Politics Chinese Expansionism and Imperialism

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
57,676
107,791
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Any commentary on the immense overfishing by the (semi-militaralised) China fishing fleets?

They are decimating fish stocks all over the ocean, to the point where many are now thought to be beyond saving.
everyone is ignoring this, because pretty much all the asian fishing nations are doing it to varying degrees. there has been some progress to address this, but its baby steps
 

CD Xbow

Club Legend
Oct 1, 2014
1,757
3,595
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Any commentary on the immense overfishing by the (semi-militaralised) China fishing fleets?

They are decimating fish stocks all over the ocean, to the point where many are now thought to be beyond saving.
Agree.
They have pushed the NK fisherman away from their traditional fishing grounds and as a result the NK fisherman have been sailing further north and further away from shore - these are the source of the 'ghost boats' washing up on shores in Japan full of cadavers. It is said they took $500 million worth of squid in a few nights of fishing which would otherwise of been used to feed Koreans.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
19,762
15,690
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Any commentary on the immense overfishing by the (semi-militaralised) China fishing fleets?

They are decimating fish stocks all over the ocean, to the point where many are now thought to be beyond saving.
I think they all do this. Taiwan and Vietnam being big offenders themselves. Vietnamese boats "get lost" and wonder far out into other nations waters. The Taiwanese are more high tech, they buy licences from poor south Pacific nations and then turn up with big ships and catch everything indiscriminately without regard to quotas and by-catch limits.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
57,676
107,791
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
I think they all do this. Taiwan and Vietnam being big offenders themselves. Vietnamese boats "get lost" and wonder far out into other nations waters. The Taiwanese are more high tech, they buy licences from poor south Pacific nations and then turn up with big ships and catch everything indiscriminately without regard to quotas and by-catch limits.
you can add the japanese and indonesians to this list too
 

sdfc

All Australian
Feb 15, 2019
885
679
AFL Club
Fremantle
I think they all do this. Taiwan and Vietnam being big offenders themselves. Vietnamese boats "get lost" and wonder far out into other nations waters. The Taiwanese are more high tech, they buy licences from poor south Pacific nations and then turn up with big ships and catch everything indiscriminately without regard to quotas and by-catch limits.
The Chinese are in the South Pacific in far greater numbers that the Taiwanese. Doing their best to take all they can from West Africa too.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
16,538
16,351
AFL Club
Sydney
Look, I accept the South China Sea is a strategically important location and they are taking steps to try and control it.. but as of 2020, they can't do anything other than b*tch and moan when the US sends carrier groups through there, and the only reason they've even been able to take the steps they've taken is because its a sea immediately south of China.

You put them next to the US when it comes to global military strength, and at this point its not remotely a competition. What they are doing is trying to build a military which could inflict politically unacceptably heavy losses on the US to deter them from fighting but they are a long way away from being able to project military power around the planet the way the US can.

And the the main reason they aren't going to, eg, start trying to sink american ships transiting the South China sea is because as of 2020, the US could absolutely wreck China's military and economy if it wanted to do so, solely with conventional weapons - hell, if an american president woke up tomorrow and decided he wanted to obliterate the National People's Congress in Beijing, all it would take is a phonecall and a flight of B2 bombers.

I'm not understating the scope of their ambitions or their capacity to transition into a genuine superpower in time. but at the moment they are far weaker than they pretend to be, and the best way to deal with them is to confront them head on and expose them for the paper tiger they are.
It is not about how many military assets you have.
If it was, the US would station all their military assets at home.

It may be the sea immediately South of China but it is strategically very important.
The US went to war for no reason, which they lost, to try to do the same thing that China has done unilaterally.

The US could wreck China's economy, but at far greater cost to its own economy.
We long ago past the point of no return with China's influence over the world economy.



The US has been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years, still fighting the same fight they were at the beginning.
B52 bombers, shock and awe is best left for the movies. Reality is the US could flatten an entire country with a nuke but still not win the war.
 

CD Xbow

Club Legend
Oct 1, 2014
1,757
3,595
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The recent uptick in PRC aggression across the board has been met with a heartening response from across the world.

- US has applied various sanctions including cutting off PRC companies from advanced semi conductors and other technologies
- Actions against India have been met with resolve on the ground and pushed India away from the PRC with it applying sanctions on software firms.
- The Quad Mk II (India, Japan, US, Aus) is getting legs this time, as a security and diplomatic group.
- The Trilateral Agreement between (India, Japan, Aus) is about trade & strengthening supply lines. Each of the partners bring something different to the table.
- Thailand is not going to let the PRC go ahead and build the canal across Thailand, nor are they buying PRC subs now.
- The PRC delegation in Europe met a frosty reception with the EU.
- I think there has been a vast change in peoples views of the PRC across the world, from those in power down to the man in the street. A complete loss of trust.

Ironically, Hugh White, the strategist wrote this in March 2020 -

"The stronger India becomes, the stronger Beijing’s incentives to avoid a direct strategic contest in New Delhi’s backyard which it cannot win.
What gains could China expect from continuing to provoke India in this way as India’s power grows? It is unwise to assume that China will do us all a favour by making such an elementary strategic mistake."


Well, the fact is they did and Hugh was wrong. Six months is a very long time in politics.
Article here https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2020/03/15/why-india-isnt-going-to-save-australia-from-chinas-power/
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
5,037
3,666
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
I've thought about the whole China thing for a while and where we should stand in relation to them, using the US (our closest ally) as a reference point. Here are my impressions:

- The US is naturally competitive, hence they need an enemy to oppose even though doing so just stretches their military unnecessarily and wastes resources. That is largely the reason why they continued to antagonise the Russians after the Cold War (e.g. - sponsoring various Colour Revolutions in the region), even though they no longer represented a substantial military threat nor a real competitor for global influence.

- The Chinese are naturally pragmatic and results-oriented. They compete as a means to an end, not for the sake of it like the US do. Basically, their various initiatives (Belt Road, building infrastructure in Africa, selling weapons to sanctioned nations, cyber-warfare) are the means to accomplishing their end goal of increasing their global influence.

- The Chinese are long-term, strategic thinkers, whereas the US are more short-term, tactical thinkers. Organising Colour Revolutions and pivoting to Asia might have increased their short-term influence, but it's hurt them in the long run because Russia and China (far from natural allies, as the Sino-Soviet split would tell you) have not only 1) become more belligerent towards them but 2) joined together in response. Sun Tzu said that strategy is the slowest route to victory - hence, the Chinese will likely overtake the US as the preeminent global power.

- Face matters to Australians, but it matters even more to the Chinese. Hence, when dealing with them, Australia should be careful not to overtly paint them as the global baddie, especially since we rely so much on China for the moment. IOW, do precisely the opposite of what the Sky News crowd want. Morrison apparently hasn't heeded that lesson. If we absolutely have to move against them, keep quiet about it.

- I agree over the longer run that we should expand our trade links to minimise our dependence on China. Expanding them with the Next Eleven + India/Brazil seems like a good start. That way, we can minimise our dependence on China without turning them (and by extension Russia) into active belligerents.

- China are not a force for good. Their worldview is startlingly nihilistic and dog-eat-dog by our standards. However, the same is increasingly true for the US.

- I don't think it's good for Australia to be so entwined with a declining power. The future of the US is basically Mexico without the redeeming qualities (family and friends seem to matter in Mexico, whereas the US they often seem very disposable). We will gradually have to distance ourselves from the US diplomatically, otherwise I think we'll be dragged down with them due to the influence of the US on our various policies down the years. We will necessarily have to become closer to China to give us some security as they rise. Preferably not to the point of being a close ally (because again they'll rub off on us policy-wise, which I don't want), but rather a non-aligned nation. We will likely have to do this over decades.

- India are not an alternative to China. They have a giant elephant beside them called Pakistan (always a very close Chinese ally) and by restricting the potential of many of their citizens through classism, they have effectively restricted their potential to being the next Brazil. Their classism has also not only resigned many of their citizens to abject poverty, but also abject malnutrition and education, restricting the overall intelligence of the population. China doesn't have that problem.
 
Last edited:

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
5,037
3,666
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
Look, I accept the South China Sea is a strategically important location and they are taking steps to try and control it.. but as of 2020, they can't do anything other than b*tch and moan when the US sends carrier groups through there, and the only reason they've even been able to take the steps they've taken is because its a sea immediately south of China.

You put them next to the US when it comes to global military strength, and at this point its not remotely a competition. What they are doing is trying to build a military which could inflict politically unacceptably heavy losses on the US to deter them from fighting but they are a long way away from being able to project military power around the planet the way the US can.

And the the main reason they aren't going to, eg, start trying to sink american ships transiting the South China sea is because as of 2020, the US could absolutely wreck China's military and economy if it wanted to do so, solely with conventional weapons - hell, if an american president woke up tomorrow and decided he wanted to obliterate the National People's Congress in Beijing, all it would take is a phonecall and a flight of B2 bombers.

