Russia-China Alliance –US Military’s Nightmare


There is the opinion in vogue among US politicians and military officers that there has been no Russia-China alliance or Russia and China though allying with each other will each pursue its own interests when the other is in war with the US.

The former is reflected in Leon Aron’s article “Are Russia and China Really Forming an Alliance?” published by Foreign Affairs on April 4 with the subtitle “The Evidence Is Less Than Impressive” while the latter was described by Robert Farley in his article “US Military’s Worst Nightmare: A War with Russia and China (at the Same Time)”

Leon Aron is a Russian refugee in the US. He is regarded as a Russia expert currently serving as a resident scholar and the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He believes that “Chinese-Russian economic, foreign policy and military cooperation is less than impressive so that many foreign-policy experts are wrong in being convinced that an anti-US alliance between Russia and China is emerging.

China joined Russia in its veto of Western attempt of military intervention for regime change in Syria. Is that not military cooperation of emerging alliance?

When Russia annexes Crimea and provides military support to Ukraine local militia’s struggle for independence, China conducted large-scale reclamation to build artificial islands in the South China Sea. Was that not a move to divert West’s attention while attaining China’s own goal? The timing in Ukraine and South China Sea proves wonderful cooperation of alliance.

Russian president insisted on provision of top aircrafts for China with the argument that the sale was political instead of commercial. Did that not indicate that Russia-China alliance was taking shape?

When US President Trump threatens North Korea with military attack to force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Russia and China opposed Trump’s attack together.

When the US threatens Venezuela with war to force Venezuelan President Maduro to resign, China who has lots of interests in Venezuela does not send military to protect Maduro, but Russia does though it does not have significant interests there. Is that not military cooperation between the two countries?

The two allies have conducted cooperation wisely. For example when the West imposed sanctions on Russia due to the Ukraine issues, China does not join the West claiming that sanctions are useless. However, it silently provided Russia with economic assistance to make the sanctions useless. Do you think China did so out of the necessity to prove its argument that sanctions are useless?

On the other hand, China provides Russia with food procession technology to make effective Russian counter sanctions of banning import of European processed food. China provided Russia with food processing technologies to enable Russia to produce import substitutes for European processed food.

For a long time Russia had a plan for utilizing its rich agricultural resources to achieve food self-reliance so as to greatly reduce its expenditure of foreign exchange in importing processed food. Western sanctions provide Russia with justified reason to carry out the plan as retaliation of Western sanctions. Russian people suffered for some time the shortage of Western processed food but they supported the government’s counter sanctions. Chinese support had helped Russia overcome the shortage of processed food except Cheese.

There is a prevailing Western view that petrified egg is the worst Chinese food while almost all Chinese people regard cheese as the worst Western food. No wonder China is not able to make good cheese to supply Russia nor has China the technology to help Russia make good cheese.

As the West imposed sanctions with military intention, Chinese assistance to make Western sanction ineffective and Russian sanctions on the West effective shall be regarded as strong and effective military cooperation with Russia.

Leon Aron is stupid to regard the structure of Russian-Chinese trade as skewed. True Russia’s exports to China are mostly raw materials, especifically crude oil, wood, and coal while China’s sales to Russia are mostly consumer goods and electronics and machinery. That means the two countries’ economies are supplementary. When their trade lifelines are cut by the West, they will be able to supply each other’s needs. Such supplementary economies make them ideal allies.

The two countries’ leaders have met 25 times to design wise ways of cooperation. For example, China supports Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria but does so silently without hurting its relations with the West.

Russia takes strong measures to support Venezuela to help maintain Chinese interests there so that China need not take actions. As a result, China is able to avoid upsetting the US and creating obstacles to its talks with the US to end the trade war.

There cooperation in their arms race with the US is especially wise. Russia focuses on developing nuclear weapons to threaten the US so that the US has to allocate much financial resource to the improvement and development of its nuclear weapons. China, on the other hand, focuses on developing conventional weapons, especially aircraft carriers to put an end to US dominance of the oceans.

The US, though has a much larger military budget, has to take care of both nuclear and conventional weapons while China and Russia only to take care of one of the two sections of weapons so that their much smaller military budgets are enough.

Robert Farley is one of those who believe Russia-China alliance has really been emerging. He is an experienced analyst. He has written The Battleship Book and is a senior lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. He published on National Interest an article titled “US Military’s Worst Nightmare: A War with Russia and China (at the Same Time)” on Russia-China alliance. The article can be viewed at http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-militarys-worst-nightmare-war-russia-china-the-same-time-17490.

In the article he asks the question that plagues him: What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage in simultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?

However, he does not think it likely that China and Russia may coordinate a pair of crises to drive two separate US military responses as each country has its own goal. He believes, “More likely, one of the two would opportunistically take advantage of an existing crisis to further its regional claims. For example, Moscow might well decide to push the Baltic States if the United States became involved in a major skirmish in the South China Sea.”

In such a scenario, Europe is strong enough to deal with Russia with some support from US navy and air force. As a result the US may focus on dealing with China with almost all its navy and air force.

The article believes that US only has the difficulties in winning quickly in Asia in order to transfer its force to European theater as soon as possible.

According to current US military strength, it is indeed possible for the US to win first in Asia and then in Europe if China and Russia fight separately in two different theaters. However, what if China and Russia join force in fighting the US in one theater?

Chinese and Russian leaders are both very clever. They have so far designed very wise way of cooperation to cause trouble to the West, especially the United States.

If one of their countries is in war with the US, the other will certainly come to help its ally as it is common sense that they rely on each other to resist the US so that if one of them is defeated by the US, the other will not be able to resist the US without its ally’s help.

The US is not strong enough to fight both countries at the same time; therefore, Russia-China alliance is US military’s nightmare.

Article by Chan Kai Yee


China Premier says respects Ukraine integrity, won’t be drawn on Crimea


(Reuters) – Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Sunday that his government respected the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, but would not be drawn on whether China considers Crimea to be Ukraine’s or Russia’s.

“On the issue of Ukraine, China has adopted an objective and just position. We respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Li told a news conference at the end of the annual meeting of parliament, adding that he had recently told this to Ukraine’s president.

“At the same time, the Ukraine issue has added to the complexity of the geopolitical situation and has affected the process of the global economic recovery. We still hope that this issue can be resolved via dialogue, negotiations and consultations,” Li added.

“As for Crimea, there are complicated contributing factors. We also hope that it can be resolved politically via dialogue and hope that neighbors can peacefully coexist,” he said, when asked about China’s position on who owns Crimea.

China and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues, but Beijing has been careful not to be drawn into the struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine’s future, not wanting to alienate a key ally in Moscow.

It has said it would like to continue to develop “friendly cooperation” with Ukraine, and repeatedly said it respects the ex-Soviet state’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

China has also shown little interest in getting involved in diplomatic efforts to end the crisis.

Nonetheless, Chinese officials have said that Western powers should take into consideration Russia’s legitimate security concerns over Ukraine.

Russia annexed Crimea last year.

Source: Reuters “China Premier says respects Ukraine integrity, won’t be drawn on Crimea”


China the Biggest Winner in US-Russian Confrontation


Mil.huanqiu.com, an affiliate of Chinese government’s mouthpiece People’s Daily, says in its report today that according to rusnews.cn’s report on August 5, it has so far been unclear what damages the large-scale conflict between the US and Russia will bring to the world ad how participants in the conflict will be benefited, but one thing is crystal clear: China will be the biggest winner.

The website says that US Forbes magazine reports that China does not follow the US in imposing sanctions on Russia. Instead, it openly supports Russia. It will have Russia by his side as Russia will be forced to seek China’s political support. As a result, China has better chances to get energy, natural resources and military technology from Russia.

It believes that China will turn Russia into its stable strategic interior and base of natural resource for it to attain its goal as world leader. However, lots of experts hold that the political alliance between Russia and China will not be lasting as Russia will finally find the alliance too burdensome.

This blogger believes that in fact, Russia and China are each afraid of the other becoming too strong to be a threat to it. Their political alliance has entirely been the consequence of Obama’s stupid diplomacy of putting pressure on both countries at the same time.

However, in spite of the troubles Obama is facing in Ukraine, Iraq and Asia, Obama still wants others to believe that the US remains so powerful a world leader that it is capable of dealing with all the problems alone.

“Russia does not make anything” and China will be stopped if the West continues to be firm towards it, he said in his recent interview with media.

Russia has annexed Crimea and is trying to take eastern Ukraine. It is making something and US cannot stop it because Western sanctions cannot really hurt Russia if China supports Russia.

However, if China remained a US ally and joined US sanctions, the US will subdue Russia immediately.

China could not be stopped when it established its East China Sea Air Identification Defense Zone though the US has been firm in opposing that. The US and Japan have been firm but have not stopped Chinese patrol of disputed waters and air that they regard as being under Japanese sole administration.

Have EU members been firm towards China? No, they are selling advanced weapon and weapon technologies to China and have agreed to work towards the establishment of free trade relations with China.

What about Iraq?

If China joins the US in fighting against terrorists in Iraq, the terrorists there will soon be wiped out.

However, Obama does not want any strong allies. He wants the US to be a lone swordsman to deal with all the evils in the world alone.

Source: huanqiu.com “Russian media: China the Biggest Winner in US-Russian Confrontation: Sino-US War still possible” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese)

Related posts:

  • Obama Strengthening Russian-Chinese Ties dated August 4, 2014
  • Obama Knows How to Talk, but Not How to Lead dated May 30, 2014
  • Obama Strengthening Russia-China Cold War Alliance by His Recent Speech dated dated May 29
  • China & Russia Solidify Alliance, Issue Joint Statement Condemning US Tinkering dated May 23, 2014
  • Russia-China ties at highest level in history – Putin dated May 20, 2014
  • The beginning of a new Cold War: On Putin’s Beijing visit dated June 6, 2012

US in Trouble due to Lack of Good Leadership instead Funds


U.S. marines of 1st Battalion, 8th Marines Regiment rest during the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Philippines 2014, a U.S.-Philippines military exercise, on a beach facing South China sea, at San Antonio, Zambales north of Manila June 30, 2014.  Credit: Reuters/Erik De Castro

U.S. marines frustrated in the drill with corrupt and incompetent Philippine troops June 30, 2014.
Credit: Reuters/Erik De Castro

Subduing the enemy by stratagem is the best;

Subduing by diplomacy, the next best;

Subduing by war in battlefield, the third alternative;

Subduing by attacking cities, the last resort.

                                                   The Art of War by Sun Tzu

Reuters runs a report today titled “US military to face growing crises, falling budgets” that describes the lots of trouble the US has to deal with in the world now.

All people, including American people and leaders, are clear that US is now in trouble, but few of them perhaps know why.

The reasons are pointed out by Sun Tzu

First, the US has no stratagem. It has a blind faith in wars in battlefields.

Since America’s defeat in Vietnam, People had lost confidence in US military power and dared to disregard it. However, the US was lucky as its rival the Soviet Union soon sought improvement in relations with the West and then disintegrated.

