Like Tree51Likes

China's 6 Wars in the next 50 Years

Reply
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
  1. #81

  2. #82

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,123
    Quote Originally Posted by ouwen:
    It if it was not from reuters I would hope that was a spoof! Reality makes me despair sometimes.

    On the ADIZ on further reading I think it is a bit of a storm in a teacup.
    ouwen likes this.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    That is Japan's stance. Although China felt Japan violated a tacit understanding to shelve the dispute with them when the Japanese nationalized the islands in September last year. The Chinese felt this was a unilateral change of status quo and could not be tolerated. Not saying I agree with the Chinese's actions, but it is indeed true that the dispute heated up seriously after the island nationalization. This ADIZ may very well be, from the Chinese's standpoint, giving Japan a taste of their own medicine. The danger of incidents would be used to pressure Japan to accept a dispute exist. Whether Japan does so is another question of course. So what we have is brinkmanship...
    The international press reported at some length the planned purchase of some of the islands by a nationalistic city mayor e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-islands-china and then it appeared the Japanese central government stepped in to purchase the remaining islands to ensure a continuation of peaceful stewardship (some islands were already held by them). They have also maintained and enforced laws to stop its citizens from visiting the islands.

    To suggest that the 'nationalisation' of some of the islands was a provocative act is disingenuous at best but to fan the flames of nationalism over the matter does look irresponsible and lacking maturity.
    Last edited by East_coast; 04-12-2013 at 07:12 AM.
    kimwy66 and Watercooler like this.

  4. #84
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The international press reported at some length the planned purchase of some of the islands by a nationalistic city mayor e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-islands-china and then it appeared the Japanese central government stepped in to purchase the remaining islands to ensure a continuation of peaceful stewardship (some islands were already held by them). They have also maintained and enforced laws to stop its citizens from visiting the islands.

    To suggest that the 'nationalisation' of some of the islands was a provocative act is disingenuous at best but to fan the flames of nationalism over the matter does look irresponsible and lacking maturity.

    It is however, selling a lot of American weapons, stimulating the development of China's weapons industry, and promoting a whole bunch of new Generals and Admirals. Politicians that "lack maturity" are much smarter, more powerful and wealthier than you and I will ever be.
    Watercooler likes this.

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The international press reported at some length the planned purchase of some of the islands by a nationalistic city mayor e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-islands-china and then it appeared the Japanese central government stepped in to purchase the remaining islands to ensure a continuation of peaceful stewardship (some islands were already held by them). They have also maintained and enforced laws to stop its citizens from visiting the islands.

    To suggest that the 'nationalisation' of some of the islands was a provocative act is disingenuous at best but to fan the flames of nationalism over the matter does look irresponsible and lacking maturity.
    The Japanese may have thought their move would ensure peaceful stewardship, but the net effect was to change the status quo of the islands, something the Chinese could not accept. Disingenuous or not, it is a fact that the island dispute heated up only after the Japanese "nationalization" of the islands. The Japanese were naive to misinterpret what the Chinese would think of this move.

    As for irresponsible or lacking in maturity, that's quite true and I agree with that. But I seriously doubt the Chinese care what the western world think of their move. By it's very move, it is designed to raise the temperature against Japan. It is called brinkmanship. Whether it is immature or not is immaterial so long as it can achieve what the Chinese want. Pressure the Japanese to accept there is a dispute. The Japanese so far aren't giving in, but the US may force the Japanese. Behind their veil of solidarity, the last thing the US wants is to be dragged into a Sino-Japanese conflict.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 04-12-2013 at 04:43 PM.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164

    The alternative to the Japanese government buying the islands was an extremely racist amd nationalist Tokyo mayor buying them, building on them and stationing Japanese to live on them. Your glib analysis fails to mention the path taken may have been the least worst option available.


  7. #87

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Mui Wo, Hong Kong
    Posts
    743

    Big Joe Biden's in China to talk about this (and other things, I imagine)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-zone-tensions


  8. #88

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    The alternative to the Japanese government buying the islands was an extremely racist amd nationalist Tokyo mayor buying them, building on them and stationing Japanese to live on them. Your glib analysis fails to mention the path taken may have been the least worst option available.
    From whose perspective? It is a reductionist way of understanding international relations to think a country's actions will always be interpreted the same way by another country. From China's standpoint, it makes no difference whether the islands are controlled by a racist mayor or nationalized. They are both equally bad. Unreasonable? Perhaps. Or maybe the Japanese have not adequately communicated their intentions to the Chinese prior to their move? Had the Japanese thought their nationalization move would have lower temperature, they would have made greater effort to communicate their intent to the Chinese. The fact they fail to do so indicate their lack of appreciation of China's position. And a misstep on the Japanese's part.

    I'm not saying the Chinese was correct to impose an ADIZ. But the Japanese are by no means blameless in this mess. The bulk of "wrong" action may have been committed by China, but Japan isn't an innocent victim here either.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 04-12-2013 at 05:01 PM.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    From whose perspective? It is naive and simplistic way of understanding of international relations to think a country's actions will always be interpreted the same way by another country. From China's standpoint, it makes no difference whether the islands are controlled by a racist mayor or nationalized. They are both equally bad. Unreasonable? perhaps. Or maybe the Japanese have not adequately communicated their intentions to the Chinese prior to their move? Had the Japanese thought their nationalization move would have lower temperature, they would have made greater effort to communicate their intent to the Chinese. The fact they fail to do so indicate their lack of appreciation of China's position. And a misstep on the Japanese's part.

    I'm not saying the Chinese was correct to impose an ADIZ. But the Japanese are by no means blameless in this mess. The bulk of "wrong" action may have been committed by China, but Japan isn't an innocent victim here either.
    With all due respect, you simply have no idea what you are talking about if you think putting Japanese buildings and Japanese staff would not have been much more inflammatory.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    With all due respect, you simply have no idea what you are talking about if you think putting Japanese buildings and Japanese staff would not have been much more inflammatory.
    With the greatest respect, you also have no idea what you are talking about if you think a country will always understand what another country does. There is a failure of communication by the Japanese. The issue is not what is more inflammatory to us, but what is inflammatory to the Chinese leaders. Having the islands bought by the Tokyo mayor or by the Japanese government makes no difference to the Chinese. In both cases there is change in status quo and a breach of "shelving the disputes" agreement by Japan. The Japanese did not appreciate this.

    The bottom line is this: It is not about what action is inflammatory to us the average joe, but what is inflammatory to the Chinese leaders, whose political calculations and decision-making process is far more opaque.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 04-12-2013 at 05:09 PM.

Reply
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast