[jruthers]

Good analysis.

Realistically, no entity, government or otherwise is taking any concrete steps to say no to China in the south China Sea.

Doing "drive bys" is hardly actual action, like say dismantling a Chinese base made in international waters. THAT would be concrete action, and I bet they would get all upset but ultimately do nothing (unless it's too Australia, in which case they'll find some other product to ban).

If nobody is going to stand up to them, it's all over already. In a generation, people will just say "oh isn't that all China's territory?"

[knolax]

> say no to China in the south China Sea.

> people will just say "oh isn't that all China's territory?"

You're already doing that. I feel like I'm witnessing a bizzare form of doublethink seeing people refer to a body of water as the "South China Sea" and then becoming outraged that China would lay claim to said body of water named after them.

[platinumrad]

Sad that yellow peril alarmism with no basis in reality is what counts as "good analysis" when the orange website talks about China.

[tim333]

What's unrealistic about the above? Seems pretty accurate to me.

[platinumrad]

>The reason they continue to do this is because they know without doubt other Countries will not treat their fishing vessels in the same way. There is zero consequences for their actions and they have zero reason to change their policy.

This paragraph completely decontextualizes what's going on and makes it sound like the Chinese state is just rolling around blowing up ships for fun. In reality, fishing in international waters has always been messy.

>You might say "the consequence is that they look bad", but they don't, at least not to the people they care about - mainlanders. They own and/or control the news media in mainland China. To produce an anti-CCP news piece in China is suicide for these companies.

This is just orientalism. Unlike us normal westerners, they don't care about what other people think! How scary!

>External "free" media have their own interests and biases, meaning they may or may not publish articles depending on whether they coincide with their goals. If a bad China news piece makes the current President they support look bad, do you really think it makes headline news?

This is delusional, as I discuss here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25121329

>Doing "drive bys" is hardly actual action, like say dismantling a Chinese base made in international waters. THAT would be concrete action, and I bet they would get all upset but ultimately do nothing (unless it's too Australia, in which case they'll find some other product to ban).

This is just bloodthirsty lol.

[tim333]

>This is just orientalism

I've spent time in Vietnam and China, both of which are in the orient and as far as I can see this is a case of China being a bully and using aggression to grab territory off Vietnam and similar. I'd be more anti bully than anti orient.

[yorwba]

Does that mean you agree with

>You might say "the consequence is that they look bad", but they don't, at least not to the people they care about - mainlanders. They own and/or control the news media in mainland China. To produce an anti-CCP news piece in China is suicide for these companies.

Because that claim is wrong. Remember the cute stories earlier this year about Chinese internet users using various methods to circumvent censorship of a Renwu interview with Dr. Ai Fen: https://qz.com/1816219/chinese-internet-rallied-to-save-a-ce... ? Renwu is a Chinese magazine, publishing that interview hasn't been suicide for them.

[yorwba]

What about all the comments pointing out that other countries are taking concrete steps and treating Chinese fishing vessels in the same way? The whole premise of the "analysis" is mistaken.

[petre]

For China is business as usual harassing other fishermen legally operating inside the claimed nine dash line waters, claims which were invalidated by an international court. Other nations are defending their EEZ and have every right to chase them out or sink them.

I wish Japan would extend its navy and actively deter China. Too bad Mr. Abe had to resign his post serving as PM, he wanted to revisit article 9 of Japan's constitution. An reiterpretation was made allowing Japan to exercise collective self defense.

[yorwba]

> For China is business as usual harassing other fishermen legally operating inside the claimed nine dash line waters, claims which were invalidated by an international court. Other nations are defending their EEZ and have every right to chase them out or sink them.

The nine-dash line claims were invalidated on the grounds that controlling small islands without permanent settlement doesn't extend the EEZ, so the EEZ is limited to 200 nautical miles from the coastline. But there's a lot within 200 nmi from the Chinese coast, including the Paracels, where those Vietnamese fishermen in the article were attacked by the Chinese coast guard. Simply defending their EEZ, as they have every right to do. Except the Paracels are also within 200 nmi of the Vietnamese coast, so the maritime boundary is up for negotiation. Vietnam and China have a treaty delineating the boundary in the Gulf of Tonkin, but otherwise it's still unspecified.

As for Japan, they're on the other side of Taiwan, so their EEZ doesn't extend nearly far enough to make any claims in the South China Sea.

[petre]

Nothing an international arbitration court can't solve. There was a similar legal conflict between Romania and Ukraine regarding the Black Sea plateau which was legally solved by the ICJ a decade ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Delimitation_in_the_B...

Vietnam should bring the case to court and employ some good negotiators. It's the only potentially constructive strategy for them, as outmuscling China is out of the question. If China won't respect the court's decision, the international community can then condemn them, issue tariffs and sanctions and Vietnam could legally fire warning shots and sink their coast guard vessles entering its EEZ.

[yorwba]

It's not the whole orange website, just two people who happen to agree in shared ignorance. You shouldn't take that to mean that everyone here thinks the same.

[jruthers]

It's not "yellow peril" or "Orientalism" to criticise China or its foreign policy.

It is legitimate to criticise a nation state based on their behaviour, foreign policy, etc.

I criticise the US or "western" countries plenty, just not on the top of expansionism in the south China Sea.

My point above is that no power is doing anything of substance about China expanding and laying a tacit claim out to the nine dash line, and that in a generation, give or take, it will be taken for granted that the region is China's territory.

Granted, this is beyond the scope of the article, namely fishing in that region, but the article suggested (though did not state, and may well have not intended) that some of the aggressive Chinese boats were military.

[yorwba]

> It's not "yellow peril" or "Orientalism" to criticise China or its foreign policy.

I did not use "yellow peril" or "orientalism", I used "ignorance". I'm not opposed to criticism of China or it's foreign policy, I'm opposed to getting the facts wrong.

You say that "no power is doing anything of substance about China expanding and laying a tacit claim out to the nine dash line", which I assume means you are ignorant of the many cases of other countries' coast guards attacking Chinese fishing boats (as linked in other comments), Vietnam subsidizing fishers specifically for fishing in Chinese-controlled but Vietnamese-claimed waters (as mentioned in the article) or the US Navy's "freedom of navigation" operations (also mentioned in the article).

There's a narrative circulating in right-wing Chinese blogs that the US plans to use its network of military bases and client states across the western Pacific to neutralize the Chinese fleet while simultaneously launching a land-based invasion across the Korean peninsula and amphibious assaults all along the coast. Hopefully you realize that that's quite an absurd scenario and just a transparent excuse to call for greater military spending.

Similarly, it's absurd to claim that there's no opposition to Chinese expansionism, while the overall media consensus is one of opposition and there are many instances where such opposition manifested as actual physical violence.

Talking up how strong your enemies are and how no one can stop them is one of the oldest tricks in the military propaganda book. Julius Caesar wrote about how strong and dangerous the Gauls were before he went and conquered all of their territory.

[jruthers]

> I'm opposed to getting the facts wrong

I have not got the facts wrong.

I said "no power is doing anything _of substance_ about China expanding" and that is a _fact_.

Coast guards attacking illegal Chinese fishing boats is a good step for illegal fishing but it is laughably small if it's meant to rebuke China for installing military bases on islands into the contested waters.

I don't see how Vietnam subsidizing fishers is relevant.

The US and other Navy forces are _entitled_ to sail through international waters by definition. Calling it "freedom of navigation" and doing _nothing_ else is on those trips is, for want of a better word, "cute".

None of these are acts _of substance_.

The _fact_ is that no power wants to poke the bear.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying those nations are wrong to avoid a substantial act. I'm not even saying China occupying those islands is wrong, nor am I saying it's right. I'm simply saying that no power has or will stand up properly to China. The govt / armed forces / press / etc don't like the expansion but they're not actually going to do anything about it.

As a result, in a couple of decades, the frog will be slowly boiled, and eventually the whole region will be assumed to be China's. That's all I'm saying.

> Similarly, it's absurd to claim that there's no opposition to Chinese expansionism

If you mean me, I made no such claim.

I simply said there have been no acts of substance to demonstrate this opposition.

I dearly wish I could read and speak Chinese. I haven't read the blogs you speak of (so I'll accept I'm ignorant on that), but with that said, is it really a shock that right wing blogs in country A says that nefarious forces in country B or C are itching to invade them? I see that ridiculous narrative often. Americans / Australians / insert-preferred-power-here thinking China will invade. It's tiresome and repetitive. For all of China's expansionist angst and insecurity-driven surveillance, I don't think of it as a warmongering nation.

I didn't follow your point about Caesar.