[Roger604]

Vietnam and Chinese both claim the Spratly Islands. In the past few weeks, Vietnam has been drilling for oil / gas around these islands. Of course, this is a threat to China's claim. It also changes the Sino-Vietnam status quo that has existed since the 1970's with regard to the Spratly dispute.

This article talks about what Vietnam's motivations are. Vietnam believes this is the best opportunity to grab the islands since China is preoccupied dealing with US/Japan supporting Taiwan Independence. China is also preoccupied with Beijing Olympics, and would avoid confrontation to keep its economy going.

The article also says that the US has been secretly encouraging Vietnam to take confrontational moves. The US has been engaged in a policy of provoking China and creating issues to complicate China's security environment. One part of this has been to encourage China's neighbors, like Japan or India, to take confrontational moves against China. Recently, George Bush met with the Vietnam President in the first state meeting since the Vietnam War.

In reaction to this move on the Spratly's, China will take diplomatic measures and perhaps economic sanctions. It may also engage in an arms build-up in the South China Sea or supply arms to Vietnam's hostile neighbors, like Laos.

Quote

越南对中国挑衅越来越出格：胡哥究竟怎么应对

这些天来，越南对中国的挑衅是越来越出格，中国怎么办？我想胡哥他们应该在忙个不亦乐乎。

军委办公室的灯火也彻夜通明。外交部的的前后两次声明就足以说明这一点。那么，中央对会采取哪些对策呢？

总的看来是两点。一是打。二是和。先说打，虽然很多网友大叫开打，甚至要把越南灭了，这是不理性的。中央会打吗？我看不会。理由很简单，不到万不得以我们是不会出手的，在战略机遇期内中央一定会排除一切干扰，坚决执行既定的国家的大政方针的。在这里要说明的是，如果越南强行占领，并不顾一切的开发南沙的石油，那么中央就会断然出手。在这里我们还要分析一下越南为什么会在这个时候来挑衅中国的。这主要是越南认为现在是他实现自己利益的最好时期，因为，明年中国要举行奥运会，台独分子整天在叫嚣，08年是个极为关键的年份。从国际上来看，美国由于忙于中东，在亚洲被中国所逐渐挤兑，大感不对，但他现在还没空来搅和，不过他是不甘心的，这也从最近的美国的一些言论和在人民币上等方面对中国大打出手可以看出来的。美国一直在采取一种逼中国出手的策略，前一段时间是在蛊惑日本在狂吠。但由于中国采取了正确的战略成功的化解了日本的企图，美国的计划落空，现在很可能美国又在蛊惑越南出面逼中国出手。

而越南一直在寻找这种机会，现在机会来了，所以就迫不及待的出手了。越南这个国家的历史绝定他缺乏深度，战略的高度。79年以前就自认为自己又苏联支持就大举向中国进攻，被邓公打的落花流水，那是前话。他现在也可能有这种心态，想在中美这种结构性矛盾中捞取好处。总起来说越南才敢于在中国的庞然大物前出手基于四个方面的认识：

一、认为中国要大力发展经济，抓住战略机遇期，不会轻易跟越南开战。

二、认为中国面临着台独这个棘手问题，其他事情来不及，只能争一只眼不闭一只眼，所以就学日本来个生米煮成熟饭。

三、利用中美之间的结构性矛盾，认为中国不敢轻易跟他作战。

四、越南认为现在出手是最佳时期，因为现在中国羽翼尚为丰满，但只要再过个5年，一旦中国拥有航母，越南就很麻烦。只能是受中国所左右。所以他现在才鼓起勇气出手。

分析清楚越南的战略意图。中央就很可能会采取一下措施。

一、忍。毕竟现在小不忍则乱大谋。但忍的背后肯定会有几手。一是发表声明，拥有无可争辩的主权，要遵循相关各方达成的协议，不是我破坏南海的稳定，而是你越南，到时我采取必要的措施，你可不要怪我，在舆论上作足功夫，规避中国威胁论。二是利用老挝和检扑在制约越南。在越南的投资等方面对其进行惩罚。

