China Creates Air Defence Zone Over Japan-Controlled Islands, Issues War Threat
cold fjord writes "France24 reports, "Beijing on Saturday announced it was setting up an 'air defence identification zone' over an area that includes islands controlled by Japan but claimed by China, in a move that could inflame the bitter territorial row. Along with the creation of the zone in the East China Sea, the defence ministry released a set of aircraft identification rules that must be followed by all planes entering the area, under penalty of intervention by the military. Aircraft are expected to provide their flight plan, clearly mark their nationality, and maintain two-way radio communication allowing them to 'respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries' from Chinese authorities. The outline of the new zone ... covers a wide area of the East China Sea between South Korea and Taiwan that includes the Tokyo-controlled islands known as the Senkakus to Japan and Diaoyous to China. "China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions," according to the ministry. ' The Politico adds, "Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Saturday the United States is 'deeply concerned'" over the move. Spiegel Online has background on the conflict with Japan and on related regional issues. This announcement follows the recent publication in Chinese state media of maps showing nuclear strike plans against the U.S."
Far east Asian foreign policy is even more about playing off internal factions than it is in the West. I bet this is just a case of the Chinese making nasty noises in the hope that a) somebody will be placated, and b) Japan will know this and just play along until things die down.
The chances of nukes and bang bangs over this are very, very low. See also North Korea.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I want to disable those missiles during their launch phase. Or better, hack their software so they detonate immediately when ordered to launch. That is how I want the NSA to spend its money. And of course making sure they can't do the same to us.
What would happen (I say someone, but not completely jokingly) if the US sent in a Carrier Battle Group, claimed the uninhabited islands for ourselves and set up a base, proclaiming "if you two can't work it out, neither one of you can have them. Thanks for the gift...
Yes, I know it isn't that simple, but maybe it should be sometimes when two nations behave in such a manner.
War. War never changes. Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage. (many thanks to Fallout 3)
Ok, will China go to war ? I think there is no default choice here, because chinese rulers decide a bit machivellistic, and therefore they have recognized that
China cannot sustain it's own growth of population, wealth(=CO2 Emission), industrial production(=Self polution) these factors lead to social unrest and
this is the last thing the rullers want. Looking back into the past(Tienamen Square Masacre) there is a chinese solution to social unrest - use the patriots view and direct it to an outside scapegoat / enemy.
Japan is the enemy number one, also for historic reasons - japanese nationalism has done it's part in the situation we are in now (masacres, rapes, torture / WWII)
and Japan is an easy enemy because on the one hand it's military force is specialised in defending(the main islands) but what comes in handy is the blood & death bonding with the U.S.
So in reality China wants to demonstrate strength against the U.S. and Japan comes in second(Shinzo Abe - tries to alter the "National Defense Force" into a "National Offense Force" and what gives me the creeps is that Japans tendency for nationalistic thinking is very similar to the chinese view.
China is in a deadlock situation for it's ambitions as a regional superpower, from the military capacity they are. (Nukes, Missiles, Destroyers, Subs, (experimental)Carriers)
The deadlock consists of
Japan:
- Japan is under direct U.S. protectorate, if China attacks, U.S. are about to react.
- China must find out if the U.S. will react or just play the non aggression card and give up on some rocks in the boiling sea
Taiwan
- U.S. allies
- like swizerland - if someone attacks, they will secure the country by trip/tank mines and asymetric tactics, the only chance to win
for China without paying an extreme death toll would be to blast Taiwan of the earth (Nukes)
Vietnam
- they don't like China, and feel threatened by China, espicially when China held back some good for vietman during the war
Philipines
- U.S. allies
And well those deserted rocks in the boiling sea are the weakest target, but are a lithmus test for the unconditional military support for Japan to be supported by the U.S. But if China's leaders don't watch their steps closely they could really "kill everyone in China".
Civil War seems more likely. All of this posturing seems to be more intended to impress their own people then outsiders and can be read as a government nervous about keeping its all powerful image to an increasingly wealthy population.
And if the US were to start patrolling the region, pointedly ignoring Chinese demands, what precisely do you think the Chinese would do about it? "Accidentally" shoot down a US plane?
So they can go to what? The previous brutal theocracy that was considered by historians to be one of the more brutal regimes of the time?
For all the rage that chinese deserve, Tibet is not one of the places they deserve it for. The only reason we here in the West view the issue as such is because of current Dalai Lama's skilled diplomacy.
Read up on region's history. Theocratic system that they had in place makes current chinese government look better than Swiss. And let's not forget that over half of the region is now ethnic han. Are you planning on some ethnic cleansing on the side?
They would pointedly ram a few ships with fishing boats for real. Then post nice picture of US marines shooting up peaceful looking fishermen. You know, like Greenpeace does, and like Chinese have been doing to US anti-sub ships for years now.
Then, after a major scandal, if US still decided to stick to its guns and not bow down and apologize (as it likely would as at that point, any politician trying to do otherwise would likely go the way of JFK very quickly), you'd have a real cold war on your hands. We're talking breakdown of trade relations, sanctions and likely worldwide economic depression that would follow splitting of the world in two. You'd likely have NATO on one side, and Russia backed China with all its vassal states on the other with most of Latin America leaning strongly to support China, Australia dithering leaving NATO to avoid complete economic meltdown when they suddenly can't sell their mining produce to it any more and other massive geopolitical reverbations. It would also completely untie chinese hands in places like Nothern Africa to stop acting covertly in buying everything with money they have, and start making open offers to the countries of the region to join their side in exchange for massive trade benefits. And they could afford it far better than US or EU, that are currently stuck in a serious long term economical financial mess already which would be massively exacerbated by massive loss of trade with China.
China would be suffering essentially the same consequences, with US and EU getting the ability to openly assault its strongholds in Easten Africa both financially and via military means "oh they are harboring terrorists!", as well as likely putting up heavy pressure on Latin America to cut down on trade.
Essentially it would be a massive loss for everyone in the world save for third world countries, who would likely benefit greatly from two sides investing in them strongly to keep them in their sphere of influence. Which is why it would never happen - if there still are politicians in the West who are not wholly owned by corporate elite, they would be promptly assassinated or removed from power via other means to avoid such a disastrous outcome.
but no, not this time either.
I doubt if this will turn into a real war.* China is mostly just pandering to their own population as a smoke screen for the changes that came out of the recent CCP meeting in Beijing. This sort of pandering works well in China. Because of gender-selective abortions, they have tens of millions of unattached young men in their late teens and twenties, with little chance of starting a family or even finding a GF. It is very easy to stir these young men up into an anti-Japanese frenzy. In fact, the hard part is keeping a lid on it. The last time the Chinese government tried this, they ended up with riots, and torched Japanese cars and Japanese restaurants, despite both the cars and restaurants having Chinese owners.
*OTOH, almost everyone thought the same thing in July of 1914.
Apartment building & iPhones dont make them '1st World'...
They are a **communist totalitarian country** with **state controlled media & markets**
Has everyone forgotten what a state controlled media means? Fox News is horrible, but it is ***NOTHING*** compared to China's news.
Here's why China is not threat: they can barely keep their country together & it's zooming to an environmental/human crisis...
1. Pollution
1.a. Human Pollution: China's disasterous 1 child policy and culture of favoring male children has resulted in a whole generation of Chinese society that is 60-40 Male-Female...it's a social crisis they talk about all the time over there
1.b. Environmental Pollution: Have you seen the fucking pictures of the smog? Dumping of industrial waste turning rivers red? Dumping of Human corpses into main rivers? Its a fucking nightmare...
Chinese people are just as awesome as any other people...it's their government and our government's relationship to it economically that causes any notion of friction
China is **not** a threat to the United States in any serious way!
Thank you Dave Raggett
"China brought increased U.S. involvement in SE Asia on themselves."
You just have to look at a map of maritime claims to see who is the aggressor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea#Background
China is aggressively pursuing territorial expansion. And this will naturally push their neighbours into alliances to counter the rising military power of China.