Chinese step up activity

[Azarkon]

I don't see it as a Cold War brinksmanship situation. China needs the West (as a market for its goods) far far more than the West needs China. Most of the goods China is exporting aren't necessities to consumers, and there are alternate sources of relatively cheap labor (i.e., every other poor country) that we could transition to. A disruption of trade would increase some costs in the West, but it would be absolutely catastrophic to the Chinese.

 

Still, there's a reason why we trade with China and not "any other poor nation". It's all got to do with economy. If there was a better deal elsewhere, you'd trade more with "any other poor nation". Still assuming the reason we trade with China is based on rationality, the trade exchange is a mutual relationship where both parts are equally dependent upon each other. China's dollar reserve is an example of this. China has a national reserve of about two trillion dollars and the US has a national debt of 11 trillion dollars. From these numbers, it would not seem that China should be the exporting nation. And yet they are, and they also do everything in their power to sell as much as they can to the US.

 

If China stops selling (and stops buying US debt and storing US dollars), the US will get increasingly hard to get both imported goods and raw materials. If the US stops buying and investing in China, China's money supply will be stifled. Either way, both lose. It is silly how people today look at the US and China as potential enemies. Of course they both definitely have the means to hurt each other, but a conflict would be futile and it wouldn't benefit anyone. In the end though, I think it all boils down to whether the rest of the world continues to trust the dollar or not, because neither China nor the US would change the current status quo.

 

The US does not "only trade" with China. It trades with tons of other nations, including poor ones. The problem with many poor nations, however, is that they either have strong protectionist barriers or lack business-friendly environments. The attraction of foreign capital to China is a deliberate consequence of Chinese policy, which since the 1980s has been based on rapid export-led growth modeled on the East Asian Tigers.

 

Labor is cheaper in places like India, Burma, and probably much of Africa, but those countries lack the infrastructure to support significant FDI (though India is catching up). In many parts of Africa, for example, if you want to build a factory you have to deal with what are often dysfunctional legal systems full of corruption, and after that you still face inadequate infrastructure (including things as basic as roads and electricity). In China, there are already factories and agencies in place to support recruitment and the legal system tends to be functional (at least with regards to the business sector, except for maybe IP protection). Moreover, China's banks actually have money to lend, and the government provides preferential treatments in foreign taxation with many countries (including the US). Combined with a large private sector, this means that China is a very business-friendly place, and intentionally so.

[alanschu]

Well it looks like we might have our out if this economic downturn is a particularly bad one.

[Azarkon]

After reading this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9031000126.html, it seems to me that China is testing the waters, so to speak. It wants to know what this new US administration is all about, exactly. Hillary Clinton's visit seems to suggest that the US wants good economic relations with China. But economics isn't everything. There's also politics and military relations. The "spy ship" incident is a way for China to declare what it wants (US military activities out of China's EEZ), and seeing how the US responds. Given how the US responds, the Chinese will know what to expect with regards to the new administration's military doctrines.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Azarkon

[~Di]

The article didn't mention anything about which part of the chinese coast the ship was spying on. They could return the favour and send chinese navy vessels withinn 125 miles of the US coast for a bit of snooping and see if the favour was returned

 

They've probably already been there. International waters, don'tcha know. The USA doesn't own the international waters closest to its borders, and the Chinese don't own international waters close to theirs. It sounds as if you think the (mostly civilian and unarmed) ship deserved it simply because it was an American vessel. China was out of line here. Way out of line.

[Azarkon]

The article didn't mention anything about which part of the chinese coast the ship was spying on. They could return the favour and send chinese navy vessels withinn 125 miles of the US coast for a bit of snooping and see if the favour was returned

 

They've probably already been there. International waters, don'tcha know. The USA doesn't own the international waters closest to its borders, and the Chinese don't own international waters close to theirs. It sounds as if you think the (mostly civilian and unarmed) ship deserved it simply because it was an American vessel. China was out of line here. Way out of line.

 

You should read the above article I cited. Some select quotes:

 

"The latest incident had overtones of spycraft, but the U.S. ship is not, strictly speaking, a spy ship. It maps the ocean floor with sonar, compiling information the Navy can use to steer its own submarines or track those of other nations.

