China is flexing its muscles: time to worry

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
It would be crazy if a bunch of five uninhabited rocks precipitated a military conflict between two of the world powers. That doesn't mean it won't happen.

Interestingly, China lays claim to the Islands through its claim over Taiwan and what isn't in dispute is that it has never controlled them. Prior to the discovery of oil in 1968, China showed no interest in the Islands.


Professor Shinichi Kitaoka, the former Japanese ambassador to the United Nations pointed out what is not in dispute: that the islands had long been administered by Japan and that they had never physically been occupied by China.

He added that it was only in 1968 when it was discovered that the seabed around the islands could contain oil reserves that China raised the issue of sovereignty.

He observed that Taiwan also lays claim to the islands; and, with a smile, added that the People’s Republic of China makes its own claim precisely through the belief that Taiwan is itself wholly and indivisibly part of its rightful territory.

The Independent


Chinese officials in negotiations also have a very wide view of what constitutes China. Various maps produced by them include variously Korea and all of Asia apart from Japan and India as China.


Shinichi, a veteran of these disputes, told me that one of the problems he had found when discussing such matters with negotiators from the People’s Republic was that over the years they would come up with different “official” views over what constitutes China’s legitimate territory: “Sometimes they would tell us ‘The Korean peninsula is ours’.

On other occasions they would even show us maps on which all Asia apart from Japan and India is designated as China.”

The Independent


It could also be observed that the Chinese leadership, aware of slowing economic growth and the fact that the Chinese public are deeply unhappy with the nepotism at the heart of the Communist party, realise that only nationalism can both deflect unfavorable attention away from itself and fill the void left by the collapse of Marxism ideology in China.


Like many less well-informed souls, the former Japanese UN Ambassador is deeply worried by what he sees as the deliberate stoking of aggressive nationalism by the Chinese leadership.

His own belief is that this stems from the collapse of the Soviet Union: that with the collapse of Marxism as a unifying ideology – and witnessing what that meant for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – the Chinese leadership realised that only nationalism could fill the gap.

The Independent


It could be argued that it isn't in China's interest to disrupt trading with Japan. Such an argument however ignores the level of hatred felt by Chinese people at all levels towards Japan due to the atrocities committed by Japan in China during WWII.

Can we expect a real war?

There is a very serious chance of one.

edit on 18-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I will try and find a link, but I believe that the islands in question where actually owned by China in the 14th century
edit on 18-9-2012 by munkey66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino

terrifying to imagine us getting sucked in to the ME and then stretched even more thin by backing Japan. Better hope we got gear back home for the sneak attack :/ drones can only do so much.

But i imagine, that the time for a Japan and China conflict is not now. Unless TPTB want it to be....



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
IMO China has been flexing a LOT of military muscle for the past decade. They've just been using a mercenary US military to accomplish it. Our debt to them, IMO, has us insuring their access to oil.

I think the future is a dual superpower one might call Chimerica... and that is one frightening thought. Where Japan ends up in the newly forming future is anybodies guess. Though I'd say that, due to geographic location, China will end up being the superpower that Japan will have to answer to.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Well........
it gets MORE interesting.


A number of Japanese businesses on Monday suspended their Chinese operations. Chinese fishing boats, which often seem suspiciously well-drilled and organised, have clashed with the Japanese coastguard over the Diaoyu, or Senkaku, islands before, but never in such numbers. They were expected to arrive on Monday night, according to the state-run China News Service, and may also be joined by six Chinese maritime patrol ships, which briefly entered Japanese waters last Friday in a show of defiance.


China sends 1,000 boats armada to disputed island chain Around 1,000 fishing boats have been mobilised by China to sail to an island chain controlled by Japan, as the quarrel between the two countries fuelled a seventh day of protests.

All it takes, is an itchy finger, from one side, or the other.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Mines are a good idea.

Great big fat Mines..........that should keep em clear



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
What I find strange is that while Japan occupied China and fought a war with Russia, no one cared, but if China was to take a stand against Japan, you can guarantee that they will 'care' then.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I agree with that, big time. The Chimerica point, that is.

Especially if Obama gets reelected. He showed a huge shift toward China, in terms of diplomacy, early in his term. I think he had to back off because currency manipulation allegations were getting stronger and he had to posture for the electorate. Given another four years, I believe firming up the Chinese-American relationship is way higher up on Obama's priority list than most realize. I tend to agree with that strategy,

I'd rather have two friendly superpowers than two hostile ones.

A better cultural exchange between the US and China, on top of economic relationship, would be of benefit too, in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
What I find strange is that while Japan occupied China and fought a war with Russia, no one cared, but if China was to take a stand against Japan, you can guarantee that they will 'care' then.


Yea its not like anyone dropped some nukes on them for it or anything...



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

I do not see any way that China can effect U.S. Policy by giving the U.S. Large Loans that China has no ability to force payment. China miscalculated as if the U.S. decided to stop making payments on Chinese loans...what could China do?

China is not capable of matching U.S. Military Power. China cannot control shipping lanes by Naval Power. The U.S. does not purchase anything from China that the U.S. really needs. In effect...the U.S. could collapse the entire Chinese Economy within a week by stopping all U.S. Bound Container Ships as well as stop loan payments.

China does not have Naval Power that is capable of stopping the U.S. from halting Oil Shipments to China and the Chinese...with all their Military Soldiers...have no way of Force Projecting them as the U.S. Navy could sink any Chinese Troop Carriers bound to any destination. Troops are worthless unless they can get to the battle and this battle would be at sea. China could never get past the U.S. Navy in any way so they have no sway upon U.S. Policy. Split Infinity



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


China doesn't have to control us or militarily muscle us. All they need to is agree to a restructuring of power between themselves and the US government in a new world paradigm. They aren't bullying us - they're complicit in the plan. Just as the US is.

In essence it's like two crime families divvying up turf, and agreeing to protect both mutual and exclusive interests.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


If you have some time Heff, I would suggest you really listen to this. If not, start at the 13 min mark, and listen for a good 10 min. Its an eye opener, actually. The whole program was.




James R. Norman argued that the U.S. and its allies use the price of oil as an economic weapon. The oil economic war against the Soviet Union worked so well in the 1980s, that this strategy is now being employed against "our other big geopolitical enemy," China, which currently imports more oil than the US, and is much less able to pay for it, he outlined. The thinking in Washington is, it's going to slow things down for China, and could put a crack in their political system, he continued.

Other aspects of the economic war the US is waging with China are on the front page of the paper almost every day-- with fights over trade actions, interest rates, and currency levels, he noted. The whole Chinese business model is based on predatory trade practices, and that's why the world is ganging up on them, Norman said, adding that China is facing large amounts of unemployment and social unrest, and their banks are sitting on huge assets of non-performing loans. Norman estimated that the actual cost of oil is between $10- $20 a barrel, but when US citizens shell out $4 a gallon at the pump, it's collateral damage or the price we pay to engage in an economic rather than physical war with China.

Companies like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley are the economic warfare equivalent of a carrier battle group, because they are able to project power-- that's why financial restrictions were lessened for them, he explained. Morgan also touched on geopolitical/economic situations in such places as Russia, Europe, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria.



Well worth the listen to. You will be surprised, I think.

Actually, even the Wars, in Iraq, wasn't to keep Oil for America, rather it was to keep China from actually getting cheep oil, through trade with Iraq. Same for Libya. The man breaks it down nicely.
edit on 18-9-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Hmm...

I can see -why- China is flexing their muscles. NATO are expanding still, the US on their own are projecting their force across the middle east creeping closer to Asia and now the Japanese are stirring up territorial trouble, not to mention signing an ABM agreement with the US which has the potential to undermime China's strategic deterrent.

It's not so much the fact that Japan claims to own these tiny little islands, its probably more that China is feeling a bit sidelined and disrespected. China have not outwardly done anything aggressive yet, but are already being scapegoated as hostile.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
From America's perspective, Europe is more of a competitor and China more of a partner/client. That is why I see a shift in foreign policy toward the East.

A possibility that I've thought of, is a UN style IGO that is exclusive to America and China. Imagine that. It would be more powerful than the UN itself. What if America and China said, enough is enough there will be world peace, and sort of combined military efforts in that goal. There would be no challenge from the Middle East toward America if China was firmly aligned with us. In fact, everyone might decide it is in their best interest to join the party.

That would benefit China from the standpoint of a reduced need for American defense spending and a greater capacity to pay off loans and interest.

The past few months have proven to China that it's economic growth is not immune to an American slow down, which I believe was a wake up call after the Chinese economy seemed to chug right along in the immediate after effects of the '08 crisis.

There is mutual benefit in stability and partnership on both sides. And consolidation of interests essentially means cooperative world dominance as opposed to competitive power struggle.
edit on 9/18/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


China doesn't have to control us or militarily muscle us. All they need to is agree to a restructuring of power between themselves and the US government in a new world paradigm. They aren't bullying us - they're complicit in the plan. Just as the US is.

In essence it's like two crime families divvying up turf, and agreeing to protect both mutual and exclusive interests.

~Heff


I completely agree

I honestly believe this began during the Clinton administration, what i think actually happened is that the spy plane "incident" was actually a "gift" from the usa and the whole thing was made to look like China had captured it and forced it down as per the cold war division of other nations and media play is used to assure the bulk of the world doesn't realize that some degree at least there is an alliance.

Through this decade I can not help but notice how American conquests lead straight to China and in my mind this could have no other reason than the building of an oil pipeline to continue to fuel china's economic growth as the main objective



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I differ with the speaker on Coast to Coast because I believe he is using the example of how we used Oil leverage against the Soviets and making an assumption that we have the same goals in regards to the Chinese. This isn't the "Cold War" we have a different relationship with China, occupation of these nations and the building of this pipeline assures the USA gets a small bite of the oil pumped to China over time and when you really look into how much Oil the US has in various forms like Shale not $ per $ worthwhile to refine until such a time as the ME's oil has shrunk considerably it's easy to see how 17 Trillion isn't a very big number in regards to our debt. I doubt we are after the collapse of china.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by penninja
I differ with the speaker on Coast to Coast because I believe he is using the example of how we used Oil leverage against the Soviets and making an assumption that we have the same goals in regards to the Chinese. This isn't the "Cold War" we have a different relationship with China, occupation of these nations and the building of this pipeline assures the USA gets a small bite of the oil pumped to China over time and when you really look into how much Oil the US has in various forms like Shale not $ per $ worthwhile to refine until such a time as the ME's oil has shrunk considerably it's easy to see how 17 Trillion isn't a very big number in regards to our debt. I doubt we are after the collapse of china.


Actually, the guy knows his stuff.


It then raises the question whether those same price-control levers have lately been pushed in the opposite direction to rein in another target: the oil-short Peoples Republic of China. Contrary to popular perceptions, media commentary and official explanations, the book methodically lays out the geopolitical logic and the market mechanisms behind the stunning 12-fold run-up of oil prices from 1998 to mid-2008. It also offers an explanation for the sudden price drop from almost $150/barrel to under $100 as Russia again flexed its muscle by invading Georgia.


About him......


Jim Norman is a veteran business journalist and energy reporter. He is currently a contributing writer for McGraw-Hill's Platts Oilgram News, where he was a senior writer for 10 years before retiring in mid-2007. He has also been a senior editor at Forbes magazine and for 10 years was at BusinessWeek, where he was Houston bureau chief in the mid-1980s. Prior to that, he won an AP award for investigative reporting (on an oil and gas scam) while a reporter for the Ann Arbor News in his home state of Michigan.

He lives in New York City. At Platts, Norman has been noted for his coverage of oil industry finance, economics, deal-making and chicanery. His "prophetic press reports," as early as 1998, were cited by Paul Volcker's UN Independent Inquiry Committee for laying bare the likelihood of kickbacks and money laundering involving the Iraq Oil-For-Food program. His critical analysis of Enron accounting and governance in mid-2001 helped trigger the SEC investigation which led to Enron's downfall.


The Oil Card Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Hefficide
The U.S. does not purchase anything from China that the U.S. really needs. In effect...the U.S. could collapse the entire Chinese Economy within a week by stopping all U.S. Bound Container Ships as well as stop loan payments.


Not True
China accounts for some 97% of the worlds rare earth minerals. The US needs these for all of its shiny gadgets and computers etc.
I'm sure that cutting of supply to the US would cause absolute havoc, as happened when China cut supply to Japan in 2010
2010 Senkaku boat collision incident

I'm sure that the USA would do much grumbling if this where to happen to them. It would be a huge problem, not too long term however as the USA would simply resume mining of rare earths within its own borders.

Also would stopping all inbound ships from China reaching port in the US not have a more damaging effect on the US economy? Think about it, your Apple for example, you have payed for 2 million shiny new iPhone 5's and the US coastguard turns the container away, you would be pretty pissed no? All that money you have spent down the drain, all those customer waiting for their pre-orders.
Yep it would be the USA that got hurt with this one not China.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by waveydavey
 


Right, but the US is home of the people who figure out how to best use all of these materials.

More argument for mutual reliance.

And, without the US market these materials wouldn't generate such large profits.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Agreed
However I was pointing out error in the statement that the USA does not buy anything from China and that stopping inbound shipping would do nothing but damage the US economy.
You are correct that the US are innovators and would 'manage' they also probably figured out how to apply these minerals in tech. This doesn't mean that the US is not reliant on other nations though. The US could be self sufficient to the point of cutting of every other nation on the planet, unfortunately financial greed makes it profitable to have China do the dirty and environmentally damaging act of rare earth extraction. It was, I believe environmental and profitability reasons that the US shut its own mines down.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join