Managing Chinese Threat

[SSridhar]

China says no to Arunachal youth in India delegation, minister says let’s call off trip

But, Salman Kurshid seems to be dragging his feet in calling-off the Youth Exchange programme. If this programme takes place without the Arunachal students, and that too over the sane voice of his colleague in the Cabinet, that would be construed as cowardice by the Chinese and they would only up the ante in other areas too in future.

[Arihant]

Worth noting, as we see larger numbers of these on our own soil:

Chinese spies keep eye on leading Australian universities

[SSridhar]

Japan launches a new AWACS Unit in Okinawa - Japan Times

A new E-2C early warning patrol plane unit was launched Sunday at an Air Self-Defense Force base in Naha, Okinawa Prefecture, to bolster surveillance amid repeated intrusions by Chinese vessels into Japanese territorial waters.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told ASDF members at a ceremony commemorating the unit’s launch that they face “a dangerous situation” because China’s continued attempts to “change the status quo by force and threaten the rule of law could trigger emergencies.”

Chinese vessels have been shadowing or intruding into Japanese territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands on a regular basis since the chain was effectively nationalized by the Japanese government in 2012.

The uninhabited islets in the East China Sea, long administered by Japan, are claimed as Diaoyu by China and Tiaoyutai by Taiwan and are believed to be near lucrative gas and mineral deposits.

The ASDF has 13 E-2C aircraft deployed at Misawa airbase in Aomori Prefecture, but four of them will be transferred to Naha to bolster the new unit.

Another new unit will be established at an ASDF base in Hamamatsu, Shizuoka Prefecture, to operate an airborne warning and control system.

[SSridhar]

Japan military risks China's wrath with first step west in 40 years - Japan Times

Japan on Saturday began its first military expansion at the western end of its island chain in more than 40 years, breaking ground on a radar station on a tropical island off Taiwan.

The move risks angering China, locked in a dispute with Japan over the nearby Senkaku Islands that both countries and Taiwan claim.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera, who attended a ceremony on Yonaguni Island to mark the start of construction, suggested the military presence could be enlarged to other islands in the seas southwest of Japan’s main islands.

“This is the first deployment since the U.S. returned Okinawa (1972) and calls for us to be more on guard are growing,” Onodera told reporters. “I want to build an operation able to properly defend islands that are part of Japan’s territory.”

The military radar station on Yonaguni, part of a long-standing plan to improve defense and surveillance, will give Japan a lookout just 150 km from the Japan-administered islands claimed by China.

Building the base could extend Japanese monitoring to the Chinese mainland and track Chinese ships and aircraft circling the disputed crags, called Diaoyu by China and Tiaoyutai by Taiwan.

The 30-sq.-km island of Yonaguni is home to 1,500 people and known for its strong rice liquor, cattle, sugar cane and scuba diving. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s decision to put troops there shows Japan’s concerns about the vulnerability of its thousands of small islands and the perceived threat from China.

The new base “should give Japan the ability to expand surveillance to near the Chinese mainland,” said Heigo Sato, a professor at Takushoku University and a former researcher at the Defense Ministry’s National Institute for Defense Studies.

“It will allow early warning of missiles and supplement the monitoring of Chinese military movements.”

Japan does not specify an exact enemy when discussing its defense strategy, but it makes no secret it perceives China generally as a threat as it becomes an Asian power that could one day rival Japan’s ally in the region, the United States.

Japan, in its National Defense Program Guidelines issued in December, expressed “great concern” over China’s military buildup and “attempts to change the status quo by coercion” in the sea and air.

China’s decision last year to establish an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea, including the skies above the Senkakus, further rattled Tokyo.

Japanese and Chinese navy and coast guard ships have played cat-and-mouse around the uninhabited islands since Japan effectively nationalized the territory in 2012. Japanese warplanes scrambled against Chinese planes a record 415 times in the year through to March, the Defense Ministry said recently.

Tapping concern about China, Abe raised military spending last fiscal year for the first time in 11 years to help bolster Japan’s capability to fight for islands with a new marine unit, more longer-range aircraft, amphibious assault vehicles and helicopter carriers. Japan’s thousands of islands give it nearly 30,000 km of coastline to defend.

Onodera’s groundbreaking ceremony on Yonaguni took place four days before President Barack Obama lands in Tokyo for a summit with Abe, the first state visit by a U.S. president in 18 years.

The United States, which under its security pact with Tokyo has pledged to defend Japanese territory, has warned China about taking any action over the disputed islets, but has not formally recognized Japan’s claim of sovereignty over the territory.

Many of the islanders on nearby Yonaguni are looking forward to hosting the radar base and the 100 troops who will man it because of the economic boost it will bring.

Others on the island, however, fear becoming a target should Japan end up in a fight.

“Opinion is split down the middle,” Tetsuo Funamichi, the head of the Japan Agricultural Association’s local branch, said. “It’s good for the economy if they come, but some people worry that we could be attacked in an emergency.”

Onodera was also greeted on Saturday by about 50 protesters who tried to block him from entering the construction site.

“Becoming a target is frightening, they won’t talk to us about it, we haven’t discussed it,” a protester, who declined to be identified, said.

Takenori Komine, who works in an island government office, said it is a risk worth taking if it means reviving an outpost of Japan that has been in decline since a brief postwar boom.

At that time, U.S.-occupied Yonaguni’s proximity to Taiwan made it an entry point into Japan for smuggled food and clothing from Hong Kong. Since the end of World War II, the island’s population has withered by some 90 percent. Average income of about $22,500 a year is a fifth below the national average.

“We are hopeful that the arrival of the young troops will bolster local consumption,” Komine said.

[SSridhar]

China's Visa Policy Casts a Shadow on Youth Exchange - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

China said on Monday it was still “in communication” with India about arranging the visit of a youth delegation to Beijing next month, which has been cast in doubt over the Chinese government’s continuing policy of issuing stapled visas to residents of Arunachal Pradesh.

The Indian Youth Affairs Ministry has, according to recent reports in New Delhi, conveyed its concern to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) after the Chinese Embassy reportedly asked the Ministry to not include youth from Arunachal Pradesh in the delegation.

The MEA now faces a sensitive decision — in an election year — of whether or not to take forward the exchange. Indications are that the visit will happen only after the elections later in the year.

With both the countries deciding to mark 2014 as a “year of friendly exchanges,” cancelling the visit is likely to cast a cloud on diplomatic ties.

At the same time, sending a delegation without representation from Arunachal Pradesh will be seen, as the Youth Affairs Minister reportedly suggested in a letter to the MEA, as acquiescing to China’s position. China’s policy of issuing stapled visas has emerged as an annual sticking point that has recently complicated youth and sports exchanges. These incidents prompted the former Bhartiya Janta Party MP, Kiren Rijiju, to send a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging the government to allow travel on stapled visas. But Indian officials feel that on the contrary, doing so would bolster China’s position. China claims around 90,000 sq. km in Arunachal Pradesh, while according to India, it is illegally occupying 38,000 sq km in Aksai Chin in the western sector. China maintains that its stapled visa policy for Arunachal Pradesh, in place since around 2010, is “consistent” with its policy for all “disputed” areas.

Only in India do we face 'dilemma' like this when the decision is indeed easy to take. China did not face any such 'dilemma', did it ? It is appalling that we have decision makers who cannot see the writing on the wall even as they chase mirages. Disgusting. This exchange should have been called off the moment the Chinese Embassy said 'No Arunachal Pradesh youth'. The message that goes to China by this 'dilemma' is that India is terrified of China, does not want to anger it by cancelling the visit and that the GoI is a divided house when it comes to China.

[SSridhar]

Obama's stategic shift to Asia is hobbled by pressure at home and crises abroad - David Sanger & Mark Landler, NYT

President Obama is expected to announce an agreement with the Philippines next Monday that would give American ships and planes the most extensive access to bases there since the United States relinquished its vast naval installation at Subic Bay in 1992.

At a moment when Asia appears more rattled by China’s behavior than it has in decades, America’s fractious allies question its repeated assurances that the United States will be there for them.

[SSridhar]

Obama arrives for summit, to assure security ties are solid - Japan Times

U.S. President Barack Obama arrived Wednesday evening at Haneda airport at the start of a seven-day Asia tour in which he is expected to reaffirm America’s commitment to maintaining regional security.

Obama is scheduled to hold a 105-minute summit Thursday with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and is expected to issue a joint statement reaffirming the importance of the Japan-U.S. alliance as a stabilizer in the Asia-Pacific region.

Obama will stay in Tokyo for 2½ days before moving on to South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines to meet with other top leaders. The cancelation of a previous Asia tour last October raised doubts about U.S. credibility as a regional partner. This trip is seen by many as a test of Obama’s ability to recover his reputation among Asian leaders.

Obama, who has been portrayed by his critics as weak in his responses to international crises in Syria and Crimea, will be scrutinized closely by regional powers keen to gauge Washington’s willingness to take a proactive role in his administration’s “rebalancing” strategy, ostensibly designed to counter a resurgent China.

In remarks published by the Yomiuri newspaper Wednesday, the president assured Japan that the Senkaku Islands are covered by a long-standing bilateral security treaty that obliges America to come to Japan’s defense.

“The policy of the United States is clear — the Senkaku Islands are administered by Japan and therefore fall within the scope of . . . the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security,” Obama said in a written reply to the newspaper. “And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands,” he said.

