First off, I think it is a mistake to analyse to much of how modern Chinese society works through the prism of Confucianism. just as it would to view western society purely through the prism of Judeo-Christianity. It may underpin some basic values but it hardly represents a conscious framework through which every day life is lived. It certainly is not the guiding principle of the CCP, which is probably the most consensus driven organisation on the Planet!
Of course there are different world views and the message coming from China is that their world view matters and has to be taken into account. the ordering of its near abroad is a important element of that world view and the stance on the South China Seas is a strong manifestation of it. China wants this view recognised by its neighbours and recognised at a very deep level in those countries consciousness. This is why it is calling for bilateral negotiations as ASEAN itself as an organisation lacks the depth to properly impress that view at a national level. I think it is also true that China sees little future for ASEAN in its current form and that the first manifestation of the proposed bilateral discussions and the deep appreciation gained from them, would be in a new tighter regional organisation, probably far closer to something like the EU than the current regime of talking shops.
China has already set a precedence for this in the form of the much misunderstood Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). IT is difficult to directly try and relate the SCO to China's vision for SE Asia as they are very different regions and with very different characteristics. Most people have thought of the SCO as a new Warsaw Pact challenged to NATO. Nothing could be further from the truth however as it is really a vehicle for Economic Union with a Security Dimension. If you look, you will see that a great deal of the Energy and Infrastructure projects in the Central Asian region have been negotiated through the offices of the SCO. The progress made by this body in 10 years between China and former Soviet Republics. with whom China had hardly any prior relationship, is nothing short of staggering.
The South China Sea Region should be even more fertile ground as these are countries that are considerably more wealthy than those in Central Asia and countries that China has been dealing with closely for many centuries and with whom it shares many traditional cultural norms. These countries are as similar and familiar with each other as are the nations within the EU. The process is already starting with China largely funding massive Infrastructure projects throughout SE Asia including a High Speed Rail network that could by 2020 connect the Pacific to the Atlantic.
There is of course a challenge to the US of in this, but I think it is largely a challenge that the US is posing to itself in respect to its own self view and to the notion of American Exceptionalism.
This links to the arguments you made on the "Dynamic World" thread when you talked about US/Soviet and now US/China military parity. I have to say to you "give it up" because; as this decade progresses, you will see how hopeless Americas aspiration of maintaining parity with the PRC will become. This in so many ways is going to be the decade of fundamental transition. Already the value of the domestic Chinese economy is approximate to that of the US domestic economy and by 2020 is looking likely to be approximate to the value of the US in Exchange Rate terms. This means that the PLA will be able to enjoy a budget that is triple that of today's in dollar terms without needing to adjust the proportion of spending.
Money is of course at the root of the whole matter and as we move into turbulent times a growing, cash rich and stable China will cast an irresistible allure about itself and one that other countries will not wish to ignore.
International relations is not a particularly gentlemanly business and in many respects is mirrors the behaviour of the mob. Two kingpins will try and dictate to the smaller mobsters who they pay their protection to and whose drugs and whores they buy. It is of course not the whole story and every allusion only works to a degree.
I would however recommend reading the Mediaeval Icelandic Saga's as the workings of the Islands "Republic" and "Legal System" are a perfect preparation for understanding the UN and International Relations. It is all about the ability to gather support and the ability to enforce a judgement when it is obtained. It is on this basis that China is entitled to promote its different world view as it is one of the few nations that has an ability to enforce its view and guarantee stability.
In the final analysis the power of a nation is measured in its ability to influence others and it is this; more than anything that a Superpower does directly, that dictates its standing in the world. Nations buy into the visions of Superpowers just as voters buy into the visions of Political Candidates. China is setting out its stall and its neighbours are deciding is they both like the things being offered and whether China is able to deliver on the underpinning promises that it has to make.
This is a particularly critical time and they will be adding to the scales for weighing, the implications of the Protests and Revolutions currently spreading through America's client states in its "Far Abroad". Nation States tend to be weather cocks and pragmatically turn into that which is perceived as the prevailing wind....
To SAMPANVIKING
Sorry that it has taken me so long to properly respond. I was composing a rather long munity-part post to BEASTMASTER on the Dynamic world thread my post # 207 that unsurprisingly addresses many of the same issues we have been discussing. So I will not repeat the same points over again. But I must disagree that the differing assumptions we are both operating from are in fact far more important than you tend to believe. I will grant you the point that the Chinese people are some of the most practical and lest dogmatically driven people on the Earth and that is one of their most admirable qualities. The Chinese people almost always go for what actually works, over some theoretical construct or dogma and it is a major part of their continuing success. But nobody is immune to the fundamental biases they were exposed to as a child coming directly from their culture. And from that exposure we all make judgments without realizing how or why we make them and then are in turn confused when others make different choses basses upon their biases. And if everyone around us are acting the same and using the same biases as we do, those biases will remain unexamined.
Personally on my part I have been trying as one of the dedicated goals of my own life to sift through the biases I was imprinted with as a child from my own culture. I have been doing this for over thirty years now as a self-actualized adult to eliminate those biases and yet I am still surprised, from time to time, that I have not completely succeeded. But at least I know the handicap from which we all must suffer. And one such bias found within Confucianism is a bias in the over reliance upon group consensus, instead of the use of rigorous logical analyzes employing solid facts governed by definable moral principles to make major decisions. Of course they are not alone in falling into that popular trap are they? How many times have we all screwed up by just going along to get along because it is the easer path?
By reading through your posts I get the overall impression that what China most wants is some manifestation of the word RESPECT. There are so many different definitions of that word in my culture and that the different meanings of this word are so culturally specific in every society that there is great danger of much misunderstanding. My impression, which I admit may be completely false, is that you are using the word in same kind way that it is used by gangsters and street-gang members use it. They use the word RESPECT as a way establish dominance, position, and to obtain deference from other criminals within their criminal sub-culture. I know that this impression might not be a fair one but that is exactly what it sounds like to me. Someone who tries to through their wait around, uses intimidation or threats of violence, does not get any respect from me and very little deferance as well. Is this a bias I acquired from my Judeo-Christian childhood? Probably but in this regard I guess I am not very flexible.
What I chose to respect are positive accomplishments. I respect those that build, that create, that invent, and generally make themselves, their country, and the world we all live in a better place to live be it materially or socially. And in that regard China is still a work in progress but I am hoepful.
As to your comment, “There is of course a challenge to the US of in this, but I think it is largely a challenge that the US is posing to itself in respect to its own self view and to the notion of American Exceptionalism.”
Well in fact that is something that many, but not all of us in the US believe. I will not go in to the how and why of that belief, because ultimately that is unimportant. All that is important is to know is that America’s believe in its exceptionalism and its pursuit of that exceptionalism does not require China or anyone else to be diminished in anyway. China or anyone else is free, as far as we are concerned; to pursue their version of exceptionalism in the manner they chose, as long as their version does not aim to diminish anyone else in the process.
As to your comment, "This links to the arguments you made on the "Dynamic World" thread when you talked about US/Soviet and now US/China military parity. I have to say to you "give it up" because; as this decade progresses, you will see how hopeless Americas aspiration of maintaining parity with the PRC will become. This in so many ways is going to be the decade of fundamental transition. Already the value of the domestic Chinese economy is approximate to that of the US domestic economy and by 2020 is looking likely to be approximate to the value of the US in Exchange Rate terms. This means that the PLA will be able to enjoy a budget that is triple that of today's in dollar terms without needing to adjust the proportion of spending.”
You are assuming facts that are not in evidence. You are extrapolating trends both in the US and China that will and must come to an end. It assumes that China will not have any problems while at the same time as it undergoes major transitions in both its economy and society (very unlikely) and that the US, which has a history of continually reinventing itself, will only decline.
If a rational person looks at the problems that China will face internally, both demographic and economic, in the next thirty years it is going to be quite a feat for it to just consolidated and successfully distribute your current gains. And as far as the US’s military capacity is concerned, even if the US was on the backwards slope of history, I would like to bring to your attention that military power is thevery last form of national power to fade, even from a declining nation even if you were right about our decline.
Furthermore, just as a clarification, the US doesn’t have client states but that is another topic.
fftopic
