China's military giving USA sleepless nights
-
American lawmakers Wednesday expressed serious concern over Chinese military build-up–a view shared by senior defense officials of the Obama Administration–at a Congressional hearing, ahead of the Quadrennial Defense Review’s recommendations about the country’s security policy for Asia. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned by the trends and ambiguities in China’s military modernization, including its missile-build-up across Taiwan and the steady increase of its power-projection capabilities. Noting that China’s transparency on defense matters was still limited, he said that questions remained on that country’s strategic intentions. Skelton said China’s defense budget was maintaining a double-digit, while supporting the American economy. Though Beijing was not necessarily destined to be a threat to the U.S., he, however, said there were trends and ambiguities that concerned Washington. He said Washington must work together with Beijing for resolving conflicts and reducing tensions that contributed to global and regional instability. These included the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the Iranian nuclear issue and the situation in South Asia. Wallace Gregson, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, testified that China appeared to have benefited the most from the phenomenal growth of Asia. “From India to Indonesia, China to Russia, and Australia to Japan, millions have moved from poverty to prosperity. China’s rapid development helps drive this extraordinary and dynamic growth. In turn, China gains greatly from Asia’s growth,� he said. Gregson said China’s unprecedented and rapid rise as a regional, political and economic power with growing global influence in a dynamic environment, had significant implications for the Asia-Pacific region, the United States and the world. He also expressed concern over China’s continued lack of openness and transparency in military affairs, a concern also voiced by its neighbors. Supporting Gregson’s view, Admiral Robert Willard, commander-in-chief of the Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Command, said China’s interest in a peaceful and stable environment that would support the country’s developmental goals was inconsistent with its new military capabilities. These capabilities, he added, appeared designed to challenge American freedom of activity in the region, besides imposing China’s influence over its neighbors, including Washington’s regional allies and partners. Adm. Willard said the claims of Chiness leaders that the double-digit military spending and dramatic increases in its capabilities, were defensive in nature and contributed to regional stability, appeared incompatible with the extent of sophisticated weaponry it was producing now. The committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Howard “Buck� McKeon of California, cited China’s unannounced test of its missile defense system Monday as an example of his concerns about the “umbrella of uncertainty� surrounding that Communist country’s future. He said he would scrutinize the final Quadrennial Defense Review, due out early next month, to ensure that China remained a priority for the Pentagon’s strategic planners. Expressing apprehension that the Obama administration would downgrade the China threat to justify last year’s and future cuts to key defense programs, McKeon said that such cuts would embolden China to seek strategic parity with America. One reason why US will continue to sell weapons to Taiwan, is their bid to use the Republic to keep tabs on Mainland.
-
what's there to worry about?
don't they ought to have confidence about their own air force capability?
-
uncalled for worry... nothing better to do?
China has never invaded any country or involve in terorrism
also taiwan is none of US business
they thought they really own the world?
-
I love china especially they always tell countries: DO NOT INTERFRE OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.
-
Below is a reply from another threads this person probably a kiwi a teaching profession reside in China probably worked for the last few years.
His observation i believe depict the sentiment of most PRC perharps and has influence SG as well.
The topics is about South China Sea.
Living in China, it's interesting to note what Chinese people think of this. Most I've spoken to do regard the SCS as a Chinese lake but they fail to take into account those other nations which also have maritime borders/interests in that area. The Chinese people are very proud of their progress over the last 30 or so years and rightly so, but this has bred an arrogance and rampant nationalism which borders on xenophobia here.
The thing is that your average Chinese person doesn't see it as bullying, they see it as taking back what is rightfully theirs, even if those claims go back a few thousand years. I have a Chinese girlfriend and subjects such as this are now taboo in our home as she's about as nationalistic as the rest of the ordinary Chinese folks out there. Nope folks, come hell or highwater, Chinese people, on the whole want to claim this area, and most of Asia as far, as I can tell, as theirs....period! This is the Chinese mindset and once entrenched, it's virtually impossible to dislodge this idea.
-
I agree with the thread Arapahoe mentioned above - about Chinese people seeing South China Sea as theirs now that their country is on the rise. I sense it in their chatrooms and from speaking to chinese nationals. Their economy is about to get bigger than Japan and next target is US. It is easy to see economic rival as military/political rival. Even LKY recently commented on the xenophobic talk in Chinese chatrooms especially after the EP-3 spy plane incident over Hainan.
I think part of the reason is their education (I'm not expert on china education) - I think their schools still focus too much on what happened to China in the 19th and early 20th century, when China/Chinese people was like dung under the feet of Westerners. I think their curriculum should adopt a more balanced view. A famous historian said,"China led the world (economically, militarily, technologically etc) for 18 of the past 20 centuries and appears to be on the way back to that position" (or something similar), and balance it the fact that China had never ever expanded beyond it's own borders even when it was at its peak militarily or economically during the Han or Tang dynasty. Otherwise you get future generations of Jingoistic citizens (some of whom may become leaders of China) ready to take up arms over what they perceive to be their "right."
-
Originally posted by Gaosung:
uncalled for worry... nothing better to do?
China has never invaded any country or involve in terorrism
also taiwan is none of US business
they thought they really own the world?
I love this one.
China invaded Vietnam in 1979. And it was one of those few moments in history where Singapore wasn't neutral about an external development and came out criticizing China.
Going a little further back, there was the invasion of Tibet in 1950.
Taiwan is none of US's business. But a shooting war in the Asia Pacific is everyone's business. Its bad for business for Japan, South Korea, and all the way down to Singapore.
I suppose the next claim would be that the Tiananmen incident is a hollywood special effects segment by Western imperialists?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I love this one.
China invaded Vietnam in 1979. And it was one of those few moments in history where Singapore wasn't neutral about an external development and came out criticizing China.
Going a little further back, there was the invasion of Tibet in 1950.
Taiwan is none of US's business. But a shooting war in the Asia Pacific is everyone's business. Its bad for business for Japan, South Korea, and all the way down to Singapore.
I suppose the next claim would be that the Tiananmen incident is a hollywood special effects segment by Western imperialists?
let's not forget the korean war dude.
16 nations from around the globe in a UN authorized action, against China, which crossed her own borders first. However one puts it, whether to assist their "fraternal socialist allies" or to put in place a buffer state on her borders, it is very clear who was the aggressor. The kimchi eaters got shafted too, big time, till today. I was told my a south korean that if not for china's aggression during the korean war, korea would have been united long ago. I don't think the koreans will ever forget this.
So there, really, for outsiders to believe in china's commitment to peace and a peaceful rise is like believing that chinese made milk powder is safe for consumption; it may even be true this time, but it's hard to ignore history .......................
-
It is probably too early to tell how the chinese regime will evolved.
I know that LKY is saying that most of the younger leaders are western educated. But i have a feeling that China is going to take a similar path with Russia where KGB Putin assume power, at some point power rises within the PLA will probably assume power.
And of course the chinese are borders with too many nations for its own good.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I love this one.
China invaded Vietnam in 1979. And it was one of those few moments in history where Singapore wasn't neutral about an external development and came out criticizing China.
Going a little further back, there was the invasion of Tibet in 1950.
Taiwan is none of US's business. But a shooting war in the Asia Pacific is everyone's business. Its bad for business for Japan, South Korea, and all the way down to Singapore.
I suppose the next claim would be that the Tiananmen incident is a hollywood special effects segment by Western imperialists?
Questionable. China invaded Vietnam but pulled back unilaterally (even if the gains were marginal). That's not a land grab. They did that for the 1962 war with India.btw, did SG really protest the 1979 incident? Its the first I heard. Deng actually visited SG to manage the potential fall-out. Considering that China's reasons for the Vietnam incursion was similar to SG's concerns over Vietnam's role in Kampuchea, it would be strange if there was a formal protest.
1950 invasion of tibet also depends. Its like saying The Union North invaded the Southern Confederates in the US civil war. Although Tibet had declared independence, like the confederates, critically no one recognised that independence so its a little strange to say that its an invasion of a territory that one acknowledges belongs to that country in the first place.
TianAnMen footage is the product of western imperialism and special effects. I watched it on CNN :)
http://www.cnn.com/resources/video.almanac/1989/index2.html
Seriously, SG won't intervene in Taiwan except to ensure that any NSmen get out preferably before the shooting starts.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
let's not forget the korean war dude.
16 nations from around the globe in a UN authorized action, against China, which crossed her own borders first. However one puts it, whether to assist their "fraternal socialist allies" or to put in place a buffer state on her borders, it is very clear who was the aggressor. The kimchi eaters got shafted too, big time, till today. I was told my a south korean that if not for china's aggression during the korean war, korea would have been united long ago. I don't think the koreans will ever forget this.
So there, really, for outsiders to believe in china's commitment to peace and a peaceful rise is like believing that chinese made milk powder is safe for consumption; it may even be true this time, but it's hard to ignore history .......................
I have south korean classmates saying the same with regards to US. The Korean split was manufactured by US in support of the corrupt Rhee Government. That portion is always glossed over the history books written in English (for obvious reasons).
Prior to 1945, Korea did not have a north and south. The UN suggested elections for a unified korea in 1948 but Truman had concerns over the allure of communist ideology on the south (which had a real risk that the entire korea could vote communist even though the South had a 2-1 population advantage). The Truman papers revealed that Truman preferred half a loaf to no loaf at all. Hence, the US blocked a unified UN election with administrative procedurals (on Truman's instructions) and then held a south korea election unilaterally.
Kim Il Sung launched the South Korea invasion out of a belief (without any Chinese support) that the US would never allow a unified korea.
China intervention was irrelevant of whether there would be a unified or non-unified Korea. Principally, it was concerned that US and the KMT in Taiwan would use Korea as a springboard to invade China (which was a real risk in 1950 just after the PLA won the civil war). Ironically, if Macarthur had heeded Chinese warnings regarding the approach to the Yalu, China may not have intervened and there would be a unified korea today as there would be insufficient population to establish a NK govt and there would still be a buffer.
To blame China for a split Korea is imho an example of revisionist history. Don't expect the US to blame themselves for a split Korea. Its always the other guy = bad guy (esp if the other guy is a communist). Four legs good, two legs bad, communist even worse.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
I have south korean classmates saying the same with regards to US. The Korean split was manufactured by US in support of the corrupt Rhee Government. That portion is always glossed over the history books written in English (for obvious reasons).
Prior to 1945, Korea did not have a north and south. The UN suggested elections for a unified korea in 1948 but Truman had concerns over the allure of communist ideology on the south (which had a real risk that the entire korea could vote communist even though the South had a 2-1 population advantage). The Truman papers revealed that Truman preferred half a loaf to no loaf at all. Hence, the US blocked a unified UN election with administrative procedurals (on Truman's instructions) and then held a south korea election unilaterally.
Kim Il Sung launched the South Korea invasion out of a belief (without any Chinese support) that the US would never allow a unified korea.
China intervention was irrelevant of whether there would be a unified or non-unified Korea. Principally, it was concerned that US and the KMT in Taiwan would use Korea as a springboard to invade China (which was a real risk in 1950 just after the PLA won the civil war). Ironically, if Macarthur had heeded Chinese warnings regarding the approach to the Yalu, China may not have intervened and there would be a unified korea today as there would be insufficient population to establish a NK govt and there would still be a buffer.
To blame China for a split Korea is imho an example of revisionist history. Don't expect the US to blame themselves for a split Korea. Its always the other guy = bad guy (esp if the other guy is a communist). Four legs good, two legs bad, communist even worse.
okie, then perhaps you could have asked your south korean classmate if he would have liked to have been born under communist rule.
It is easy to play with the nuauces of history in an ivory tower, but quite another when confronted with an alternative reality.
Imagine, no wonder girls, no samsung MP3 players, no hyundai cars, no korean TV serials, no plastic surgery. Your south korean classmate would have been prancing around in a mao suit singing praises of the great leader, I wonder how he would like that.
curious that you don't see hordes of south koreans crossing the border now, neh ? Even till today, the chinese still supports the north korean regime and routinely send back refugees escaping from the north, where they, of course, faces the firing squad or hard labour. Your south korean classmate's aware of what the chinese are doing to his northern cousins ?
and without chinese support you say ? hell, most of the mig-17 bases were deep inside china, that's why mcarthur wanted bombing raids deep inside china, but weren't allowed to cos of the fear of an escalation. Of course, when the side they were supporting were about to lose, china moved in. You mean the soviets or north koreans could based fighters inside china without the chinese knowing ?
The biggest irony is that the chinese are no longer communist, but pretends to be socialists, embraces capitalism, and are turning rabid nationalists. Meanwhile, north korea's still 50 years backward.
what would you say when the chinese moves into the south china sea ?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Questionable. China invaded Vietnam but pulled back unilaterally (even if the gains were marginal). That's not a land grab. They did that for the 1962 war with India.btw, did SG really protest the 1979 incident? Its the first I heard. Deng actually visited SG to manage the potential fall-out. Considering that China's reasons for the Vietnam incursion was similar to SG's concerns over Vietnam's role in Kampuchea, it would be strange if there was a formal protest.
1950 invasion of tibet also depends. Its like saying The Union North invaded the Southern Confederates in the US civil war. Although Tibet had declared independence, like the confederates, critically no one recognised that independence so its a little strange to say that its an invasion of a territory that one acknowledges belongs to that country in the first place.
TianAnMen footage is the product of western imperialism and special effects. I watched it on CNN :)
http://www.cnn.com/resources/video.almanac/1989/index2.html
Seriously, SG won't intervene in Taiwan except to ensure that any NSmen get out preferably before the shooting starts.
My point was to Gaosung that China did invade another country. And as the rest of the forum users has added, Korea was also on the list.
You're correct. The late Rajaratnam spoke up and rallied ASEAN support against the Vietnamese Invasion. ASEAN was a lot quieter when the Chinese invaded the Vietnamese in the course of war with Cambodia.
