Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[CougarKing]

Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance
AP

By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Writer Eric Talmadge, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 4 mins ago

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.

China may soon put an end to that.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — The USS George Washington supercarrier recently deployed off North Korea in a high-profile show of U.S. sea power. AP Tokyo News Editor Eric Talmadge was aboard the carrier, and filed this report.

___

Analysts say final testing of the missile could come as soon as the end of this year, though questions remain about how fast China will be able to perfect its accuracy to the level needed to threaten a moving carrier at sea.

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China's role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington's ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China's 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D's uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision.
The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to the AP's request for a comment.

Funded by annual double-digit increases in the defense budget for almost every year of the past two decades, the Chinese navy has become Asia's largest and has expanded beyond its traditional mission of retaking Taiwan to push its sphere of influence deeper into the Pacific and protect vital maritime trade routes.

"The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose."

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.

It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.

U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.

"We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world," Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile could undermine that policy.

"China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Carrier-killing missiles "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," he e-mailed to The AP. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore."

Yoshihara said the weapon is causing considerable consternation in Washington, though — with attention focused on land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — its implications haven't been widely discussed in public.

Analysts note that while much has been made of China's efforts to ready a carrier fleet of its own, it would likely take decades to catch U.S. carrier crews' level of expertise, training and experience.

But Beijing does not need to match the U.S. carrier for carrier. The Dong Feng 21D, smarter, and vastly cheaper, could successfully attack a U.S. carrier, or at least deter it from getting too close.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the threat in a speech last September at the Air Force Association Convention.

"When considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the U.S. symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options," he said.

Gates said China's investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, along with ballistic missiles, "could threaten America's primary way to project power" through its forward air bases and carrier strike groups.

The Pentagon has been worried for years about China getting an anti-ship ballistic missile. The Pentagon considers such a missile an "anti-access," weapon, meaning that it could deny others access to certain areas.

The Air Force's top surveillance and intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, told reporters this week that China's effort to increase anti-access capability is part of a worrisome trend.

He did not single out the DF 21D, but said: "While we might not fight the Chinese, we may end up in situations where we'll certainly be opposing the equipment that they build and sell around the world."

Questions remain over when — and if — China will perfect the technology; hitting a moving carrier is no mean feat, requiring state-of-the-art guidance systems, and some experts believe it will take China a decade or so to field a reliable threat. Others, however, say final tests of the missile could come in the next year or two.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.

That would usher in a "new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States."

While China's Defense Ministry never comments on new weapons before they become operational, the DF 21D — which would travel at 10 times the speed of sound and carry conventional payloads — has been much discussed by military buffs online.

A pseudonymous article posted on Xinhuanet, website of China's official news agency, imagines the U.S. dispatching the George Washington to aid Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

The Chinese would respond with three salvos of DF 21D, the first of which would pierce the hull, start fires and shut down flight operations, the article says. The second would knock out its engines and be accompanied by air attacks. The third wave, the article says, would "send the George Washington to the bottom of the ocean."

Associated Press link

 

[a_majoor]

The coming of war may not be wanted or even sought after, but we do not seem to be understanding the motivations of the Chinese, or at least not well enough to avoid dangerous conflicts from emerging:

http://unambig.com/the-dragon-vs-the-eagle/

The Dragon vs. the Eagle?August 8, 2010 — MarkOttawa
Interesting piece in the Wall St. Journal, but attitudes in the West about war have changed drastically in the last century–though less in the US than elsewhere:

China’s Rise and the Road to War
As with Germany a century ago, an emerging power is overestimating its capabilities.

Four years before World War I, British author and politician Norman Angell published “The Great Illusion,” arguing that military conquests had become obsolete between modern economies. Many policy makers use the same logic today to predict that China and the United States can avoid war. Like their forebears, they may be wrong.

That’s the implicit argument of University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer, who delivered the annual Michael Hintze Lecture at Sydney University this week [text here, more on Prof. Mearsheimer here, here, and here]. Politics, rather than economics, will decisively shape the future of Asia just as it did Europe in the previous century, he believes. China’s ascent is likely to spark an intense security competition with the U.S., leading to the strong possibility of war between the world’s two biggest economies.

This argument runs counter to today’s conventional wisdom, which sees a benign future for U.S.-China relations. This view, still popular in Washington, is based on the idea that the U.S. can manage China by offering Beijing incentives to rise as a “responsible stakeholder” within the current U.S.-led global order. Like the educated and well-heeled elites in Europe whom Angell chronicled and who a century ago exhibited extreme reluctance to imagine the outbreak of major war, today’s policy makers can’t fathom war in the Pacific.

Yet history suggests that Mr. Mearsheimer’s warnings should be heeded. Prior to World War I, Angell’s logic—that the disruption to the international credit and trading system would mean that everyone loses in the event of war—was irrefutable. Prior to 1914, annual trade volumes of Britain, Germany and France was 52%, 38% and 54% of GDP respectively, with much of the trade being between these great powers. By 1913, Britain had become the leading market for German exports, with both countries largely benefitting from the economic relationship. In the decade leading to the Great War, trade and capital flows between these great powers increased by an estimated 65% and 84%, respectively. Yet, economic interdependence was not enough to prevent the tragic escalation of events that followed the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Today, China’s self-proclaimed and widely accepted “peaceful development” similarly appears to be based on solid economic ground. China has re-emerged as a great trading nation but remains a poor country in terms of GDP per capita. China’s export sector is responsible for the creation of hundreds of millions of jobs, and the country still remains deeply dependent on outside technology and know-how. To continue the country’s rapid economic development, the Chinese Communist Party needs a peaceful and stable environment in Asia…

…as history reaffirms, a peace built on continued political skill, dexterity and restraint rather than a harmony of strategic interest is inherently precarious. Without personal experience of China’s recent traumatic history, future generations of leaders will be more confident and assertive. Even now, emerging Communist Party and People’s Liberation Army leaders argue that China is moving too slowly on securing its foreign-policy goals. The danger is that, just as Germany did in Europe a century ago, China’s overestimation of its own capabilities, and underestimation of American strengths and resolve—combined with strategic dissatisfaction and impatience—is the fast way toward disastrous miscalculation and error…

Mr. Lee is a foreign-policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington and the author of “Will China Fail?” (CIS, 2007).

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would not argue with Professor Mearsheimer's analysis because it rests on one incontravertible foundation: ”The United States is also likely to behave in aggressive ways [p. 2] ... It is crystal clear from the historical record that the United States does not tolerate peer competitors. As it demonstrated over the course of the twentieth century, it is determined to remain the world’s only regional hegemon. Therefore, the United States can be expected to go to great lengths to contain China and ultimately weaken it to the point where it is no longer a threat to rule the roost in Asia. In essence, the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” [p. 8]

Equally, as Professor Mearsheimer says [p. 8], ”Why should we expect China to act any differently than the United States has over the course of its history? Are they more principled than Americans are? More ethical? Are they less nationalistic than Americans? Less concerned about their survival? They are none of these things, of course, which is why China is likely to imitate the United States and attempt to become a regional hegemon.”

What Prof. Mearsheimer fails to mention is that during the 19th century the USA struggled to regional hegemony without (often) resorting to force – especially not with the dominant global sea power – Great Britain. Wars with Spain and Mexico happened, to be sure, but they might be seen as being akin to a war, in the 21st century, between, say, China and Indonesia – if the Chinese can, as the Americans did in 1898, manufacture a suitable “cover story” that will whitewash its aggression.

Professor Mearsheimer's analysis is thoughtful and needs to be taken seiously but it assumes that the Chinese will not learn from history. I'm not sure that's a good basis upon which to formulate a grand strategy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

See, also, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from he Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/an-eloquent-reminder-of-how-crisis-spurs-innovation/article1664762/
(My emphasis added)

An eloquent reminder of how crisis spurs innovation

Michael Valpy

Friday, August 6, 2010

ORILLIA, ONT. – For 79 summers, Canadians have been coming to Geneva Park on Lake Couchiching to listen to the country’s wise people talk about national and international affairs. They lucked out Thursday with Margaret MacMillan.

The historian, warden of Oxford’s St. Antony’s College and former provost of University of Toronto’s Trinity College has a command of language, ideas and intelligence that has few equals in the Canadian academic world.

She delivered a state of the world message to open the annual Couchiching Conference on public affairs that had her audience captivated. “You listen to her speak and you want to engage with her for the whole day,” said Julie Dzerowicz, executive director of Toronto’s Empire Club.

This year’s conference 140 kilometres northeast of Toronto in cottage country is titled “Watershed Moment or Wasted Opportunity,” an exploration of the global financial crisis and its aftermath.

Prof. MacMillan presented a historical tapestry stretching back 400 years to illustrate how humans have used crises – wars, pandemics and financial catastrophes – to innovate, create new institutions, invent previously unachievable drugs, machines, domestic policies and international rules to better the world.

She continuously reminded her listeners of how close the planet had come to economic collapse following the summer of 2007 – a total meltdown that was weeks, days away, and is still far from being remedied.

The focus on the financial crisis has left three other crises untended – the growing gap between rich and poor that is eroding social cohesion and leaving too many people without hope, as U.S. polls increasingly indicate; the huge environmental threat that is not going away and leading people to throw up their hands and say, “What can I do?” and the international political stage that shows the United States clearly in decline with no one certain about how power is shifting but concerns growing about how the narrative will unfold.

She referred to a recent article in the Beijing People’s Daily that asked with a new and unfamiliar belligerence, “Is the U.S. ready for China’s rise?” and predicted a collision if the United States “doesn’t give way.” She spoke of fears among international scholars that Washington either will try to use power in circumstances where it shouldn’t or turn its back on the world and become isolationist.

She listed the issues the global community has failed to adequately address: failed states like Somalia, terrorism and cyber-terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the bottoming out of European unity, the questioning of whether the world has the right leaders, the continuing conflict between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-weapons states.

