China is demonstrating “growing aggressiveness” through repeated close encounters with US military aircraft and vessels, the White House said on Monday.
A Chinese warship crossed 137m in front of a US destroyer in the Taiwan Strait on Saturday, and a Chinese jet crossed the path of a US reconnaissance plane as it was flying through international airspace on May 26.
“The concern with these unsafe and unprofessional intercepts ... [is that] they can lead to misunderstandings, they can lead to miscalculations,” US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said.
Although China appeared to be expressing its displeasure with the US for sailing through the Indo-Pacific region, the US has “real needs there and we’re going to stay there,” Kirby said.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Wang Wenbin (汪文斌) confirmed Kirby’s assumption at a news conference in Beijing on Tuesday when he accused the US of “sending warships halfway around the world to China’s doorstep in a provocative way.”
While China’s discontent over having US warships sail so close to its shores might be understandable, there are a few important points that Beijing must bear in mind:
First, the US is not sailing “halfway around the world” to conduct these passages. It has military installations in Japan and South Korea as part of commitments that date back to the immediate post-World War II period and the Korean War. The US also has bases in Guam, and a defense cooperation agreement with Manila that allows it access to Philippine bases. Those commitments mean the US military already has a significant presence in the Indo-Pacific region and China cannot unilaterally change that, no matter how much of a fit it throws.
Second, the US is understandably concerned about the free passage of cargo vessels through international waters in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. That free passage is crucial to the normal functioning of the global economy and is a concern of all nations around the world. Given the outsized role that it plays in the global economy, China should work with other countries to protect freedom of navigation, instead of obstructing it. It should not harbor any illusions about controlling sea and air traffic in the Indo-Pacific, as any attempts to do so would put it at odds with a growing alliance of nations that would cooperate to defend their interests against Chinese hegemony.
Third, the close intercepts by China occurred in international waters — more than 12 nautical miles (22km) from a country’s shore — and regardless of whether Bejing recognizes those international waters, every other country with interests in the region does.
Perhaps China has forgotten the lessons of World War II: Things did not end well for the aggressors, and they would not end well for China either if it attempts to impose itself on other countries. The US and other like-minded nations are trying to avoid a large-scale conflict with China, but the way to do that cannot, and will not, be to simply accept Chinese aggression and suppression of others’ interests.
Beijing’s approach has been to engage others through “gray-zone” tactics and to continuously push the envelope to see how much more it can get away with. The response to this must be to establish clear boundaries and to strictly enforce them. For example, countries navigating the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait should make it clear that any encroachment to within an unsafe distance of another country’s aircraft or vessel by a Chinese aircraft, vessel or other object would be interpreted as an act of war, and that the encroaching object would be fired upon.
Only through a coordinated and unambiguous response from the international community would China get the message that its aggressions will not be tolerated.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS