China vs Japan on islands now

[Watercooler]

I don't think China will try it on with Vietnam again. They got a bloody nose when they tried to invade it in 1979. Vietnam may be small but it's very good at defending itself.

I wasn't talking about the land invasion in that post but the conflict over the Spratly and Parcel Islands. In 1974 and in 1988 China and Vietnam engaged in armed conflict over control of the islands in the South China Sea. In both cases Vietnam turned out to be the loser. They don't match China in terms of naval capability. True, Vietnam today isn't the Vietnam of 1974 and '88. But that is also the case for China. China's PLA today is not the same PLA in 1988. PLA's new capabilities give them options against Vietnam that they didn't have in 1988.

[Dodraugen]

What did this clarify apart from re-stating your opinion about Japanese national and some what appears to be waffle about nationalism and racism?

Some evidence even anecdotal is better than hoping the reader believes 'Japanese Nationalism is incredible racist' is a statement that shows nationalism is rife and a problem in society. It could just be replaced with ' any countries name Nationalism is incredible racist'

Proving what the nationalism of a country "is" and "isn't" certainly isn't easy. Particularly since there isn't a "Master of the Nationalists" for every country one can turn to in order to show some the real color of the ideological current. Anyways, I certainly did no worse in providing "evidence" for Japanese nationalism being more than benevolent anti-authoritarianism than you did in backing up "Isn't it a case of hatred of an entire nation from one side and a dislike of a foreign totalitarian Government on the other?"

Evidence that this reductionist view is far to simple can be found in just about all writings from "Uyoku dantai" affiliates. "The Japan That Can Say No" is a classic, although its focus is on US/Japan.

As for "It could just be replaced with ' any countries name Nationalism is incredible racist", I don't really disagree with that (although there certainly are many kinds of nationalism, some more assertive (and focused on an external evil) than others (more inwards-looking and self-assured)). It was you, not me, who suggested a significant difference between Chinese and Japanese nationalism on this point.

As for the rest of my post (the reassurance part), it was meant as a clarification of why apologies and money had been supplied by Japan. If you recall your post, you asked me (as a response to my claim that Japan doing this had more to do with self-interest than benevolence and altruism). Japan has had everything to gain from improving its image, as had (Western) Germany after Hitler.

[bookblogger]

I wasn't talking about the land invasion in that post but the conflict over the Spratly and Parcel Islands. In 1974 and in 1988 China and Vietnam engaged in armed conflict over control of the islands in the South China Sea. In both cases Vietnam turned out to be the loser. They don't match China in terms of naval capability. True, Vietnam today isn't the Vietnam of 1974 and '88. But that is also the case for China. China's PLA today is not the same PLA in 1988. PLA's new capabilities give them options against Vietnam that they didn't have in 1988.

Well, Vietnam literally isn't the same country it was in 1974... I believe China took the Paracels from South Vietnam while it was at war with the North. An opportunistic move which met little opposition.

Since then however, Vietnam has had time to prepare for any further attack from China. I don't think China will be foolish enough to try it.

[hullexile]

That raises the question of "who" is getting away with things. Do you think it serves the US interest to let Philippines hide under the US security umbrella and provoke China without fear of retaliation? If it is the Philippines who launches an attack on Chinese ships on the shoal and the Chinese respond in kind, you think the Americans would just rush in to aid the Filpinos? A security treaty is not an excuse for reckless action. US credibility hinges also on not letting its' allies run loose. Manila is currently betting Beijing would'nt dare fire on them because the Americans will back them up. But if Manila crosses the line, they would soon discover their confidence in the US is misplaced.

As I have said repeatedly, the US does not want to drag itself into a conflict with the disputed areas, they will invent some excuse if things heat up in the shoals.

Japan and Taiwan are entirely different. US (and China) knows quite clearly in their hearts that Taiwan is a totally different case and the American response will also be entirely different. Neither side is foolish enough to think that the South China Sea islands is just as important as Taiwan or Japan's secutity. One does not equate to the other.

The part about the Philippines "provoking" action is pretty much covered in the treaty. Give it a read.

It is not about which country is more important than the other but about credibility. What credibility would all the other "protective treaties" not just in this area but around the world have if they ignored one? Oh I know we had a treaty but that one doesn't matter. Now I agree the US aren't going to get involved in a little spat, perhaps beyond sending a token ship to Subic, but really the Philippines is not going to give up the Shoal without a fight and if Chinese ships are being attacked from Clark as is most likely do you not think the Chinese would want to respond?

[Watercooler]

Well, Vietnam literally isn't the same country it was in 1974... I believe China took the Paracels from South Vietnam while it was at war with the North. An opportunistic move which met little opposition.

Since then however, Vietnam has had time to prepare for any further attack from China. I don't think China will be foolish enough to try it.

Yet China chose to battle the unified Vietnam in 1988 (something that you did not mention).

I agree China will want to avoid an armed clash with Vietnam if possible. However, that should not be mistaken to mean that China will avoid conflict with Vietnam at all cost. When it comes to matter that China consider vital to their security, they will engage Vietnam, militarily if they have to.

[Watercooler]

The part about the Philippines "provoking" action is pretty much covered in the treaty. Give it a read.

It is not about which country is more important than the other but about credibility. What credibility would all the other "protective treaties" not just in this area but around the world have if they ignored one? Oh I know we had a treaty but that one doesn't matter. Now I agree the US aren't going to get involved in a little spat, perhaps beyond sending a token ship to Subic, but really the Philippines is not going to give up the Shoal without a fight and if Chinese ships are being attacked from Clark as is most likely do you not think the Chinese would want to respond?

Show me that provision then.

The US has more than sufficient credibility even if they choose not to intervene in the spat between Philippines and China. It is very much about which issue is important and which is not. The world is smart enough to know that the American standing won't be severely harmed if they pull below their weight over the shoal. At the end of the day, Manila will lose in any armed conflict with China over the islands. Yes the pathetic little treaty doesn't matter in today's world, short of an all-out invasion of the Philippines.

Attack Clark? The Chinese don't need to. They have the anti-air ability with their warships and the Chinese have their own fighters. They can destroy any Philippine attack without needing to attack their base. And the Philippine air force is too rundown and small to be able to sustain more than one or two wave of attacks.

[Dreadnought]

F.A.O. Watercooler:

US interest in the region isn't exactly a secret. Can you think beyond the mutual defence treaties for the moment? What shows up? East_coast will probably know what I am talking about.

[bookblogger]

Yet China chose to battle the unified Vietnam in 1988 (something that you did not mention).

I don't know much about that, I'm going to read up on it.

[Watercooler]

F.A.O. Watercooler:

US interest in the region isn't exactly a secret. Can you think beyond the mutual defence treaties for the moment? What shows up? East_coast will probably know what I am talking about.

US interest is to keep China in check using her regional allies and "pivoting" American military assets to Pacific to deter any Chinese adventurism. Japan, Korea and to a lesser extent, Taiwan, are the main allies to acheive the US goal. That does not mean the Americans will just leap into a conflict with China over some insignificant shoal.

It's all down to cost vs benefit calculation. Choosing to fight a war with China over a shoal will adversly impact a whole set of other issues in Sino-American relations. Why bring the house down with China over a shoal? It's not like China is about to launch an invasion of Taiwan.

[Dreadnought]

Yes, and presumably you've performed this cost-benefit analysis for them?

The US has bases in both South Korea ad Japan and, soon, Australia too. Co-operation with Vietnam is at an all-time high. Do you see where this is going?

P.S. - Of course you do - you have all the answers.