New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Chinese War Machine grows stronger

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
After staying largely within its own borders for decades, China is emerging not only outside of it's own lands, but intimidating others and expanding it's empire.


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33205815
A group of islands in the South China Sea may not sound particularly significant, but these recently-formed pieces of land could be the key to Beijing's future military strategy.

I suspect that until a few weeks ago the South China Sea was not a place most people around the world gave much thought to, or any thought at all. The Spratly Islands even less so. Unless you are a China geek you've probably hardly heard of them. But google Spratly islands today and you will find a sudden deluge of articles, all proclaiming the same sort of sentiment: "China and the US are on a collision course and it could end in war!"

Could it? Probably not, not anytime soon anyway. But what's going on in the South China Sea is still very significant.

This of course is all about China, or rather China's intentions.

For the best part of two millennia China was the dominant power in Asia. But then along came European expansion and the industrial revolution and the arrival on China's shores of the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and of course eventually the British. China was brought to its knees, carved up, its palaces burned, its people hooked on opium supplied by Britain. Then came a revolution, a civil war, a world war, another revolution and 30 years of Maoist madness.

Now, finally, is China emerging from those two centuries of chaos. It is once again wealthy, united and strong. None of us really knows what that will mean. One reason is that China's secretive Communist Party leadership never tells anybody its intentions.


And so we are left to read the "China tea leaves", look at what China is doing and try to work out its intentions.

And so that brings me to the South China Sea. The southern part of it, close to the Philippines, is dotted with treacherous coral reefs, rocks and sandbars. Only a handful are big enough to be called islands. China, Vietnam and the Philippines have been quarrelling over who owns them for decades. But last year there was a sudden and dramatic change.

Aerial photos taken by the Philippine navy showed a fleet of dredgers anchored off one of the Chinese-controlled reefs. They were seen pumping millions of tonnes of material on to the reefs to form an artificial island.

A media frenzy ensued in which I played my own small part. I think I have a fair claim to being the first Western journalist to see the strange new Chinese islands with my own eyes.


Ships at Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands
Last July I set out on a Filipino fishing boat to try to find them. One morning, ploughing through a heavy swell 300 nautical miles off the Philippine coast, we suddenly saw land ahead where my chart said there shouldn't have been any. Even the latest Philippine navy flights had not detected any work on this particular reef. But there it was - a brand new, yellowish piece of land at a place called Gaven Reef.

This year China's work on the islands has accelerated dramatically. More than 2,000 acres of new land has been created on six reefs. In April fresh photos showed the outlines of a runway beginning to be laid on one.

So what is China up to? Some pro-Beijing scholars have tried to claim the islands are for both military and civilian use. There will be lighthouses and shelters for fishermen they say.

Well maybe, but Beijing is not spending billions of dollars on huge land reclamation hundreds of miles from its own coast to help fishermen. These islands are military and strategic. China is alone in claiming the whole of the South China Sea. Now it is creating "facts on the ground". That runway is not for tourist flights.

A few weeks ago a US surveillance plane deliberately flew close to the new islands. The crew recorded the immediate and angry Chinese response.

"Foreign military aircraft, this is Chinese navy," the operator announced, "You are approaching our military alert zone. Leave immediately!" The warning was repeated with growing irritation until the radio operator was left spluttering, "You go!"

There is nothing in international law that says China can build islands on submerged reefs far from its own shore and then declare them military no-go zones. But that is not stopping Beijing from doing so.

And so that question arises again. What is China's intention? Does it really intend to use these islands to try to enforce its claim to the whole of the South China Sea? Will it really try to exclude other militaries, including the US from entering these waters and airspace? If so there is going to be trouble.


More from the Magazine

In September 2014, Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reported on the group of marooned Filipinos trying to stand in the way of the building of new islands in the disputed South China Sea.

China's Island Factory
 
Should the Chinese economy become the world's largest that will generate one set of problems whose consequences will become much more profound if the Chinese military replaces the US as the global cop on the beat.

"The prospect of U.S.-Chinese collisions in the air are truly alarming, as past events have demonstrated. In 2001, a Chinese jet collided with a U.S. EP-3, the P8's predecessor, over Hainan Island, right off the Chinese mainland, leading to a major crisis as the damaged U.S. plane barely managed a safe landing on Chinese territory."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/26/politics/south-china-sea-navy-surveillance-plane-jim-sciutto/
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
No doubt problems are building. Fortunately, it won't be just the US vs the PRC. It will be all the nations of the Pacific and then some vs the PRC since it's the Chinese breaking international law.

A major place where the Libertarians and my beliefs differ is international relations. I'm not an isolationist and believe we should stay involved and work with our allies. However, I also strongly believe our allies need to carry more of their own weight in the areas of defense. In this case, it means Japan needs to build up their military to have offensive capability, not just defensive. Same goes for Vietnam, the Philippines and, of course, South Korea.
 
No doubt problems are building. Fortunately, it won't be just the US vs the PRC. It will be all the nations of the Pacific and then some vs the PRC since it's the Chinese breaking international law.

A major place where the Libertarians and my beliefs differ is international relations. I'm not an isolationist and believe we should stay involved and work with our allies. However, I also strongly believe our allies need to carry more of their own weight in the areas of defense. In this case, it means Japan needs to build up their military to have offensive capability, not just defensive. Same goes for Vietnam, the Philippines and, of course, South Korea.
I wonder if China's Great Wall of Sand in the Pacific distorts our perception of how Russia and China are responding to the US/UK designs on the great World Island, consisting of China, Russia, the Middle East and Africa, India and Europe? IMHO, those of us who question the wisdom of isolationism have to be willing to view US actions from Ukraine to Yemen through Chinese and Russian eyes.

http://www.clearnfo.com/eurasia-the-world-island/
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
Another America basher? Are you more pro-Russia, pro-China or something more Middle-Eastern/Persian Gulfian?
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
The human race has always been its own worst enemy. The struggles of tribal warfare have expanded to national warfare because of this primary primate proclivity.

To blame just one nation for all the world's ills is wrong, The US isn't perfect, but those who give the USSR/Russia and the PRC a pass are as wrong as those who blame Middle Eastern terrorism on the US and its support of Israel.
 
Another America basher? Are you more pro-Russia, pro-China or something more Middle-Eastern/Persian Gulfian?
I'm more anti-Empire than knee-jerk "nationalist."
You?

"China and Russia fully understand they are no match for the military might of the USA, but the USA is heavily committed to the old, outdated British paradigm of controlling the seas to control the land.

"Zbig and others recognized this one dimensional weakness and set about new methods and strategies (including Gladio Operations, Color Revolutions, NGOs, forward NATO bases, USAID, World Bank, IMF, etc) to contain their existing vassal states and to bring Russia and China under control or at a minimum limit their ability to contest the primacy of the mono-polar world of the Anglo-American power structure.

"If you look at a map of US Military and NATO bases, you will quickly discover the USA’s plan of encircling and containing Russia and China."
http://www.clearnfo.com/eurasia-the-world-island/
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
I'm more anti-Empire than knee-jerk "nationalist."
You?...
Anti-empire also. Although I recognize the flaws of nationalism, in a world of nations it is still a necessity. It's like asking the US to completely disarm. That's stupid when all the other nations still have guns.

I think we're on the right track of forging groups of nations working together for common causes; usually peaceful economic development. What China is doing in the South China Sea is a step backward.
 
Anti-empire also. Although I recognize the flaws of nationalism, in a world of nations it is still a necessity. It's like asking the US to completely disarm. That's stupid when all the other nations still have guns.

I think we're on the right track of forging groups of nations working together for common causes; usually peaceful economic development. What China is doing in the South China Sea is a step backward.
No doubt China suffers from its own delusions of Empire; I believe US support for chronic human rights abusers also represents a step backward, and it's unrealistic to expect change from China until US governments forsake containment.

"The Obama administration will restore security aid to Bahrain, the key American military ally in the Middle East that has conducted airstrikes against Islamic State militants and houses a major U.S. naval base across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

"The renewal comes even though the State Department says human rights remain inadequate in the kingdom following the regime’s 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring demonstrators which led to the U.S. ban."

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/us-restores-bahrain-military-aid-despite-human-rights/116560/
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
No doubt China suffers from its own delusions of Empire; I believe US support for chronic human rights abusers also represents a step backward, and it's unrealistic to expect change from China until US governments forsake containment.

"The Obama administration will restore security aid to Bahrain, the key American military ally in the Middle East that has conducted airstrikes against Islamic State militants and houses a major U.S. naval base across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

"The renewal comes even though the State Department says human rights remain inadequate in the kingdom following the regime’s 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring demonstrators which led to the U.S. ban."

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/us-restores-bahrain-military-aid-despite-human-rights/116560/
Instead of bashing the US, why not recognize the old maxim "lesser of two evils"?

In your opinion, should the US have stepped in to stop the Rwanda genocide just like it did in Bosnia/Serbia or should it have stayed out of both?
 
Instead of bashing the US, why not recognize the old maxim "lesser of two evils"?
I'm not sure the actions of the US government always qualify as the "lesser of two evils." During my lifetime (68 years), US militarism has often represented "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." IMHO, the US no longer has to "win" a war in order for a few to maximize the profit from war. Taxing War into extinction will have to start in DC not in Moscow or China.

"By 1967, King had also become the country’s most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his 'Beyond Vietnam' speech delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.'”

http://fair.org/media-beat-column/the-martin-luther-king-you-dont-see-on-tv/
 
In your opinion, should the US have stepped in to stop the Rwanda genocide just like it did in Bosnia/Serbia or should it have stayed out of both?
If the following opinion is accurate, I think Clinton made a mistake by not supporting French troops in Rwanda:
"President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

"Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

"Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned 'final solution to eliminate all Tutsis' before the slaughter reached its peak."

From what I've read regarding Bosnia, NATO intervention made the genocide worse, so I would think we should not have taken sides in that conflict.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
Your last two posts are in conflict with each other:

In the first you bemoan the US as being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" yet you clearly fail to recall both the Chinese invasion of Korea and the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" which killed and harmed millions of Chinese and anyone else involved.

In second you bemoan the failure of the US to use all of it's might to stop a genocide aka act as the world's policemen, then follow up with bemoaning the US doing exactly that.

You spend a lot of time both defending the murderous Chinese and attacking the actions of the US. Why?

http://www.history.com/topics/cultural-revolution
Some 1.5 million people were killed during the Cultural Revolution, and millions of others suffered imprisonment, seizure of property, torture or general humiliation.
 
In the first you bemoan the US as being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" yet you clearly fail to recall both the Chinese invasion of Korea and the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" which killed and harmed millions of Chinese and anyone else involved.
Korea seems like a good place to start comparing US and Chinese violence in the 20th century. China invaded Korea in October of 1950 because western forces, led by the US, had reached the Yalu River, its southern border. There would have been no need for Chinese involvement if US general Reed Hodge had allowed Korea to decide its own fate in 1945.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/12/31/a-pop-quiz-on-korea/

"6. In August 1945 defeated Japanese forces formally turned over authority in Korea to the broad-based Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, led by Lyuh Woon-hyung, which in September proclaimed the Korean People’s Republic (KPR). When U.S. forces under Gen. Reed Hodge arrived in Inchon to accept the Japanese surrender, they

a. ordered all Japanese officials to remain in their posts, refused to recognize Lyuh as national leader, and soon banned all public reference to the KPR

b. recognized Lyuh as the legitimate head of state

c. negotiated with Lyuh to facilitate swift attainment of independence of a united Korea

General Hodge refused to recognize Lyuh and his KPR in spite of the will of millions of Koreans. To this day Lyuh Woon-hyung is virtually unique among all Korean politicians in that he's revered on both sides of the 38th parallel.

I don't mean to defend China's murderous aggression against its own population and its neighbors, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the millions of innocent human beings the US has murdered on the opposite side of the planet from its homeland since 1945 either.
 
If the following opinion is accurate, I think Clinton made a mistake by not supporting French troops in Rwanda:
"President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

"Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

"Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned 'final solution to eliminate all Tutsis' before the slaughter reached its peak."

From what I've read regarding Bosnia, NATO intervention made the genocide worse, so I would think we should not have taken sides in that conflict.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda
Joining the French troops? The French stood by and did nothing..... worse than that they gave no protection to those who asked for it ---

There was no gain in it for the US - War is only for Corporate $ - nothing else at all.
 
Joining the French troops? The French stood by and did nothing..... worse than that they gave no protection to those who asked for it ---

There was no gain in it for the US - War is only for Corporate $ - nothing else at all.
The true explanation for why the US failed to act in Rwanda might include corporate $$$ obtained by looting Congo. General Romeo Dallaire was close enough to the genocide in Rwanda to connect some of the dots.

"In late 1993, Dallaire received his commission as the Major-General of UNAMIR, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda. UNAMIR's goal was to assist in the implementation of the Arusha Accords. The UN attempted to negotiate with the Hutu in the Rwandan army and with Juvénal Habyarimana, a Hutu who was President at the time, and with the Tutsi represented by the rebel commander Paul Kagame, who is the President of Rwanda As of 2014. When Dallaire arrived in Rwanda, his mandate was to supervise the implementation of the Accords during a transitional period in which Tutsis were supposed to be given positions of power within the Hutu government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire#Original_mission.

Kagame and Bill Clinton seem to share a desire for the "good life" paid for with the blood of the poor.

"Although Kagame's primary reason for the two wars in the Congo was Rwanda's security, he was alleged to gain economic benefit by exploiting the mineral wealth of the eastern Congo.[134]

"The 2001 United Nations Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo alleged that Kagame, along with Ugandan President Museveni, were 'on the verge of becoming the godfathers of the illegal exploitation of natural resources and the continuation of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo'.[135]

"The report also claimed that the Rwandan Ministry of Defence contained a 'Congo Desk' dedicated to collecting taxes from companies licensed to mine minerals around Kisangani, and that substantial quantities of coltan and diamonds passed through Kigali before being resold on the international market by staff on the Congo Desk.[136]

"International NGO Global Witness also conducted field studies in early 2013. It concluded that minerals from North and South Kivu are exported illegally to Rwanda and then marketed as Rwandan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kagame#Congo_Wars
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
The true explanation for why the US failed to act in Rwanda might include corporate $$$ obtained by looting Congo. .....
The true explanation is there was no compelling interest in the nation to justify risking American lives. The "corporate $$$" bugaboo is silly since war is bad for all businesses except the arms industry. The only other situation would be conquest and that wasn't the case in Rwanda. Over 20 years after the genocide, the country is still struggling for stability: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rw.html
 
The true explanation is there was no compelling interest in the nation to justify risking American lives. The "corporate $$$" bugaboo is silly since war is bad for all businesses except the arms industry. The only other situation would be conquest and that wasn't the case in Rwanda. Over 20 years after the genocide, the country is still struggling for stability: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rw.html
I'm not clear on why there was any less compelling US interest in Rwanda than there was in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia and Iraq; can you explain? There were French forces on the ground in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, so NATO could have become involved in the same way as it did in the Balkans.

"The Bosnian War was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1 April 1992 and 14 December 1995. After popular pressure, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) was asked by the United Nations to intervene in the Bosnian War after allegations of war crimes against civilians were made. In response to the refugee and humanitarian crisis in Bosnia, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 743 in 21 February 1992, creating the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). The UNPROFOR mandate was to keep the population alive and deliver humanitarian aid to refugees in Bosnia until the war ended."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force#Background
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
I'm not clear on why there was any less compelling US interest in Rwanda than there was in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia and Iraq; can you explain? There were French forces on the ground in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, so NATO could have become involved in the same way as it did in the Balkans.
I could, but that's a full semester course. What's it worth to you?

A partial answer is that the Hutu genocide of Tutsi is not equal to an invasion of South Korea by North Korea and, later, the Chinese.

What do the French and NATO have to do with our discussion on the US being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world"?
 
I'm not clear on why there was any less compelling US interest in Rwanda than there was in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia and Iraq; can you explain? There were French forces on the ground in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, so NATO could have become involved in the same way as it did in the Balkans.

"The Bosnian War was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1 April 1992 and 14 December 1995. After popular pressure, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) was asked by the United Nations to intervene in the Bosnian War after allegations of war crimes against civilians were made. In response to the refugee and humanitarian crisis in Bosnia, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 743 in 21 February 1992, creating the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). The UNPROFOR mandate was to keep the population alive and deliver humanitarian aid to refugees in Bosnia until the war ended."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force#Background
Humanitarian aid is bombing civilians for 78 days and nights? Wow, could have fooled me ---
 
Top