Few things, first for someone that continuously question my arguments as personal opinions, you sure use a lot of opinions as bases of your arguments.
Second, that's how these things work, anything concrete is impossible, even if Xi himself were to write it.
The only thing we can be certain is that nothing is certain.
Third, while my points, may not have concrete proof from the central committee, I do give reasons as to why I think so. They may not be well established due to the constraint of time and space. People usually write books on these things, not 500 word forum posts.
fourth, you can find people that disagrees with everything, in fact there are people protesting keep government hands off my medicare, you can find him, if you ever go to DC and take a tour of the white house, he's outside.
That doesn't give it merit.
1. China is patient:
It is certainly nice for someone to have the reputation of having a patient character, especially if it enforces one's peaceful image. Well, it certainly beats having the reputation of being rash, temperamental and unpredictable.
However, I must question your definition of "patient" in China's context. "Patient" is actually a relative term as it comes in various degree. Are you saying China is patient compared to the German Empire? compared to the US? compared to who? or are you saying China is patient from an ideal rational perspective?
In this case, I'm sure many would disagree that China can be considered as patient from an ideal rational perspective (as
@LeveragedBuyout has already hinted). Certainly, VietNam and the Philippines would contend that China has not demonstrated any form of patience during the previous conflict with the Oil rig and the Scarborough Shoal skirmish.
You may argue that those Vietnamese and Filipino opinions did not come from an ideal rational perspective. But they could say the same thing against your assertion. So, the notion of "patient" is actually relative. If you were relying on this notion of "patient" to argue for China's peaceful rise, then your argument is flawed because it relies on a relative term that not everyone would agree with.
You haven't proven how China is "patient" and how the opposing views are flawed. But at the end of the day, you cannot "prove" who is patient and who is not, just as you cannot prove which kind of fruits taste best. They are all relative to each different individuals.
Patient, what does that mean? Germany at the point of WW1 was not ready to invade either France or Russia. If not for the weakness of the Tsar, the strategic genious of the German generals, WW1 would have been the 5 days war.
By patient I mean China is willing to play the long game.
Official word has been out, 2020 modern ground forces, 2030, modern navy and able to win in a regional scenario, 2050, matching the US's global ambitions.
Matching the US in air tech this generation and challenge them on the next.
By most estimates including Chinese tink tanks 2023-2030, matching the US in nominal GDP, 2030-2040 surpassing the US nominal GDP. 2020 become "high income" nation, that standard is actual a lot lower than you think.
You want to know what I mean by patient, that's what I mean, waiting for the time when the threat of force is just as potent as he actual use of force.
This however doesn't mean we will use the threat of force to get our way. Just in case you think that's the route we were going for.
What I'm suggesting is for the Vietnamese and Filipino government to take the use of force OFF the table.
You may say Philippines and Vietnam wants to talk. In truth they do, but they are not comitting 100% to talks. Philippines still think international pressure(American) can pressure us into backing down, while Vietnam wants to talk, but they are still beefing up their navy(in their own way) in hopes to stare us down.
That doesnt' seem aggressive to you only because of how weak they actually are. Should we do the same, it would not have the same reaction.
for example East China Sea, we want to talk, no talk, we are building up, it's threatening, we are making moves(same as the broke *** ship of the Philippines and the rammings and water cannons of Vietnam), and it's aggressive. Going to international court on this could very well be in our favor, but the thing about that is we have too many interests, and we can't sacrifice something else for this.
Essentially the same action, but our actions have far more impact.
Even though you said you don't want to talk peaceful rise, but clearly you think we are not peaceful. Whether you think so or not is not relevant to this discussion, what I said may have been assumptions, and calculated guesses, there are certain facts.
No skirmish has taken place, if they have there be no Vietnam or Philippines navy, no war has broken out, no shots have been fired. In the eyes of people who actually know what war is, that's pretty peaceful.
2. China's policy and actions should not be considered as expansionism.
As argued by LeveragedBuyout, your comparison between Bismark Germany is questionable. However, I want to critique something else. You seem to have made an argument that China is currently not expansionist because it hasn't been so in the past. If this is not your argument then I don't see why you would bother make this historic reference. But if it is indeed your argument,
then it is flawed.
China isn't very expanisonist in the past for the same reasons we are not today, so yes it applies. The power balance hasn't really shifted all that match, and especially it will once again be in our favor.
Germany isn't the same Germany it was in the 1900s.
Teh past isn't a good indication if situation has shifted too much, while 2014 is way different than 100 years ago, the fundamental Chinese mind set and incentives hasn't changed.
If anything there are now more reasons why China won't expand in terms of land territory than ever before.
Assuming your historic reference is correct (and I can see many people disagreeing with you), you still cannot make any conclusion about any contemporary countries based on its past behaviour. They are historically different entities with different contexts.
You cannot draw any conclusions about contemporary Germany being agressive based on the behaviour of the historic Nazi Germany. Likewise, you cannot say China is not expansionist based on its historic past.
We are only interested in the present and future China. And I'm sure many Filipino, Viet and Japanese would say that the present China is aggressive and expansionist. I don't see how bringing up a historic reference could help reject these assertions.
China has been expanisonist under WuDi, but only because an ancestor to the Mongols were harrassing and he made it his life mission to defeat them. Along the way he did take other lands, but most of them willingly submitted like Vietnam, but probably not Korea.
Other times, Yongle of Ming was also expansionist in nature, the TaiZong of Tang, CaoCao of Han. A lot of times it was a necessity due to the harrassment of the hordes.
Then obviously there are the Mongols and Manchus of which we are the rightful heirs to their empires. We even have them sign the documents that proves it, Mongol empire was much later and was actually done around the time of the fall of Ming when the Manchus did it.
Bet you didn't know that.
Germany during the Bismark era wasabout limited wars, limited objectives, and sphere of influences. China today is not looking to conquer Vietnam and Philippines, and most likely we will comprimise later with all the claimates.
If we didn't want to do that, we would not be biggest trading nation in the world. You don't become one by not being flexible and realistic. Also in terms of the power equation, it's not much different now or 20 years from now. We to them are at a point where adding more power won't do much good.
We are also hosting each other's military officials and other officials.We have invited Philippines and Vietnam, we are developing infrastructure for the Silk Road that will most likely include both.
If you think we want to finish them off, then doing all of this would have been a waste of time and effort. however it does go with the limited objectives scenario.
As to the reference, it's only that, a reference, I'm simply saying we are closer to Bismark germany than WW1 Germany. As oppose to many articles that claim we are WW1 Germany or even hitler by Aquino III.
Unless we can get inside the minds of the ruling CCP officials and have psychic power to predict the minds of future PRC leaders, there is no point in discussing this. They are just opinions. And you cannot make any objective conclusion about China's peaceful rise based on your personal opinions.
They are personal yes, but I did give out the reasons, and the current actions we are taking. If you think China isn't ruled by popular opinion then why are the reform agendas largely what the Chinese people have wanted.
Why are we reforming at all.
You got this bias that we are not ruled by the people, just because we don't vote. Well, we are tackling polution at around the same time as the US, the US population demanded it, just as we are.
So you tell me if we can't look into the political future of China.
If you think Chinese leaders can declare wars on a whim, then we shouldn't have had the type of success that we had since the 80s. Crazy dictator and economic explosion don't go hand in hand.
1. Do you have any insiders info about CCP's plans? if not then, this is again just your opinions and speculation.
2. Assuming that you are onto something, what exactly is this "end game"? can you describe how it can be "played right"? how would it be largely devoid of blood shed? How would the status quo be re-established? what is your definition of a status quo? are you a psychic? What you have been saying are all ambiguous and mere opinions. I don't see any facts given in this paragraph.
But here's some facts: China has previously carried out some actions that were considered as overly aggressive by the Viets and Filipino, which resulted in the sinking of boats, injuries/death of civilians and the status quo being shaken for the Philippines.
Your arguments that China is not expansionist are only based on your own personal opinions/speculations and some irrelevant historic reference. Your arguments in that paragraph are flawed.
Again this is how this type of thing works, we make judgement base on a variety of factors and current actions.
To say we are going to take over Asia, THAT, would be a personal opinion, because nothing right now suggest we do, unless you also believe in the flying Spaghetti monster.
There are no death for the Philippines and Vietnamese, and the sinking of boats is debatable at best. I mean if you won't take one communist government's word, why another? And why another failed democracy that has less credibility than us on the international stage.
So the only fact you given is not only not a fact, but again is based on their opinion to be aggressive. the I'm not touching you game is annoying, not assualt.
I have given a more detailed reason on the expansionist theory.
