Chinese warship stole US underwater drone
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
When CNN says "oceanographic research", what they actually mean is building a sonar ray caustics model of the environment, because sound bends just like light does when the medium transmission speed changes, and the speed of sound in water changes noticably with depth,salinity,temperature.
When CNN says "unclear motivation", what they mean is that the motivation is actually pretty clear. China doesn't like that the US is building underwater surveillance infrastructure in their backyard.
It would have been another thing entirely if the drone were operating within Chinese territory.
The Chinese already surprised a US carrier fleet by deploying a submarine fleet that "ambushed" a carrier when one of their subs surfaced in kill range to the carrier, undetected.
To be honest I don't think China cares all that much either because they're used to the US Navy sailing about as a reminder of our treaties with various other SE Asian countries. They're veen assertive about their territorial claims with the nine-dash line, the building of artificial islands (reportedly now weaponized), and rejecting the decision of the international maritime court recently. Overall I'd characterize relations between the Chinese government and the Obama administration as cool but respectful.
I don't know what's happening with the incoming administration and don't want to make a political argument here, but I do think that publicizing the fact of the conversation between Trump and the Taiwanese President, along with the public questioning of the One China policy, probably seems like a huge loss of face for Beijing. China doesn't mind the US having relations, even friendship, with Taiwan - through private channels. Public recognition of the Taiwanese government as a sovereign entity by the US is insulting though - much as if Premier Xi in China started having friendly chats with the governor of Hawai'i or Alaska while publicly pouring scorn on DC.
Edit: great username btw
speaking somewhat loosely, actually there is no "much as if" in this sense. The Chinese have a "face saving is the most important thing" culture, and the US does not. Think of it more like the tribal regions of the -stans: China is metaphorically ready to do some honor killing over this in a way we can't grok. Doesn't mean we should acquiesce of course. I'd perhaps make the analogy that everybody in the Chinese government is as thin skinned as Trump. (I'm exaggerating to make analogies here, no need to jump all over me, of course it's more nuanced.) Meanwhile, our neighboring Mexican politicians publically pour scorn on the US all the time and it doesn't particularly affect our relations (not sure if Trump can take it tho)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)
In any case, it would not actually bother the US all that much if China talked to Hawaii, nor does it bother US that China talks to the Philippines; it would be to our benefit if China and the Philippines resolved their differences mutually, and the same with Taiwan; it does bother US that the Philippines would make short-sighted unwise bargains inasmuch as we get the sense that we will be involved in cleaning up the mess later, and inasmuch as it reinforces China's belief that they should throw their weight around more WRT the Biển Đông (the East Sea, off the coast of Vietnam;)
I would say, though, that there's a big difference between Hawai'i and the Phillipines. The latter is a treaty partner of the US but that's still something less than being territory. (Of course many Hawai'ian people would rather go back to being a sovereign nation but I don't want to veer far off topic.)
Please, can we ditch the outdated stereotypes? The Chinese govt uses the parallel tropes to the US ("we've suffered under years of foreign domination" "Here we're on an anti-corruption campaign so you don't have to suffer under unnecessary taxes" etc. And funding local SoEs to keep the jobs flowing).
Is make America Great Again any different? "Other countries are laughing at us." "We never win any more""We're going to bring back coal"
I just picked MAGA because it was a recent successful platform. But consider dispassionately: 15 years ago a small bunch of bandits killed 3000 people and cause a few billion in property damage. IN return the US has spent trillions killing people who had nothing to do with it in order to to restore its honor. Movies from Rambo to Shooter to anything by Chuck Norris are simply ways to pander to loss of face.
Of course there are differences between the two but let's stick to facts.
The very fact that English has the expression "Lose Face" is because it was translated from Chinese and imported into the language in the 19th century[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)#En...
Except that is not analogous at all.
Taiwan is de facto Independent. It has its own currency, internationally recognised passports, military, airspace and democratically elects its own representatives. It has been de facto independent from China for almost 70 years. It never fell to maoism and as a result was spared the both the great famine (Which killed more people than the Chinese civil war and Japanese invasion combined) and the cultural revolution. It peacefully transitioned to democracy over 20 years ago, around the time Chinese troops were killing hundreds of civillians in Tian Nan Men square.
It is independent for all intents and purposes. Even PRC nationalists know this, but they need to keep face by not admitting the truth.
China is kidding themselves if they think reunification is going to happen. It's certainly not going to happen voluntarily. And yeah, maybe they could take the island by force, but even if they managed it and it didn't trigger an international conflict, they'd just end up being another US-in-Vietnam/Soviets-in-Afghanistan situation: a forced occupation of an angry, resentful local population, which has no possible outcome other than eventual costly withdrawal.
the political statement is that this time they issued a press release to let everyone know about it.
China haven't changed how they react to the usa, regardless of adminstration. How the Pentagon behave, have changed.
now the million dollar question is why.
So in the legal opinion of all the world minus China it is theft. In the legal opinion of China it is not.
Unfortunately this subtly can not be expressed in a 140 char tweet so the situation deteriorates weekly.
(EDIT: beautiful details by jwtadvice here ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13195427
Essentially all naval powers engage in some form of this, within the limits of their capabilities.
I guess all good things end.
Not necessarily astroturfing but high quality topics are easily swept from the front page or the replies turn into an endless slop of loony-spam by people who's ideology is threatened.
>When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
I first heard it mentioned with respect to the Cold War in Africa, but the (Kenyan tribal) proverb seems to apply quite widely.
I come from a small country. There's a few in Europe, known for good wines or thermal baths or scenic sights or ethnic foods, but their continued existence is only guaranteed by their membership in a mutual defense pact. Those who aren't part of such an arrangement are out of luck -- "international outrage" does not protect sovereignty, as we have seen time and time again.
Right now, there's little need to conquer territory when you can just make everyone reliant on your for technology (USA), rare earth minerals (China), or natural gas (Russia). But as resources get more scarce, what is Latvia to do? Hungary? The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? With their cash flowing to foreign powers for technology, raw materials, and energy, rely on tourism, find some unique skill niche, or try to become a tax haven?
But I'd still argue that using terms like "Russia's backyard" or "China's backyard" dangerously colors entire regions their color without regard for whether the countries in the region want to be associated with their nearby superpower.
Germany once had nearly all of Europe and Japan once had nearly all of Asia. Couldn't one say at the time the U.K. was in Germany's backyard and China in Japan's?
Historically, countries often deal with internal strife by going to war with someone else, and it's probably been this way since the first cell dealt with an uncomfortable pH balance by squirting caustic goo at a neighboring cell. Almost nobody wants a full-on nuclear exchange but I think some sort of world war is inevitable because peaceful competition has created a lot of losers as well as winners, in both psychic and economic terms. Once about 10% of a population is sufficiently pissed off, strife is inevitable and the only question that remains is how it will manifest..
Actually, Vietnam has been asserting its territorial rights in an increasingly sour dispute with China - but it's not reported on as much, because Vietnam is a smaller country. All sovereign countries are equal in some sense as being distinct entities whose existence is recognized by each other, which is a fine principle. but in terms of economic and military affairs size matters and thus the disposition of the largest countries captures most of the attention.
Think of the world like a zoo, all the different enclosures let you see a wide variety of animals. In nature, some of these animals share the ecosystem with each, others would never meet, such as kangaroos and camels. Now, if you opened all the enclosures and just let the animals go free inside the zoo, it's safe to predict that the elephants, rhinoceros, lions, and tigers will will shape things more (at the outset; over generations in a sufficiently large zoo results may vary) than coyotes, llamas, zebra, and camels. All the animals I've mentioned are optimized for different roles in different environments but some are better equipped to handle confrontation than others. I use the analogy of the zoo because it's small, like the planet as communications and transport technology have reduced epic journeys to a logistical operation. We're effectively walled in with much less psychic and transitional distance between us than there used to be.
We never had multilateralism and cooperation. It seemed that way to the US, in the narrow window between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China and Putin. The world seems very cooperative when you're the only superpower standing. We're not seeing a fundamental change in the nature of global politics, just the diminishing power of the US.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-C...
It's pretty likely this is a shove-back for Trump aggravating China over Taiwan.
The mechanics of international one-upmanship are fascinating, it's like watching two big guys doing everything short of actually getting into a bar fight (hopefully), mixed with a prank war.
Oct 2015 - Oct 2016 they've reduced their total holdings by ~139 billion. This could have been through either outright selling, or just letting them mature and not reinvesting, or some combination.
Either way that doesn't really look like dumping and is practically pocket change in the scheme of US debt.
That hardly constitutes "dumping hundreds of billions of usa bonds". The net change in foreign ownership over the past year was only ($60BB).
