4 ms·

I am no geopolitical expert, but the Chinese seemed to be playing with fire. At which point a war will erupt in the South China Sea, especially when those natio

by kiba 10y ago

I am no geopolitical expert, but the Chinese seemed to be playing with fire. At which point a war will erupt in the South China Sea, especially when those nations won't take it anymore?

chj 10y ago
It would be interesting to see who get burnt in the end.
toyg 10y ago
Which nations? Vietnam, who lost two conflicts with China already, when China was even poorer and weaker than it is now? Or the Philippines, who can barely keep their own state together as it is? Maybe Malaysia, a country constantly rocked by internal dissent because of huge economic inequality? Singapore? The only nation who might decide they "won't take it anymore" is the United States; but post-Iraq, the US will struggle to justify any significant intervention abroad for another generation, let alone against a nuclear superpower. No, on the military side China is laughing all the way to the naval base on artificial reef. The question is, what exactly do they think to gain from this aggressive expansionist activity? Hopefully it's just strategic military positioning for the long run. If it's anything they think they can directly leverage (like imposing controls or tariffs on ships going through the area), then they risk a backlash on their commercial interests. There are probably competing forces inside PRC hierarchies competing over this particular policy. It might well be that sanity will eventually prevail. Launching WW3 over a bunch of rocks just to stick it to your boss, seems a bit too much even for the average military nutcase.
- adventured 10y ago
  Your premise is entirely backwards. The response is almost universally that this can only be enforced militarily. That's not accurate. China's economy is their achilles heel, not their military. China's economy is extremely fragile right now, and it's going to remain so. Growth will continue to trend toward zero in real terms, as all the easy growth ended nearly a decade ago (thus they've taken on ~$40-$50 trillion in debt in that time). Their transition over to a service economy is not going to go well. They'll need trillions of dollars in new capital to continue to keep their economy afloat, mostly consisting of trillions of dollars in new debt (far over burdening an already hyper indebted economy). And they'll need that much debt in just the next year. They can't manage any of that in an economic vacuum. There are now countless economic levers to use against China, most of their economy is dependent on external consumption and extremely high levels of exports. Their integration with the global economy has made them dependent in that way. Other Southeast Asian nations are being set up as counters to China manufacturing wise, which has already begun to rip the heart out of China's export economy, leading to their own versions of the US rust belt. If the other global powers decide China has taken this dispute too far, it will be very easy to punish them with a unified front. Numerous of their industries are violating WTO rules governing dumping for example, the first start would be to finally take action against China for that. Their desire - need - to see their currency continue to gain reserve expansion, could be hampered very easily. There are a dozen other good economic ways the rest of the world can make China's territory annexation painful.
  - toyg 10y ago
    I've said as much when mentioning the risk to their commercial interests, I don't disagree. However, the facts on the ground is that China invested a ton of money on building a military facility on artificial sand right there. You don't do that unless you expect to be there for the long run. Even if they complied with this sort of ruling and recognised someone else's sovereignty, they would likely not leave that base; chances are that they would get a Guantanamo-style agreement, against which there is little anyone can do beyond taking direct military action.
- vetinari 10y ago
