• Thu
  • Dec 25, 2014
  • Updated: 3:13am
My Take
PUBLISHED : Thursday, 05 December, 2013, 4:27am
UPDATED : Thursday, 05 December, 2013, 4:27am

Security, not power, is Beijing's goal in air defence zone dispute

"The gains from control over a few uninhabited rocks are vastly outweighed by the risks."

Here's a comment by a respected British commentator that perfectly summarises the bafflement of outsiders about China's territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas. Face, nationalism, historical grievances, anti-Americanism, anti-Japanese sentiments, regional dominance or hegemony ... Critics have marshalled one or more of these elements to explain China's behaviour. Or, China is Germany 1914 all over again. Funny how no one ever cited Bismarck's unified Germany after 1870, whose diplomacy secured European peace for a generation.

To a disinterested observer, all those China "explanations" must seem unconvincing or unsatisfying. First, is Beijing staking its foreign policy on nationalist feelings over the Diaoyu Islands? Or is it the other way around: the nationalist/historical issue over the Diaoyus is only part of an overall foreign policy - but doesn't drive or explain it? One thing you know for sure is that imposing an "air defence identification zone" that includes the Diaoyus is not an ad hoc, one- step-at-a-time dumb chess move. It's part of an overall strategic conception with its own goal, purpose and rationale.

Let's start with the Hobbesian thesis: every country feels threatened or insecure; China especially so. Despite its new-found wealth, its military can't fight overseas other than invading Taiwan. Its shipping and supply lanes are patrolled by a powerful rival, the US, and it's encircled geographically by countries allied to the US. Its hold on Tibet and Xinjiang are constantly challenged. It can buy client states in Africa and Latin America but has no genuine defence allies. The overwhelming foreign policy goal of Beijing is therefore not dominance but security. Within this framework, sometimes it goes along with other world powers, such as over Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions; sometimes it provokes them, such as with the air defence zone. Sometimes, it just miscalculates. So is China a status quo or revisionist power? The best answer is: it doesn't want to overthrow the US-led international security and economic architecture, but demands adjustments within it.

Share

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

47

This article is now closed to comments

pslhk
666 is so inspiring
when I next have the time
I should try to write a song
Borelli in Lala Land
-
For the refrain, it will repeat:
“If 666 is proud of his performance
for public entertainment
let him repeat the full version of his original supplications:
“Do people feel that blab blab blab?”
and the begging about “blab blab blab funny angled perimeters”?”
-
“Did 666 fabricate, fantasize or misconstrue
those assertions he alleged that I had made?
The simple answer to this question is
666 is stupid”
-
Disoriented mogician 666
show us the source of your hallucination
the cause of your stupidity
Until then 666 should save his nonsense for himself
321manu
LOL, Pierce m'boy. Are you now disavowing your previous statements, and your previous position? Granted, that is likely the smartest thing you've done...quite possibly in your lifetime. I must say, completely reneging on your previous position is not a common move among CCP apologists. So I appreciate your willingness to try something new.
Listen, if you don't want to debate, then don't. Truth is that you can't, even if you wanted to, owing to some fundamental flaws in your grasp of logic.
So are you now saying this ADIZ does NOT increase Chinese security? And are you now saying that this ADIZ does NOT change China's position on her sovereignty claim over the Diaoyu Islands? Cuz if that's your new position, then we are in complete agreement. The next logical question, of course, is what was the point of this new ADIZ to begin with. But forget that, I know how you easily become overburdened with simple questions, and I wouldn't want to overtax your limited faculties.
My poor little Pierce m'boy, it's sad to see you give up on your previous positions. But it's for the best. Shilling for the CCP is tough work, and it's not for everyone.
pslhk
The 666 pest has no self-understanding
not knowing that he has been begging questions and answers
not knowing that the questions and answers he begs are nonsense
not knowing the stupidity of his attempts to involve others in a debate
based on his delusory allegations
not knowing how he unknowingly christened himself 666
-
What we have witnessed is an angry 666
who refuses my answer that his “questions” are nonsense
If 666 is proud of his performance
for public entertainment
let him repeat the full version of his original supplications:
“Do people feel that blab blab blab?”
and the begging about “blab blab blab funny angled perimeters”?
to see if any reader might be interested in answering his “questions”
-
An obligatory plead for kindness here:
please heed 666's claim
that his "questions" are no funny matters
-
I don’t know about 666
But after a long lunch with friends at Mongkok Rail Station
I just returned with some fish for my salt water aquarium
Some sincere words for Borelli:
Go play ball
321manu
Oh Pierce m'boy, you've got it all wrong (yet again). No one is begging. I'm certainly not interested in your answer, cuz it'll be garbage anyway. What i'm interested in is to repeatedly demonstrate that you lack the answer, and that you lack the requisite mental capacity and strength of character to acknowledge as much. So each time I ask it and you don't answer it, it merely adds to the tally. So please, don't answer if you can't, but I find such inability to be very telling. It's a common thread among CCP apologists, and I've seen this all before.
So by all means, obfuscate away, the better for my continued amusement. You are certainly very accommodating in that regard, and i'm grateful daily. I hold your ability to utter useless verbiage in the highest regard, and in that vein we are most certainly in "different leagues". I am curious though. You assert that the ADIZ increases Chinese security, but you can't tell me how. You assert that the ADIZ establishes Chinese sovereignty claims, but you can't tell me when they had revoked them previously. Just makes me wonder how you come to your assertions. Clearly, it's not by logic or independent thought. I guess the weakest minds are the most receptive to CCP "education".
pslhk
Here is a question which 666 should be able to answer:
Did 666 fabricate, fantasize or misconstrue
those assertions he alleged that I had made?
The simple answer to this question is
666 is stupid
pslhk
I quoted Wittgenstein before in this forum
a full question is half an answer
to elaborate I’d say
a foolish question is unworthy of an answer
I’d be unkind to repeat 過主 to dismiss a fool too many times
But even the fool can see that we belong to different leagues
he should take his questions with him
and go play with his peers
-
Here we have 666’s a****tic situation
where he is giving a live demonstration
of how in old towns of bygone days
migrant paupers persistently begged
and demanded ever more alms in front of shops
When told 過主 they won’t go away
until either they got what they begged
or were satisfied with the amount of curses and rubbish they left behind
Watch his pathetic show
321manu
Oh poor little Pierce m'boy, thou doth protest too much. If you haven't got the answers, just say so and I'll stop asking such difficult questions of you. It shouldn't be hard for CCP apologists to acknowledge their limitations...after all, you guys have so many, and you'd have thought the practice would have allowed you guys to perfect it by now.
pslhk
I’d dismiss the 666 pest with the same words
過主
321manu
There you go, Pierce m'boy. When you have no answers, and nothing useful to say, far fewer words than your usual output will suffice. Let this be a lesson for future reference...assuming CCP apologists like you are capable of learning...which is admittedly not a good assumption.
But it's hard to be funny when you write so little....oh choices...such difficult choices...
pslhk
Excessive begging only shows the extent of 666’s shamelessness
I’d dismiss such a pest with the same words
過主

Pages

 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or