U.S. criticizes new China zone, vows to defend Japan

[Vikrant]

GENEVA – The United States said Saturday it was “deeply concerned” and committed to defending Japan after China announced an air zone in the East China Sea that includes disputed islets.

In a move that U.S. ally Japan branded as “very dangerous,” China said it was setting up the “air defense identification zone” over the islands administered by Tokyo to “guard against potential air threats.”

In similar statements, Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that the United States was “deeply concerned” about the moves by China, which also scrambled air force jets to carry out a patrol mission in the newly declared zone.

“This unilateral action constitutes an attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea,” Kerry said.

“Escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident,” the top U.S. diplomat said from Geneva, where he was taking part in talks on reaching an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program.

Kerry said that the United States has urged China to “exercise caution and restraint,” and warned Beijing against implementing its new zone.

“We urge China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing,” Kerry said.

Hagel reiterated that the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands — which the Chinese claim and call the Diaoyu — fell under the U.S.-Japan security treaty, meaning that Washington would defend its ally Tokyo if the area is attacked.

“We are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan. We remain steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners,” Hagel said.

The defense chief made clear that the United States, which stations more than 70,000 troops in Japan and South Korea, would not respect China’s declaration of control over the zone.

“This announcement by the People’s Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region,” Hagel said.

The outline of the zone, which is shown on the Chinese defense ministry website and a state media Twitter account (pic.twitter.com/4a2vC6PH8O), covers a wide area of the East China Sea between South Korea and Taiwan that includes airspace above the disputed islets.

Japan last year nationalized some of the islets and has vowed not to cede sovereignty or even to acknowledge a dispute with China, accusing its growing neighbor of trying to change the status quo through intimidation.

China and Taiwan both claim the islets, which are near potentially energy-rich waters.

The United States says that it has no position on the islets’ ultimate sovereignty but believes that they are currently under Japanese administration.

“Freedom of overflight and other internationally lawful uses of sea and airspace are essential to prosperity, stability and security in the Pacific,” Kerry said.

He called for a “more collaborative and less confrontational future in the Pacific.”

The United States, for its part, does not ask foreign aircraft to identify themselves if they are not intending to enter U.S. airspace.

U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged a greater focus on Asia in light of China’s rise and plans to shift the majority of U.S. warships to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020.

Obama plans to visit Asia, reportedly including Japan, in April. Kerry, who has invested much of his time on the Middle East, will travel to Asia in the coming weeks.

U.S. criticizes new China zone, vows to defend Japan | The Japan Times

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh goody. Another Obama "red line".

 

[Vikrant]

It looks like China is acting rogue.

 

[Vikrant]

Here is Chinese government's view:


The airforce says it has conducted its first air patrol since the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone was announced. Reconnaissance and early-warning aircraft and warplanes were deployed. But what is an Air Defense Identification Zone, and how does it work?
Air Defence Identification Zone is a zone that can extend in some cases up to 300 miles beyond the territorial sea. It’s established by some countries off their coasts for security reasons. When entering the zone, all aircraft are required to identify themselves, report flight plans, and inform ground control of their exact position.
Military expert Yin Zhuo said, "Since the 1950s, some countries have demarcated Air Defense Identification Zones on high seas or international waters. It’s also called identification belt."
Air Defense Identification Zone is an early-warning air defense concept. It has been implemented in more than 20 countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, South Korea and Japan.
For example, after Japan’s surrender in 1945, the US demarcated an identification zone off Japan’s coasts, but it was under the control of the US military in Japan. It was only until 1969 that the US transferred the management of the zone to Japan.
After that, Japan expanded the zone westward twice, once in 1972, the other in 2010. Japan follows a warning sequence for unidentified aircraft: radar detection, emergency calls, fighter emergency launch, requiring forced landing, and bomb warning. Once its own aircraft, land, or vessels are attacked, a defense war will be launched. However, territorial disputes still exist, as the zone is not recognised by Japan’s neighbors, Russia and China.

Background: Air Defense Identification Zones CCTV News - CNTV English

 

[Pennywise]

This is what we get by playing policemen to the world for the past 70 plus years.

Crank up the war machine, times are going to be good for the Military Industrial Complex.

 

[Vikrant]

^ There is a difference between defending your ally and policing the world.

 

[Pennywise]

In theory, yes, but not in practice.

 

[Unkotare]

US, Japan Protest China Air Defense Zone

 

[Unkotare]

This is what we get by playing policemen to the world for the past 70 plus years.

We haven't been doing that. Get a new bumper sticker for your VW van.

 

[3.14]

^ There is a difference between defending your ally and policing the world.

No, there is not. We use allies as we police the world. Japan isn't our ally for no reason-we're their ally because we use their country to establish a military presence in Asia (so who's the real aggressor?).

This is what we get by playing policemen to the world for the past 70 plus years.

We haven't been doing that. Get a new bumper sticker for your VW van.

Yeah, I also own a VW, and it's plastered with bumper stickers. Except that it only exists in your prejudices and imagination. And if the best label that you can apply mockingly is "hippie", then perhaps you should reconsider your beliefs, as they seem to oppose the ideal of moral, idealistic activism.

As for your claim that the US is not using its military to police other countries, this is either baseless denialism or an acknowledgement that it is an understatement to call American military a global police force. After all, in many cases, US military actions have not arisen out of a benevolent wish for peacekeeping, but to brutally force American interests onto other countries with their strong might. For example, the United States installed a brutal dictator and launched a bloody war, ostensibly for the freedom of the Vietnamese, in Vietnam to crush a communist revolution and establish Vietnam as part of a front to surround China militarily, and attempted an attack on Cuba after the revolutionary government seized the property of several American companies. And let's not forget what the United States did in Haiti in 2004, or in the Dominican Republic in 1965, or in Venezuela in 2002, or in innumerable weaker nations throughout its history-just because they could.

 

[Unkotare]

^ There is a difference between defending your ally and policing the world.

No, there is not. We use allies as we police the world. Japan isn't our ally for no reason-we're their ally because we use their country to establish a military presence in Asia (so who's the real aggressor?).

This is what we get by playing policemen to the world for the past 70 plus years.

We haven't been doing that. Get a new bumper sticker for your VW van.

Yeah, I also own a VW, and it's plastered with bumper stickers. Except that it only exists in your prejudices and imagination. And if the best label that you can apply mockingly is "hippie", then perhaps you should reconsider your beliefs, as they seem to oppose the ideal of moral, idealistic activism.

As for your claim that the US is not using its military to police other countries, this is either baseless denialism or an acknowledgement that it is an understatement to call American military a global police force. After all, in many cases, US military actions have not arisen out of a benevolent wish for peacekeeping, but to brutally force American interests onto other countries with their strong might. For example, the United States installed a brutal dictator and launched a bloody war, ostensibly for the freedom of the Vietnamese, in Vietnam to crush a communist revolution and establish Vietnam as part of a front to surround China militarily, and attempted an attack on Cuba after the revolutionary government seized the property of several American companies. And let's not forget what the United States did in Haiti in 2004, or in the Dominican Republic in 1965, or in Venezuela in 2002, or in innumerable weaker nations throughout its history-just because they could.

Hey Moonbeam, if you want an audience for that kind of pot-fueled bullshit, take it to the Conspiracy Forum where they are prepared to humor your ilk.

 

[Indeependent]

Isn't China GM's ally?
No to mention over 25,000 other manufacturers?

 

[Vikrant]

^ There is a difference between defending your ally and policing the world.

No, there is not. We use allies as we police the world. Japan isn't our ally for no reason-we're their ally because we use their country to establish a military presence in Asia (so who's the real aggressor?).

This is what we get by playing policemen to the world for the past 70 plus years.

We haven't been doing that. Get a new bumper sticker for your VW van.

Yeah, I also own a VW, and it's plastered with bumper stickers. Except that it only exists in your prejudices and imagination. And if the best label that you can apply mockingly is "hippie", then perhaps you should reconsider your beliefs, as they seem to oppose the ideal of moral, idealistic activism.

As for your claim that the US is not using its military to police other countries, this is either baseless denialism or an acknowledgement that it is an understatement to call American military a global police force. After all, in many cases, US military actions have not arisen out of a benevolent wish for peacekeeping, but to brutally force American interests onto other countries with their strong might. For example, the United States installed a brutal dictator and launched a bloody war, ostensibly for the freedom of the Vietnamese, in Vietnam to crush a communist revolution and establish Vietnam as part of a front to surround China militarily, and attempted an attack on Cuba after the revolutionary government seized the property of several American companies. And let's not forget what the United States did in Haiti in 2004, or in the Dominican Republic in 1965, or in Venezuela in 2002, or in innumerable weaker nations throughout its history-just because they could.

Your entire post was inconsistent. First you accuse the U.S. for its lack of benevolence. Then you accuse the U.S. of policing the world. The act of policing the entire world is a very benevolent act. Do you realize that?

 

[Vikrant]

China To Engage In 'Six Inevitable Wars' Involving U.S., Japan, India And More, According To Pro-Government Chinese Newspaper


China's announcement last weekend of an Air Defense Identification Zone, which includes disputed areas of the East China Sea, has ratcheted up tensions between China and her neighbors, leading some to believe war is imminent.

The new air defense area includes the airspace above the hotly disputed cluster of tiny islands known as the Diaoyu to China and the Senkaku to the Japanese. International reaction to the ADIZ, particularly from Japan and its ally the U.S., has been uniformly defiant. In addition to official statements from Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Reuters reported Tuesday that two U.S. military aircraft have flown around the disputed islands in direct defiance of China’s ADIZ.

“We have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus,” spokesman Col. Steve Warren said, using the Japanese name for the islands. In addition to declaring the zone’s wide boundaries, Chinese military forces announced that all air travel in the designated ADIZ must be reported to avoid “emergency defensive measures in response.” The U.S. did the flyover without addressing the demands made by China. “We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies,” Warren continued.

The new ADIZ has brought added tension to one of China’s several current territorial disputes. As pointed out in Shanghai-based news-blog, The Shanghaiist.com, earlier this summer, a particularly strident pro-government local newspaper, Weweipo, published a war-mongering article describing the “Six Wars China Is Sure to Fight In the Next 50 Years.” The article essentially predicts that most of China’s current border disputes will eventually lead to war.

China To Engage In 'Six Inevitable Wars' Involving U.S., Japan, India And More, According To Pro-Government Chinese Newspaper

 

[3.14]

^ There is a difference between defending your ally and policing the world.

No, there is not. We use allies as we police the world. Japan isn't our ally for no reason-we're their ally because we use their country to establish a military presence in Asia (so who's the real aggressor?).

We haven't been doing that. Get a new bumper sticker for your VW van.

Yeah, I also own a VW, and it's plastered with bumper stickers. Except that it only exists in your prejudices and imagination. And if the best label that you can apply mockingly is "hippie", then perhaps you should reconsider your beliefs, as they seem to oppose the ideal of moral, idealistic activism.

As for your claim that the US is not using its military to police other countries, this is either baseless denialism or an acknowledgement that it is an understatement to call American military a global police force. After all, in many cases, US military actions have not arisen out of a benevolent wish for peacekeeping, but to brutally force American interests onto other countries with their strong might. For example, the United States installed a brutal dictator and launched a bloody war, ostensibly for the freedom of the Vietnamese, in Vietnam to crush a communist revolution and establish Vietnam as part of a front to surround China militarily, and attempted an attack on Cuba after the revolutionary government seized the property of several American companies. And let's not forget what the United States did in Haiti in 2004, or in the Dominican Republic in 1965, or in Venezuela in 2002, or in innumerable weaker nations throughout its history-just because they could.

Hey Moonbeam, if you want an audience for that kind of pot-fueled bullshit, take it to the Conspiracy Forum where they are prepared to humor your ilk.

I do not understand how what I wrote was "pot-fueled bullshit". You probably were incredibly angered when you encountered viewpoints that so starkly challenged your own, and then let your emotions take over, beyond the point of trying to understand my reasoning. These vague negative prejudices, formed to rationalize your narrow-minded, intolerant rage, are groundless, especially considering that I took the time to support and explain my perspective.

Now, it was not respectable to post that immature rant that you know will only be effective because other people share your views, because you simply are angry at me for my opinions, while you have actually written something truly ridiculous-the complete denial of American military actions ("B.S.", as you'd say) . Use of the mob, how crude.

Specifically, your claim that I "want an audience" was scathing, but not true. Perhaps you were irritated by how my post was written out, strengthened by your dislike of my dissent, which contrasted against the other posts. However, I was not writing immature remarks, but was using legitimate arguments, and therefore was responsibly exercising my right to free speech, just like the other people on this thread. Thus, if you wish to criticize me for being motivated by a desire to get attention, which is actually just an imagined prejudice formed to alienate my beliefs, which were no different in nature than the other comments, then every other person who wrote here may as well stop posting.

Finally, I am aware that you have snapped like this before, so you should know that rudeness does not elevate you. You may gain some support by aggressively suppressing disagreement, but anyone can be rude-only a few cannot restrain themselves. Stop showing off your crudeness and idiocy.

Your entire post was inconsistent. First you accuse the U.S. for its lack of benevolence. Then you accuse the U.S. of policing the world. The act of policing the entire world is a very benevolent act. Do you realize that?

There was no inconsistency in my post-even when I passingly used the term "police" to rephrase your words, I stated that America's militarism was motivated by their own selfish desires. In no part of the paragraph where I referred to the US as a "police" force did I suggest that this was motivated by benevolence.

Then I repeated that the United States was driven by self-serving motives, or, as you euphemistically say, "a lack of benevolence", and provided many examples to support this. You claim that the act of policing the world was benevolent, and this is why I stated that referring to America as a police force is inaccurate.

Speaking of inconsistency, you denied that the United States was policing the world in a previous post, but now you are acknowledging that the United States is a police force, which you inexplicably refer to as "benevolent". Much like your posting pal Unkotare, the words you use against me apply to yourself more accurately.

I notice that you and Unkotare both are good at avoiding actual debate by stalling the discussion with inappropriate distractions. At best, this shows that you simply do not know how to argue.

China To Engage In 'Six Inevitable Wars' Involving U.S., Japan, India And More, According To Pro-Government Chinese Newspaper


China's announcement last weekend of an Air Defense Identification Zone, which includes disputed areas of the East China Sea, has ratcheted up tensions between China and her neighbors, leading some to believe war is imminent.

The new air defense area includes the airspace above the hotly disputed cluster of tiny islands known as the Diaoyu to China and the Senkaku to the Japanese. International reaction to the ADIZ, particularly from Japan and its ally the U.S., has been uniformly defiant. In addition to official statements from Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Reuters reported Tuesday that two U.S. military aircraft have flown around the disputed islands in direct defiance of China’s ADIZ.

“We have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus,” spokesman Col. Steve Warren said, using the Japanese name for the islands. In addition to declaring the zone’s wide boundaries, Chinese military forces announced that all air travel in the designated ADIZ must be reported to avoid “emergency defensive measures in response.” The U.S. did the flyover without addressing the demands made by China. “We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies,” Warren continued.

The new ADIZ has brought added tension to one of China’s several current territorial disputes. As pointed out in Shanghai-based news-blog, The Shanghaiist.com, earlier this summer, a particularly strident pro-government local newspaper, Weweipo, published a war-mongering article describing the “Six Wars China Is Sure to Fight In the Next 50 Years.” The article essentially predicts that most of China’s current border disputes will eventually lead to war.

