CJCS comments on PRC Military

[JALU3]

From Reuters:

China military build-up seems U.S.-focused: Mullen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China's build-up of sea and air military power funded by a strong economy appears aimed at the United States, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Monday.

Admiral Michael Mullen said China had the right to meet its security needs, but the build-up would require the United States to work with its Pacific allies to respond to increasing Chinese military capabilities.

"They are developing capabilities that are very maritime focused, maritime and air focused, and in many ways, very much focused on us," he told a conference of the Navy League, a nonprofit seamen's support group, in Washington.

"They seem very focused on the United States Navy and our bases that are in that part of the world."

I have to wonder whether there has been war gaming to determine what an active and hostile PLAN would entail for the US and her allies in the region.

[JALU3]

USNS Victorious approuched by Chinese fishing vessels in International Waters

From Times Online
May 6, 2009

Chinese and American ships clash again in Yellow Sea

Jane Macartney in Beijing
China demonstrated its growing naval confidence again in the latest standoff between American and Chinese ships.

The fifth such incident in two months occurred on Friday in the Yellow Sea when a US Navy surveillance ship turned its fire hoses on two Chinese fishing vessels.

A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the American ship was operating in China’s exclusive economic zone without permission and had violated Chinese and international laws. “We express our concern about this and demand the US side take effective measures to ensure a similar incident does not happen again,” he said.

The USNS Victorious, an ocean surveillance ship designed for anti-submarine warfare and underwater mapping, was conducting what the Pentagon called routine operations in the waters between China and the Korean peninsula. The Chinese vessels came within 100ft (30 metres) of the vessel.

The Pentagon, which accused five Chinese fishing vessels of harassing another US surveillance ship in the South China Sea near Hainan island in March, cited the incident as an example of unsafe Chinese seamanship.

The Chinese vessels did not withdraw until after the Victorious had sounded an alarm and a Chinese military ship, identified by the Pentagon as WAGOR 17, arrived in response to the call for assistance. It shone a light on the fishing vessels until they left.

Well, not as close as last time, but here China is attempting to use its EEZ as an extension of, or in the same manor as, its Territorial Waters. Now imagine if every country did just that, and furthermore imagine if the concept of innocent passage didn't exist. What would that do to international shipping and commerce.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Well, not as close as last time, but here China is attempting to use its EEZ as an extension of, or in the same manor as, its Territorial Waters. Now imagine if every country did just that, and furthermore imagine if the concept of innocent passage didn't exist. What would that do to international shipping and commerce.

That's true. On the other hand, America DOES have a tendency to stretch "innocent passage" to its limits. I remember the rather shameless legal defense they argued after they sent USS Yorktown and Caron to within Soviet territorial waters (not the EEZ, and not by accident) in the Black Sea (in the late 80s) supposedly in the name of "Freedom of Navigation" and the Soviets tried to bump them away with frigates...

IMO, while innocent passage is essential to our commercial trade, I must say I don't see why it should stretch to a warship or auxiliary. Those ships are agents of their government, and fundamentally it is hard to argue that their presence in any area is in any way without purpose (thus innocent).

As for their general buildup. Duh. If you are trying to interfere everything in the world, it is inevitably you'll be targetted by those who are trying to do some influence work in a particular region.

[JALU3]

It maybe very true that the US has used innocent passage in ways that go for the boundaries of the concept. Irregardless, a nations EEZ is by no means their international waters, and any ship may operate in international waters when not conducting those acts which are precluded within an EEZ that are stated in international law.

I am not arguing that PRC doesn't have the right to build up its military. However, what I am pointing out is that the US and other nations shouldn't turn a blind eye to the PRCs intentions, just as no nation turns a blind eye to my nation's intentions. The PRC would very much like arrange the international system to one which they have historically known, where all nations are seen as satellite states to their central dominance and power. In many ways they are not to far off from achieving said goal. Just not let it be said I didn't say I didn't raise a warning.