North Korea on Friday accused the United States of being "hell-bent on regime change" and warned that any maneuvers with that intention will be viewed as a "red line" that will result in countermeasures.'
The Beijing bandit regime's imperialist agenda is expanding exponentially. The CCP dictatorship in Beijing is becoming as much a menace to world peace as the Tojo regime and the Hitler regime were in their days:
China has territorial claims to nearly 20 countries
Chinese leader Mao Zedong not only built a strong country but also outlined a global goal: "We must conquer the globe where we will create a powerful state." Today, China has territorial claims to all its neighbors. Naturally, the U.S. is dreaming of becoming a mediator in resolving disputes in the region. But it seems that Beijing absolutely does not care about their opinion.
Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk - here is the complete list of areas that, according to Zedong, were lost due to the fall of the Qing empire. All of these countries and regions combined exceed the territory of modern China. Not all complaints are voiced by the Government of China in the international arena, but within the country the imperialist ambitions have not been lost, but rather, are actively promoted.
The PRC authorities talk out loud only about the areas that, at least theoretically, can be taken away from Japan and Korea. Tokyo is regularly frustrated not only because of the travel of the Russian leaders to the Kuril Islands, but also about the Chinese ships freely entering the disputed Senkaku Islands waters. Beijing believes that the Islands are called Diaoyu, and they belonged to China, but the malicious Japanese tricked the U.S. into giving them to Japan because after World War II the uninhabited archipelago was in the US jurisdiction.
Significant reserves of natural gas were found on the islands. For the growing industry of China and stagnant Japan it is more than a serious argument in favor of the struggle for the archipelago, no matter what it is called. Not to mention the fish that is found there in large quantities. To date, the only agreement the parties have reached in the negotiations is on the joint development of oil fields. In addition, if the Japanese behave more or less decently, the Chinese are regularly caught for illegal fishing in the area.
Any territorial dispute, but rather, its resolution, is a serious precedent. If China's claim in respect of at least one territory from the list of the "lost" is satisfied, the Chinese machine would be unstoppable. Despite the fact that the Chinese are very pleased to partner with Russia and have always supported Russia in the UN Security Council, in person, on the sidelines, its diplomats supposedly jokingly hint to their Russian colleagues: you must understand that soon you will have to share the Far East? China has more than a billion people, while Russia's vast territory barely has 150 million.
These dangerous trends - demographic, and as a result, geopolitical - must sound scary to the Russian government, but so far it seems that it is happy with the fact that Beijing makes territorial claims only to Seoul and Tokyo. In 2005 Russia had already given China a bounty in the form of 337 square kilometers of land in the area of Big Island (upper Argun River in the Chita region) and two sites in the vicinity of the islands Tarabarov and Big Ussuri near the confluence of the Amur and Ussuri.
However, none of the leaders of the military departments of ASEAN that includes all debating countries agree to recognize, for example, the fact that Diaoyu belongs to Japan. Instead, the defense ministers of Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand and Singapore urged the Japanese authorities to proceed with caution and within the framework of the international law. These countries certainly do not need a resolution to the dispute because in that case their territory will be separated from China only by perseverance of the latter.
They are silent about the "Iodo island" (the Chinese version is Suenchzhao. - Ed) in the East China Sea. The sneaky Chinese took the principle of dividing the Arctic as an example and now claim that the underwater ridge of this tiny piece of land is under close control of the Chinese. Since the Iodo is closer to Korea, in 2003 the Koreans built an uninhabitable marine research station there. From the standpoint of the international law, this rock in general should not be the subject of a debate.
In any case, the controversy continues, Japan and South Korea remain to be supported by their all-time ally - the United States. For the US, the unification of Southeast Asian Nations is a chance to save their own economy, because in that case the World Trade Center will move there, where currently there are no transnational corporations in the amount sufficient for the U.S.
The success of the White House in the region does not depend on the strength that America loves to show any chance it has, but rather, diplomacy, as the countries of ASEAN and Asia-Pacific region do not trust each other or anyone outside the regional boundaries. However, Washington is trusted here because of the support of Seoul and Tokyo. However, China has already pushed Japan out of the ranks of the largest economies in the world, and the structure of the region is no longer formed on spatial basis.
Therefore, territorial claims of China, and not Russia, India or, for example, Australia are so important for Washington. Beijing is the only capital of the world, ready to use force in the struggle for the sake of expansion. During the last ten years, while America was blowing up its financial bubble, China has not only developed the industry, but also equipped its area of interest with military equipment. China has placed 38 new diesel and nuclear submarines in the region, purchased four destroyers of class "Modern" from Russia and built another dozen on its own, and has launched a network of ground-based ballistic missiles to destroy naval targets.
Only one other country has done this before - the Soviet Union during the "Cold War". It is no wonder that the Americans are very concerned with the regular quarrels between China and its major allies. Construction of a naval base on Hainan Island does not add confidence to the U.S. The proximity to the Malacca Strait poses a threat to the smooth supply of Washington's main allies in the region - Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - this is the way the US sees the situation. The American senators have already decided that such behavior is a threat to Beijing's regional peace and stability, economic development and even "food security". The international community is well aware what usually follows such wording.
Threat against 'little countries'
By Miles Yu
China's official communist newspaper, the Global Times, published a chilling editorial warning several "little countries" that are disputing China's maritime claims in the South China Sea, notably the Philippines and Vietnam, to "get ready to hear the sound of gunfire."
Headlined "China Cannot Resort Only to Negotiations Over Maritime Conflicts, We Must Kill One to Deter One Hundred If Necessary," the editorial published Tuesday asked, in a tone of condescension, where these "little neighboring countries" got the nerve to challenge China. It called such challenges an "opportunistic strategic offensive launched by little countries against a big country."
The newspaper further threatened that the game these countries play against China would not be easy to win because "China possesses the force to end such game anytime."
The report said any fear of a naval war is unnecessary because the Chinese public had been psychologically getting used to such a naval conflagration in recent years.
According to the newspaper, the root cause of China's trouble with these "little countries" is the United States. "At present various disputants behave with imperial swagger [against China]," the commentary said, "as if with the support from the United States, they all had the force and capabilities to subjugate China."
The newspaper used the phrase "bodies of waters in East Asia" to include areas other than the South China Sea where China has territorial disputes -- a clear reference to South Korea and Japan.
Since April 2010, China began deliberately sending regular fishing fleets accompanied by official government escort ships to disputed areas of the Spratly's Island, Senkaku islands, the Korean littoral area and other murky waters.
These China fishing and escort ships routinely clash with other nations' naval patrol ships, including incidents with the Philippine navy, the South Korean navy and the Japanese coastal patrol vessels just within the past week, dramatically escalating tensions with several "little countries."
Underground Great Wall
The U.S. government this week announced that it had dismantled and destroyed the last and the largest Cold War-era nuclear weapon, the B53 gravity bomb, in Amarillo, Texas.
Meanwhile, China is increasing its stockpile of nuclear weapons under the rubric of a mammoth project called the Underground Great Wall that includes a 3,000-mile-long subterranean tunnel system used to store and operate the many thousands of China's nuclear-carrying missiles. The system is under the direct supervision of China's strategic missile forces known as the Second Artillery Corps.
First reported by the Chinese state television in March 2008 and confirmed by the Chinese military a year later, the Underground Great Wall runs several hundred feet below the ground, said James Holmes of the U.S. Naval War College.
Mr. Holmes wrote in the Japanese-based electronic journal the Diplomat in August that "the very scale of the underground network opens up new vistas for Chinese nuclear strategy."
On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal quoted former Pentagon nuclear weapons specialist Philip Karber as fundamentally challenging the West's conventional assumption about the size of China's nuclear stockpile, officially estimated to include several hundred warheads.
Mr. Karber said gauging the size of China's nuclear arsenal is difficult, but the Wall Street Journal article urged an immediate reconsideration of the underestimated arsenal because "the alternative is for China, steeped in a 2,500 year military tradition of concealment, deception and surprise, to announce -- at a time and in a manner of its choosing -- its supremacy in a field that we have foolishly abandoned to our dreams."
Anti-terrorism law proposed
China announced Monday that it would enact a sweeping law to combat what the communist state would define as "terrorists" or "terrorist acts." These acts include creating public disorder and social panic, causing public property damage and threatening government agencies. The law would target international organizations and all others that abet and finance such "terrorists" and "terrorist acts."
Human rights activists and thousands of netizens immediately reacted with anger and protest. Li Tiantian, a Shanghai-based human rights lawyer, was quoted by overseas Chinese news media as saying: "This law aims to protect the power structure of the state, to guarantee the security, stability and power of the government. It is the same as calling all actions jeopardizing the regime's rule terrorism, deserving suppression."
Monday, July 23, 2012
Japan's claim to Okinawa disputed by influential Chinese commentators
By Kathrin Hille and Mure Dickie, Updated: Monday, July 23, 9:29 AM
BEIJING -- For many observers, rising friction between China and Japan over a group of remote and uninhabited islands in the East China Sea is worrying enough.
But if some influential Chinese nationalist commentators have their way, the spat over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands -- which Beijing calls the Diaoyu -- could widen into a dispute over a much more important archipelago.
The CCP-dictatorship in Beijing is getting intoxicated with its imperialist agenda. It is now seriously thinking of disputing Japanese Okinawa on the specious plea that Okinawa had a tributary relationship with Okinawa half a millennium ago.
The Beijing bandit regime is behaving the way the Hitler regime had. Munich didn't appease Hitler. From claims on Sudetenland and Austria, it was an easy step to claims on Poland and France and then on Russia and then on the whole world.
In a fiery editorial this month, the Global Times newspaper urged Beijing to consider challenging Japan's control over its southern prefecture of Okinawa, an island chain with a population of 1.4 million people that bristles with U.S. military bases.
"China should not be afraid of engaging with Japan in a mutual undermining of territorial integrity," the Communist Party-run paper declared.
Maj. Gen. Jin Yinan, head of the strategy research institute at China's National Defense University, went even further. He told state-run radio that limiting discussion to the Diaoyu was "too narrow," saying Beijing should question ownership of the whole Ryukyu archipelago, which by some definitions extends beyond Okinawa.
While the Chinese government has offered no endorsement of such radical views, their open espousal by senior commentators is likely to be deeply unsettling both to Japan and other neighboring nations.
"Challenging Japan's sovereignty over the Ryukyus would indeed be a break from the past," says Taylor Fravel, a Chinese security expert at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who contends that Beijing has tended to limit its territorial claims for the sake of clearly defined borders.
Chinese questioning of Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa is based on the prefecture's roots in an independent state known as the Ryukyu Kingdom that won control of the archipelago in the 15th century. Ryukyu kings paid formal tribute to Chinese emperors, a practice allowing lucrative trade that continued even after the kingdom was conquered by a Japanese feudal domain in 1609. Okinawa only officially became part of Japan in 1879.
For some in China, this history is enough to render illegitimate Japanese rule over a strategically important archipelago seen as the biggest impediment to the expansion of Chinese naval power in the Pacific.
Tang Chunfeng, a former official at the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo, is one of those campaigning for China to rethink its acceptance of Japanese rule over Okinawa, saying past restraint has "done a lot of harm."
"When I was in Japan, I didn't even know that the Ryukyus were once ours," says Tang, now a Japan specialist at a Commerce Ministry think tank.
But such arguments could be diplomatically incendiary.
"Once you start arguing that a tributary relationship at some point in history is the basis for a sovereignty claim in the 20th century, you start worrying a lot of people," says June Teufel Dreyer, a China and Japan specialist at the University of Miami. "Many, many countries had tributary relationships with China."
Some Chinese hawks stop short of saying Okinawa should be Chinese, suggesting it is enough to promote the idea that the archipelago should be independent from Japan. Such a gambit, they say, would make clear to Tokyo the cost of denying Chinese claims to the Diaoyu/Senkaku.
But Zhou Yongsheng, a professor at China Foreign Affairs University, warns against such tactics.
"Using the Ryukyu sovereignty issue to resolve the Diaoyu dispute would destroy the basis of China-Japan relations," Zhou says. "If this was considered, it would basically be the prelude to military action."
Nor can Beijing expect much enthusiasm for independence among Okinawans. While many in the prefecture are unhappy with Japanese government policies -- and with the presence of U.S. troops -- separatist sentiment is muted. A pro-independence candidate who ran for governor in 2006 received only 6,220 votes.
Chinese questioning of Japan's sovereignty over Okinawa would also invite comparisons with Beijing's policy of suppressing pro-independence movements among its much more restive Tibetan, Mongolian and Uighur populations.
Yasukatsu Matsushima, a professor at Ryukoku University in Kyoto, is a strong advocate of Okinawan independence who believes Tokyo's rule over the islands is illegal, but he notes that at least in Japan such views can be openly expressed.
It would be "strange" if China supported self-determination for Okinawans but continued to deny it to its own minorities, Matsushima says.
"We have to consider the background" to any Chinese support for independence, he says. "We can't allow Ryukyu independence to be used as a tool."
China is testing Filipinos' determination to defend against intrusion
By Ted Laguatan
The Chinese dragon's hunger for black gold relates to its continuous growth as an economic powerhouse. China imports seventy percent of its oil needs - supplied mostly by Russia. Fearing the prospect of disruption of oil supplies and being hostage to the demands of supplier countries, China is recklessly embarking on grabbing the rich oil resources of the Philippines and it's neighboring countries.
To justify its intrusion into the territories of neighboring countries, the dragon has engaged in spinning a fictitious tale on why it supposedly owns everything in the area. The fairy tale goes this way: "About 2000 years ago, an ancient Han Dynasty map showed the limits of Chinese territorywhich included us owning all of the territory in the South China Sea (also known as West Philippine Sea). Therefore, all of these areas are ours. Never mind that they were designated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as belonging to other countries."
Does China actually have a Han Dynasty map indicating ownership of everything in the South China Sea in this area? So far, it has not shown this map to the public. It may be that some kind of ancient map exists. There are hundreds of old maps. Do any of these say China owns territory belonging to the Philippines and other countries?