 

Two U.S. defense officials acknowledged Tuesday that the Impeccable is equipped for submarine-hunting work and was part of a calculated U.S. surveillance operation."

 

My guess is that it was a military intelligence operation. The Pentagon is clearly not going to admit it outright, but given where it was (right off of China's Hainan island, home to its new submarine base) and its equipment, it's pretty obvious that this was an operation designed to probe China's submarine base. The Chinese caught wind of this, and sent some ships to intercept it. No one was hurt in the process, which is good.

 

The US's argument is essentially that with regards to the sea, it can spy anywhere, anytime, so long as it's not disrupting economic activity. The Chinese argument is that the US shouldn't be conducting surveillance operations near China's sensitive military assets. Both have defensible, yet irreconcilable positions. I think the US position requires that you accept the US as the world's police and to trust that the US will never threaten you militarily. Given history, I don't think China is going to accept that. Me, personally, I think military transparency is a good thing, but I wonder what the US would've done if the Chinese sent surveillance vessels right up to our coast.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

I agree that investment in China is clearly better than elsewhere because compared with Burma that investment is more secure. one can do business far more easily.

 

I do not, however, agree that it is weird that we are seen as enemies. Our rights and freedoms are anathema to the Chinese government, as evidenced by their domestic policy and their habit of supporting dingbats like Sudan and Burma. That's not OK in my book, although I'm prepared to accept trade as a means of promoting peaceful change, given the obvious absence of a military option.

 

I wouldn't say China was way out of line, but I would say that they are chancing their arm. They want to see just how far Obama is another Carter.

[~Di]

... Me, personally, I think military transparency is a good thing, but I wonder what the US would've done if the Chinese sent surveillance vessels right up to our coast.

 

They've probably already done so, and if they stayed in international waters we would have watched them like a hawk. We wouldn't have had any legal right to do anything else. Every country on this planet gathers intelligence, and if you think the Chinese haven't put a priority on gathering intelligence from America... even by downing our surveillance plans in international airspace then stripping them down, as they have done already... then you're woefully misinformed.

 

But it seems as if you think what China did was okey-dokey, so long as it was doing it to big bad America. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ~Di

[Azarkon]

... Me, personally, I think military transparency is a good thing, but I wonder what the US would've done if the Chinese sent surveillance vessels right up to our coast.

 

They've probably already done so, and if they stayed in international waters we would have watched them like a hawk. We wouldn't have had any legal right to do anything else. Every country on this planet gathers intelligence, and if you think the Chinese haven't put a priority on gathering intelligence from America... even by downing our surveillance plans in international airspace then stripping them down, as they have done already... then you're woefully misinformed.

 

But it seems as if you think what China did was okey-dokey, so long as it was doing it to big bad America. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

 

Countries, including China and the US, spy all the time. When they get caught, there's some media fanfare, and then the novelty fades. The point is that they do get caught, and that's one of the risks of spying. There is, in some sense, an unspoken agreement between countries that "spying is fine so long as you don't get caught, but if you do, don't expect us to sit quietly if we could do something about it." Chinese spy ships caught off Japan's coast will be warned by Japanese war ships to leave, or else. The same happened here - the Impeccable was warned, refused to leave, and that's why the Chinese sent a few ships to block it.

 

As far as whether I think it's okay, I think it's a matter of interpretation. That it's America has nothing to do with it. The real question you pose is whether it's "okay" for China to block US ships from entering sensitive military areas. Well, the problem with this question is that this is not a moral question, it's an international relations question. Whether it's okay for China to block US ships is a matter of what the two countries agreed to. As far as I know, there are no such agreements, which is the true issue here.

 

Indeed, the moral question is eased by the fact that there was no loss of life, no damage to property, and nothing more than a stern warning on the part of the Chinese. If the Impeccable had been shot at, things would be different, but since it was only prevented from going further into Chinese territory, all we can say is "oh well, we were caught, but isn't it okay to spy so long as we aren't affecting economic activity?" and maybe "but China really shouldn't be trying to physically block us from entering; that could result in an accident like the spy plane incident." The latter has some moral weight, yet if the Chinese had sent a destroyer and warned that the ship must leave or be boarded, would that have been preferred? There are only so many ways you can force a ship you don't want to enter your territory, not enter your territory.

 

Again, if the Chinese sent a spy ship to "survey" Pearl Harbor, I don't think the US would've just let it through. But that scenario has never been tested, as far as I know, because the Chinese operate a brown water navy that isn't capable of going much past their coast.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Azarkon, you can't warn anyone to leave international waters. The clue is in the name.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that the international wtaer boundary was defined before the revolution in sensors. The distance now might as well be defined as "with your nose pressed to our bathroom window".

 

However, a subsurface survey ship is not the same thing as a spying ship.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Personally I think we should have nothing to do with China. No diplomatic relations, no trading, no military near them, no joint ventures, nothing. Keep a watch of course, but completely and totally remove ourselves from their influence and remove our influence on them.

[Rostere]

The US does not "only trade" with China. It trades with tons of other nations, including poor ones. The problem with many poor nations, however, is that they either have strong protectionist barriers or lack business-friendly environments. The attraction of foreign capital to China is a deliberate consequence of Chinese policy, which since the 1980s has been based on rapid export-led growth modeled on the East Asian Tigers.

 

Labor is cheaper in places like India, Burma, and probably much of Africa, but those countries lack the infrastructure to support significant FDI (though India is catching up). In many parts of Africa, for example, if you want to build a factory you have to deal with what are often dysfunctional legal systems full of corruption, and after that you still face inadequate infrastructure (including things as basic as roads and electricity). In China, there are already factories and agencies in place to support recruitment and the legal system tends to be functional (at least with regards to the business sector, except for maybe IP protection). Moreover, China's banks actually have money to lend, and the government provides preferential treatments in foreign taxation with many countries (including the US). Combined with a large private sector, this means that China is a very business-friendly place, and intentionally so.

 

Yep, that's basically my opinion as well.

 

I do not, however, agree that it is weird that we are seen as enemies. Our rights and freedoms are anathema to the Chinese government, as evidenced by their domestic policy and their habit of supporting dingbats like Sudan and Burma. That's not OK in my book, although I'm prepared to accept trade as a means of promoting peaceful change, given the obvious absence of a military option.

 

I wouldn't say China was way out of line, but I would say that they are chancing their arm. They want to see just how far Obama is another Carter.

 

Neither China nor the US ever does anything to impose their own politics upon the other. I don't see any Chinese Krushchevs talking about the "victory over capitalism" and I don't know of a single US reprimand (in recent times) against China which has gotten any real result. Besides, on the paper the US and China (or indeed China and the rest of the world) are not THAT different. PATRIOT act (FRA legislation in Sweden), death penalty in the US, and several other things which come to mind when you think about it are things we would perhaps rather like to associate with an authoritarian nation, and not with our own.

 

I would not say trade is necessarily a means to achieve peaceful change, although from trade follows several opportunities.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Rostere

[Azarkon]

Personally I think we should have nothing to do with China. No diplomatic relations, no trading, no military near them, no joint ventures, nothing. Keep a watch of course, but completely and totally remove ourselves from their influence and remove our influence on them.

 

Problem is, that's not possible. The US has strong economic, political, and military interests in East Asia. It was the US that originally "forced open" Japan's ports. It was the US that encouraged free market & trade in the region. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea... All US allies. There's no way the US can leave East Asia alone, and therefore there's no way the US can leave China alone.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Azarkon

[Blarghagh]

It's funny that reading the serious discussions on this board usually teaches me more and keep me far more up to date than reading newspapers daily does. Maybe the papers here in the Netherlands just suck.

 

Anyway, what I seem to get out of this situation is that with all the new intelligence technology, the different countries are just getting a bit paranoid because the water borders don't cut it anymore. Still, that's no excuse for putting your will on what are still international waters.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Personally I think we should have nothing to do with China. No diplomatic relations, no trading, no military near them, no joint ventures, nothing. Keep a watch of course, but completely and totally remove ourselves from their influence and remove our influence on them.

Then who would finance our debt so we can buy cheap crap from them? What are you trying to do, fix our economy or something?

[Azarkon]

Azarkon, you can't warn anyone to leave international waters. The clue is in the name.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that the international wtaer boundary was defined before the revolution in sensors. The distance now might as well be defined as "with your nose pressed to our bathroom window".

 

Good analogy

 

One thing to keep in mind is that while international law doesn't explicitly prohibit military surveillance in another country's EEZ, international law doesn't explicitly permit it, either. Intelligence gathering has always been a somewhat gray area in terms of legality, and I don't think most countries actually believe that it's okay for another country to park "military surveillance" ships a dozen or two miles off their naval bases, monitoring everything that goes on, even though that's technically "not prohibited." Of course, belief and reality are two different things, and in the end it's what you do about it that shows your posture. The US has tons of ships "surveying" China's coastal areas, and the Chinese don't usually act up; this latest challenge was designed to test Obama's mettle, I think, and it could also be that the US got too close to the Hainan submarine base.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

I'm no submariner, but it occurs to me that a subsurface survey need not be making a military surveillance to have military connotations. Knowing the gulleys and whatnot might assist in countering Chinese subs.

 

And as for Sand's concept of hiding China under an enormous duvet, I'm just pleased to see a return to his usual frog-eyed lunacy.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am just saying that we need to isolate ourselves from China, and cut all ties with them. They are our enemy, Walsh. No matter how much the US borrows from them, no matter how much useless crap the US consumer buys from them, that will never change. They are our enemy and we need to treat them as such.

[Calax]

I am just saying that we need to isolate ourselves from China, and cut all ties with them. They are our enemy, Walsh. No matter how much the US borrows from them, no matter how much useless crap the US consumer buys from them, that will never change. They are our enemy and we need to treat them as such.

That's a tad bit short sighted. I'm guessing if we were in a bar in 1810 you'd be saying "We should never trade, deal, or even talk to, the british because they're our enemies. Now and forever!"

[theslug]

I am just saying that we need to isolate ourselves from China, and cut all ties with them. They are our enemy, Walsh. No matter how much the US borrows from them, no matter how much useless crap the US consumer buys from them, that will never change. They are our enemy and we need to treat them as such.

That's a tad bit short sighted. I'm guessing if we were in a bar in 1810 you'd be saying "We should never trade, deal, or even talk to, the british because they're our enemies. Now and forever!"

Yeah seriously. That kind of idealism belongs in 1930's-40's nazi germany.

 

That's right. Called Killian a nazi. Aint taking it back either. Can't make me.

[Killian Kalthorne]

That's right. Called Killian a nazi. Aint taking it back either. Can't make me.

 

That's it. I am taking the furry handcuffs back, and no cake for you.

[~Di]

Countries, including China and the US, spy all the time. When they get caught, there's some media fanfare, and then the novelty fades. The point is that they do get caught, and that's one of the risks of spying. There is, in some sense, an unspoken agreement between countries that "spying is fine so long as you don't get caught, but if you do, don't expect us to sit quietly if we could do something about it." Chinese spy ships caught off Japan's coast will be warned by Japanese war ships to leave, or else. The same happened here - the Impeccable was warned, refused to leave, and that's why the Chinese sent a few ships to block it.

 

International waters. Japan has no right to warn ships to leave international waters. Neither does China. Neither does the USA.

 

As far as whether I think it's okay, I think it's a matter of interpretation. That it's America has nothing to do with it. The real question you pose is whether it's "okay" for China to block US ships from entering sensitive military areas. Well, the problem with this question is that this is not a moral question, it's an international relations question. Whether it's okay for China to block US ships is a matter of what the two countries agreed to. As far as I know, there are no such agreements, which is the true issue here.

 

International waters. If China is foolish enough to construct "sensitive military areas" in international waters, then they have played Russian roulette with their military secrets, because they do not own the waters they have placed said secrets in and have no right to prevent other nations from transversing those waters... for any purpose.

 

Indeed, the moral question is eased by the fact that there was no loss of life, no damage to property, and nothing more than a stern warning on the part of the Chinese. If the Impeccable had been shot at, things would be different, but since it was only prevented from going further into Chinese territory, all we can say is "oh well, we were caught, but isn't it okay to spy so long as we aren't affecting economic activity?" and maybe "but China really shouldn't be trying to physically block us from entering; that could result in an accident like the spy plane incident." The latter has some moral weight, yet if the Chinese had sent a destroyer and warned that the ship must leave or be boarded, would that have been preferred? There are only so many ways you can force a ship you don't want to enter your territory, not enter your territory.

 

International waters. It was not Chinese territory. You can repeat that phrase from now until WWIII, but that doesn't make it any more correct. The unarmed USA ship was in international waters.

 

Again, if the Chinese sent a spy ship to "survey" Pearl Harbor, I don't think the US would've just let it through. But that scenario has never been tested, as far as I know, because the Chinese operate a brown water navy that isn't capable of going much past their coast.

 

Pearl Harbor is not 125 miles from the USA coast. It's in the damned harbor, within spitting distance and sight of US soil. You analogy fails. On many levels.

Edited March 12, 2009 by ~Di

[Azarkon]

Like Walsh pointed out above, "international waters" do not have the same significance today that it did fifty years ago due to improved tracking techniques. Moreover, laws regarding proper conduct in international waters is a relatively gray area with regards to spying/surveillance. In practice, there seems to be a lack of consensus. China disagrees with US surveillance near its coasts, and the US disagrees with China's disagreement. I should note that China's "sensitive military installation" is not constructed in international waters, but in its territory, and that the "row" is over how near it the US should be able to conduct military intelligence gathering (since even if the ship is not physically within range, tracking equipment can bridge the distance).

 

My point is that it's an international relations issue, not a moral issue. China, like the US, is a sovereign state that can choose to abide or reject the US's interpretation of the UNCLOS, provided that they are ready to face the consequences and do not adopt a double standard when some other nation acts up against Chinese surveillance. For these kinds of issues it is typically more appropriate to examine the underlying relations (ie why would China suddenly challenge the US) than to say things like whether "the Chinese were way out of line," because that doesn't say anything. By what standards do you judge China? The US's? But why should they accept the US's standards for them?

 

Being morally outraged about China's actions, given that there was no material or human loss of any kind on the part of the US, seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me. I just can't see what's so morally abhorrent about this given that China clearly doesn't accept the US's right to conduct military intelligence operations in their EEZ, and has made that clear for years. Going ahead with these operations against that background shows that the Pentagon has no regard for China's disagreements in this area, and so these sorts of confrontations are almost inevitable. If the US and China really want to work this out and respect world opinion, they can take it to the international court. Their mutual failure to do so tells me that they don't really care about international opinion, and are satisfied with acting unilaterally at their own discretion.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Azarkon

[Blarghagh]

I am just saying that we need to isolate ourselves from China, and cut all ties with them. They are our enemy, Walsh. No matter how much the US borrows from them, no matter how much useless crap the US consumer buys from them, that will never change. They are our enemy and we need to treat them as such.

 

Because improving relationships with a country works best by denying they exist. ^_^

[Killian Kalthorne]

From what I have seen from China not much has improved since the Tienanmen Square massacre. Sure, there has been lil' shows China puts on, but the meat of it they are still the same dictatorial communism that squashes any dissent with violence. Why should I want my country to have any sort of relations with a country like that?

[Walsingham]

I am just saying that we need to isolate ourselves from China, and cut all ties with them. They are our enemy, Walsh. No matter how much the US borrows from them, no matter how much useless crap the US consumer buys from them, that will never change. They are our enemy and we need to treat them as such.

 

You have some extremely unoriginal, yet shocking, notions of what an enemy is. It's like debating with a squire from the 1600s. You would have us abandon every tool in our kit, except the stick wi' nails in it. The pointy stick is powerful, but not all powerful.