Japanese officials in Tokyo have said that, among key pledges, Abe and Obama will reaffirm the strength of the Japan-U.S. military alliance and oppose China’s “one-sided attempt to change the status quo by force,” — an apparent reference to Beijing’s muscle-flexing in the East and South China Seas.

The level of detail Obama is willing to give in public — particularly on the U.S. position in relation to the Senkaku Islands dispute — will be a key focus of public attention in Japan. The islets, administrated by Japan but claimed by China, are also known as Diaoyu in Chinese.

“We’d like to use (the Obama-Abe meeting as) an opportunity to send out a signal that the Japan-U.S. alliance is playing a leading role to contribute to peace and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a daily news conference Wednesday morning.

“While the security environment in the Asia-Pacific region is becoming severer . . . an attempt to change the status quo with force in the background is not tolerable,” Suga added.

Obama is also expected to use the Asia tour as an opportunity to shore up the strained trilateral alliance between the U.S., Japan and South Korea, aimed at maintaining stability in East Asia.

“We encourage Japan to continue to work with its neighbors to resolve concerns over history in an amicable way through dialogue,” a U.S. Department of State spokeswoman said Tuesday in Washington during a daily press briefing.

“We believe the strong and constructive relations between countries in the region promote peace and stability and are . . . in their interest and the interest of the United States,” she said.

Suga appeared to downplay questions over economic issues during a news conference in Tokyo on Wednesday, as negotiators from the two countries continued last-minute efforts to narrow outstanding gaps over the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact. The two countries are unlikely to reach agreements on key issues, including tariffs on U.S. pork and beer exports and Japanese exports of automobiles, before the Obama-Abe meeting on Thursday.

“We’d like to strengthen economic ties between Japan and the U.S., too,” Suga said.

Obama’s visit as a “state guest” — the highest status afforded to the country’s foreign visitors — has concerned some Japanese diplomats, who appear worried that the U.S. may now be putting less emphasis on its diplomacy with Japan.

First lady Michelle Obama will not be accompanying the president on the tour, though her one-week stay in China in March garnered huge amounts of media attention both in China and abroad.

Obama’s itinerary in Japan remained unconfirmed as late as April 14. The president had originally planned to stay in Tokyo for just one night, but Washington extended his stay to two nights amid requests from Tokyo. A two-night stay is considered the minimum necessary to accord him the status of “state guest,” and arrange for ceremonies with Emperor Akihito.

Speaking during the same news conference, Suga emphasized the significance of Obama’s visit, pointing out that this was the first time in 18 years Japan would be welcoming a U.S. president as a state guest.

“This is a symbol showing (the fact) that the Japan-U.S. ties remain unshakable,” he told reporters. “I hope the personal ties (between Obama and Abe) will deepen (during this visit).”

[SSridhar]

From NightWatch for the night of April 23, 2014

China-US: At the Foreign Ministry press briefing in Beijing today, the spokesman responded to a question about statements made by the US President in an interview with a Japanese newspaper.

"Q: According to reporting, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun on the 23rd published the content of its interview with US President Barack Obama. Obama says that the Diaoyu Islands (Senkaku Islands) are administered by Japan and therefore fall within the scope of the Japan-US security treaty. At the same time, he says that the United States supports a greater role for Japan in the security arena in the Asia-Pacific region. Does the Chinese side have any comment?"

"A: The Chinese side's position on the Diaoyu Islands issue is clear and consistent. The Diaoyu Islands are inherently Chinese territory. China has indisputable sovereignty over them. Japan's occupation of the Diaoyu Islands is illegal and invalid. The Japanese side's provocative acts on the Diaoyu Islands issue are undeniable and unreasonable. No one can shake our resolve and will to safeguard our country's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests."

"What needs to be pointed out is that the Japan-US alliance is a bilateral arrangement forged during the Cold War era and should not undermine China's territorial sovereignty and legitimate rights and interests. China resolutely opposes putting the Diaoyu Islands under the Japan-US security treaty. The American side should respect the facts, strictly honor its commitment to taking no sides on issues concerning territorial sovereignty in a responsible manner, exercise caution in its words and deeds, and earnestly play a constructive role in regional peace and stability."

Comment: This is a re-statement of the standard Chinese position. China cannot and will not back down on issues of territorial sovereignty.

[SSridhar]

A Few Questions About China's ADIZ and its Aftermath - Dr. David Lai, Strategic Studies Institute

China declared an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea on November 23, 2013 (See Figure 1). This move set off a security and political tsunami in the Western Pacific. The United States immediately denounced China’s sudden and unilateral act. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, the European Union, and many other nations also joined the United States in criticizing China.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took the strongest stand by challenging China to roll back the ADIZ. In his angry address to a parliamentary session in Tokyo, Abe stated that the “measures taken by the Chinese side have no validity whatsoever to Japan, and we demand China revoke any measures that could infringe upon the freedom of flight in international airspace.”1

Following this wave of condemnations, the United States also sent two B-52 bombers (based on Guam) into the Chinese-claimed ADIZ in a stated effort to challenge China’s position. Japan and South Korea also scrambled their fighter jets into the troubled airspace. This flare-up took place only a few days prior to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s long-planned visit to Northeast Asia that included stops in Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul. The Vice President’s visit was originally intended to promote U.S. economic and security interests in this region. The sudden turn of events in Northeast Asia had turned the Vice President’s trip into crisis management diplomacy. Although Biden was able to talk the leaders in Japan, China, and South Korea out of their “situation rooms,” his “shuttle diplomacy” was largely a failure in all three capitals: The Japanese Prime Minister was upset that Biden did not join him to demand a roll back of the Chinese-claimed ADIZ; the Chinese president had a 5 1/2-hour uncompromising meeting with Biden; and the South Korean president declined Biden’s calls urging South Korea to improve relations with Japan and for restraint on expanding South Korea’s ADIZ into the Japanese and Chinese-claimed ADIZ’s (South Korea followed through with its words to expand its ADIZ on December 8, 2013, see Figure 2).

The crisis is now over; yet more conflicts are sure to come. The following questions seek to make sense of the situation and bring attention to the potential issues with China’s future actions concerning the ADIZ.

Why Did China Impose Its ADIZ at This Time?

To the outside world, China’s ADIZ came as a surprise, but the Chinese have been discussing the need for the ADIZ for quite a while. the Chinese are disgruntled because their maritime neighbors, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam, have ADIZs; but China, as the “biggest boy in the block,” the one with the longest coast line in the region, and the nation with many security issues in the Western Pacific, does not have one. To the Chinese, a more appropriate question for them is: “What took us so long to make one”? Nevertheless, China’s ADIZ is not just about what the Chinese Defense Ministry has stated in its declaration that “it is a necessary measure for China to protect its state sovereignty and territorial and airspace security,” but an action directed toward Japan.

China and Japan have been at odds over a group of uninhabited islands known as the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. Japan has controlled these islands since 1972 (when the United States handed over the administration of them to Japan), and has an ADIZ (established by the United States in the early 1950s and transferred to Japan along with the islands handover) that covers a large portion of airspace over the islands (see the southern part of Japan’s ADIZ in Figures 1 and 2). Japan has categorically stated to China that those islands belong to Japan and that there is no dispute whatsoever. China insists that those islands are “stolen properties” from China and demands their return.

The China-Japan conflict over the islands took a dramatic turn in 2012 and has intensified over the past 2 years.2 In a marked new development in the conflict, China started sending official maritime patrol vessels to challenge the Japanese Coast Guard in waters surrounding the islands. There have been many reports indicating that official vessels of the two nations have been “elbowing each other” in the contested waters, intensifying the tensions in the dispute.

China’s tactics in the fight for the islands are: first, to force Japan to agree that there is dispute over the sovereign ownership of those islands between China and Japan; and, second, to get Japan to negotiate with China for a solution to the dispute. Sending the patrol vessels to the troubled waters is part of China's attempt to reinforce its claim and establish effective control of the islands and their surrounding waters.

Additionally, China has sent official patrol aircraft to fly around the islands. However, when the Chinese surveillance airplanes enter the Japanese ADIZ, they are intercepted by the Japanese Self-Defense Air Force fighter jets.

The Chinese are upset that the Japanese military can intercept and shadow China’s airplanes based on Japan’s self-proclaimed ADIZ. Chinese commentators have noted that the Japanese military has intercepted Chinese airplanes many times over the past 40 years, and in the past 2 years, the interceptions have increased dramatically {which also means that the Chinese have been sending more and more fighters into the disputed area} ; in 2012 alone, about 200 times. Calls have been mounting in China for the Chinese government to establish China’s ADIZ as a countermeasure against the Japanese zones. The hostile encounters in the air clearly have put more urgency into China’s decision to declare its ADIZ at this time.

With its ADIZ in place and covering the disputed areas of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and other maritime interests,3 Chinese military planes will challenge their Japanese counterparts in the sky. Both will be covered by their own ADIZ requirements, neither accepting the other’s rule. Consequently, the airspace over the East China Sea will become increasingly more dangerous.

Does China Have The “Right” to Establish an ADIZ?

No. Neither has any other nation the “right” to establish an ADIZ. However, any country can establish an ADIZ if it has the need and power to do so. This appears to be the case for China. Currently, there is no international law or organization to regulate the right of establishing ADIZs and the size or rules for them. It is a situation that follows the “rule of the jungle”—might makes right.

The United States was the first to create an ADIZ in 1950. It was a product of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The United States accomplished this by citing the right of a nation to provide for its own self-defense. Along this same line, the United States also created the ADIZs for South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan in the early 1950s and subsequently transferred them to the three nations. At this point, there are about 20 nations in the world that have ADIZs.

Does It Matter that the United States Does Not Recognize China’s ADIZ?

Although the United States does not challenge China’s “right” to establish the ADIZ (many reports about the United States calling China to “scrap” or “rescind” its ADIZ have misrepresented the U.S. position), U.S. officials have categorically stated that the United States does not recognize China’s ADIZ.4 This U.S. position concerning China's ADIZ has some problems. First of all, ADIZs do not require international recognition. It is through customary international practice that nations manage to live with the ADIZs.

Second, if China were a small and weak nation, it would not be able to operate its ADIZ without the superpower’s endorsement. However, China is an emerging power and it is likely that the United States will have a difficult time challenging China’s ADIZ in the future. For example, the Soviets did not, and the Russians do not, recognize the U.S. ADIZs. Their military airplanes routinely challenge the U.S. procedures, only to find themselves “escorted” out of the area. U.S. dismissal of the Chinese ADIZ may meet with similar challenges in the future.

What Is Wrong with China’s “Unilateral” and “Sudden” Declaration of the ADIZ?

“Unilateral” and “sudden” are two key terms in the U.S. denouncement of China’s move. Under normal circumstances, a unilateral establishment of an ADIZ is not a problem. After all, all of the current ADIZs have been established unilaterally. However, China’s ADIZ is different. It overlaps with the existing ADIZs of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, respectively. Although those long-established ADIZs are technically no more right or legitimate than China’s newly-established one, by courtesy however, if not by law, China should have conducted some form of consultation with those nations prior to the establishment of the ADIZ.

More importantly, China has a special relationship with the United States , which also has an interest in the airspace in that region, and consequently, China should have established some communication with the United States as well. Indeed, less than 9 months ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed a new model for great power (read U.S.-China) relations at his meetings with President Barack Obama at Sunnylands, California, in June 2013.5 A key element in this proposal was that the United States and China should notify each other of major actions that could have an impact on the relationship between the two nations. Chinese Defense Minister General Chang Wanquan reiterated this point during his visit to the Pentagon 2 months later. As stated in Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s opening remarks at the joint press briefing, “General Chang brought up two of the initiatives that President Xi proposed to President Obama at their summit in June, one, a way to notify each other of major military activities, and, two, rules of behavior for military air and naval activities.”6 China broke this agreement, violated its own proposal, and caught the United States off guard in its “unilateral” and “sudden” declaration of the ADIZ. Consequently, the United States has valid reasons to be displeased with China's action and to object to them.

Did the United States Do the Right Thing in Sending the B-52s into China’s ADIZ?

There was a joke circulating China’s internet at the time that the Chinese military did not see the U.S. B-52s coming because the air condition was too bad in China (and in the East China Sea). China only learned about the B-52 flights from foreign sources, and by the time the Chinese military undertook actions, it was already too late—the U.S. warplanes had already left.

However, all joking aside, the decision by the United States to take the lead to challenge China's implementation is questionable. As analyzed earlier, China’s ADIZ is directed at Japan. It would have made sense for Japan to be the first one to challenge China’s move. The United States should maintain its position that: 1) China and Japan resolve their differences (disputes) through peaceful means; 2) the United States upholds its treaty obligations to the defense of Japan; and, 3) all the stakeholders in the East Asia ADIZs should establish communications and work out the rules of engagement to avoid unwanted military confrontation. This way, the United States maintains its moral high ground and strategic flexibility, and preserves its role as a leader for peace and stability in the Western Pacific. By being the first to challenge China, the United States has directly involved itself as a disputant in this potentially explosive issue.

Did China Overplay Its Hand by Requiring All Aircraft to Comply with its Rules in the ADIZ?

Yes, but it appears that China did this on purpose—these rules are targeted at U.S. and Japanese military airplanes. Indeed, for a long time China has objected to U.S. military airplanes flying in the vicinity of China’s coast lines. The Chinese are also upset with Japanese military planes patrolling the Japanese-claimed ADIZs that are now overlapped with China’s ADIZ. China took note of the objections from the United States, Japan, and other nations, but expressed no regret or intent to modify the rules, although Chinese officials did come out to clarify that China’s newly-declared ADIZ is not a territorial/sovereign space or a no-fly zone.

In response to the U.S. B-52 flights, Chinese Ministry of National Defense officials asserted that they carefully monitored the U.S. flights; and since the U.S. bombers were unarmed and had no intention to fly over China’s territory, China had no need to take action against them.

Additionally, China appears to be confident and determined to enforce the ADIZ. Shortly after the imposition of the ADIZ, China started regular air patrol flights in the area. Within a month, the Chinese identified 800 flights by foreign military airplanes in the newly-established zone, received notes from 56 civil/commercial airlines on 2147 flights; and dispatched 51 sorties of surveillance, early-warning, and fighter jets into the ADIZ. These assertive Chinese moves have indeed ushered in a new situation in the East China Sea. It will be more contentious in the time to come.

Will China Establish More ADIZs in the Western Pacific?

Definitely. A Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson has already indicated that China will do so at appropriate times.

Will There Be More Conflict when China Establishes More ADIZs in the Western Pacific?

Absolutely. China’s future ADIZs will overlap with the ADIZs of South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. An ADIZ between China and the Philippines will also be controversial. There is no telling what will happen between China and its maritime neighbors when China imposes its future ADIZs in those areas.

Is There Another Agenda Prompting China's Actions?

In addition to China’s stated purpose—the ADIZ is “to protect its state sovereignty and territorial and airspace security”—China is preparing itself to be a stakeholder in future international ADIZ debates and agreements. Indeed, the ADIZ issue resembles the Exclusive Economic Zones on the oceans from the decades prior to the creation of the Law of the Sea. If establishment of ADIZs becomes an international issue large enough to foster the creation of international laws and regulations, China wants to make sure that the laws will not be made only to favor the United States and its allies. {Like the NPT, an artificial date like c. 2013 must be set to weed out China from such a grouping of nations}

What Should Be Done about the ADIZ Conflict in the Western Pacific?

Vice President Joe Biden made the following statement in Seoul, South Korea:

I’ve also made it clear that we expect China not to take action that increases tensions at the risk of escalation. And I was crystal-clear about our commitment to our allies, Korea and Japan. More broadly, I’ve made clear that there are practical steps countries can take and should take to lower the temperature, to reduce the risk of conflict, including avoiding actions that seem provocative, establishing lines of communication between militaries to manage incidents and prevent escalation.7

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh stated recently at the American Enterprise Institute that:

I hope it’s not a platform for conflict. I hope it is a platform for communication. . . . I think it gives us a great mandate for communicating better with each other and understanding there could potentially be mistakes and miscommunication in this kind of interchange if we establish air defense zones that overlay airspace where we know other nations are already operating. . . .This is a discussion that needs to happen, it needs to be an international discussion, we need to do it with our allies and I think we’re heavily involved in that right now. So I hope it’s an opportunity for better communication. That’s the only acceptable future.8

Some U.S. commentators have criticized these perspectives and accused the Obama administration for appeasing China at the expense of U.S. allies in East Asia. Others argue that this is the right thing to do. By many measures, the latter is more prudent.

[SSridhar]

China's 2014 Defence Budget - M.S.Prathibha, IDSA

China’s National People’s Congress in March 2014 announced that it would increase its defence budget to 808.23 billion yuan (132 billion dollars). In 2013, it was 720.2 billion (117 billion dollars) yuan amounting to an increase of 12. 2 per cent (See, Table 1). China does not release any more than the breakdown of expenditure at broad categories, complicating investigation about the priorities. However, it is possible to assess broadly its defence expenditure through statements from officials, news reports and white papers. The 2014 budget does not show any drastic increase and low compared to the GDP ratio. It however emphasises China’s shift to structural reforms for the military, in particular utilisation of defence spending towards boosting investment in training, weaponry and equipment.

China’s defence budget roughly covers personnel expenses renyuan shenghuo fei (military officers, civilian cadres, soldiers and employers wages, insurance, food and clothing); secondly, training and maintenance xunlian weite fei (troops training, college education, engineering facilities construction and maintenance, and everyday expenses); third, equipment expenses zhuangbei fei (weaponry and equipment research, testing, procurement, maintenance, transportation and storage). From 2013, China started emphasising on structural reforms and reorganisation for the military. The 2014 budget therefore stresses the shift towards training and investment in new high-technology weapons and equipment by encouraging more private enterprises to enter military procurement. In Chinese view, it would reduce reliance on foreign imports and boost defence industry and in turn, economic growth. The PLA Navy, Air Force, Army Aviation, Aerospace, and the PLA Second Artillery would receive more attention.

Xi Jinping vision for the PLA, the dictum of ‘fight war, win war’ (neng dazhang, da shengzhang), would provide the theoretical structure for China’s military construction. The General Staff Headquarters had identified Xi’s vision for as the fundamental goal that would drive military construction.1 This budget adheres to this policy, which underlines capability to win a war. The military would “develop new type of weapon equipment and strengthen military exercises” and “improve army informationalisation under deterrence and combat conditions”.2 Apart from equipment, the PLA Navy would receive more expenses for conducting exercises in the high seas.

Since the Xi vision stresses on “capability to win”, the military spending is shifting towards higher technology weapons and equipment and training. This coincides with the Chinese Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense plan that was passed in 2006 for facilitating high-technology research. The plan proposed to “enhance the capability to innovate, develop and rapidly supply new-generation weaponry” and new and high-tech weaponry and industries, manufacturing, basic and frontier technologies.3 Thus, China would have to utilise local governments to play a role in the military expenditure and allow “market” mechanism to operate in the military spending and encourage civil-military integration.

For instance, there is a concerted effort to localise army construction and incentivise the use of local resources. Chen Xiangdong, the political commissar of General Staff, Army Aviation Department proposed constructing new airports by resolving difficulties in expropriation and redefine local government’s role in the protection of military installations. His proposals call for the military to integrate in the local government economic construction.4 Li Danni, the Director of Naval Submarine School, recommended to improve the training of Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) because integrated training resources would help as the local enterprises and research institutes rely on NCO for maintaining high-tech weaponry.5 The focus of defence expenditure is also on developing high-technology defence in military and non-military enterprises that would equip their private industries to meet PLA’s increasing demand on weaponry and equipment. Future demands would focus on naval vessels, combat aircraft including transport aircraft, helicopters, aircraft engines, gas turbines, and defence information equipment.

The expenditure would also cover personnel reforms, especially living and working conditions of forces in the remote and frontier areas. Broadly, it would attempt to improve modernisation level of weapons and equipment, benefits to personnel (living and working conditions), and troops organisation reform. Such measures may mean the Chinese military is geared up for reduction in personnel size (noncombatants), and improve joint operational and theatre command structures and training. Sun Huangtian, Vice-Minister of General Logistics Department explains about China’s broad focus: stop the upgradation of outdated equipment and intensify the upgradation of backward equipment; welfare benefits and education training, improvement in living, training and working conditions, and other official funds for office projects for military personnel; reform military management, civil-military integration, troops organisation (joint operations) and political system.6

After the release of figures, China deflected criticism using three arguments: one, it is in line with its economic growth and is still well below the US military spending, especially compared to the GDP ratio; second, it is necessary given the increasingly complex security environment in China’s periphery; third, it needs to develop military capabilities through investment in high-tech weapon technology research. It reflects that China perceives an evolution of a complex security environment, which is seemingly against it, in turn, reveals certain level of insecurity.

Chinese defence spending exposes its intention to streamline its military modernisation to make it sustainable and build a defence industry that could provide for its procurement needs. It also illustrates its aim to institute reforms related to troop’s operational commands, organisation and training. Though it is low in GDP ratio, the Chinese view that its defence spending is integral for its core interest would see the PLA more actively engaging in managing disputes. On the other hand, it begs the question whether China could successfully employ its military expenditure to provide for the PLA’s “fight war, win war” strategy.

Table 1

Source: 2008-2010 (UNODA), 2011-2013 (Xinhua), 2014-Estimated, Xinhua

[SSridhar]

In Tokyo, Obama assures Japan on Senkakus - Japan Times

The United States is obliged to defend the Senkaku islets in the East China Sea in line with the Japan-U.S. security treaty, U.S. President Barack Obama assured Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Tokyo on Thursday, while urging Tokyo and Beijing to resolve their territorial dispute peacefully.

The two leaders, however, were unable to issue a joint statement after their summit because they could not reach a broad basic accord on the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact by the end of their talks.

Negotiators from the two countries continued bilateral discussions Thursday afternoon but failed to reach a comprehensive agreement.

“Let me reiterate that our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute. And Article 5 (of the treaty) covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands,” Obama said at a joint press conference with Abe following their 100-minute summit at the State Guest House in the Akasaka district.

The president, however, said the United States does not take a position on the sovereignty of the Senkakus, a phrase repeated many times by Washington officials in the past. But he added that historically, the uninhabited islets have been administered by Japan.

Faced with the difficult task of reassuring Japan about America’s military commitment in the region without inflaming Beijing, Obama stressed that this is the “standard interpretation” of the treaty that past U.S. administrations have maintained, and the position stands.

“The treaty between the U.S. and Japan preceded my birth, so obviously this isn’t the red line that I’m drawing,” he said.

Obama also stressed that China remains an important country to Washington. {and the two countries already have a 'special relationship'}

“We have strong relations with China. It is a critical country not only to this region but to the world, obviously with its huge population and growing economy,” Obama said.

“We want to continue to encourage the peaceful rise of China. There are enormous opportunities for trade, development, working on common issues, like climate change, with China.”

Abe welcomed Obama’s assurance over the Senkakus, around which military tensions have increased with China since September 2012, when the central government effectively nationalized the islets via a purchase from a Saitama-based owner.

“(The) Japan-U.S. alliance is rock-solid,” Abe said. “We do not tolerate attempts to change the status-quo by force . . . (of) this, I have total utmost faith in Obama.”


The two leaders said they also agreed to promote trilateral cooperation among Japan, the U.S. and South Korea over North Korea’s nuclear threat and noted it is critical that China put pressure on Pyongyang.

They also agreed to press ahead with building the Okinawa airstrip needed to replace U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, with Abe explaining to Obama that the prefecture wants the base closed in the next five years, even though the construction of its replacement has faced years of tough going due to local opposition.

Obama visited the National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation in Tokyo’s Odaiba district Thursday as well as Meiji Shrine. He also met with the relatives of people abducted by North Korea.

The president is slated to fly to Seoul on Friday morning. He is the first U.S. president to visit Japan as a state guest since Bill Clinton in 1996.

[SSridhar]

Abe secured only half of key goals at meeting with Obama

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe managed to achieve half of the two critical goals he set for Thursday’s summit with U.S. President Barack Obama: He succeeded in getting America’s pledge to defend the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands, a vow likely to keep China in check.

But Abe failed to achieve the other goal, namely a broad agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks. This was also a setback for Obama, who lobbied hard to seal the free trade deal. The two were thus unable to issue a joint statement after their talks.

But the security vow was significant.

“It is the first time that a U.S. president said . . . Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. security treaty applies to the Senkakus. This is important for sure,” said Mikio Haruna, a noted journalist who specializes in diplomacy and a visiting professor at Waseda University in Tokyo.

“Yes, Abe made certain progress. But it seems (the) TPP negotiations did not generate any results,” he said.

Article 5 of the treaty, revised in 1960, obliges the U.S. to defend Japan if a third country attacks “the territories under the administration of Japan.” In return, Japan is obliged to offer bases and facilities and allow the U.S. military to deploy to the country.

The treaty thus has long allowed the U.S. to project its military power through Asia and beyond during the Cold War.

But now many U.S. leaders have started worrying that America could be drawn into an unwanted war with China, which in recent years has pressed its claim to the Senkakus and now regularly sends coast guard ships to cruise around the islets in a cat-and-mouse game with the Japan Coast Guard.

At their news conference after the summit, Obama, following similar remarks by U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, clearly said the treaty applies to the Senkakus if a third country were to try to seize them.

“Article 5 covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands,” he said.

Obama also repeated the U.S. stance that Washington would not take a position on the final determination of sovereignty over any territory.

But Article 5 applies to the Senkakus because the islets have been historically under Japan’s administration, Obama said.

At the same time he stressed his remark does not represent any new Washington policy, just a standard interpretation of the Japan-U.S. treaty. “Our position is not new,” he said.He also urged a peaceful resolution of any disputes in the sea, in an apparent bid to avoid further provoking China.

“We stand together in calling for disputes in the region, including maritime issues, to be resolved peacefully through dialog,” Obama said.

“We continue encouraging a peaceful rise of China,” he added.

[DavidD]

These treaties mean nothing. The U.S. will come to Japan's aid if it suits the them, otherwise they won't, it's that simple. The treaty with Ukraine meant jack shiz in the end, and it'll be the same if China's navy is as strong in the westpac as the Russian army is in Eastern Europe (gonna be a long while before that happens tho!)

[JE Menon]

^^absolutely...

And the Japanese are not stupid, which is why they will go overtly nuclear in due course. The ground is being prepared.

[Prem]

^^absolutely...
And the Japanese are not stupid, which is why they will go overtly nuclear in due course. The ground is being prepared.

If they want military alliance then they should invite India to join the Test and put all the friends and enemies to rest so they doubt not.

[SSridhar]

India-China to Deepen Naval Ties after Landmark Exercise - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

As the Indian Navy’s INS Shivalik prepared to leave Qingdao port on Friday after a six-day stay in China, both countries declared that the missile frigate’s visit had gone a long way in deepening strategic trust between two navies that are increasingly coming into contact on the high seas.

Officials on both sides said the Shivalik’s visit and participation at the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) 65th anniversary celebrations – marked by first-ever maritime exercises involving 7 nations in China – had sent a strong signal of India’s keenness to deepen navy-to-navy links with China.

The United States did not send a ship to Qingdao after Japan was not invited to participate. China asked India, along with Indonesia, to participate in the most challenging of three different drills held on Wednesday. This involved staging an anti-hijacking exercise, for which China also deployed its elite commando unit besides an advanced PLAN vessel. “The exercises may not be as advanced as what we have had with the United States, but this is definitely the most high-level drill we have had with China,” said one official. Chinese officials said the stay of Shivalik – India’s most advanced stealth missile frigate – would also help build trust between two countries that have rapidly developing navies with an increasingly wide presence across the Indian and Pacific oceans.

“The Indian ship is a very strong with powerful weapons,” said one PLAN official who visited the Shivalik. “This gives us a good opportunity to see the Indian Navy.”

The exercises helped enhance “mutual understanding, trust and friendship among maritime forces” and “cooperation in safeguarding maritime security to better respond to emergencies,” the State-run Xinhua news agency said.

Autonomy

PLAN officials expressed admiration that the Shivalik sailed 4,500 miles from Port Blair to Qingdao, through the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, with neither an accompanying vessel nor an official from headquarters on board to supervise the exercises. This was unusual from the point of view of the Chinese Navy, where ships are rarely given such a degree of autonomy, seen as reflecting the confidence and experience of the Indian Navy on the high seas.

China has invested billions in building a modern blue-water navy, but is still taking tentative steps in spreading its presence, only starting to venture more deeply into the Indian and Pacific Oceans beyond the South and East China Seas.

In February, a three-ship flotilla of the PLAN for the first time held a 5-day exercise in the Lombok Strait near Indonesia in the Indian Ocean. The PLAN has also held more than a dozen drills near the Gulf of Aden, along sea routes crucial to China’s energy security.

In December, the Indian Navy held a more substantial 10-day exercise involving 15 ships and submarines in the Sunda Strait near Indonesia.

Indian Navy ships also make it a point to regularly traverse the South China Sea – whose waters and islands are disputed by China and ten other countries – to underline India’s commitment to freedom of navigation.

One more exercise

As more Chinese ships sail west and Indian ships sail east, both countries have used this exercise to stress their intent to ensure they will deepen mutual trust to address any insecurities. To that end, both countries have also discussed holding another round of maritime exercises later this year. The bilateral exercise is likely to coincide with the India-U.S. Malabar maritime exercise, which may also involve Japan for the first time in seven years, and ease any anxieties China may have had about India’s strategic intentions.

[SSridhar]

China pledges support for Sri Lanka - Meera Srinivasan, The Hindu

Amid growing concern in New Delhi over the increasing presence of China in Sri Lanka, visiting Vice Foreign Minister of China Liu Zhenmin on Thursday said: “Sri Lanka will always find a friend in China.”

At a meeting with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Mr. Liu said: “We will continue to support Sri Lanka in the [United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)] and the [United Nations Security Council (UNSC)].”

A statement from the President’s office said Mr. Rajapaksa thanked China for its support in the past decades, and particularly to some of the landmark infrastructure projects coming up in Sri Lanka currently.

China, in the last decade, has invested heavily in Sri Lanka’s infrastructure. In August 2013, a massive Chinese-built port, at a cost of $ 500 million, opened in Colombo, about a year after another deep-sea port in Hambantota, funded and built by the Chinese became operational.

[SSridhar]

Taiwan Vice President to Land in Delhi, China likely to bristle - Sachin Parashar, ToI

I don't understand what is there for China to 'bristle' about. It has allowed Presidents & Prime Ministers of POK to visit China on many occasions. It has even met with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq clandestinely. We have to simply tell China what it tells us. The dispute between China and Taiwan is a legacy of history that the two sides have to resolve bilaterally. If India can be of any help, it would offer itself if asked. Besides that, India takes no position as it enjoys excellent friendly relationship with both PRC and RoC.

In what is certain to raise hackles in China, India will allow Taiwan vice-president Wu Den-yih a layover at a Delhi airport en route to Rome Saturday morning. Wu will spend several hours in transit at the airport where he is expected to interact with senior government officials as his aircraft is refueled, TOI has learnt.

As it continues to observe a One-China policy, India doesn't have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. This is the first time that a top Taiwan leader will land in Delhi, the political nerve centre of India.

Both sides have worked hard to keep the Delhi transit under wraps until now, keeping in mind its sensitive nature and fearing an immediate reaction from Beijing. {it is such extraordinary measures that embolden China to make demands on India while it freely undermines India's interests with impunity. It is India's lack of reciprocity in diplomacy, whether it is the US or China, that puts us in a tight spot every time. This is after all a few hours of layover. We need to invite him officially.} As China continues to pin India down over Arunachal Pradesh - refusing to issue regular visas to residents of the state New Delhi describes as an integral part of India - the stopover by Wu here is seen as India getting its own back on Beijing.

It allowed a layover to Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou in April 2012 under similar circumstances but only in Mumbai, a non-political centre. India's decision was then seen as an attempt to enhance engagement with Taipei even at the cost of annoying China.

Top officials here refused to talk about Wu's stopover, merely stating that India and Taiwan have growing economic and cultural ties and that India is not averse to engaging Taiwan. China considers the democratic island nation its own. Wu will be in Delhi en route to Vatican City where he will attend the canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II.

It is interesting that the government which takes over next month will face an immediate foreign policy challenge in deciding whether or not to send a youth delegation, comprising members from Arunachal, to China. China is said to have asked India's youth affairs ministry to not include anybody from Arunachal in the delegation.

India's "muscular" reaction, which is said to reflect the sentiment pervading India's foreign policy establishment on China, comes at a time when BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi is widely tipped to lead his party to victory in the ongoing general elections. Modi, in fact, has visited Taipei in the past and his government has actively encouraged investments from Taiwan, including a proposed steel plant at Dahej.

[JE Menon]

>>If they want military alliance then they should invite India to join the Test

I didn't say they will test. I said they will go overtly nuclear. There are other ways. However, would you not rather be sharing your nuclear skills with Japan (than with Pakistan?), would you rather not build interdependence on their technical skills to augment your own, unless you are supremely confident that your own skills are and will always be second to none? And finally, would you rather not, prefer to enhance the security of a country that has faced the horror of a nuclear attack at the tail end of a war in which it was being no less treacherous than most of the other participants?

These are, of course, rhetorical questions. There can only be one answer for the foreseeable future.

[SSridhar]

Chinese Ships Return to Disputed Waters After Obama's Tokyo Visit - Economic Times

Two Chinese coastguard ships sailed into waters around disputed islands in the East China Sea Saturday, the Japanese coastguard said, two days after US President Barack Obama delared his support for Japan.

The vessels entered 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres) into Japan's territorial waters off one of the Senkaku islands, which China also claims and calls the Diaoyus, around noon (0300 GMT), the coastguard said.

[TSJones]

US expanding US corporate bribery probe in China.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive ... 31253.html

U.S. government agencies that have been probing banks' hiring of children of powerful Chinese officials are expanding existing investigations in other industries across Asia to include hiring practices, four people familiar with the matter said.

The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been asking global companies in a range of industries including oil and gas, telecommunications and consumer products for information about their hiring practices to determine if they could amount to bribery, these people said.

[SSridhar]

India-Japan-US trilateral Talks on a Higher Plane - Indrani Bagchi, ToI

Marking for the first time the growing significance of the New Delhi-Tokyo ties, a joint statement between Barack Obama and Shinzo Abe in Tokyo on Friday highlighted a trilateral dialogue between Japan, India and the US for "peace and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific and around the globe". The trilateral, which Japan also holds with Australia and South Korea, has become one of the most successful joint initiatives by the three countries.

It also signifies that the India-Japan relationship occupies prime mind space both in Tokyo and New Delhi. The US-Japan statement comes days after foreign secretary Sujatha Singh travelled to Tokyo for a high-level official dialogue on security and strategic issues. The US and India have been going through a rough patch in recent months as has the US-Japan relationship. But at the same time, India-Japan ties have been on a very different trajectory. The BJP's prime ministerial hopeful Narendra Modi shares with Manmohan Singh an interest in Japan and has let it be known that he might visit Japan as one of his first overseas destinations.

The next round of the US-India-Japan trilateral is scheduled for early June. In the run-up to the meeting, India is organising a meeting of stakeholders from all three countries to start infrastructure projects in the northeast states that could be continued through Myanmar, Thailand and beyond. The idea is to build east-west connectivity to counter China's north-south links in south-east Asia.

India is also closer to buying the US-2 amphibian rescue aircraft from Japan, an agreement formalised during Abe's visit here in January. The second round of negotiations was held between Amitabh Kant, the new DIPP secretary and his Japanese counterparts. When the deal comes through, it would be the first time Japan would be exporting military hardware after World War II.

The Japanese decision to sell the US-2 to India comes even as it set out an amended three principles for export of defence equipment to other countries. Basically, this expands the ambit of Japanese defence exports to countries designated friends and allies and will help Japanese defence industry.

[JE Menon]

I suppose this is the right thread for this one below: "China & South Asia - Contention & Co-operation"

http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=7993

[Jarita]

The casual cruelty of the Chinese towards humans and animals will shock and astound. All nations have their warts but the Chinese are truly a league ahead. The way I see it Dharma (Indic influence) is being taken over by the adharmis who are pretending to be dharmic. And we are next door to each other.
Watch this documentary about abandoned chinese children with caution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd_nptd2q0M

[SSridhar]

China to explore new approaches for border peace with India - Business Line

It is all hot air. One can expect China to shortly intrude, especially after the new government is formed.

China today said it is ready to explore new “ways and approaches” with India for peace at the borders as officials of the two countries held working mechanism border talks for the second day here today.

“We are ready to make joint efforts with the Indian side to explore ways and approaches to safeguard peace and tranquillity in the border areas,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a media briefing while replying to question about reported proposal by China for a code of conduct for the two armies to defuse tensions arising out from patrolling of the disputed areas.

“We will enhance our coordination, consultation and cooperation on border related affairs,” Qin said.

An Indian delegation headed by Gautam Bambawale, Joint Secretary, East Asia of the Indian External Affairs Ministry held the sixth round of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination for the second day.

The mechanism which was formed in 2012 came in handy to deal with the crisis arising from Chinese troops’ incursions at the Depsang valley in April last year near the Line of Actual Control (LAC) during which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops pitched their tents.

It was eventually resolved with the withdrawal of the Chinese contingent followed by the landmark Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA) signed during the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh here last year.

China proposed a code conduct for the militaries in addition to the standard operating procedures outlined in the BDCA which reportedly figured in the current round of talks.

There was no word yet from Indian officials on the outcome of the dialogue.

Qin said details of the talks would be released after they conclude tomorrow.

“Both China and India attach great importance to maintaining peace and tranquillity at the border areas,” he said.

“Over recent years in accordance with the bilateral relations as well as the actual conditions at the border areas, we have taken positive steps in safeguarding tranquillity and peace in the border areas and we have reached series of agreements including the agreement on border defence cooperation,” he said.

“All this has played a very important role in promoting our mutual trust as well as stability in border areas,” he said.

A visit by Chinese Defence Minister Cheng Wanquang to India has been planned later this year while the two countries have also planned their annual military exercises in India.

[Peregrine]

Three die in attack on station in China's Xinjiang : Xinhua

BEIJING : Three people were killed and 79 others injured in an attack on a railway station in China's Xinjiang region late Wednesday, state media said.

China's official news agency Xinhua said attackers slashed people with knives and set off explosives at the south railway station in Xinjiang's capital Urumqi, calling it called a "violent terrorist attack".

The attack came on the same day that President Xi Jinping ended a visit to the restive region in China's far west that is home to the country's mostly Muslim Uighur minority.

Four people were seriously injured but were "in a stable condition" after being sent to hospital for treatment, Xinhua reported, citing local Communist Party officials.

Cheers

[Austin]

[SSridhar]

China militants show new daring - Japan Times

URUMQI, CHINA – A bombing in western China that killed three people and wounded 79 on Wednesday has raised concerns about the apparent sophistication and daring of the attack, which possibly was timed to coincide with a visit to the heavily Muslim region by President Xi Jinping.

Assailants used explosives and knives in the attack on a railway station in Urumqi. It was the first bomb attack in the capital of Xinjiang province in 17 years and came at a time of likely heavy security soon after a train arrived from a mainly Han Chinese province.

The government blamed the attack on “terrorists,” a term it uses to describe Islamist militants and separatists in Xinjiang who have waged a sometimes violent campaign for an independent state of East Turkestan, stirring fears that jihadist groups could become active in western China.

Initial accounts of the attack came almost exclusively from Chinese state media, which did not say if Xi, who was wrapping up his visit, was anywhere near Urumqi at the time.

Pan Zhiping, a retired expert on Central Asia at Xinjiang’s Academy of Social Science, described the attack as very well organized, saying it was timed to coincide with Xi’s visit. “It is very clear that they are challenging the Chinese government,” he said. “There was a time last year when they were targeting the public security bureau, the police stations and the troops. Now it’s indiscriminate — terrorist activities are conducted in places where people gather the most.”

The attack was the first bombing in Urumqi since men planted bombs in buses in 1997, killing nine people.

It was also the largest militant attack there since ethnic Uighurs — a Muslim community in western China — stabbed hundreds of Han Chinese with needles in 2009.No one was killed, but the incident led to protests demanding the ouster of the region’s top official for failing to protect Han people, China’s majority ethnic group.

“Knife-wielding mobs” slashed at people at an exit of the South Railway Station of Urumqi on Wednesday night and set off explosives, Xinhua News Agency said, quoting police.

There has been no claim of responsibility for the attack.

Xinjiang’s regional government said on its official news website Thursday that the attack had been carried out by two men who had “long been influenced by extremist religious thought and participated in extremist religious activities.”

Both were killed in the blast, it said. It identified one of them as Sedirdin Sawut, a 39-year-old man from Xayar County in Xinjiang’s Aksu region. He was a Uighur, judging by his name.

Debris was strewn on the ground after the explosion, though iron railings were left standing, according to images shown by state broadcaster CCTV. Paramilitary officers with rifles guarded the station, with several ambulances parked nearby.

The attack came on the eve of a two-day Labor Day holiday, a time of heavy travel in China, and just as Han passengers were likely to be disembarking from a train from Chengdu, capital of southwestern Sichuan province, Xinhua said.

Pan said the attack could also bolster a more hard-line effort by the government to fight terrorism. “It appears that our intelligence work is still not up to speed,” he said. “But it’s difficult in these circumstances. They are working in the dark, and it’ll be hard to completely eliminate.”

Exiles and many human rights groups say the cause of unrest in the resource-rich and strategically located region is heavy-handed rule by authorities, including curbs on Islam and the culture and language of its Uighur people.

Urumqi is heavily populated by Han Chinese, who have flooded there seeking business opportunities. Uighurs have complained that they have been frozen out of the job market. Many were reluctant to talk to reporters.

Unrest in Xinjiang has caused the deaths of more than 100 people in the past year, prompting a tougher stance against Uighurs, who speak a language in the Turkic family and many of whom resent government controls on their culture and religion.

The U.S. State Department’s 2013 country reports on terrorism, published last month, said China’s cooperation on fighting terrorism “remained marginal” and that the Chinese had provided scarce evidence to prove terrorist involvement in incidents in Xinjiang. {The US is fishing in troubled waters and using this as an excuse to beat China. Though the Chinese are using every tactic to deny religious rights, alter demography and forcibly tackle the Islamists terrorists, the US has least credentials to talk about 'evidence' etc. It did not provide any evidence while launching Op Enduring Freedom' or the completely unethical operation in Iraq and various other places. In fact, it presented a patently false evidence against Saddam Hussain}

[SSridhar]

Abe Cameroon agree to boost Japan-Britain Security coperation - Japan Times

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed Thursday with his British counterpart, David Cameron, to boost bilateral security cooperation, including sharing military supplies and jointly developing defense equipment.

Meeting at No. 10 Downing St., the two leaders also agreed to seek a substantive agreement in 2015 on free trade negotiations between Japan and the European Union, the first time such a specific goal has been stated in a leaders’ statement. Britain is one of the 28 members of the bloc.

On security issues, Abe and Cameron said in a statement released after the summit that their countries will launch negotiations on sharing supplies and transportation services between the Self-Defense Forces and the British military under an acquisition and cross-servicing agreement, also known as an ACSA.

The countries will also set up a “two-plus-two” framework for security dialogue between their foreign and defense ministers, the statement said.

Japan has already concluded such agreements with the United States and Australia, while agreeing in principle to sign a deal with Canada.

Under the potential accord, Japan and Britain would help each other in humanitarian missions such as U.N. peacekeeping operations as well as responding to major natural disasters, according to Japanese officials.

The two-plus-two meeting with Britain will be Japan’s fifth following ones with the United States, Australia, Russia and France.

While aiming to deal with global security issues in cooperation with those countries, Japan also appears to be using the frameworks to get its message over on some regional challenges, most notably tensions over the assertive maritime policy of China, which is engaged in territorial disputes with Japan and other Asian neighbors.

Japan and Britain, both main allies of the United States, signed an agreement last year to promote cooperation in jointly developing defense equipment such as protective gear to deal with chemical and biological weapons, and preventing sensitive technological information from being leaked.

During Thursday’s meeting, Abe and Cameron confirmed they will accelerate such efforts, at a time when Japan has relaxed its rules on arms exports.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^absolutely...
And the Japanese are not stupid, which is why they will go overtly nuclear in due course. The ground is being prepared.

If they want military alliance then they should invite India to join the Test and put all the friends and enemies to rest so they doubt not.

No way we should help Japan in all manner possible, but not in nuclear weapons sphere. Let Japan handle the nuclear genie on its own.

[DavidD]

China militants show new daring - Japan Times

URUMQI, CHINA – A bombing in western China that killed three people and wounded 79 on Wednesday has raised concerns about the apparent sophistication and daring of the attack, which possibly was timed to coincide with a visit to the heavily Muslim region by President Xi Jinping.

Assailants used explosives and knives in the attack on a railway station in Urumqi. It was the first bomb attack in the capital of Xinjiang province in 17 years and came at a time of likely heavy security soon after a train arrived from a mainly Han Chinese province.

The government blamed the attack on “terrorists,” a term it uses to describe Islamist militants and separatists in Xinjiang who have waged a sometimes violent campaign for an independent state of East Turkestan, stirring fears that jihadist groups could become active in western China.

Initial accounts of the attack came almost exclusively from Chinese state media, which did not say if Xi, who was wrapping up his visit, was anywhere near Urumqi at the time.

Pan Zhiping, a retired expert on Central Asia at Xinjiang’s Academy of Social Science, described the attack as very well organized, saying it was timed to coincide with Xi’s visit. “It is very clear that they are challenging the Chinese government,” he said. “There was a time last year when they were targeting the public security bureau, the police stations and the troops. Now it’s indiscriminate — terrorist activities are conducted in places where people gather the most.”

The attack was the first bombing in Urumqi since men planted bombs in buses in 1997, killing nine people.

It was also the largest militant attack there since ethnic Uighurs — a Muslim community in western China — stabbed hundreds of Han Chinese with needles in 2009.No one was killed, but the incident led to protests demanding the ouster of the region’s top official for failing to protect Han people, China’s majority ethnic group.

“Knife-wielding mobs” slashed at people at an exit of the South Railway Station of Urumqi on Wednesday night and set off explosives, Xinhua News Agency said, quoting police.

There has been no claim of responsibility for the attack.

Xinjiang’s regional government said on its official news website Thursday that the attack had been carried out by two men who had “long been influenced by extremist religious thought and participated in extremist religious activities.”

Both were killed in the blast, it said. It identified one of them as Sedirdin Sawut, a 39-year-old man from Xayar County in Xinjiang’s Aksu region. He was a Uighur, judging by his name.

Debris was strewn on the ground after the explosion, though iron railings were left standing, according to images shown by state broadcaster CCTV. Paramilitary officers with rifles guarded the station, with several ambulances parked nearby.

The attack came on the eve of a two-day Labor Day holiday, a time of heavy travel in China, and just as Han passengers were likely to be disembarking from a train from Chengdu, capital of southwestern Sichuan province, Xinhua said.

Pan said the attack could also bolster a more hard-line effort by the government to fight terrorism. “It appears that our intelligence work is still not up to speed,” he said. “But it’s difficult in these circumstances. They are working in the dark, and it’ll be hard to completely eliminate.”

Exiles and many human rights groups say the cause of unrest in the resource-rich and strategically located region is heavy-handed rule by authorities, including curbs on Islam and the culture and language of its Uighur people.

Urumqi is heavily populated by Han Chinese, who have flooded there seeking business opportunities. Uighurs have complained that they have been frozen out of the job market. Many were reluctant to talk to reporters.

Unrest in Xinjiang has caused the deaths of more than 100 people in the past year, prompting a tougher stance against Uighurs, who speak a language in the Turkic family and many of whom resent government controls on their culture and religion.

The U.S. State Department’s 2013 country reports on terrorism, published last month, said China’s cooperation on fighting terrorism “remained marginal” and that the Chinese had provided scarce evidence to prove terrorist involvement in incidents in Xinjiang. {The US is fishing in troubled waters and using this as an excuse to beat China. Though the Chinese are using every tactic to deny religious rights, alter demography and forcibly tackle the Islamists terrorists, the US has least credentials to talk about 'evidence' etc. It did not provide any evidence while launching Op Enduring Freedom' or the completely unethical operation in Iraq and various other places. In fact, it presented a patently false evidence against Saddam Hussain}

While I tend to take a pretty realistic view of geopolitics and generally don't take offense to the shennanigans nations pull against each other, I think it's pretty outrageous that the U.S. would question whether suicide bombings in a public place may be considered terrorism.

[SSridhar]

Japan delegation leaves for Beijing to mend ties with China - Straits Times

A delegation of senior Japanese lawmakers left for China Sunday to try to mend ties amid a territorial dispute which has prevented a leaders' summit.

The bipartisan delegation is led by Masahiko Komura, former foreign minister and vice president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. It departed from Tokyo's Haneda airport Sunday morning on a three-day visit to China, officials said.

The mission consisted of nine lawmakers of both ruling and opposition parties belonging to the Japan-China Friendship Parliamentarians' Union.

During the trip, the Japanese lawmakers are expected to meet with Zhang Dejiang, ranked third in the Communist Party, Kyodo news agency reported

[member_19686]

Balancing Without Containment: An American Strategy for Managing China
ASHLEY J. TELLIS
REPORT JANUARY 22, 2014

http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/01/22 ... china/gz2z

[SSridhar]

India's Himalayan China Ignorance - Book Review by Praveen Swami, The Hindu

THE HIMALAYAN FACE-OFF — Chinese Assertion and the Indian Riposte: Shishir Gupta;
Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt. Ltd., 4th & 5th Floors, Corporate Centre, Plot No 94, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122003.
Rs. 650

Even as India elects a new government, some of the most important figures in its strategic establishment have been making the time to read a new book on China: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, his aides say, has been through journalist Shishir Gupta’s The Himalayan Face-Off; so, it is believed, have Defence Minister AK Antony and National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon. Finance Minister, and former Home Minister P. Chidambaram, has called the book a “must read”; Bharatiya Janata Party leader Arun Jaitley, has lauded its “deep insight”.

The interest in Mr. Gupta’s book tells us two important things. First, it underlines the desperate thinness of Indian intellectual engagement on China. In spite of exponential growth in trade, mirrored only by the growing concern over the rising Chinese nationalism, there is only a small corpus of serious Indian writing that engages unfolding policy debates.

Prem Shankar Jha’s India and China , and Arun Shourie’s very different Self-Deception stand out — but much of the writing comes from western authors, like David Smith’s The Elephant and the Dragon .

The second important thing reactions to Mr. Gupta tell us is this: Indian policy-making on China is at a crossroads. For the best part of two decades, Indian foreign policy makers have assumed that a growing economic relationship would lead to strategic stabilisation, and an eventual resolution of the two countries’ border disputes. Last year’s military face-off in Ladakh, naval competition in the Indian ocean rim, and the absence of progress on resolving China-India border disputes, have all given strength to those sceptical about the optimistic premises on which policy was built.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who may well become Prime Minister in May, has described China as expansionist; while this may be put down to poll-time excess, the truth is his private views are likely not dissimilar. Inside the Congress, too, China-pessimists are proliferating: Mr. Gupta records Defence Minister Antony’s conviction that the People’s Liberation Army was “the real face of Beijing”. Eminent foreign policy experts, like Shyam Saran, have called on India to deepen their engagement with both the United States and Russia, as a hedge against Chinese aggression.

Mr. Gupta’s solidly-researched work doesn’t seek to provide an answer to these debates: indeed, it could be argued that skills in astrology would be more fitting than those of a journalist.

Instead, the book provides a gritty empirical overview of the state of the strategic relationship. China, Mr. Gupta argues, has substantially expanded its military capacities along its boundaries with India, enhancing both infrastructure and offensive resources. It has also, Mr. Gupta records, maintained a substantial relationship with insurgent groups in the North-East. This build-up has, among other things, been attributed to Chinese anxieties about Tibet, and its fear India might exploit unrest there. Then, there is China’s organic relationship with India’s arch-rival, Pakistan—a relationship whose economic aspects are often exaggerated, but which has translated into significant support for the country’s nuclear programme, and its ballistic weapons capabilities.

From 2008-2009, Mr. Gupta records, India began slowly developing the capacities to respond, enhancing its east-facing military infrastructure and combat capacities. Though he does not suggest the prospects of a war are high, he notes that “a single incident of accidental or angry firing could change temperatures on the border”. He records growing fears within the United Progressive Alliance government’s highest levels of “mixed messages coming from Beijing”, with its political leadership seeking growing cooperation on Afghanistan and the Middle-East, even as tensions periodically flare up along the border.

This book is an excellent primer on the complex considerations that have weighed on the minds of the United Progressive Alliance government’s policy-making on China through the last 10 years, and the reasons for the cloud of pessimism that has enveloped it. It also demonstrates, though, the need for India to have a more nuanced understanding of the power most critical to India’s destiny through the next century — a project scholarship and journalism have failed in.

Guns and cash will shape the course of the Himalayan face-off — but also knowledge, and it is here India remains wanting.

[SSridhar]

Modi may bring India and China closer, Chinese scholar - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

Narendra Modi’s track record in Gujarat as a “practical businessman” suggested that he would look to improving India’s relations with China if elected, a commentary published on Tuesday in a prominent Chinese newspaper has argued.

“Modi was once a practical businessman. After he got into politics, he established good relations with China. A large number of Chinese enterprises invested in Gujarat, contributing to the economic development of the State. Therefore, ties between China and India may become closer under Modi’s leadership,” said the commentary in the Communist Party–run tabloid Global Times , which is known for its nationalistic outlook.

The article, authored by Liu Zongyi, a scholar at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, blamed “Western media and observers” for trying to “foment discord between China and India by hyping up nationalist Modi’s aggressive statements on the border issue between the two countries.”

“In its manifesto the BJP promises a multilateral diplomacy and the establishment of “a web of allies” to further India’s best national interests, which steers away from a tilt toward the U.S. held by India in diplomacy in the past decades,” the article said.

“The West has adapted to an India with a weak central government in the past decades,” Mr. Liu wrote. “It is afraid that a strongman like Russian President Vladimir Putin will make India really strong and build the country into a challenger to the West.”

[SSridhar]

Japan & France join hands on defense equipment & breeder reactors - Japan Times

Japan and France agreed Monday to open talks on joint development of defense equipment, signed a document on developing fast-breeder reactor technology and confirmed plans to foster economic dialogue.

In addition to jointly producing unmanned submersibles for surveillance, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and French President Francois Hollande reached an accord to hold a summit meeting every year to the extent possible, according to a joint paper that was released after their talks in Paris.

“As the security situation in Europe and East Asia becomes increasingly severe, close coordination between the two countries has never been more necessary,” Abe said as he greeted the press together with Hollande.

The French leader expressed a willingness to hold security dialogue with Japan on many occasions.

Abe has been hoping to forge stronger ties with France, which recently been expanding economic coordination with China.

Japan and France will hold a round of “two-plus-two” security talks between their defense and foreign ministers in Tokyo next year.

In an apparent reference to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and China’s increasing naval assertiveness in Asia, Abe and Hollande voiced opposition to countries that acquire, or assert claims to, part of another country through the use of force in violation of international law, the joint paper said.

[SSridhar]

Abe, worried about China strengthens partnership with NATO - Japan Times

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, concerned about China’s rising military spending and disputes with Beijing over the Senkaku Islands, signed a new partnership agreement with NATO on Tuesday.

The accord, signed by Abe and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during Abe’s visit to NATO’s Brussels headquarters, will deepen Japan’s cooperation with the Western military alliance in areas such as counterpiracy, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.

After addressing ambassadors from the 28 NATO nations, Abe drew a parallel between the situation in Ukraine, where Russia has occupied and annexed Crimea, and Asia, in an apparent allusion to a standoff between Beijing and Tokyo over tiny uninhabited islets in the East China Sea, known as Diaoyu in China.

“We will not tolerate any change of status quo through intimidation or coercion or force. This is not only applicable to Europe or Ukraine. This is applicable to East Asia and it is applicable to the whole world,” Abe said at a joint press conference with Rasmussen.

Abe, who made his first visit to NATO headquarters in 2007, has long been interested in strengthening Japan’s relations with the U.S.-dominated Western alliance.

Analysts say Japan’s aim is to increase diplomatic support over its security concerns, particularly China’s military buildup and North Korean missile launches and nuclear tests.

“Japan does not actually expect NATO to play a direct military role in the Asia-Pacific region, but it does expect allies to share perceptions and approaches,” Michito Tsuruoka, a senior research fellow at the National Institute for Defense Studies, wrote in a paper for the NATO Defense College last year.

Tension between Japan and China spiked last year when Beijing announced an air defense zone over a wide area including the disputed islets.

Abe told NATO ambassadors he believed Japan should play a more active role in defending the freedom of overflight and navigation.

With its operations in Afghanistan coming to an end and Russia flexing its muscles, NATO is now expected to refocus on its core mission of defending its territory, a trend that may not be welcome to Japan and other partners outside NATO’s area.

Abe’s priority has been to revive a long-sluggish economy, but he has also pledged to strengthen Japan’s military and boost its security profile to meet what he says is a threat from China’s rapid military buildup.

Abe also aims to lift Japan’s ban on collective self-defense, which means helping an ally under attack, to bolster security ties with the United States.

Rasmussen said NATO welcomed Japan’s steps “to become a proactive contributor to peace.”

“We share interests in countering piracy, countering terrorism. We share interests in disarmament,” he said.

[member_19686]

Vietnamese, Chinese ships collide as oil rig escalates feud in disputed sea
CHRIS BRUMMITT
HANOI — The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, May. 07 2014, 7:50 AM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, May. 07 2014, 8:49 AM EDT

Chinese ships are ramming and spraying water cannons at Vietnamese vessels trying to stop Beijing from setting up an oil rig in the South China Sea, according to Vietnamese officials and video evidence Wednesday, a dangerous escalation of tensions in disputed waters considered a global flashpoint.

With neither side showing any sign of stepping down, the standoff raises the possibility that more serious clashes could break out. Vietnam said several boats have been damaged and six people on the vessels have been injured by broken glass.

Vietnam, which has no hope of standing up to China militarily, said it wants a peaceful solution and – unlike China – hadn’t sent any navy ships to areas close to the $1-billion deep-sea rig. But a top official warned that “all restraint had a limit.”

“Our maritime police and fishing protection forces have practiced extreme restraint, we will continue to hold on there,” Ngo Ngoc Thu, vice-commander of Vietnam’s coast guard, told a specially arranged news conference in Hanoi. “But if [the Chinese ships] continue to ram into us, we will respond with similar self-defence.”

China’s stationing of the oil rig, which was accompanied by a flotilla of military and civilian ships, on May 1 has been seen as one of its most provocative steps in a gradual campaign of asserting its sovereignty in the South China Sea, parts of which are also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations.

Vietnam immediately dispatched marine police and fishery protection vessels to the area, but they were harassed as they approached, Thu said.

Video was shown at the news conference of Chinese ships ramming into Vietnamese ones and firing high-powered water cannons at them. Thu said such incidents had occurred repeatedly over the last three days. He said Vietnam had not carried out any offensive actions of its own in waters close to the rig, around 220 kilometres off the Vietnamese coast.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a regular news briefing Wednesday that the oil rig was in China’s territorial waters and therefore drilling is “normal and legal.” The country previously announced that no foreign ships would be allowed within a 4.8-kilometre radius of the rig.

“The disruptive activities by the Vietnamese side are in violation of China’s sovereign rights,” she said.

A Vietnamese official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity said earlier that Vietnam’s ships were outnumbered by the Chinese flotilla escorting the rig. He said the ships were trying to stop the rig from “establishing a fixed position” at the spot where it wanted to drill.

China’s assertiveness along with its growing military and economic might is alarming many smaller countries in the region even as they are aware they need to keep relations open with a vital trading partner. The United States, which is undertaking a military and economic “pivot” toward Asia in part to counter Chinese influence, shares the concerns of the smaller nations.

In a strongly worded statement in Washington on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called China’s action “provocative and unhelpful to the maintenance of peace and stability in the region.”

Asked about the U.S. statement, Hua said, “we want to tell the U.S. that the U.S. has no right to make irresponsible and unwarranted remarks on China’s sovereign rights.”

China occupied the Paracel Islands 40 years ago, and 74 U.S.-backed South Vietnamese forces died in a subsequent military clash. The Vietnamese and Chinese navies clashed again in 1988 in the disputed Spratly Islands, leaving 64 Vietnamese sailors dead.

In 1992, China awarded a contract to U.S. energy company Crestone to explore for oil and gas in the Spratly Islands. Vietnam protested the move. Two years later, Vietnam’s navy forced the company’s oil rigs to leave the area.

Vietnam has limited leverage in dealing with its giant neighbour and vital economic partner. It can’t afford damaged ties with Beijing. While it is no longer as isolated as it once was, the country can’t expect much diplomatic help from powerful friends. It appears likely to try to rally regional support against China’s latest actions.

“China seems intent on putting down its footprint squarely in contested waters and force Hanoi’s hand. It appears a critical juncture has occurred and one would expect Hanoi to be weighing its options,” said Jonathan London, a Vietnam expert at the City University of Hong Kong. “Hanoi’s back is against the wall, though China’s policies – which according to virtually everyone except China are baseless legally – have brought about this situation.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e18506129/

[SSridhar]

Japan MSDF captures a Chinese fishing vessel for intrusion.

[member_19686]

Philippines Detains Chinese Fishermen in South China Sea

Simone Orendain
Last updated on: May 07, 2014 7:14 AM

MANILA — Philippine National Police officials say authorities have arrested a group of fishermen in a Chinese vessel in contested waters of the South China Sea.

Philippine National Police Maritime Group Chief Noel Vargas says officers of his unit in Palawan province arrested Chinese and Filipino fishermen Wednesday at Half-Moon Shoal.

“There are locals, the Filipino fishermen involved and there is a fishing boat with a Chinese crew also involved,. So the PNP team apprehended this crew together with the boats.”

Vargas says both the Philippine and Chinese vessels had close to 500 sea turtles in them. Catching sea turtles is banned in the Philippines.

Vargas says the 15 people arrested would be charged once they arrived in Palawan province. He says the trip back to Palawan is taking longer than expected because one of the vessels “is broken” and needs to be towed. Vargas says details are still sketchy on the circumstances that led to their arrest.

Half Moon Shoal is among the Spratly Islands and lies about 100 kilometers west of southern Palawan. It is within the Philippines 370-kilometer exclusive economic zone.

The Philippines says part of the Spratlys and some other outcroppings fall within its exclusive economic zone, while China says it has “indisputable sovereignty” over practically the entire South China Sea. Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam also have partial or full claims to the sea which is teeming with marine life, is believed to hold vast gas and oil reserves and is a well traveled trade route.

At a regular briefing Wednesday China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying confirmed “a Chinese vessel was intercepted by a Philippine vessel.”

She said, “Relevant authorities from China have arrived at the scene. We ask the Philippine side to give their explanations and deal with this case properly.”

When asked whether China condones the reported illegal catch of turtles, she said China’s regulations and laws “call on the fishermen to respect laws and follow relevant regulations.”

An Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesman says because Wednesday’s arrests were related to the poaching of sea turtles, the incident is a law enforcement matter, not a military matter.

The Philippines filed an arbitration case with a United Nations tribunal over what it calls China’s “excessive claims” in the sea. China rejects arbitration and has not responded to the case. At the end of March Manila submitted nearly 4,000 pages of supporting materials to the tribunal.

Relations between the two countries have become even more strained.

In recent years China has stepped up civilian patrols of the contested waters. Its surveillance ships have kept local fishermen out of Scarborough Shoal, which is 225 kilometers west of Zambales province in the Philippines. The ships have also been circling Second Thomas Shoal near Palawan, where a tiny Philippine contingent is garrisoned at a grounded old military ship.

http://www.voanews.com/content/armed-me ... 09248.html