I’m not saying it’s going to happen in 2016. But I wouldn’t say it would be impossible in ten years.
I’m not saying China will be able to defeat the United States in a world war (at least not in ten years) but China is growing in power. At some point the United States may have to recognize China has reached the status that the Soviet Union had; not as strong as the United States overall but strong enough that it can challenge the United States in areas where it concentrates its strength.
China has already stated its position. It’s declared that all territory within the “nine-dash line” is part of China. They’ve even given it a provincial government.
As far as China is concerned this territory is part of China and international agreements to the contrary are just foreign powers occupying parts of China. They don’t see the other countries as being rival claimants with equal status.
To China, this isn’t a dispute over who owns what. It’s a dispute over how to get foreign powers out of China. China feels it’s acting forbearingly by allowing the process of withdrawal to occur peacefully.
From an outside perspective, we can see objectively that China’s views are one-sided. But we can’t dismiss them because this is how China sees the situation. China doesn’t see any more reason why it should be negotiating with the Philippines over who owns the Spratly Islands than the United States sees a need to negotiate with Mexico over who owns Texas.
The ability of the Chinese to basically buy off every claimant in the region seems a bit problematic as well. Oh, I’m sure they could get the Philippines to at least not speak out as loudly against what China is doing if they paid for that new highway system mentioned earlier, but they would have to do that for every claimant nation…and it would have to be of perceived value at least close to what the value projected for the region. :dubious: Plus, that would most likely still not get the US off their back, since even if we are talking about JUST the fishing and resource rights in the region, there are broader trade issues involved, since over $3 trillion passes through the region…a region that would be controlled by China at that point. :dubious:x2
You are right about the 9 dash line being a bit less than rigorous wrt demarcating whatever territorial claims the Chinese are claiming they have had for thousands of years to the region. It’s interesting that the line sort of peters out right around where…Taiwan is. 
Really, China’s best move at this point is to negotiate some sort of mutual use treaties with the other claimant nations for joint exploitation of the region, and to drop their extra-territorial claims wrt attempting to assert territorial waters/EEZ claims. That just isn’t going to happen, no matter how many islands they build or what they put on them…unless one thinks that the US will just back off and allow China to set such a precedence, and one that could have much wider implications in other regions and down the road.
The US wouldn’t have allowed the Soviet Union, at it’s height, to set such a precedence as to be able to go into a region that is international waters and disputed territoriality by multiple claimants and, by fiat create islands and then attempt to assert territorial waters/EEZ claims. And we aren’t going to allow China to do it either. Think about the implications if we just rolled over on this one.
And this is just the US’s perspective. Why do you suppose the other nations, especially those allied to the US by treaty should go along with what China asserts as their rights? If they did, where would it stop? After all, the 9 dash line was just an arbitrary assertion by the Chinese based on some made up supposed historical claims from Chinese governments that don’t even exist anymore…the freaking CCP did everything they could to erase that history, except when it’s convenient to them. Even if those historical records are true, this would be like Italy asserting that, because the Roman Empire drew some borders that France and Spain, as well as North Africa and the Med are all their territory. I mean, there are these old maps…
:smack:
You were saying?
The idea that the US government isn’t involved in the dispute is laughable.
The US has done everything possible to demonize the Chinese over this dispute and this another gimmick they are using to build their case against China in order to justify further provocations by the US govt.
And here the Beijing apologists are. What took you so long?
Horseshit. The Chinese have done everything to demonize their own position by their actions. They basically backed the Philippines into a corner, giving them no other recourse but to try arbitration…an arbitration that the Chinese have rejected (and in fact rejected before a ruling was even reached). It’s laughable that you think the US has manipulated the situation to demonize the Chinese on this, and your ridiculous link to a freaking Chinese state sponsored site is, well, ridiculous and shows that you will buy anything they toss out.
The US isn’t directly involved in this and has stayed as neutral as possible. However, one of the US’s guiding principals has been and is freedom of navigation in international waters. Sure, that’s because it’s in OUR best interests (a large part of that $3 trillion that transits the region is our own trade and interests)…which is why we have made the point of sending our military into the region. So China knows they can’t, by fiat, just annex the region and assert territorial authority over it. On the question actually asked at the Hague, however, the US has basically kept out of it and we haven’t tried, unlike China, to assert by our own military fiat who owns any of the disputed territory, instead opting for a more broad ‘it’s international waters, free to all to navigate’ and leaving the knottier question to the various claimants to work out.
