Pajamas Media

51 Comments

1. poul:

what a stupid article. the problem is not that Chinese are hostile, it is that they are acting in their objective self-interest, well aware of limits of what they can get away with. trying to subject the objective reality to some personal, ideological, or ethnic explanations is as stupid as obama’s hope that talking with enemies can resolve anything.

Mar 17, 2009 - 1:28 am 2. Rocco Gallloway:

Come on man what kind of poison fruit you trying pedal with this? That is a strange line you are drawing from the Pueblo incident in 1969 which involved the North Koreans and not China to sustain your hostility argument. It’s no secret that the Chinese have a submarine base in their South China Sea island province of Hainan. Can you imagine if their navy were less than 75 miles off the coast of San Diego with a hi-tech “information” gathering ship? What would our navy do? The Chinese have a right to be hostile over this, some bone heads in the congressional military industrial complex would like nothing better than to get back into the cold war business now that we are scaling down the hot one in Iraq. I’m sorry but I think the way you’ve tried to make your argument is careless and sure to get you another spot on FOX as a US-Sino Relations Expert. Sorry, but your agenda is showing.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:26 am 3. JD:

China’s primary foreign policy aim was and still remains the complete domination of Taiwan. They are prodding the US to see the reaction, well aware of President Obama’s militant pacifism. If I were in their shoes, I could not conceive of a better time to attack Taiwan and get it over with:

http://trackacrat.com/2009/03/14/everything-old-is-new-again/

Mar 17, 2009 - 4:50 am 4. RAH:

China want to be the premier power in the Pacific. The biggest obstacle to that aim is the US. So they harrass our ships and intelligence gathering aircraft. This is rational behavior for the Chinese. After all they do not want us to know where the subs are located and montoring their bases from the sky and communications.

They will push until they get pushed back. It is a classic tactic of competitors. Of course China still want to sell to their biggest market. But their aim is to increase their power. Our aim is to mainatin our power. We have had control of the Pacific with our large Navy , but the Navy is no longer 600 ships and getting smaller and our obligations have not waned.

China is not hostile but they are not our ally either. They are working to gain the most for them. Very rational.

Failure to recognize that with touchy feely rhetoric is foolish. But we already know Obama’s foreign policy is foolish.

Funny Democrats know how to be ruthless in the power plays of domestic politics, but are naive when it comes to the power plays of foreign policy.

Mar 17, 2009 - 5:53 am 5. Paul of Alexandria:

Rocco Gallloway (2):

…Can you imagine if their navy were less than 75 miles off the coast of San Diego with a hi-tech “information” gathering ship? What would our navy do?

Just what we actually do: shadow the ship and make sure that it stays in international waters. Territorial waters only extend out to 12 nautical miles.

Mar 17, 2009 - 7:18 am 6. iconoclast:

Democrats aren’t naive.

Democrats are ruthless domestically because that is where their enemies are. Democrats are all about political power. If it took killing half the USA or impoverishing us to the point of starvation they would do it to attain political power. External enemies and competitors are only viewed as useful tools for them to attain and maintain political power. Just as they have befriended our mortal enemies repeatedly in the past, they will continue to do so in the future. Clinton’s giveaway to China in return for campaign cash mirrors Obama’s same activities to Muslim countries in return for campaign cash.

Mar 17, 2009 - 7:27 am 7. Meryl:

So what you’re all saying is that obama’s expectation that international respect of the United States (which had been lost, according to him)would be immediately raised to a new and shiny height…isn’t quite working out?

It’s such an odd hall of mirrors.

When I think about Chavez, Gordon Brown, Putin, the UN chairman, China, North Korea, Mexican truck drivers, Pakistan’s deteriorating circumstances….I think about all of the events, people and statements flowing these days, I’m fairly sure that the respect the international community holds for us has plummeted since this ignoramus said the oath of office. (Yes, that language is intentional. There is no way he actually “took the oath” with intention. He said. That’s all he did. And it wouldn’t matter how many times he said it.)

Mar 17, 2009 - 8:04 am 8. Gordon Chang:

poul, a nation can be acting in its own self-interest and be hostile at the same time, no?

Mar 17, 2009 - 8:40 am 9. Gordon Chang:

Rocco Gallloway, the Soviets flew close to our shores and sailed close to our territorial waters all the time during the Cold War. We didn’t like it, but that does not mean we resorted to Chinese-style dangerous tactics.

Mar 17, 2009 - 8:44 am 10. Gordon Chang:

JD, I agree this is a good time for Beijing to attack. Therefore, we need a better China policy at this time.

Mar 17, 2009 - 8:57 am 11. Gordon Chang:

RAH, China’s attempts to blind our satellites shows that the Chinese are indeed hostile. And their tactics in the South China Sea this month confirm the point.

Mar 17, 2009 - 9:00 am 12. Gordon Chang:

Paul of Alexandria, thanks.

Mar 17, 2009 - 9:01 am 13. Gordon Chang:

iconoclast, I think the Democrats are too hopeful and therefore naive, but maybe I’m the naive one here.

Mar 17, 2009 - 9:04 am 14. Gordon Chang:

Meryl, yes, things are not working out the way Obama led us to believe. Should we be surprised?

Mar 17, 2009 - 9:06 am 15. californiataxslave:

China owns us, and it’s our own damned fault. We have no ability to defend Taiwan, because we wasted all our money on granite countertops and on bailing out AIG and company.

Mar 17, 2009 - 9:24 am 16. Cog99:

Tell the Chinese ambassador we will close all the wal marts. That will bring them to heal.

Mar 17, 2009 - 10:48 am 17. Meryl:

14. Gordon Chang.

Nope!

Mar 17, 2009 - 11:07 am 18. deepthought:

And what did the United States do in response to this extremely provocative behavior?

Send the USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93), a guided missile destroyer, to enforce our rights. I guess you forgot to mention that fact; far more than what the Bush Administration did when the Chinese crashed the EP-3. The Bush Administration allowed the Chinese to strip it of its classified equipment, rather than sending in a missile strike to destroy the plane.

Mar 17, 2009 - 12:03 pm 19. yu weel wee wong:

Our boys should have made chop-suey of these junk(y) ‘made in China’ trawlers

Mar 17, 2009 - 12:06 pm 20. Gordon Chang:

californiataxslave, China does not own us. In fact, the economic relationship we have with China gives us the advantage. Unfortunately, Americans perceive things in a backward manner.

The relationship is complex, but this is why I think we own them. Remember, their economy is built on exports—an extraordinarily high 38 percent of the economy is attributable to sales abroad. And the United States is the biggest taker of China’s exports. How big? In 2007, the last year for which figures are available, all but $5.9 billion of China’s overall trade surplus of $262.2 billion related to sales to the United States.

It is theoretically possible for Chinese technocrats to take their dollar earnings and convert them into euros or yen, but that will constrain the American economy. If they constrain the American economy, Americans will not continue to buy Chinese goods. If Americans cannot continue to buy Chinese goods, the Chinese economy will decline even more precipitously than it is at this moment, and, if the Chinese economy declines even more precipitously, China’s political system, dependent on the continual delivery of prosperity, will disintegrate.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:31 pm 21. Gordon Chang:

Cog99, good idea. Thanks.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:32 pm 22. seansarto:

Talk about American “weak responses”, looks who’s in and still in the White House?
Can’t speak for China, but common sense says if somone’s looking in yer windows at night, an’ it ain’t because they’re in distress, you’d probably want to chase ‘em off also at the very least….Not elect ‘em President.
But America is sinkin’ into that kinda cartoony “No Justicer, No Peace” fanaticisim these days…which makes it rather dangerous to those who see it clear for what it is.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:32 pm 23. Gordon Chang:

deepthought, the Bush administration’s response to the EP-3 incident should go down in history as one of our country’s most disgraceful moments.

Thanks for mentioning the Chung-Hoon. I wanted my piece to focus on Washington’s inadequate diplomatic responses.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:36 pm 24. Gordon Chang:

yu weel wee wong, I hear you, but our ships were unarmed.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:37 pm 25. redmund sum:

If one examines the facts, one would ask why our military and intelligence vessels were operating at the doorsteps of another country collecting naval intelligence.

Now exactly which country is hostile to which?

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:39 pm 26. deguello:

The TEST: Yang:Put down the teleprompter,give me the cell phone,Don’t call Soros; he isn’t going to help you. OBAmA:”OK. MR. YANK”‘YANG:It’s Yang, idiot, Yang! OBAMA:Yassuh, Mr. Yang suh! YANG “That’s better”. Now answer this question:spell the word “INCOMPETENT”,OBAMA:”Say What?”, YANG:get away from the pc,no spell check for you,;spell incompetent! OBAMA: I-M-C-O-P-E-T-E-N-t. WRONG! You fail;the USA is not getting any more loans from us as long as you are president.OBAMA RACIST! YANG: I’m Chinese you ignorant man.Ask Robert Rubin and Soros for money,and shut down your navy;you can’t afford it. Goodbye!

Mar 17, 2009 - 3:23 pm 27. Venham:

Gordan Chang, does the PRC still own Long Beach naval yard,and what is your take on obama guaranteeing the PRC imminent domain rights in return for their “loans”?Can anyone explain why in hell we don’t deal with the PRC the same way we dealt with the USSR?

Mar 17, 2009 - 6:59 pm 28. donttreadonme:

“Say,” says the Chinese Ambassador,”The President looks just like that smiling guy on our toothpaste!”

