Posted on 12/13/2013 2:57:59 AM PST by markomalley
A Chinese naval vessel tried to force a U.S. guided missile warship to stop in international waters recently, causing a tense military standoff in the latest case of Chinese maritime harassment, according to defense officials.
The guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens, which recently took part in disaster relief operations in the Philippines, was confronted by Chinese warships in the South China Sea near Beijing’s new aircraft carrier Liaoning, according to officials familiar with the incident.
“On December 5th, while lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision,” a Navy official said.
“This incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap.”
A State Department official said the U.S. government issued protests to China in both Washington and Beijing in both diplomatic and military channels.
The Cowpens was conducting surveillance of the Liaoning at the time. The carrier had recently sailed from the port of Qingdao on the northern Chinese coast into the South China Sea.
According to the officials, the run-in began after a Chinese navy vessel sent a hailing warning and ordered the Cowpens to stop. The cruiser continued on its course and refused the order because it was operating in international waters.
Then a Chinese tank landing ship sailed in front of the Cowpens and stopped, forcing the Cowpens to abruptly change course in what the officials said was a dangerous maneuver.
According to the officials, the Cowpens was conducting a routine operation done to exercise its freedom of navigation near the Chinese carrier when the incident occurred about a week ago.
The encounter was the type of incident that senior Pentagon officials recently warned could take place as a result of heightened tensions in the region over China’s declaration of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently called China’s new air defense zone destabilizing and said it increased the risk of a military “miscalculation.”
China’s military forces in recent days have dispatched Su-30 and J-11 fighter jets, as well as KJ-2000 airborne warning and control aircraft, to the zone to monitor the airspace that is used frequently by U.S. and Japanese military surveillance aircraft.
The United States has said it does not recognize China’s ADIZ, as has Japan’s government.
Two U.S. B-52 bombers flew through the air zone last month but were not shadowed by Chinese interceptor jets.
Chinese naval and air forces also have been pressing Japan in the East China Sea over Tokyo’s purchase a year ago of several uninhabited Senkaku Islands located north of Taiwan and south of Okinawa.
China is claiming the islands, which it calls the Diaoyu. They are believed to contain large undersea reserves of natural gas and oil.
The Liaoning, China’s first carrier that was refitted from an old Soviet carrier, and four warships recently conducted their first training maneuvers in the South China Sea. The carrier recently docked at the Chinese naval port of Hainan on the South China Sea.
Defense officials have said China’s imposition of the ADIZ is aimed primarily at curbing surveillance flights in the zone, which China’s military regards as a threat to its military secrets.
The U.S. military conducts surveillance flights with EP-3 aircraft and long-range RQ-4 Global Hawk drones.
In addition to the Liaoning, Chinese warships in the flotilla include two missile destroyers, the Shenyang and the Shijiazhuang, and two missile frigates, the Yantai and the Weifang.
Rick Fisher, a China military affairs expert, said it is likely that the Chinese deliberately staged the incident as part of a strategy of pressuring the United States.
“They can afford to lose an LST [landing ship] as they have about 27 of them, but they are also usually armed with one or more twin 37 millimeter cannons, which at close range could heavily damage a lightly armored U.S. Navy destroyer,” said Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
Most Chinese Navy large combat ships would be out-ranged by the 127-millimeter guns deployed on U.S. cruisers, except China’s Russian-made Sovremenny-class ships and Beijing’s new Type 052D destroyers that are armed with 130-millimeter guns.
The encounter appears to be part of a pattern of Chinese political signaling that it will not accept the presence of American military power in its East Asian theater of influence, Fisher said.
“China has spent the last 20 years building up its Navy and now feels that it can use it to obtain its political objectives,” he said.
Fisher said that since early 2012 China has gone on the offensive in both the South China and East China Seas.
“In this early stage of using its newly acquired naval power, China is posturing and bullying, but China is also looking for a fight, a battle that will cow the Americans, the Japanese, and the Filipinos,” he said.
To maintain stability in the face of Chinese military assertiveness, Fisher said the United States and Japan should seek an armed peace in the region by heavily fortifying the Senkaku Islands and the rest of the island chain they are part of.
“The U.S. and Japan should also step up their rearmament of the Philippines,” Fisher said.
The Cowpens incident is the most recent example of Chinese naval aggressiveness toward U.S. ships.
The U.S. intelligence-gathering ship, USNS Impeccable, came under Chinese naval harassment from a China Maritime Surveillance ship, part of Beijing’s quasi-military maritime patrol craft, in June.
During that incident, the Chinese ship warned the Navy ship it was operating illegally despite sailing in international waters. The Chinese demanded that the ship first obtain permission before sailing in the area that was more than 100 miles from China’s coast.
The U.S. military has been stepping up surveillance of China’s naval forces, including the growing submarine fleet, as part of the U.S. policy of rebalancing forces to the Pacific.
The Impeccable was harassed in March 2009 by five Chinese ships that followed it and sprayed it with water hoses in an effort to thwart its operations.
A second spy ship, the USNS Victorious, also came under Chinese maritime harassment several years ago.
Adm. Samuel Locklear, when asked last summer about increased Chinese naval activities near Guam and Hawaii in retaliation for U.S. ship-based spying on China, said the dispute involves different interpretations of controlled waters.
Locklear said in a meeting with reporters in July, “We believe the U.S. position is that those activities are less constrained than what the Chinese believe.”
China is seeking to control large areas of international waters—claiming they are part of its United Nations-defined economic exclusion zone—that Locklear said cover “most of the major sea lines of communication” near China and are needed to remain free for trade and shipping.
Locklear, who is known for his conciliatory views toward the Chinese military, sought to play down recent disputes. When asked if the Chinese activities were troubling, he said: “I would say it’s not provocative certainly. I’d say that in the Asia-Pacific, in the areas that are closer to the Chinese homeland, that we have been able to conduct operations around each other in a very professional and increasingly professional manner.”
The Pentagon and U.S. Pacific Command have sought to develop closer ties to the Chinese military as part of the Obama administration’s Asia pivot policies.
However, China’s military has shown limited interest in closer ties.
China’s state-controlled news media regularly report that the United States is seeking to defeat China by encircling the country with enemies while promoting dissidents within who seek the ouster of the communist regime.
The Obama administration has denied it is seeking to “contain” China and has insisted it wants continued close economic and diplomatic relations.
President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to seek a new type of major power relationship during a summit in California earlier this year. However, the exact nature of the new relationship remains unclear.
half the cost, mostly due to regulations and taxes
So the costs of living in a particular country have nothing to do with the costs of production?
yeah we know which side you stand on.
So, what happens when a U.S. company offshores production to another country, again?
I’m sick of buying crap from China. Every damn thing is from there now. They OWN US!
Cost of living does, but your comparison was faulty….as was your assumption on the reasons the total costs of labor were so high……I mean, you just tried to connect dots that do not connect.
I realize logic is not your thing…..
Ok you are unable to find any wrong with China, ChiComs or Chinese world ambitions, duly noted. Your Chinese handlers will be pleased perhaps you will get a bonus.
My point was, and I knew this would be over your head, is that there is no more evidence I am pro Chinese than there is that you surf gay porn.
I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, but sine you are absurd, you missed it.
There is nothing about China I like or condone, period. And again, American Free Trade is NOT a China only issue. You have an obsession that clearly requires meds or counseling.
“The only way to bring back American jobs is to act more like the Chinas of the world.”
Pretty much. What’s your plan?
aww you have realized the weakness of your argument and have resorted to insult. thats soo cute
Speaking from experience, answering c_v’s loyalty question is meaningless. He’ll only ask it again in a few weeks when his panties get bunched.
Be specific.
The jobs and money leave the US.
perhaps you havent noticed.
Noting is pretty specific.
Or everything, from the other perspective, is perhaps moreso.
The burdne of proof is on you here sissyboi.
I figured something like that would happen when I bought the Audi. But AWD, 2.7L turbos were rather thin on the ground here. I’m happy with my purchase.