  Why downvoting this guy? He is somewhat right. And it is "just" strategic military positioning - to protect the new silk road naval routes. The bases are going to be there so China's naval trade routes cannot be potentially blocked by a hostile naval power.
  - chvid 10y ago
    Exactly. To exaggerate things a bit: This is proxy conflict with USA. The South China sea today is under US Navy dominance. Within a decade or so that will no longer be the case. Simply because USA cannot afford an arms race with China.
    - vlehto 10y ago
      I'm expecting anti-tank weaponry being sent to Myanmar by U.S. The bay of Bengal can't be shut down like china seas.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      The U.S. is so far ahead of China in the arms race already that that will not be an issue for decades, if ever. The issue is political will, because ultimately arms only change minds if they are willing to be used. China's government would have a much easier time justifying violence in the South China Sea to the Chinese population, than the U.S. government would have with U.S. citizens.
  - vacri 10y ago
    'somewhat'. The China-Vietnam war was more of a stalemate than the Chinese-proclaimed victory, and war between China and the Philippines would draw in the US, and guess who's going to win that naval battle. Neither side will use nukes over a naval dispute, and China in particular can't afford to get the West off-side, because it's the West that buys the lion's share of it's manufacturing - whereas the West has plenty of other places to look for manufacturing, albeit not at that scale.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > And it is "just" strategic military positioning - to protect the new silk road naval routes. Yeah, it certainly has nothing to do with South China Sea oil reserves, and China's exponentially growing per-capita energy consumption.
- chvid 10y ago
  I don't know why you are being down voted. Your assessment is largely correct.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Vietnam, who lost two conflicts with China already, when China was even poorer and weaker than it is now? What? I assume at the "two conflicts" you are referring to are (1) the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam (Sino-Vietnamese War; Third Indochina War) which had two strategic objectives: forcing Vietnam to withdraw troops from Cambodia, and forcing Vietnam to surrender the Spratly Islands -- neither of which China achieved, as Vietnam diverted no troops from Cambodia and did not surrender the Spratly's, (2) The period of intermittent armed conflict between China and Vietnam following the Chinese withdrawal after the 1979 invasion (sometimes called the Second Sino-Vietnamese War; sometimes considered with the 1979 invasion part of the Third Indochina War). Neither of these was a clear win for China, and while China was "poorer and weaker" then than it is now, so was Vietnam. > Or the Philippines, who can barely keep their own state together as it is? Maybe Malaysia, a country constantly rocked by internal dissent because of huge economic inequality? Actually -- whether this is good policy or not -- external conflicts are often escalated (not uncommonly resulting in war, whether or not that was the intent) by countries with problems with domestic unity/dissent, specifically to use the external crisis as to either promote unity (by a "rally around the flag" effect) or as a pretext to more vigorously suppress domestic dissent by tying it to the external threat. > The only nation who might decide they "won't take it anymore" is the United States; but post-Iraq, the US will struggle to justify any significant intervention abroad for another generation, let alone against a nuclear superpower. Vietnam barely had that much effect, and there's preciously little evidence that Iraq has had anything like Vietnam's effect on the US's political willingness to intervene overseas.
yardie 10y ago
The chinese are getting better at soft power. This is really about oil and natural resources in the South China Sea. A direct confrontation wouldn't be acceptable and it would be costly. If anything I believe they'll put financial and political incentives and convince them to sell the islands.
jiyinyiyong 10y ago
Well it's someone else playing fire seeing from the side of a Chinese.

