Archive for the George Washington aircraft carrier Category

Weighing Hu’s Visit – WW editorial [Workers World]

Posted in Anti-China propaganda exposure, China, China-US relations, DPR Korea, Encirclement of China, George Washington aircraft carrier, Hu Jintao, Japan, Korean War, Lang Lang 郎朗, Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize, Obama, Seoul, Sino-Korean Friendship, south Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, Tokyo, US imperialism, USA, Western nations' human rights distortions on January 29, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手


Feb 3, 2011

The visit of the president of the People’s Republic of China, Hu Jintao, to Washington has been played up as marking a shift in U.S.-Chinese relations in the direction of new cooperation.  On the one hand, it is reported that President Barack Obama played tough and got concessions on trade and on the question of Korea; on the other hand that President Hu gained recognition on the world stage for China as an equal with the U.S.

From a historical point of view, it is a measure of the development of People’s China, economically and technologically,that the chief executive of U.S. imperialism agreed to a state visit with high honors to its president. After all, Washington tried mightily to destroy the Chinese Revolution before and after it triumphed in 1949.  It kept People’s China, representing one-fifth of humanity, from its rightful seat in the United Nations for almost a quarter of a century.

But from a more recent perspective, what transpired in Washington was basically the granting of $45 billion in contracts by China to U.S. big business in return for U.S. technology transfers to China.  As a concession to U.S. companies, Hu indicated China would allow foreign business to bid on Chinese state contracts to supply technology. China’s present “indigenous innovation” law requires Chinese state enterprises to grant technology contracts only to Chinese companies.

One of the principal strategies of U.S. big business at present is to export its way out of the domestic economic crisis.
This means, among other things, getting more access to the vast Chinese markets.  It is reported that President Obama’s new chief of staff, William Daley — a former executive at JPMorgan Chase bank and a director of both Boeing Aircraft and Abbott Laboratories — wanted to make the summit into a trade session for the top corporations.

A special meeting was held between President Hu and 14 executives of the biggest U.S. corporations, including Lloyd
Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Steve Balmer of Microsoft, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric (Obama’s new top economic
advisor), and other CEOs of DuPont, Westinghouse Electric, agribusiness giant Cargill, Intel, the Carlyle Group, Dow
Chemical, Coca-Cola and HSBC Holdings.

Boeing, Daley’s former firm, got a $19 billion contract for 200 airplanes.  Immelt’s GE got contracts to develop rail and energy projects in return for technology sharing.  In addition, over the past few weeks China signed $25 billion in contracts with other large firms in 12 states.

The trip culminated with a joint statement filled with generalities and ambiguous phrases about the two governments
working together to improve regional and global peace and stability; non-interference in each other’s affairs; provisions for contacts between the two military commands; scientific cooperation;and so forth.

One issue discussed at the summit was Chinese military development. China has recently developed a missile with a
900-mile range that is alleged to be able to hit a moving aircraft carrier.  It has also developed a stealth fighter plane similar to one employed by the Pentagon.  Adm. Michael Mullen, chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and William Gates, Secretary of Defense, have sharply criticized China for improving its defensive forces and have threatened to develop new weapons systems aimed at China.

At the summit President Hu emphasized that China was not a threat to the U.S.  That is certainly true.  China has no
warships off the Atlantic or Pacific coasts of the U.S. or in the Caribbean.  China’s military is one-thirtieth the size of the

In contrast China is permanently menaced by U.S. aircraft carriers, attendant warships and submarines.  The USS George Washington sailed within striking distance of China during the lastcrisis on the Korean peninsula.  The U.S.
Seventh Fleet of the Pacific command has 50 to 60 ships, 600 aircraft and 60,000 Navy and Marine forces aimed
at China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The Pentagon regards the Pacific as a U.S. lake.

So while China is no threat to the U.S., the U.S. is definitely a threat to China.

As for a “new era” flowing out of President Hu’s visit, there was no mention of any agreement for the U.S. to pullback its naval and air armada from the region.  There was no pulling back by the Pentagon in developing a Tokyo-Seoul-
Washington axis aimed at the DPRK and the PRC.  Nor did Washington agree to stop supplying its Taiwan puppet with
advanced missiles.

There was no pledge by the Obama administration to cease backing the serfowning feudal god-king, the Dalai Lama,
whose historic goal is to break Tibet away from China.  Washington pushed “human rights” for the counterrevolutionary Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo, author of Charter 08, which calls for privatizing all of China’s economy and dissolving the People’s Republic.

One harmful concession made by President Hu must be mentioned.  He agreed to put in the joint statement a phrase about “mutual concern regarding the DPRK’s claimed nuclear enrichment program.”  Hopefully this break in solidarity will remain restricted to phrases in joint statements and will not extend to action.