While the Chinese have been coming to the Philippines since ancient times as traders selling their stuff or as pirates like Limahong robbing and pillaging the locals - there is no historical proof that the Philippines was ever a colony of China or that China ruled the Philippines or even some parts of it.
Even if we assume that such a map exists indicating a claim by some dreaming Chinese officials that it owned Philippine territories, was that then actual or legal ownership? Not so if in fact no such ownership ever happened except maybe in the imagination of some ancient Han dynasty megalomaniacs.
To illustrate the absurdity of China's claim: Let's say Italy found an ancient map that shows that the Roman Empire owned most of Europe and some parts of Africa and Asia, can the Italian government now claim these countries and territories belong to them? Governments and national territorial lines keep changing. That's a reality every nation has to live with.
The Chinese position is so ridiculous that I doubt that even the Chinese government seriously believes that they have a legitimate claim which can properly be defended in the United Nations International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
China's refusal to bring her claim to ITLOS by itself indicates an admission of the absurdity of her position. Any fool can see that the Chinese government is just using a convenient fairy tale to justify her intrusion into neighbors' territories in an attempt to grab their oil and other resources.
Recently, Chinese fishing boats and research vessels have been intruding deep into Philippine territory and into waters known as Scarborough Shoals which are just off Zambales.
Pursuant to the United Nations Law of the Sea, a country owns all of that territory within 200 miles from it's baseline. The Scarborough Shoals are just about 125 miles off the coast of Zambales.
The Philippines issued a diplomatic protest to China but instead of respecting the Philippine position - the Chinese sent more fishing boats into the area including armed patrol boats - together with a response from China's Deputy Foreign Minister Fu Ying that the Scarborough Shoals are theirs and that it is the Philippines intruding into Chinese territory. Adding the insult to the injury is like saying: "So? What can you do to me if I slap you in the face?"
What does this aggressive Chinese position mean?
Here's my take on this: It means that China is testing the Philippines' resolve and reaction to Chinese intrusion - as well as observing American response to the situation. China is not worried about the Philippines' military capability. It practically has none compared to China's mighty naval armada and air force. But the American military is no paper tiger. If America gets involved, China will likely reconsider its options.
The United States has a legitimate interest in preventing China from using bully tactics to take over the energy and marine resources of the countries in the area. It can enter into partnerships with the Philippines and other countries in the area for its own energy needs. Political stability and peace in the region are also preserved with the United States using its military might in maintaining the balance of power and keeping the sea lanes open.
Last year, on June 11, 2011, the US Senate passed a resolution condemning China's increasing use of force against smaller countries in the area and affirmed the US' willingness to use its military might against Chinese aggression.
For diplomatic and other reasons, the US has to announce that it cannot take sides in the conflict between the Philippines and China. However, American policy makers are aware that U.S. interests compel its continued alliance and goodwill with countries in the region. Standing by doing nothing while China gobbles up the resources of neighboring countries sets a bad precedent and encourages China to be bolder in carrying on more bullying military adventurisms.
It is unfortunate that the Chinese government is resorting to these gorilla tactics to rob smaller nations of their valuable energy and marine resources. While the global community should rightfully be happy for the people of China who went through so much suffering before the present prosperity - China should not pursue continuous economic well-being at the expense of weaker nations.
What should Filipinos do against the onslaught of China's threat and use of military might?
It would not be prudent to confront China militarily. That would be like David confronting Goliath without his slingshot or like a poodle confronting a tiger. But there are other ways to fight.
Everyone knows that China's intrusion into Philippine territory is motivated by its thirst for oil. Any decent human being knows that it is immoral to steal property that belongs to another especially when the use of force is involved. It is immoral when individuals do it. It is likewise immoral when nations do it.
What the Philippines needs to do is seek the support of other nations and press the United Nations to seek a resolution of this trespassing and stealing of resources issue. Alone, the Philippines is weak. But together with other nations in condemning China's immoral attempts at territorial grab, the Philippines can be strong.
The world must be made aware of China's immoral adventurism and of her attempt to steal the patrimony of other nations through threats or actual use of its military might. The Philippines must wage a relentless campaign with the global community in condemning China's disrespect of other nations' property rights. China must also realize that it gains more respect and friends by respecting other nations.
In line with this important objective of defending Philippine territory and resources, the US Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG) and supporters have organized a worldwide protest against Chinese intrusion into Philippine waters. On May 11, 2012, at 11:30 A.M., protest demonstrations will be held in front of different Chinese Embassies and Consulates around the world.
Now is the time for all good Filipinos to show genuine concern for the Philippines. Preserving the country's energy and marine resources can mean a brighter future for millions of Filipinos.