China's first aircraft carrier starts second trial in West Philippines Sea

BEIJING — China's first aircraft carrier began its second sea trial on Tuesday (November 29, 2011) after undergoing refurbishments and testing, the government said, as tensions over maritime territorial disputes in the region ran high.

The 300-metre (990-foot) ship, a refitted former Soviet carrier called the Varyag, underwent five days of trials in August that sparked international concern about China's widening naval reach.

"China's aircraft carrier platform, after successfully completing its first sea trial in August, returned to the shipyard as planned for further refitting and testing," the defense ministry said in a brief statement.

"The work has been carried out and it set sail again on November 29 to carry out relevant scientific and research experiments."

Beijing only confirmed this year that it was revamping the old Soviet ship and has repeatedly insisted that the carrier poses no threat to its neighbors and will be used mainly for training and research purposes.

But the August sea trials were met with concern from regional powers including Japan and the United States, which called on Beijing to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier.

Tuesday's announcement comes against a background of heightened tensions over maritime disputes in the Asia-Pacific region, where China's growing assertiveness has put it on collision course with the United States.

President Barack Obama this month irritated Beijing with a drive to enhance the US role as a regional power, positioning Marines in northern Australia and pushing for a potentially transformational trans-Pacific trade pact.

Beijing sees the initiatives as intruding into its own sphere of influence, with the dispute over the South China Sea putting the two major world powers' differences into stark focus.

China claims all of the strategic area, as does Taiwan, while four Southeast Asian countries declare ownership of parts of it, with Vietnam and the Philippines accusing Beijing's forces of increasing aggression there.

The region is a conduit for more than one-third of the world's seaborne trade and half its traffic in oil and gas, and major petroleum deposits are believed to lie below the seabed.

The announcement of the carrier's second sea trial comes after Beijing said last week it would conduct "routine" naval exercises in the Pacific Ocean before the end of November.

China reportedly bought the carrier's immense armored hull -- with no engine, electrics or propeller -- from Ukraine in 1998.

The PLA -- the world's largest active military -- is extremely secretive about its defense programs, which benefit from a huge and expanding military budget boosted by the nation's runaway economic growth.

Earlier this year, China announced military spending would rise 12.7 percent to 601.1 billion yuan ($91.7 billion) in 2011.

Continue reading

ASEAN - China to start talks South China Sea – Myanmar close tie to china

THE ASSOCIATION of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China will start talks as early as January preparatory to drafting a binding document governing activities in the South China Sea, an official said yesterday.

"A meeting between ASEAN and China will be held by January to identify the main elements in crafting the Code of Conduct (COC)," Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Erlinda F. Basilio said in a hearing of the Senate foreign relations committee.

"The meeting is scheduled by the first week or second week of January," she added.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario earlier said that ASEAN members have agreed to draft a more binding document to guide activities in the contested area that will be presented to senior ministers in July 2012.

The Philippines, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan have conflicting claims over the resource-rich Spratly Group of Islands.

The COC will serve as the implementing guideline of a declaration forged between ASEAN and China in 2002 on activities in the area, renamed by the government as West Philippine Sea.

Ms. Basilio said the Philippines will continue to call for a multilateral approach to settle the disputes, a move introduced at the recent ASEAN Summit and Related Summits in Bali, Indonesia but was referred for further study.

"Despite China wanting bilateral approach, ASEAN claimant states want to push through with the multilateral approach," she said.

China has rejected multilateral negotiations on the issue, preferring instead to talk individually with tiny claimants.

The situation has prompted the United State to reinforce its presence in Asia-Pacific through a series of meetings with treaty partners, including the Philippines, prior to attending the Bali forum.

ASEAN members Myanmar and Cambodia, however, have expressed disagreement with the multilateral approach reportedly due to the influence of China.

The Senate committee on foreign relations was also briefed on other issues raised in the ASEAN Summit and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Honolulu, Hawaii, both held this month.

China, Burma Strengthen Military Cooperation

China's vice president says his country and Burma should strengthen their military ties.  Vice President Xi Jinping hailed China's friendship with Burma in a meeting in Beijing Monday with Burmese armed forces commander Min Aung Hlaing. The meeting comes days before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to make an historic trip to Burma.

China's official Xinhua news agency quotes Vice President Xi Jinping as proposing that the militaries of the two nations "enhance, exchange and deepen cooperation." Xinhua also quotes the Chinese leader as saying the friendship that was forged by leaders of older generations has endured changes in the international arena."

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei was asked whether the China-Burma meeting was in any way related to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's historic trip to Burma later this week.

Hong says China and Burma maintain exchange and cooperation in various fields, but would not say more about the meeting than what was in the official statement.

Ren Yue is a Chinese foreign policy researcher and visiting professor at Hong Kong University. "I think that China is definitely having a very close watch about the recent moves, that Secretary of State Clinton visited Burma, or Myanmar. That definitely is something the Chinese government is watching closely and with concern," he said.

Ren says China has had problems with other southeast Asian nations - especially over territorial disputes in the South China Sea - but has seen Burma as one of its staunchest friends in the region. He adds that both Burma and China have been criticized for their closed political systems, but now Burma is starting to reform.

"The Chinese government also wants to start political reform, but it is not fast enough. I think that Clinton's visit could force Chinese leaders to think about something along those lines, democratization, political reform, in Chinese words," Ren stated.

Since last year, Burma has held elections and freed democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. Burma also recently risked angering China by shutting down a large and unpopular hydroelectric dam project.

Secretary Clinton's trip to Burma follows President Barack Obama's tour of Asian nations.  Researchers have said these trips are aimed at reinforcing U.S. influence in the region amid growing concerns about the rise of China.

Ren says he thinks, at this point, China is watching closely, but does not yet feel threatened.

Continue reading

COMMENTARY: Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?

BY LAWRENCE S. WITTNER

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used.  After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons.  The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon.

The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough.  Disturbed by China's growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China's claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region.  According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a Pacific power."

But need this lead to nuclear war?

Not necessarily.  And yet, there are signs that it could.  After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons.  The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China's offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu.  In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would "be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else."

Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons then.  Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate.  But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists.

Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven't been very many—at least not yet.  But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur.  Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war.  Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal.  During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan.

At the least, though, don't nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack?  Do they?  Obviously, NATO leaders didn't feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.  Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing "Star Wars" and its modern variant, national missile defense.  Why are these vastly expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might?

Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart.  Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred.  Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States.  Surely the United States would "win" any nuclear war with China.

But what would that "victory" entail?  A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning.  The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher.  Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands.  Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse.  The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States.  The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade.

To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be taken.  The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing.  The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations.  If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.

* * *

Wittner is Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is "Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement" (Stanford University Press). This commentary was distributed by PeaceVoice a program of the Oregon Peace Institute, Portland, OR.

http://www.peacevoice.info/

Continue reading