Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Meanwhile, China tests the Obama administration
The entirely expected has happened, and China has poked the Obama administration. Its navy is brushing us back in international waters:
The White House urged Beijing to follow international law on Monday after a series of incidents in which the Chinese navy allegedly harassed US naval vessels in the South China sea.
According to the Pentagon, five Chinese ships “shadowed and aggressively manoeuvred in dangerously close proximity” to the USNS Impeccable, an ocean surveillance vessel operating 75 miles south of the Chinese island of Hainan in international waters...
According to the Pentagon, five Chinese vessels surrounded the Impeccable on March 8, telling the ship to leave the area. After two ships came within 50 feet, the Impeccable sprayed its fire hoses at the Chinese vessel. The Chinese ship continued to approach, as its sailors stripped to their underwear. The Impeccable was forced to conduct an emergency “all stop” to avoid collision after two Chinese ships blocked its route in spite of having asked the Chinese to allow safe passage out of the area.
A later story describes the context (bold emphasis added):
The controversy is similar to an incident in 2002, when Chinese naval vessels shepherded the USNS Bowditch, a US Navy survey vessel in the Yellow Sea. As in the current case, the US blamed China of breaking international law because the ship was in international waters, while China accused the US of violating international law, arguing the US vessel was in its exclusive economic zone.
US survey ships regularly move around in international waters close to the Chinese coast in what military experts say are basically missions to gain intelligence about China’s increasing naval clout, including its growing submarine fleet.
The spot where, according to the US, the incident occurred, is close to a major Chinese submarine base on Hainan.
The Obama administration has lodged a protest, and the Chinese have responded that our Navy was in violation of international law. Whatever the truth, the question is this: Will we continue operations exactly as we have been, or will we retreat a little bit and concede a bit of open sea to China. If so, China will have expanded its envelope and will consider the confrontation of the Impeccable to have been a successful mission.
32 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Tue Mar 10, 11:20:00 AM:
exclusive economic zone
Sounds like the Co-prosperity Sphere
By 
, at
Tue Mar 10, 11:26:00 AM:
Right on cue. Remember the same thing happened with the P3 patrol plane off Hainan Island in early 2001.
By , at
Tue Mar 10, 11:49:00 AM:
Didn't they also test Bush in April of 2001 when a US Navy recon aircraft was forced down and we had to do all sorts of things to get it back? Wasn't one of the conditions that we couldn't fly it out?
By Escort81, at
Tue Mar 10, 11:56:00 AM:
FWIW, Impeccable was unarmed.
I wonder if there was actual mooning going on after the firehoses were used.
I also wonder whether the green light for this interdiction came from the Central Committee.
The question the White House will ask itself is, in the short run, is it wiser to continue having the Chinese purchase U.S. Treasuries no questions asked, or is it wiser to try and gather intelligence by other means (and what is the reltative value of the intelligence that Impeccable and its sister ships gather)?
Being seen to retreat after such a push back is in and of itself not a particularly good thing.
But I am sure that since the POTUS spent part of his boyhood growing up in the Far East, he can relate to the Chinese on a personal level and will be able to use "smart diplomacy."
By , at
Tue Mar 10, 12:34:00 PM:
No problem...just send Hillary to TALK to them.........
By , at
Tue Mar 10, 12:59:00 PM:
There seem to be two sides to the story and it may be due to the fact that China, I think, has signed the UN Law of the Sea Treaty and we have not. They may have an argument, better minds might weigh on this, under an interpretation of that treaty. I recall this is a treaty the US has not wanted to sign because it has been felt that it was not in our interest. Obama, I think, does want to sign this treaty. This incident casts an interesting light on the matter, particularly if signing the treaty would undermine what we have just claimed we want to do and are entitled to do.
M.E.
By MTF, at
Tue Mar 10, 01:28:00 PM:
I think they may be trying to be helpful to Obama.
Recently, as you may have seen, Fausta's blog reported Hugo Chavez as having advised the President to "go clean his ass". The recent to-do over our state department's language issues may indicate the Chavez message was not fully comprehended, and so the ever-helpful Chinese are trying to illustrate Hugo's advice by graphic example.
Hopefully the message will, ummm, "penetrate" this time because further international explanations might get too ugly for Robert Gibbs to explain. Lord knows, yet another evasive press conference will upset the press and so, I think you can conclude the Chinese are merely seeking to help the Won preserve good relations with foreign powers and the press.
There, that was easy.
By Viking Kaj, at
Tue Mar 10, 01:34:00 PM:
This is so silly. If they really want to get our attention all they have to do is stop buying our T-bills.
Of course Obama is going to back down, how else is he going to get the money for his porkapalooza (er, I mean bailout).
The present price tag for Taiwan is about $ 3 trillion a year for the next 3-4 years.
By , at
Tue Mar 10, 01:49:00 PM:
For those that are interested, there are several posts on this over at the naval blog Information Dissemination. Proprietor Galrahn says it is too early too tell what happened but he speculates they may have been there to steal our advanced sonar equipment.
By , at
Tue Mar 10, 02:01:00 PM:
***
President O'Bummer can take some SOFT POWER ACTIONS to defuse this potentially deadly crisis.
***
Order the crews to throw all weapons and fire hoses overboard to prevent accidental international incidents during future confrontations.
***
Issue the sailors Olympic games style scoring cards to rate the offensive Chinese trawler crew MOONING SKILLS. Have the Navy give them the much coveted 6.0 scores for really great work.
***
This should really help a bunch. John Paul Jones would really be proud.
***
Rocketman
***
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Mar 10, 04:24:00 PM:
Ah, foreign intrigue.
Meanwhile, it would be more fun to enjoy a drink at the hotel Mandarin Oriental, Sanya, on the southern tip of Hainan Island. The Sunset Bar has an all-female staff.
Do you have a question? Ask the concierge.
Link:
http://www.mandarinoriental.com/sanya/
- DEC
By , at
Tue Mar 10, 04:28:00 PM:
Just have a few US warships turn back the COSCO and other Chinese ships full of plastic (junk) and other stuff we buy from them. Sail it back, Chinks, no entry permitted into our ports.
I'd like to see us unable to raise funds, so we're forced to tighten up the belts, and we pull the teet from the dependant class here at home. Time to get busy, and more foreign money is like more drugs to an addict. What we need is to undo some of the dependancy here, and get more folks demanding real "change" from Obama. The kind that gives us 'hope' that we're really in a new era of leadership, and that it's morning again here in America.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Mar 10, 05:04:00 PM:
Re: "Chinks"
Those kinds of slurs have no place here, Redneck.
Or as one of my female Japanese friends would call you, "Hilly-Billy."
P.S. It's spelled "dependency," not "dependancy." Didn't you learn anything at your one-room schoolhouse?
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Mar 10, 07:12:00 PM:
Now now, DEC, 'Redneck' is no better. Neither is Hilly Billy.
Also, 'dependancy' is apparently an acceptable alternative spelling.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dependency?qsrc=2888
Somewhat unrelated, but didn't 'Chink' come out of military jargon during the Korean War from ChiNK? That is, Chinese/North Korean? I heard that once and it made perfect sense to me, but I've never heard it again from another source.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Mar 10, 07:51:00 PM:
Re: "acceptable alternative spelling"
It's not an alternative spelling in Webster's, DF82. Spell it that way on a résumé. See if you get hired.
However, there is a tendency these days to make the mistakes of uneducated people "alternative spellings." It boosts their self-esteem.
Re: Military Jargon
Webster's says:
"Etymology: perhaps alteration of Chinese
Date: 1887"
That, as you know, was a little before the Korean War.
Re: "'Redneck' is no better."
My use of the words was intentional. ("Fight fire with fire.")
"Hilly-Billy" is kind of funny. I thought she was talking about the Clintons.
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Mar 10, 08:46:00 PM:
Enlighten me. Why in the world would the Chinese sailors strip to their undies after being firehosed? Was there a large percentage of female Palm Beach Starbucks customers crewing the US ship, and they were trying to impress them? Seems to be an awfully dangerous way for the Chinese Navy to get showers for their sailors....
By Escort81, at
Tue Mar 10, 11:16:00 PM:
I agree with DEC that the racial slur is not wanted here.
Isn't the more important mispelling "teet" instead of "teat" -- I mean, don't we have to have priorities here?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Mar 11, 12:30:00 AM:
"...don't we have to have priorities here?"
You're right, Escort81. Hopefully I'll see you at the Sunset Bar sometime.
By Viking Kaj, at
Wed Mar 11, 10:06:00 AM:
Ok, if we can't call them "Chinks" anymore, how about gooks or chicom bastards.
You can bet they are called that on the flight deck of the Stennis.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Mar 11, 12:51:00 PM:
Re: "how about gooks"
Did your brains run down your father's leg, Viking Kaj?
By Escort81, at
Wed Mar 11, 01:19:00 PM:
VK - You don't think that there are people of Asian ancestry that serve honorably in the U.S. Navy? Though I can't say for sure, I'd bet that there is at least one on the flight deck of the Stennis.
Even in my father's day (pre-integration, active duty 1940-45, reserves 1946-57), the stewards were traditionally Phillipino.
Why offend people who are on your side when you don't have to? It can't be that gratifying to vent one's frustrations.
Look, even the Chinese don't view themselves as ethnically or perhaps even racially homogenous. It seems to me that as Americans, with our unique history of immigration, we have to be more predisposed to take people one at a time.
The Chinese Navy is trying to assert itself, at least regionally, and we like to know what is going on and what their expanded capabilities are. They still have a ways to go before they (or any other navy) can compete with the U.S. Navy.
The bigger picture is that the Chinese have at least as much interest in keeping the worldwide sealanes open for trade as we do (China is obviously one big enormous export machine), a task that the U.S. Navy has largely shouldered for most of the post-WWII era, and that China ought to participate in, at least in its own front yard. These moments of friction will happen and hopefully won't get out of hand. Ideally, sometime in the future, we'll run joint exercises with them in the western Pacific. (The British Royal Navy burned our capitol in 1814, and a century later, the U.S. Navy had close operational ties to the Royal Navy).
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Mar 11, 01:55:00 PM:
E81: "Even in my father's day..."
After the Doolittle Raid, most of the B-25 crews that came down in China eventually made it to safety with the help of Chinese civilians and soldiers.
And in the case of Japanese-Americans during World War II, we have this story from American Forces Press Service:
"They were cold, wet, weary and battle-scarred. Yet that didn't stop the men with names like Hayashi, Inouye, Kobashigawa, Okutsu, Sakato and Kuwayama from answering the call Oct. 27, 1944, to rescue a battalion surrounded by German forces.
"For the next three days, their unit, the all-Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team, would fight in dense woods, heavy fog and freezing temperatures near Bruyeres, France, and prove their motto 'Go for Broke!' wasn't mere words. 'Go for Broke' is Hawaiian slang for 'shoot the works.'
"The Germans cut off the Texas National Guard 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry Regiment in the Vosges Mountains on Oct. 24. The 442nd was ordered in after the enemy had repelled repeated rescue tries by the 141st's other two battalions.
"Nearly half the men in the Japanese-American unit would be dead or wounded three days later with the 'Lost Battalion' still isolated.
" 'Then, something happened in the 442nd,' according to historians at the Army Center for Military History in Washington. 'By ones and twos, almost spontaneously and without orders, the men got to their feet and, with a kind of universal anger, moved toward the enemy position. Bitter hand-to-hand combat ensued as the Americans fought from one fortified position to the next. Finally, the enemy broke in disorder.'
" 'The Lost Battalion' rescue is recorded in U.S. military annals as one of the great ground battles of World War II. The regiment relieved the 211 besieged Texans on Oct. 30, and had gone for broke to do it: It suffered more than 800 combat casualties.
"Thankful members of the 141st gave their rescuers a plaque that read, 'With deep sincerity and utmost appreciation for the gallant fight to effect our rescue after we'd been isolated for seven days.'
"The 'Lost Battalion' is just one entry — a defining one, to be sure, but only one — in the regiment's catalog of valor during World War II. For its size and time in combat, less than two years, the 442nd is the most decorated unit in U.S. military history."
Link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45180
By Georg Felis, at
Thu Mar 12, 12:20:00 AM:
Took a little bit, but I found the answer to the Chinese underwear question in the Guardian
"In the annals of great naval battles, the contretemps may not rank alongside Trafalgar or Jutland. But it must be a contender for this year's award for naked aggression"
By Viking Kaj, at
Thu Mar 12, 02:32:00 PM:
DEC and E81,
You guys are just too easy to bait. And a little holier than thou.
