Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's another article in the BBC today about the artificial islands under construction by China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32234448

Ponderously, China keeps rolling towards making their assertions of territory a reality. They doubtless see their expectations of the subservience of other local nations not too far behind. At some point in the next thirty to forty years, assuming current trends are maintained, America will be forced to make a decision; namely that they relinquish their dominance in that part of the world to China, or they stand up and draw a line in the sand using their fleet.

Which do you think will occur and why?

You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Sining wrote:
You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Phillipines will not declare war on China. They are not suicidal.

Japan and South Korea? They won't move to draw that line without US support. At least, not unless they kick up their own rearmament to the point whereby they don't need US support. In which case, the US has a problem, because then there are three heavily armed powers contesting for the area, and America loses dominance in that part of the world by default.

 Ketara wrote:

Sining wrote:
You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Phillipines will not declare war on China. They are not suicidal.

Japan and South Korea? They won't move to draw that line without US support. At least, not unless they kick up their own rearmament to the point whereby they don't need US support. In which case, the US has a problem, because then there are three heavily armed powers contesting for the area, and America loses dominance in that part of the world by default.

Doubtful. US calls on UN to help support them. Stalemate occurs unless China makes a violent move, then WW3 breaks out.

 Ketara wrote:

Sining wrote:
You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Phillipines will not declare war on China. They are not suicidal.

Japan and South Korea? They won't move to draw that line without US support. At least, not unless they kick up their own rearmament to the point whereby they don't need US support. In which case, the US has a problem, because then there are three heavily armed powers contesting for the area, and America loses dominance in that part of the world by default.

And you think America will declare war on China?

I mean, out of curiousity, what is your definition of Americas dominance in this party of the world.

The South China see belongs to the PRC. The "the nine point line" clearly shows Chinese waters and has done so since imperial times. Claims by Taiwan are void since it's not a UN recognised state and Japan's should be even more void since their mainland ends well before the " nine point line". America would not dare declare full war on China but I could see them fuelling a war with Japan.

I don't see Japan initiating a war anytime soon

Sining wrote:


And you think America will declare war on China?

I haven't posited an opinion as of yet. I'm curious to hear what my fellow Dakkaites opinion is on the matter.

I mean, out of curiousity, what is your definition of Americas dominance in this party of the world.

America is the dominant military power. She has the power to sail and dethrone more or less any government she chooses, including China, as of this point in time. That is one part of her dominance.

The second part of the term 'dominance' is that all other countries defer to America diplomatically to a greater or lesser extent as a result of that military power. That deferral can range from simply not interfering with any major US interests, to actively considering themselves military allies of.

I'm not using the word in an economic context here, just to specify.

 tau tse tung wrote:
The South China see belongs to the PRC. The "the nine point line" clearly shows Chinese waters and has done so since imperial times. Claims by Taiwan are void since it's not a UN recognised state and Japan's should be even more void since their mainland ends well before the " nine point line". America would not dare declare full war on China but I could see them fuelling a war with Japan.

So just to clarify:-



You believe that the entire area within the green line belongs to China? Even though it's within what is commonly considered to be international waters? And even though large sections of it are far closer to other nations, geographically speaking?

On what basis does this claim originate from beyond, 'A Chinese person drew it on a map a long time ago'? I'm genuinely curious if there's an actual claim I haven't heard of, or if it's just another Falklands style situation.

It is the best interests of the USA that China take on regional leadership in NE Asia. Bullying Japan does not count as leadership.

In short, yes I do. China has controlled that area since Zhang he's voyages during the Ming dynasty. Plus China's large population needs the area for fishing. Although I will agree that it is a very Falklands like scenario. The usa would would have a very hard time dethroning China also. The PLA is a much more coherent fighting force than it was in the 1950s. I doubt a war will break out though. It's not in anyone's interests.

 tau tse tung wrote:
In short, yes I do. China has controlled that area since Zhang he's voyages during the Ming dynasty.

I'm afraid China has not controlled that area in a very long time. They might have claimed it belonged to them for a long time, I wouldn't know. I do know however, that the Royal Navy put paid to any claims of control an exceptionally long time ago, followed by the Japanese, and more recently the Americans.

I'm not entirely certain that just saying, 'That belongs to us' necessarily confers legitimacy. If it were that easy, I'd be able to point at Buckingham Palace and claim it, Tom Kirby would be able to point at all our wallets to grab our cash, and Frazzled would be able to point at the wiener dog museum.

