..and by this I don’t mean the Arab ones in the Middle East.
Rather, I’m going to take a moment today to look at the string of protests/riots going on in China.
In short: The purchase of the Senkaku Islands from private hands by the Japanese national government to head off their purchase by our insane nationalist governor of Tokyo (don’t look at me, I’ve never voted for him) has backfired, leading to widespread unrest and anti-Japanese demonstrations in China.
C. Custer at China Geeks has done a bang-up job looking at the protests from the perspective of how the Chinese state is likely sponsoring (or at least tacitly allowing) these protests. Meanwhile in Japan the reaction ranges from the usual suspects trying to stir up nationalist sentiment (not working all that well) to simple puzzlement on what the Chinese are so riled up about.
In the end these issues are best handled by bloggers and journalists who are closer to the ground….
For the moment this’ll be a mini-post where I lay out a few minor propositions.
1. This is a predictable escalation of the dispute which started back in 2010. It’s also a rather predictable extension of the nationalist riots/protests which took place in 2005. That it’s happening in a power transition year along with a slowing economy isn’t very surprising, either.
2. China increasingly seems to be taking “Crowd-sourced” means of taking hard power actions disguised as civil unrest. This means using protesters to scare the bejeezus out of consular staff and foreign businessmen, independent “nationalist” hackers to attack foreign computer networks, and sending “fishermen” flotillas to essentially invade disputed sea/island chains. I’m curious to see whether or not they’re capable of reining this in.
3. Expect more of this and against broader targets (such as the US) as China faces more problems in its domestic economy and the pains of transitioning from export led growth to domestic consumption…that is to say, this is just the beginning.
More later.
Edit: Made this a front page post by request.
I don’t know- my feeling is this should probably be mainpage instead of “Off the Cuff.”Report
I felt like this was more off the cuff in terms of content. Maybe it’s front pageable.Report
The U.S. has demonstrated that nuclear weapons can obliterate an island. I say we do so again, and then there’ll be nothing left for folks to argue over.Report
I’m sure you’re kidding here but…
Is it really worth 1. possibly a nuclear retaliation from a jumpy China, 2. making a complete dead letter of both the Limited Test-Ban Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and 3.the complete, and utter insanity of a PR nightmare that would arise from using nuclear weapons on what’s at least notionally considered Japanese soil?Report
Nob, he’s a head in a jar. 2 questions:
1.) What would a presumably-immortal head in a jar have to fear from nuclear holocaust?
2.) What (aside from the fact that HE’S A HEAD IN A JAR) would possibly make you think he’s joking? 😉Report
He’s a political science professor. They think nuclear holocaust is the punchline. (At least that was my IR professors!)
Also, note that there is in fact a boardgame called NUCLEAR WAR…
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/713/nuclear-war
Need I say more?Report
I’m not just a head in a jar. I’m a head in a jar wearing a bowler.Report
Thx for the perspective. Stateside, all I noticed was:
“Japan buys islands from private guy”
“Riots break out in China” (probably gov’t run).
😉Report
It’s not too much (at all?) different from the Innocence of Muslims protests in that the proximate cause is masking a lot of root cause.
Just to note, everyone on all sides plays the ‘fisherman flotilla’ game; the Kurils are a common enough flashpoint, and I’m sure your aware of the latest iteration of the Spratly’s dispute, this time with PI and ChinaReport
I don’t think it’s at all different, and in both cases the state effectively uses some outside target as a convenient release valve. The question is how good is the state in question at using those release valves?
The Spartly’s dispute was what I had in mind with the crowd-sourcing example, actually. The Kurils, I will admit is a blindspot on my recognition meter.Report
Thats a interesting point.
Poit the dissidents from your regime to someone outside your regime, show them that all their problems are the fault of some ‘external power’. Then finance them so you manage to get your objectives.
I wonder what other countries have used that kind of smokescreen sucessfully for 20 years or so…Report