the heart of our disagreements.
It is always a danger when you challenge the deeply felt assumptions of any person. The set of assumptions we live by is called a World View. Our individual World View’s is how we interpret the events surrounding us and their effects in the world as they directly relate to our internal sense of self, they go to our vary identity as a person. And no matter the clarity or the rigorous formulation of the argument employed or the sincerity of the parties to find a rational resolution, such arguments will often tend to be interrupted by one to the other, not as rational perceptions based upon different assumptions but as personal attacks or even worse, to be attacks upon the persons’ country, race, or culture. I am not clamming that you have done so but if the issue changes to the validity of our respective World Views, there is that danger that it could. So many times people on this and on other boards as well, get into useless shouting matches that gets the passions up but does not lead to any understanding. So instead of helping people to find mutual areas of cooperation it only makes things worse.
The reason I went to all of the trouble of stating the difficulties now before us at this time, is because I do not want to have this topic descend to the level of just the trading of insults. Again I did not say you have done so but if we lose discipline then we could. Let us see if we together can overcome this perennial obstacle to human understanding?
To begin, first to your mostly correct observation.
“Well Rip, your complaint seems to be that China has the temerity to have a vision for the future of its own immediate region that is distinct, separate and different from that of the US. What exactly is so surprising about it? Chinese Assertiveness?”
Let us take this statement apart to examine its core assumptions, does China have a different Vision than the US, well obviously it does. The US vision, I think, is fairly clear if you look at the organizations, groups, and ideas it has sponsored all over the world, many of these organizations and policies, the very existence of which, China has greatly profited from. The US has been broadcasting its vision fairly constantly for at least fifty years with specific goals in mind of what kind of world we want to live in. But exactly what is China’s vision? To my dim old eyes and faltering brain all that I can see about China’s new vision is that it should be more important. Ok, then what? Please tell me how dose its vision enhance the peace, health, and prosperity of the world, I want to know, educate me if I am ignorant. I am open to the possibility that improvements are possible; in fact I am sure improvements are possible, what are your proposals? Convince me.
But there is another element within your statement to consider, specifically the emotionally driven reference you put upon the world “temerity”. There is a wealth of subtext in that world and a complete other reality of differences in our two different sets of assumptions. I admite I have a very strong bias which I have made clear on several occasions and that is my strong Anti-Confucianism. It is not an arcane point of abstract Philosophy but a true point of difference in our different sets of assumptions than even supersedes the ones of nationalism. In Confucianism you are ether the master, the pupil, or a rival. Effective cooperation among equals is not honored in that highly stratified and hierarchical thought system which calms to promotes stability (it leads to stagnation and dictatorship) over fruitless turmoil (progress and prosperity). Your unstated assumption is that if you are not in the superior position in the relationship, than you must be in the inferior position, something that is not required within our system of thought and often not even considered a relevant issue in many common situations.
I know you do not believe it when I say it; in fact it might not be even possible for you believe it, no matter what proof is given. I have run into that frustrating situation before. Many of us in the west consider it a great waste of time and energy to play the dominance game when all you want is a specific amount of cooperation not dominance. I have a great deal of experience in working with various oriental peoples who's societies have been heavily influenced by Confucianism and as I have said at other places and at other times on this board, I have worked for them, I have had them work for me, and the most difficult relationship to successfully master is the one between equals. Equals are always seen as rivals and getting reliable cooperation from rivals is difficult no matter the goal you both wish to achieve.
As to Chinese Assertiveness.
We will deal with as it comes. Thou we are wary of the future and what it could bring, we are not afraid and are never likely to become afraid but China seems to have its anxieties. Tell me if you can why is the only possible solution to the territorial issues in the South China Sea is China’s insistence that negotiations with each of the interested parties can be only be conducted separately? This does not make any sense when the other parities clams overlap with each other as well with China's. Does China want to settle these issues fairly or is it idea of settling them so as to get its way by picking off the other countries clams one at a time (Defeat them in detail would be the military term)? What it looks like to these old and dim eyes as it does too many other people, as nothing but bulling.
At this point I will make the true factual statement, which is that China’s clam to these waters is unrealistic and is based upon the sliest of pretexts. This is not the place to expose the flimsiness of those clams because in the end, the right or wrong of them has nothing to do with it but everything to do with the exercise of power. It is the assumption that power alone gives you the right and that is enough, if you really have or will ever have the power to back it up or not.
Yes I have read several of the Chinese classics upon power and the use of military force currently in vogue within China today and I am not impressed. Of all of China’s great history and culture to resurrect only that one aspect is a tragedy. If fact if you take their advice, it is a road that leads directly to disaster but where else would a medieval system of thought take you in the modern world? The world has moved on and different ways of thinking about the priorities of life and the best use of all kinds of power has come into being because they work better.
As an example, you talk about your area (meaning Asia I assume). What exactly makes it yours? The sphere of influence and natural hegemony of geography are both obsolete and dangers ideas. The last ones to try pursuing that as you remember, were the Japanese and their Asia co-prosperity sphere. Remind me again how well did that work out for anybody? Of all the people in the world that suffered the most from that obsolete set of ideas of order and power, China suffered the most and yet at some level you still think these ideas will work and all that you need to do is do is to do the same things just only smarter? Perhaps the approach itself no longer works no matter how cleverly you pursue it.
I have already gone on too long and yet I have barely scratched the surface in pointing out our different assumptions and how those assumptions effect our very perceptions of the world we both live in. I am always trying to learn more and I have been working on understanding just how profound the differences in perception between people can be for a long time. If you can show me my errors, please do.
hwell
