Actions by the People's Republic -- intentional or not -- have created the worst regional environment for China since Tiananmen.
One of the elementary rules of foreign policy is when you are in a hole, stop digging. But judging by their recent behavior, Beijing’s foreign policy mandarins and national security establishment are clearly in violation of this rule. Despite the diplomat heat China has received for its tough stance on territorial disputes in recent months, the Chinese Foreign Ministry apparently seemed to believe that it could strengthen Chinese claims symbolically by issuing a new passport containing a map that claims the disputed maritime areas in the South China Sea and the contested territories along the Sino-Indian border. The reaction was predictable. Southeast Asian countries, particularly Vietnam and the Philippines, protested loudly. India retaliated by promising to stamp visas containing its own map on Chinese passports.
At around the same time as the diplomatic uproar over the new Chinese passport design, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) conducted its first successful landing and take-off operations from its retrofitted aircraft carrier. The televised test might have boosted the Chinese military’s image and self-confidence, but the message this event sent around the region, given China’s hardline position on territorial disputes and its neighbors’ fears of the PLA’s growing military capabilities, cannot be very reassuring.
But that is not the end of the actions taken by China recently that are likely to cost Beijing’s new government dearly. A few days before Japan’s Diet elections on December 16, which are expected to produce a right-wing government with deep antipathy toward Beijing, the Chinese government escalated its challenge to Japan’s territorial claims to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands by flying an official, albeit unarmed, maritime surveillance plane over the airspace of the disputed islands. As expected, the move incensed Tokyo and can only be expected to bolster the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) chances and lend more credence to their call for a tougher policy toward China.
Photo Credit: Flickr (Francisco Diez)
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Reason
@JC
Mate, you need to go and read the Potsdam Declaration again – it is not about containing or restricting Japan but creating FREEDOM, HUMAN RIGHTS and DEMOCRACY. Something the CPC has NVER been in accord with since its inception.
See link -http://chimericanews.com/2012/12/the-cpcs-ridiculous-use-of-the-potsdam-declaration/
or the FULL declaration here - http://chimericanews.com/2012/12/the-potsdam-declaration/
John Chan
@Reason,
The rising neo-fascist movement in Japan will contain and restrict Japanese freedom, human rights, and democracy just like the way their war criminal forefathers did, and those neo-fascists will turn the Japanese into tools of militarism for aggression as before, therefore it is necessary to get the defeated neo-fascist Japanese to re-sign the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations again in the Tokyo Bay in order to rebuild Japan again like the end of WWII. But this time it is necessary to remove all the roots lead to Japanese militarism so that it can be a peaceful member of Asia for good.
Tai Chi
Freedom, Human Rights and Democracy! Yeah we see loads of that happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine!
Cyrus
Have you compared Post-Taliban Afghanistan to the Taliban Controlled Afghanistan in the past? Then yes, you will see the human rights have taken hold, in time it will be a norm.
Fluke
@ John Chan
I wonder what rank John Chan holds in the PLA (propaganda department) or how much you get paid for every mail you wrote. You sound just like the Chinese government, going around and around in arguments which do make any sense at all. Your last sentence should be rephrased like…."for the world peace, all countries around the world should give in to China since China owns everything you can think of"….
China is the greatest bully ever.
John Chan
@Fluke,
I enjoy arguing with those insisting the western manufactured consensus as the international norm and must be taken as given truth; poking holes in their hypocritical moral façade is enjoyable. On top of that I get the chance to improve my ESL as a bonus.
Bankotsu
"I enjoy arguing with those insisting the western manufactured consensus as the international norm and must be taken as given truth.."
The western manufactured "international norms" is taken by the rest of the world as serving western interests. After the western order collapses these so called "norm" must be reorganised to serve the broader interests. That day is coming.
See:
The state, globalisation and the new imperialism
http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/201gowan.htm
Cyrus
Until your Chinese Centric world becomes a reality the "norms" applies. Do tell us about it when the "western norms" collapse then we will take it as a given truth. Until then "Western International Law" must take precedence.
Errol
Good for you JC. Keep it up, and you'll be qualified to migrate to an English-speaking country :P
santi kampilan
Like they say there’s always a snake in the forest. Well, in the Chinese forest Mr. Chan is as such. Always bad mouthing Japan and the Unites States and the rest of the freedom loving world.
John Chan
@santi Kampilan,
Labelling frank and constructive criticism as bad mouthing is closed-mindedness and hubris; there is a lot things you need to learn to be a better man of this global village.
Ashamed to be Chink
And I am sure that teacher of global citizenship is Commissar John Chan …
Kangmin Zheng
China is the second largest economy. Does that make people respect China? The answer is NO. People world wide view China as a bully to smaller and weaker countries like Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and cowardice to big countries like Russia. For example, Russia killed Chinese fishermen in China's water and the Chinese government dare to say a word to the Russian. Very shameful to be a Chinese nowadays.
Ashamed to be Chink
@ Mr. Zheng,
I absolutely agree！ The PRC leadership only dares pick on smaller, weaker countries. That's bullying. In turn the bully kowtows to those who are bigger and stronger and bid their time. This is as old as the school suystem.
The only rubbish argument we keep hearing is … "Oh, but the West did this and that; oh! they are such hypocrites". Even if true, this is totally beside the point. Go and take a short course on Logic 101, please!
JohnX
In terms of the political age of nations, some being mature, some developing and some new. China has the maturity of a teenager and behaves similar. It would account for its school yard type antics of bullying as well as its schizophrenic type behavior where as its no longer a child and yet not an adult. It is learning the ropes, World War 1 Germany, World War 2 Japan were two countries that took actions based on a teenager type mentality, using a growing strength against mature developed nations until they were put in their place, then maturing and being able to conduct Global relations without using brawn or verbal attacks.
The time it takes a country to develop politically has decreased due to technological changes that create greater linkages between states. Though Chinas growth into a mature political state is still uncertain in terms of what actions it will take to raise itself from childhood into adulthood. Bullying or testing ones strength against another is one form of teenager behavior that we see in China.
Now cue the responses; :)
Cyrus
Have you ever heard of Anti-Chinese sentiment in the Philippines before China became assertive with its claims? NONE! Have you heard of Anti-American Protest before China became assertive? YES.
That should answer your QUESTION.
Bankotsu
"Its relations with Japan are at a record low; China-ASEAN ties have similarly deteriorated due to the South China Sea disputes and China’s heavy-handed use of its clout to divide ASEAN."
That's total BS. China is doing FTA and other deals all over the place with these states.
FTA negotiations between China, Japan, South Korea to begin next year
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/745582.shtml
China set to join RCEP talks for Asian free trade area talks
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=&id=20121121000050
India, China reach understanding on border talks progress
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/r0Q8xhwKLZ3mlS2hdlMhJN/India-China-reach-understanding-on-border-talks-progress.html
Trade across Central Asia boosted by railway land bridge to Europe
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-12/06/content_15992464.htm
A lot of misrepresentations and distortions here by the author.
DD
China has earned hard currency (dollar, Euros,etc.) via exports. Without exports to the US & EU, the two largest markets for Chinese cheap products, then where on earth China could find enough cash to do business with these regional export-oriented countries, Bankotsu ? With your own RMB? I doubt it!
robert5013
DD:
China is indeed doing business with RMB in case you don't already know. China has established RMB- to-local currency swabs with HK, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Agentina..etc. Welcome to the new world. The Euro and USD is no longer in demand.
DD
Just a very tiny fraction of international trade. RMB is still inconvertible, not a global reserve currency yet. Still a very long long way to go, China. Don't be boastful too much & don't make the whole world laugh out loud,please!
Bankotsu
The sooner the U.S dollar is displaced as world reserve currency the better. I am looking forward to that day.
China Takes a Big Step to Make the Yuan a Rival to the Dollar
http://business.time.com/2012/07/02/china-takes-a-step-to-make-the-yuan-a-rival-to-the-dollar/
Jean-Paul
Robert do you realize all the countries you just listed are no name countries? Even they still do most transactions in USD anyways. Please do some research before spouting drivel such as that, USD and Euro provide for greater than 99% of all transactions worldwide!! Wake up!!!
DD
Dreaming is good for your health , but living in illusions is surely not healthy at all , Bankotsu. Get real, please! RMB's still pegged to the dollar. For RMB to be a reserve currency, the currency must float freely on the open market. It's still far away from reality, pal!
Cyrus
Bankotsu, please take note that Economic and Political Relationships are not the same it may be a very good Economic Relationship but a very bad Political Relationship.
Liang1a
China's new and truly assertiveness has created a new image of respectability. Now the international community is finally taking China seriously. Of course, like Minxin Pei will demonize China from the point of view of China's enemies. Friends of China are all cheered by China's new assertiveness and look to China for leadership and protection against their enemies who are the American and Japanese thugs.
JohnX
Could you write the names of ten Chinese friends?
Just curious which countries you view as Chinese friends.
phil
umm.. John X: easy answer, N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Cambodia, Taliban, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and may be Somalia
Gong Li
China had no friends. Just like the mafia (John Chan loves this one), it just dresses up like a gentleman (with a crooked brain + a simple mind) and all it has is a couple of thugs like North Korea and Iran to do the dirty jobs.
tocharian
Burma is another classic case of Chinese bullying "gone wild"
megakid
Gone wild? which part? You sure you know what you are talking about? You think Obama's one trip is gonna make a difference? LOL!
Peninsular Plaza
Whoa … and guess who place sanctions on Burma/Myammar depriving the citizens of life-support essentials?
Burmese
The murderous Generals of Burma hae been fully supported by Communist China and some ASEAN countries,such as Singapore,that is why such a silly and stupid junta lasted for so many years.
Singapore: Burma-Singapore Axis: Globalising the Heroin Trade
http://www.singapore-window.org/804caq9.htm
John Chan
The policy “when you are in a hole, stop digging” applies to all aspects of life, not just in the foreign policy; for example the author is in the notorious hole of “westerner boot licker” but it does not see him stop digging to the level of 秦檜.
Another example is that the US is in the hole of predatory imperialist hegemon, king of law of jungles and bombing and killing all over the world to assert its “you are either with us or against us”, but it does not see it to stop digging into the path of being a warmonger by pivoting to Asia.
The Fascist Japan is in the hole of unapologetic war criminal, but it does not see them stop digging into the hole of re-signing Cairo and Potsdam Declarations in the Tokyo Bay by re-establishing its militarism tradition.
For the world peace, the author should give his advices to the USA, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, … and ask those bellicose states to back down so that they do not need to walk the path of the Axis Powers.
Realist
John Chan is certainly qualified in the area of bootlicking , 5 jiao anyone?
Viet Nguyen
Not just boot-licking, JC is even worse. Every time he opens his mouth, it's like diarrhea in the mouth with all the old words CCP members love to use (and could not learn a better or a newer terms), like, "the Imperial West", "lackeys", etc.
Boat
And … you're an ASS licker!
bored observer
Who is this guy and why does he sound like a commie?
Tai Chi
And you sound like a YANKEE!
ice
Because he is one? CCP Ministry of Propaganda to be exact.
Lung Sha Shou
If China stopped behaving like the spoilt brat of the world peace might have a chance.
instead we are treated to sulky, petulant, utterly self-centred hypocrisy fro a regime of lawless murderers.
These illegitimate bandits seem incapable of affording others the respect which they insist they deserve and selectively applying principles only when it's suits them.
Their selfishness and casual brutality has created a society where the population can routinely leave toddlers to die after being hit by cars, where law is prostituted to (corrupt) politics, where the rights of al but the powerful are regularly trammelled.
They have become arguably the most racist country on earth and also disregard the rights of their neighbours to an appalling degree.
Forever blaming others and never accepting responsibility, they are a danger to the rest of the world whilstsoever the illegitimate "communist" party continues in power.
Li Cha Ching
Hmmmm …. and how come even BUSH did not put up a reward for China's Leaders like what he did for Osama? I will be first one to try and collect the reward .. whoa i'll be an instant millionaires!
Cyrus
All the great Empires are the same all of them are bloody imperialist. Persia, Greeks, Macedonia, Rome, Britain, China, and US. Read their histories and you would see a common thread to every great empires they started out bloody in expansion.
Now that is as balance as I can be.
Derek
I'm wondering why the article writer believes such actions are obviously inconceivable to be intentional and premeditated.
A conciliatory attitude towards surrounding nations would be the best option from the point of view of those countries. But is it the best course of action for China? There has been no true irreversible escalation of affairs, despite all the rhetoric and bluster. The same nations are continually involved in the disputes. Whether China follows a slightly more aggressive approach or not, there will still be a simmering conflict in the background.
China will still be painted as an aggressive bully if it still has territorial disputes. There is no new element in the picture. The increasing economic and military imbalance between China and its rivals will ferment such tensions no matter what course of action China pursues short of renouncing all claims, a politically impossible action.
US entanglement in Asian affairs is a given regardless, and may even be welcomed by China. Geopolitical containment is an excellent talking point that can inflame the public's hearts and minds.
The alliance system of America has also pushed nations such as post-Junta Indonesia towards greater co-operation with China. Friendship with the most powerful ASEAN nation does more to counter the actions of China's periphery nations, forcing ASEAN as a whole into a position of neutrality.
ACT
@Derek
i agree. to all evidence, it looks like all of this is very much premeditated, and not the result of internecene politics within Beijing. The message is clear: The PRC feels that it is now strong enough to begin the mission it has been tasked with since its birth: the re-founding of the Chinese Empire, and the reacquisition of any and all territories that belonged to its former tributaries. Right now, Beijing is seeing just how far it can push the envelope, for it it banking on the assumption that the United States–weary from fighting for ten years against an implacable insurgency–will not want to support its allies in the region over such minor claims. Indeed, look what happened with the Philippines and the Scarborough Shoal; the PLAN went on high alert, and Beijing was just waiting for an excuse to bring out the banhammer, as it were. So yes, Beijing is looking both to push the envelope as well as create a convincing enemy which would unite an otherwise fractured populace. Let the games begin.
John Chan
@ACT,
USA is thousands miles on the other side of the Pacific, and nobody in the world has the capability to threaten the USA, why is it such remote area a security importance to the USA, meanwhile the rest of world does not have such odd idea?
99% of the Americans would like to ask why is the USA wasting money in an area thousands miles away from home on the other side of the Pacific, while the money can be spent at home for creating jobs, putting food on table and giving a roof over the head to the people?
Putting military adventurism ahead of the wellbeing of its people, what shall we call such reckless regime?
Wisconsin Bill
I live towards the center of the United States and far from the coasts. I am apparently only part of the 1% that is concerned about aggressive Chinese moves. Our national focus on the Mideast has blinded us to what is happening in the Far East and I, like many of my fellow citizens, believe the Obama "pivot" was long in coming.
John Chan
@Wisconsin Bill,
1. Mr. 1%, you do not speak for the 99% of your fellow citizens, in democracy your (the minority) opinion does not count.
2. The 1% avoids their fair share of taxes by tax evasion thru loopholes and tax havens; therefore before the 1% pays their fair share of taxes, they are not qualified to speak for their fellow citizens.
3. It seems you have gotten your priority wrong, the 1% brought their own national, the USA, into financial meltdown in 2008 for their personal gain, and the nation is still in economic malaise and financial crises, and millions of your fellow citizens lost their jobs and houses as a result; do you think the first priority for the 1% as the ruling elite of the state should focus on creating jobs, putting food on the table and providing roof over the head for you fellow citizens instead of overlooking their misery and talking about something far away that cannot improve your fellow citizens’ living conditions at all?
4. Pivoting to Asia diverts desperately needed money to improve the living conditions of your fellow citizens, yet you are supporting it, it seems you are rather heartless.
5. Stealing your fellow citizens’ lifesaving is bad enough, but insisting your government to subsidize those wealthy Asian allies’ security needs from the money needed by your fellow citizens’ jobs, foods and shelters makes one wonder which side you are on?
B. Paradise
Spoken like a true Beijing puppet, Mr. Chan.
Just look at what China does
@John Chan,
Please stop pretending as we have discussed this many times. The main reasons the US has to concentrate on Asia Pacific in the coming months are:
China wants to conquer and control 1st and 2nd chains of islands. Guam is within 2nd chain and SCS (some of very important International shipping lanes) is well within 1st chain.
For this dangerous military ambition (like Germany’s Nazi once had for Europe), the CCP wants to start out with Senkaku, Paracels islands, etc., then, if things go well, CCP will move on to Okinawa, Spratly islands, etc. Guam is definitely on the list, then Hawaii…
China is a lonely authoritarian state, with lots of human abuse record and has been killing prisoners for organs (for commercial purposes).
With so much sacrifices and experience during recent WWII, the US can foresee all China’s dangerous ambitions and what other nations’ fates, if they are falling into the communist China hands.
Japan should stand up and watch out for its own safety. The recent anti-Japanese violent in China, has reminded the Japanese that they must not holding any delusion that China has forgotten or will forget what happened in Nanjing. Revenge is clearly on the Chinese’s/CCP’s minds.
The list can go on. One thing about the communist/CCP's propaganda is, they love to confuse you with all the twists and turns of details (just like John Chan does).
Just take a step back and looking at all the things China/CCP trying to do/achieve in the last few years, one would see why, the USA need to be in Asia. Why the World should be united behind the US, Japan, India, Vietnam, Australia, the Philippines, Malaysia, the UK, France, etc. to prevent China’s aggressions.
Just forget all about what China/CCP have said (and their well oil propaganda trying to do), and just simply looking at China’s actions/behaviours objectively, then map them back onto what Hitler/Nazi of Germany did to Europe. Then one would know what the US and the World should do.
John Chan
@Just look at what China does,
1. Your accusation of China’s deeds are Fabrication not facts, meanwhile the USA and its lackeys’ bombing and killing all over the world for its imperial greed is fact.
2. USA is the most rogue authoritarian state in the world, it uses bombing and killing all over the world to make sure its willingness to use atrocity never questioned. It also shields an unapologetic Fascist Japan to prove it is the Godfather of the Fascism.
3. Using China a boggy man to gloss up its military occupation of Nations in Asia is a shameless behaviour.
4. Pointing guns at the heads of the harmless nations and call them your allies is a rogue street thug behaviour that practised by Al Capone, shame on the USA stooping so low.
EAM
One the main reasons it is now thought that the Axis lost WWII was because the Allies succeeded it denying it access to energy (in Russia and in the Middle East). I recently heard a Russian academic express that view. She also went on to say that the US has never forgotten that lesson and its determination to control the Middle East is about preventing any future adventurer from getting hold of the resources there and being in a position to succeed where the Axis failed.
I had never come across that analysis in quite so clear a way before.
If the analysis is correct – and even if the US achieves energy independence through shale oil (or in some other way) and does not need oil from elsewhere, US determination to keep China away from the oil and gas in SE Asia (including the SCS) and maintain strategic domination of the Middle East perhaps has a logic that is quite coherent.
It also suggests that barring some major technological breakthrough to provide energy from new sources, US policy in the Middle East and in SE Asia will continue to have a commonality and it is not to do with the US getting those resources for itself – but making sure that rivals do not control them.
My Russian source also said that Russia’s main policy driver was not a contest with the US but ensuring that Russia could hold its own on its Eastern borders. I have heard other Russian sources say that Europe is now a second or even third order security priority for Russia (remarkable given that the main threats to Russia for the last five hundred years have come from Europe) and that the main game is what the Russians call the “Indo-Pacific”.
If these observations hold, I would guess that the strategic environment for China is much tougher than what one might have thought a decade or even five years ago – and I do agree that Chinese diplomacy does not seem to that effective at the moment at dealing with these issues.
This may mean a long haul going forward with a determination by the US to hold the line – with buy in from key regional players such as Japan, Australia and Vietnam – with Russian and Indian objectives not being that far apart from the US and its SE Asian Allies.
John Chan
@EAM,
USA’s control of oil does not only aim at China, it also aims at all people rely on that source, such as Japan, South Korea, etc. USA’s monopoly on oil started way before China popped up on the USA’s radar screen. USA does not become world hegemon for no reasons.
It seems China awards the precarious situation it is in, China is working on multiple fronts to resolve that dilemma, for example China invests heavily on cold fusion and renewable technology, and spreading oil supplies around the world.
But the outstanding critical issue is to secure those oil supply lines, no amount of diplomacy can secure those oil supply lines, only military can do the job, I suspect China may need a military bigger than the USA`s in order to ensure the safety of its energy supplies.
USA knows it, so it is hoping the crying and kicking of its lackeys like Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and the cold war style PR campaigns can dissuade China from building up its needed tools to ensure the safety of its oil supplies.
EAM
@John Chan. The real game changer here might be who gets there first in finding new sources of energy – and yes, I am aware of the "artificial sun" being built in Chengdu. The country that gets there first may be in the position of being able to out do everyone else and have an advantage comparable that of Britain the in the ninetieth century when it first applied steam power to mass manufacturing.
If dependence of fossil fuels can be broken, I would guess that it overcomes questions of access to and control of resources. If a breakthrough like this achieved, it also means lesser clout for countries that have and depend on exports of fossil fuels.
The winners on such a scenario may include China, India, Japan and Europe.
The net losers would be the major exporters such as Russia, Iran and Saudi.
As for the US, the position is probably neutral.
If on the other hand no real breakthroughs can be made, I do not think that it would be easy for China to control the sea lanes across the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. That would be a mammoth undertaking that even the US would struggle would achieve without support from its allies and friends.
But who really can predict any of this? Too many unknown (both "known and "unknown").
John Chan
Western culture is predatory in nature, they do not like sharing, that’s why they always talk about control, dominance, hegemony and ransoming, but Chinese culture is about harmony and sharing. In Chinese view, securing the oil supply lines is to make sure those lines are free from navigation for Chinese at least, it is not about control in the western sense. Such modest goal should be relative easy to achieve as long as China has a stick big enough to make the roughest bandit always to look for next victim.
EAM
@John Chan “Western culture is predatory in nature”. In the eye of the beholder perhaps. If you talk to Vietnamese and Filipinos (or for that matter Tibetans or Uighurs), that is what they say about China. But I am not sure that this kind of name calling is very helpful in coming to an accurate understanding of things.
The fact is that the Americans have during the last five years of so been very successful in their foreign policy in Asia – with just about every major country (except China) being welcoming of or accommodative of an American presence in Asia. The growing accommodation between Burma and the US is a case in point. People is the State Department tell me that they have noticed through their surveys a sharp decline in anti-Americanism worldwide during the last four years – including in the two places it has been highest – the Muslim world and Europe – and expect that trend to continue.
The challenge for China is to match that success and I am not sure that gunboat diplomacy is the way to do it.
Jeremy
"Western culture is predatory in nature, they do not like sharing, that’s why they always talk about control, dominance, hegemony and ransoming, but Chinese culture is about harmony and sharing."
Is this man being serious?
Please tell me, kind sir, exactly what part of the history of China is pervaded by the concept of "harmony."
Chinese expansionism goes back to days immemorial, from the time of the Qin and the Han. The number of foreign tribes conquered under the pretext of "harmonious unification of all under heaven" is uncountable. And as an ethnic Korean myself, I'll talk just with Korean examples, which themselves are far too numerous to count:
108 BC: Han conquers and enslaves the population of Old Joseon because the Joseon began to monopolise trade on the Korean peninsula. Han then proceeds to place most former Joseon territories under its own jurisdiction via four Commanderies, which are later reconquered by native Koreans.
245 AD: Wei attacks Koguryo and destroys its capital, as well as disrupting the tributary relationships Koguryo maintained with many lesser Korean tribes, thus ruining its economy.
614 AD: Sui attacks Koguryo but fails, leading to its own downfall in 618.
648 AD: Tang attacks Koguryo but fails; Taizong on his own deathbed pleads to his successors to leave Koguryo alone.
660 AD: An alliance of Silla and Tang forces topples the southwestern Korean empire of Baekje. China then attempts to establish a permanent foothold on the southern half of the peninsula, but are driven out by resistance forces.
668 AD: The Silla-Tang alliance defeats Koguryo and captures Pyongyang. Tang then proceeds to declare all former Koguryo territories, spanning from Pyongyang to northern Manchuria, under its own rule, but are then ousted by Koguryo resistance forces aided by the Silla.
676 AD: Tang forces are completely repelled from most of the peninsula as Silla reconquers most peninsular Koguryo land.
1360 AD: Chinese revolutionaries calling themselves the Red Turbans invade Koryo in an attempt to make their permanent base on the Korean peninsula, but are repelled by Korean forces.
1392 AD: The new Joseon kingdom declares its subservience to Ming in a tributary relationship to guarantee a cessation of Ming military threats.
1637 AD: Qing attacks Joseon and declares it its subjugated tributary.
1895 AD: Qing sends troops to Korea in response to the local Peasants' Revolution, and triggers the Sino-Japanese War. Qing loses control of Korea.
1950 AD: China intervenes in the Inter-Korean War, thus effectively ending any hopes of a definite resolution of the conflict.
That's just the big ones. The ones that Koreans often know by heart. There must be heaps more against other countries surrounding China today, and who could forget the countless nations that China actually wiped off the map and off the books?
Tsunami
Mr. John Chan,
Your response to Jeremy, please?
John Chan
@EAM,
We all know how the USA justifies its predatory imperialism with moral high ground, siding the weak is its favorite.
No amount of diplomacy and appeasement can overcome geopolitical interests, citing USA’s gain on the basis of geopolitical advantages as a moral right to contain China for its imperial hegemony greed is a cold war trait; such assertion definitely is not helpful in coming to an accurate understanding of things.
Accusing China’s self defense as gunboat diplomacy is blaming the victim, another example of the tactics the West uses to demonize its opponent.
China only can control its own destination, not others; American and its allies can play their favorite cold war game (I have more guns than yours, I am more advanced than yours, I have more head count than yours, etc.) but China is not interested, as Mao said 你打你的，我打我的 (you play your game, I play my game).
John Chan
@Tsunami,
Perhaps you should ask Jeremy to express his view on the relationship between Japan and Korea first, then we can analyse his opinion objectively. BTW what do think about Toyotomi Hideyoshi? Is he a hero of Japan, a tyrant of Japanese people, bully of Tenno or aggressor of Korea?
Errol
@JC, you should have played Neo in the Matrix, instead of Keanu Reeves. You certainly show skill in dodging the bullet. You said that China is harmonious and peaceful but Jeremy popped your bubble. You're not taking back what you say, nor do you counter with logic, but instead divert the topic.
phil
@EAM: If you try to convince JC of anything that is not in CCP script, you'' ll probably fail.
@JC, Nice try. I am not Korean, so if you don't answer to Jeremy then I take what Jeremy stated as facts that China is as bad as US if not worse. In public forum discussion don't try to distract. If China is that harmony and peace then prove it by facts.
Anon
Bravo John Chan. I would also like to see a list of the historic conquests of Europe from your detractors, I'll even make it easier for the Sinophobes, they can pick either Spain or Great Britain, and say, for the past 300 years, don't need to go as far back as Koguryo, lol.
GCH
@Jeremy
You listed the instances of Chinese military adventures from 108BC to 676AD. For a more balanced account of Chinese-Korean relationship, you should have included Chinese assistance to the Koreans such as Chinese assistance in repelling Japanese invasion. Furthermore, you also seems to forgotten the Chinese contributions to Korea such as in the realm of culture through the use of Chinese characters before the invention of Korean written script as well as the spread of Confucianism (a Chinese philosophy) into Korea.
Interestingly, you did not mention any Chinese military intervention when Korea became a vassal state of China during the Ming and Qing eras. Was Korea wipe out of the map as a nation or as a culture during the 500 – 600 years as a vassal state of China when China could have done so?
The last Chinese intervention on the Korean penisula was during the inter-Korean war. It was more a partisan war then it was against the Korean people so it should not be included.
Jeremy
"You listed the instances of Chinese military adventures from 108BC to 676AD. For a more balanced account of Chinese-Korean relationship, you should have included Chinese assistance to the Koreans such as Chinese assistance in repelling Japanese invasion."
I would've liked to think so too, once upon a time. I even felt grateful as a Korean when I read in the books as a child that the Chinese came to help. But a more mature analysis of sources makes me say this: You, sir, then would seemingly like to forget that contemporary records state that Ming forces during the Seven Years' War were as brutal against Korean civilians, if not worse, than the Japanese marauders? And in regards to your comment towards Tsunami, don't even think of trying to wriggle out of this and move the subject to Japan. If you must ask, my view of the Japo-Korean relations is this: it started out fantastic, but then there were a couple of misunderstandings and mishaps (the fall of Baekje, the Yuan invasions of Japan, the Seven Years' War) and now it's a hellhole which I'd someday like to help to fix.
"Furthermore, you also seems to forgotten the Chinese contributions to Korea such as in the realm of culture through the use of Chinese characters before the invention of Korean written script as well as the spread of Confucianism (a Chinese philosophy) into Korea."
Furthermore, sir, you seems to have forgotten your English grammar. But that aside, you also failed to mention that the Chinese refused to provide the Koreans with knowledge of gunpowder when we needed it most – when Korean coasts were being ravaged by Japanese pirates. In the end, a desperate Korean army official had to bribe a Chinese mandarin to provide the secret, which led to the Koreans' ultimate victory over the Japanese pirates.
"Interestingly, you did not mention any Chinese military intervention when Korea became a vassal state of China during the Ming and Qing eras. Was Korea wipe out of the map as a nation or as a culture during the 500 – 600 years as a vassal state of China when China could have done so?
The last Chinese intervention on the Korean penisula was during the inter-Korean war. It was more a partisan war then it was against the Korean people so it should not be included. "
Did I not mention the Qing invasion of 1636? Oh, sure. It wasn't an intervention. It was an invasion. Oh, right, jolly good, that must mean that everybody gets a slice of pudding this Christmas. Never mind the fact that Korea never became fully and truly independent until after the Sino-Japanese War, which pretty much means it was wiped off the political map. Korea, after the Qing war, fell into a state of nationwide cultural and political depression from which it never really recovered. Further, if Korea was under Chinese vassalage, China wouldn't've needed to send an intervention there in the first place because it considered it a pseudo-section of its own empire, and because we happily paid the subscription tribute regularly in order to not have you invade us. I think that was part of the deal.
And, kind sir, IF your theory of China's "harmony and sharing" philosophy holds true, WHY, then, did China intervene in a war which resulted in three more years than it should've been of stagnant fighting and millions of civilian deaths in 1950?
And let me say this – the Chinese abstinence in regards to North Korean aggression and its making monopolized inroads into the North Korean natural resource industry signify China's sole wish to bolster its own influence in the North and to move troops into the area (check it, they've signed a military agreement) when there's some sort of political collapse in there, as well as its disregard for the wishes of the Korean people of a unification as a whole people.
The Analects begin with: 爲政以德 譬如北辰居其所 而衆星共之.
In English: Virtuous governance is akin to the North Star fix'd in its place, around which the celestial masses doth follow and shift together.
The "regional superpower" that China claims to be is more than a title – it holds a huge amount of responsibility, an example of which is the maintenance of virtuous governance. If China truly thinks that it is a regional leader compatible with its own philosophy, it needs to be a leader by example. I daresay anyone would agree that the Chinese' administration on their own people is far from virtuous – how so can it do that, then, to other whole nations around it? The South China Sea is a shining example of how badly you guys can stuff up your own diplomacy. And sure, the countries around China are "shifting"… quite uncomfortably. We're not exactly being encouraged to "follow."
talking points
I for one fully support N. Koreans. China should send in food and weapon to N. Korea. just to drive people like Jeremy crazy.
China should take northern part of N. Korea if it collapses. also for the purpose of driving Jeremy nuts.
Cyrus
@Jeremy Well said, I cannot do the same since our records are base on Chinese written records and it appears that the Chinese came to the Philippines to trade with the Natives selling their porcelain in exchange to various goods. That is our pre-hispanic history but when the Spanish Arrived I believe there was a massacre twice of Chinese in Luzon for planning to overthrow the Spanish Colonial Authority. During the cold War the only instance would be the Korean War with battles of Yuldong and Erie Hill.
I would wish Marcos had not recognized China instead of Taiwan, I believe the Koumintang would had been a better choice.
Jeremy
I just hope, for JC’s sake, that he is no older than 20. Because if not, he’s been playing Agent Smith with an underage high school graduate with nothing better to do with his time.
I’d respectfully like to recommend to everyone who witnessed this dispute to read Mr George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language. It’s a nice treatise on how to call foul on propaganda.
@talking points… haha. can i hire you as a standup comedian for my next birthday party?
ACT
@Jeremy,
a stunning reply and rhetoric, as always, thank you for disproving and denying everything that pro-china posters might seek to accomplish on these forums; aside from Korea, the various dynasties of China invaded vietnam no less than 15 times, five of which have taken place within the last 200 years or so. Far from being a harmonious society as presented in contemporary imperial documents, the Chinese Empire is, through your research, proven to be a white-washing bully, one that cannot tolerate the independence, cultural freedom or trade-without-say-so of others; now, the PRC works to restore that very system through the theft of territories that never belonged to it in the first place. For example, far from being "ancestral territory", Tibet was only absorbed formally into the Chinese Empire in 1910, and both the Kuomintang and the CPC spent decades acknowledging the Senkaku isles as Japanese territory up until the discovery of oil in the late 60's. There are droves of documents coming out that prove that the PRC is warping its own history to attempt to claim territory. It's actually quite interesting, because the entire legal case for the PRC's claiming of territory is that it is the direct descendant of the Chinese Empire, an empire whose legacy it once tried to erase; that since that empire dealt with governments that no longer exist, it has the right to claim the territory of those long-dead governments in its own name.
GCH
@Jeremy,
Half-truths and twisting facts do not foster good discussion of the issue at hand.
[Did I not mention the Qing invasion of 1636? Oh, sure. It wasn't an intervention. It was an invasion. Oh, right, jolly good, that must mean that everybody gets a slice of pudding this Christmas. Never mind the fact that Korea never became fully and truly independent until after the Sino-Japanese War, which pretty much means it was wiped off thepolitical map. Korea, after the Qing war, fell into a state of nationwide cultural and political depression from which it never really recovered. Further, if Korea was under Chinese vassalage, China wouldn't've needed to send an intervention there in the first place because it considered it a pseudo-section of its own empire, and because we happily paid the subscription tribute regularly in order to not have you invade us. I think that was part of the deal.]
You either do not know your history well or you are twisting the facts to suit your argument. In 1636, Korea was still a vassal state of Ming China. The 1936 invasion happened before Qing regime replace the Ming regime in China and before Korea pledge her loyalty to the new Qing regime. So it was not an invasion from China on a vassal state.
[I would've liked to think so too, once upon a time. I even felt grateful as a Korean when I read in the books as a child that the Chinese came to help. But a more mature analysis of sources makes me say this: You, sir, then would seemingly like to forget that contemporary records state that Ming forces during the Seven Years' War were as brutal against Korean civilians, if not worse, than the Japanese marauders?]
On this matter, I hold the view that although there may be military excesses by the Chinese forces, it does not deny the fact that Korea requested assistance from the Chinese at a time when it could not fend off the Japanese invaders during the first invasion and had it not been for the Chinese assistance, Korea would had been occupied by Japan during the first invasion. The Chinese fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the Koreans against the Japanese during this war. So the Koreans did not get rid of the Japanese by themselves.
["Furthermore, you also seems to forgotten the Chinese contributions to Korea such as in the realm of culture through the use of Chinese characters before the invention of Korean written script as well as the spread of Confucianism (a Chinese philosophy) into Korea."
Furthermore, sir, you seems to have forgotten your English grammar. But that aside, you also failed to mention that the Chinese refused to provide the Koreans with knowledge of gunpowder when we needed it most – when Korean coasts were being ravaged by Japanese pirates. In the end, a desperate Korean army official had to bribe a Chinese mandarin to provide the secret, which led to the Koreans' ultimate victory over the Japanese pirates.]
You did not answer my point but digress into my grammar. LOL how expedient. Chinese characters or Hanja and Confucianism forms the bedrock of Korean culture. Before the introduction of Chinese characters, Korea do not have any written script, one of the hallmark of civilisation. Even after the invention of Korean written script, it was still widely used until late last century. Confucianism still remains in vogue till today. These are exemplified by your quote:
The Analects begin with: 爲政以德 譬如北辰居其所 而衆星共之.
In English: Virtuous governance is akin to the North Star fix'd in its place, around which the celestial masses doth follow and shift together.
[But that aside, you also failed to mention that the Chinese refused to provide the Koreans with knowledge of gunpowder when we needed it most – when Korean coasts were being ravaged by Japanese pirates. In the end, a desperate Korean army official had to bribe a Chinese mandarin to provide the secret, which led to the Koreans' ultimate victory over the Japanese pirates.]
I do not know the details of the refusal of providing the knowledge of gunpower manufacture but it is the perogative of China to give and not for Korea to demand. Knowledge of gunpower is a source of national security akin to ability to create nuclear bombs in modern context which China would be expected to jealously guard. Korea should not expect a transfer of knowledge even if She is a vassal state. Even US would not transfer the knowledge to create nuclear bombs to Israel, one of her closest allies in modern context.
[Never mind the fact that Korea never became fully and truly independent until after the Sino-Japanese War, which pretty much means it was wiped off thepolitical map. Korea, after the Qing war, fell into a state of nationwide cultural and political depression from which it never really recovered. Further, if Korea was under Chinese vassalage, China wouldn't've needed to send an intervention there in the first place because it considered it a pseudo-section of its own empire, and because we happily paid the subscription tribute regularly in order to not have you invade us. I think that was part of the deal.]
You really should study your history. After 1895, Korea became the Empire of Korea. However, She was declared a protectorate of Japan in 1907 before being formally annexed by Japan in 1910. During the period 1895 – 1907, She was not recognised as an independent state by any of the prevailing powers at that time. She was considered under the Japanese sphere of influence. Remember the debacle at the Hague convention of 1907? The Korean court was also heavily influenced by the Japanese during this period.
[And, kind sir, IF your theory of China's "harmony and sharing" philosophy holds true, WHY, then, did China intervene in a war which resulted in three more years than it should've been of stagnant fighting and millions of civilian deaths in 1950?]
Did I mention of 'harmony and sharing'? I was merely highlighting to you that your comments were unbalanced and indicated that there are contributions by the Chinese in Sino-Korean relations. Regarding the Korea's civil war, I hold the view that it is not between Chinese and Koreans but between Communists and non-Communists and as such it should not be included in the list of Chinese aggressions in your first post.
[And let me say this – the Chinese abstinence in regards to North Korean aggression and its making monopolized inroads into the North Korean natural resource industry signify China's sole wish to bolster its own influence in the North and to move troops into the area (check it, they've signed a military agreement) when there's some sort of political collapse in there, as well as its disregard for the wishes of the Korean people of a unification as a whole people.]
I am quite sure alot of Koreans would like the Korean Penisula unified. But the question is on whose terms? Why should it not be on North Korea's terms? As North Korea's ally, China would of course safeguard her interests as US would safeguard South Korea's interest. So does your point(s) also apply to US as She too has military agreement with South Korea.
[If you must ask, my view of the Japo-Korean relations is this: it started out fantastic, but then there were a couple of misunderstandings and mishaps (the fall of Baekje, the Yuan invasions of Japan, the Seven Years' War) and now it's a hellhole which I'd someday like to help to fix.]
If you are Korean, I find your view uncommon among Koreans.
[The "regional superpower" that China claims to be is more than a title – it holds a huge amount of responsibility, an example of which is the maintenance of virtuous governance. If China truly thinks that it is a regional leader compatible with its own philosophy, it needs to be a leader by example. I daresay anyone would agree that the Chinese' administration on their own people is far from virtuous – how so can it do that, then, to other whole nations around it? The South China Sea is a shining example of how badly you guys can stuff up your own diplomacy. And sure, the countries around China are "shifting"… quite uncomfortably. We're not exactly being encouraged to "follow."]
Domestically, China would need to act on corruption as well as levelling out the rising inequality among her people but She has also done well to uplift hundreds of million Chinese from poverty since She embarked on economic reforms in 1979.
Foreign policy-wise, China is just acting as what other big powers would do when they become strong, they become assertive when it comes to their interests. Situations such as in SCS is tense is probably because the current dominant power, US is declining while the rising powers such as China, India and Russia has not step up to fill the void. During the transition period, tensions will rise as the new order is not in place. Once the new power order is solidified, each big power will have their own sphere of influence and every country will have her place in the pecking order ie. dominant powers, regional powers, middle powers and minnows, the tensions should cease.
Joe M.
The world is becoming a smaller place every day because of the ease of transportation. No place on earth is too remote to either aid or threaten every other place on earth. The world is also evolving to understand that every nation, no matter how humble, has something to contribute to the world. We cannot tolerate the enslavement, subjugation or extermination of another nation. We need to enable greater freedom in every nation so that EVERY NATION can develop to their full potential. As our guide, we look to the Universal Declaration of Human Right, adopted by the United Nations. Those who violate its principles, drag us down into chaos and suffering.
Santa
Wow! Jean Paul … I didn't know Christianity belongs to your type only! I should go back to the Anglican Church in Singapore where i was baptised and have the Pastor unbaptised me! So sollly ya … i'm so solly … me chinaman you know don't know nothing! so solly master…!!! You ars*****!!
Errol
Chill. Jean Paul was addressing what many think of as wu mao posters. You know, the ones who work for the CPC? The party that is leery of any independent religious organizations in China?
Flynn
How come whatever China does whether GOOD or BAD, people like you ALWAYS have an EXCUSE OR REASON for it? SINOPHOBIA? You make Chinese people all over the world (except Taiwan maybe!) think you are anti-Chinese people but pretending to be anti-communist when in reality you are anti China and Chinese people! You fear us for no reason! You know many who comment here and GT are overseas Chinese and communist we are not! If China were to attack our country of domicle we would defend it against China! What we see here is Chinese Bashing NOT China/Communist! And the the Chinese commenting here are are mostly on the defensive!
Errol
@Flynn, are you addressing my post? Accusing me of sinophobia? If so, you're saying a Filipino is sinophobic? You're right of course. We've had racial tensions in Manila. Chinatown in Binondo Manila being looted and all. NOT.
If you're angry, so be it. Rest assured that Filipinos have nothing the Chinese people as a whole. It's Beijing's recent actions that set our teeth on the edge.
Cyrus
@Flynn Filipino's of Chinese ancestry are one of the richest in the Philippines more so than the dominant Malays. If we are Sinophobic we would have rioted and took everything from the Chinese. Have you ever heard of such incident happening in the Philippines save for twice instances during the Spanish Occupation?
Now how many anti-Filipino comment have your heard on the CPP Side? Even being discussed in the newspapers? Our News here in the Philippines have been really calm and anti-escalatory I could not say the same with the Chinese.
Tom F
I find the lecturing undertone of this piece both interesting and as expected. Interesting because the advice are policies related and we all know the rigour involved. Expected, because every country has advice (or warning) for China these days. It reminds me of Japan and the late eighties, and we know now Japan ignored some of the advice to their detriment. We’re in for interesting times ahead, not because China is like Japan, but that it all seems like an all or nothing gamble.
Whereas Japan cared what its customers thought, China is saying let the dice roll. Makes me wonder of the relationship between the Chinese Trade Unions and the Chinese Communist Party. Both have much to loose, but only one is the outright winner.
Matt C
Tom – completely agree. I was waiting for all the fact based evidence that China was doing itself no favours but I felt I was left wanting. Despite this it seems the article is some sort of Western pseudo propaganda.
The Anti-Christ In Our Midst
So when Beijing does not stand up for China's rights, it is too timid. And when it does, it is a "bully".. Even when it does nothing, it is a "threat"?
I have only one word for all the propaganda spewed by Pei Minxin and the Diplomat's trolgolytes and sockpuppets – BS!
Never in the history of mankind has any nation embarked in such a quest of defamation, slander and lies. Only stupid Beijing does not know or see a Cold War in front of its eyes when it sees one.
More and more, I am convinced Washington and the US is the embodiment of Evil revealed in the Bible. Its doublespeak, hypocrisy and double standards can only define unequivocably, the US is the Anti-Christ. It is immoral and corrupt yet pretends to the world by "managing" public perceptions that it is good. There can be no further doubt.
And all the trolls and sockpuppets here are nothing by imps and hatchlings and spawn of Great Satan in Washington.
Amen
Amen … Brother … Amen!
Jean-Paul
wow I never knew the Chinese posters to be so religious, I thought the CCP didn't approve of religious worship? After all they had destroyed many buddhist sites to make way for empty condo buildings. Not to mention the heavy suppression of religious freedom. You guys must be enjoying the freedom to finally express your religious beliefs……on a pro-western site you guys constantly troll, oh the irony of it all!!
Cyrus
The first question needs to be answered, do you even believed in Christ? lol
Stephen
First, the Anit-christ is not a nation, it is a person. I agree that the United States is under a very dark spiritual cloud these days. The government is totally corrupt. We have a godless man in the White House who takes counsel from people involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. Our nation is a mess and I believe that we are seeing God's beginning judgment on us. However, the Anti-christ is not associated with the U.S. There is strong evidence that he will be a Syrian Jew. No one knows for sure but I can virtually guarantee that he will not be from the U.S.
Leonard R.
@M. Pei: "The insistence on bilateral negotiations, not multilateral ones, looks too self-serving."
—
I agree that Beijing's preference for bi-lateral negotiations is ill-advised. But in the case of the Spratlys, there are three or four ASEAN claimants who must first sort out their claims with other ASEAN nations. Once they have reached an agreement as to what nation owns which area – at that point, the sole claimant might choose to negotiate bi-laterally with China. That would make sense. Or it might tell China to shove it & take its claim to ITCLOS. That would also make sense.
Insistence on multi-lateral negotiations before the ASEAN nations have sorted out their own claims does not make sense. Likewise, nothing should be negotiated with Beijing before those claims are sorted out. So the whole "bi-lateral" versus "multi-lateral" argument seems a red herring to me. Would the Philippines be happy if Malaysia were negotiating away the Scarborough Shoal in multi-lateral negotiations?
BTW, I agree that Beijing's diplomacy for three years has been a farce. Their diplomats look like circus clowns in the workd stage. It's been one stupid blunder after another.
The Amerikan Propaganda War
What BS. The farce is from [people like Leoturd and the Diplomat. The only negaitve image is that wilfully and deliberately created by people like you in the Diplomat. Pei Minxin is unfortunately, just a puppet being manipulated by the Amerikans without his full blessings. I doubt he likes how he is being used. Just like Mu. Deep down they hate the Amerikans for what they are doing. They are no fools.