US engaging in gunboat diplomacy: China

[Lankan Ranger]

US engaging in gunboat diplomacy: China

The United States will dispatch the aircraft carrier USS George Washington to the waters west of South Korea (the Yellow Sea) to participate in a series of US-South Korean joint military drills, a spokesperson for the United States Department of Defense recently announced during a press conference. This is a 180-degree turn from the statements made by an official from the Pentagon in mid-July.

The Chinese government has reiterated that it firmly opposes the activities of foreign naval ships in the Yellow Sea and other offshore areas of China that affect China's security interests and urged relevant sides to pay serious attention to China's concerns and stance. However, the United States has insisted on sending aircraft carriers to the Yellow Sea to provoke China. What information has this transmitted? At least it shows that the foreign policy of the United States is still showing three features that have long been part of its global strategy.

The first is hegemony, under which the United States claims, "Since I am the dominant player in the world, I can go anywhere I want and others have no rights to interfere." The philosophical foundation of the American hegemonic mindset is the deep-rooted "manifest destiny" theory held by some Americans.

According to the theory, the American Nation is the most outstanding nation in the world. Its leadership in the world, which is bestowed by God, is undeniable. Therefore, Americans have the responsibility to handle world affairs and will appear wherever problems take place. Nevertheless, the results are usually the opposite – things become worse with the involvement of the United States.

The reason behind this is that they are convinced that the social system of the United States is the most advanced in the world. Therefore, they strive to sell their "democratic values" across the world, which sometimes means resorting to military action. They believe that the American nation is the most excellent, so they must "lead the world" and other nations have no choice but to follow them.

The United States will exercise its military power to punish the nations that do not follow its will. In their eyes, the security of other countries and nations is always put in the second position and even considered to be insignificant. They do not need to pay attention to security concerns raised by any other country.

The second is gunboat diplomacy. It can be summed up by the position that, "If you do not obey me, I will flex my muscles first. Then, if you do not behave better, I will teach you a lesson with my fists." The best example of US gunboat diplomacy is the Naval Operations Concept 2010 approved by the US president in May this year, which vividly described US "maritime interests." According to the concept 2010, the US naval forces will develop six core competencies: forward presence, deterrence, maritime security, sea control, power projection and humanitarian assistance.

What high-sounding language! First, the so-called forward presence means that the United States can send its gunboats to every corner of the world, tyrannize the weak and extend its security boundaries to others' doorsteps. This way, the United States can even claim the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea is covered within its security boundary.

The Chinese are peace-loving people, and China is now taking a peaceful development road different from when the imperialist powers rose. We do not want to be against any country, but we are not fearful if other countries ignore our solemn positions and core interests. A country must have the dignity and its army must have deterrence power.

China adheres to the principle "We will not attack unless we are attacked, and we must retaliate only if we are attacked," which is definitely not a joke to the Chinese people and the army. Doesn't the United States proclaim itself to be the most democratic country? Then, they should know in the 21st century, they ought to learn to respect others and listen to the public opinions of other countries,
using wisdom but not gunboats to solve problems.

US engaging in gunboat diplomacy

 

[lcloo]

Intimation by gun boats has been experience by Chinese since the late Qing Dyansty, that is way Chinese are sensitive and have great distaste for such policy.

PLA kicked the last gun boat out , a British frigate, from mid Yantze river during the civil war with Guomintang. Before that British, French, Americans, Japanese Austro-Hungary Empire and others used gun boats defeated the Qing Chinese and gained possesion of lands, sell drugs (opium) to Chineses, obtained exclusive right to collect customs tax on import/export in Shanghai etc.

They attacked through Yellow Sea , took Tianjing and Beijing and looted Chinese treasures from the imperial palace.

So you know why Chinese are sensitive when a group of larger and more powerful modern gun boats is getting near the gateway to Beijing on pretext of naval exercise?

 

[gurjot]

china shud sink the uss washington,after that us carriers wont be seen in the pacifics

 

[somebozo]

Intimation by gun boats has been experience by Chinese since the late Qing Dyansty, that is way Chinese are sensitive and have great distaste for such policy.

PLA kicked the last gun boat out , a British frigate, from mid Yantze river during the civil war with Guomintang. Before that British, French, Americans, Japanese Austro-Hungary Empire and others used gun boats defeated the Qing Chinese and gained possesion of lands, sell drugs (opium) to Chineses, obtained exclusive right to collect customs tax on import/export in Shanghai etc.

They attacked through Yellow Sea , took Tianjing and Beijing and looted Chinese treasures from the imperial palace.

So you know why Chinese are sensitive when a group of larger and more powerful modern gun boats is getting near the gateway to Beijing on pretext of naval exercise?

Sell drugs to chinese?? sounds familiar what is being done with Afghans and central asians or been done with Russians.

China should escort the carrier out of waters..sinking is a too far fetched option and will invite unncessary war.

