Like Tree238Likes

China vs Japan on islands now

Reply
Page 9 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 ... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    What makes you think these treaties are written in stone? Nation-states are driven by self-interest in their actions on the international arena. Despite their rhetoric, they don't do things out of altruistic desires to help the downtrodden or weak members of the international community. They do it to protect their interest or to expand their power and influence. Whichever ally can help the US acheive those aims is what matters to the Americans, as is the case for all large hegemonic powers. And Philippines is way down the list of important allies for the US. Why would Americans risk their own lives and limbs to protect a second-rate country that won't benefit them much in return? (No offence to Filipinos, but that's the reality of realism and power politics that govern international relations). They keep this treaty on paper to placate Manila and their bullsh*t about democracy and freedom, whether they will really do what the treaty say is another matter entirely.
    American? If not, shut up! Since none of your assumptions truly reflect what their would be course of action.
    Last edited by ExpatNeighbor; 20-08-2012 at 09:21 PM.
    Brooklynexpat likes this.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    That depends on who that neighbor is. If you are talking about the Philippines, China can easily demolish whatever military units Manila send to Scarborough Shoal, if it comes to a actual conflict. Manila is no match for Beijing. Despite what the Americans say, they aren't interested in backing Manila to fight a war with Beijing.

    If you are talking about Vietnam, they would be a tougher opponent to Beijing, but at the end of the day Beijing will still prevail in any war over the islands in the South China Sea.
    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.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Can you clarify this?

    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?

    There are a few things the one government has used to fan the flames such as the shrine where the leadership go to not forget the horrors of war, a handful of schools who had a watered-down history books and probably a few other things.
    Japan's has been working on what some call the "balance of reassurance". As I'm sure you know, Japan's regional reputation has been, and remains, anything but good. This is a point often forgotten in the West, but if you take out those populations whose experience with Japanese colonialism was less harsh, then it's probably the most hated state in East Asia. China is probably catching up with the territorial disputes and all, but still. It's not a coincidence that a majority of the South Korean population, for instance, say they mistrust Japan more than China. When Japan offered to send mine sweepers in the Gulf War, Malaysia's President compared it to letting a recovering alcoholic have liqueur chocolate. Etc.

    So Japan, with its brutal reputation and all, has post WWII worked hard to improve its image. This has been done in many ways. The US alliance and Article 9 has certainly been helpful, but military restraint alone will not do. Thus, economic support has been another instrument.

    As for reducing Japanese nationalism to hatred of authoritarianism, I don't agree with that. Japanese nationalism, at least in its more extreme forms, is incredibly racist (as is the Chinese equivalent, of course). It contains historical white washing at its worst, it sees China as an ungrateful student bashing its teacher (Japan), and so forth. When it comes to the arithmetics I'm not sure, it might be that a substantially bigger percentage of Chinese have negative views of Japanese that have little to do with history and everything to do with prejudice than the other way around. But Japanese nationalism is not the same as principled anti-authoritarianism. In fact, a lot of the hard core nationalists look back to the days of the military rule with nostalgia.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    History teaches us that treaties are often kept with enormous consequences (WW1 and WWII) on the other hand they can be broken (Germany and Russia).

    It all depends on how you look at it. The US currently has protective treaties with Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines (and Korea?). If it does not act on one what value do the others have. The hawks in Washington would I am sure argue that to let China get away with one would encourage the invasion of Taiwan for example. Dangerous games for the big boys to play.
    You are right in saying that credibility matters. Some would probably argue that defending the Philippines could be important for the US simply because it wants to protect the credibility it enjoys with other, more important, allies (Japan, South Korea). This does not go against the school of IR known as "realism".

    However, when it comes to the disputed areas, if I'm not mistaken the US has been pretty clear in stating that these are not covered. There's little of the "strategic ambiguity" you see when the US and Japan discuss Taiwan, for instance. And so, while I do think the US would react if China attacked the Philippines (a highly hypothetical scenario, why on earth would the country who has the most to gain from regional stability right now do this?), as in the established areas of the country. Should China use force in the disputed areas, however, I see that as incredibly unrealistic.

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7,442

    I think each nation should pick a hand to hand combat champion and have a fight to the death. Whoever wins gets the legal right to the island. This would save a lot of pain and suffering if the Asian War erupts.

    Dodraugen and Brooklynexpat like this.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpatNeighbor:
    American? If not, shut up! Since none of your assumptions truly reflect what their would be course of action.
    Who are you to tell me to shut up or not? What makes you think you know the true course of action by the US?

    If you can't offer an alternative explanation, I suggest you shut your mouth .

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,080

    I like shoals. It's none of my business. You shut up.


  8. #88

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    History teaches us that treaties are often kept with enormous consequences (WW1 and WWII) on the other hand they can be broken (Germany and Russia).

    It all depends on how you look at it. The US currently has protective treaties with Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines (and Korea?). If it does not act on one what value do the others have. The hawks in Washington would I am sure argue that to let China get away with one would encourage the invasion of Taiwan for example. Dangerous games for the big boys to play.
    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.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 10:15 PM.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by bookblogger:
    I like shoals. It's none of my business. You shut up.
    And you are failing miserably at that .

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodraugen:
    Japan's has been working on what some call the "balance of reassurance". As I'm sure you know, Japan's regional reputation has been, and remains, anything but good. This is a point often forgotten in the West, but if you take out those populations whose experience with Japanese colonialism was less harsh, then it's probably the most hated state in East Asia. China is probably catching up with the territorial disputes and all, but still. It's not a coincidence that a majority of the South Korean population, for instance, say they mistrust Japan more than China. When Japan offered to send mine sweepers in the Gulf War, Malaysia's President compared it to letting a recovering alcoholic have liqueur chocolate. Etc.

    So Japan, with its brutal reputation and all, has post WWII worked hard to improve its image. This has been done in many ways. The US alliance and Article 9 has certainly been helpful, but military restraint alone will not do. Thus, economic support has been another instrument.

    As for reducing Japanese nationalism to hatred of authoritarianism, I don't agree with that. Japanese nationalism, at least in its more extreme forms, is incredibly racist (as is the Chinese equivalent, of course). It contains historical white washing at its worst, it sees China as an ungrateful student bashing its teacher (Japan), and so forth. When it comes to the arithmetics I'm not sure, it might be that a substantially bigger percentage of Chinese have negative views of Japanese that have little to do with history and everything to do with prejudice than the other way around. But Japanese nationalism is not the same as principled anti-authoritarianism. In fact, a lot of the hard core nationalists look back to the days of the military rule with nostalgia.
    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'
    Last edited by East_coast; 20-08-2012 at 10:11 PM.

Reply
Page 9 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 ... LastLast