You want facts, and yet, your entire argument is based on your perception of how South China Sea is playing out and the opinion of their people.
If I were to go to North Pakistan, the ones hunted by drones, I'm sure US and the devil would mean the same thing.
Doesn't make US the devil, does it.
3. China does not use military force:
As
@Carlosa has argued, what is your definition of a "dictatorship"?
Firstly, many Filipino and Viets would argue that China's actions in the Scarborough Shoal and with the Oil rig reflects a dictatorship mentality (or
@Zero_wing would prefer to call it "imperialist"). You may disagree with their views but it just shows that the term "dictatorship", is at best, relative.
Secondly, China may not have had used "weapons" from any grey navy vessels but it has used CCG and CMS vessels to ram and sink civilians ship in the past. This doesnt bode well for your prediction that China is unlikely to use weapons in the future.
Lastly, how can you predict that China is unlikely to use weapons in the future? did you make this prediction based on your opinion that China is not a dictorship? As I mentioned, dictatorship is a relative term.
Saddam is a dictatorship, Putin is close, Emperors are dictators. China is not, every 10 years the president must step down and his actions are determind by the people, I have made my case above.
It doesnt' show dictatorship is debatable, it's actually pretty well defined, people disagree on Health care is provided by government, I don't think that makes it come from Santa clause.
In China's case it maybe a bit gray, but ask @leveragebuyout or @Nihonji if they think China is a dictatorship, the kind that you are suggesting.
China didn't sink any vessel, the circumastances around that are mirky at best. You are pinning something like that on us on the word of another communist and failed democratic government. So if our words are not to be taken neither should theirs.
Civilian ships and military ships are the difference. The only reason you don't think so is because our coast guard is stronger than their navy.
Again the Shaq argument, people charge at us and their boat sink and Shaq gets called the foul. Too big too powerful.
By 2020, our coast guard will be the most advanced and biggest by a mile, even than the US.
If we wanted to use weapons, again we would not have came up with the Silk road, the Asian bank, the brics bank, joining different groups and everything. Everything is not isolated, you must look at the whole picture.
The AIB is brand new and cannot be evidence for anything. China's decision to establish that bank cannot be evidence for anything either until it starts operating and we see how things work out.
Why am I making this skeptical remark? it's because China has recently demonstrated itself as being immature in its dealing with trade partners when territorial dispute heats up between China and the said trade partners. Yes, I'm referring to the rare earth debacle that Japan went through and the rotten Filipino Bananas.
Yet, two way trade is still strong, they are only making a fuss because they want to and we have all the leverage. When the US does it they call it sanctions, we can't do that yet, so here we are.
The BRICS bank is a good indication of how this will play out, asking India and other powerful Asian nations to join, INCLUDING Japan, is an indication of how we want this bank to function.
We gave up leadership in BRICS and we will delegate to the others on the infrastructure bank, if we didn't want to do that we can just continue with our own lending which dwarfs any investment by the two banks combined .
I have looked at what we can already do, and the possible reasons for future actions and this would be the most logical.
You don't think we created a bank just to piss people off do you.
Japan and Chian trade is going up and will soon reach an all time high, as is trade with the Philippines. See you can't just judge a whole situation by some sensationalist propaganda.
China's military budget and development is not transparent. Don't get me wrong, all militaries are secretive to a certain degree but in China's case, it is very very opaque. I remember you yourself got mistaken about the development of certain SAM system in the PLA's arsenal. I don't think I need to argue how relatively opaque Chinese military budget and development is.
Official figures are just official figures. You don't exactly know how much each weapons procurement cost, the running cost of certain equipments, the development cost of certain prototypes, etc. So how do you know the official figures are accurate?
More importantly, you do not know the exact number of weapons and equipments in PLA's arsenal. Can you tell me whether the HQ-19 and HQ-26 is already in service or not? how many regiments are currently operating them? or are they still in development? Do you know all the exact models of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles currently in PLA's possession? and how many missiles currently in stock???
These are all strategic weapons and can be used to obliterate VietNam and the Philippines. It can also certainly cause Japan huge damage.
Your attempt to downplay China's aggressive posturing by quoting these official figures and "slow" military modernization is flawed. China has enough military power to obliterate VietNam and the Philippines.
Obviously we do have enough power to destroy, but that's their problem not ours. Japan has the same population, and the UK, yet there they are.
