China Draws Sabre

[Childlike Empress]

A pointless non-sequitur, using a parody article to score imaginary points. Plain fact is, even the Chinese gov't itself has stated on numerous occasions that many of its policies -- especially its military policies -- are in direct response to perceived American challenges and threats. If the Chinese gov't itself is saying that "Yes, it's about the U.S.", and you are using some stupid parody article to claim it's not...well...I'll leave you to guess which side I'm gonna' take more seriously.

That's not "a parody article". That's an article mocking the NYT piece as it has originally been, as you can see from the URL and from pages that reposted it in its early "development". Not unlikely that the MoA article has contributed to how it looks now. No wonder the clowns take care that their "optimizing" can not be caught by the wayback machine.

And good job at missing the point. It wasn't the building, but the "halting" - which in reality is a finishing - that the NYT suggested was about the US, i.e. the result of successful bullying.

And now they even claim it as wisdom stated by some "experts" that suddenly arrived, while correcting their nonsense about "halting":

BEIJING — China announced on Tuesday that it would soon halt island-building projects around some reefs and shoals in disputed waters of the South China Sea but that it would continue constructing military and civilian facilities on those outcroppings.

The announcement may have been intended to ease tensions with the United States, which has strongly criticized the building of the islands and has sent surveillance flights close to the sites, to the chagrin of the Chinese military. The construction of facilities, though, would further establish the sites as islands that China could claim as its territory.

Update: The NYT has now heavily edited and changed its story without noting the changes. The first sentence now reads:

BEIJING — By declaring Tuesday that it would soon complete its contentious program of building artificial islands in the South China Sea, Beijing hopes to diminish tensions with the United States while reassuring its home audience that it has delivered on its pledge to resist American military pressure, experts said.​

The "halt" turned into the more correct "complete". But the general "it's about US" nonsense continues and is now supported with "expert" voices. Here are screenshots of the original version (1, 2) quoted above.

 

[The Atheist]

Plain fact is, even the Chinese gov't itself has stated on numerous occasions that many of its policies -- especially its military policies -- are in direct response to perceived American challenges and threats.

Does not fit the SC Sea island-building in any way.

That is clearly about stealing economic benefits from other Asian nations and the US only enters the picture as a friend of Phils and Japan.

 

[Wolfman]

That's not "a parody article".

My apologies...given the title, I assumed it was a parody article, and didn't click through to read it. My omission, my mistake.

That being said -- so what? An American newspaper reports on China in a biased manner. Where is the revelation in that?!? I don't think there's anyone who argues American media coverage is not biased.

The thing I don't get is that you criticize America for things like this...yet entirely ignore (or are deliberately ignorant of) the fact that Chinese media coverage is far, far more biased. The NYT writes a biased news report, then corrects it without attribution.

Chinese news articles, before even being published, must first be approved by the Chinese gov't. If the gov't doesn't like them, they will never even be published (the U.S. gov't doesn't exert anywhere near that kind of control over their media).

The published articles are frequently extremely biased. Just try reading Chinese news coverage of the issues with these islands, for example. They print only the information that benefits them, and misrepresent, exaggerate, or just plain lie about what other nations are doing/saying. Heck, a few years ago, the Prime Minister of China made comments during a visit to Hong Kong that acknowledged China had human rights abuses. The Chinese media was forbidden to report on that. The Chinese people were forbidden from hearing what their own Prime Minister was saying! Can you tell me any situation where the American media has been banned from printing something that the President said?

If it turns out that an article is problematic, they won't just edit it. They'll delete it entirely, and deny that it was ever printed.

Try coming to China and doing a search for any news related to particularly sensitive topics, like the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or human rights, or things like that. You can't. The very search terms themselves are blocked by the government.

So yes. The U.S. does ****** things. I am personally no fan of the U.S. gov't at all.

But trying to depict them as somehow worse than everyone else, when it is quite demonstrably evident that countries like China engage in much worse practices, is just so mind-blowingly hypocritical that it robs any arguments you make of any real validity whatsoever.

And a reminder (a point that TA will be more than happy to verify, I think) -- I've been living in China for 22 years now. I've started a non-profit charity organization, I've started two successful businesses, I've been a consultant to the Chinese gov't on education, and on the Beijing Olympics, and more. I love China, I love the culture, I love the people.

But the government here, while having some impressive accomplishments, also is responsible for some terrible abuses.

For me, I don't play the "I hate America" or "I hate China" game. I don't hate any of them.

America does ****** things; and America does good things. America has ****** people, and America has good people. China does ****** things; and China does good thing. China does ****** things, and China does good things.

When they do good things -- regardless of whether it is the U.S., China, or any other country -- I do my best to acknowledge and recognize that (which, in TA's eyes, makes me an 'apologist' for the Chinese gov't). When they do bad things -- regardless of whether it is the U.S., China, or any other country -- I will condemn it.

Do you think you can do the same?

 

[Wolfman]

Does not fit the SC Sea island-building in any way.

That is clearly about stealing economic benefits from other Asian nations and the US only enters the picture as a friend of Phils and Japan.

Oh, I'd agree that in that case, it's all about the oil. Just as much American action in the Middle East is motivated in great part by oil.

I didn't say that everything is about the U.S.; but Childlike Empress tends to take an exaggerated position that everything the U.S. does is bad, while excusing/ignoring equal or greater abuses by other countries.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Do you think you can do the same?

Nope, that would be redundant. There's more than enough China-bashing around, you cover the "fair and balanced" territory, so I can happily stay in my Western-propaganda-bashing niche - thank you very much.

 

[Wolfman]

Nope, that would be redundant. There's more than enough China-bashing around, you cover the "fair and balanced" territory, so I can happily stay in my Western-propaganda-bashing niche - thank you very much.

Then you won't mind when I point out the blatantly biased and hypocritical nature of the information you post about the U.S. Just as I point out the blatantly biased and hypocritical nature of the information that TA posts about China.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Then you won't mind when I point out the blatantly biased and hypocritical nature of the information you post about the U.S. Just as I point out the blatantly biased and hypocritical nature of the information that TA posts about China.

If it makes you feel better...

I suggest next time you actually read the information before you start ranting, though.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting read: America’s China Problem

[...] Back to the 21st century, the AIIB and SCS issues symbolize two vastly different types of national strategies. In the past 35 years, a steadily rising China has pivoted to the world for trade, investment, infrastructural construction and inter-cultural exchanges. Initiated by President Xi Jinping in 2013, China’s “One Belt One Road” strategy (“Silk Road Economic Belt” and oceangoing “Maritime Silk Road”) aims at integrating the economy of the entire Eurasian continent and beyond.

In contrast, the U.S. has bent to seek its own absolute security, full spectrum dominance, and nuclear primacy. Since the end of the Cold War, the almighty U.S. military—unbalanced and unconstrained in a unipolar world—has pivoted to many parts of the Arab-Islamic world, leaving a trail of bloody wars, untold of human suffering, and failed states now infested with extreme forces such as ISIS. In comparison, the Asia-Pacific region—despite its vastness, diversity, complexity, and lack of an integrated security framework—remains the only region in the world without any major conflict either within or between states. Will this change with direct U.S. intervention in, or “pivot” to, the SCS disputes?

Regardless, U.S. relations with China remain an open-ended issue, which requires patience and wisdom of both sides for a stable and sustainable bilateral relationship for decades to come. China and the U.S. do not need to love each other. Failure to understand each other’s vital interests and strategic culture, however, will lead to outcomes that nobody wants.

 

[The Atheist]

Just as I point out the blatantly biased and hypocritical nature of the information that TA posts about China.

Nice unfounded and incorrect assertions.

Please identify where the bias or hypocrisy is involved. I am a much bigger critic of USA than China and have been posting factual information about China's actions.

Your post is false on both counts.

 

[The Atheist]

Ok, this subject is rearing its head again as USA prepares to hold exercises within China's self-determined 12-mile limit off the Spratly Islands.

China has apparently pointed out they will be unhappy if it happens.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...es-in-south-china-sea-risk-clash-with-beijing

 

[Toontown]

Ok, this subject is rearing its head again as USA prepares to hold exercises within China's self-determined 12-mile limit off the Spratly Islands.

China has apparently pointed out they will be unhappy if it happens.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...es-in-south-china-sea-risk-clash-with-beijing

It is routine for countries to challenge illegitimate claims on international water. Japan and Philippines have already wet their toes in the forbidden fluid.

The most interesting thing about this dispute is the fact that the U.S. is teaming up with two former stalwart enemies, Japan and Vietnam, to counter the Red Menace in it's bid to close off the sea lanes. Japan has recently recanted some of it's pacifism and is tired of China still being all hostile over things that happened before anyone was born. And Vietnam has never liked China, mostly because of things that happened before anyone was born, but partly because China invaded Vietnam in 1979. Plus, that's Vietnam's fishing hole.

Japan has forgiven the U.S. for nuking it. After all, Yamamoto warned them that the U.S. could get cranky if rudely awakened, and the U.S never demanded any apologies ("These proceedings are closed", MacArthur intoned). Vietnam is willing to let bygones be bygones. After all, the U.S. did chase Japan out of Vietnam during the big war, and gave Ho a pistol which he cherished. The U.S. is amused by Japanese game shows, and is not sure why it likes Vietnam. It just does. So it's the Three Musketeers now.

And China has been beaten up by all three of them at different times. But was asking for it twice.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to seize the South China Sea.

 

[The Atheist]

It is routine for countries to challenge illegitimate claims on international water. Japan and Philippines have already wet their toes in the forbidden fluid.

The big difference, of course, being that China has built a bloody great fortress on the islands.

They've gone past claiming and have just taken ownership.

 

[Jules Galen]

The big difference, of course, being that China has built a bloody great fortress on the islands.

They've gone past claiming and have just taken ownership.

I've often wondered why the diplomats of countries who have a beef with China about those Islands couldn't just go to the Premier Xi and talk it out.

For example, if Japan has a beef with the Spratleys they could go talk to the Premier and admit that China's recent history has been, to a large part, a sad tale of colonial oppression and that as a result Japan deeply respects China's security concerns and would never make a move that they thought would denigrate China's ability to defend itself.

Japan could also remind China regardless of the ultimate disposition of the Spratleys, Japan expects freedom of navigation throughout the chain, and this won't be negotiated. Also, Japan could say they won't spy on Chinas installations, so there is no damned reason to jack up hostilities at sea by playing games.

Then, Japan could say they expect ultimate resolution of the Spratleys to be decided by the UN and they'll abide - and they expect China to do the same - and so do the Philipines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea and the other guys (assuming everyone has coordinated beforehand).

Last, Japan could make sure its position and policy are published for all to see and understand...and they could form a closer trade alliance with China - and it should do all this without the influence of any Western Power (i.e., NATO, US, etc...)

I don't think China could form a valid reason to reject such a position, and the sweetner of closer ties through trade is a bonus if they accepted it.

Is this so impossible?

 

[jimbob]

I've often wondered why the diplomats of countries who have a beef with China about those Islands couldn't just go to the Premier Xi and talk it out.

For example, if Japan has a beef with the Spratleys they could go talk to the Premier and admit that China's recent history has been, to a large part, a sad tale of colonial oppression and that as a result Japan deeply respects China's security concerns and would never make a move that they thought would denigrate China's ability to defend itself.

Japan could also remind China regardless of the ultimate disposition of the Spratleys, Japan expects freedom of navigation throughout the chain, and this won't be negotiated. Also, Japan could say they won't spy on Chinas installations, so there is no damned reason to jack up hostilities at sea by playing games.

Then, Japan could say they expect ultimate resolution of the Spratleys to be decided by the UN and they'll abide - and they expect China to do the same - and so do the Philipines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea and the other guys (assuming everyone has coordinated beforehand).

Last, Japan could make sure its position and policy are published for all to see and understand...and they could form a closer trade alliance with China - and it should do all this without the influence of any Western Power (i.e., NATO, US, etc...)

I don't think China could form a valid reason to reject such a position, and the sweetner of closer ties through trade is a bonus if they accepted it.

Is this so impossible?

That would be simultaneously politically difficult for Japanese internal politicians and unlikely to gain anything.

I am on a phone so won't paste links but the BBC has a good map of the Spratleys showing why the other countries are so wary of Chinese claims to them.

The idea that China's history is not expansionist is also a lot of puff. Especially the regime since 1949.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The idea that China's history is not expansionist is also a lot of puff. Especially the regime since 1949.

Their neighbor to the South, whose coastline is adjacent to the South China sea, can attest to centuries of Chinese bullying, be it under Emperors or The Party of Mao.

One of life's little ironies is that the US and that nation are on the same side in this regard. There's oil in that littoral, among other things.

 

[Jules Galen]

Their neighbor to the South, whose coastline is adjacent to the South China sea, can attest to centuries of Chinese bullying, be it under Emperors or The Party of Mao.

One of life's little ironies is that the US and that nation are on the same side in this regard. There's oil in that littoral, among other things.

One of the strangest things about that little neighbor to the south was how deftly it handled the situation when China decided to place a drilling rig in their territorial waters last year. I am amazed that so few people noticed.

Personally, I was in awe as to how deftly Vietnam handled the situation and let China save face while they compelled them to pick up their drilling rig and skeedaddle. Of course, the China Hawks will say something like, "Yeah...we didn't lose, we just left. Did ya' see all those Vietnamese Coast Guard Cutters our mighty Chinese Destroyers rammed and pushed all over the South China Sea?" Meanwhile, Vietnam would periodically experience a "Spontaneous Workers Riot" and a Chinese factory located in Vietnam would be set on fire! When all was said and done, China decided that Billions of Dollars of Chinese Factories were more valuable than a silly drilling rig - so they removed the drilling rig.

Vietnam - they are Gods of War.

 

[Beerina]

When China thinks it can sink a US aircraft carrier then war is likely. However my feeling is that China will allow US aircraft over the islands, but the US will take no further actions. They will talk to each other and avoid any escalation.

World: get used to it. China is becoming a great power in Asia.

That's exactly the kind that needs to be put in its place by free people.

I hope the next president has the balls to sail ships within the 12 mile military exclusion zones, which do not exist on some of these newly-created islands (per international law of the sea.)

 

[Jules Galen]

That's exactly the kind that needs to be put in its place by free people.

I hope the next president has the balls to sail ships within the 12 mile military exclusion zones, which do not exist on some of these newly-created islands (per international law of the sea.)

Hell...we can't even put Vietnam "in its place" - and neither can China, really. And, since when does it take "Balls" to send some ignorant kids out to do the fighting and dying for you?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What 'ignorant kids' would they be?

 

[rjh01]

What 'ignorant kids' would they be?

Count Australia for one. If there is fighting to be done for USA, then the Australian government will put its hand up. If anyone protests they are terrorists.

Edit. I think though in this case they might arm Vietnam to do the dirty work.