China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

Status
Not open for further replies.
VH,

VH said:
What is really ridiculous is China thinking that this handful of untried pilots and military personnel they have managed to cobble together can take on Japan and all the rest of the allies in a shooting war. China needs to sit down quietly somewhere and reflect upon the decisions they are making before they step off into something they will regret

As has been pointed out before, perspective counts a lot here. For the Communist rulership in China, maintaining their rulership is their first priority. They know just how badly faring China's economy is and how close it is to implosion. They also know that the only thing making their rulership "credible" among the people is their providing the people with an ever improving material quality of life. Any significant economic downturn will completely trash that and thus threaten the rulership's hold on power.

Better then, to foment an external enemy threat as a means of distraction AND as an excuse for economic troubles. This, even if the risk of such is a regional war with the world's remaining hyperpower and its exceptionally capable regional ally, Japan.

History is replete with ample examples of similiar such internally rational / externally irrational perspectives. Look no further back than Germany of the 1930s for a similar case.
 
Madoc said:
As has been pointed out before, perspective counts a lot here. For the Communist rulership in China, maintaining their rulership is their first priority. They know just how badly faring China's economy is and how close it is to implosion. They also know that the only thing making their rulership "credible" among the people is their providing the people with an ever improving material quality of life. Any significant economic downturn will completely trash that and thus threaten the rulership's hold on power.

Better then, to foment an external enemy threat as a means of distraction AND as an excuse for economic troubles. This, even if the risk of such is a regional war with the world's remaining hyperpower and its exceptionally capable regional ally, Japan.

History is replete with ample examples of similiar such internally rational / externally irrational perspectives. Look no further back than Germany of the 1930s for a similar case.


I think you nailed it with China acting like Germany to manufacture an external enemy to deflect attention from problems at home. And I too am watching closely this banking situation currently happening in China and trying my best to read the tea leaves as to how it might affect China and the rest of the world.


For sure these are as they say interesting times
 
And getting more interesting all the time:

http://news.yahoo.com/china-apprehending-boats-weekly-disputed-south-china-sea-133728747--finance.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/china-defend-every-inch-territory-foreign-minister-075244158.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/china-says-expels-philippine-disputed-shoal-104925674--finance.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-protests-china-stopping-troop-resupply-081642697.html
 
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-rejects-chinese-demand-remove-ship-111738256.html


http://news.yahoo.com/manila-air-drops-supplies-troops-disputed-shoal-080647983.html

http://news.yahoo.com/manila-challenge-china-blockade-south-china-sea-115835593--finance.html
 
"Philippines to Let U.S. Build Military Facilities on Bases"
By Joel Guinto and Norman P. Aquino Mar 14, 2014 1:26 AM PT

Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-14/philippines-to-let-u-s-build-military-facilities-on-its-bases.html?cmpid=yhoo

The Philippines will let the U.S. build facilities inside the Southeast Asian nation’s military bases, under a pact that would boost the American troop presence there at a time of rising tensions with China.

Philippine concern about access to U.S. facilities on its bases was “sufficiently addressed” and the two countries will hold further talks later this month as they seek to wrap up an agreement, Philippine Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino said at a briefing in Manila today. “It’s safe to say there is already consensus” on the access issue.

The negotiations come as a territorial dispute escalates between the Philippines and China over resource-rich shoals in the South China Sea. The Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, lacks the military power to deter China from contested waters rich in oil, gas and fish and has asked the United Nations to rule on disputes, a process China has rejected.

Chinese ships used water canons in January to drive Filipino fishermen away from the Scarborough Shoal, the Philippine military said on Feb. 24. China warned off two Philippine boats near the Second Thomas Shoal this week, its Foreign Ministry said on March 10.

The Philippine foreign affairs department summoned China’s envoy in Manila to object to China’s latest action and asked it to “desist from any further interference” at the shoal, the agency said on March 11. Last month it also summoned the envoy over the water canon incident, calling it an act of harassment.
Strong Signal

China has the right to drive Philippine ships away from the Second Thomas Shoal, the Foreign Ministry said yesterday in a statement on its website, citing spokesman Qin Gang. The Philippines sent ships carrying materials to the shoal to build facilities there, a move that infringes China’s rights and is a provocation, Qin said.

“The defense pact would be a strong political signal to China that the U.S. is on our side,” Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform in Manila, said by phone. “The deal may allow American access to more Philippine military bases, which also benefits the U.S. in its Asian pivot strategy.”

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said today that the agreement “is an issue between the Philippines and the U.S.”

Facilities to be built by the U.S. inside Philippine bases will be for joint use, Batino said. “Negotiations just like this one are very fluid and we cannot have a definitive time line when we will finish this.”
Subic Bay

Securing U.S. facilities in the Philippines was one of the remaining issues that the parties needed to address, J. Eduardo Malaya, a member of the Philippine negotiating panel and the Philippine ambassador to Malaysia, said at the same briefing.

The U.S. ended its permanent military presence in the Philippines with the closing of the Subic Bay base after the lease ended in 1991. The U.S. rotates 500 troops into the southern Philippines each year to aid in counter-terrorism operations, while 6,500 come annually for exercises, according to the Philippine military.

The Philippines is very close to finishing the pact with the U.S., President Benigno Aquino said in an interview on Feb. 19. Negotiators may seek to wrap up a deal before U.S. President Barack Obama visits the Philippines in April as part of a trip to the region that also takes in Japan.
 
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001041592

Whenever a crisis occurs, diplomatic authorities typically attempt to assess the situation by contacting their counterpart of the country concerned to investigate, if any, what their intentions are. For example, the incident could merely have been an accident or a calculated act sanctioned by those at the center of the administration. But when the Chinese become involved, such diplomatic approaches may no longer be a possibility.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry, which is supposed to be the equivalent of the U.S. State Department or Japan’s Foreign Ministry, is “merely an organization which carries out policies decided by the Communist Party of China (CPC),”a senior Foreign Ministry official said.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi is just one of 205 members of the Central Committee of the CPC, and is not even included in the 25-member Politburo, which is regarded as the party’s leadership organ.

Indeed, when the Chinese National Defense Ministry announced the establishment of the air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, including the Senkaku Islands, on Nov. 23, the Japanese Embassy in Beijing approached the Chinese Foreign Ministry. However, an official in charge at the ministry said, “We don’t know about it [ADIZ], as it’s outside our jurisdiction,” which left the embassy nonplussed.

If the Chinese Foreign Ministry is of so little use, then where are the country’s diplomatic policies worked out? Important decisions are made by the Central Leading Small Group on Foreign Affairs, while decisions on military affairs are carried out at the Central Military Commission.

The two organizations are central organs within the CPC, erecting a barrier for diplomatic and defense authorities of the United States or Japan. Discussions in these organizations are kept secret from the outside. Diplomatic relations in China are complicated further by individual diplomatic issues sometimes being used as ammunition to attack rivals in power struggles within the Communist Party.
 
That isn't different to most other governments. Government Departments/arms implement policy, the Executive Arm creates it.
 
bilde

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140322/DEFREG03/303220024/Philippines-Challenge-Chinese-Blockade

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236643
 
With all the attention directed towards Europe and Ukraine this is a perfect time for China to start something in the South China Sea.
 
VH said:
With all the attention directed towards Europe and Ukraine this is a perfect time for China to start something in the South China Sea.
Oh I'm sure they will. They've seen how successful Vlad has been.
 
Are you serious? Quite apart form the extensive militaries in the area up to and including the US, China has seen that they can accomplish far more through economic means than pure military.


Sorry guys, but just because you are excited about the prospect of the Cold War restarting in Europe doesn't mean it is a case of totally resetting the clock...or digging out your Pulp fiction novels.
 
sferrin said:
Oh I'm sure they will. They've seen how successful Vlad has been.

Is the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America still in effect? Or has the treaty lapsed with the closing of Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Station in the early 1990s? Isn't the situation different in the Crimea because the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't a defense treaty?
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Oh I'm sure they will. They've seen how successful Vlad has been.

Is the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America still in effect? Or has the treaty lapsed with the closing of Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Station in the early 1990s? Isn't the situation different in the Crimea because the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't a defense treaty?
Honestly, with this administration, that Treaty isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
 
sferrin said:
Honestly, with this administration, that Treaty isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

You really believe that a hypothetical Mitt Romney Administration, or Republican administration, would have done anything different? According to a 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language and the population of Crimea is 60.4% Russian. Would Civil War in Ukraine have been a preferable resolution to this dispute?
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Honestly, with this administration, that Treaty isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

You really believe that a hypothetical Mitt Romney Administration, or Republican administration, would have done anything different? According to a 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language and the population of Crimea is 60.4% Russian. Would Civil War in Ukraine have been a preferable resolution to this dispute?

Of course that is an unaswerable question, however, maybe we should look to the past and ask did the USSR/Russians act differently in Reagan's first term than in Carter's?

Another way to look at your post is to say no President would have mattered. You could have elected Curtis LeMay or Ralph Nader and Russia would be in the Crimea.
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Honestly, with this administration, that Treaty isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

You really believe that a hypothetical Mitt Romney Administration, or Republican administration, would have done anything different? According to a 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language and the population of Crimea is 60.4% Russian. Would Civil War in Ukraine have been a preferable resolution to this dispute?
Wrong question. The question is, would Romney have behaved in a way as to embolden this kind of behavior from Putin? I don't think Romney would have given Putin reason to think he could go for a land-grab without consequences.
 
sferrin said:
Wrong question. The question is, would Romney have behaved in a way as to embolden this kind of behavior from Putin? I don't think Romney would have given Putin reason to think he could go for a land-grab without consequences.

As far as consequences, Putin doesn't seem to be very concerned about economic sanctions. Appearances are pretty meaningless unless you are willing to commit American lives and military equipment to back up your rhetoric. Otherwise, Putin is just going to call the bluff.

So the only way I can see events happening differently is if the Obama Administration were to declare that the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed on 5 December 1994 a binding military commitment by the United States and the United Kingdom to ensure the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. It should also be noted that France and China gave individual assurances to Ukraine as well for signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Unfortunately, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was never presented by the George H.W. Bush administration as a treaty to be ratified by the United States Senate nor did the administration believe that if it had been presented to the Senate it would have passed.

How far should the United States, United Kingdom, France, and China be willing to go to ensure the territorial integrity of the Ukraine? Should we be mobilizing and sending troops and equipment in support of the Ukraine and encourage the United Kingdom, France, China and our NATO allies to do the same in support of Ukrainian territorial integrity. Is there even popular support in the Congress or with the American public to intervene militarily in the Ukraine and spill American blood for the territorial integrity of the Ukraine?
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Wrong question. The question is, would Romney have behaved in a way as to embolden this kind of behavior from Putin? I don't think Romney would have given Putin reason to think he could go for a land-grab without consequences.

As far as consequences, Putin doesn't seem to be very concerned about economic sanctions. Appearances are pretty meaningless unless you are willing to commit American lives and military equipment to back up your rhetoric. Otherwise, Putin is just going to call the bluff.

Exactly. We haven't seen weakness in the White House like this since Carter.
 
sferrin said:
Exactly. We haven't seen weakness in the White House like this since Carter.

So in order not to appear weak, the United States should be willing to declare war on the Russian Federation to ensure the territorial integrity of the Ukraine as agreed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances?
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Exactly. We haven't seen weakness in the White House like this since Carter.

So in order not to appear weak, the United States should be willing to declare war on the Russian Federation to ensure the territorial integrity of the Ukraine as agreed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances?

It's too late now. What should have been done is we should have kept to our word instead of all this "red line" crap. We have no credibility now so shedding blood is about the only option left. This is what weakness (real or perceived) gets you. And yes, sometimes you have to shed blood when aiding allies. That's life. And helping Ukraine boot Russia out of it's country is a far FAR cry from declaring WWIII on Russia.
 
sferrin said:
It's too late now. What should have been done is we should have kept to our word instead of all this "red line" crap. We have no credibility now so shedding blood is about the only option left. This is what weakness (real or perceived) gets you. And yes, sometimes you have to shed blood when aiding allies. That's life. And helping Ukraine boot Russia out of it's country is a far FAR cry from declaring WWIII on Russia.

I guess we can beat up the Obama Administration for not showing leadership, but the United Kingdom, France, and China have responsibility in this situation as well from the agreements they signed with Ukraine.

We already have the next crisis on the horizon with Transnistria wanting to break away from Moldova to join the Russian Federation.

The territorial disputes between China and its neighbors are different because the disputed islands do not have civilian populations who have settled these territories belonging to a particular ethnic group or nationality.
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Exactly. We haven't seen weakness in the White House like this since Carter.

So in order not to appear weak, the United States should be willing to declare war on the Russian Federation to ensure the territorial integrity of the Ukraine as agreed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances?

So where is the line? Latvia, Poland, Estonia? How far does Putin get? Maybe the KGB thug in Moscow has figured out that the West poses no 'real' military threat and seeing that Europe needs its energy Moscow gets all the hard currency it needs.
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Exactly. We haven't seen weakness in the White House like this since Carter.

So in order not to appear weak, the United States should be willing to declare war on the Russian Federation to ensure the territorial integrity of the Ukraine as agreed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances?

It's too late now. What should have been done is we should have kept to our word instead of all this "red line" crap. We have no credibility now so shedding blood is about the only option left. This is what weakness (real or perceived) gets you. And yes, sometimes you have to shed blood when aiding allies. That's life. And helping Ukraine boot Russia out of it's country is a far FAR cry from declaring WWIII on Russia.

The United States has kept it's word. It has not attempted to invade Ukraine. Perhaps you should go back and read the agreement again? You seem to be assuming that agreeing not to invade a country is the same as a commitment to defending it.
 
Here's an interesting list of all CHinese activiuties monitored by the Japanese ADF:

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/ryouku/index.html

... and for the first time a pair of PLAAF J-11 intercepted two Japanese planes - an OP-3C surveillance plane and a YS-11EB electronic intelligence aircraft - near the disputed islands on Saturday 24. May.


China, Japan exchange barbs over action by warplanes in East China Sea
(Reuters) - Japan and China on Sunday accused each other's air forces of dangerous behavior over the East China Sea, with Japan saying Chinese aircraft had come within a few dozen meters of its warplanes.
Japan's defense minister accused Beijing of going "over the top" in its approach to disputed territory. China's defense ministry said Japanese planes had carried out "dangerous" actions during its joint maritime exercises with Russia.Tensions have been running high between China and its neighbors over Beijing's assertive stance on claiming land and sea territory.Japan's defense ministry said Chinese SU-27 fighters came as close as 50 meters (170 feet) to a Japanese OP-3C surveillance plane near disputed islets on Saturday and within 30 meters of a YS-11EB electronic intelligence aircraft."Closing in while flying normally over the high seas is impossible," Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters in comments broadcast on TV Asahi."This is a close encounter that is outright over the top."Onodera said Japan conveyed its concerns to the Chinese side through diplomatic channels. He also said the Chinese planes were carrying missiles.A ministry official said it was the closest Chinese warplanes had come to aircraft of Japan's Self-Defense Force.China's defense ministry said jets were scrambled in the East China Sea on Saturday after Japanese aircraft entered its air defense zone during maritime exercises with Russia.The ministry said the Japanese aircraft had entered the zonedespite "no fly" notices being issued ahead of the exercises. China declared its air defense zone last year despite protests by Japan and the United States."Japanese military planes intruded on the exercise's airspace without permission and carried out dangerous actions, in a serious violation of international laws and standards, which could have easily caused a misunderstanding and even led to a mid-air accident," the statement said.China had proposed urgent talks, it said, and demanded that Japan "respect the lawful rights of China's and Russia's navies ... and stop all reconnaissance and interference activities. Otherwise Japan will bear any and all consequences from this".CHINESE CLAIMSChina lays claim to Japanese-administered islets in the East China Sea, known as Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese. It is also pressing its claim to almost all the South China Sea, brushing aside claims by several southeast Asian states.China's proclamation last November of an air defense zone covering disputed islands and areas in the South China Sea has raised concerns that a minor incident could quickly escalate.Sino-Japanese ties have long been strained by allegations in China that Japan has not properly atoned for its wartime aggression and by the spat over the uninhabited islands.Japan scrambled fighter jets against Chinese planes 415 times in the year ended in March, up 36 percent on the year, while in waters near the disputed islands, patrol ships from both countries have been playing cat-and-mouse, raising fears of an accidental clash.Japanese land, sea and air forces joined last week to simulate the recapture of a remote island, underscoring Tokyo's concerns about the security of the islets.Tensions between China and its neighbors have also risen sharply in the South China Sea in recent weeks, following the deployment of a Chinese oil rig in waters also claimed by Vietnam. The deployment sparked anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam.The Philippine foreign ministry this month accused China of reclaiming land on a disputed reef in the South China Sea and said it appeared to be building an airstrip.(Reporting by Kiyoshi Takenaka and Osamu Tsukimori and Paul Carsten in Beijing; Editing by Ron Popeski)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/25/us-japan-china-idUSBREA4O01920140525

but also: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/26/world/asia/china-japan-jets-scramble/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Quite intersting: the Japanese aircrfat wanted to spy on the joint-Sino-Russian Naval exercise. ;)

Deino
 

Attachments

  • J-11A 40547 - 33. Div xl 1.jpg
    J-11A 40547 - 33. Div xl 1.jpg
    114.4 KB · Views: 414
  • J-11A 40547 - 33. Div xl 2.jpg
    J-11A 40547 - 33. Div xl 2.jpg
    76.5 KB · Views: 403
sferrin said:
It's too late now. What should have been done is we should have kept to our word instead of all this "red line" crap. We have no credibility now so shedding blood is about the only option left. This is what weakness (real or perceived) gets you. And yes, sometimes you have to shed blood when aiding allies. That's life. And helping Ukraine boot Russia out of it's country is a far FAR cry from declaring WWIII on Russia.
And what warrantee is there for you to say that Russia won't perceive or that things won't spiral into a mutual committed yet unwilling all-out war. What hard guarantee will you provide the American people that assure them that the chance of nuclear weapons being used is 0%. Is it likely that americans will have to face russian nukes? Absolutely not. But if you are the commander in chief who cannot objectively garantee a 100% chance of no nuclear fall-out, you are putting american lives in danger by the millions to defend a government of another land. That's irresponsibility as an American, much less that of a leader.


An economic decline, huge national debt, and broke state after decades of war, and you want to go to war with the second most powerful military in the world that even if won will cripple our assets and weaken our presence in Asia, potentially giving rise to Chinese expansion.


Sometimes you don't have a choice in certain situations. That's life. What was wrong with the Obama administration wasn't that it didn't go all the way with Russia but that it responded too slow, too weak, and too indecisive.
 
Interesting video published by the Chinese media, showing a PLAAF Tu-154M scrambled by a JASDF F-15J.
Also noteworthy the Japanese pighter carries the new AAM-5 SRAAM.

http://news.ifeng.com/a/20140612/40709459_0.shtml

Quite funny, when the J-11 intercepted the Japanese P-3C, the Japanese were coplaining about the missiles .... now it seems (and for everyone with the slightest common sense more than understandable) the F-15J also had a missile under its wings ... and that event was even before the latest interception.

And by the way it looks also quite close ... maybe closer than 50m !

Deino
 

Attachments

  • F-15J intercepting a Tu-154M - 1.jpg
    F-15J intercepting a Tu-154M - 1.jpg
    54.2 KB · Views: 347
  • F-15J intercepting a Tu-154M - 2.jpg
    F-15J intercepting a Tu-154M - 2.jpg
    69.7 KB · Views: 343
  • F-15J intercepting a Tu-154M - 3.jpg
    F-15J intercepting a Tu-154M - 3.jpg
    82 KB · Views: 337
Dear Deino,

Congratulations to your latest article! :)


Andreas Rupprecht - "Territorial Tensions - China’s Air Defence Zone", Air International, August 2014, pages 76-81
TERRITORIAL TENSIONS
Andreas Rupprecht describes increased tensions between China and Japan after China established an air defence zone over disputed islands in the East China Sea.
 
Thanks for the head up, but I have to admit I'm a bit surprised to see that they did not use the latest images of the H-6G PLANAF-bombers, which were involved, but instead took images from PLAAH-used H-6H ! ???

Anyway I hope You like the text anyway ...

Deino
 
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/around_asia/AJ201408300042
 
Indeed.


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29107792

The appearance of these new islands has happened suddenly and is a dramatic new move in a longstanding territorial struggle in the South China Sea.

At the beginning of this year, the Chinese presence in the Spratly Islands consisted of a handful of outposts, a collection of concrete blockhouses perched atop coral atolls.

Now it is building substantial new islands on five different reefs.

We are the first Western journalists to have seen some of this construction with our own eyes and to have documented it on camera.

On one of these new islands, perhaps Johnson South Reef, China seems to be preparing to build an air base with a concrete runway long enough for fighter jets to take off and land.

Plans published on the website of the China State Shipbuilding Corporation are thought to show the proposed design.

China’s island building is aimed at addressing a serious deficit.


Other countries that claim large chunks of the South China Sea - Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia - all control real islands.

But China came very late to this party and missed out on all the good real estate.

Beijing only took control of Johnson South Reef in 1988 after a bloody battle with Vietnam that left 70 Vietnamese sailors dead. Hanoi has never forgiven Beijing.

Since then China has shied away from direct military confrontation.

But now Beijing has decided it is time to move, to assert its claim and to back it up by creating new facts on the ground - a string of island bases and an unsinkable aircraft carrier, right in the middle of the South China Sea.
 
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001561024

4:55 am, September 12, 2014



The Yomiuri Shimbun



On the second anniversary of Japan's nationalization of the Senkaku Islands on Thursday, China remained defiant with its vessels repeatedly entering Japanese waters around the islands.

Alerted that groups of Chinese fishermen known as maritime militias have been spotted recently around the islands in Okinawa Prefecture, the government has strengthened surveillance on Beijing’s attempts to change the status quo by force.

Four Chinese naval ships intruded into Japanese waters off the Senkakus on Wednesday morning, according to the Japan Coast Guard. Eight Chinese government ships had made a similar incursion on Sept. 10 last year. A senior Foreign Ministry official said such actions are aimed to assert China’s sovereignty over the islands ahead of the anniversary of their nationalization by Japan.

In the year after Japan placed some of the islands under state ownership in September 2012, the number of Chinese government ships that entered Japan’s territorial waters totaled 216. But the figure has nearly halved to 101 in the past year.

Some observers speculate the reason is that China has been prompted to send more government vessels to the South China Sea. In May, Beijing announced the deployment of a deep-sea oil rig in the South China Sea, escalating tensions with Vietnam.

Meanwhile, the number of intrusions into Japanese waters by Chinese fishing ships has soared. In 2012, the JCG warned 39 fishing ships to leave Japanese waters while 88 such ships received such warnings in 2013. But this year, the figure jumped to 207 as of Wednesday.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said at a press conference Wednesday, “As an increasing number of [Chinese] fishing ships have entered Japanese territorial waters, the situation doesn’t allow us to predict future developments.”

Government officials are apparently concerned about the “maritime militias” that have begun appearing around the Senkaku Islands. The Chinese Navy is believed to be sending civilian vessels carrying members of maritime militias to disputed waters and paying them rewards. China reportedly sent maritime militias for its reclamation project on the South China Sea, while mobilizing nearly 90 fishing vessels carrying such militias amid escalating tensions between Beijing and Hanoi in May.

This summer, fishermen who appeared to be members of maritime militias were spotted aboard a Chinese government ship sailing off the Senkaku Islands.

“There are signs that [China] intends to send maritime militias to the East China Sea as well,” a Japanese government official said.

Militia members lack weapons-handling skills and are untrained compared to military personnel, observers say.

“Many militia recruits are emboldened young people who are at high risk of causing accidental collisions,” a source close to the Japanese government said.
 
May be some hopes of a de-escalation in the short term, if this report is accurate: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201412280036
 
So much for de-escalation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-32880477

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2015/0526/China-plans-blunt-move-into-open-seas-warns-foreign-powers-not-to-meddle
 
Funny how this comes mere days after we agree to start treating their "new" islands like sovereign Chinese territory. Wait 'til they start putting HQ-9 batteries on those "new" islands. And of course this was entirely predictable after the world class performance of the West in regards to Putin's little adventure.

Gotta admire the chutzpah of the Chinese:

"According to Xinhuanet, China cautioned the U.S. against taking any actions in the region, urging Washington “not to take any risks or make any provocations so as to maintain regional peace and stability.”"

So in order to "maintain regional peace and stability" China should be allowed to continue to run roughshod over it's neighbors in the South Pacific and the US needs to keep sitting on its hands. What a bunch of useless empty suits we have in Washington.

And for the triple-facepalm manuever:

""I'm scratching my head like everyone else as to what's the (Chinese) end game here. We have seen increased activity even recently on what appears to be the building of military infrastructure," Capt. Mike Parker, commander of the fleet of P8 and P3 surveillance aircraft deployed to Asia, told CNN aboard the P8.

"We were just challenged 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese navy, and I'm highly confident it came from ashore, this facility here," Parker said of the Chinese message for the U.S. plane to move away, as he pointed to an early warning radar station on an expanded Fiery Cross Reef."

Really? You have absolutely no idea why they would do this? Result?

"
Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said the United States does not recognize China's sovereignty claims over the new islands. He added that flights and Navy ships will continue their routine patrols, but will maintain a distance of at least 12 miles from the island."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom