• Tue
  • Sep 16, 2014
  • Updated: 11:23pm
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 atavistic 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
321manu
Ah, Pierce m'boy, old habits die hard. I see you're completely reverted to your usual state, where you say very little with many words. And 2 posts within a minute of one another, that are nearly verbatim copies of each other! Was it so nice that you had to say it twice? I wouldn't have thought so, but then you do operate by somewhat lower standards...
You know what else amuses me about you: you need to keep telling me that I have "losing arguments". It harkens back to childhood days in schoolyards, when playmates would debate each other with resounding conviction that "I'm better / NO I'm better". You're great for nostalgia. Ah Pierce m'boy, I'm finding more and more uses for you. I wonder what form of usefulness you'll conjure up next. I look forward to it.
And you know what I'm not looking forward to? Your explanation of why the ADIZ is important for Chinese security, or for its sovereignty claims. By now, we know you have no answers. And truth be told, as befits a CCP apologist, I was never expecting you to have any.
pslhk
A devil won’t be a devil without coherence
After losing arguments, 666 has lost his soul
Worst than a devil, his self-portrayal shows
disintegrating garbage
pslhk
666
Your “disorientation” is well publicized
no need to keep whining “Pierce m’boy”
and mumbling your stock of tiresome rubbish
DNA, apologist, fun, laugh …
But of course need is not your concern
What we observe is involuntary exhibition of your mental condition
that explains why you may never realize
that you asked and answered your own “questions”
You keep begging because
subjectively they’re “important” to you
but objectively like their questioner
they’re nothing if not worse than nonsense
I have no qualm to tell you 過主
which you should enjoy with another good laugh
So 過主 and good laugh it’d be
pslhk
See below that 666 still can't see why 66
and why a ? after 66
The ? after 66 was for him to fill in his id
What a studpid 666 !
And he dares to ask further silly questions
and want anwsers for those rubbish
No wonder why he is so shameless!
321manu
Well Pierce m'boy, going with the triple 6's now, hey? Better late than never, and even funnier that I had to help you out with your own smack talk. Your capabilities truly are limitless.
Asked and answered? Well, I have the answers, certainly. Does the ADIZ increase China's security? Not unless you're on glue. Does the ADIZ change China's position regarding the sovereignty claims of the Diaoyu's? Not unless you're on crack. You, on the other hand, haven't answered them. Sure, they're rhetorical questions, meant to expose you as the typical CCP apologist who has no answers but lacks the character to acknowledge it. So mission accomplished there. But that comes as no surprise to anybody.
Hey, if you don't want to answer questions, don't worry about it. I like finding places where you're intellectually bankrupt, then poking a stick at it repeatedly. They're not hard to find, of course, but pastimes aren't meant to be hard work. I ask questions of you with the expectation that you can't, and won't, answer them. You're just my daily self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems you are becoming more useful by the day. You should be so proud.
pslhk
You still can't see why 66
and why a ? after 66
The ? after 66 was for your to fill in your id
What a studpid 666 !
And you dare to ask further silly questions
and want anwsers for those rubbish
No wonder why you're so shameless!
321manu
Ah Pierce m'boy, I knew it couldn't last. With CCP apologists, it never does. Any momentary lapse into intelligent thought and sanity is invariably followed by a downward spiral back into the depths wherefore they came.
Indeed, no one need worry what I think about the funny angles of China's new ADIZ. But remember, you seemed to suggest that this ADIZ was supposed to increase China's security. The question is how. No number of straw men can obscure the fact that you haven't provided an answer. That, of course, is nothing new, for when a CCP apologist is presented with a question they can't answer, their DNA and training demands that they obfuscate...and you're right on cue.
Your other assertion was that the ADIZ would somehow renew China's sovereignty claim over those islands. Hence, i asked if anyone was of the opinion that China had relinquished such claims...cuz y'know, if those claims were in force all along, then this ADIZ does bupkis in that regard. Again, the silence is deafening from Pierce m'boy here. Again, no surprise...but I always enjoy pointing out the things that CCP apologists can't answer...and they are varied and numerous.
Anyhow, i am grateful for your time, as you do amuse me so thoroughly, and as I've suggested previously, the laughter you provide is just so good for my health. Less tasty than malbec, of course, but good for me nonetheless. So cheers, m'boy. A la sante.
ejmciii
So you make yourself more secure by making your neighbors less secure. Good idea, Alex. You earned your paycheck from the Ministry of Propaganda this week.
pslhk
Sovereignty may be a two-way street
but Borelli’s thinking is a one-way alley
A slow learner who hasn’t grasped 5% of what has been told
should work on past lessons instead of crying for solutions
After the first seminar, no freshman’d dare to assert statements like his
to avoid being bypassed as a don’t-belong for the rest of the term
-
What and why did Borelli beg when he asked “Did people feel that”?
Who care why he thinks something has a “funny angle”?
-
The following discussion isn't for Borelli
an uninspired and ungrateful beneficiary of my time
who should try play ball and see if he has some talent in the playground
-
For those who oppose my opinion with discipline and open mind
Try think in different directions and appraise findings in different contexts
For background ideas needed to discuss sovereignty of non Atlantic islands
think Deigo Garcia
follow the history of Pikinni
think Hiti-Tautau-Mai
-
Some readers should have noticed
If nothing else I’ve toilet trained Borelli
let’s see how long he could retain the trained discipline
The last street cat my grandma brought home was quite smart
pslhk
Borelli
-
With advance in computational operations
what used to be acceptable proofs
are found to contain a lot of overlooked steps
One can’t be too sure of one’s correctness
Many are trapped in the vicious cycle of bigotry <-> ignorance
Nevertheless, there are standards
Wittgenstein’s “I don’t know” isn’t the same as yours
But your intellectual enlightenment may begin
when you learn to say ”I don’t know”
-
China took Japan’s self-restraint in its “administration” of Diaoyus
as Japan’s tacit recognition of sovereignty dispute
though formally Japan never recognizes de facto disputes
Security was a non-issue
when both sides shelved their sovereignty disputes
Japan changed the status quo
when it unilaterally “nationalized” the islands
thus bringing security to the front page
and incurring China’s response with its ADIZ covering the Diaoyus
-
In fact Japan is trying to copy China’s strategic success
that was thoroughly impressive from beginning to end
over a river island if only because of its lack of publicity
A Russian officer once disclosed part of it in Foreign Affairs
-
As far as the bell curve is believable
where no immediate personal interests are affected
intellectually you’d do better by following cerebral superiors
-
I recognize writers by their ideas
Ideas and not the writers' id show me their standards
Borelli could be tinker, tailor, soldier, SV, ... or whATever
I won't care less

321manu
Sovereignty is a two way street. Someone has to assert it, then others have to recognize and accept it. Clearly, with these islands, that's not happening soon, in any/either direction. Yes, Japan moved the needle somewhat by "nationalizing" the islands, but that hardly equates to sovereignty since nobody recognizes and accepts Japan's claim. Did people feel that, prior to this ADIZ, China had relinquished her claim to those islands? If not, then how far does this ADIZ move the needle? And remember, on a literal level, this ADIZ doesn't confer ownership of the airspace, let alone the surface topography. So what does it accomplish, apart from telling us what we already know?
And what does security have to do with it? Seriously, an airspace with a funny-angled perimeter increases Chinese security? How? Like I said, all the other stuff is just window dressing and a waste of time, +/- some amusing exercise for nationalist hotheads to get their jollies. The ultimate objective is still oil and gas, and the answer still lies in cooperative exploration.
But anyway, you're on a roll. Two posts in a row with some actual discernible content. And I'm not the one around here with difficulty recognizing and acknowledging limitations. You must still be in denial if you think otherwise.
pslhk
While China and the US both recognize Diaoyus’ sovereignty dispute
China long tolerated without prejudice what used to be
Japan’s de facto control over Diaoyus
-
China considers sovereignty non-negotiable
but sovereignty disputes won’t undermine the possibility
of the disputants ’ cooperation in developing the islands’ resources
That was until Japan unilaterally revoked prior agreement
and “nationalized” the disputed territories
-
One mustn’t overlook how China has peacefully settled
all its land boundaries with neighboring countries
with the exception of two isolated regions in S Himalayas
for which background one should refer to
Neville Maxwell’s India’s China War
-
For Biden’s recent visit to Beijing
Taiwan publicly disclosed what the well-informed had known
in Japan’s unilaterally declared ADIZ Japanese fighters for the past decade
have frequently harassed regular civilian airlines that have reported flight plans
using civilian airliners for practice
-
Japan the defeated invaders
has initiated open violation of the terms
agreed at Cairo and Potsdam
the foundation of peace post WWII
321manu
Wow, Pierce m'boy! Well done! This must be a first. You actually have made something that remotely resembles an argument, rather than your usual useless verbiage and loose associations. This is progress, and cause for celebration. I will duly note the date and time for future reference of what might be possible for you when you apply yourself.
How does this ADIZ reinforce CHina's sovereignty claim over the islands? After all, they have been in the Japanese ADIZ for some time, and that hasn't bolstered her sovereignty claim over those same islands.
And what of Mr. Lo's "security" argument nonsense? You seemed to think that was da bomb earlier. You haven't mentioned how this new ADIZ supposedly bolsters Chinese "security".
I actually agree with you that territorial disputes over "sovereignty" needn't interfere with cooperative development of resources. This is why this whole thing is needless silliness on both (or all 3, depending on personal preferences) sides. Forget about who owns a couple of rocks in the ocean, and just get on with jointly exploiting the real reason for their significance. That's what I've been saying all along.
caractacus
An extremely shallow conclusion, Alex, and against the facts, which should be taken at face value.
China is pushing for maritime expension to extend its territorial waters into areas where it can grab all the oil, fish and other natural resources for itself and position itself for military, economic and political dominance of East Asia and the Western Pacific, period.
All the drum banging nationalism, megaphone propaganda and dredging up Chinese anti foreign sentiments are simply among the unscrupulous tactics being used.
pslhk
66?
Some kind HK primary student with the patience
may teach you
(1) about scientific explanations
then perhaps you might understand
the relation between sunrise and co ck crow
(2) about the maths
that reveals you as 66?
-
I want to stay with Borelli
for cultural vanity
but you prefer pedestrian Damian
and it seems more descriptive
No one would be too surprised
that you opt for 666
321manu
Obfuscation, thy name is Pierce m'boy. It's also the name for most CCP apologists. Maybe it should become a middle name so as not to confuse identification purposes.
Yeah, get called out and don't acknowledge it...that's SOP for folks like you. Seen it many times before.
I'm glad you gave up referencing scientific theories and discussing logical fallacies. They are clearly beyond your grasp, and you really should stick with what you know...with the exception that you should actually avoid using logical fallacies. Good luck with that.
pslhk
Borelli exposed as 66? and exorcised
let’s backtrack to the last forum
ko Borelli there to show 66? as nothing
but ignorant hypocrite mumbling nonsense
and dissipate the dull specter
(AL “Public nomination …” Nov 25)
-
The moron begged “evidence” for predictive opinion
but failed to show “evidence” for his world bank irrelevance
-
Airhead worships “informal logic”
but childishly fixated on his infantile formula
-
Babykick is ignorant about what he doesn’t have
unaware of common sense
naive about “friends”
四海之內 皆兄弟也
Cameron’s first Sina Weibo posting
began with “Hello my friends in China”
-
Borelli preaches concise writing but indulges in verbosity
The hypocrite once held high a torch against ad hominem
which has now become his only hobby
-
Confucian quotes have exposed Brelli a total failure
like exorcism chants 66?’s anxieties surged and he snapped
seeking shelter from shame in uncontrollable laughter
-
It may take a while for that slow learner to recognize his own bankruptcy
if he returns a normal person who knows his limitations
we may take some credit
-
As my final gesture of kindness to the hypocrite
I'd leave him moaning in the well
without dropping a stone
to break this pest
321manu
More useless verbiage. I'm amused you feel the need to rehash stuff from another thread, of course without a grasp of the specifics or any appreciation for relevance, context, and applicability. You truly are a pathetic specimen, even among the learned cohort of CCP apologists. BTW, double-six is just a number. If you're going to use a reference, it's triple-six you're looking for. This is what it's come to for Pierce m'boy...he needs help to get his own smack-talk right.
Theories need to be proven with evidence. That's how it works in science. Obviously, that's too profound a concept for you. How does one "show evidence for ...world bank" data...if anything, the data was the "evidence". You barely know which way is up anymore, such is the sorry state of that mush between your ears. And as usual, those who understand informal logic the least are the most eager to belittle it. Pierce m'boy here is exhibit A of the decrepit extreme of human nature...hopefully something natural selection can correct in due course.
You're equating your 'internet friends' with Cameron's expression of friendship? You really are pathetic beyond words. Btw, my raking you over the coals is not an ad hominem. I don't think your argument is stupid simply because you're stupid; you don't have an argument, and I just think you're stupid. There's a big difference, but of course you'll be too stupid to grasp it. Oh well.
Do write again. You amuse me, and that's your purpose in life.
ennoun
Security from what or from whom? Is there someone getting ready to attack China? Or are the billions being spent to strengthen the country's military in order to support China's expansionary policies?
pslhk
Hear, hear!
-
Again the disoriented old fool whines “Pierce m’boy”
mistaking Heron’s “a potential motivating factor”
as THE only factor
and the referred article’s “not simply a question”
as the ONLY question
-
In addition to cognitive confusion
there are symptoms of reality denial and schizophrenia
avoiding factual agreements at Cairo, Potsdam, …
indulging in the opposites of what he preaches
-
To save himself from argumentative bankruptcy
from champion of logical simplicity for intellectuality
and crusader against adhom
66? has become nothing but irrelevant prolixity and adhom
-
Is mogician a status of Borelli or are they different persons?
-
Probably just the incarnation of 66 man u a low-ranking devil
working in a factory of disinformation
321manu
Pierce m'boy, you're using some big words there, and you clearly don't understand what they mean. You really should stick to what you're good at, which is kissing CCP butt, and making me laugh. Take heart, m'boy: the stuff you're good at, you're REALLY good at. That's an achievement of sorts, and you should be proud. I'm happy for you.
Otherwise, you should learn to read (and write). I've listed 2 factors, so there is no "the only". There is only so much I can help you with, and clearly you're in need of substantial amounts in multiple areas of your life.
I'm glad you're at least mentioning logical fallacies now. That's the first step. The next step would be to learn what they are. And if you're really good, the step after that is to not use them. Good luck. Given enough time, I don't doubt there being a remote possibility that you might be able to perhaps grow a brain that at least functions at a middling level. I'm rooting for you, m'boy.
In the meantime, it's clear you blow even at talking smack, and can't seem to write with normal human sentence structure to save your life. Just think, all those years you spent learning the CCP religion could've been gainfully applied to something more useful. Alas, what's done is done, and you're stuck with being you. You have my deepest sympathies.
321manu
Pierce m'boy, as the CCP's puppy-in-tow, seems to believe that any published opinion (at least those that coincide with his own) represents the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (with the caveat of course that anything the CCP says is also similarly truthful and irrefutable). Notice how he attached himself so quickly here to Mr. Lo's point of view, and his eagerness to refer to another article on this website (not to mention another user's comments...I wonder if Pierce wants to be 'How About' 's "friend". Pierce has certainly extended his friendship given his glowing reference to How's comment; I wonder if the sentiment will be reciprocated?).
Anyway, in that vein, Pierce m'boy should check out SCMP article 1096774. Normally I'd say it might be an eye-opener, but I simply can't assume that Pierce m'boy is physically capable of same.
321manu
I agree with Heron and jve. Playing the nationalism card is low-hanging fruit for the CCP, and it does provide a nice diversion for Chinese hotheads to focus on, rather than worrying about domestic issues. That "us against them" mentality is standard fare among authoritarian regimes, so the CCP is in good company. Add on the historical baggage and the victim mentality, and it's a pot that stirs itself.
I wouldn't necessarily say China is being arrogant. Ultimately, stoking nationalism is a temporary feel-good reprieve, but it's the resources under the sea floor that CHina really needs. So from a practical standpoint, this posturing on all sides makes no sense, in that it guarantees nothing comes out of the ground. I mean, who really cares about a bunch of uninhabitable outcroppings in the middle of the sea? They should just form a multinational conglomerate, and get moving with resource exploration with an agreement to share the materials, costs, and profits.
And as Jve said, how exactly is some random funny-shaped ADIZ supposed to "increase security"? Only idiots would buy such nonsense, right Pierce?
Heron
Jve mentions Nationalism as a potential motivating factor in China's assertion of their territorial rights and I believe that is correct. Creating conflict with rival nations has been used as a tactic by many nations in the past to divert attention from problems at home,
Although it may be hard to believe for a country with a 6% growth rate, China is at an economic crossroads. In the past, as the world's factory, foreign currency flooded into the state's treasury and China's economy grew nicely, but after the 2008-9 crisis demand for Chinese goods dwindled and so did income. The state increased domestic investment to stoke growth, but this has led to diminishing returns as the system is very leaky and many infrastructure investments will not generate consist economic returns for some time. There are also consistent concerns about inflation, pollution, aging population etc. Finally, while China still has big foreign exchange reserves, this is counterbalanced by huge non-performing loans owed by state-owned enterprises, local government and by failing private companies competing in a saturated market. The government can't keep pumping money into the economy. Fortunately, they recognize the problems, but need time to fix them by stamping out corruption and creating social safety nets such a comprehensive health and pensions enabling people to spend more and create domestic demand.
Let's just hope that by provoking their neighbours like this we don't end up with a war.
pslhk
Where’s the writing factory
of all these monotonous verbal rondo
repeating a distorted theme
where the word “China” is wrongly made to usurp
the places where “Japan” is the right word
-
Why the paranoia of all these westerners?
-
Given their European background
they fear a strong China would treat them
like they used to treat the Jews
They fear losing the remnants of past centuries’ privileges
They are jealous of China’s ascendance
Marginalized from their home countries
those diasporas who lack real skills fear for their future
Expat perks that have turned them dumb are disappearing
They know not to compete in the real world
That’s why they are mumbling nonsense in despair
impala
This column seems to consist entirely of wishful thinking.

If it was merely security (from what exactly by the way?) China is after, it would seek (NATO-style) alliances in Asia, sign defence pacts, diffuse regional tensions, seek compromises, negotiate skilfully, promote diplomacy, invest in building soft power and so on. You only have to look at Brazil to see another regional power that is growing fast and is much bigger/powerful than any of its neighbours handle its (re)emergence very differently, and more peacefully.

Instead, China displays an arrogant sense of infinite entitlement to its neighbours, seemingly wanting to re-establish its Middle Kingdom status, to which all of its Asian satellites must pay tribute and kowtow in fear. There appears to be no room for compromise, negotiation or even just a hint of understanding that not everybody agrees that some lines on a 19th century map constitute valid territorial or nautical claims.

The establishment of the very oddly shaped air defence zone with the Senkaku Islands and the adjacent oil/gas reserves as only logical centrepiece, is just the latest instalment in a series of increasingly aggressive moves by the PLA. We unfortunately see a China that appears to be motivated by nationalism, (real and perceived) historical grievances and relatively minor geo-political interests. All of this lessons, not increases China's security.

Martin Wolf was entirely correct to state that this is a dangerous trend.
allenzhertz
The "great game" of international politics has lots of she says/he says -- just like divorce litigation. What to one party is understandably "self-defense" to another is naturally "aggression." It depends on one's particular national perspective. The basic fact is that the legitimate interests of China's security do very much include disrupting the USA-Japan Alliance and driving the USA out and away from northeast Asia. This is appropriately one of the fundamental goals of China's foreign policy, which also naturally seeks to consistently counter the USA globally. For the PLA, it is axiomatic that a weaker USA means a safer China. Covertly/overtly and directly/indirectly, China has understandably and legitimately been working steadily to weaken the USA's global posture, at the very least since --- the 1989 collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the events in Tiananmen Square; and the 1991 Revolution in Military Affairs (first Iraq War) and the fall of the Soviet Union. 1989-1991 was an especially scary time for the leadership of the Communist Party of China. They then initiated or enhanced a range of long-term strategies to deal effectively with real or perceived USA threats to China. Just one such legitimate expedient was China's hidden role in furthering North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Make no mistake, even today the "crazy" Kims still serve China big-time by exposing the sheer emptiness of the USA alliances in the region.
scmpbeijing1
China belongs on a psychiatrist's couch. It's obsessed with security, but who is its enemy? Are there any countries that are attempting to steal Chinese territory? No. Beijing is just paranoid. And it never gave a damn about the territory of the many other countries whose territory has been violated throughout their history by Chinese colonialists
.
pslhk
I’ve been trying to write
interesting english like yours
Freedom of speech is never enough
to accommodate a boundless freethinker like you
scmp should be proud
for having a reader like you
Your nuts expertise is undoubted
BO and DC should appoint you
as a permanent resident advisor of nut houses
pslhk
Readers without background knowledge
can’t appreciate AL’s perceptive analysis
Instead of ignorant elaboration
they should read How About (5, Dec 10:16am)
****www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1372806/biden-arrives-beijing-air-zone-tensions-simmer
to clear the ground for meaningful discussion
-
Logic is necessarily objective
Opinions based on personal preferences are fantasies
which the shallow and ignorant would sell and buy as arguments
under the misleading banner of “informal logic”
which along with the use of BIG words
give the fool a false sense of “authority”
-
The mogician has nothing
but fast empty “proofs” for prejudice
Here's one example
“the specificS of this zone CLEARLY point to other motivationS”
specificS refer to China’s ADIZ overlapping Japan’s and covering Diaoyu Islands
motivationS refer to natural resources
-
Such foolish associations need no refutation
Logic goes on holiday if every English speaker becomes a logician
The only defense of one such particularly noisy English-speaking mogician
is by way of adhom,
like a disoriented old fool whining
“m’boy, m‘boy”
pslhk
What you see after this reply comment
is a repeat of mogician’s logically insensible performance
-
Lol followed by faith mantra about what to believe and disbelieve
testimonies that he should have saved for fellowship assemblies
The last forum’s closure for comments saved magician from breakdown
Let me help him this time:
Keep cool though you’ve better than good reasons to be nervous
I’ve never intended to take advantage of your obvious weaknesses
So don’t intimidate yourself intellectually
-
Tell us what’s your version of facts
relevant background that you believe to be true?
321manu
You really do have delusions of adequacy and of intelligence. Man, why is it that the CCP is always supported by people of such low intellect, poor logic, and aversion towards independent thought. It's as though someone with a brain could never qualify to be a CCP apologist...nor would they want to, I suspect.
If you threw a ball off a boat, you couldn't hit water. So worry not, Pierce m'boy, your "capabilities" are of no concern to me. Why would anyone be intimidated by empty space? I have no doubt you're a physical entity; intellectually, you're of no consequence to me.
Anyway, what I believe to be true wrt this topic was already included in my initial comment. I'd suggest that you read more carefully, but that assumes the ability to read to begin with. And if you're reading comprehension is on par with your written composition, that assumption would be a flawed one.
But yes, I'm glad that last thread closed with whymak's comment. Nice way to highlight his "logic" where people can be asked to prove a negative. Like I said, CCP apologists are people too...just not very intelligent or educated ones.
321manu
LOL, you really are a CCP butt kisser of the highest order. From that article you quoted, "Beijing insists it has the right to set up the zone, as a means of self-defence,". And because that's what Beijing says, that's what you believe? Dude, I've got several bridges that I'm sure you'd love to buy. I'd write it off to simply being incredibly naive and gullible, but being that it's you, I think it's again just the CCP apologist DNA shining through. As I said before, the penetrance of that genotype can be astounding.
I guess that's what you call "background knowledge"...stuff that only idiots would believe hook/line/sinker. I had you pegged in that category all along, but I hadn't labelled Mr. Lo necessarily as such. It's unfortunate you had to besmirch his good name.
Anyway, you're allowed to have your opinion, of course. Crazy stupid CCP apologists are people too, after all.
lexishk
Looks to me like by "best answer" you mean "best guess". Sorry but I don't find this any more convincing than the many other theories you've mentioned. Of course the truth is most likely a combination.
singleline
China’s important economic coastal cities must be well protected. It’s almost a matter of life and death. Whether China can fully enforce the right to the zone is another matter.
It’s stupid to start a military conflict because too many human lives and too much economic wealth are at stake.
Besides ‘threatening’ our Asian neighbours through the air DEFENCE zones, China can at the same time buy Asian friends using money. Please read Hu Shuli’s article ‘China will benefit from investing in others’ infrastructure development’ published this morning.
As an emergency measure (say to prepare for a sudden QE taper), swap lines should also be set up between China and other Asian neighbours. Please visit ****www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/katharina-pistor-crticizes-the-new-great-divide-in-international-monetary-management.
Now China certainly needs a Bismarck-like leader.
John Adams
Good summary Mr Lo.
I agree with you.
321manu
Declaring an ADIZ, in and of itself, could conceivably be about "security". But the specifics of this zone clearly point to other motivations. I mean, if it's just "security", why overlap with someone else's zone, and why specifically overlap on the Diaoyu Islands. No, this is about oil and gas reserves those islands are suspected to have under the sea floor, and maybe about some fish stocks. Of course, if it stokes the flames of mindless nationalism, that's probably ok too insofar as Beijing is concerned.
The irony about the whole "security" song and dance is that this does the exact opposite. If it's 'encirclement' that China fears, her moves simply encourage the US and SE Asian nations to pivot towards each other, so Beijing's actions only serve to enhance that which she fears.
 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or