Plus China's large population needs the area for fishing. Although I will agree that it is a very Falklands like scenario. The usa would would have a very hard time dethroning China also. The PLA is a much more coherent fighting force than it was in the 1950s. I doubt a war will break out though. It's not in anyone's interests.

Just to wheel out the professional opinion right now, America would find breaking the ground forces a challenge. The Chinese Navy and Airforce, on the other hand, would only last about three days as a coherent force, and the better part of a month as a disparate one. Which is more or less all America would need, the second trade stops, China has massive economic problems, let alone what the American airforce is capable of doing on top. But that's all somewhat off topic.

I can't imagine any credible scenario in which the USA and PRC would come to blows. IME, Americans who think this is possible tend to underestimate the responsibility and rationality of Chinese leaders and people while Chinese who think this possible tend to be spouting nationalistic nonsense, often highly colored by anti-Japanese sentiment.

China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

 Manchu wrote:
I can't imagine any credible scenario in which the USA and PRC would come to blows.

The problem is that a lot of people thought exactly the same thing before WW1. They cited how interlinked trade was, the inherent rationality of their governments, etcetc. And then it happened.

I see a number of unfortunate parallels all starting to slide into place, and it worries me. I'm not convinced it'll necessarily affect me on this island over here, but slowly but surely, every year that passes seems to ratchet up the tension in that part of the world by another imperceptible notch. Just about everyone else there is happy to live and let live under American naval and free trade hegemony, but China keeps pushing against that. I fear for where it could end.

 Manchu wrote:
I can't imagine any credible scenario in which the USA and PRC would come to blows.

The problem is that a lot of people thought exactly the same thing before WW1. They cited how interlinked trade was, the inherent rationality of their governments, etcetc. And then it happened.

I see a number of unfortunate parallels all starting to slide into place, and it worries me. I'm not convinced it'll necessarily affect me on this island over here, but slowly but surely, every year that passes seems to ratchet up the tension in that part of the world by another imperceptible notch. Just about everyone else there is happy to live and let live under American naval and free trade hegemony, but China keeps pushing against that. I fear for where it could end.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

If America blockades China, America has access to outside resources through shipping whilst China does not. The production facilities are useless without the raw materials, whilst the Americans would pump their economy with tremendous amounts of defence spending to prime their industrial/economic growth. In the short term, the American economy would possibly boom in a war-time setting. I can't say the same for China, especially if America starts conducting bombing.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

America's jurisdiction is might makes right. It's not a good claim to anything in general, but it's simple and easily grasped. Hence the Chinese attempts to emulate them.

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

This is exactly the sort of thing which worries me. It's colonialism, pure and simple, if of a more aquatic variety. I can understand where it originates from in the Chinese psyche, God only knows they've been screwed enough times by others in the last few centuries. But change a few specific words, and it turns into the Kaiser declaring Germany's right to 'take her place in the sun.'

Terrible American oppressors are bad and should leave. Terrible Chinese oppressors are much closer.

^ The worst argument I've seen in a long time.

I think in the west so many people are paranoid but if people to live out here or even see the real China then people would soon understand that most chinese (government included) don't want trouble, its bit like the USA before manifest destiny.

Just because America says it's right does not mean the world should follow. Why should China with its long culture, strong economy and deep want of peace listen when America (a nation on the other side of the world) tell it what to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Terrible American oppressors are bad and should leave. Terrible Chinese oppressors are much closer.

^ The worst argument I've seen in a long time.

True, I don't see this being solved


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also why is it colonialism when China does it but not America in taking military bases in Okinawa or using Taiwan as a giant airstrip. As a fellow poster from the UK was Hong Kong not colonialism?

It's totally colonialism (or at least neo-colonialism).

but two wrongs don't make a right.

 tau tse tung wrote:
I think in the west so many people are paranoid but if people to live out here or even see the real China then people would soon understand that most chinese (government included) don't want trouble, its bit like the USA before manifest destiny.

All I can perceive from here is China claiming that it should rule foreign waters because it says it should. And then backing that up by building islands, imposing new flight zones, and so on. These seem like very strange ways of 'not wanting trouble'. Perhaps you could explain to me how these seemingly militaristic actions are indicative of not wanting trouble? (being serious, not sarcasm).

Because it would seem from my perspective, that the best course of action anyone could take, is to just get on with things. Nobody is trying to invade China anymore, or dictate it's economic or foreign policy. Free trade brings prosperity to all at the moment. Why disrupt or risk that?

Just because America says it's right does not mean the world should follow. Why should China with its long culture, strong economy and deep want of peace listen when America (a nation on the other side of the world) tell it what to do?

