Is China Slowly Conquering Its Neighbors?

[Revoltingest]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/19/chin...stirs-up-any-conflict-in-south-china-sea.html
I suspect that this is possibly their eventual goal.
The method....conquering by slow advancement.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/19/chin...stirs-up-any-conflict-in-south-china-sea.html
I suspect that this is possibly their eventual goal.
The method....conquering by slow advancement.

China have pretty consistently tried to increase their sphere of influence since the Revolution, to be honest. They grew up watching the USSR and the USA staring each other down at diplomatic tables globally.

 

[Augustus]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/19/chin...stirs-up-any-conflict-in-south-china-sea.html
I suspect that this is possibly their eventual goal.
The method....conquering by slow advancement.

Not really. Just using various historical territorial claims to assert control over strategically and economically important areas.

It's mostly a rejection of US hegemony in the region and more recently a response to the US Asian 'pivot', as professed by your beloved Hillary.

As we've seen with Russia re: Georgia, Ukraine, etc., if America keeps on trying to expand their powers on the doorstep of other powers then they will push back. They aren't content to sit back and let America advance their zone of control onto their doorstep.

Just politics as usual.

 

[Nietzsche]

As we've seen with Russia re: Georgia, Ukraine, etc., if America keeps on trying to expand their powers on the doorstep of other powers then they will push back. They aren't content to sit back and let America advance their zone of control onto their doorstep.

Just politics as usual.

Woo! Changing the strings so that they lead to Moscow rather than Washington! Truly, things have changed! Putin is a far more benevolent lea...


I'm sorry, I can't keep this going with a straight face. The Vozhd will do as he pleases, he's just angling for some warped Slavic Anschluss.

 

[Flankerl]

Well America, that's what you get for not supporting the Kuomintang.

As we've seen with Russia re: Georgia

Please don't. Just don't.
Everyone involved, including the OSCE observers made it clear that the Georgian Army initiated the war with the clear goal to incorporate South Ossetia and Abkhazia which had been longer independent than even Georgia.
They tried to destroy that one tunnel which connects Russia and South Ossetia but failed due to incompetence.
After that they tried to lure NATO into the war because they shelled the Russian peacekeeping troops(legit peacekeeping troops btw) and Russia began to move more and more military into South Ossetia (which the South Ossetian found pretty neat btw).

What happened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is in no way comparable to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Give the South Ossetians a completely unbiased referendum to join Russia and they would do so any day. The approval would be over 90%.

They declared their independence from the USSR and the Georgian SSR before even the Georgia SSR declared its independence from the USSR for crying out loud.


When the Russians go full "Crimea is rightful Russian land" its completely wrong. But when the Georgians do the same its not? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[David1967]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/19/chin...stirs-up-any-conflict-in-south-china-sea.html
I suspect that this is possibly their eventual goal.
The method....conquering by slow advancement.

I don't think there is any denying it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really. Just using various historical territorial claims to assert control over strategically and economically important areas.

Thanx sounds like a more soothing way of saying "conquering".

It's mostly a rejection of US hegemony in the region and more recently a response to the US Asian 'pivot', as professed by your beloved Hillary.

And rejecting the 'hegemony' of China's neighbors too.

As we've seen with Russia re: Georgia, Ukraine, etc., if America keeps on trying to expand their powers on the doorstep of other powers then they will push back. They aren't content to sit back and let America advance their zone of control onto their doorstep.
Just politics as usual.

China's increasing military power is something new though.

 

[Augustus]

Please don't. Just don't.
Everyone involved, including the OSCE observers made it clear that the Georgian Army initiated the war with the clear goal to incorporate South Ossetia and Abkhazia which had been longer independent than even Georgia.

Please don't. Just don't spin my words completely out of context by cutting off the quote mid sentence. Ukraine and Georgia were examples of America trying to "expand their powers up to Russia's doorstep" not of "Russia being nasty". The validity of territorial claims, Russia's ethics or anything else weren't being discussed.

Saakashvili overestimated the degree of support he was going to get given that Georgia was on the fringes of possible NATO membership. And the question of Georgian NATO membership had led to Russian attempts to destabilise Georgia.

America was a major driving force behind the Ukrainian revolution/coup d'etat also, which led to Russia deciding to make a point about the true extent of US power in the region.

Ignoring questions of right or wrong, it's pretty clear that America has pursued a policy of bringing in as much as possible of the former USSR into the Western fold, and it is pretty clear that Russia is not going to sit back and do nothing about this as it doesn't see American influence as being purely benevolent.

 

[Augustus]

Thanx sounds like a more soothing way of saying "conquering".

If you want to use language with a Fox News level of accuracy perhaps. The purpose is to give them greater control of the South China Sea by claiming various disputed patches of land (uninhabited atolls and rocky outcrops) in the region.