The analogy of the Union versus of the Confederation in argument over the Tibet case seems rather flimsy. Tibet didn't choose to be part of China in the first place. Also, when Tibet had de facto independence for some thirty over years when China went back to "reclaim" it. Having been independent, and for such a long period of time, the Chinese reclamation is very much an invasion of another country even though it was not recognized. Which also boils down... is international recognition part of the definition of a country or sovereign state?
Yes, the Tiananmen square massacre (I'm calling a spoon, a spoon, and a massacre for what it was, a massacre), was aired to the world through Western Media. But the troops were there, the civilians were there, and the civilians who were engaged in peaceful protest were shot and in no small numbers, died. Unfortunately, much of the young Chinese won't ever know that because the government has erased that from their history, and even censored the internet from revealing that. Yes if you search google.cn and google.com on the "Tiananmen square massacre", compare the search results.
For a more dramatic effect, google it under the "images" instead of "web".
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
okie, then perhaps you could have asked your south korean classmate if he would have liked to have been born under communist rule.
It is easy to play with the nuauces of history in an ivory tower, but quite another when confronted with an alternative reality.
Imagine, no wonder girls, no samsung MP3 players, no hyundai cars, no korean TV serials, no plastic surgery. Your south korean classmate would have been prancing around in a mao suit singing praises of the great leader, I wonder how he would like that.
curious that you don't see hordes of south koreans crossing the border now, neh ? Even till today, the chinese still supports the north korean regime and routinely send back refugees escaping from the north, where they, of course, faces the firing squad or hard labour. Your south korean classmate's aware of what the chinese are doing to his northern cousins ?
and without chinese support you say ? hell, most of the mig-17 bases were deep inside china, that's why mcarthur wanted bombing raids deep inside china, but weren't allowed to cos of the fear of an escalation. Of course, when the side they were supporting were about to lose, china moved in. You mean the soviets or north koreans could based fighters inside china without the chinese knowing ?
The biggest irony is that the chinese are no longer communist, but pretends to be socialists, embraces capitalism, and are turning rabid nationalists. Meanwhile, north korea's still 50 years backward.
what would you say when the chinese moves into the south china sea ?
Hindsight is always 20/20 but objectivity can never be assumed even with hindsight.
Consider the example of Vietnam. Unified under communist rule. Today, semi-capitalist with growing economic trade ties with US and far better living conditions than NK despite later war. Avoided pariah state status, not considered threat to rest of world/se asia now. Could a unified Korea have been the same or better? I wouldn't assume it would not.
Consider the example of China. Communist regime still but capitalist economy today and 2nd largest economy in the world. All chinese are born under communist rule but most aren't complaining. Strange to argue that China is no longer communist.
Difficult to say that unification under communist would mean entire country = NK today. A lot of the reason why NK is poor is because they are in a war/siege mentality which may not be the case if the country was unified.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
My point was to Gaosung that China did invade another country. And as the rest of the forum users has added, Korea was also on the list.
You're correct. The late Rajaratnam spoke up and rallied ASEAN support against the Vietnamese Invasion. ASEAN was a lot quieter when the Chinese invaded the Vietnamese in the course of war with Cambodia.
The analogy of the Union versus of the Confederation in argument over the Tibet case seems rather flimsy. Tibet didn't choose to be part of China in the first place. Also, when Tibet had de facto independence for some thirty over years when China went back to "reclaim" it. Having been independent, and for such a long period of time, the Chinese reclamation is very much an invasion of another country even though it was not recognized. Which also boils down... is international recognition part of the definition of a country or sovereign state?
Yes, the Tiananmen square massacre (I'm calling a spoon, a spoon, and a massacre for what it was, a massacre), was aired to the world through Western Media. But the troops were there, the civilians were there, and the civilians who were engaged in peaceful protest were shot and in no small numbers, died. Unfortunately, much of the young Chinese won't ever know that because the government has erased that from their history, and even censored the internet from revealing that. Yes if you search google.cn and google.com on the "Tiananmen square massacre", compare the search results.
For a more dramatic effect, google it under the "images" instead of "web".
The analogy with the US civil war is defendable. The confederates didn't choose to be part of the union either. They opted out, just like how Tibet opted out.
The impact of recognition is important. As mentioned, one can't argue that Tibet was an independent state when one didn't recognise it. The right to re-impose military control over an area under one's sovereignty is a display of sovereignty. Just as it is a suppression of a rebellion.
Same analogy with the Sri Lankan-LTTE example. The Tamils will argue that the Sri Lankan government had invaded its state of Tamil Eelam which has similarly declared independence. However, no one recognises that it is an invasion but a military suppression of a rebellion. Why is there a discrepancy in the treatment with respect to China-Tibet?
That's the reason why US and most countries officially don't make an issue of Tibetan independence. Its not even a communist ideologue cos the KMT govt in China were the first to assert control over Tibet prior to the Communist. Unofficially, there would be elements who would suggest Tibetan independence as part of a balkanisation strategy. Smaller states are always easier to deal with than a bigger one. Successful strategy when applied to the ex-Soviet Union.
As to my TianAnMen comments, its tongue in cheek.
-
Could a unified Korea have been the same or better? I wouldn't assume it would not
Neither the Korean preferred the Chinese influence. Do not undermind ethnic nationalist desire to unify Korea as a primary reason. A unified korea would benefit Korean more than the region. So I am not sure the merit is going to be for the region to determind.
The Chinese would not want to have a unifed Korean penisular with additional 5 million people doing nothing but playing soldier, and reducing the access to the northern coastline.
Infact if you check During the 6 party talks. it is in North Korea interest that the US remain to be in Japan. There are concern over an armed Japan. I think at the end of the day there will be some troops in S korea. The draw down was not for the interest for the region rather than for the US....an old news in 2004....
WASHINGTON -- The United States will pull 12,500 troops out of South Korea by the end of next year, US officials said yesterday, slashing by one-third the American ground force that has been stationed on the Korean peninsula for more than 50 years.
All chinese are born under communist rule but most aren't complaining
I am not sure that can be a valid argument? But there aren't any voting to represent non complaining. Also in SG you are not getting enough news about dissidents or local riot and protest either.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Hindsight is always 20/20 but objectivity can never be assumed even with hindsight.
Consider the example of Vietnam. Unified under communist rule. Today, semi-capitalist with growing economic trade ties with US and far better living conditions than NK despite later war. Avoided pariah state status, not considered threat to rest of world/se asia now. Could a unified Korea have been the same or better? I wouldn't assume it would not.
Consider the example of China. Communist regime still but capitalist economy today and 2nd largest economy in the world. All chinese are born under communist rule but most aren't complaining. Strange to argue that China is no longer communist.
Difficult to say that unification under communist would mean entire country = NK today. A lot of the reason why NK is poor is because they are in a war/siege mentality which may not be the case if the country was unified.
and why is it strange to argue that china is no longer communist ? The only thing communist about china today is the name of the party in power, which really, is a one party state.They can no longer preach about socialism and communism, nor do they pretend to, so they have replaced one ism with another - nationalism. So instead of learning about marx they learn to love and defend the motherland .... against who ? no one knows, but states like these, can only self-propagate if they instil �机感 and rabid nationalism in the people, to give them an external enemy or whipping boy. It's a stock formula tried and tested in many other places past, nazi germany, tojo's japan, the soviet union, cuba, and north korea today. you have to, or the people's discontent will turn against you.
That former commie countries like china and vietnam and the former soviet bloc has embraced capitalism today only proves the failure of their founding ideology, and that the communist parties are still in power in vietnam and china today only means that they have a successful stranglehold on power.
And of course, if you grab the average prosperous ah tiong and ask him if he's complaining, chances are, he's happy. And why not, he's a beneficiary of the status quo. I suppose if you grab the average chinese official, he'll say the same thing too. But since google is not censored in Singapore, I suggest you make use of it "type in things like "china peasant unrest", or peruse the apple daily, daily. And you remember those ah tiong protests outside the ministry of manpower in recent days ? You don't suppose they learnt it in Singapore, do you ?
But, I ramble and digress, back to your original arguments. Even if you disregard China's invasion of Tibet as a "domestic action", how do you explain away china's actions in the korean war ? Regardless of how the north or south koreans view China and the US, it is clear that China provided support to the communist north in invading the south, and later, unilaterally crossed her own borders, to go against a United Nations Sanctioned allied coalition made up of 16 different countries from around the world. Mind you, a dubious distinction isin't it ? to be the first to go against the UN, an uncomfortable bit of history for them, no doubt. And I guess nothing need to be said about the "vietnamese adventure" of 79'.
So to say that the chinese has never invaded any other country before is patently wrong. And go and read what oldbird wrote about Chinese jingoism. I am sure many people sense it too. Think of that when they move into the south china sea .... but wait, haven't they started on that already ?
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Could a unified Korea have been the same or better? I wouldn't assume it would not
Neither the Korean preferred the Chinese influence. Do not undermind ethnic nationalist desire to unify Korea as a primary reason. A unified korea would benefit Korean more than the region. So I am not sure the merit is going to be for the region to determind.
The Chinese would not want to have a unifed Korean penisular with additional 5 million people doing nothing but playing soldier, and reducing the access to the northern coastline.
Infact if you check During the 6 party talks. it is in North Korea interest that the US remain to be in Japan. There are concern over an armed Japan. I think at the end of the day there will be some troops in S korea. The draw down was not for the interest for the region rather than for the US....an old news in 2004....
WASHINGTON -- The United States will pull 12,500 troops out of South Korea by the end of next year, US officials said yesterday, slashing by one-third the American ground force that has been stationed on the Korean peninsula for more than 50 years.
All chinese are born under communist rule but most aren't complaining
I am not sure that can be a valid argument? But there aren't any voting to represent non complaining. Also in SG you are not getting enough news about dissidents or local riot and protest either.
haha, good point .... however the south koreans view uncle sam, they certainly don't have any affections for the chinese, and it's not just from the korean war either.
they'll definitely want mount baekdu back in any unified korea ...
-
The truth is that those countries who follow chose capitalism system would thrive, become richer and more civilized. Those who are following communism are destined to be poor and less developed.
There's nothing special about China except its fast developing economy at the present but less not forget majority of China people are poor and its GDP per capita is just a fraction of those in developed countries. The economic development of China is just a natural course, just like other countries in the past: Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. As a whole, China looks strong because of its sheer size but individually, its people are weak.
Those who believe in China's stated policy of "world of peace & harmony" are illusioned. China is politically a dictatorial regime which has its own ambition and prefers to set its own rules rather than follow international standards. Let's not forget that all the major wars in the worlds were started by those dictators.
-
"But, I ramble and digress, back to your original arguments. Even if you disregard China's invasion of Tibet as a "domestic action", how do you explain away china's actions in the korean war ? Regardless of how the north or south koreans view China and the US, it is clear that China provided support to the communist north in invading the south, and later, unilaterally crossed her own borders, to go against a United Nations Sanctioned allied coalition made up of 16 different countries from around the world. Mind you, a dubious distinction isin't it ? to be the first to go against the UN, an uncomfortable bit of history for them, no doubt. And I guess nothing need to be said about the "vietnamese adventure" of 79'." - Fatum
-------------------------
I won't rehash most of the contentions about China being communist or not, or the issue about complaints etc esp when its equally non-verifiable on either end. But I tot the above is interesting enough to warrant a response.
Its historical fact and there were papers released in the chinese side that also researched the worries of the communist party during the pre-intervention days.
The paras between 5 and 6 in the link below highlights some of the arguments/sources surrounding that.
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm
"The Chinese, it was reported, would not tolerate a U.S. presence so close to their borders and would send troops to Korea if any UN forces other than ROK elements crossed the 38th Parallel."
The PLA essentially acknowledged that the ROK were in their rights to unify the country but not UN forces.
The assertion for Chinese support prior to its intervention is incorrect. NPKA was predominantly supplied by the Soviets rather than the Chinese bet pre-24 June 1950 to the Oct 1950 intervention. It is definitely not clear that there was any PLA support at all. Arty, T-34 Tanks and its air force 180 yaks/migs were not items supplied by the PLA but by the russkis.
What was clear was the Chinese fear of US nukes. Truman actually threatened China with nukes.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Korean_War
The People's Republic of China, fearful of a capitalist Korean state on its border, warned neutral diplomats that it would intervene. Truman regarded the warnings as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN." On October 15, 1950, Truman went to Wake Island for a short, highly publicized meeting with MacArthur. The CIA had previously told Truman that Chinese involvement was unlikely. MacArthur, saying he was speculating, saw little risk. The general explained that the Chinese had lost their window of opportunity to help North Korea's invasion. He estimated the Chinese had 300,000 soldiers in Manchuria, with between 100,000-125,000 men along the Yalu; half could be brought across the Yalu. But the Chinese had no air force; hence, "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter."[26] MacArthur, thus, assumed that Chinese were motivated to help North Korea, and wished to avoid heavy casualties.
On October 8, 1950, the day after American troops crossed the 38th, Chairman Mao issued the order to form the Chinese People's Volunteer Army. It was named in that way, so it would appear to the world that it was not a state-to-state war between China and the U.S. Those soldiers "volunteered" to fight.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not to forget local sources.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_3/5.htm
There are more than enough sources indicating intervention was due to perception of danger to chinese national security.
-
"That former commie countries like china and vietnam and the former soviet bloc has embraced capitalism today only proves the failure of their founding ideology, and that the communist parties are still in power in vietnam and china today only means that they have a successful stranglehold on power." - fatum
---------------------------------------------
Just wanted to clarify this as well. I don't think communism was a successful theology. However, that is not the argument. The argument is that because a united NK would have been communist, the unified state would have become a failed state that NK is today.
The latter argument is incorrect precisely because of the failure to take into account that things can change as it had for the 2 major asia-pac communist regimes.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
The analogy of the Union versus of the Confederation in argument over the Tibet case seems rather flimsy. Tibet didn't choose to be part of China in the first place. Also, when Tibet had de facto independence for some thirty over years when China went back to "reclaim" it. Having been independent, and for such a long period of time, the Chinese reclamation is very much an invasion of another country even though it was not recognized. Which also boils down... is international recognition part of the definition of a country or sovereign state?
I thought Tibet was part of China since at least Qing dynasty? What about U.S alaska and hawaii? Tibet longer with China or alaska, hawaii longer with U.S?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
"But, I ramble and digress, back to your original arguments. Even if you disregard China's invasion of Tibet as a "domestic action", how do you explain away china's actions in the korean war ? Regardless of how the north or south koreans view China and the US, it is clear that China provided support to the communist north in invading the south, and later, unilaterally crossed her own borders, to go against a United Nations Sanctioned allied coalition made up of 16 different countries from around the world. Mind you, a dubious distinction isin't it ? to be the first to go against the UN, an uncomfortable bit of history for them, no doubt. And I guess nothing need to be said about the "vietnamese adventure" of 79'." - Fatum
-------------------------
I won't rehash most of the contentions about China being communist or not, or the issue about complaints etc esp when its equally non-verifiable on either end. But I tot the above is interesting enough to warrant a response.
Its historical fact and there were papers released in the chinese side that also researched the worries of the communist party during the pre-intervention days.
The paras between 5 and 6 in the link below highlights some of the arguments/sources surrounding that.
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-chinter/chinter.htm
"The Chinese, it was reported, would not tolerate a U.S. presence so close to their borders and would send troops to Korea if any UN forces other than ROK elements crossed the 38th Parallel."
The PLA essentially acknowledged that the ROK were in their rights to unify the country but not UN forces.
The assertion for Chinese support prior to its intervention is incorrect. NPKA was predominantly supplied by the Soviets rather than the Chinese bet pre-24 June 1950 to the Oct 1950 intervention. It is definitely not clear that there was any PLA support at all. Arty, T-34 Tanks and its air force 180 yaks/migs were not items supplied by the PLA but by the russkis.
What was clear was the Chinese fear of US nukes. Truman actually threatened China with nukes.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Korean_War
The People's Republic of China, fearful of a capitalist Korean state on its border, warned neutral diplomats that it would intervene. Truman regarded the warnings as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN." On October 15, 1950, Truman went to Wake Island for a short, highly publicized meeting with MacArthur. The CIA had previously told Truman that Chinese involvement was unlikely. MacArthur, saying he was speculating, saw little risk. The general explained that the Chinese had lost their window of opportunity to help North Korea's invasion. He estimated the Chinese had 300,000 soldiers in Manchuria, with between 100,000-125,000 men along the Yalu; half could be brought across the Yalu. But the Chinese had no air force; hence, "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter."[26] MacArthur, thus, assumed that Chinese were motivated to help North Korea, and wished to avoid heavy casualties.
On October 8, 1950, the day after American troops crossed the 38th, Chairman Mao issued the order to form the Chinese People's Volunteer Army. It was named in that way, so it would appear to the world that it was not a state-to-state war between China and the U.S. Those soldiers "volunteered" to fight.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not to forget local sources.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_3/5.htm
There are more than enough sources indicating intervention was due to perception of danger to chinese national security.
to quote yourself, hindsight is always 20/20, but the hindsight's perspective, of course, depends on your point of view.
So now you're saying that the chinese did not support of the north korean invasion ? Or just prior to her own intervention ? How likely is that, given that swarms of soviet and north korean fighters were actually based in manchurian airfields, given that the chinese intervention came a scant three months plus after north korean's own invasion proper. Mind you, even the US took longer than that both times in Iraq.
And more importantly, I think you missed my point. my point is not about the chinese rationale behind her aggressions, my point is that the Chinese did unilaterally cross her own borders, did go against a UN coalition force in an action authorized by a UN resolution, did fight against 16 different countries from around the world, outside of her own borders mind you, whether it's to secure a puppet buffer state on her own border, to aid their "fraternal socialist allies", to fulfil joe stalin's wishes, or cos mao zedong liked south korean kimchi, is beside the point.
I suppose her own perceptions of her security would be what drives her action till today .... including the vietnamese adventure, the tibetan adventure, the sino-indian war, hell, they even have border issues with ...... Bhutan ! the happiest country in the world !
Oh, I'm sure it's to satisfy her own sense of security that she unilaterally claims the whole of the south china sea too? 
So really, whether it's tibet, korea, vietnam or the south china sea, China has shown that she has no compunction about unilateral military action against her neighbours, and really doesn't give a flying fark about what the rest of the world thinks.But wait, if you think the chinese are arrogant and insufferable pricks now ... you ain't seen nothing yet .... wait till she gets richer and more powerful still. A Chinese superpower won't be the grinning, overbearing uncle sam lecturing you on free trade and human rights, she'll grab what she wants and to hell with the rest of the world.
And strangely, do anyone of you see the eerie parallel between the chinese actions of today and imperial japan prior to WWII ? The nips wanted to move south, to claim the natural resources there for herself. To do that she needed to neutralize the only force capable of intervention in the far east; uncle sam, so she geared herself towards a military conflict with the united states. The same thing today. The south china sea is rich in oil and gas and fishery resources, in addition, the spratleys is like an unsinkable aircraft carrier that dominates the whole of south east asia. And who is the only power that stands between her and her objectives, whether it's the south china sea, or taiwan ? In the 30s we have japanese subs cruising past guam, hawaii .... nowadays we have chinese subs shadowing US carrier battle groups, snorkeling around guam. Meanwhile, they launches cyber attacks, build their own aircraft carrier, weaponises space ........
I am sure military planners around the region, not just the US, are suspicious of china's intentions, it is just not politically correct to say so, after all, they are the incoming super power, they even make your kid's milk powder ....
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
"That former commie countries like china and vietnam and the former soviet bloc has embraced capitalism today only proves the failure of their founding ideology, and that the communist parties are still in power in vietnam and china today only means that they have a successful stranglehold on power." - fatum
---------------------------------------------
Just wanted to clarify this as well. I don't think communism was a successful theology. However, that is not the argument. The argument is that because a united NK would have been communist, the unified state would have become a failed state that NK is today.
The latter argument is incorrect precisely because of the failure to take into account that things can change as it had for the 2 major asia-pac communist regimes.
I would say certainly, it's easy to ponder the what ifs, but we just have to look at the present. Your argument is almost plausible, except that it failed to take reality into account. So, looking at what south korea is today, and what north korea is .... you say that perhaps, the north would have made better custodians of the whole country instead of the .... south ?
Just look at what the south koreans have done with their half, and what the north koreans have done with theirs ?
Or do you mean whatever the south koreans have achieved with half a country, the north koreans could do only if they had the whole to work with ?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
to quote yourself, hindsight is always 20/20, but the hindsight's perspective, of course, depends on your point of view.
So now you're saying that the chinese did not support of the north korean invasion ? Or just prior to her own intervention ? How likely is that, given that swarms of soviet and north korean fighters were actually based in manchurian airfields, given that the chinese intervention came a scant three months plus after north korean's own invasion proper. Mind you, even the US took longer than that both times in Iraq.
And more importantly, I think you missed my point. my point is not about the chinese rationale behind her aggressions, my point is that the Chinese did unilaterally cross her own borders, did go against a UN coalition force in an action authorized by a UN resolution, did fight against 16 different countries from around the world, outside of her own borders mind you, whether it's to secure a puppet buffer state on her own border, to aid their "fraternal socialist allies", to fulfil joe stalin's wishes, or cos mao zedong liked south korean kimchi, is beside the point.
I suppose her own perceptions of her security would be what drives her action till today .... including the vietnamese adventure, the tibetan adventure, the sino-indian war, hell, they even have border issues with ...... Bhutan ! the happiest country in the world !
Oh, I'm sure it's to satisfy her own
sense of security that she unilaterally claims the whole of the
south china sea too? So really, whether it's tibet, korea, vietnam or the
south china sea, China has shown that she has no compunction about
unilateral military action against her neighbours, and really
doesn't give a flying fark about what the rest of the world
thinks.But wait, if you think the chinese are arrogant and insufferable pricks now ... you ain't seen nothing yet .... wait till she gets richer and more powerful still. A Chinese superpower won't be the grinning, overbearing uncle sam lecturing you on free trade and human rights, she'll grab what she wants and to hell with the rest of the world.
And strangely, do anyone of you see the eerie parallel between the chinese actions of today and imperial japan prior to WWII ? The nips wanted to move south, to claim the natural resources there for herself. To do that she needed to neutralize the only force capable of intervention in the far east; uncle sam, so she geared herself towards a military conflict with the united states. The same thing today. The south china sea is rich in oil and gas and fishery resources, in addition, the spratleys is like an unsinkable aircraft carrier that dominates the whole of south east asia. And who is the only power that stands between her and her objectives, whether it's the south china sea, or taiwan ? In the 30s we have japanese subs cruising past guam, hawaii .... nowadays we have chinese subs shadowing US carrier battle groups, snorkeling around guam. Meanwhile, they launches cyber attacks, build their own aircraft carrier, weaponises space ........
I am sure military planners around the region, not just the US, are suspicious of china's intentions, it is just not politically correct to say so, after all, they are the incoming super power, they even make your kid's milk powder ....
Every country watches out for their own self interests, when the europeans and americans started colonising and exploiting asia did they care about us? When the UK fought in the opium wars was their purpose to save people or to sell drugs? The chinese are still behind the USA in terms of military tech, USA is afraid that its interests might be threatened thats why make a lot of noise