by kiba 10y ago

I am no geopolitical expert, but the Chinese seemed to be playing with fire. At which point a war will erupt in the South China Sea, especially when those nations won't take it anymore?

chj 10y ago

It would be interesting to see who get burnt in the end.

toyg 10y ago

Which nations? Vietnam, who lost two conflicts with China already, when China was even poorer and weaker than it is now? Or the Philippines, who can barely keep their own state together as it is? Maybe Malaysia, a country constantly rocked by internal dissent because of huge economic inequality? Singapore? The only nation who might decide they "won't take it anymore" is the United States; but post-Iraq, the US will struggle to justify any significant intervention abroad for another generation, let alone against a nuclear superpower. No, on the military side China is laughing all the way to the naval base on artificial reef. The question is, what exactly do they think to gain from this aggressive expansionist activity? Hopefully it's just strategic military positioning for the long run. If it's anything they think they can directly leverage (like imposing controls or tariffs on ships going through the area), then they risk a backlash on their commercial interests. There are probably competing forces inside PRC hierarchies competing over this particular policy. It might well be that sanity will eventually prevail. Launching WW3 over a bunch of rocks just to stick it to your boss, seems a bit too much even for the average military nutcase.

adventured 10y ago
Your premise is entirely backwards. The response is almost universally that this can only be enforced militarily. That's not accurate. China's economy is their achilles heel, not their military. China's economy is extremely fragile right now, and it's going to remain so. Growth will continue to trend toward zero in real terms, as all the easy growth ended nearly a decade ago (thus they've taken on ~$40-$50 trillion in debt in that time). Their transition over to a service economy is not going to go well. They'll need trillions of dollars in new capital to continue to keep their economy afloat, mostly consisting of trillions of dollars in new debt (far over burdening an already hyper indebted economy). And they'll need that much debt in just the next year. They can't manage any of that in an economic vacuum. There are now countless economic levers to use against China, most of their economy is dependent on external consumption and extremely high levels of exports. Their integration with the global economy has made them dependent in that way. Other Southeast Asian nations are being set up as counters to China manufacturing wise, which has already begun to rip the heart out of China's export economy, leading to their own versions of the US rust belt. If the other global powers decide China has taken this dispute too far, it will be very easy to punish them with a unified front. Numerous of their industries are violating WTO rules governing dumping for example, the first start would be to finally take action against China for that. Their desire - need - to see their currency continue to gain reserve expansion, could be hampered very easily. There are a dozen other good economic ways the rest of the world can make China's territory annexation painful.
- toyg 10y ago
  I've said as much when mentioning the risk to their commercial interests, I don't disagree. However, the facts on the ground is that China invested a ton of money on building a military facility on artificial sand right there. You don't do that unless you expect to be there for the long run. Even if they complied with this sort of ruling and recognised someone else's sovereignty, they would likely not leave that base; chances are that they would get a Guantanamo-style agreement, against which there is little anyone can do beyond taking direct military action.
vetinari 10y ago
Why downvoting this guy? He is somewhat right. And it is "just" strategic military positioning - to protect the new silk road naval routes. The bases are going to be there so China's naval trade routes cannot be potentially blocked by a hostile naval power.
- chvid 10y ago
  Exactly. To exaggerate things a bit: This is proxy conflict with USA. The South China sea today is under US Navy dominance. Within a decade or so that will no longer be the case. Simply because USA cannot afford an arms race with China.
  - vlehto 10y ago
    I'm expecting anti-tank weaponry being sent to Myanmar by U.S. The bay of Bengal can't be shut down like china seas.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    The U.S. is so far ahead of China in the arms race already that that will not be an issue for decades, if ever. The issue is political will, because ultimately arms only change minds if they are willing to be used. China's government would have a much easier time justifying violence in the South China Sea to the Chinese population, than the U.S. government would have with U.S. citizens.
- vacri 10y ago
  'somewhat'. The China-Vietnam war was more of a stalemate than the Chinese-proclaimed victory, and war between China and the Philippines would draw in the US, and guess who's going to win that naval battle. Neither side will use nukes over a naval dispute, and China in particular can't afford to get the West off-side, because it's the West that buys the lion's share of it's manufacturing - whereas the West has plenty of other places to look for manufacturing, albeit not at that scale.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > And it is "just" strategic military positioning - to protect the new silk road naval routes. Yeah, it certainly has nothing to do with South China Sea oil reserves, and China's exponentially growing per-capita energy consumption.
chvid 10y ago
I don't know why you are being down voted. Your assessment is largely correct.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Vietnam, who lost two conflicts with China already, when China was even poorer and weaker than it is now? What? I assume at the "two conflicts" you are referring to are (1) the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam (Sino-Vietnamese War; Third Indochina War) which had two strategic objectives: forcing Vietnam to withdraw troops from Cambodia, and forcing Vietnam to surrender the Spratly Islands -- neither of which China achieved, as Vietnam diverted no troops from Cambodia and did not surrender the Spratly's, (2) The period of intermittent armed conflict between China and Vietnam following the Chinese withdrawal after the 1979 invasion (sometimes called the Second Sino-Vietnamese War; sometimes considered with the 1979 invasion part of the Third Indochina War). Neither of these was a clear win for China, and while China was "poorer and weaker" then than it is now, so was Vietnam. > Or the Philippines, who can barely keep their own state together as it is? Maybe Malaysia, a country constantly rocked by internal dissent because of huge economic inequality? Actually -- whether this is good policy or not -- external conflicts are often escalated (not uncommonly resulting in war, whether or not that was the intent) by countries with problems with domestic unity/dissent, specifically to use the external crisis as to either promote unity (by a "rally around the flag" effect) or as a pretext to more vigorously suppress domestic dissent by tying it to the external threat. > The only nation who might decide they "won't take it anymore" is the United States; but post-Iraq, the US will struggle to justify any significant intervention abroad for another generation, let alone against a nuclear superpower. Vietnam barely had that much effect, and there's preciously little evidence that Iraq has had anything like Vietnam's effect on the US's political willingness to intervene overseas.

yardie 10y ago

The chinese are getting better at soft power. This is really about oil and natural resources in the South China Sea. A direct confrontation wouldn't be acceptable and it would be costly. If anything I believe they'll put financial and political incentives and convince them to sell the islands.

jiyinyiyong 10y ago

Well it's someone else playing fire seeing from the side of a Chinese.