Skip to content

US-China Relations - 120. page

People’s Daily: U.S. and Japan Have Ulterior Motives Deploying X-band Radar at Kyoto Military Base

At a recent press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei expressed [China’s] concern regarding the issue that the U.S. military is deployed at the Japanese Air Self Defense Force military base in Kyoto. Hong said, "The Chinese side believes that some individual country or group is using the excuse of North Korean nuclear and missile threats to unilaterally deploy anti-ballistic missile systems or conduct group cooperation. This will not help solve the problem of regional [nuclear] proliferation and is not conducive to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.” 

On September 24, 2013, a Chinese radar and missile expert, who did not want to disclose his name, told a Global Times reporter that X-band radar is an important part of the U.S. anti-missile system. After deployment in Japan, it will further expand its coverage of reconnaissance and surveillance. It can detect ballistic missiles that the target countries launch from multiple directions. Apart from the main goal of monitoring space objects, X-band radar can also, theoretically, detect and monitor China’s drones in the waters near the Diaoyu Islands. The expert said that the U.S.-Japan missile defense system is actually deployed against China using the excuse of North Korea’s ballistic missile threat. North Korea’s ballistic missiles, from the quantity to the range or quality, are all questionable. They are not worth so much energy and attention. The U.S. and Japan have their ulterior motives. 
Source: People’s Daily, September 25, 2013 
http://military.people.com.cn/n/2013/0925/c1011-23026154.html
Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

China’s State-Media Reports on the Shooting Incident at the U.S. Navy Yard

Below is a media report from Wenhui Bao commenting on the recent shooting at the U.S. naval yard. 

“The U.S. Navy can be called the world’s most powerful army. Attacking Iraq, intervening in Libya, killing Bin Laden, the U.S. Navy is always the vanguard; so much so that, whenever there is a military conflict going on, the U.S. President’s first reaction is ‘where are our aircraft carriers?’ 
“However, with such a strong army, its headquarters looked ‘defenseless" and was ‘broken through’ by what seems now to be three individuals. People cannot help but ask, "What is it that caused the U.S. army’s ‘Achilles’ heel?’" 
“After the Cold War, the United States suddenly ‘lost’ its opponent, thus turning to look for ‘trouble’ all over the world. The former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have all become the victims of the U.S.’s foreign military operations, but what benefit did the United States get? In fact, the U.S. domestic environment has become increasingly insecure. The Boston bombing this past April, the shooting at Fort Hood in 2009, and the heart breaking ‘9/11’ incident, all gave warnings to the Americans that ‘suppressing violence with violence’ will not yield security.
“However, the United States was unable to learn its lessons. Just this month, President Obama still claiming he would militarily strike Syria, only had to give up for the time being due to domestic opposition, allies’ ‘betrayal’ and pressure from his old rival Russia. 
“From yesterday’s failed attempt to use force to strike Syria to today’s shooting at the Naval Sea Systems Command, will these incidents make America’s rulers more clear minded?” 
Source: Wenhui Bao and Xinhua, September 18, 2013 
http://wenhui.news365.com.cn/ewenhui/whb/html/2013-09/17/content_52.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2013-09/17/c_125399412.htm
Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

Xinhua Questions Obama for the Use of Force against Syria

A Xinhua article questioned five issues related to the “Obama War” against Syria. 

“First, how can the United States confirm that the Syrian government forces used chemical weapons (CW)? There are, at present, very divergent views on who on earth used the chemical weapons. U.S. Secretary of State Kerry announced with ‘conviction’ that Bashar was behind the scenes and instigated the CW attack. However Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the United States neither had geographic coordinates and names, nor sufficient evidence from extracted samples. The U.N. Secretary-General Office of the Spokesman also said that the United Nations investigation team is the only organization that has the ability to carry out an investigation impartially and credibly. A U.S. news website said that the Syrian opposition has admitted that the ‘chemical weapons incident’ was caused by their own mishandling while processing chemical weapons. With so many different conclusions, what evidence does U.S. have to demonstrate that its own conclusion is the most credible? 
“Second, who gave the U.S. the right to place a ‘red line’ on Syria? 

“Third, did the United States violate international law in order to wage war against Syria? … In the absence of a U.N. Security Council authorization, is the U.S. military action against Syria also a violation of international law and should it be punished also? 
“Fourth, is the U.S. military action against Syria really to protect civilians? 

