Chinese territorial ambitions

Any thoughts on this? I detest Duterte but the last three paragraphs show him at his sanest (albeit as cynical as ever). What is the scope of Chinese territorial ambition do you reckon?

Comments

  • Well, Bozo is about to sell Britain to them...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    It's always a bit of a coin toss, guessing whether Duterte is going to be pro- or anti-Chinese from one week to the next.
  • Well, Bozo is about to sell Britain to them...

    Don't we have an aircraft carrier heading in that direction? That should frighten the Chinese off...

    ...or OTOH encourage them...
    :flushed:
  • South east Asia as a colonial playground of the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Americans is not forgotten by them. WW2 as a Japanese attempt to win the colonial game isn't either.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    South east Asia as a colonial playground of the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Americans is not forgotten by them. WW2 as a Japanese attempt to win the colonial game isn't either.

    By "them", do you mean the Chinese, or the Filipinos?
  • What is the scope of Chinese territorial ambition do you reckon?

    I don't see this as fundamentally different from the various territorial scraps between Turkey and Greece (which has occasionally run hotter: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/world/europe/greece-turkey-fighter-jet.html )
  • Both, I should think.
    :disappointed:
  • We should also remember that we were about to give the Falklands away to Argentina, whose junta then saw that as a green light for an easy propaganda win for the home crowd. Since then, the UK's territorial ambitions have hardened due to mining and fishing rights in its waters.

    It's basically about the sea bed, not about the land the sea bed might be attached to - but claiming the land is the the only way of claiming the sea bed under international law (UNCLOS, if you want to look it up.)
  • South east Asia as a colonial playground of the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Americans is not forgotten by them. WW2 as a Japanese attempt to win the colonial game isn't either.

    The Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion are not forgotten by them. In discussions with Chinese (PRC and Canadian) students over the years, these are mentioned with emotion very early on in conversation. They are unhappy that so few Canadians (i.e., almost none) are aware of them, and that there is a gap in our anti-colonialism curriculum-- it is then that I break it to them that each province has its own curriculum, and that BC is the only one which currently takes much notice of the Chinese Canadian population, and that none of them seem to pay much attention to China proper.

    The objection that we are not aware of the Japanese war on China from 1937 is a very fair one, as this horrible period is really the beginning of the Pacific end of WWII-- mind you, the presence of Pearl Harbour in popular imagination is such that almost nobody is aware of the Pacific war 1939-1941, but that's likely for another thread.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Considering how the talks between the Chinese and Americans started in Anchorage, the Chinese are looking to take an aggressive tact. They are (ahem} testing the waters, pushing to see where the red line is with Biden. All the more reason to get the Australians and New Zealanders, Japan and South Korea, Vietnam and India too on the same page.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Anthony Beevor's history f WWII places the roots of the war in the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931 and its start to the battle of Nomonhan/ Kalkhin Gol on the Mongolian border in 1June 1939, which caused the Japanese military to opt to attach China rather than the Soviet Union.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    the Chinese are looking to take an aggressive tact. They are (ahem} testing the waters,
    I think you mean an aggressive tack - more appropriate for testing the waters.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    What is the scope of Chinese territorial ambition do you reckon?

    Officially it's the Nine Dash Line, an extensive yet (deliberately) vague area of water. (Note that Taiwan seems to be entirely on the Chinese side of the Nine Dash Line, as would be expected.) A more interesting question is the scope of Chinese influence ambitions, which seem to be substantially more extensive than their territorial claims.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    What is the scope of Chinese territorial ambition do you reckon?

    Officially it's the Nine Dash Line, an extensive yet (deliberately) vague area of water. (Note that Taiwan seems to be entirely on the Chinese side of the Nine Dash Line, as would be expected.) A more interesting question is the scope of Chinese influence ambitions, which seem to be substantially more extensive than their territorial claims.

    I think you have to put those kinds of things alongside the influence operations undertaken by similar countries their size.

    FWIW; China has spent less on the BRI than the US have spent on the F-35 programme.
  • stetson wrote: »
    It's always a bit of a coin toss, guessing whether Duterte is going to be pro- or anti-Chinese from one week to the next.

    I think his view is that China is the future and it will be futile to antagonise them even if he doesn't like them much. Kind of like Denmark with Germany after 1864. Although I don't think 19th century Danish monarachs used to ride around executing laudanum addicts. Or at least they didn't boast about it.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    We learned today that if the proposed cuts in British defence sprending go ahead, and the Argentinians succeeded in capturing the Falklands, the UK would be unable to thkrow them out. We cannot take on China, evenwitha large aircraft carrier. There is nothing we can do about Hong Kong or the Uighurs. WE done have to do busness with the Chinese, but it seems we will.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    . WE done have to do busness with the Chinese, but it seems we will.
    I assume you mean we do not have to do business with the Chinese.

    The Economist this week said - you can try to embargo China, but the danger is that everyone else keeps trading with them and you end up isolating yourself rather than China.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    A more interesting question is the scope of Chinese influence ambitions, which seem to be substantially more extensive than their territorial claims.
    I think you have to put those kinds of things alongside the influence operations undertaken by similar countries their size.

    FWIW; China has spent less on the BRI than the US have spent on the F-35 programme.

    Counterpoint: unlike the F-35 the BRI actually seems to function. I'm not spending on the F-35 tells us anything other than the power of the sunk cost fallacy.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    . WE done have to do busness with the Chinese, but it seems we will.
    I assume you mean we do not have to do business with the Chinese.

    The Economist this week said - you can try to embargo China, but the danger is that everyone else keeps trading with them and you end up isolating yourself rather than China.

    And really, if your country is buying oil from Saudi Arabia or selling them weapons(and I think almost all the anglosphere is doing one, the other, or both), you really can't claim to have any principled objection to trading with human-rights violators.
  • Whether we like it or not, ISTM that China is The Future.

    GLOBAL BRITAIN, get back under your stone...
  • Well you could equally well have said that about Germany in 1871. And it was true, to an extent, but not entirely in a good way.
  • Well you could equally well have said that about Germany in 1871. And it was true, to an extent, but not entirely in a good way.

    Indeed.

    I certainly didn't mean to imply that China, as The Future, was necessarily a good thing.

    With all due respect, of course.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Bishops Finger: Whether we like it or not, ISTM that China is The Future.

    I seem to recall that the Webbs wrote a book entitled: Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? (1935) . The 2nd and 3rd editions of 1938 and 1941 dropped the "?" from the title. I guess a reprint would be entitled All Our Yesterdays.
  • Or perhaps Did You Know That People Once Thought Stalin Was Quite Nice
  • Or perhaps Did You Know That People Once Thought Stalin Was Quite Nice

    That was a propaganda invention - first, theirs, and second (especially post-June 1941), ours. It reminds me of the joke with Napoleon and Stalin reviewing the troops on Red Square, which ends with Napoleon brandishing a copy of Pravda and saying "With a newspaper like this, no one would have heard of Waterloo!"

    (Something something British press and the Tories...)
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Now just one minute. The article says that the reef in question is shaped like a boomerang. That reef is OURS.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    What has how the Chinese were foully abused for two centuries by Britain et al down to Japan got to do with their naked bullying of their neighbours? The brainwashing of a million Uighurs? The assimilation of Hong Kong? Apart from the determinism of history. There's no morality in it, no parity, no understanding, no justification; nothing reasonable about it. Pure Machiavellian impunity, which always works. Robert A. Heinlein was remarkably prescient. Along with Kurt Vonnegut, Larry Niven, John Brunner et al. The Enlightenment is barely aglow in the WEIRD world.
  • The abused often turn to abusing others.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Now just one minute. The article says that the reef in question is shaped like a boomerang. That reef is OURS.

    Sorry, your boomerang won't come back.
  • The abused often turn to abusing others.

    Sure but that is not an acceptable excuse.

