China-Japan future flashpoint?

[Korgeta]

Lately China and Japan have been in a war of words over Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, unpopulated Islands but with a history of territorial dispute.

At present it's more pushing and shoving between the two, but with how China is connected to Russia, North korea and a lot of China's food and oil is imported, and in comparison Japan has a treaty with the U.S note: U.S is not obliged to give military aim in it's treaty) means any skirmish could risk a serious domino effect.

So despite the risks, why are China and japan continuing to worsen their relations? Have either side whipped up their supporters to the point of nationalistic pride of no return? Or are there any other reasons? Is a skirmish between the two at all likely?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

China and Japan have hated each others' dicks off since World War II. They probably will continue to hate each others' dicks off for quite some time. They're not going to fight each other, not militarily. Both of them are economic powers, and they're not going to jeopardize that with any kind of idiot shooting war.

[Adam Reynolds]

China and Japan have hated each others' dicks off since World War II. They probably will continue to hate each others' dicks off for quite some time. They're not going to fight each other, not militarily. Both of them are economic powers, and they're not going to jeopardize that with any kind of idiot shooting war.

While in general this is correct, one could have largely said the same thing about Germany and England before World War one*. Amusingly in 1912 it was realized that Lloyds of London had the insurance policy for the Germany merchant marine and would be obligated to pay the Germans for ships sunk by the Royal Navy. Obviously, it didn't stop them from launching among the most pointlessly destructive wars in history. Nations don't always do what is intelligent, sometimes people are just stupid.

In terms of Japan vs China one interesting element is the role of South Korea which sides with China in terms of anger with Japanese war crimes and their lack of atonement since the war, unlike postwar Germany. South Korea is second place to China in terms of a negative perception of Japan among its population. Though South Korea is still part of SEATO and has stronger economic ties to Japan and the west. In the current dispute they are firmly on the side of Japan as the Chinese air defense umbrella also includes their country which they are obviously not very happy about.

As for China and Russia they are not exactly strong allies as Russia isn't happy with the rise of China next to them as it is a threat to their influence in central Asia.

* Though a key difference is that England and Germany were both much more imperialist than modern China and Japan.

[Ziggy Stardust]

* Though a key difference is that England and Germany were both much more imperialist than modern China and Japan.

I think this is really the key point. I don't think either country really has territorial ambitions. And, honestly, I don't think either nation REALLY cares about these islands except as a symbol of relative power/influence. That is, Japan wants to maintain them as some sort of proof that it is still an important regional power, and China wants to take them as a demonstration that they have become the pre-eminent power in East Asia. Obviously, objectively, China is more powerful/influential than Japan at this point, but people and nations tend to attach more importance to single symbolic moments rather than vague economic trends/statistics. Its just a big game of chicken.

While the WW1 analogy is interesting (it is true that, economically, there was no reason for Germany and England to go to war), I don't think it is apt. That is, WW1 didn't really begin because Germany and England had a dispute. If anything, Germany desperately wanted to avoid a war against England (prior to WW1 their policy had been in part to court England as an ally against France and Russia). Further, Germany's policy was largely driven by their paranoia at being surrounded by other, older great powers (again, France and Russia), and their alliance with Austria-Hungary. Modern China and Japan don't seem, to me, to be stuck in a similar situation. While China is ostensibly allied with North Korea, I don't think they would have the stomach to go to war for them. Japan is allied with the U.S., but I don't see us wading into the region to start a war.

[cosmicalstorm]

There seems to be a lot of tension in the world right now. I have read many texts recently by people who believe the current global situation is increasingly similar to the one that existed in the years leading up to WW1. Though I'm far from qualified to assess if this is correct.

[Ralin]

There seems to be a lot of tension in the world right now. I have read many texts recently by people who believe the current global situation is increasingly similar to the one that existed in the years leading up to WW1. Though I'm far from qualified to assess if this is correct.

The big difference that springs to mind for me is that any war that got big enough to even begin to approach WWI in scope is inevitably going to attract some sort of intervention from America Fuck Yeah, if only in the form of reminding everyone concerned that war is bad for business. The US has its problems, but it's still more than capable of telling any given side to sit down, shut up and behave themselves or be sat down and shut up. The economic interests at play in Europe before WWI didn't have that sort of weight to have thrown around at their beck and call when their profits were endangered. And that's a hell of an inducement to head conflicts off before they go too far.

[mr friendly guy]

There seems to be a lot of tension in the world right now. I have read many texts recently by people who believe the current global situation is increasingly similar to the one that existed in the years leading up to WW1. Though I'm far from qualified to assess if this is correct.

Let me guess. These are the guys who think history must totally repeat itself, er I mean "history rhymes". Naturally China will take the role of Germany and America will take the role of the British empire. Because of the dynamic between current top dog, and potential challenger. Germany wanted to challenge British dominance, China seeks to do the same to US dominance. Since Germany and the British empire went to war, the fear is that China and the US will go to war. Since Germany is blamed for WWI, I take it the PRC would be blamed for this hypothetical conflict, since its analogous in this context. I find such people being very selective in what they compare.

Of course I could likewise be selective in analogies and say China is analogous to the US in the late 19th century when it overtook the British Empire to be the largest economy. Modern day US therefore becomes analogous to the British empire.

The British empire and the US fought a war in the early 19th century, where the end result was status quo ante bellum between the two sides. However by the time it surpassed the British decades later, there were no further military conflicts directly. The US demonstrated its power in Suez crisis by threatening to offload British bonds with potentially devastating effect on the British economy. Depending who you believe, the effects could have been exaggerated or accurate. However the important thing is, British leaders believed it so they folded.

The PRC and the US fought a war in the middle of the 20th century, where the end result was status quo ante bellum between the two sides. However by the time future China surpasses the US it would be decades later after this war and no further military conflicts directly. China could demonstrate its power by threatening to offload US bonds with potentially devastating effect on the US economy. Depending on who is talking, either the effects is exaggerated or accurate. However it seems there are some in the US who already believe this so they will fold.

I can come to opposite conclusions by being selective with analogies too. This of course begs the question - since the US and British allied themselves against Germany, does that mean China and the US ally themselves against a third power. So who would be analogous to Germany in this case? The European Union? And before someone goes, "that's silly", that's kind of the point. The way these guys work, with just a basic grasp of history, you can cherry pick historical examples to come up with a particular conclusion that "history is repeating itself in certain ways."

[Zaune]

I can come to opposite conclusions by being selective with analogies too. This of course begs the question - since the US and British allied themselves against Germany, does that mean China and the US ally themselves against a third power. So who would be analogous to Germany in this case? The European Union?

Actually, why not? Both sides could benefit from an external enemy to deflect attention from their domestic political woes, especially if it results in a good solid war to reduce unemployment and keep the money in circulation, but they're too co-dependent to bomb each other.

[PainRack]

Lately China and Japan have been in a war of words over Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, unpopulated Islands but with a history of territorial dispute.

At present it's more pushing and shoving between the two, but with how China is connected to Russia, North korea and a lot of China's food and oil is imported, and in comparison Japan has a treaty with the U.S note: U.S is not obliged to give military aim in it's treaty) means any skirmish could risk a serious domino effect.

So despite the risks, why are China and japan continuing to worsen their relations? Have either side whipped up their supporters to the point of nationalistic pride of no return? Or are there any other reasons? Is a skirmish between the two at all likely?

Honestly? Because the whole world is being a dick about power politics.

Let's run through China first.

1. China, being a communist country got run through the fucking meatgrinder when the political boundaries, international treaties regarding said islands and territories were set up. NONE of the LOCs, the ISLOC, the Senkayu/Diaoyutai and etc had their political boundaries set up with PRC input.

Now. Remember that China own nationalistic propaganda, from the creation of the ROC, is the recovery of Chinese lands taken over from them by foreign imperialists. This ESPECIALLY includes Japan.

2. But surely time and economic growth would have solved all issues, right? Nope. Because when China begin growing in the nineties, they went through a shit ton of unrest before and during the period. Remember, Tiananmen started because the students were clamouring for democracy............ to fight against plutocrats who were abusing the capitalist system to get rich, while ignoring the huge inflation and unemployment Deng Xiaoping move to a free market system was causing.

There's been a lot of social and political changes happening in China over the last two decades. And one of the response the PRC government did was to embrace nationalism as a key to help unify people.

Now, its tempting to rule all of this as just government propaganda, but if so, its very effective. Go to any chinese forums, website, even those lambasting the government, and you find a shit ton of people who are Chinese nationalists.

So, any reaction by Japan has always invited a counter-response by said nationalists. Oh and BTW, they aren't just China chinese. Go to Hong Kong and you see similar groups there, they held street protests back in the nineties during the Diaoyutai incident. And the ROC itself has its own clashes with the Japanese.


3. Now, this is purely my own opinion, but given the disturbing press releases in some of the Chinese media by chinese military leaders............ I'm beginning to think that said Chinese who grew up as ultra nationalists in the nineties are now grown up adults. In the military. In an era where the Chinese economy and miltiary is booming, and well, power to fight against 'injustice'....... Why should China be bullied? We're just hard men doing what must be done..........


Japan has the same pressures, just labelled differently.

1. To Abel and coy, the visits to the war shrine is a matter of Japanese pride, a way of paying their respects to the honoured dead. Why should others interfere with Japan own domestic concerns?

2. China is growing. And representing a threat to Japan. Hey, the US is also starting to get involved and concerned, let's grab Hilary clinton promise of help during APEC and run with it, yeah?




I'm sure political scientists can dress it up in more academic terms, but the recent flare up in the media are due to counter-responses by various Asian governments, buoyed by Hilary Clinton stance that the US will not allow unilateral settlement of territorial disputes and etc during APEC trying to exert their sovereign right to territories. And then the Chinese counter counter responses, to exert their own sovereign right to said territories.

[energiewende]

The current dance concerns the time and terms on which Japan goes nuclear. I think the optimum outcome is that Japan loses the unpopulated islands to the PRC in a mostly bloodless manner, and in response goes nuclear. This means that Japan's move (which is inevitable anyway) will be seen as justified and therefore not as destabilising, while the stronger party's ongoing possession of the islands is likely to remove them from future disputes.

Another factor to consider is that PRC's growth will, at some point, begin to stall. This will begin a crisis of legitimacy for the CPC dictatorship, which will weaken the PRC on the one hand but increase the incentive for it to act out aggressively on the other. This probably sets the time scale for these events to happen.

The British empire and the US fought a war in the early 19th century, where the end result was status quo ante bellum between the two sides. However by the time it surpassed the British decades later, there were no further military conflicts directly.

While history doesn't have to rhyme, this situation is closer to the German example than the US example. US is a British off-shoot with many of the same cultural landmarks, institutions, and ideological aspirations. If the rise of America was an existential threat to the power of the British state, it was not an existential threat to the survival of the 'British way'. There was therefore no strong incentive to fight the US by, for instance, repudiating all foreign debts and rushing to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. PRC is an ostensibly communist dictatorship mixed with a lot of elements of what can best be described as antiquated (in the literal sense) God-Emperor worship. It has very few ideas or aspirations in common with the US, other than base desire for wealth and power common to all of humanity.

The one factor that changes things is nuclear weapons. There's no pay-off from attacking other great powers, nor for that reason is there a clear downside to the existance of powerful foreign states. So I expect the US and PRC will neither fight WWIII, nor coexist in harmony as the US and UK have done. But this does mean that there's going to be an interesting strategic dance to see which other Asian states go nuclear and, if they don't, whose protectorate they choose to become and with what consequences.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, why not? Both sides could benefit from an external enemy to deflect attention from their domestic political woes, especially if it results in a good solid war to reduce unemployment and keep the money in circulation, but they're too co-dependent to bomb each other.

The US is also more codependent on Europe than you might believe, Europe includes nuclear powers and is incredibly unlikely to have the effect of "reducing unemployment and keeping the money in circulation," and above all, nations don't pick external enemies out of a hat. The strategy of using an external enemy to deflect internal political problems only works if it doesn't backfire, and declaring war on random neighbors typically causes it to backfire.

[Zaune]

I didn't intend to imply that I thought it was a good idea!

But at any rate, while nations don't usually pick their enemies entirely at random, they don't get to pick their peer competitors. And Europe as a combined entity is pretty close to one for the US, arguably more so than China in some respects.

Besides, would you put it past the Republicans at this point?

[Thanas]

While in general this is correct, one could have largely said the same thing about Germany and England before World War one*.

Do you have the head of the British Japanese Navy openly stating that it is time to launch a preemptive strike on the German Chinese Navy, without declaration of war?

If not, people can't compare the situation of the two powers.

[Simon_Jester]

I didn't intend to imply that I thought it was a good idea!

It's not just that it's a bad idea, it's that it's so nakedly a bad idea that no one would do it.

Besides, would you put it past the Republicans at this point?

Yes, because in the Republican narrative the EU nations are our feeble, cowardly cousin, not THE ENEMY. That is reserved for more scarily nonwhite foreigners, and for domestic political undesirables.

You're treating Republicans like cartoon villains here. It's accidental on your part, clearly, but it makes it much harder for you to understand them. Just because they do things you think are crazy, doesn't mean they are equally likely to do any random inappropriate thing as any other.

[mr friendly guy]

While history doesn't have to rhyme, this situation is closer to the German example than the US example. US is a British off-shoot with many of the same cultural landmarks, institutions, and ideological aspirations. If the rise of America was an existential threat to the power of the British state, it was not an existential threat to the survival of the 'British way'. There was therefore no strong incentive to fight the US by, for instance, repudiating all foreign debts and rushing to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. PRC is an ostensibly communist dictatorship mixed with a lot of elements of what can best be described as antiquated (in the literal sense) God-Emperor worship. It has very few ideas or aspirations in common with the US, other than base desire for wealth and power common to all of humanity.
.

Nice hypothesis. Unfortunately runs into the problem of reality. Being or not being a threat to the "British way" in a cultural sense doesn't make the relevant nation states less or more likely to conflict. Geopolitical goals outweigh that. For example the US and Britain in 1812 and in the Suez Crisis.

Also going the other way, since you believe cultural factors play a bigger part than geopolitical goals, I can say culturally the PRC isn't interested in forcing its institutions onto others no matter how much Western propaganda makes out. The evidence. Because they are willing to do deals with anyone really. Including those the West considers good (Western nations naturally) and bad (I trust you can name them). When they do business deals with African nations they don't have the same strings the Western governments insist on such as good governance etc. That's not to say that is a good or bad thing on the part of the PRC, only that culturally they are more interested in doing business than forcing some cultural change on others (outside of geopolitical context). Thus by that logic China isn't a threat to "The American way of life" because they aren't interested in forcing their way of life, eg culture, political system onto others.

[Ralin]

Also going the other way, since you believe cultural factors play a bigger part than geopolitical goals, I can say culturally the PRC isn't interested in forcing its institutions onto others no matter how much Western propaganda makes out. The evidence. Because they are willing to do deals with anyone really. Including those the West considers good (Western nations naturally) and bad (I trust you can name them). When they do business deals with African nations they don't have the same strings the Western governments insist on such as good governance etc. That's not to say that is a good or bad thing on the part of the PRC, only that culturally they are more interested in doing business than forcing some cultural change on others (outside of geopolitical context). Thus by that logic China isn't a threat to "The American way of life" because they aren't interested in forcing their way of life, eg culture, political system onto others.

But on the other hand, America has institutions and ideals that are often pretty attractive to a lot of people*. I'm not making a value judgement, but it's easy to see why quite a few people would like the idea of democracy and freedom of speech and due process under the law. China doesn't have much in the way of an attractive ideology to offer people in places like Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa. "Every country has the right to oppress their citizens in peace" and "economic development and making money is awesome" doesn't have quite the same ring of moral superiority to it.

Not saying this is going to be a deciding factor, but it's something to take into account.

*ideals people. Let's please not derail into a debate over how well America practices them.

[mr friendly guy]

Also going the other way, since you believe cultural factors play a bigger part than geopolitical goals, I can say culturally the PRC isn't interested in forcing its institutions onto others no matter how much Western propaganda makes out. The evidence. Because they are willing to do deals with anyone really. Including those the West considers good (Western nations naturally) and bad (I trust you can name them). When they do business deals with African nations they don't have the same strings the Western governments insist on such as good governance etc. That's not to say that is a good or bad thing on the part of the PRC, only that culturally they are more interested in doing business than forcing some cultural change on others (outside of geopolitical context). Thus by that logic China isn't a threat to "The American way of life" because they aren't interested in forcing their way of life, eg culture, political system onto others.

But on the other hand, America has institutions and ideals that are often pretty attractive to a lot of people*. I'm not making a value judgement, but it's easy to see why quite a few people would like the idea of democracy and freedom of speech and due process under the law. China doesn't have much in the way of an attractive ideology to offer people in places like Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa. "Every country has the right to oppress their citizens in peace" and "economic development and making money is awesome" doesn't have quite the same ring of moral superiority to it.

Not saying this is going to be a deciding factor, but it's something to take into account.

*ideals people. Let's please not derail into a debate over how well America practices them.

And China is quite happy to deal with these democratic countries too. On the other hand they are also happy to deal with the Saudi Arabias and the Irans of this world as well. All without insisting on them becoming China mark II.

I think you missed the point of my statement. That is energiewende assumed that because the PRC and US are culturally different, they would automatically be more likely to conflict, whereas I pointed out why would that be so when the former adopts a policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of others unless it affects China.

Also China isn't offering ideology to people so there is less room to conflict with those that insists on it, eg Western nations. They are just offering trade. Not that it stops the EU from bitching, but it wouldn't be so contentious than say the old USSR preaching its ideology with foreign aid.

[Welf]

Let me guess. These are the guys who think history must totally repeat itself, er I mean "history rhymes". Naturally China will take the role of Germany and America will take the role of the British empire. Because of the dynamic between current top dog, and potential challenger. Germany wanted to challenge British dominance, China seeks to do the same to US dominance. Since Germany and the British empire went to war, the fear is that China and the US will go to war. Since Germany is blamed for WWI, I take it the PRC would be blamed for this hypothetical conflict, since its analogous in this context. I find such people being very selective in what they compare.

So history doesn't rhyme and there are no patterns of human behaviour we can observe? I guess now we can shut down the history departments at universities.

I can come to opposite conclusions by being selective with analogies too. This of course begs the question - since the US and British allied themselves against Germany, does that mean China and the US ally themselves against a third power. So who would be analogous to Germany in this case? The European Union? And before someone goes, "that's silly", that's kind of the point. The way these guys work, with just a basic grasp of history, you can cherry pick historical examples to come up with a particular conclusion that "history is repeating itself in certain ways."

Selecting analogies is important. That is true.
I'd say US/UK in the 19th century doesn't work because the US was mostly focused on the conquest of the mid west, the northern parts of Mexico and the dominance of South America. The Indian wars lasted well into the 1880s. And after that was finished the US waged a war against a former major power, Spain in 1898. A war against the UK might have been taken place if US ambition would have grown further, but WWI and WWII took care of Britain's status as world power and turned it into a close ally.

Nice hypothesis. Unfortunately runs into the problem of reality. Being or not being a threat to the "British way" in a cultural sense doesn't make the relevant nation states less or more likely to conflict. Geopolitical goals outweigh that. For example the US and Britain in 1812 and in the Suez Crisis.

So you think the foreign policy of countries is always 100% guided by facts and perceived national interest? That personal contact has no effect? Interesting theory.
Geopolitical interest do trump cultural closeness. But there is a huge grey area of negotiations and perceived importance that does have an effect.

Also going the other way, since you believe cultural factors play a bigger part than geopolitical goals, I can say culturally the PRC isn't interested in forcing its institutions onto others no matter how much Western propaganda makes out. The evidence. Because they are willing to do deals with anyone really. Including those the West considers good (Western nations naturally) and bad (I trust you can name them). When they do business deals with African nations they don't have the same strings the Western governments insist on such as good governance etc.

No they don't. At least not always. Western goverments say they would do, but in many cases "realpolitik" easily outweighs that. Countless murderous dictators have been supported by western governments.

[Irbis]

1. China, being a communist country got run through the fucking meatgrinder when the political boundaries, international treaties regarding said islands and territories were set up. NONE of the LOCs, the ISLOC, the Senkayu/Diaoyutai and etc had their political boundaries set up with PRC input.

Now. Remember that China own nationalistic propaganda, from the creation of the ROC, is the recovery of Chinese lands taken over from them by foreign imperialists. This ESPECIALLY includes Japan.

That is the crux of the problem. Islands that Japan annexed during early imperialist period (1895-1920) were supposed to be taken away from them and given to nations that claimed them, sadly they were under US occupation and peace conference that would have finalized the matter was blocked by USA reluctant to given even these unpopulated islands to two 'enemy' states, Russia and China. And now, Japan, like certain other state, tries to pretend WW II was lost by someone else and the claims are no longer valid.

And China is quite happy to deal with these democratic countries too. On the other hand they are also happy to deal with the Saudi Arabias and the Irans of this world as well. All without insisting on them becoming China mark II.

I think you missed the point of my statement. That is energiewende assumed that because the PRC and US are culturally different, they would automatically be more likely to conflict, whereas I pointed out why would that be so when the former adopts a policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of others unless it affects China.

Also China isn't offering ideology to people so there is less room to conflict with those that insists on it, eg Western nations. They are just offering trade. Not that it stops the EU from bitching, but it wouldn't be so contentious than say the old USSR preaching its ideology with foreign aid.

Oh, but they do insist they become China mk II. They just do it subtly. Observe - EU and USA under Democrats demand following human rights and inconvenient law and market reforms, all making the country more open to west interests. What China does? Say "no need for that stupid stuff, we can all be oligarchic dictature club 4 life, yo". That might not appeal to the population of said countries, but it appeals to elites. Elites, that, quite coincidentally, stand to make biggest profits out of Chinese help by changing their country model closer to PRoC's. Not because of idealogy (though group of people mutually supporting themselves due to similar views shares ideology of a kind) but because of money. China even helps that process by importing a lot of workforce and money from home to speed it up.

To a degree, Putin's Russia does it too. Makes countries of old USSR follow their model, that of 'top boss' with oligarch elite by promising money to prop their regimes and (unlike EU) no questions asked as long as they allow Russian oligarch to have a slice of cake, too. This is much closer model to western one than Chinese (indeed, USA used to do just that during Cold War right wing administrations) but it is working worse because if anything it has even less ideology attached (which is why Puting tries to fill that gap by turning to organizations like Church and Cossacks).

[mr friendly guy]

So history doesn't rhyme and there are no patterns of human behaviour we can observe? I guess now we can shut down the history departments at universities.

Nice strawman. Patterns =/ inevitability. There are patterns like nations will rise and fall, there will be wars etc. However China = Kaiser run Germany only comes about because someone desperately wanted to tell a scary story and ramp up the China threat. The blatant hypocrisy of doing so when China hasn't fought a war since 1979 while the West (US, UK etc) have done so in the last decade just makes anyone who isn't a frothing at the mouth loon roll their eyes.

Selecting analogies is important. That is true.
I'd say US/UK in the 19th century doesn't work because the US was mostly focused on the conquest of the mid west, the northern parts of Mexico and the dominance of South America. The Indian wars lasted well into the 1880s. And after that was finished the US waged a war against a former major power, Spain in 1898. A war against the UK might have been taken place if US ambition would have grown further, but WWI and WWII took care of Britain's status as world power and turned it into a close ally.

We can play this selective analogy game all day long. I can say the US debt will distract the US from focussing on its status as world power and leave China alone, while China is focussing on its traditional territorial claims only. The fact we can keep on doing this just proves my point with being selective with analogies.

So you think the foreign policy of countries is always 100% guided by facts and perceived national interest? That personal contact has no effect? Interesting theory.

I have no idea how you got that from my statement.

Geopolitical interest do trump cultural closeness. But there is a huge grey area of negotiations and perceived importance that does have an effect.

Great, then you agree with me.

No they don't. At least not always. Western goverments say they would do, but in many cases "realpolitik" easily outweighs that. Countless murderous dictators have been supported by western governments.

True, but the threshold for China to say "you must reform in exchange for aid/trade etc" is lower than with Western governments. This leads me to conclude that the PRC is less interested in using its weight around to promote its institutions. This then leads it to be less likely to conflict with those powers which are interested, eg some Western governments.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh, but they do insist they become China mk II. They just do it subtly. Observe - EU and USA under Democrats demand following human rights and inconvenient law and market reforms, all making the country more open to west interests. What China does? Say "no need for that stupid stuff, we can all be oligarchic dictature club 4 life, yo". That might not appeal to the population of said countries, but it appeals to elites. Elites, that, quite coincidentally, stand to make biggest profits out of Chinese help by changing their country model closer to PRoC's. Not because of idealogy (though group of people mutually supporting themselves due to similar views shares ideology of a kind) but because of money. China even helps that process by importing a lot of workforce and money from home to speed it up.

To a degree, Putin's Russia does it too. Makes countries of old USSR follow their model, that of 'top boss' with oligarch elite by promising money to prop their regimes and (unlike EU) no questions asked as long as they allow Russian oligarch to have a slice of cake, too. This is much closer model to western one than Chinese (indeed, USA used to do just that during Cold War right wing administrations) but it is working worse because if anything it has even less ideology attached (which is why Puting tries to fill that gap by turning to organizations like Church and Cossacks).

Are these countries already autocratic or did China make them so? If they already are, then certainly trade will strengthen the hands of the elites and make it easier for them to promote how they want to run the show. However this also strengthens the country if it was already democratic and wants to continue with such institutions. Economic growth tends to strengthen the government's hand. In which case, as a "promoting tool", Chinese business deals is very non discriminatory between the two competing systems.

[Thanas]

That is fine if you view human rights as commodities.

[mr friendly guy]

Of course human rights aren't in the same vein as commodities. However I am pointing out this "clash of cultures" meme energiewende is using applies when both sides are interested in promoting their opposing ideologies. Like how the First and Second world had conflicts over Capitalism vs Communism during the Cold War. Nowadays the West is still to some extent interested in promoting its values with some exceptions in the case of useful "allies". China doesn't even bother with that pretence and is blatantly interested in negotiating for resources to power its growth. Hard for a conflict over culture when one side isn't even playing.

Now there are other reasons both sides could conflict, such as economic, geopolitical etc. IMO these are more important than "cultural factors," in deciding how likely a conflict will arise.

[Thanas]

Of course human rights aren't in the same vein as commodities. However I am pointing out this "clash of cultures" meme energiewende is using applies when both sides are interested in promoting their opposing ideologies. Like how the First and Second world had conflicts over Capitalism vs Communism during the Cold War. Nowadays the West is still to some extent interested in promoting its values with some exceptions in the case of useful "allies". China doesn't even bother with that pretence and is blatantly interested in negotiating for resources to power its growth. Hard for a conflict over culture when one side isn't even playing.

I think this is what makes China that much more abominable than the communist past. At least they had an interest in furthering the interest of the common man. China has no such pretenses except for naked power. The only good thing is that the genocides backed by China so far have not been as dangerous as those the west has backed, so they got that going for them (as of now).

Now there are other reasons both sides could conflict, such as economic, geopolitical etc. IMO these are more important than "cultural factors," in deciding how likely a conflict will arise.

Agreed.

[K. A. Pital]

Uh... "Naked power"? Thanas, European and American history has been a blatant powergrab from beginning to the apex of power. China is seeking economic growth, which is not the same as "naked power", although many people confuse the two.

If China was seeking naked power, it would rather concentrate on building a huge and intimidating army that could roll over its SEA neighbors and crush them utterly instead of trying to simply negotiate and secure exports of raw materials without making these countries de-facto satellites. It is a form of imperialism, but clearly a more benigh one than the "we take u rubber and oil, if you disagree then our Colonial Government kill and torture ur peoples".