How about this proposition? Since the entire species of homo sapiens is descended from one mitochondrial Eve who lived somewhere near the horn of Africa 80,000 years ago (a geological heartbeat), and since we are for most intents and purposes genetically identical with every other human on the planet, I would propose that we are all Africans. And I am jiggy with anybody who wants to call me the N word.
Why is it that Prior or Chapelle can use the "N" word, but no one else can? It's crazy. And all those KKK guys, and the 1.3 billion Chinese, are all actually blacks.
I think that when there are certain words that we can no longer use, this also means that there are certain ideas we can no longer discuss. This allows us to pretend that problems no longer exist, when in fact they do.
I am opposed to all forms of censorship just as much as I am opposed to all forms of racism.
But in your forms of self-imposed censorship there is an inherent racism that I can not agree with.
Oh, and DEC? At least I had a father.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 12, 04:13:00 PM:
How childish, Viking Kaj. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.
People watch what they say every day. Have you always told your boss what you really think? Have you always told your spouse what your really think?
In fact, you just used the politically correct term "N word" yourself. Examples:
"wants to call me the N word"
"can use the 'N' word"
Wasn't that self-imposed censorship?
I had a father, too, VK, He died decades before his time from injuries he had suffered during World War II when he defended your country and your right to freedom of speech. And I was a soldier during the Vietnam War, defending those same freedoms.
We did it to make the world a better place. Does your use of the word "gook" make the world a better place?
By Viking Kaj, at
Thu Mar 12, 06:22:00 PM:
Actually TH could vouch for the fact that I am quite a bit more outspoken than most, including bosses.
You are the one who dragged parentage into this discussion. I was trying to make a point.
I also have a few vets in my family going back to the revolutionary war, so don't give me this whiney crap about who sacrificed what for whom.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 12, 07:13:00 PM:
And my ancestors fought in EVERY one of our wars since the French and Indian War, Viking Kaj. They were at the Battle of Brandywine, Battle of Lake Erie, Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor -- the list goes on and on. So what?
I doubt if TH would applaud your use of the word "gook." With freedom comes responsibility.
As TH says, "Raise the bar."
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 12, 07:18:00 PM:
VK -
OK, be cool. I fell for your bait.
I just think it reflects badly on this blog if regular posters use the kinds of expressions that you did.
I say again:
"Why offend people who are on your side when you don't have to? "
Even if you are just trying to be funny.
I think there is a difference between censorship (or self-censorship) and polite conduct. By all means discuss ideas and issues that are important to you, but I suspect you are intelligent enough to do so without the kind of ad hominem attacks that plague other blogs, or without overtly racist remarks, even if not intended in a racist fashion.
And I am with you on the Rev. war thing -- my aunt was treasurer of the local DAR chapter some time back. Nice that such history is there, but we are where we are now.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 12, 07:45:00 PM:
Oh, Escort81, you and Dawnfire82 always try to stop a good fight.
Remember, I am a former tabloid writer. I enjoy verbal brawls. (However, in business I prefer manipulation over confrontation.)
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 12, 09:14:00 PM:
DEC - Well, I blame / give credit to my late mother, who, because of her own upbringing, was a big believer in courtesy and decorum. She would not have been happy to live in the culture of the 21st Century!
Maybe you left the tabloid business too soon. Just guessing, but I think that the total revenues for tabloids must be significantly greater than the total revenues for hard news broadsheets (admittedly a low bar these days) in both the U.S. and U.K.
By MTF, at
Fri Mar 13, 10:00:00 AM:
China took another not very subtle shot at America yesterday.
Not. Our. Friends.
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 13, 01:21:00 PM:
MTF - Maybe not our friends, but not our enemies, or should not be our enemies. Why do we want to be enemies with a country that is as big as China is and as populous as it is, considering the extensive economic ties that have grown in a relatively short time? It's about common interests, to the extent they exist.
I think an enemy is one who actively (either directly or through proxies) seeks to kill your citizens or soldiers or otherwise seeks to undermine your security. Iran's leadership probably fits that description.
As to you link, heck, everyone on this board is concerned about level of spending by the new administration and the way that it dwarfs the profligate spending of the former administration. The comment did not seem to shake the markets too much.
But you make a good overall observation about China and the dollar that TH might bring up in a separate post sometime if he is so inclined.
