Chinese troops to seize Zhongye Island back from the Philippines in 2014
chinadailymail.com
chinadailymail.com
Looks like its happening all over Asia.
[1] http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-india-needs-to-be-more-wa... [2] http://www.livemint.com/Politics/fHAd0H2KBmVMcJW0HvC75H/Indi...
Anyway, I think this is all more Chinese interior policy, to divert public attention in China from the many problems the CCP currently has to maintain itself in power. As any government, the need a "foreign enemy". Or, in China's case, a handfull of foreign enemies: Japan, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, maybe Malaysia.
Not saying you are wrong. But this sort of brainwash usually goes two ways. You might not see it, but China, in a way, could well be the same type of foreign enemy of your country.
The government does this because most mainlanders eat this up. Idiotic jingoism and military adventures are how you win the populace and build your legitimacy. War is the health of the state.
The fact that culturally most people seem to see neighboring countries as either outright provinces, historical vassals that should be in their sphere of influences, or monsters that deserve to be raped and pillaged to account for past crimes doesn't help things.
Not to say the same thing doesn't occur in my country. It certainly does, and half a million dead in an equally pointless, stupid war does make risible any moral posturing on our part.
Its only with Russia that they signed a peaceful border agreement two(?) years ago, because Russia would be too strong an enemy to play these kind of games with.
Ding ding ding! China is slowly but very noisily attempting to tighten it's grip along her Pacific coastline, and it's a very wide grip that stretches from the far north to the far south.
The regional hegemony is very murky and relationship-of-convenience is the norm, especially since there is a lot of very dark history between major regional powers (China, Korea, Japan) and minor ones (Vietnam, Thailand/Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia). I'm not even going to attempt a short analysis of China's reunification policies towards Taiwan, other than both sides would prefer to remain amicable.
The only "proper" enemy would be Russia, and therefore China signed a border agreement with Russia, basically giving up their claims. Because Russia is stong enough to not play these silly games the CCP is playing with the weaker neighbors.
Like a common school bully, China is only bullying those that can't defend themselves. Doesn't give China much face, I'd say.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomás_Cloma#Free_Territory_of_F...
The temple/s you mentioned was built on the Paracel Group of islands, which is an entirely different group of islands from the one China intends to invade.
Pag-asa island is part of the Spratly group of islands, which is much further south than the Paracel group of islands. The Philippines has never claimed the Paracel group. It is much nearer to Vietnam, although China is claiming the Paracels as well.
Below is a map indicating both groups of islands, as well as the surrounding countries and their exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
http://tiananmenstremendousachievements.files.wordpress.com/...
EDIT: for italics
The militrary make plans all the time, so they are ready if the politicians demand action. This doesn't mean they execute them.
Churchill's plans to attack the Soviet Union (again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
US plans for war with British Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Edit: In case anyone was wondering what the "(again)" was about, it is a reference to the intervention in the Russian Civil war against the Soviets by Britain, the United States and a number of other powers - Churchill was a proponent of this action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russ...
For everyone involved, I sincerely hope the Philippines does the right thing and avoids a hopeless military standoff, any outcome of which will only strengthen China further in a myriad ways.
It's an inhabited island with a military base and an airstrip; I don't see the Philippines just walking away. Moreover, both Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims on the island, not to mention that the US has no desire to see any part of the Spratlys leave its sphere of influence. China might like to confine the repercussions of a military capture of the island, but that relies on intimidating all the countries I just mentioned, which I do not believe it can do.
Within a remarkably short distance of China. It does not have the equipment or expertise to globally project serious power for extended periods.
On September 14, 2013 - US and Russia agree on the deal to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons; signals that the US does not have the intentions/means to back up threats of military force;
23 November 2013, China then sent air force jets to Senkaku islands;
Unfortunately this part of the world is a powder keg. I wonder if there is a diplomatic way to assuage china's oil supply insecurity and save face for all concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_an...
Further, military spending for the majority of the world is related to the real threat that they endure. What threats did Japan face? There was no chance of a Chinese invasion, and among the rest of the Asia Pacific countries things are relatively civil. The powder keg of India/Pakistan has nothing to do with Japan.
As a second further, when you start dumping money into the military you generally just create a problem as everyone around you will start doing the same.
At the end of the day, with the exception of the Japanese post WW1 and WW2 era, the Pacific Ocean has been mostly controlled by the US Navy. We've had a naval presence there since the American Revolution. The Chinese have only had a credible naval force for a few years, so both side are testing the boundaries.
I agree that the US people are mostly not interested in being an empire, and massive economic disruption plus high casualties would mean a very very unpopular war.
Don't get me wrong, a US-China war would be absolutely catastrophic in both humanitarian and economic terms, but the average US citizen wasn't exactly starving even during WWII. Unless the war seriously damaged domestic infrastructure, (which it very well could) people would get by with ration coupons and price controls.
[1] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/12/will-the-un...
As a general rule of thumb, that's not true. From time to time I work with merchant shipping, particularly in times and areas of serious risk (such as warzones) and they don't stop. They happily traversed the straits of Hormuz while missiles were being fired across it. They kept serving Libya during the civil war, with shipping companies literally calling ahead to check which port to head for. They won't stop unless someone starts attacking them specifically, and even then they'll just be going around. China doesn't have the global reach to threaten shipping beyond what is, on the global scale, a small range, and threatening the shipping in their own waters would harm them more than anyone else.
Imagine this scenario: China postures for military action, the U.S does not intent to interfere. Rather than "abandon it's ally" the U.S puts on a show of strength, joint military exercises, recommitting to the defense of Taiwan, the whole 9 yards. Quietly however, the U.S. withdraws support for secessionist factions within Taiwan, shifting the fragile equilibrium. pro-china factions gain power quickly, the weakening direct U.S support combined with China's military posturing drives moderates and anti-war secessionists towards the pro-china faction. With the balance of power now in their favor, mainland + the pro-china factions ramp up propaganda efforts, strengthening ties, eventually setting the stage for reunification. The U.S of course, while "extremely disappointed", won't oppose the popular will of the Taiwanese people.
And that's how the U.S abandons its ally without abandoning its ally, and China takes Taiwan by force without ever firing a single shot.
Of course, that's just one possible scenario out of thousands. The question here is intent - if the U.S intends to fight China it will for its own purposes. if the U.S doesn't intent to fight China it won't for its own purposes. Countries aren't as beholden to their public image as people think, because there's a million ways to spin anything.
To your other point: I have traveled to Taiwan 6 times in the last year (going again in Feb.) It is quite clear there is close to zero support in the population for reunification under current Chinese (mainland) system. This is not to say there is no support for being part of China again - just not as it is today. If the government of mainland China became an full Democracy however it is clear this would happen.
How will that play in Tokyo or Seoul? Or hell, in London or Jerusalem?
If the US does go to war over Taiwan, it will be to maintain its credibility with international allies.
Korea and Japan are largely safe because there's a massive US chip on the table. Ditto the minor Southeast Asian powers. If the US doesn't come to Taiwan's aid in a shooting war, that chip is now off the table and China will have free reign to do whatever along the Pacific Rim with impunity.
Now, whether or not domestically it would be a good idea to get into another war (with China at that) is a whole 'nother story. But in terms of regional stability, there are many good arguments for intervention.
So what? The intermediate term impact would be massive capital flight to the Americas. Asia as a reliable place for manufacturing would be over. Americans would think hard about what's really at stake.
As a superpower the US's interests are necessarily long-term, strategically. Sure, the immediate reaction of China jack-booting all up and down the Pacific Rim would be economic and political turmoil. It's the long-term possibility: Chinese hegemony over the entirety of the Pacific coastline, that scares the shit out of the US.
Bear in mind that the USSR, despite not being an export power (like, ever) was still able to pose an enormous threat to the existence of the USA. China losing its preferred-manufacturer status wouldn't be consequence free, but it also wouldn't de-claw them.
I doubt there is an American naval battleplan more developed than China attempting to cross the Taiwan straight. China's hopes rest more on missile attacks on Taiwan forcing surrender than an invasion. Subduing populaces by ariel attacks is surprisingly hard and counter productive, and nothing is more likely to turn pro-China Taiwanese away from their views quicker than that.
Especially considering that USA have a defence agreement with Japan.
ETA: With US presidential terms limited as they are, there is a fast-dwindling window of opportunity for others to take advantage of this timidity. Such an action would take about a year, and would preferably be completed well before a more militaristic President is elected.
Methinks China would prefer this timidity to be obvious to everybody rather than quietly hidden among diplomatic undertones -- very devious indeed, and quite dangerous because there are quite a few on both sides that would like to see an escalation of tension.
India has some serious logistical problems, especially on its Chinese border, and it's having a hard time fixing it. The Chinese have been pushing into Arunchal Pradesh with impunity because they have the supporting infrastructure on their side of the border that India doesn't.
(India also has nukes, but we're a long way from that mattering.)
The Philippines sadly has little military capability to speak of. Other countries are effectively donating hardware to them (ships, mostly), but at the moment their best defense lies in their political ties, and the best help they can offer is to serve as a staging point for other nations' forces.
Korea is a funny one, though. They're friendly to the Filipinos (and Americans), but the people there share a lot of the anti-Japanese sentiment seen in China. I think the scope of any role they play will be pretty path dependant, mostly hinging on where things flare up first.
I'm a Vietnamese with Nghe An root, so pardon me if I'm a little surprised at this statement.
Has the world learn nothing from history? This is not my question, this is a question that was asked countless times by politicians and scholars during the Vietnam/American War.
China had tried to invade/colonize Vietnam for over 1000 years, and each time, they went home in shame. Mongolians, Manchurians were able to take over the entire China, yet weren't able to completely dominate or wipe the Vietnamese people out. Vietnam is a VERY small country comparing to China and I think wars aren't always decided by military strength.
Unfortunately, like many other smaller countries, Vietnam doesn't have a China problem, it currently has a Vietnam problem. China keeps pushing and the smaller countries are going to realize that they can't fight a bully by themselves. For Vietnam, China keeps pushing, it will expose the Sino-friendly elements of the Vietnamese government and will escalate a change in government power.
So perhaps "China can do pretty much whatever it wants"... for a short time. Because if the water is under so much pressure, it will break the dam.
Like little kids...
But, I can easily imagine press in other countries (including in the US) using this kind of arguments in similar circumstances.
This kind of language suggest to me the framework of thinking of small kids or proud idiots, not of even remotely rational people. This saddens me.
"run for a nuclear deterrent because the USA could no longer be relied on."
s/resided/relied
What's next, capture the Japanese Islands in the south that China is disputing?
Really hope this is just sensationalist news, as there are always plenty of them around. But there's also been a stream of weird updates on this region for the last years, and it's not just about rogue state North Korea.
I hate to say this but with all the military activity a full blown war is bound to happen soon.
Their picking fights left and right or taking strategic military points preparing for a war.
Neither sounds good to me.
It's nasty and nobody likes to be pushed around, but nowadays there's a very large difference between what you say and what you do.
Even the league of nations has managed to do it.
Also I strongly disapprove of imperialist move by China, Filipinos are nice people and no need to be an aggressor against such a small country.
my 2c