Spratly Islands - News and Discussions

[rip]

The communist party faces an ongoing crisis of legitimacy caused by the adoption of quasi (bastardized) free market institutions and the rejection of communist ideology. For a party which not only came to power but justified one party rule on the back of the promise to act in the name of the proletariat (such as existed in China) and achieve a socialist state to reject all of the above in favor of liberalized trade and profit legitimacy is always going to be a serious issue.That's what Tiananmen was all about.



Not every individual is a nationalist. Nationalism is an artificial phenomena. Racism is not a natural, racist ideology needs to be taught not the other way around. A child doesn't know the difference between a black friend and a white friend.

If you're trying to say that every national government acts in their own interest, well that gos without saying.



This does somewhat explain Chinese nationalism, however all too often nationalistic expressions like that seen in contemporary China are a product of a politicized education system and media; i.e. a tool of the state. There are plenty of other nations in the far east who share a similar history of defeat and exploitation who do not display the same level of nationalism. Korea suffered far worse under the Japanese for far longer than most of China, yet South Korea is no where near as nationalistic as contemporary China. Again, IMO, it comes down to regime legitimacy. Plenty of other one party governments have turned to nationalism and foreign threats to legitimize their hold on power.

As to your response to my statement that everyone starts out as a racist and that racism is learned from the culture you are wrong. I suggest that you study the subject called Sociobiology. If you do you will learn that the DNA of our bodies continually conspires to perpetuate itself at all costs, even sometimes when it is contained in the bodies of others. This has the effect that we always naturally favor the like to the unlike without realizing it or why we do it. This is true for all life forms and not just us humans. When you stated “A child doesn't know the difference between a black friend and a white friend.” You are not debunking the power of natural racism but stating the effects of habituation. The real test comes when the individual is confronted with the unfamiliar and unexpected. Is it with curiosity, compassion, and interest or is it with suspicion, revulsion, judgment, and fear? That is when the true education in moral principles and the power of reason can overcome the legacy of our universal animal past.

I bring up this point not because I believe in a race centered view of life but because the Chinese have a very strong race centered view of themselves and to understand them you must take their self-image into account. This is not only true of the Chinese living within China but it is also true for a great many of them living outside of China in their wider diaspora. It is very strongly in other parts of South East Asia, far more so than in other parts of the world but almost always present to some degree.

I will demonstrate my point by using the city state of Singapore. There was no city there before the English created it. Its history is colonial but it is not one of conquest. They imported most of the people and most of the people were Han Chinese. Though many different kinds of people work and live successfully in Singapore it is fundamentally a Chinese City existing outside of China. A city that works very well by most peoples standers. Not perfect but still fairly well. They are not communist, they are not aggressive and they do not have an ax to grind but you will notice that for their sized and population they have a very strong military. Why?

The answer is they have shared many of the same privations of Chinese people living elsewhere. In the fall of Singapore in WW 2 there was the Sook Ching massacre and other privations that have scared them mentally and where not surprisingly; they do not want to take any more chances. Nothing reinforces a group identity, even a race centered identity, like people killing you just because you belong to a group or race. Just ask the Jews. The difference is in how the people of Singapore have decided to deal with their history not in the feeling that drive them.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Bush and Sarkozy just to name a few turn to wars and foreign threats in Middle East and Libya respectively to save their political careers. Although there's little difference between the political parties in those countries, I don't think they are single party states. At least the parties have different names.

Because there is a difference between individual political survival and regime survival. Sure western politicians utilize foreign military entanglements for personal political gain, but, again, that's hardly analogous to the sustained manipulation of a politicized media and education system. One is a longstanding and concerted attempt by the regime itself, the other is, by definition, far more limited.

By the way Bush was a popular first term president in 2003, not sure how Iraq was designed to save his political career.

Just how do you measure the degree of nationalism in China and SK with regard to Japan anyway ?
A simple search on the internet shows the latest SK-Japan tension.

AFP: S. Korea warns Japan against disputed island visit

"S. Korea warns Japan against disputed island visit

(AFP) – 1 day ago

SEOUL — South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak has warned Japanese lawmakers against visiting a site near islands claimed by both nations, saying their safety cannot be guaranteed, an official said Wednesday.

The neighbours are facing a renewed escalation in a decades-old territorial row over the Seoul-controlled Dokdo islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), which are known as Takeshima in Japan.

