Showing posts with label Diaoyu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diaoyu. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

World News and Trends- India and China: the diplomatic conflict

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the rivalry between India and China. This follows this post about the Christmas tree. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.


World News and Trends- India and China: the diplomatic conflict

Printer-friendly version


What may help America in countering Chinese ambitions, at least temporarily, is the current diplomatic conflict between China and India.

What may help America in countering Chinese ambitions, at least temporarily, is the current diplomatic conflict between China and India. David Blair, covering Chinese affairs for London's Daily Telegraph, recently wrote, "India, revitalized and self-confident, sees itself as a barrier to the vaulting ambition of its age-old rival [China]" ( The Sunday Telegraph, Sept. 14, 2008).
Advantageous for New Delhi is that " India sits like an ancient aircraft carrier across Chinese shipping lanes." According to The Telegraph, "The two giant powers are long-standing rivals who share a disputed 2,100-mile border and are waging a diplomatic struggle for influence in Asia . They fought a border war in 1962, which ended in victory for China and left Beijing in control of 16,500 square miles of territory claimed by India" (Sept. 16, 2008).
China has a potential Achilles' heel in the Strait of Malacca, the shipping lanes that may be the site for a future military conflict between India and the Chinese republic. In contrast, India worries that Chinese courting of Pakistan and Myanmar will lead to the encirclement of the subcontinent nation. The United States is cooperating with and supporting India, as the two countries have obvious mutual interests in countering and containing Chinese ambitions.
David Blair concluded in another of his Telegraph articles that "China and India, which together comprise almost 40% of the world's population, harbour a longstanding rivalry which could shake the world in future decades" (Sept. 16, 2008). (Sources: The Sunday Telegraph [London], Telegraph.co.uk.)

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Understanding the China-Japan Island Conflict

A very interesting post from www.Stratfor.com  analyzing the conflict between China and Japan. This follows this post analyzing China.  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read a very interesting book HERE.


Understanding the China-Japan Island Conflict

September 25, 2012


Stratfor

By Rodger Baker

Vice President of East Asia Analysis



Sept. 29 will mark 40 years of normalized diplomatic relations between China and Japan, two countries that spent much of the 20th century in mutual enmity if not at outright war. The anniversary comes at a low point in Sino-Japanese relations amid a dispute over an island chain in the East China Sea known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan and Diaoyu Islands in China.



These islands, which are little more than uninhabited rocks, are not particularly valuable on their own. However, nationalist factions in both countries have used them to enflame old animosities; in China, the government has even helped organize the protests over Japan's plan to purchase and nationalize the islands from their private owner. But China's increased assertiveness is not limited only to this issue. Beijing has undertaken a high-profile expansion and improvement of its navy as a way to help safeguard its maritime interests, which Japan -- an island nation necessarily dependent on access to sea-lanes -- naturally views as a threat. Driven by its economic and political needs, China's expanded military activity may awaken Japan from the pacifist slumber that has characterized it since the end of World War II.



An Old Conflict's New Prominence

The current tensions surrounding the disputed islands began in April. During a visit to the United States, Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara, a hard-line nationalist known for his 1989 book The Japan That Can Say No, which advocated for a stronger international role for Japan not tied to U.S. interests or influence, said that the Tokyo municipal government was planning to buy three of the five Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from their private Japanese owner. Ishihara's comments did little to stir up tensions at the time, but subsequent efforts to raise funds and press forward with the plan drew the attention and ultimately the involvement of the Japanese central government. The efforts also gave China a way to distract from its military and political standoff with the Philippines over control of parts of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.



For decades, Tokyo and Beijing generally abided by a tacit agreement to keep the islands dispute quiet. Japan agreed not to carry out any new construction or let anyone land on the islands; China agreed to delay assertion of any claim to the islands and not let the dispute interfere with trade and political relations. Although flare-ups occurred, usually triggered by some altercation between the Japanese coast guard and Chinese fishing vessels or by nationalist Japanese or Chinese activists trying to land on the islands, the lingering territorial dispute played only a minor role in bilateral relations.