“Finally, why does the U.S. insist on using force while ignoring the opposition from all sides? 
“In a word, the United States, with its ‘warm heart,’ insisting on the use of force against Syria is by no means to protect civilians or to defend the dignity of international law. It has very vicious ulterior motives. Obama wants to use force to change the situation in Syria, to install a pro-American regime, and to pave the way to ultimately solve the Iranian nuclear issue.” 

Source: Xinhua, September 4, 2013 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2013-09/04/c_125311802.htm

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

Xinhua: The U.S. Use of Force in Syria Entails Great Danger

A September 4, 2013, Xinhua commentary expressed disapproval of the impending U.S. military action against Syria.

"Although the United States claims that military action will be very limited, there are indications that, once a war is launched, it will be difficult for the White House to keep its scale and progress under control. A number of new challenges are more likely to lead the U.S. into new troubles. Moreover, the U.K. has abandoned the use of force in Syria; France is unresolved; NATO’s stance is even more detached. Without the support of allies, one is more doubtful about the U.S.’s ability to end the war in a prudent manner."

"The U.S. military action against Syria may not only leave the problem of chemical weapons difficult to solve; it will likely trigger new threats. Igor Morozov, a member of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, warned, on September 3, that if the U.S. adopts military intervention against Syria, the country’s chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists and spread to the Middle East and all over the world. The U.S. itself would not be spared either."

"What’s even more frightening is that many of the Syrian opposition forces have been infiltrated by Islamic extremists and the al-Qaeda organization. If the extremist forces expand, Syria is bound to be led to a more dangerous path, with the U.S.’s strategic interests jeopardized."

Source: Xinhua, September 4, 2013
http://news.xinhuanet.com/2013-09/04/c_117230481.htm

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

People’s Daily: The Consequences of Using Force against Syria Will Be More Serious than the Iraq War

A People Daily (overseas edition) article commented on the U.S. intention to intervene in Syria for its use of chemical weapons to kill civilians. Below is an excerpt from the article: 

“In the last few days, the so-called Syria ‘Chemical Weapons’ issue has been getting hotter and hotter. The United States and some other Western countries have suddenly increased their intensity about using force against Syria. … It seems that a ‘fight’ is imminent and inevitable. As for whether the U.N. team has completed its investigation [on the use of chemical weapons], whether there is definitive evidence for the accusation against the Syrian government, and whether the U.N. Security Council will authorize the use of force against Syria, all these matters seem too trivial for the Western countries to care about.
“It doesn’t matter whether it is a Humanitarian disaster or the ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons, these are just excuses to attack opponents and gain interests. For a long time, from Kosovo to Iraq, then to Libya, Western countries have been adept at this kind of trick. 
“However, the more they play these tricks, the more clearly people can see through them to their true face. Ten years ago the United States launched the Iraq war, resulting in more than 100,000 deaths of Iraqi civilians. A long time ago, the excuse for that war had already been proven to be a poor lie. Two years ago, the Western Countries, under the guise of ‘protecting civilians,’ launched a military action against Libya, causing more than 30,000 civilians to be killed in Libya. More distressingly, Iraq and Libya have not yet gotten over of the after-effects of these wars. Unrest and bloodshed still continue. Terrorist extremists are on the rise. They are still struggling on the edge of a ‘failing state.’ The Western countries use force and leave behind a ‘mess.’ Almost all of the consequences have to be paid by the people from these regions. The lesson is quite profound. 
“Compared to the above cases, the consequences of the use of force against Syria will be more severe. … External military intervention can neither fundamentally solve the problem of chemical weapons; nor is it the right way to resolve the crisis in Syria. …
“The ‘chemical weapons’ problem is a very serious issue. One cannot hastily jump to a conclusion without conclusive evidence. Unfortunately, the United States and some other Western countries seem to have decided on the ‘presumption of guilt’ instead of having an objective investigation and on using military intervention instead of political dialogue. This exposes their true purpose: It is not really to solve the ‘chemical weapons’ problem; rather, there is an eagerness to ‘plug contraband’ to help the opposition, in order to speed up the turnover of the government and establish international rules and an international order in their favor. The international community must remain vigilant against this kind of naked hegemonic act.” 
Source: People’s Daily, August 29, 2013
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2013-08/29/c_125270038.htm
Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

Global Times: China Warned the U.S.: Don’t Interfere with Hong Kong’s Internal Affairs

