Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Syria occupies Lebenon, Israel Palestine, China occupied all of North Korea for a time, South Africa occupied Nambia for 50 years, Indonesia occupied East Timor for 45 years, India annexed Goa from Portugal, Hungary got invaded and occupied by the Soviets in the 1960's, Panama got knocked over by the US in 1989, Haiti is still occupied, as is Bosnia, as is Kosovo, Chechnya is occupied, and Sadam pretty much had Kuwait pacified. I'm see a number of successful invsions and occupations including some virtual annexations.

I say we keep Kosovo. No use letting the Kosovars and Serbs squabble over it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Syria occupies Lebenon,

Syria keeps troops in Lebanon, keeping the puppet government in line- you can;t come close to even comparing the daily precence of Syrian troops to our operations in Iraq even. IOts not like Syrian troops patrol every town in Lebanon, or even half the towns.

Israel Palestine

Yup, here is one- and I assume you are goint to tell me its not costly? Plus heck, the artea held is small, and right next door to the occupier.

China occupied all of North Korea for a time

What?? China moved in its army to fight the US and UN forces- it 'occupied' NK in the same manner as British troops occupied Northern France from 1915-1918, and for about the same amount of time. NK was an independent allied state.

South Africa occupied Nambia for 50 years

Hads not thought of this example- probably works, thought Nambia had never had an independent existance.

Indonesia occupied East Timor for 45 years

A good example- for 45 years the INdonesians had to keep a strong hand, and the second Indonesia ran into trouble, its hold began to weaken and fell, plus the international communtiy never forgot, so that even AFTER 45 years, the whole thing fell.

India annexed Goa from Portugal

Goa was hardly "a nation", anymore than Macao would be. India took it, and it is part of India now, just as much as Hyderababd, and I doubt the people of Goa yearn for the nationalistic freedom.

Hungary got invaded and occupied by the Soviets in the 1960's

First, 1956. Two, it was akin to the two examples given by LoTM, a regime change invasion to set up a better puppet.

Panama got knocked over by the US in 1989

And NOT occupied (I should know), again, Us foprces came in, regime change, put in a new government, leave. NOT an occupation, or territorial aggrandizement, which is what people act like China will do.

Haiti is still occupied, as is Bosnia, as is Kosovo

Peacekeeping does not equal occupation, speically when fully sanction by the whole world.

Chechnya is occupied

Chechnya was never independent, so technically it does not count as an ocucpation, BUT it does illutrate the enormous cost to Russia of such an action. It has spent billions over many years and yet failed to pacify the area.

and Sadam pretty much had Kuwait pacified. I'm see a number of successful invsions and occupations including some virtual annexations.

You see variopus succesful invasions to set up new regimes- these are not ocucpations, and you gave one example of ACTUAL territorial aggrandizement by force (Iraq's), and it failed because the very notion of territorial aggrandizement is taboo now, so the world ganged up on Iraq.

If you note most of the examples of regime change occured relatively fast, and mostly were between actors of immense power differential, specially when one actor is particularly weak.

In the HUngary situation, the actual Hungarian military did not do much fighting- its was more Hungarian individuals, but the resistyance ended, and by 1960 there were no Soviet troops patrolling Budapest.

So the p[oint stands- you are not going to see outright territorial landgrabs akin to what someone would do in 1940- the last times these things have been tried have not been by large powers, but regional powers fighting amongst themselves (Iran-Iraq, Iraq and Kuwait, Ethiopia-Eritrea, The Congo War), ususally by states too poor to have the trully top of the line machines of destruction.

[Last Conformist]

Well, Chechnya was independent in the realy 1800s, wasn't it?

I don't know why it should be particularly reassuring that would should merely expect invasion-with-regime-change from a future Chinese superpower.

[pchang]

That's only because you aren't Chinese.

[Last Conformist]

Well, duh.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Well, Chechnya was independent in the realy 1800s, wasn't it?

