Easily, the sharp contrast in Western vs Chinese takes on history is that the West largely views history as a process of gradual civilization and a series of absolute victories over the forces Evil. The Neoconservative belief of the 'End of History' exemplifies this, where scholars affiliated with the movement held the belief that Capitalistic Democracies were the endpoint of cultural evolution. China, on the other hand, has a belief that history is cyclical. Time represents a cycle of events that can never be mastered, but rather understood.
The Western view is heavily founded upon Judea-Christian views, where history will ultimately culminate in the grand battle between God and Satan. Even the increasingly secular Western world still echoes these views, minus the grand battle between God and Satan. China's view is founded upon their violent history, which has been a series of civil wars followed by unification under a central power. This has etched into their strategic thought an emphasis on domestic threats, which are prioritized equally to that of threats emanating from foreign enemies.
(Maybe I'm espousing a view that is too heavily centered around Henry Kissenger, but I find his views on history very interesting)
So then, much of China's posturing is aimed towards domestic consumption. With economic growth slowing, the housing market bubble becoming more apparent, and a greater demand for political rights from the empowered middle class, China is increasingly looking towards strong internal security measures coupled with appeals to nationalism in order to maintain a hold over their domestic population (while enacting piecemeal reforms). It's far easier to sweep corruption, pollution, and other pressing issues under the rug while people are looking towards a "foreign threat" This is what mitigates the risk of war, at least for the time being. Unless a major event occurs that threatens the grip of Beijing over the country, it's unlikely that they will instigate conflict anytime soon.
However, suppose a major event does happen. Let's say that the housing bubble finally bursts, leading to a recession in the Chinese economy. In order stymy any sort of wide scale unrest, Communist leadership decides to get the domestic population focusing on a foreign threat until they can come up with a plan for reform. Seizing a nearby island that holds nationalistic significance could accomplish this objective. Going solely off media attention, their target would appear be the Senakau or Pag-asa islands. But attacking either would invoke the mutual defense treaties Japan and the Philippines have with the United States, leading to the possibility of a protracted conflict and a guarantee of severe economic consequences. For obvious reasons, this would be self-defeating for the Chinese. Far more likely, in my opinion, is an offensive operation against the Vietnamese. There exists a long history of tensions between China and Vietnam, dating all the way back to Vietnam's resentment of China's purported role in the Sinocentric East Asian order. More recently, there was the Chinese of invasion of Vietnam in 1979, the subsequent border skirmishes lasting until the 90s, and South Johnson Reef skirmishes in 1988 (which China decisively won). Vietnam doesn't have any mutual defense treaties, which ensures that America will not respond with anything more than a few political rumblings. In short, they are a perfect target for China to target in a war aimed at rousing nationalistic pretensions.
Granted, this does not preclude the possibility of war between China and America in the Indo-Pacific. But I believe that if the Chinese were to instigate conflict against any nation, it would be the Vietnamese. The precedent for conflict already exists, as does Chinese military superiority over Vietnam. Analysts and Policymakers should consider this possibility and the possible shocks it would inflict on the regional order, especially as internal unrests becomes increasingly likely in China.
--Tom