 

[prototype]

china shud sink the uss washington,after that us carriers wont be seen in the pacifics

,u must b kidding for sure

 

[Solomon2]

It's more complicated than that. As far as I know - from Kissinger's memoirs, that is - China's leaders say one thing in public, but in private they have consistently preferred the "gunboat diplomacy" of the U.S. to the alternative, the development in surrounding countries of armed forces that can oppose China by themselves. They see the U.S. as comparatively benevolent. I have trouble believing these exercises are not occurring without China's private acquiescence.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

It's more complicated than that. As far as I know - from Kissinger's memoirs, that is - China's leaders say one thing in public, but in private they have consistently preferred the "gunboat diplomacy" of the U.S. to the alternative, the development in surrounding countries of armed forces that can oppose China by themselves. They see the U.S. as comparatively benevolent. I have trouble believing these exercises are not occurring without China's private acquiescence.

Yep there was something really fishy about the whole North Korean torpedo stink. China must know that should war break out between North and South Korea, the US cannot be restricted to fight only in the Sea of Japan and not the Yellow Sea. Even though the torpedo was fake.

China's leaders are also not so stupid as to think that the USA needs aircraft carriers to threaten Beijing. And China need not placate its nationalists or opposition parties not being a democracy. One aircraft carrier is not a threat to the third largest airforce in the world. Who needs DF-21 when you can have hundreds of planes overhead?

It doesn't make any sense at all that the USA would agree to hold exercises only in the Sea of Japan then two months later change its mind and go into the Yellow Sea, without something happening behind the scenes.

Gunboat diplomacy also features one fact -- the natives must see the guns to fear them. Generally, the ship has to get close to shore or dock. Nobody in China sees aircraft carriers hundreds of miles out without a telescope. Aircraft carriers are not gunboat diplomacy, not unless you warp the definition so much as to be meaningless.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Yep there was something really fishy about the whole North Korean torpedo stink. China must know that should war break out between North and South Korea, the US cannot be restricted to fight only in the Sea of Japan and not the Yellow Sea. Even though the torpedo was fake.

China's leaders are also not so stupid as to think that the USA needs aircraft carriers to threaten Beijing. And China need not placate its nationalists or opposition parties not being a democracy. One aircraft carrier is not a threat to the third largest airforce in the world. Who needs DF-21 when you can have hundreds of planes overhead?

It doesn't make any sense at all that the USA would agree to hold exercises only in the Sea of Japan then two months later change its mind and go into the Yellow Sea, without something happening behind the scenes.

Gunboat diplomacy also features one fact -- the natives must see the guns to fear them. Generally, the ship has to get close to shore or dock. Nobody in China sees aircraft carriers hundreds of miles out without a telescope. Aircraft carriers are not gunboat diplomacy, not unless you warp the definition so much as to be meaningless.

Well to be precise if you are say 5.7 and standing on shore you can only see 4.4 miles due to the curvature of the earth, because of the height of an air craft carrier you could see it further. In fact, you would have to be 100' tall to see 12 miles. So if the carrier is 100 feet above sea level and you are 5.7 you can only see if for 12 miles, a telescope wont make any differance as far as distance is concerned because its the curvature of the earth that determines how far you can see. A telescope would help you see a small object.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

seas, freedom of the, in international law, the principle that outside its territorial waters (see waters, territorial) a state may not claim sovereignty over the seas, except with respect to its own vessels. This principle, first established by the Romans, gives to all nations in time of peace unrestricted use of the seas for naval and commercial navigation, for fishing, and for the laying of submarine cables. From the late 15th to the early 19th cent., Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain attempted to exclude commercial rivals from parts of the open sea. Protests by other nations led to a revived acceptance of freedom of the seas. One of its strongest advocates was the United States, especially in its dispute with Great Britain preceding the War of 1812. In time of peace, freedom of the seas cannot be restricted lawfully except by international agreements, such as those regulating fisheries or the right of visit and search (see search, right of). During war, however, belligerents often assert limitations of the principle in order to facilitate the more effective conduct of hostilities, and it is then that the sharpest disagreements arise, e.g., the case of the Lusitania in World War I. Subjects of contention between neutrals and belligerents include the right to seize neutral property and persons aboard an enemy ship (see prize), the mining of sea lanes, and the exclusion of neutral vessels from enemy ports by blockade. The Law of the Sea Treaty establishes a 12-mile (19-kilometer) territorial limit for coastal nations and establishes an international authority to regulate seabed mining, among other provisions. freedom of the seas: Definition from Answers.com

Lets understand Freedom of the Seas is a principle that the USA will defend by going to war if necessary. Its a freedom thats not going to be given up by the demands of China.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

seas, freedom of the, in international law, the principle that outside its territorial waters (see waters, territorial) a state may not claim sovereignty over the seas, except with respect to its own vessels. This principle, first established by the Romans, gives to all nations in time of peace unrestricted use of the seas for naval and commercial navigation, for fishing, and for the laying of submarine cables. From the late 15th to the early 19th cent., Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain attempted to exclude commercial rivals from parts of the open sea. Protests by other nations led to a revived acceptance of freedom of the seas. One of its strongest advocates was the United States, especially in its dispute with Great Britain preceding the War of 1812. In time of peace, freedom of the seas cannot be restricted lawfully except by international agreements, such as those regulating fisheries or the right of visit and search (see search, right of). During war, however, belligerents often assert limitations of the principle in order to facilitate the more effective conduct of hostilities, and it is then that the sharpest disagreements arise, e.g., the case of the Lusitania in World War I. Subjects of contention between neutrals and belligerents include the right to seize neutral property and persons aboard an enemy ship (see prize), the mining of sea lanes, and the exclusion of neutral vessels from enemy ports by blockade. The Law of the Sea Treaty establishes a 12-mile (19-kilometer) territorial limit for coastal nations and establishes an international authority to regulate seabed mining, among other provisions. freedom of the seas: Definition from Answers.com

Lets understand Freedom of the Seas is a principle that the USA will defend by going to war if necessary. Its a freedom thats not going to be given up by the demands of China.

Where was this freedom of the seas when the USSR wanted to build a home in Cuba?

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Where was this freedom of the seas when the USSR wanted to build a home in Cuba?

That was war or very close to one. If the USA was going to attack China that would be a differant ball game, but the USA does not have a right to stop Chinese ships on the high seas and China does not have the right to interfere with American Ships on the high seas. Once the USA givens in to threats by China that they can sail the China Sea, the next threat might be that the USA cant use the Pacific Ocean. One should never give in to threats when ones freedom is at stake.

 

[below_freezing]

It's more complicated than that. As far as I know - from Kissinger's memoirs, that is - China's leaders say one thing in public, but in private they have consistently preferred the "gunboat diplomacy" of the U.S. to the alternative, the development in surrounding countries of armed forces that can oppose China by themselves. They see the U.S. as comparatively benevolent. I have trouble believing these exercises are not occurring without China's private acquiescence.

What surrounding country has the industrial capability to even think of competing with us except Japan? They're welcome to try but it will only result in a USSR style economic collapse. For example, our defense budget alone is almost half the GDP of israel. While it pales to that of the US, it still dwarfs that of other nations.

Even if it was true, that was in the old days. The current leaders are completely unaffiliated with either Mao or Deng.

 

[Solomon2]

What surrounding country has the industrial capability to even think of competing with us except Japan?

Zero. What does it matter? Did the Mongols, Koreans, Tibetans, Russians, and Vietnamese remain free from the rule of Chinese emperors because they were economically stronger or because they won battles against Chinese armies?

 

[Nomenclature]

Yep there was something really fishy about the whole North Korean torpedo stink. China must know that should war break out between North and South Korea, the US cannot be restricted to fight only in the Sea of Japan and not the Yellow Sea. Even though the torpedo was fake.

China's leaders are also not so stupid as to think that the USA needs aircraft carriers to threaten Beijing. And China need not placate its nationalists or opposition parties not being a democracy. One aircraft carrier is not a threat to the third largest airforce in the world. Who needs DF-21 when you can have hundreds of planes overhead?

It doesn't make any sense at all that the USA would agree to hold exercises only in the Sea of Japan then two months later change its mind and go into the Yellow Sea, without something happening behind the scenes.

Gunboat diplomacy also features one fact -- the natives must see the guns to fear them. Generally, the ship has to get close to shore or dock. Nobody in China sees aircraft carriers hundreds of miles out without a telescope. Aircraft carriers are not gunboat diplomacy, not unless you warp the definition so much as to be meaningless.

I'm afraid we're in very muddy waters at the moment. There has been talks of a civilian-military split in China, even Robert Gates mentioned that once or twice.

The recent anti-American outbursts were mostly coming from PLA instead of the civilian leadership. It's quite clear now the military want more influence in the next leadership. Chinese government at this moment is tied down in domestic and its own succession problems, PLA may take this as a chance to play a more substantial role in China's foreign policy.

Another recent example is the Pakistani flood and Chinese aid to Pakistan. The Chinese government gave about 1.5 million aid and PLA decided to match the amount and gave its own aid of 1.5 million. Quite a daring thing to do.

The heavily factionalized political landscape in China also gives opportunities for the PLA. As chauism mentioned in another thread, the fact Xi Jinping wasn't promoted to CMC vice-chairmanship may signal the PLA is not betting on a single candidate at this time, but try to extract concessions from both camps.

We're entering a period of great uncertainties. I hope we'll see a successful leadership transition in 2012 without conflicts breaking out of control, both internally and externally.

 

[lcloo]

Now I do notice that the Chinese govenment actually make less noice than PLA. Looks like the PLA is playing the same game as the US military (lobby for money from US congress), trying to get more budget funds by citing threat to China, using the same scaring tactic.

They may be trying to get hold of some of the large foreign exchange to fund future weapon development, after all if US dollar depreciate against RMB, future value of Chinese investment in US debts will decrease with time.