二、战。这里的战不是用武力来解绝，我相信中国一定不会用武力决绝。但会采取威慑的形式，严厉警告越南。用南海舰队来夹击越南，必要时对越南的渔民采取断然措施。部署更多的南海军舰。在广西和云南则部署歼10和歼11。调集军队造成大军压境的态势。给越南的经济造成一种大战在即的环境，破坏其发展的根基。

三、打压，尤其在国际上对其进行打压。利用越美矛盾进行夹击。如人权等，给美国人纵欲一下。武装老挝和接扑在，买给其先进的武器。造成越南恶劣的国际环境，迫使其大量的增加国防开支，托其经济的后退。使其向中国求饶。

就让我们好好的观察胡哥的政治智慧，怎么解这到难题。

[Player 0]

Vietnam is jsut being oppertunistic, China shouldn't allow this to slip, it cannot allow itself to appear weak in disputes such as these otherwise no one will take China seriously, Vietnam's relationship with China will suffer, i agree China will begin to support nations that are hostile to Vietnam more, and place some sanctions, until Vietnam is willing to come to a diplomatic table in order to resolve this dispute.

[edisonone]

Roger604, on Jul 1 2007, 10:06 PM, said:

Vietnam and Chinese both claim the Spratly Islands. In the past few weeks, Vietnam has been drilling for oil / gas around these islands. Of course, this is a threat to China's claim

My position on the Sino-Vietnam matter:

If after how hundreds of thousands of our countrymens have sweated it out; bled; probably subcomed to malaria; sprayed by agent orange; and, likely helped financed free of interest their reunification war efforts against the Americans by keeping their supply routes open and their SAM batteries aimed upwards at the skies of Haiphong and Hanoi; and in the end, awakens to the realities of how they repays us thereafter makes for a travesty that China and Chinese the world over should never forget because, they've proven that they are even more cold hearted than even Japan was...

Therefore, coming to thinking about it, it is my opinion that we (China) should've just let the Americans finish them off with their B-52s, their napalms, their agent oranges, etc, etc., while the going was good... End of story! I mean logically speaking, one just don't try to pick a fight with someone who just saved his/her life but, the Vietnamese did.

So, let them rot in hell is how I see it.

[Sampanviking]

If Vietnam is drilling so should China. This is a no brainer, simply match them move by move, as we all know who holds the ultimate advantage.

[edisonone]

Sampanviking, on Jul 2 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

If Vietnam is drilling so should China. This is a no brainer, simply match them move by move, as we all know who holds the ultimate advantage.

China, IMO, is momentarily caught in between two rocks in a hard place when it comes to the question of sino-Vietnam relations over the Parcel Islands, because, if China hit them out at sea as did in the 90s (simple enough of a thing for China to do considering China's overwelming inventory of surface vessels, military aircrafts, other factors too of course), it'll send them running to their former enemy for cover and chance the probability of Cam Rah Bay being leasted, again, to the Americans as an insurance policy against China. And that I'm sure China does not need.

On the other hand, if China don't hit them, they will take advantage of this dilemma China faces and set up shop in these attols and challenges China every chance they get. In essence, China is screwed if she does and she's screwed if she don't in this situation. Therefore, the equation is not as simple as if the only variable existing here is that you drill I drill. It's way more damning than that.

The only solution now, my opinion, is for China to play the compromising part? Once we will have won over the American's trust and their friendship, and I trust we will; or if and when we're not something to fiddle with even by the Americans; I'd bet it'll be zero tolerance from us when it comes to compromises with those unthankfull SOBs - gauranteed.

[tanzen]

Just goes to show, Edi, that even the smallest nation can maneuver a very large one into a no win position.

[Roger604]

I think both Edi and Sampan have good ideas. China is facing a lot more pressure now than it did just a year ago -- from new flare-ups with India and Vietnam to escalation on old problems with Taiwan/US/Japan.

Vietnam is probably the lowest priority. They are not a threat to China by themselves and they are also diplomatically isolated (they're communists for Pete's sake). China should try to contain this Vietnam issue with diplomatic and economic countermeasures. Meanwhile, it should show more boldness around the Spratlys by following and harassing Vietnamese ships in the Spratlys. Sort of like what goes on between North Korea and South Korea / Japan. Or like what goes on between China and the US/Japan.

In contrast, India is a MUCH more pressing and urgent issue. It seems India is at a cross-roads: Americans seem to be offering India more reliable rocket technology for their Agni-III, and perhaps help in MIRVs and countermeasures -- for countering China. MIRVs and countermeasures would greatly hinder the effectiveness of a Chinese mid-course anti-ballistic missile shield.

India has to decide whether these "gifts" are worth the price of being an American client surrounded on all sides by powers hostile to the US -- Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Burma. India will basically be cannon fodder for US imperial designs.

This a smart move for the US to find itself a billion brown-skinned people for cannon fodder -- it's a very classic imperial maneuver worthy of the British Empire -- while balancing China and putting pressure on its south-western flank. The question is: are the Indians dumb enough to jump into bed with the Americans?

I'll go on a limb and predict that India will give the fighter contract to the Russians instead of the Americans. They'll take what they can from the Americans, and tease them into giving more to see what happens. If the Americans gain strength over Russia or China, then the Indians will be more willing to jump into bed with them. But at the moment, I don't think India is so confident about American long-term power in Asia that it's willing to be cannon-fodder for US imperial designs.

[Sampanviking]

The point about playing the matching game, is that it allows countries to reach a tacit agreement without having to negotiate theoretical issues that would be politically unacceptable as a public position.

Through move and match move, step by step, you can arrive at the desired reality on the ground and then negotiate on the basis of it. This is similar to how both China and Japan have reacted in respect of their disputed Oil and Gas fields and; as we are now seeing, it does appear to work.

[edisonone]

tanzen, on Jul 2 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

Just goes to show, Edi, that even the smallest nation can maneuver a very large one into a no win position.

That is made possible only when they exploited either "America's phobia", or "the USSR's phobia", of China as leverage to alleviate the phobia they themselves have on us. If otherwise, when they were stirred by Brezhnev to conduct the ceaseless commando provcations into Yunnan and GuangXi and we hit them back for that, we would've likely been all the way to Ho Chi Ming City and back long since.

[Sampanviking]

But again Edi, its worth a bit of tolerance and patience to try and help the East Asian unity of which you are in favour. Everybody knows that it would not be a contest if it came to blows, nor would the Vietnamese wish to be too close tot he US or indeed vice versa.

The question to ask, is what is Vietnam's motivation here? I would say that the answer is fear of total domination and that this action is as much a display of spirit as anything else. If China responds in a heavy handed way, all it will do is confirm the worst fears and suspicions of many countries. What is called for is a subtle and clever diplomatic response, which shows China as generous, rational, reliable and reasonable towards its friends and neighbors.

I think a Joint Free Trade Zone along either side of the Sino-Vietnamese border is a far better response than a military buildup.

[tanzen]

edisonone, on Jul 3 2007, 04:28 AM, said:

That is made possible only when they exploited either "America's phobia", or "the USSR's phobia", of China as leverage to alleviate the phobia they themselves have on us. If otherwise, when they were stirred by Brezhnev to conduct the ceaseless commando provcations into Yunnan and GuangXi and we hit them back for that, we would've likely been all the way to Ho Chi Ming City and back long since.

Well it would not have promoted Asian Unity, would it? So I think some sacrifices are going to have to be made to achieve and maintain that unity. It's not free. There is a price (and a cost) for it. China will need to make some concessions. It's not easy knowing when to strike back hard and when to simply administer a sharp reprimand. But it is something China is going to need to master.

[edisonone]

Sampanviking, on Jul 3 2007, 09:55 AM, said:

But again Edi, its worth a bit of tolerance and patience to try and help the East Asian unity of which you are in favour.

Of that roster, sorry, but Vietnam was never part and parcel. I had, since the plight of the boat peoples (mostly overseas Chinese who made Vietnam home and who went through thick and thin with Vietnam throughout the Vietnam war without a complaint) places them on the Fhilipino Indonesian list. In other words: they have no meaning for me anymore whatsoever. I consider them all animals.

This list I was refering includes only those of North East Asia. Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia can burn in hell for all I care for the racial prosecution of overseas Chinese of these countries durring the 50s and 60s, the 70s, and in the 80s and 90s.

Quote

Everybody knows that it would not be a contest if it came to blows, nor would the Vietnamese wish to be too close tot he US or indeed vice versa.

As I said, I'd let the Americans finnish them off if the two is to ever come face to face with one another again ever.

Quote

I think a Joint Free Trade Zone along either side of the Sino-Vietnamese border is a far better response than a military buildup.

O'h God! I hope not. Because, if that happens, it'll give them the opportunity to buy as much MiG-35s as India hopes to. I mean consider the out of this world numbers of state of the arts SAMs China must expend in order to keep them out of Yunnan and GuangXi . It would indeed be a travesty if we help them arm themselves against us now wouldn't it?

Regardless, now.... I can understand the phobia American have about China's econonic boom, and its military rise.

[tanzen]

Sampanviking, on Jul 3 2007, 07:55 AM, said:

But again Edi, its worth a bit of tolerance and patience to try and help the East Asian unity of which you are in favour. Everybody knows that it would not be a contest if it came to blows, nor would the Vietnamese wish to be too close tot he US or indeed vice versa.

The question to ask, is what is Vietnam's motivation here? I would say that the answer is fear of total domination and that this action is as much a display of spirit as anything else. If China responds in a heavy handed way, all it will do is confirm the worst fears and suspicions of many countries. What is called for is a subtle and clever diplomatic response, which shows China as generous, rational, reliable and reasonable towards its friends and neighbors.

I think a Joint Free Trade Zone along either side of the Sino-Vietnamese border is a far better response than a military buildup.

Precisely. Also I think any response should not contradict or show an inconsistency in China's foreign policy. Tolerance abroad and intolerance in one's own backyard is a failing that some nations already have. China certainly doesn't want to fit that mold and follow that example.

[Roger604]

Sampanviking, on Jul 3 2007, 04:20 AM, said:

The point about playing the matching game, is that it allows countries to reach a tacit agreement without having to negotiate theoretical issues that would be politically unacceptable as a public position.

Through move and match move, step by step, you can arrive at the desired reality on the ground and then negotiate on the basis of it. This is similar to how both China and Japan have reacted in respect of their disputed Oil and Gas fields and; as we are now seeing, it does appear to work.

Yes, great point, Sampan. It's better to deal with this issue earlier rather than letting it fester, if possible.

Sampanviking, on Jul 3 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

But again Edi, its worth a bit of tolerance and patience to try and help the East Asian unity of which you are in favour. Everybody knows that it would not be a contest if it came to blows, nor would the Vietnamese wish to be too close tot he US or indeed vice versa.

The question to ask, is what is Vietnam's motivation here? I would say that the answer is fear of total domination and that this action is as much a display of spirit as anything else. If China responds in a heavy handed way, all it will do is confirm the worst fears and suspicions of many countries. What is called for is a subtle and clever diplomatic response, which shows China as generous, rational, reliable and reasonable towards its friends and neighbors.

Although you have a great point here, I think there's a credible argument that not everybody knows "it would not be a contest if it came to blows." Everybody knows that China and US/Japan are adversaries in the region. Thus, the Chinese security environment is not as secure as it was, say, in the Clinton administration. For most East Asian nations, it is by no means certain that China will prevail and come to assert influence again over all of East Asia.

After all, if it was simply a forgone conclusion that China would get the upper hand in the region eventually, Taiwan would not have a separatism movement. The TI supporters would be cowed into accepting the One China Principle. China is not a status quo power. It is the challenger, not the defending champion.

I think that while China is now the #2 most powerful nation in the world, many of the surrounding Asian nations still have doubts about whether China has the balls to disrupt its trade with the US and much of the world by taking a more assertive posture toward encroachment on its interests. So, yes, "spirit" is a big part of why Vietnam is taking an opportunistic shot at the Spratlys, or maybe internal politics, but it is also probing the possibility of extracting an advantage over China by taking a more hostile posture.

Ditto for India. It's also probing the possibility of extracting advantage over China by taking a more hostile posture.

Although the Chinese military has transformed itself into highly advanced fighting force, not since the 70's has China actually been forceful with any of its neighbors. China has a reputation for offering carrots, carrots and more carrots. Never a stick, even though theoretically it is there. So China's ability to deter, I believe, is much less credible than what it should be.

To respond to the probing hostility of China's neighbors with more carrots would be grave mistake. It would cement China's reputation as a weakling, as the "sick man of Asia." It would only encourage further encroachments on Chinese interests. At this point in time, China must start to establish a reputation for being willing to back up its claims and warnings with actual force. It doesn't need to fight everybody, but it needs to make an example out of somebody so other nations appreciate the danger they face.

I think the best candidate for being made an example of is the DPP, if they win in 2008. Hit their party offices with some missiles. On top of that, China really urgently needs to impress upon India the possibility India will turn into a radioactive wasteland if it allies itself with US against Russia, China and Iran. China must immediately execute very robust, hostile actions in Tibet South and even Kashmir to demonstrate the danger India faces.

As for Vietnam, China needs to frustrate Vietnam's infringements into the Spratlys. At this point, only low intensity measures like diplomatic or economic action is called for. But if Vietnam escalates and starts talks with the US for a naval base, China will now face a very serious threat. In that circumstance, and I hope it doesn't happen, the ONLY ACCEPTABLE CHOICE is a full scale invasion of Vietnam and annexation of it's northern territories.

[Roger604]

edisonone, on Jul 3 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

This list I was refering includes only those of North East Asia. Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia can burn in hell for all I care for the racial prosecution of overseas Chinese of these countries durring the 50s and 60s, the 70s, and in the 80s and 90s.

If it really came down to a calculus of sins. I think the Japanese take the cake. But I don't see why you have a beef with Malaysia. They are a lot better than others in neighborhood (i.e. Indonesia) for their treatment of Chinese minorities. I'd say Malaysians and Singaporeans can be given full status in a [distant] future enlarged federation or some kind of future supra-national body.

[edisonone]

Roger604, on Jul 3 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

If it really came down to a calculus of sins. I think the Japanese take the cake. But I don't see why you have a beef with Malaysia. They are a lot better than others in neighborhood (i.e. Indonesia) for their treatment of Chinese minorities. I'd say Malaysians and Singaporeans can be given full status in a [distant] future enlarged federation or some kind of future supra-national body.

Maylaysia:

Malaysia (the mainland part and not the Island of Sabah) too was exremely cruel towards overseas Chinese in the '70s. The magnitude of the racism there was equivalent in every respect to Indonesia's treatment of Chinese in their county and, it was state sponsored racism. I guess what fueled it was fear of Chinese control of their economy as the Port of Singapore makes for the finest of example.



The Japan Variable:

While I am by no means suggesting that the Nanjing masecre didn't happened because it definitely did, but, here are some dots that I think we should try to connect first and then ask the questions:

- At the time of the masecre, Nanjing was the headquarter of CKS's KMT (or the Capital of China): it was also the epicenter of China's resistance against Japan. Extremely hot zone don't you think? The Nanjing legacy never happened to any other Chinese city except Nanjing.

- In times of war and hostiliy, and particularly durring the ruleless days of WWII and prior, what does one military do to another's military's personnels or, what does a military do to a resistance group which refuses to give in or surender? They become POWs, and, if the resistance is severe and fierce, some are executed in attempts to strike fear in the resistance movement.

- Or, alternatively, how many Japanese soldiers were likely shot or bludgeoned to death after they were caught by CKS's mens or was caught by Chinese resistant groups but was never reported or recorded? Only God knows my friend. But, I trust the numbers would be quite substantial if the truth is ever known. In other words: War is evil. War is Hell. War has no emotions.

- Golly, only God know how many members of the Chinese communist party (our own people) was mascred in cold blood by CKS in Shanghai durring the time of his rein in China, and visa versa as the two were dualing it out for the Chinese throne.

In other words, it's always easier to blame the perpetrator for our negative experiences, but, shouldn't we look into our own short comings fisrt? I mean as one guy I've come across have said: If we looked after our own asses a wee better instead of fighting amongst ourselve as did durring the Nanjing or durring the rape of China, who could'sve had the mastery to even make a move on us, never mind outright invaded us?

I blame that squarely on CKS because, if he would've had the leadership to first and foremost put China first instead of trying to get rid of Chou enlai and Mao, there would've been no need for a Chinese Communist Party in China and Japan would've never hd the opportunity to march into china they did. That is where the CCP won hearts: It (CCP) offered to unite with CKS to fight the Japanese. But, CKS was more fearfull of Mao than he wa Tojo and went after Mao instead.

Bottom line: Japan was WWII. But, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam - it's now - it's still clearly the present tense. And, it'll erupt again untill and unless the overseas Chinese of these countries had, gentically and fully been mutated and incorporated into the South East Asian mix.

Have to go. Duty calls. The wife is calling.

[Sampanviking]

I see a classic mind game here Roger and I would remind you of your signature "resist the Decepticons". Quite right.

The US broke the Soviets by convincing them that Star Wars was real and working and right now they could be trying to convince the PRC that their security environment is far more fragile than it really is and use it to force China to lash out in a rash and ill considered way.

Please do not confuse my desire for a diplomatic settlement with softness or weakness. This is the scene when the local Godfather and his heavies turn up at the shop of the little guy and look really menacing, but then rather than just wipe the floor with him says "Look we can do this the hard way or the easy way, talk to me and lets do a deal we can all agree to"

Vietnam is a neighbour, so if you cannot do business with them, then China might have a real problem.

[Roger604]

edisonone, on Jul 4 2007, 01:19 AM, said:

While I am by no means suggesting that the Nanjing masecre didn't happened because it definitely did, but, here are some dots that I think we should try to connect first and then ask the questions:

I'm all for dealing with the past and building a bright future too, but you're forgetting one thing.

Although the present Japanese are not the same people who committed horrible crimes all over China (don't forget the biological weapon experiments that would have formed the basis for a genocide of Chinese), the present Japanese are quickly reverting back militarism.

Japan played a positive role in the world for 50 years after the war, but now it's ready to amend its peace constitution and use force to defend its position as the most advanced nation in Asia.

Although there are those on the left who feel otherwise, the majority of Japanese believe they are superior to other Asians.

They will not let China keep growing wealthier and more advanced...... not without a fight.

Sampanviking, on Jul 4 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

I see a classic mind game here Roger and I would remind you of your signature "resist the Decepticons". Quite right.

The US broke the Soviets by convincing them that Star Wars was real and working and right now they could be trying to convince the PRC that their security environment is far more fragile than it really is and use it to force China to lash out in a rash and ill considered way.

Please do not confuse my desire for a diplomatic settlement with softness or weakness. This is the scene when the local Godfather and his heavies turn up at the shop of the little guy and look really menacing, but then rather than just wipe the floor with him says "Look we can do this the hard way or the easy way, talk to me and lets do a deal we can all agree to"

Vietnam is a neighbour, so if you cannot do business with them, then China might have a real problem.

First off, I totally agree with you that force should be used only if absolutely necessary. Gratuitous use of force is barbaric and counter-productive. Secondly, I also agree that China needs to be wary of a US attempt to paint it as an out-of-control aggressor.

The basic problem is selecting the right combination of carrots and sticks that will persuade surrounding countries that adopting a cooperative strategy is more beneficial for them than adopting a hostile strategy. The question is.... if you observe some countries moving away from the cooperative strategy to a hostile strategy, what do you do? Is it worse to give them a carrot, and risk that they will conclude you are weak, and so embolden their hostile strategy? Or is it worse to give them a stick, and risk that they will see the relationship in zero-sum terms, and so drive them into a hostile strategy?

China has to have an idea of what kind of outcome is acceptable for it, and how much compromise it is willing to accept. Once it determines that, it has to persuade Vietnam that Vietnam is better off accepting this deal than rejecting it, because China can credibly use force to impose a worse outcome on Vietnam if they reject the deal. Ultimately, it comes down to having a credible threat. That's what would give China leverage. The problem is that, since China has not fought any conflict in so long, Vietnam does not view China as a credible threat. Moreover, Vietnam thinks China is too overburdened with other problems to dare to confront Vietnam.

You seem to think that anytime China rattles some sabers, everybody's going to fly into America's arms. I don't think it's like that at all. Rattling some sabers does not commit China to a permanent hostile policy. It can rattle some sabers, and then return to diplomacy to see whether the situation has improved. China has such a "good" reputation for being peaceful, passive and compromising that it can seriously rattle some sabers and yet credibly say -- we really just want peace and good relations.

So, you can view this as "restoring the balance." China has gone too far into the peaceful and compromising posture that it's detrimental to its national interests -- given how genuinely unenviable its security environment is. So it must restore the balance by making some credible threats.

Alternatively, you can view it as "expending political capital." It has built up such a reputation for peace and passivity that it can sell off some of this capital. By rattling its saber, China gain by putting pressure on Vietnam to accept a compromise..... yet the political capital allows China to do this without risk that nations will simply regard it as an uncontrollable monster.


I am certain that it's time for China to take a harder position with its neighbors, including possibly some limited use of force. This will enhance, not detract, from its diplomacy. The question is what kind of military operation China should choose that would give it the greatest chance of a decisive victory that will shake the confidence of those considering taking a more hostile strategy against China.

[Roger604]

This article argues that Vietnam has been building up its strength in the S. China Sea to seek to permanently control the Spratlys. Vietnam has acquired Kilo submarines and Su-30 fighters. This means they can credibly threaten China's assets in the Spratlys.

Whoever controls the S. China Sea controls the main sea lane between East Asia and the rest of the world -- in particular oil from the Middle East -- not to mention the area's oil and gas resources.

The author argues that China should prepare to attack the Vietnam Air Force and Navy and retake control over the Spratlys. Vietnam is the prime candidate because it is the weakest link in the list of states currently hostile to China. Unlike India, Vietnam has no nukes. The author argues that China should recognize the futility of diplomacy without coercive action. A decisive campaign against Vietnam would strike fear into the hearts of most East Asian nations, and they will quickly bend to China's will. Otherwise, China is just a laughing stock -- a big country that's so afraid of its own shadow it's easy for anybody to take advantage of.

I agree with this article! Vietnam is a very good candidate for China to make a statement. "Peaceful rise" is peaceful as long as you give China some measure of respect. Otherwise, we will not hesitate to ditch our compromising posture and make somebody pay.

Quote

越南高调侵占中国南海的背后支持者是谁?

越南这个流着下贱血液的南亚穷鬼高调支持台湾问题，声称中国大陆对台湾问题的解决将会受到南海诸国的责难。这不是越南一时心血来潮做出的举动，从各方面分析可知是大国博弈中各方对越南明里暗里支持的必然结果，这中间更有俄罗斯鬼鬼祟祟的大力支持。中国军队只有走向蓝海才能切实保护自己的经济，南海和印度洋而非日本海区是中国经济命脉的七寸，而南海的关键点是越南。因此中国无论如何都只能让越南在南海的军事力量削弱到不能影响中国战略的地步。

越南位于中南半岛东部，国土面积32．95万平方公里，北与中国接壤，西与老挝、柬埔寨交界，东面和南面临南海，海岸线长３２６０多公里，有大小岛屿 2600个，港湾数十处。越南中南部国土正对着中国的中沙群岛，西沙群岛，南沙群岛。越南结束和美国的战争后经济逐步走上了正轨，对自然资源日益渴求，而自己国土和市场的狭小导致了对中国一直无力开发的南中国海区虎视眈眈，从刚开始偷偷摸摸霸占到后来来明目张胆的军事侵占，再到近些年来引入外部势力对中国领海进行赤裸裸的资源和所有权的抢占。

从上世纪中后期开始，越南趁中国潜心发展经济而忽视了对领海的控制的时机，不断引入外界力量使得中国南海局势复杂化国际化和军事化。越南不仅伙同美国违法开发中国南海资源，更吸引大量美资公司淆乱视听；日本由于非常以来海上生命线1997年的《防卫白皮书》把国防问题的涵盖面扩大到了南沙群岛意图保护日本的经济利益和战略安全，1997年4月，美日将南沙群岛列入安保条约新防务合作指针中，使得南沙群岛争端更加国际化；2000年9月，俄越签署合作开发越南大陆架油气的协议，在中国海区产油目前为每年1300万吨；印度与越南在南中国海进行的防务合作也使南沙问题复杂化。这一系列的侵害中国权益的举动都因为中国军事力量增长的缓慢而被视作中国的软弱无能。中国海上生命线漫长而又充满的变数，从中东海湾产油区到中国途经的国家中绝大多数都在陆地上或在海疆上做着偷盗中国的勾当。印度借着麦克马洪线对中国西藏虎视眈眈，并建立强大的海军牢牢控制着印度洋，印度尼西亚和马拉西亚，菲律宾占据着中国南海的几百个岛屿和广阔的海域，连小小的汶莱都敢于在太岁头上动土占据我们的海疆。

中国解决南海问题的关键在越南，越南不仅占据南海岛屿和海域最为广阔，而且所占领的海域对中国是生命攸关的黄金地带，一旦他们的占领合法化中国海上战略通道将紧紧被越南鬼子撺在手中，经济命脉随时都会受到越南人的威胁。越南鬼子背信弃义的不争事实国人有目共睹，而且越南人实质上和俄罗斯的军事同盟没有废除，中国经济的腾飞让俄罗斯人眼热，更让他们内心恐惧（毕竟人民不像政府那样容易忘掉被霸占的一百多万平方公里的领土）为了让中国不至于发展到对自己产生威胁，俄罗斯在和中国战略合作的同时更时时刻刻想法牵制中国发展为世界强国的步伐，因此暗中军事支持与中国有矛盾的国家是北极熊最好也是唯一的选择。随着中国军队建设力度的增强越南人嗅出了威胁，不仅加强和俄罗斯的合作力度，更从俄罗斯引进先进的su 系战机和基洛级的潜艇，这些武器我们都不陌生，而越南独特的地理环境决定了越南飞机加潜艇将能完全有效中国南海，拥有先进战机的越南就如同中国南海的无数航空母舰连接而成的战斗群一般能直接威胁到我们海军的生存，从越南中南部任何一个机场起飞的苏系战机都能到达南海进行战斗，越南鬼子基洛潜艇会由于中国反潜薄弱而威胁我们商船和战舰的生存，而我们即将建成的航空母舰更会在南海上充满危机。因此解决与印尼等南海国家的问题一定要削弱甚至消灭越南海空军力量，中越战争不可避免。

有人会说与越南开战会让我们背负中国威胁论和国际干预的重负，但是消灭越南鬼子将能够顺利收复绝大部分的南海被占领海，能够对印尼，马来西亚垃圾国家形成敲山震虎的效应从而顺利解决其余领海的所有权问题；而从大的战略上面而言削弱越南即可彻底打通南海战略通道并放开手脚一心应付印度人的强大舰队；同时能够把我们所鄙视的日本和韩国人海上通道牢牢控制在自己手中，那时候不管日本和韩国人在黄海怎么折腾最终他们都只是被我们关在胡同里的狗而已---不管他们多么疯狂我们都能随时控制局势收拾他们，而台独势力不管多么嚣张都不能在失去经济时长久的存在。游弋在南海的海军还能够极大的威胁美国在缅甸和柬埔寨的军事存在，将能极大缓解我们南部陆上边界陆军和空军的压力。而对于俄罗斯人来说越南海空军的覆灭将是北极熊在中国南海的军事存在完全消失。因此对越一战不管我们付出多大的代价，我们得到的将是南海局势的相对稳定和对经济发展的最大保障。

如果说收复越南人侵占的中国海域是中国人对祖先基业巩固的话；那么消灭背信弃义的越南海空军将是对在抗美援越和对越自卫反击战中死难英灵的拜祭。中国军队需要一战定乾坤，需要一战建立自己的大国的威信，南海无赖国家不是依靠谈判就能和平解决的，而旷日持久的谈判只能使无尽的海底宝藏让那些垃圾们拿去换美金进而增加军购更加肆无忌惮的对抗中华帝国。

综上所述我们可以清醒地看到越南和印度是中国经济发展所必需解决的国家，印度因为是有核国家必须以和平对抗所解决，而越南的解决只能通过武力。

http://zzh1125.blog....707/627930.html

[tanzen]

^ Does Vietnam have any significant allies that China needs to worry about or are they completely isolated? What do you think the response of the U.N. would be to the action advocated in the article and with which you agree? Would this affect China's trade relations with other Asian nations?