See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#History_of_the_line_segments
"After retreating to Taiwan in 1949,
the [Taiwanese] ROC government continued
to claim the Spratly and Paracel Islands. President Lee
Teng-hui claimed[24] that
"legally, historically, geographically, or in reality", all of the
South China Sea and Spratly islands were ROC territory and under ROC
sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by the Philippines and
Malaysia.[25] Taiwan
and China have the same claims and have cooperated with each other
during international talks involving the Spratly Islands.[26][27]
The misadventures of AUKUS robot AlboGov never cease. I publish on subs, other naval, nuclear weapons & broad political issues. Aussie sub changes are glacial: talk rather than actual new subs. The 1st Collins LOTE may secretly concern the US Combat System & be ready 2029. Trump may decide to cancel the AUKUS Virginia offer due to USN advice it needs all operational SSNs right through to the 2040s. My colleagues Shawn C and Gessler are excellent writers. Pete.
August 12, 2024
Contrarian View: China's Right to Build Up Its Military
A contrarian view is:
China has a right to build up its military because of China's century of suffering and humiliation, including:
• 1st British opium-pushing invasion of 1839-42. (Numerous massacres. Huge reparations
levied against China, unfair treaty imposed on China, plus the UK stripped Hong Kong from China as booty)
• 2nd British drug-pushing invasion of China in 1856-60. (Numerous massacres. More reparations
and unfair treaties. Ransacked Beijing and Summer Palace)
• Many other unequal treaties imposed by other foreign nations during the century.
• Taiping Rebellion of 1850-71, which was not driven by the West (Western forces actually helped put down the Rebellion), but still a major source of suffering. This is because Western actions had weakened China's central government - weakening that government's ability to impose law and order. Estimated dead may be 20-70 million - difficult to count because central record keeping had diminished with the rest of administration.
• French naval attack (1884-85). (Chinese fleet destroyed)
• Japanese invasion of Chinese-controlled Korea (1894-95). (Japan seized Formosa/Taiwan as booty)
• Boxer Rebellion of (1899-1901). (Western invasion to quell rebellion ransacks Beijing. More
massacres and reparations that virtually bankrupted China)
• Japanese invasion and occupation of northern China (1931-37) (northern China called "Manchuria" by Japanese for imperialist reasons )
• Chinese Civil War (1927-49) between Chiang Kai-shek's and Mao's followers. (US funded and
armed Chiang for much of the period). Estimated.10-20 million dead. Mao won in 1949.
• Now defeated Chiang Kai-shek occupies Taiwan (1949), denying it to the Communist regime. He
establishes an army in northern Burma to launch guerrilla
attacks on mainland China. Chiang also unsuccessfully invasions of mainland China from Taiwan.
• Note: Western interference continues today eg. QUAD, AUKUS, some other NATO countries (like Germany and France), also India on China's border area and other East Asian bilateral alliances (eg. US with Japan and separately with Taiwan) involving US seek to “contain” China by militarily encircling it. Australia very much involved.
• As a result, China has an abhorrence of disunity, of foreign intervention and of wars forced on it.
• That's why, in part, China wants re-unification with Taiwan (as it wanted with Hong
Kong): to complete the reunification of China and finally expunge from its memory of
the Century of Humiliation. Re-unification of Taiwan may involve expulsion of the US military presence from Taiwan. Also expulsion of any Australian support of Taiwan - Australian support assumed by US foreign policymakers as a requirement of AUKUS security partnership.
• That's also why the South China Sea—being the main Western invasion route during the
19th century, and a possible one today—is such a sensitive issue for China. Note that Taiwan (like the PRC) both claim the South China Sea within the "Nine-dash line".
• And finally, that's why, in part, China is so concerned about Islamic and Buddhist
separatist forces in Xing Xiang province and Tibet respectively: it wants stable border
regions and a united country. In those senses China has its own problems of counter-terrorism like the West and separatism issues (eg. like Spain's Catalan Separatism). So, why criticise China for wanting what we want: a harmonious, unified nation
with secure borders and friendly neighbours—especially after all it’s been through,
often at the hands of the West?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Pete,
China has not ruled the South China Sea after 1800, then they were trashed by Cheng Shih. https://www.military.com/history/chinese-woman-led-largest-and-most-successful-pirate-fleet-history.html
You left out the British East India Company stole also tea plants from China https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/10/392116370/tea-tuesdays-the-scottish-spy-who-stole-chinas-tea-empire#:~:text=By%201800%2C%20it%20was%20easily%20the%20most%20popular%20drink%20among%20Britons.&text=Apic%2FGetty%20Images-,Robert%20Fortune%20was%20a%2019th%2Dcentury%20Scottish%20botanist%20who%20helped,of%20tea%20production%20from%20China.
Oh, and there’s probably more Singaporean military personnel in Taiwan than American..
And in response to the Chinese buildup:
"Considering potential delays and high costs associated with Australia’s
AUKUS submarine program, Australian defense experts have recommended
a strategic shift to include the B-21 Raider stealth bomber as a Plan B."
"In a report entitled “National Security and Australia’s Northern Defence,” the
Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) and Strategic Analysis Australia argue that
while AUKUS is necessary to challenge China’s regional influence in Asia-
Pacific, the decades-long timeline for delivering nuclear-powered
submarines is a significant drawback."
Source:
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/aukus-submarine-delays-b-21-raider-strategy
Hi Shawn at 8/13/2024 11:30 PM
It appears Singapore, notionally has a policy of neutrality in any US-China conflicts. But Singapore still leans to the US in several military sphere eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Military_relations
"Singapore has long standing military relations with the United States. The United States sells arms to Singapore and provides access to its bases to train the Singaporean military outside of their small island city-state.[21] Under the U.S.–Singapore Strategic Framework Agreement, some U.S. Navy littoral combat ships are rotationally deployed to Singapore's Changi Naval Base.[22] Air Force One also lands at Paya Lebar Air Base whenever the president visits the country. On September 23, 2019, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and US President Donald Trump renewed a key defence pact which allows American forces to use Singapore's air and naval bases, extending it by another 15 years to 2035.[23]"
Singapore's military relations with China seem far less https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Singapore_relations#Security_and_military_relations mainly occasional exercises.
Cheers Pete
Hi Anonymous at 8/14/2024 5:40 AM
1. I think I'm right in saying that the US maintains a longstanding policy of not transferring or selling cutting edge heavy bombers to other nations. Only exception being Liberator/B24 bombers and B-17s lend leased to the UK 1941-45 and B-29s post WWII only for a short time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress#Operators . Quite old technology B-17s were sold or gifted to some counties post WWII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress_operators
2. High chance B-21 tech will be classed like F-22 tech. ie. US laws ban export even to close US allies. Part reason being perceived higher risk of B-21 tech leaking to "peer competitors" Russia and China.
3. Even if made available to Australia, high chance of extremely high cost per B-21 and basing costs. Even the US could only afford 21 B-2s and each cost US$4 Billion in 2023 dollars. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit Then there also would be multi billion $ basing + maintenance costs.
If US$4 Billion in 2023 dollars is used as a yardstick for any B-21s for Australia (noting new US weapons always cost more than old weapons) Australia may be paying above AU$6 Billion per B-21 - which may be more than the cost of each used Virginia SSN for Australia.
Regards Pete
Post a Comment