The Kitty Hawk Port Snub

Status
Not open for further replies.

funtz

New Member
I'd also point out that the Chinese reaction re the US and the Dalai Lama is selective. China has not made or expressed any displeasure with both Germany and Australia even though they tried to discourage a meeting.
The media seems to show things differently

- China warns Australia on Dalai Lama meetings
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1926184.htm


China slams Dalai Lama's visit to Australia

Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in Beijing that his government had written to the Australian authorities strongly protesting the visit.
''The Chinese government firmly opposes any country or government allowing the Dalai Lama to come to their territory and carry out activities which promote splitting our country,'' he said.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2007_June_18/ai_n19313859

China summons German envoy over Dalai Lama visit
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL14819896
Dalai Lama row shakes China-Germany ties
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/2007/11/17/131198/Dalai-Lama.htm
China-German relations 'damaged' over Dalai Lama meeting
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/25/2043313.htm
 

merocaine

New Member
The refusal of shelter to ships in a storm is inexcusible, but perhaps GF you have forgotten occums razor......

As to the Dali Lama, did Oz or Germany present the D.L with the Congressional Gold Medal (or recently up grade Tiawans PAC-3's)? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, isent this an endorsement of the D.L and what he stands for? The rights and wrongs of the situation in Tibet aside, the Kitty Hawk snub seems to be pro qud pro action.

The arrogance of abandoning any pretext of honoring issues such as IP protection has now manifested itself into abandoning basic tenets of IML in allowing vessels in inclement weather to seek shelter
This is slightly irrational, neither is policy, I refer you to Occums razor above.


Big, powerful countries habitually act in a high handed and arrogant fashion, being from a small non aligned country this is quite distressing, but not perticularly alarming.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
lol, so you're representing the HK voters now ? I hope you're going to present something to back up this claim or is it just another wishful thinking of yours ?
Ah, so I suppose the electorate would have slapped Beijing on the back and said "well done for turning the USN away and ruining the crew and their families' holiday"? My bad for assuming Hong Kong people are open-minded and kind-spirited - thanks for correcting me on that. :rolleyes:

Very colourful description indeed. Mr Musashi actually calling others acting like a small child.
Again, my mistake - in your book China acted very maturely. Though I think that reflects badly on your own attitude or general ignorance of the understanding of the word "mature". I'd buy you a dictionary if I didn't think you'd use it as a colouring-in book. :eek:nfloorl:
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Every defense professional and spook knows that the Patriot upgrade won't make ANY difference in the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait-this upgrade is entirely qualititative, not quantitative
The upgrade is part of a larger plan to upgrade Taiwan's defences - it's not expected to make a real difference all by itself.
 

Schumacher

New Member
Ah, so I suppose the electorate would have slapped Beijing on the back and said "well done for turning the USN away and ruining the crew and their families' holiday"? My bad for assuming Hong Kong people are open-minded and kind-spirited - thanks for correcting me on that. :rolleyes:
My question was very simple really. You stated that 'China turning away a USN goodwill visit would make HongKong voters think that Beijing is small-minded and backward.'
I merely wanted to know if you have any sources to back that up or as always you're just 'wishing' it so & proceed to state it as fact. Can I say it's the later judging from your reply ?
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
or as always you're just 'wishing' it so & proceed to state it as fact.
"Always wishing it so"? I think it may be you that is "wishing" the little episode hasn't affected China's reputation in Hong Kong.

My opinion is that - opinion - based on the people I know in the city. From that if refusing entry to the USN were to effect the recent election in one way or another, it would be to make China look bad rather than good.

I can't believe anyone could say with any credibility that it would have made the central government look good in HK people's eyes.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
A couple of good articles that may shed some light on the whole situation:
China's show of strength ups military ante
By Willy Lam

Large-scale air and naval maneuvers off China's southeast coast last week demonstrated the post-17th Party Congress leadership's determination to project hard power in view of tension in the Taiwan Strait. The week-long war games, which coincided with Beijing's sudden cancellation of the USS Kitty Hawk battle group's Hong Kong port call, are also meant to convey Beijing's displeasure with Washington's recent decision to sell weapons to
Taiwan and to honor the Dalai Lama.
Moreover, this show of force reflects the commitment of President Hu Jintao, who was re-elected chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) at the congress, to speed up the modernization of the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) already formidable arsenal.
The military drills, which started on November 19, covered a wide swath of the Pacific, including sensitive terrain east of Taiwan and north of the Philippine archipelago. While official PLA media have been reticent about the exercises, Hong Kong papers and military-related websites in China noted that their purpose was to simulate a "pincer attack" on Taiwan as well as a naval blockade.
Elite battalions from PLA Air Force units under the Guangzhou and the Nanjing Military Regions, as well as the East and South China Sea Fleets, were involved. They deployed hardware including Russian-made Kilo-class submarines, Sovremmy-class destroyers and indigenously developed Flying Leopard jet-fighters. Among new weapons tested at the maneuvers were 022 stealth missiles and Russian-made SS-N-27 "Club" anti-ship cruise missiles.
Several hundred commercial flights along China's southeast coast - the majority of which originated from airports in Shanghai and Guangzhou - were postponed during the exercises. It was not until last Saturday that the East China Civil Aviation Bureau lifted the highly disruptive aviation control (People's Daily, November 26). Li Jingao, an official of the CAAC East China Air Traffic Management Bureau, claimed: "The delay resulted from a backlog caused by the control in previous days." Military analysts noted that PLA authorities did not want the Kitty Hawk battle group - whose 8,000-odd sailors had earlier planned to spend Thanksgiving in Hong Kong - to be in the vicinity.
This is despite the fact that during his visit to Beijing earlier this month, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his hosts made new pledges to boost confidence-building measures, including establishing a military-to-military hotline. On a deeper level, the Kitty Hawk incident reflected Beijing's anger at Washington's plan to sell Taiwan a $940 million upgrade to its Patriot II anti-missile shield. Beijing apparently also wanted to protest President George W Bush's presence at a congressional ceremony last month honoring the Dalai Lama, leader of Tibet's pro-independence movement and deemed a "separatist" by Beijing.
There are also indications that this stupendous muscle-flexing was targeting more than the usual suspects; for examples Taiwan and the United States. Parts of the exercises took place close to the disputed Paracel Islands, including the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagos in the South China Sea, a few islets whose sovereignty is claimed by Vietnam. Last Friday, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry pointed out that the war games were a "violation of Vietnam's sovereignty".
Le Dung, the Vietnamese ministry's spokesman, said, "It is not in line with the common perception of senior leaders of the two countries as well as the spirit of the recent meeting between the two prime ministers on the sidelines of the 13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore."
A Beijing source close to the Taiwan policy establishment said the Central Military Commission and the Communist Party's Leading Group on Taiwan Affairs - which is also headed by Hu - were worried about possible "tricks" by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the pro-independence ruling party in Taiwan, in the run-up to the presidential elections scheduled for next March.
The source said that Beijing was most worried that the Taiwan military might engineer a "military crisis" with the PLA, which would then serve as a pretext for the DPP administration to postpone the elections or even to impose martial law. Last Sunday, Taiwanese President and DPP chairman Chen Shui-bian indicated that proclaiming martial law was an option if the opposition Kuomintang (KMT, or Nationalist Party) continues to side-step electoral procedures for the upcoming Legislative Yuan elections.
While Chen later withdrew his threat, Beijing remained concerned that the DPP leadership might again resort to wild cards given the fact that the KMT presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou, has consistently outpolled the DPP's Frank Hsieh in island-wide surveys.
The Chinese civilian leadership has largely assumed a low profile on the Taiwan issue. In his address to the 17th Congress, President Hu even dangled the possibility of a "peace accord" with Taiwan. Yet the post-17th Congress leadership has been at the same time hedging its soft bet on the KMT by making thorough preparations for what Hu called "military struggles" against pro-independence elements on the island. As outgoing Defense Minister General Cao Gangchuan put it earlier this month: "Should Chen Shui-bian be bold enough to concoct major events [in the direction] of independence, we shall take drastic measures to uphold national sovereignty and territorial integrity at any cost."
The two most powerful bodies in the polity - the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) and the CMC - are filled with cadres and generals with long-standing expertise on Taiwan. Three PSC members have served as either governor or party secretary of Fujian, the "frontline province" opposite Taiwan. They are Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Jia Qinglin, Secretary of the Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection He Guoqiang, and fifth-generation rising star Xi Jinping, the front-ranked secretary of the Central Committee Secretariat.
The CMC is replete with Taiwan Strait specialists. This include Defense Minister designate General Liang Guanglie, a veteran commander of war games off the Taiwan coast; the newly promoted Chief of General Staff, General Chen Bingde, a former commander of the Nanjing Military Region; Air Force Commander General Xu Qiliang, who was once based in Fujian; and Naval Commander Admiral Wu Shengli, a former vice-chief of the East Sea Fleet. Since becoming CMC chief in late 2004, Hu has promoted a large number of alumni of the Nanjing Military Region, which has "jurisdiction" over the strait.
On a larger scale, last week's provocative exercises tally with the overall pattern of power projection that began early this year with the destruction of an old weather satellite by state-of-the-art PLA missiles. The feat, which apparently signaled Beijing's readiness to join the militarization of space, was followed by the country's successful effort late last month to put a Chinese-made satellite into the moon's orbit.
Moreover, the PLA has for the past year deviated from its past practice of keeping newly developed weapons under wraps. Semi-official military websites regularly run stories and pictures that showcase the prototypes or just-completed versions of soon-to-be-deployed hardware ranging from the Jin-class submarine - which is capable of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles - to the nation's first aircraft carrier.
Apart from telling Taiwan independence forces - and their sympathizers in the United States and Japan - that Beijing has the wherewithal to maintain national unity, Beijing is flexing its military muscle in a fashion befitting an emerging quasi-superpower. Referring to the 17th Congress, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences strategist Hong Yuan pointed out that "the [defense] concerns of the new leadership and the force projection of China's military have gone way beyond the Taiwan Strait".
Hong sees the coming five years as "a period of rapid development in areas ranging from the PLA's establishment, institutions and hardware to the extent and means of force projection".
Moreover, the display of the country's new-found achievements in weaponry and aeronautics serves to strengthen internal cohesiveness, a long-standing Communist Party goal. As Premier Wen Jiabao put it on Monday while displaying China's first close-up satellite pictures of the moon: the feat is a "major manifestation of the increase in our comprehensive national strength and the ceaseless enhancement of our innovative ability". Wen added, "[The project] will have a tremendous significance toward boosting the cohesiveness of the people."
Chinks in the Chinese armor, however, have become apparent in the course of Beijing's bold display of military prowess. The latest war games have demonstrated poor coordination among the Communist Party, government and military departments. For example, it was not until November 21 that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered its snub to the Kitty Hawk (suggesting the delay may be the result of policy discrepancy); however, the ministry reversed itself a day later by saying that the Chinese had now granted permission to the port call for "humanitarian reasons".
This was in apparent reference to the hundreds of the crew's family members who had flown into Hong Kong in anticipation of Thanksgiving festivities. The battle group, however, was well on its way back to its Japan home base, and there was no question of it turning back to Hong Kong.
The Kitty Hawk affair has cast a pall over seemingly positive developments in US-Chinese military relations. Most notably, there is the issue of military transparency, which was raised by Secretary Gates during his visit to China. The military drills were not reported by any official Chinese media. There are also indications that the PLA did not alert relevant Chinese government departments, let alone countries in the Asia-Pacific region, of the maneuvers.
These developments may also cast a shadow over the Chinese navy's first-ever port call in Japan this week. The Shenzhen missile destroyer will be in Japan for four days in what the two countries hope will be a symbolic confirmation of the thaw in bilateral ties.
The increasing assertiveness of Hu and his generals, however, could potentially stoke the "China threat" theory in Japan, the United States, and Southeast Asian countries that still have territorial disputes with China.
Willy Wo-Lap Lam is a senior fellow at The Jamestown Foundation. He has worked in senior editorial positions in international media including Asiaweek news magazine, South China Morning Post and the Asia-Pacific Headquarters of CNN.
http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/China/IL01Ad02.html

Monday, Dec. 03, 2007
China's Kitty Hawk Problem
By Simon Elegant

One of the most striking aspects of China's emergence as a world power has been the sophistication with which the nation's complex and evolving new role on the global stage has been managed. A country that once was known for stonefaced spokesmen spouting slogans has displayed a remarkable finesse in forging new relationships and revivifying old ones. In the last five years, for example, President Hu Jintao has led a concerted effort to spread China's so-called "soft power" in Asia, Africa and South America. There have also been sharp reversals of what previously seemed intractable positions on key regional issues such as reining in North Korea's nuclear program, where many observers credit pressure from China on their North Korean allies as being critical to the effort's progress. Long-strained relations with Japan have also improved markedly; over the weekend, the two counties held their highest-level summit in Beijing since diplomatic ties were restored in 1972.
Yet despite all its newfound diplomatic adroitness, on a few sensitive issues the Beijing government seems to revert instinctively to its Maoist-era default mode. Last week China gave the world a series of demonstrations of that, in relation to two especially sensitive issues, Taiwan and the Dalai Lama.
The problem first emerged when news broke of China's refusal to allow the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier to make a long-planned port visit to Hong Kong for the American Thanksgiving holiday. The abrupt decision produced plenty of heart-wrenching news photos of tearful U.S. Navy family members who had flown into Hong Kong to meet their loved ones. Apparently in reaction to the negative coverage, the Foreign Ministry then announced it had changed its mind for "humanitarian reasons" and would allow the carrier to visit after all, though by this time the ship was already well on its way to its home base in Japan. Similar confusion seemed to be in evidence a few days later when, during a visit to the White House, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi reportedly told President Bush the episode was due to a "misunderstanding." But the next day, ministry spokesman in Beijing Liu Jianchao, told reporters that reports Yang had used the word "misunderstanding" didn't "conform with the facts."
Some 50 U.S. navy vessels pass through Hong Kong in a normal year and the only time entry has been refused before was during crises such as the bombing by American planes of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and the mid-air collision of a Chinese fighter and a U.S. surveillance plane in 2001. So in diplomatic terms, the Kitty Hawk refusal was a pretty sharp rebuke. It was also a much more calculated move than it at first appeared: The Pentagon revealed in the days after the incident that two other ships and a U.S. Air Force plane had earlier been denied stopovers in Hong Kong. Comments by Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu made it clear that there was a linkage between the refusals and the Washington visit earlier in November by the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, as well as to the recently announced sale of a batch of sophisticated arms to Taiwan.
Beijing may have thought it was making a clear diplomatic demarche. But the flip-flopping over the Kitty Hawk made China seem both vindictive and indecisive. It led a lot of observers to wonder what would happen if there was a real crisis in the Taiwan Strait, where there is always the potential for a disastrous "misunderstanding." It also highlighted a lack of communication within the Chinese government that makes the possibility of a military confrontation in the Strait even more worrying.
One problem, says Huang Jing, a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C., is that China's Foreign Ministry has relatively little power and largely acts as a messenger to convey policies crafted at higher levels, such as the military. "Everyone seems to think that Yang Jiechi is China's Condi Rice," says Huang, "but he's actually quite low on the totem pole compared with a senior general, to whom he would have to bow and be deferential." Of course, many bureaucracies suffer from communications problems, blurred lines of authority and plain old dumb decisions. But because of its burgeoning importance in helping to manage world affairs, China now has a responsibility to set its house in order. With 900 missiles aimed at Taiwan on China's coast and U.S. carrier battle groups sailing through the Taiwan Strait, there's ample opportunity for miscalculation. And if shooting started because some general didn't want to pander to a lowly member of the striped-pants set, that wouldn't just be dumb. It would be a disaster.
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690086,00.html
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The media seems to show things differently

- China warns Australia on Dalai Lama meetings
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1926184.htm
That article was in May 2007. Using that article in isolation ignores the end reality.

- Did china call in the ambassador for a dressing down?
- Has china cancelled any trade delegations since then? No. In fact the most senior politician in china with respect to trade development attended the REGA conference and advised us that "business as usual" would prevail. We sat in that room as he assured us that they respected our political independence to make decisions in our own political interests - and that they were obliged to register their concerns.

Outside of that? China did nothing. zip nada, zero zilch.

Political noise colour and movement.

That they elected to exercise some greater symbolic displeasure towards the US is something that only they can account for.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This is slightly irrational, neither is policy, I refer you to Occums razor above.

Big, powerful countries habitually act in a high handed and arrogant fashion, being from a small non aligned country this is quite distressing, but not perticularly alarming.
Ignoring the fundamental tenets of the ILS is disturbing in itself. Where in the last 100 years had a similar act occurred in peacetime?
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #50
There are a number of interesting comments.

A few things should be noted. The USS Kitty Hawk CSG bumped into the PLAN exercise taking place east of Hong Kong. If you look it up, you can see that live fire exercise was announced regionally by coordinates, and apparently the US Navy skirted outside that area, but not by enough to avoid contact with the PLAN.

Following the denial of entry to Hong Kong, the US Navy plotted a direct course to Japan, in both the case of the minesweepers and the KH CSG, right through the Taiwan Strait. That no doubt pissed off the Chinese. To put in perspective, prior to this incident the last two times the US Navy has plotted through the Taiwan Strait was during the 2000 Taiwan elections (which many thought could have led to war) and in 2001, following 9/11 when the Kitty Hawk rushed to get to the Indian Ocean (and obtained permission from China to do so).

Now anyone with a computer and the internet can plainly see the US Navy took the Taiwan Strait path to avoid the bad weather SE of Taiwan, choosing not to sail directly into a pretty large storm. China won't use those details in their press though, of that we can count on.

I'm not sure what the gain is for China though. There is some potential for naval mistrust of the current administrations policies towards China, but entering an election year where that administration is on its way out it is difficult to see any gains for China there. There is a morale issue, no doubt most sailors in the 7th fleet are frustrated with China, but what does that really gain China? This whole saving face business doesn’t apply either; China never had a reason to save face until they created the issue by blocking the visit to the Kitty Hawk.

It is difficult to see that this has any real effect on US-China relations, other than to give Americans, and more specifically the American military more reason to be skeptical of China. For as much speculation as their is regarding what would trigger such a move, if you dismiss the trivial claims what is left can lead to dangerous speculation.

A few weeks ago, I would have readily agreed with analysis that the US wouldn’t intervene in a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan. Following this incident, I’m not sure what the US would do. To me, that change in perception is the real effect of this incident.
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
As someone who's gene pool covers both china and the west, I wholeheartedly concur. IMO you're one of the few people who've actually articulated it correctly.

I'd also point out that the Chinese reaction re the US and the Dalai Lama is selective. China has not made or expressed any displeasure with both Germany and Australia even though they tried to discourage a meeting.

Ultimately, Chinese respect strength of will and intent. Whether the west likes it or not, they have fallen over with almost indecent haste to trade with China, and discovered intermittently along the way that the issues of Corporate Governance in place that would normally provide them with some degree of protection does not even remotely exist. The arrogance of abandoning any pretext of honoring issues such as IP protection has now manifested itself into abandoning basic tenets of IML in allowing vessels in inclement weather to seek shelter. HK is not an exclusive military port, so no excuse exists to deny entry on the basis of military sensitivity etc...

Its not one of the smartest things the CCP has done, and all its done is seek to reinforce a perception of selective shifting sands.

I don't know how many wake up calls are needed on this, but one would think that Adm Keating has finally worked out that low level diplomacy was a waste of time.
It's interesting isn't it....the PRC/CCP reaction about 'foreign interference' in its "internal affairs" when it itself attempts to 'actively discourage' Dalai Lama gatherings by electronic interference and physical intimidation using local thugs. Unfortunately the West lacks a comprehensive China policy at both individual level as well as regional (EU) level, policy on most things is conducted on an bilateral basis on the political realities of the day instead of a longer term view. French politicians in particular are the worst offenders although the quality of coverage and analysis provided by DGSE is first rate. The recent Sino-EU summit in Beijing was a complete farce with human rights taking a backseat to trade, which I might add is currently $475 billion in the PRC's favor-the undervalued Yuan accounting for much of this and I'll be noting this in mh report to the authorities back home.

I often wonder if the West even cares about its so called "values", Sweden and Norway seem to be the only European countries willing to openly defy the plutocracy in Beijing although the opposition in my country appears more "conciliatory" to the CCP's interests in the name of trade-the CCP exploits the business community skillfully, throwing banquets in their honor and making them feel "like emperors" and in the process skillfully deemphasizing any mention of human rights (not that pre-Communist China had any Western style HR anyway). This gives unscrupolous Chinese authorities in collusion with local business interests (through deeply intertwined links of guanxi and obligations) enormous leverage over Westerners who quite frankly are unused to dealing with this sort of "economic warfare" (Chinese and most Asians treat business as war as evidenced by the enduring popularity of Sun Tzu's Art of War application). Much of my time is spent advising Western businessmen on the finer points of securely protecting themselves from "technology bleed" and theft although I point out that my government made a critical error in selling the Erieye system to Pakistan because we're soon going to be seeing a Boeing 737 with an "Erieye-ling" style radar if not directly copied over the Taiwan Strait in the next 10 years.

I can assure you that that will not be conductive to engagement/"low level diplomacy" because it seems according to the various military attaches I've talked to that there have a) been problems of recipricality as with no US observer invited to attend this excercise contrasted with PLA obervance at Valiant Shield 2005 and b) The CCP Politburo cooped up in Zhongnanhai actually seem to believe the paper technological advances of their systems will advance them to the level of combat effectiveness of the USAF/USN without considering the serious lack of training/experience/logistical challenges they lack compared to US personnel. That in itself is potential for serious miscalculation and the perception of regional parity/PRC material advantage in the Taiwan Strait (given the inability of Taiwan to adequately gain parity in the Sea and Air due to KMT stalling on the defense budget) is exactly what the US should hedge against.

Interesting thought by Galrahn on the "blockade" excercise against Taiwan-it would seem that CCP leadership through the CMC is actually contemplating such a "low level" response to pressure Taiwan, the OP would probably involve sub laid 'minefields' and 'safe corridors' that are near or in PRC territorial waters-making any transit of the Strait dependant on the PLAN's approval along with surface patrols. The ROCN's anti mine, ASuW and AShW capabilities are stunningly poor even with an extra 12 P-3C's and nobody's sure whether the USN would intervene to demine the Strait or risk the slow 'strangulation of Taiwan' without a 'fight' as the Avenger Class minsweepers only make 13-15 knts and would take one-two months to arrive. Then there's always the possibility that Taiwan will escalate the situation, playing into the hands of the PRC as it would be seen in the media as 'seemingly firing the first shot'. Taiwan really is a symbol of US foreign policy commitment to the region and to democracy and the stakes for the US are high as abandoning a 'semi ally' would send a message to other AP nations that US influence is on the decline. The only downside I see in this for the PRC is that they may escalate the 'stangulation' too fast and that Japan will almost certainly rearm/US will be forced into intervening/escalating the conflict or risk Japan agreeing to PRC demands and a loss of US presence in the Pacific.
 
Last edited:

Gripenator

Banned Member
"Always wishing it so"? I think it may be you that is "wishing" the little episode hasn't affected China's reputation in Hong Kong.

My opinion is that - opinion - based on the people I know in the city. From that if refusing entry to the USN were to effect the recent election in one way or another, it would be to make China look bad rather than good.

I can't believe anyone could say with any credibility that it would have made the central government look good in HK people's eyes.
Most of the random and other sources I've gathered in the CBD district of Central agree with you, locals who don't know anything don't care (47 people) but when told they said it was immature of the PRC to renege on a long agreed visit and damage Hong Kong's reputation, business leaders (12) unanimously condmened the move as "blatant interference" that is bad for business, democrats (5) condemned CCP/PRC's interference in Hong Kong's local affairs and PRC "buttock kissing" apologists (3) proclaimed "China has stood up for itself" and the sacred "internal affairs" line was heard again. So from we can reasonably conclude that most people aren't happy with this decision-more of this from the delusional twenty five in Zhongnanhai expected in the future.
 

Schumacher

New Member
.........

That they elected to exercise some greater symbolic displeasure towards the US is something that only they can account for.
Code:
Probably has much to do with the fact that it was Howard who met DL & that they expected him to be on the way out anyway. We all know how PRC has a soft spot for Rudd. :)
Did Rudd meet with DL ?

Even the meeting Howard had was routine in that it was similar as in previous occasions whereas the one with Bush & US congress I believe were elevated in terms of protocol etc.
Basically Bush made a deliberate decision to send some kind of message to PRC with that, unless of course one believes Bush is just a DL 'fan' & innocently arranged the meeting without thinking abt the implication with PRC.
Well, PRC got the message as intended & sent some of its own in return.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Probably has much to do with the fact that it was Howard who met DL & that they expected him to be on the way out anyway. We all know how PRC has a soft spot for Rudd. :)
Did Rudd meet with DL ?
Rudd met the Dalai Lama 3 days before Howard. In fact Howard was viewed as succumbing to public pressure because Rudd refused to be dictated to about who we could meet in our own country. Howard initially was not going to see the Dalai Lama.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Given part of the Chinese stance appears to be related to relations with the Dali Lama by western governments they certainly are behaving in an unacceptable amnner from my POV. When the historical background of the Chinese involvement in Tibet is considered the Chinese claim to Tibet is questionable at best adn could more reasonably be considered an example of unprevoked aggression against an independent state.

The claim arose out of the conquest of Tibet by the Mongol Lord Kublai Kahn in the mid 13th centuary. After the subsequent defeat of the Song in china proper (southern China) Kublai established the Yuan dynstaty that unified China and lasted until the 1368 (from memory) when the Ming dynasty cast the yuan out but with the result that thea rea under Yuan (Mongol) control was again divided.

It must be remembered Kublai was not Chinese and that the Mongols controlled lands ranging from the western Russian states through the Middle east (to the boarders of Egypt) and into Asia (where they were stopped by Burma and Vietnam to use modern names). This control was divided between other Kahn's with Kublai being the Great Kahn (the last great Kahn according to some). By the end of his rule his effective control had been limited to an area similar to modern China, but included Tibet.

While not really being Chinese he has been adopted as such by China in their interpretation of history and as such historians such as Man consider that the chinese claim to Tibet has arisen out the Mongol conquest. Tibet regained a degree of self control after the death of Kublia Kahn and wiht the disinteragration of the Yuan but Chinese influence continued until the Sino/Japan war in the late 1800 when a Tibeten Militia attacked the Chinese occupying force and Tibet was effectively independent again by 1913. It is possible that their sensitivity with regard to Tibet amy partly due to the fact their claim is viewed unfavorably by most western comentators and a number of governments.
 

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

I am continuing to play the Devil's advocate....

Ignoring the fundamental tenets of the ILS is disturbing in itself.
(i) US compliance
What is disturbing is the continued refusal of the US to ratify accession to the UNCLOS. If the United States is not even a member to the UNCLOS, it'd seems rather hypocritical of the US to start citing breaches of international law that it does not ascribe to...

Consider the US naval operations handbook:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/cnws/ild/documents/1-14M_(Jul_2007)_(NWP).pdf

International law provides stability in international relations and an
expectation that certain acts or omissions will effect predictable consequences. If one nation violates the law, it may expect that others will reciprocate.

Indeed, if the US is not even a party to the UNCLOS in the first place, how much international moral standing does the US really hold to argue its case?

(ii) US practice

What actually is the US practice? The US doesn't even have proper place of refuge guidelines. Even Washington state only incorporate the place of refuge guidelines in 2006 and even then on a "case by case" basis. The US coastguard only makes reference to force majeure. US domestic legislation does not even deal with the subject directly.

In contrast, China is ironically one of the few countries to have actually domestic legislation governing this.

Its quite funny to say that it is customary law when its not even recognised domestic law.

(iii) Does place of refuge even cover warships?

Australian practice:

http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Envir...delines/refuge_risk_assessment_guidelines.pdf

"It should be noted that if a place of refuge is granted to a warship, most relevant international conventions, in particular those relating to intervention, liability and compensation, do not apply."

Most EU regulations do not even cover warships. Is China required to uphold a greater standard than any other country?

Cite me one instance where customary law governing place of refuge covers that of a warship?

(iv) Was China incorrect in its risk assessment?

Neither of the 2 minesweepers suffered any damage or loss of life. On hindsight, was the risk assessment correct?

I also doubt if a CV port call for recreation would have been an issue for distress.

Where in the last 100 years had a similar act occurred in peacetime?
Actually, it has happened many times and even to commercial ships.

Australia refused entry to the Iron baron in 1995 to Tasmania to discharge its cargo.

The US did it to the Prinsendam in 1980 when seeking a place of refuge in Alaska. Do you know that the US does not even have a single documented case where it has granted place of refuge for any large ship salvage operation? lol.

The biggest incident was actually the Castor where Spain, UK and Moroccan authorities refused a place of refuge which triggered the whole debate in the IMO.

My personal view is that places of refuge should be granted as a matter of faith. The problem is the human tendency to abuse faith which leads to guidelines etc. I agree its a childish spat. One side wants to vent frustration, the other wants to demonise. Both parties should just move on.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Much of my time is spent advising Western businessmen on the finer points of securely protecting themselves from "technology bleed" and theft although I point out that my government made a critical error in selling the Erieye system to Pakistan because we're soon going to be seeing a Boeing 737 with an "Erieye-ling" style radar if not directly copied over the Taiwan Strait in the next 10 years.
Boeing learnt that lesson too late when it was discovered that some of the tech used in the F-117 had reached the commercial market, and that in effect they had given china some of the building blocks for signature management. Too much Gordon Gecko and not caution.


Interesting thought by Galrahn on the "blockade" excercise against Taiwan-it would seem that CCP leadership through the CMC is actually contemplating such a "low level" response to pressure Taiwan, the OP would probably involve sub laid 'minefields' and 'safe corridors' that are near or in PRC territorial waters-making any transit of the Strait dependant on the PLAN's approval along with surface patrols. The ROCN's anti mine, ASuW and AShW capabilities are stunningly poor even with an extra 12 P-3C's and nobody's sure whether the USN would intervene to demine the Strait or risk the slow 'strangulation of Taiwan' without a 'fight' as the Avenger Class minsweepers only make 13-15 knts and would take one-two months to arrive. Then there's always the possibility that Taiwan will escalate the situation, playing into the hands of the PRC as it would be seen in the media as 'seemingly firing the first shot'. Taiwan really is a symbol of US foreign policy commitment to the region and to democracy and the stakes for the US are high as abandoning a 'semi ally' would send a message to other AP nations that US influence is on the decline. The only downside I see in this for the PRC is that they may escalate the 'stangulation' too fast and that Japan will almost certainly rearm/US will be forced into intervening/escalating the conflict or risk Japan agreeing to PRC demands and a loss of US presence in the Pacific.
I attended an Underwater Warfare Conf in Hawai'i in 2004 and one of the workshops was "traversing a controlled waterway".
The universal belief was that the straits would be arrayed and that you either killed a corridor through the array (if insisting on traversing the straits) - or you did business via another method.

As for Japan, my own sense of it is that they've started to cross the rubicon - and again IMO that started to turn because the CCP failed to manage some anti-japanese demonstrations properly earlier this year. I know a few operators from the JMSDF and they're not fearful of the PLAN at all. (vessel for vessel, disparate training, bluewater training and management they're a golden league ahead). The Oyashios are one of the few conventionals that can take it up to a nuke - and they know it.

All in all, there have been some spectacular missteps in reading the wind on this event. It will be interesting to see how this evolves at a diplomatic level as for all the bluff and bluster we have 2 partially co-dependant giants tied to each others belts ....

I certainly regard that there is far more end game significance in the way that this has been conducted that what is being diplomatically presented. (when I was attached to the China Task Force during Tiananmen we had a nickname for these kinds of events, they were referred to as "cholesterol events". In other words, things were hardening up, and if they were not diagnosed properly, then there could be an ugly outcome which could come out of left field...)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
(iii) Does place of refuge even cover warships?
Yes. ILS is in place to ensure good will.

Australian practice:

http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Envir...delines/refuge_risk_assessment_guidelines.pdf

"It should be noted that if a place of refuge is granted to a warship, most relevant international conventions, in particular those relating to intervention, liability and compensation, do not apply."
In 1952 HMAS Sydney sought and was granted etry into Yokahama during Cyclone Ruth.

Most EU regulations do not even cover warships. Is China required to uphold a greater standard than any other country?

Cite me one instance where customary law governing place of refuge covers that of a warship?
see above

(iv) Was China incorrect in its risk assessment?
you aren't seriously going to argue that the decision revolved around maritime safety judgement?

Neither of the 2 minesweepers suffered any damage or loss of life. On hindsight, was the risk assessment correct?
You anticipate the problem - hindsight is always wonderful post event.

I also doubt if a CV port call for recreation would have been an issue for distress.
The CV was not in distress - OTOH the two smaller vesels sought shelter for a reason.

Actually, it has happened many times and even to commercial ships.

Australia refused entry to the Iron baron in 1995 to Tasmania to discharge its cargo.
Oh come on! A 38k bulk carrier that was at risk of breaking up and causing a bio crisis? The examples you cite are completely and mischievously out of context. If we use a parallel example then china should have offered to recover the crew in the event of the turn in weather conditions - they did not. They denied entry period. You cannot in all good consciousnes offer up an example of a vessel that was breaking up and loaded with biohazards the same sense of justification. Esp when the crew would have/could have been available to recover. Where did china exercise any option to assist in the event of a problem? None

The biggest incident was actually the Castor where Spain, UK and Moroccan authorities refused a place of refuge which triggered the whole debate in the IMO.
again you are being deceptive with the example. Castor was accorded maritime recovery options, there were rescue vessels on standby - it was a vessel that was breaking up and the EU had already had incidents of how to manage structurally distressed ships with biohazards on board.

They'd already had their coastline screwed up and were well within their right to ensure that it didn't foul up the coast again. There were no containment options in place and it was viewed that dispersal in blue water would minimise the spill.

You keep on giving examples of vessels already breaking up and that were post event managed. All of the actions can be walked through with some clarity.

The whole problem with Castor lies in the fact that the local spanish authorities misinterpreted their obligations under the EU agreements (even the US said that they mismanaged the process). Be that as it may, the Spanish were ready and able to offer assistance to the crew.

Is there any indication that the Chinese authorities offered support if the ships were in distress? No.
 

Transient

Member
(i) US compliance
What is disturbing is the continued refusal of the US to ratify accession to the UNCLOS. If the United States is not even a member to the UNCLOS, it'd seems rather hypocritical of the US to start citing breaches of international law that it does not ascribe to...
The US is already in voluntary compliance with UNCLOS, it just doesn't accept Part XI of the convention.
http://oldsite.globalsolutions.org/programs/health_environment/facts_reports/UNCLOS_factsheet.pdf

(ii) US practice

What actually is the US practice? The US doesn't even have proper place of refuge guidelines. Even Washington state only incorporate the place of refuge guidelines in 2006 and even then on a "case by case" basis. The US coastguard only makes reference to force majeure. US domestic legislation does not even deal with the subject directly.
Just because it doesn't have the guidelines or legislation doesn't mean it won't provide refuge under similar circumstances. On the other hand, having legislation doesn't help in any way as can be seen from China's refusal to provide assistance to ships in distress.

"It should be noted that if a place of refuge is granted to a warship, most relevant international conventions, in particular those relating to intervention, liability and compensation, do not apply."
How does this imply that place of refuge doesn't cover warships? All it shows is that liability and compensation doesn't apply.

(iv) Was China incorrect in its risk assessment?

Neither of the 2 minesweepers suffered any damage or loss of life. On hindsight, was the risk assessment correct?
They were at much greater risk of danger due to their smaller size. China was very lucky nothing happened to them. The issue of distress applied only to the 2 minesweepers.

I also doubt if a CV port call for recreation would have been an issue for distress.
For the carriers, what caused unhappiness was that China had denied entry despite giving approval. As Keating said earlier, the denial of entry to the carriers could be overlooked, but denial of entry to the minesweepers in distress couldn't.

The US did it to the Prinsendam in 1980 when seeking a place of refuge in Alaska.
Your spin is showing.

"In October 1980, while cruising in international waters of the Gulf of Alaska, the passenger vessel PRINSENDAM suffered a fire in its engine room. The fire quickly was out of control. In one of the most dramatic rescues in history, helicopters of the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force, and Canadian Forces, along with the USCG cutters MELLON, BOUTWELL, and WOODRUSH and the tanker WILLIAMSBURGH rescued all 319 passengers and 205 crew. The PRINSENDAM was then taken under tow by a salvage tug. Due to the damage to the vessel, which was listing badly, and the severe weather, the owner sought permission to bring the vessel into the sheltered waters of the Inside Passage to effect temporary repairs and wait for the storm to abate. The Coast Guard denied permission. The PRINSENDAM sank soon afterwards. It is unlikely that approval of the request would have saved the vessel."

There was good reason not to allow entry when all the passengers and crew were already rescued and the ship could have sunk in sheltered waters requiring heavy costs to remove it.

Do you know that the US does not even have a single documented case where it has granted place of refuge for any large ship salvage operation? lol.
That is because they didn't keep records, not because they never allowed entry.
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
Boeing learnt that lesson too late when it was discovered that some of the tech used in the F-117 had reached the commercial market, and that in effect they had given china some of the building blocks for signature management. Too much Gordon Gecko and not caution.




I attended an Underwater Warfare Conf in Hawai'i in 2004 and one of the workshops was "traversing a controlled waterway".
The universal belief was that the straits would be arrayed and that you either killed a corridor through the array (if insisting on traversing the straits) - or you did business via another method.

As for Japan, my own sense of it is that they've started to cross the rubicon - and again IMO that started to turn because the CCP failed to manage some anti-japanese demonstrations properly earlier this year. I know a few operators from the JMSDF and they're not fearful of the PLAN at all. (vessel for vessel, disparate training, bluewater training and management they're a golden league ahead). The Oyashios are one of the few conventionals that can take it up to a nuke - and they know it.

All in all, there have been some spectacular missteps in reading the wind on this event. It will be interesting to see how this evolves at a diplomatic level as for all the bluff and bluster we have 2 partially co-dependant giants tied to each others belts ....

I certainly regard that there is far more end game significance in the way that this has been conducted that what is being diplomatically presented. (when I was attached to the China Task Force during Tiananmen we had a nickname for these kinds of events, they were referred to as "cholesterol events". In other words, things were hardening up, and if they were not diagnosed properly, then there could be an ugly outcome which could come out of left field...)
Speaking of signature management..the US intelligence community believes that traitor Noshir Gowadia suceeded in compromizing the entire B-2 program through his "disclosures" to the PRC about the signature of that aircraft-prompting the accceleration of the upcoming USAF next gen bomber to compensate for the fact that the B-2 is no longer regarded as "survivable" enough to penetrate PRC airspace-a task left to the F-22A.

Unfortunately it's the psychological mindset of the Politburo that has many China watchers worried-the American and major EU intelligence services in a yearly updated psychological assessment classified the CMC and most of the PLA top brass as being "xenophobic", "virulently anti-American", having exaggerated expectations of the capabilities of the PLA/AF/N as well as "itching" to prove their mettle against Taiwan and the USN as opposed to the wait-and-see pragmatists of Politburo members with a non PLA background who are outnumbered since it is the CMC which have Hu Jintao's ear at the moment, having been granted a larger share of the budget pie as a reward for their 'loyalty' in the 'little' power struggle between Jiang Zemin and Hu. It can be seen that compared with Deng, who made military modernization the last of his "Four Modernizations", Hu, being a technocrat without any special charisma has staked his power base with the PLA. This makes for an interesting but volatile mix. In this context, would they mine the Strait to provoke a cross strait conflict?

In my opinion, yes, given their behavior during the 2006 ASAT Test, the PRC Foreign Ministry (non PLA Politburo) was completely in the dark for several days about the test-as well as the test being carried out almost certainly with the approval of Hu. The test of course was to rally the Chinese people behind the CCP (nationalism) in a gross reversal of roles of the Chinese Civil War, the instigators of the test (almost certainly Gen. Guo Boxiong and Gen. Chen Bingde) were subsequently given promotions and/or were not punished. My apologies I'm being general, I cannot be much more specific on details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top