Will’s political analysis is nonsense.
The American position is actually the most reasonable one; treat the area as international waters. China’s position is the least reasonable one; it’s all ours because we called dibs.
That said, I still feel China is going to end up winning. It’s their backyard not ours. To us, the South China Sea is a minor body of water on the other side of the world. To China, it’s the equivalent of the Gulf of Mexico. The stakes are much higher for China than they are for America and resources will be committed accordingly.
The outcomes are also unbalanced. We’re fighting for an abstract principle. China is fighting for a real gain. So again, China and America’s commitment won’t be equal.
We stood by when the Soviets overthrew the governments of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. This was a recognition that Eastern Europe was effectively a Soviet sphere of influence.
China has been saying that the South China Sea islands are part of China. They’ve made them a province of China. They’re settling Chinese people throughout the region. At some point, the region will effectively be a part of China in real world terms. And at that point, China will simply push to have the de facto situation recognized as de jure.
This is a bit different, though. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were actually real territory lived in by people. The Soviets annexation of those territories had at least a fig leaf of reality, since they had controlled those territories since the war and there were actually Communist governments in place asking for the Soviets ‘help’. Yeah, it was a shitty thing to do by us, but it wasn’t anything like this situation.
This is the Chinese basically creating territory from nothing, then attempting to assert sovereignty over that created territory and gain territorial waters and exclusive economic zone status of a huge region…and one that crosses ACTUAL territorial waters and EEZ regions of other nations. If this is allowed to stand then any country (with the military might) can and will simply start building artificial islands wherever they want and then doing the same thing. Russia could do this in the north pole region once the ice really starts to melt to gain control of the resources and potential trade routes in that region. Or the US could…or the US could do the same in the Gulf of Mexico as you mentioned earlier. Large countries could use this to squeeze out smaller ones whenever they like with such a precedence…and if the US backs down on this what’s to stop this from happening over and over again in the future?
As to the US’s interests, they ARE directly affected, since as noted our trade goes through that region as well. All it would take is for the Chinese to be pissed off at us down the road to have the Chinese decide that US trade going through the region needs to be searched or held up for customs or whatever other arbitrary reason they give to have a real and direct impact on our economy. So, I don’t expect the US to just allow the Chinese to do whatever they like because to us it’s just an abstract while to them it’s some sort of reality or manifest destiny or whatever horseshit the CCP is peddling on this. Obama’s pivot to Asia kind of shows that the current administration gets it, and our actions in the region have been pretty much perfect…showing our resolve, but also demonstrating we are willing to let the regional powers work out the deeper issues themselves. But we haven’t backed off of sending our ships and planes in, even when China has clearly been provocative and militarized the region, nor should we. If we ever do, then you are right…the Chinese win by default.
Personally, I think we just wait the Chinese out. Everyone seems to think that China is some deep long term player, but personally I think the CCP is on borrowed time. China’s economy is slowing, and there are a lot of indications that it was never as strong as it appeared. China’s military is a paper tiger, rife with corruption and poor leadership, without the tools or experience to seriously challenge the US or probably even Taiwan, Japan or South Korea (let alone all of them WITH the US and probably ever other country that has a border with China). North Korea is a ticking time bomb, and when it goes off it’s going to hurt China as much or more than anyone else. Environmentally, China is on the cusp, with serious environmental issues that are building to a serious explosion. Water resources are at a critical point, air quality is horrible and it’s hard to even say how many ordinary Chinese die each year from things the party allows…let alone how many die because of stupid policies the Chinese have. The CCP is corrupt, and that corruption is systemic…and eventually, it’s all going to come crumbling down. I think the South China Sea escapade is the CCP’s attempt at bread and circuses for the people, a distraction so they don’t see what is really happening behind the curtain…but I think the Chinese people DO see, increasingly, what’s going on back there, and the fools in charge.
Every situation is different. But I’d say declaring you own some unpopulated islands is less of an affront to international law than overthrowing the government of another country.
