U.S.-CHINA MILITARY TENSIONS GROW
Rick Rozoff
OpEdNews
U-S-China-Military-Tensio-by-Rick-Rozoff-100122-15 7.html?show=votes
January 24, 2010 at 07:55:28
Even though the U.S. military budget is almost ten times that
of China’s (with a population more than four times as large) and
Washington plans a record $708 billion defense budget for next year
compared to Russia spending less than $40 billion last year for
the same, China and Russia are portrayed as threats to the U.S. and
its allies. China has no troops outside its borders; Russia has a
small handful in its former territories in Abkhazia, Armenia, South
Ossetia and Transdniester. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of
troops stationed in six continents.
While Gates was in charge of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and
responsible for almost half of international military spending he
was offended that the world’s most populous nation might desire to
"deny others countries the ability to threaten it."
On December 23 of last year Raytheon Company announced that it had
received a $1.1 billion contact with Taiwan for the purchase of 200
Patriot anti-ballistic missiles. In early January the U.S. Defense
Department cleared the transaction "despite opposition from rival
China, where a military official proposed sanctioning U.S. firms that
sell arms to the island." [1]
The sale completes a $6.5 billion weapons package approved by the
previous George W. Bush administration at the end of 2008. In the
words of the Asia bureau chief of Defense News, "This is the last
piece that Taiwan has been waiting on." [2]
Defense News first reported on the agreement and reminded its readers
that "Raytheon already won smaller contracts for Taiwan in January 2009
and in 2008 for upgrades to the Patriot systems the country already
had. Those contracts were to upgrade the systems to Configuration 3,
the same upgrade the company is completing for the U.S. Army."
The source also described what the enhanced Patriot capacity consisted
of: "Configuration 3 is Raytheon’s most advanced Patriot system and
allows the use of Lockheed Martin’s Patriot Advanced Capability-3
(PAC-3) missiles [and] Raytheon’s Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical
[Patriot-2 upgrade] missiles…." [3]
The PAC-3 is the latest, most advanced Patriot missile design and the
first capable of shooting down tactical ballistic missiles. It is the
initial tier of a layered missile shield system which also includes
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Ground Based Interceptor
(GBI), Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD), ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
equipped with Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors, Forward Based
X-Band Radar (FBXB) and Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) components.
An integrated network that ranges from the battlefield to the heavens.
The system is modular and highly mobile and its batteries are thus
more easily able to evade detection and attack. It also extends the
range of previous Patriot versions several fold.
"[T]he PAC-3 interceptors, enhanced by [an] advanced radar and command
center, are capable of protecting an area approximately seven times
greater than the original Patriot system." [4]
If like the rest of the world Chinese authorities anticipated a
reduction if not halt in the pace of American global military expansion
with the advent of a new administration in Washington a year ago,
like everyone they else have been rudely disabused of the notion.
Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei urged the United States to reconsider
the Taiwan arms package in the sixth official Chinese warning in a
week earlier this month, telling his nation’s Xinhua News Agency that
"China had strongly protested the U.S. government’s recent decision
to allow Raytheon Company and Lockheed Martin Corp. to sell weapons to
Taiwan" and "The U.S. arms sales to Taiwan undermine China’s national
security." [5]
Later information added to the inventory and to China’s ire when it was
revealed that "the Obama Administration would soon announce the sale
to Taiwan of a package worth billions of U.S. dollars including Black
Hawk helicopters, anti-missile systems and plans for diesel-powered
submarines in a move likely to anger China." [6]
In addition, the China Times reported that Taiwan was to obtain eight
second-hand Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates from the U.S. in
addition to the 200 Patriot missiles. The warships were designed
in the 1970s as comparatively inexpensive alternatives to World War
II-era destroyers. The new deal will double the amount of U.S.
Perry-class frigates that Taiwan already possesses to 16.
They will also factor into missile defense and at a higher level,
as "The island hopes to arm them with a version of the advanced
Aegis Combat System (see above), which uses computers and radar to
take out multiple targets, as well as sophisticated missile launch
technology…."
While both Washington and Taipei will present the weapons transactions
as strictly defensive in nature, it is worth recalling that last autumn
Taiwan conducted its "largest-ever missile test…launched from a
secretive and tightly guarded base in southern Taiwan" with missiles
"capable of reaching major Chinese cities." [8]
President Ma Ying-jeou observed the missile launches which "included
the test-firing of a top secret, newly developed medium-range
surface-to-surface missile with a range of 3,000 kilometres, capable
of striking major cities in central, northern and southern China." [9]
The Patriot Advanced Capability and SM-3 interceptor missiles the U.S.
is providing Taiwan could well be employed to counter a mainland
Chinese counterattack or at the least protect the launch sites of
Taiwanese medium range missiles which, as noted above, are capable
of hitting most of China’s major cities.
Beijing responded on January 11 by conducting a ground-based midcourse
interceptor missile test over its territory.
Professor Tan Kaijia of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA)
National Defense University told Xinhua "If the ballistic missile is
regarded as a spear, now we have succeeded in building a shield for
self-defense." [10]
Time Magazine characterized the significance of the test in writing:
"There’s no chance China’s gambit will deter the U.S. from backing
Taiwan….But the test does signal a ratcheting up of tensions between
Beijing and Washington…." [11]
Both China and the U.S., the first in 2007 and the second the following
year, with a Standard Missile-3 fired from an Aegis-class frigate
in the Pacific Ocean in the American case, destroyed satellites in
orbit. The dawn of space war had begun.
A January 15 feature on a Russian website titled "Possible space wars
in the near future" provided background information. "It is hard to
overestimate the role played by military satellite systems. Since
the 1970s, an increasingly greater number of troop-control,
telecommunications, target-acquisition, navigation and other processes
depend on spacecraft which are therefore becoming more important…The
space echelon’s role is directly proportional to the development
level of any given nation and its armed forces." [12]
China and Russia for years have been advocating a ban on the use of
space for military purposes, annually raising the issue in the United
Nations. The U.S. has just as persistently opposed the initiatives.
To comprehend the context in which recent developments have occurred,
Washington has for three years increasingly and tenaciously included
China and Russia with Iran and North Korea as belligerents in
prospective future conflicts.
The campaign began in earnest in February of 2007 when then and still
Pentagon chief Robert Gates testified before the U.S. House Armed
Services Committee on the Defense Department Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request and said among other matters:
"In addition to fighting the global war on terror, we also face the
danger posed by Iran and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the threat
they pose not only to their neighbors, but globally because of their
record of proliferation; the uncertain paths of China and Russia,
which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs;
and a range of other flashpoints and challenges….We need both the
ability for regular force-on-force conflicts because we don’t know
what’s going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North
Korea, in Iran and elsewhere." [13]
If it be objected that Gates was only alluding to general contingency
plans, ones that could apply to any major nation, neither his
comments nor any by U.S. defense officials since have mentioned fellow
nuclear powers Britain, France, India and Israel in a similar vein,
but have reiterated concerns about Russia and China with an alarming
consistency. In fact China and Russia have been substituted for Iraq
in the former axis of evil category.
Even though the U.S. military budget is almost ten times that
of China’s (with a population more than four times as large) and
Washington plans a record $708 billion defense budget for next year
compared to Russia spending less than $40 billion last year for
the same, China and Russia are portrayed as threats to the U.S. and
its allies. China has no troops outside its borders; Russia has a
small handful in its former territories in Abkhazia, Armenia, South
Ossetia and Transdniester. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of
troops stationed in six continents.
Russia and China both reacted harshly to Gates’ statements in February
of 2007 and only three days afterward, with Gates in the audience,
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the annual
Munich Security Conference in which he warned:
"[W]hat is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this
term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation,
namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of
decision-making.
"It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the
end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this
system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself
from within."
"Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved
any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and
created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well
as local and regional conflicts have not diminished….And no less
people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before.
Significantly more, significantly more!
"Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force –
military force – in international relations, force that is plunging
the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts."
"One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has
overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the
economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on
other nations…." [14]
The warning was not heeded in Washington.
Three months later the Pentagon chief resumed his earlier accusations.
In May of 2007 the Defense Department issued its annual report
on China’s military capability, citing "continuing efforts to
project Chinese power beyond its immediate region and to develop
high-technology systems that can challenge the best in the world."
"U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says some of China’s efforts
cause him concern."
The report said "China is pursuing long-term, comprehensive
transformation of its military forces" to "enable it to project
power and deny other countries the ability to threaten it." [15]
While Gates was in charge of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and
responsible for almost half of international military spending he
was offended that the world’s most populous nation might desire to
"deny others countries the ability to threaten it."
A year after Gates linked China and Russia with surviving "axis of
evil" suspects Iran and North Korea, National Director of Intelligence
Michael McConnell singled out China, Russia and the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) as the main threats to the
United States, even more than al-Qaeda.
The Voice of Russia responded to McDonnell’s accusations in a
commentary that included these excerpts:
"Russia has demanded an explanation from America over a report by the
Director of American national intelligence in which Russia, China,
Iraq, Iran, North Korea and al-Qaida are described as sources of
strategic threats to the U.S….Quite possibly, the report by the
U.S intelligence community amounts to accounting for the staggering
sums of money that is allocated yearly for its upkeep. There could
be other reasons to explain why Russia has been included among states
posing a threat to America." [16]
Gates has remained as defense secretary for the new American
administration and so has the anti-Chinese and anti-Russian rhetoric.
On May 1 of last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that
"The Obama administration is working to improve deteriorating U.S.
relations with a number of Latin American nations to counter growing
Iranian, Chinese and Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere…."