The world usually doesn't follow America. In fact, it usually berates it heavily, ever since Vietnam.

But how does claiming other people's territorial waters and sending in the navy to secure it represent a 'deep want of peace'? I just don't understand this seeming contradiction.

Also why is it colonialism when China does it but not America in taking military bases in Okinawa or using Taiwan as a giant airstrip. As a fellow poster from the UK was Hong Kong not colonialism?

Okinawa is a legacy of a past conflict, as opposed to a deliberate desire to expand territory. Taiwan, in a similar vein, is not hosting American forces because America wants to rule Taiwan particularly (although that one is could be considered a form of neo-colonialism). Hong Kong was never originally intended as colonialism, although it gradually became it. Britain did give that one back though, making it somewhat irrelevant here.

Regardless, China deliberately expanding into international or foreign territory with the goal of making it theirs is colonialism is its absolute, most purest form. Which is a strange route to take for a nation so immersed in opposing it.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's totally colonialism (or at least neo-colonialism).

but two wrongs don't make a right.

I do see where you coming from, personally I don't want the status quo to change, but that's my stance. Nothing would be solved in war, I think both the White House and the great hall of the people are well aware. Ukraine and the Middle East are far bigger fish for the superpowers to fry right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not chinese nor was born in China, but I can say that from my observations (which I see are right) that China was decimated after the colonial action of Britain and the boxer rebellion. KMT rule was dreadful in what we would call the interwar period. Read "China revisited after 42 years" a for our kmt party member tells about the awful times in China during the 20s, it honestly sounded like Somalia and was at the hands of British and American interests.

I bring this up because if China did not push these zones it could happen again to them. As Lord of hats said, it's bad when anyone des it but to the chinese they are recovering lost land (or in this case sea) that's there's. They see history like a mirror, in the wests eyes it's annexation to them it's land cruelly taken away. 200 years ago is nothing in chinese history so colonialism was only yesterday.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing.

I disagree with both points. To the first, China has certainly expanded greatly,although this mostly happened long ago. To the second, one of Mao's greatest accomplishments was establishing the current borders of the PRC, which largely corresponds to the territory claimed by the Qing emperors. But I think I agree with the spirit of your post, if I understand it correctly, that Chinese foreign policy is not really motivated by aggressive expansion unlike, for example, Russia. On this point, the USA and the PRC are alike -- and the importance of sharing a broad foreign policy assumption like this should not be underestimated.

 Ketara wrote:
The problem is that a lot of people thought exactly the same thing before WW1. They cited how interlinked trade was, the inherent rationality of their governments, etcetc. And then it happened.

I don't believe pre-WW1 European realpolitik shares much in common with contemporary Sino-American partnership. The USA has never opposed Chinese nationalism, which is easy enough to do because the USA has virtually no interest in territories where that might be problematic (e.g., Tibet, Xinjiang) except regarding Taiwan, which question is not only gradually working itself out but might also eventually help ease Sino-Japanese relations. For the Chinese, it is easy to see why easing that tension would not be profitable currently: (1) saber rattling is popular at home (for both sides) and (2) none of the issues between the nations are substantive in themselves.

 tau tse tung wrote:
it honestly sounded like Somalia

That honestly sounds like propaganda.

I swear Hong Kong was named "a colony" in official papers. How you can say it wasn't meant as colonialism is utter rubbish as we tried to take Shanghai too. The Germans took qingdao and the Portuguese has Macao. Don't even try and say it was ever intended. By defending that how isn't it being nostalgic to that period. China's got no need to expand land wise or any other way. Your over blowing this whole minor news story in my opinion.

China is simply developing land it owns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chang Yee lived in Britain and America most of his life, he wasn't a communist at all. But you are right about China's expansionism. It will expand its economy, not force wise at all.

Read the book, roving gangs of all types of political extremists lived and pillaged during this time. I remember in the book texaco hired a private army to chase farmers off land they needed. "Rice armies" I think he named them due to them being paid in food rather than money.

 Ketara wrote:


All I can perceive from here is China claiming that it should rule foreign waters because it says it should. And then backing that up by building islands, imposing new flight zones, and so on. These seem like very strange ways of 'not wanting trouble'. Perhaps you could explain to me how these seemingly militaristic actions are indicative of not wanting trouble? (being serious, not sarcasm).

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy. They don't want war, but there exists an engrained fear that if they do not display strength (and no just military strength, but social strength as well) that the great powers of the world will dictate to them their own fate. This is not entirely untrue. Think of much the US (though dictate would be a strong word) influences global events via its military and political prestige? China's history in the Colonial era is not pretty and it is still very much alive in their modern cultural mindset.

However, to those who think China can't possible be belligerent, keep in mind. The above as I described, is the mentality that began to Cold War (US and Russia). It is the mentality that the Japanese used to justify their own Imperial agenda in the first half of the 20th Century. The mentality that you must project strength, or you are weak, starts wars. It does take two to tango, but someone has to tell the band to get going. China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


All I can perceive from here is China claiming that it should rule foreign waters because it says it should. And then backing that up by building islands, imposing new flight zones, and so on. These seem like very strange ways of 'not wanting trouble'. Perhaps you could explain to me how these seemingly militaristic actions are indicative of not wanting trouble? (being serious, not sarcasm).

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy. They don't want war, but there exists an engrained fear that if they do not display strength (and no just military strength, but social strength as well) that the great powers of the world will dictate to them their own fate. This is not entirely untrue. Think of much the US (though dictate would be a strong word) influences global events via its military and political prestige? China's history in the Colonial era is not pretty and it is still very much alive in their modern cultural mindset.

However, to those who think China can't possible be belligerent, keep in mind. The above as I described, is the mentality that began to Cold War (US and Russia). It is the mentality that the Japanese used to justify their own Imperial agenda in the first half of the 20th Century. The mentality that you must project strength, or you are weak, starts wars. It does take two to tango, but someone has to tell the band to get going. China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

Although I don't agree with the last part, it was well thought out. You hit the mindset on the head. Remember the idea of saving face is huge to both countries, they will sabre rattle but no war will occur. A Taiwan strait scenario maybe but not a full scale war.

tau tse tung wrote:
I'm not chinese nor was born in China, but I can say that from my observations (which I see are right) that China was decimated after the colonial action of Britain and the boxer rebellion. KMT rule was dreadful in what we would call the interwar period. Read "China revisited after 42 years" a for our kmt party member tells about the awful times in China during the 20s, it honestly sounded like Somalia and was at the hands of British and American interests.

Quite frankly, Mao outdid anything any foreign power ever managed. And the Taiping Rebellion wasn't exactly small, neither was the various revenges of the Emperor's family. I say this not to justify past British actions, but merely to point out that China, like most of the world, has been through many horrible things, some at the hands of foreigners, and some at the hands of their own people. I don't believe it makes sense to base current policy off of those bad times.

bring this up because if China did not push these zones it could happen again to them.

So you believe that having say, 600 miles of empty ocean instead of 200 increases the protection of China so greatly that a power that could destroy China could no longer do so? Howso? I don't quite follow.

As Lord of hats said, it's bad when anyone des it but to the chinese they are recovering lost land (or in this case sea) that's there's. They see history like a mirror, in the wests eyes it's annexation to them it's land cruelly taken away. 200 years ago is nothing in chinese history so colonialism was only yesterday.

The only reason it's land cruelly taken away is because the government tells them so. If I recall my Chinese history right, the Chinese Government actually forbade any more voyages overseas, and lost interest in the world outside. I'm convinced your average Chinese citizen wouldn't give a damn if China's territorial waters stretch out 200 or 300km unless he's constantly being told he should.

I mean, let's face it, everyone get's that 200km right now. If it was 100km for China and 300 for everyone else, it would make sense. But otherwise? It's literally just solidifying that sense of, 'those evil foreigners are trying to oppress us' for no real reason.

@tau tse tung

It is vastly oversimplistic to lay the chaos of early twentieth-century China at the feet of Chiang Kai-shek or the KMT. It is good to keep in mind that things were not so smooth after 1949, either.

@LoH

China is certainly self-conscious about it's colonial past and third world status. OTOH the 20th century is the exception to the rule of Chinese history. China's recent past represents a return to the larger status quo of regional dominance. Recovering the cultural attitude corresponding to that status will naturally involve a certain amount of nationalism, especially regarding Japan.

 tau tse tung wrote:
I think in the west so many people are paranoid but if people to live out here or even see the real China then people would soon understand that most chinese (government included) don't want trouble, its bit like the USA before manifest destiny.

Not just the west. Even in SEA, there are a lot of people perturbed by China's belligerent actions. Unfortunately, there's not much they can do now unless China pushes too far. But as it is, China is trying to test the water so to speak, seeing how far it can go before protests start coming.

Quick note:I'm aware of over simplistic terms and posts but writing from an iPad to React to quick posts is quite hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

tau tse tung wrote:
I'm not chinese nor was born in China, but I can say that from my observations (which I see are right) that China was decimated after the colonial action of Britain and the boxer rebellion. KMT rule was dreadful in what we would call the interwar period. Read "China revisited after 42 years" a for our kmt party member tells about the awful times in China during the 20s, it honestly sounded like Somalia and was at the hands of British and American interests.

Quite frankly, Mao outdid anything any foreign power ever managed. And the Taiping Rebellion wasn't exactly small, neither was the various revenges of the Emperor's family. I say this not to justify past British actions, but merely to point out that China, like most of the world, has been through many horrible things, some at the hands of foreigners, and some at the hands of their own people. I don't believe it makes sense to base current policy off of those bad times.

bring this up because if China did not push these zones it could happen again to them.

So you believe that having say, 600 miles of empty ocean instead of 200 increases the protection of China so greatly that a power that could destroy China could no longer do so? Howso? I don't quite follow.

As Lord of hats said, it's bad when anyone des it but to the chinese they are recovering lost land (or in this case sea) that's there's. They see history like a mirror, in the wests eyes it's annexation to them it's land cruelly taken away. 200 years ago is nothing in chinese history so colonialism was only yesterday.

The only reason it's land cruelly taken away is because the government tells them so. If I recall my Chinese history right, the Chinese Government actually forbade any more voyages overseas, and lost interest in the world outside. I'm convinced your average Chinese citizen wouldn't give a damn if China's territorial waters stretch out 200 or 300km unless he's constantly being told he should.

I mean, let's face it, everyone get's that 200km right now. If it was 100km for China and 300 for everyone else, it would make sense. But otherwise? It's literally just solidifying that sense of, 'those evil foreigners are trying to oppress us' for no real reason.

Treasure ships were to expensive to keep running and invasions from the Qing made it hard to keep the sea going empire. But a chinese could easily say that's same argument about the Falklands.

tau tse tung wrote:I swear Hong Kong was named "a colony" in official papers. How you can say it wasn't meant as colonialism is utter rubbish as we tried to take Shanghai too. The Germans took qingdao and the Portuguese has Macao. Don't even try and say it was ever intended. By defending that how isn't it being nostalgic to that period. China's got no need to expand land wise or any other way. Your over blowing this whole minor news story in my opinion.

IIRC (please correct me if wrong), we seized Hong Kong after forcing the Chinese Emperor to surrender because his officials confiscated a large amount of property, locked up citizens, and halted trade?

I'm not saying that the opium trade was a good one. But Hong Kong was originally negotiated for (at gunpoint, admittedly) because of a desire for a safe place to trade from, as opposed to any real desire to claim bits of China for Britain.

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy........ China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

This is what worries me. There are too many historical examples of these sorts of aggressive grabs for territory and escalating militarism eventually leading somewhere nobody wanted it to go.

When the argument is 'because others did this in the past that's why it's ok in the present', that's a horrible argument

 Ketara wrote:

tau tse tung wrote:I swear Hong Kong was named "a colony" in official papers. How you can say it wasn't meant as colonialism is utter rubbish as we tried to take Shanghai too. The Germans took qingdao and the Portuguese has Macao. Don't even try and say it was ever intended. By defending that how isn't it being nostalgic to that period. China's got no need to expand land wise or any other way. Your over blowing this whole minor news story in my opinion.

IIRC (please correct me if wrong), we seized Hong Kong after forcing the Chinese Emperor to surrender because his officials confiscated a large amount of property, locked up citizens, and halted trade?

I'm not saying that the opium trade was a good one. But Hong Kong was originally negotiated for (at gunpoint, admittedly) because of a desire for a safe place to trade from, as opposed to any real desire to claim bits of China for Britain.

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy........ China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

This is what worries me. There are too many historical examples of these sorts of aggressive grabs for territory and escalating militarism eventually leading somewhere nobody wanted it to go.

I apologise in advance for a simple answer, I'm a bit busy and as I said, iPads are horrible to type on.

Your right, but given the chance it would have been used as a staging point for an invasion. Why did it have to be taken at gunpoint and why didn't we follow their trade rules? Like America today why did we have a different set of rules being a nation so far away? I recommend lazlow Montgomery's history of China podcast on this, it's very detailed on the matter and is a better source than me at this moment. I feel that after the boxer revolt and if WW1 failed to ignite, China would of been dived up like Africa. Although that's opinion admittedly.