Heck, we currently own islands that we simply declared our ownership over and we had less justification than China has. The only difference is that most of these islands weren’t being claimed by another country. That’s a difference but not an insurmountable one.
And Russia is currently claiming a large portion of the Arctic region as its national territory based on a claim that essentially comes down to how deep the water is. So claims on unoccupied territories are not unprecedented.
If China convinces other countries to drop their claims and then claims these islands, on what basis are we going to dispute it? Keep in mind there are currently twice as many Chinese living on these islands as there are people living on the Falkland Islands.
Those are real issues. There’s also Chinese demographic issues and the divide between its economy and its government.
But plenty of other countries have diverted their people away from domestic problems by promoting aggressive nationalism. So I don’t think we can assume China’s foreign policies will becomes less aggressive due to domestic problems. It could push them the other way.
How in hell does a libertarian end up coming down on the side of Chinese Communism?
Other ways China in 2016 is different from the USSR in the Cold War:
They’re more economically successful than the USSR, which achieved a GDP of at most half of the USA’s over the course of its history. China’s over that right now (GDP about 60% of America’s) and even with the recent much talked of slowdown is still growing faster than any other significant world economy
The USA was never significantly distracted by anything other than the Cold War during the Cold War - important conflicts like Vietnam and Korea included both major powers. Right now the USA has the situation in the Middle East to deal with as well as watching what China is doing - your attention is split
The NATO countries were solidly on the USA’s side against the USSR. In this situation, Australia so doesn’t want to piss off a neighbor fifty times our size and eight times as wealthy, the EU says it’s “not taking a position on claims to land territory and maritime space in the South China Sea” cite … if the USA tries to hold China to account, I don’t know who’s there to support them.
It’s possible that China won’t be the dominant world power in 20 years - but I think it would be sensible to prepare for the possibility
Take the opposing side on whatever position the United States government has.
[QUOTE=Aspidistra]
Other ways China in 2016 is different from the USSR in the Cold War:
They’re more economically successful than the USSR, which achieved a GDP of at most half of the USA’s over the course of its history. China’s over that right now (GDP about 60% of America’s) and even with the recent much talked of slowdown is still growing faster than any other significant world economy
[/QUOTE]
Other ways China is not like the USSR (ones that really matter): They don’t have the military and industrial complex. They still buy weapons from Russia…that means that, even today, China is basically on par or below in many respects to Russia (today). China doesn’t have the professional military that the USSR did. Say what you will about Russia, but it’s military, especially it’s officer corps were professional. China, on the other hand is, well, not. Their ranking military leaders are basically party hacks. I don’t mean they are general officers who are also party members, but the other way around. Their training is a joke…it’s between 30-40% party propaganda and indoctrination training…i.e. their soldiers don’t learn to be solders, but learn party slogans and thought. While I’m sure that’s very valuable it kind of doesn’t help them much when it comes to the fighting part. From memory, the average US soldier costs, including training, around $17,000.00 to train and equip (basic training and basic load out). The average Chinese solder? Less than $2k…and most of that is the rifle. There are other huge differences, but those are the high spots.
True. However, there is something in this you overlook. Do you know when the last large scale Chinese military deployment was? What real world experience they have? It was the Tienanmen Square massacre, and it was in the 80’s. The Chinese have literally zero combat experience (and as stated above, sucky training, equipment and leadership. And this doesn’t get into the systemic corruption thingy).
The US is on the side of several regional powers (since we aren’t the major focus here), including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines. Vietnam is probably also included in there, ironic as it seems. Even India opposes China’s play in the South China Sea, and their fleet has been exercising with the US Navy fairly extensively in the last few years pretty much because of this. While I’m less sure of where Australia plays out in this, it’s not like a distracted and harried US stands alone against Chinese aggression in the region.
Preparing for China to become dominant is very different to just handing the region over to them because they seem kind of tough and act aggressive. Maybe China will be able to get past the multiple walls they face and become dominant…maybe not. Either way it would be foolish for the US to cave into them on this…and, luckily we seem to have a president who gets that and is doing the right things wrt this situation. I have hopes that President Clinton will continue down that path as well.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Every situation is different. But I’d say declaring you own some unpopulated islands is less of an affront to international law than overthrowing the government of another country.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not remotely similar, however, and it would be a very bad precedence to allow China to do so.
The difference you don’t seem to get is that we don’t attempt to assert territorial waters and exclusive economic zone status.
If China is allowed to set a precedence here then you can bet Russia WILL claim that land AND attempt to exert territorial waters and EEZ status as well…and Canada will do the same thing. That could lead to war as well. Again, this is a very dangerous precedence and is one of the reasons the US is opposing them, and one of the reasons why the US is unlikely to back down over this.
Well, that assumes China could convince other countries TOO completely drop their claims. They MIGHT be able to bribe the Philippines to shut up about it, but if they attempt to annex the land and claim it’s territorial waters and EEZ? No way any of the claimants would allow that. Do you not understand the implications to the regional powers of that?? And the implications to the US and anyone else who has a piece of that $3 trillion plus in trade that transits that area??
Oh, I don’t assume they would or will become less aggressive in their policies…the opposite really. It’s a distraction to their people and allows the CCP to show an outside threat to try and rally public support to their failing policies and rule.
Maybe they will get past their various walls. I don’t see how, but stranger things have happened. Regardless, I don’t see the US allowing China to continue along this course unopposed, especially not when there are regional powers who stridently oppose what China is trying to do.
China’s position is that the South China Sea is theirs – not just the islands, but the entire ocean is sovereign Chinese territory. It’s as if Mexico claimed the entire Gulf of Mexico – islands and water and oil and all – because, well, it’s called the Gulf of Mexico, isn’t it? Oh, and there’s supposed to be an ancient Chinese document or somesuch that asserted historical claims on the region.
Every few months, the US will poke at the dragon by sailing some destroyers within spitting distance of the Spratleys or the Paracels. Or perhaps fly over the islands with a recon plane. The latest provocation a few weeks ago involved two aircraft carriers. China blusters but, unlike poor Filipino fishermen, they can’t just bully around the US Navy.
So do you think other countries, including the United States, are going to leave the unpopulated islands they’ve claimed in the past? Or is this policy only applicable to China?
For that matter, are other countries, including again the United States, going to leave the populated lands they’ve claimed in the past?
I’m sure you see the point I’m making. The precedents exist. China is going to argue that it isn’t doing anything that other countries haven’t done.
Sure we do. We assert territorial waters and exclusive economic zone status over American territory. Which is what China is doing over what they say is Chinese territory.
That horse is already out of the barn. Russia and Canada are already claiming vast portions of the Arctic. Any resolution of the South China Seas situation isn’t going to reverse that.
This is where the theory hits the realpolitik. As I’ve said, other countries have claims in the South China Sea. And how do disputes between countries usually get resolved?
As I’ve pointed China has said it will not give up its claim. And the other powers in the region aren’t strong enough to force China to give up its claim, even if they act collectively.
So I stand by my assessment. The ultimate resolution will either be that China’s claims are recognized or that there will be a war between China and the United States over those claims. And I am not certain the United States is willing to fight China over this issue. And I am not certain that the United States will always be able to defeat China in such a fight.
The difference is Mexico isn’t strong enough to make such a claim and make it stick.
Is China? At the moment, probably not. Ten years from now? A strong possibility.
The basis is this Arbitration decision, which has been carefully worded by the Philippines as to *not *decide on issues of its claim, only that China’s claims on the South China Sea have no merit. The court has ruled finally that the area is *not *Chinese territory and is in fact international waters. The area is now *legally recognized international waters. *This ruling will remain even if, presumably, the regional claimants decide to drop their claims or are brought off by China.
Basically, as international waters, the US has complete justification to keep sending warships to patrol the area despite any position the claimants might take in the future.
There are no permanent human settlements in these “islands”, the Arbitration ruling is quite clear in defining that there are no islands in the entire area, only “rocks” and “high tide elevations”. To be classified as an island, the body of land must be capable of sustaining human habitation for a prolonged period, which is actually impossible in the features of the South China Sea without regular support, drop offs of water, food, supplies, etc. These are basically desert islands in the middle of nowhere. China’s land reclamation does not satisfy this condition, their “islands” are populated by military personnel who are supported by frequent supply runs from the mainland.
The issue is not evicting an already existing population, like in the Falklands.