    Besides unfortunately humans are completely capable of abusing others even if they haven't been abused.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    The Chinese Empire were invading their neighbours well before anyone invaded them.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    BRI = Belt and Road Initiative?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    The Chinese Empire were invading their neighbours well before anyone invaded them.

    As far as I can tell, the Chinese (the Han, at least) see it as their destiny to dominate the Asia-Pacific region, and it was the intervention of the western empires (most notably Britain) that derailed that project. It goes a long way to explaining the antagonism to neighbours, the funding of proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam), and their iron determination for foreign powers never to comment, let alone intervene, on 'purely domestic affairs', which for the CCP includes Taiwan, Hong Kong and Tibet.

    They're an imperial power. They didn't need to learn from us, or anyone else, even though for a time we were very good at it.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Now just one minute. The article says that the reef in question is shaped like a boomerang. That reef is OURS.

    Sorry, your boomerang won't come back.

    You get the star stamp on the back of your hand for that - best post by far of the day, probably of the month.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    agreed rofl
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The Chinese Empire were invading their neighbours well before anyone invaded them.

    As far as I can tell, the Chinese (the Han, at least) see it as their destiny to dominate the Asia-Pacific region, and it was the intervention of the western empires (most notably Britain) that derailed that project. It goes a long way to explaining the antagonism to neighbours, the funding of proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam), and their iron determination for foreign powers never to comment, let alone intervene, on 'purely domestic affairs', which for the CCP includes Taiwan, Hong Kong and Tibet.

    They're an imperial power. They didn't need to learn from us, or anyone else, even though for a time we were very good at it.

    They get on well with Pakistan, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Russia was the greatest benefactor to North Vietnam.
  • South east Asia as a colonial playground of the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Americans is not forgotten by them. WW2 as a Japanese attempt to win the colonial game isn't either.

    The Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion are not forgotten by them. In discussions with Chinese (PRC and Canadian) students over the years, these are mentioned with emotion very early on in conversation. They are unhappy that so few Canadians (i.e., almost none) are aware of them, and that there is a gap in our anti-colonialism curriculum-- it is then that I break it to them that each province has its own curriculum, and that BC is the only one which currently takes much notice of the Chinese Canadian population, and that none of them seem to pay much attention to China proper.

    The objection that we are not aware of the Japanese war on China from 1937 is a very fair one, as this horrible period is really the beginning of the Pacific end of WWII-- mind you, the presence of Pearl Harbour in popular imagination is such that almost nobody is aware of the Pacific war 1939-1941, but that's likely for another thread.

    The Americans in the Philippines prior to WW2, starting from when they defeated Spain (also also took control of Cuba and Puerto Rico AFAIK) was something my late father mentioned: he lived in Manila for a while pre-WW2. Has the Japanese not invaded, history of America in the the Philippines would be remembered differently.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The Chinese Empire were invading their neighbours well before anyone invaded them.

    That's an oversimplification. Most of the last several hundred years have nix to do with that.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The Chinese Empire were invading their neighbours well before anyone invaded them.
    That's an oversimplification. Most of the last several hundred years have nix to do with that.
    The Mongols and the Qing are considered honorary Chinese and the Ming conquered Vietnam.
    More importantly, while several hundred years is forever in Canada and a long time in the UK, in China it's not long at all.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    As I recall shortly after Vietnam was unified, the Chinese invaded Vietnam's northern provinces in response to the Vietnamese invading Cambodia. China ended up withdrawing while declaring victory, and Vietnam remained in Cambodia for another 10 years. (In other words, China got their ass whipped.)
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The Chinese Empire were invading their neighbours well before anyone invaded them.
    That's an oversimplification. Most of the last several hundred years have nix to do with that.
    The Mongols and the Qing are considered honorary Chinese and the Ming conquered Vietnam.
    More importantly, while several hundred years is forever in Canada and a long time in the UK, in China it's not long at all.
    That reminds me a saying I heard years ago.
    "The difference between Italy and America is that in Italy 100 miles is a long way, while in America 100 years is a long time."
Sign In or Register to comment.