As to the question of is this simply the start of China moving to actually conquer any of it's neighbours then no. It is highly unlikely for historical, economic and political reasons.

China's increasing military power is something new though.

Still tiny compared to America's though. I think they have 1 aircraft carrier at the moment.

Their increasing military power though allows them to project their power locally in support of their own interests. Allowing America 100% control over the South China Sea is not part of their interests.

American policy towards Russia and China has been fairly aggressive (and destabilising) in terms of asserting their power in their localities. Obama (and Hillary) continued many of the mistakes of Bush, in part because many of those driving the policies in the DoD and State dept are the same people.

I'm surprised you are passing on such a good opportunity to criticise your bete noir for endorsing stupid policies.

 

[Flankerl]

Actually I wasn't trying to spin anything. If that's not what you meant then that's ok. No problem there.

 

[AsianActivist]

Racist Fascist China has border disputes with EVERY SINGLE nation that it borders, plus Ten Other Countries. Plus they claim Hawaii on the grounds that it has a majority of Asian people.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153551812290247

Here is a list of the countries that have territorial and border disputes with China:

1. Japan :: Parts of the East China Sea, particularly the Senkaku Islands. Also, on occasion, the Ryukyu Islands, on the grounds that the completely independent Kingdom of Ryukyu was once a vassal state of China. The Kingdom of Ryukyu terminated tributary relations with China in 1874.
   
   
2. Vietnam :: China claims large parts of Vietnam on historical precedent (Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644). Also, Macclesfield Bank, Paracel Islands, parts of the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands.
   
   
3. India :: China illegally occupies 38,000 sq km (Aksai Chin) of land in Jammu & Kashmir. It also holds 5,180 km of Indian territory in Pakistan occupied Kashmir under Sino-Pak agreement of 1963. At the heart of Sino-Indian boundary dispute is the issue of Arunachal Pradesh (90,000 sq km), which China describes as "Southern Tibet". Beijing is demanding that at least the Tawang Tract of Arunachal Pradesh, if not the whole of the state, be transferred to China.
   
   
4. Nepal :: China claims parts of Nepal dating back to the Sino-Nepalese War in 1788-1792. China claims they are part of Tibet, therefore part of China.
   
   
5. North Korea :: Baekdu Mountain and Jiandao. China has also on occasion claimed all of North Korea on historical grounds (Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368).
   
   
6. The Philippines :: Parts of the South China Sea, particularly Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands. Russia :: 160,000 square kilometres still unilaterally claimed by China, despite China signing several agreements. Singapore :: Parts of the South China Sea.
   
   
7. South Korea :: Parts of the East China Sea. China has also on occasion claimed all of South Korea on historical grounds (Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368).
   
   
8. Bhutan :: Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet, namely Cherkip Gompa, Dho, Dungmar, Gesur, Gezon, Itse Gompa, Khochar, Nyanri, Ringung, Sanmar, Tarchen and Zuthulphuk. Also Kula Kangri and mountainous areas to the west of this peak, plus the western Haa District of Bhutan.
   
   
9. Taiwan :: China claims all of Taiwan, but particular disputes are: Macclesfi eld Bank, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal, parts of the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands. The Paracel Islands, also called Xisha Islands in Vietnamese, is a group of islands in the South China Sea whose sovereignty is disputed among China, Taiwan and Vietnam disputes with Burma.
   
   
10. Kazakhstan :: There are continual unilateral claims by China on Kazakhstan territory, despite new agreements, in China's favour signed every few years.
    
    
11. Laos :: China claims large areas of Laos on historical precedent (China's Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368).
    
    
12. Brunei :: Over Spratly Islands. The Spratly Islands is a disputed group of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays, and islands in the South China Sea. About 45 islands are occupied by small numbers of military forces from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. Brunei has also claimed an exclusive economic zone in the southeastern part of the Spratlys encompassing just one area of small islands on Louisa Reef. This has led to escalating tensions.
    
    
13. Tajikistan :: Chinese claims based on historical precedent (Qing Dynasty, 1644-1912).
    
    
14. Cambodia :: China has, on occasion, claimed parts of Cambodia on historical precedent (China's Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644). Indonesia :: Parts of the South China Sea.
    
    
15. Kyrgyzstan :: China claims the majority of Kyrgyzstan on the grounds that it was unfairly forced to cede the territory (which it had formerly conquered) to Russia in the 19th century.
    
    
16. Malaysia :: Over Parts of the South China Sea, particularly the Spratly Islands.
    
    
17. Mongolia :: China claims all of Mongolia on historical precedent (Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368). In fact, Mongolia, under Genghis Khan, occupied China.
    
    
18. Afghanistan :: Afghan province of Bahdakhshan (despite a bilateral treaty of 1963, China still encroaches on Afghan territory).

 

[Flankerl]

Taiwan :: China claims all of Taiwan

And the Republic of China claims all of this. Actually they claim everything the Peoples Republic of China claims.

Your point?

In fact, Mongolia, under Genghis Khan, occupied China.

After which they Chinese occupied Mongolia.

Again, your point?

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want to use language with a Fox News level of accuracy perhaps.

I don't know what they've said about it.
But the language I referred to strongly appeared to sanitize their reasons & actions.

The purpose is to give them greater control of the South China Sea by claiming various disputed patches of land (uninhabited atolls and rocky outcrops) in the region.

Thank you for this additional example.

As to the question of is this simply the start of China moving to actually conquer any of it's neighbours then no. It is highly unlikely for historical, economic and political reasons.

Note that when I say "slowly conquering", I'm referring to something less than conquering (initially).
By controlling all shipping in the area, this would give them great power over the affected countries.

Still tiny compared to America's though. I think they have 1 aircraft carrier at the moment.

And even this is a training ship, not ready to compete with us.
But they have other capabilities which could be quite fell, eg, missiles.

Their increasing military power though allows them to project their power locally in support of their own interests. Allowing America 100% control over the South China Sea is not part of their interests.

I don't see that Americastan is aiming for such control.
It appears that our goal is peaceful autonomy for those in the area.

American policy towards Russia and China has been fairly aggressive (and destabilising) in terms of asserting their power in their localities. Obama (and Hillary) continued many of the mistakes of Bush, in part because many of those driving the policies in the DoD and State dept are the same people.
I'm surprised you are passing on such a good opportunity to criticise your bete noir for endorsing stupid policies.

Ahem....."bete noire".
One should not criticize one's many many objects of derision too often or when it's not germane.
This thread is about China's intentions, which are not entirely justified by Americastanian foreign misadventures.

 

[Wu Wei]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/19/chin...stirs-up-any-conflict-in-south-china-sea.html
I suspect that this is possibly their eventual goal.
The method....conquering by slow advancement.

Much of what I am about to say has already been said.

China has never been into expansion like Russia, England, Germany, France, Spain, USA.... or anyone else. However it does look at the map from a rather historical perspective. Anything that was once part of a Chinese Dynasty...can be thought of as still being part of China.

Also, China looks at a lot of things from an economical perspective and to be honest, a war with the US is not a smart financial move.

But the one thing I am watching is the saber rattling, China has never been into that either and it seems to be popping up from time to time. China has pretty much always looked at things military form the (孙子兵法 Sun Zi Bing Fa) Sun Tzu Art of War perspective and Saber rattling and muscle flexing is generally not part of that model. That is unless it is a distraction technique.

 

[Revoltingest]

Much of what I am about to say has already been said.

China has never been into expansion like Russia, England, Germany, France, Spain, USA.... or anyone else. However it does look at the map from a rather historical perspective. Anything that was once part of a Chinese Dynasty...can be thought of as still being part of China.

Also, China looks at a lot of things from an economical perspective and to be honest, a war with the US is not a smart financial move.

But the one thing I am watching is the saber rattling, China has never been into that either and it seems to be popping up from time to time. China has pretty much always looked at things military form the (孙子兵法 Sun Zi Bing Fa) Sun Tzu Art of War perspective and Saber rattling and muscle flexing is generally not part of that model. That is unless it is a distraction technique.

Some things differ from days of yore.....
- China is becoming technologically advanced, the quality of its products notwithstanding.
- China is bursting at the seams, with a huge growing population, limited land, & limited resources.
- China's culture is changing as it becomes more westernized.

 

[Wu Wei]

Some things differ from days of yore.....
- China is becoming technologically advanced, the quality of its products notwithstanding.
- China is bursting at the seams, with a huge growing population, limited land, & limited resources.
- China's culture is changing as it becomes more westernized.

China's huge population is moving out of China to every other part of the world so that is not really an issue

It is becoming technologically advanced, but no more than the west and in many cases that advancement is from blatant theft of intellectual property. There are major corruption problems at all levels in China and most of those are all for money

And it is becoming more westernized, but it is still China and still does not understand the wests need to get into everyone else's business. Also that westernization is greatest in wealth accumulation, not to mention there are a lot of western business in China helping it with its economic growth and China has a lot of money invested in the US.

 

[Revoltingest]

China's huge population is moving out of China to every other part of the world so that is not really an issue

I disagree.
Domestic population is growing, & their arable land is relatively small.

It is becoming technologically advanced, but no more than the west and in many cases that advancement is from blatant theft of intellectual property.

Their technological advancement is what enables their military hegemony.

And it is becoming more westernized, but it is still China and still does not understand the wests need to get into everyone else's business. Also that westernization is greatest in wealth accumulation, not to mention there are a lot of western business in China helping it with its economic growth and China has a lot of money invested in the US.

Nonetheless, they will change with greater exposure & integration with the west.
This will effect changes, although I don't predict what they'll be.
Their investment in Americastan is indeed good for our security.

 

[Augustus]

Note that when I say "slowly conquering", I'm referring to something less than conquering (initially).
By controlling all shipping in the area, this would give them great power over the affected countries.

Whatever language is best, they want pretty much the same thing as America, the ability to project power in a strategically important area of sea. Both are using the various options they have on the table for doing so.

There is no reason to see this as a precursor to an attempt to conquer any of their neighbours. China's economy is export driven and couldn't survive it in good shape (possibly leading to civil unrest), the resource cost and instability that result from such actions would not be desirable, and expansionism isn't part of the national psyche in the same way it is in other parts of the world.

I don't see that Americastan is aiming for such control.
It appears that our goal is peaceful autonomy for those in the area.

That may well be a part of it, but it's not the whole picture.

Part is the typical penis measuring contest that goes along with power politics.

Part because Asia is of increasing importance globally, which is part of the reason for Obama's 'pivot' towards Asia. Unsurprisingly, China also wants a say in what happens in the neighbourhood.

Part contingency in case of future problems. Again, not surprising China wants to do likewise.

Both sides are protecting their national interests. China's national interests don't extend into conquering any of its neighbours though.

One should not criticize one's many many objects of derision too often or when it's not germane.

Well their actions didn't work out too well in Ukraine, and they are creating tensions in Asia now. The further they push China and Russia, the more they will push back. Their policies have been unnecessarily antagonistic, by insisting they have the right to project their power right onto the doorsteps of these countries.

Just as a hypothetical, would America be fine with China and Russia constructing military bases in Cuba, Mexico and Canada, putting troops right on US borders and asserting their right to patrol shipping in the North Pacific and North Atlantic oceans?

This isn't to say they should leave the entire region to China, just that a less antagonistic approach would be better. Just as it would have been to stop the NATO expansion at the edges of what has traditionally been Europe, rather than trying to get the likes of Georgia and Ukraine into the fold which were historical Russia, rather than Europe.

 

[Wu Wei]

I disagree.
Domestic population is growing, & their arable land is relatively small.

Yes it is, and their pollution problem is rather large and making it smaller. But the exodus from China, by those with money, is rather large. And, as far as China's government is concerned, this is not a problem at this time. They have an entirely different view of its populace than we have in ours in the west.

Their technological advancement is what enables their military hegemony.

And yet the Chinese government will not leave any General in any one place to long... that whole mandate of heaven thing comes into play there. It is still China, it is not Russia, it is not the US. And their technological advance is still not all that great militarily as compared to many countries in the West. Although they are working to lessen that gap. But something else may come into play here, culturally, that could impede that. They tend to look for what is good enough, over what is best. The aircraft carrier they now have, is still and old Russian carrier and not up to standards of current active Russian and US ships. And the aircraft carrier buster missile they have does not seem to be all that much of a concern to western powers, at least not yet.

Nonetheless, they will change with greater exposure & integration with the west.
This will effect changes, although I don't predict what they'll be.
Their investment in Americastan is indeed good for our security.

Do you know when this whole island ownership issue became a "big issue"? Secretary Clinton made a comment to the Japanese about the islands they owned. Japan jumped on that and China got really ticked off. Again, not understanding why the west got involved or cared. But those islands have been China's, in China's view, again looking at old dynastic maps.


Something else to consider here, China is as unhappy with North Korea as pretty much the rest of the world...one big reason...its not good for business.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes it is, and their pollution problem is rather large and making it smaller. But the exodus from China, by those with money, is rather large. And, as far as China's government is concerned, this is not a problem at this time. They have an entirely different view of its populace than we have in ours in the west.



And yet the Chinese government will not leave any General in any one place to long... that whole mandate of heaven thing comes into play there. It is still China, it is not Russia, it is not the US. And their technological advance is still not all that great militarily as compared to many countries in the West. Although they are working to lessen that gap. But something else may come into play here, culturally, that could impede that. They tend to look for what is good enough, over what is best. The aircraft carrier they now have, is still and old Russian carrier and not up to standards of current active Russian and US ships. And the aircraft carrier buster missile they have does not seem to be all that much of a concern to western powers, at least not yet.



Do you know when this whole island ownership issue became a "big issue"? Secretary Clinton made a comment to the Japanese about the islands they owned. Japan jumped on that and China got really ticked off. Again, not understanding why the west got involved or cared. But those islands have been China's, in China's view, again looking at old dynastic maps.


Something else to consider here, China is as unhappy with North Korea as pretty much the rest of the world...one big reason...its not good for business.

I recall the island disputes going back farther.
But I've nothing specific to offer.

Domestic population is declining?
Are you sure?