I'm not understating the scope of their ambitions or their capacity to transition into a genuine superpower in time. but at the moment they are far weaker than they pretend to be, and the best way to deal with them is to confront them head on and expose them for the paper tiger they are.
A few things:

1) The US have been trying the belligerent approach for over a decade (Pivot to Asia). It hasn't worked, and because of the peculiarities of Chinese culture it is very much the wrong approach a priori.

2) The US has been focusing on trying to hold the South China Sea because if they lost it, it's curtains for them as a superpower. They've already squandered their influence in Africa and they're struggling to hold South America as well.

3) The US capacity to project military power is both overrated and unsustainable. The country itself is obviously decaying, their military is stretched too thin, they spend too much of their GDP on the military, and the modern US military has real issues with discipline and competence. China's method of projecting power (infrastructure building, weapons sales) is cheaper, more sustainable and IMO more effective.

4) Neither the US nor China want a direct war with each other, because a nuclear exchange would probably result. By the same token, the US did not want to fight the Soviet Union directly even though their military was superior.

FWIW, I don't think increased Chinese influence is a good thing - but Australia will have to learn the art of being non-aligned over the next few decades.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
36,856
32,344
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
I've thought about the whole China thing for a while and where we should stand in relation to them, using the US (our closest ally) as a reference point. Here are my impressions:

- The US is naturally competitive, hence they need an enemy to oppose even though doing so just stretches their military unnecessarily and wastes resources. That is largely the reason why they continued to antagonise the Russians after the Cold War (e.g. - sponsoring various Colour Revolutions in the region), even though they no longer represented a substantial military threat nor a real competitor for global influence.

- The Chinese are naturally pragmatic and results-oriented. They compete as a means to an end, not for the sake of it like the US do. Basically, their various initiatives (Belt Road, building infrastructure in Africa, selling weapons to sanctioned nations, cyber-warfare) are the means to accomplishing their end goal of increasing their global influence.

- The Chinese are long-term, strategic thinkers, whereas the US are more short-term, tactical thinkers. Organising Colour Revolutions and pivoting to Asia might have increased their short-term influence, but it's hurt them in the long run because Russia and China (far from natural allies, as the Sino-Soviet split would tell you) have not only 1) become more belligerent towards them but 2) joined together in response. Sun Tzu said that strategy is the slowest route to victory - hence, the Chinese will likely overtake the US as the preeminent global power.

- Face matters to Australians, but it matters even more to the Chinese. Hence, when dealing with them, Australia should be careful not to overtly paint them as the global baddie, especially since we rely so much on China for the moment. IOW, do precisely the opposite of what the Sky News crowd want. Morrison apparently hasn't heeded that lesson. If we absolutely have to move against them, keep quiet about it.

- I agree over the longer run that we should expand our trade links to minimise our dependence on China. Expanding them with the Next Eleven + India/Brazil seems like a good start. That way, we can minimise our dependence on China without turning them (and by extension Russia) into active belligerents.

- China are not a force for good. Their worldview is startlingly nihilistic and dog-eat-dog by our standards. However, the same is increasingly true for the US.

- I don't think it's good for Australia to be so entwined with a declining power. The future of the US is basically Mexico without the redeeming qualities (family and friends seem to matter in Mexico, whereas the US they often seem very disposable). We will gradually have to distance ourselves from the US diplomatically, otherwise I think we'll be dragged down with them due to the influence of the US on our various policies down the years. We will necessarily have to become closer to China to give us some security as they rise. Preferably not to the point of being a close ally (because again they'll rub off on us policy-wise, which I don't want), but rather a non-aligned nation. We will likely have to do this over decades.

- India are not an alternative to China. They have a giant elephant beside them called Pakistan (always a very close Chinese ally) and by restricting the potential of many of their citizens through classism, they have effectively restricted their potential to being the next Brazil. Their classism has also not only resigned many of their citizens to abject poverty, but also abject malnutrition and education, restricting the overall intelligence of the population. China doesn't have that problem.
good post although i think the statement about the us becoming a declining power is still too early a call. All the best tech still comes from the US in spite of their politics.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
5,037
3,666
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
good post although i think the statement about the us becoming a declining power is still too early a call. All the best tech still comes from the US in spite of their politics.
Yeah, but that's due to legacy more than anything else.

Increasing numbers of scientific breakthroughs are coming from the country that must not be named.

RE US decline, it's showing every sign of it. You have (relative to other Western nations) high inequality, high levels of crime, high levels of corruption, social unrest, social division, high levels of poverty and a laughably bad health-care system. IOW, it's showing every sign of turning into Mexico, only with additional atomisation.
 

Top Bottom