I guess if we make the air toxic we won’t have to worry about unemployment. The Chinese themselves have admitted that environmental degradation cost them almost 4% of their GDP every year. If you want to live in the Chinese system so bad, I suggest you move there.
Funny how close in ship-to-ship weapons are still relevant in an age of stand-off naval operations.
It appears Cowpens has a 3 to 5 inch gun. That means if you want to sink the Chinese ship, you are likely looking at torpedoes.
Crazy stuff.
Why is labor any different than goods and services? Doesn't a proponent of "free trade" also support the free movement of labor?
But as for the US trade policy? No, it cannot address those other problems you mentioned, not without clumsy central planning that picks rife with unintended and bad consequences to our own people, including the stunting of technology.
So you would not condition our trade with a country that uses slave/prison labor or children to produce exports to this country? Do you support trade sanctions on countries to influence their political behavior? Should US trade policy be "neutral" in terms of how it is used, i.e., kept separate from political, cultural, moral, environmental and other interests?
For example, we should not blame Apple or China for the fact that almost all of Apple’s products are made in China. Why? Because it’s American liberalism that caused it….not Apples’ greed. As for the conditions in China that make it attractive? Sorry, not something our elected officials can change. We just can’t.
There is no doubt that China can provide a more welcoming business environment free from such restrictions as the use of child labor, OSHA standards, environmental regulations, taxes, government subsidies, etc. How far should the US go towards replicating such an environment in the interest of businesses?
I have a real problem with the crony capitalism that has developed in this country. Government (federal, state, and local) controls over 40% of our GDP. Government decides who will be the winners and losers thru the allocation of funds, laws, regulations, etc. and corporations return the favor thru political contributions and support of the regime in charge. Right now, business is placing immense pressure on the political class to support an amnesty, an almost tripling of our permanent legal immigration over the next 10 years and a doubling of our guest worker programs. All at a time when over 20 million American are unemployed or underemployed.
Eisenhower spoke about how the the military-industrial complex posed a threat to this country. I would expand that to the corporate elite who increasingly have less and less allegiance to this country. They can go anywhere on the globe to conduct their operations and are increasingly doing so. The question is who is looking out for the welfare of the Republic and the American people?
Interesting that you should mention it . . . Milton Friedman (as an intellectual exercise) argued that free movement of labor across borders would be possible if things like the social safety net were equal. (Thus preventing people from hopping borders in search of freebies).
Apart from that, your rhetorical (I hope) question betrays a level of ignorance about free markets that is disturbing.
I agree with some of what you said, but I don’t agree with some of your other assertions. And NO - I do NOT agree that free trade is the same as having a borderless world….not at all.
The idea of free trade is that people and countries who might despise each other can still enter into relationships that benefit people who will not ever meet each other….which is totally different from a borderless society….totally.
I also agree that some trade agreements are related to cronyism, but my contention is that free trade is good, but that doesn’t mean all trade agreements are good. Cronyism in all aspects is awful and destructive, but cronyism would only become more rampant under more restrictive trade agreements, because by definition there would be more preordained winners and losers.
As for Apple, that company greatly improves the lives of those who work there in China, while improving the lives of their customers world wide. They did not create the awful conditions in China, and cannot be held responsible for them…..their situation is as win win…..and again, the only “loser” is potential US jobs, but that’s due to US policies.
It is an imperfect world, and freer trade is better for more people than less free trade. But nothing is utopia, and things only get worse when we try to find utopia.
The labor component is important if you decimate the jobs of the middle class who are the biggest consumers. Depressing wages will not help consumers in this country. And when you eliminate jobs, you put more people on the dole. The welfare state is quite advanced in the US. Replacing low skilled Americans with low skilled immigrants who work for lower wages does not help the country. We are getting ready to do the same thing with skilled labor.
It used to be that we needed more immigrants to do work Americans won't do. Now we also need them to do jobs Americans can't do. We have 90 million Americans of working age (16-64) who are not in the work force.
You need to go listen to Milton Friedman on “the pencil.”
I have seen and heard it many times. FYI: Milton Friedman said, ""You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.