All Asian Maritime Disputes

Local papers are stating that Manila is protesting against the planned ADIZ over the South China Sea. I expect Hanoi to follow suit

With ADIZ, China Emerges As Regional Rule-Maker.

China's definition of "competing" with the rest of the world is different. Heck China's definition of "market competition" is different too. Why do you fail to see that?

A lot of China's "definitions" are different. If we were to follow all of their definitions, the Muslims in Western China are "foreigners" encroaching upon "Han Chinese land", Tibetans and the Dalai Lama are "troublemakers in historically Chinese territory", The Korean War is proof of the "evils of the Western Powers", and so long as Chinese fishermen have fished in it, and if that sea has "China" in its name, then it is Chinese territory.

The god-damn PRC needs to grow the hell up.

Being an alpha and calling the shots is not dominating and intimidating others. If it is going to become a superpower, it needs to act like one.

That's pretty much how superpowers in general act, though.

China will act as it always has done, it is safe to assume.

And strategically, China is heading towards the capability to fulfill their First Island Chain◊ strategy.

edited 6th Dec '13 3:19:47 AM by Greenmantle

Column from a major local paper, but still relevant to an extent.

Why does that sound uncomfortably like dominis maris baltici

edited 6th Dec '13 2:52:16 AM by Achaemenid

China pulls out of UN process over territorial dispute with Philippines.

Four top U.S. senators have sent China's ambassador to Washington a pointed letter warning the country to back off its territorial claims after the White House failed to win concessions on the issue.

Damm, we've entered Strongly Worded Letter territory. People seem to be dismissive of such things, but it's basically the point where a disagreement becomes a conflict.

Not to mention it's a very bad diplomatical chess move on top. It's intefering with China's core benefit and internal judgement, both of which are the bottom lines of its mandate.

No one wants to grab popcorns to this conflict. Senators better take their words back.

The only thing China understands is aggression. If you don't do things aggressively, it just zooms past their heads. What those US senators did is simply uh, 'dumb down' their talk to China's level. The article prior to that 'strongly worded letter' article is testament to that.

edited 6th Dec '13 5:03:17 PM by entropy13

Besides, its just a bunch of Senators. The Chinese understand the difference between the Congress and the White House.

The first sentence of your post isn't something that's to be taken without a grain of salt. On which basis and proof can you safely say that without coming off as ethnicist/racist? If you want to use foreign policies as a basis, you're already swat down: in the past three decades, who fired the most bullets in foreign soil? HINT: It's not PLA.

On the 'now', and the rhetoric coming from the Chinese government themselves, i.e. nobody else but the Chinese authorities, not the US, not Japan, not the other countries in Asia, not foreign political analysts, heck not even the Chinese dailys, but the Chinese foreign ministry/department, and of course the premier/head of the Chinese communist party,

Fair enough, I guess, but still flawed. There are many assumptions you are making there: firstly, that US foreign policy is the same since the 1980s; secondly, that conflict in Iraq (twice), Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan are of the same nature as the possible conflict with China; third, that "firing the most bullets in foreign soil" is now a benchmark in foreign policy analysis. It's an indicator, a product of the policies, but by itself doesn't actually mean much. Hence the plural of policy, "policies", because there are still several "policies" that could have possibly led to the same outcome (the "firing the most bullets in foreign soil"), the differences being mainly on how they got there, or how long it took to get there.

Heck in the three decades prior to World War II it would probably be the Russians who will be awarded with the "firing the most bullets in foreign soil" title because of their sheer number of mobilized troops, but they weren't the ones that started the 'big one'.

EDIT: Although to be fair most of the land was 'foreign soil' ONLY after WW I as they were still part of the Russian Empire, and the succeeding USSR 'only' fought skirmishes against Japan, and 'just' one war, the Winter War, before Operation Barbarossa began.

edited 7th Dec '13 3:22:53 AM by entropy13

How many bullets have been fired in Tibet?

China is taking the highly unusual step of refusing to participate in a United Nations arbitration process over a territorial conflict with the Philippines.

I wouldn't count SAR as foreign soil as far as 'mappings' are concerned. Besides, using martial law quantities as a basis on judgement is horribly flawed. You do not dismiss a nation's people based on a nation's politics. That was why saying China is only into aggression is something I can never let go uncorrected, because that is tantamount to spreading a belief that Chinese people are, by default, warlike. Try judging USA as warlike after JFK's assassination, Gulf War, 'War on Terror' and NSA's increasingly rabid communication tappings. See the logic in that?

As this thread is about maritime disputes, I'd rather keep wordings of 'who is warlike' to the least possible mininum. We should do the same and keep international nitpickings to ourselves and other appropriate threads. The leeway is to discuss who needs those waters more.

edited 7th Dec '13 3:58:21 AM by Culminus

I had already posted that.

I was gonna say that. Thank you.

edited 7th Dec '13 9:29:20 AM by Quag15

Fine, I'll play.

Pulling out of UN arbitration is an uncomfortably...unipolar move on the Chinese part. One of the strongest criticisms of the UN is the idea that it is run by and for superpowers who can simply ignore it if they wish. This is another example (like the US shielding of Israel or Russian shielding of Assad). It may also suggest that the Chinese leadership do not feel confident enough in their claim to take a chance on UN involvement.

edited 7th Dec '13 10:17:54 AM by Achaemenid

Probably. If they are playing a long game, with no intention of actually occupying those places anytime soon, then arbitration is the last thing they want.

Thing is, the current PRC government is not elected by people. Say what you want about the US democratic system but at least there is a system in place for people to choose. In the PRC that does not even exist.

So hence why I use "PRC" when referring to mainland China. That government does not represent the people.

A little off topic, no masses can be truly represented. Democracy is Appeal to Popularity made into a system.

Back on topic, what IS represented right now, is the Chinese people's desire to reclaim the fishing islands. Just there's a problem of sovereignity getting in the way. Especially the martyr state of Taiwan.

edited 7th Dec '13 3:42:13 PM by Culminus

Chinese parliament rebukes Japanese lawmakers over disputed islands.