However, Ishihara's plans for the Tokyo municipal government to take over the islands and eventually build security outposts there forced the Japanese government's hand. Facing domestic political pressure to secure Japan's claim to the islands, the government determined that the "nationalization" of the islands was the least contentious option. By keeping control over construction and landings, the central government would be able to keep up its side of the tacit agreement with China on managing the islands.



China saw Japan's proposed nationalization as an opportunity to exploit. Even as Japan was debating what action to take, China began stirring up anti-Japanese sentiment and Beijing tacitly backed the move by a group of Hong Kong activists in August to sail to and land on the disputed islands. At the same time, Beijing prevented a Chinese-based fishing vessel from attempting the same thing, using Hong Kong's semi-autonomous status as a way to distance itself from the action and retain greater flexibility in dealing with Japan.



As expected, the Japanese coast guard arrested the Hong Kong activists and impounded their ship, but Tokyo also swiftly released them to avoid escalating tensions. Less than a month later, after Japan's final decision to purchase the islands from their private Japanese owner, anti-Japanese protests swept China, in many places devolving into riots and vandalism targeting Japanese products and companies. Although many of these protests were stage-managed by the government, the Chinese began to clamp down when some demonstrations got out of control. While still exploiting the anti-Japanese rhetoric, Chinese state-run media outlets have highlighted local governments' efforts to identify and punish protesters who turned violent and warn that nationalist pride is no excuse for destructive behavior.



Presently, both China and Japan are working to keep the dispute within manageable parameters after a month of heightened tensions. China has shifted to disrupting trade with Japan on a local level, with some Japanese products reportedly taking much longer to clear customs, while Japan has dispatched a deputy foreign minister for discussions with Beijing. Chinese maritime surveillance ships continue to make incursions into the area around the disputed islands, and there are reports of hundreds or even thousands of Chinese fishing vessels in the East China Sea gathered near the waters around the islands, but both Japan and China appear to be controlling their actions. Neither side can publicly give in on its territorial stance, and both are looking for ways to gain politically without allowing the situation to degrade further.



Political Dilemmas in Beijing and Tokyo

The islands dispute is occurring as China and Japan, the world's second- and third-largest economies, are both experiencing political crises at home and facing uncertain economic paths forward. But the dispute also reflects the very different positions of the two countries in their developmental history and in East Asia's balance of power.



China, the emerging power in Asia, has seen decades of rapid economic growth but is now confronted with a systemic crisis, one already experienced by Japan in the early 1990s and by South Korea and the other Asian tigers later in the decade. China is reaching the limits of the debt-financed, export-driven economic model and must now deal with the economic and social consequences of this change. That this comes amid a once-in-a-decade leadership transition only exacerbates China's political unease as it debates options for transitioning to a more sustainable economic model. But while China's economic expansion may have plateaued, its military development is still growing.



The Chinese military is becoming a more modern fighting force, more active in influencing Chinese foreign policy and more assertive of its role regionally. The People's Liberation Army Navy on Sept. 23 accepted the delivery of China's first aircraft carrier, and the ship serves as a symbol of the country's military expansion. While Beijing views the carrier as a tool to assert Chinese interests regionally (and perhaps around the globe over the longer term) in the same manner that the United States uses its carrier fleet, for now China has only one, and the country is new to carrier fleet and aviation operations. Having a single carrier offers perhaps more limitations than opportunities for its use, all while raising the concerns and inviting reaction from neighboring states.



Japan, by contrast, has seen two decades of economic malaise characterized by a general stagnation in growth, though not necessarily a devolution of overall economic power. Still, it took those two decades for the Chinese economy, growing at double-digit rates, to even catch the Japanese economy. Despite the malaise, there is plenty of latent strength in the Japanese economy. Japan's main problem is its lack of economic dynamism, a concern that is beginning to be reflected in Japanese politics, where new forces are rising to challenge the political status quo. The long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party lost power to the opposition Democratic Party of Japan in 2009, and both mainstream parties are facing new challenges from independents, non-traditional candidates and the emerging regionalist parties, which espouse nationalism and call for a more aggressive foreign policy.



Even before the rise of the regionalist parties, Japan had begun moving slowly but inexorably from its post-World War II military constraints. With China's growing military strength, North Korea's nuclear weapons program and even South Korean military expansion, Japan has cautiously watched as the potential threats to its maritime interests have emerged, and it has begun to take action. The United States, in part because it wants to share the burden of maintaining security with its allies, has encouraged Tokyo's efforts to take a more active role in regional and international security, commensurate with Japan's overall economic influence.



Concurrent with Japan's economic stagnation, the past two decades have seen the country quietly reform its Self-Defense Forces, expanding the allowable missions as it re-interprets the country's constitutionally mandated restrictions on offensive activity. For example, Japan has raised the status of the defense agency to the defense ministry, expanded joint training operations within its armed forces and with their civilian counterparts, shifted its views on the joint development and sale of weapons systems, integrated more heavily with U.S. anti-missile systems and begun deploying its own helicopter carriers.



Contest for East Asian Supremacy

China is struggling with the new role of the military in its foreign relations, while Japan is seeing a slow re-emergence of the military as a tool of its foreign relations. China's two-decade-plus surge in economic growth is reaching its logical limit, yet given the sheer size of China's population and its lack of progress switching to a more consumption-based economy, Beijing still has a long way to go before it achieves any sort of equitable distribution of resources and benefits. This leaves China's leaders facing rising social tensions with fewer new resources at their disposal. Japan, after two decades of society effectively agreeing to preserve social stability at the cost of economic restructuring and upheaval, is now reaching the limits of its patience with a bureaucratic system that is best known for its inertia.



Both countries are seeing a rise in the acceptability of nationalism, both are envisioning an increasingly active role for their militaries, and both occupy the same strategic space. With Washington increasing its focus on the Asia-Pacific region, Beijing is worried that a resurgent Japan could assist the United States on constraining China in an echo of the Cold War containment strategy.



We are now seeing the early stage of another shift in Asian power. It is perhaps no coincidence that the 1972 re-establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Japan followed U.S. President Richard Nixon's historic visit to China. The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were not even an issue at the time, since they were still under U.S. administration. Japan's defense was largely subsumed by the United States, and Japan had long ago traded away its military rights for easy access to U.S. markets and U.S. protection. The shift in U.S.-China relations opened the way for the rapid development of China-Japan relations.



The United States' underlying interest is maintaining a perpetual balance between Asia's two key powers so neither is able to challenging Washington's own primacy in the Pacific. During World War II, this led the United States to lend support to China in its struggle against imperial Japan. The United States' current role backing a Japanese military resurgence against China's growing power falls along the same line. As China lurches into a new economic cycle, one that will very likely force deep shifts in the country's internal political economy, it is not hard to imagine China and Japan's underlying geopolitical balance shifting again. And when that happens, so too could the role of the United States.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Print 112 89 363 46 Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"Understanding the China-Japan Island Conflict is republished with permission of Stratfor." .



Read more: Understanding the China-Japan Island Conflict
Stratfor

Thursday, September 20, 2012

China Is No Longer Predictable

A very interesting post from www.Stratfor.com  analyzing China. This follows this post about the unlikelihood of a war between Israel and Iran. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read a very interesting book HERE.


China Is No Longer Predictable by Robert D. Kaplan




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Stratfor

By Robert D. Kaplan



The United States has had it easy over the past third of a century in regards to China. Washington has been able to proclaim moral superiority over the Communist Party dictatorship in Beijing, even as those very dictators provided Washington with a stable, businesslike relationship that fostered immense opportunities for American companies in China and for the American economy overall. China's rulers, ever since Deng Xiaoping consolidated power in 1978, may have been nominally communists, but they have also been professionals and technocrats who have ruled in a self-effacing, collegial style. Yes, they may oppress dissidents, but they have also been enlightened autocrats by the standards of the suffocating rulers who have governed in the Middle East.



But the purging of the pseudo populist boss of the megacity of Chongqing, Bo Xilai, may indicate that a less predictable period in Chinese politics lies ahead. Bo was something not seen in China since Mao Zedong: a leader with real charisma. Bo may indicate that the age of the technocrats will give way to the age of politicians -- and politicians, even in liberal democracies, exploit people's emotions. That could lead to more erratic, nationalistic rulers.



It is famously said that democracies don't go to war against each other. But the problem is not democracy; the problem is a vast and unruly state like China in the messy, decadeslong process of liberalization. The truth is that these Communist dictators in Beijing, whom the media love to hate, may turn out to have been the most benign and easy-to-deal-with Chinese leaders that Americans will see in their lifetime. President Hu Jintao is as good as it gets from the point of view of a State Department policy planner.



China's autocrats have for many years been nervously riding a domestic tiger. With communism no longer a philosophical organizing principle for the state, they have had to justify their rule by delivering double-digit annual economic growth -- or close to that -- to provide jobs for a potentially restive younger generation. Thus, even while China has amassed impressive new air and sea power, it has -- by and large -- not tried to employ that power in a particularly hostile way. China's communist rulers have had too much domestically to worry about without creating new problems for themselves by constantly challenging the United States or its allies on the high seas. While China's push to acquire air-sea power most specifically dates to 1996, when Beijing was humiliated by Washington's ability to drive two aircraft carrier strike groups through waters near the Taiwan Strait, the building of a substantial air force and navy have so far been part of the natural, organic process of a new and rising great power. At least so far, it has not been particularly destabilizing to the world or regional order, unlike Iran's push to develop a nuclear capability as part of a drive for Near Eastern leadership. China's rulers may be dictatorial, but they are not radical and messianic.



But what if future Chinese politicians who are variants of Bo Xilai dial up nationalist rhetoric? Or what if the Communist Party itself, in order to stave off such challenges in the first place, dials up nationalism on its own? Or what if the factionalism of the Party moves into higher gear, with each faction trying to outdo the other regarding its national-patriotic bona fides? It is political competition itself, in whatever form, that carries the potential to make future Chinese leaders rasher and more hot-blooded than the present ones. Of course, an utterly profound domestic crisis might have the opposite effect, shrinking China's power projection ability. But while that is certainly possible, it is still unlikely.



The point is, decentralization of power -- which counts as one form of democratization -- is likely to occur in China at some stage, given that oscillations between centralization and decentralization have long been a feature of Chinese history, as one dynasty has replaced another. And the next bout of decentralization may alter Washington's perception of Chinese military strength for the worse. Washington now sees China's air and naval rise as a cause for concern but not as an imminent danger. That could change if China's domestic politics do.



Chinese political instability could well play out for years, making the past third of a century under authoritarian rule appear from hindsight as a relatively simple and clear-cut age in terms of devising a policy toward the Middle Kingdom. Until recently, Washington's diplomacy toward Beijing was a matter of dealing with a relatively small number of top officials; while crises have involved hard and tense negotiations, the number of players was limited. But as we go forward, the number of players could expand exponentially in Beijing, and many of them will not be as smooth, professional and predictable as the likes of Hu Jintao. Witness the fraught and convoluted negotiations over the fate of the blind Chinese dissident, Chen Guangcheng, whose own emotional instability became a factor complicating the talks. That could be a harbinger of coming difficulties.



Democratization in its initial stages in any society means a diminution of the power of elites, and with the exception of totalitarian states -- which China is not anymore -- the fall of the elites may lead to more intemperate policies in the short run. Democracies are only stable when they have evolved to the point where they are run by bureaucratic and political elites -- take, for example, Europe, the United States, Japan and Singapore.



In fact, America's founders were the epitome of an aristocratic elite. And when that elite gave way to Jacksonian frontiersmen in the early 19th century, American politics became a more unruly affair, culminating in the Civil War. Finally, the late 19th and 20th centuries saw a whole new meritocratic elite take over the halls of government in Washington.



Meanwhile, the problem with authoritarian systems is that if they remain in place for decades, the only people who end up capable of running ministries and formulating policies are the authoritarian elites themselves. Thus, toppling such systems entails serious risks. The new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe were helped along the path to stability by liberal elements within the former communist power structures who actually knew how to govern. One can only hope that China's eventual transition will go as smoothly as that of Poland and the Czech Republic.



But while Poland, for example, is a uniethnic country, China is a sprawling multiethnic one. The country has significant, geographically based minorities (Tibetans, Uighur Turks, Inner Mongolians) living generally in the high plateaus and peripheries around the ethnic Han Chinese core, which inhabits the lowlands closer to the Pacific. These ethnic minorities have deep grievances against the dominant Hans, as demonstrated by acts of protest over the years. Therefore, democratization in China could lead to significant eruptions by minorities seeking some form of self-determination. China's Han core also contains divisions within it. China's Communist autocrats know all of this, and that is one reason they fear the very liberalization the West recommends.



But change should come to China, and because of the country's continental geography, which harbors a variety of subject peoples, such change will likely manifest disorder. And that disorder will test the ability of officials in Beijing to a yet unseen level, for it will be just part of a larger ferment within Chinese society.



Interpreting China, even as it becomes freer, may ironically become more difficult for the West.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Print 756 155 1676 58 Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"China Is No Longer Predictable by Robert D. Kaplan is republished with permission of Stratfor." .



Read more: China Is No Longer Predictable by Robert D. Kaplan
Stratfor

Monday, August 27, 2012

In Brief... Japan Rethinking Joining the Nuclear Club?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Japan's possible nuclear plans. This follows this post about New Age star people.    For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

In Brief... Japan Rethinking Joining the Nuclear Club?



article by Cecil Maranville

BLOGGER'S NOTE: See also http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/08/15/hk-activists-boat-nears-disputed-islands/





Just when things cool down between nuclear neophytes India and Pakistan, another alarm is sounded by Japan as it contemplates arming itself with nuclear weapons. That's all Asia needs, another house with the ultimate weapon in global warfare.



As the International Herald Tribune reports, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda recently became the most senior Tokyo official to open the door to nuclear weapons. Fukuda said Japan's "peace constitution" does not rule out nuclear weapons. The times have "changed to the point that even revising the constitution is being talked about," he noted. "Depending upon the world situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan to possess nuclear weapons" ("So Much for Japan's Nuclear Taboo," Robyn Lim, June 13, 2002, www.iht.com/articles/61117.htm  ).



In 1998 North Korea tested a long-range missile over Japan. It is believed North Korea possesses nuclear capability. China has nuclear weapons targeted on Japan. All this has Japan rethinking prior commitments to abstain from the nuclear club. Japan's policy here is based on three principles, "that it cannot make or possess nuclear weapons, or allow them to be introduced into the country" (ibid.).



One of the rules of international politics is that things change. A nation must always put its own interests ahead of others if it is to survive. As long as Japan chooses to be protected under the American nuclear umbrella, it will likely not choose to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction. If Japan chooses another option, then to survive in its hostile neighborhood it may see no other alternative than to go nuclear.



Adding to potential instability is another recent report that China is negotiating to buy eight submarines from Russia. This would increase their tactical ability to blockade Taiwan and challenge U.S. naval supremacy in the seas near China ( International Herald Tribune, June 25, 2002, www.iht.com/articles/62411.html  ).



Such a deal would "very significantly enhance" the Chinese navy's "ability to influence events in the East China Sea," said Bernard Cole, an expert on the Chinese navy at the National War College in Washington, D.C. How? "First, by enforcing a blockade against Taiwan, if Beijing adopts that course of action, and also by posing a serious problem for opposing naval forces attempting to operate in the area. No part of naval warfare is more difficult than detecting, localizing or neutralizing submarines" (ibid.).



Since Taiwan broke with Communist China in 1949, the mainland has sought to reconnect their "lost brothers." One of the main pillars of American foreign policy has been its pledge to protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Conversely, China has sought to remove American influence from the region and will stop at nothing to accomplish this geopolitical imperative.



Despite its military deficiencies, compared to America's technological superiority, China continues to move ahead with plans to become the dominant Asian power. China's impact in this region will continue to grow in the coming years. How this will affect American interests and other international relations will be an important area to watch.




.