“Do we try to deal with them all at once?” Prof. MacMillan asked. “Certainly they won’t go away if we’re focussed only on the financial crisis.”

She questioned whether there has been a financial recovery.

“Confidence has been shaken. Trust has been removed. We’ve paid the price of bailing out the financial institutions. There is now a moral hazard: if banks are too big to fail [and thus will have a public bail-out] does that take away prudence?’

Frayed social safety nets and persisting pools of unemployment have led to a loss of hope and unfocussed anger against the state and authority. “People without something to do will be unhappy.”

Increasingly, she said, academic and political discourse on the economy begins with commentary on technology and ends with questions of morality and an exploration of what is society for.

“The crisis is forcing us to ask fundamental questions” – the questions Prof. MacMillan asked.

Excerpts of Prof. MacMillan's keynote address are here.

Innovation in policy is, I think, an exciting idea. I suspect her formulation that US power is declining is wrong; my guess is that US hyperpuissance is gone – and that may or may not be good thing – and the US, and the whole world, indeed, mus learn to adapt, to innovate in other words, to the notion that there are or soon will be more than one global super-power. How we, the US and the rest, innovate may well decide the peace or war question.

My guess is that China is discussing innovation - searching for ways to achieve its strategic aims without going to war: a very, very traditional Chinese idea, by the way - see Confucius, Mencius and Sun Tzu. As far as I can see the ongoing debate in the USA and the West, in general, including Prof. Mearsheimer's contribution, is not terribly innovative. 

 

[CougarKing]

Defense News link

China Builds First Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Base?
By WENDELL MINNICK
Published: 5 Aug 2010 07:51

TAIPEI - China's new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) will be deployed at the Second Artillery Corps' new missile base in Guangdong Province in southeastern China, if a new report issued by Washington-based Project 2049 Institute is correct.
On July 28, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported the visit of local government officials to a new missile base in the northern Guangdong municipality of Shaoguan. The media report is the first to acknowledge the existence of the new missile base.

The new 96166 Unit will be outfitted with Dong Feng 21C medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) and possibly the DF-21D ASBM, said Mark Stokes and Tiffany Ma in a new report "Second Artillery Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Brigade Facilities Under Construction in Guangdong?" posted on Project 2049's website.

The DF-21C was introduced into active inventory in 2005 and is designed for land targets. Though the DF-21D ASBM is nearing the stage of low rate initial production, expected in 2011 or soon after, it is not likely to be deployed into active service until after lengthy testing of the prototype.

Though the province is already home to a Second Artillery short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) base in Meizhou (96169 Unit), the new base could "have unique capabilities that could complicate the strategic calculus in Asia, and the South China Sea in particular."

The ASBM has been dubbed the aircraft "carrier killer" by observers and is part of China's larger anti-access/area denial strategy designed to discourage the U.S. Navy from coming to the aid of Taiwan during a war. Now it appears China is using the same strategy to deter U.S. and other regional navies from operating in the South China Sea.

Though U.S. aircraft carrier groups have significant air defense capabilities, including SM-3 missiles, the threat ASBMs pose is a new one, said Stokes. No country has yet developed a reliable ASBM system and therefore there is reluctance among some analysts to dismiss the possibility China has developed the capability of locating and destroying a moving target at sea with a ballistic missile.

However, U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral Robert Willard told members of the U.S. House and Senate Armed Services Committee in March that China was nearing a test phase for an ASBM.

China has recently announced that the South China Sea is a "core interest" and now state-controlled media outlets are claiming the entire South China Sea as Chinese territory.

"Seems to me they are staying on policy by asserting their ownership of the South 'CHINA' Sea," said a former U.S. intelligence officer now based in Singapore. "They aren't going to deviate from that policy. They've got the patience until they own it."

The deployment of ASBMs near the South China Sea adds a new dimension to the problem regional powers and the U.S. are facing as China begins enforcing maritime claims.

The 1,700 km range DF-21C MRBM can hit most land targets in Vietnam as well as the northern Philippines, including Subic Bay, with little difficulty.

The 1,500-2,000 km range DF-21D ASBM should be able to cover the Spratly Islands at 1,800 km. This would include roughly seventy percent of the South China Sea, if the maximum range of 2,000 km is confirmed.

Additionally, the DF-21C and D will easily handle land targets on Taiwan and naval targets beyond the island with no difficulty. The eastern coast of Taiwan is roughly 800 km from the base. China already has 1,300 DF-11/15 SRBMs aimed at Taiwan and an unknown number of cruise missiles.

During China's 60th anniversary parade in Beijing in October 2009, the military displayed a variety of mobile missile systems, including the DF-11A and DF15B SRBM, DF-21C MRBM and DF31A intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). The parade also displayed the DH-10 land-attack cruise missile.

The DF-31A is China's first road mobile ICBM capable of hitting Washington. Before this missile, China relied on aging silo-based DF-5 ICBMs for use as nuclear counterstrikes on the U.S.

As mobile missile systems, they will be difficult to locate and destroy during a war with the U.S. To add more difficulties for the U.S., the Shaoguan area is near tunneling projects through the Nanling Mountains that divide Guangdong and Hunan provinces.

"A Second Artillery engineering unit known to be responsible for tunneling work under the so-called 'Great Wall Project' has been in Shaoguan since as early as 2008," said the Project 2049 report.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Dragon as mole
http://unambig.com/dragon-as-mole/

Just in case you thought CSIS Director Dick Fadden was just another fire-breather blowing smoke...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Another step towards greater economic integration with mainland China. Though political integration is another matter entirely, especially with such vocal opponents as the protestors and the DPP politicians mentioned in the article.

Agence-France-Presse link

Taiwan parliament passes historic China trade pact

29 minutes ago


TAIPEI (AFP) - Taiwan's parliament Tuesday approved a historic but controversial trade deal with China which is expected to bring the two former rivals closer than ever before.

Getting the Taiwanese legislature's approval was seen as crucial in terms of securing legitimacy for the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) -- by far the island's most wide-ranging accord yet with China.


"The ECFA is extremely important to Taiwan if it hopes to avoid being marginalised economically amid an increasing number of trade blocs," said Cheng Ching-ling, a legislator with the pro-China Kuomintang (KMT) party.


China is Taiwan's largest trading partner, its largest investment destination, and now also home to a growing number of Taiwanese people.


The ECFA was passed with 68 votes for and none against. Members of the anti-China opposition refused to take part in the vote, instead voicing protests, according to an AFP photographer on the scene.


Taiwan's opposition had voiced vehement opposition to ECFA since it was signed in June, but in the end it allowed the deal to pass through the 112-seat parliament after just a day of debate.


"The situation right now is pretty much like a dog barking at a train, and we actually can do nothing about it," said Tsai Huang-lang, a legislator for the main opposition Democratic Progressive Party.


"Once the agreement becomes effective, which is inevitable now, Taiwan will lose its sovereignty and become like Hong Kong and Macau."


The ECFA has been a major priority for Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT, who swept to power in 2008 on a vow to improve the island's economy through better ties with China.


Approval was never in doubt given the KMT's absolute majority in parliament, but the legislative green light was nevertheless seen as important in order to legitimise the pact.


While seeking domestic backing for the ECFA in the months prior to its signing in June, President Ma repeatedly said that he would seek parliamentary approval for the agreement.


The ECFA does not explicitly call on Taiwan and China to get the support of their parliaments, saying simply that they must complete "due process" and then notify each other.


When China and Taiwan signed the agreement in June, they said it would take effect "within six months", but they have released no detailed timetable.


"Ma Ying-jeou is selling out Taiwan" and "ECFA means more unemployment," were among the slogans chanted by the protesters outside parliament, reflecting common worries among supporters of the opposition.


A group of protesters stripped down to their underwear, saying their protest symbolised Taiwan losing everything to China.


The ECFA has been widely characterised as the boldest step yet towards reconciliation between the former rivals, who split after the end of a civil war in 1949.


KMT politicians have hailed the pact, saying it will bolster the island's economy, but the DPP and its allies claim that it will undermine Taiwan's de facto independence.


Although Taiwan and China have been governed separately for more than six decades, Beijing considers the island part of its territory and has vowed to get it back, by force if necessary.

Tung Chen-yuan, a China expert at Taipei's National Chengchi University, said the pact will benefit Taiwan rather than China, even though it may not help the island in the short term by as much as the government claims.

"It will bolster the confidence of investors -- both from here and abroad -- as they believe lots of business opportunities will emerge from the closer links between the two sides," he said.

 

[CougarKing]

We'll see how far this goes and if this is just more rhetoric.

To think that the memoirs of one of the last major political reformers- Premier Zhao Ziyang, who sympathized with the ill-fated Tiananmen Square student movement and was later ousted and placed under house arrest- were recently published and released for sale throughout North America and the West:

Agence-France-Presse link

China's Wen calls for political reform: state media

18 minutes ago


BEIJING (AFP) - China's Premier Wen Jiabao has said reform of the political system is necessary to sustain the nation's breakneck economic growth, state media reported.
"We not only have to push forward reform of the economic system, but we also have to push forward reform of the political system," Wen was quoted as saying by the Xinhua state news agency on a trip to the southern boomtown of Shenzhen.


"If there is no guarantee of reform of the political system, then results obtained from the reform of the economic system may be lost and the goal of modernisation cannot be achieved," he said, according to the report Saturday.


Wen added it was important to "guarantee the people's democratic rights and legitimate rights and interests".


"We must resolve the problem of excessive concentration of power, create conditions that allow people to criticise and supervise the government and firmly punish corruption," he was quoted as saying.

Wen did not elaborate but his comments reflect wider concerns among the leadership that corruption and abuses of power are becoming the biggest threat to the ruling Communist Party.

The soft-spoken Premier is also widely seen as the populist and progressive face of the nation's leadership.


He came to prominence when he appeared with then-party head Zhao Ziyang in Beijing's Tiananmen Square during the 1989 pro-democracy protests that were brutally crushed by the military only days later.


But whereas Zhao was ousted, Wen rose to prominence to be named prime minister in 2003.

 

[tomahawk6]

Annual report on Chinese military capability now called Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China 2010.

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf

Some highlights.

1. Limited command and control of not only its submarine force but also their ballistic missile forces.

2.Julang-2 ballistic missile has failed several flight tests.The missile is intended for the new Jin class ballistic missile subs.

3.problems with the type 093 class have seen a shift in resources to a new attack sub the Type 095

 

[Edward Campbell]

Key point, from the last paragraph of the Executive Summary: "President Obama has said, “[the U.S.-China] relationship has not been without disagreement and difficulty. But the notion that we must be adversaries is not pre-destined.”"

If, and it is a BIG IF enough people in Washington, especially in the Pentagon actually believe their elected president then they will neither:

1. Waste too much money countering a chimera; or

2. Screw up the whole bloody world.

On the other hand, it IS Washington and it IS the Pentagon so we probably need an even BIGGER IF.

 

[tomahawk6]

The people in the Pentagon definitely dont believe or believe in President Obama.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I understand that; I was being a bit facetious.

But in that particular case they should. It may be possible to shove China into the enemy column but it will unnecessary and and strategic mistake. If they (the Chinese) move themselves there then that is a different matter but, in my opinion, some (and some is too many) influential Americans want and need China for an enemy. America has enough enemies now, it doesn't need more.

It will have a very, very hard time dragging most of its traditional allies with it if it decides to make China into a new enemy in East Asia.

 

[tomahawk6]

I dont know of anyone that wants to make the PRC an enemy. However,their aspirations may end up causing a conflict on some level. I would hope that our economic ties would help avoid conflict. But we cannot be afraid to stand up to the Chinese if necessary. Recently Obama has warmed relations with Hanoi probably to support Vietnam's claim to the Spratley's. I see that area as being a flash point. I would like to see greater support from China in the war on terror and with regard to Iran. However,its clear that China's economic interests come first even if they could prevent a nuclear war in the middle east which would be bad for everyone in an economic sense.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The odd thing about China's interests is that they are not just, maybe not even mainly economic.

China's primary immediate, medium and long term interest is social harmony at home - the survival of the current regime and system depend on that, above all else. Economic prosperity is one major component of social harmony but so is Chinese prestige.

China has "celebrated", if I can use that word, 150 years of humiliation and a mere 25 years of success. The current message is: "We were humiliated for 150 years by the Great Powers; now we are a Great Power and THE Great Power in Asia." China made Britain "pay" by surrendering Hong Kong, proper, when the Kowloon lease expired; ditto Portugal, and through it, Europe. Only America still rubs China's nose in its second class status by e.g. sending a CVN to the South China Sea over China's fairly strenuous objection. The Chinese - people, media and government - want that sort of ongoing, 21st century, humiliation to cease and the government's long term aim is to get America out of East Asia. I have no sense of what they might have in mind for a time-line but it cannot be accomplished, I think, much before 2050, if at all - but that's just a generation away.

One of the reasons Africa matters is that China wants and needs 'friends,' even poor, backwards ones - that's why Iran matters, too. But Iran is a bit more complicated; it is causing serious problems for America right now and that serves China's immediate and short term interests. In the mid to long term Chin's interests, in avoiding nuclear war, for example, certainly coincide with America's but it is hard for politicians - which is what the Chinese leaders are - to sacrifice an immediate advantage for a longer term gain.

As to no one "wants to make the PRC an enemy," I'm not so sure that's how I read the Pentagon. I think many admirals and generals need a Chinese threat to justify their programs; they can only call the Chinese a "threat" so often before they have declared China to be an enemy. That would be a strategic mistake.

 

[CougarKing]

Mr. Campbell,

Dambisa Moyo discusses China's interests in Africa quite extensively in pages 98-113 of her book "Dead Aid" where she points out how FDI (foreign direct investment) and all the infrastructure China is building is doing much more to help Africa than billions of dollars in foreign aid (ODA= overseas development aid) from the West has ever done.


And it's not just natural resources, such as the oil in Angola, that China is looking into.

She states that China has "diversified" into "sectors such as textiles, agro-processing, power generation, road construction, tourism and telecommunicatons". (Moyo, p. 106)

She also emphasizes how China's influence in Africa is seemingly "endless...All but five African countries have relations with Beijing." (Moyo, 106)

--------------------------------------
Btw, here's an article with a Cold War-era story.

To think that I remember seeing the badly bent, captured wreckage of a U2 with Guo Min Kong Jun/ROCAF markings on it, at this courtyard area where all these vintage aircraft and tanks were kept, the last time I visited the People's Military Museum in Beijing in 2003 (Jun Shi Bo Wu Guan).

Agence-France-Press link

Taiwan's Cold War spy pilots reveal secret missions

HSINCHU, Taiwan (AFP) - For weeks after narrowly escaping two Chinese missiles, Chuang Jen-liang would wake up at night bathed in sweat, but the Taiwanese spy pilot could talk to no one about his missions.
Only now, more than four decades later, is 73-year-old Chuang able to speak out about his harrowing experiences, as Taiwan is lifting the veil on one of its most closely guarded secrets of the Cold War.


This brings credit to Chuang and other veterans of the 35th "Black Cats" Squadron who flew at altitudes of more than 20,000 metres (65,000 feet) to gather intelligence about the Chinese, risking their lives each time.


"I doubt if I'd be so lucky if I had to go through all this again," said Chuang, who now lives in an apartment in north Taiwan's Hsinchu city.


The elite Black Cats, who were operational from 1961 until 1974, flew the legendary U-2 airplane, dubbed "Dragon Lady" and a crucial intelligence tool at the time.


That made the squadron a key element in the intelligence relationship between the US government and Taiwan's Nationalist rulers, who had fled the mainland in 1949 after losing a civil war to the communists.


"The information they gathered was crucial for understanding the Chinese communists' military deployment, especially since spy satellites weren't available," said Taiwan's Air Force Lieutenant General Wang Mu-jung.


But the information came at a steep cost. At the height of the Cold War, flying the U-2 was one of the most dangerous jobs any military man could perform.


Of the 28-member Black Cat squadron, four were shot down and killed over China, while two were taken prisoner and kept incarcerated for nearly 20 years. Six lost their lives during training missions.


One of the Black Cats' key areas of interest during the 1960s was China's speedily evolving nuclear programme, a source of great concern after the communist power detonated its first atomic bomb in October 1964.


Fears that China was now developing a hydrogen bomb formed the backdrop to Chuang's most complicated and daring mission, codenamed "Tabasco", on May 7, 1967, over a test site at Lop Nor in the northwest.


Since the area was too far away from Taiwan, Chuang took off from a US base in northern Thailand, and once over the target zone he dropped a pair of two-metre (10-foot) sensors onto the desert floor.


Six weeks later, the two sensors transmitted signals to Taipei confirming that China had tested its first hydrogen bomb.


In all their missions, the Black Cats were flying at altitudes too high for China's Soviet-designed MiG planes, but instead they faced the lethal menace of its surface-to-air missiles.

Chiu Sung-chow, a former Black Cat, remembered steering frantically to evade missiles fired against him in the skies over northeast China's Dalian city in 1973, with split-second decisions making the difference between life and death.


"If I had turned my plane either a little bit earlier or later after the missile alert went on inside my cockpit, I would have been hit," he said.


Chiu's sortie over Dalian was one of the last carried out by a Black Cat over China. The year after, the United States terminated the programme in the spirit of new detente with Beijing.


With tensions across the Taiwan Straits greatly reduced, and documents about the US-Taiwan cooperation in intelligence declassified, the public can finally learn more about the Black Cats.

Two schools on Taiwan are named after pilots who died in the line of duty, and the defence ministry is scheduled to hold a special exhibition in October to honour the pilots.
This is in recognition of their contribution not only in the field of military intelligence, but also to relations with the United States.

"No doubt, the secretive missions of the Black Cat Squadron have helped promote military ties with Washington," Taiwanese aviation historian Clarence J. Fu argued.

"The United States was rather reliant on Taiwan when it comes to spying on the mainland," said Fu, co-author of a book on the subject.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the interests of leaving no nit unpicked,    it's Dambisa Moyo.

 

[CougarKing]

Aside from Africa, here's excerpts regarding China's energy/oil interests overseas: (Quotes from one of the textbooks I was told to read before grad school starts.)

From Dr. Michael Howard's (Simon Fraser University) Transnational Societies:

The largest of the PRC's foreign oil projects have been in Kazakhstan and Sudan, where the only projects that produce more than 100,000 bpd are located. Since Kazakhstan is located immediately to the West of the PRC and Kazakhstan is the world's third largest producer, the motivation for investment is quite obvious. In addition to investing in oil production in Kazakstan, CNPC* in conjunction with Kazakhstan's KazmunyaGas also built a pipeline linking the two countries. Investments in countires like Kazakhstan and Mongolia are essentially in the PRC's backyard and take place in countries where the PRC has long-standing political and cultural relations...

(...)

While a substantial amount of the PRC's oil imports still come from the Middle East (mainly Saudi Arabia, Iran and Oman), Sudan and Angola are now its other top suppliers and the PRC is now the second main importer of Africa oil in the world with Angola as its number one source...


(...)
Between 1990s and 2000s, CNPC invested around $10 billion in Sudan, while Sinopec has built a pipeline to Port Sudan where the Petroleum Engineering Construction group has built a $215 million tanker terminal....

Unlike COSCO, which employs a large number of locals in its foreign operations, oil companies from the PRC rely almost entirely on employees imported from home.

(...)


But the Chinese laborers are protected, they work under the vigilant gaze of Sudanese troops armed mostly with Chinese weapons.


(...)


"In an interview in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, Energy and Mining Minister Awad Ahmed Jaz priased his Chinese partners for sticking to trade issues. ' The Chinese are very nice,' he said. ' they don't have anything to do with politics or problems.Things move smoothly, successfully. They hare are very har workers looking for business, not politics' "

*CNPC= China National Petroleum Corporation

 

[CougarKing]

Meanwhile, back in the South China Sea...

DoD Buzz link

China Hits Bottom, Plants Flag


By Colin Clark Thursday, August 26th, 2010 2:53 pm
Posted in International, Naval, Policy
The People’s Republic of China has joined an elect group of four countries that have taken men as deep as 3,500 meters below the surface of the ocean. And in keeping with Chinese claims to huge amounts of the ocean surface and its depths, the crew planted a flag on the bottom in the South China Sea, much as Russia recently did in Arctic waters.

The story was reported on Chinese TV news and by the official Xinhua news service, making it almost certain that the event had policy repercussions, in addition to the nicely nationalistic side of the submersible crew and the craft’s designer having done something physically and technically challenging.

The flag planting was done with a submersible, not a submarine. Subs are independent and can go pretty much wherever they like. Submersibles, which are usually designed to go deeper and possess grappling arms of some type, usually are deployed from a mother ship and possess limited range. The Chinese submersible, Jiaolong, executed 17 dives in the South China Sea from May 31 to July 18. The deepest dive took them to 3,759 meters.


The flag planting, “highlights (again!) that China has laid claim to the South China Sea,” said Dean Cheng, the top Chinese defense expert at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington. Islands and reefs in the South China Sea are claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. My personal favorite clump of islands is those known as the Spratlys, where people have died over tiny lumps of coral so small it’s impossible to build permanent structures on them. The Spratlys may lie atop oil and gas deposits and they describe rich fishing areas.

At the end of last month a Defense Ministry spokesman said “China has indisputable sovereignty” of the South China Sea, though he allowed that the PRC would allow ship and aircraft passage “from relevant countries” if they comply with China’s interpretation of international law.

Cheng pointed to the fact that the Jiaolong was manned, saying China’s ability to operate at such depths will have economic and military repercussions as they undertake operations such as deep sea oil drilling and labor to supplement Chinese research into oceanography, a key discipline for submarine operations.

 

[CougarKing]

2 notable updates:

*By the way, the words "Bei Hai" (北海) in the fleet's name below means "North Sea".

From the AFP via Singapore's Channel News Asia

China to stage war games in Yellow Sea

Agence France-Presse
First Posted 16:37:00 08/29/2010

Filed Under: Military, Government

BEIJING- - China will hold live-fire naval exercises in the Yellow Sea this week, state media reported Sunday, after voicing opposition to similar war games to be staged there by the United States and South Korea.

The Beihai fleet of the navy of the People's Liberation Army will conduct a "live ammunition drill" from Wednesday to Saturday off the coast of eastern China's Qingdao city, Xinhua news agency reported.

"This is an annual routine training, mainly involving the shooting of shipboard artillery," said the report, citing China's defence ministry.

The United States and South Korea are planning a new round of joint drills in the Yellow Sea in September in another show of force against North Korea following the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

Any military drills involving the United States in the Yellow Sea are a sensitive issue because of the area's proximity to China and the disputed maritime boundary between South and North Korea.

China has bristled at the idea of a US aircraft carrier group patrolling waters near its coast, although the US military has said the planned anti-submarine exercise in September would not involve a carrier.

Defense News link

U.S. Concerned About Taiwan Ex-Generals' China Visits: Report
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 30 Aug 2010 10:50     

TAIPEI - Closer contacts between retired Taiwanese generals and the Chinese authorities have sparked concerns in Washington, the island's major arms supplier, media and an official said Aug. 30.

The former generals started visiting China years ago, but with Taiwan's mainland ties improving rapidly since 2008, the trips have become so frequent that they have drawn U.S. attention, the Taipei-based China Times said.

"The United States has voiced its concerns to (Taiwan's de facto ambassador) Jason Yuan and voiced the hope that Taiwan can come up with an explanation," the paper said, without naming the source.

It said Washington was especially concerned if such contacts may endanger long-standing military cooperation projects with Taiwan.

Washington is also wondering if the visits mark the beginning of discussion about military exchanges and the establishment of confidence-building measures between the two former cross-Strait rivals, it said.

"It would be understandable if the United States voices such concerns, given the fast improving ties between Taipei and Beijing," said Chen Wen-yi, deputy chief of the foreign ministry's North American Affairs Department.

But he said the concerns were unnecessary as the visits were not authorized by the government.

Beijing still regards Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary, although the island has ruled itself since the end of a civil war in 1949.

Despite the underlying tension, relations have improved markedly since 2008 when Ma Ying-jeou of the China-friendly Kuomintang party became president, pledging to boost trade links and allowing in more Chinese tourists.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is interesting but it fails, in the final bits, to address China's overwhelming 'interest' – forcing the USA off the Korean peninsula and, indeed, off the Asian mainland:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-china-korea-puzzle/article1694254/

The China-Korea puzzle
Beijing’s economic and political support of Pyongyang is a drain on China and counter to its aspiration to be a respected great power. A stable North Korea would be of great benefit to all

Charles Burton

From Friday's Globe and Mail

On Monday, the Chinese government confirmed that President Hu Jintao had met North Korean leader Kim Jong-il last Friday in the northeastern Chinese city of Changchun. The official Xinhua news agency reported that Mr. Hu had told Mr. Kim that “the Chinese respect and support the active measures [North Korea] has taken to maintain stability, develop its economy and improve the livelihood of its people.”

The same day that statement was released, the United States announced new sanctions against North Korea aimed at cutting off sources of income that finance Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program. Washington said it was freezing the assets of four North Korean citizens, three companies and five government agencies suspected of drug trafficking, money laundering and currency counterfeiting.

While Beijing’s references to North Korean stability and economic development may be the stuff of fantasy, the fact is that Washington’s latest sanctions indicate how impotent it is in responding to North Korea and its challenge to regional security.

Despite China’s public words about North Korea’s measures to “improve the livelihood of its people,” the truth is that most North Koreans don’t get enough to eat because of severely inadequate grain production. The nation has been highly reliant on food from China and United Nations agencies for almost 20 years, since North Korea’s economy began a rapid downward spiral. Most worrying is the impact of pervasive malnutrition and stunted growth on children there.

As for stability or economic development, the recent execution by firing squad of a former top negotiator with South Korea and two senior economic officials doesn’t bode well.

Regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapon programs, the Chinese press release, perhaps optimistically, indicated that Kim Jong-il said he “hopes to maintain close communication and co-ordination with China to promote an early resumption of the six-party talks and ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula.”

But it seems Washington realizes the ineffective six-party talks are a charade by Beijing to manipulate U.S. compliance in maintaining the dismal North Korean regime. Since these talks produced no net progress after five rounds since 2003, it’s hard to imagine they’re anything more than a tactic by China and North Korea to stave off outside challenges to their status quo. As an editorial in the state-run Global Times, published while Mr. Kim was in China, makes plain, “Maintaining and stabilizing the current relationship between China and North Korea is of maximum benefit to China.”

When it comes to addressing the threat posed by North Korea, the bottom line is that positive change will only come when more forward-looking and less conservative elements of China’s leadership prevail over the cautious “do nothing” thinking that dominates current Chinese-Korean policy. But there are signs that China could become more pro-active in resolving the Korea crisis.

Kim Jong-il is in poor health and wants to see his 28-year-old son installed as his successor at a party congress in a few weeks. But the young man – referred to in the North Korean press as Beloved Comrade Kim Jong-un – has no military or party credentials. Becoming supreme leader is evidently to be his first real job. “This kid may have his finger on the button before we know it,” said one U.S. diplomat. The sinking of a South Korean warship in March could well be the consequence of Beloved Comrade’s trying out his newly acquired authority.

Kim Jong-il, the Dear Leader, is regarded as a pale reflection of his father, Kim Il-sung, the Great Leader. In fact, it has been widely reported that China’s leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping, was appalled when Kim Il-sung told him that Kim Jong-il would be his successor.

In the case of Kim Jong-un, then, the Chinese response must have been even more disparaging. It also will be a very hard sell in North Korea. Indeed, when Kim Jong-un went with his ailing father to meet China’s President, his name was left off the list of Korean officials reported in the Dear Leader’s entourage by the Chinese media.

Beijing would do well to take action to stop this Kim family dynastic succession in the interests of North Korea’s political stability.

Even though South Korea, with a per capita income 37 times that of its northern neighbour, recently proposed a “unification tax” to cover the anticipated cost of eventual reunification, the key player in resolving the Korean crisis has to be China.

The Korean nation has been separated for 65 years already, and only China has the ability to inspire a military coup in Pyongyang and install a pro-China regime that will implement a Chinese-style program of “opening and economic reform.” Only China has the resources to make the high levels of investment necessary to reconstruct North Korea’s economic infrastructure.

Beijing’s current economic and political support of Pyongyang is a drain on China and counter to its aspiration to be a respected great power. But a stable North Korea, with a market economic system, would be of great benefit to China, and would likely, eventually, lead to a China-oriented reunified Korea. While this places doubt over the future role of the United States in Korea, Taiwan and Japan, it could be the way to a prosperous and stable East Asia.

Charles Burton is an associate professor of political science at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont.

At the risk of repeating myself, we, including 'analysts like Prof. Burton, need to stop thinking (and analyzing) in our familiar, even comfortable 'short term' framework. The Chinese, who do not need to pay too much attention to immediate and short term political factors, think in and make policy for the long term. If we fail to recognize and take account of China's long term interests and goals then we will fail to protect our own long mid and term vital interests.