Global Times recently reported that Song Zhe, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Special Commissioner to Hong Kong, warned the U.S. Hong Kong Consul General, Clifford Hart, not to interfere with Hong Kong’s internal affairs. Hong Kong media widely expressed the belief that this is the “strongest signal” given to the United States since Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule. According to many Hong Kong media reports, the frequency of Mr. Hart’s visits to local political organizations and grass-roots movements has been much higher than that of the new Hong Kong Chief Executive Chun-ying Leung. Song Zhe emphasized that the path leading to the structure of Hong Kong’s future political system is solely a Hong Kong internal matter. No foreign government should “have a hand in it.” This was the third time in the past few months that the U.S. Consular official received a warning from the Chinese government. Clifford Hart worked in the U.S. National Security Council, the Pentagon, and the State Department before coming to Hong Kong. 
Source: Global Times, August 30, 2013
http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2013-08/4303260.html
Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

PLA Daily: U.S.’s Unmanned ‘rial Vehicles Cross Border Actions Are a “License to Kill”

China’s military newspaper PLA Daily published an article commenting on the U.S.’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in its anti-terrorist actions. The following are excerpts from the article: 

“In recent years, the U.S. has frequently been using UAVs for cross-border anti-terrorist actions. … It is concerning that the U.S.’s use of UAVs is ‘out of control,’ posing a great threat to the international order and the security of the people of other countries.” 

“UAVs have become an important American tool to fight terrorism. However, the abuse of the UAV has also been trampling on the sovereignty of other counties. Although Pakistan and other countries repeatedly protest to the United States, the United States still insists on acting according to its own will. Once the U.S. finds suspected terrorists appearing in other countries, the U.S. will send UAVs to hunt down the terrorists without asking for permission from those countries. This hegemonic act is a reckless trampling of the international order and of international law.” 
“Although the use of UAVs avoids the American military sustaining casualties, it brings disaster to a large number of innocent civilians in other countries. … According to statistics, since 2004, the U.S. UAVs have launched 360 attacks in Pakistan alone, resulting in 3,000 deaths, of which 70 percent were women and children. However, the U.S. does not feel any guilt at all.” 
“The U.S.’s use of UAVs is almost out of control. It has caused the relevant nations to lodge strong protests. … However, the United States, accustomed to finding other countries at fault, has just ignored these voices of protest. On May 23, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that UAVs can only be used under certain conditions. … However, the rule is very ambiguous and difficult to determine during the actual implementation. Obviously, Obama’s new regulations are the ostrich moves or [we can] even say that he has issued a ‘legitimate’ ‘license to kill’ for UAVs.” 

Source: PLA Daily, August, 18, 2013 
http://www.chinamil.com.cn/jfjbmap/content/2013-08/18/content_46825.htm

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

China Youth Daily: McCain Had Ulterior Motives in Remarks on the Diaoyu Islands

U.S. Republican Senator John McCain said at the press conference after his talks with Japanese Foreign Minister shore Tian Wenxiong on August 21, “The Diaoyu Islands are Japanese territory, which is the U.S. Congress and the U.S. government’s position and will be communicated to the Chinese.” Regarding China’s official boat that entered into the waters around the Diaoyu Islands several times, he said, “China violated Japan’s sovereignty.” 

In response to McCain’s statement, China Youth Daily published a commentary article. The article quoted Su Hao, Director at the Center for Strategic and Conflict Management of the Foreign Affairs College, to express its point. 
Su Hao said, "This should not be [considered] a slip of the tongue. It is McCain’s real personal view.” In my personal opinion, I believe that McCain’s remarks were stated after careful consideration and point to specific issues. Moreover, it not only represents his personal view, but also represents the view of the U.S. conservative forces and conservative political groups like him. To some extent, it represents a potential U.S. policy option." 

Su Hao also pointed out that McCain’s talk indeed also released some information, and revealed U.S.’s potential considerations. Moreover, the timing of McCain’s speech also has a profound meaning. 

Su Hao said, "While McCain is not an official government official, this is the first time that a major U.S. political figure has made such a clear and biased statement on the Diaoyu Islands issue. This is a very serious event. We must pay serious attention. To some U.S. politicians’ [who express] such erroneous views, [we] must give immediate criticism and rebuttals." 

Source: China Youth Daily, and republished by people’s Daily, August 23, 2013 
http://zqb.cyol.com/html/2013-08/23/nw.D110000zgqnb_20130823_1-04.htm http://military.people.com.cn/n/2013/0823/c1011-22668640.html

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations