Japan, Koreas, China and Taiwan regional issues

[Musashi_kenshin]

It's unfortunate that China feels the need to beat its chest like a gorilla when these sorts of visits happen. Yes, I understand that there is a CCP congress later this year that's important for Xi, but it's not like it's happening next week.

There's a good article in the Financial Times about how Xi missed an opportunity to dismiss the visit as not being that significant. Instead he's inflated the importance of the visit and failed to stop it happening.

Perhaps the saying "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt" has some value here.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Given that the Americans will not compensate the Taiwanese for their losses or offer Taiwan a trade agreement.

Previous Chinese attempts to punish Taiwan by blocking imports of certain foodstuffs haven't gone according to plan. The infamous ban on Taiwanese pineapples opened up alternative markets, especially in Japan - the result was that Taiwanese growers sold more than before the Chinese ban. It's quite possible that with the increase in food prices globally, other countries might be very happy to snap up Taiwanese produce to keep their prices down.

Also according to Nikkei Asia, some of the "suspensions" only come into force in 2027.

So I have to question as to how much of a negative impact these latest Chinese trade restrictions will have.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

There seems to be circumstancial logic in both assertions - that China is merely posturing, and that it's preparing to attack imminently.

• Most opinions I heard, revolved around the events in Russia and Belarus prior to the Ukraine invasion.

For those who are of the same mind here, I offer this opinion:

• Russian movements were simply visible because of a lack of alternative, not deliberately shown. And they were politically downplayed.

Chinese movements appear to be done at least partially for visibility. Even if they can't hide them, they should have been less visible.

• For example, in the following video we see amphibious IFVs driving on a crowded beach. A normal exercise would occur either in an unpopulated beach strip very far from any civilian, or said beach would have been closed down via a notice from days or weeks ahead.

This little exercise seems to have been purposely made to generate social media posts that would then flow to the western media.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1554377876727705601

It's still a 50/50 IMO, on whether or not they're bluffing. But the MO is different.

 

[koxinga]

I am not sure how valid is this observation, but it bears discussion

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553115639522463747

To stop the landing, it would make sense to mine the beaches, and use mobile response forces to flood troops when needed. I would also pre-sight the beaches and pound it from afar (an equally complicated task now given PLA's increasing effective killchain) rather than try to do WWI style trenches.

I supposed they were inspired by the Urkrainians and their sandbags in Odessa but they need to decide what works for them and what does not. PLA is not exactly the Black Sea Fleet and they have been specifically training for an opposed landing for years.

Sandbags and songs on Odessa beach as Ukrainians help build defences

Residents of Odessa formed a human chain on Monday to carry heavy sandbags from the beach onto waiting trucks as the Ukrainian port city frantically built defences against advancing Russian troops. Since shortly after the invasion of Ukraine began on Feb. 24, civilians from all walks of life...

news.yahoo.com

Although largely for propoganda purposes, observations of PLA training exercises have more or less identified PLA amphib landing doctrine and shows that they are keenly aware of the need to eliminate shore based threats with a combination of artillery bombardment and landing heavy armour as part of the initial wave.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=cmsi-maritime-reports

 

[STURM]

When the Japanese took it much was still ungoverned by China, the indigenous people having been pushed out of the fertile lowlands but still holding most of the uplands & east coast, & that's a very large proportion of the island.

Off topic; apologies but I thought I'd mentioned it.. The indigenous people of Taiwan speak the same language [Austronesian] as spoken by the Malays and other locals in Malaysia, Sumatera and other places in the region.

It's unfortunate that China feels the need to beat its chest like a gorilla when these sorts of visits happen.

Perhaps the saying "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt" has some value here.

How could China be quiet? It has long maintained that Taiwan is an integral part of China [most of the world agrees] and that the U.S. is again interfering in a Chinese internal/domestic affair. Having put itself into such a position and long maintained it; China has no choice but to be vocal.

Also, to China such visits are harmful because it can embolden the Taiwanese.

This little exercise seems to have been purposely made to generate social media posts that would then flow to the western media.

It's also intended for a Chinese audience.

It's still a 50/50 IMO, on whether or not they're bluffing. But the MO is different..

I doubt all this is a foretaste of what's going to come. China is just sabre rattling and is in no rush or has no desire to undertake armed action at present. If however it feels that the political calculus has changed and it has no choice; then it would resort to military action [like it did in Korea in 1950 and in Vietnam in 1979].

 

[koxinga]

To add, China sees this as a slippery slope.

If the Speaker the House can come to Taiwan, you are gonna to start having various members of the Congress and Administration stopping by for visits. The actions that it is taking today and in the subsequent days would be aimed forstalling this situation, by exacting a cost on Taiwan and the US.

 

[koxinga]

China is just sabre rattling and is in no rush or has no desire to undertake armed action at present.

China appears to still adhere to the red lines (no independence declaration/nuclear weapons/foreign invasion) that was set by DXP since 1978 with regards to military action. Useful and relevant to China's strategy because it does not yet has the confidence in its capacity to carry out said military action.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If the Speaker the House can come to Taiwan, you are gonna to start having various members of the Congress and Administration stopping by for visits.

I mean that's already happened. There was a congressional visit in 2018, for example. Then there was Alex Azar's visit in 2020. The horse has very much bolted in that respect, in part due to the Taiwan Travel Act.

China can probably stop high-level administration visits by engaging with the US and offering cooperation on issues like climate change, not arming Russia, etc. But it can't stop congressional visits as they're decided by legislators whose objectives aren't the same as the government.

 

[swerve]

The problem is that the Chinese have difficulty in understanding the difference between a member of the legislature & a member of the government. Everyone has to toe the party line in China.

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem is that the Chinese have difficulty in understanding the difference between a member of the legislature & a member of the government. Everyone has to toe the party line in China.

The CCP doesn't have any difficulty at all knowing who's who in the zoo; it is being purely bloody minded and stubborn about the whole matter is acting like a typical schoolyard bully. Everything has to be on it's terms and there's no flexibility. The claim that the Taiwan Strait isn't international waters is absolute bull manure and the CCP knows that.

 

[STURM]

There is flexibility but only after other parties have agreed to the PRC's terms; plays by its rules and acknowledges that the PRC is the "senior"' dominant party. Naturally the PRC will determine the level of flexibility or compromise it's willing to make and others have to accept it.

 

[koxinga]

There is flexibility but only after other parties have agreed to the PRC's terms; plays by its rules and acknowledges that the PRC is the "senior"' dominant party. Naturally the PRC will determine the level.of flexibility or compromise its willing to make and others have to accept it.

In PRC's worldview, there is no such thing as fair terms anyway. If it is not on PRC's terms, it assumes that it would be on the losing end. A worldview shaped by the unequal treaties that China entered into in the 19th / 20th century.

 

[STURM]

A worldview shaped by the unequal treaties that China entered into in the 19th / 20th century.

Coloured by the period when it was not fully in charge of its own affairs and destiny: when due to Chinese weaknesses and other factors it was taken advantage of by outside powers.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

In PRC's worldview, there is no such thing as fair terms anyway. If it is not on PRC's terms, it assumes that it would be on the losing end. A worldview shaped by the unequal treaties that China entered into in the 19th / 20th century.

I'll counter by pointing out that between a quarter and a fifth of the world was part of the British Empire a lot more recently than China's unequal treaties. Unlike China, those countries generally don't have such a jaded view of global affairs. Somehow they've been able to move on.

The problem is that the CCP has deliberately fostered a feeling of anger and resentment as a means of helping keep domestic control, not unlike the Nazi Party in post-WWI Germany. I certainly think it helps the CCP in international relations to portray itself as a victim, so it can get its way more easily. But it could also be a sign that many in the Party are themselves delusional ethno-nationalists who think China somehow deserves to be at the centre of the universe because it's the will of heaven.

 

[STURM]

Somehow they've been able to move on.

That may be so but it was easier for these countries to "move on"'. They were clear lines : they were colonialised by their blue eyed overlords and that was it. They were also not major powers in the past and unlike China today do not see themselves as a rising power; once whose rise is being curtailed [as the PRC sees it] by other powers which have traditionally controlled world affairs and which at one point trampled over China.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

They were also not major powers in the past

India would like to have a word with you. Before colonisation they were around a quarter of the global economy. Just because Indians' egos weren't the same size as those of the Chinese doesn't mean that they were a minor country. It's just another sign of the CCP's historical revisionism.

 

[STURM]

I'll counter by pointing out that between a quarter and a fifth of the world was part of the British Empire a lot more recently than China's unequal treaties.

Up until the start of WW2 - long after the British Empire had stopped expanding - parts of China were still not under the sovereign control of the Chinese.

 

[Gooey]

Sturm,

everyone in their nationalist way believes that they were once major powers at some point in history and that they have been trampled at other times too. Even Portugal. Most lean to move on with their history and evolve. Example UK.

To use terms like colonialism and overlords, falls into the CCP et al victimization mode. The various European empires had differing outcomes. Obviously it was a business model at its heart but undoubtably they also spread new ideas and/or kick started local events. The 5000 years of Chinese civilization, likewise.

The fact that CCP uses extreme nationalism to make its population fall into line and justify its world power with no responsibilities attitude does not mean that we should too.

 

[STURM]

India would like to have a word with you.

Maybe so but let me remind you that India too sees itself as great power and a lot of what does is in some way coloured by its colonial past. India was also a colony; China was not.

 

[STURM]

nationalist way believes that they were once major powers at some point in history and that they have been trampled at other times too. Even Portugal.

They were ''powers'' in a different sense and how they perceive things today can differ; as they were varying factors at play. Portugal was a major power during a certain period but not comparable in size or influence compared to China which was a ''power'' in its own right; much earlier than Portugal; a colonial power in a way that China wasn't.

Most lean to move on with their history and evolve. Example UK.

''Move on'' in what context? How can we compare the U.K. to China? The U.K; unlike China had never been invaded or occupied in recent history; until the end of WW2 or rather the years after that still had an empire; it had various colonies all over the world; had great influence and until the early 1950's was still meddling in the affairs of various countries in the Middle East. I've just finished ''Lords Of the Desert : The Battle Between The U.S. and Britain For Supremacy In the Middle East'' [James Barr]. It's an excellent read; in the 1950's Britain was still dictating things to countries in the Middle East; acting as if it were still a great imperial power; which it had ceased being. It took until the Suez Crisis for the Brit leadership to realise that they weren't a great imperial power anymore and were a junior partner to the U.S.

To use terms like colonialism and overlords, falls into the CCP et al victimization mode.

Sorry mate but it's not the ''victimization mode'' as you put it but the fact that - like it or not; disagree or not - China's history plays a major role in how it conducts itself. It has a chip on its shoulder; paranoia and prejudices. One may not condone or agree with what China does but would be foolish to ignore the various factors which drive it. Also terms like ''colonialism and overlords'' were/are valid terms - people lived under their ''colonial overlords'' who dictated almost everything they did. Much of the world as it exists today is legacy of its colonial past.

The fact that CCP uses extreme nationalism to make its population fall into line and justify its world power with no responsibilities attitude does not mean that we should too.

I'm not justifying what China is doing. Note that this is not a discussion or debate about what's right or wrong; the evils of colonialism or about defending China's actions but about the various factors which plays a part in how China conducts itself. We may not agree with what it's doing but we can perhaps understand why it's doing what it's doing.