The latest row began when flag carrier Korean Air operated a test flight of its new A380 aircraft over Dokdo in June. Tokyo in response ordered public servants not to use Korean Air for a month..............................
South Korea, which was colonised by Japan from 1910-1945, has sought to strengthen its control over the islets after Japan in March authorised new school textbooks reasserting its claims to them........................"

Resentment is not nationalism, two different things. International tension between two nations previously at war does not, in itself, indicate abnormal levels of nationalism in one or the other.

You can gauge Korean nationalism by their actions in the international sphere; how many assertive military and diplomatic initiatives has Soul taken outside of the peninsula, are they committed to multilateral security relationships, do you hear Korean rhetoric concerning reclaiming a certain deserved place in the international system, have the threatened to invade and annex what is, essentially, a sovereign neighbor? What is the Korean public reaction to the above?

China has espoused rhetoric concerning a perceived "special place" in the international system of which it has been deprived. China has stated an intent to invade an annex Taiwan if that island declares formal independence, a state of affairs which it has informally enjoyed for decades. China has a stated desire to dominate the western pacific ocean out to the "third island chain", which includes several regional neighbors. This all indicates an abnormal rise of nationalism in China. This is hardly an undocumented phenomenon. A quick internet search brings up the following:

http://iir.nccu.edu.tw/chinapolitics/NO53TH/Part1_08.pdf

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23027/1/Chinese_nationalism_in_the_global_era(LSERO).pdf

http://iccs.aichi-u.ac.jp/archives/report/005/005_11.pdf

Worrisome rise of Chinese nationalism - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Chinese nationalism in the global era | openDemocracy

The Rise of Chinese Nationalism. | Goliath Business News

The connection between a crisis of regime legitimacy and the attempt to leverage nationalistic feeling in China has been explored by many authors, George Friedman & Will Hutton are a couple I can think of off the top of my head. I'd give you a quote but I'm over seas at the moment & not near my "library".

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

As to your response to my statement that everyone starts out as a racist and that racism is learned from the culture you are wrong. I suggest that you study the subject called Sociobiology. If you do you will learn that the DNA of our bodies continually conspires to perpetuate itself at all costs, even sometimes when it is contained in the bodies of others. This has the effect that we always naturally favor the like to the unlike without realizing it or why we do it. This is true for all life forms and not just us humans. When you stated “A child doesn't know the difference between a black friend and a white friend.” You are not debunking the power of natural racism but stating the effects of habituation. The real test comes when the individual is confronted with the unfamiliar and unexpected. Is it with curiosity, compassion, and interest or is it with suspicion, revulsion, judgment, and fear? That is when the true education in moral principles and the power of reason can overcome the legacy of our universal animal past.

OK, a few problems there. First the fact that you use the term "racism" and then turn to biology to support your contention indicates that you don't understand the material you are using. There is no biological basis for human races. They are in fact distinctly societal constructions. This is from a 2006 University of Chicago paper named the 'illusion of races':

"Every reputable biologist will agree that the human genetic variability between the populations of Europe or Africa or Asia is not much greater than that within those populations"

http://dahsm.medschool.ucsf.edu/history/Suran_Racial_PDF/Appiah _1985.pdf

Thus the notion that biology is the basis for what makes a Chinese person Chinese, and that racial discrimination is somehow function of genetics, is absurd.

Second, racism, by definition, denotes a belief that human attributes and abilities are determined by racial affiliation combined with a hatred or intolerance of those who are perceived to be members of other races. This is a complex behavior and beyond the ability of young children. Thus there is no natural "racism", any biological predisposition towards other people transcends races because, again, races are the creations of humans themselves.

Third, DNA cannot conspire to do anything. To conspire requires a mind, it is a cognitive process.

I bring up this point not because I believe in a race centered view of life but because the Chinese have a very strong race centered view of themselves and to understand them you must take their self-image into account. This is not only true of the Chinese living within China but it is also true for a great many of them living outside of China in their wider diaspora. It is very strongly in other parts of South East Asia, far more so than in other parts of the world but almost always present to some degree.

Do you contend that there is a Chinese "race"? First you need to define what, precisely you are talking about. Does holding a Chinese passport make you a member of the Chinese "race"? Does looking the same make you a member? What about people from Xinjiang, they don't look like the people from Bejing. Are they members of the Chinese "race"? Or are you talking about shared cultural norms, language, religion? These things are not biological.

I will demonstrate my point by using the city state of Singapore. There was no city there before the English created it. Its history is colonial but it is not one of conquest. They imported most of the people and most of the people were Han Chinese. Though many different kinds of people work and live successfully in Singapore it is fundamentally a Chinese City existing outside of China. A city that works very well by most peoples standers. Not perfect but still fairly well. They are not communist, they are not aggressive and they do not have an ax to grind but you will notice that for their sized and population they have a very strong military.

Ok.

Why?

The answer is they have shared many of the same privations of Chinese people living elsewhere. In the fall of Singapore in WW 2 there was the Sook Ching massacre and other privations that have scared them mentally and where not surprisingly; they do not want to take any more chances. Nothing reinforces a group identity, even a race centered identity, like people killing you just because you belong to a group or race. Just ask the Jews. The difference is in how the people of Singapore have decided to deal with their history not in the feeling that drive them.

While I accept your premise I do not accept your conclusion. There are far more simple, realist, explanations for Singapore's military posture which have nothing to do with some sort of poorly defined, quasi racial ideology. Singapore is a small, wealthy nation which occupies a strategically significant piece of geography in a neighborhood which the great powers have a large presence. Having a relatively large, technologically advanced, standing military is an entirely predictable response for any state in Singapore's geopolitical situation, regardless of a history of conquest or some sort of perceived racial self image. Its called the security dilemma.

 

[Preceptor]

As a reminder, confine discussion within this thread to the Spratly Islands, and the defence implications of several nations having competing claims to them.

DO not persist in attempting to lobby or protest for or against one claimant or another.

Additionally, DO NOT devolve this into a racial/ethnic position, nor vilify or justify a claim based upon racial/ethnic background either. Such behavior is inflammatory and against the forum rules. Should such behavior persist, the offender(s) will be subject to punitive action.
-Preceptor

 

[Schumacher]

Because there is a difference between individual political survival and regime survival. Sure western politicians utilize foreign military entanglements for personal political gain, but, again, that's hardly analogous to the sustained manipulation of a politicized media and education system. One is a longstanding and concerted attempt by the regime itself, the other is, by definition, far more limited.
By the way Bush was a popular first term president in 2003, not sure how Iraq was designed to save his political career.

Western manipulation of a politicized media and the education system against their opponents seem very sustained. How are they "by definition, far more limited." ?
So you mean western leaders like Bush launch a war regardless of whether their political careers is on the line or not ? What a relief.

Resentment is not nationalism, two different things. International tension between two nations previously at war does not, in itself, indicate abnormal levels of nationalism in one or the other.
You can gauge Korean nationalism by their actions in the international sphere; how many assertive military and diplomatic initiatives has Soul taken outside of the peninsula, are they committed to multilateral security relationships, do you hear Korean rhetoric concerning reclaiming a certain deserved place in the international system, have the threatened to invade and annex what is, essentially, a sovereign neighbor? What is the Korean public reaction to the above?
............

So you say the news I posted is not assertive enough an example ? What is then ?
SK and NK have traded threats of invasion all the time.
So threats of attacks are nationalism ? Does that mean actual invasion and attacks on say Iraq, Afghanistan & now Libya are more example of nationalistic behavior ?

 

[Ananda]

I try to chip in, but stay in the topic. Whether the question on Spartly can be solved in elegant way or continue to be potential hot spot, is something that China need to be address.

China East Asian neighbors continue spending heavily on the defences mostly due to concern of China (especially Japan and Taiwan), while ROK need to be aware of Kim's army and also potential of China.

Granted the Asean countries can't match the amount Japanese, Taiwan or ROK spend militarily, due to smaller economy, but if they have too, they still can increase significant spending due to behavior of China.

Take Indonesia for example, with USD 700 bio of GDP in 2010, we only spend 0.7% of our GDP on defenses. Heck the amount that the government paid for fuel subsidy is nearly twice than our defense budget.
Since Soeharto, Indonesia taking difference approach on defense, in which aim more to domestic stability rather than external adventures like in the time of Soekarno. Can we increase the defense significantly, well economically yes we can in short time double or triple our defense spending, but the questions is 'what for'.

We do not see imminent external threat, does the defense more to make up minimum deterrence and keep up technologically with defense development. We need the money more on Domestic stability But if China increase the tension in Spartly, then the condition can be altered.

This the questions that China and her people need to answered, is China willing to show her place in the costs of encircled by increasingly wary thus less friendly neighbors ?
Is China willing only to have smaller but dependable neighbors like North Korea, and Myanmar (and Cambodia for that matter) that kowtow to China need for greatness or neighborhood that respect China, but also demand China respect them also.

China wants to show that they are the big Asian giant. Thus China need to show that with more tolerant behavior. The truth is their neighbors see China as big trading partner, but they also still wary with what China behavior will be. How this going to shape will depend on what China will do, and that goes also with what Spartly settlement course will be.

 

[Schumacher]

.................
Take Indonesia for example, with USD 700 bio of GDP in 2010, we only spend 0.7% of our GDP on defenses. Heck the amount that the government paid for fuel subsidy is nearly twice than our defense budget.
Since Soeharto, Indonesia taking difference approach on defense, in which aim more to domestic stability rather than external adventures like in the time of Soekarno. Can we increase the defense significantly, well economically yes we can in short time double or triple our defense spending, but the questions is 'what for'.
We do not see imminent external threat, does the defense more to make up minimum deterrence and keep up technologically with defense development. We need the money more on Domestic stability But if China increase the tension in Spartly, then the condition can be altered.

This the questions that China and her people need to answered, is China willing to show her place in the costs of encircled by increasingly wary thus less friendly neighbors ?
Is China willing only to have smaller but dependable neighbors like North Korea, and Myanmar (and Cambodia for that matter) that kowtow to China need for greatness or neighborhood that respect China, but also demand China respect them also.
...................

If Indonesia doubles or triples its defense budget, you can bet a few of its South East Asian neighbors will be alarmed before China even notices it.
There are good reasons most SEA nations don't have strong stance against China with regard to Spratlys. They know full well where their threats, especially those from within SEA, and interests lie despite some western powers half a world away trying to tell them otherwise.
In the 60s and 70s, nations in Indochina were carpet bombed & napalm'ed back to the stone age. Not only did most of their SEA neighbors not offer much help, a few were providing bases for the bombers or made a killing selling logistics supports to the western forces.

 

[STURM]

Not only did most of their SEA neighbors not offer much help, a few were providing bases for the bombers or made a killing selling logistics supports to the western forces.

Not a few countries, of Vietnam's immediate neighbours only Thailand allowed U.S planes to conduct combat operations from its soil. Thailand's motive in doing so wasn't so much to ''make a killing'' but due to fears that the N.Vietnamese woyld want to evport the revolution westwards. Malaysia and Singapore were also used for R&R and ship visits. In the 1960's and 1970's most SEA countries were in no position to ''help'' in Vietnam as a few were facing counter insurgency threats of their own and due to economic constraints.

IChina wants to show that they are the big Asian giant. Thus China need to show that with more tolerant behavior. The truth is their neighbors see China as big trading partner, but they also still wary with what China behavior will be. How this going to shape will depend on what China will do, and that goes also with what Spartly settlement course will be.

I don't think it wants to be a 'giant', I think its more like China wanting to be more assertive in taking her place amongst the worlds leading powers and being on the defence against what it perceives to be Western double standards and hyprocisy. We need to also try and see things from a Chinese prespective. The last century and the previous one was not a very pleasant one for China due to Western and Japanese meddling/interference. To be born in SEA during that period was to be born under either Brit, Dutch or French rule and some countries suffered more than others in WW2 and after.

The Chinese haven't forgotten this and it is a constant and sharp reminder to them of what happened when their country was weak and unable to control her own affairs. Rasing tensions over the Spratleys is not to China's long term interests and they know it. Unless another side makes overtly aggressive moves or takes some other drastion action, China like everyone else is more than happy to mantain the status quo.

 

[STURM]

Is China willing only to have smaller but dependable neighbors like North Korea, and Myanmar (and Cambodia for that matter) that kowtow to China need for greatness or neighborhood that respect China, but also demand China respect them also.

We tend to forget that China is already surrounded by what an observer has called ''the Great Wall'', countries that are U.S. strategic partners/allies [Taiwan, S.Korea and Japan] and in South East Asia countries that have a close defence relationship with the U.S. [the Philippines and Thailand, both classified as U.S. non-NATO allies, other ASEAN states like Singapore which has an open close relationshiop with the U.S., Malaysia which also has a close relationship with the U.S and trains more regularly with the U.S. than with any other country, but does not go out of its way to publicise the fact and further afield Australia and NZ.

China's ties with Myanmmar are a counter to India. China's great fear is that in event of a major war, India and the U.S. could its shipping from bringing back oil and other vital supplies via the Indian Ocean and the Melaka Straits. N.Korea provides it with a buffer against a close U.S. ally, S.Korea.

 

[rip]

As a reminder, confine discussion within this thread to the Spratly Islands, and the defence implications of several nations having competing claims to them.

DO not persist in attempting to lobby or protest for or against one claimant or another.

Additionally, DO NOT devolve this into a racial/ethnic position, nor vilify or justify a claim based upon racial/ethnic background either. Such behavior is inflammatory and against the forum rules. Should such behavior persist, the offender(s) will be subject to punitive action.
-Preceptor

The assumption is that people will always act rationally even when there is so much evidence that they often do not is not one we can afford to trust. A rational person will evaluate all facts that are in evidence even if some of those facts are the result of irrational process. People that wish to understand and solve the worlds problems cannot stand above human folly but must work to try to transform it.

I am not descending to race related politics. But to deny the power in what people only believe does not count in the world, be that belief is factually correct or not, is just foolishness. When you identify yourself (whoever you are) as a person you use labels, using the labels that you chose, you are intentionally intending to tell the world something about yourself with the expectation that these labels will mean something to the others you made this information to. Be it to be to convey a notion of race, nationality, religion, economic status, education, or anything else. In this case it is not what I believe (if there is such thing as a Chinese race) that counts but what it is that they believe about themselves that counts. I am not labeling the Chines and then assigning specific qualities to that label, they are and in doing do are trying to tell us something they think it is important for us to know. And if from their belief in their identity as being Chinese their actions then become understandable to us, perhaps it is wise to treat their beliefs as real because those beliefs result in real actions.

The factual statement that there is no good bases for the concept of race is quite correct in my opinion and I am not claiming that that there is. But when enough people act as if a label is true and you want to understand how and why those people behave as they do, then it is best to recognize their concept of their own identity in what ever way they chose to define it. That is if you ever want to successfully work and cooperate with them, if you agree with their assessment or how it was made or not.

I brought up this touchy subject not because I think the Chinese people are in any fundamentally different from anyone else but because through this lens of their shared identity I think it makes the behavior of China more understandable to other people that have not have the same collective experiences that they have had nor who fully know their history and how that history has affected their self-image.

There is a fundamental gap between how the Chines see the rest of the world, such as seen is the case of the Spratly Islands and which has been well documented within this thread and the way that others do. I am looking for a way that we can bridge that gap and I freely admit I do not at this time know how. This gap can only be bridged when the emotions that drive their actions are understood and respected by both sides.

On one side you have the Chinese who see the world in its classic form. A way that had been true for all of human history, cruel, ruthless and dangers with no firm law between nations except that provided by the use of necked power as the final arbitrator of right and wrong. And on the other side there are those who believe that if we continue to follow the historical norms we always have followed in the past that we will continue to make the same mistakes we always have made in the past but with the difference that because of human races now has the unprecedented power to destroy, the world as we know today will end.

 

[Schumacher]

..........On one side you have the Chinese who see the world in its classic form. A way that had been true for all of human history, cruel, ruthless and dangers with no firm law between nations except that provided by the use of necked power as the final arbitrator of right and wrong. And on the other side there are those who believe that if we continue to follow the historical norms we always have followed in the past that we will continue to make the same mistakes we always have made in the past but with the difference that because of human races now has the unprecedented power to destroy, the world as we know today will end.

You need to clarify. We see brutal wars by the west in recent years in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. Do you classify this as seeing 'the world in its classic form' ? thus putting China on the same 'side' as the west or do you mean these wars put the west in the "other side there are those who believe that if we continue to follow the historical norms we always have followed in the past......................" ?

If it's the former, we would have China & the west on the same 'side'. Who do you put on the other side ?
If it's the latter, then it raises questions to your understanding of your own words since launching brutal wars don't seem to fit into the 'side' of "those who believe that if we continue to follow the historical norms we always have followed in the past that we will continue to make the same mistakes..................". It seems instead to fit perfectly with western 'historical norms' of launching wars and making the same mistakes.