Mar 17, 2009 - 8:37 pm 29. Gordon Chang:

redmund sum, and what is wrong with that? China does this all the time with regard to Japan. The only difference is that China does so in a manner that violates Japan’s waters. We, on the other hand, don’t do that.

Mar 17, 2009 - 8:45 pm 30. Gordon Chang:

Venham, I don’t know the answer to your first question. As to your second, did we do that?

Your third question goes to the heart of the matter. I suppose it has something to do with our incorrect notion that we can integrate the Chinese into the international system. Therefore, we have become indulgent. It also has something to do with the business community’s desire to make money in China. That means the greed of the few is undermining the security of the many.

Mar 17, 2009 - 8:50 pm 31. kenny komodo:

I love the idea of sending a combatant but my choice would be the USS Chosin CG – 65. The Chosin is, of course, named after the famous battle of the Chosin Reservoir where a single Marine division fought off seven Chicom divisions, obliterating three of them entirely. That would send a message to the Chicoms they would immediately understand. And it would tell the world that we haven’t forgot…and the Chicoms shouldn’t forget either.

Mar 18, 2009 - 12:47 am 32. Gordon Chang:

kenny komodo, excellent, excellent suggestion!

Mar 18, 2009 - 7:33 am 33. silencetigger:

A pervert claims that he enjoyed having I-can-fvck-your-wife parties with his buddies. Does that mean I am obliged to allow him to do the same in my bedroom?

Gordon, when you compared the case of USN Impeccable to what Chinese did in disputable areas between China and Japan, were you aware that Impeccable was in INDISPUTABLE Chinese EEZ, conducting military surveillance operations targeting the Chinese? Never the less, I like your logic that says if I did something to others, I must allow others to do the same to me, please do use this logic to educate those Iraqi widows and orphans.

Mar 18, 2009 - 11:16 am 34. Gordon Chang:

silencetigger, the majority view is that military operations are not prohibited in another country’s EEZ. Basically, the EEZ gives the coastal country (in this case, China) the exclusive right to exploit natural resources. It does not prohibit military information-gathering.

Mar 18, 2009 - 11:29 am 35. deepthought:

Mr. Chang:

While you stated in reply to my initial post you focused on the diplomatic response, even then your piece failed to be complete. Your article insinuates that the only discussion following the incident was the one you describe, and you failed to include the complete quote on the subject from the White House press release. The complete quote includes “General Jones had also raised the recent incident in the South China Sea with the USNS Impeccable.” Your article also failed to mention the official protests by the US Government through its Embassy in Beijing and to the Chinese defense attache in Washington by the Defense Department.

I understand your piece was partisan in nature, but you should at least include the complete facts and not cherry pick quotations.

Mar 18, 2009 - 2:39 pm 36. silencetigger:

Gordan wrote, “the majority view is that military operations are not prohibited in another country’s EEZ…”

You need more than just claiming a “majority view”. Please give at least one example if you could, to show that there are countries conducting military operations in its non-ally state’s indisputable EEZ without a prior mutual agreement, and somehow the owner state of the EEZ shows no objection what so ever.

But don’t forget, the US cannot be one of the countries in your example because it holds your “majority view” regrading other nations EEZ, also it doesn’t claim its own EEZ.

It would be much clearer if your claim had been “the IMPERIALISM view is that military operations are not prohibited in another country’s EEZ…”

Mar 19, 2009 - 6:50 am 37. Gordon Chang:

deepthought, I don’t see how General Jones’s comments undercut what I said about the President’s weak response. Mr. Obama’s words and reactions were of much greater significance than those of Jones, whatever they were.

By the way, I am affiliated with no political party. You will be able to guess this if you review my criticisms of the Bush administration.

Mar 19, 2009 - 10:15 am 38. Gordon Chang:

silencetrigger, China has been conducting submarine operations and surveys in Japan’s EEZ without Japan’s consent (and over its repeated protests). Some of China’s sub patrols in Japanese waters violate universally accepted navigation conventions.

The U.S. does in fact claim an EEZ.

This has nothing to do with “imperalism.”

Mar 19, 2009 - 10:20 am 39. Tim:

Greetings,
China’s agenda does not have the best interests of the USA at heart. This must be oddly disconcerting to those readers of GC’s who believe in the “hope/change” Obama mantra, wondering why China, Russia, Japan, or India will not immediately be seduced by the “elegance” of the Obama “US Magazine” presidency. Obama’s empty rhetoric, conceit, and lack of engagement in global issues is, in fact, the other shoe to be dropped in these dangerous times.

The economy was the first shoe, and the way the Administration and Congress are fumbling with it, leaders in foreign capitals must believe the level of incompetence demonstrated by our government must only be a ruse of the highest kind, because, really, the US government cannot truly be as inept as it has demonstrated since the election with the likes of Frank, Dodd, and Pelosi running things. Right?

Obama has yet to demonstrate an understanding of foreign affairs, and Sec. Clinton has only demonstrated the strength of her own ambition without having yet spoken a word that matters. The issues ripe with explosive consequences for the Asian rim grow stronger each day. And, the age old game of testing one’s fortitude is consistently played by China and North Korea. Too often US policy is predicated on the political assumption that the worse can not happen, well, it can. And for Dodd, Frank, and Pelosi, et al, if it does happen, forget that you were involved.

If our leadership and the expression of our policies and actions in the region does not demonstrate a dedicated will as a contrapuntal force against overt aggression, the Obama/Clinton Axis will in the end exercise little impact on this region, until it all blows up in their face. At that moment we will be forced to find out if the Obama Administration possesses the gravitas that will impact the decision-maker’s in North Korea or China.

Mar 19, 2009 - 11:06 am 40. silencetigger:

Gordon Chang wrote, “China has been conducting submarine operations and surveys in Japan’s EEZ without Japan’s consent (and over its repeated protests)…”

I got it! Chine sent its subs to Japan’s EEZ and the Japanese got pissed.

Thank you for telling us that at least Japan and China hold a common view towards foreign military presence in their own EEZ — it is NOT acceptable, which is exactly the opposite of what you just praised, and I quote “the majority view is that military operations are not prohibited in another country’s EEZ…”

Seriously, when you were in law school, did they ever teach you how to defend your claim? Not voluntarily providing facts against it I’d say at least.

Man you really give no hesitation before saying anything that could paint a bad image of China, even if that means slapping your own face in front of people. Please, have some principle could you?

Besides, EEZ was defined in Part V of the UNCLOS. How could you say, and I quote again, “The U.S. does in fact claim an EEZ. This has nothing to do with imperalism”, giving the fact that the UNCLOS has never been ratified by the US government? I guess it must have been based on another “majority view” of yours. Care to provide a counter example against it, something bad about China maybe?

Mar 19, 2009 - 3:25 pm 41. Will:

It sounds like some people are trusting China as well as Barak Hussein Obama.Don’t trust either folks!

Mar 19, 2009 - 4:43 pm 42. Gordon Chang:

Tim, you are right that Obama has yet to find the levers that will influence China and North Korea. I am not sure he will ever do so. Of course, the Bush administration, after eight years, also failed in this regard because it had a poor understanding of what is actually happening in these two countries.

Eventually, Americans will “get it,” and I hope they do so before it is too late.

Mar 20, 2009 - 3:38 pm 43. Gordon Chang:

silencetrigger, Japan has not claimed that Chinese military vessels cannot enter its EEZ and has not engaged in dangerous conduct harrassing China’s vessels in EEZ waters.

The U.S. in fact claims an EEZ even though it has not ratified UNCLOS.

Mar 20, 2009 - 3:43 pm 44. Susan Katz Keating:

Remember: China has been hostile for a VERY long time.

Mar 21, 2009 - 1:52 pm 45. anoneagle:

Nay. Sino-US relation is largely cordial and beneficial. Much to the chagrin of his political foes at home, Obama has acted wisely by not letting a minute incident to distract his attention away from fixing the American economy.

Mar 21, 2009 - 2:10 pm 46. Gordon Chang:

Susan Katz Keating, yes, thank you. The Impeccable incident did not come out of the blue. From the beginning of the People’s Republic, the Communist Party has been either hostile or uncooperative. And, with a deteriorating economy, Beijing’s policies are getting worse.

Mar 22, 2009 - 2:31 pm 47. Gordon Chang:

anoneagle, the longer we delay holding candid conversations with China, the worse things will get. We can put them off, but we cannot avoid the problems with Beijing.

Mar 22, 2009 - 2:33 pm 48. anoneagle:

GC, I’m sure the president and his secretary of state can (and have been) have candid conversations with their Chinese counterparts. The fact these conversations didn’t yield the kind of results that appease the far-rights doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing to the Americans. US-China cooperation is vital in the current climate. Now is not the time to rock the boat.

Mar 23, 2009 - 6:18 pm 49. Gordon Chang:

anoneagle, what has our cooperation with China achieved?

Mar 24, 2009 - 6:42 pm 50. anoneagle:

GC, we need China’s cooperation in N. Korea, in Iran, in Sudan and in not wrecking havoc in our financial dismal left behind by 8 years of republican rule. America had “enjoyed” 8-years of unilateralism and cowboy diplomacy; unfortunately, it leads us nowhere but into a downward spiral. Sadly, the right-wing war mongers are still beating battle drum.

Mar 25, 2009 - 6:28 pm 51. Gordon Chang:

anoneagle, I didn’t ask you how China could help. I asked how it has.

Mar 26, 2009 - 9:11 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: