The motivation behind recent Chinese "Aggression"

[Farnan]

Doesn't really matter what the Chinese government really wants, secretly or not: in the diplomacy of air defense zones, what matters are your actions, because you are moving military gear around your neighbours. They can't perfectly estimate your intentions when you fly jets off their coasts, so naturally, they field jets of their own, just in case.

The fact is there is very little actual actions mostly just symbolic gestures. Those countries know China won't conduct military action because China is a rational actor and it's not in China's interest.

[Diocle]

The fact is there is very little actual actions mostly just symbolic gestures. Those countries know China won't conduct military action because China is a rational actor and it's not in China's interest.

How can it be considered 'a rational actor' a country slaughtering in a single day 270/2.600 citizens, injuring at least 7000, a nation killing each year at least 15'000 of its own citizens, a nation protecting a country like North Corea, it's a deep mistery for me!

[Adar]

I have split the thread to separate historical grievances from the topic set by the OP.

Debates on Chinas current political situation and how it affect the situation in the Pacific are a part of this thread.

Historical debates on China, Nazism and totalitarian regimes should be kept in this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ate-capitalism

[Farnan]

How can it be considered 'a rational actor' a country slaughtering in a single day 270/2.600 citizens, injuring at least 7000, a nation killing each year at least 15'000 of its own citizens, a nation protecting a country like North Corea, it's a deep mistery for me!

Rational Actor is not a judgement on the morality of a government. It merely states the government acts in its own interest determined by its regime and makes decisions that it believes will best further those interests. China's top priorities are regime survival followed by economic growth (which is a key component of regime survival). Going to war with the West alienates at least four of its top 5 trading partners (not including Hong Kong).

[Diocle]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/28041377.cms

The reasoning behind the Chinese establishment of the air defense zone and their cruisers action against the US was not aimed at the US or the West. It was designed to win support for the government from the Chinese Nationalist to enable them to conduct liberal reforms which have started with the end of labor camps and reduction of the one child policy. As the article states this is the beginning of this current reform.

Now, for histroy and because I believe in what I'm writing and its absolute correctness, I want to specify that I'm answering here to the Open Post, exactly in these parts:

' ... It was designed to win support for the government from the Chinese Nationalist to enable them to conduct liberal reforms which have started with the end of labor camps and reduction of the one child policy. As the article states this is the beginning of this current reform.'

The part in red cleraly shows beyond any rational doubt that I'm strictly on topic when I say that the statement in the OP is pure crap, because it's true exactly the opposite, the Chinese Policy is becoming more and more agrressive and the idiotic tales about reforms are only lies coming in great part from a regime of criminals who cannot be considered a normal player in the Pacific Scenary.

Please stay on the facts Farnan, don't believe in their propaganda:

1) Look at the amount of money China is spending each year for weapons.

2) Buying the American Public Debt isn't sufficent to call them 'Rational player'

3) They are still protecting the Regime in North Corea which is today at war with ... the whole world?

4) You cannot expect that a horrid Dictatorship sustained by the army and by one of the most corrupt Parties of the Histroy of Mankind will be able to reform itself, this is naive and wrong.

5)The Chinese Nationalism is a gigantic force that now is slowly unleashed by the regime and this cannot be considered a good sign of reforms, actually this is the opposite! Probably it's the beginning of WWIII!

[Farnan]

The part in red cleraly shows beyond any rational doubt that I'm strictly on topic when I say that the statement in the OP is pure crap, because it's true exactly the opposite, the Chinese Policy is becoming more and more agrressive and the idiotic tales about reforms are only lies coming in great part from a regime of criminals who cannot be considered a normal player in the Pacific Scenary.

Source that there has been no reform in China since Mao? Because anybody with any knowledge of China disagrees.

Please stay on the facts Farnan, don't believe in their propaganda:

1) Look at the amount of money China is spending each year for weapons.

US spends far more. NATO as a whole spends many times more.

Using 2012 numbers the amount the US and its Pacific Allies (US, Japan, ROK, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, ROC, Singapore, and the Philippines) spend $833,543,000,000 in 2012 compared to $176,107,000,000 for PRC and the DPRK

2) Buying the American Public Debt isn't sufficent to call them 'Rational player'

Strawman. Never made that argument. Being a bureaucratic nation makes it a rational actor.

3) They are still protecting the Regime in North Corea which is today at war with ... the whole world?

More they don't want it to collapse and send refugees into China and destabilize its third largest trading partner (ROK). Also, they are keeping the DPRK under control, the Good Cop to the US Bad Cop.

4) You cannot expect that a horrid Dictatorship sustained by the army and by one of the most corrupt Parties of the Histroy of Mankind will be able to reform itself, this is naive and wrong.

Its already been going on. Look at the current Chinese economy compared to China in 1990. Chinese also have far more rights than in 1990. By the way China is not a dictatorship, its an Oligarchy. Rule by the Party, the Premier is only the leader of the Party and doesn't have absolute power.

5)The Chinese Nationalism is a gigantic force that now is slowly unleashed by the regime and this cannot be considered a good sign of reforms, actually this is the opposite! Probably it's the beginning of WWIII!

Chinese Nationalism has always existed in the PRC as much as the ROC. No bigger than before. Saying this will lead to WWIII ignores reality for hyperbole.

Don't get me wrong, China is an authoritarian state with horrific human rights, however it is on a positive trajectory. China in chaos would set that trajectory back. Its like going from having a 40% in a class to a 50%. You're still failing, but you're in the right track.

[Diocle]

Probably I'm too old, probably I've seen the end of too many so called 'positive trajectories', probably I lived too long among the ruins of WWII in my town to still believe in the trajectories ...

[Farnan]

Probably I'm too old, probably I've seen the end of too many so called 'positive trajectories', probably lived too long among the ruins of WWII in my town to still believe in the trajectories ...

Positive trajectories can end, however this doesn't show a sign of it happening. Compare it to the USSR in the mid-late 1980s with Glasnost and Petrieska without the nationalism in the Constituent Republics. There was always the possibility of it turning around, such as if Yeltsin didn't stop the Coup, but it seems in the PRC the Party is favoring the gradual reforms.

China knows it can't keep up the current harsh government forever, so I think the CCP is trying to evolve it slowly so they can remain a power when the change does come unlike the Russian Communist Party.

[O'Hea]

The last round of economic reforms really didn't seem all that striking to me, so I doubt they'd be going through so much trouble to smooth their passage in an indirect way like this. I guess my own interpretation of it so far has been that the CCP has been emphasizing nationalism more and more in proportion to how they've distanced themselves from Marxism. They're basically trying to become a working version of Putin's Russia- a nationalist-militarist oligarchy with just enough civil society to minimize violence but a thorough integration of economic and political power to ensure party primacy.

[Condottiere 40K]

But once control has been established. subsequent ethnic cleansing down there must be far simpler than in Tibet; plus, immolation not as effective.

[AqD]

immolation is probably funny in the eyes of chinese officials. Imagine Al-Qaeda trying to terrorize people by that!

[Azog 150]

I did a module on Chinese politics and one of the main points it reinforced in regards to seemingly aggressive Chinese foreign policy is, as you say, for mainly domestic political reasons. Nationalism is what has been used to try and maintain widespread support and stability during times of transition and reform, and these kinds of foreign spats are a great way to get people and political factions on side. This is clear to most people with even a fairly basic knowledge of Chinese domestic politics.

It is good that the OP has brought this to the attention of those who view China as an aggressive expansionist power in the traditional sense- this is simply not the case. China operates in a very different way from the West. There are plenty of criticisms that can be made of China's actions towards it neighbors, but that doesn't excuse often gross misconception. It is certainly not gearing up for war.

[Condottiere 40K]

What does the Dalai Lama have to say to this point of view?

[caratacus]

The claim that P.R.C is an aggressive regime, doesn't really have any basis at present, especially when measured in terms of military interventions. However if you look at it another way, neither are they influential in maintaining peace and stability around the World. Many weapons have been shipped into Afghanistan from China as well as other hot spots and countries with poor human rights records, such as Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In fact the majority of those being currently used in South Sudan, probably originated from China. Whilst the P.R.C. continued support of North Korea is a very odd position for a country that is seeking to become a global leader. Still, In this respect neither the US or Russia win any Nobel prizes either, and given China's economic strength it would very surprising if they were not acting in a similar manner

Aside from this, whether its pollution, the destruction of wildlife, or helping out with humanitarian aid in disasters such as that in the Philippines, China just seems uncaring and self serving and difficult to like. However, the few Chinese people I have met, seem very pleasant and not like either of these things, so I guess it is more down to the way the Country is run than the people themselves. It's a an unsavory mixture of rampant capitalism whilst retaining a Communist system of government,and in my opinion, one that works neither in the Chinese people's interest or those of other countries.

[Pazu the Kitsune]

Its almost a throwback to the Imperial era....China and Chinese see themselves as being the centre of the world.....to their politicians, actions that offend their neighbours are seen as acceptable if they win them political favour, as in win them popularity within China.....they do not think outside of China, or what is outside of China, because to them China is the world....most Americans are the same way, they are more or less clueless about the world outside of the US, but the US government acts as a global policeman, which gets them into trouble.....with China, its more like, if the politicians can find a way to win favour without threatening or offending their neighbours, then China might be entirely self sufficient, the Great Wall of China could literally be like a giant dome that separates China from the rest of the world and the Chinese would be ok with it, Japanese feel a similar way but the difference is China actually has the natural resources and working population to be ABLE to sustain itself

But on caratacus' point i must disagree, if the Chinese politicians must play military games with their neighbours in order to win the support of the Chinese people, then this reflects also on the Chinese people....that the Chinese people are militant, that they have little respect for people of other ethnicities....the Chinese i have met have been decent enough people, but all have had a depressing ignorance and complacency to the actions of their government, something which has severely hindered my relations with them.

[Diocle]

China knows it can't keep up the current harsh government forever

If I can still write in this thread about China, can I ask you from where it comes to you this absurd certainty? That is, do you know some rule about the duration of political systems based on tyranny? Is there some mathematic model we don't know which states this idiotic rule? Who told you they cannot go on forever or at least for years and years or maybe centuries with their criminal regime?

They lasted 50 years why do you think they cannot last other 50 years?

[Farnan]

If I can still write in this thread about China, can I ask you from where it comes to you this absurd certainty? That is, do you know some rule about the duration of political systems based on tyranny? Is there some mathematic model we don't know which states this idiotic rule? Who told you they cannot go on forever or at least for years and years or maybe centuries with their criminal regime?

They lasted 50 years why do you think they cannot last other 50 years?

http://news.investors.com/investing-...ina-stocks.htm

And the effect of this on nearby countries in Asia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaohsiung_Incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Democracy_Movement

[AqD]

They lasted 50 years why do you think they cannot last other 50 years?

Its reputation wasn't so bad in the eyes of chinese people 20 years ago. It only becomes dangerous because many people now actually know what their government is doing and hate it. They don't have the means to rebel through.

[Ahlerich]

If I can still write in this thread about China, can I ask you from where it comes to you this absurd certainty? That is, do you know some rule about the duration of political systems based on tyranny? Is there some mathematic model we don't know which states this idiotic rule? Who told you they cannot go on forever or at least for years and years or maybe centuries with their criminal regime?

They lasted 50 years why do you think they cannot last other 50 years?

what happened in china is that a middle class emerged finally. this middle class is getting stronger and with the wealth they accumulate comes the demand for more liberties and power while its influence grows with its wealth. this could always be choked by brutal force however it would harm the economy badly. as the government is very interested in cashflow and accumulation of wealth capitalist-style they are inbetween a rock and a hard place.
china has the ambition to become an empire again, they studied former empires very well. they need ressources which they are collecting around the world to create wealth, wealth to create a strong military and a strong military to gain influence in the world. thats the big goal so abandoning this fine accumulation of wealth just to stay in power giving up the big dream seems unlikely.

[Aanker]

The rationale behind the need for the Chinese government to reform (and please do note that this word has been brought up a lot recently in official politics; whether there is true intention behind it is another discussion entirely however) is that a) the Chinese population is aging. The elderly will demand adequate care and compensation for their years of hard work in building modern China. b) the Chinese middle class is growing. Since middle classes historically have had more time to spend thinking about the non-life-threatening problems, there is reason to believe that this Chinese middle class will demand more from their government. We already see open street protests and stirs. c) the miracle growth, from which the credibility of the Communist Party has largely stemmed, is waning off. Industrial output has steadily fallen over the years and as happened to South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, it is likely that it will eventually subside to the pattern we see in the west. Loss of credibility means more protests, especially when the economy takes a turn for the worse.