The US shocked the world in its swift victory in the first Gulf War and created an awe of US invincible power throughout the world. If US leaders had been aware of the importance in keeping the awe to maintain its status as the world police other countries had to respect, it would not have been in trouble later.

Winning each and every battle is not the best of the best;

Subduing the enemy without fighting is the best of the best.

                                                                   The Art of War by Sun Tzu

Having created the awe, the US can easily subdue its enemy by the mere threat of war. Knowing the importance to maintain the awe, the US has to be very careful that whenever it fights a war, it must be sure to win the war and achieve its goal quickly. That is the way to subdue the enemy without fighting. It was the case of the first Gulf War. The US achieved its goal to punish the aggressor and soon retreated to maintain the regional balance.

US leaders must have the basic knowledge that however they love wars, US people are peace loving and hate wars. Therefore, they shall refrain from fighting any war but maintain the awe already created so that no other countries dare to create trouble.

It is a pity that US leaders were carried away by US victory in the Gulf War and became so arrogant as to fight two wars simultaneously. The failure in the two wars are disastrous. The US is heavily in debt and has lost the awe completely.

People now know that in spite of US powerful military, the US has its Achilles heel. As US servicemen do not like war, the US has to spend lots of money to provide the best equipment for them. As a result, war is too expensive for the US.

Due to US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, US threat of war is now useless. It was countered by Putin’s threat of nuclear war during the confrontation between the US and Russia over Ukraine issue. It was challenged by China’s establishment of its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. Even the very week Islamic extremists without any weapon industry dared to boast that it will attack the US.

What make US predicament worse is that US leaders know nothing about diplomacy.

The most interesting is the photo in the report showing how frustrated US servicemen are in their drill with corrupt and incompetent Philippine troops.

That is okay for the Philippines as it need not strive to be rich and strong. It has a rich and powerful big brother who will help it when it is in trouble though the Philippine is no small country with a population one third of the size of the United States.

Therefore in my post on May 30 I said. “Obama knows how to talk, but not how to lead”.

Obama does not know that to be global leader he shall have strong and trustworthy allies.

China used to be his trustworthy ally. The most convincing evidence was China’s unselfish support for Obama’s actions in Libya. China suffered serious losses for that.

However, Obama looked down on such a trustworthy ally and turned it to Russia’s side by his foolish pivot to Asia aimed at containing China.

America began to lose world leadership due to its lost of a vital ally China.

It could not do what it wanted to do in Syria due to joint Russian and Chinese veto—the first sign of its losing global leadership.

It cherishes Japan as its major ally in the world, but Japan is by no means a trustworthy ally for the US. Vice President Biden spent one hour but failed to persuade Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe from visiting Yasukuni Shrine. The visit created South Korea’s bitter enmity against Japan. Japan has thus foiled US plan to form an alliance with Japan and South Korea to counter China.

One is not the leader because of his talks about his leadership. One is the leader because others follow his leadership.

Three powers China, Russia and Japan have refused to follow US leadership on major issues. Can Obama keep on boasting US global leadership?

The situation has grown from bad to worse. With China as a strong ally, Russia has been trying hard to regain the leadership of the former Soviet Union first by openly challenging the US in protecting Snowden and then by taking away Crimea from Ukraine.

Russia has recently set up its new Eurasian Economic Union, which together with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) forms a growing little clique under Russian leadership.

Obama talked much how with sanctions he has contained Russia. However, has his sanctions made Russia return Crimea to Ukraine? Can he be sure that other parts of Ukraine will not split from Ukraine due to his sanctions?

Sanction is indeed a powerful weapon, but one needs trustworthy allies to cooperate with him in imposing his sanction. The US simply cannot impose severe sanctions due to lack of Merkel’s support.

The world needs US leadership, but Obama lacks the qualities to be world leader. Domestically, he has not been able to overcome US economic problems to give US the economic strength to be world leader. Internationally, he does not know to keep trustworthy allies but attach importance to mean allies that remain close to the US when they need the US to fight for their interests but drive the US away when they think that the US is no longer useful.

Why is the US in trouble? Because it prefers poor allies and reject rich or strong allies. Its allies, though not big, are heavy burdens on it.

Why the US cannot have strong and powerful allies?

Because its leaders wants to be world leader for 100 years so that they are jealous whenever other countries become strong.

The jealousy is so strong that the US even tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone.

We can only hope, the next US president will be much wiser.

The following is the full text of Reuter’s report “U.S. military to face growing crises, falling budgets”:

First it was worries over the South China Sea, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali and Syria. Then it was Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the hunt for Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Now the United States and its allies find themselves preparing once again for potential military action in Iraq.

For U.S. defense planners already struggling to implement savage spending cuts, the last year has been one of the most demanding since the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Almost every other month a new crisis has erupted, each demanding new military deployments and resources. With the United States already stressed by more than a decade of war, some worry the strain is starting to show.

“North Korea and Iran also haven’t gone away,” said Kathleen Hicks, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) who until last year was U.S. principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

“For the U.S. Navy in particular, it’s a real challenge,” she told Reuters in May. “With the size of the force, it’s tough to deter in all these places at once.”

The end of troop-heavy, multiyear conflicts will almost certainly yield some savings. It is almost impossible not to, with analysts estimating it now costs more than $2 million to keep a single U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for a year.

Still, conflicts and militancy seem on the rise, as do tensions with China and Russia. The latter in particular, took Washington largely by surprise, current and former officials say.

A report last week by the Australia-based Institute for Economics and Peace suggested the last seven years brought a significant rise in conflicts around the world, reversing six decades of improvement since the end of World War Two.

As late as last year, many in Washington still hoped they could at least permanently turn their backs on Iraq. After the lightning advance of former Al Qaeda affiliate the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, however, the United States acted fast. It moved a carrier into the Gulf; deployed several hundred military personnel, including special forces; and is still considering airstrikes.

In a major foreign policy speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in May, President Barack Obama said Washington must become more circumspect over the use of force.

The reality, however, is that under Obama, the United States has continued, if not accelerated, its trend of sending forces to more places, albeit often in much smaller numbers.

LESS MONEY, MORE COMMITMENTS

In a report published Wednesday, think tank CSIS estimated the Pentagon’s base budget could fall some 21 percent in constant dollars between 2012 and 2021. Downward pressure would be “unrelenting,” it said, with spending instead drawn to health and Social Security programs as the population ages.

When Obama took office in 2009, the Pentagon budget was around $700 billion. The budget request for 2015 stands at $496 billion, plus an estimated $79 billion for Afghanistan.

Uncertainty about the cost of new Iraq commitments had delayed the submission of the separate Overseas Contingency Operations budget to Congress, Pentagon finance chief Robert Hale told Reuters.

That budget covers wars and this year will contain an additional $1 billion to ramp up U.S. military commitments to Europe.

Washington’s military spending remains by far the world’s largest, more than a third of the global total.

The gap between the United States and some of its potential adversaries, however, is narrowing. Defense spending by Russia has risen 30 percent since 2008, and China’s is up 40 percent. Other nations in the Middle East and Asia have also dramatically upped military expenditures.

While most nations focus the vast majority of their military might on their immediate neighborhoods, the United States is spread more thinly.

The U.S. Navy is fighting suggestions to retire one of its 11 aircraft carriers, the USS George Washington, early. Maintenance on another was delayed last year. This could make it harder to meet the apparently growing need for such ships, some officials say.

“Budget constraints have forced us to accept more risks – risks we believe we can manage at this level,” Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told service personnel in March. He did not give details.

“A MORE CHAOTIC WORLD”

More spending restrictions, such as automatic “sequestration” cuts that could return if Congress cannot pass a budget, would increase dangers to the United States and its allies, Dempsey said.

Some current and former officials say the real challenge is not the number of defense commitments but the growing number of other costs in the Pentagon budget: benefits, pensions and ever-ballooning procurement expenses.

Current personnel costs, both military and civilian, already make up almost half the Pentagon’s non-war-related budget, something military chiefs want to trim.

In an interview with Reuters last week, Pentagon finance chief Hale said each type of new weapon traditionally cost three times more than what it replaced, something he said was not sustainable.

Not everything is more expensive. The U.S. Special Operations Command’s budget doubled, its numbers tripled and its deployments quadrupled in the decade after Sept. 11, 2001. Yet it remains less than 2 percent of the overall budget.

Still, officials caution that special forces remain a limited resource. Besides deploying to Iraq, they have ramped up their presence in Europe and Africa this year and are on standby to rescue Americans in any situation like the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“The trend towards a more chaotic world is not going to change anytime soon,” said Admiral Gary Roughead, U.S. chief of naval operations until 2011 and now a fellow at StanfordUniversity’s Hoover Institution.

“Can we cope with the level of naval and air requirement that produces?” Roughead said. “Now, yes, we can. But over time, it begins to seriously stretch both our equipment and our people.”

Source: Reuters “U.S. military to face growing crises, falling budgets”

Related posts:

  • Ukraine Key to Putin’s Ambition to Restore the Soviet Union dated today
  • Obama Strengthening Russia-China Cold War Alliance by His Recent Speech dated yesterday
  • Putin Declares Cold War against the US after Shanghai Meeting dated May 25, 2014
  • China & Russia Solidify Alliance, Issue Joint Statement Condemning US Tinkering dated May 23, 2014
  • Sino-Russian USD400-billion Gas Deal—Milestone of Cold War Alliance dated May 22, 2014
  • China’s Offensives in South China Sea: Coordinated with Russia’s in Ukraine? dated May 21, 2014
  • Russia-China ties at highest level in history – Putin dated May 20, 2014
  • China Is Definitely on Russia’s Side but Refrains from Making Its Stance Clear dated March 5, 2014
  • The beginning of a new Cold War: On Putin’s Beijing visit dated June 6, 2012

Obama Knows How to Talk, but Not How to Lead


President Obama on Wednesday at West Point, where he laid out his foreign policy plan for his final two and a half years in office. Credit Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times

President Obama on Wednesday at West Point, where he laid out his foreign policy plan for his final two and a half years in office. Credit Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times

Obama does not know that to be global leader he shall have strong and trustworthy allies.

China used to be his trustworthy ally. The most convincing evidence was China’s unselfish support for Obama’s actions in Libya. China suffered serious losses for that.

However, Obama looked down on such a trustworthy ally and turned it to Russia’s side by his foolish pivot to Asia aimed at containing China.

America began to lose world leadership due to its lost of a vital ally China.

It could not do what it wanted to do in Syria due to joint Russian and Chinese veto—the first sign of its losing global leadership.

It cherishes Japan as its major ally in the world, but Japan is by no means a trustworthy ally for the US. Vice President Biden spent one hour but failed to persuade Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe from visiting Yasukuni Shrine. The visit created South Korea’s bitter enmity against Japan. Japan has thus foiled US plan to form an alliance with Japan and South Korea to counter China.

One is not the leader because of his talks about his leadership. One is the leader because others follow his leadership.

Three powers China, Russia and Japan have refused to follow US leadership on major issues. Can Obama keep on boasting US global leadership?

The situation has grown from bad to worse. With China as a strong ally, Russia has been trying hard to regain the leadership of the former Soviet Union first by openly challenging the US in protecting Snowden and then by taking away Crimea from Ukraine.

Russia has recently set up its new Eurasian Economic Union, which together with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) forms a growing little clique under Russian leadership.

Obama talked much how with sanctions he has contained Russia. However, has his sanctions made Russia return Crimea to Ukraine? Can he be sure that other parts of Ukraine will not split from Ukraine due to his sanctions?

The world needs US leadership, but Obama lacks the qualities to be world leader. Domestically, he has not been able to overcome US economic problems to give US the economic strength to be world leader. Internationally, he does not know to keep trustworthy allies but attach importance to mean allies that remain close to the US when they need the US to fight for their interests but drive the US away when they think that the US is no longer useful.

Japan and the Philippines are the best examples. Japan conducted the terrorist attack against Pearl Harbor causing casualty similar to 911, but does not repent. It is now heroizing Japanese pilots who conducted suicide attack at US warships during World War II.

The Philippines drove US troops away when it believed that they were useless. Now it wants US boys back to shed blood for some tiny islands it wants to grab from China.

With such allies, the US has problems to be global leader even when it has the strongest economy in the world.

Article by Chan Kai Yee

Related posts:

  • Ukraine Key to Putin’s Ambition to Restore the Soviet Union dated today
  • Obama Strengthening Russia-China Cold War Alliance by His Recent Speech dated yesterday
  • Putin Declares Cold War against the US after Shanghai Meeting dated May 25, 2014
  • China & Russia Solidify Alliance, Issue Joint Statement Condemning US Tinkering dated May 23, 2014
  • Sino-Russian USD400-billion Gas Deal—Milestone of Cold War Alliance dated May 22, 2014
  • China’s Offensives in South China Sea: Coordinated with Russia’s in Ukraine? dated May 21, 2014
  • Russia-China ties at highest level in history – Putin dated May 20, 2014
  • China Is Definitely on Russia’s Side but Refrains from Making Its Stance Clear dated March 5, 2014
  • The beginning of a new Cold War: On Putin’s Beijing visit dated June 6, 2012

China restates opposition to sanctions on Russia over Ukraine


Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang

China’s foreign ministry on Monday restated its opposition to placing sanctions on Russia over the crisis in Ukraine, after leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) major economies agreed to swiftly impose further punitive measures.

Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said China had “maintained communication” with all sides since the outset of the Ukraine crisis, including the G7 countries, and explained its position.

“On the issue of international relations, China has consistently opposed threatening or imposing sanctions. We believe that sanctions are not conducive to an issue’s resolution, and may worsen tensions,” he told a daily news briefing.

“We call on all sides to keep using dialogue and negotiation to appropriately resolve disagreements, to push for a political resolution to the Ukraine crisis. Sanctions are not in any party’s interests.”

U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking in the Philippines, said Washington would announce new sanctions on Russia later in the day. He said the United States and its allies were keeping in reserve further measures against Moscow.

China has adopted a cautious response to the crisis, not wanting either to alienate key ally Russia or comment directly on the referendum in which Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, lest it set a precedent for its own restive regions, like Tibet.
But China has also said it would like to continue to develop “friendly cooperation” with Ukraine and that it respects the ex-Soviet state’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

China said in March, after Crimea’s parliament voted to join Russia, that sanctions were not the best way to resolve the situation.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, since ousted after three months of sometimes violent protests, visited China in December in the hope of winning much-needed financial aid, but China did not say it would provide any loans.

Source: Reuters “China restates opposition to sanctions on Russia over Ukraine”

Related posts:

  • China Wins Advantages from All Sides in Ukraine Crisis dated March 16, 2014
  • China: Xi Jinping Skillfully Pleases Russia, US, EU, etc. Concerning Ukraine dated March 11, 2014
  • The Mystery of China’s Support for Putin’s Confrontation the West 2” on March 9, 2014
  • The Mystery of China’s Support for Putin’s Confrontation with the West dated March 8, 2014
  • Cold War Again: Russia Plus China v. US dated March 7, 2014
  • China Is Definitely on Russia’s Side but Refrains from Making Its Stance Clear dated March 5, 2014
  • China paper slams West’s ‘Cold War mentality’ over Ukraine dated February 27, 2014
  • The beginning of a new Cold War: On Putin’s Beijing visit dated June 6, 2012

Verbal Confrontation between Obama and China but No Threat of War Yet


After Obama has reaffirmed US commitment to defend Japan for the disputed Diaoyu (known as Senkadu in Japan) Islands when he is visiting Japan, Chinese Foreign Ministry promptly responded by saying, “No matter what anyone says or does, it cannot change the basic reality that the Diaoyu Islands are China’s inherent territory and cannot shake the resolve and determination of the Chinese government and people to protect (our) sovereignty and maritime rights.”

The verbal confrontation is sharp, but so far there is no threat of war as long as Japan does not fire the first shot because Chinese military is inferior to American one.

What if after years of military buildup, Chinese military is strong enough to confront the US?

The danger of war remains.

Reuters’ clip on the verbal confrontation can be seen at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/us-japan-usa-obama-interview-idUSBREA3L1YD20140424.

As for Reuters report on Obama’s visit and the confrontation, the following is the full text of Reuters report titled “Obama reaffirms commitment to Japan on tour of Asia allies”:

U.S. President Barack Obama assured ally Japan on Thursday that Washington was committed to its defense, including of tiny isles at the heart of a row with China, but denied he had drawn any new “red line” and urged peaceful dialogue over the islands.

His comments drew a swift response from China, which said the disputed islets were Chinese territory.

Obama also urged Japan to take “bold steps” to clinch a two-way trade pact seen as crucial to a broad regional agreement that is a central part of the U.S. leader’s “pivot” of military, diplomatic and economic resources towards Asia and the Pacific.

U.S. and Japanese trade negotiators failed to resolve differences in time for Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to shake hands on a deal at the summit.

The leaders reported progress, but Japan’s economics minister, Akira Amari, said later that remaining sticking points could not be resolved quickly.

Obama, on the start of a four-nation tour, is being treated to a display of pomp and ceremony meant to show that the U.S.-Japan alliance, the main pillar of America’s security strategy in Asia, is solid at a time of rising tensions over growing Chinese assertiveness and North Korean nuclear threats.

“We don’t take a position on final sovereignty determinations with respect to Senkaku, but historically they have been administered by Japan and we do not believe that they should be subject to change unilaterally and what is a consistent part of the alliance is that the treaty covers all territories administered by Japan,” Obama said.

“This is not a new position, this is a consistent one,” he told a joint news conference after his summit with Abe, using the Japanese name for the islands that China, which also claims sovereignty over them, calls the Diaoyu.

“In our discussions, I emphasized with Prime Minister Abe the importance of resolving this issue peacefully,” Obama added.

Whilst his comments amounted to a restatement of longstanding U.S. policy, there was symbolism in the commitment being stated explicitly by a U.S. president in Japan.

Responding to Obama’s remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a daily press briefing in Beijing that the islands belonged to China.

“The so-called U.S.-Japan security treaty is a product of the Cold War era and it cannot be aimed at a third party and ought not to harm China’s territorial sovereignty,” he said.

“No matter what anyone says or does, it cannot change the basic reality that the Diaoyu Islands are China’s inherent territory and cannot shake the resolve and determination of the Chinese government and people to protect (our) sovereignty and maritime rights.”

INTERNATIONAL RULES

Obama also said there were opportunities to work with China – which complains that his real aim is to contain its rise – but called on the Asian power to stick to international rules.

“What we’ve also emphasized, and I will continue to emphasize throughout this trip, is that all of us have responsibilities to help maintain basic rules of the world and international order, so that large countries, small countries, all have to abide by what is considered just and fair,” he said.

Some of China’s neighbors with territorial disputes with Beijing worry that Obama’s apparent inability to rein in Russia, which annexed Crimea last month, could send a message of weakness to China.

Obama told the news conference that additional sanctions were “teed up” against Russia if it does not deliver on promises in an agreement reached in Geneva last week to ease tensions in Ukraine.

Obama and Abe also agreed that their top trade aides, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Amari, would keep trying to narrow gaps in their trade talks.

“This is not something we can reach a conclusion (on) in a short period of time,” Amari told reporters after meeting Froman again after the leaders’ summit.

Abe has touted the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as key to the “Third Arrow” of his economic program to reinvigorate the world’s third-biggest economy, along with hyper-easy monetary policy and fiscal spending.

Both sides have also stressed that the TPP would have strategic implications by creating a framework for business that could entice China to play by global rules.

But the talks have been stymied by Japan’s efforts to protect politically powerful agriculture sectors such as beef, and disputes over both countries’ auto markets.

Pointing to restrictions on access to Japan’s farm and auto sectors, Obama said: “Those are all issues that people are all familiar with and at some point have to be resolved. I believe that point is now.”

Experts had said failure to reach a final deal could cast doubts on Abe’s commitment to economic reform and take the wind out of the sails of a drive for a broader TPP agreement.

“If they don’t show progress … it will be harder to use TPP as a spur to reforms,” said Robert Feldman, a managing director at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. “It gives the anti-reform forces aid and comfort.”

DIPLOMATIC CHALLENGE

The diplomatic challenge for Obama during his week-long, four-nation regional tour is to convince Asian partners that Washington is serious about its promised strategic “pivot”, while at the same time not harming U.S. ties with China, the world’s second-biggest economy.

Obama will also travel to South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Abe – who repeatedly referred to the U.S. president as “Barack” during their news conference – and Obama were keen to send a message of solidarity after U.S-Japan ties were strained by Abe’s December visit to Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine, seen by critics as a symbol of Japan’s past militarism.

Japan lobbied hard to get the White House to agree to an official state visit, the first by a sitting U.S. president since Bill Clinton in 1996.

Abe is trying to soothe U.S. concerns that his conservative push to recast Japan’s war record with a less apologetic tone is overshadowing pragmatic policies on the economy and security.

“Seventy years ago, when the war ended, Japan gave grave damage and pain to many people, particularly people in Asia. Japan started taking post-war steps by reflecting on this. Japan and Japanese people have continued to take the path of peace for the past 70 years,” Abe told the joint news conference.

“Japan has strived to create a free and democratic country after the war. We have been building a country that respects human rights and the rule of law,” he said.

Source: Reuters “Obama reaffirms commitment to Japan on tour of Asia allies”

Related posts:

  • Obama looks to salvage Asia ‘pivot’ as allies fret about China dated April 17, 2014
  • Taipei Trip by US Cabinet Member First in 14 Years as Efforts for Pivot to Asia dated April 14, 2014
  • China fires shot across US bow ahead of Obama’s Asia trip dated April 10, 2014
  • US Defense chief prods ‘great power’ China to respect neighbors dated April 7, 2014
  • US Not Willing to Be Drawn into War by Japan or Philippines dated February 11, 2014

China angrily denounces Japan for Russia-Crimea analogy


Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe speaks during a news conference at his official residence in Tokyo March 20, 2014, after Japan's parliament enacted a budget for fiscal 2014.  Credit: Reuters/Yuya Shino

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe speaks during a news conference at his official residence in Tokyo March 20, 2014, after Japan’s parliament enacted a budget for fiscal 2014.
Credit: Reuters/Yuya Shino

China denounced Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday for drawing an analogy between Russia’s behaviour in Crimea and China’s actions in the disputed East and South China Seas, accusing Abe of hypocrisy.

Japan’s Kyodo news agency said Abe raised the issue at a G7 meeting in The Hague this month, warning that China was trying to change the status quo through coercion, and said something similar to Russia’s seizing of Crimea could happen in Asia.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said those comments were completely out of place, and launched a personal attack on Abe himself, using unusually strong language.

“We’ve long since said that this Japanese leader on the one hand hypocritically proposes improving Sino-Japan ties and on the other says bad things about China wherever he is internationally. These comments again expose his true face,” Hong told a daily news briefing.

“He tries in vain on the international stage to mislead the public with prevarication and deliberate falsehoods and blacken China’s name. But this cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the international community.”

Hong said it was Japan who had “illegally snatched” uninhabited islands, called the Diaoyu by China and the Senkaku by Japan, at the center of the territorial dispute.

China was resolute in its determination to protect its sovereignty in the East and South China Seas, Hong said, adding China wanted these disputes resolved via dialogue.

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida echoed Hong in stressing the importance of high-level dialogue, but indicated that the ball was in China’s court.

“Regrettably, China and South Korea have maintained a stance that Japan’s action on individual (bilateral) issues should come first. But it is clear neither of us can readily make a concession on the issues of history and territory,” Kishida said.

“I’m afraid talks won’t ever take place if no talks can be held until these issues are resolved.”

Tokyo’s relations with Seoul are strained by conflicting claims over a separate group of islets.

South Korean and Chinese ties with Japan have long been poisoned by what they see as Japan’s failure to atone for its wartime aggression.

Abe held talks with South Korean President Park Geun-hye in a U.S.-brokered three-way summit in The Hague this week, but no official bilateral meeting between Abe and Park has been held.

Beijing’s anger over the past is never far from the surface, and relations have deteriorated sharply over the past two years because of the island dispute.

China’s claims over islands, reefs and atolls in resource-rich waters off its south coast and to the east of mainland Southeast Asia have also set it directly against Vietnam and the Philippines, where Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia have claims too.

Source: Reuters “China angrily denounces Japan for Russia-Crimea analogy”

Related post:

  • Will China Make Diaoyus (Senkakus) Japan’s Crimea? Dated March 29, 2014
  • China’s behaviour over Diaoyus similar to Russian annexation of Crimea, says senior Japanese official dated March 25, 2014
  • China: Signals of Imminent War with Japan dated November 11
  • War of Words over ADIZ Goes on and May Lead to Hot War despite Biden Visit dated December 6
  • China Does Not Budge in its Brink of War Policy on Air Defense Identification Zone dated December 5
  • China advises nationals living in Japan to register with embassy in Tokyo dated November 26

China takes no sides on Ukraine crisis, Xi tells Europe


President Xi Jinping said on Friday China would not take sides with the West or Russia over Ukraine, disappointing any hopes Beijing might add its weight to international pressure on Moscow for annexing Crimea.

“China does not have any private interests in the Ukraine question,” Xi told a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “All parties involved should work for a political and diplomatic solution to the conflict.”

China has adopted a cautious response to the Ukraine crisis, not wanting to alienate its ally Russia or make comment directly on a referendum in which Crimea voted to join Russia, lest it set a precedent for restive regions of its own such as Tibet.

In an U.N. Security Council vote earlier this month on a draft resolution to condemn the Moscow-backed referendum in Crimea, China’s abstention effectively isolated Russia.

“If I were Russia, I would not be satisfied with the number of votes in favor of Russia,” said Merkel, who despite her country’s close trade ties with Moscow and heavy reliance on Russia gas exports has backed European Union and U.S. sanctions.

The chancellor, who has tried to use her influence on Russia President Vladimir Putin to de-escalate the crisis, called the U.N. vote a clear sign “that the international community is not very happy with what Russia has done”.

China has signaled understanding for Russia’s position, saying what is happening “has historical reasons”. Chinese state media has also expressed sympathy for Moscow.

DELICATE DIPLOMACY

But China has also said it wants to develop “friendly cooperation” with Ukraine. Its foreign ministry said this week Beijing would play a “constructive role” on international financial aid for Ukraine, though it stopped short of saying whether Beijing would participate directly.

“We support the constructive efforts the international community has made to de-escalate the situation and are open to any concepts which serve to calm the situation and to bring about a political solution,” Xi said in Berlin.

“The Chinese side always respects the principles of international relations and non-intervention in the internal business of other states,” he said.

The Chinese leader’s first visit to Germany since becoming president last year saw the signature of business deals that will add to bilateral trade that was worth about 140 billion euros last year.

But business considerations did not prevent Merkel from publicly raising China’s patchy record on human rights and free speech with the visiting president.

“Broad and free expression of opinion is of course a very important element to promote the creativity of a society, be it in research, culture or civil society,” said the chancellor.

There was no official comment on reports that Xi might visit a monument to the Holocaust in Berlin during his visit. China likes to contrast Germany’s profound atonement for its World War Two atrocities with what it sees as Japan’s reluctance to do so.

Ties between the Asian rivals took a turn for the worse in December last year when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited a Tokyo shrine China sees as a symbol of Japan’s militaristic past because it honors wartime leaders and millions of war dead.

But Xi did use a speech in Berlin on Friday evening to recall Japan’s wartime invasion of the Chinese city of Nanjing and say that such atrocities “are still fresh in our memory”.

Source: Reuters “China takes no sides on Ukraine crisis, Xi tells Europe”

Related posts:

  • China Wins Advantages from All Sides in Ukraine Crisis dated March 16, 2014
  • China: Xi Jinping Skillfully Pleases Russia, US, EU, etc. Concerning Ukraine dated March 11, 2014
  • The Mystery of China’s Support for Putin’s Confrontation the West 2” on March 9, 2014
  • The Mystery of China’s Support for Putin’s Confrontation with the West dated March 8, 2014
  • Cold War Again: Russia Plus China v. US dated March 7, 2014
  • China Is Definitely on Russia’s Side but Refrains from Making Its Stance Clear dated March 5, 2014
  • The beginning of a new Cold War: On Putin’s Beijing visit dated June 6, 2012

Will China Make Diaoyus for Japan as Crimea for Ukraine?


A Shinto priest leads Abe, center, at the Yasukuni shrine on Thursday. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

A Shinto priest leads Abe, center, at the Yasukuni shrine on Thursday. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

On March 25, SCMP says in its report ““China’s behavior over Diaoyus similar to Russian annexation of Crimea, says senior Japanese official”, Yasutoshi Nishimura, the senior cabinet office vice-minister told SCMP that China’s attempts to snatch the Diaoyu Islands away from Japan are similar to Russia’s behaviour in seizing Crimea.

SCMP quotes Nishimura as saying, “It does look like China, on the back of its power, unilaterally tried to change the status quo. That is almost tantamount to what is currently going on in Crimea, with Russia amalgamating with Crimea.”

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said something similar at the G7 emergency summit in Netherlands on March 24 though not so straightforward. He said that Crimea is not Ukraine’s problem but also a special Asian problem for the international community to firmly disallow changing the status quo by force.

Abe wants the international community to associate Ukraine with China’s claim for the Diaoyus (known as Senkakus in Japan) so as to sympathize with Japan.

This writer points out: Abe fails to see that due to China’s defeat in two wars with Japan in the past, China is always wary about the potential threat of Japan’s reemergence as a world power.

When China gave outsiders the impression that it would soon become an economic superpower due to the “success” in its Great Leap Forward, Japan made great efforts for similar fast economic growth.

Japan succeeded while China failed. As a result, Japan embarked on its way to become an economic power while China remained poor.

Now, seeing Xi Jiping uses the China Dream for the revival of China’s glorious past in rallying Chinese people to carry out further reform for a second round of fast economic growth. Abe wanted to rouse Japanese nationalism to rally people to achieve economic growth to recover Japan’s glorious past. However, he fails to see the attempt to recover Japan’s glorious past is perhaps satisfactory in rousing Japanese people’s patriotism, but may cause its neighbors to recall the misery Japan brought them during Japan’s “glorious past”.

China does know the benefit cooperation with Japan will bring about. It tried hard to maintain good relations with Japan; therefore, before Japanese government’s purchase of the disputed islands, for many years, Chinese government forbade Chinese Diaoyu activists’ attempts to sail to the disputed islands to claim Chinese sovereignty over the islands. At that time, China is aware that the economic cooperation with Japan will make Japan stronger, but it did not worry as it wanted to develop friendship with one of its most important neighbors.

However, if Japan fails to know the danger that will arise from its enmity against China now and fights a war with China for the islands no matter how small the scale of the war, China’s attitude towards Japan will be entirely different. China will regard Japan as an eternal threat and make every effort to contain Japan.

Therefore, after a military conflict between China and Japan, China will raise the Liukiu (Okinawa) issue and try every means to instigate Liukiu people to seek independence. No matter weather Liukiu will become independent or not, there will be lots of trouble for Japan.

As a politician, Abe must have the vision to see that. Why the United States has kept on encouraging Tibetan separatists in China for over 60 years since China fought a war with the US in Korea in early 1950s? It has been the United States’ eternal efforts to contain China.

Does Japan want China to make eternal efforts to contain Japan due to armed conflicts for some tiny islands?

If so, the Diaoyu issue will really become the Crimea issue for Japan. Ukraine has lost Crimea and is facing troubles in Eastern Ukraine.

Japan will lose the Diaoyus and face the troubles in Liukiu (Okinawa).

Source: qianzhan.com “Abe hints China wants to use force for the Diaoyus and compare that to Putin’s annexation of Crimea” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on he report in Chinese)

Related posts:

  • China’s behaviour over Diaoyus similar to Russian annexation of Crimea, says senior Japanese official dated March 25, 2014
  • China: Signals of Imminent War with Japan dated November 11
  • War of Words over ADIZ Goes on and May Lead to Hot War despite Biden Visit dated December 6
  • China Does Not Budge in its Brink of War Policy on Air Defense Identification Zone dated December 5
  • China advises nationals living in Japan to register with embassy in Tokyo dated November 26
  • Sino-Japanese Air Confrontation, Repetition of Hainan Collision between Chinese and US aircrafts? dated November 26
  • Signals of Beijing’s Determination to Fight for Diaoyu Islands dated November 26