In this connection it is worthy of note that at a state dinner given by the White House for President Hu, pianist Lang
Lang played a famous Chinese song, “My Motherland.”  It was the theme song of a 1956 Chinese movie called “Battle on Shangganling Mountain” (Triangle Mountain) and is universally recognized in China.  It is about the bravery during the Korean War of troops from the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army, who fought U.S. “jackals” alongside their Korean brothers and won the battle for the mountain.

Hopefully, the historic relationship depicted in the song and forged in blood between the Chinese and Korean people
will prevail, joint statements notwithstanding.


Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.


US defence secretary warns China not to “underestimate” US military power – as US warships skulk around Northeast Asian waters [World Socialist Web Site]

Posted in Beijing, Capitalism crisis early 21st century, China, Currency wars, Diaoyu Islands, DPR Korea, Early 21st Century global capitalist financial crisis' US origins, Economic crisis & decline, Encirclement of China, George Washington aircraft carrier, Hillary Clinton, Japan, Obama, Pentagon, South China Sea, south Korea, Taiwan, Tokyo, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, Yellow Sea, Yuan appreciation on January 11, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

By John Chan
11 January 2011

In an extraordinary statement while flying to China for a three-day visit last Sunday, US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates warned Beijing not to underestimate the United States and its military power.

“I’ve watched this sort of cyclical view of American decline come around two or three times, perhaps most dramatically in the latter half of the 1970s,” Gates told reporters. “And my general line for those both at home and around the world who think the US is in decline is that history’s dustbins are filled with countries that underestimated the resilience of the United States.”

Gates was responding to a journalist’s suggestion that China now viewed the US as a declining power. Gates’s reply was clearly aimed not only at Beijing, but at any country seeking to develop closer political and military ties with China. He was also putting paid to any conception that Washington would peacefully cede its dominant position in the Asia-Pacific region to Beijing.

Far from accepting China’s rise, Washington is aggressively seeking to undermine Beijing’s influence in Asia. Gates’s remarks are a further indication of preparedness to use military means to offset the waning position of the US, which has gathered pace since the 1970s. American capitalism is today in an unmistakable historic decline, with mounting public debts and industrial decay, and mired in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.

Gates was officially heading to China to restore military-to-military exchanges, which Beijing cut off when the Obama administration last January announced a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan. His comments highlight the depth of tensions created over the past 18 months since the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in mid-2009 that the US was “back to Asia”—that is, determined to actively contain China strategically and diplomatically.

Following the arms sales to Taiwan, President Obama met with Tibet’s Dalai Lama, despite strong Chinese opposition. The tensions accelerated after Clinton proclaimed at an Association of the South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit last July that the US had a “national interest” in maintaining “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea. She also effectively backed ASEAN member states in disputes with Beijing over islands in the South China Sea.

In September, Washington also tacitly backed Tokyo in its diplomatic row with Beijing after Japanese coastguards arrested a Chinese fishing captain near the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islets. After an exchange of shelling between the two Koreas on November 23. Washington encouraged and joined with South Korea in carrying out a series of military drills near North Korea in December and rejected Chinese diplomatic efforts to ease the danger of open conflict.

These ongoing tensions dominated Gates’s visit. China apparently leaked photos of its new “stealth” fighter, J-20, just ahead of Gates’ arrival. The jet is widely regarded by military analysts as designed to rival the advanced US F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. The photos prompted US media criticism that Gates had “underestimated” or “misjudged” China’s military build-up. He declared in 2009 that China would not have a stealth fighter before 2020.

At his same airborne press briefing, Gates responded, saying of China’s J-20s, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles: “They clearly have the potential to put some of our capabilities at risk. And we have to pay attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs.” Gates said the Pentagon would prioritise the development of military capabilities against China’s new weaponry.

In Beijing, Gates met with China’s Defence Minister Liang Guanglie yesterday, but relations remained cool. Only tentative steps were taken towards reestablishing military relations between the two countries. Moreover, Liang again raised China’s concerns about US arms sales to Taiwan—the reason relations broke off. “US arms sales to Taiwan seriously damaged China’s core interests and we do not want to see that happen again,” he declared.

The Pentagon chose to show off its own might just as Gates was in China, announcing it would deploy 15 F-22 fighters in Okinawa, Japan from this week for four months. In addition, the US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its associated battle group arrived in Japan, to carry out exercises with the Japanese navy on Monday. The USS Carl Vinson has been deployed to replace the USS George Washington, which was recently involved in joint naval drills with South Korea and Japan.

When Gates heads to South Korea on Friday, the USS Carl Vinson will hold joint exercises with South Korean navy in the sensitive Yellow Sea. China had previously warned against any deployment of US aircraft carriers in the Yellow Sea, but was ignored by Washington…

Sections of the Chinese ruling elite have responded to US military exercises in China’s backyard by calling for more military spending. Major General Jiang Luming of China’s National Defence University wrote in an official journal Study Times last week that Beijing must permanently double military spending from 1.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product to 2.8 percent…

Chinese President Hu Jintao is due in the US on January 19. In order to ensure a smooth visit, Beijing sent Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi to Washington last week to meet with President Obama, Clinton and other senior US officials. The Obama administration has already made clear that it will use the visit to press the Chinese president for major concessions.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs announced last Wednesday that a major theme would be Obama’s demand for a rapid revaluation of the Chinese currency—a step that could devastate large sections of Chinese industry. Gibbs indicated that Obama would press Hu on other sensitive issues, including “human rights” and Korean tensions. While encouraging South Korea to take a tougher stand, the US has repeatedly criticised China for failing to curb North Korea’s supposedly “rogue” behaviour.

The trip by Gates to Beijing makes clear the Obama administration has no intention of accommodating to China, but rather will continue to its aggressive push to counter China’s military buildup and to undermine its influence in Asia.

[Edited by Zuo Shou 左手]

Article link:

Is North Korea a Convenient Scapegoat for America’s Northeast Asia Strategy? [The 4th Media]

Posted in Beijing, Black propaganda, Cheonan sinking, China, DPR Korea, Encirclement of China, George Washington aircraft carrier, Japan, Korean War, Obama, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, south Korea, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, Yellow Sea on January 3, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

By Kiyul Chung | December 23, 2010

Through one of the latest and most serious war crises in Korean peninsula since the temporarily-paused but never-completely-ending Korean War since July 1953, the world in general, the Northeast Asia region in particular seemed to have further realized several crucial facts.

~ Not between North and South, but North with the US ~

The first fact is Korean conflicts’ historical background that has been distorted, forgotten and/or hidden, so that those ongoing conflicts for over 60 years in Korean peninsula have been seen as the one “between North and South Korean brothers.”

However, as a matter of fact, both November 23rd and December 20th, in addition to the March 26th when Cheonan mysteriously sank, all three major military drills took place directly under America’s “(both peacetime and wartime) operational control.”

South Korean President Lee Myungbak, like all of his predecessors, does not have any legal, military and political power or authority to order or control over his own nation’s military whatsoever.

This extremely dependent (so many call it “puppet”) system is known seemingly the only case in the world in which a sovereign nation has let other country’s foreign (local) military commander has the host nation’s military (army, navy and air) operational control.

This very much subordinated thereby servile, captive, even enslaved relationship in nature has been cemented since July 14, 1950 when ROK’s first US installed-president Rhee Syngman handed over his military operational command to the then UN (US) commander General MacArthur.

All three military drills in 2010, too, in addition to each and every one (countless number) of military operations on Korean soil since September 1945 when US military occupied the southern part of Korea which was supposed to be liberated from the Japanese 40 year long colonial rule, were operated by America’s military and geopolitical strategic decisions.

Therefore, like in the past, this year’s war crisis and extremely heightened military confrontations in Korean peninsula must not be considered the conflicts between North and South, but North with the US.

Most South Korean governments in the past, except a couple of exceptions such as late Presidents Kim Daejung and Roh Moohyun, seem hardly avoidable to escape from a critique that they have been ”America’s proxy regimes in Northeast Asia region.”

~ DPRK Convenient Scapegoat for America’s Northeast Asia Strategy ~

The second fact lies in a new strategic phenomenon that this year’s three major military drills where air carrier USS George Washington was involved with had consecutively taken place in the West Sea of Korean peninsula, not in the East Sea.

However, throughout the past since 1953, most, if not all, war crises such as at the time of North Korean seizure of US spy ship Pueblo in 1968 and other major conflicts took place in the East Sea, not in the West Sea.

As many analysts argue, it’s due to the fact that China has risen in all aspects, most distinctively its continued economic development and its rapidly growing influence onto the global affairs in general, the Northeast Asia region in particular.

As many including Chinese strategists have already pointed out, the reason why US moved its war games from Korea’s East Sea to the West is doubtlessly America’s strategic intention to continually pressure China militarily, economically and politically.

The West Sea of Korea which is also called [the] Yellow Sea, as both Koreans and Chinese call [it], is within the geopolitical and military proximity from missile shooting range of US warships to the most important power centers of China, including Beijing the Capitol City.

Needlessly to say, it’s also a US psychological warfare. However, in order to justify and hide its utmost but hidden strategic target China, the US has repeatedly made DPRK (North Korea) a convenient scapegoat.

Undoubtedly, America’s utmost strategic goal in Korean peninsula is to topple North Korea. This is often termed “regime change.” US, Japan and South Korea now even publicly talk about it as their common goal.

By doing so, they want people believe North Korea’s collapse is imminent. Of course, it’s also another set of war propaganda, a psychological warfare.

As in the past for over 60 years, from the 1950-53 Korean War to the Cheonan sinking incident and Yeonpyong Island conflicts in 2010, the US has continuously employed its stereotypical war propaganda tactic, i.e., the demonization of North Korea as the “aggressor”!

~ South Korean Presidency in Jeopardy and Need for Constant State of War Crisis ~

The third fact is that Lee’s extremely right-wing “pro-US” government is in irrecoverably free-falling domestic political crises due to its massive financial, political and moral crimes with unbelievable degrees and volumes of corruptions, frauds, and fabrications.

Unprecedented financial, political and moral crimes have taken place since he’s assumed the power three years ago. Illegal use of government powers is rampant. Most challengingly, in order to cover up those crimes, unimaginably dangerous military crises seemed to have been fabricated.

There is a distinctive example: According to South Korean mainstream media, “more than 2/3 of South Korean people do not believe the so-called ‘Official Int’l Joint Investigation Report’ on the Cheonan sinking incident.” Rather they are very much suspicious if it might not have been fabricated, as many in the world have already argued.

It’s a well-known fact the March 26th’s sinking incident took place just before the scheduled South Korean Local Election on June 2 when Lee’s regime then was already in big troubles.

In that election, even if, while fully being backed by Obama administration, Lee’s conservative ruling party manipulated the sinking incident at maximum level until the Election Day, as previous pro-US (flunkey) regimes did similar things in the past; they lost miserably, however.

Since the failed election in June, unfortunately, a police or fascist state in a form of national security state, like the times of Park Junghee and Chun Doohwan in the past, has been reestablished into South Korean society.

Political cronyism in extreme degree, almost like an “organized crime,” goes beyond imagination. In order to cover up all those crimes, while suppressing all sorts of sociopolitical oppositions, his failed regime desperately needs a constant state of war crisis, the “national security state.”

It means, for his political survival, he has dared to push his own people, the nation he was supposed to serve and his neighboring countries in the region to the brink of an all-out war.

Article link:

Commentary: Carrier domineering mentality obsolete — U.S. nuclear mother ships “sitting ducks”, “easy target” for Chinese and DPR Korean “carrier killers” [People’s Daily]

Posted in Beijing, China, DPR Korea, Encirclement of China, George Washington aircraft carrier, Pentagon, south Korea, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA on January 3, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Maybe the next US budget-busting aircraft carrier should be called “USS Gen. George Custer” – Zuo Shou 左手

December 29, 2010

By Li Hongmei

During the World War II and since, the aircraft carrier has been acting as the awesome demonstration of American power; and how seriously it measures the challenge posed to its preeminence over the sea can be judged by how many carriers it dispatched. The aircraft carrier battle group plays a central role in American Grand Strategy of securing the US hegemony over the waters far and away from its territory.

When in time of foreign crisis since 1945, Presidents of the United States have always said—“Send in the carriers!” More often than not, the US fleet of aircraft carriers has been as much a diplomatic tool as a military weapon.

In the aftermath of the flare-up between North and South Korea and in response to North Korea’s threat of a “sacred war” using nuclear weapons, the U.S., again, sent nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington and its escorts, the Ronald Reagan and the Carl Vinson, to the waters off the Korean peninsula, supposedly sending a series of messages—-reassurance to the South, and deterrence to the North, but undoubtedly raising tensions in the West Pacific region.

Evidently, the three carriers assembling off the hotspot of simmering Korean crisis is not intended to shoot trouble, but, to create more troubles, with the obvious villain’s design. The appearance of the menacing battle group of warships in the Pacific is not merely the classic projector of American predominance, or a signal usually delivered by Pentagon to show the escalating tensions and Washington’s seriousness, but to turn out targeting China, with the pretext of North Korea’s nuke threat and readiness for war.

It is no longer a secret that Washington eyes Beijing as its strategic rival in the region, and with its “comeback” strategy, the US ambition to regain the privilege in Asia is looming large. To achieve this, it will have to further press the strategic space of a rising China and dilute China’s growing clout over the Asia-Pacific region.

Unfortunately, no matter how the U.S. is sentimentally attached to Carrier, and however amazing aircraft carriers are as weapon systems, over time, the powerful warships’ offensive efficacy has declined, especially in the missile age. They can be sitting ducks when encountering carrier killers like missiles, tactical nuclear weapons, and electromagnetics.

No one doubts even the “impoverished” North Korea would and could build its ballistic missiles system designed to leave a gigantic task force dead in the water. Today, the carrier is not only a muscle-flexing demonstration, a signal of US determination to maintain a presence, but also an easy target.

It also explains why there were jitters in Washington when a Chinese submarine unexpectedly surfaced close to a US carrier strike group on exercise south of Japan in 2007.

It is by no means the last time the George Washington would be deployed, and the American warships will never give up any chance to show teeth. They are a substantive warning to a leader like Kim Jong Il to beware of bomb crater, and a message to the Chinese that Washington means war, and peace, and American hegemony, and “freedom and justice” defined by Americans but applied to all.

No other country has a carrier force like the Americans have and no others could match Uncle Sam for the combat ability on the sea. That explains why every American president has the cozy idea that he can easily reach his hand out to any faraway water, by just asking, “where’s our nearest carrier”? Yes, he could wave a hand in the direction of the huge flight deck of the nuke-powered mother ship that can be parked off any shore.

And yes, aircraft carriers could burn Pyongyang to the ground, but will Pyongyang get whatever message Washington is sending in that direction, and will the sight of US warships maneuvering at its doorsteps set the “defiant N Korea” shivering with fear? And will it be enough to reassure Seoul?

In a time of growing strategic competition between the United States and the emerging powers like China, the US carrier force in the Pacific ceases to symbolize Washington’s determination to hold sway over the region. Instead, it is now taken as a real threat to the regional peace, and a showcase of the obsolete saber-rattling mentality.

The articles in this column represent the author’s views only. They do not represent opinions of People’s Daily or People’s Daily Online.

Edited by Zuo Shou 左手

Article link:

US-China tensions mount amid widening war exercises; anti-China bloc forming in Asia as US and satellites reject 6-party talks [World Socialist Web Site]

Posted in China, China-US relations, DPR Korea, Encirclement of China, George Washington aircraft carrier, Hu Jintao, Japan, Korean War, Obama, Russia, Sino-Korean Friendship, south Korea, Uncategorized, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA on December 12, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

By Bill Van Auken

7 December 2010

A late night Sunday telephone call between US President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao underscored the mounting tensions between the two countries in the wake of last month’s military clash between North and South Korea.

The White House and the Chinese Foreign Ministry each issued one-sided accounts of the telephone conversation, illustrating the deep gulf dividing Washington and Beijing over the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

In a White House statement…The US president demanded that the North Korean government in Pyongyang “halt its provocative behavior…The president also highlighted the American commitment to the security of its allies in the region.”

For his part, Hu issued a stark warning. “Especially if not dealt with properly, tensions could well rise on the Korean peninsula or spin out of control, which would not be in anyone’s interest,” Hu was quoted as saying by the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

According to this account, Hu told Obama that China was “deeply worried” about the situation in the region.

While expressing China’s regret over the deaths in the artillery exchange, Hu made no condemnation of North Korea. Beijing has not affixed blame for the incident, which North Korea claimed was provoked by a South Korean military exercise that, according to Pyongyang, included the firing of South Korean artillery on Yeongpyeong Island into North Korean waters.

Yeongpyeong Island lies near the so-called Northern Limit Line, a maritime border that the US military unilaterally imposed at the end of the Korean War in 1953. North Korea has never accepted the division, insisting that the border should lie further south.

A series of military exercises in the region have continued to ratchet up tensions between the two Koreas as well as between Washington and Beijing.

On Monday, South Korea’s military launched week-long maritime live-fire exercises that involve shelling in 29 separate areas in waters off the Korean coast.

The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that, while this round of exercises will not include artillery fire in the waters off Yeongpyeong Island, where the military confrontation with the North erupted last month, another live-fire exercise that will include the island is to be staged soon.

South Korea’s new defense minister, Kim Kwan-jin, dismissed North Korean warnings over the new war games. “I don’t care about North Korean responses and they are not worth considering,” he said.

Pyongyang on Sunday condemned the live-fire drills, charging that the South was “hell-bent on the moves to escalate the confrontation and start a war.”

Kim, a former army general, was installed as defense minister after his predecessor resigned amid charges in the media and government that he had not responded aggressively enough to the North Korean shelling of Yeongpyeong.

The new defense minister has issued a series of bellicose statements vowing to retaliate with even greater force against any new North Korean attack. New artillery fire, he threatened, would be answered by the South Korean air force bombing North Korea. “The principles of proportionality and necessity do not apply,” Kim said. “The extent to which we invoke the right of self-defense is until the enemy’s resolve to provoke is eliminated.”

He added, “If North Korea carries out a military provocation [sic] targeting our territory and citizens again [we] need to punish them with immediate and powerful reaction until they completely give in.”

Meanwhile, US and Japanese armed forces continued military exercises begun last Friday involving some 40,000 military personnel. The war games, led by the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and its battle group, include the simulated defense of an island—an exercise that seems pointedly directed at China, given the tensions between Beijing and Tokyo over disputed islands in the East China Sea. These tensions boiled over last September following Japan’s arrest of a fishing captain after a collision between his boat and Japanese coast guard vessels.