Do you know why we can have pretty accurate figures. We are the Chinese people, chinese makes up of the Chinese military, not martians. Information is passed around, and wam, we can deduce how much equipment we have pretty accurately.
Military are very organized, the same organization would have the same number of equipments, easier than counting Chickens.
Even outlandish estimates still puts China at 2.5% which is still far lower than the super powers.
And much less than what we could spend.
Firstly, the fact that China haven't set up an AIDZ in the SCS doesn't mean that China is being benevolent. Things in the SCS is more tricky. China is signatory to UNCLOS which has specific laws and regulations. China haven't even dared to declare what those 9 dash lines is in precise legal terms. Once China do that, other parties can invoke UNCLOS to judge China's 9 dash lines. Right now China is leaving the 9 dash ambiguous and ignoring UNCLOS arbitration case. To set up an AIDZ could mean that China would need to precisely define what those 9-dash lines are, but this is something China would want to avoid.
Secondly, the oil rig and Scarborough shoal conflict didn't result in a military conflict because both Vietnam and the Philippines does not have the means to sustain such arms conflict and China's CG and CMS had enough power to bully the Viets and Filipino. This doesn't mean that China was acting benevolent or non-aggressive. To the contrary, the Viets and Filipino says that China was acting overly aggressive.
I never said we were benevolent, or good, just that we are not the type of aggressive like Western media and you like to suggest.
We are playing the diplomatic game, and a good diplomat never ignores advantages he has at his disposal.
We are trying to avoid more complicated issues which is another reason for the no weapons argument. If we are to use force, what does it matter what anyone saids.
4. China's "demand" on the SCS and ECS are both "logical and has historic basis."
Logical and histoical according to China's own standard? or is it according to international law?
Your claim is worthless when China doesn't even dare to take their legal, logical and historical cases to the IC. If China has such good logical and historic basis, then why not take it to the IC and settle it once and for all? Unless, those logical and historic basis are not so logical and historical at all. I think the American has the saying, "the proofs in the pudding." or what PDF Chinese loves to say here "Do more, talk less". Stop talking about how strong your historic case is and bring it to the IC to prove it to the world your historic evidences.
.
China holds no card? what about the threat to stop rare earth export to Japan? what about the Filipino rotten Bananas and cancelled tours? what about the threat of the sounds of cannons if certain small neighbours doesn't behave? Gee I think I can recall about 100 warnings that China has issued recently.
Yes according to our own standards, everyone acts in their own interests and follow the law when it isn't worth breaking it. The US didn't invade Syria but did to Iraq. Doesn't mean the US always follows or always breaks the law, it's a matter of if it's worth it.
We can't go to court for this because we have conflicting types of claims, if we win one we lose the other.
hypocritical? Yes, but it is what it is. I never said we are good, just not evil and not warmongering.
Your claims on two isolated incidents which btw has other reasons, the rare earth thing is to control the price doesn't matter who's buying it.
threats are as meaning, especially since our actions have shown, we will work togethor.
5. China will negotiate peacefully:
What negotiation table? was the Scarborough shoal a big wet table? was the oil rig actually a negotiation table misidentified by the VietNamese?
China refuses to participate in the Philippines arbitration case under UNCLOS, which China is signatory to. China only wants a one on one negotiation behind closed door. Is this the negotiation table you're talking about? the type where China can bribe or bully the other smaller party? is the arbitration tribunal and IC too transparent and so China cannot bully the Philippines there?
Are you saying that because China is the biggest trading nation, China has the rights to create a territorial buffer and infringe on others' territorial sovereignty?
To sum up, all your arguments are based on personal opinions, irrelevant historic reference, flawed assumptions about the PLA, unsupported logical and historic claims and just flawed reasoning in general.
There
@LeveragedBuyout, I've just given you some brief comments on the OP's article.
It's a play dude, everyone makes it to strengthen their hand, I don't see the vietnamese backing down that's because they want a stronger hand too.
By negotiation I actually mean China US, a meeting of the great powers, a concert of Europe type deal. Did you not get that.
I'm saying because China is the biggest trading nation, we won't ever damage trade.
Personal opinion is you, since you keep refering to what this or that thinks of this and that.
Irrelevant? I only started with the historical thing, but I mostly used recent events to back it up.
Flawed? Hardly, again you only view it like that because they have no way of fighting back, why don't you bring Japan into this who at this point has just as many ships as our Eastern command and has been doing more or less the same.
