Xinhua scrapping the barrel to make a tired old arguement…

As I wrote in my post To Fly Or Not To Fly, China would have a tough time vetoing any No Fly Zone over Libya as it would considerably jeopardize its investments, which are currently estimated into the billions of RMB. (See here for one estimation of the cost)

Although, the No fly Zone doesn’t guarantee the lost investments, it would have looked really bad if China were seen as a deliberate block in any attempt to protect the people of Eastern Libya. Especially as a sizable chunk of their investments are in eastern Libya.

So, China abstained. It had no other choice, and this was the right thing to do. China could show that it respected the humanitarian side of the No Fly Zone, without compromising its own ideal of non-state intervention by other states.

What it should have done from then, is well…. Nothing. But instead it has once again fallen into an “Anti-American” stance, questioning the credibility of the No Fly Zone and it’s legitimacy, even relating it to imperialism.... again!

Turning the situation into another opportunity to flog a tired old argument about the US being a global bully that is happy to attack weaker countries.

On March 22 Xinhua reported

“Some countries Monday blasted the ongoing West-led military operation against Libya government forces, saying the air raids went beyond the UN resolution and must be scrapped immediately.

Further investigation reveals that one of the principle quotes for this story comes from Robert Mugabe, no less.

What is Xinhua doing? Why, if it wants to present China as a global leader is it still associating itself with these kinds of people? Does Robert Mugabe represent the aspirations of the Chinese people? I think not. Does what Mugabe think on the world matter to any reasonable nation that values its citizens?

Other notable countries joining this “global slamming” of the No Fly Zone being the political heavy-weights of Ecuador and Bolivia.

It is really beyond me why China’s propaganda machine thinks it is doing itself a favour by scrapping the barrel like this and flaming up anti-Americanism by associating with these kind of regimes and countries.

The CCP should realize that its current actions to present an “alternative” consensus on the UN sanctioned No Fly Zone actually alienates it more from the world it so desperately wants to be respected in.

If China wants to lead the world, then it should act like a global leader and garner the respect of the international community rather than wasting its time consensus building with minnows or pariah states, trying to prove a tired old point about western imperialism or US hegemony.

General Luo Yuan is back!

After a couple of months hiatus – which strangely started on 25^th Jan, General Lou is back in the news, and this time singing from Deng Xiao Ping’s hymn sheet.

No longer is he the cutting edge of the PLA’s more assertive stance, as he was in 2010. This time, he’s the poster-boy for the modest Deng policy of hiding one’s capabilities and not drawing attention to one’s self. This old strategic chestnut is now en vogue again in CCP circles, so as to detract from the ever-increasing demands for real political change that is sweeping the world in the form of the Jasmine Revolutions.

Here’s in latest interview from China.org.cn

China is no threat to the U.S.: General

The state of Sino-U.S. ties will be decided by the U.S., because China has always maintained a constructive attitude and is committed to preserving a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship in the 21st century, Major General Luo Yuan told China.org.cn on during the CPPCC session.

China will not change its policy towards the U.S. as its national power grows, said Luo, who is deputy secretary general of the China Society of Military Science and a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. China's traditional culture and national character emphasize modesty and prudence, and China will neither seek hegemony, nor pose a threat to the United States, he added.

"We are very clear about our realities," said Luo. "I have visited former revolutionary base areas in remote and border areas and found that people there are still living in poverty." He said that as a visiting scholar abroad he saw quite clearly that China still lags far behind western countries. Those who see China as a threat to the United States and believe that China is competing for world leadership with the U.S. should go to western China and have a close look at how people live there, Luo said.

Well-informed Americans understand that China is not capable of posing a threat to the United States, Luo said. "Those who say China is a threat to the U.S. are just playing the ‘China card' to achieve other goals, such as increased military spending, shifting the public's attention from domestic issues and avoiding blame at home, or forming alliances with other counties."

According to the Major General, there is no country in the world capable of constituting a military threat to the United States. "China has never sent surveillance aircraft and ships to the U.S. East Coast or West Coast, but the U.S. regularly carries out surveillance activities in the South China Sea and East China Sea." Those who know China understand that China neither wants to nor has the power to pose a threat to the U.S., Luo added. "The China threat theory is utterly absurd."

But Americans who know little about China see China as a monster because China is a socialist country led by a communist party, said Luo. They believe there is a structural conflict between China and U.S. Moreover, they don't believe China can develop peacefully without seeking hegemony, because there is no precedent. Previously all big powers achieved their goals through waging wars or pillaging.

When asked how to enhance mutual trust between China and the U.S., Luo said China should address American doubts and explain its military strategy to the world, as well as demonstrating by its actions that it is pursuing peaceful development.

Is the U.S. encircling China?

During her visit to the Asia Pacific last October, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that the U.S. was not seeking to contain China.

But the U.S. has strengthened its military cooperation with Taiwan; it has also enhanced ties with its five military allies in the Asia-Pacific region, and its alliances with Japan, S. Korea and Philippines cover both the South China Sea and the East China Sea. It has gained access to military bases in many South Asian countries and has built a strategic partnership with India; it has also built a dozen military bases in Central Asia under the pretext of fighting terrorism. The U.S. has also tried to woo Mongolia, Luo said.

Is the U.S. encircling China? Please take a look around China, Luo said. "The U.S. constantly urges China to increase transparency in its military strategy. We would also like them to explain to us their military intentions."

Americans believe that their values are best and they are determined to spread them across the world and maintain their dominant position in the world. Because China's social system, ideology and cultural traditions differ from theirs, they are unwilling to allow China to fully integrate into the international community, but they cannot ignore 5000 years of Chinese civilization, Luo said.

Three barriers to Sino-U.S. military ties

Major General Luo said that China has made great efforts to develop sound and stable military ties with the United States: China publishes a defense white paper every two years and has participated in the UN Military Budget Transparency Mechanism and the Conventional Weapons Registration System. China has also invited many U.S. high ranking military officials to visit China, including Robert Gates, who visited the Second Artillery Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) during his recent China tour.

But three issues still hamper Sino-U.S. military relations: arms sales to Taiwan; frequent reconnaissance missions by U.S. ships and aircraft in China's waters and airspace; and U.S. legislative limits on military exchanges with China, Major General Luo said. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 and the Delay Amendment set restrictions on military exchanges with China in 12 areas.

Sino-U.S. relations in 2011

Luo said Sino-U.S. relationship should improve and develop smoothly this year as the U.S. has just held mid-term elections and the general elections are some time off. But accidental factors could not be avoided, such as the Taiwan issue and the Korean Peninsula issue, Major General Luo said. "If the U.S. sells F-16 CD fighter aircraft to Taiwan, it will definitely harm Sino-U.S. relations."

China and the Middle East

The Chinese have deployed a vice foreign minister to the Middle East, North Africa and West Africa to assess the security of Chinese energy assets there. Beijing is growing increasingly concerned by the unrest sweeping through the Middle East and the potential impact that will have — not only on oil prices but potentially on Chinese social stability.

Although the fifth-largest oil producer in the world, the Chinese are a major importer of oil as well, consuming more than twice as much as they produce themselves. In 2010, the percent of Chinese oil consumption that they had to import from abroad grew by an additional 50 percent. A large quantity of this oil comes from North Africa and the Middle East and from countries that are considered politically unstable. China currently gets about 3-3.5 percent of its oil from Libya. It’s increased its investment more than 25 percent in 2010 and, as we’ve seen, the Chinese have placed a lot of interest in the future of Libya as a supplier. The Chinese have had to work out the evacuation of more than 30,00 Chinese from the country.

What Beijing is trying to do is to determine both how long energy prices are going to stay high due to the unrest in the Middle East and whether there’s going to be a lasting impact on places that China has been able to sync their own investments in — gain access to more resources themselves.

One of the major issues for Beijing now is that, as energy prices rise, it has a compounding impact on the inflation problem that’s already raging in China. Chinese inflation in 2010 came in at about 3.3 percent. For this year, it’s estimated — prior to these crises — at reaching 4 or 5 percent. Those are the official figures — by many accounts, those figures are far below reality. The real number should be 6-7 percentage points higher. Inflation has long a problem for the Chinese and during periods of extreme inflationary jumps, China has faced significant social challenges as well.

Since the economic opening in 1979, China has had three major spikes in inflation: one in 1985, one in 1988-89 and one between 1993 and 1996. In 1985, inflation ran around 10 percent and the Chinese managed to hold things together socially. In 1988-89, the rising inflation contributed to what ultimately became the Tiananmen Square incident. In 1993-96, Chinese inflation was rapidly rising on the back of the rest of expansion in East Asia and the Chinese really were saved by the collapse of the rest of Asia where Beijing could rein in, it could hold things down domestically and then it could start to grab the export share that had fallen away from many of the Asian economic tigers.

As China watches the unrest and North Africa, they’re also looking cautiously at the so-called “Jasmine” revolution that’s just in its early stages in China. Thus far we haven’t seen very large numbers of demonstrators, but the Chinese security apparatus response suggests that they may be even more concerned about this than perhaps what people see from the outside.

For Beijing, several things come together right now that make this a particularly difficult period. One, you have the higher energy prices coming on top of inflation that already exists. Two, you have this attempt at public demonstrations that spread not only geographically but across socio-economic classes. Three, you have a change in communication strategies where information is able to move faster, its finding ways to circumvent Chinese censorship and it’s drying out people who have very different grievances. The fourth is that China is in a very different stage of its development right now. There really has become a growing middle class, there has been higher expectations given to the Chinese over the past few years — the government to deal with the economic crisis has tried to push domestic consumption, has done so by subsidizing, by giving rebates, by funding, and people are coming to expect more and expect more. These factors are combining at a time where Beijing is also focusing very heavily on the transfer of leadership from Hu Jintao to his successor.

At times like these, social stability becomes a top priority for the government. They want things to hold steady so they can carry out the political transition without any significant problems or impact. STRATFOR is watching very closely how the Chinese manage these different issues as they come at them very quickly. The Chinese government is not known for being able to move very rapidly, particularly at a time like this when they are undergoing a political transition and they’re working up a balance between the various political factions.

STRATFOR.com

Perfect Storm for Taiwan Contingency

It may sound callous, but now may be the “Perfect Storm” of conditions that would make it a favourable time for the PLA to retake Taiwan by force.

China’s major competitor in the region is devastated by the earthquake and the proceeding tsunamis. The US Navy’s 7^th and 3^rd Fleets will be mobilized for the huge recovery effort, as well as being logistically affected due to the earthquake.

In Europe, NATO is all fingers and no thumbs over the No-Fly Zone in Libya, which despite it being a long way off will still be taking up many of the assets allocated to the 5^th and 6^th fleets.

Meanwhile, the U.S still has two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From a military point of view, the U.S navy may never be so stretched again - having so many pressing and urgent military and humanitarian needs.

Right now, Carriers Ronald Reagan, George Washington and Essex will be being reconfigured for urgent mission to help the 100,000s of Japanese refugees - the U.S's principle partner in the region. It would be a logistical nightmare and almost a step too far to reconfigure them back into a war fighting stance for a Taiwan contingency. Plus, Obama just isn't up to it!

While there may be those in the PLA that may see the opportunity - Nothing will happen.

Why? Because I believe it’s not the in the nature of the CCP to be so bold even when presented with the Perfect Storm of events.

Even though the PLA actively writes about taking the initiative militarily and striking while the enemy is weak and over stretched, this is hard for them to materialize into practice – blame Confucius!

To Fly or NOT to Fly?

You’d pretty much have to be living in a bubble not to have some idea of the goings on in Libya right now. The whole situation poses a number of salient questions?

1. Will Gadaffi fall?
2. Will there be a civil war?
3. Will there be a no fly zone?
4. And why… if Gadaffi was in charge of the whole country for 42 years, did he only promote himself to a lowly colonel?

Joking aside, the no fly zone presents a number of problems for all concerned and it remains to be seen whether the UN can sort itself out to arrive at a solution. What we do know is that the hardware is there to make this happen. We can also presume that a plan is in place to make it happen just as soon as they get the nod from the UN. What remains to be seen is whether the UN will green light it.

One of the major concerns for all involved is the sovereignty issue. Russia, and in particular China, are going to want to maintain Libya’s sovereignty at all cost. Any attempt to create a UN sanctioned no fly zone is going to grate with the Chinese, because this could easily be extrapolated out as a precedent in any Taiwan contingency, or even worse, Xinjiang or Tibet. Protecting unarmed protesters from their own government’s heavy-handed tactics and abuse with no fly zones might sound reasonable in the west but it is a frightening precedent for China.

So, China will veto any plan to create a no fly zone.

Or will they?

You see it’s not that simple for China. They have invested heavily in Libya. 35,000 Chinese nationals were evacuated from Libya, mostly on Greek chartered ferries. Estimates of Chinese investment in the country aren’t even known by the Chinese government at this stage, but everyone agrees it is considerable. With the new opposition leaders, who control most of the oil installations in the west where the bulk of the Chinese investments were, calling for immediate no fly zones, one can only imagine their consternation if it is vetoed by the Chinese. If Gadaffi’s forces are then free to bomb the people unfettered then we can suppose that the CCP will be persona non gratta in the west of Libya. Or even right across Africa, in other countries that are fighting for their freedom.

Of course, China could veto the no fly zone, hope that Gadaffi suppresses the revolt with the over bearing force air strikes can bring and then it’s back to business as usual. If Gadaffi can maintain power then vetoing the no fly zone is a good option.

But…

There’s a powerful force pulling in the opposite direction.

It’s called, democracy, and the responsibility that other democracies feel for those who don’t have it. Whether this is right or wrong, is not what matters here, but it is a fact. Unlike Mubarak, or Bin Ali, all the leading democratic countries of the world, led by the US have publicly stated that Gadaffi has to go. This will be very hard to backtrack on now. Even if Gadaffi can put down the uprising, Libya is going to be slammed with sanctions and contempt more profound than even North Korea enjoys. So any path led by Gadaffi is a pretty bleak one, both for him and the Libyan people.

On top of this, the UN is pulled by incidents such as the slaughtering of the Marsh Arabs after the First Gulf War in 1991. After the liberation of Kuwait and the total collapse of the Iraqi army, there was nothing in the way of the allies rolling all the way up to Baghdad. The only thing stopping them was President George H. Bush, who held them back as it was not their mandate to topple Saddam, but only to liberate Kuwait. What followed, in the south of Iraq, was an uprising by the Marsh Arabs, who had long hated Saddam. Trying to do the right thing, Bush Senior, did not want to play directly with local Iraqi politics, so they held back, hopping that the Marsh Arabs could lead a local, popular uprising to topple Saddam. What happened was the complete opposite. Left unrestrained the Marsh Arabs were massacred by Saddam as the world stood by and hoped for the best.

Massacres like this are a powerful force that could motivate the UN/NATO into direct action in Libya, even if Russia and China veto or abstain. The UN, US and Europe doesn’t want to see another out of control military massacre on forces of potential democracy.

The stakes are getting higher and higher and it will be interesting to see where this all goes.

My money is on limited, precision air strikes by NATO on Gadaffi’s regime in the near future – The West doesn’t want to be seen to be on the wrong side of the Jasmine revolution, despite the push back it will get from Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes who obviously want to see the Jasmine wilt.

Comparing potential ‘Game Changers’

Consider if you will, China’s updated DF-21 Anti Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM), purportedly able to hit and sink an aircraft carrier, and now 'semi' operational with the PLA’s 2^nd Artillery.

Then consider the U.S Air forces X-37B. A miniature, pilot-less shuttle that is able to loiter in space for as much as 270 days. Doing what? Well, it’s not entirely clear.

Both potential game changers in an increasing military rivalry between the U.S and China.

One, tried and tested, but no one knows what it can do. The other completely untried, never tested, but everyone knows what it is supposed to do.

X-37B

Originally a NASA project and taken over by the DoD, the X-37B has been in development since mid-1990s. It’s a re-usable, unmanned spacecraft that enters orbit atop an Air Force rocket and re-enters the atmosphere as a glider. Its uses are shrouded in mystery and highly classified. If you think it looks like a mini shuttle then you’re not mistaken, as it could be described as its small nephew. Like its uncle, the X-37B can be just as versatile and can carry out any number of tasks in space. What makes it potentially ‘game changing’ is its ability to be weaponized and loiter, picking off satellites at will. Of course, that is only speculation, its uses are highly classified. Plus, the US is actively trying to get agreements from other users not to militarize space, so the X-37B may never carry a single weapon if agreement can be found. But the significant threat is there. Having recently spent 7months in space, there can be no doubt that this is a ‘potential’ weapon system that exists, but has never been demonstrated.

Compare this to the DF-21 Carrier Killer – the missile certainly exists, but the ability to track and hit a moving target with a war-head traveling at mach-10 is still an idea, and not a proven reality.

It’s a potential weapon that potentially exists.

The US navy recently acknowledged that the 2^nd Artillery now have the new DF-21 in limited deployment. This maybe so, but this is a far cry from having a carrier killer missile system in operation. The statement by the Navy refers to the missile that would be used if such a system were operational. It remains to be seen whether all the other component parts can be sewn together to transfer the DF-21 from a threat into an actual carrier-killer missile.

One doesn’t need to be a technical expert to realize that the carrier killer missile system is going to be incredibly reliant on a sophisticated satellite tracking system. However, this poses significant dilemmas for any regime that intends to use it on the U.S. Firstly, the back-bone of the U.S ability to wage war are its satellite networks, allowing it unprecedented power projection across the globe. Therefore, in order to seriously disable the U.S military, attacking it’s satellite network would be much more effective than blooding the nose of the navy by sinking a carrier. Remember the U.S is not averse to letting its carriers sink. 10 fleet carriers were sunk in WW2. But any attack on the satellite system would doubtlessly lead to an immediate retaliatory strike on the opposing sides satellites network.

Making hitting a carrier more preferable?

But consider, any attack on a carrier would almost certainly lead to an attack upon the very system that sank it, the satellites, not the missile launchers. So, the outcomes are the same and that’s where the highly classified, interchangeable X-37B enters as a real potential game changer. Easily launched, highly maneuverable, ultimately versatile and 'probably' an excellent satellite killer.

Of course, as I said before, this is all speculation –

But we know, one system is out there.. but we don’t know what it is for...

and

The other system, we know what it’s for, but don’t know if it’s out there.

Welcome the the 21^st century!

No More Mr. Nice Guy!

It’s OFFICIAL : The U.S has definitely shifted its policy on China. The old, tried and tested dictum, “What’s good for China is good for the U.S,” is out and in comes a new, direct adversarial stance that more accurately represents the true relationship. Anyone who has being following China closely over the last few years knew that China was in the business of covertly usurping the U.S in any which way it could, but now in 2011, with the 2008 financial meltdown significantly forgotten and the Jasmine Revolutions sweeping the world the US is finally saying it like it is, and calling a spade a spade!

March 3^rd 2011 - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

"We are in a competition for influence with China. Let's put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in, and let's just talk straight, realpolitik. We are in a competition with China,"

Clinton said this in response to a question at a Congressional hearing of Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Take Papua New Guinea: huge energy find. ExxonMobil is producing it. China is in there every day in every way, trying to figure out how it's going to come in behind us, come in under us. They're supporting the dictatorial regime that, unfortunately, is now in charge of Fiji," she noted.

Clinton said China is extremely active diplomatically and commercially.

"They have brought all of the leaders of these small Pacific nations to Beijing, wined them and dined them. I mean, if anybody thinks that our retreating on these issues is somehow going to be irrelevant to the maintenance of our leadership in a world where we are competing with China, where we are competing with Iran, that is a mistaken notion," "So I would strongly support this on humanitarian, moral, values- based grounds; that we do the right thing, we get credit for it. But I also look at this from a strategic perspective, and it is essential," she argued.

“The United States must be strong at home in order to maintain its strength abroad, she said, adding "At the core of our strength is our economic strength."

"The necessity for us to take action to begin to rein in our debt, and particularly our indebtedness to foreign countries, the top of the list being China," she stressed.

"There are many different forces at work. I believe it would have been a lot nicer being secretary of State during the Cold War. You know, we had a really clear view: You know, you were with us; you were against us; and here's how we calculated. It's much more complicated right now. And therefore, I don't want us to lose ground, even while we work on trying to get our budget,"

Clinton said as she warned the Congress of cutting America s foreign budget.

Source: http://ibnlive.in.com