The Shangri La Dialogue: Where is Asia heading?

[SBu]

The US is finally wising up to China's strategic goal to establish hegemony over all of Asia, particularly focusing on the South China Sea and East China Sea regions.

Recent developments include:
Several clashes between the Philippines and China
The Philippines sueing China for its aggressive conduct even as China continues to assert claims over the Philippine EEZ
China has established an oil rig unilaterally within Vietnam's EEZ
Vietnam and china have clashed at sea over this oil rig
Vietnamese rioting over China's actions
various clashes between Japan and Chinese vessels
China established an ADIZ over contested islands with Japan
China vigorously seeking a power projection naval capability
Japan announcing itself as a military balance to China's aggression and seeking coordination with ASEAN nations
Chinese military rhetoric and action sharply on the rise
Closer military ties forming between China and Russia

My feeling is that China is moving from a Rhetorical position and preparation phase into a more active assertion of it's claims and strategic vision. It will be very interesting to see where Asia goes in the next couple decades. Almost everything that General Wang says in his speech that China opposes...China is doing itself. Similarly, almost everything China says it supports, it is actively undermining in its action.

Where is Asia heading? I believe it is heading into very dangerous times. Times where China's aggression in unilaterally asserting historic claims with more action is giving rise to a Japanese nationalist resurgence, American "rebalancing", and general ASEAN hostility/uncertainty. China has thrown off its cloak of the "slow strategy" and is ramping up its true aim of accomplishing its hegemony in a rapid and aggressive fashion.

The real turning point came in this most recent spat with Vietnam. Days later Dempsey and his Chinese counterpart met in Washington to discuss better military ties. I think Dempsey was caught off guard after his flowery fluff remarks were met with quite strong Chinese rhetoric. Here's the video from that meeting: USChina Military Relations | Video | C-SPAN.org

Ever since that meeting, the US and Japan have been very vocal and much more direct in criticizing China. Also since then, China and Russia have been courting closer ties.

Speeches from the Shangri La Dialogue security conference which concluded yesterday in Singapore. Could be the beginning of a much more difficult US, China, and Japanese foreign policy:

Hagel's Speech: https://www.iiss.org/en/events/shangri la dialogue/archive/2014-c20c/plenary-1-d1ba/chuck-hagel-a9cb

Abe's Speech (written translation): https://www.iiss.org/en/events/shan...-address-b0b2/keynote-address-shinzo-abe-a787

General Wang's Speech (retort): LifeSize UVC Video Center - Fourth Plenary Session

 

[MMC]

Heya SBU. :2wave: You do know the Chinese and Japanese. Thru hundreds of meetings have not even been sitting with each other. China isn't taking to kindly to Japan and the US with its warnings. Here is some of what we got so far.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/asia/194186-trouble-asia-8.html#post1063347365

 

[Demon of Light]

The Philippines sueing China for its aggressive conduct even as China continues to assert claims over the Philippine EEZ
China has established an oil rig unilaterally within Vietnam's EEZ

Am I the only one here who understands the concept of a territorial dispute?

Closer military ties forming between China and Russia

Why is no one concerned about India's closer military ties with Russia? They work tightly together on hypersonic cruise missiles, fifth-generation stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, and jointly operate a military base in Tajikistan (as contrasted with China's lack of overseas military bases).

Times where China's aggression in unilaterally asserting historic claims with more action is giving rise to a Japanese nationalist resurgence

That was already happening and likely would have happened regardless of what China was doing.

China has thrown off its cloak of the "slow strategy" and is ramping up its true aim of accomplishing its hegemony in a rapid and aggressive fashion.

Were that true then the Spratly Islands would already be in China's control.

The real turning point came in this most recent spat with Vietnam. Days later Dempsey and his Chinese counterpart met in Washington to discuss better military ties. I think Dempsey was caught off guard after his flowery fluff remarks were met with quite strong Chinese rhetoric.

Really now? The United States is all sunshine and flowers, huh? Many predicted that the so-called "pivot to Asia" would make China react in its own way. That is what happens when you try to keep a power contained, they try to break free of that containment and often in a less peaceful means than if they had been left alone. See how Russia has reacted to continuing efforts to contain it after the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[donsutherland1]

The US is finally wising up to China's strategic goal to establish hegemony over all of Asia, particularly focusing on the South China Sea and East China Sea regions...

Several thoughts:

First, a lot of the tension over the East and South Pacific Seas and myriad islands stem from longstanding territorial disputes. Those disputes were largely frozen in place following World War II. They have started coming to life as China is no longer as weak as it once was. Growing power changes nations’ ability to assert their interests.

Second, China is a product of its long history. It has long had a fear of encirclement (ironically, a similar fear animates Russian thinking) and had a very bad experience when its weakness was ruthlessly exploited by foreign powers during the 19th century. These dynamics make it important that the Asia Pivot be clearly defined so that China understands it (actions matter more than rhetoric to China)—a big opportunity that was missed in the President’s West Point address—and intensive private diplomacy. China is extremely sensitive to overt pressure and requests that would be seen as somehow undercutting its sovereignty.

The recent handling of the espionage case, offered a particularly bad way for dealing with China. First, the indictments went far beyond the conventional practices the U.S. had applied against the Soviet Union, later Russia, etc., was correctly seen as treating China differently from other countries. Second, it was handled through a public spectacle that could only humiliate China. In the aftermath, the Chinese can legitimately ask why the U.S. never humiliated the Soviets in such a fashion. The implicit conclusion among China is that the U.S. is treating China differently, because the U.S. still does not perceive China as the kind of power that commands respect and/or its intentions with respect to China are not necessarily friendly. Those are not constructive conclusions.

