Catching up on Hemlock's blog from a few months back, my attention was caught by a quote from a South China People's Daily, sorry SCMP, opinion piece by one Lau Nai-Keung, who delivers this gem of either confused thinking or blatant hypocrisy, (depending on whether he is as stupid as he seems):
"The South China Sea will no longer be an issue, after China recovers the
sovereignty of various rocks and islands one by one, either through
peaceful means or by force. But with a tradition of a somewhat benign
paternal attitude, China will refrain from bullying its neighbours
despite the American absence. Instead, it will continue to push for
peace and co-development in the region, if only to distinguish itself
from Western hegemony."
So China will recover [sic] the chunks of rock it claims in its neighbours' backyard by force, but will "refrain from bullying and pursue peace and co-development". Does the writer not recognise his own contradiction here? And does no one in the CPP (to which he belongs) recognise that this sounds exactly like the kind of "peace and co-development" that Japan pursued at China's expense in the 1930s?
And I love that "if only..." clause - the implication being "we want to be violent, but we have to be peaceful to look different from the US"!