China To Engage In 'Six Inevitable Wars' Involving U.S., Japan, India And More, According To Pro-Government Chinese Newspaper

Calling this newspaper "pro-government", although true, is misleading. While the civilian press in China is controlled, this is only performed against dissident publications. China generally does not use resources for controlling the pro-government press. There are some independent journalists in China, so this publication may well be a private, radically nationalist publication. You cannot prove that this reflects the views of the Chinese government, in other words. You were probably quoting the views of some normal Chinese citizens, who cannot represent the true motives of the Chinese government.

You quoted these civilians because you wanted to give the erroneous impression that China is the aggressor, which makes American military presence in Asia seem justified, even though you do not even know if the Chinese government is actually making these aggressive statements-and they probably weren't. Anyone who uses common sense would probably conclude that this far-fetched and extremely dangerous fantasy was probably conjured by an unthinking, overpatriotic person. It would not be in the interest of the Chinese government to provoke this extreme war fever, because China's military is still relatively weak, with their military budget one-sixth that of the United States, without the advantageous military presence that is maintained around China. And note that a war with the US would be destructive in any case, as China is still economically dependent on the United States, the latter being one of China's greatest trading partners. You basically tried to tricked us, Vikrant. What does this prove about the Chinese government's agenda? You've only proven that there are some extreme opinions in China, which is inevitable in any society.

 

[Indofred]

It looks like China is acting rogue.

The Islands are disputed between China and Japan and are local to both countries.
I can see why they're in dispute and hope it can be talked out.

America is a ocean away from these islands so what the hell are your idiot government up to, flying B52s over them and inviting even further escalation and potentially causing a war, maybe localised, maybe not?

China and Japan are after the fishing rights and probably oil deposits.
This has sod all to do with America.

 

[Politico]

^ There is a difference between defending your ally and policing the world.

No, there is not. We use allies as we police the world. Japan isn't our ally for no reason-we're their ally because we use their country to establish a military presence in Asia (so who's the real aggressor?).

This is what we get by playing policemen to the world for the past 70 plus years.

We haven't been doing that. Get a new bumper sticker for your VW van.

Yeah, I also own a VW, and it's plastered with bumper stickers. Except that it only exists in your prejudices and imagination. And if the best label that you can apply mockingly is "hippie", then perhaps you should reconsider your beliefs, as they seem to oppose the ideal of moral, idealistic activism.

As for your claim that the US is not using its military to police other countries, this is either baseless denialism or an acknowledgement that it is an understatement to call American military a global police force. After all, in many cases, US military actions have not arisen out of a benevolent wish for peacekeeping, but to brutally force American interests onto other countries with their strong might. For example, the United States installed a brutal dictator and launched a bloody war, ostensibly for the freedom of the Vietnamese, in Vietnam to crush a communist revolution and establish Vietnam as part of a front to surround China militarily, and attempted an attack on Cuba after the revolutionary government seized the property of several American companies. And let's not forget what the United States did in Haiti in 2004, or in the Dominican Republic in 1965, or in Venezuela in 2002, or in innumerable weaker nations throughout its history-just because they could.

None of that surprises me at all lol.

 

[Unkotare]

America is a ocean away from these islands .

No, we're not. Our allies are not. Our interests, and those of much of the world, are not.


Take off your 'Hate America' blinders, drama queen.

 

[Unkotare]

I do not understand how what I wrote was "pot-fueled bullshit". You probably were incredibly angered when you encountered viewpoints that so starkly challenged your own, .

I wouldn't expect an mindless pothead to understand much of anything. Your 'viewpoints' were not a 'stark challenge,' they were the same old trite nonsense that ignorant, anti-American idiots like you have been thoughtlessly mouthing for years. Fortunately for you and everyone else, insignificant fools like you remain utterly irrelevant. Your betters will work on these problems despite the inaudible screaming of gnats like you.

 

[Unkotare]

Japanese flying through China air defense zone defiant | Reuters