It was not under Russian rule- but in terms of it being "independent", I think they might never had had a real state, as opposed to an area of control. Of course, Russian invasion and occupation in the 1860's goes along with the ethos of the time-the question is, the ethos of OUR time.

I don't know why it should be particularly reassuring that would should merely expect invasion-with-regime-change from a future Chinese superpower.

Its not clear the Chinese may ever even try this approach, but the point is that in this thread you hear lots of talk about China vs. India, or China vs. Russia, and other notions of China seeking territorial aggrandizement.

My point is that, unless the land is empty of people, growing the state by conquering new populations is horribly expensive and no longer seen by anone as valid and acceptable. Hence unlikely to happen. hence this notion of a Chinese thread being in the form of some neo-Imperialism by China is remote.

Another factor should be taken into account- While China will be a huge power if it keeps going as it is, it's not like the states around it are small, tiny things. Russia, Vietnam, KOrea, Japan, the Phillipinnes, Indoensia, India, these are heavily populated states, and even the really smal, neighbors like the Himalayan kingdoms, or a Kyrgizstan or Mongolia are not particualrly worth it and not in the best possible locations.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap

Its not clear the Chinese may ever even try this approach, but the point is that in this thread you hear lots of talk about China vs. India, or China vs. Russia, and other notions of China seeking territorial aggrandizement.

"Lots" of talk? I think that's an exaggeration.

So, what's your view of a rising China? Nothing to worry about? A threat, just not of the Genghiz Khan variety? A boon for world peace and stability?



I suppose another example of a successful modern annexation is Morocco's of Western Sahara.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I suppose another example of a successful modern annexation is Morocco's of Western Sahara.

Successful in the sense that decades after they did it they still have to have troops there and still face problems, and the international community has not forgotten (the the degree that its not shown as part of Morocco on any maps)? Yeah, thats a ringing success, even when the aim is a slightly populated region of small value.

So, what's your view of a rising China? Nothing to worry about? A threat, just not of the Genghiz Khan variety? A boon for world peace and stability?

My view is that China, in and of itself is NOT anymore of a threat to world peace than the US- it is thought a revisionist power, in so far as the current world system is a unipolar one with US military hegemony, and this system, specially what it signifies for the Pacific Area, will fall, no matter what, and states will be forced to come up with a new balance.

So instead of trying to worry about keeping a system that will fall anyway around for say, maybe 20 years more (for all the talk about China never catching up someone like Patrokolos makes, the richer China gets the faster it is to catch up- its all simply a matter of spending) we are better served by trying to create a new system from scratch that takens into account the coming changes and tries to further deligitimize and marginalize military power as an acceptable way of resolving international disputes.

Because if all we do is try to extend an inherently doomed system, the costs of that, and the possible consequences might be just what people think they are trying to avoid.

[Last Conformist]

The problems Morocco faces in West Sahara aren't worse than plenty of countries faces within their own turf. Last I heard, there were negotiations about the Polisario stopping the insurgency in return for a measure of autonomy.


If great-power wars ever become practical again, someone will legitimize them. As for actions against 3rd rate hellholes like Iraq and Serbia, it doesn't seem clear that the benefits of possibly detering China from future such outweighs the benefits of tying one's own hands.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The problems Morocco faces in West Sahara aren't worse than plenty of countries faces within their own turf. Last I heard, there were negotiations about the Polisario stopping the insurgency in return for a measure of autonomy.

So, after all the expenditure, they have to diplomaticaly settle, and allow for autonomy and a degree of self-rule. Meaning, not how this would have been done in the old days.

If great-power wars ever become practical again, someone will legitimize them. As for actions against 3rd rate hellholes like Iraq and Serbia, it doesn't seem clear that the benefits of possibly detering China from future such outweighs the benefits of tying one's own hands.

Action against said states is already legitimized for the most part: the big obstacle to even greater enforcement is the continued notion of national soverignty that would allow a state like Russia to veto UN moves vs Serbia, and by US actions that undemrined the system by claiming a war of self-defense vs Iraq when this was not the case (which is why the UN did not approve US actions to go to war).

I have no problem with tying the hands of nation-states.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

As for the Kuwait example, it shows another major difference in the world, thanks to the UN- the notion of simply swalloing a state is no longer acceptable, so if any one nation-state decided to utterly conquer another one, all nation states would react negatively, since this is someone messing with the whole system.

In fact, the two examples you gave, Afghanistan and Cambodia, neither were attempts to conquer the country, but to imposse on the country a local friendly regime- if the Soviets had been able to set up a friendly regime, and that regime been able to keep the peace by itself, the great bulk of Soviet forces would have left, period.

well d'uh, man, do you think it matters if China in 2030 is imposing friendly regimes then withdrawing the PLA to base? Do you think anyone expects them to set up formal colonies, or annex provinces? Hell, indirect rule isnt all that new - Manchukuo was considered "independent" by Japan, and they set up a slew of similar "regimes" in the greater east asian co prosperity sphere. Germany had Slovakia, Croatia, and several others. Hell, what do you think the Warsaw Pact was? Indeed, a good part of India during the Raj was self-governing by local royals (a descendant of one is a poster here, BTW) they not only didnt need Brit or Brit-Indian forces, they CONTRIBUTED forces to the Empire.

as for Kuwait - the coalition in that instance was a near thing. If US diplomacy had been less deft (if say George HW Bush were more like his son) or if Kuwait had less oil, or if Saddam were less widely disliked, or if the USSR had been stronger, it might not have been formed at all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Funding an insurgency can only work because the technology of warfare is such that a relative small expenditure can assure the creation of a militaryt force capable of harrasing the invader- not defeateing them, but making the costs of the whole business simply unacceptable. Back in 1930 you could not really "finance an insurgency" in the same way that you could in 1980. So technology has made it easier for the weak to frustrate the strong..

I dont have numbers on US support in afghanistan in the 1980s, or US - Chinese support in Cambodia, but I dont think the cost to successfully defeat a determined and large occupier is all that low, depending on local political conditions. And in the absolute prerequisite is the availability of a neighbor country willing to act defy the occupying power and act as sanctuary/funnel. Which willingness depends on the balance of CONVENTIONAL forces, which favored the US in both instances.

I certainly recognize that nationalist insurgency is an important factor in world affairs, and one that works against empire building - but I dont think, contra JJ Rousseau (no pun intended) that its a magic thing that can be counted on to always, everywhere stop empire building without regard to the conventional balance, and thus make traditional balance of power thinking (1850 thinking?) obsolete.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap

Action against said states is already legitimized for the most part:

Legitimized? Legitimate by which standards?

the big obstacle to even greater enforcement is the continued notion of national soverignty that would allow a state like Russia to veto UN moves vs Serbia, and by US actions that undemrined the system by claiming a war of self-defense vs Iraq when this was not the case (which is why the UN did not approve US actions to go to war).

I have no problem with tying the hands of nation-states.

So, instead of US invasions, we get UN ones. This delegitimates violence as a tool of int'l politics how?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Indonesia occupied East Timor for 45 years,

less than 30 years, I think. Portugal only left E Timor in 1974, and we dont hit 45 years from that till 2019.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Syria keeps troops in Lebanon, keeping the puppet government in line- you can;t come close to even comparing the daily precence of Syrian troops to our operations in Iraq even. IOts not like Syrian troops patrol every town in Lebanon, or even half the towns.

Why is our situation in Iraq the gold standard? If China can dominate a neighbor the way Syria has dominated Lebanon, and a neighbor that proportionate in size to China as Lebanon is to Syria, that would be a HUGE thing, and one of great concern to the EU i would think. Hell, the EU is apparently not happy with Syrians dominance in Lebanon.