First off, no, they aren't:
http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
Second: how, exactly, would that work? For the millionth time you cannot sell without a buyer. So if China is "dumping", someone else is buying. Or do you think they're just lighting these bonds on fire? Guess who wins in that scenario. Hint: not China.
You know, there's so much controversy about "fake news" lately, but the reality is that people will seek out the stories that fit their narrative, rather than looking at the data. Nobody to blame but ourselves.
If you owe the bank $1 billion dollars, you own the bank.
This isn't like the mid-1990s dump of the Rupiah; there isn't a malicious aspect to it. If it somehow were malicious, it would be pathetic because the U.S. dollar has increased in value over that time period.
Perhaps you are right and I'm misinterpreting early versions of the story, but my impression is that the Chinese military values conformity and command structures rather than spontaneity and initiative. Centralization and respect for hierarchy are hallmarks of Chinese culture.
What the Chinese just did is just as bad, and could lead to war.
I'm more interested in their clain on Taiwan -- is it the island (Formosa) or its inhabitants (the descendants of Kai-shek) that they claim? Claiming the island at least has a logic that one can support or deny. Claiming the inhabitants, well then every country with an ethnic Chinese population - e.g. Indochina, San Francisco -- might well be at risk.
So far, the US has been unwilling to engage China directly, only using proxy countries to apply pressure, ex. THAAD. It has been highly effective and unless China takes direct action that harms American naval & airforce assets, it's unwilling to engage in a downright skirmish that results in economic loss.
Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end. The Chinese leadership must know fully well that they cannot match the US militarily. Also given Xi's failing grades on foreign diplomacy, it's suffice to conclude that these grandiose rhetorics are entirely aimed at it's own population, who are reaching a boiling point that will ultimately put into uncertainty the survivability of Xi's powerbase and the entire party itself. Xi made too many enemies so he's looking for ways to survive by fighting fire with fire and creating more enemies from within. An internal dialogue fueling crisis with the US is a perfect propaganda tool and the fear of war, the fear of losing your properties, belongings, material possessions you've spent time on...history has shown is highly effective in controlling the populace.
The US would win a conventional war but it would be bloody and expensive in both life and material.
Neither side wants that, China wants to get to a point where it's strong enough that fighting the US would be incredibly expensive and the US wants to maintain a position where it's strong enough to deter China from doing whatever China wants to do, it's a strange world when the US's largest trading partner is in a cold war style stand off.
The 'traditional' way for nuclear powers to fight a 'war' is via Proxy wars (Vietnam, middle eastern wars etc).
I agree two sides will do everything possible to avoid direct conflict just like the Cold War.
I think you're wrong here. The US has been investing in power projection for 80 some odd years now, and is leaps and bounds ahead of any other nation. Yes it would be expensive...but we've been paying a premium for quite a long time to have this capability. Additionally, the supply chain is drastically shortened because of the sheer number of US or allied bases in the area - Japan, South Korea, the Philippines (though that one has become a bit questionable).
Just a cursory glance at US' military history the past century reveals the US has only engaged against powers that were greatly diminished (European Theater, Russia, JP), or in and against countries in regions that were relatively far less equipped and primitive in weaponry (Asia, Africa, Middle East, etc).
1. Beating the U.S. militarily in a conventional war is completely unnecessary. The overt Chinese military goal is to defend the nine-dash line and little more. Their anti-ship and anti-air missiles more than accomplish this. Several U.S. Navy admirals have stated on record that the U.S. doesn't have a mitigation for that defense.
2. The Chinese Communist Party's survival depends far more on economic factors than foreign affairs/international issues. According to various Western reports in China (The Economist, NPR, BBC), most of the populous is uninterested in the fact there is no credible opposition. Most of the population is interested in exploiting new opportunities/safeguarding their wealth. I acknowledge that Western sources could be missing a lot.
3. The Chinese diplomatic efforts are likely to effectively exploit the imminent U.S. pivot to a more isolationist posture. The TPP (despite its many warts, including unconscionable IP/legal rules) was the primary vehicle for countering Chinese trade efforts. I think we can expect to see more effective diplomacy in the realm of trade from China in the coming years. Already inroads are being made in the Philippines.
As they say on examination papers: give reasons for your answer.
Is this less blurry:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/16/china-steals-us-unde...
"We call upon China to return our [unmanned underwater vehicle] immediately, and to comply with all of its obligations under international law," Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook responded.