Modest attention to China’s history, attempts to understand its worldview, and a sense of dignity accorded in the past to similar situations would have avoided the situation. For now, China and the U.S. remain on a trajectory of a deepening relationship, but the shifting balance of power and emergent policy vacuum in East Asia have made it bumpy and risked creating alternative paths of evolution.

Third, the intensive private diplomacy should include at least among the following messages: (1) the U.S. will continue to seek to deepen its bilateral relationship to China toward a long-term goal of friendship; (2) the U.S. will fully honor its commitments to its East Asian allies (China won’t necessarily be threatened by a message of U.S. reliability) and safeguarding its vital interests e.g., open passage through the Pacific waterways; (3) the U.S. does not aim to “contain” China but will strive to maintain a stable balance of power that has made it possible for the region’s countries, including China, to focus on economic development that has greatly improved the lives of their peoples (planned reductions in U.S. military expenditures undermine the credibility of such a message); (4) the U.S.-China relationship would evolve based on the conduct of the parties and an emphasis would be placed on building on and expanding areas of mutual interest and managing the areas where real differences exist; and, (5) Friends work out their differences in a peaceful fashion and the U.S. expects that resolution of the territorial interests would be pursued in that fashion.

In the years ahead, China will continue to evolve possibly toward superpower status, an evolution that will give it increasing strategic flexibility. The U.S.-China relationship is not inevitably one of confrontation or Cold War. But careful management, efforts to understand and respect one another’s core interests and sensitivities, and a lot of private diplomacy will be required to assure that the relationship is one of productive partnership. A carefully-crafted Asia Pivot can help play that role. But such a policy approach will need substance, not rhetoric. The Presidents failure to provide any details in his West Point address suggests that insufficient thought has been given to the concrete substance of that relationship and the ambiguity is not something in which China or U.S. allies in East Asia will find much comfort.

 

[SBu]

Am I the only one here who understands the concept of a territorial dispute?

No, but judging by your tone, you probably think you are.

Why is no one concerned about India's closer military ties with Russia? They work tightly together on hypersonic cruise missiles, fifth-generation stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, and jointly operate a military base in Tajikistan (as contrasted with China's lack of overseas military bases).

I'm sure many are concerned, but that doesn't seem to have the same strategic effect that Russia turning East and China turning West (toward Russia) has. Also, it's not the topic being discussed at the moment.

That was already happening and likely would have happened regardless of what China was doing.

I don't think it would be happening if China didn't pose an increasingly aggressive threat to the islands that Japan claims and took greater steps to resolve disputes peacefully. China seems to have taken a turn toward a more aggressive and increasingly hostile foreign policy with regard to it's neighbors and Japan. I think this has shocked Japan into realizing it can no longer be the relatively passive power it has been in the past if it is to adequately police it's territory and ably provide national security as an island nation.

Were that true then the Spratly Islands would already be in China's control.

Parts of it are and China has been aggressively patrolling these areas and asserting it's claims there. They understand that there's little Vietnam and the Philippines can do about it.

Really now? The United States is all sunshine and flowers, huh? Many predicted that the so-called "pivot to Asia" would make China react in its own way. That is what happens when you try to keep a power contained, they try to break free of that containment and often in a less peaceful means than if they had been left alone. See how Russia has reacted to continuing efforts to contain it after the fall of the Soviet Union.

If China and Russia are feeling contained, perhaps they should re-evaluate the policies they have pursued which lead them to feel that way. We shouldn't contain powers that support state sponsors of terrorism and invade their neighbors if they don't want to be in their lousy economic union (in the case of Russia), or powers that directly intimidate their neighbors and disregard international laws of the sea, land dispute resolution (in the case of China)?

 

[Demon of Light]

No, but judging by your tone, you probably think you are.

If you understand the concept of a territorial dispute then you should not be making statements such as those I highlighted as they imply there is no dispute.

I'm sure many are concerned, but that doesn't seem to have the same strategic effect that Russia turning East and China turning West (toward Russia) has.

People have played up fears of China and Russia for decades. It has nothing to do with "strategic effect" and everything to do with China being the great yellow threat.

I don't think it would be happening if China didn't pose an increasingly aggressive threat to the islands that Japan claims and took greater steps to resolve disputes peacefully. China seems to have taken a turn toward a more aggressive and increasingly hostile foreign policy with regard to it's neighbors and Japan. I think this has shocked Japan into realizing it can no longer be the relatively passive power it has been in the past if it is to adequately police it's territory and ably provide national security as an island nation.

Nonsense, they have been looking to significantly expand militarily for a long time, partly at America's urging. Japanese nationalism has also been on the rise for decades. Blaming China is simply wrong.

Parts of it are and China has been aggressively patrolling these areas and asserting it's claims there. They understand that there's little Vietnam and the Philippines can do about it.

Vietnam and the Philippines do the same thing. China could force all of them out if they wanted, but they do not. Despite what you claim, they are not suddenly engaged in some unprecedented campaign of aggression.

If China and Russia are feeling contained, perhaps they should re-evaluate the policies they have pursued which lead them to feel that way. We shouldn't contain powers that support state sponsors of terrorism and invade their neighbors if they don't want to be in their lousy economic union (in the case of Russia), or powers that directly intimidate their neighbors and disregard international laws of the sea, land dispute resolution (in the case of China)?

Your mischaracterization of events aside, what we are seeing is a reaction to containment.

 

[PoS]

Im not entirely sure how far China will take this since they know what the consequences will be- their economy is built on trade with the very nations she seeks to antagonize. I think the US should continue to support Vietnam, Japan and Philippines so that they could contain China.