[17] The month after she spoke those words a military coup was staged
in Honduras and two weeks after that the U.S. secured the use of
seven military bases in Colombia.
In September Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair issued the
U.S.’s quadrennial National Intelligence Strategy report which said
"Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea pose the greatest challenges
to the United States’ national interests. [18]
Agence France-Presse said that "The United States on [September 15]
put emerging superpower China and former Cold War foe Russia alongside
Iran and North Korea on a list of the four main nations challenging
American interests" and quoted from Blair’s report:
China was fingered for its "increasing natural resource-focused
diplomacy and military modernization."
"Russia is a US partner in important initiatives such as securing
fissile material and combating nuclear terrorism, but it may continue
to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence in ways that
complicate US interests." [19]
China is not allowed to deny other nations the ability to threaten
it and Russia is not permitted to complicate U.S. interests.
The trend, ominous in its relentlessness, continues into this year.
The vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Missile Defense Systems,
John Holly, touted his company’s role in the Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense System – components of which are being delivered to Taiwan –
as "the shining star" of Lockheed’s interceptor missile portfolio,
and according to a newspaper in the city which hosts the Pentagon’s
Missile Defense Agency "Pointing to missile programs in North Korea,
Iran, Russia and China, Holly said, ‘the world is not a very safe world
… and it is incumbent upon us in industry to provide [the Pentagon]
with the best capabilities.’" [20]
Three days afterward the Pentagon’s Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Wallace Gregson "voiced doubts
about China’s insistence that its use of space is for peaceful means"
and stated "The Chinese have stated that they oppose the militarization
of space. Their actions seem to indicate the contrary intention." [21]
The next day Admiral Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific Command,
stated in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee
that China’s "powerful economic engine is also funding a military
modernization program that has raised concerns in the region —
a concern also shared by the U.S. Pacific Command." [22]
The U.S. Navy has six fleets and eleven aircraft carrier strike
groups in or available for deployment to all parts of the world,
but China with only a "brown water" navy off its own coast is a cause
for concern to the U.S.
As Alan Mackinnon, the chairman of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament, wrote last September:
"The world of war is today dominated by a single superpower. In
military terms the United States sits astride the world like a
giant Colossus. As a country with only five per cent of the world’s
population it accounts for almost 50 per cent of global arms spending.
"Its 11 naval carrier fleets patrol every ocean and its 909 military
bases are scattered strategically across every continent. No other
country has reciprocal bases on US territory – it would be unthinkable
and unconstitutional. It is 20 years since the end of the Cold War and
the United States and its allies face no significant military threat
today. Why then have we not had the hoped-for peace dividend? Why does
the world’s most powerful nation continue to increase its military
budget, now over $1.2 trillion a year in real terms? What threat is
all this supposed to counter?
"The US response has been largely military – the expansion of NATO and
the encirclement of Russia and China in a ring of hostile bases and
alliances. And continuing pressure to isolate and weaken Iran." [23]
Observations to be kept in the forefront of people’s minds as China
is increasingly presented as a security challenge – and a strategic
threat – to the world’s sole military superpower.
Related articles:
U.S. Expands Asian NATO Against China,
Russia Stop NATO, October 16, 2009
s-expands-asian-nato-against-china-russia
Broader Strategy: West’s Afghan War Targets
Russia, China, Iran Stop NATO, September 8, 2009
oader-strategy-wests-afghan-war-targets-russia-chi na-iran
U.S. Accelerates First Strike Global Missile
Shield System Stop NATO, August 19, 2009
s-accelerates-first-strike-global-missile-shield-s ystem
Australian Military Buildup And The Rise
Of Asian NATO Stop NATO, May 6, 2009
stralian-military-buildup-and-the-rise-of-asian-na to
1) Reuters, January 7, 2010 2)
Ibid 3) Defense News, December 23, 2009 4)
ems/id.41/system_detail.asp
5) Russian Information Agency Novosti, January 9, 2010 6) Taiwan
News, January 4, 2010 7) Agence France-Presse, January 11, 2010
8) Radio Taiwan International, October 14, 2009 9) Deutsche
Presse-Agentur, October 14, 2009 10) Asian Times, January 20,
2010 11) Time, January 13, 2010 12) Russian Information Agency
Novosti, January 15, 2010 13) 14)
rticle/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html
15) Voice of America News, May 26, 2007 16) Voice of Russia, February
8, 2008 17) Associated Press, May 1, 2009 18) Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, September 16, 2009 19) Agence France-Presse, September 15,
2009 20) Huntsville Times, January 10, 2010 21) Agence France-Presse,
January 13, 2010 22) Washington Post, January 14, 2010 23) Scottish
Left Review, November 17, 2009
Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist
work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago,
Illinois. Is the manager of the Stop NATO international email list at:
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or
its editors.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/u-
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/br
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/u-
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/au
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesyst
http://www.sras.org/news2.phtml?m=908
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/