Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile Justin Trudeau and his comprador friends and colleagues should note what's going on in Australia:

Australia to review spy laws amid Chinese influence concerns

Australia will review its espionage laws, the government’s chief legal officer said on Wednesday, as the country seeks to strengthen spy agencies strained by juggling counter-terror work and worries about China’s rising influence.

For years Australia has been handing extra cash and extra powers to its police and spy agencies to bolster their counter-terrorism abilities.

Then in December, responding to “disturbing reports about Chinese influence,” the government turned its attention on interference in politics and announced a crackdown on political donations and the outlawing of foreign interference.

“We live in an unprecedented age of foreign interference, influence, espionage and domestic terrorism,” Australia’s Attorney-General Christian Porter told radio station 5AA in the city of Adelaide on Wednesday [May 30].

“We think it’s very appropriate to step back and look at the whole system from top to tail,” adding that the government was not aiming its intelligence laws at “any one international country”.

However the review, which will run 18 months and is the deepest in four decades, is to be headed by former Australian spymaster Dennis Richardson, who last year warned China in particular was conducting extensive espionage against Australia.

“With China we’re in a situation which we were never in previously, where we now have levels of concern - because they have levels of capacity and ambition - that weren’t the case,” said Professor Greg Barton, a security expert at Deakin University in Melbourne.

Outdated laws that have not kept pace with the advent of the internet and cybersecurity challenges, as well as arcane information sharing rules between Australian intelligence agencies, would be likely candidates for reform, he said.

...intelligence officers have found themselves increasingly focused on thwarting Chinese influence as public concern has deepened, while ties between the trading partners have soured.

The country’s current spy chief has warned that universities need to be “very conscious” of foreign interference - an apparent reference to China’s perceived involvement on campuses.

This month, the rift between the countries, opened in the wake of Australia’s foreign influence crackdown, widened.

China’s top diplomat rebuked Australia for applying “colored glasses” to the relationship, as Australia’s largest winemaker, Treasury Wine Estates Ltd suddenly encountered problems clearing its products through Chinese customs.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-security-review/australia-to-review-spy-laws-amid-chinese-influence-concerns-idUSKCN1IV0TZ

Mark
Ottawa

 

 

[MarkOttawa]

And in Canada certain matters are being brought to the PM's attention:

Trudeau urged to probe Chinese telecom giant Huawei’s role in Canada

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being urged to gather security agencies and top policy makers to determine the security threat and economic cost of transferring Canadian intellectual property to Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies.

Andy Ellis, former assistant director of operations at the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, said he was alarmed at the extent of the inroads that Huawei has made into Canadian universities with the aim of acquiring leading-edge 5G wireless technology.

A Globe and Mail investigation published Saturday [ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-how-canadian-money-and-research-are-helping-china-become-a-global/ ] revealed that Huawei has established a vast network of relationships with Canadian universities to create a steady pipeline of intellectual property to aid in the development of next-generation mobile networks.

The concerns come in the wake of Ottawa’s decision to block Aecon Group’s takeover by a Chinese state-owned company on national-security grounds, and follows the Liberal government’s attempts since assuming office to improve trade relations with China, possibly leading to a free-trade deal.

Huawei has committed about $50-million to 13 leading Canadian universities, including the University of Toronto, the University of Waterloo, McGill University and the University of British Columbia, to fund the development of 5G mobile technology, which it has used as a basis to file hundreds of patents. Canadian university professors have transferred full rights to their inventions to Huawei in 40 instances.

...It was recently revealed that Huawei is helping China’s state security apparatus spy on its Uyghur minority. Former top Canadian intelligence officials have warned that Huawei could use 5G technology for espionage, a charge denied by Huawei spokesman Scott Bradley.

A spokesman for Mr. Trudeau on the weekend deferred questions about Huawei to Industry Minister Navdeep Bains. His department said on Sunday that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council grants to academics “are awarded through an independent peer-reviewed process to ensure excellence and impartiality.” It added that businesses partnering and co-funding the research “must demonstrate economic, social or environmental benefits for Canadians. Canadians can rest assured that our government will never compromise national security and will always listen to the advice of public-security officials.”..

The Globe investigation also raised concerns about the extent to which Huawei is benefiting from Canadian university researchers – whose salaries and research are largely funded by governments – to build its 5G patent warchest. Several observers called on the government to enact changes to ensure Canada captures more of the economic value from research that it helps to fund...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-trudeau-urged-to-probe-chinese-telecom-giant-huaweis-role-in-canada/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Back to the Dragon of Oz:

The Labor Party's China problem

When Australia’s chief [internal] spy, ASIO boss Duncan Lewis, told a Senate estimates hearing last week that Australia faced a greater  threat from espionage today than at any time since the Cold War he was careful not to specify which countries might be targeting us.

No one doubts that he was talking about China. The senators who were questioning him were undoubtedly talking about China.

As evidence of Chinese efforts to influence Australian institutions mounts, both major parties have reason for self-reflection [emphasis added].

When he quit his role as an elected representative of the Australian people the Liberal trade minister Andrew Robb walked into an $880,000-a-year job with a billionaire closely aligned to the Chinese Communist Party.

Robb was the architect of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Tony Abbott was among a handful Liberal heavy weights who were embarrassed after they had to return a fistfull of designer watches worth around $250,000 to a visiting Chinese billionaire. They thought they were fake, they explained when the story went public.

An ABC investigation last year found that Chinese individuals and companies were the largest foreign donors to the two parties, pouring more than $5.5 million into Labor and Liberal coffers between 2013 and 2015.

But one faction of one party appears to be more conflicted than sections of Australian politics, the Sussex Street machine of the powerful NSW Right.

Sam Dastyari, who quit politics when it was revealed he had taken donations from Chinese businesses and then echoed Chinese government talking points, was a rising star of the faction.

Its most dominant figure is Bob Carr, the former foreign affairs minister and NSW premier now at the centre of the China influence controversy.  Carr is the director of the Australia-China Relations Institute, which was established by Chinese-Australian businessman Huang Xiangmo, the prolific political donor (and a controversial source of funds to Dastyari).

The NSW Labor right’s ties to Chinese businessmen, some of whom have links to the Chinese Communist Party and its arm of international influence, the United Front Work Department, is causing increasing disquiet in the broader party, particularly members from Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.

In writing this story Fairfax Media spoke to party members as well as figures in national security and intelligence circles who did not want to go on record for political and legal reasons.

But a common view is that figures associated with the Chinese Communist Party did not specifically target the NSW Labor right - indeed they have sought to influence both parties and other major Australian institutions - but that the NSW faction proved to be an unusually fertile ground to seek influence [read on]...
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-labor-party-s-china-problem-20180601-p4ziuq.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

And in Canada certain matters are being brought to the PM's attention

Not trying to be too pedantic, but I feel there's a significant gap between a "Globe and Mail piece," and actually acquiring the PM's "attention."

"A spokesman for Mr. Trudeau ...deferred questions about Huawei to Industry Minister," suggests that the actual Intelligence/Security services haven't managed to get his attention.  The article further highlights that NSERC grants are "awarded through an independent peer-reviewed process to ensure excellence and impartiality"... demonstrating "economic, social, or environmental benefits for Canadians" -- not even a hint that security awareness is an issue.

:dunno:

 

[MarkOttawa]

In South China Sea, Marine Nationale/Royal Navy to the fore:

France, Britain to sail warships in contested South China Sea to challenge Beijing
Defence ministers tell security forum they are contributing to rule-based order

France and Britain will sail warships through the South China Sea to challenge Beijing’s expanding military presence in the disputed waters, their defence ministers said on Sunday [June 3].

The two countries, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, made the remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, echoing the latest US plan to ramp up its freedom of navigation operations to counter Beijing’s militarisation in the region and its stance that territorial disputes should be a matter between China and its Asian neighbours.

A French maritime task group, together with British helicopters and ships, will visit Singapore next week and then sail “into certain areas” of the South China Sea, French armed forces minister Florence Parly told the annual defence forum.

Without naming China, she suggested the warships will cross into “territorial waters” claimed by Beijing and envisioned a potential encounter with its military.

“At some point a stern voice intrudes into the transponder and tells us to sail away from supposedly ‘territorial waters’,” she said. “But our commander then calmly replies that he will sail forth, because these, under international law, are indeed international waters.”

Parly said although France was not a claimant in the South China Sea disputes, by conducting such exercises “on a regular basis with allies and friends” it was contributing to a rule-based order.

“By exercising our freedom of navigation, we also place ourselves in the position of a persistent objector to the creation of any claim to de facto sovereignty on the islands,” she said.

Instead of accepting the situation as a fait accompli, Parly said France should question it, otherwise it will be established as a right...
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2149062/france-britain-sail-warships-contested-south-china-sea

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

A Retiring Chinese General Reveals China’s Greatest Military Weakness Is A US Strength

China’s People’s Liberation Army Gen. He Lei, one of the more hawkish voices asserting Beijing’s absolute rights to the South China Sea, made a telling observation at a defense conference in Singapore that reveals his military’s biggest weakness.

China has undertaken massive strides to build a world-class navy. After what the nationalists in China call a century of humiliation, going back to Japan’s occupation of China, Beijing has emerged as a military power that could soon surpass the U.S.

But even with the world’s largest military, cheap labor, massive spy services, and suspected cyber theft of U.S military secrets, the Chinese can’t match the U.S. where it counts.

“I am retiring soon. My one big regret is that I never had a chance to fight in a war,” Gen. He said, according to Aaron Connelly, director of the Southeast Asia Project at the Lowy Institute.

Though it’s strange to regret peace, He correctly identified what the Academy of Military Science of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army previously told Business Insider was the Chinese military’s biggest weakness: inexperience.

The People’s Liberation Army, the military-owned by China’s Communist Party, has never fought a real war. Its missions center around humanitarian relief and policing its own borders. Besides a brief fight with Vietnam, the entire post-World War II period for China has been peaceful.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Russia, other top-tier militaries, have engaged in regular battles.

While much of China’s emerging new military doctrine seems sound, in theory, it’s yet to be tested...

In particular, a comment by James Doyle is interesting:

"Besides a brief fight with Vietnam,...
...in which the Vietnamese handed them their asses....

The Chinese have another hidden weakness. All the staffs and commands are riven by divided loyalties. Because the PLA has always been expected to be financially and materially self-sufficient, they have always had an entire manufacturing base. During the economic liberalization of the 90s various factories established ties with various export networks and other business interests and for a PLA officer this is where the real money is. (All that old "Serve the People" stuff died with Mao Zedong.) So that's where his real loyalties lie, regardless of where or to whom he's assigned. think of how that's going to distort promotion selections and general decision-making.

https://taskandpurpose.com/chinese-military-weakness/

 

[MarkOttawa]

France upping its naval and air force games in South China Sea and Indo-Pacific (further links at original):

On the water and in the air, French military pushes back against Beijing’s South China Sea claims
France has sent warships through contested waters and will hold air exercises in the area later this year

In late May, the French assault ship Dixmude and a frigate sailed through the disputed Spratly Islands and around a group of reefs that China has turned into islets, pushing back against Beijing’s claim to own most of the resource-rich South China Sea.

“Our patrol involved passing close to these islets to obtain intelligence with all the sensors it is possible to use in international waters,” the Dixmude’s commanding officer, Jean Porcher, said.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, a researcher from the Hudson Institute think tank who was on board, said “several Chinese frigates and corvettes” tailed the French vessels.

China puts missiles back on contested South China Sea island as United States pushes allies for bigger military presence in waters

Porcher said the ship maintained “cordial” radio contact with Chinese military vessels, “which were present in the area until we left”.

So far the United States has taken the lead in confronting China over its territorial claims in the South China Sea, which are contested by several neighbours, particularly Vietnam.

But France, which along with Britain is the only European nation to regularly send its navy into the region, has also waded into the dispute, sending its ships into the South China Sea three to five times a year.

In August, the air force will stage its biggest-ever exercises in Southeast Asia as part of a strategy to mark France’s presence in a region that is home to 1.5 million French citizens in the country’s overseas territories [emphasis added].

Three Rafale fighter jets, one A400M troop transporter and a C135 refuelling tanker will fly from Australia to India, with several stops along the way.

The sea and air operations follow a visit by French President Emmanuel Macron last month to Australia, where he spoke of the need to protect the Indo-Pacific region from “hegemony” – a veiled reference to Beijing’s growing might.

He stressed that France, which will be the last country in the European Union after Britain leaves the bloc to have territories in the Pacific, did not want to antagonise China.

But a “strong Indo-Pacific axis” was needed to ensure respect for freedom of navigation and aviation in the region, he told Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

...France had already began to push back against China’s expansionism before Macron took power.

Since 2014, the navy has sailed regularly through the South China Sea as part of its stated bid to uphold a rules-based maritime order.

France, Britain to sail warships in contested South China Sea to challenge Beijing

In 2016, then French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian (now the foreign minister) called on other European navies to develop a regular and visible presence in the South China Sea.

Besides protecting navigation, France has cited the need to defend the interests of its citizens scattered across five French territories in the Pacific, including New Caledonia and French Polynesia.

“This region is also our home,” Defence Minister Florence Parly said during a visit to Singapore earlier this month.

Valerie Niquet, an expert on the Asia-Pacific region at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said France’s growing assertiveness showed the US was no longer the only Western power “getting involved in the area”...
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2150407/water-and-air-french-military-pushes-back-against

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Conclusion of a piece by Matthew Fisher at CGAI speaks for itself:

Beware of the Dragon: The Challenges of China’s Assertive Posture
...

...Canada, almost alone now among Western nations, is so soft on China...

Matthew Fisher is a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was born in northwestern Ontario and raised there and in the Ottawa Valley. He has lived and worked abroad for 34 years as a foreign correspondent for the Globe and Mail, Sun Media and Postmedia. Assignments have taken him to 162 countries. An eyewitness to 19 conflicts including Somalia, the Rwandan genocide, Chechnya, the Balkan Wars, Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, the two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan, Matthew was appointed as the first Bill Graham Centre/Massey College Resident Visiting Scholar in Foreign and Defence Policy in 2018.

@mfisheroverseas [twitter]
https://www.cgai.ca/beware_of_the_dragon_the_challenges_of_china_s_assertive_posture

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Trump's beginning trade war with China could sure mess up the plans of Justin Trudeau and our Liberal compradors (further links at original):

Afraid to anger Trump, Canada stays fickle about China trade
A promised golden decade appears to be on hold as Trudeau weighs up the costs of cosying up to Beijing

The “golden decade” Premier Li Keqiang said China and Canada were building in September 2016, as the two countries launched exploratory talks for a free-trade agreement (FTA), appears some way off yet. That FTA now seems dead in the water, collateral damage in a trade dispute between Canada and its largest trading partner, the United States.

Canada had shown signs of wanting to reduce its reliance on the US by reaching out to China, its third-largest trading partner, but analysts now say it must tread carefully or risk further damage to its already strained relations with the US. Given Washington is on the brink of a full-blown trade war with Beijing, it might not take well to seeing its neighbour cosy up to its opponent.

Chinese investment in Canadian oil shows bigger isn’t always better

This makes life harder for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is at a crossroads on how to deal with the unpredictable US president, Donald Trump, who insulted Trudeau after the G7 summit concluded on Saturday, only to say three days later that the pair had “a very good relationship”.

“If there was free trade between Canada and China, the US would see this as being at cross purposes to its crackdown on China’s unfair trade practises,” said Charles Burton, formerly a diplomat at Canada’s embassy in Beijing [and very hard-nosed on CCP China].

“Canada would be perceived as a back door by which China could evade tariffs and other sanctions imposed by the US. So free trade with China could further damage Canada-US trade relations which would be disastrous for Canada.”

Jiang Wenran, a senior fellow at the University of British Columbia’s Institute of Asian Research [and a notable comprador], said the Liberal government did not have a clear strategy of using China or a potential FTA with China as a counter to an aggressive US push on North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) negotiations.

“The temporary dominant view is that it’s better to hold off FTA talks with China in order not to offend the US so Canada can secure a better Nafta deal,” Jiang said.

“But the latest assaults by President Trump and his advisers on Trudeau have indicated that the US does not seem to care one way or the other. Thus, Canada remains at a crossroads on how to effectively engage China for its own long-term benefits [read on].”..
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2151073/afraid-anger-trump-canada-stays-fickle-about-china-trade

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Canada had shown signs of wanting to reduce its reliance on the US by reaching out to China, its third-largest trading partner, but analysts now say it must tread carefully or risk further damage to its already strained relations with the US. Given Washington is on the brink of a full-blown trade war with Beijing, it might not take well to seeing its neighbour cosy up to its opponent.

CCFTA should be pursued independantly of NAFTA, and needs to be looked at in earnest anyway, notwithstanding POTUS' recent rail against Canada. The US Empire is in decline (perhaps doesn't know it, or acknowledge it yet) and Canada should be thinking longer term than surviving enough with Big Brother to make it past the 2018 mid-terms.

:2c:

G2G

 

[MarkOttawa]

Yet another piece Justin Trudeau and LPC should read:

China’s ‘Thousand Talents’ plan key to seizing US expertise, intelligence officials say
Pentagon tells House Armed Services Committee programme is an aggressive, 10-part ‘toolkit for foreign technology acquisition’

China’s “Thousand Talents” programme to tap into its citizens educated or employed in the US is a key part of multi-pronged efforts to transfer, replicate and eventually overtake US military and commercial technology, according to US intelligence officials.

The programme, begun in 2008, is far from secret. But its unadvertised goal is “to facilitate the legal and illicit transfer of US technology, intellectual property and know-how” to China, according to an unclassified analysis by the National Intelligence Council, the branch of US intelligence that assesses long-term trends.

The programme was highlighted on Thursday to House Armed Services Committee members as Pentagon and intelligence officials outlined what they said was an aggressive, 10-part Chinese “toolkit for foreign technology acquisition”.

More foreigners moving to China for work, study finds

The National Intelligence Council’s analysis, produced in April, described the talent plan as “China’s flagship talent programme and probably the largest in terms of funding”. It was also cited in a combative White House report posted on Tuesday [June 19] titled “How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World”...
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2152005/chinas-thousand-talents-plan-key-seizing-us-expertise

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

One might say alarmist but still...unless China believes US would rapidly escalate to serious nuclear retaliation.  See after my 2016 post:

Would China Launch a Massive Pearl Harbor-style Attack Against America?
Dave Majumdar is the Defense Editor of The National Interest.

While tensions between Beijing and Washington remain primarily in the economic realm as the two great powers levy massive tariffs on each other’s exports, as relations continue to sour, those antipathies could spillover into the military realm.

As it currently stands, China and the United States do not see eye-to-eye on a number of issues including Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and its construction of artificial islands in those waters.

There are also tensions between China and the United States over Taiwan, where Beijing considers the island to be a renegade province while Washington has essentially provided Taipei with a de facto security guarantee under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).

If tensions between the United States and China were to somehow reach a boiling point during a crisis, there is a possibility that a conflict might break out. However, with both nation fielding long-range precision-guided weapons, a war between the two great powers might be fundamentally different than previous engagements between such titans during prior conflicts. Indeed, the capabilities of these new weapons might mean that one side or the other might be tempted to launch a massive preemptive strike to win a swift victory because of the advantages of striking first.

Recommended: How an ‘Old’ F-15 Might Kill Russia’s New Stealth Fighter

Recommended: How China Plans to Win a War Against the U.S. Navy

Recommended: How the Air Force Would Destroy North Korea

“U.S. leaders and policymakers should understand that in the event of an unforeseen U.S.-China crisis, especially one that appears to threaten China’s claimed core strategic interests or the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party, a preemptive missile strike against the forward bases that underpin U.S. military power in the Western Pacific could be a real possibility,” Thomas Shugart, the U.S. Navy’s branch head for Sea Based Strategic Deterrent Acquisition—the a senior military fellow at the Center for a New American Security—wrote in a report in War on the Rocks.

“This might be the case particularly if China perceives that its attempts at deterrence of a major U.S. intervention—say in a cross-strait Taiwan crisis or in a brewing dispute over the Senkaku Islands—have failed.”

In Shugart’s estimation, given the range and precision of Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles, Beijing could hit most of the United States’ bases in the Pacific without warning. If the Chinese could strike with a large enough salvo or salvoes of weapons, Beijing could potentially knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific in rapid order—though the risks would be grave. Such a strike would be similar in concept to what the Imperial Japanese fleet hoped to accomplish during their attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

“When weapon accuracy is improved to a few meters (or tens of feet), the estimated likelihood of destruction for some “soft” targets by conventional weapons (perhaps equivalent to a .001kT warhead) appears roughly equivalent to the effects of typical tactical nuclear weapons, which were likely to miss their targets by several hundred feet,” Shugart wrote.

“By marrying great accuracy with numerous ballistic missiles, China may have developed a capability that the Soviet armed forces never had: the ability to strike effectively, in a matter of minutes, U.S. and allied bases, logistical facilities, and command centers without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, and without having established air superiority.”..
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/would-china-launch-massive-pearl-harbor-style-attack-against-26406

From 2016:

USAF “Officers Give New Details for F-35 in War With China”
...
this air force concept of operations for a very thinly-disguised war with China strikes me as pretty darn complicated (it’s amazing to me that such military planning vs a country not officially a US adversary–yet–should be made public; but the US services can be awfully frank). Could all the advance arrangements necessary be in place in time (e.g. fuel and munitions at all those bases)? Would the foreign governments concerned go along? And what about range to targets, especially those beyond just the coast of the mainland?..
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/mark-collins-usaf-officers-give-new-details-for-f-35-in-war-with-china/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

What about Canadian pols, especially Liberals?

China’s Huawei Leads as Corporate Sponsor of Australian Politicians’ Travel

A dozen Australian politicians were treated to lavish overseas trips paid for by a Chinese technology company that has been dogged in the West by questions about security and privacy, according to a report released on Tuesday, raising new concerns about Chinese efforts to influence Australia’s lawmakers.

The company, Huawei, was the biggest corporate sponsor of overseas travel for the country’s politicians from 2010 to this year, according to an independent analysis by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think tank based in Canberra.

Huawei has been essentially shut out of doing business in the United States, and is likely to be barred from bidding on contracts to build a fifth-generation, or 5G, telecom network in Australia over concerns about spying and security.

The report comes amid heightened concerns about Chinese meddling in Australian politics, and a government effort to pass a law designed to combat foreign interference.

The cost of courting 12 federal politicians “shows you the investment that Huawei is putting into getting their message across to members of Parliament,” said Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

“Huawei stands out significantly ahead of anyone else simply because of the numbers of people that it’s taken to China,” he said.

Huawei provided business-class flights to its headquarters in Shenzhen, China, and paid for the politicians’ hotels, local travel, meals and other expenses. The report did not include the costs involved.

Among the politicians to make the trip were Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, and Steven Ciobo, the trade minister [!!! emphasis added]...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/world/australia/huawei-china-australia.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Honkin' big DDGs:

China launches two destroyers with tech similar to US Navy’s Aegis system

China has launched a pair of new destroyers on July 3 from their dry docks in Dalian, Liaoning province, which borders North Korea, according to Chinese media.

The vessels are designed for long-range air defense, anti-surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare.

The completed construction of the two destroyers, widely known as Type 055 vessels, contributes to the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s determined naval buildup.

The recently launched vessels are equipped with multifunction phased array radars similar to the U.S. Navy’s Aegis system and could accompany future carrier battle groups as China continues to expand its carrier program.

China’s ambitions for a blue-water navy are no secret. In November 2012, then-President Hu Jintao reported to the Chinese Communist Party Congress his desire to “enhance our capacity for exploiting marine resource ... and build China into a strong maritime power.”
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/07/03/china-launches-two-destroyers/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

About the tariff spat Cramer is glad that Trump stood up to China.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/cramer-says-trump-is-not-wrong-on-the-china-trade-war/ar-AAzFhft?ocid=spartanntp

 

[tomahawk6]

China may cry Uncle.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/is-president-trump-already-winning-the-trade-war/ar-AAzFTsT?ocid=spartanntp

 

[CBH99]

Cramer is a moron, and it's way too early to tell which side is winning.  If it's a trade war Trump wants, it won't be won in the first 48hrs.

If by lessening it's already weaker export market, while simultaneously increasing the costs that Americans will be paying for goods imported from overseas...then...yeah?  Trump is "winning"?  About as much as Charlie Sheen was when he coined the term...


"America First" is nothing more than a catchy phrase used to trigger emotional nostalgia & patriotism for an idea.  An idea that doesn't exist anymore. 

If he truly cared about "America First" he would deal with the mass of school shootings (at least 17 in the US, just this year, so far) - pursue and possibly even be more aggressive on environmental issues, even if just for the betterment of the local environment (i.e., Flint Michigan, Great Lakes, polluted rivers & lakes, toxic soil, etc), actually spend money on local infrastructure projects (Still has only spent 18% of what he said needed to be spent, and none of it in a well-planned manner that was designed to 'skyrocket' the GDP), and recognize that pumping the Pentagon full of money in the hopes that the money would trickle down to local communities in the form of services to personnel, spending by personnel, real estate sales, etc isn't the best way to do it.  (Security State...over 1 Trillion now spent a year by the US between military & intelligence agencies). 

America First at it's very core should be politicians and lawmakers who PUT AMERICA FIRST.  As a noble idea, in addition to the tangible. 


America First should be about being able to send your kids to school without worrying that their entire class might get shot.  America First should be about common sense gun laws that promote public safety while still protecting the 2nd Amendment.  America First should be a clean, sustainable environment.  Affordable access to health care, etc. 

It's not that.  It's Trump first.  Trump's petty squabbles.  Trump's trade wars.  Trump's alienation of allies, treaties, and internationally recognized organizations.  Trump's hardcore line on immigration that has families separated and caged.  Trump's desire to 'cause drama' where there doesn't need to be any.  (I'm sorry, but if your the President of the United States and you need to make a public statement, it shouldn't be able to be summarized in 140 characters or less...come the f**k on...) 


Back on topic T6... China plays the long game.  They aren't going to cry Uncle anytime soon. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

A longish read by Christopher Balding, about his 9 years in China.  My short take: China is not a nation with a government with which we should be in the least accommodating.

 

[MarkOttawa]

China has plenty of compradors in US too:

BUYING POWER
Meet the U.S. Officials Now in China’s Sphere of Influence
There's a slew of one-time U.S. politicians and officials who have lobbied for China or whose business interests are closely connected to it.

As China’s wealth has grown, so has its sophistication at currying favor in Washington and among the American elite.

Both the Chinese government and Chinese companies, often with close state ties, have retained lobbying and public-relations firms in the Beltway, in some cases hiring former U.S. officials as personal lobbyists.

Beijing has also learned how to harness its economic might by alternately opening its doors to companies who play by China’s rules, and slamming the door on companies that go against its red lines. In some cases, this grants Beijing powerful sway over foreign companies with business interests in China. This has raised concerns that current U.S. government officials may have an eye on their future prospects in China even before leaving office.

While it may seem politics as usual in Washington today, some are alarmed.

“Nobody in the 1980s would have represented the Russian government. And now you find so many lobbying for the Chinese government,” said Frank Wolf, a retired U.S. representative from Virginia who long served as the co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. “I served in Congress for 34 years. I find it shocking.”

Below are some of the more prominent former U.S. politicians and officials whose have lobbied for China or whose business interests are closely connected to it [read on]...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-us-officials-who-now-lobby-for-china

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Very interesting article by USN Pacific Fleet's Director of Intelligence--one excerpt:

How We Lost the Great Pacific War
...
With steady improvement of adversary reach and capability, our forces forward had grown vulnerable. They were no longer large or capable enough to offer decisive deterrence or to disrupt or delay sufficiently an adversary...
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018-05/how-we-lost-great-pacific-war

Relevant post from 2016, note further links at start:

US Navy: Carriers or Subs, with the Dragon in Mind
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/mark-collins-us-navy-carriers-or-subs-with-the-dragon-in-mind/

Mark
Ottawa


Mark
Ottawa