The exercises were significant for the participation of South Korean military observers. Relations between the two countries have been historically strained. Japan’s 35-year colonial occupation of Korea ended only with the Japanese defeat in World War II (with the Japanese being supplanted with a US occupation].

Tokyo is reportedly also preparing to issue a new rearmament plan directed against China and North Korea. According to Nikkei, the Japanese business daily, the new “National Defense Program Guideline,” the first to be issued since 2004, will call for a “dynamic defense capability” directed at countering China in the East China Sea. It will include proposals for expanding the country’s submarine fleet and increasing its number of warplanes.

Formally Japan’s post-World War II constitution forswears the maintenance of a military, but Tokyo has over the past five years introduced a series of constitutional and administrative changes paving the way for the military buildup of its Self-Defense Forces.

The latest South Korean and Japanese exercises come on the heels of a US-South Korean deployment in the Yellow Sea in which the US carrier battle group also participated.

Meanwhile, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled on Monday to South Korea in another show of military support for the US ally.

Beijing has condemned the military exercises. A statement issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry last week warned, “Brandishing force cannot solve the issue. Some are playing with knives and guns, while China is criticized for calling for dialogue. Is that fair?”

The Chinese government has called for an emergency meeting of the principals in the Six-Party Talks aimed at the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula—the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the US. The governments of South Korea, Japan and the US have all rejected the proposal, insisting that the talks cannot be resurrected without prior concessions from North Korea.

Instead, the Obama administration convened a meeting in Washington Monday between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her South Korean and Japanese counterparts to [fraudulently] condemn “provocative attacks from North Korea.”

“We are committed to our partners and we are committed to the preservation of peace and stability in Northeast Asia and on the Korean peninsula,” Clinton said. [Clinton lied; the fact that the US bluntly refuses to sign a peace treaty with DPR (North) Korea, as has been requested by the DPRK for more than 50 years, proves it.]

Coming in the wake of the three countries’ rejection of the call for the emergency talks between the six-party participants in Beijing, the gathering had the appearance of anti-China bloc.

It was accompanied by sharp anti-Beijing rhetoric from US foreign policy officials.

The [Washington] Post reported, “The accusations mark a further deterioration of the tone and direction of the U.S. relationship with Asia’s emerging giant.” The paper added that the Obama administration’s “position now that China is in effect partially to blame for the problems is new.”

For its part, China’s People’s Daily pointed to the deteriorating relations between Washington and Beijing with an opinion column published Monday entitled “How should China handle America’s ‘return to Asia’?”

Beginning with a reference to the recent appearance of the US aircraft carrier battle group in the Yellow Sea, the column pointed to Washington’s attempt to “implement various sanctions, restrictions and inhibitions on China,” to its demands for currency revaluations and its intervention in the territorial disputes between China and its neighbors in the Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea.

The growth of China to the status of the world’s second largest economy, the column indicates, is “instinctively seen by the United States as a direct or indirect challenge to its hegemonic status.”

While concluding that China should adhere to a policy of “peaceful development and international cooperation”, the column adds, “However, China’s foreign policy will of course advance with the times, namely that China will adjust the policy at the proper time according to its own will.”

Underscoring the sharp economic and political contradictions underlying the mounting tensions, People’s Daily also reported Tuesday that a new “Sino-Korean industrial park” is being created in Chongqing with an initial investment of $950 million. The deal was reached at a meeting Monday that included delegations from the Chinese and South Korean governments as well as representatives from large Korean conglomerates, including Samsung, Hyundai, LG, SK and Pohang Iron and Steel.

The industrial park, the report said, would provide Korean capital with “a positive platform to enter the interior regions of China and to further enhance the Sino-Korean economic and trade ties.”

Article link:

How should China handle America’s “return to Asia?” [People’s Daily]

Posted in China, China-US relations, Diaoyu Islands, Diplomat, Early 21st Century global capitalist financial crisis' US origins, Economic crisis & decline, Encirclement of China, George W. Bush, George Washington aircraft carrier, Hillary Clinton, India, Obama, Protectionist Trade War with China, Sinophobia, South China Sea, US imperialism, USA, World War II, Yellow Peril myth, Yuan appreciation on December 12, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

December 5, 2010

The U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises were held in the Yellow Sea region on Nov. 28. The United States sent the USS George Washington aircraft carrier, a 9,600-ton cruiser, and a 9,750-ton destroyer to participate in the military exercises.

The United States has appeared on the Asian stage once again. Its “return to Asia” strategy has become increasingly clear, and China-U.S. relations have also attracted much attention worldwide since Obama took control of the White House.

People’s Daily reporters interviewed Huang Ping, president of the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, regarding China-U.S. relations.

~ US China policy changes from warm to cold ~

The U.S. policy on China has changed from warm to cold during the two years of the Obama administration. Obama immediately paid a visit to China when he first took control of the White House and showed more passion than former president George W. Bush.

However, the current changes are obvious, and the United States has begun to implement various sanctions, restrictions and inhibitions on China. In regard to the RMB exchange rate, although the United States has not labeled China as a “currency manipulator,” it has shown an increasingly intense and loud voice regarding this issue in general.

The United States also directly or indirectly involved itself in China’s relations with neighboring countries. It took a public stance or indirectly exerted influence regarding issues such as the Diaoyu Islands event and the conflicts in the South China Sea, Huang said.

Huang analyzed the reasons for the changes in the Obama administration’s China policy, and said that the U.S. presidents have always adopted pragmatic domestic and foreign policies, and Obama is no exception.

Technically speaking, he appears even more pragmatic and traditional than his predecessor George W. Bush, as shown by far more diplomatic talks than military actions and far more multilateral than unilateral actions.

However, Obama does not completely reject idealism, and sometimes acts more like a bookish intellectual than an experienced politician. He has talked a lot but done little probably because it is much easier said than done. Whatever their governing styles are, the U.S. presidents always adhered to the rule that diplomacy and all other activities should serve U.S. national interests.

The United States replaced the United Kingdom as a global superpower after the end of World War II, and now needs to make efforts to maintain its hegemony across the world, in addition to safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring its development like other countries.

The United States has not signed the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea because it considers exclusive economic zones to be international waters, which, by its hegemonic logic, should be included in the U.S. sphere of influence. The U.S. sphere of influence covers not only outer space and international waters but also all fields in which it takes a lead in, such as the Internet, and doing so is its long-term national strategy. Any fast-developing country will be instinctively seen by the United States as a direct or indirect challenge to its hegemonic status.

Of course, the changes in the Obama administration’s policy on China have various causes.

Objectively, the current domestic economic situation in the United States is terrible with a continued high unemployment rate. Made-in-China goods are seen here and there [sic], which tends to make China the victim and scapegoat.

Furthermore, it is indeed [a] fact that China is experiencing a rapid development and the trend will continue in the future. In fact, China’s development pace over the first 30 years since its market-oriented reform has not slowed, but China did not draw so much attention like it does now because then, its development was low and small in terms of economic scale.

However, thanks to its reform, a 2 to 3 percentage point decrease in China’s economic growth rate will make many other countries aware of its existence and greatly affect those countries, said Huang.

Another cause is Obama’s inexperience in handling international affairs. Although Obama was very popular during the presidency campaign, he lacks practical executive experience. He has never been mayor, state governor or worked in government departments, and he served only one term as senator, so he is inexperienced in evaluating the world situation and handling relations with other powers.

Furthermore, Obama’s team members, including Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates and Timothy Geithner, all have personal strengths, but how to coordinate their work is a big issue for Obama. In addition to the congress, the opposition party, media and interest groups, China is more prone to be the victim of the friction among various types of political forces in the United States.

~ Maintaining and enhancing its leading status in Asia ~

The particular attention paid by the Obama administration to Asia is increasingly evident. Of course, the United States has never left Asia, and the so-called “returning to Asia” strategy means that the United States seeks to establish, maintain and reinforce its leading status in Asia again, Huang commented.

The importance of Asia to the United States has been unquestionable since the end of World War II. Huang said that there is no doubt that China’s high-speed growth is one of the most important causes behind the United States'”returning to Asia” strategy.

The United States is aware that Asia is the most important economic development region in the early period of the 21st century and is home to China and India, the world’s two largest emerging economies, said Huang. Asia’s economic rise started between the 1960s and the 1980s, with Japan and the “four small dragons” taking the lead and the “five small tigers” following their steps.

The Chinese mainland started its reform and economic rise in 1978 and has shown its growing importance in the Asian economy after the Asian economic crisis in 1997. Following the international financial crisis in 2008, China displayed its considerable influence in the world economy. Although China has never sought a leading status or hegemony, it is an objective fact that China’s high-speed development has evolved from a national phenomenon to a regional phenomenon and from a regional phenomenon to an international phenomenon.

The United States can ignore neither China nor Asia. It is foreseeable that Asia will become more important in international relations, so it is normal for the frequent outbreaks of conflicts, disputes and trouble.

Faced with negative results in the mid-term elections, dealing with internal and foreign affairs became a difficult problem for Obama. The United States, which claims to be a world leader, certainly hopes that there will be less trouble. The conflicts between other countries are within the scope prescribed by the United States.

However, the United States cannot allow other countries to stir up conflict with itself. In regards to foreign affairs, the United States certainly needs to consolidate and strengthen its economic, political and military relations with traditional allies such as Europe, Japan, South Korea and Australia, and it will also be helpful for the United States to maintain a good relationship with China.

However, the United States has always regarded China as an uncertain factor. Certain people in the United States are very nervous about the large-scale and rapidly-developing China, which has great potential. It is estimated that there will be more trouble between China and the United States in the next few years, and problems and conflicts will even appear in some new areas and fields. This is also a test and examination for the United States’ “return to Asia’ strategy,” Huang said.

~ China’s consistent foreign policy ~

Huang stressed that no matter how the United States changes its policies towards China and Asia, the most important thing for China is to adhere to its established policies.

During the NPC and CPPCC meetings this year, a foreign reporter asked Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi whether China would adjust its policies accordingly as the U.S. foreign policy had changed. Yang, well known for his prudence, responded without hesitation that China’s foreign policy has always been consistent. Long-term adherence has proved that China means what it says. Since the introduction of the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,’ China has unswervingly adhered to an independent and peaceful foreign policy without succumbing to the strong or bullying the weak. China will never seek hegemony.

Instead, it is committed to following the path of peaceful development and international cooperation for mutual benefit as well as adhering to the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.’ China’s independent and peaceful foreign policy is exactly the opposite of the power politics and hegemony. However, China’s foreign policy will of course advance with the times, namely that China will adjust the policy at the proper time according to its own will, Huang said.

By People’s Daily Online

Article link:

War games in Northeast Asia not helpful for peace: China – “Protecting South Korea and Japan are just excuses made by the US” [People’s Daily]

Posted in China, DPR Korea, Encirclement of China, George Washington aircraft carrier, Hillary Clinton, Japan, Pentagon, south Korea, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War on December 9, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

December 3, 2010

Shortly after concluding its naval war games with South Korea in the waters off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula this week, the US sent the carrier US George Washington to Japan to participate in another joint military exercise. Analysts say this move can serve only to worsen the tense situation on the divided peninsula and threaten regional stability.

US Major William Vause, chief of operational plans, training and exercises, said in a statement that the drills, codenamed “Keen Sword,” will last from today to December 10 in Japanese waters off its southern islands, close to the southern coast of South Korea.

The drills involve around 34,000 Japanese defense personnel with 40 warships and 250 aircraft, as well as more than 10,000 of their US counterparts with 20 warships and 150 aircraft, forming the biggest-ever war games between the two countries, according to Vause.

Integrated air and missile defense, base security, close air support, live-fire training, maritime defense, and search and rescue will be covered in the drills, AFP reported.

The joint maneuvers between Washington and Tokyo followed those between Washington and Seoul that concluded Wednesday amid rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The two Koreas exchanged fire last week in waters off the peninsula’s west coast, resulting in at least four deaths…

Responding to the US-Japan joint exercise, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Thursday that “the US-Japan alliance should not damage the interests of third parties, including China, and the international community does not support actions that escalate tensions.”

She reiterated Beijing’s belief that dialogue and negotiations are the only solutions for the Korean Peninsula issue.

The joint maneuver between the US and South Korea mobilized a combined 7,300 troops, the 97,000-ton aircraft carrier George Washington and about 10 navy ships.

In an interview with the Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military drills with South Korea had been planned a month ahead of time, and the US had informed China of their objective and how long the drills would last.

China had expressed objections to the drills, saying it was opposed to such military activity in its exclusive economic zone.

But Mullen reiterated the US’ stance that the drills were held in international waters, and the US will continue to hold drills there in the future.

In another development, South Korea moved more troops and guns onto its islands that border the North this week, AFP reported Thursday.

…US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to meet with the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan in Washington on Monday for crisis talks, Reuters reported Wednesday.

South Korea, Japan and the US are reportedly reluctant to accept proposals, made by China on Sunday, to hold emergency consultations in Beijing early this month to ease tensions.

China followed up that proposal by calling on Wednesday for calm and restraint, advising parties involved to avoid escalating the problem by doing anything that would “inflame the situation.”

Fang Xiuyu, an analyst of Korean issues at Fudan University in Shanghai, told the Global Times that protecting South Korea and Japan are just excuses made by the US to expand its presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Geng Xin, deputy director of the Tokyo-based Japan-China Communication Institute, told the Global Times that “frequent military drills involving the US are dangerous – inflaming the situation and threatening regional security.”

He urged the US to act responsibly by accepting China’s call for international talks.

Geng also noted that “economic relations among China, Japan and South Korea are unlikely to be affected, despite the war games, since the framework for economic cooperation runs deep in the region.”

Liu Linlin and agencies contributed to this story

By Guo Qiang, Global Times

Article link: