3 ms·

You asserted that key policies will not change. Policy entails a course of action, specifying how aims are achieved. So it isn't a matter of the existence of th

You asserted that key policies will not change. Policy entails a course of action, specifying how aims are achieved. So it isn't a matter of the existence of the 9 dash or 11 dash line, but the route that they would go in pursuing it. I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). That just smacks of neo-orientalist sinicism. China's development is modelled on the same export model as Japan's and South Korea's. The difference being whether other advanced economies are willing to absorb and support that model for the remainder of the time that China needs to pivot before succumbing to the middle income trap. And to your last point, China's GINI coefficient bottomed out in 2015. It has since been rising.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
> but the route that they would go in pursuing it. They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They would not abandon their newly built bases or stop Navy patrols. That would be contrary to their sovereignty claim. There's a lot of propaganda on this topic and people are falling for it. But the reality is that China is only following a standard, tried and tested, way to assert sovereignty claims: They occupy the place. The neighbouring countries, including democracies, are doing exactly the same. > I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). It's obviously different because China is a superpower. Japan and South Korea are not, they are too small, they both fell under the US's dominance, in part by military means. China is directly challenging US's dominance because it's actually larger than the US are and the Us cannot bully them into submission. That's what's new. The US are used to be in charge, like the Europeans used to be before them. A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.
- starfallg 5y ago
  > They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They can stop expanding military bases in contested areas for a start. That's already a big change in policy. > A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end. What makes China a superpower and Japan not? What economic indicators are you using? Or the UK, France, and India for that matter? Nuclear powers that are able to flatten the population centres of countries on command. Treating 'The West' as a monolithic entity is just the mirror image of neo-orientalism. In terms of alignment, the ideological chasm between the 1st World / 2nd World during the cold war was larger than the gap between China and the other advanced economies currently. China, having reformed its economy, is more similar to Spain, which resolved a lot of its geopolitical problems after the transition to democracy in the late 70s and early 80s. The only baggage that China has in terms of geopolitics is the constant navel gazing at the 1800s and Qing's humiliation by the colonial powers. This is a Chinese nationalist narrative that is stoked by the party, but one that doesn't resonate at all with the younger generations.
  - ampdepolymerase 5y ago
    The inability to unilaterally impose another Plaza accord speaks volumes.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

> but the route that they would go in pursuing it. They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They would not abandon their newly built bases or stop Navy patrols. That would be contrary to their sovereignty claim. There's a lot of propaganda on this topic and people are falling for it. But the reality is that China is only following a standard, tried and tested, way to assert sovereignty claims: They occupy the place. The neighbouring countries, including democracies, are doing exactly the same. > I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). It's obviously different because China is a superpower. Japan and South Korea are not, they are too small, they both fell under the US's dominance, in part by military means. China is directly challenging US's dominance because it's actually larger than the US are and the Us cannot bully them into submission. That's what's new. The US are used to be in charge, like the Europeans used to be before them. A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.

starfallg 5y ago
> They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They can stop expanding military bases in contested areas for a start. That's already a big change in policy. > A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end. What makes China a superpower and Japan not? What economic indicators are you using? Or the UK, France, and India for that matter? Nuclear powers that are able to flatten the population centres of countries on command. Treating 'The West' as a monolithic entity is just the mirror image of neo-orientalism. In terms of alignment, the ideological chasm between the 1st World / 2nd World during the cold war was larger than the gap between China and the other advanced economies currently. China, having reformed its economy, is more similar to Spain, which resolved a lot of its geopolitical problems after the transition to democracy in the late 70s and early 80s. The only baggage that China has in terms of geopolitics is the constant navel gazing at the 1800s and Qing's humiliation by the colonial powers. This is a Chinese nationalist narrative that is stoked by the party, but one that doesn't resonate at all with the younger generations.
- ampdepolymerase 5y ago
  The inability to unilaterally impose another Plaza accord speaks volumes.